S. HRG. 108–176

Senate Hearings

Before the Committee on Appropriations

Department of Defense

Appropriations

Fiscal Year 2004

108th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 

H.R. 2658/S. 1382

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 
Department of Defense Appropriations, 2004 (H.R. 2658/S. 1382) 
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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–914 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–176

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2004

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2658/S. 1382

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES

Department of Defense 

Nondepartmental witnesses

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

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

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

Professional Staff

SID ASHWORTH

JENNIFER CHARTRAND

ALYCIA FARRELL

MENDA FIFE

TOM HAWKINS

ROBERT J. HENKE

LESLEY KALAN

MAZIE R. MATTSON

KRAIG SIRACUSE

BRIAN WILSON

CHARLES J. HOUY (Minority) 

NICOLE RUTBERG DI RESTA (Minority) 

BETSY SCHMID (Minority)

Administrative Support

NICOLE ROYAL
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003

Page

Department of Defense: Department of the Army ................................................ 1

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003

Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force .......................................... 69

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2003

Department of Defense: Department of the Navy ................................................ 123

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003

Defense Agencies: Missile Defense Agency ............................................................ 195

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003

Department of Defense: Medical Programs ........................................................... 241

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003

Department of Defense: 

National Guard ................................................................................................. 369 

Reserves ............................................................................................................ 425

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary .................................................... 487

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2003

Nondepartmental witnesses .................................................................................... 551

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

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

Present: Senators Stevens, Domenici, Shelby, Hutchison, Inouye, 

Leahy, and Dorgan. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

STATEMENTS OF: 

HON. THOMAS E. WHITE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES 

ARMY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. We just received word that Senator Inouye is 

stuck in traffic, as many of us have been this week, and he asked 

us to proceed without him, so I am pleased to have a chance to 

hear testimony from the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief 

of Staff for the fiscal year 2004 budget request. We welcome you, 

General Shinseki. 

General SHINSEKI. Thank you, Sir. 

Senator STEVENS. I am informed that this may be your last time 

to come before us. 

General SHINSEKI. Very likely. 

Senator STEVENS. Or at least this year will be your last time. 

General SHINSEKI. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. With what is going down in Iraq we may see 

you again, but I do want to tell you it is just such a short time ago 

you came for the first time, General, and we have enjoyed very 

much, all of us, the chance to be with you and to have your vision 

on transformation of the Army, and we have done our best to pursue that. I am certain that Senator Inouye will have some statements when he comes, but I want to thank you on behalf of our 

committee for all your cooperation with us. 

And Mr. Secretary, nice to have you back with us again. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, sir. 
2

Senator STEVENS. We now find ourselves conducting a global war 

on terrorism, and quite close to war in Iraq, and we are obviously 

very much in need of a strong, modern, prepared military. It is important to us today, more important, probably, than it has been in 

many, many years to be sure that you have the resources that you 

need, and that we support the President and your men and women 

as they respond to the Commander in Chief’s directions and commands. 

We have people from the Army deployed all over the world now. 

I am told that the Army has 262,000 soldiers now deployed somewhere in the world outside of our country. 

General SHINSEKI. That is correct. 

Senator STEVENS. The Guard and Reserve now, under the total 

force concept, share this burden, with 139,000 Reservists and 

Guardsmen mobilized and on active duty. There are many issues 

that we face this year, there is no question about it, but we want 

to pursue today, if possible, the direction that we should go on 

Army Transformation. 

I think you have demonstrated to the Congress and the people 

of this country that the Transformation concept is not just simply 

a new weapons platform, but a new doctrine and organizational 

concept for the Army, and it is a whole new way of life for the 

Army and new way to fight and win wars. You have managed to 

shake up the industry and the military bureaucracy with your concepts, and Transformation has shattered the old paradigm of business as usual in the miliary, so we congratulate you. 

I think Congress must continue its commitment to this Army 

Transformation and continue the commitment we made to our soldiers in 1999, when you first brought us this new concept of Transformation, so it is the intention of this committee, at least for this 

chairman and I am certain Senator Inouye, to urge this committee 

to give you our full support to make certain that this goal is totally 

accomplished. We look forward to hearing your plans today not 

only on transformation, but to further strengthen the entire Army. 

I will put the balance of my comments in the record so that I do 

not prolong this, but I do thank each of you for visiting with me 

and my staff yesterday to make certain we had coordination of our 

concepts and our resolve to be certain that the Army of today and 

tomorrow will be the best that it can be. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

This morning the subcommittee will receive testimony from the Secretary of the 

Army and the Army Chief of Staff on their fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

General Shinseki, welcome to you. Unfortunately, this will be your last time testifying before the committee as the Chief of Staff. 

It seems like a very short time ago when you first testified before this committee 

and introduced us to your vision of transformation for the Army. 

The Army is well on its way towards the future. Transformation is a success. You 

have proven your critics wrong. 

Much has happened since our first meeting. As we find ourselves conducting a 

global war on terrorism, preparing for a possible war to disarm Iraq, America is reminded of the need for a strong, modern, prepared military. 

It is as important today as it ever was to have a military who has the resources 

it needs and the support of the President and the entire country. 

The United States Army is deployed all over the globe. Today, the Army has over 

262,000 soldiers deployed or forward stationed. 
3

The Guard and Reserve are also sharing in this burden with more than 139,000 

reservists and guardsmen mobilized and on active duty. 

While there are many important issues facing the Army, one of the most critical 

decisions Congress will make this year will be the direction we go on Army transformation. 

You have demonstrated to the Congress, and the country, that the transformation 

concept is not simply a new weapons platform, but a new doctrine and organizational concept for the Army. It is a whole new way for the Army to fight and win 

wars. 

You have managed to shake up industry and the military bureaucracy with your 

concepts. Transformation has shattered the old paradigm of ‘‘business as usual’’. 

Congress must continue its commitment to Army transformation and continue the 

commitment we made to our soldiers in 1999 when you introduced the concept of 

transformation. 

It is the intention of this committee to give you the resolve and support to see 

your goal through. 

I look forward to learning of your plans to not only continue transformation, but 

to further strengthen it, and the entire Army. 

This committee will continue to adamantly support your plan to deploy 6 Stryker 

brigades. In fact, I will seek your insight momentarily on how this committee can 

best protect that plan. 

In addition, I would welcome any comments you might have on current funding 

requirements for the Army for fiscal year 2004, and your views on the scope and 

timing of any needed supplemental appropriations for this fiscal year. 

Let me now turn to our mutual friend, and partner, the distinguished ranking 

member of the subcommittee, Senator Inouye.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Leahy, you are first. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, are we going to questions now, or 

are these just——

Senator STEVENS. Opening statements, if you have them. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. No. I will put an opening statement in the 

record. 

I would just tell you, Mr. Chairman, what I had said to Secretary 

White and General Shinseki here earlier, right before this started, 

that no matter how anybody feels one way or the other on war, at 

least we can take comfort in the fact that our people, our troops 

in the field are the best-trained, best-equipped in the world, and 

as I told both the Secretary and the General, what I have been saying to families in Vermont who have either members of their family 

who are already deployed or being called up to be deployed, take 

comfort in the fact that our people are so well-led, so well-trained, 

and so well-equipped. 

And as the General pointed out to me, that is not something you 

do overnight. It requires years and years of preparation and Mr. 

Chairman, you and Senator Inouye and this committee have done 

a lot of that to make sure we bought a lot of equipment we hope 

we will never have to use, but when we have to use it, at least it 

is there, and so I compliment you both. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put my whole statement in the 

record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

I would like to welcome back General Shinseki and Secretary White to the Subcommittee. As U.S. forces are poised to enter Iraq, it is good to know that they have 

such competent, steadfast leadership back at the Pentagon. We face many challenges in the days and weeks ahead. The men and women of the U.S. Army and 
4

the entire armed forces are ready for any eventuality. I look forward to the question 

and answer period.

Senator STEVENS. My great friend from Hawaii, do you have an 

opening statement, Senator? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I have 

the excuse that half of this city has, the traffic, but before I proceed, sir, I would like to, as a citizen of the United States, commend and thank the Secretary and General Shinseki for the service 

they have rendered us at this time in our history by preparing our 

men and women so that they are in full readiness upon the command of our Commander in Chief. I think this is very important, 

and for that we will be eternally grateful. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement here, but since time 

may be of the essence, may I put this in the record, sir? 

Senator STEVENS. Without objection, it will be put in the record 

as though read. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Secretary White, General Shinseki, I would like to welcome you once again, as 

we consider the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations request for the Army. General Shinseki, since this will probably be your last appearance before this committee 

as Chief of Staff of the Army, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize your 

invaluable contributions to the U.S. Army. 

General Shinseki assumed his duties as the 34th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army 

on June 22, 1999. Just three months later, he announced his plans to transform the 

Army into a force that could better meet future defense requirements to be both rapidly deployable and lethal. 

During your tenure, General, you institutionalized transformation and with it 

brought about a fundamental cultural and technological shift in the U.S. Army—

a difficult challenge for an institution as large, diverse, and steeped in history and 

tradition as the United States Army. 

Four years after assuming your duties as Chief of Staff of the Army, the term 

‘‘transformation’’ not only encompasses plans and programs for building the Army’s 

future force, but the term is now synonymous with the efforts of the entire Department of Defense as it seeks to enhance its capabilities to fight and win wars in the 

21st century. 

Congratulations General on a long and decorated career, and thank you for your 

service to the Army and to the country. Although you are retiring this June, this 

committee hopes and plans to continue to call on you for your counsel. 

Gentlemen, since our last hearing, the Army continues to play a critical role in 

the global war on terrorism, while at the same time transforming its forces for the 

21st century. 

Our Nation’s soldiers are busy—mobilization of the Army Reserve and Guard has 

reached 210,000 with forces deployed around the world to combat terrorism, to 

honor our commitments in Bosnia, Kosovo, the Sinai, and Saudi Arabia, and to prepare for a potential war with Iraq. Gentlemen, we need you to tell us how long we 

will be able to sustain these deployments and mobilizations, and whether you have 

sufficient forces to meet these requirements. 

I look forward to hearing about these issues and how the Army’s fiscal year 2004 

budget request supports the Army’s current and future missions.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Shelby. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. Secretary White, I want to commend you for your service both 

as a soldier and as a Secretary, and General Shinseki, we know 

what you mean to the Army. We know what you mean to the Na-
5

tion, and I appreciate that very much. I look forward to both of 

your testimony here today, especially on the eve of the impending 

conflict. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the Secretary for 

being here, and let me thank General Shinseki, and General 

Shinseki, I know that you are slated to retire, and let me echo the 

words of my colleagues in thanking you for your service. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, and I would ask that 

you both turn on your mikes, as I have just turned mine on, and 

I am reminded sitting here of the times that Senator Stennis 

talked to us about changing the Army and about trying to work the 

Guard and Reserve into the total force. I think he would be delighted if he were here with us today because if there were any pioneer in, really, modernization of the Army, it was Senator Stennis. 

I do again thank you very much for the hard work you have put 

into making this Army as good as it is, and as good as the world 

will see it is in the near days. Please proceed with your statements, 

whoever wishes to go first. Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY WHITE

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with your permission 

I will submit a statement for the record and keep my opening remarks short. 

Senator Inouye, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity 

to talk with you today about the United States Army. Our priorities remain the same as they were a year ago, win the global war 

on terrorism, and transform the Army to prepare it for future wars. 

First and foremost, I wish to thank this committee for your continued support for the Army. The fiscal year 2003 budget has allowed us to make significant improvements in many key areas. We 

have structured our budget request for fiscal year 2004 in the same 

fashion as fiscal year 2003, based on our top priorities of People, 

Readiness, and Transformation. 

On the people front, thanks to your support we are making significant strides, and this does include a fully funded pay raise for 

all soldiers, targeted pay raises in selective cases, significantly reduced soldier out-of-pocket expenses for housing, and an accelerated Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) to improve on-post 

quarters for our families. 

This year, we are examining options, under an initiative called 

personnel transformation, to shift away from our individual replacement system to a unit manning approach that will enhance 

cohesion and combat readiness of our formations while improving 

the predictability of assignment patterns for Army families. 

As you know, we have had over 30,000 National Guard and Reserve soldiers on active duty consistently since September 11 of 

2001, some 18 months now, and as of today, we have activated over 

151,000 soldiers for current and potential future Federal operations 

in addition to over 2,700 soldiers currently activated for State service. These Reserve Component soldiers are performing magnificently on a ‘‘One Army’’ basis, and we appreciate the tremendous 
6

support they have received from their employers as well as the 

American public. We recognize the unique sacrifices made by these 

citizen soldiers as they step up to do their duty as citizens and patriots. 

On the readiness front, the Army is ready for any additional operations we are ordered to perform in the future, and our great soldiers are successfully meeting our many current obligations around 

the world. With your help in fiscal year 2003 and again in our fiscal year 2004 budget request, we gave priority to funding training 

requirements for the force, significantly improved our spare parts 

availability, accelerated fielding of soldier support systems and unit 

communications equipment to make our units as ready as possible. 

Having said that, our operations tempo (OPTEMPO) has never 

been higher in my nearly 40 years of experience with the Army. We 

are indeed an Army that is on the move. 

While we have fully funded normal OPTEMPO and training, including the full complement of pre-9/11 missions such as Bosnia 

and Kosovo, the Sinai, and Korea, we have many other obligations 

as we pursue the global war on terrorism as part of the joint force. 

Post-9/11 missions of the past 18 months include Operations Noble 

Eagle here at home, Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, as well as 

operations in the Philippines and elsewhere. Finally, we have a significant flow of Army forces into the Persian Gulf in support of potential future operations to ensure the disarmament of Iraq. 

Given this level of activity, it should come as no surprise that 

supplemental funding in fiscal year 2003 will be required. We are 

working hard to balance our readiness imperative for realistic 

training with our obligation to be good stewards of the environment. That balance is reflected in the Department of Defense’s 

Range Preservation Initiative that we ask your support for. It is essential for us to maintain the balance between the use of military 

lands for their uniquely military purposes and the need for environmental protection and species preservation. 

The readiness of our soldiers going into harm’s way depends 

upon that balance, so we ask for your help with this important initiative. We are transforming our Army even as we execute combat 

operations and prepare for future contingencies. This simultaneity 

is not only a necessity, it is an imperative. We are transforming the 

business side of the Army as well as the operational force, and we 

are transforming within the joint context, not merely in a servicecentric manner. 

We have held steady to the azimuth established by the Chief of 

the Army, General Shinseki, all the way back in 1999, and in my 

personal opinion, one of the reasons we have been successful in 

that Transformation is the courage he showed in laying that marker down and then not deviating from that azimuth, and you have 

supported that azimuth consistently since he spoke of it. 

In fiscal year 2004, we request funding for our fourth Stryker 

Brigade to be fielded at Fort Polk, Louisiana, the Second Armored 

Cavalry Regiment, and we remain fully committed to fielding six 

Stryker Brigades on our established time line. We remain focused 

on the Objective Force with the restructured Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter program. We are postured to successfully 

meet acquisition Milestone B in May for the Future Combat Sys-
7

tem (FCS). FCS includes the non-line of sight (NLOS) variant and 

the initial fielding increment which will meet the cannon requirement previously addressed by the Crusader program. We remain 

on a glide path to field the first Objective Force units in fiscal year 

2008 with an initial operational capability (IOC) in 2010. 

On the business side of the Army, we fully solicit your support 

for the Department of Defense (DOD) transformation package, 

which will greatly streamline our operations and give us the flexibility to manage the Department in the most efficient manner. In 

the same vein, our business transformation initiatives are designed 

to achieve greater value for the taxpayer dollar. 

Our Residential Communities Initiative to privatize family housing continues to be an enormous success. By fiscal year 2007, the 

Army will have established partnerships to bring every set of family quarters up to standard. I cannot think of a better thing to do 

for a married Army. We are able to do this because with an investment of $620 million we have attracted over $7 billion in private 

capital. This is a tremendous value for the taxpayer, and we believe a model of how better business practices can help us with 

noncore functions such as housing. 

We are seeking to apply the same model of public-private partnership to the challenge of on-base utilities, for example, by consolidating all installation management under one command, and by 

centralizing the Army-wide contracting, for contracts over 

$500,000, in our Army Contracting Agency. We are seeking to regionalize utilities contracting, achieving economies of scale that 

were not possible with our previous business management structures. Private capital will be required to fix the utilities infrastructure on our bases, and we are setting the conditions to attract it 

just as we have with family housing. 

Finally, we are conducting what we call our Third Wave Initiative, which seeks to eliminate or transfer all noncore functions currently consuming Army people and dollars. Rest assured, as we 

progress this initiative, we will pursue this business initiative in 

full consultation with the Congress. 

Now, finally the matter of risk. Balancing the risk associated 

with near-term modernization and mid-term transformation has required us to make some tough choices. We have had to terminate 

or restructure numerous current force modernization programs to 

generate the capital to fund transformation. In a nutshell, our fiscal year 2004 budget submission funds people, readiness, and 

transformation at the expense of some of our infrastructure accounts and current force modernization. We made these judgments 

only after a careful balancing of both operational risk and the risk 

of not transforming to provide the capabilities the Army needs to 

meet the obligations of our near-and mid-term strategy. 

In conclusion, I wish to return to those who I mentioned first in 

my remarks, our soldiers. Their performance in Afghanistan speaks 

volumes. In the dead of winter, a landlocked country, toughest terrain imaginable, the collapse of the Taliban put Al Qaeda on the 

run and they are still running. It has been my privilege to visit 

them in Afghanistan, see our soldiers in Kuwait and Bosnia and 

Kosovo, all around our country. You could never meet a finer group 

of young Americans. They are flat out, in my 40 years, the best sol-
8

diers I have ever seen, and we are all very, very proud of them. 

Rest assured they stand ready, along with our sister services, to accomplish any task ordered by our Commander in Chief. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget submission. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE THOMAS E. WHITE AND GENERAL ERIC K. 

SHINSEKI

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for this 

opportunity to report to you today on the Posture of the United States Army. 

America’s armed forces are the most powerful in the world. And America’s Army 

remains the most respected landpower to our friends and allies and the most feared 

ground force to those who would threaten the interests of the United States. 

Since before the birth of the Nation, American Soldiers have instilled hope in a 

noble dream of liberty. They have remained on point for the Nation through nine 

wars, and the intervals of peace in the years between—defending the Constitution 

and preserving freedom. Magnificent in their selfless service, long in their sense of 

duty, and deep in their commitment to honor, Soldiers have kept the United States 

the land of the free and the home of the brave. This is our legacy. Our Soldiers who 

serve today preserve it. 

In October 1999, we unveiled our vision for the future—‘‘Soldiers, on point for the 

Nation, transforming this, the most respected army in the world, into a strategically 

responsive force that is dominant across the full spectrum of operations.’’ The attacks against our Nation on September 11, 2001, and the ensuing war on terrorism 

validate The Army’s Vision—People, Readiness, Transformation—and our efforts to 

change quickly into a more responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable force. 

While helping to fight the Global War on Terrorism, The Army is in the midst 

of a profound transformation. Readiness remains our constant imperative—today, 

tomorrow, and the day after. Transformation, therefore, advances on three broad 

axes: perpetuating The Army’s legacy by maintaining today’s readiness and dominance; bridging the operational gap with an Interim Force of Stryker Brigade Combat Teams; and fielding the Objective Force to fight and win conflicts in the years 

beyond this decade. 

As they have throughout The Army’s 227-year history, Soldiers remain the centerpiece of our formations. Versatile and decisive across the full spectrum of joint missions, land forces have demonstrated time and again the quality of their precision 

in joint operations. Our responsibility is to provide Soldiers with the critical capabilities needed for the tough missions we send them on. 

After three and a half years of undiminished support from the Administration and 

the Congress, and the incredible dedication of Soldiers and Department of the Army 

civilians, we have begun to deliver The Army Vision. With continued strong support, 

we will win the war against global terrorism, meet our obligations to our friends 

and allies, remain ready to prevail over the unpredictable, and transform ourselves 

for decisive victories on future battlefields. 

We have achieved sustainable momentum in Army Transformation; the framework is in place to see the Objective Force fielded, this decade. 

THE ARMY—AT WAR AND TRANSFORMING

The United States is at war, and The Army serves the Nation by defending the 

Constitution and our way of life. It is our nonnegotiable contract with the American 

people—to fight and win our Nation’s wars, decisively. 

In the weeks immediately following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Special 

Operations Forces (SOF) infiltrated Afghanistan, penetrated Al Qaida and Taliban 

strongholds, and leveraged all available long-range, joint fires, enabling the Northern Alliance to begin dismantling the Taliban. By January 2002, U.S. and Allied 

conventional force reinforcements began to set the stage for Operation Anaconda, 

where Soldiers, demonstrating courage and determination under the most challenging conditions, defeated Al Qaida at altitude on the escarpments overlooking the 

Shah-e-kot Valley. 
9

Today, more than 198,000 Soldiers remain deployed and forward stationed in 120 

countries around the globe, conducting operations and training with our friends and 

allies. Decisively engaged in the joint and combined fight against global terrorism, 

Soldiers are serving with distinction—at home and abroad. Soldiers from both the 

Active and the Reserve Component have remained ‘‘on point’’ for the Nation in the 

Balkans for seven years, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for 12 years, in the Sinai for 

21 years, and in Korea and Europe for over 50 years. At the publication of the Army 

Posture Statement, there were more than 110,000 Reserve Component Soldiers mobilized for active federal service in support of Operation Noble Eagle and Operation 

Enduring Freedom. Even as we transform, Soldiers will remain ready to answer the 

calls of the Nation to defeat well-trained, determined, and dangerous adversaries 

who miscalculate in taking on the best led, the best-equipped, and the best-trained 

army in the world. 

At war and transforming, The Army is accelerating change to harness the power 

of new technologies, different organizations, and revitalized leader development initiatives to remain at the head of the line. To accomplish this, Army Transformation 

advances along three major axes towards attainment of the Objective Force. We selectively recapitalize and modernize today’s capabilities to extend our overmatch in 

staying ready to defend our homeland, keep the peace in areas important to the Nation, and win the war against global terrorism. Stryker Brigade Combat Teams—

our Interim Force—will bridge the current operational gap between our rapidlydeployable light forces and our later-arriving heavy forces, paving the way for the 

arrival of the Objective Force. By 2010, The Army’s Objective Force—organized, 

equipped, and trained for ground dominance, cyber-warfare, and space exploitation—will provide the Nation the capabilities it must have to remain the global 

leader, the strongest economy in the world, and the most respected and feared military force, by our friends and allies and our enemies, respectively. 

The surprise attacks against our Nation and Operation Enduring Freedom, in response to those attacks, validated The Army Vision and provided momentum to our 

efforts to transform ourselves into an instrument of national power that provides 

full spectrum operational capabilities that are strategically responsive and capable 

of decisive victory. In a little over three years, we have begun to realize The Army 

Vision—People, Readiness, and Transformation. 

The transforming Army is enriching as a profession and nurturing to families 

whose sacrifice has borne the readiness of the force for the past 10 years. Our WellBeing initiatives are our commitment to reverse this trend by giving our people the 

opportunity to become self-reliant; setting them up for personal growth and success; 

aggressively investing in family housing; and revitalizing Single-Soldier living space 

in our barracks. Our manning initiatives have filled our line divisions and other 

early deploying units to dampen the internal turbulence of partially filled formations and help put a measure of predictability back into the lives of our families. 

The Army has carefully balanced the risk between remaining ready for today’s 

challenges and preparing for future crises. With unwavering support from the Administration, the Congress, our Soldiers, and Department of the Army Civilians, 

The Army has made unprecedented progress in its efforts to transform. 

We will achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the first Stryker Brigade 

Combat Team (SBCT) this summer and demonstrate the increased responsiveness, 

deployability, agility, versatility, lethality, survivability, and sustainability that 

SBCTs provide to Combatant Commanders. In a little over three years from initial 

concept to fielded capability, the SBCTs will allow us to glimpse the potential for 

acquisition reform in paving the way for delivery of the Objective Force. 

We have constructed the framework for achieving the Objective Force this decade: 

a Transformation Campaign Plan with Roadmap; the Objective Force White Paper; 

the Operational and Organizational plans for the Objective Force Unit of Action; 

and the Operational Requirements Document for the Future Combat System of Systems. 

Additionally, The Army is poised to fill ground maneuver’s most critical battlefield 

deficiency—armed aerial reconnaissance—with Comanche, a capable, survivable, 

and sustainable aircraft that is a cornerstone of the Objective Force. 

All along the way, we have tested our concepts in wargames and experiments, 

checked and rechecked our azimuth to the Objective Force weekly and monthly, and 

look forward to a successful Future Combat System Milestone B Defense Acquisition 

Board decision in May of this year. 

However, we cannot accelerate Army Transformation without transforming the 

way The Army does business—from transformation of logistics and acquisition to 

personnel and installation transformation. Revolutionizing Army business management practices achieves the best value for taxpayers’ dollars; conserves limited resources for investment in People, Readiness, and Transformation; enhances manage-
10

ment of personnel systems, installations and contracting; and augments our potential to accelerate arrival of the Objective Force. Changing The Army is first about 

changing the way we think, and better business practices represent practical application of common sense initiatives that best serve The Army and our Nation. 

We are proud of our progress. We are grateful for the strong Congressional support that has helped put The Army on its approach march to the Objective Force. 

The Army 2003 Posture Statement describes our tremendous progress in Transformation—an orchestrated campaign, synchronized with OSD and Joint Transformation, to achieve the Objective Force and keep America’s Army the dominant 

landpower in the world. 

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT—THE REQUIREMENT TO TRANSFORM

During the last two decades of the 20th Century, information-age technologies 

dramatically changed the political, economic, and military landscapes. Desert 

Shield, Desert Storm, and operations in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo illustrated the 

requirement for transforming our forces to meet the evolving, strategic requirements 

of our Nation. Survivable and extremely lethal, our heavy forces effectively met the 

requirements for which they were designed; yet, they were slow to deploy and difficult to sustain. Conversely, our light forces were rapidly deployable, but they 

lacked the protection, lethality, and tactical mobility that we seek across the spectrum of military operations. We were successful in winning the Cold War and, as 

a result, smaller than we had been in 40 years. The Army no longer had the luxury 

of specialized forces built to confront a single and narrowly defined threat like the 

Warsaw Pact countries. 

Today’s challenges are more complex; threats are elusive and unpredictable. The 

fight against international terrorism has overshadowed, but not eliminated, other 

potential crises. Tension between India and Pakistan persists; stability between 

China and Taiwan is tenuous; and concern over North Korea escalates. Threats of 

transnational terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 

(WMD)—often financed by organized crime, illicit drug transactions, trafficking in 

women and children, and the sale of arms—further complicate the security environment. Geopolitical trends such as scarce resources, youth population-spike in underdeveloped countries, aging populations in developed countries, and the growth of 

mega-cities, among others, presage a future strategic environment of diverse and 

widely distributed threats. 

Fully appreciating the internal and external difficulties that profound change engenders, we assessed the operational challenges of the new century against the capabilities of our Cold War Army, recognized the opportunity to leverage the inherent 

combat power of the technological revolution, and set a clear path ahead—The Army 

Vision. 

The 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) reaffirms our military’s highest priority—defending the United States. To do this effectively, we assure our allies and 

friends; dissuade future military competition; deter threats against U.S. interests, 

allies, and friends; and decisively defeat any adversary, if deterrence fails. The NSS 

directs the military to transform to a capabilities-based force ready to respond to 

unpredictable adversaries and security crises. The Objective Force meets these NSS 

requirements, and Army Transformation will enhance our ability to conduct rapid 

and precise operations, achieve decisive results at the time and place of our choosing, and safeguard the Nation’s ability to exercise our right of self-defense through 

preemption, when required. 

The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review describes a capabilities-based approach to 

defense planning that provides broader military options across the operational spectrum, from pre- to post-conflict operations. The force-sizing construct—1–4–2–1—

takes into account the number, scope and simultaneity of tasks assigned the military: it sizes the force for defense of the U.S. homeland (1), forward deterrence in 

four critical regions (4), the conduct of simultaneous warfighting missions in two regions (2)—while preserving the President’s option to call for decisive victory in one 

of those conflicts (1)—and participation in multiple, smaller contingency operations. 

THE ARMY—SERVING TODAY, BALANCING RISK, MANAGING TRANSFORMATION

Soldiers are the most precise and responsive means to strike and then control 

enemy centers of gravity on the ground—where people live, work, and govern. American Soldiers are disciplined, professional, and trained for success in diverse missions; they are the foundation of a flexible force that accomplishes its missions in 

the non-linear battlespace by integrating new, innovative technologies and techniques with current systems and doctrine. Our people adapt under the harshest con-
11

ditions, whether in the deserts of Kuwait and the Sinai, the mountains and rice 

paddies of Korea, or the tropics of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. 

These demanding commitments mean we must nurture a balance between current 

and near-term readiness and our Transformation to meet future challenges. The 

Army has accepted reasonable operational risk in the mid-term in order to fund our 

Transformation to the Objective Force. To avoid unacceptable risk, we are monitoring closely the current operational situation as we support the Combatant Commanders in the war against terror, conduct homeland defense, and prosecute the 

long-term effort to defeat transnational threats. We have designed and implemented 

the Strategic Readiness System (SRS) to provide a precision, predictive tool with 

which to monitor The Army and make appropriate adjustments to preserve current 

readiness. Our surge capacity in the industrial base further reduces current risk by 

keeping production lines warm and responsive. And our first Stryker Brigade Combat Team will provide the Combatant Commanders with a new capability to further 

mitigate operational risk—even as we transform to the Objective Force. 

REALIZING THE ARMY VISION—PEOPLE, READINESS, AND TRANSFORMATION

In 1999, The Army announced its vision to transform into a more strategically responsive force, dominant across the full spectrum of military operations. The Army 

Vision addresses three essential components: People, Readiness, and Transformation. Soldiers are the heart of The Army, the centerpiece of our formations, 

and the foundation of our combat power. Readiness remains our overarching imperative; it is the means by which we execute our nonnegotiable contract with the 

American people—to fight and win our Nation’s wars, decisively. To preserve readiness while rapidly changing, Transformation advances on three major axes: preserving our Army legacy by maintaining readiness and dominance today; bridging 

the operational gap with Stryker Brigades—the Interim Force; and fielding the Objective Force this decade to keep The Army dominant in the years beyond this decade. 

Realizing The Army Vision requires the concerted effort of the entire Army, across 

all components—from warfighting to institutional support organizations. The Army 

published its Transformation Campaign Plan in April 2001 to synchronize and guide 

this complex undertaking. The November 2001 Objective Force White Paper describes the advanced capabilities and core technologies needed to build the Objective 

Force. The Army’s June 2002 Army Transformation Roadmap defines Transformation as a continuous process—with specific waypoints—that increases our contributions to the Joint Force while achieving the six Department of Defense (DOD) 

critical operational goals. The result will be a more strategically responsive and full 

spectrum dominant force capable of prompt and sustained land combat operations 

as a member of the joint force. 

In support of the emerging joint operational concepts and architectures, The 

Army—as the major landpower component—continues to develop ground concepts 

for a full spectrum, and multidimensional force. These concepts are producing a 

Joint Force that presents potential enemies with multiple dilemmas across the operational dimensions—complicating their plans, dividing their focus, and increasing 

their chances of miscalculation. 

In future joint operations, Objective Force units will be capable of directing major 

operations and decisive land campaigns with Army headquarters. Objective Force 

headquarters at all levels will provide the Joint Force Commander (JFC) with seamless, joint battle command and decision superiority. The modularity and scalability 

of our Objective Force formations will provide an unprecedented degree of flexibility 

and adaptability to the Combatant Commander—providing the right force at the 

right time for decisive outcomes. 

PEOPLE—OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE

The Army Vision begins and ends talking about people. People are central to everything else we do in The Army. Platforms and organizations do not defend this 

Nation; people do. Units do not train, stay ready, grow and develop leadership—they 

do not sacrifice and take risks on behalf of the Nation. People do. Institutions do 

not transform; people do. People remain the engine behind all of our magnificent 

moments as an Army, and the well-being of our people—the human dimension of 

our Transformation—is inextricably linked to Army readiness. 

In our Vision, we recommitted ourselves to doing two things well each and every 

day—training Soldiers and civilians and growing them into competent, confident, 

disciplined, and adaptive leaders who succeed in situations of great uncertainty. We 

are dedicated to preparing our Soldiers to lead joint formations, to enabling our 

headquarters to command and control joint forces, and to providing to those joint 
12

formations the capabilities only The Army can bring to the fight: the ability to control terrain and populations. 

Manning the Force 

The objective of our manning strategy is to ensure we have the right people in 

the right places to fully capitalize on their warfighting expertise—this is The Army’s 

commitment to the Nation, Army leaders, Soldiers, and our families. Correctly manning our units is vital to assuring that we fulfill our missions as a strategic element 

of national policy; it enhances predictability for our people; and it ensures that leaders have the people necessary to perform their assigned tasks. In fiscal year 2000, 

we implemented a strategy to man our forces to 100 percent of authorized strength, 

starting with divisional combat units. The program expanded in fiscal year 2001 and 

fiscal year 2002 to include early deploying units. In fiscal year 2002, we maintained 

our manning goals and continued to fill our Divisions, Armored Cavalry Regiments, 

and selected Early Deploying Units to 100 percent in the aggregate, with a 93 to 

95 percent skill and grade-band match. We remain on target to accomplish our longterm goal of filling all Army units to 100 percent of authorized strength. 

Recruiting and Retaining the Force 

In 1999, The Army missed its recruiting goals for the Active Component (AC) by 

about 6,300 inductees, and for the Reserve Component by some 10,000. Our recruiting situation was simply unacceptable, and we committed ourselves to decisive steps 

and reversed that trend. 

In fiscal year 2002, The Active Component achieved 100 percent of its goal in recruiting and retention—for the third consecutive year. The Army exceeded its AC 

79,500 enlisted accession target in fiscal year 2002 and exceeded our aggregate fiscal year 2002 retention objective of 56,800 Soldiers in all three categories by 1,437. 

We are poised to make the fiscal year 2003 accession target of 73,800, and we expect 

to meet our Active Component fiscal year 2003 retention target of 57,000. The fiscal 

year 2004 accession target is set at 71,500. 

The Army Reserve has met mission for the last two years, and its recruiting force 

is well structured to meet fiscal year 2004 challenges. The Army Reserve continues 

to maintain a strong Selected Reserve strength posture at 205,484 as of January 

17, 2003—over 100.2 percent of the fiscal year 2003 End Strength Objective. Overcoming many recruiting and retention challenges in fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard (ARNG) exceeded endstrength mission, accessions were 104.5 percent 

of goal, and we exceeded reenlistment objectives. 

To ensure that we continue to recruit and retain sufficient numbers, we are monitoring the current environment—the global war on terrorism (GWOT) and frequent 

deployments—to determine impact on morale, unit cohesiveness, combat effectiveness, and support of Well-Being programs that draw quality people to The Army. 

We continue to examine innovative recruiting and retention initiatives. The challenges we face in fiscal year 2003 and 2004 are two-fold: increase recruiter productivity and recruiting resources necessary to maintain recruiting momentum when 

the economy becomes more robust. Resourcing recruiting pays dividends well beyond 

accessions in the year of execution. For example, Army advertising in fiscal year 

2002 influenced not only fiscal year 2002 accessions, but also potential recruits who 

will be faced with enlistment decisions in fiscal year 2003 and beyond. 

RESERVE COMPONENT FULL-TIME SUPPORT (FTS)

Today, more than 50 percent of our Soldiers are in the Reserve Component (RC). 

The GWOT and Homeland Defense are significant undertakings that demand a high 

level of resourcing. The RC has been key to our success in these operations. To ensure The Army’s RC continues to meet ever-increasing demands with trained and 

ready units, The Army plans to increase Full-Time Support authorizations 2 percent 

each year through fiscal year 2012, increasing the FTS from the current level of 

69,915 to a level of 83,046. The Army recognizes additional Full-Time Support authorizations as the number one priority of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve leadership. 

CIVILIAN COMPONENT

As a comprehensive effort to consolidate, streamline, and more effectively manage 

the force, The Army has begun an initiative to transform our civilian personnel system. High quality, well-trained civilians are absolutely essential to the readiness of 

our force and our ability to sustain operations today and in the future. Recruiting, 

training, and retaining a highly skilled, dedicated civilian workforce is critical in 

meeting our obligations to the Combatant Commanders and the Nation. Aggressive 

transformation of our civilian force—in which projections through fiscal year 2005 
13

indicate a 16 percent annual turnover due to retirements and other losses—will ensure we continue to meet those obligations. 

As of fiscal year 2002, The Army employed 277,786 civilian personnel. To forecast 

future civilian workforce needs with precision, we developed the Civilian Forecasting System, a sophisticated projection model that predicts future civilian personnel requirements under various scenarios. The Army is working closely with the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and other federal agencies to demonstrate 

the power of this system so they can fully leverage its capabilities, as well. 

The Civilian Personnel Management System XXI (CPMS XXI) has identified the 

reforms necessary to hire, train, and grow a civilian component that supports the 

transforming Army. To achieve this, we have redefined the way civilians are hired, 

retained, and managed. Mandatory experiential assignments will become the vehicle 

by which we develop future leaders. CPMS XXI fully responds to current mandates 

in the President’s Management Agenda and incorporates the results of the Army 

Training and Leader Development Panels. For example, two initiatives for recruiting well-trained civilians are: 

—The Army Civilian Training, Education, and Development System—a centrally 

managed program that accesses and trains civilian interns and grows a resource 

pool of personnel who can accede to senior professional positions. 

—The DOD Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 provided 

Direct Hire Authority for critical, hard-to-fill medical health care occupations 

and enabled the reduction in average fill-time for these positions to 29 days. 

ARMY WELL-BEING

The readiness of The Army is inextricably linked to the well-being of our people, 

and Army Well-Being is the human dimension of our Transformation. Well-Being 

responds to the physical, material, mental, and spiritual needs of all Army people—

Soldiers, civilians, retirees, veterans, and their families. We recognize the fundamental relationship between Well-Being programs and institutional outcomes such 

as readiness, retention, and recruiting. To support mission preparedness as well as 

individual aspirations, Well-Being integrates policies, programs, and human resource issues into a holistic, systematic framework that provides a path to personal 

growth and success and gives our people the opportunity to become self-reliant. We 

recruit Soldiers, but we retain families—Well-Being programs help make The Army 

the right place to raise a family. And when our families are cared for, Soldiers can 

better focus on their mission—training, fighting, and winning our Nation’s wars, decisively. 

Soldiers appreciate the Nation’s devotion to them, and they are grateful for the 

country’s recognition of their service and sacrifices. Recent improvements to the 

Montgomery GI Bill, Tricare for Life, Tricare Reform, Retired Pay Reform, the 4.1 

percent general pay increase, and additional pay increases in 2003, are all important to Soldiers and their families. These initiatives have helped The Army respond 

to the well-being needs of our people. Army voluntary education programs improve 

our combat readiness by expanding Soldier skills, knowledge, and aptitudes to 

produce confident, competent leaders. Other Well-Being initiatives include: 

—Spouse Employment Summit.—The Army is developing partnerships with the 

private sector to enhance employment opportunities for Army spouses and provide improved job portability for them. 

—Spouse Orientation and Leader Development (SOLD).—SOLD connects Army 

spouses and enhances their opportunity to serve as valued leaders who contribute to the readiness and future of The Army and our Nation. 

—Army University Access Online.—Army offers Soldiers access to a variety of online, post-secondary programs and related educational services. www.Army.com 

is a comprehensive web-portal widely accessible to Soldiers, including those in 

Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kuwait. 

—In-State Tuition.—To level the playing field for access to education opportunities, The Army is working to encourage states to grant in-state status for military personnel and families at public colleges and universities in their Soldier’s 

state of legal residence and state of assignment. 

—High School Senior Stabilization.—This policy enhances predictability by allowing families to request stabilization at their sponsor’s current duty location if 

they have a child who will graduate from high school during that year. 

—Secondary Education Transition Study (SETS) Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA).—Facilitated by The Army, this agreement among participating school 

superintendents is their commitment to partner and improve high school transitions for DOD children. Currently, over 110 school superintendents have signed 

the SETS MOA. 
14

LEADER DEVELOPMENT—TRAINING SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS, AND GROWING LEADERS

The Army is a profession—the Profession of Arms. Conducting decisive ground 

combat operations in defense of the United States and its interests is a core competency of this profession. The development of each member of The Army is the 

foundation of lifelong devotion to duty—while in uniform and upon returning to the 

civilian sector. 

By its nature, our profession is extraordinarily complex and dangerous. The American people entrust The Army with the sacred responsibility to apply lethal force 

in defense of U.S interests. As such, the Profession of Arms must remain firmly 

grounded in constitutional values and must constantly change and grow to preserve 

its competitive advantage in an evolving strategic environment. At all levels, our 

leaders—military and civilian—must apply their professional knowledge in increasingly varied and unique situations that are characteristic of today’s strategic environment. Ultimately, we must grow professional Army leaders who provide wise and 

discerning military judgments founded on long experience and proven professional 

expertise. This capacity is developed only through a lifetime of education and dedicated service—in peace and in war. 

Soldiers serve the Nation with the full realization that their duty may require 

them to make the supreme sacrifice for others among their ranks. Soldiers fighting 

the war on terrorism today, those who will fight our future wars, and those who 

have fought in our past wars are professional warfighters and a precious national 

asset. To ensure we remain the greatest landpower in the world defending the 

greatest country in the world, The Army and the Nation rely upon their unique and 

hard-earned experiences and skills. To develop the operational skills required to defend the Nation, training must remain our number one priority. 

The evolving strategic environment, the gravity of our responsibilities, and the 

broad range of tasks The Army performs require us to review and periodically update the way we educate, train, and grow professional warfighters. The Army’s strategic responsibilities to the Nation and Combatant Commanders now embrace a 

wider range of missions. Those missions present our leaders with even greater challenges than previously experienced. Therefore, leader development is the lifeblood 

of the profession. It is the deliberate, progressive, and continuous process that trains 

and grows Soldiers and civilians into competent, confident, self-aware, and decisive 

leaders prepared for the challenges of the 21st Century in combined arms, joint, 

multinational, and interagency operations. 

In June 2000, we convened the Army Training and Leader Development Panel 

(ATLDP). The ATLDP’s purpose is to identify skill sets required of Objective Force 

Soldier and civilian leaders. Further, ATLDP assesses the ability of current training 

and leader development systems and policies to enhance these required skills. In 

May 2001, The Army Training and Leader Development Panel Phase I (Officer 

Study) identified seven strategic imperatives and generated 89 recommendations. 

With those, we validated the requirement to transform our Officer Education System (OES)—from the Officer Basic Course through the Command and General Staff 

Officer Course. Additionally, the panel reconfirmed the value of Joint Professional 

Military Education II (JPME II) in preparing our leaders for joint assignments. The 

most significant product of the officer ATLDP is our OES Transformation. 

ATLDP Phase I (Officer Study) identified three high-payoff institutional training 

and education initiatives for lieutenants, captains, and majors. The first of these is 

the Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC). BOLC will provide a tough, standardized, 

graduate-level, small-unit leadership experience for newly commissioned officers. 

The second of these initiatives is the Combined Arms Staff Course for staff officers, 

and the Combined Arms Battle Command Course for company commanders. Both 

courses will capitalize on advanced distributed learning and intensive resident 

training methods. The third initiative, Intermediate Level Education (ILE), will provide all majors with the same common core of operational instruction, and it will 

provide additional educational opportunities that are tailored to the officer’s specific 

career field, branch, or functional area. Beyond ILE, Army officers continue to attend Joint or Senior Service Colleges to develop leader skills and knowledge appropriate to the operational and strategic levels of the profession. 

Completed in May 2002, the ATLDP Phase II (NCO Study) resulted in 78 findings 

and recommendations extending across six imperatives—Army culture, NCO Education Systems (NCOES), training, systems approach to training, training and leader development model, and lifelong learning. Among others, the ATLDP Phase II 

recommended building new training and leader development tools for NCOs to replace current methods, as required. The ATLDP Phase III (Warrant Officer Study) 

culminated with 63 recommendations extending across four crucial imperatives. 

Recommendations included clarifying the warrant officer’s unique role in The Army 
15

and improving the Warrant Officer Education System to ensure timely training and 

promotion. The Civilian Training and Leader Development Panel (Phase IV) study 

results are complete, and we are forming the Implementation Process Action Team 

(I–PAT). I–PAT will identify actions The Army must take to increase the professional development of our civilian workforce. At the senior leader level, The Army 

initiated the Army Strategic Leadership Course (ASLC). The program is aimed at 

teaching principles of strategic leadership, with emphasis on visioning, campaign 

planning, leading change, and Transformation. To date, we have completed twelve 

of the foundation courses and three alumni courses, training the majority of The 

Army’s general officers. 

READINESS—WINNING OUR NATION’S WARS

Homeland Security (HLS) 

Defending our Nation—abroad and at home—against foreign and domestic threats 

is fundamental to The Army’s legacy, and our warfighting focus provides capabilities 

relevant to HLS requirements. HLS missions range from traditional warfighting 

competencies that defeat external threats to the non-combat tasks associated with 

supporting civil authorities in domestic contingencies. Operation Noble Eagle mobilized over 16,000 Army National Guard Soldiers to protect critical infrastructure. 

These Soldiers assisted the Department of Transportation in securing our Nation’s 

airports while also playing a vital role in securing our Nation’s borders. The Army 

is moving forward to provide one Civil Support Team to each state, as required by 

the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. The Civil Support 

Teams support Incident Commanders and identify Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) agents and substances, assess current and 

projected consequences, advise on response measures, and assist with appropriate 

requests for additional support. To date, OSD has certified 30 of 32 teams, and The 

Army is working to establish additional teams. Collectively, the certified teams have 

performed 890 operational missions since September 11, 2001. The Army remains 

committed to HLS, dedicating Active Component (AC) and Reserve Component (RC) 

staffs to focus on training, doctrine, planning, and execution of DOD missions in 

support of civil authorities. 

Missile Defense 

Robust Missile Defense is a vital warfighting requirement that protects both our 

homeland and our deployed forces. Missile Defense includes far more than a reactive 

capability to shoot down missiles in their reentry phase. Missile Defense requires 

a coherent system of sensors; battle command; weapons systems; and active, passive, proactive, and reactive operational concepts, all aimed at destroying enemy 

missiles—not only during their reentry phases. Missile Defense must also be able 

to destroy enemy missiles on the ground, before they launch or during their boost 

phase once launched. Missile Defense is inherently a joint capability to which The 

Army is a major contributor. 

The Army is deploying and employing Ground Mobile Defense assets to contribute 

to this warfighting capability, accelerating the fielding of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC3) system, and developing directed energy weapons that will bring 

new defense measures to The Army and the Nation. We are postured to assume control of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program in fiscal year 

2003 and intend to begin fielding by fiscal year 2012. 

MEADS is a transformational program of Objective Force quality and a significant 

improvement on Patriot’s capabilities. It will be more mobile and more deployable 

(C–130 capable) than Patriot and cover a 360-degree radius to Patriot’s 120 degrees. 

It will be effective against low radar, cross section cruise missile targets; and require only 30 percent of Patriot’s manpower. And MEADS will be more accurate and 

more sustainable than Patriot. 

Chemical Demilitarization 

In Section 1412 of Public Law 99–145, Congress directed the DOD to destroy the 

United States’ chemical weapons stockpile. In turn, the Secretary of Defense delegated management of all chemical munitions disposal to the Department of the 

Army. On November 29, 2000, the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, 

using incineration-based technology, completely destroyed the last stockpiles stored 

at the Atoll, and closure operations began in January 2001. The Tooele Chemical 

Agent Disposal Facility has incinerated 44 percent of the chemical agents and 81 

percent of the munitions stored there. Disposal operations at these two sites destroyed 30 percent of the total U.S. chemical weapons stockpiles. Construction of incineration facilities at Anniston, Alabama; Umatilla, Oregon; and Pine Bluff, Arkansas, is complete. Systemization activities are on-going at Aberdeen, Anniston, 
16

Umatilla, and Pine Bluff. The plan to accelerate the disposal of bulk agents using 

a neutralization process at Aberdeen, Maryland, and Newport, Indiana, has been 

approved. Anniston and Aberdeen are scheduled to start destruction in second quarter fiscal year 2003, and Newport is scheduled to begin in first quarter fiscal year 

2004. 

To comply with treaty agreements and the Congressional mandate, we must complete the destruction of these weapons by 2007. The treaty allows for a one time, 

five-year extension to this deadline. With continued funding and minimal schedule 

changes, we will safely destroy the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions at eight existing CONUS sites. 

Training the Force 

In October 2002, The Army released Field Manual (FM) 7–0, Training the Force. 

Synchronized with other field manuals and publications being updated to respond 

to changes in Army, joint, multinational, and interagency operations, FM 7–0 is the 

capstone doctrinal manual for Army training and leader development. It provides 

the developmental methodology for training and growing competent, confident Soldiers, and it addresses both current and future Objective Force training requirements. 

We are transforming the way we fight future wars, and The Army is participating 

fully in a DOD-sponsored program to transform how forces train to fight. This effort 

involves four major initiatives: building upon existing service interoperability training; linking component and joint command staff planning and execution; enhancing 

existing joint training exercises to address joint interoperability; and studying the 

requirement for dedicated joint training environments for functional warfighting 

and complex joint tasks. The Army is scheduled to host the first joint National 

Training Center (NTC) event at Fort Irwin, California, in May 2003. During June 

2003, the U.S. Army Forces Command will execute the second joint NTC event—

JCS exercise Roving Sands. 

During the late 1990s, funding for the recapitalization and modernization of The 

Army’s Combat Training Centers was reduced, eroding their capability to support 

their critical missions. Additionally, the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System equipment and current force instrumentation systems have become difficult to 

maintain. The Army’s Combat Training Center modernization program will ensure 

that our premier training areas (NTC at Fort Irwin, Combat Maneuver Training 

Center in Germany, the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, and 

the Deep Attack Center of Excellence near Gila Bend, Arizona) are modernized to 

provide high quality, realistic, full-spectrum joint training. To address these problems, The Army will invest nearly $700 million over the next six years to modernize 

these training centers. 

OPTEMPO 

In accordance with Congressional directives, The Army developed a new methodology to prepare budget requests that accurately reflect Operations and Maintenance requirements. In the report submitted in July 2002, The Army outlined updated processes that ensure consistency in reporting of tank miles and reflect requirements and execution with more precision. Management controls initiated in fiscal year 2001 to prevent migration of OPTEMPO funds to other areas were highly 

successful and remain in effect. 

The Army’s combined arms training strategy determines the resourcing requirements to maintain the combat readiness of our forces. For the Active Component, 

The Army requires 800 ground OPTEMPO miles per year for the M1 Abrams tank 

and corresponding training support; the Active Component flying hour program requires an average of 14.5 live flying hours per aircrew each month. Both Army National Guard and the Army Reserve aircrew training strategies require 9.0 hours 

per crew each month. The ARNG ground OPTEMPO requirement is a composite average of 174 miles in fiscal year 2004, and the Army Reserve (USAR) ground 

OPTEMPO requirement is 200 tank-equivalent miles in fiscal year 2004. 

While this describes The Army’s training strategy, actual execution levels from 

unit to unit have varied depending upon factors such as on-going operations, safety 

of flight messages, and adequate manning of combat formations. To this end, The 

Army has fully funded its AC ground OPTEMPO requirement, while its AC flying 

program is funded to its historical execution level of 13.1 flying hours. The RC air 

and ground OPTEMPO are similarly funded to their execution levels, rather than 

their requirement. Although The Army has not always been able to execute the 

training strategy, we have taken steps to have all units execute the prescribed 

training strategy in fiscal year 2003, fiscal year 2004, and beyond. 
17

Force Protection and Anti-terrorism 

Force protection consists of those actions to prevent or mitigate hostile actions 

against Department of Defense personnel and includes family members, resources, 

facilities, and critical information. In the war on terrorism, the area of operations 

extends from Afghanistan to the East Coast and across the United States. Naturally, Force Protection and Antiterrorism measures have increased across Army installations in the Continental United States (CONUS) and overseas. 

Findings from the Cole Commission, the Downing Report on the Khobar Towers 

bombing, and Army directives to restrict access to installations have all led to thorough assessments by the Department of the Army Inspector General, the Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Operations, and commanders. Our efforts focus on improved force 

protection policy and doctrine; more rigorous training and exercises; improved 

threat reporting and coordination with national intelligence and law enforcement 

agencies; enhanced detection and deterrence capabilities for Chemical, Biological, 

Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) threats; increased capabilities and 

protection for access control; and expanded assessments of Major Commands 

(MACOM) and installation force protection programs. Both operational and installation environments rely upon secure, networked information infrastructure to execute daily enterprise-wide processes and decision-making, so the parameters of force 

protection include contemporary and evolving cyber threats, as well. 

The Army’s Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) secures The Army’s 

portion of the Global Information Grid, secures the digitized force, and supports information superiority and network security defense-in-depth initiatives. ISSP provides the capability to detect system intrusions and alterations and react to information warfare attacks in a measured and coordinated manner. To the greatest extent possible, it protects warfighters’ secure communications—from the sustaining 

base to the foxhole. 

Soldiers, Active and Reserve, are heavily engaged in force protection and anti-terrorism missions. Soldiers guard military installations, nuclear power plants, dams 

and power generation facilities; tunnels, bridges, and rail stations; and emergency 

operations centers. During the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, nearly 1,500 ARNG Soldiers provided security, and Soldiers guarded key infrastructure 

sites during Super Bowl XXXVII in January 2003. Over 12,500 Reserve Component 

Soldiers are currently mobilized for Operation Noble Eagle to fulfill Force Protection 

requirements, and in February 2003, over 8,000 Army National Guard Soldiers will 

support Air Force security requirements—a requirement that could reach 9,500 Soldiers. Security of detention facilities and detainees at Guantanamo Bay Detention—

a long-term detainee mission—requires approximately 1,500 Army personnel, 50 

percent of whom are Military Police. Army Reserve Internment and Resettlement 

battalions on 6-month rotations impact military police availability to CONUS Force 

Protection requirements. 

Sustainment 

The Army is revolutionizing its logistics process. One initiative, the Single Stock 

Fund (SSF), redirected more than $540 million worth of secondary items from stocks 

to satisfy customer demands between May 2000—SSF inception—and November 

2002. During that same period, we redistributed more than $218 million worth of 

secondary items from the authorized stockage levels to meet higher priority readiness requirements. By extending national visibility of stockage locations and capitalizing inventories into the Army Working Capital Fund, we reduced customer wait 

time by an average of 18.5 percent. The SSF will continue to reduce inventory requirements and generate even more savings for The Army by creating greater flexibility for the management of inventories. 

Another initiative, the National Maintenance Program (NMP), enhances weapon 

system readiness, reliability, and availability rates by bringing Army Class IX repair parts to a single national standard. Ultimately, increased reliability will reduce 

overall weapon system Operating and Support cost. Additionally, the NMP centralizes the management and control of Army maintenance activities for components 

and end items. NMP will produce appropriately sized Army maintenance capacity 

that still meets total maintenance requirements. 

Strategic Readiness Reporting 

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999 requires the Secretary of Defense to implement a comprehensive readiness reporting system that objectively measures readiness to support the NSS. The Army’s Strategic Readiness 

System (SRS) responds to and provides a baseline in achieving this critical initiative. 
18

SRS is a precision readiness measurement tool that provides Army leadership 

with accurate, objective, predictive, and actionable readiness information to dramatically enhance resource management toward one end—strategic readiness to defend the United States. The Army Scorecard—a product of SRS—will integrate readiness data from the business arena and the operating, generating, and sustaining 

forces of both the Active and Reserve Component. Army Scorecard methodology focuses on four critical areas: People—investing in Soldiers and their families; Readiness—maintaining the support capability to the Combatant Commanders’ operational requirements; Transformation—transforming The Army into the Objective 

Force; and application of sound business practices. 

SRS markedly improves how we measure readiness. It gathers timely information 

with precision and expands the scope of the data considered. We are further developing this system to leverage leading indicators and predict trends—solving problems that affect readiness before they become problems, from well-being to weapons 

platforms. SRS will help enable The Army preserve readiness to support Combatant 

Commanders, invest in Soldiers and their families, identify and adopt sound business practices, and transform The Army to the Objective Force. 

Installations 

Army installations are our Nation’s power projection platforms, and they provide 

critical training support to The Army and other members of the joint team. Additionally, Soldiers, families, and civilians live and work on Army installations. The 

quality of our infrastructure directly affects the readiness of The Army and the wellbeing of our Soldiers, families, and civilians. 

The Army has traditionally accepted substantial risk in infrastructure to maintain 

its current warfighting readiness. However, a decade of chronic under funding has 

led to a condition in which over 50 percent of our facilities and infrastructure are 

in such poor condition that commanders rated them as ‘‘adversely affecting mission 

requirements.’’ Our facilities maintenance must improve. Over the past two years, 

with the help of the Administration and Congress, The Army has begun to rectify 

this situation with significant increases in funding and innovative business practices. These efforts have been dramatically successful as we continue to correct a 

problem that was 10 years in the making. Thus, in an effort to prevent future degradation of our facilities, The Army has increased its funding for facilities 

sustainment to 93 percent of requirement beginning in fiscal year 2004. 

Transformation of Installation Management (TIM) 

Recognizing the requirement to enhance support to commanders, the Secretary of 

the Army directed the reorganization of The Army’s management structure. On October 1, 2002, The Army placed the management of Army installations under the 

Installation Management Agency (IMA). IMA is a new field-operating agency of the 

Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM). Its mission is to provide equitable, efficient, and effective management of Army installations worldwide 

to support readiness; enable the well-being of Soldiers, civilians and family members; improve infrastructure; and preserve the environment. This new management 

approach eliminates the migration of base operations funds to other operational accounts below the HQDA level. It also enables the development of multi-functional 

installations to support evolving force structure and Army Transformation needs. 

The Army is poised to capitalize on opportunities TIM gives us to provide excellence 

in installations. 

Two programs that significantly increase the well-being of our Soldiers and their 

families are the Barracks and the Family Housing programs. The Army established 

the Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP) in the late 1990’s to improve single Soldiers’ 

housing conditions. Through 2002, we have upgraded or funded-for-upgrade 70 percent of our permanent party barracks to Soldier suites that consist of two single 

bedrooms with a shared bath and common area. The Army will continue the BUP 

until all permanent party barracks achieve this standard. 

With the strong support of Congress, The Army established the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) for our families. This program capitalizes on commercial 

expertise and private capital to perform a non-core function for The Army—family 

housing management. The program provides greater value to The Army by eliminating the housing deficit at our first eleven sites, while leveraging a $209 million 

Army investment into $4.1 billion of initial private development. The Army’s privatization program began with four pilot projects and will expand to 18 active projects 

by the end of fiscal year 2003. Pending OSD and Congressional approval, 28 projects 

are planned through 2006 that will impact over 72,000 housing units or 80 percent 

of Army Family Housing in the United States. By the end of 2007, we will have 

the programs and projects in place to meet the OSD goal of eliminating inadequate 
19

family housing. We will accomplish this goal through RCI and increased Army investment in family housing Military Construction (MILCON) at non-privatized installations. The Reserve Component (RC) enhances RCI through real property exchange authority that is only available to the RC. This legislative authority allows 

the exchange of RC owned property with public or private entities and has a tremendous potential to improve future Reserve Component infrastructure at no governmental cost. 

The Army has also aggressively reduced its financial burden and physical footprint by disposing of 34 percent of its facilities from a 1990 high of 116 billion 

square feet. The Army anticipates that the Congressional fiscal year 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) authority will permit additional appropriate reductions. BRAC will enable The Army to dispose of excess infrastructure and realign 

the remaining facilities with the requirements of the transforming Army and the 

Objective Force. BRAC will also allow The Army to re-allocate resources from closed 

or realigned installations to other high priority requirements. 

The Army continues to improve its utilities infrastructure by divesting itself of 

non-core utility systems’ operation and maintenance through privatization. As of December 2002, we had privatized 64 of the 351 systems in the program, and we have 

an additional 104 presently under negotiation. 

As part of our Army Knowledge Management (AKM)—described later in more detail—we are modernizing our Installation Information Infrastructure—infostructure—to support a network centric, knowledge-based Army. The Installation 

Information Infrastructure Modernization Program (I3MP) executes a multi-year, 

$3.2 billion program for upgrades to optical fiber and copper cable, installation of 

advanced digital equipment, and upgrades to Defense Global Information Grid gateways. This program will ensure worldwide, high-speed data connectivity at Army installations. To date, we have completed 22 of 95 CONUS installations and initiated 

upgrades at four installations outside of the continental United States (OCONUS). 

We plan to complete I3MP in 2009. 

Transformation—Changing the Way we Fight 

The Army is fundamentally changing the way we fight and creating a force more 

responsive to the strategic requirements of the Nation. We are building a joint precision maneuver capability that can enter a theater at the time and place of our 

choosing, maneuver at will to gain positional advantage, deliver precise joint fires 

and, if necessary, close with and destroy the enemy. 

The Objective Force is an army designed from the bottom up around a single, 

networked, integrated C4ISR architecture that will link us to joint, interagency, and 

multi-national forces. It will be a rapidly deployable, mounted formation, seamlessly 

integrated into the joint force and capable of delivering decisive victory across the 

spectrum of military operations. Consolidated, streamlined branches and military 

operational specialties comprised of professional warfighters will be poised to transition rapidly from disaster relief to high-end warfighting operations. 

The Objective Force and its Future Combat System of Systems will leverage and 

deliver with precision the combat power of joint and strategic assets. It is a capabilities-based force that rapidly responds to the requirements of the strategic environment in which our Soldiers will be the most strategically relevant and decisively capable landpower—no matter the mission, no matter the threats, no matter the risks. 

In the final analysis, The Army’s combat power does not wear tracks or wheels—

it wears boots. No platform or weapon system can match a Soldier’s situational curiosity and awareness. It is the Soldiers’ ability to discern and to think, their ingenuity and resourcefulness, their endurance and perseverance, and their plain grit 

that make them the most reliable precision weapon in our inventory. Soldiers remain the centerpiece of our formations. 

To help guide our Transformation efforts, The Army leverages lessons-learned 

from extensive experimentation and wargaming. We are working to harness the 

power of knowledge, the benefits of science and technology, and innovative business 

solutions to transform both the Operational and Institutional Army into the Objective Force. The Army’s annual Title 10 Wargames provide critical insights for developing the Objective Force. Likewise, results from joint experiments—Millennium 

Challenge 2002 and other service Title 10 Wargames like Global Engagement, Navy 

Global, and Expeditionary Warrior, to name a few—also inform these efforts. 

The Army is fully committed to joint experimentation as a means to examine and 

assess Objective Force contributions to the strategic, operational, and tactical levels 

of joint warfare. The Army has established a joint/Army Concept Development and 

Experimentation (CD&E) Task Force to ensure that Army CD&E efforts are synchronized with joint CD&E. This task force makes certain that joint experiment lessons-learned inform the design and development of the Objective Force. This year, 
20

The Army’s Title 10 Wargame—co-hosted by Commander, Joint Forces Command—

will focus on the Joint Force that will fight the next battle. Linked to Joint Forces 

Command’s Pinnacle Impact 03 experiment, it will be conducted within the context 

of a future 1–4–2–1 global scenario and the emerging Joint Operations Concept. The 

Army is committed to these efforts, and in this budget we have nearly doubled last 

year’s funding of these exercises. 

Joint, interagency, multinational, and Army warfighting experiments provide invaluable opportunities for The Army to experiment with innovative approaches to 

warfighting and to test new tactics, techniques, procedures, organizations, processes, 

and technology. In Millennium Challenge 2002, the largest joint experiment in U.S. 

history, The Army demonstrated four vital capabilities it brings to the joint fight: 

the ability to attain and maintain information superiority (knowledge); the ability 

to conduct decisive maneuver to enable dominant joint maneuver; the ability to defeat the opposition in an anti-access environment through rapid entry and employment capabilities; and the ability to support and sustain rapid combat power efficiently by reducing the operational and tactical logistics footprint 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) concepts for battalion and company operations in a Joint Force, The Army employed 

a SBCT unit during Millennium Challenge. Less than four weeks after Stryker vehicles were delivered to the first unit at Fort Lewis, the unit demonstrated rapid air 

and sealift deployability and integrated into the exercise well. Additionally, when 

given a mission on short notice to support a Marine Corps unit in ground operations, the SBCT unit demonstrated its agility and versatility. 

Balancing Risk as we Manage Change 

Balancing risk is integral to Army Transformation. To maintain current readiness 

while we transform, we are managing operational risk: risk in current readiness for 

near-term conflicts with future risk—the ability to develop new capabilities and 

operational concepts that will dissuade or defeat mid- to long-term military challenges. The Army has accepted risk in selective modernization and recapitalization, 

and we continue to assess these risks as we balance current readiness, the wellbeing of our people, Transformation, the war on terrorism, and new operational 

commitments. Since 1999, The Army has terminated 29 programs and restructured 

20 others for a total savings of $12.8 billion. These funds were reallocated to resource the Stryker Brigades and essential Objective Force research and development. 

In Program Budget 2004 and its associated Five-Year Defense Plan (FYDP), The 

Army has generated an additional $22 billion of savings by terminating 24 additional systems and reducing or restructuring 24 other systems. To accelerate achieving the Objective Force capabilities and mitigating operational risk, The Army reinvested these savings in the development of transformational capabilities in these 

and other programs: 

—Future Combat System—$13.5 billion 

—Precision Munitions—$3.2 billion 

—Sensors and Communications—$2.3 billion 

—Science and Technology—$1.1 billion 

—Missile and Air Defense—$1.1 billion. 

The operational risk associated with the decreased funding for certain current 

programs is acceptable as long as we field Stryker Brigades on schedule and accelerate the fielding of the Objective Force for arrival, this decade. We will continue 

to reassess the risk associated with system reductions and related organizational 

changes against operational requirements and the strategic environment. 

An Information Enabled Army 

Achieving the full spectrum dominance of the Objective Force requires changing 

the way we fight. Changing the way we fight requires a holistic transformation of 

Logistics, Personnel, Installation Management, Acquisition, Aviation, business practices—every aspect of The Army must transform. The Objective Force requires innovative changes and out-of-the-box ingenuity in the way we take care of our people 

and manage the information and material that enhances their readiness and answers their needs—both personal and professional, at home and in the short sword 

warfight at foxhole level. Simply put, we cannot achieve the Objective Force capabilities without leveraging the full potential of the technological advances that our 

Nation’s industrial base and science and technology communities are developing. 

The Army has consolidated management of Information Technologies (IT) into a single effort—Army Knowledge Management (AKM). AKM capitalizes on IT resources 

unique to our Nation and harnesses them for Transformation, for The Army, and 

for the Combatant Commanders. 
21

Information management is critical to achieving The Army Vision, and Army 

Knowledge Management supports Transformation through the development and implementation of a network-centric, knowledge-based Army architecture interoperable 

with the joint system. AKM will accelerate the Detect-Decide-Deliver planning processes and enable warfighters to see the adversary first—before our forces are detected; understand the Common Relevant Operating Picture first; act against adversaries first; and finish the warfight with decisive victories—see first, understand 

first, act first, finish decisively. AKM will provide knowledge at the point of decision 

for all leaders—from the factory to the foxhole. 

Enabling collaborative mission planning and execution among widely dispersed locations around the globe, Army Knowledge Management will provide a rapid and 

seamless flow and exchange of actionable information and knowledge. The Networkcentric operations that AKM enables will decrease our logistic footprint and enhance 

sustainability of the Objective Force through multi-nodal distribution networks—

reaching forward to the theater and back to installations. Advanced information 

technologies will dramatically enhance Battle Command. Command, Control, Communications, and Computer (C4) decision tools seamlessly linked to Intelligence, 

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets produce a radically improved Common Relevant Operating Picture (CROP) and enable Battle Command. 

AKM will dramatically enhance the warfighter’s ability to distribute, process, 

fuse, and correlate unprecedented amounts of actionable data into information—securely, reliably, and quickly enough to enable leaders to synchronize and mass effects for decisive results. Network-centric operations enable information awareness, 

information access, and information delivery. 

The Army Knowledge Enterprise (AKE) construct describes The Army’s process to 

enable improved strategic and tactical information distribution and collaboration. In 

short, AKE leverages the ingenuity and resourcefulness of our people in shaping the 

environment to achieve dominance and helps leaders achieve decision superiority 

and mission efficiencies. 

Integration and refinement of existing Army networks is the first step in achieving a network-centric, information-enabled force that creates efficiencies and provides secure, reliable, actionable information communications. To this end, The 

Army activated the Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM). 

NETCOM is The Army’s single authority assigned to operate, manage, and defend 

The Army’s information infrastructure. NETCOM has assumed technical control of 

all Army networks—Active, Guard, and Reserve. This new policy allows NETCOM 

to evaluate any system, application, or piece of equipment that touches The Army 

Networks. NETCOM will improve the capacity, performance, and security of our 

networks at every level. 

Among others, one tangible product of NETCOM is the consolidation and removal 

of redundant servers across The Army. This example of better business practice will 

harvest significant savings in resources—both dollars and managers—while increasing the effectiveness of the network. Since the first quarter fiscal year 2002, we 

have reduced the number of servers Army-wide by 16 percent—311 in the National 

Capitol Region alone. 

Army Knowledge Online (AKO) begins to allow The Army to decentralize the 

management of information. AKO is The Army’s secure, web-based, internet service 

that leverages The Army’s intellectual capital to better organize, train, equip, and 

maintain our force. It gives our people a means to collaborate, to improve their situational awareness, and to access their personnel data. Already, hard-copy processes 

that formerly took days and weeks can now be accomplished almost instantly—from 

pay to personnel actions to assignments, to name a few. And AKO is just an early 

glimpse of the potential capabilities of a Network-centric, knowledge based organization that harnesses the potential of the global infostructure. 

OPERATIONAL ARMY

The Objective Force 

The Army is actively engaged in global operations supporting Combatant Commanders today, but it is our obligation to prepare for the future, as well. The Objective Force is The Army’s future full-spectrum force that will be organized, manned, 

equipped and trained to be more strategically responsive, deployable, agile, 

versatile, lethal, survivable and sustainable than we are today—across the full spectrum of military operations as an integral member of a cohesive joint team. 

The Nation will continue to face adaptive, asymmetric threats that capitalize on 

the power of information. To dominate and maintain superiority over these emerging challenges, The Army is changing the way we fight—a paradigm shift more significant than the 20th Century’s introduction of the tank and the helicopter. The 
22

Army is changing from sequential and linear operations to distributed and simultaneous operations. The Objective Force—characterized by networks of people enabled 

with systems that provide actionable information and decision superiority—will dissuade, deter or decisively defeat our adversaries anytime, anyplace, and anywhere. 

The Objective Force will consist of command structures scaled to meet Joint Force 

Commander requirements and modular combined-arms units tailored according to 

each situation. Objective Force integrated, mobile, air-ground teams will conduct 

mounted and dismounted operations and employ both manned and unmanned platforms to achieve decisive victories. Capable of forcible entry and operations in austere environments to address the spectrum of military operations—from humanitarian assistance to warfighting—the Objective Force will conduct simultaneous 

combat and stability operations and master transitions between phases of operations. It will be an offensively oriented, multi-dimensional force enabled by advanced information technologies that give Soldiers real-time intelligence and actionable information. 

The Objective Force will arrive in theater combat capable—deployment will be 

synonymous with employment. The Objective Force will be strategically responsive 

and rapidly deployable on the U.S Air Force family of inter-theater and intra-theater aircraft. An Objective Force Unit of Action (UA) will deploy on approximately 

one-third the number of aircraft required to deploy a heavy brigade combat team 

today. It will be operationally deployable and capable of operational maneuver over 

strategic distances by air, land, or sea. Soldiers will overcome anti-access and area 

denial strategies and environments through precision maneuver and decision superiority. 

Equipped with new systems designed to meet the needs of The Army’s future 

fighting formations, the Objective Force will be a networked system of systems. This 

system of systems includes Soldiers equipped with the Land Warrior system; a family of 18 integrated, synchronized, manned and unmanned Future Combat Systems 

(FCS); and critical complementary systems such as the Comanche and the Future 

Tactical Truck System. The components of the FCS are being synchronously developed and fielded as a complete family to achieve the warfighting capabilities the Nation requires to defeat adaptive, asymmetric conventional and unconventional adversaries. 

Soldiers are the centerpiece of The Army’s formation—not equipment. And Soldiers of the Objective Force will leverage dominant knowledge to gain decision superiority over any adversary. They will seamlessly integrate Objective Force capabilities with the capabilities of joint forces, Special Operations Forces, other federal 

agencies, and multinational forces. The Objective Force Soldiers will enable the 

United States to achieve its national security goals in a crisis, rather than simply 

inflict punitive strikes on an adversary. Employing FCS capabilities in formations 

called Units of Action (UA) and Units of Employment (UE), Objective Force Soldiers 

will provide campaign quality staying power—that means precision fire and maneuver to control terrain, people, and resources, without having to resort to indiscriminate collateral damage. The Land Warrior system will integrate individual Soldiers 

in the network while providing them increased protection and lethality. And FCS 

will give Soldiers the capability to destroy any adversary in any weather and environment with smaller calibers, greater precision, more devastating target effects, 

and at longer-ranges than available today. 

Joint C4ISR—a network-centric information architecture nested within the Global 

Information Grid—will connect the Objective Force’s system of systems. Capitalizing 

on the synergistic power of the information network enterprise, every Objective 

Force Soldier and platform will be capable of sensing and engaging the enemy while 

maintaining situational awareness of friendly forces. Advanced information technologies and C4ISR decision tools and assets will enhance the Common Relevant 

Operating Picture (CROP). The Objective Force will identify, locate, and engage critical targets with lethal or non-lethal affects and assess battle damage on those targets. The joint C4ISR linkages will enable the attack of targets with whatever joint 

or Army assets are available for immediate employment, whether the force is in contact or out of contact. Similarly, enhanced situational awareness will facilitate 

multi-layered active and passive defense measures—including both offensive and defensive counter air against air and non-air breathing, manned and unmanned aerial 

vehicles. 

The CROP and Network centric operations will enhance sustainability of the Objective Force through multi-nodal distribution networks that reach forward to the 

area of operations or reach back to the Home Station Operations Center. Increased 

reliability through equipment design and commonality among the FCS family of systems will enhance sustainability while reducing logistics demands. Advanced tech-
23

nologies will enable robust Objective Force operations while shrinking the logistics 

footprint and lift requirements of deployed forces. 

The FCS is a transformational approach to meeting this Nation’s requirements for 

the Objective Force. We designed and will field the FCS family in a carefully balanced manner to avoid optimizing a component at the expense of sub-optimizing the 

overarching capabilities of Objective and joint forces. The acquisition and requirements development processes are being updated to accommodate the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) direction to field a networked system of systems rapidly through 

spiral development and an open architecture that allows maturing technological insertions as they occur. 

The Army embraces the ongoing DOD and Joint Staff Capabilities and Acquisition 

processes reform efforts to achieve revolutionary capabilities in the fielding of a new 

generation of equipment. This collaborative DOD and JCS effort enables The Army 

to design new information-age capable organizations holistically, use evolutionary 

acquisition strategies to equip those organizations, and see the Objective Force fielded before the end of this decade. 

Science and Technology—Moving Toward the Transformed Army 

Preempting our adversaries’ technological surprises over the past three years, 

Army Science and Technology investments are already providing America’s Army 

with sustained overmatch in all materiel systems. And The Army has increased and 

focused its Science and Technology (S&T) investments. We are demonstrating the 

enabling joint interoperable technologies essential for Objective Force capabilities 

and accelerating their arrival. Our S&T program is pursuing a wide spectrum of 

technologies for unmanned air and ground systems that will expand the range of 

joint warfighting capabilities, reduce risk to Soldiers, and reduce the logistics footprint of the force. Realizing the full potential of unmanned systems requires technological development in sensors that improve navigation and mission performance, in 

intelligent systems for semi-autonomous or autonomous operation, in networked 

communications for manned-unmanned teaming, and in human-robotic interfaces, 

among many others. 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Army partnership 

contracted for a Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) to accelerate the transition of FCS 

to the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase, with a Milestone B 

decision in May 2003. The Army is on track to achieve first unit equipped in 2008 

and an initial operating capability of one Objective Force Unit of Action (UA) in 

2010. To accelerate development and in partnership DARPA, the focus on key transformation technologies for the FCS has been narrowed to the systems with the most 

promise. Our highest priority S&T efforts remain technological advances for the Future Combat System (FCS). 

The Army will field FCS as a family of systems built on information age technologies embedded in manned and unmanned air and ground platforms. Integral to 

joint fires, the family of systems will integrate long-range air- and ground-based 

sensors with long-range cannon and missile precision munitions. The family of systems will also provide increased joint capabilities to conduct battle command, reconnaissance, mounted combat operations, dismounted combat operations, medical 

treatment and evacuation, and maintenance and recovery. To provide decisive 

lethality, FCS will employ networked, precision and loitering attack munitions fired 

from modular, easily transportable containers. Finally, FCS will leverage embedded, 

real-time interactive, virtual, distributed, collaborative, joint simulations for training and mission rehearsal. 

Enabling the Objective Force Soldier 

Eighteen systems, both manned and unmanned; the Objective Force Soldier; and 

C4ISR, together, comprise the Future Combat System. Manned and unmanned reconnaissance capabilities are part of the FCS Family of Systems’ interdependent 

networked air- and ground-based maneuver, maneuver support, and sustainment 

systems. 

There are 10 Unmanned Systems: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Classes 1, 2, 

3, and 4; Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV)—the Multifunction Utility/Logistics 

and Equipment (MULE), the Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV), and the Small 

(manpackable) Unmanned Ground Vehicle (MUGV); Unattended Ground Sensors 

(UGS); and Unattended Munitions—the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Launch System 

(LS) and Intelligent Munitions Systems (IMS). 

There are eight manned systems: the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV); Command 

and Control Vehicle (C2V); Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle (RSV); Line-ofSight, Beyond-Line-of-Sight Mounted Combat System (LOS/BLOS MCS); NLOS-
24

Mortar; Medical Vehicle (MV); the FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV); 

and the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannon. 

Decisive warfighting is about fires and maneuver: fires enable maneuver, and maneuver enables fires. Joint and organic close, supporting, indirect fires destroy the 

enemy, suppress the enemy’s capabilities, protect our forces and enable ground units 

to maneuver. The ICV, the Unattended Munitions NLOS–LS, IMS, C2V, MCS, 

NLOS-Mortar, and NLOS Cannon are important elements of the FCS that will enable the Objective Force to conduct distributed and simultaneous joint combat operations. With joint fires, the NLOS cannon is critical to support and protect our land 

forces in hostile environments. NLOS–LS NetFires is a platform-independent family 

of missiles with precision attack and loitering capability. Both Precision Guided 

Mortar Munitions and Excalibur precision cannon munitions will enhance organic 

maneuver fires. A new, joint fire support, battle command and fire support architecture will allow rapid engagement of targets by any Army or joint asset. 

For over 227 years, Soldiers have remained the centerpiece of our formations. The 

Land Warrior program—another key S&T initiative—responds to this legacy and 

enhances our Soldiers combat power generation capability. The Land Warrior program will develop a lightweight, low observable, enhanced-armor protection, fighting 

ensemble for the individual Objective Force Soldier. Through networked connectivity 

to the FCS-equipped, maneuver Unit of Action, Land Warrior Soldiers will enable 

revolutionary lethality, mobility, survivability, and sustainability for the individual 

warfighter while reducing logistics demands. 

Future Combat Systems are networked in the joint C4ISR architecture—including 

networked communications, networked options, sensors, battle command systems, 

training, and both manned and unmanned reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities. These networked systems will dramatically enhance situational awareness and 

understanding and operational level synchronization well beyond today’s standards. 

Improved C4ISR capabilities will enable network-centric Objective Force operations. 

The results of the investments will allow leaders to capitalize on sensor and processing technology to see, understand, and shape the battlespace before the enemy 

can react—increasing combat force effectiveness and survivability. The S&T program will develop and demonstrate real-time, continuous situational understanding 

by integrating data from manned and unmanned air- and ground-based sensors. 

S&T investments in military logistics are an important enabler for the Objective 

Force. We are placing our emphasis on sustainment’s big drivers—fuel, ammunition, 

maintenance, and water—to dramatically reduce our logistics footprint and lift requirements in these areas. Key technologies include on-board water generation, 

real-time logistics command and control processes and distribution management, enhanced multi-purpose munitions and packaging, efficient propulsion and power technologies, real-time diagnostics and prognostics, and Micro-Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS). 

Transformational Systems 

Several transformational systems were under development prior to announcement 

of The Army Vision in October 1999. The Army has completed an extensive analysis 

to identify those systems that complement FCS and the Objective Force system of 

systems. 

The Comanche Helicopter is the centerpiece of the Aviation Modernization Plan 

(AMP) and represents the first new system to reach Initial Operational Capability 

(IOC) within The Army’s Objective Force. Comanche is our armed reconnaissance 

platform with attack capabilities. It will leverage the situational awareness and situational curiosity of a scout augmented with revolutionary, state-of-the-art Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) technologies. Comanche supports 

vertical and horizontal maneuver as an integral part of network centric operations 

and extends human eyes and decision-making beyond the ground maneuver force. 

Utilizing stealth technologies, it will network with all joint C4ISR and joint weapons 

systems. Comanche will leverage maximum effect of future standoff precision weapon systems such as the Common Missile and allow us to maneuver ground formations based upon full knowledge of the situation. Augmented with armed or unarmed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Comanche will fill ground maneuver’s 

most critical battlefield deficiency—armed aerial reconnaissance—with a capable, 

survivable, and sustainable aircraft. The Comanche program is already well on its 

way to giving The Army a capability pivotal to transforming the way we will fight. 

Several other transformational systems will empower the Objective Force with the 

knowledge dominance and battle command to provide decision superiority across the 

spectrum of operations. The Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T) System, Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), and The Army Airborne Command and Control System (A2C2S) will en-
25

able Objective Force joint C4ISR capabilities. These programs will provide the tactical enterprise level networks that will ensure seamless, secure, digital connectivity 

between the Objective, Interim, and today’s forces. The Distributed Common Ground 

System-Army (DCGS–A) architecture provides Army network-centric ISR 

connectivity from national agencies to joint systems to Objective Force Units of Action as part of the integrated Department of Defense DCGS architecture. DCGS–

A will enable interoperable tasking, processing, and exploitation capabilities. The 

Aerial Common Sensor brings improved signal intelligence collection and precision 

geolocation capabilities, as well as imagery intelligence (IMINT) and measurement 

and signals (MASINT) sensor packages. Another system, Prophet, uses communications intelligence to depict the battlespace and further enhance situational awareness. These C4ISR systems greatly enhance the Objective Force’s ability to gain actionable information superiority and decision dominance over all adversaries and expand the range of options for the joint force Combatant Commanders. 

Transformational systems will provide the Objective Force with strategic and tactical maneuver capabilities. The Theater Support Vessel will support rapid intratheater lift requirements, provide the capability to conduct operational maneuver 

and repositioning, and enable units to conduct enroute mission planning and rehearsal. The Future Tactical Truck System will have commonality with FCS and 

will support the Objective Force by enabling command, control, and transportation 

of cargo, equipment, and personnel. And the Tactical Electric Power (TEP) generators will provide power to Objective Force units where fixed power grids are not 

available. 

Transformational systems provide the Objective Force with other important capabilities, as well. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) 

effects systems support the Objective Force across the spectrum of military operations and improve capabilities to conduct Homeland Security activities. Engineer, 

civil affairs, and psychological operations vehicles will enable mobility and enhance 

civil affairs and PSYOPs capabilities. The Up-Armored High Mobility Multi-purpose 

Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) will improve Objective Force Soldier survivability and 

lethality. The Multi-Mission Radar will provide the capability to detect and track 

aircraft, artillery, and other projectiles, then queue appropriate weapons systems 

and airspace synchronization systems. The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System 

(HIMARS) is a lighter weight, more deployable multiple rocket launcher capability 

that will integrate into the joint fires network. 

Bridging the Capabilities Gap—Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 

Announcing our intent to field an Interim Force in October 1999, The Army responded to a capabilities gap between its lethal, survivable, but slow-to-deploy 

heavy forces and its rapidly deployable light forces that lack the protection, 

lethality, and tactical mobility that we seek. Just two-and-a-half years later in 2002, 

The Army began fielding the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team to bridge that gap. 

In 2003—less than four years after the announcement—we are on track to achieve 

IOC with the first SBCT at Fort Lewis, Washington. Stryker Brigades will provide 

the Combatant Commander vastly increased operational and tactical flexibility to 

execute fast-paced, distributed, non-contiguous operations. 

Stryker Brigade Combat Teams respond to Combatant Commander requirements 

across the spectrum of military operations. Optimized for combat in complex and 

urban terrain, the Stryker Brigades will be decisive in other major combat operations, as well. The SBCT Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition 

(RSTA) Squadron provides both organic human intelligence capabilities and UAVs 

embedded at the brigade level. Its military intelligence and signal companies—working through a digitally enabled battle command bridge—leverage theater and national assets to create an information-enabled force. SBCTs will use this enhanced 

joint C4ISR capability to revolutionize combat paradigms from ‘‘make contact, develop the situation, maneuver the forces’’ to ‘‘understand the situation, maneuver 

the forces, make contact at the time and place of your own choosing, and finish decisively.’’

Moreover, leveraging platform commonality, enhancing logistics practices and 

enablers, and reorganizing logistics formations, the SBCT is vastly more deployable 

and sustainable than our heavy forces, while significantly increasing combat power 

generating capabilities. Augmented for sustained operations, the SBCT requires 37 

percent fewer CSS personnel than a digitized heavy brigade. While capitalizing on 

these advantages, developing and available technologies allow us to mass effects—

rather than massing formations—and create a robust, reliable capability to conduct 

operational maneuver over strategic distances. 

Finally, SBCTs provide an invaluable means of spearheading Transformation. The 

SBCT trains junior officers and noncommissioned officers—tomorrow’s commanders 
26

and command sergeants major—in the tactics, techniques, and procedures that will 

inform employment of the Objective Force. 

The Army has resourced six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams to contribute to fulfilling the 1–4–2–1 defense construct and national security requirements; however, 

at this time, the Secretary of Defense has only authorized the procurement of the 

first four brigades. The Army will provide the Secretary of Defense with a plan for 

Stryker Brigades 5 and 6. 

Fielding of the SBCTs affects the entire Army: Active and Reserve Components; 

heavy and light forces; CONUS and OCONUS. And current fielding timelines will 

enhance the Nation’s ability to fight and win the GWOT and conduct major combat 

operations. The transformation of four Active Component brigades to SBCTs provides a rotational base with three of the SBCTs focused on the Pacific theater. One 

of the two SBCTs fielded at Fort Lewis will be forward-based in Europe not later 

than 2007. The Stryker Cavalry Regiment will support the XVIII Airborne Corps’ 

critical need for robust, armed reconnaissance. The conversion of a Reserve Component brigade to an SBCT will enhance our strategic reserve and support the GWOT, 

Smaller Scale Contingencies, and Homeland Defense missions. Additionally, SBCT 

stationing provides rapid, strategic responsiveness through power projection platforms capable of supporting four critical regions described in the 1–4–2–1 defense 

construct. The first SBCT will attain Initial Operational Capability in the summer 

of 2003. 

Preserving The Army’s Legacy 

Today’s force guarantees The Army’s near-term warfighting readiness to fight and 

win our Nation’s wars, decisively. Because The Army bypassed a procurement generation, The Army’s Combat Support and Combat Service Support systems now exceed their 20-year expected life cycle, and 75 percent of our critical combat systems 

exceed their expected half-life cycle. To maintain operational readiness while preserving resources for Transformation, The Army is recapitalizing and selectively 

modernizing a portion of the current force. The modernization program addresses 

the critical issue of AC and RC interoperability and serves as a bridge to mesh these 

two components seamlessly. In general, The Army increased funding for programs 

that are clearly transformational and support the Defense transformation goals, sustained funding for high priority systems that will transition to the Objective Force, 

and reduced funding for systems not essential to Army Transformation. The Army 

remains committed to its 17-system recapitalization program, but we have reduced 

the prioritized recapitalization program from three-and-one-third divisions to two divisions. 

Army Special Operations Forces are an indispensable part of The Army and will 

continue to provide unique capabilities to the Joint Force and Land Component 

Commanders. In response to the increasing requirement for Special Operations 

Forces in support of joint campaign plans, The Army has validated and resourced 

growth in its SOF structure. The recent initiatives will transfer 1,788 manpower 

spaces to Major Force Program-11 beginning in fiscal year 2003. Since the commencement of Army Special Operations Forces operations in support of the GWOT, 

the U.S. Army has provided over $1.4 billion in new equipment to enhance Special 

Operations Forces firepower, communications, and ground and air mobility. 

The Army will remain the largest user of space-based capabilities among the 

Services. Army space assets are providing tangible support to the war on terrorism 

and Operation Enduring Freedom—they ensure Army and Joint Force Commanders 

optimize communications, satellite intelligence, global positioning system, imagery, 

weather, missile warning, and other space-based capabilities in every aspect of planning and operations. We are working diligently with the joint and interagency space 

community to ensure that Army and joint space systems continue to provide their 

essential capabilities now and for the Objective Force. 

Aviation Transformation and Restructuring 

Aviation Transformation further demonstrates The Army’s hard choices in balancing risk to resource Transformation. Our interim plan—now in progress—lowers 

operating and sustainment costs while posturing aviation for arrival of the Objective 

Force by 2010. Apache modernization is an integral part of the Army Aviation 

Transformation Plan. The AH–64D Longbow heavy attack team will enhance domination of the maneuver battlespace and provide the ground commander with a 

versatile, long-range weapon system against a range of fixed and moving targets. 

The UH–60 Blackhawk continues to be the assault workhorse of Army Aviation, 

executing over 40 percent of The Army’s annual flying hours. We are extending the 

life of the UH–60 while providing it with capabilities required of the future 

battlespace. Similarly, The Army is fully committed to the CH–47F Chinook pro-
27

gram. Its heavy-lift capability is invaluable to transforming The Army. As we restructure and standardize attack and lift formations across the force, we will also 

adjust the stationing and alignment of Reserve Component aviation units to mitigate the near-term risk. 

Army National Guard Aviation comprises almost 50 percent of The Army’s aviation force and is one of the Nation’s most valuable assets both for wartime and for 

peacetime missions. Essential for successful execution of the Nation’s military strategy, the ARNG currently has aviation units deployed in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, Europe, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Central and South America. 

Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative (ARNGRI) 

ARNGRI seeks to transform a sizeable portion of ARNG combat structure into 

more deployable, flexible fighting forces to support Army requirements at home and 

abroad. ARNGRI will introduce two new organizations into the force structure: Mobile Light Brigades and Multi-Functional Divisions. These organizations will provide 

full spectrum capabilities in support of Combatant Commanders. The Mobile Light 

Brigades will operate as a subordinate unit to the Multi-Functional Divisions, which 

will also contain two combat support/combat service support brigades and be capable of supporting either major combat or homeland security operations. 

Army Reserve Transformation Initiatives 

By providing responsive force generating capability and technically trained individuals, the USAR facilitates our capability to conduct extended campaigns in multiple theaters and to sustain joint operations. Army Reserve initiatives ensure the 

USAR is missioned, organized, and equipped to provide interoperability across the 

full spectrum of military operations. Transformational organizations include experimentation forces and information operations, joint augmentation, network security, 

and interagency units. 

The Readiness Command Restructuring initiative and Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative will help the USAR fulfill these new mission requirements. These 

initiatives lend greater flexibility to efforts that enhance responsiveness to America’s foreign and domestic protection needs. Regional Readiness Commands will 

focus on individual and unit readiness, leader development, training and growth 

which will demand a new personnel system that achieves holistic life-cycle management for Army Reserve Soldiers. 

INSTITUTIONAL ARMY

Transforming the Way we do Business 

We have made great strides in revolutionizing our business management practices 

by starting at the very top. Last year, we realigned our headquarters by reorganizing and realigning responsibilities of the Secretariat and the Army Staff—

streamlining coordination, tasking, and decision-making—resulting in a more responsive and efficient organization. This initiative allowed us to eliminate unnecessary functions and redistribute 585 manpower spaces to accomplish core competencies. 

As previously discussed, The Army has addressed the management of its installations, personnel systems, and contracting in its Transformation of Installation Management (TIM). We are aggressively pursuing efforts to outsource non-core functions. The Army will reap substantial dividends in efficiency and effectiveness 

through these strategic realignments of human and physical capital. 

Personnel Transformation 

The Secretary of the Army’s key management initiative is personnel transformation. Its goal is to modernize and integrate human resource programs, policies, 

processes, and systems into a multi-component force that includes civilians and contractors. We will evaluate our processes and implement the most efficient program, 

policies, and organizations to support the Objective Force. 

The centerpiece of Personnel Transformation is a comprehensive effort focused on 

a potential Army-wide implementation of unit manning and unit rotation. We are 

aggressively examining the feasibility of a unit manning and rotation system that 

would better support the new national defense strategy, improve cohesion and combat readiness within the operational Army, provide highly cohesive well-trained 

units to Combatant Commanders, and improve well-being for families by providing 

greater stability and predictability in assignments. The Army currently uses unit rotations in support of operational missions in the Balkans, Sinai, and Afghanistan. 

The Army is studying the use of unit rotations for other locations and in the war 

on terrorism. Units would know of these rotations well in advance, providing fami-
28

lies with greater predictability and enabling focused preparation, both of which contribute to increased combat readiness of the unit. 

Unit manning seeks to synchronize the life cycle of a unit with the life cycle of 

the Soldier within that unit. All Soldiers and leaders would be stabilized, resulting 

in a significant increase in cohesion and combat readiness over our present individual replacement system. Such a system has significant second and third order 

effects across the force—training and leader development, recruiting and retention, 

unit readiness levels, and total Army endstrength, among others. All of these are 

being studied intensively, and we anticipate senior Army leadership decisions on 

unit manning and unit rotation in July 2003. 

Third Wave 

Because we operate in an environment in which there are increasing demands for 

military capabilities—the Secretary of the Army’s Third Wave initiative seeks to ensure that we are achieving the best value possible for our taxpayers’ dollars. 

There are three phases to the Third Wave process. First, we determined what activities were core or non-core to The Army’s mission. In the second phase, we are 

validating the breakout between core and non-core functions by determining if any 

non-core functions should be exempted. This phase has an anticipated completion 

date of mid- to late February 2003. Upon completion, The Army leadership will notify Congress of the results of this phase. In the third phase, key Army leaders will 

assess appropriate plans to execute non-core functions, select the best means to proceed, and develop implementation plans. At this time, we do not know how many 

of the 214,000 jobs identified as potentially non-core functions in Phase I will be 

included in implementation plans. Although implementation plans will target execution in fiscal years 2005–2009, some implementation plans may be delayed beyond 

that period. 

The implementation of competitive sourcing of non-core functions will adhere to 

OMB Circular A–76 and related statutory provisions. Exceptions to the requirement 

for public-private competition are limited, such as where 10 or fewer civilian employees perform the function or where legal restrictions against using the A–76 

process apply to the function. To lower costs for taxpayers and improve program 

performance to citizens, OMB has undertaken major revisions to the processes and 

practices in OMB Circular A–76 to improve the public-private competition process. 

Acquisition Transformation 

The Army is leading the way in acquisition reform within DOD’s broad transformation of defense acquisition policies and procedures. The Army’s FCS program 

may prove to be the largest DOD acquisition effort that fully embraces the concepts 

of evolutionary acquisition and spiral development—leveraging the potential of 

rapid advancement within individual technologies by allowing for changes within 

programs as technologies mature. 

The FCS program is evolutionary in its design and incorporates periodic blocked 

improvements within its 19 systems—the Objective Force Soldier and 18 manned 

and unmanned systems. Within these 19 systems are 540 spirally developing technologies. The Army’s use of a Lead System Integrator (LSI) enables a ‘‘best of the 

best’’ approach to selection from competing industry efforts. Our unprecedented 

partnership with DARPA ensures the FCS effort leverages that agency’s DOD-wide 

perspective and resources to produce the best capability and value for the Joint 

Force. 

The Army continues to revise its acquisition policies and applicable regulatory 

guidance. On October 3, 2001, The Army approved an acquisition reorganization 

that transferred control of all acquisition program management to the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) and eliminated duplication of effort in two major Army commands. Effective October 2002, twelve Program Executive Officers (PEO) report to 

the Army Acquisition Executive, and their subordinate PEOs assumed management 

of all Army acquisition programs, regardless of Acquisition Category. The plan ensures that there is only one chain of authority for acquisition programs within The 

Army. In addition, the plan clearly holds Program Managers responsible and accountable for the life cycle management of their assigned programs. 

We have also transformed the way we conduct business through the organization 

of the Army Contracting Agency (ACA) that realigns our previously decentralized 

installation and information technology contracting processes into one organization. 

Responsible for all contracts over $500,000 and tasked to eliminate redundant contracts, ACA leverages Army-wide requirements to achieve economies of scale. ACA 

supports Army Transformation efforts by aligning all base support contracting into 

a single organization that best supports installation management transformation. 

All of these initiatives use information technology to leverage enterprise-wide buy-
29

ing capabilities. Additionally, ACA will act as the single coordinating element and 

form the base from which to deploy contingency-contracting, operational support to 

the warfighting commands. The Army Contracting Agency and other contracting activities will continue to support small business awards in the outstanding manner 

it did in fiscal year 2002. 

Logistics Transformation 

We cannot transform The Army without a transformation in logistics. We must 

incorporate the logistician’s view into the design of our systems even before we 

begin to build platforms. Collaboration between the acquisition and logistics communities will give the Objective Force the rapid deployability and sustainability we demand—by design—without compromising warfighting capability. 

Designing the right logistics architecture—systems, business processes, enterprise, for example—is fundamental to success. The Army’s Logistics Transformation 

will focus on creating an overarching corporate logistics enterprise that employs industries’ best business practices. Within this enterprise, The Army established three 

principal goals for Logistics Transformation: enhance strategic mobility and 

deployability; optimize the logistics footprint; and reduce the cost of logistics support 

without reducing readiness or warfighting capability. 

The Army’s mobility and deployability goals for the Objective Force are to deploy 

a combat brigade within 96 hours after lift off, a division on the ground in 120 

hours, and a five-division corps in theater in 30 days. To achieve this strategic responsiveness, the Army Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP) serves as a catalyst to 

bring about force projection changes both in The Army’s and in our Sister Services’ 

lift programs. Platforms like the Intra-Theater Support Vessel (TSV) and Inter-Theater Shallow Draft High Speed Sealift (SDHSS) provide transformational capabilities for operational and strategic maneuver and sustainment of Army formations. 

Because strategic air and sealift cannot meet deployment requirements, Army 

Prepositioned Stocks (APS) ashore and afloat continue to be a critical component of 

Army power projection. The Army is currently participating in a joint-led Worldwide 

Prepositioning Study to determine if location, mix, and capabilities in existing 

stocks of combat, combat support, and combat service support require adjustments 

to meet the Defense Strategy more effectively. 

The Objective Force requires The Army to optimize its logistics footprint to 

produce a smaller, more agile, responsive, and flexible sustainment organization. To 

achieve this goal, we will leverage technology and innovative sustainment concepts. 

The Army is already developing and integrating key enablers to provide a transformed, corporate logistics enterprise. Some of these enablers include embedded 

diagnostics and prognostics, tactical logistics data digitization (TLDD), serial number tracking, and the Global Combat Service Support—Army (GCSS–A) system that 

utilizes a commercial Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) solution. The ERP approach changes The Army’s logistics automation systems strategy from one of custom code development for unique Army requirements to adoption of a commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) product. 

The selective use of the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) to augment military logistics force structure provides commanders with the flexibility to 

reallocate manpower, resources, and materiel by adding contractors to the equation 

of logistics support. In addition to providing services and some supply support, these 

contractors can quickly deploy to establish base camps, receive and process Soldiers 

as they begin arriving in theater, and reverse the process when Soldiers go home. 

Current initiatives that help reduce costs without reducing readiness or 

warfighting capability include the National Maintenance Program and the Single 

Stock Fund (SSF). As previously discussed, programs provide two basic building 

blocks for a revolutionary change in logistics business practices. 

Advanced Medical Technology 

Congress designated The Army as the lead agent for DOD vaccine, drug, and development programs for medical countermeasures to battlefield threats. This includes vaccines against naturally occurring infectious diseases of military significance, combat casualty care, military operational medicine, and telemedicine research. The program also funds Food and Drug Administration requirements for 

technology transition to advanced development. 

The medical force provides the requisite medical intervention and care for the 

Joint Force deployed around the globe. With its Medical Reengineering Initiative 

(MRI), The Army Medical Department has transformed 28 percent of its Corps, and 

echelon above Corps, force structure to an organizational structure that promotes 

scalability through easily tailored, capabilities-based packages. These packages result in improved tactical mobility, reduced footprint, and increased modularity for 
30

flexible task organization. MRI supports both the current forces and the Stryker 

Brigades, and is the bridge to the Objective Medical Force. We have implemented 

innovative strategies make the most efficient use of our budget. Medical modernization, which includes the acquisition of current medical equipment and technology, 

is partially funded within MRI units. 

Business Initiatives Council 

In June 2001, the Secretary of Defense established the Department of Defense 

Business Initiatives Council (DOD BIC). The DOD BIC’s goal is to improve business 

operations and processes by identifying and implementing initiatives that expand 

capabilities, improve efficiency and effectiveness, and create resource savings in 

time, money, or manpower. 

The Army has aggressively explored ways to improve its internal business practices, and has established The Army BIC, under the leadership of the Secretary and 

the G–8. Effective November 13, 2002, the Secretary of the Army has approved a 

total of 35 initiatives under The Army BIC. Subsequently, The Army submitted a 

number of the initiatives through the formal DOD BIC process for implementation 

across the Services and other DOD activities. The BIC process has helped to create 

a culture of innovation and inter-service cooperation. The superb level of cooperation 

across the military departments, the Joint Staff and OSD has made this possible. 

A COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

With the continued strong support of the Administration, the Congress, our Soldiers, and our Department of the Army civilians, and the greatest industrial base 

and science and technology communities in the world, The Army will field the Objective Force—this decade. 

By 2010, we will have fielded the first operationally capable Objective Force unit 

equipped with the Future Combat Systems. Our Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 

will be providing to Combatant Commanders capabilities not currently available—

enhanced strategic responsiveness and the ability to operate in a distributed, nonlinear battlespace. Through selective recapitalization and modernization of systems 

that enable our Soldiers to preserve our legacy today, we will have sustained a decisive-win capability at a high state of readiness as an integral part of the Joint 

Force. And we will have significantly improved the well-being of our people and 

sustainment of Army infrastructure. 

We remain committed to our legacy—preserving America’s freedoms. In peace and 

in war, The Army’s Soldiers serve the Nation with unmatched courage, indomitable 

will, pride, and plain grit—as they have for over 227 years. Soldiers will continue 

to fight and win the Nation’s wars, decisively—it is our sacred duty and our nonnegotiable contract with the American people. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The United States Army Posture Statement, 2003, can be found 

on the world wide web at: www.army.mil.]

Senator STEVENS. General, do you have any statements to make? 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI

General SHINSEKI. Just a short opening statement if you do not 

mind, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the 

committee, it is an honor to be back here before the committee and, 

along with Secretary White, to report to you on the posture and the 

readiness of the Army and in many ways what we will report on 

this morning is what we have been about for the last 31⁄2 years. 

It is your support, and the generosity of your time and attention 

and the generosity of your support that has put us in the situation 

we are in today. 

It is also a great privilege for me to sit here with Secretary Tom 

White. In a very short period of time Secretary White has provided 

us tremendous focus, leadership, and guidance and gotten momentum in achieving what we described 31⁄2 years ago as the Army Vision, and he and I have served side-by-side in other lives, so it is 

great to be sitting here together in final testimony with him. 
31

As the Secretary has indicated and as the chairman has noted, 

soldiers are serving magnificently today as members of the joint 

team and, you know, just the Army alone, as remarked by the 

chairman, 262,000 of our soldiers are forward-stationed, forwarddeployed in operations today, 151,000 of our Reserve Component 

mobilized in support of operations. They are fighting this war 

against terrorism. They are honing and fine-tuning their combat 

skills as they await orders for potentially another major operation, 

and they are poised to respond to still other contingencies in regions of the world that our country has declared important. 

The Army is ready. That is the purpose of the Secretary’s and 

my appearance here today. We are the best Army in the world because of our soldiers, not the biggest, but the best. Their determination and their commitment are as firm as I have seen in all 

my years of service. They are immensely proud to serve this Nation. They will take any objective, and they will accomplish any 

mission we assign them. 

We would like to project the same kind of confidence in their 

competence, and the same statement of readiness not just today, 

but into the future, and to do so, we declared 31⁄2 years ago that 

we would field a more responsive, a more deployable, a more agile 

and versatile, certainly more lethal force than we have today in 

survivable formation, but a lot more sustainable than even the 

Army that we have today. 

We knew then that there was a war in our future, and we said 

so. We just did not know when, where, or against whom. Though 

we did not anticipate exactly this scenario, where we are fighting 

a global war on terrorism in Afghanistan, standing by for another 

major operation, and looking with a little bit of concern at Northeast Asia, the relative predictability of the Cold War had already, 

even 31⁄2 years ago, given way to a continuing chaos of unpredictability, and voices inside and outside the Army and voices in this 

committee encouraged us to be bold, to take some steps and begin 

the process of change, and with your support we have come a long 

way towards transforming our formations to be more capable of 

handling future crises. 

As the Secretary has indicated, there is always inherent risk any 

time any institution undertakes not just change, but fundamental 

and comprehensive change, as the Army declared it would 31⁄2

years ago. To mitigate that risk, the Army structured its transformation on three broad, mutually supporting axes, and I will describe then as near-term, mid-term, and long-term responsibilities. 

In the near term, we preserved the readiness of today’s legacy 

fighting force. In the mid-term, we are fielding six Stryker Brigade 

Combat Teams (SBCT) to give us much-needed operational capabilities, even as we design our future Objective Force, and it is on 

that third and final long-term axes that we are developing future 

concepts and technologies that will provide consistent capability 

overmatched throughout the middle of the next century, and that 

is the intent of the Army. 

Our Future Combat System Milestone B Defense Acquisition 

Board decision, the first acquisition milestone for the Future Combat System that is scheduled for May of 2003, just a few months 

from now, puts us on a path to begin fielding our future Objective 
32

Force by fiscal year 2008. That is a significant and an important 

milestone. 

As Secretary White notes, balancing these requirements between 

all three priorities, near-term, mid-term, and long-term requires 

some difficult choices, and the Army has had to make them, carefully weighing the operational demands of today’s missions while 

preparing for the future. Your support remains vital to our continued success in managing that risk, and the Army’s fiscal year 2004 

budget strikes that essential balance to maintain readiness 

throughout the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and the 

years beyond. 

We are already seeing dividends from our investments in future 

readiness, technologies that are coming online early because we invested aggressively early. Superior body armor today, robots in 

caves and antitank warheads on unmanned aerial vehicles today, 

unprecedented Blue Force tracking capabilities today, and last 

summer, during the largest joint exercise in our history, Millennium Challenge 2002, with the help of the Air Force we air-delivered a Stryker platoon onto a dirt strip out in the National Training Center in California. Just 3 years after the Army described 

that requirement for an interim force, we demonstrated the increased strategic, operational, and tactical versatility that Stryker 

Brigade Combat Teams will provide to combatant commanders. 

This summer, the first SBCT, the first Stryker unit will join us 

in the war on terrorism, so it is not just about capabilities that we 

intend to begin fielding in fiscal year 2008. It is about better capabilities that we are fielding even today for our soldiers. 

People remain the centerpiece of our formations. The Secretary 

has said it in his proud statement about our soldiers, and I echo 

it here. They are the centerpiece of our formations, and their wellbeing is inextricably linked to Army readiness. Your help with pay 

raises, health care, retirement benefits, housing, and other wellbeing programs allow us to take better care of our people. Soldiers, 

our civilians, our retirees, and our veterans and their families all 

appreciate the support more than I can say, that they have received out of the Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, for almost 4 years now I have had the privilege 

of working with members of this committee. You have supported 

the Army and helped us do what was best for the national security. 

I am grateful for your steady and bipartisan leadership, and most 

importantly for your unwavering devotion to our soldiers. You have 

kept us the most respected land force in the world today, and that 

will continue into the future. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to make those remarks, and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, General. I am going to 

defer my questions until later to allow other Members to ask questions, but I do have one statement to start off with. 

FIFTH AND SIXTH STRYKER BRIGADES

I joined, or rather my good friend and cochairman here joined me 

in sending a letter to Secretary Wolfowitz about the way the Department plans to handle the fifth and sixth Stryker Brigades. The 

fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act directed the Army and 
33

the Department of Defense to fund six Stryker Brigades, and we 

felt that was the direction. The President signed that bill, and now 

I understand that there is some indication that the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense would terminate, or change the deployment of 

the fifth and sixth Stryker Brigades. Can you tell us, Mr. Secretary, what is the situation with regard to those two brigades? 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has directed us to conduct a study of brigades five and six that is aimed at determining 

whether the structure as it is currently proposed for those brigades 

is optimal, whether there are other things that we could add, other 

capabilities that would be appropriate to add like, say, aviation. 

In addition to that, he has asked us to study the stationing of 

brigades five and six, which as you pointed out are currently in Hawaii, and then the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. We will 

complete the study in the near future. In the meantime, the money 

for brigades five and six has stayed in the program. It is where we 

programmed it, and it is where the Secretary has agreed to leave 

it, and we will get the study done as quickly as we can. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I hope our letter is responded to sometime soon, and it is my judgment that if the Army wants more 

Stryker Brigades, they should request more funds. We funded 

those on the basis that they would be deployed to Hawaii and the 

Pennsylvania National Guard, and unless that law is changed, we 

expect that direction to be complied with. 

Senator Inouye. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad 

you brought up the question of the Stryker Brigade. 

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

I would like to ask a general question on the budget. If my cal- culation is correct, the Army is spending approximately $700 million per month to fight the global war on terrorism, is that correct? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir, it is. 

Senator INOUYE. Now, where does this money come from, because there is no item for fighting global terrorism. 

Mr. WHITE. Right now, Senator, we are cash-flowing, as we call 

it, principally in the military personnel accounts for the additional 

mobilization and in the operations and maintenance account’s third 

and fourth quarter money to pay these additional costs above the 

budget in the early part of the fiscal year. 

Senator INOUYE. So we are using monies that were intended for 

some other purpose? 

Mr. WHITE. That is correct. 

Senator INOUYE. In addition, there is not anything in the budget 

that I can see that faces reality, which all of us have assumed that 

sometime in this fiscal year we would be in Iraq. How are we going 

to cope with that? 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION

Mr. WHITE. Senator, I believe it is the intent of the Department 

or the President to request a supplemental to cover the funds for 

the war on terrorism. 

Senator INOUYE. The next question is, when will the supplemental reach us? 
34

Mr. WHITE. Sir, to use an expression by the Secretary of Defense, 

it is above my pay grade. We have had our discussions with the 

Office of Secretary of Defense. I know they have had deliberations 

with the Office of Management and Budget, but as we discussed 

yesterday, the supplemental has not yet been submitted. 

Senator INOUYE. I can assure you, sir, that we are looking forward to receiving that, because in a situation of this nature, it 

would be an understatement to say that to keep the troops ready 

is an urgency. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. And with the funds as they come in, in driblets, 

it will not help the situation. 

Senator STEVENS. Would the Senator yield? 

Senator INOUYE. Yes. I would be very happy to. 

Senator STEVENS. I might state to the Senator and the committee 

that I had a discussion last night with Mitch Daniels, an informal 

conversation, and I am informed we should get that supplemental 

early next week, and it will contain not only monies for defense, 

but homeland defense, and some moneys to start planning for the 

post-conflict era in Iraq. 

Senator INOUYE. Well, I thank you very much. His pay level is 

higher than mine. 

Senator STEVENS. Not so. 

END STRENGTH

Senator INOUYE. General Shinseki, you have been quoted many 

times saying that the Army does not have the required end 

strength to meet current and future military obligations. Can you 

elaborate on this? 

General SHINSEKI. Yes, sir. I have testified, Senator, for 31⁄2

years now that the mission profile that the Army was carrying 

even 3 years ago was larger than the inventory of formations we 

had, and I suggested that end strength was a concern. 31⁄2 years 

ago we were not recruiting as well as we wanted, and so we had 

to go fix that first. The last 3 years we have made our recruiting 

targets. Our retention has always been very good. 

The missions in the last 3 years have gone up. End strength continues to be a concern, and it is revealed, I think, in the amount 

of routine mobilization of the Reserve Component that we see day 

to day. Many of those missions used to be carried by Active Component formations, so these are some of the manifestations of what 

my concerns were. 

Secretary White has asked us—even as we made our concerns 

public—has asked that the Army take a look at itself, and this is 

what is sort of caught up in the Third Wave discussions, to make 

sure that even as we talked about end strength, that the Army had 

done the right things about ensuring that soldiers were in soldiers’ 

positions, and so we are doing that, and the results of that study 

are forthcoming. 

I will review them and provide my advice to the Secretary, but 

I think all things considered, when this operation, this crisis is 

over, we need to take a good hard look at right-sizing the Army, 

right-mixing the Army between Active and Reserve Component, 

and even as some of the combatant commanders are already begin-
35

ning to describe, right-stationing the Army, and I think all of this 

is important to take up now. 

RECRUITING

Senator INOUYE. That leads me to the next question. How are we 

doing in recruiting? 

General SHINSEKI. Our recruiting for the last 3 years has just 

continued to get better. In the Active Component, last year I could 

have told you very early in the recruiting year that we would make 

our recruiting targets. We were doing that well. 

I can do the same thing again this year in active recruiting, but 

for the first time here this month, in the Reserve Component recruiting, both the National Guard and the Army Reserve missed 

their monthly targets. That happens from time to time. We look at 

a year-long objective that we go after, but our attention was caught 

by the fact here last month that both Reserve Components missed 

by a margin their monthly targets. 

Some of that is driven by the fact that our Active Component soldiers who normally leave the Active Component and are available 

to transition into Reserve Component formations, right now, because of the standby for potential operations in Southwest Asia, we 

have stop-loss personnel decisions in place, so the flow of Active 

Component soldiers out of active units available for Reserve Component units, that has very much diminished, and that is part of 

what is at work here, but recruiting for the last 3 years, Senator, 

has been very, very strong, retention even better. 

SOLDIER DEPLOYMENT

Senator INOUYE. To give the citizens who may read the transcript a better idea of personnel problems, how many troops, men 

and women, Reserve and Active, are now overseas in places like 

Bosnia, Afghanistan, Korea, et cetera, and Kuwait? 

General SHINSEKI. Well, overseas, both forward stationed and 

forward-deployed, the number is 262,000 today. That number 

changes day to day as we begin to look at potential operations in 

Southwest Asia. 

Senator INOUYE. That leaves how many here? 

General SHINSEKI. Well, that 262,000 is a combination of Active 

and Reserve Component. The Active Component formations, I can 

give you a more finite number, but the Active Component formations are not totally deployed, but much of the Active Component 

is on standby, prepared for deployment, so if those orders are executed, a good portion of the active force will be overseas. 

Senator INOUYE. I have always maintained what some would 

consider a rather naive concept, that the best way to avoid war 

would be to be prepared for war. In order to be prepared for war, 

we need proper personnel and proper equipment. It is no secret 

that the Navy has 12 carrier battle groups. One carrier is always 

for training purposes. One carrier is always in transit. That leaves 

10. Six are now in the gulf area, in the Mediterranean, the Red 

Sea, or the Persian Gulf itself, and one more is in transit. That is 

nine, and I believe one more carrier group is going to go to that 

area. That leaves two for the rest of the world. 
36

I recall it was not too long ago when we were sitting here and 

we were told that we were ready for two-and-a-half wars. Is that 

concept still being discussed? 

General SHINSEKI. Senator, I think the two-and-a-half major 

combat operation discussion, it has now been translated into a 

strategy that talks about homeland defense, four critical areas of 

the world that we have to continue to focus on, two potential major 

combat operations, one of which can be a major operation that requires decisive force. That is the sizing construct around which we 

organize our discussions, and like the Navy, we have a good portion 

of our Active Component force focused on this major operation. 

Senator INOUYE. I will wait for my second round, but before I do, 

I would like to thank you, sir, for the service you have rendered 

to this country throughout your youth and at the present time. It 

has been a magnificent service record, and personally I hate to see 

you go, but such is the nature of this business. 

General SHINSEKI. Sir, it is. 

Senator INOUYE. And I am always grateful to you and to the Secretary for having prepared our men and women so that they can 

carry out the missions they are ordered to carry out. 

General SHINSEKI. Thank you very much, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

General Shinseki, your statement a few minutes ago was rather 

profound and reassuring. You said, the Army is ready, and I believe you. I believe the Army is ready. 

SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND

Having said that, I want to focus just for a minute on the Space 

and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) and the missions there of 

space, missile defense, computer network operations for the Army, 

additionally SMDC is the Army component to STRATCOM with 

emerging missions including space, global strike, global C4ISR, 

global integrated missile defense, global information operations. 

You mentioned the important work the Army is doing to develop 

directed energy programs in your testimony. Would you discuss the 

success of the tactical high-energy laser program, the challenges 

that remain in developing and fielding a mobile tactical high energy laser (MTHEL) program system and the funding the Army 

plans to commit to MTHEL in fiscal year 2004? Do you want to 

tackle—which one of you? 

Mr. WHITE. Let me start out, and then the Chief can add——

Senator SHELBY. That is a mouthful, I know. 

Mr. WHITE. Oh, I think it is a tremendously successful program. 

Senator SHELBY. It is. 

Mr. WHITE. We have had successful engagements of both rockets——

Senator SHELBY. That is right. 

Mr. WHITE [continuing]. And now artillery shells——

Senator SHELBY. That is right. 

Mr. WHITE [continuing]. Which is extraordinary. This is a joint 

program with Israel, as you know, progressing forward, and we 

have provided over $500 million of funding in our 2004–2009 POM 
37

to support this, so we will continue to push the development of it. 

All of us think it has tremendous potential. 

Senator STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for just a second? 

Senator SHELBY. I will be glad to yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici has to go to the floor. He 

has been called to the floor. Would you mind yielding just a moment to him? 

Senator SHELBY. I will yield to the Senator, absolutely. 

Senator DOMENICI. I gave my questions to the chairman to ask, 

Senator Shelby, so he will do that, he will ask my questions. Before 

I left I wanted to join, Chief, in telling you that it has been a great 

pleasure to get to know you and to know of your record, and obviously to know of your record is to know you. That is the way it 

seems to me, and I congratulate you for what you have done for 

our country. It is a marvelous record. It is too bad that all great 

things come to an end, but that is the way it is. 

I also want to thank you, because of the special help you have 

given me at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It has been rather 

wonderful care for some of the problems I have had. I personally 

want to thank you for asking about those illnesses as I had them, 

and thank you for your assistance. 

General SHINSEKI. You are quite welcome, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. And good luck. 

General SHINSEKI. Thank you, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Shelby, thank you very much. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Both of you, I believe, are aware that I have expressed concern 

about the Army’s support for the Space and Missile Defense Command. I am pleased that the response, Mr. Secretary—from you 

and the General—I have received from the Army, has been so 

strongly supportive. 

Despite SMDC’s current space, missile defense, and computer 

network operations missions, and its emerging missions as the 

Army component of STRATCOM in the area of global strike, global 

integrated missile defense, and global information operations, some 

of us are concerned that the Army has not made sufficient investments in technology development. 

We realize, Mr. Secretary, you tried a lot to support some of 

these missions in recent years. I have heard some say that the 

Army has lost its focus, but I told them I am not sure about that, 

because I am aware of what you are doing, and we do need more 

institutional support and funding for the core technology program. 

How would you respond to this, the budget request in this area? 

Mr. WHITE. Well, I think it reflects the fact that our component 

command, SMDC, is tremendously important not only to the Army, 

but to the country. The work with the Ballistic Missile Defense 

Agency, where we do a whole bunch of different tasks, the midcourse capability that is being established at Fort Greely, Kwajalein, all the rest of it that you are very familiar with, the component of the Strategic Command, we have fundamental interest in 

space operations as an Army. They are tremendously important to 

us. 

So I think that the contribution that SMDC makes across, as you 

pointed out, a significant range of important aspects to us is very, 
38

very important, and so I am an avid supporter of the Space and 

Missile Defense Command. 

General SHINSEKI. May I just add, Senator, that both the Secretary and I take a very keen interest in Space and Missile Defense 

Command’s contributions here, but you know, the Army has a longstanding history in missile work, I mean, one that goes beyond 

most recollections. 

What we have suggested to General Cosumano and the rest of 

the Army that deals in the doctrine and conceptual thinking is that 

if we talk about missile defense as a series of catchers’ mitts trying 

to deal with someone else’s initiative, it is essentially a defensiveoriented strategy, and we needed to think more holistically, more 

broadly about this, as we do with all of our other war-fighting concepts, that you have to have an offensive as well as a defensive 

piece. 

This is important, but we needed to think about all the capabilities that allow us to deal with threats on someone else’s soil that 

can project capabilities against the homeland, and when you do 

that, of course, you get into the mid-course business and the boost 

phase, but you also talk about capabilities to forcibly enter someone else’s territory and, in fact, take down those capabilities, as opposed to continuously react to someone else’s actions, so we have 

included Space and Missile Defense Command into this larger discussion of capabilities. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wait another round. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will join with 

my colleagues, General, in wishing you the very best in your next 

career. You can certainly look with pride on this career. 

AGING HELICOPTER INVENTORY

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an article on the military’s 

aging helicopter inventory, and Mr. Chairman, if I could submit 

that Wall Street Journal article for the record. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Pardon me? 

Senator LEAHY. If I could submit that Wall Street Article for the 

record, please? 

Senator STEVENS. Yes. 

[The information follows:]

[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 2003] 

FRESH TROOPS ...OLD CHOPPERS

U.S. MILITARY LABORS TO KEEP AGING HELICOPTERS AIRWORTHY; HAZARDS OF DESERT

LANDINGS

(By Anne Marie Squeo, J. Lynn Lunsford and Nicholas Kulish) 

ON A RECENT episode of the television show ‘‘The West Wing,’’ the Pentagon’s 

top military commander ordered two Comanche reconnaissance helicopters dispatched to rescue three Marines taken hostage. 

When he heard about the fictional deployment, Maj. Gen. John Caldwell, head of 

the Army’s acquisition programs, burst out laughing. ‘‘Those would be the only two 

we have,’’ he said. 

For more than a decade, ambitious plans to replace the U.S. military’s aging helicopter fleet have been sidelined by funding constraints and developmental problems. 

The imposing-looking Comanche, which is supposed to have the ability to fly side-
39

ways and backward at more than 85 miles an hour, is the fruit of a $48 billion program that began in 1983 but isn’t expected to become part of the U.S. arsenal until 

2009 at the earliest. And the V–22 Osprey, a hybrid aircraft that takes off and lands 

like a helicopter but cruises like an airplane at more than twice the speed of a conventional helicopter, has been grounded for much of the past two years after a 

string of fatal crashes. The V–22 was recently grounded again because of hydraulicsystem problems, and top Pentagon officials say they are prepared to finally end the 

$46 billion program if it doesn’t get on track soon. 

So as they assemble for a potential conflict with Iraq, U.S. forces are relying on 

helicopters that in some cases are older than the troops they will carry. For example, massive twin-rotored CH–47 Chinook helicopters, which can carry dozens of 

servicemen or hoist heavy loads beneath them, remain the workhorse heavy-lifter 

for the Army, even though they were originally delivered before 1975. Most of them 

have been remanufactured by Boeing Co. and are scheduled for further updates that 

could enable them to keep flying for another 35 years, military planners say.

GRAY AROUND THE ROTOR

The helicopters the U.S. military plans to use during a war with Iraq are 

showing their age. A sampling:

Helicopter Primary task Avg. age 

CH–47D Chinook ........................................................................ Carrying troops; hoisting loads ............. 1 15

OH–58D Kiowa Warrior .............................................................. Light scout/reconnaissance ................... 12

Black Hawk ................................................................................ Troop carrier .......................................... 15

Cobra 2 ....................................................................................... Attack, primarily during Vietnam .......... 10

UH–1N Huey ............................................................................... Carrying troops ...................................... 27

AH–64 A/D Apache .................................................................... Attack ..................................................... 9

1 Average age after refurbishment. Nearly all of the 300 CH–47D Chinooks in use by the military were originally delivered before 1975. 2 Now retired by Army; Marines using newer versions.

Source: WSJ reporting 

For the most part, the Vietnam-era Bell Huey helicopters, which flew en masse 

to drop troops into the jungles, have been replaced with larger and more capable 

Black Hawks. But two-thirds of the Black Hawk fleet now exceeds 15 years of age. 

Apache attack helicopters, developed in the 1980s, are the Army’s newest choppers, 

but they haven’t altogether replaced their Vietnam War predecessor, the Cobra. 

The average life span of a military helicopter is 20 years, compared with about 

30 years for a commercial one. But the circumstances these aircraft fly in, including 

brutal weather and difficult terrain such as the deserts of Iraq and the jagged 

mountains of Afghanistan, take a severe toll. 

Because of the lack of funds to buy new helicopters, an ambitious remanufacturing program is under way aimed at improving performance and staving off safety 

problems, military officials say. The aircraft are stripped down, then their metal airframes are treated for corrosion, engines and rotors are rebuilt, and their cockpits 

are loaded with new digital electronics and radar. 

Manufacturers such as United Technologies Corp.’s Sikorsky Aircraft unit, which 

builds and refurbishes about 65 Black Hawks a year, have scrambled since the Gulf 

War in 1991 to upgrade and modify their craft to withstand tough desert conditions. 

All told, the U.S. military is spending billions of dollars to update its older 

copters. But military officials say they are still concerned on the eve of a potential 

conflict about the relative health of the fleet. There remains ‘‘a severe aircraft-aging 

problem in the helicopter fleet, causing serious safety and readiness issues,’’ says 

Loren Thompson, executive director of the Washington-based Lexington Institute, a 

military think tank. 

Maj. Gen. Joseph Bergantz, program executive director for Army Aviation, says: 

‘‘Because of the aging, more things are starting to fail. Our readiness rates are 

lower now and are getting lower over the years.’’

Still, Gen. Bergantz and other military officials insist that only a small percentage 

of helicopter accidents are attributable to equipment failures. A recent Black Hawk 

crash in upstate New York that killed 11 soldiers is being investigated. 

In a war with Iraq, Apaches and Cobras would be expected to take out Iraqi 

ground troops that might attempt to head off U.S. forces moving in from Kuwait. 
40

Black Hawks and Hueys would be the main vehicles to swiftly ferry platoons of soldiers and marines into fighting position. 

The other services often use similar aircraft, outfitted for their special needs. The 

Air Force and Navy, for example, plan to use the V–22, but in a more limited way 

than the Marines—if the V–22 isn’t scrapped. 

For helicopters operating in the desert, one of the most insidious threats is sand. 

Not only do sandstorms kick up without notice, but an improper approach to landing can envelop a chopper in a dust cloud that can instantly disorient a pilot. 

Maintenance crews are working overtime to undo the damage done to copters by 

the desert. After a few hours of operation, many of the most delicate parts of the 

jet engines that power helicopters can become coated with glass, from sand ingested 

into the compressor sections. 

Since the Gulf War, the helicopter manufacturers have developed new intake filters that better strain the air sucked into the engines. They also have developed 

a clear tape that is applied to the leading edges of rotor blades to cut down on the 

sandblasting damage caused by the rotors whirling through dust clouds. 

For now, to minimize the risk that a combination of aging aircraft and tough climactic conditions will result in fatal mishaps, Marine pilots have been drilling at 

their high-desert base near Twentynine Palms, Calif., and near their temporary 

headquarters in the Middle East. One Cobra pilot with the call sign ‘‘Weasel’’ says, 

‘‘there’s a lot more emphasis’’ at present on repeatedly practicing takeoffs and landings to get a feel for conditions and how their choppers respond. 

At their base near Iraq, the 3rd Marine Airwing of the 1st Marine Expeditionary 

Force are reminded daily of the odds. Beneath the flight schedule hung on the wall 

in the mess hall, a posting declares, ‘‘In the Gulf War, 18 aircraft were destroyed. 

Only 3 were a result of direct enemy action.’’ The squadron’s commanding officer 

made it even clearer in a briefing last week for his pilots. ‘‘The enemy ain’t going 

to kill you, probably. It’s going to be these landings,’’ he said. 

The 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing’s safety officer, Maj. Bruce Laughlin, says in the 

1991 Gulf War more than a third of Marine helicopter mishaps—from minor equipment damage to fatalities—were a result of brownout conditions or other weatherrelated visibility problems. He says in Afghanistan—where he flew 75 hours in Cobras made by Textron Inc.’s Bell Helicopter, of Forth Worth, Texas—the numbers 

followed a similar trend.

Senator LEAHY. This talked about how our helicopter fleet is 

aging. There is one thing I would point out. We added funds in the 

budget so that the 101st is slated to equip many of its Black Hawk 

helicopters with the Health and Usage Monitoring System 

(HUMS), the integrated mechanical diagnostic health and usage 

monitoring system. I have to read out the actual words for it, but 

this basically does continuous diagnostics on all of our helicopters. 

If they are so equipped, they come back, you can instantly 

download which helicopters are ready to go, which ones have problems, and so forth. Does the Army plan to move forward with this 

technology, either in the fleet they have now or in subsequent 

fleets? 

General SHINSEKI. I think philosophically the answer to the 

question is, absolutely yes, that having this ability to trouble-shoot 

our equipment without having to do it with purely manual labor 

is the way we intend to go, both with our investments in future 

systems, and where we can to insert those capabilities into our current inventory. 

Some of that inventory is not conducive to applying——

Senator LEAHY. I understand. 

General SHINSEKI [continuing]. The new technologies, but where 

we can, that is very much in our interest. 

Senator LEAHY. I would also think in a wartime situation, where 

you do not have a great deal of time to do diagnostics, when the 

helicopters come back, for the field commander to at least be able 

to say, number 1, 5, and 12 are ready to go, but this one is not, 

and be able to know it instantly, would be awfully helpful to you. 
41

General SHINSEKI. Right. 

Mr. WHITE. Let me add, Senator, if you do not mind——

Senator LEAHY. Yes, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. WHITE. We laid out several years ago an aviation modernization program that will result in a reduction in the overall size of 

the fleet by about 1,000 helicopters, but will wash out of the fleet 

all the Cobras, the Vietnam-era aircraft, the Cobras first, which are 

going now, and Hueys by fiscal year 2004. I think the picture in 

the Wall Street Journal article was of a Marine Corps twin-engined 

Huey. 

Senator LEAHY. It was. 

Mr. WHITE. In the meantime, we are investing in all of our primary helicopters Apache Longbow, Black Hawk, both newer aircraft and conversions and then, of course, conversions of our Chinook fleet. However, even with that modernization, though, we do 

not meet our standard of having the average fleet life of helicopters 

below the half-life of the aircraft, below 10 years. The only fleet we 

make that in is Apache, and we are above that in Black Hawk, and 

we are above that in Chinook, and that is why the funding of the 

modernization lines on all those aircraft are so important, because 

obviously we are flying them right now. 

Senator LEAHY. I agree with that, but keep an eye on the HUMS. 

Mr. WHITE. I will do that. 

Senator LEAHY. I have a parochial interest, but I also have just 

an interest in thinking it is probably going to save us a lot of 

money in the future, and I realize retrofitting is one issue. As you 

modernize fleets, it is another. 

SOLDIER EQUIPMENT

We also have, when the United States (U.S.) Special Forces and 

the 101st and 82nd went to Afghanistan they were given an advanced combat helmet. I have talked to the troops. I have actually 

got E-mails. They said they like the—it is lighter weight, added 

protection and so on. One soldier apparently took a couple of AK–

47 rounds in the head during Operation Anaconda and kept on 

fighting, so it is pretty impressive, impressive for the equipment, 

also pretty impressive for the soldier, too——

General SHINSEKI. Absolutely. 

Senator LEAHY [continuing]. Under a circumstance like that. 

Are these going to be done in other—I mean, are we going to continue to get this helmet out to the troops. 

General SHINSEKI. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEAHY. Do you need more money? Do you need more 

money, General? Here is your chance. Do you need more money in 

this budget for that? 

General SHINSEKI. Senator, 2 years ago we did something we 

should have done probably a long time ago, and you know, in our 

programs we talk about systems, whether they are tank or aviation. We declared a system for soldier equipment, and instead of 

buying individual pieces, we talked about the entire ensemble a 

soldier deploys to combat with, whether it is uniforms, whether it 

is ballistic protection for the chest and the head, and by the way, 

they have ballistic protection for the body as well, and it works as 

well as that helmet you describe. 
42

I ran into a youngster here a few weeks ago who was carrying 

around the plate he was wearing and wanted to show me, this 

thing had hit about an inch off the margin and I asked him what 

he thought. He said, make it a little bit bigger, it will be fine. 

What we have been able to do, because we focused on equipping 

the solder as a system—and assume that our environment is sort 

of out there in the outdoors. If it is hot, we wanted equipment that 

would aerate him or her, if it was wet, keep them dry, if it was 

cold, keep them warm, and whatever we gave them had to give 

them better protection than the uniform they wore. 

As a result, we are fielding to the units going into Afghanistan, 

the 82nd and following that the 101st, but Ranger Regiment as 

well, a new kit that does a lot of the things you describe, and so 

for about $12 million a brigade formation we are doing that, and 

we will continue to do that, and more money will help us to go faster. 

Senator LEAHY. Including the helmet? 

General SHINSEKI. The helmet is part of that. 

LAND MINES

Senator LEAHY. General, let me ask you one question, too. Last 

September, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report—

they did quite an intensive investigation. You and I have discussed 

some of this before, and they did their investigation based on DOD 

data, the effectiveness of land mines in the first gulf war. 

The GAO found no evidence, none, that our mines, either antipersonnel or antitank mines, had any positive military effect. They 

did say, and I have heard this from commanders in the field, they 

impeded the mobility of our own forces. About 2,000 of our self-destruct mines did not self-destruct as advertised, and the Department, which commented on this report, did not disagree. 

Current U.S. land mine policy calls for the elimination of antipersonnel mines, including self-destructing mines, outside of Korea 

by fiscal year 2003. Do you have any plans to use antipersonnel 

mines—I am talking about other than man the loop. I have no 

problem with man-the-loop antipersonnel mines, but do you have 

plans to use antipersonnel mines in the war with Iraq? 

The reason I ask is, I know that Great Britain, Spain, and Australia, who are there with us, have banned these from their own 

arsenals. 

General SHINSEKI. Senator, when you say, antipersonnel mines 

without manning the loop, you are talking about what we refer to 

as the dumb mines, once laid they are——

Senator LEAHY. Including, apparently, these 2,000 of our socalled self-destruct mines did not, so they are kind of dumb, too. 

General SHINSEKI. Yes. Well, the performance of the self-destruct 

mines, of course, it is not perfection, but there is a very high confidence factor in their ability to be destroyed or to self-destruct. 

Senator LEAHY. But it is not a man the loop. I mean, Claymore 

has man the loop, but these do not. 

General SHINSEKI. Well, the mines that are laid out there that 

can be destroyed would have a man in the loop in terms of setting 

the amount of time they are there, whether it is 4 hours, 15 hours, 

or days, or self-destruct on command, as opposed to the mines that 
43

you and I are familiar with, having been laid in Korea, and they 

are essentially there until removed. 

I do not know what plans commanders have for the employment 

of mines on operations. It is something that commanders reserve 

for those situations in which they have to make that decision, but 

those decisions are made at a significantly high level on whether 

or not the authority to dispose of and employ mines, but there are 

a set of circumstances in which a commander’s formations are at 

risk, and it has to be protected flanks, or they find a force that is 

a significant threat that they want to fix and expose for attack by 

other service joint fires. There are situations in which mines are 

useful, and I am sure that commanders have that decision set in 

their consideration. 

I am not aware that there are any dumb mines that will be employed. In fact, I am confident that there are not. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

I have failed to note that we have a new staff director, gentlemen, Sid Ashworth, a former Army civilian who has a son in OCS, 

Officers Candidate School now, and I believe she is the first woman 

to ever head a staff of a defense appropriations subcommittee in 

the Congress, so we are pleased to have one of your former members of your Army with us. 

General SHINSEKI. Thank you. Of course, the chairman and I did 

not miss the fact that you had a new staff director, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, let me wish Sid well and welcome her to her new position. 

FUTURE REQUIREMENTS COSTS

General Shinseki, you have used some candor recently in testimony that turned out to be painful for you and refreshing for some 

of us, and I do not want to get you in trouble today, but I do want 

to ask some questions about costs. This subcommittee appropriated about $365 billion for funding 

for this fiscal year, and that will increase when we receive the supplemental, so this subcommittee wants to appropriate, I think everyone on this subcommittee, we want to appropriate sufficient 

money to meet the needs of the men and women who serve this 

country. In order to do that, we need to try to have some understanding of what future requirements are. 

Now, this budget that we are having a hearing on today is for 

fiscal year 2004, beginning October 1, and the supplemental that 

we will receive apparently in a week or so will be to cover costs 

for this fiscal year, fiscal year 2003. Is the budget that we are discussing now a so-called, ‘‘peacetime budget,’’ which does not include 

the costs of a potential occupation of Iraq? I guess that is my first 

question. 

General SHINSEKI. That is correct. It is a budget that does not 

carry any funding for the contingencies we are now dealing with, 

either Afghanistan or in Iraq. 

Senator DORGAN. I understand. Does it carry funding for the war 

against terrorism? There was a previous question asked of the Secretary about the cost of the war against terrorism, and that apparently is being funded out of other accounts, so we will make that 
44

up in the supplemental, but with respect to October 1 and beyond, 

in the coming fiscal year, does the budget request that we are now 

considering include money for the war on terrorism? 

General SHINSEKI. It does not. 

Mr. WHITE. No. 

Senator DORGAN. So what I am trying to understand is this. We 

are having a hearing to try to think through what will our obligation be beginning October 1, 2003, for fiscal year 2004. In order to 

understand that, we need to understand what all of the costs and 

obligations will be. We know for a certainty this, that we will continue the war on terrorism. That is a certainty. 

We know for a near certainty, I suspect, that we will have some 

costs and responsibilities with respect to Afghanistan, and we know 

for a near certainty that we will have responsibilities and costs 

with respect to Iraq, and if what happens at the end of the week 

is what we expect will happen, my guess is that will be some kind 

of an occupation force for a period of time. 

Those are three areas all of which we have some reason to want 

to quantify as a subcommittee in order to evaluate what our obligation might be for fiscal year 2004, beginning October 1. Can you 

help us with any three of those areas, not with respect to the supplemental. I am talking about with respect to the new fiscal year 

budget and the appropriation request that we are going to want to 

be considering. 

General SHINSEKI. I can only apologize Senator, that when the 

fiscal year 2004 budget was put together the data that you are asking about was not refined enough to be able to be included in it, 

and any potential discussion about what the operation—an operation in Iraq or any follow-on probably is undefined at this point, 

and I think once commanders understand what that mission will 

require and state then what it will take to do that, those numbers 

will become clearer, but I do not think either the Secretary or I are 

able to provide any more clarity on it today, with respect to Iraq. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, that is certainly true with respect to Iraq, 

but it is not likely true with respect to Afghanistan and the war 

on terrorism. Can you address at least those two, and then let me 

come back to Iraq? 

Mr. WHITE. The Afghanistan operation and the war on terrorism, 

because we have been conducting it for 18 months, assuming that, 

the rough cut number that—and I think this came up in front of 

previous committees—that we asked for for the non-Iraq tasks was 

about $6 billion for fiscal year 2003, and we got a part of that covered in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2003, which provided, I think, $10 billion, six of which went to defense and about, 

a little under $2 billion came to the Army, so that partially covers 

that increment, but that is roughly what that is. 

Senator STEVENS. Would the Senator yield to me? 

Senator DORGAN. I would be happy to yield. 

Senator STEVENS. Realizing this question would come up, I asked 

the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to give us a memo to review how the United States has budgeted for wars in the past, and 

I have just received that, a copy of that. 

Based on an examination of the previous CRS reviews of funding 

for wars and other major military operations, it appears, with one 
45

possible exception, that Presidents have not requested and Congress has not provided funding for wars in advance of the start of 

the operations. Rather, administrations have requested fundings 

after the operations have begun, and Congress has subsequently 

appropriated monies to meet specifically documented budget requirements. 

That one exception was in the case of President Johnson, but the 

discussion I had last evening was, we will get a request once these 

new operations have commenced. 

We do intend to cover the war against terrorism and the balance 

of this year as far as the supplemental is concerned in a document 

we should receive next week. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, you make a fair point, and the point I 

was trying to make is that with respect to the war on terrorism, 

and Afghanistan, that, the cost of that I assume will be built in 

routinely for the coming fiscal year budgets for the appropriations 

requirements. 

Senator STEVENS. To the contrary. They will be built into 

supplementals that are associated with it, and we have funded Afghanistan on a supplemental basis. We are funding now the ongoing, continued operations of the Department of Defense in terms of 

structural requirements of the Army and other agencies. 

Senator DORGAN. I do not understand that, because at least with 

respect to those hostilities that are over with respect to Afghanistan, those are longer-term recurring obligations, and we just as 

well plan for them, but I accept the point you make how it has 

been done previously, and I accept the point on Iraq. Hostilities 

have not yet begun there. 

At some point I assume planning has been underway for an occupying force and we will be alerted to what the costs are. General 

Shinseki, you were candid before another committee, and I will not 

ask you questions about that now, because I understand that created quite a furor inside the Department of Defense, but I would 

just say, as one member of the Committee, we are going to fund 

what is required to be funded to support our military, but I would 

also think it would be helpful for us to be involved in some of those 

discussions. I do not think it is detrimental to have those numbers 

out there as the planning ensues, but let me ask one additional 

question. 

ACTIVE COMPONENT (AC)/RESERVE COMPONENT (RC) MIX

We have a lot of men and women of the Guard and Reserve who 

have been called up, citizen-soldiers. They have left their jobs and 

their families, and they are serving this country admirably. When 

you talked about end strength earlier, I believe you were responding to a question from Senator Inouye. I think one of the questions 

for this Congress perhaps, and you especially, is what kind of callups and deployments are required, to the best that you could estimate, in the next several years as we begin contemplating occupying forces here and there? 

Do you need an increase in end strength? Do you intend to continue to rely more heavily on call-ups of Guard and Reserve, because all of that I think plays a role in the longer-term discussions 
46

about what kind of permanent funding is necessary and what size 

of an Army do we need? Can you respond to that? 

General SHINSEKI. As I have testified before, Senator, I think end 

strength of the Army is an issue, and the fact that even before the 

build-up for a potential Iraq, we were carrying something on the 

order of 20,000 to 30,000 Reserve Component soldiers routinely mobilized for Sinai, for Bosnia, and missions of the sort, and imposing 

a requirement, intensity of OPTEMPO on the Reserve Component, 

and suggesting that there is an issue here about taking some of 

those day-to-day missions off the Reserve Component and sort of 

preserving them for these large emergencies that we have to deal 

with. 

That is all part of the discussion, the study that the Secretary 

has us focused on, but I do think in the final set of study outputs, 

the end strength of the Army is smaller than the mission set we 

are asked to carry. Now, you can reduce the missions, you can increase the Army end strength to be able to accommodate, but some 

place in there, adjustments will be required. 

Mr. WHITE. The other dimension of this, if I might, Senator, the 

other dimension, as the Chief said, is the Active Component-Reserve Component mix of units. There are some Reserve Component 

units, military police (MP) units, for example, that have been constantly mobilized and appear to be in high demand, and so if that 

is the case, you ask yourself, why don’t you have them in the Active Component if you are constantly mobilizing Reserve Components, so one of the things that Dr. Chu is running a study on that 

we are all actively participating in is, is the balance between AC 

and RC correct not only in the quantity of units, but in types as 

well. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, I think that is a very important question, 

and I hope you will keep us informed of this study, because I am 

not asking on behalf of people who do not want to serve. They are 

members of the Guard and Reserve. They understand deployments. 

Many of them have been deployed a number of times, but I think 

the longer-term question is, should in some of these circumstances 

there be active duty end strength increases. 

Let me make one final point relative to something the chairman 

said. It is my belief that the war against terrorism, unlike other 

classic wars where we have had battles that occur and then recede, 

and there are surrenders and agreements and so on, the war 

against terrorism, I think, will be with us for a long, long time. It 

is my expectation that 5 and 10 years from now we will talk about 

the cost of continuing to pursue the war against terrorism. 

For that reason, I think we would be wise at least to think 

through the proposition of that piece being a part of what we decide and what we plan for the strength of our Armed Services to 

be in order to meet those obligations, rather than to do that on a 

supplemental basis year after year. 

That is the point I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman. 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND (SOCOM)

Senator STEVENS. If the Senator would yield, the committee just 

went down to the Special Forces Command and visited them in 

Tampa. There has been a reorganization of the military for that 
47

purpose, and we expect to see funding through that organization 

for most of the contingencies that relate to the war on terrorism. 

That used to be a support command. It is now an operational command and will have units of its command in several other commands throughout the country. 

You are right, I think we are on that course now, but so far the 

war on terrorism has been funded through supplementals, and I 

think when we get—this is an overview of the overall budget of the 

Army. When we get the individual components here, you will see 

how that is starting to work into the projections, but I do not think 

we have a full funding yet for the war on terrorism in the fiscal 

year 2004 budget. 

General SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, may I just add to your observation here? In the fiscal year 2004 budget, the Army in support 

of our Special Operations Forces in SOCOM are adding something 

in the order of, I think, 1,800 additional personnel spaces. We put 

an additional $1.1 billion out of Army resources into Special Operations Command. 

Our entire fiscal year 2004 CH–47 production line of 16 aircraft 

are being provided to Special Operations Command to replace and 

to augment the capabilities they have, so the Army’s production of 

CH–47s next year are all going to SOCOM. We are taking a year 

sort of a break before we can get——

Senator DORGAN. As a final point, General, if later this week 

your soldiers are ordered to military action, you know that the 

prayers of all Americans go with them as you and the Secretary 

and others issue those orders. 

General SHINSEKI. We certainly know that. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First I want to say that my loss is your gain with Sid Ashworth, 

and she did a wonderful job on military construction, and I love my 

replacement, but I sure always will miss her, and I am very 

pleased that you did promote her. 

I also want to say, the first time I met General Shinseki was on 

a runway in Bosnia, and you were really overseeing the beginning 

of the ramp-up there, and the first time I went into Bosnia was 

with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and we were in helmets 

and flak jackets, and they were shooting at us from the hills, so 

we very much feel that you have served our country so well, and 

I do wish you well, and I want to say I think you have done a terrific job. 

General SHINSEKI. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And I also want to say, Secretary White, I 

really enjoyed working with you, and you have been honest and 

straight up with me in all of our dealings, and I appreciate your 

service very much. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you. 
48

TRAINING CENTERS

Senator HUTCHISON. As you know, I am chairman of the Military 

Construction Subcommittee, and we have talked about looking at 

the foreign bases, and as I have visited many foreign bases with 

my colleagues here I have found training constraints, I have found 

artillery range constraints, air constraints, and as a matter of fact, 

in Germany, for instance, Grafenwoehr, one of the premier training 

areas in Germany, only has 18,000 acres. 

And yet I look at the capabilities that our own bases in America 

provide, I look at the National Training Center in California, which 

has almost 500,000 acres, Fort Bliss has a million acres, and I just 

want to ask you, are you looking for new training locations in other 

places in Europe? Are you looking at bringing some of the training 

capabilities home to America? Are you looking at Fort Bliss in particular as a reinvigorated maneuver training area? What are you 

looking at to try to, in your transformation, make sure that we are 

not looking at these continued training constraints? 

General SHINSEKI. Well, Senator, we are doing all of the above. 

Even Grafenwoehr today is not the Grafenwoehr Secretary White 

and I trained in many years ago, and we have augmented the capabilities there because of that very small footprint. 

We are trying to stay in touch with our combatant commanders 

here. They have been asked to take a look at their regions and decide what Army capabilities they need forward and where should 

they be located, and so we are working with General Jones and 

General LaPorte and Admiral Fargo. 

We have suggested a long-term strategy is helpful. To answer the 

questions about where do we see our interests, the advantage for 

forward presence has a very remarkable effect because of our ability to engage other armies, so there is a return there, but what do 

the combatant commanders need forward, and then we will decide. 

What is not needed forward we will bring back to the continental 

United States and position them where their ability to do the 

things that armies have to do—they have to train wherever they 

go, and they have to train aggressively. They have to be able to deploy from wherever they are stationed, and then do the best that 

we can to take care of those soldiers and families in terms of their 

lifestyle, and we are doing all those things. 

As one of those youngsters that grew up in the Dona Ana Desert 

there at Fort Bliss, I know it pretty well. It is a wonderful training 

area. 

DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN BASES

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, my question is, are you looking at the 

timing, not only of our fiscal year 2004 budget so that we are preparing, but secondly for the fiscal year 2005 Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC)? Are we going to know what the needs are going 

to be of our domestic bases in regard to the foreign bases before 

we start shutting down or retooling bases here? 

Mr. WHITE. Well, I think you have to. That is why Secretary 

Rumsfeld is pushing the combatant commanders hard to bring in 

their recommendations on what the posture of the force should be 

in their regions, and why we on the Title X side will then, and in 
49

concert with the combatant commanders, will line up the investments that we intend to make and realign the force, which is obviously inclusive of the BRAC initiative back here in the continental 

United States, and we do not have much time, in my opinion, to 

figure that out. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, we certainly do not with the fiscal 

year 2004 budget, because we do not want to be putting one dime 

in an overseas base that is not going to be long term. 

Mr. WHITE. Right. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And we do want to be putting our dimes in 

our bases here, and I want to say, I appreciate your emphasis on 

installation management. I think that is a very good sign, because 

particularly as we begin to look at closing bases we want to make 

sure that the ones that are going to be ongoing are well maintained, and we are seeing money go away from that into operations, and I know there is always a strain on the budget, but I 

think your emphasis there is well put, but I have been pushing 

now for 2 years to find out what your long-term strategies are in 

the foreign bases, and we have a report that was due April of last 

year that still has not come in. I do understand, however, that 

there is a new emphasis——

General SHINSEKI. There is. 

Mr. WHITE. There is. 

Senator HUTCHISON [continuing]. And that it is being pushed 

now, which I think is good. 

RESERVE COMPONENT RECRUITING

A second area that I just wanted to talk about, again, in talking 

to so many of the Guard and Reserve units, I am concerned, not 

in a time of war, because our troops will always be there giving in 

a time of war. The cause is there. 

But even back when we were not in a war, I was beginning to 

see a little fraying at the edges with family problems and employer 

problems with our Guard and Reserve because of the OPTEMPO, 

so my question is, are you seeing this? You had a little bit in your 

written testimony, General Shinseki, but I would just ask if you 

are seeing a problem in recruitment of Guard and Reserves, and 

with the heavy reliance that we have on them because of the drawing down of our troop strength, are we really looking ahead to 

make sure that we are in the right configuration? 

General SHINSEKI. We are looking ahead, Senator, and I think if 

there is a time when we can get to a good set of metrics that says 

here is what happens to you in a large mobilization, both this mobilization for a potential Iraq, the mobilization associated with Afghanistan, the global war on terrorism, we are going to get some 

pretty good answers out of this, so yes, we are looking at that. 

I, too, have heard anecdotally and in spot cases concerns about 

what the tempo has meant to Guard and Reserve soldiers and families. There is, I think, a double effect here, and we have worked 

very hard with employers to suggest to them that the service of 

these military members is important, and we intend to look after 

them, but I have heard some of these comments. I am sure there 

is more out there than I have heard, and we are paying attention. 
50

As I indicated, for the first time we saw a drop in a monthly recruiting target, and so we are focused. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I just hope you will anticipate way ahead of 

a crisis point. I am not worried about getting through this this 

time, but I am talking about 2 years from now. 

Mr. WHITE. Right. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Senator Shelby. 

AVIATION TRAINING

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as 

quick as I can. The Army Aviation Training Center, General and 

Mr. Secretary, has developed, as you know, a new training aviation 

strategy called Flight School XXI. 

General SHINSEKI. Yes, sir. 

Senator SHELBY. The program regime focuses on increased training for aviators in their so-called go-to-war aircraft. Phase 1 of 

aviation training, the TH–67 training helicopter is shortened by 20 

weeks here. Phase 2 of the training in the aviators’ advanced aircrafts of choice has increased in length, it is my understanding. 

General SHINSEKI. That is correct. 

Senator SHELBY. This training includes a significant increase in 

time spent in training simulators. Sixty-eight million dollars in the 

fiscal year 2003 budget remain unfunded, seriously unfunded, $68 

million in fiscal year 2003, $147 million in unfunded requirements 

in fiscal year 2004, and between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 

2009 the Army faces a Flight School XXI funding shortfall of approximately $1 billion. 

Flight School XXI obviously is of particular concern here. What 

are your thoughts on that, General? 

Senator STEVENS. General, let me interrupt. I have been called 

to a meeting on a matter close to my heart and my State, so Senator Inouye has some additional questions. Do you have some additional questions, Senator? 

Senator HUTCHISON. No. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye, will you chair the balance of 

the hearing? 

Senator INOUYE. Yes. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead, General. 

What are your thoughts on that? I know it is a shortfall. You have 

got an important program. 

General SHINSEKI. In the fiscal year 2003 budget we are looking 

at Flight School XXI, and we continue to adjust the budget to meet 

the needs here, but as you indicated, we have taken a 32-week 

phase 1, two-phase aviation training, taken a 32-week program and 

shortened it to 20 and given more time in high-performance aircraft. 

Senator SHELBY. Where you need it, right? 

General SHINSEKI. Where they are needed, and that means that 

aviators are getting to units much better-prepared to participate in 

unit-level training. 
51

Senator SHELBY. So that is the program the way you have devised it, is it not? 

General SHINSEKI. That is correct. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes. 

General SHINSEKI. That is correct, and that is the way it is, and 

as in all new initiatives, you are not able to fully fund it initially, 

and so we continue to look at the adjustments during the budget 

year. It is in the program as well. 

Senator SHELBY. I want to help you fund it everywhere I can up 

here with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. 

General SHINSEKI. Sir, I appreciate the help. It is an important 

program for our aviation community. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Secretary, do you have any comments on 

that? 

Mr. WHITE. No. I am a Fort Rucker graduate, and I absolutely 

agree with the direction, more hours in go-to-war aircraft. 

Senator SHELBY. Sure. 

Mr. WHITE. Simulation is healthy, produces a better-trained aviator to go to the force, and I think that is what we all want. 

LOGISTICS TRANSFORMATION

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. I have one more concern, Army logistics transformation. Under the current acquisition process, as I 

understand it, the Army provides requirements to an original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) who designs the system, provides 

initial provisioning, and hands it off to the Government for life 

cycle support. This as-delivered model then drives the Government’s spares, manning, and maintenance requirements for that 

system. 

Once the hand-off occurs, it is my understanding that no Government agency conducts a methodical and continued analysis of the 

fielded system over time to support what we call an as-sustained 

model, the results of which could provide invaluable information to 

the customer and could save huge amounts of operations and maintenance dollars. Better system sustainment measures—that is, 

metrics—are needed to improved the Army’s acquisition and logistics systems. 

For example, I have been told that the AH–64 transmission was 

engineered for 2,500 hours of use, but the actual average useful life 

is about 2,000 hours. This difference affects operations at the lowest levels in terms of budgeting, spares storage and manning. It affects the institutional Army in terms of materiel buys and extended 

depot lines. The program managers (PM) and program executive officers are affected in that they now may have a big engineering 

problem. 

Given the focus here, what is the Army’s plan to develop a weapons system sustainment model containing robust metrics to accurately reflect the true cost of life cycle systems sustainment and 

force readiness? I know that is a mouthful, Mr. Secretary, but both 

of you understand it well. 

Mr. WHITE. Sure. 

General SHINSEKI. Senator, you have described where the Army 

has come——

Senator SHELBY. Right. 
52

General SHINSEKI [continuing]. Over the last 3 years. Three 

years ago, our logistics community sat here and acquisition community sat here. 

Senator SHELBY. Absolutely. 

General SHINSEKI. Today the Army G–4, our logistics officer, now 

sits with the acquisition community, and when we talk about design of a system, it is the life cycle interest, it is not just the design 

up front and the fielding. It is, how do we think this is going to 

result in sustainment costs and retirement costs at the back end 

of any weapons system, so that is a first major piece. 

General Paul Kern is our logistics war-fighter at Army Materiel 

Command, a terrific commander who was missioned to do this logistics transformation initiative, and he has pulled that together in 

rather significant ways. 

Senator SHELBY. This could save the Army, all of us a lot of 

money in the long run. 

Mr. WHITE. No question. 

General SHINSEKI. Absolutely. 

Senator SHELBY. I know that is what you are——

General SHINSEKI. Absolutely. 

Senator SHELBY. But you have got to do the metrics here. 

Mr. WHITE. That is right. 

General SHINSEKI. And he is in the process of putting together 

the metrics for the whole system. When you look at the nose cone 

on an attack helicopter, the Target Acquisition and Designation 

Sight (TAD) Pilot Night Vision System (PNVS) nose cone, probably 

the most expensive piece on the air frame, and if you continue, it 

continues to have problems and you continue to replace it, well, 

that is one approach to it. 

Another approach is, you take it, you redesign it so you are not 

replacing it quite as often, and it reduces the number of mechanics 

and number of inventory parts that you have to hold, so all of this 

is a broad-gauged, a very refreshing approach that General Kern 

is after and I think in the long run, there are going to be huge dividends to be paid. 

Senator SHELBY. Well, like the name, life cycle is important. 

General SHINSEKI. Absolutely. 

Mr. WHITE. That is right, and we should as a separate matter, 

because you have a strong interest here, get General Kern in to 

talk about logistics transformation, because it affects the research 

and development (R&D) command, as you and I have talked 

about——

Senator SHELBY. Absolutely. 

Mr. WHITE [continuing]. How the logistics operators interface not 

only with the theater support commands on one end, but with PMs, 

Program Management Officer (PMOs), and we will come and give 

you a separate discussion on that. 

General SHINSEKI. Tied to the depots. 

Senator SHELBY. We will follow up on that, but I knew this was 

what you are doing. We have got to go another step, I believe, and 

maybe you are in that process. 

Mr. WHITE. We are. 

General SHINSEKI. We are. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
53

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. 

STATUS OF FORCES

Mr. Secretary, the recently released 2002 active duty status of 

forces survey of the Army was issued and showed a satisfaction 

rating of 59 percent. Now, this is much better than what it was 3 

years ago. I will not go into detail, but could you submit to the 

committee your analysis on whether this is good or bad? 

Mr. WHITE. I will do that. 

[The information follows:]

STATUS OF FORCES

The Army continually tracks soldier satisfaction with quality of life and job satisfaction matters. The satisfaction level with the military way of life—59 percent, as 

reported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense July 2002 Status of Forces Survey—is good for soldiers, their family members, and the Army. The Army’s own survey for Active Component soldiers yields similar results. The level of soldier satisfaction with the quality of Army life increased from 48 percent in 1999 to 59 percent 

in 2002.

FORCE PROTECTION

Senator INOUYE. General Shinseki, looking over the fiscal year 

2004 budget, it appears that the Army will be called upon to increase its force protection requirements. For example, you will be 

providing force protection for the Air Force. 

General SHINSEKI. That is correct. 

Senator INOUYE. Now, how will that affect your end strength requirements? 

General SHINSEKI. We have agreed to provide, and I think today 

the number is about 8,500 National Guard soldiers who are providing security for Air Force bases, because their air police have 

deployed overseas. To the degree that that is a number today, we 

are prepared to accommodate that, and the dollars for that are provided for the Air Force. 

If the Air Force, following this operation, decides they are going 

to increase their air police, whether it is Reserve Component or Active, their inventory, it may not have an impact on us, but suffice 

it to say I think in all of these operations it is not a precise business, and having capabilities that you can draw on is important, 

and I think this is a good demonstration that the end strength 

business, when you need it, you need to have the capability on 

short notice to stand it up, because there are no other alternatives. 

The Air Force requested, we met on this, and we are very happy 

to be able to help them for this short period. 

Senator INOUYE. With this program will the Guard and Reserve 

have their own force protection to meet their own requirements? 

General SHINSEKI. They do. Under the homeland security, all of 

us have raised the force protection levels around all of our installations to include in the local communities where Guard and Army 

Reserve units reside. 

AVIATION MODERNIZATION

Senator INOUYE. General, your Transformation program relies 

very heavily upon aviation modernization, and the centerpiece is 

the Comanche. Are you satisfied with its progress? 
54

General SHINSEKI. It is. I will defer to the Secretary for some of 

the policy decisions made, because we have just recently restructured the program, and I think he is eminently qualified to describe it, but the Army’s requirement for the Comanche is 819 systems. 

As a result of an acquisition board decision we have the first 650 

of that recognized for the armed reconnaissance helicopter. Yet to 

be determined is the attack version of the Comanche, and that will 

come out in further studies, but we have certainly sustained the requirement for this, and the Comanche is a key element of our Future Combat System networked capabilities. 

Mr. WHITE. Senator, we just went through a Defense Acquisition 

Board cycle on Comanche. We rebaselined the aircraft, we focused 

it squarely on the armed scout version for its initial three blocks 

of fielding. That is our most critical need. 

The Kiowa has got to be replaced. We restructured the arrangement with the contractors, Boeing and Sikorsky in this case, and 

we brought in outside consultants to look at it, a group led by General Larry Watts, former Chief of the Air Force, so I am confident 

that the program is focused correctly and now, after 20 years, we 

have to deliver this aircraft. We need it, and so the 2004–2009 

POM includes 73 of these aircraft. I think the first one for test purposes is 2007, but we need to get on with this thing. We will not 

rebaseline this program again. 

Senator INOUYE. Some have suggested that the fixed wing would 

do a better job than these helicopters. Do you have any response 

to that? 

General SHINSEKI. Senator, for the kind of requirements that a 

land force needs in close combat, an armed reconnaissance helicopter is important, and just where it has to go to operate and 

what it has to accomplish, and in conjunction with unmanned systems, but there is a requirement for a manned cockpit some place 

in the loop here. It is about situational curiosity and situational 

judgment that a manned cockpit makes a difference, and for the 

kind of operations that ground forces are involved in, an armed reconnaissance helicopter and an attack platform is key to our operations. It gets into the close combat support for ground formations. 

OPERATIONS IN IRAQ

Senator INOUYE. If I may, I would like to make a clarification. 

When I asked the question on volunteerism and the Iraq war, I did 

not want to suggest that our military can predict into the future. 

After all, in a war, there are at least two sides. We know what we 

plan to do and what sort of responses we will have, but at this moment, for example we do not know what is going to happen to Saddam Hussein—is he going to walk, or is he going to do some fighting, and if so, where will the fighting be? 

And we read reports in the last 24 hours of his instruction to his 

generals to employ chemical and biological weapons systems, and 

so all of this would obviously have an impact upon the cost of war. 

I realize that it is not possible for the military or for anyone here 

to make any specific requirement or predictions. What I think my 

colleague wanted to note was that it would be helpful to us in look-
55

ing forward as to what the costs may be to have some idea of what 

it would mean in addition to our daily work, that is all. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

And so I would like to—and I speak for other members of the 

committee—submit to both of you questions in writing and requests for your response. 

General SHINSEKI. Certainly. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

LEGACY FORCE MODERNIZATION

Question. General Shinseki, the Army budget proposes to terminate Abrams and 

Bradley modernization after fielding of modern versions of each vehicle to only two 

divisions. This leaves the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, part of the Counterattack 

Corps, with Abrams and Bradley vehicles that are more than 10 years old. Do you 

believe the Army is taking excessive risk in not funding the modernization of the 

Legacy Force? 

Answer. We continue to examine options for the modernization of the Counterattack Corps, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment included, in order to maintain the 

Corps as a strategic hedge for the future. In the meantime, we are gaining irreversible momentum towards transformation to the Objective Force. We continue to 

evaluate the risk in both the near term and long term and will propose corrective 

action if appropriate. 

FCS FIELDING SCHEDULE

Question. General Shinseki, given the risk associated with the Future Combat 

Systems (FCS), how confident are you that FCS will remain on schedule and 

achieve first unit equipped by 2008, and initial operating capability by 2010? 

Answer. We are very confident that we will achieve FCS Increment I initial operational capability by 2010 and full operational capability by 2012. FCS-equipped 

units of action will provide Army and Joint force commanders with a significant capability that will grow to full objective capabilities through spiraling and fielding 

of subsequent increments. There will be two increments of significantly different capabilities between 2010 and 2018. Increment I will be fielded in 2010 to 2018, and 

in 2018, we begin fielding Increment II. Increment I FCS-equipped units of action 

will possess the core capabilities needed to execute the ‘‘how-to-fight’’ operational 

concept. 

FCS/OBJECTIVE FORCE ROLE

Question. General Shinseki, what gaps do you feel FCS, or the Objective Force 

could be filling in the current conflict in Iraq, if it were fielded today? 

Answer. The potential conflict in Iraq reinforces our efforts to provide our soldiers 

and commanders with the best combination of equipment, training, leaders, technologies, and organizations that together will assure that we can apply decisive and 

overmatching capabilities against any opponent. I am confident that our current 

forces will be quite successful in the event of hostilities in Iraq; however, there are 

a number of ways—at the strategic, operational, and tactical level—that the Army’s 

Objective Force could be even more effective. 

The ability of the Objective Force, employing enhanced lift capabilities, to deploy 

using multiple unimproved entry points to overcome anti-access measures or political boundaries, would have reduced problems in staging for operations. For instance, the rerouting of the 4th Infantry Division, caused by the unavailability of 

friendly ports near the northern border of Iraq, would have been unnecessary. The 

increased deployability and modularity of Objective Force units, coupled with development of advanced air/sea lift platforms not dependent on improved air/sea ports 

will significantly reduce Army deployment and employment timelines greatly in-
56

creasing the Joint force commander’s flexibility and options. This will increase the 

chances of achieving operational surprise or preemption. Objective Force units will 

be able to begin operations immediately on arrival, requiring minimal reception, 

staging, onward movement, and integration. Moreover, projected reductions in 

sustainment requirements and reliance on strategic-to-tactical battlefield distribution will eliminate the heavy logistical infrastructures that could hamper operations 

and constrain responsiveness. Overall, these improvements could strengthen the 

strategic and operational speed, agility, and power of the Joint force. The Objective 

Force will allow our combatant commanders to conduct operational maneuver from 

strategic distances. 

The Objective Force will conduct simultaneous and distributed operations across 

the entire Joint operations area. Commanders will have the ability to conduct continuous operations with minimal operational pauses, controlling an operational 

tempo that overwhelms the enemy’s capability to respond. Finally, the Objective 

Force will directly attack enemy decisive points and centers of gravity through airground maneuver and fires to extend the reach of the Joint force commander and 

expose any part of the enemy force to destruction, dislocation, or disintegration. 

The Objective Force headquarters above brigade will be organized, designed, 

trained, and equipped to fulfill command and control functions as the Joint task 

force, Joint force land component commander, or Army forces headquarters with 

minimal augmentation, provided by the standing Joint force headquarters and Joint 

interagency coordination group ‘‘plugs.’’ These headquarters will possess the inherent capability to interact effectively with multi-national forces, other agencies, and 

non-governmental and private volunteer organizations. This would be a vast improvement over our current operations in support of U.S. Central Command, where 

our headquarters elements required over 2,100 augmentees. 

The Objective Force will also resolve the Army’s lack of standardized hardware 

and software in its current communications architecture and systems. The Army’s 

Objective Force design will integrate seamless Joint command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems 

with linkages to current forces, Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, other agencies, and 

a knowledge-based C4ISR architecture as the means for achieving situational awareness and battle command—the art and science of applying leadership and decision 

making to achieve mission success. This allows for automated spectrum and information dissemination management, continuous situational awareness, real-time 

synchronization of fires and maneuver, and the ability to effectively develop the situation out of contact. The Objective Force will provide our commanders with information-enabled forces capable of distributed and simultaneous operations. 

Lessons learned and current operations reinforce that maneuver forces require a 

range of fire support that can provide close, all weather, responsive, and accurate 

fires. The Objective Force possesses enhanced lethality through networked fires encompassing Joint fires and organic capabilities for line-of-sight, beyond line-of-sight, 

and non-line-of-sight fires, deliverable in any conditions of terrain, weather, or time. 

Joint sensor-to-shooter links can rapidly bring lethal effects on enemy targets. The 

Objective Force takes the next step by harnessing all-source fires, attack aviation, 

and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems to deny the enemy freedom of action, support friendly maneuver, and destroy enemy forces and high-value 

targets. 

The Joint interoperability provided by the Army’s Objective Force will better complement and enable the capabilities of each of America’s Armed Services. The Objective Force will provide unparalleled agility and versatility by conducting operational 

maneuver from strategic distances and by allowing the combatant commander to 

open multiple fronts. The tailorable command and control headquarters and combined arms formations of the Objective Force, with their enhanced deployability and 

reduced logistical footprint, will leverage America’s strategic reach to address any 

mission or contingency. In short, the Army’s Objective Force will hasten the achievement of the combatant commander’s joint operational objectives throughout the 

course of future campaigns using a combination of speed, power, and knowledge, ensuring decisive victory. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

RECONSTITUTING DEPLOYED FORCES

Question. General Shinseki, today we have a large number of forces forward deployed in preparation for a possible war with Iraq, while we simultaneously pursue 

elements of terror globally. Do you believe we will be able to reconstitute our de-
57

ployed forces in an orderly manner for a sustained war against terror while meeting 

our many other commitments around the globe? 

Answer. We are confident that we can balance unit reconstitution with our global 

commitments. Army forces will be an integral component of coalition efforts in postconflict Iraq to provide a more secure and stable environment that will enable the 

Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance to transition the governance 

of Iraq to an interim Iraqi administration. Despite these continuing commitments 

in Iraq and elsewhere in support of the global war on terrorism and other directed 

missions, the Army will undertake a disciplined, orderly reconstitution of those 

forces involved in combat. We will use our experience with reconstitution after returning forces from Operation Desert Storm, Bosnia, and elsewhere to inform and 

refine our efforts. The Army, in coordination with the Office of Secretary of Defense, 

the Joint Staff, Central Command, and other regional and functional combatant 

commanders will determine the priority and timeline for unit reconstitution. 

RESERVE COMPONENT PAY CONSOLIDATION

Question. I understand the Office of Secretary of Defense would like to consolidate 

the Active, National Guard, and Reserve Military Pay Accounts into one Account 

that would be managed by the Active Component. Do you think we can make a significant change like this without jeopardizing the integrity of the Guard and Reserve Military Pay Accounts? 

Answer. Yes, pending the necessary legislative changes, and coordination of accounting processes and related systems. The Reserve and National Guard components will continue to have oversight of their programs without jeopardizing the integrity of their pay accounts. 

ADVANCED ARMY RAPID EMPLACED BRIDGE

Question. Last year, you provided the Subcommittee a response for the record concerning favorable progress being made on the Advanced Army Rapidly Emplaced 

Bridge that is also known as the Composite Army Bridge. For the record, could you 

provide an update of your assessment of this important program? 

Answer. The Advanced Army Rapidly Emplaced Bridge program continues to be 

a success for the Army. The Rapidly Emplaced Bridging System is an interim system designed to support the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT), which provides 

tactical bridge support across gaps of up to 13 meters. Current funding levels in the 

Program Objective Memorandum will purchase the Army acquisition objective of 40 

bridges to support the SBCTs and provide an interim solution for the Objective 

Force. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

WHITE SANDS/MTHEL

Question. The Army and our Israeli partners continue to make progress on the 

Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) program. I was very pleased to see 

that the Army has given strong support to the program in the President’s fiscal year 

2004 budget request. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Army 

for its sound management of this program. 

Now that the Army has committed to pursuing MTHEL as its solution to rocket 

and artillery threats, can you update us on the status of negotiations with Israel 

over how to define the system’s requirements? Has the Army reached agreement 

with Israel over how to share funding of the program? 

Answer. The U.S. Army, in conjunction with the Israeli Ministry of Defense and 

Israeli Air Force, is working to define Israeli MTHEL requirements for a combateffective laser system that can be realized within the cost, schedule, risk, and disclosure constraints of the MTHEL program. The Army supports the pre-Milestone B 

development and delivery of at least one chemical-based MTHEL prototype for the 

knowledge and understanding we will glean from the process as we work to define 

the directed energy component of our Objective Force enhanced area air defense system. However, our long-term focus for directed energy is on the development of 

solid-state laser technology. While this requirement process is iterative in nature 

and complicated by the diversity of operational and technical requirements, satisfactory progress is being made. The common operational requirements document 

should be completed and sent to the Israeli Ministry of Defense for validation and 

use within their acquisition process within the next several weeks. 

The U.S. Army and the Israeli Ministry of Defense have not entered into a formal 

agreement on how to share funding for the MTHEL program. Since Israel’s involve-
58

ment in MTHEL will be via a foreign military sales (FMS) agreement, the FMS 

laws under USC Title 22, prohibit the MTHEL program from being a formal ‘‘costsharing’’ or ‘‘cooperative’’ program. This is a change from the Tactical High Energy 

Laser (THEL) advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) memorandum of 

agreement (MOA) which was governed by USC Title 10 and allows cooperative research and development efforts and formal cost-sharing agreements. However, the 

Army’s intent is to make funding contributions to the MTHEL FMS case as provided for under Title 22. Furthermore, the Army’s intent is for the contributions to 

equal the FMS funds provided by the Government of Israel. 

The MTHEL program will be conducted under Amendment 6 to the THEL ACTD 

MOA. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency general counsel has crafted the language in Amendment 6 to ensure it complies with FMS laws under USC Title 22. 

Authority to begin formal negotiations on Amendment 6 with the Government of 

Israel will be granted as soon as the Department of Defense approves the MTHEL 

summary statement of intent. Again, Amendment 6 does not state a cost-sharing arrangement for MTHEL. In order to comply with USC Title 22, Amendment 6 states 

that Article 5 (cost-sharing) of the THEL ACTD MOA does not apply, and further 

states that costs will be apportioned, not shared, in a manner to be established in 

the FMS cases. 

WHITE SANDS/HELSTF

Question. The Army continues to do a good job managing the High Energy Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) at White Sands Missile Range. HELSTF is the only 

facility of its kind in the world where state-of-the-art laser testing and evaluation 

is conducted. Army, Navy and Air Force laser programs continue to make significant 

strides because of this testing capability. But in order to maintain this progress it 

is important that the facility’s assets be available for testing as scheduled. 

In the last two appropriations cycles combined, Congress has designated over $12 

million for the Navy to do megawatt laser tests for cruise missile defense. Unfortunately, the megawatt MIRACL laser has not been available to meet the Navy’s 

needs. 

Can you update us on the status of the MIRACL laser? 

Answer. The Mid Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) is undergoing recertification of its subsystems. This recertification is a critical part of a site-wide 

program to enable the HELSTF to continue to provide world-class support to the 

directed energy weapons development programs of all the Services. The MIRACL 

device itself, its optical train, and the Sea-Lite beam director are in good condition 

and ready for use. The pressure vessels and associated piping systems that supply 

reactant gases to the laser are being inspected to insure that they can be used safely. This inspection will be completed by mid-May. All activity required to enable the 

safe and effective operation of the MIRACL will be completed by July 1, 2003. 

Question. Does the Army have a plan to bring this laser back on line so the Navy 

can move to its next phase of testing? 

Answer. The MIRACL will be exercised on July 1, 2003, in a ‘‘burn-in’’ test to 

demonstrate that the MIRACL can be operated safely and effectively. This test will 

be conducted at a power level in excess of one megawatt of output power. This 

power level is adequate to meet the Navy’s test requirements. The test preparations 

have already started, and the Army is confident the system will be available to the 

Navy in mid July after it is refueled. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

TRAINING RANGES

Question. Given the current state of the Army’s existing training ranges and 

training centers and the anticipated demands of the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 

and the proposed Objective Force, are you satisfied those ranges and training centers can meet the needs of the transformed Army? Does the proposed fiscal year 

2004 budget fully fund the identified needed upgrades? 

Answer. The Army has a solid range modernization program in place that fully 

supports the training requirements of the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT). 

Ranges are under construction, in design, or in the Army program that support the 

transformation of the six SBCTs. We have 11 range projects for which the construction contracts will be awarded in fiscal year 2003. We have an additional 10 projects 

that are contained in the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget. Other projects are 

programmed for fiscal year 2005. This range modernization effort includes a significant improvement to our training infrastructure in Alaska and Hawaii. These loca-
59

tions previously had not been modernized to the extent of ranges on our installations in the continental United States. We are correcting that situation. 

We do, however, have shortfalls in our ability to operate these and other ranges 

Army wide. In fiscal year 2004, our range operations shortfall to fund our critical 

requirements is $5.1 million, Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA); $1 million, 

Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR); and $2.4 million, Operations 

and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMNG). 

Our Integrated Training Area Management program, that is an integral part of 

range operations, is similarly under-funded in fiscal year 2004. The shortfalls are 

$6.9 million, OMA; $0.3 million, OMAR; and $7.7 million, OMNG. 

With regard to our Objective Force ranges, we are still in the early stages of defining standard range requirements based on the operational capability of the Future Combat Systems (FCS). Our definition of those range requirements, combined 

with stationing plans, will determine the specific range requirements for the Objective Force. We intend to capitalize on programmed ranges wherever possible by adding capability to programmed range modernization projects where Objective Force 

units will be stationed. 

Question. Are you satisfied with the current locations and manning of the existing 

national-level training centers? 

Answer. Although we are satisfied with both the current locations and manning 

levels at all of our combat training centers (CTCs), we must continually reevaluate 

how we replicate and incorporate operational lessons learned, technological advances, and asymmetric threats into the training program ensuring that our soldiers 

and units are trained to the highest possible standard against emerging threats and 

that our CTCs remain as the Army’s premier collective training opportunities. 

Based upon lessons learned from previous and current operations, the Army is 

pursuing development of a ‘‘deep-attack’’ training capability for Army attack aviation units that would offer the same degree of realism and standards that the Army 

provides ground maneuver units at CTCs. Our intent is to include the deep operations assets of all Services. For aviation units in United States Army Europe, the 

Army conducts an annual deep attack exercise into Poland. For aviation units in 

the continental United States, the Army is looking at conducting exercises at either 

the National Training Center (NTC) in Fort Irwin, California, or at the Western 

Army Aviation Training Site (WAATS) in Marana, Arizona. 

A proof-of-principle exercise was conducted at NTC in April 2002, and one is 

planned this year at WAATS. The exercise at WAATS will integrate live, virtual, 

and constructive training capabilities. Live forces will use the multi-service training 

areas in the greater WAATS area to include ranges managed by Luke Air Force 

Base, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and the Yuma Proving Grounds. Simulations 

will be generated from Fort Hood, Texas. A corps commander will serve as the exercise director and will provide the effects coordination cell as a player at the operational level. Depending upon the availability of headquarters, options are being explored to establish an Air Force air operations center to control the air war. Live 

forces will include an aviation brigade headquarters, an attack helicopter battalion, 

a general support aviation company and a Multiple Launch Rocket System battalion. Potential Air Force assets include attack aircraft from Luke Air Force Base. 

All live assets that are not available will be incorporated through simulations. 

Based on the outcome of this exercise and of the exercise previously conducted at 

NTC, the permanent training location in the United States will be determined. 

Question. Given the need for joint training opportunities, and considering the 

work that the Joint Forces Command is doing in this area, do you see any major 

changes to the tactics, techniques, and procedures at the Army’s national training 

centers? If so, what changes do you anticipate? 

Answer. The overriding principle governing training at Army major training centers is ‘‘train as we fight.’’ To this end, the Army requires forces participating in 

training at major training centers to perform the tasks they will during operations, 

with the equipment they must use during operations, under the conditions they will 

face during operations, to the standard required for mission success, and with the 

other organizations they must operate. We have worked diligently to replicate these 

operational requirements at each Army maneuver combat training center and believe we have been successful for our targeted training audience—brigade headquarters and battalion-level units. To the extent that these units operate with and 

accept services from other Services, we strive to integrate in training these requirements for interoperability tactics, techniques, and procedures. For example, each 

maneuver combat training center incorporates Air Force and/or Navy or Marine 

Corps close air support. When warfighting doctrine evolves, or when we discover 

through operational lessons learned that we need different emphasis in our training 

on interoperability tasks, conditions, standards, or participants, the Army aggres-
60

sively seeks to update training at our major training centers. A good example is our 

initiative to adjust training conditions at centers to better replicate contemporary 

operational environments. 

The Army welcomes the work being done by the Joint Forces Command to ensure 

there are adequate venues for forces to train on joint and interoperability tasks and 

that such training offers proper realism. This emphasis will undoubtedly improve 

the realism and rigor of interoperability training conducted at Army major training 

centers. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THOMAS E. WHITE

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

INDUSTRIAL BASE

Question. Secretary White, the decision not to modernize the Counterattack Corps 

affects not only the Army, but the industrial base as well. What steps do you plan 

to take to mitigate the adverse impact on the industrial base as a result of the lack 

of modernization funding in the fiscal year 2004 Army budget? 

Answer. Army Transformation required cancellation of certain programs to fund 

a variety of transformational initiatives to achieve greater war fighting capability 

over the long term. We assessed the risks to the industrial base from these program 

cancellations and, where we judged necessary, we have taken steps to mitigate adverse impacts. We saw two major risks to the industrial base as a result of the decision to not modernize the Counterattack Corps. Both of these risks involved maintaining viable armor system production capabilities at two production facilities: the 

Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio and the United Defense combat vehicle production 

facility in York, Pennsylvania. 

The first risk involves the General Dynamics’ combat vehicle fabrication capability 

at the Lima Army Tank Plant. We judged that risk as unacceptable since Lima initially had an insufficient workload to remain viable as a production facility for the 

fabrication of the Marine Corps’ Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the 

Army’s FCS ground vehicles. To mitigate this risk, the Army has restructured some 

programs and now has sufficient work to sustain Lima in active production until 

these new programs are brought into production. 

The second risk involved maintaining the United Defense’s combat vehicle production facility in Pennsylvania. We recognize that this facility would also be a likely 

candidate to manufacture FCS ground vehicles in the future. We expect that the 

production facilities in Pennsylvania will remain viable and open through calendar 

year 2004 because of a continuation of their current fiscal year 2003 Bradley upgrade work. With this expectation and acceptance of risk, we did not program fiscal 

year 2004 funding for Bradley upgrades to protect that portion of the industrial 

base. 

While we cannot guarantee additional work from support for fielded systems, foreign sales, and reprocessing vehicles from operations in Iraq, the Army is looking 

hard at workload projections after calendar year 2004 and identifying fiscal year 

2005 options which might be needed to protect any United Defense combat vehicle 

fabrication capability determined essential for future production. Those options will 

consider United Defense work on development of manned FCS non-line of sight gun 

system, unmanned ground systems, foreign sales, and other new non-traditional 

business. All of the other industrial base risks from not funding the Counterattack 

Corps are judged acceptable. 

We expect fiscal year 2003 funding and other work to keep essential skills active 

through the end of calendar year 2004, given that final vehicle deliveries are scheduled for June 2005. The program funding for system sustainment and technical support will transition in fiscal year 2006 from procurement to the Operation and Maintenance, Army account. We believe United Defense’s engineering staff and the 

Army’s own in-house staff will be able to sustain the vehicles made by United Defense. 

The shortage of Bradley upgrade funding is manageable, but there are two key 

issues we must address. The first issue is how we will fund the required technical 

support to the fielded fleet. For fiscal year 2003, the Army will have to fund the 

technical support from operations and maintenance accounts. That will present a 

problem for us because we will be addressing not only peacetime requirements but 

also operational requirements associated with the global war on terrorism and operations in Iraq. Obviously, we will finance the highest priority operational requirements first and defer those which are lower priority. A second issue is whether key 
61

suppliers will abandon the supplier network as we reduce requirements. This is a 

continuing problem, and we will do more tradeoff analysis to support decisions, for 

example, to either stockpile components or find alternate suppliers. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

Question. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are proving to be extremely valuable to our 

operations. Are we moving fast enough to procure UAV systems that you believe are 

necessary to perform your missions? 

Answer. The Army is proud to achieve the goal of bringing the first Department 

of Defense UAV program into full-rate production in fiscal year 2003 in the Shadow 

200 Tactical UAV. The Army is meeting deliveries associated with the fiscal year 

2003 full-rate production contract and is on schedule to complete the procurement 

of 41 systems by fiscal year 2008 to meet the Army acquisition objective. We are 

actively fielding the Shadow UAV systems and their soldiers to the Army’s divisions 

and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. The Army is also stationing several additional 

Hunter UAV units at the corps level and as recently as November 2002, stationed 

its second Hunter company with the XVIII Airborne Corps. By the end of this year, 

a third Hunter company will be stationed with the V Corps in Germany. We anticipate that Army UAVs will experience a high operational tempo as a key system in 

any operations in Iraq. 

Enlisted soldiers trained at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, operate our UAVs. We approach UAV system acquisition as a total package to include training, logistics, system design and performance, science and technology transition, and life-cycle support. The Army budget for UAVs ranges as part of the DOD UAV budget from about 

17 percent in fiscal year 2003 to an average of about 9 percent in fiscal year 2005-

fiscal year 2009, demonstrating a highly efficient and productive use of DOD funds 

for UAVs. Use and demand for UAVs from combatant commanders, trainers, and 

soldiers continues to remain high on all counts. 

Question. Is the Army taking advantage of UAV work being undertaken by the 

other Services, such as the Navy’s work on Fire Scout, which is based on a small, 

commercially available helicopter? 

Answer. The Navy’s Fire Scout program is in the research and development phase 

of program maturity. Senior Army personnel have observed the demonstration 

flights and are encouraged by the system developments being undertaken this year, 

such as conversion of the rotor system. The Army is considering various rotor wing 

technologies to fill UAV roles. Programs ranging from the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency A–160 Hummingbird and the unmanned combat armed 

rotorcraft programs, the Fire Scout, and the U.S. Coast Guard Eagle Eye tilt rotor 

system are some of the potential candidates. 

To further support inter-Service cooperation, the UAV program office is developing a cooperative development memorandum of understanding with the Navy and 

Air Force to share UAV program information. The prime contractor for the Fire 

Scout, Northrop-Grumman, is also the prime for the Global Hawk and the Army 

Hunter UAV system. As the Army is actively converting the Hunter ground control 

stations to the Army’s standard production one-system ground control station in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, a similar conversion for the Fire Scout should 

be affordable and feasible. AAI is the prime contractor for the Army’s TUAV Shadow 

system, which entered full rate production in fiscal year 2003, and is the prime contractor for the USMC Pioneer Improvement Program. 

OIL CLEANING/FILTERING SYSTEMS

Question. It is my understanding that the Army changes oil in the engines of 

tanks, personnel carriers and helicopters at fixed intervals. There are documented 

cases of large-scale diesel equipment with over 1,000,000 miles of use on unchanged, 

but filtered, oil. Some state National Guard units and state transportation agencies 

have started to adopt this filter technology. Can you comment on the applications 

in the Army that might benefit from an oil cleaning and filtering system by Gulf 

Coast Filters of Gulfport, Mississippi, that reduces and may completely eliminate 

the need for oil changes? 

Answer. Gulf Coast Filters, Inc., has briefed the Army on their bypass filter system, and we are conducting a study at Camp Shelby on 30 five-ton trucks belonging 

to the Mississippi National Guard. Gulf Coast has briefed that their system can reduce services by five fold and reduce maintenance failure by supplementing the primary filter and using a finer filtration capability. This fine filtration will reduce 
62

larger physical contaminants such as debris and dirt, but does not detect or reduce 

other contaminants such as fuel, coolant, and water, nor will it determine the status 

of the specified physical property of the oil such as viscosity and additives. 

Bypass filters do not detect the source of contamination or wear metals caught 

in the filter. The Army oil change policy eliminates the requirement for frequent oil 

changing based on hours/miles/calendar days as specified by many technical manuals and lubrication orders. The Army is interested in lubricants and what happens 

to them in extra filtration systems such as Gulf Coast Filters. We are monitoring 

the test at Camp Shelby to capture field data to continue our analysis. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

FCS VEHICLES

Question. Secretary White, the Army’s FCS acquisition concept calls for competitive and complementary production capabilities of the two U.S. ground vehicle producers—General Dynamics and United Defense. Both companies are needed to meet 

the Army’s schedule for fielding the manned ground variants of the Future Combat 

System (FCS). 

Preservation of United Defense to produce these vehicles is dependent upon 

whether or not fiscal year 2004 funding is provided to it. Currently, no production 

funding is requested for combat vehicles produced by UDLP. Without such funding, 

United Defense’s production facilities will shut down two years before FCS low-rate 

initial production begins. 

According to recent press reports, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics was quoted as saying, ‘‘We must be able to protect at least 

two competent, cost-effective competitors on every weapon system we have. It’s our 

job to ensure our industrial base supports that kind of philosophy.’’

Given this situation, how does the Army intend to ensure that United Defense is 

maintained as a competent, cost-effective competitor to General Dynamics as well 

as a co-producer of the FCS manned ground variants, given that almost none of the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request for combat vehicles will go to United Defense and 

the same is true in the out years? 

Answer. Army Transformation required cancellation of certain programs to fund 

a variety of transformational initiatives to achieve greater war fighting capability 

over the long term. We assessed the risks to the industrial base from these program 

cancellations and, where we judged necessary, we have taken steps to mitigate adverse impacts. We saw two major risks to the industrial base as a result of the decision to not modernize the Counterattack Corps. Both of these risks involved maintaining viable armor system production capabilities at two production facilities: the 

Lima Army Tank Plant at Lima, Ohio, and the United Defense combat vehicle production facility at York, Pennsylvania. 

The first risk involves the General Dynamics’ combat vehicle fabrication capability 

at the Lima Army Tank Plant. We judged that risk as unacceptable since Lima initially had an insufficient workload to remain viable as a production facility for the 

fabrication of the Marine Corps’ Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the 

Army’s FCS ground vehicles. To mitigate this risk, the Army has restructured some 

programs and now has sufficient work to sustain Lima in active production until 

these new programs are brought into production. 

The second risk involved maintaining the United Defense’s combat vehicle production facility in Pennsylvania. We recognize that this facility would also be a likely 

candidate to manufacture FCS ground vehicles in the future. We expect that the 

production facilities in Pennsylvania will remain viable and open through calendar 

year 2004 because of a continuation of their current fiscal year 2003 Bradley upgrade work. With this expectation and acceptance of risk, we did not program fiscal 

year 2004 funding for Bradley upgrades to protect that portion of the industrial 

base. 

While we cannot guarantee additional work from support for fielded systems, foreign sales, and reprocessing vehicles from operations in Iraq, the Army is looking 

hard at workload projections after calendar year 2004 and identifying fiscal year 

2005 options which might be needed to protect any United Defense combat vehicle 

fabrication capability determined essential for future production. Those options will 

consider United Defense work on development of manned FCS non-line of sight gun 

system, unmanned ground systems, foreign sales, and other new non-traditional 

business. All of the other industrial base risks from not funding the Counterattack 

Corps are judged acceptable. 
63

Question. If the Army intends to let United Defense shutter its combat vehicle 

manufacturing plant, how does it propose to cost-effectively support/upgrade the 

many vehicles manufactured by United Defense—Bradley Fighting Vehicles, tank 

recovery vehicles, self-propelled howitzers—that are forecast to be in the inventory 

for many years to come? 

Answer. We do not expect that United Defense will close its combat vehicle manufacturing plant. We expect fiscal year 2003 funding and other work to keep essential 

skills active through the end of calendar year 2004, given that final vehicle deliveries are scheduled for June 2005. 

The program funding for Bradley system sustainment and technical support will 

transition in fiscal year 2006 from procurement to the Operation and Maintenance, 

Army account. We believe United Defense’s engineering staff and the Army’s own 

in-house staff will be able to sustain the vehicles made by United Defense. 

The shortage of Bradley upgrade funding is manageable, but there are two key 

issues we must address. The first issue is how we will fund the required technical 

support to the fielded fleet. For fiscal year 2003, the Army will have to fund the 

technical support from operations and maintenance accounts. That will present a 

problem for us because we will be addressing not only peacetime requirements but 

operational requirements associated with the global war on terrorism and operations in Iraq. Obviously, we will finance the highest priority operational requirements first and defer those which are lower priority. A second issue is whether key 

suppliers will abandon the supplier network as we reduce requirements. This is a 

continuing problem, and we will do more tradeoff analysis to support decisions, for 

example, to either stockpile components or find alternate suppliers. 

Question. Doesn’t it make sense to preserve United Defense’s combat vehicle manufacturing capabilities when doing so would simultaneously meet equipment modernization requirements of the Army National Guard or maintain previously 

planned upgrades to an additional division of the heavy counterattack force? 

Answer. The Army recognizes the industrial base capability and contributions of 

both United Defense and government-owned depot facilities. In respect to United 

Defense, the Army recognizes the potential contribution that they could make in 

support of FCS production, projected to begin in the fiscal year 2007 timeframe. The 

Army leadership is currently considering a 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment modernization strategy that encompasses both the Abrams Tank and Bradley Fighting 

Vehicles and intends to provide requested information to Congress as soon as possible. As a total force, the Army will continue to support Congressional funding focused on Army National Guard heavy force modernization. 

Question. Secretary White, in the Army’s fiscal year 2004 Posture Statement, 

General Shinseki and yourself noted: ‘‘In general, the Army increased funding for 

programs that are clearly transformational and support the Defense transformational goals, sustained funding for high priority systems that will transition 

to the Objective Force, and reduced funding for systems not essential to Army 

Transformation. The operational risk associated with the decreased funding for certain current programs is acceptable as long as we field Stryker Brigades on schedule 

and accelerate the fielding of the Objective Force for arrival this decade.’’

Given the Army’s job to preserve competition in the industrial base and the risk 

to the FCS program costs if it is not, is the risk to the armored vehicle sector acceptable as long as the Army fields Stryker Brigades on schedule and accelerates the 

initial fielding of the Objective Force? 

Answer. The Army judges the risk acceptable. I have asked the Army to look hard 

at those workload projections for current producers and identify alternatives which 

might be needed to protect any combat vehicle fabrication capability we determine 

essential for future production. Those options will consider United Defense work on 

development of manned FCS non-line of sight gun system, unmanned ground systems, foreign sales, and other new non-traditional business. All of the other industrial base risks from not funding the Counterattack Corps are judged acceptable. 

ARMY HERITAGE AND EDUCATION CENTER

Question. Secretary White, in 2000 the Army leadership made a commitment to 

staff the Army Heritage and Education Center at Carlisle Barracks with 79 people 

when it was completed. In light of that commitment, the Cumberland County Commissioners granted 54 acres of land for the project and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided $10 million. At present, the facility is suffering because it is 

understaffed. 

What are the Army’s plans for staffing the Army Heritage and Education Center? 

Answer. The Army Heritage and Education Center (AHEC) will move into their 

new facility in the spring/summer of fiscal year 2004. There is still much work to 
64

be done in the meantime. AHEC is hiring 21 new employees this year that will 

bring them up to 54. AHEC has funding for 54 this year and fiscal year 2004. A 

U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency study recommended they hire 18 additional 

employees for fiscal year 2004, which will give them 72. The study also recommend 

AHEC add two more positions in fiscal year 2005 and another five in fiscal year 

2006, which would bring AHEC to their recommended total of 79 staff members. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

WHITE SANDS/THIRD WAVE OUTSOURCING PLAN

Question. Mr. Secretary, I have reviewed your testimony regarding the Army’s 

Third Wave initiative. And I strongly agree with your objective of seeking the best 

value for our taxpayers’ dollar. We all want that. But I do have some questions 

about the process the Army has put in place to implement competitive outsourcing. 

First, it seems to me that determining what jobs are core and what jobs are noncore is a very difficult thing. Clearly, certain routine maintenance duties are not 

fundamental to the Army’s warfighting mission. But other activities that are not 

part of the warfighting mission per se have a very close relationship to how the 

warfighter performs. 

For example, many of the engineers and skilled DOD personnel in the test and 

evaluation field provide critical performance data about the systems used on the 

battlefield. To me, this is clearly connected to warfighting. 

Would you provide your assessment of where test and evaluation activities fit into 

the Third Wave proposal? 

Answer. The test and evaluation function is exempt from the A–76 competitive 

sourcing process. Congress has, in fact, in Section 802 of Public Law 96–107, 10 U.S. 

Code, Section 114, note, barred the use of A–76 procedures in connection with the 

obligation or expenditure of research, development, test or evaluation funds, except 

for the operation or support of installations or equipment used for research and development (including maintenance support of laboratories, operation and maintenance of test ranges, and maintenance of test aircraft and ships). OMB Circular A–

76 incorporates this statutory restriction. These restrictions do not foreclose alternatives to the A–76 process, and such alternatives may merit further consideration 

in these functional areas. The Department will not pursue those alternatives, however, without consulting with Congress and seeking enabling legislation where appropriate. At this stage, the decision-making is still pre-decisional with regard to the 

test and evaluation function with regard to alternatives to A–76. 

Question. Has the Army completed its study of non-core functions that are to be 

exempted from outsourcing? If not, when will these exemptions be determined? 

Answer. The Army recently completed the exemption phase of its study of noncore functions that are to be exempted from outsourcing. The Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs made 24 exemption decisions. The 

exemption decisions will be provided to the Defense oversight committees as soon 

as those meetings can be scheduled. 

Question. The issue of security is also very important. It is my understanding that 

security personnel and firefighters are exempted from the Third Wave plan by law. 

Can you confirm that guards and fire personnel will remain within DOD? 

Answer. Yes, security guards and firefighters are exempted from the Third Wave 

plan by law. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 2465, generally requires government employees to perform security guard and firefighter functions at installations located 

in the United States unless the installation becomes a contractor-operated facility. 

The issue of adequate force protection, since 9/11, is a paramount concern. We appreciate the limited Congressional relief mitigating somewhat the restrictions of 

title 10, U.S. Code, Section 2465. Section 332 of the Bob Stump National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 107–314, provides a basis in 

some circumstances for arranging for performance by local municipalities of increased security-guard functions since September 11, 2001. The Department will 

comply with these statutes unless Congress provides further relief. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM HARKIN

IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT

Question. The Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) is currently undergoing 

cleanup as a Superfund site due mostly to contamination by high explosives from 

the ammunition. Secretary White, would the Defense Department proposals for 
65

changes to CERCLA and other environmental laws remove IAAP from the Superfund program? If not, please explain why IAAP would not be covered by the exemption. If so, please explain why it would be beneficial to IAAP and the surrounding 

community for the site to be removed from CERCLA protections. 

Answer. The Defense Department proposals for Readiness and Range Preservation would not remove IAAP from the Superfund program. DOD’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA) legislative proposals clarify when 

RCRA and CERCLA apply at military ranges. IAAP is addressing contamination 

from ammunition assembling operations, which is distinct from military range activities. 

Question. The Army is currently conducting health studies of the workers and 

former workers at the IAAP site, alongside similar DOE studies of former workers 

at the nuclear weapons facility at the site. 

Please update me on the status of the studies, of the contracting the work, and 

of release of appropriated funds. 

Answer. In response to 2000 and 2001 legislation, DOD is identifying past and 

current IAAP DOD workers and notifying them of possible exposures. The workers 

have been provided DOD guidance to facilitate discussions with appropriate officials 

and health care providers. As directed, a health study of the IAAP workers has been 

developed. The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 

(USACHPPM) has contracted with the College of Public Health at the University 

of Iowa (UI) to perform the study. As part of Phase I of the DOD study, UI has 

identified over 38,000 current and former IAAP workers. The health study protocol 

has received Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from UI. 

In January 2003, USACHPPM received the revised health study protocol from UI. 

As part of USACHPPM’s contract approval process, USACHPPM reviewed UI’s 

health study protocol to ensure it is ethically and scientifically sound, and that the 

research complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 

(HIPAA). USACHPPM also arranged for peer review of the health study protocol by 

the Armed Forces Epidemiology Board and the DOE Central Beryllium IRB Committee. The final recommendations of the peer review groups are expected by the 

end of April 2003. USACHPPM will then share the recommendations with UI, and 

incorporate changes with the UI researchers. An additional $1 million of Congressional funds for fiscal year 2003 has been received by USACHPPM. Modifications 

to the existing contract are underway to incorporate this additional funding. 

Question. Congress directed that testing of workers for chronic beryllium disease 

be part of this study. Please update me on the status of and plans for conducting 

this testing. 

Answer. The DOD IAAP study will contain a complete exposure health history. 

Testing for chronic beryllium disease is complex and is under evaluation through 

additional expert peer review. Specific beryllium testing will be performed pending 

the recommendations of this expert review. 

ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL

Question. Industrial Mobilization Capacity (IMC, formerly UPC) funds are critical 

to the arsenals to pay for capacity that is maintained for national wartime requirements, not for current contracts, and thus to keep overhead rates reasonable. Last 

year Congress approved full funding of IMC, including $14.8 million for Rock Island 

Arsenal. Section 8109 of the Defense Appropriations bill did cut the working capital 

funds by 8 percent, but with the proviso ‘‘that these reductions shall be applied proportionally to each budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group and each 

program, project, and activity within each appropriation account.’’ Yet I understand 

that based on this cut, IMC funding for each of the arsenals was cut by more than 

50 percent. 

Were the reductions in Section 8109 applied proportionally to each budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group and each program, project, and activity 

within each appropriation account? If not, please explain how the distribution of the 

cuts meets Congressional direction. 

Answer. Section 8109 of the conference report reduced the amount of the budget 

request by $400 million ‘‘to reduce cost growth in information technology development.’’ The report allocated $148.6 million of the decrement to Defense Working 

Capital Fund (DWCF) and this reduction was enacted. 

The DWCF appropriation of $1,784.956 million was reduced by $148.6 million. 

After protecting the Defense Commissary Agency ($969 million), the remaining reduction was spread to all activities. The Army’s portion of the DWCF funding request was $316 million, which consisted of $89 million for war reserves, $100 mil-
66

lion for spare parts augmentation, and $127 million for IMC funding. Army’s share 

of the reduction was $67 million. 

It wasn’t feasible for the Army to apply the reduction to the war reserves or to 

the spares augmentation. The war reserve funds had already been obligated, and 

the Army was already experiencing shortfalls in spares funding. The Army’s only 

viable alternative was to take the reduction in the IMC requirement. The funding 

reduction was allocated pro rata to the IMC requirements of the eight ordnance and 

five depot maintenance activities. 

Question. Does the Army have any plans to restore the IMC funding for fiscal year 

2003? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2003 DWCF included full funding for the IMC require- ment, which was $119.7 million for the ordnance activities and $7.3 million for the 

depot maintenance activities. The DWCF appropriation was decremented $148 million, in the conference report (H.R. 107–732) for the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act (Public Law 107–248, Title V). The Army’s share, $67 million, was 

applied to the IMC funding. Given the competing demands for limited funds, it is 

unlikely the Army will be able to restore the reduction. 

The losses from this reduction could be recovered in future appropriations; otherwise, the loss will be recovered in the ordnance and depot maintenance customer 

rates for fiscal year 2005. 

Question. Can you ensure us that if Congress approves funding for IMC in fiscal 

year 2004, it will actually be used for that purpose? 

Answer. If Congress appropriates money to the Army Working Capital Fund in 

fiscal year 2004 for IMC, that money will be used for that purpose. 

GROUND SERVICES INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE (GSIE) PLAN

Question. In recent weeks the arsenals have been moving to implement the GSIE 

plan to rationalize their workload and make them more efficient, while keeping 

them as part of the federal organic base. Yet at the same time they have been buffeted by a RAND study that reportedly recommended formation of a government 

corporation, by Third Wave plans for privatization, and of course by rumors about 

the impending base closure round. I am concerned that the GSIE initiative will not 

be given time to work before some other privatization or reorganization plan is approved. Do you plan to give the arsenals time to implement the GSIE plan without 

making other major changes that could interfere with that effort? 

Answer. Formation of the Ground Systems Industrial Enterprise has been approved, and the Army leadership will be updated regularly on the progress toward 

operating efficiently without the need for subsidies. We are also responding to the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense on this. We do not anticipate that any action will 

be taken to change the GSIE operating structure before the Army has had a chance 

to assess the progress towards this objective. 

HIGH MOBILITY TRAILERS AND WASTE

Question. One of the programs I have followed with great interest is the purchase 

of high mobility trailers for the humvees. After many years, these trailers have supposedly been fixed. How many of these trailers are now in use in the field? How 

many humvees have been modified to pull them? 

Answer. The High Mobility Trailer has been renamed the Light Tactical Trailer. 

Approximately 5,200 trailers have been fielded to date, and over 10,500 humvees 

have been modified to pull them. 

Question. Have there been any problems with the trailers that are in use? 

Answer. No. They are operating quite well, as we expected. 

Question. What are your current plans for purchase of additional trailers that I 

understand are still needed? 

Answer. The Army plans to procure 5,094 trailers beginning in fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009. In fiscal year 2004, we plan to procure 576 for $9.5 million; 

in fiscal year 2005, 713 for $11.1 million; in fiscal year 2006, 550 for $8.7 million; 

in fiscal year 2007, 1,510 for $22.1 million; in fiscal year 2008, 888 for $13.7 million; 

and in fiscal year 2009, 857 for $13.5 million. The contract will be a competitive, 

firm fixed-price contract. The fiscal year 2004 contract is scheduled for award in 

March 2004.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. And I would like to thank you on behalf of all 

of us for your appearance this morning, and thank you for your testimony, and General Shinseki, I think everyone here expressed the 
67

sentiment that I would say is felt by the Senate. We thank you for 

your service, sir. 

General SHINSEKI. Thank you, Senator. Obviously, without saying, the service in this position has been the high point of anyone’s 

service in uniform, but along with that, working with the members 

of this committee and patriots in the Congress on other committees 

has certainly been a very special privilege for this soldier, and I 

thank you all for your support. 

Senator INOUYE. In a few weeks I hope to travel to Hawaii, 

where we will have the 60th anniversary of the formation of my 

combat team, the one that I served in, made up of Japanese Americans, and I can assure you that the men in the regiment are very 

proud of you, sir. 

General SHINSEKI. Thank you, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. Our next hearing of the Defense Subcommittee 

is scheduled for Wednesday, March 26, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 192. 

With that, the hearing is recessed. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, sir. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., Wednesday, March 19, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 

26.]

(69)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Shelby, Burns, 

Inouye, Dorgan, and Durbin. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. ROCHE, SECRETARY OF THE AIR 

FORCE 

ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER, AIR FORCE, CHIEF OF 

STAFF 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Secretary Roche, General Jumper, truly the 

eyes of the world are upon you, and we have witnessed with awe 

the professionalism of the Air Force and the planning that you 

have done. All Americans I think are very proud of you; some may 

disagree with the decision to go there, but I don’t think there is 

anyone that is not proud of our men and women in uniform and 

those working with them in civilian life in the Department of Defense. 

These combat missions in Iraq are really telling an amazing 

story of the times that you and your predecessors have been before 

this committee asking for taxpayers’ money to make certain that 

you had the type of equipment that you could use if and when the 

Commander in Chief asked you to perform the duties that you are 

now performing. 

I think the whole country is proud of you as I’ve said, but I think 

we are very proud that you are where you are now, because we 

know you all and we’ve worked with you and we know that you 

really have in mind the safety of those men and women that are 

under your command. 

We now begin the review of the fiscal year 2004 budget, that’s 

what we’re talking about today. There is now pending before us a 

supplemental request for fiscal year 2003 for the operations in Iraq 

and the war on terrorism. That will not be the subject of the dis-
70

cussion here today. We do believe that the missions that you are 

performing today might change this budget as we go down the line, 

as far as what’s needed in fiscal year 2004, and we will listen respectfully to any changes that you might wish to make now or later 

in your fiscal year 2004 request. 

We personally look forward, I do, to hearing your statements 

today and knowing the priorities in the budget request for fiscal 

year 2004. I do expect and hope we will hear your urgent plea for 

action on the supplemental, which I hope to get passed before we 

leave on the Easter recess. And as you may know, I have made the 

statement to our Commander in Chief that if we don’t finish by the 

time for our recess, I don’t think we should leave Washington until 

we do finish the supplemental. It’s that important, I believe, to the 

men and women wearing our uniform around the world. 

We will make your statements part of the record in full, I look 

forward to your statements today, and before you proceed, let me 

call on my good friend from Hawaii, my co-chairman. 

Senator INOUYE. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, General Jumper, I join my chairman in welcoming 

you once again to testify before this committee. 

Let me join my chairman in saying how proud and supportive we 

are of the work done by the men and women of the Air Force in 

support of the global war on terrorism and the current mission in 

Iraq. I can join my chairman in assuring you that this committee 

will do all it can to support the Department’s effort. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Burns, do you have a statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo our feelings, 

I think I, along with the rest of my colleagues and you, try to offer 

our men and women who are wearing the uniform right now, especially the Air Force, not only have the training and the equipment 

to complete the mission that we have, and also get them home safely. We are very supportive of your organization, your leadership, 

and of course the role that all people are playing right now who 

wear the uniform of this country and believe in the same precepts 

that we do. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, let me echo the comments you 

have made and my other two colleagues, Mr. Secretary, and especially to the men and women who serve under you for your service 

to our country. I’m going to have to go to the floor of the Senate 

for about 15 to 20 minutes at 10:30, but I want to come back. I do 

have a series of questions I want to ask. And again, it’s always a 

great opportunity to hear from General Jumper, and thank you for 

your service. 

Senator STEVENS. Let me remind the committee that we have 

these high tech microphones now, and you have to push the button, 

but the light shows underneath it rather than on top. Be sure you 

turn it on when you’re going to speak. 
71

Secretary Roche, we should all have a moment of silent prayer 

for the souls of those who have already lost their lives in this endeavor, and I do hope you will agree that we should just stand here 

in a moment of silence before we begin this testimony. 

Secretary ROCHE. I would be honored, Mr. Chairman. 

[A moment of silence was observed.] 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Those visions on the television bring back memories to Senator 

Inouye and myself, and I think others on this committee, so we do 

welcome you today and look forward to your testimony. 

Secretary ROCHE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think 

I’ve got the button pushed correctly and it’s working. 

Thank you, sir, and thank you, Senator Inouye and members of 

the committee for this opportunity. It is my great honor to join my 

colleague General John Jumper today, to represent the 700,000 active, guard, reserve and civilian airmen who are engaged in defending our nation and serving our interests around the globe. We are 

very proud of their honorable service and unshakable dedication, 

from combat operations and homeland defense to the daily efforts 

that guarantee the readiness, health, security and morale of our 

force. 

In our travels around the Air Force, as you have traveled around 

to many of our bases, we have been impressed and humbled by the 

creativity of our airmen, their commitment and their professionalism. 

As we appear before you today, we have close to 50,000 airmen 

serving at some 50 expeditionary bases in more than 35 countries, 

plus another 60,000 airmen currently assigned overseas. We have 

over 43,000 airmen in the area of operations as of today. They are 

fighting the war on terrorism and defending our Nation’s interests 

even as we speak. 

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Air Force has fully integrated 

into a joint and coalition force conducting combat operations in 

support of our strategic and campaign objectives. The combined 

forces’ air component commander, Air Force Lieutenant General 

Buzz Moseley, who many of you in the Senate know, commands almost 2,000 Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and coalition aircraft in 

a single combined air operation center in Southwest Asia. 

AIR POWER

The air picture in this operation center shows the dense presence 

of air power over the entire country of Iraq. If we could have a 

camera looking down from far far overhead, with a blue dot for 

every American airplane over Iraq, I think you would be pleased 

to see the incredible coverage of air power over that country supporting the forces on the ground and supporting key objectives. We 

are targeting the Iraqi regime, Saddam’s command and control systems, weapons of mass destruction, security apparatus in the regular forces, who have often used brutal oppression and treachery 

to sustain the regime, and the Iraqi military forces engaged against 

our marines, soldiers and airmen on the ground. 
72

Our first and parallel campaign, to support the suppression of 

enemy air defenses, Scud hunting, and information operations have 

and will continue to enable the maneuver of maritime and special 

operations forces to operate under the umbrella of air dominance 

throughout the theater. 

Our extended preparation of battle space since last summer, consisting of nearly 4,000 combat sorties and year of planning has resulted in unprecedented flexibility in achieving decisive effects. The 

10 years that we’ve been in Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch have provided us with crews, about 70 to 75 

percent of whom are combat experienced as they enter into this 

conflict. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that to date, the Iraqi Air 

Force has not flown a single sortie against coalition forces or the 

Iraqi people. This is airspace dominance. This is what General 

Jumper has been working on for his whole life, this is what he 

promised, and we are delivering. This is what we pledged to deliver 

to our combatant commanders and to our Nation, should the President call upon us to do so. Mr. Chairman, you are quite right, they 

have performed superbly, along with their colleagues on the ground 

and at sea. 

TRANSFORMATION

As we prepare for future uncertainty, we fully support the Department’s continuing efforts to balance near-term readiness and 

operational requirements with long-term transformation of our 

Armed Forces. Our challenge is to fight the global war on terrorism 

while simultaneously transforming, and we must do both. 

Now while we face near-term budget pressures, we nevertheless 

must invest for the future. Otherwise, we may be forced to pay 

more later in dollars and perhaps even in lives. Of utmost importance to us is our continued focus on warfighting and delivering a 

full spectrum of air and space capabilities to combatant commanders. Through the efforts of this committee, your colleagues in 

the Congress, and Secretary Rumsfeld, I am proud to report that 

we are currently meeting these objectives. 

HOMELAND DEFENSE

We have some good news to report on calendar year 2002, Mr. 

Chairman. It was a year of challenging operations. In calendar 

year 2002 we continued our expanded homeland defense mission, 

providing 25,000 fighter, tanker and airborne warning sorties. This 

was made possible only through the mobilization of over 30,000 airmen in the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. They have 

conducted over 75 percent of all the Noble Eagle missions and they 

have done it superbly. 

Today we continue this effort, in fact it’s a heightened effort, 

with more than 200 military aircraft dedicated to providing combat 

air patrols, for on-call support to high risk areas, cities and key facilities in the United States. In Operation Enduring Freedom, we 

made joint operations on a landlocked nation possible. We flew 

more than 40,000 sorties, over 70 percent of the coalition air operations, in 2002 alone, and of our 8,000 refueling missions we are 
73

proud to point out that 55 percent were to Navy and Marine Corps, 

and coalition aircraft. 

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, our special operations teams developed new 

ways to bring air and space power to bear in a variety of engagements. Our combat controllers integrated new technologies and 

precision weapons to do close air support from 39,000 feet, using 

B–1 and B–52 bombers, and at lower altitudes for our Air Force, 

Navy and Marine Corps fighter bombers. And we’re now developing 

better processes to target and engage time-critical moving targets. 

IRAQ

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we flew 648 Air Force missions in 

Iraq, over Iraq. Our colleagues in the Navy and Marine Corps also 

flew many hundred missions. To date, in the last 5 days of this 

conflict, sir, we have flown over 4,800 sorties over Iraq. That includes bombers, fighters, our Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) 

and special operators, and our Command, Control, Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C2ISR), as well as tankers and cargo 

aircraft. So we have been working quite hard. 

B–1

Continuous improvements in readiness and technology made 

these successes possible. With your support we successfully consolidated our B–1 bomber fleet and improved overall readiness. Its 

mission-capable rate was up 10 percent last year and is now over 

71 percent, the highest in history, and we are proud to point out, 

Mr. Chairman, that the B–1 has flown over Baghdad with 24 weapons on each sortie, 24 highly precise weapons on each sortie. 

C–5

The increases funded by this committee and the Congress that 

you have supported is paying off well. Sixteen of 20 weapons systems improved mission-capable rates last year. The C–5B achieved 

its highest mission-capable rate since 1994, it’s now at 73 percent. 

The B–2 improved over 50 percent. 

A–10 AND F–15 AIRCRAFT

The A–10, a workhorse working with our Army ground forces 

right now, is up 8 percent, and our F–15s are up over 5 percent. 

These are the best mission-capable rates we have experienced in 5 

years and the best annual increases we’ve achieved since the mid1980s. 

Mr. Chairman, while we are making great progress in adapting 

the Air Force, we face many challenges to our continued superiority 

as you are well aware. The increasing proliferation of advanced 

surface-to-air missile systems threatens our ability to gain and 

maintain air superiority in potential conflicts. Manned portable 

surface-to-air missiles have proliferated extensively, and in fact 

new ballistic missile and cruise missile technologies are spreading. 
74

RUSSIAN SU–37

An advanced fighter has already been produced, specifically the 

Russian SU–37, that is superior to our best fighter, a prototype 

that has not yet been explored. 

We are also now facing the undeniable reality that other nations 

are investing in American military technologies and fielding the 

best our aerospace industry has to offer in their air forces. While 

the investment of our good friends and allies is a great value to our 

alliances and industrial base, superior capabilities are now or 

shortly will be present in American-produced airplanes that don’t 

fly the American flag. And I remind you, sir, that in the late 1930s, 

the aerospace industry of America, 38 percent of its sales were 

overseas sales, because they did not have enough of a market here 

in the United States, and some of the best technology was in fact 

being exported to other countries in the late 1930s, and some of 

that technology, regrettably, we had to face in combat. 

AGING AIRCRAFT

Now while other nations are modernizing, we continue to employ 

aging systems that are becoming more difficult to operate and more 

expensive to maintain. The average age of the operational Air 

Force fleet is over 22 years per aircraft. Even with planned aircraft 

procurements, the total fleet average age is expected to increase to 

27 years by the year 2020. 

We benchmark this by noting how many of existing aircraft that 

are flying, Mr. Chairman, were flying prior to my being commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy, or prior to General 

Jumper being commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the United 

States Air Force. And you should know, all of our tanker aircraft 

that are flying today were flying before General Jumper was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, and a goodly number of the E models were flying when I was commissioned an Ensign. I’m old, but 

these planes are older. 

In the way ahead, our proposed fiscal year 2004 budget addresses a number of our challenges and supports the Department’s priorities. It accelerates our modernization and joint capabilities and 

maintains the gains in readiness and people programs that we 

achieved last year. Most importantly, it gets money into our procurement programs and funds essential capabilities our warfighters 

need. 

I strongly request that you support these major programs so that 

we can get our costs out and we can get reliability up. 

MANPOWER

Our number one investment priority remains our people. The 

budget fully supports our authorized total force end strength, funds 

our education and force development initiatives, puts us on track 

to eliminate inadequate housing, and reduces out-of-pocket housing 

expenses on schedule with Secretary Rumsfeld’s objectives. 

We appreciate your continued support of pay raises for our uniformed and civilian airmen, and they truly, truly appreciate the 

way this has been done, with the disproportionate amounts going 

to our most senior enlisted. 
75

READINESS

Our readiness budget increases by 6 percent. It funds an expanded $6 billion flying hours program, and sustains the positive 

trends we’ve achieved in our readiness rates. 

Our proposal increases our infrastructure investment compared 

to the fiscal year 2003 requested level and keeps us on track to 

meet the Department’s goal of a 67 year recapitalization rate by 

fiscal year 2008. 

F/A–22

Finally, I’m proud to report our proposed budget increases investment in new technologies by 5 percent over last year. Next year we 

will fund 20 F/A–22s with new crew, continuing our move to sustained production rate. The program is improving and the Raptor 

is currently meeting or exceeding all key performance related requirements. We have a structure to do upgrade spirals to focus on 

developing systems with inherent air-to-ground capabilities, and 

have recently delivered our initial production aircraft to Nellis Air 

Force Base. 

Now we are experiencing some difficulties with the new program, 

and this is one that is dramatically dependent on software, one of 

the greatest advances in aviation in our history. The software integration and test is an issue that we are battling through. Mr. 

Chairman, General Jumper and I personally got involved in this 

program in July of last year, and in the course of those 8 months 

we have airplanes now either being delivered on time or early. We 

have taken care of all foreign object damage production techniques 

that were happening with the contractor, we have fixed the problem of fin buffet, we are making test forms across the board, both 

in terms of flying test points, logistic test points. 

We have basically narrowed down what needs to be done to push 

this aircraft through to completion, and the software stability is 

something we’re working on very, very hard. It represents the classic challenge of transitioning from development to production, and 

when something is this software-dependent, it is very difficult to 

bring everything together, and then when we bring it together, we 

try and make it work. 

What is different about the program, Mr. Chairman, is we now 

have a more realistic cost-estimating regime and a far better management team in place to anticipate the likely challenges we will 

face. 

We remain committed to our F/A–22 buy-to-budget strategy, and 

will maximize the number of aircraft we procure within the pre-established budget caps. This serves as an insurance policy for the 

taxpayer and an incentive for the Air Force and our industry suppliers to get it done right. With your support, we will continue to 

deliver the only operational system we will field this decade that 

puts iron on the enemy. 

And if I may add, Mr. Chairman, we are dedicated to bringing 

the system on line because it will alter how we fight. If we can’t, 

John Jumper and I will be the first to recommend to Secretary 

Rumsfeld that this program be terminated. We ask you to give us 

a chance to deliver the system, a system about which you would 
76

be very proud, a system that will parallel the C–17, a program that 

almost died, almost died, and almost died, and is now being the absolute workhorse of this battle. 

More cuts and restrictions at this juncture will only increase inefficiencies and costs. We need a blessed year or two of stability to 

be able to bring this home. 

Mr. Chairman, we are also working with Secretary Rumsfeld and 

our colleagues to implement a range of sensible management practices that we believe will help minimize obstacles to a path of effective future administration of the Department. In particular, we are 

looking at measures to transform our personnel, acquisition, administrative and range management practices. 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

And yes, Mr. Chairman, we absolutely support your point on the 

supplemental. Sixty two point some billion dollars is something 

that we can’t take out of hide, clearly. We see ourselves going broke 

sometime in the early summer. We believe that this is a reasonable 

estimate of what we need to go forward, and we certainly agree 

with you that having the supplemental dealt with by Easter would 

be a dramatic boon to our forces because we would be able to deal 

with the problem that we have been cash flowing expenditures because of the war, leaving us with a number of gaps, and adjusting 

those gaps with a supplemental would be a major issue. 

We thank you for the investments you’ve made in our future, for 

the trust that you have placed in our concerted effort to provide 

America with aerospace dominance. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, it is my distinct pleasure to come to 

work every day and work with the finest colleague I have ever 

worked with, John Jumper. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. General Jumper. 

General JUMPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, it 

is a pleasure to be before this distinguished committee again this 

year and to be able to talk about our great United States Air Force. 

And your airmen, Mr. Chairman, are proud to stand beside the soldiers, sailors and marines engaged in the conflict that commands 

all of our attention today. 

Let me add also what a pleasure it is for our United States Air 

Force to have this veteran sailor who sits beside me here today, a 

graduate of the United States Navy after 23 years and a commander of a ship, it’s a pleasure to have someone who brings command responsibility and the understanding of command and warfare to our United States Air Force. He has graduated from an ancient mariner to an elder airman, and he has made that transition 

very well, sir, and I am very proud to serve with him. 

MISSION CAPABLE RATES

Sir, I would say in the present operations, we are seeing missioncapable rates on our platforms over there between 80 and 90 percent. This has been enabled by the attention this committee has 

paid over the last few years to get the parts and the assets to the 

people out there who fix these airplanes. 
77

C–17

The secondary effect is the effect it has on retention and recruiting. When you get the part to the airman on the flight line to fix 

the airplane, you have just given that airman our vote that we care 

about what he does, and that translates directly into retention 

rates and we are enjoying some of the highest retention rates in 

the Air Force that we’ve seen for a very long time for our experienced airmen. So, I thank you for all the attention over the years 

you have paid to that and as the Secretary pointed out, the C–17 

example, we have seen that great program mature into an aircraft 

that we just could not do without in this current conflict. 

We have also seen support from this committee on a new series 

of weapons like the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), and I’m 

happy to report that having found the Global Positioning System 

(GPS) jammers in and around Baghdad, we were able to take those 

jammers out with GPS-aided bombs, the JDAM, the very bomb the 

jammer was designed to defeat, because it was such a great weapon. 

OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE

As the Secretary pointed out, we don’t do this alone. In Operation Noble Eagle, over 80 percent of the effort that goes in to patrolling the skies over America is done by our National Guard and 

Reserve. Although today we have the 388th Fighter Wing from Hill 

Air Force Base flying Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) as we speak over 

Washington D.C., over 80 percent of those on a day-to-day basis are 

performed by the Guard and Reserve, and most of those over the 

United States today are in fact done by the Guard and Reserve. 

KC–135

As my boss pointed out, we’re also dealing with the effects of an 

aging force and all you have to do is go out to Tinker Air Force 

Base and see the corrosion that is eating away at our KC–135 fleet 

to be convinced that you cannot fly airplanes forever. And we will 

continue to try to do our best to replace the worst of those airplanes as soon as we can. 

F/A–22

I would also add, sir, to my boss’s description of the F/A–22, in 

addition to the data he has provided, we also have talked to the 

pilots on a day-to-day basis, and the pilots who are out flying the 

airplane come back with stories of the most magnificent increase 

in combat capability that they have imagined. The airplane is performing superbly all of the things that we need the most, the super 

cruise, the stealth qualities, and as the boss pointed out, we still 

have to work on the software integration problem, but we have devoted our full attention to this, the Secretary and I, and we see a 

way through this. And again, I add my plea for program stability 

as we go into the future. 

There are many other things that are transformational that are 

ongoing with regard to space and other weapons developments that 

we’re excited about, but the thing that we’re most excited about is 

our people. And you all get to travel around, you get to see our peo-
78

ple in action out there on the flight lines and in operation, and I 

think we can all be very proud of the young Americans we’re putting out there. 

LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE

One of the things I like to do is go to Lackland Air Force Base 

on Fridays. Every Friday we bring in a thousand new airmen into 

our Air Force, and they parade by and it’s a wonderful ceremony. 

But a fun thing to do is to go sit in a dark corner somewhere and 

watch the youngsters get back with their parents after their parents haven’t seen them for several weeks. And if you look hard 

enough, after every ceremony, you will see some young airman 

standing in front of his or her mother or father saying yes, mom, 

it is me, because the parents don’t even recognize the kid they 

dropped off just a few short weeks ago. And the dad’s standing 

back saying this ain’t my kid, this kid is standing up straight, saying ma’am and sir, but it is. 

SOUTHWEST ASIA

And you go out there and you see them in action. I was recently 

at a base in Southwest Asia and I was approached by a young captain combat engineer with his chief master sergeant, who came up 

and saluted, and said, sir, I’m building this runway. And he’s over 

there building a runway, not a minor project by any standard. And 

he says, sir, I started this runway a while ago, they’re trying to 

send me home in a couple of weeks because I’m due to rotate. I’m 

here to tell you, the chief and I are here to tell you that we’re not 

leaving until this runway is done, this is my runway. And that’s 

the way they feel and operate, and we see it out there all the time. 

It is something for us all to be proud of. 

I love to talk to World War II veterans, you all know this, but 

some of them don’t know that this generation when properly motivated are every bit as dedicated and patriotic as any generation 

that ever served, and I’m proud to be a part of that. 

AIR FORCE ACADEMY

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just make one note about the 

United States (U.S.) Air Force Academy. The Secretary and I have 

devoted personal attention—you notice that there have been no 

spokesmen on this issue. This is an issue we’re taking on personally. Your constituents out there who come to you and ask for 

nominations to the United States Air Force Academy need to know 

that it’s a safe place to go, that it’s a place where we devote our 

full energy to developing officers of high character and high moral 

standards. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We will implement a set of corrections at the Air Force Academy 

that will return us to those high standards, and again, the Secretary and I will personally oversee their implementation and returning the United States Air Force Academy to the superb institution that it really is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions. 
79

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES G. ROCHE AND GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Air Force has an unlimited horizon for air and space capabilities. Our Service was borne of innovation, and we 

remain focused on identifying and developing the concepts of operations, advanced 

technologies, and integrated operations required to provide the joint force with unprecedented capabilities and to remain the world’s dominant air and space force. 

The Wright brothers’ historic flight in 1903 ushered in the dawn of a dramatic 

era of scientific, cultural, and technological advances. As the Air Force celebrates 

this centennial of powered flight, we do so with the recognition that, despite the 

daunting challenges of a more dynamic security environment, the next hundred 

years will witness equally fantastic achievements. The 2003 Air Force Posture 

Statement reflects this optimism. In this report, we relate some of our accomplishments of 2002 as well as our vision of an innovative and adaptive force capable of 

guaranteeing American air and space dominance for the decades to come. Our successes are America’s successes; they are the direct result of the selfless and unconditional service by men and women of the Total Air Force and their families. 

During the past year, and in the midst of combat and a variety of contingency 

operations, we evaluated, implemented, and validated a host of technological advances, organizational changes, and concepts of operations. These enabled us to deliver desired effects faster and with greater precision than at any time in the history 

of warfare. Such adaptation is characteristic of our Service, as airmen continually 

strive to push innovation ever forward en route to unprecedented air and space capabilities for combatant commanders, the joint force, and our Nation. In the year 

ahead, we will move our expeditionary Air Force closer to realizing the transformational imperatives of this new era, machine-to-machine digital integration of 

manned, unmanned and space assets, and joint command and control. Our concepts 

of operations leverage this integration, and expand our asymmetric advantages in 

air and space—advantages that are fundamental to defending America’s interests, 

assuring our allies and coalition partners, and winning the Nation’s wars. 

We recognize the responsibility for America’s security is not one we shoulder 

alone. We work tirelessly toward developing and training professional airmen, 

transitioning new technologies into warfighting, and integrating the capabilities of 

our sister services, other government agencies, and those of our friends abroad to 

act in the most efficient and effective manner across all operations—from humanitarian to combat missions. At the same time, we pay special attention to the consolidating aerospace industry, our acquisition processes, and our critical modernization 

challenges, to ensure we will be able to draw upon our core competencies for decades 

to come. 

Blessed with full endorsement from the American people, the Congress, and the 

President, we will remain the world’s dominant Air Force. We are honored to serve 

with America’s airmen, and we sincerely appreciate the confidence in our commitment and capability to provide our great nation with superiority in air and space. 

INTRODUCTION

As America approaches the 100th anniversary of powered flight, the Air Force realizes that the nation is only in the adolescence of air and space capabilities. Yet 

we envision a future that will manifest dramatic advances in propulsion, operational 

employment, weapons systems, information technology, education, and training for 

our air and space forces. It is a future of unprecedented, seamless integration of air 

and space capabilities with joint command and control at the operational level of 

war, and machine-to-machine integration at the tactical level. We are pursuing 

these changes—some elementary, others revolutionary—which will dramatically escalate the capabilities available to the joint forces of the United States, perpetuate 

American air and space dominance, and redefine the nature of warfare. 

If there was any ambiguity about the nature of the security environment in this 

new century, the attacks of September 11, 2001 crystallized the setting. Just as the 

turmoil of the previous decade eluded prediction, the dynamic setting of the decades 

ahead poses even greater predictive challenges as centers of power and sources of 

conflict migrate from traditional origins. No longer will it suffice to prepare for real 

and perceived threats from nation-states. Instead, America must apply the sum of 

our operational experiences and experimentation to develop dynamic, flexible, and 

adaptable forces, capable of dissuading, deterring, and defeating a much wider 

range of potential adversaries, while still assuring our friends and allies. 

This fluid setting underscores the need for doctrinal agility, and expeditious and 

responsive acquisition, planning, and execution across the spectrum of capabilities 
80

in support of homeland security—from the most difficult anti-access scenario to humanitarian relief. As new generations of technology proliferate among potential adversaries, we also are reminded of the need to keep pushing technology forward. In 

less than one hundred years, we elevated from a Kitty Hawk biplane flying 100 feet 

on a 12-second flight, to a host of sophisticated, stealthy aerial vehicles capable of 

reaching any place in the world, and an array of satellites that circle the globe continuously. We do not rest on these achievements, but instead engage a new generation of innovation. Therefore, our mission is to make calculated research, development, and procurement decisions with the resolve to integrate all of our combat, information, and support systems into an enterprise architecture that contributes 

joint air and space capabilities to help win the Nation’s wars. 

Meeting these requirements also warrants our continued transformation into an 

expeditionary force with the culture, composition, and capabilities to fulfill our 

evolving operational tasks. As the scope of global contingencies requiring American 

involvement has multiplied, we have witnessed the substantial value of agility, 

rapid response, and integration. Thus, we are becoming ever more responsive in 

time, technology, and training, and in the process, we are elevating Air Force contributions to joint capabilities, while developing our airmen as joint warfighters. 

A year ago, Secretary Rumsfeld laid out a number of key priorities for the Department of Defense (DOD). All of these—from pursuing the global war on terrorism and 

strengthening joint warfighting capabilities, to streamlining the DOD processes and 

improving interagency integration—demand across-the-board changes in the way 

the Defense Department operates. The Air Force has taken advantage of this opportunity to evaluate and strengthen our capabilities, and to fundamentally drive our 

investment strategy. 

As we contemplate more than a decade of unprecedented success using air and 

space power, we recognize that we never fight alone. The emerging interdependence 

of joint, coalition, and alliance partnerships throughout a decade of contingency warfare has been a profound lesson learned. Through cooperative planning, we will realize the full potential of our Service—bringing to bear fully integrated air and space 

capabilities. 

It is our imperative to approach this planning and integration with innovation 

and vision, fundamentally focused on capabilities. All of the armed forces are focusing on meeting the Quadrennial Defense Review’s ‘‘1–4–2–1’’ force-shaping construct, by defining the fundamental capabilities required to meet the challenges of 

a changing world. These are: to defend the United States through Homeland Security; to deter aggression and coercion in the four critical regions of Europe, Northeast Asia, Southwest Asia and the Asian littorals; to swiftly defeat aggression in 

overlapping major conflicts while being capable of decisive victory in one of those 

conflicts; and to conduct a number of smaller scale contingencies. A revitalized, capabilities-focused approach to operational military requirements will allow us to 

meet these missions. 

Our focus on capabilities for an uncertain future has inspired us to adapt a new 

the way we organize, train, and equip our forces. We have begun by developing Task 

Force Concepts of Operations (TF CONOPS), which will define how we will fight 

and integrate our air and space capabilities with joint, coalition, and alliance forces. 

The requirements that emerge from these operational concepts will guide a reformed 

acquisition process that will include more active, continuous partnerships among requirement, development, operational, test, and industry communities working sideby-side at the program level. 

This process can only be successful with the help of a vibrant defense industry. 

Yet today the aerospace industry is consolidating to a point that threatens to diminish the advantages of competition. This, in turn, can lead to loss of innovation, diminished technical skill base, lower cost efficiencies, and other challenges. We must 

foster increased competition to ensure the long-term health of an industrial sector 

critical to our national security. While the Air Force will continue to advance the 

vision and associated capabilities for air and space, we also must challenge industry 

in order for it to stay on the cutting edge of technology and efficient management 

practices. 

Finally, transforming our force will not be possible without a process to educate, 

train, and offer experience to the right mix of Active Duty, Air National Guard, Air 

Force Reserve, and civilian airmen who understand the nature of our changing security environment. To achieve this, we will evolve what we have traditionally called 

the ‘‘personnel’’ function in new ways so as to blend Professional Military Education, 

advanced academic degrees, and assignment policies under the auspices of ‘‘Force 

Development.’’

This is the United States Air Force in 2003—inherently innovative, tirelessly 

dedicated, and comprised of the very best airmen and capabilities in the world to 
81

ensure American security and defend her interests. This is what our nation expects, 

and we will continually meet that expectation. 

WHAT WE DO

The United States armed forces exist to fight and win our Nation’s wars, which 

no service can accomplish alone. The Air Force’s pivotal role is to deliver fully capable and integrated air and space power to the Joint Force Commander (JFC). By 

dominating the media of elevation, the Air Force offers unique warfighting capabilities that leverage the strengths of surface forces and expand the range of potential 

effects. 

Air and space are realms with unlimited horizons for discovery and development. 

While the Air Force has made tremendous strides in realizing the visions of early 

airmen and exploiting the operational potential in each medium, we know there is 

an array of capabilities as yet undiscovered. As the Air Force strives to realize these 

possibilities, we deliver a multitude of air and space achievements for joint 

warfighting. 

Although relatively short, Air Force history reveals fundamental competencies 

that are core to developing and delivering air and space power—those unique institutional qualities that set the Air Force apart from the other services and any other 

military force in the world. By identifying and keeping these competencies foremost 

in our vision, we are able to more effectively advance the unique capabilities, as well 

as the ultimate effects, the Air Force provides to the joint force and the Nation. 

The Air Force continually develops areas of expertise that make us the preeminent air and space force in the world. Previously, we distilled these into six distinctive capabilities which we referred to as our ‘‘core competencies’’—Air and Space 

Superiority, Global Attack, Rapid Global Mobility, Precision Engagement, Information Superiority, and Agile Combat Support. However, just as our concepts of operations and capabilities continuously evolve, so also does the way in which we articulate Air Force competencies. With deeper refinement, we learned there are more 

fundamental elements to what we are as an Air Force and how we develop our capabilities for joint warfighting. These are our underlying institutional air and space 

core competencies—those that, in fact, make the six distinctive capabilities possible: 

Developing Airmen, Technology-to-Warfighting, and Integrating Operations. These 

three air and space core competencies form the basis through which we organize, 

train, and equip and from which we derive our strengths as a service. 

(1) Developing Airmen—The heart of combat capability 

The ultimate source of air and space combat capability resides in the men and 

women of the Air Force. The potential of technology, organization, and strategy are 

diminished without professional airmen to leverage their value. Our Total Force of 

Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian personnel are our largest investment and 

most critical asset. They are airmen, steeped in our expeditionary Service ethos. 

Therefore, from the moment they step into the Air Force through their last day of 

service, we are dedicated to ensuring they receive the precise education, training, 

and professional development necessary to provide a quality edge second to none. 

The full spectrum capabilities of our Air Force stem from the collective abilities of 

our personnel; and the abilities of our people stem from career-long development of 

professional airmen. 

(2) Technology-to-Warfighting—The tools of combat capability 

The vision of airmen in employing air and space power fundamentally altered how 

we address conflict. As the leader in military application of air and space technology, the Air Force is committed to innovation and possesses a vision to guide research, development, and fielding of unsurpassed capabilities. Just as the advent of 

aircraft revolutionized joint warfighting, recent advances in low observable technologies, space-based systems, manipulation of information, precision, and small, 

smart weapons offer no less dramatic advantages for combatant commanders. The 

Air Force nurtures and promotes its ability to translate vision into operational capability in order to produce desired effects. Our innovative operational concepts illuminate the capabilities we need, allowing us to develop unsurpassed capabilities to 

prevail in conflict and avert technological surprise. 

The F/A–22 is demonstrative of this ability to adapt technology to warfighting capabilities. Originally envisioned as an air superiority fighter, it has been transformed into a multi-role system. The F/A–22 not only brings to bear warfighting capabilities without equal for decades to come, but also includes those we did not foresee at its inception. Collectively, the platform’s supercruise, stealth, maneuverability, and novel avionics will deliver the ability to create crucial battlefield effects 
82

to the hands of the warfighter, and allow access to revolutionary concepts of operations. 

(3) Integrating Operations—Maximizing combat capabilities 

Effectively integrating the diverse capabilities found in all four services remains 

pivotal to successful joint warfighting. The Air Force contributes to this enduring 

objective as each element of air and space power brings unique and essential capabilities to the joint force. Our inherent ability to envision, experiment, and ultimately execute the union of a myriad of platforms and people into a greater, synergistic whole is the key to maximizing these capabilities. In so doing, we are able 

to focus acquisition and force planning on systems that enable specific, effects-based 

capabilities, rather than on individual platforms. 

Embedded in our exploration of innovative operational concepts is the efficient integration of all military systems—air, land, maritime, space, and information—to 

ensure maximum flexibility in the joint delivery of desired effects across the spectrum of conflict, from war to operations short of war. However, effective integration 

involves more than smart technology investment—it also requires investigation of 

efficient joint and service organization and innovative operational thinking. Thus, 

investments in our people to foster intellectual flexibility and critical analysis are 

equally as important as our technology investments. 

Collectively, our air and space core competencies reflect the visions of the earliest 

airmen and serve to realize the potential of air and space forces. We foster ingenuity 

and adventure in the development of the world’s most professional airmen. We seek 

to translate new technologies into practical systems while we encourage intellectual 

innovation at every level of war. And, we drive relentlessly toward integration in 

order to realize the potential and maturation of air and space capabilities. 

Our proficiency in the three institutional air and space core competencies underpins our ability to deliver the Air Force’s six distinctive capabilities in joint 

warfighting. In turn, our capabilities enable desired effects across the spectrum of 

joint operations through our task forces drawn from our air and space expeditionary 

forces. The results of this relationship between core competencies, distinctive capabilities, and operational effects are manifest in the array of successful missions the 

Air Force accomplished in the past year and those we continue to execute. 

Expeditionary Construct 

Our core competencies reflect a legacy of innovation and adaptation to accomplish 

our mission. This point is underscored by the fact that, in spite of over a 30 percent 

reduction in manpower in the past twelve years, we have faced an exponential increase in worldwide taskings. Intensifying operations tempo (OPSTEMPO) requires 

significant changes in the way our force trains, organizes, and deploys to support 

JFC requirements. We are a truly expeditionary force—the nature of our ‘‘business’’ 

is deployed operations. 

The Air Force meets JFC requirements by presenting forces and capabilities 

through our Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF) construct. This divides our 

combat forces into ten equivalent AEFs, each possessing air and space warfighting 

and associated mobility and support capabilities. A key element of our ability to deliver these tailored and ready expeditionary forces is our development of Task Force 

Concepts of Operations. Our TF CONOPS describe how we fight and how we integrate with our sister services and outside agencies. They are the fundamental blueprints for how we go to war. Combined with our AEF construct—the principal tool 

we use to present expeditionary wings, groups, and squadrons—TF CONOPS will 

guide our decisions in operational planning, enable us to provide scalable, quick-reacting, tasked-organized units from the ten standing AEFs; and sustain our ability 

to ensure trained and ready forces are available to satisfy operational plans and 

contingency requirements. 

The AEF construct incorporates a 15-month cycle during which two AEFs are designated as lead for a 90-day ‘‘eligibility’’ period. During this period, the two are either deployed or on alert for daily, worldwide expeditionary taskings, for which they 

are tailored and presented to the JFC as expeditionary squadrons, groups, and 

wings (depending on the specific requirement.) Meanwhile, the remaining eight 

AEFs are in various stages of reconstituting, training, or preparatory spin-up. It is 

during this preparatory time (approximately two months) that we integrate the 

training-to-task of AEF squadrons immediately prior to their on-call window. 

Yet, it is important to note that while our combat forces cycle through deployment 

vulnerability periods, they sustain wartime readiness throughout the 15-month 

training and preparation cycle—a critical driver of our 90-day eligibility window. 

Our AEF cycle thus precludes the need for ‘‘tiered’’ readiness by allowing our combat forces to remain current and capable for any contingency or operational plan. 
83

While ensuring necessary capabilities for the JFC, AEF cycles allow us to provide 

our airmen with a more stable and predictable environment in which to train, refit, and equip. In addition, AEF scheduling makes it easier and more practicable for 

the Air Reserve Component (ARC) forces—Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and 

Air National Guard (ANG)—to bring their essential contributions to bear by allowing them to plan definitive absences from their civilian employment. This is a critical advantage of the AEF construct, as ARC forces comprise nearly half of the 

forces assigned to AEFs and contribute the majority of forces for some mission 

areas. 

Operations in 2002

Confident in our air and space capabilities, and committed to meeting any mission 

tasked, the Air Force completed an unprecedented array of operations and exercises 

in 2002. From the mountain ranges in Afghanistan and the jungles of the Philippines to the deserts of the Middle East, and across every continent and body of 

water, the Air Force joined with land and naval forces to secure America’s national 

objectives. With each mission, the joint force grows more capable as it applies vision, 

experimentation, and integration to every undertaking. We do not act as individual 

services, but in concert as joint warfighters, as we prevail in the war on terrorism 

and in all undertakings. 

Assuring our Nation’s citizens, the Air Force conducts a range of alert postures 

involving more than 200 military aircraft at over 20 airbases for Operation NOBLE 

EAGLE (ONE). In conjunction with unprecedented NATO airborne warning support 

and other U.S. assets, we have provided continuous combat air patrols over sensitive/high risk areas, and random patrols over other metropolitan areas and key 

infrastructure. Last year, we flew over 25,000 ONE fighter, tanker, airlift, and airborne warning sorties, made possible only through the mobilization of over 30,000 

reserve component airmen. In fact, the ANG and AFRC have effected over 75 percent of the total ONE missions. We will continue this critical mission, as we execute 

our most fundamental responsibility—homeland defense. 

Throughout Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), the USAF has maintained 

a continuous, steady-force presence in Afghanistan and the rest of the area of responsibility with more than 14,000 airmen. Air Force assets provide crucial intelligence and situation awareness, combat power, and support capabilities for the 

combatant commander. A key reason for American military success in the region is 

the performance of Air Force special operations airmen. Working in teams with 

other special forces, ground units, and coalition elements, airmen special operators 

heroically bring to bear the full weight of air and space capabilities—from the 

ground. They introduce our adversaries to the full lethality of our airmen, fully integrated on the ground, in the air, and from space. 

Fully engaged in all aspects of the war on terrorism, from mobility to close air 

support, our aircraft and crews flew more than 40,000 OEF sorties in 2002—over 

70 percent of all coalition sorties. Over 8,000 refueling missions marked the linchpin 

capability for the joint fight—the tanker force—while the magnificent achievements 

of airlift assets rounded out overwhelming mobility efforts. Simply put, Air Force 

mobility forces made operations in a distant, land-locked nation possible. 

Beyond air operations, we operated and maintained several constellations of 

earth-orbiting satellites, and in 2002 we launched 18 missions with a 100 percent 

success rate—including the first space launches using Evolved Expendable Launch 

Vehicles. These activities bolstered America’s assured access to space and ensured 

vigorous, global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), missile warning, 

precision navigation and timing, communications, and weather systems. In addition, 

manned, unmanned, and space ISR assets not only delivered unprecedented battlefield awareness, but with the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), also introduced transformational combat capabilities. 

ONE and OEF levied particularly heavy demands on our security forces. In 

CONUS and forward locations, increased alert postures warranted significant increases in security personnel who constitute a critical element of our force protection 

capabilities. These demands have raised our force protection posture worldwide and 

have forced us to adjust to a new ‘‘steady state’’ condition. Security forces bear the 

brunt of the adjustment effort despite a resultant baseline shortfall of approximately 8,000 personnel to meet the alert postures. In the near term, we involuntarily extended for a second year nearly 9,500 ARC security forces. However, in 

order to relieve these ARC forces, we concluded a two-year agreement with the 

Army for short-term support, and initiated several ongoing efforts to combine technology, new processes, and some manpower shifts to achieve a long-term adjustment 

to this new era. 
84

As we adjust, we continue to deliver force protection through the integrated application of counter and antiterrorism operations, and preparedness for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) incidents. We employ a tailored selection and application of multi-layered active and passive, offensive and defensive measures. Intelligence and counterintelligence programs support this integrated effort and remain critical to our success. In this regard, we continued to develop and employ all-source intelligence systems; cross-functional intelligence analysis procedures; and an operational planning process to implement Force Protection 

operations that deter, detect, deny, and destroy threats. Our goal is to see first, understand first, and act first. 

Though engaged in these security enhancements and the global war on terrorism, 

our combat operations were not limited to OEF in 2002. Iraqi forces fired on coalition aircraft over 400 times during 14,000 sorties supporting Operations NORTHERN WATCH (ONW) and SOUTHERN WATCH (OSW). The Air Force maintained 

a continuous, regional presence of more than 9,000 airmen, while air and space assets provided vital intelligence, situation awareness, and indications and warning to 

monitor Iraq’s compliance with United Nations’ directives. 

Whether on the ground or in the skies, our airmen also conducted a host of other 

missions above-and-beyond standing security requirements around the globe. Even 

though the war on terrorism is our national military focus, airmen joined soldiers, 

sailors, and marines in the Balkans, South America, Europe, Asia, and around the 

world to assure our friends and allies, while deterring and dissuading our adversaries. 

Worldwide humanitarian and non-combat evacuation operations missions remain 

other key tasks for Air Force personnel. In 2002, for example, airlift crews exceeded 

2.4 million airdropped daily ration deliveries in Afghanistan, evacuated allied personnel at threatened locations around the world, and flew typhoon relief missions 

to Guam, while our explosive ordnance specialists removed unexploded munitions in 

Africa. Yet, while conducting unprecedented food, medical, civil engineering, and 

evacuation relief efforts in warring regions, we were also on call to perform critical, 

quick-response missions during natural or man-made crises at home. Through explosive ordnance disposal, firefighting, law enforcement support, and rapid medical response expertise, we conducted daily operations in support of local, state, and federal agencies. During the wildfire season, ANG and AFRC C–130s equipped with 

modular airborne fire fighting systems flew nearly 200 sorties while assisting U.S. 

Forest Service firefighting efforts in numerous states. In addition, when Hurricane 

Lili endangered Louisiana, Air Force aeromedical and critical care forces rolled in 

with C–9 aircraft to transport and safeguard 40 patients from threatened hospitals. 

Training Transformation 

Training is a unique American military strength. As potential adversaries work 

to overcome our technological superiority, it is imperative we enhance this strength 

through improved proficiency at the tactical level and integration at the joint level. 

Training is integral to our core competencies and the critical enabler for military 

capabilities, so we are engaged with the other services, unified commands, and the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in developing and implementing a training 

transformation plan. Our objective is to train as we will fight, and increase the joint 

context of our exercises through live, virtual, distributed, and constructive environments. It is the realism of this training that gives us the edge in combat. This involves not only modernizing the integration of space and information operations on 

our ranges, but also planning for their sustainment to meet future test and training 

missions while implementing environmentally sound use and management to ensure 

long term availability. Additionally, to expand range support for current and emerging missions, we are embarking on a new effort to identify and procure environmental, airspace, and spectrum resources at home and abroad. Balancing competing 

economic and environmental needs for these resources is a growing challenge we 

face with our regulatory and community partners. To support this effort, DOD developed the Range and Readiness Preservation Initiative. This legislation recommends clarification to environmental laws that, as currently written and interpreted, can adversely affect resources available to support training activities at 

ranges. 

Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Exercises, Interoperability Training, and Experimentation 

We advanced joint and combined interoperability skills with our sister services 

and those of 104 nations throughout 111 JCS exercises and Joint Task Force (JTF) 

experimentation, conducted in 40 foreign countries. Exercises ranged from large 

field training such as BRIGHT STAR, to command post exercises like POSITIVE 

RESPONSE, to smaller, but equally valuable, humanitarian exercises, as in the 
85

school construction, well drilling, and medical clinic visits of NEW HORIZONS—JAMAICA. These activities provided realistic training and enhanced the effectiveness 

of all participating nations’ forces. 

Task Force Enduring Look 

Success in future operations hinges upon our ability to learn from previous operations and exercises. To ensure we learn from ongoing operations and adapt accordingly, we established Task Force Enduring Look (TFEL). TFEL is responsible for 

Air Force-wide data collection, exploitation, documentation, and reporting for our efforts in ONE/OEF. The objective for TFEL is clear—provide superior support to the 

warfighter, and properly recognize and apply lessons learned during rather than 

only at the conclusion of these operations. 

Through extensive investigation and analysis, TFEL examines joint warfighting 

effectiveness, determines implications, and shapes future Air Force transformation 

of expeditionary air and space power. The task force documents lessons learned in 

a variety of products that cover every conceivable subject matter. As derivative campaigns unfold, TFEL will broaden its assessments in follow-on reports. Applying the 

lessons in these reports and adapting from our past experiences will help ensure we 

prevail in future operations. 

We are able to accomplish the full spectrum of air and space missions and improve our capabilities through lessons learned, by focusing on the best way to organize, train, and equip. Creativity, ingenuity, and innovation are the hallmarks of all 

that we do, all of which begins with our people. 

WHO WE ARE

‘‘No arsenal and no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the 

will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in 

today’s world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have.’’ President Ronald Reagan, 20 January 1981

America is blessed with vast resources, and chief among these is her people. In 

the same way, the Air Force relies on the officers, enlisted, civilians, and contractors 

that comprise our Total Force—Active Duty, Guard and Reserve—for cultural 

strength and unbridled skill. Air Force strength will never reside in systems alone, 

but in the airmen operating them. Nor will our capabilities improve solely through 

technology, but instead through the adaptive insight of our creative and selfless professionals. 

Therefore, we recruit and retain a remarkably diverse group to ensure we reach 

the fullest potential of air and space forces. Their backgrounds reflect the cross-section of American culture—all races, religions, economic and educational backgrounds, skill and management levels, men and women—and make this Air Force 

the tremendous organization it is today. Just as diverse individual citizens find 

unity in the term American, our personnel embrace an identity and fundamental 

perspective as Airmen. 

The underlying qualities found in all airmen emanate from our core values—integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all that we do. Embedded in these 

core values are the inherent characteristics of our confident, capable airmen—courage, tenacity, professionalism, vision, pride, and, when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, heroism. Indeed, today’s airmen carry on the traditions and visions of the earliest generation of airmen while preparing for the challenges of the 

future. 

The diversity of our airmen energizes the advancement of America’s air and space 

power. Airmen embrace transformational ideas and seek to apply them to every aspect of the Air Force, from organizational constructs to concepts of operations and 

employment. They are able stewards of the nation’s space programs, advancing 

ideas and technologies for national security, as well as for the environmental and 

economic benefit of our Nation and the world. And yet, ultimately our standout advantage is our warrior airmen themselves, who demonstrate skills and dedication 

in combat unsurpassed by any in history. Whether maintaining safe skies across the 

United Nations’ sanctioned no-fly zone in Iraq, hunting down terrorists in the jungles of the Philippines, or paying the ultimate price while rescuing fellow Americans 

in a battle on an Afghan ridge, our airmen are proven combat veterans. Their selflessness resonates the very best of our Service. 

Airmen are expeditionary—our natural state of operations is not ‘‘home station,’’ 

but rather, deployed. After two successful cycles, our AEF construct has been validated as an effective means of meeting our Nation’s expeditionary requirements. Yet 

we continue to enhance the construct, by initiating significant organizational change 

to ensure nearly every airman belongs to one of the ten AEFs. The effect has been 

a change to our airmen’s mindset and culture, where an individual’s AEF associa-
86

tion cultivates an expeditionary perspective and a clearer appreciation for joint 

warfighting requirements and capabilities. 

Force Development—A New Leadership Development Paradigm 

In the past, we addressed aspects of career development, education, and assignments individually, but not necessarily in a coordinated, connected approach. Recognizing this, and to prepare for the future more ably, we introduced a systemic, deliberate force development construct that evolves professional airmen into joint force 

warriors. This construct coordinates doctrine and policies, concentrated to provide 

the right level, timing, and focus of education, training, and experience for all airmen, while encompassing personal, team, and institutional leadership skills across 

tactical, operational, and strategic levels. 

In the 21st Century, we need air and space warriors with mastery of their primary skills and others who possess competency beyond their own specialty. However, this diversity must be deliberate to ensure the correct skills are paired according to institutional requirements. Force development encourages many to obtain a 

deep perspective in their functional area, but at the same time offers the broader 

perspective we need to complement our leadership team. We begin this transformation with the Active Duty officer corps and will eventually encompass the civilian, enlisted, and Reserve component to better meet the expanding challenges of tomorrow. 

Education and Technical Training—Emphasis on Joint Leadership/Warfare 

As opportunities resident in advancing technologies unfold, it is imperative that 

the Air Force be able to draw upon a vibrant collection of educated, technically 

skilled, and technologically savvy airmen—both uniformed and civilian alike. We are 

answering this fundamental need in fiscal year 2003 with aggressive and innovative 

initiatives to enhance the abilities and breadth of our force. Agile, flexible training 

is an essential investment in human capital, and our initiatives will ensure our investment delivers the right training to the right people at the right time. 

In August 2002, we began our groundbreaking Enlisted-to-Air Force Institute of 

Technology (AFIT) Program. An initial cadre of senior NCOs began receiving worldclass, graduate education to optimize them for greater responsibilities and challenging follow-on assignments. We will also provide a major influx of officers into 

AFIT, Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), and civilian institutions. In addition, because more than 42 percent of our civilian force will be eligible for retirement in 

the next five years, we are committing significant resources to pay for advanced 

education as well as cross-functional career broadening. 

Future military missions and contingencies will require greater sophistication and 

understanding of the security environment, and our expeditionary force requires airmen with international insight, foreign language proficiency, and cultural understanding. We are working diligently to expand the cadre of professionals with such 

skill sets and experiences. Our education initiatives will contribute to a major corporate culture shift that fosters appropriate development throughout our airmen’s 

careers to meet evolving force requirements. 

Diversity 

Foremost among our efforts to enhance the capabilities of our airmen is a passionate drive for diversity. Diversity is a warfighting issue; it is a readiness issue. 

We must attract people from all segments of American society and tap into the limitless talents and advantages resident in our diverse population if we hope to reach 

our fullest potential as a fighting force. Nurturing rich representation from all demographics opens the door to creativity and ingenuity, offering an unparalleled competitive edge for air and space development. Today’s multi-threat world also mandates that we invigorate in our airmen the ability to effectively think across cultural 

boundaries and functional paradigms (or stovepipes). We will thus recruit, train, 

and retain airmen without intellectual boundaries, uniquely capable of integrating 

people, weapons, ideas, and systems to achieve air and space dominance. 

Recruiting 

It takes tremendous effort to identify and develop such airmen, yet the return for 

the nation is immeasurable. Increased advertising, an expanded recruiting force 

with broader access to secondary school students, and competitive compensation prepare us to meet recruiting goals. Despite the challenge of mustering such a diverse 

and skilled collection of Americans, we exceeded our fiscal year 2002 enlisted recruiting goals and expect to surpass fiscal year 2003 objectives. We will adapt our 

goals to meet new force objectives; however, the capacity limitations of Basic Military Training and Technical Training School quotas will continue to challenge Total 

Force recruiting efforts. 
87

Officer recruitment presents similar challenges, yet we continue to attract America’s best and brightest. However, we are particularly concerned with military and 

civilian scientists and engineers. We fell short of our accession goal for this group 

and have begun all-out recruitment and retention efforts for these critical specialties. For example, in fiscal year 2003 we plan to begin a college sponsorship program to attract scientists and engineers from universities lacking ROTC programs. 

In addition, we continue to find recruiting health care professionals especially difficult, so we are making adjustments to ensure improvement. 

We will also closely monitor ARC recruitment. Historically, the ANG and AFRC 

access close to 25 percent of eligible, separating Active Duty Air Force members (i.e. 

no break in service.) Continued high OPSTEMPO may negatively impact our efforts 

in attracting Air National Guardsmen, as well as drawing separating Active Duty 

airmen to the Air Force Reserve. As a result, recruiting will have to ‘‘make up’’ a 

substantial portion of accessions from that market by developing alternatives. 

Retention 

The Air Force is a retention-based force. The critical skill sets we develop in our 

airmen are not easily replaced, so we expend every effort to retain our people—the 

impetus for our ‘‘re-recruiting’’ efforts. Overall retention plans include robust compensation packages that reward service, provide for a suitable standard of living, 

ensure a high quality of life, and retain the caliber of professionals we need to decisively win America’s wars. 

For fiscal year 2002, it was difficult to calculate accurate retention results due to 

Air Force implementation of Stop Loss. Nonetheless, we continue to reap the benefits of an aggressive retention program, aided by bonuses, targeted pay raises, and 

quality of life improvements. Introducing the Critical Skills Retention Bonus for select officer specialties reinforces our commitment to target specific skills suffering 

significant retention challenges. However, many airmen retained under Stop Loss 

will separate throughout fiscal year 2003—a fact of particular concern for our rated 

force. 

Bonuses and special pay programs continue to be effective tools in retaining our 

members. The ANG has placed particular emphasis on aircraft maintenance fields, 

security forces, and communication and intelligence specialists, among others, by offering enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, Student Loan Repayment Program, and 

the Montgomery GI Bill Kicker Program. Another example is the flexible Aviation 

Continuation Pay (ACP) program—an important part of our multi-faceted plan to 

retain pilots. In conjunction with our rated recall program, our fiscal year 2002 plan 

resulted in a substantial increase in committed personnel. We have a similarly designed ACP program in fiscal year 2003, and developed extensions to include navigators and air battle managers. 

Summary 

Regardless of AEF deployment or home station missions, our airmen accomplish 

their duties with firm commitment and resolute action. It’s what we do. It’s who 

we are: a practical, technically sound, ingenious force of uniformed and civilian airmen derived from this richly diverse nation to create the world’s premier air and 

space power. 

WHERE WE’RE GOING

The first hundred years of powered flight witnessed tremendous and enduring innovation. We commemorate this centennial during 2003 with the theme, Born of 

Dreams, Inspired by Freedom, which recognizes the remarkable accomplishments of 

generations of airmen. Today’s airmen are equally impassioned to bring dreams to 

reality as we pursue our vision of tomorrow’s Air Force, Unlimited Horizon. Through 

this vision, we build a bridge from today’s existing capabilities to those required to 

win tomorrow’s wars. 

Ultimately our success will be measured by our ability to provide our forces with 

assured freedom to attack and freedom from attack. Achieving such victory in tomorrow’s battlespace will demand our full integration with fellow services, allies, 

and coalition partners—an essential part of the expeditionary construct. Through 

our security cooperation efforts, we build these international defense relationships 

and allied capabilities to ensure we have the access, interoperability, and international support for our worldwide commitments. Toward this requirement, we are 

working with our sister services to develop truly joint concepts of operations that 

integrate the full spectrum of land, sea, air, space, and information warfighting capabilities. When America places its men and women in uniform into harm’s way, 

we owe them preeminent resources, planning, and organization to achieve victory 

over any adversary. 
88

Capabilities-Based CONOPS 

While adapting to the new strategic environment, our principal focus has been 

transitioning from a platform-based garrison force to a capabilities-based expeditionary force. No longer platform-centric, we are committed to making warfighting 

effects, and the capabilities we need to achieve them, the driving force behind our 

ongoing transformation. From this point forward, all of our operational, programming, and budget decisions will be supported by a predefined capability. 

Our emerging TF CONOPS will help make this essential shift by providing solutions to a variety of problems warfighters can expect to encounter in the future. 

Whether detailing our plans for operating in an anti-access environment or identifying how to deliver humanitarian rations to refugees, TF CONOPS lend focus on 

the essential elements required to accomplish the mission. They cover the complete 

spectrum of warfighting capabilities (deep strike, information, urban, psychological 

operations, etc.) and enable us to tailor forces (expeditionary wings, groups, or 

squadrons) from existing AEFs to meet JFC’s requirements. Responsibility for 

CONOPS development falls to the Major Commands, with a senior officer on the 

HQ USAF Air Staff assigned to each CONOPS to serve as their ‘‘Champion,’’ facilitating the process. 

TF CONOPS directly support Secretary Rumsfeld’s efforts to free scarce resources 

trapped in bureaucracy and push them to the warfighter. They will also be the focal 

point for a capabilities-based Program Objective Memorandum (POM). In support of 

this effort, our Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment analyzes and assesses 

shortfalls, health, risks, and opportunities, while prioritizing required future capabilities. This helps CONOPS developers articulate any disconnects between required 

capabilities and developing programs, while providing senior Air Force leadership 

an operational, capabilities-based focus for acquisition program decision-making. TF 

CONOPS include: 

—Global Strike Task Force (GSTF) employs joint power-projection capabilities to 

engage anti-access and high-value targets, gain access to denied battlespace, 

and maintain battlespace access for all required joint/coalition follow-on operations. 

—Global Response Task Force (GRTF) combines intelligence and strike systems 

to attack fleeting or emergent, high-value, or high-risk targets by surgically applying air and space power in a narrow window of opportunity, anywhere on 

the globe, within hours. 

—Homeland Security Task Force (HLSTF) leverages Air Force capabilities with 

joint and interagency efforts to prevent, protect, and respond to threats against 

our homeland—whether within or beyond U.S. territories. 

—Space and Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (Space & C4ISR) Task Force harnesses horizontal 

integration of manned, unmanned, and space systems to provide persistent situation awareness and executable decision-quality information to the JFC. 

—Global Mobility Task Force (GMTF) provides regional combatant commanders 

with the planning, command and control (C2), and operations capabilities to enable rapid, timely, and effective projection, employment, and sustainment of 

U.S. power in support of U.S. global interests—precision delivery for operational 

effects. 

—Nuclear Response Task Force (NRTF) provides the deterrent ‘‘umbrella’’ under 

which conventional forces operate, and, if deterrence fails, avails a rapid scalable response. 

—Air and Space Expeditionary CONOPS is the overarching context, which identifies and sequences distinctive capabilities and broad-based functions that air 

and space power provide the JFC to generate desired effects for national military objectives. 

The Air Force is transforming around these Task Force Concepts of Operations. 

In addition to serving as a roadmap for operators, the TF construct will form the 

basis for resource allocation, future system acquisitions, and POM submissions in 

order to find capabilities-based solutions to warfighter problems. 

Science and Technology (S&T)—Wellspring of Air and Space Capabilities 

Reaching these warfighter solutions rests in large measure with research and development. Through robust investment and deliberate focus in science and technology, the Air Force invigorates our core competency of technology-to-warfighting. 

Combined with innovative vision, S&T opens the direct route towards transforming 

air and space capabilities. Therefore we continue long-term, stable investment in 

S&T to ensure we realize future capabilities, as well as those that may immediately 

affect existing systems. 
89

We are improving our S&T planning and collaboration with other services and 

agencies to ensure: we: (1) encourage an operational pull that conveys to the S&T 

community a clear vision of the capabilities we need for the future; (2) address the 

full spectrum of future needs in a balanced and well-thought out manner; and (3) 

enhance our ability to demonstrate and integrate promising technologies. Some of 

these new technologies—UAV systems, laser-based communications, space-based 

radar, and others—show clear promise for near-term, joint warfighting applications. 

Others present opportunities we can only begin to imagine. We are exploring each 

of these technologies, and our investment will deliver the required capabilities of our 

CONOPS. 

Executive Agent for Space 

Embedded in all of our TF CONOPS, and indeed within most military operations, 

is an extensive reliance on systems resident in space. The Air Force proudly fulfills 

the role of Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space with confidence and 

enthusiasm. Our ability to execute this tremendous responsibility stems from a natural outflow of our core competencies and distinctive capabilities. Accordingly, and 

in conjunction with the other services and agencies, we are shaping a new and comprehensive approach to national security space management and organization. 

Our capstone objective is to realize the enormous potential in the high ground of 

space, and to employ the full spectrum of space-based capabilities to enable joint 

warfighting and to protect our national security. The key to achieving this end is 

wholesale integration: through air, land, space, and sea; across legacy and future 

systems; among existing and evolving concepts of operations; and between organizations across all sectors of government. We will continue to deliver unity of vision, 

effort, and execution to fulfill our mission of delivering the most advanced space capabilities for America. 

Drawing Effects from Space 

Our horizon is truly unlimited, extending beyond the atmospheric environs of airpower to the reaches of outer space. Our proud Air Force tradition of airpower is 

joined by an equally proud and continually developing tradition of space power. 

In the early days of the space age, only those at the strategic level received and 

exploited the benefits of space capabilities. The current state of affairs, however, is 

decidedly different. The former distinctions between classified and unclassified programs among military, civil, and commercial applications are growing increasingly 

blurred—in some cases, they are virtually seamless. In short, space capabilities now 

are woven deeply into the fabric of modern society, and they have altered forever 

the way we fight wars, defend our homeland, and live our lives. 

It is in this context and this understanding of the widespread and increasing importance of space systems that we strive to meet present and future national security challenges by providing dominant space capabilities that will: 

—Exploit Space for Joint Warfighting.—Space capabilities are integral to modern 

warfighting forces, providing critical surveillance and reconnaissance information, especially over areas of high risk or denied access for airborne platforms. 

They provide weather and other earth-observation data, global communications, 

precision navigation and guidance to troops on the ground, ships at sea, aircraft 

in flight, and weapons en route to targets. All of these capabilities, and more, 

make possible the tremendous success our joint warfighters achieve during combat operations. 

We will enhance these existing capabilities and, where it makes sense, pursue 

new ones such as the Transformational Communications System (TCS), which 

will strive to dramatically increase bandwidth and access for warfighters; and 

Space Based Radar, which will complement the airborne Joint Surveillance Target and Attack Radar System (JSTARS) while migrating Ground Moving Target 

Indicators (GMTI) into space. We will also develop methods and technologies to 

enhance our nation’s ability to conduct rapid and accurate global strike operations anywhere in pursuit of U.S. interests. 

—Pursue Assured Access to Space.—We cannot effectively exploit space for joint 

warfighting if we do not have responsive, reliable, and assured access to space. 

In August 2002, the new Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle got off to a strong 

start with the successful launch of Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V booster. Boeing’s 

Delta IV program added to the Nation’s quiver of modern launch vehicles with 

liftoff in November 2002. We will also pursue advanced and highly versatile reusable launchers and small expendables with extremely short response times to 

achieve long-term assured access, while taking the necessary steps to maintain 

and improve our space launch infrastructure. 
90

—Preserve our Freedom to Act in Space.—We must be able to act freely in space, 

or risk losing those capabilities essential to joint warfighting. We initiated efforts to increase our space situation awareness, beginning with the new Space 

Situation Awareness Integration Office at Air Force Space Command, and a 

similar program at the Space and Missile Systems Center. Future efforts are 

planned to develop strategy, doctrine, and programs to improve the protection 

of our own space capabilities while denying the benefits of joint space capabilities to our adversaries. 

As it is with all Air Force capabilities, the most important resource for national 

space capabilities is neither technological nor fiscal—it is human. Our Space Professional Strategy fulfills a Space Commission recommendation to develop space professionals and nurture a cadre to lead our national security space endeavors at all levels in the decades ahead. These space-expert airmen will be the core stewards of 

space operations, and shoulder the responsibility for aggressively advancing joint 

warfighting capabilities into the high ground frontier. 

Horizontal Integration of Manned, Unmanned, and Space Assets 

The essence of transformation is found in leveraging the nation’s technological 

dominance to create maximum asymmetrical advantage. Airmen seek unrestricted 

boundaries when looking at war planning from a theater-wide perspective, or talking about national elements of power. Simply stated, it is in the way we think—

we must take advantage of it. 

Our foremost objective is to develop the capability to conduct rapid and precise 

operations to achieve desired effects and shape the battlespace for the joint force. 

This requires interfacing numerous DOD and national assets—the seamless, horizontal integration of manned, unmanned, and space-based systems. An essential element is designing systems that use digital-level, machine-to-machine conversations 

to expedite data flow and ensure the JFC receives timely, decision-quality information. Such integration will dramatically shorten the find, fix, track, target, engage, 

and assess (F2T2EA) cycle. In the end, we know that neither JFC’s guiding operations, nor special operators putting iron on targets, care what source provides the 

target data. It is an effect they seek, and what we will provide. 

Key to the warfighter’s success is Predictive Battlespace Awareness (PBA). PBA 

requires in-depth study of an adversary well before hostilities begin. Ultimately we 

want to be able to anticipate his actions to the maximum extent possible. PBA-derived insights allow us to utilize critical ISR assets for confirmation rather than 

pure discovery once hostilities begin. We are then able to analyze information to assess current conditions, exploit emerging opportunities, anticipate future actions, 

and act with a degree of speed and certainty unmatched by our adversaries. 

Along this path, we are transitioning from collecting data through a myriad of 

independent systems (Rivet Joint, AWACS, JSTARS, space-based assets, etc) to a 

Multi-sensor Command and Control Constellation (MC2C) capable of providing the 

JFC with real-time, enhanced battlespace awareness. Today, this transition is restricted by the necessity to rely on Low Density/High Demand (LD/HD) C4ISR assets. The limitation inherent in LD/HD platforms forces us to shift their exploitation 

capabilities between theaters to cover emerging global threats and events. This suboptimizes overall battlespace awareness and limits our efforts at predictive analysis. 

In the interim, responsive space-based ISR assets will help mitigate our overstressed LD/HD systems. Yet ultimately, we need a synergistic combination of military and commercial assets, advanced data processing capabilities, and assured 

reachback to achieve true battlespace awareness. 

In the future, a single wide-body platform employing tunable antennas and sensors—Multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A)—will replace many of 

the C4ISR functions of today’s specialized, but independent assets. Air, ground, and 

space assets will comprise the MC2C, which will elevate Joint Forces Air Component 

Commanders’ ability to command and control air assets. Additionally, every platform will be a sensor on the integrated network. Regardless of mission function (C2, 

ISR, shooters, tankers, etc), any data collected by a sensor will be passed to all network recipients. This requires networking all air, space, ground, and sea-based ISR 

systems, command and control (C2) nodes, and strike platforms, to achieve shared 

battlespace awareness and a synergy to maximize our ability to achieve the JFC’s 

desired effects. 

Uniting joint and coalition information presents the most difficult challenge in 

providing one common operational picture for key decision makers. We are working 

closely with our sister services to eliminate the seams between existing systems and 

taking the necessary steps to ensure all future acquisitions are planned and funded 

to meet the interoperability requirements of future joint CONOPS. 
91

A critical element of successful information merging is communications, as bandwidth is finite and requires careful management. Long-range or penetrating systems 

must communicate beyond the horizon despite adversaries’ attempts to exploit or interrupt these links. To counter disruption, all systems must be reliable, secure, and 

bandwidth-efficient. The PBA construct facilitates this objective by eliminating constrictive, stove-piped communications systems while emphasizing networked operations. 

We will realize the vision of horizontal integration in our TF CONOPS. GSTF, for 

example, will deliver the right-sized mix of assets with appropriate sensors capable 

of penetrating into enemy airspace. Such sensors may be low observable and/or expendable, mounted on either ISR platforms or imbedded into strike platforms. Sensors may consist of special operations forces, inserted before the commencement of 

hostilities, who communicate with attack platforms during combat via secure electronic writing tablets, annotating targets and threats on the imagery display with 

a stylus. As technology progresses, and where it makes sense, a significant portion 

of ISR functionality will likely migrate to space, affording 24/7 persistence and penetration. Likewise, advanced defensive counterspace capabilities will afford these systems protection from enemy actions. 

Combining manned, unmanned, and space-based assets with dynamic C2 and PBA 

transforms disparate collection and analysis activities into a coherent process, allowing the warfighter to make timely, confident, and capable combat decisions. This is 

what the Air Force brings to the joint fight. It is what air and space warriors are 

all about. We unlock the intellectual potential of airmen who think across the dimensions of mediums and systems capabilities, for the joint warfighter. 

Addressing the Recapitalization Challenges 

Despite new CONOPS and visions for future capabilities, we cannot rely on intellectual flexibility to eradicate the challenge of old systems and technologies. Though 

creativity may temporarily reduce the negative impacts of aging systems on our 

operational options, ultimately there are impassable limits created by air and space 

system hardware issues. 

We have made tremendous strides in modernizing and improving maintenance 

plans for our aircraft; however, the tyranny of age has introduced new problems for 

old aircraft. Reality dictates that if we completely enhance the avionics and add new 

engines to 40-year old tankers and bombers, they are still 40-year old aircraft, and 

subject to fleet-threatening problems such as corrosion and structural failure. 

This is equally true for our fighter aircraft, where once cutting-edge F–117s now 

average over 15-years of age, and mainstay air-dominance F–15Cs are averaging 

nearly 20-years of service. With double-digit surface-to-air missile systems, nextgeneration aircraft, and advanced cruise missile threats proliferating, merely maintaining our aging fighter and attack aircraft will be insufficient. In fact, the dramatic advances offered in many of our TF CONOPs cannot be realized without the 

addition of the unique capabilities incorporated in the F/A–22. Simply stated, our 

legacy systems cannot ensure air dominance in future engagements—the fundamental element for joint force access and operations. We will thus continue executive oversight of F/A–22 acquisition in order to ensure program success. While keeping our funding promises, we will procure the only system in this decade that puts 

munitions on targets, and which is unequally capable of detecting and intercepting 

aircraft and cruise missiles. 

Although ultimately solving these recapitalization challenges requires acquisition 

of new systems, we will continue to find innovative means to keep current systems 

operationally effective in the near term. We know that just as new problems develop 

with old systems, so too do new opportunities for employment, such as our employment of B–1s and B–52s in a close air support role during OEF. We will also pursue 

new options for these long-range strike assets in a standoff attack role for future 

operations. 

Unlike with the aforementioned air-breathing assets, we cannot make service life 

extensions or other modifications to our orbiting space systems. Satellites must be 

replaced regularly to account for hardware failures, upgrade their capabilities, and 

avoid significant coverage gaps. Additionally, we must improve outmoded ground 

control stations, enhance protective measures, continue to address new space launch 

avenues, and address bandwidth limitations in order to continue leveraging space 

capabilities for the joint warfighter. We are exploring alternatives for assuring access to space, and a key aspect of this effort will be invigorating the space industrial 

base. 

Finally, it is imperative that we address the growing deficiencies in our infrastructure. Any improvements we may secure for our air and space systems will be 

limited without a commensurate address of essential support systems. Deteriorated 
92

roofs, waterlines, electrical networks, and airfields are just some of the infrastructure elements warranting immediate attention. Our ability to generate air and 

space capabilities preeminently rests with the ingenuity of visionary ideas, yet intellectual versatility must be supported by viable systems and structures to realize our 

Service potential. 

Organizational Adaptations 

Commensurate with our drive to enhance air and space capabilities is our identification and development of organizational structures to aid these advances. In 

2002, we initiated numerous adaptations to more efficiently and effectively exploit 

Air Force advantages for the joint warfighter. 

Warfighting Integration Deputate 

Comprehensive integration of the Air Force’s extensive C4ISR systems is paramount for our future capabilities. This requires an enterprise approach of total information-cycle activities including people, processes, and technology. To achieve 

this, we created a new Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration (AF/XI), 

which brings together the operational experience and the technical expertise of diverse elements (C4ISR, systems integration, modeling and simulation, and enterprise architecture specialties.) 

This new directorate will close the seams in the F2T2EA kill chain by guiding the 

integration of manned, unmanned, and space C4ISR systems. AF/XI’s leadership, 

policy, and resource prioritization will capitalize on the technologies, concepts of operations, and organizational changes necessary to achieve horizontal integration and 

interoperability. 

Success has been immediate. AF/XI worked with the Deputy Chief of Staff for Air 

and Space Operations to champion increased Air Operations Center weapon system 

funding in the fiscal year 2004 POM, which accelerated the stabilization and standardization of the weapon system. Subsequently, the base-lined weapon system now 

has a modernization plan, which is both viable and affordable. AF/XI also led analysis that highlighted imbalances among collection and exploitation capabilities. As 

a result, we plan to accelerate ground processing and exploitation capabilities within 

the Future Years Defense Program to close the gap. Major contributions in management of the complex information environment will continue, as AF/XI makes better 

use of scarce resources, allowing the Air Force to provide the joint warfighter the 

capabilities to dominate the battlespace. 

Chief Information Officer (AF/CIO) 

Partnered with AF/XI, the AF/CIO shares responsibility to spearhead the transformation to an information-driven, network-centric Air Force. These two organizations orchestrate the integration within our information enterprise, and establish 

processes and standards to accelerate funding and ensure priorities match our integrated information vision. 

The AF/CIO’s specific mission is to promote the most effective and efficient application, acquisition, and management of information technology resources under an 

enterprise architecture. The goal is to provide the roadmap for innovation and to 

function as a blueprint for the overall leverage of valuable information technology. 

Enterprise architecture will use models and processes to capture the complex interrelationships between the Air Force’s systems and platforms. A resultant example 

is basing Information Technology (IT) investment decisions on sound business cases, 

approved Air Force standards, and, ultimately, how a particular technology contributes to specific capabilities. Additionally, we are institutionalizing enterprise 

architecting as a key construct in defining mission information requirements and 

promoting interoperability. 

Currently, the wide variety of IT standards limits C2 processes and information 

and decision support to our warfighters. The AF/CIO–AF/XI team is tackling this 

and all other integration challenges as they develop an enterprise architecture that 

spans the entire Air Force, while also staying in harmony with other services’ efforts. 

Blended Wing 

We do nothing in today’s Air Force without Guard, Reserve and civilian personnel 

working alongside Active Duty airmen. A fundamental initiative of Air Force transformation is formalizing this integration under the Future Total Force (FTF). As 

part of the FTF, we are pursuing innovative organizational constructs and personnel 

policies to meld the components into a single, more homogenous force. FTF integration will create efficiencies, cut costs, ensure stability, retain invaluable human capital, and, above all, increase our combat capabilities. 
93

A key effort is to ‘‘blend,’’ where sensible, units from two or more components into 

a single wing with a single commander. This level of integration is unprecedented 

in any of the services, where Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve personnel share the 

same facilities and equipment, and together, execute the same mission. In essence, 

blending provides two resource pools within a single wing—one, a highly experienced, semi-permanent Reserve component workforce, offering stability and continuity; the other, a force of primarily Active Duty personnel able to rotate to other 

locations as needs dictate. 

The first blended wing opportunity arose with the consolidation of the B1–B fleet. 

The move left behind an experienced but underutilized pool of Guard personnel at 

Robins AFB, GA. Meanwhile, the collocated 93rd Air Control Wing (ACW) (Active 

Duty E–8 Joint STARS), suffered from high tempo and low retention. Hence, Secretary Roche directed that the two units merge, and on 1 October 2002, the blended 

wing concept became a reality with the activation of the 116th ACW. 

The 116th ACW tackled many pioneering challenges: from legal questions surrounding the command of combined Active-Reserve component units, to programmatic issues with funding the program from two separate accounts, to integrating different personnel systems used by each component. Airmen from both components are working through these issues successfully, making the 116th an example for future FTF blending. Yet, some additional Title 10 and Title 32 provisions 

still need to be changed to make the FTF a reality. Meanwhile, parallel efforts, such 

as placing Reserve pilots and maintenance personnel directly into Active Duty flying 

organizations under the Fighter Associate Program, add to this leveraging of highly 

experienced Reservists to promote a more stable, experienced workforce. 

As organizational constructs, blending and associate programs lay an important 

foundation for a capabilities-based, expeditionary air and space force, which are inherently flexible and ideal to meet rotational AEF requirements. In a resource-constrained environment, blending promotes efficiencies and synergies by leveraging 

each component’s comparative strengths, freeing funds for modernization while sustaining combat effectiveness, and effecting warfighting capabilities greater than the 

sum of its parts. 

Combat Wing 

The comprehensive evaluations in our ongoing transformation include examining 

our wing structure. Given all of the lessons gleaned from expeditionary operations 

over the past decades, we asked, ‘‘Could we derive advantages in revised wing organization for both force development and combat capability?’’ The answer was ‘‘Yes,’’ 

and we enacted changes to create the Combat Wing Organization (CWO). 

The central aspect of the CWO is the new Mission Support Group. This will merge 

former support and logistics readiness groups, and contracting and aerial port 

squadrons, as applicable. Within this group, we will hone expeditionary skills from 

crisis action planning, personnel readiness, and working with the joint system for 

load planning and deployment, to communications, contingency bed down, and force 

protection. Currently, all of these aspects exist in skill sets that none of our officers 

have in total. But the new expeditionary support discipline will address this, and 

provide our officers the expertise in all aspects of commanding expeditionary operations. With this reorganization, each wing will now have one individual responsible 

for the full range of deployment and employment tasks—the Mission Support Group 

Commander. 

The restructuring will retain the Operations Group; however, group commanders 

will become more active in the operational level of war. Squadron commanders will 

be role models for operators in the wings, ready to lead the first exercise and combat 

missions. Similarly, we will establish a maintenance group responsible for base-level 

weapons system maintenance and sortie production rates. Like their operator counterparts, maintenance squadron and group commanders will be role models for all 

wing maintainers. Meanwhile, medical groups will retain their current organization, 

although we are working changes to home and deployed medical operations for future implementation. 

Flying and fixing our weapons systems, as well as mission support, are essential 

skill sets. Each requires the highest expertise, proficiency and leadership. The new 

wing organization allows commanders to fully develop within specific functional 

areas to plan and execute air and space power as part of expeditionary units, while 

also giving maintenance and support personnel focused career progression. This reorganization does not fix something that is broken—it makes a great structure exceptional. 
94

Acquisition and Business Transformation 

To achieve our vision of an agile, flexible, responsive, and capabilities-based air 

and space force, we must transform the processes that provide combatant commanders with air and space capabilities. An example of this in action is the Air 

Force’s efforts to carry out the responsibilities of DOD Space Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). The Secretary of the Air Force delegated those responsibilities to the 

Under Secretary of the Air Force, under whose leadership immediate benefit was 

realized. Adapting an effective process already in use at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the Under Secretary instituted a new streamlined space acquisition program review and milestone decision-making process. This new process was 

used for the first time in August 2002 in developing a contract for the National 

Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System. This effort creates an 

opportunity for the Air Force to apply performance and cost accountability to defense industrial firms through their chief financial officers and board of directors by 

linking executive compensation to contract performance. 

In addition to the major process changes for DOD space, the Air Force’s Business 

Transformation Task Force directs and integrates further process improvement and 

adaptation. Core business and operations support processes—such as acquisition, logistics, maintenance, training, medical and dental, among others—are crucial, as 

they ultimately determine our overall enterprise effectiveness and directly sustain 

combat capabilities. An additional category of processes called ‘‘enablers’’ completes 

the Air Force enterprise. Examples of ‘‘enablers’’ include management of human resources, finances, contracts, property plant and equipment, and information. The 

enablers are important as they facilitate our core capabilities and determine the 

overall efficiency of our enterprise. 

The Air Force will enact business transformation from an integrated enterprise 

perspective, examining every process and associated link. Accordingly, we will employ industry best practices and identify management metrics to improve process efficiency without degrading our enterprise effectiveness; expand our customer’s selfservice management capability and free up needed resources for the operational 

communities; and provide real-time, accurate financial data for better decision making. Already, acquisition reform has effected notable improvements, including: 

—(1) Streamlined our acquisition and contracting regulations, replacing lengthy 

prescriptive sets of rules with brief documents that emphasize speed, innovation, sensible risk management, and elimination of time-consuming process 

steps that have little value. As previously mentioned, our new National Security 

Space acquisition process is an example of progress in this area. 

—(2) Created a Program Executive Office for Services to bring new efficiency to 

the growing area of services contracts. This key area, which accounts for nearly 

half of our procurement budget, had no prior centralized coordination and oversight. 

—(3) Developed and initiated System Metric and Reporting Tool (SMART), putting real-time program status information on everyone’s desktop. This webbased application pulls data from dozens of legacy reporting systems to give everyone from program managers up to senior leadership direct visibility into the 

‘‘health’’ of hundreds of acquisition and modernization programs. When fully deployed in fiscal year 2003, it will automate the tedious and laborious process 

of creating Monthly Acquisition Reports and possibly Defense Acquisition Executive Summary reporting to OSD. 

—(4) Empowered ‘‘High Powered Teams’’ of requirements and acquisition professionals to create spiral development plans to deliver initial capability to 

warfighters more quickly, and add capability increments in future spirals. 

—(5) Designed a Reformed Supply Support Program to improve the spares acquisition process by integrating the support contractor into the government supply 

system. Contractors now have the same capability as government inventory control points to manage parts, respond to base level requisitions, track spares levels, and monitor asset movement. 

—(6) Continued, with OSD support, expansion of the Reduction in Total Ownership Cost (R–TOC) program, to identify critical cost drivers, fund investments 

to address them, and generate cost savings and cost avoidance. We also created 

standard processes and a business case analysis model to use for initiatives 

within R–TOC. In fiscal year 2003, OSD allocated $24.9 million no-offset investments to R–TOC that will return $53.2 million through fiscal year 2008. A 

planned $37.1 million investment across the FYDP will save a projected $331 

million in operations and maintenance through fiscal year 2009. 

These initiatives are only the beginning of a comprehensive and aggressive approach to reforming business practices. Our efforts today will have a direct effect 
95

on efficient and effective air and space capability acquisition, both immediately and 

in the future. 

Ensuring Readiness 

Integrating systems and expanding business practices will not only have dramatic 

effects on air and space capabilities, but also reduce readiness challenges. However, 

we still face daunting, but surmountable, obstacles. We must overcome a multitude 

of installations and logistical issues to secure flexible and timely execution of expeditionary requirements for joint warfighting. 

Reconstituting and reconfiguring our expeditionary basing systems and wartime 

stocks is a critical element of our force projection planning. While we made significant strides in funding, we require additional investments in bare base systems, vehicles, spares, munitions, and pre-positioning assets. Our infrastructure investment 

strategy focuses on three simultaneous steps. First, we must dispose of excess facilities. Second, we must fully sustain our facilities and systems so they remain combat 

effective throughout their expected life. Third, we must establish a steady investment program to restore and modernize our facilities and systems, while advancing 

our ability to protect our people and resources from the growing threat of terrorism 

at current, planned, and future operating locations—at home or abroad. 

We are making progress. Improved vehicle fleet funding allowed us to replace 

some aging vehicles with more reliable assets, including alternative fuel versions to 

help meet federal fuel reduction mandates. Targeted efficiencies in spares management and new fuels mobility support equipment will improve supply readiness. In 

addition, our spares campaign restructured Readiness Spares Packages and repositioned assets to contingency sites. Moreover, to increase munitions readiness, we expanded our Afloat Prepositioning Fleet capabilities, and continue acquiring a broad 

mix of effects-based munitions in line with the requirements of all TF CONOPS. 

Finally, our ‘‘Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan’’ calls for major transformation in financial and infrastructure capitalization to ensure Air Force hardware is safe and ready to operate across the threat spectrum. To support this plan, 

we increased funding in fiscal year 2004 for depot facilities and equipment modernization. We also began a significant push to require weapon systems managers 

to establish their product support and depot maintenance programs early in the acquisition cycle and to plan and program the necessary investment dollars required 

for capacity and capability. Additionally, we are partnering with private industry to 

adopt technologies to meet capability requirements. The results from these efforts 

will be enhanced, more agile warfighter support through the critical enabler of infrastructure. 

Expanding AEF Personnel 

The attacks of 9/11 significantly increased workload and stress in a number of 

mission areas for our expeditionary forces. Manning for these operations is drawn 

from our existing AEF packages. In order to accommodate increased contingency requirements we are exploring options to augment the existing AEF construct. Recent 

and ongoing efforts to maximize the identification of deployable forces and align 

them with AEF cycle, assisted in meeting immediate critical warfighting requirements. However, some career fields remain seriously stressed by the war on terrorism. Accordingly, our efforts focus on changing processes that drive requirements 

not tuned to our AEF rhythm. We developed formulas to measure, and gathered 

quantitative data to evaluate, the relative stress amongst career fields to redirect 

resources to the most critical areas. We also began a critical review of blue-suit utilization, to ensure uniform airmen are used only where absolutely necessary, and 

maximize the use of the civilian and contract workforce for best service contribution 

and military essentiality. 

We are refocusing uniformed manpower allocation on our distinctive capabilities 

to reduce the stress on our active force. Additionally, we are carefully considering 

technologies to relieve the increased workload. These efforts exist within our longerterm work to reengineer, transform, and streamline Air Force operations and organizations, and have allowed us already to realign some new recruits into our most 

stressed career fields. 

Summary 

As the two mediums with the most undeveloped potential, air and space represent 

the largest growth areas for national security and the greatest frontiers for joint 

warfighting. As such, air and space operations will play an ever-increasing role in 

the security of America and her allies. The Air Force will exploit technology, innovative concepts of operations, organizational change, and our ability to embrace creative ideas and new ways of thinking. We will bring to bear the full suite of air 

and space capabilities for tomorrow’s joint force commander—drawing from every 
96

resource, integrating closely with all services, and overcoming any obstacle to succeed. 

NEXT HORIZON

The events of the last year have emphasized the dynamics of a new international 

security era. The decade of new states following the Cold War has been followed by 

the rise of non-state actors, many following a path of aggression and destruction. 

Yet, just as America adapted to new global dynamics in the past, we will again confront emerging challenges with confidence and faith in our ability to meet the demands of assuring freedom. 

The Air Force remains dedicated to drawing on its innovation, ingenuity, and resolve to develop far-reaching capabilities. The ability to deliver effects across the 

spectrum of national security requirements is the cornerstone of the vision and 

strategy of Air Force planning and programming. In conjunction, and increasingly 

in integration with ground, naval, marine, and other national agency systems, the 

Air Force will play a central role in elevating joint operations. We recognize the 

greatest potential for dominant American military capabilities lies in the integration 

of our air and space systems with those of other services and agencies, and our success in this objective will be evident in every mission to deter, dissuade, or decisively defeat any adversary.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. General, you are right 

about our generation. Most of our members were drafted for that 

war, and this force is all volunteer, and it is a different generation, 

and we do stand in awe. I see those young men and women walking across that desert carrying those packs, which includes all that 

protection gear for chemical and biological warfare, and to see what 

they’re doing, we have to marvel at them. You have done an excellent job in training them and they are demonstrating that training 

now, and I just can’t tell you how proud we are of them. 

I am a little worried about what you said, though, Mr. Secretary, 

about the age of the equipment that our young people are flying. 

I don’t know many people other than a few cracks, that are going 

to work in a 50-year old car. 

Senator BURNS. Me. 

Senator STEVENS. I already said cracks. 

But when we look at this, really the genius of the Air Force is 

not those who are pilots, with due respect. It’s the mechanics. 

These people are doing an enormous job. I’m just amazed that we 

don’t have 50 percent of our planes red-lined and not capable of flying. You’re saying they were flying in the eighties and in wartime, 

that’s simply an amazing record and I think somehow you ought 

to get a really outstanding kind of award for those people maintaining those airplanes and keeping them flying. 

767 TANKER LEASE

I am compelled to ask, Mr. Secretary, about the decision on the 

tankers, because as you know, those tankers now are averaging 44 

years of age. Some of them were opposed by Harry Truman, they 

actually go back to those days, the fifties and late forties. To have 

an average of 44 you have to have a few out there of that age. Now 

what about the tanker decision in terms of leasing the tankers? 

Secretary ROCHE. Well, the Secretary of Defense has really gotten himself involved in this, and it’s a different approach, as you 

know. The Air Force believed it had a good proposal, it did require 

a lease buildup that had a high peak and then came back down 

again. The things that he has sort of fed back to us is the sense 

that yes, there is a real need for tankers. The notion that planes 
97

can fly forever, I think we’ve dispelled. And by the way, we recognize that it was the Air Force that sent a study over a few years 

ago that said replacements would be required by 2030. That was 

a paper study done by analysts who unfortunately never lived with 

real objects like ships and airplanes, and understood corrosion and 

understood delaminating aluminum. So we’re overcoming some of 

our own bad promotion. 

He fully agrees with that. He also recognizes that re-engining 

very old airplanes doesn’t solve the problem and it’s not the engines that are the problems, it is the corrosive effects to the main 

aircraft. And he has asked his staff to work with us to see if there 

is a way that we can satisfy the needs to begin tanker replacement 

early and at the same time not have such a big bump in the budget, and we are working with his staff. 

It is now a very congenial working relationship. It is no longer—

it never was really adversarial, it was more gee, this is so odd, so 

different, this lease notion, but now we’re taking a look at leases, 

combinations of things, we’re working very much together, and I 

would hope we can have something back to him so that he can 

make a final decision within the next couple of weeks. But, the war 

is taking up a lot of his time, unfortunately. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, it is a difficult issue to address during 

a war, but very clearly, we’re going to get to the point where we 

have some capability of rotating some of those older assets out of 

this tanker fleet, we’re going to have to get new ones in there, and 

I am disturbed about that. 

C–17 AIRCRAFT

What about the C–17s? Are those the workhorse today of the Air 

Force? Last year we thought we authorized 15 new aircraft and 

there are only 11 in this budget. 

Secretary ROCHE. Sir, last year when we heard you authorized 

and directed us to put in money for 15 for this year, we were doing 

so, it was causing a budget difficulty that we discussed with the 

Office of the Secretary. We noticed that because of what you did 

last year, you put a lot of money up front, and that allowed for the 

fact that 15 airplanes had come off the production line every year 

very smoothly, to the position that if we were to buy the 15 this 

year, four of them would go into backlog. In other words, they 

wouldn’t be built in 2004, they would really be built in 2005. And 

so we——

Senator STEVENS. Why? I don’t understand that. 

Secretary ROCHE. Because 15 come out each year and because of 

prior funding, there are 15 about to come out. There are four already in backlog. If we would do 15 more, we only increase backlog. 

By ordering 11, they all get built in 2004 and then we continue because of the fact that there is an existing line. But we ask that this 

only be considered, this proposal. We recognize that we did not do 

exactly what we were directed to do. 

The reason that you had the concerns last year was we were 

busting limits on advance procurement in a number of years. Because of the cash infusion that was made by the committee last 

year, you have set up a situation where we can in fact save the taxpayer a good bit of money by having this very smooth and still pro-
98

ducing 15 a year, but not spending money a year earlier than necessary. 

Senator STEVENS. How many total are you going to acquire 

under this new approach? 

Secretary ROCHE. It would be the same number of airplanes as 

before, sir. It would be 60 in this multiyear plus the others, for a 

total of 180. 

Senator STEVENS. You’re not reducing the number at all? 

Secretary ROCHE. No, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. The final number remains the same? 

Secretary ROCHE. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye. 

AIR FORCE ACADEMY INVESTIGATION

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. General Jumper, I would 

like to begin with your last item, the Academy. We have been told 

that the Air Force has rejected an outside review panel to look over 

the situation and make their own assessment. Some of my colleagues have been inquiring, why reject this proposal. Can you tell 

us why? 

General JUMPER. Sir, first and foremost, we believe that this is 

the Air Force’s problem to fix. We do have the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) in with us on this investigation 

and they are doing a portion of the investigation to look into the 

cases that have arisen, to help us with that part of it. The Secretary and I have been out there personally, we have had our team 

out there three times. We have gotten to the point now where the 

data that we’re getting is repetitive data, and we think we have a 

good understanding of what the problems and issues are. We’re 

being transparent on this, we’re sharing what we have with the 

committee. 

But this I believe, sir, is the responsibility of the Secretary and 

myself to go fix this and we intend to do that. And we are sharing 

our data, but this is our responsibility. We’re the ones that are accountable, sir, and for our own sake and the sake of our Air Force, 

we want to press on to this solution. 

Secretary ROCHE. May I comment, sir? 

Senator INOUYE. Please. 

Secretary ROCHE. The interesting thing about the Academy, Senator, is it’s not a university. We have 4,200 cadets, typically between the age of 18 to 23, and we don’t have graduate students, 

married graduate students, and it is not a university. The only 

thing that is like it is West Point, the Naval Academy, the Coast 

Guard Academy, and possibly the Maritime Academy. 

When you have a gender distribution of 84 percent men and 16 

percent women, it is very different than at an American university 

which is now over 50 percent women and under 50 percent men. 

It’s in a military culture. We’re taking young people from around 

the United States and putting them together. The thing that we 

looked at when we went at this is, if we were to have a safety problem or something else, we would want to learn about the problem 

and deal with it ourselves rather than sending it to some outsiders 

who may not understand the culture as well. 
99

The second thing we have going for us is we now have a cadre 

of women officers, spectacular officers, and the first graduates from 

1980 are now Colonels or just about becoming Colonels. We have 

maintainers who are Major Generals, we have a number of women 

officers in place, and we felt that the experts on military life, the 

Academy life, problems of sexual assault, et cetera, we had the best 

experts in the world to deal with that, women who had attended 

our Air Force Academy, who understood it, who understood our Air 

Force, who could help us. And they have been wonderful in helping 

us. 

RESERVES

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, according 

to the latest reports, 36,200 reservists are now deployed throughout the world, including a high portion of critical specialists. The 

law presently limits service to 24 months, and there is some indication that we might be facing shortages. Do you have any plans to 

request extending the 24 months? 

Secretary ROCHE. At this stage, Senator, what we have done is 

when those were mobilized, we put a program in to demobilize as 

rapidly as we could, taking into account the plans of the individual 

reservists. You have to give them some certainty. If they go to their 

employer and say they’re going to be gone for 6 months, sometimes 

it just causes a problem if you send them back in 3 months. So we 

try to work with them, we try to make the transition in, smooth, 

and transition out, smooth. 

We had gotten that number down to under 14,000. Of that, 9,000 

were in force protection, protecting bases, a number of bases here, 

plus all the new bases we have created overseas. We recognize that 

we have until July 2003 to address that problem and that’s why 

you’ve seen us effectively hire 8,000 Army guardsmen to protect 

our bases. I believe if you go to Bolling Air Force Base now, you 

will find it’s our Army colleagues protecting the base, and this was 

something that was worked out between General Jumper and General Shinseki, and it’s a wonderful thing to do. That takes some of 

the pressure off that 9,000. 

It’s our hope this war will be over soon enough that we can once 

again keep our word to these men and women and get them back 

to their civilian jobs as soon as we can, so at this stage we don’t 

see a request for extension. We would rather be motivated to find 

ways to get them back to their normal life. We are concerned, that 

if we overwork the Guard and Reserve, their ability to recruit will 

be very, very difficult. 

We are now operating with something like 1,800 volunteers, 

which is wonderful. These are men and women who see a chunk 

of time, they can give it to us, and they have been doing so. 

PERSONNEL TRANSFORMATION

General JUMPER. Sir, if I might add, as part of Secretary Rumsfeld’s personnel transformation, he has asked us to go out and find 

ways to make sure that people who are wearing the uniform are 

doing jobs that require people to be in uniform. This is another 

part of Secretary Roche’s efforts, and in that effort we have gone 

out and found about 12,000 people in our Air Force who we think 
100

their job could be done in another way. We won’t get all of those 

back, but I think we will get a goodly portion of those back. Also, 

technology can help us out with things like guarding bases. Those 

are the things we’re looking at right now to see if we can make 

sure that the demand for people in uniform is done correctly. 

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, we have been advised that as a 

result of the long period of deployment, some of your reservists are 

experiencing financial problems. Is the Department planning to do 

something about this? 

GUARD AND RESERVE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS

Secretary ROCHE. Not that I’m aware, Senator. In some cases 

that I have been able to get into personally, I’ve known employers 

and I’ve been able to call employers, but I don’t know enough. We 

have a program borrowing from World War II where you recall, sir, 

that in World War II, the services honored employers who helped 

their employees get to war. We now have gone to our reserves and 

guardsmen—and by the way, we’re not allowed to keep a list of 

their employers for some privacy reason—but we’ve asked them if 

they would give us the names of their employers, and to each of 

them we have sent a thank you letter and a special pin with the 

E. 

We will shortly do the same thing for parents, for parents being 

able to walk around and letting us know that their son or daughter 

is serving. 

With respect to financial conditions, both the Guard and Reserve 

try to take into account those members who have that problem, 

and it is a way to relieve them of volunteers, or if there’s some 

other way to get them back to the jobs as soon as they can, they 

do. Right now, it’s a very stressing thing and I don’t know of any 

particular program that the Department is looking at to worry 

about the financial conditions when these men and women come on 

active duty and leave their jobs. 

General JUMPER. Senator, if I might add, as you well know, there 

are a great number of employers out there that take the burden 

themselves to make up the difference between the salary that the 

member gets when he or she comes on active duty and the salary 

they had before. These are great Americans out there who are helping carry this burden. Not all of them can afford to do that, and 

it is a concern, sir. 

IRAQI AIRCRAFT

Senator INOUYE. Like most Americans, I have been following the 

events as they unfold in Iraq, and I have been very impressed by 

the efficiency and the accuracy of your personnel. It appears that 

possibly as a result of that, there are no Iraqi aircraft flying 

around. Does it mean that the Iraqis have no aircraft left? 

General JUMPER. Sir, the Iraqis do have more than 100 very capable aircraft left. I mean, one could conclude by looking at the actions over there that they actually threw up their hands and gave 

up as the first order of business. I have been surprised at the lack 

of coordination that I have seen in their response both with their 

surface to air missiles and their airplanes. They do have capable 

airplanes. 
101

And as you know, Senator, as the Secretary mentioned, starting 

back in June or so, we started working away with a more aggressive enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions. In 

responding to violations that put command and control communications lines, surface-to-air missiles in the wrong areas, we were 

prompt about taking those out, and we think that possibly has had 

an effect on their ability to organize a responsive defense. 

I would hasten to add that you still don’t know what you don’t 

know. Although this is unexplained, they still have capability down 

there, and we have to certainly respect that, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. May I ask one more? Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the GPS jammers. Are they the ones that the Russians provided the Iraqis? 

Secretary ROCHE. May I answer that off line to you, sir? I don’t 

know if I can answer that in open session. But I would like to reemphasize that we find it wonderfully ironic that we use GPS 

bombs against GPS jammers, and the bombs worked just fine, Senator. 

Senator INOUYE. There must be something wrong. 

Secretary ROCHE. Or something good about what you appropriated 4 years ago, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. We do follow the early bird rule. Senator Durbin. 

AIR FORCE ACADEMY

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to return to this issue about the Air Force Academy for a moment. I’ve followed it and I’ve spoken to my colleague Senator Allard, who I think has really been a leader on this issue, and he 

first had one of the young women come forward. He has dealt with 

this responsibly and I think really drawn our attention to it as a 

national issue. 

It is a different issue from this side of the table than most, because for 20 years I have been sending young men and women from 

my congressional district in my State to the academies. They were 

anxious to be appointed, they wanted to go there, and I wanted to 

send them. And I really looked hard to find young women who 

would be part of our modern military, because I think that’s an important element. And now we have this scandalous report which 

may result in some dramatic changes at the Academy. 

Mr. Secretary, I would say to you that I wish you would step 

back a moment from your earlier comment and think about what 

you told us. When Senator Inouye asked you about an outside review you said that these outsiders would not understand our culture. That is a troubling statement, because it is the culture of the 

last 10 years which has allowed this scandal to grow rather than 

to disappear, and that culture needs to be changed, clearly. 

When we are talking about bringing in the experts, I think you 

made a good point. We could bring in women who have served in 

the military, presently serve in the military, who could give excellent insight into how this culture could be changed. But I hope that 

you will concede to me that change is necessary in the culture and 

understand that the acceptance of it is just not acceptable. 
102

Secretary ROCHE. Senator, thank you very much for your question, because I clearly did not communicate. The culture at the 

Academy absolutely must change, and I could go on for a great 

length of time agreeing with you on point after point after point. 

I meant the culture of the United States Air Force. A young 

woman on one of our regular Air Force bases, an airman first class, 

is far better protected, far better dealt with when a problem 

emerges, the chain of command goes into action very quickly. That 

doesn’t mean we don’t have a problem now and then; it is, we are 

very confident when the chain of command is held responsible and 

accountable to all parties, and that we have crisis response teams, 

and we have first sergeants and senior enlisted. She is a lot better 

off than is a female today at the Air Force Academy. 

Our Air Force culture is very good. The Academy culture must 

change. And the reason the two of us have taken this personally 

is that we recognize that this is a culture issue. You can’t just fire 

a couple of generals and think the problem is solved because you 

would have missed the issue. 

It goes back to, what struck us most in the cases we have over 

a 10-year period, there are cases there, some we prosecuted, some 

with insufficient evidence, there are three of the 23 rape allegations made over the last 10 years where the young women recanted 

and said it never happened. That’s bad. But when we start having 

officers we know come up to us and say General, there is something you need to know, when I was at the Academy, this is what 

happened to me, that really hurts us, because it means that women 

have been victims in the United States Air Force. 

We want any assailant out of our Air Force. If there is someone 

out there attacking our young airmen, we want him out, and we 

want them out, and we want to help these young women help us 

cull these people out. The culture, you will see this when we release our initial set of directions, and we will still hold these individuals accountable, but we are going right at the culture. But we 

recognize that you don’t change a culture with one member, it 

means starting from the top, which means it starts with us. It 

means we go back out there over and over and over. 

We both have been involved, we changed the honor system last 

year, we changed the recruiting athletics system, we changed the 

curriculum. This area we thought was handled, but it clearly was 

not, and it goes over a long period of time. In 1993, this all occurred and we thought we had solved it, but those actions had secondary effects that made some of it worse, so we absolutely have 

to address it now as a cultural problem. 

It has to be addressed now, because in less than 90 days, Senator, including some people you have nominated, they will have a 

new class beginning, including 189 women, there will be a total of 

714 women at the Academy in the fall. We have to make the first 

steps so that the families of these young women coming in June 

can believe that their daughters are okay and also the families of 

the cadets will believe that due process is going to be applied. 

Now having done the initial set of moves, we have the experts—

for instance, the Federal task force on domestic violence, which 

looks at domestic violence against another in a family setting, 

which very much replicates it. We’re going to change it, but we are 
103

going to make changes immediately and then start turning somewhere, as compared to if I need 10—which experts, this set of experts, that set, wait for 6 months, and meanwhile have another 

class coming to the Academy. 

Senator DURBIN. This is a very serious issue and I’m glad for 

your response, because I think it helped to explain what you said 

earlier. 

I hope that in the course of this, both you and the General, in 

your commitment to transparency, will bring in those credible parties who will help to restore the integrity and the reputation of a 

great institution, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and I hope that you 

will do that. 

MEDICAL EVACUATION MISSION

I have one other issue that I will raise if I have a minute here, 

Mr. Chairman, I see I have a very brief period of time, and that 

was our discovery that in the budget request, there is a proposal 

to discontinue the so-called Nightingale Mission, the aeromedical 

evacuation mission, and to privatize it, to contract it out, and to 

suggest that we would use available space on C–130s and C–17s 

to move people who are injured or ill, where at the present time 

we are using C–9s dedicated to that purpose. 

Despite my interest in it because of Scott Air Force Base and obvious reasons, it does raise a serious question to me as to whether 

or not we can privatize and contract out something so critically important as the movement of personnel who are ill or very sick or 

injured or in some way have been victimized by combat. And I wonder if we could have your response to that, and if we could expand 

the conversation to talk about some options that might be considered. 

Secretary ROCHE. Sir, let me let General Jumper start, and this 

is frankly the question we hoped you would ask us. 

General JUMPER. Sir, I know of no effort out there to privatize 

the medical evacuation. I think the effort, first of all, starts with 

the C–9s and the age of the C–9s and the significant costs to either 

bring them up to current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

standards—they don’t meet any of those standards, or to replace 

them. 

When we have out there active in the circuit every day our whole 

fleet of strategic airlift capability, our C–17s, our C–5s and our C–

130s, that are moving around at present more than 100 countries 

every day, that provide the opportune lift to get patients from one 

place to another. That’s the thing we hope to be able to take advantage of. As a matter of fact, we did not use the C–9 in any of the 

evacuations during Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, nor in Afghanistan, because of the limitations of that kind of an airplane. 

So, we have been successful in taking advantage of our air fleet. 

I will make sure that what I said to you about contracting out is 

correct, because that’s the first I’ve heard of such a thing, but I 

have been surprised before. 

Senator DURBIN. If I could mention one other thing, Mr. Secretary. I’ll end here because my time is up. And that is, while I had 

an opportunity to go with the congressional delegation to Afghanistan and flew in a C–130, great crew, terrific performance, pretty 
104

old plane, but to put litters in the back of that plane for people who 

are sick, I don’t think is an adequate response and I don’t think 

it mirrors the quality of care we would ask from the Air Force and 

many others. 

Secretary ROCHE. If I may, Senator, we may every now and then 

inside the United States use an air ambulance service for a onetime situation, so that may be the contract, but generally we are 

not. The C–130Js are much newer. The preferred plane is the C–

17, which we can in fact, and we have these modular systems for 

the medical pallets. We’ve both talked to the Surgeon General’s 

people who we’re dealing on the aircraft, and with the Air Mobility 

Command (AMC) commander and United States Transportation 

Command (USTRANSCOM) at Scott Air Force Base. C–9s are old, 

these other planes are far more viable in getting around, and it is 

the judgment of the Air Mobility Command that we can do this 

with the other aircraft. 

The one area that we are working on together is in the Pacific, 

the bases are so far apart for our own active duty and dependents, 

getting them to specialized hospitals, let’s say Kadena or someplace 

else, that may require us having to convene with some other aircraft. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. General, it’s good to see you, and Mr. Secretary, it’s great to see you 

again. 

Obviously this is a day when we have talked about parochial 

issues and important issues in our home State, and we wonder 

whether it’s even the right forum because our troops are at war 

overseas, it seems almost insignificant that we talk about local 

issues such as Holloman or Cannon or Kirtland. 

I want to join in complimenting both of you as the leaders of our 

Air Force. The performance of our troops in Iraq is so spectacular, 

it is difficult to comprehend. I never thought we’d see our forces 

have such an advantage. I’ve been here 30 years and I get to follow 

development and evolution of our Military Forces, but I frankly 

never believed that we could move so exponentially in 10 years 

with reference to quality and technology. It’s obvious that you’re 

doing it right and we are proud to be part of it, at least in paying 

attention and doing what you ask us to do. 

PROMOTIONS

And Mr. Secretary, I’m extremely pleased that we have somebody 

as competent as you there. I have only one observation about the 

makeup of the hierarchy of the Air Force. I’m a real sucker for big 

science, I love big science, and we have a lot of it in New Mexico. 

We have the directed energy activities at Kirkland Air Force Base 

and it’s the headquarters for laser research, and I went out there 

recently for a visit, and you know what I would like to see? I would 

like to see a couple or more two-star or three-star generals that are 

not just pilots but are Ph.D.s in chemistry, physics and engineering. 

Secretary ROCHE. Oh, I agree with you. 

Senator DOMENICI. I believe you ought to do that. 
105

Secretary ROCHE. As a Ph.D. myself, I think it’s a great idea. 

Senator DOMENICI. I think you ought to just promote the brightest Air Force people and send them to Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT), give them whatever they need to get a Ph.D., 

and then let them come. What confidence we’d have if they were 

walking around the laser facility instead of a colonel. He’s great, 

but he has to relate to an engineering Ph.D. from a school, and the 

few times I have seen a one-star general, I’ve thought how magnificent that is. I urge that you start a program to encourage them, 

give them extra incentives, get 8 or 10 of them graduated from 

California Institute of Technology, get the best and get them out 

to our Air Force lab, that’s what we ought to do. 

AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Secretary ROCHE. Thank you for your support, Senator. We have 

reinvigorated our Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). We 

have ended the notion that you had to go get a paper master’s program in order to be promoted. We have a program now that will 

send every one of our officers either to a graduate school or to a 

similar experience. We are trying to take our scientists and engineers, with your help, we’re giving them bonuses. We’re trying to 

make their careers more exciting. 

We have had a whole rerecruiting campaign of these young people, because when you go to one of our labs, the Air Force Research 

Laboratory (AFRL), or go to the laser facility at Kirtland, as we’ve 

both done and did together, you see some of these young officers 

who have all of the brights in the world, they love what they’re 

doing, they love the fact that their work is going to be meaningful 

to somebody in combat, and somehow we lose them, and we can’t 

lose them. 

And I’m proud to say that even though my partner is a fighter 

pilot, he was the first to say well, for heaven’s sake, why don’t we 

get them their doctorates and keep them. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Secretary, you wouldn’t lose those scientists, those military guys if they had two stars on them and they 

were scientists. You’re losing them because they are only colonels 

and they don’t want to stay there very long, and they’re masters, 

they’re not Ph.D.s. If you get them up there, they will stay there, 

and if you have them in that hierarchy, they will be glad to stay. 

Secretary ROCHE. We need more. 

Senator DOMENICI. I want to ask about the Predator. 

Senator STEVENS. Would the Senator yield for a second? 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Senator STEVENS. Why don’t we pay them the equivalent of being 

generals instead of paying them as colonels? Why don’t you jump 

their rates of pay as opposed to their grade in service? 

Secretary ROCHE. It’s not a bad idea. We’re talking about bonuses in the system for the younger ones. We take science and engineering seriously. Can we take that to study, sir? 

There is also a point, though, in making them leaders and showing the young officers that there are role models ahead. We have 

a couple. We could do more because we are so highly dependent on 

technology for our service. 
106

Senator DOMENICI. If you did that, you would have the pilots 

wondering why they are being discriminated against, so you don’t 

want to do that. In any event, it seems to me that this is an idea 

whose time has come. 

PREDATOR

In any event, let me talk about the Predator. First of all, when 

do you expect the selection process to be completed, and can you 

give us an update on the environmental assessment that’s being 

performed and for bases recommended for the Predator squadrons, 

either of you? 

General JUMPER. Sir, there is an ongoing environmental assessment right now for where we might go with the Predator. Our plan 

right now as we’re continuing to build Predator at a rate of about 

two per month, to maintain Indian Springs as our center of excellence for the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). When we 

start building the numbers up, we will make decisions for the future about where and how to expand out the criteria. 

As you well know, it has to do with being adjacent to uncontrolled airspace, the weather has to be decent, the winds have to 

be within a certain limit, et cetera, et cetera. So those things are 

ongoing, sir, but we don’t have a timetable. 

Secretary ROCHE. They’re also basing more of them overseas 

than they are at home right now, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes, I understand, but sooner or later we will 

have them based at home. And if we need weather plus all the rest, 

it looks like Holloman has an exciting future in terms of that. 

MELROSE BOMBING RANGE

Let’s talk about the Melrose Bombing Range over on the east 

side of New Mexico and its supersonic testing capacity. Supersonic 

land facilities are very, very important. They’re doing all that testing now over water. What’s the status of the study with reference 

to Melrose and the possibility for it having supersonic capacity? 

Secretary ROCHE. Sir, I have just come upon this and I’m not up 

to speed on it. May I get back to you on that? 

Senator DOMENICI. Absolutely. 

[The information follows:] 

MELROSE BOMBING RANGE

Sir, my staff has worked this issue with Air Combat Command and has completed 

a draft of a study to determine the requirements to extend supersonic capability at 

Melrose Range. The study is now in the process of review to ensure accuracy; we 

will provide a copy within the next 30 days.

Secretary ROCHE. And by the way, the issue you raised, however, 

is a critical one. Oftentimes we think we will have a range but then 

because of restrictions we can’t go supersonic. As we move to an 

era of super cruise, it becomes terribly important to us to be able 

to do it over places other than water. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, Melrose is over there by Cannon, but it 

has served the purpose of Holloman, Cannon, and some from 

Texas. It’s a very big range. We acquired it so as to create diversity 

about 15 years ago, and I think it would be looked at for supersonic 

land testing, which people are more than willing to take a look and 
107

listen, but we have to do it right so we don’t surprise them if in 

fact it’s chosen. 

CV–22

Now what about the CV–22, what’s the current status of the testing and what is the latest schedule for training squadrons at 

Kirtland, if either of you know? 

Secretary ROCHE. The CV–22, sir, is in a position where it’s having to prove itself, and the Navy and Marine Corps in fact have the 

lead. We have our own special op reader Air Force personnel associated with it. It’s a testing program now that has been backed into 

test, it is encouraging them, but it still has a way to go. We believe 

that if it tests out well, we would like to have it in our Air Force 

Special Operating Command (AFSOC). Whether or not we would 

use it for combat search and rescue is still to be determined, because it has some issues about how it flies close to the ground and 

may not make it worthwhile. We put on hold what we would do to 

get them until we find whether or not this program is something 

that we in fact will buy, and is one where we and the Marine Corps 

and the Navy would be making a decision and making a recommendation to the Secretary on it after the test program is over. 

But as you know, it has had a very rough test program. 

Senator DOMENICI. General, did you have anything to add to 

that? 

General JUMPER. No, sir, I can’t add to that. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank both of you very much. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PREDATOR HELLFIRE SYSTEM

General Jumper, could you talk a little bit, maybe not everything, about the significance of the joint coordination that took 

place between the Air Force and the Army to engineer and integrate the Predator Hellfire system? 

General JUMPER. Yes, sir. We——

Senator SHELBY. I think that’s a great accomplishment. 

General JUMPER. It’s a great story. The Predator story is a long 

and tortured one. It came to us in 1996 as a technology demonstration, and we took it over years and developed it into what it is, to 

include the first step of putting a laser designator on it so it actually designates targets on the ground, and then shortly thereafter 

by putting the Hellfire missile on it. 

Of course we had to go to the Army to work the integration of 

the Hellfire missile and we had superb cooperation. 

Senator SHELBY. They worked that out at Redstone, didn’t they? 

General JUMPER. Absolutely, out at Redstone. And with the scientists at Redstone actually to do the warhead enhancements that 

we have done actually just over the last year or so. And the scientists actually at Redstone were the ones that helped us with that 

development. We are continuing to work with them for even future 

versions of the Hellfire that will overcome some of the limitations 

of shooting it from higher altitude, and that work continues, sir. 
108

Senator SHELBY. What you’re basically doing is utilizing an organic laboratory. 

General JUMPER. Absolutely. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary ROCHE. I was going to say, we were both just tickled 

pink. Our boss has told us, sometimes I see Hellfires going into 

buildings and people coming out, and you know, Don Rumsfeld 

says, why are they coming out? And we turned to Huntsville and 

asked for some help, and the speed with which they built the sleeve 

was just incredible. 

AIR UNIVERSITY

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. I want to switch over to the Air 

University, General, or to both of you. Both of you know that the 

Air University at Maxwell has seen a dramatic increase in their 

training responsibilities, particularly for Reserve Officer Training 

Corps (ROTC) scholarship recipients. I brought this issue up with 

you before last year and I want to get your thoughts again this 

year on how Maxwell is doing in meeting their training challenges 

and do they have the funds to continue this? I think it’s very important to the Air Force. 

General JUMPER. Sir, let me just say, and you know this very 

well, over the last few years at the Air University, we have added 

the doctrine center, we’ve added the air and space basic course, and 

we’ve increased the student flow through there, and in every school 

that’s housed there, in addition to our law school, our chaplains, et 

cetera, et cetera, they all go through Maxwell Air Force Base and 

all of its magnificent history going back to the tactical school in the 

thirties. 

We believe that everything there is adequately funded. As a matter of fact, as we continue to find new ways to phase students into 

the Air University that are in line with our rotation cycles overseas, we have made accommodations for our entire Expeditionary 

Aerospace Force concept so that throughout the year we can phase 

students in there in modules, if you will. That work is ongoing 

there, and that will increase the student flow. We have looked at 

a whole new way to do the correspondence courses that we have. 

Again, technology and other things invested into the Air University. These things are ongoing, sir, and it’s really tremendous out 

there. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. We appreciate very 

much the leadership and outstanding service that our witnesses 

are providing to our country, particularly the leadership of the Air 

Force in this challenging time. 

C–17 AIRCRAFT

When General Myers was here the other day, the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he talked about and commented on the 

unanticipated wear and tear on the C–17s and the aging of the C–

5 fleet as a result of the high operating tempo during this war 

against terror. Do you believe the planned procurement of C–17s 
109

and upgrades to the C–5s are sufficient to meet our future airlift 

needs? 

Secretary ROCHE. Senator, I will start and then ask General 

Jumper to comment. The C–17 is one of those airplanes that you 

dream for. We accepted it one day and in 48 hours it’s in the air 

and working. It has just been a workhorse, it has been terrific, and 

I have had the pleasure of flying on them. It has just proven what 

people said could be done was done, even though the program, as 

the chairman knows well, went from 220, cut to 110, cut to 40, almost zero, almost zero, almost zero, limped to 40, 80, boom, now 

120 going to 180. 

C–5 AIRCRAFT

We are going to take the C–5, the C–5Bs and modernize those. 

The question that we face is to what degree can we take the C–

5As and fully extend their life usefully, as compared to just creating another maintenance stream for a long period of time that 

becomes too costly. We will take and diagnose two of the Bs, then 

take a look at an A or two, we are creating an air-worthiness board 

which parallels what the Navy does in its board of inspection survey, because we now have so many old airplanes we need to put 

together teams of real experts on materials, structures, to be able 

to advise us, to say this aircraft by hull number has to be retired. 

If we cannot get a good answer by modernizing some of the C–

5As, recognizing we do all 50 of the Bs, then we will have to determine how many more C–17s are required to make up the shortfall 

in the lift requirements that we have. That is our current plan. 

Meanwhile, the C–17s are on multiyear, going along fine. We will 

review those other studies, and we should be able to find out and 

understand what it requires to modernize the As and how many of 

them we could modernize, and then do all the Bs, and then make 

a decision between doing the As or more C–17s. 

General JUMPER. Sir, if I might add, the objective out there from 

the mobility requirement study is 54.5 ton miles per day. It will be 

worth our while, especially following this conflict, to go back and 

take a look and see if that number remains adequate, because that 

number was established with a completely different set of assumptions. But in order to get to the 54.5 in the course that the Secretary described is the course that we are on right now. 

Secretary ROCHE. We wish we just had a problem of building, 

Senator, it would be easier. We have aging across the board and 

trying to have budget fit these different categories after, frankly, 

10, or 8 to 12 years of not investing. We don’t have a capital budget 

and we don’t have a process to reinvest a depreciation rate. So we 

face you with these big bumps of modernization, which is a shame. 

GLOBAL HAWK

Senator COCHRAN. Another point that I recall the chairman making when he was here before the committee was the importance of 

the capability of these unmanned aircraft to surveil and identify 

activity through intelligence gathering. The usefulness obviously is 

very important in a war like we are conducting in Iraq right now. 

My impression is that Global Hawk has proven to be very valuable 

to our operations. 
110

My question is, are we moving fast enough to procure systems 

such as Global Hawk and other necessary unmanned aerial vehicle 

variants that we see developing? I know Northrop Grumman is developing a Fire Scout as another option. What is your impression 

of these new systems and are we integrating them into the Air 

Force quickly enough? 

Secretary ROCHE. First of all, Senator, I think the Air Force integration is one where people keep wondering why fighter pilots are 

doing this, and we’re past that. We are absolutely past that. When 

we have the chief fighter pilot of the Air Force as one of the greatest fans of unmanned vehicles, it’s amazing that his leadership has 

made everyone recognize that there is a complementary nature of 

manned and unmanned aircraft. 

General Franks really did us an enormous favor when we both 

asked him if we could put some drones over Afghanistan that were 

not fully developed, not ready for prime time, in order to learn how 

these operated in war. We probably have saved the American taxpayer an enormous amount of money by having the chance to build 

something, play with it, use it, understand it, change it, go back. 

We’re getting the same permission from General Franks here in 

the Iraqi war. That’s allowed us to do things very quickly like the 

armed Predator, like the sleeve on the Hellfire, like looking at 

Global Hawk for multiple types of missions, including taking some 

of the bandwidth off of the satellites and having Global Hawks behave as lower altitude satellites. It’s led us to take the multi-sensor 

command and control aircraft and to think about part of the back 

end controlling some drones. 

And then taking a leaf from history, in the late thirties at Maxwell Air Force Base and the Wright Patterson Air Force Base, the 

Army Air Corps procured small numbers of a number of different 

types of aircraft and allowed the young pilots to say here’s how 

these are best used, here’s how things go. We’ve been trying to replicate that. And in open session I can’t tell you how many families, 

I can tell you it’s more than you can count on one hand, the families of unattended vehicles plus remotely piloted aircraft, we have 

found in certain circumstances having a pilot who has to make an 

attack decision is very important, and also just how the pilot’s instincts take over. 

You know, a pilot can see a black cloud and won’t go into it. A 

drone will go exactly where you told it to go and then you may find 

you have a problem because you’re in a black cloud. Or when an 

Iraqi Flogger is coming in at our Predators, our pilots use certain 

techniques to do that—alter what the Flogger could see. We, by 

playing and understanding these and getting our young people involved, it has made a huge difference. 

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE PILOTS

Now we had a cultural problem when a number of our young pilots thought that somehow they had failed us and that’s why they 

were being assigned to unmanned vehicles. We have both visited 

every operating unit, we’ve both spent time at Indian Springs. 

We’ve now found every one of their problems like gate time, they 

didn’t get gate time, or they weren’t eligible for medals because 

quite often they were not in the region, although some of them 
111

have killed more people than a heck of a lot of our other pilots. 

They can get medals now. They worried about where they would 

go on their next set of orders. We make it clear to them that they 

are pioneers and we just milk their brains, as well as the maintainers on these aircraft. 

PREDATOR B

And from that we have developed the notion of a basic Predator 

closer to a razor blade as cheap as possible, and it’s a killer scout. 

Predator B is going to be a hunter killer, fly higher, carry more. 

Global Hawk is equivalent to a low altitude satellite, it can do all 

kinds of things. And so we believe that our procurement program 

is much greater than it was a few years ago. And then there are 

others that I can’t discuss in open. This will form a set of families 

that will let us replicate what happened prior to World War II 

where the United States was able to pick the best precisely because 

it experimented as well. General? 

General JUMPER. Sir, if I could just add a few points. One is that 

we have to make sure that we understand the true value of these 

remotely piloted and unattended vehicles to the fight, and the main 

virtue that we see is this notion of persistence. We had a Predator 

here just a few days ago that flew a 33-hour mission. It’s this persistence that enables you to stare and to predict, and to do it day 

and night that makes this small airplane so valuable to us. We’ve 

got to make sure that we understand the value of these things and 

that when we project out to where our capabilities need to go in 

the future that we’re not just merely taking people out of airplanes. 

One of the issues that we discuss often is, would we be buying 

this vehicle if it were manned, because the vehicle does something 

unique that we can’t do with anything else. That’s one of the litmus 

tests that we have to make sure that we pass. And if we can’t pass 

that test, then we have to make sure that we’re not taking the 

judgment out of the airplane that is absolutely required to be 

there. 

That’s why we make this distinction about remotely piloted aircraft. We’re going to have a rated person at the controls of the 

Predator as long as there is a requirement to bear the burden of 

putting weapons on targets and being responsible for the lives of 

people on the ground, just the way we burden our people who fly 

in the airplanes. It’s those kinds of things that we are thinking our 

way through in a deliberate way before we make big commitments 

out there for the future. 

But we understand the urgency, sir, and we are pressing on with 

it. 

Secretary ROCHE. In the notion of range of persistence, the third 

one that we have come upon is this notion of what we call digital 

acuity. It says that a drone in its 23rd hour of operation is just as 

sharp as it was in the second hour of operation, where a human 

being tires, a human being starts to lose interest, where a digital 

system does not. So we’re looking for comparative advantage in 

each case and we have proven that drones or remotely piloted aircraft and piloted aircraft can operate in the same airspace very 

comfortably. A Navy F–18 in Afghanistan asked the Predator a 

question, and the Predator answered the question. 
112

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I have had the opportunity to tour the Global Hawk, the Predator and F–22 programs, and I am very impressed. 

IRAQ WAR NEWS COVERAGE

I want to ask you about the Air Guard, their jet fighters, B–52s, 

but before I do that, let me ask a question that’s been bothering 

me. With this 24–7 news coverage of the war and 500 journalists 

embedded in our Armed Forces who are fighting that war and with 

all of the networks actually having begun advertising before the 

war began about their cast of characters for analysts and interpreters, in the mornings I have watched retired generals and admirals, many people who have served this country with great distinction standing on full-scale maps on the floors and walls with pointers, and they’re describing where our troops are moving, where 

they’re headed, what they think might or might not happen. Some 

have even been mildly critical, I believe. 

But I watch all that and I think, this is a wealth of information 

to me as an American citizen. I also have access to top secret briefings, as do my colleagues. What I see in the morning on television 

or at night by many of these analysts, former colleagues of yours, 

makes me wonder. Is there any cause for anxiety or concern inside 

the Pentagon about what’s being disclosed with all these pointers? 

It’s a wealth of information to me and to the American people. Is 

it also a wealth of information to the Iraqis, who I assume watch 

Cable News Network (CNN) and other news services? Do you have 

any anxiety or concerns about that, General? 

General JUMPER. From time to time some of the things I have 

seen have actually caused me some anxiety, because it has appeared to me from time to time that some of these people, not necessarily former military people who have access to classified information, have actually talked about things that shouldn’t be talked 

about. 

By and large what I see is a description of ongoing operations 

that are usually lagging in events and would be of little help. I can 

tell you that most, not all, most of the people who formerly wore 

a uniform are acutely aware of this and they take great care to 

make sure that what they are going to say does not divulge anything. Also, it’s fascinating to see how captivating this notion of a 

camera going along in the back of a Bradley for hours and hours 

is to the American people out there, and of course that gets the 

American people right down to the tactical level, which I think is 

good for them, because they get to see our soldiers, sailors, airmen 

and marines at work. 

B–52 BOMBERS

Senator DORGAN. Thank you, General, for your response. 

Let me ask about the B–52s. You talked about the KC–135s and 

the aging and corrosion. That same circumstance is not present 

with the B–52s, is it? 

Secretary ROCHE. No, sir, and there are a couple of reasons. One 

is, the design of the plane was such that it was overdesigned and 
113

in particular, if I can demonstrate—my colleague does it better 

than I do. B–52s have wings like this, and 135s have wings like 

that. In one case water flows into the fuselage and in the other 

case it flows out, so we have not had the problem of assembly 

metal and the cabin corrosion with B–52s. Also, over the course of 

time because they were nuclear bombers, there has been major 

structural rework done on those planes. And then lastly and most 

importantly, we don’t fly the plane anywhere near the way it was 

intended to be flown. We have found that it serves a particularly 

wonderful mission if it goes up high, launches, stand off in defended areas, or over the top in areas where there is no air defense, 

so how we use the plane makes a big difference. And we kept 76 

of the best from many hundreds. 

Senator DORGAN. And in fact when they talk about the age of the 

plane, in large respect they are not that old; much and most of that 

plane has been replaced and updated. 

Secretary ROCHE. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN. But I just wanted to make that point, that we 

don’t have the same circumstance with the B–52 even though it’s 

a very old system. 

General JUMPER. Right. 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask about the Air Guard and the F–22s 

that will come on line at some point, and I happen to share your 

view. I hope we can keep this schedule moving. I think it’s an impressive airplane and I hope very much that we can continue to 

fund it and move it along. As we do that, planes have become available for the Reserve components and the Guard. 

As you know, one of the best Guard units are the Happy Hooligans from Fargo. In fact, they were the first up to protect the Capitol the day of the attack on 9/11, the first fighters scrambled from 

Langley. They have won the William Tell award twice, and I think 

the only Air Guard unit perhaps to ever win it, and certainly to 

win it twice against all the best pilots in the world. But the best 

pilots are now flying the oldest airplanes, which gives them some 

amount of angst and myself as well. And we’re trying to evaluate 

what’s the future here, when will they get their F–15s or modern 

F–16s? You and I have talked about that a great deal, General, and 

Mr. Secretary, we have as well. Any news on that front? 

Secretary ROCHE. Much depends on whether we can keep the F/

A–22 schedule on. We are very aware of the Happy Hooligans’ 

record and we also are aware that they have a strong interest in 

F–15s if not the F–16Cs, and that’s something we have in our 

heads. We would like to flow these down when appropriate to the 

Hooligans and other members of the Guard to get some aircraft. 

The second thing we would wish to do, as you know, we have a 

group that’s called blended wing at Warner Robins on the Joint 

Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JOINT STARS) aircraft, which was a radical experiment that General Jumper and I 

wanted to take, which was to have active and guardsmen in the 

identical wing with full-time missions. Right now the head of that 

wing is a guardsman. And other than some constitutional issues of 

someone empowered by a State giving orders to a Federal force, it 
114

has worked wonderfully, and this war is going to prove that we can 

do this. The only thing we would like to do different in the long 

run is to start to think of doing that more in the Guard, among 

other things to get F/A–22s into the Guard where we can blend 

wings. 

Senator DORGAN. I will come back and talk to both of you at 

other times on this issue. 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE

Let me just ask two additional very brief questions. One, B–52s 

and electronic warfare mission, I believe, General, you testified to 

that over in the House. And the second, I want to just ask, are you 

reasonably positive, do you feel generally positive about the decision the Secretary might make with respect to leasing 767s? 

So if you could address those two things, the B–52 electronic 

warfare issue, and the 767. 

Secretary ROCHE. How do you want to handle this? 

General JUMPER. I will take the B–52. 

Sir, as you well know, we are pursuing a program to take a very 

hard look at complementing the United States Navy and its desire 

to replace the EA–6B in a jamming world with something that can 

persist a little bit longer and can also help both the Navy and the 

Air Force and the Marine Corps with stand-off jamming that’s persistent. And the platform we would like to take a look at, of course, 

is the B–52. Take advantage of that very large fuel tank that they 

have out on the wing tip——

Senator DORGAN. You said that was the size of a condominium? 

General JUMPER. It’s the size of a small condominium. When you 

stand off it doesn’t look that big, but when you walk it up next to 

it, you can figure out you can live in it. But we could take the work 

on the electronic jamming pods that has been done for the Navy 

in the EF–18 and we could take that same technology and leverage 

it for this pod, I think without disturbing the rest of the mission 

of the aircraft at all. So it can deploy long ranges, it can persist 

for long periods of time and complement the shorter range F–18. 

767 LEASE

Secretary ROCHE. With respect to the 767 lease, I would not 

want to speak for Don Rumsfeld. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m just asking how you feel. 

Secretary ROCHE. I feel good about some variation of the lease, 

because the Secretary clearly understands and accepts and is probably, given his history as Secretary of Defense earlier, recognizes 

that all these tankers were flying then. And in fact, some of them 

were flying when he was still on active duty, or just about. And 

that we do need new tankers and this has to be done sensibly. The 

fact that we now have some collegiality between his staff and the 

Air Force trying to address this problem in a sensible manner, I 

must give special praise to Secretary Aldridge. He has tried mightily to make the points that need to be made and also to try to take 

into account concerns of controllers and others, as well as Zone B, 

and we are trying to come up with an alternative that’s a variation 

that in fact the Secretary could approve us going forward, but we’re 

working together for the first time. 
115

Senator DORGAN. Thank you for your responses. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Two things. I have asked the staff to take a look at the current 

GI bill, the Montgomery bill, to make certain that it’s going to be 

available to those who have been involved in this effort. There is 

some question as to whether they had to have made the decision 

at the time they entered the service as to whether they wished to 

be eligible for that, and I think many of them after this experience 

might want to have a second look at that, and I would urge you 

to talk to the Department about that. 

COMBAT PAY

Secondly, I asked the staff to look at the problem of what we 

called combat pay, we now call hostile fire and imminent danger 

pay. I’m informed that was $110 a month before the Persian Gulf 

War, during the Persian Gulf War it was raised about 27 percent 

to $150 a month. And we have had an increase in pay since for just 

general military pay since the Persian Gulf War of about 30 percent. Clearly, we ought to have a combat pay figure that is relevant 

to the current pay scales and to current problems, and I would urge 

you to also take this up with the Department. 

I don’t think we ought to jump the gun. I think that was raised 

actually by executive action in the Persian Gulf War, it was made 

permanent in the 1993 Act, but the current rate of $150 was made 

permanent then. We seek your guidance. I should think that the 

Executive Order would be sufficient right now, but the permanent 

pay scale ought to be raised sometime in the future. 

Again, I thank you very much for your presence. Senator Inouye 

and I have been here now for over 30 years on this committee and 

watched the development of many of the systems that we’re seeing 

used so effectively in this war, and we commend you as we did in 

the beginning for your efforts and your role. And I promise not to 

show your picture around, the one I talked to you about, General. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

General JUMPER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator STEVENS. He went to high school in Anchorage. 

Thank you very much. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JAMES G. ROCHE

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND TECHNICAL TRAINING SCHOOL

Question. Your submitted joint written statement addresses the importance of recruiting and retention to maintain a quality force. You said, ‘‘Despite the challenge 

of mustering such a diverse and skilled collection of Americans, we exceeded our fiscal year 2002 enlisted recruiting goals and expect to surpass fiscal year 2003 objectives. We will adapt our goals to meet new force objectives; however the capacity 

limitations of Basic Military Training and Technical Training School quotas will 

continue to challenge Total Force recruiting efforts.’’ Since these missions are accomplished as a whole or in part at Lackland and Sheppard Air Force Bases, can 

you elaborate on what you mean by capacity limitations? 
116

Answer. The Air Force is in the process of reshaping the force in response to the 

current security environment. Basic Military Training (BMT) and most Air Force 

Speciality Code (AFSC) technical schools met past capacity requirements but are 

now feeling stressed because of meeting new or expanded mission demands. BMT 

capacity is currently tight because of increased Guard/Reserve numbers but capacity 

is sufficient to meet demand. Some of our most in-demand career fields are trained 

at technical training wings in Texas (e.g., CE Readiness at Sheppard; Security 

Forces at Lackland; Intelligence/Linguist at Goodfellow). As we transform, certain 

skills will be temporarily stressed; however, adequate resources will be moved to accommodate increases in throughput. As we work through this force reshaping, training requirements will be adjusted. Active and Reserve Component requirements will 

be re-evaluated and enough seats made available to meet new steady state current 

and future requirements. 

In the interim, timing of course dates may not be as convenient; however, sufficient seats will be available to accomplish Total Force mission requirements. Our 

focus is on making force-shaping adjustments while maintaining the most effective 

and efficient Total Force training pipeline possible. We expect to sustain adequate 

capacity given the size of the force we have today. 

RANGE AND READINESS PRESERVATION INITIATIVE

Question. Please provide some background information on the Range and Readiness Preservation Initiative that you mentioned in your written statement, intended 

to examine training range activity and current legislation’s impact on these activities. 

Answer. The Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI) provides clarification to specific statutes; it does not provide ‘‘sweeping’’ exemptions from environmental laws. Also, the RRPI is not a complete solution for every encroachment challenge. Changes in regulations and administrative practices are also being explored. 

Recently, courts have been interpreting environmental statutes and existing laws 

in new ways that are impacting military operations on ranges and in airspace. RRPI 

is one process used by the Air Force to address encroachment. The current RRPI 

seeks focused legislative changes to protect our readiness as we manage our resources. It does this by; (1) codifying Department of the Interior policy to use DOD’s 

integrated natural resources management plans. These replace the need for critical 

habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act on DOD lands, (2) amending 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act to clarify that military readiness activities are 

not considered ‘‘harassment’’ of marine mammals unless they present a significant 

potential to injure the mammals or to disrupt natural behavior patterns, (3) codifying the Environmental Protection Agency rule that munitions used as intended on 

operational ranges, e.g., dropped on a range, are not ‘‘solid waste,’’ (4) clarifying 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) definition that firing a weapon is not a ‘‘release,’’ and by (5) extending 

the timeframe to conform to State Implementation Plan requirements for air emissions. 

In summary, these modest changes to the current laws will maintain the current 

status of law and regulatory implementation policy while preventing judicial creep 

from changing well-established rules. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

FORCE PROTECTION

Question. Secretary Roche, I understand that the Army will be providing approximately 8,000 additional personnel to help the Air Force meet its increased force protection requirements. This support will last for two years, but is not included in the 

fiscal year 2003 Budget or the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget. How does the Air 

Force plan on funding this increase and what plans are in the works for a permanent solution to the shortfall? 

Answer. The increases for Air Force force protection are a direct result of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Global War on Terrorism. These increases were 

initially fulfilled by the mobilization of over 90 percent of Air Reserve Component 

security forces. With the limit of 24 months of mobilization and the inability to replace those whose mobilizations will expire in 2003, the Air Force entered the agreement with the Army to provide replacement personnel. The timing of these requirements was such that the Air Force was unable to include it in the fiscal year 2003 

or fiscal year 2004 budgets. For fiscal year 2003, supplemental funding was provided. The fiscal year 2004 requirement remains unfunded at this time. 
117

The Air Force plans to permanently resolve this shortfall with a combination of 

increasing the number of security forces by force structure adjustments, providing 

contract support where applicable, and exploiting technologies that will reduce the 

personnel requirement. 

F/A–22 RAPTOR

Question. Secretary Roche, as you know, the GAO has recently released a report 

on the cost growth of the F/A–22 Raptor. It states that ‘‘DOD has not fully informed 

Congress (1) about what the total cost of the production program could be if cost 

reduction plans do not offset cost growth as planned or (2) about the aircraft quantity that can be procured within the production cost limit.’’ If the cost limit is maintained and estimated production costs continue to rise, will the Air Force have to 

procure fewer F/A–22s than currently planned? 

Answer. The program has experienced production cost increases that have re- duced the number of jets that can be bought. Under the $36.8 billion Congressional 

production cap, current estimate is that between 220–230 aircraft can be procured. 

It is important to note that, though aircraft affordability is not matching initial expectations, the aircraft are getting cheaper. By promoting production stability and 

momentum, there is no reason the program can’t continue, and even accelerate, towards the ultimate goal of delivering Air Dominance to the Combatant Commanders. 

With relief from the current Congressional production cap, the Air Force esti- mates it can procure at least 276 aircraft under the $42.2 billion OSD-approved 

‘‘buy-to-budget’’ strategy. This revised estimate accounts for actual negotiated lots 

through Lot 3, conservative assumptions for future efficiencies, and a 5 percent risk 

factor for production ‘‘unknowns.’’ In addition, the Air Force and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) quantity estimates now agree within 3 percent. For these reasons as well as the positive affordability trend mentioned above, the Air Force fully expects to buy more than 276 aircraft under the OSD-approved production limit. 

Question. Secretary Roche, at the annual Air Force Association’s Air Warfare 

Symposium, you described problems with F/A–22 and contended that if those problems cannot be repaired you would recommend termination of the program. Can you 

please describe the problems you were referring to, and is it your plan to cancel the 

program is these problems continue? 

Answer. The problem I referred to at the Air Warfare Symposium is avionics software stability. The issue is not how well the avionics perform, but how long they 

run before a module in the avionics software suite requires a reset. The current average run-time between resets, as measured in the F/A–22 Avionics Integration Laboratory (AIL), decreased when the software was loaded on the aircraft. OSD chartered an independent team to study this problem and recommend ways for improving run-time in the jet and ways for translating stability from the AIL into the aircraft. The team’s recommendations center on implementation of new software development tools and data capturing methods for finding and fixing the root causes of 

instability events. The team stated that, after implementing new tools, there is no 

reason software stability cannot be resolved. 

TANKER FLEET

Question. Secretary Roche, General Myers stated in testimony before the Congress 

that replacing the 40-year old KC–135 air refueling fleet is an essential joint 

warfighting requirement. However, funds for replacing the tankers were not included in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Is the tanker fleet ‘‘relatively healthy’’ 

or is the replacement of refueling tanks ‘‘essential’’ to support mission requirements? 

Answer. Recapitalization of the tanker fleet is ‘‘essential’’ and must begin now to 

continue to meet tanker requirements. The fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget does 

not include funding for the tanker replacement; however, there are two options 

under consideration by the Department of Defense to field a replacement aircraft 

within the future years defense plan. Pending departmental approval, the Air Force 

intends to bring the recommended plan forward and identify funding and delivery 

schedules at that time. 

AIR FORCE INVESTMENT BUDGET

Question. Secretary Roche, a Congressional Budget Office study of the long-term 

budget implications of current defense plans commissioned by this committee suggested that the Air Force’s investment budget would need to grow to $59 billion by 

around 2012. The Air Force has made some cut backs to force size since CBO made 
118

that estimate but it seems likely that Air Force investment will require significant 

real increases in spending. Do you think those increases are likely to become available? 

Answer. As the CBO study illustrates, the Air Force faces a complex set of aging 

aircraft/system challenges. Since procurement of new U.S.A.F. aircraft/systems 

dropped to minimal levels during the 1990s, we now face a modernization bow wave 

that will take time and money to turn around. Moreover, the cost to maintain older 

systems could grow substantially and further erode the funding available for modernization. 

Though it is not appropriate for me to predict the level of funding, it is my role 

to examine the national security strategy and make recommendations to the Secretary and on how best to spend those funds available. We do this each year as part 

of the Future Years Defense Program build. The next comprehensive look at all this, 

to include the new security strategy and the post-Iraq-War environment, will be 

during the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. The Air Force will be a full and active partner in that process. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

AIR EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

Question. General Jumper, I understand the Air Expeditionary Force construct 

you refer to on pages 11 and 12 of your written statement has been useful in managing deployment rotations and incorporation of the Guard and Reserves. Can you 

comment on the utility of this rotation methodology in the Afghanistan and Iraqi 

conflicts? 

Answer. The Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) has been very successful in allowing 

the Air Force to respond to the requirements of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Even 

under these stressing conditions the AEF allowed us to deploy and re-deploy forces 

in an orderly and thoughtful manner, thereby preserving the ability of the Air Force 

to meet national security imperatives. 

In January 2003, we made the decision to deviate from our normal 3-month rotations so the Air Force could meet combatant commander requirements. To do so we 

‘‘surged’’ the AEF to build-up the level of available forces by freezing AEF seven and 

eight in place and reaching forward into future AEFs for additional forces. This allowed us to simultaneously support homeland security requirements, the global war 

on terrorism, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and an increased force posture in the 

Korean AOR proving the AEF’s robustness and ability to respond to crisis situations; however, this deviation from the Air Force’s normal AEF ‘‘battle rhythm’’ affected all Air Force personnel: Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve. 

As I noted in the U.S.A.F. Posture Statement, ‘‘we do nothing without Guard, Reserve and civilian personnel working alongside Active Duty airmen.’’ The AEF construct gives the Air Force the tools to select the Active Duty, Guard or Reserve capability best able to meet combatant commander’s requirements and achieve national military objectives. Since September 11, 2001, we have seen a continued increase in baseline requirements for air and space expeditionary forces. This trend 

began after Desert Storm and has continued throughout Kosovo and Afghanistan. 

Until we are better able to judge the post Operation IRAQI FREEDOM requirements, we cannot specifically define the level of emerging sustained forces required. 

Regardless of the level of this requirement, the AEF construct allows us to maximize our sustainable deployed capability while giving us the flexibility to respond 

to additional contingency requirements. 

To understand this, one has to realize that the AEF construct is not just a way 

for the Air Force to manage deployment rotations. The AEF construct allows us to 

provide the greatest possible capability to the combatant commanders while preserving the readiness of the force to meet both rotational and crisis requirements. 

A crucial part of force readiness is achieved by retaining our most critical resource, 

the trained and motivated airman. The recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan 

have once again highlighted the tremendous job these young professionals are doing 

for our country. To retain this crucial resource it is essential we give them the tools 

to manage their professional and personal lives by providing predictability and stability. The AEF construct has been fundamental to our ability to train and retain 

the best and brightest. 

Recent Operations operations have afforded the Air Force an opportunity to test 

the ability of the AEF to robust and respond to crisis situations. The AEF met this 
119

challenge head-on, seamlessly proving each combatant commander with the expeditionary air and space capabilities to prevail. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

TANKER FLEET

Question. General Jumper, there is strong reason to believe that the need for aerial refueling operations to conduct current and future operations will continue to 

grow. Is the Air Force’s current tanker fleet able to handle an increased pace of operations? 

Answer. We are confident that we can, and will, successfully execute missions as 

we did with Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. However, 

if simultaneous operations in other regions are added, tanker availability becomes 

more of a limiting factor, delaying deployment of forces, and extending the duration 

of the air war. 

The Air Force has an urgent and compelling need to begin replacing the 43-yearold KC–135E as soon as possible. Competing priorities and limited budget demand 

our leaders make decisions based on operational risk and investment choices. Today, 

our most pressing tanker risk is a delay to the replacement process. In the future, 

the Air Force will continue to assess its tanker requirements and make appropriate 

decisions regarding future force structure. 

SPACE PROGRAMS

Question. General Jumper, the Space-Based InfraRed System-High has in the 

past suffered from schedule delays and significant cost growth. Can you please give 

the committee an update on progress in the Air Force’s Space-Based InfraRed System-High in the fiscal year 2004 budget request and can you guarantee that this 

program is on schedule and within its budget? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2004 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

(RDT&E) request for Space-Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS High) will continue 

to fund the development contract for space and ground segment development, continue System Program Office support, and independent technical analysis by Aerospace corporation. 

The fiscal year 2004 Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) will fund procurement 

of equipment needed for Mission Control Station Backup (MCSB) site activation, 

systems engineering, integration, and test support; and hardware and software licenses and government furnished equipment (GFE). The MCSB at Schriever AFB, 

CO will be the backup to the SBIRS Mission control station (MCS) at Buckley AFB, 

CO, to meet full operational needs. The MCSB is currently under construction using 

the MILCON funded in fiscal year 2002 ($19 million) and is on schedule for completion by September 2003. 

The Interim Test Center (ITC) hardware installation in Boulder, CO, is scheduled 

to be completed in July. The Integrated Training Suite (ITS) is scheduled to be 

available in the fall of this year. The ITS is critical to maintain an experienced and 

effective crew force—ensuring personnel are trained when they arrive station and 

remain proficient throughout their assignment. 

SBIRS Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO)-1 payload environmental testing, including 

thermal vacuum and acoustic tests, and several payload-to-host and -ground interface tests were successfully completed in 2002. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) 

testing uncovered excessive radiated emissions levels in late December 2002. The 

HEO–1 test and certification program is designed to find and fix problems. The 

problems encountered are not unusual for first time payload integration of a new 

sensor. Resolution has required extended rework and parts fabrication, resulting in 

a schedule breach to the Acquisition Program Baseline for delivery of the HEO–1 

payload (May 2003 threshold). The revised schedule details are still being worked; 

however, delivery should satisfy the Host’s need date. Impacts to the schedules for 

subsequent deliveries, including HEO–2 payload and GEO spacecraft, are under review. The delivery of HEO–1 continues to receive the highest attention and priority 

among all stakeholders, contractor CEOs, and the Under Secretary of the Air Force. 

The recent delay in the delivery of the HEO–1 payload is being handled within 

the program’s funding based on the cost estimate developed during the Nunn 

McCurdy certification review process. While HEO–1 payload delay is unfortunate, 

the lessons learned from this delay are being incorporated in the HEO–2 and GEO 

assembly, integration, and test. 

As a result of the schedule delays and significant cost growth that led to the 

SBIRS Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach notification to Congress in December 2001, 
120

the Secretary of the Air Force directed an Independent Review Team (IRT), in concert with Lockheed Martin, to review the program and diagnose the root causes and 

contributing factors of the significant cost growth. Three root causes were identified. 

1. The program was too immature to enter the detailed System Design and Development phase. 

2. The system requirements and their flow-down into engineering solutions were 

not well understood. 

3. A significant breakdown in execution management occurred, both within the 

government and the contractor teams. 

These findings were addressed in the restructured program presented to the 

Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics USD(AT&L) for 

his review. 

The USD(AT&L) certified the SBIRS program to Congress as required by the 

Nunn-McCurdy Act on May 2, 2002. The Acquisition Decision Memorandum directed the Air Force to: 

—Fully fund the SBIRS-High program to the OSD estimate 

—Rebaseline program to OSD schedule 

—Approve a revised Acquisition Program Baseline and a revised Acquisition 

Strategy 

—Submit a quarterly Selected Acquisition Report with an as-of-date of June 30, 

2002

—By January 30, 2003, Under Secretary of the Air Force provide AT&L with assessment of the program status to meet the revised Acquisition Program Baseline—completed January 27, 2003. 

As part of the Nunn-McCurdy certification process, the Air Force restructured 

SBIRS High to make it executable and fully funded the program to the OSD estimate. The program established a realistic baseline and implemented management 

changes based on the Independent Review Team findings. The acquisition strategy 

was revised and the Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) clause removed from the contract. The comprehensive government Estimate at Complete 

(EAC) identified many shortfalls with the original technical baseline that are now 

corrected and funded. The schedule also provides for adequate testing timelines 

(based on historical data). The Earned Value Management System (EVMS) enhancements add industry best practices and more SPO surveillance. Both government and 

Aerospace staff dedicated to SBIRS have increased. 

The program is implementing only ‘‘Urgent & Compelling’’ needs via a disciplined 

change process controlled by the SBIRS Program Management Board. This Program 

Management Board is in place to prevent requirements creep. The revised contract 

defines quantifiable, objective performance criteria to reward positive behavior and 

penalize poor behavior—a Best practice recommendation of the Young Panel. 

—Program Execution Performance (PEP) incentivizes disciplined management/

system engineering processes 

—Mission Success Incentive incentivizes timely delivery of military capability 

—Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract clause incentivizes cost performance 

Although challenges remain, the Department is reasonably confident that the 

SBIRS cost and schedule estimates are realistic and executable, based on both Air 

Force and OSD independent cost estimates. 

EXPEDITIONARY AEROSPACE FORCE (EAF)

Question. General Jumper, given the current world situation—with its large scale 

deployments for the war on terrorism and war with Iraq, and the possibility that 

these large scale deployments might continue for a number of years—is the EAF 

concept still viable? 

Answer. Yes, the Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) concept is still viable. The 

AEF concept is not tied to a particular base or mission. It is the way the Air Force 

organizes and prepares for military operations abroad. 

The Air Force implemented the AEF structure in October 1999 as a force management and presentation tool designed to ensure fully trained and combat-capable airpower forces are always available to successfully support standing contingency operations. 

Sustaining on-going rotation requirements has become part of our Air Force culture. The AEF concept articulates the capability of the Air Force to support normal 

standing rotations and contingency operations. The Air Force can indefinitely support the deployment of up to two AEFs (aircraft and expeditionary combat support) 

worth of assets. 

When contingency requirements exceeded this maximum sustainable capability, 

we ‘‘surged’’ the AEF to meet those evolving requirements. During ‘‘surge’’ we are 
121

able to temporarily increase the amount of deployed capability up to four AEFs. Requirements beyond two AEFs force us to reach forward into successive AEFs for the 

required capabilities. This surge comes at a price. To enable the build-up of capability unit training cycles are curtailed and deployment durations are extended. The 

higher the level and the duration of surge the greater the reconstitution impact, in 

terms of training and recapitalization of equipment. The Air Force is prepared to 

transition back to a more normal rotation cycle when the combatant commanders 

no longer need the additional support for OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. 

It is important to stress that the ability of the Air Force to support deployment 

requirements is in no way limited by the AEF construct. The AEF structure allows 

the Air Force to meet the challenges head on. It provides the Air Force a methodology for managing force readiness to meet the growing demands for Air & Space 

Expeditionary Forces, while simultaneously supporting the Defense Strategy requirements such as: defend the homeland, deter forward, swiftly defeat and/or a limited number of lesser contingencies. 

Total force size, active to reserve component mix and overseas and CONUS base 

structure determine our total deployment capability. To maintain readiness and 

meet retention needs the Air Force, like the other services, needs to limit Temporary Duty (TDY)/deployments of this deployable capability to approximately onethird of the time. The AEF rotational construct does this. 

Air Force senior leadership is working to reshape the force in areas of concern 

highlighted by the recent stress on the system resulting from current operations. 

Where possible we are shifting resources from less stressed areas into stressed career fields and shifting military positions to make the maximum deployable capability available. We are also completely revamping our methodology for determining 

military and civilian manning requirements to focus the requirement process on 

deployable capability rather that home station requirements. These efforts have 

made over 270,000 active duty positions available to meet deployed requirements. 

The bottom line is that the AEF has been a tremendous success since its inception. The modifications we are pursuing, such as embedding the Air Expeditionary 

Wings (AEWs) have enhanced the capability of the AEF over the course of its evolution. The likely level of requirements will continue to stress the Air Force in the 

coming years as we reduce the numbers of mobilized forces, the AEF gives us the 

best possible tool to cope with these stresses.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. If there is nothing further, the subcommittee 

will stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Wednesday, March 26, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

(123)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Inouye, and Durbin. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

STATEMENT OF HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE 

NAVY 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 

GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE, USMC, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE [presiding]. I have just received word that the 

chairman of the committee is occupied at this moment getting prepared for the supplemental appropriations debate. 

So I will open the proceedings, and I thank all of you for being 

here this morning. We have some new faces, new Navy and Marine 

Corps leaders with us here today. For the first time, we have with 

us our Acting Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Hansford Johnson, and 

General Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps. I look 

forward to working closely with both of you. 

I would like to take a moment to recognize and commend the 

men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps for their selfless 

service in the war in Iraq and the global war on terrorism. They 

are doing courageous and valiant work in the Gulf at this very moment and obviously, all of us are extremely proud of their service 

and their commitment to our Nation, and we wish them and their 

families the very best as they continue with this difficult and honorable mission. 

We are here today to discuss the Navy and Marine Corps fiscal 

year 2004 budget request. Again, we face challenges as we attempt 

to strike the appropriate balance between the needs of today and 

the transformation of tomorrow’s fleet. This committee has demonstrated its commitment to our naval forces year after year. As 
124

always, we will want to hear from you about what is included in 

the budget for the men and women serving in the Department, but 

we are also interested in discussing the planned size of the naval 

fleet and the Marine Corps aviation programs. 

With that, I look forward to hearing your remarks today and extend to you the apologies of my chairman, and we assure you that 

we will continue working with you as we maintain the finest Navy 

and the most courageous Marine forces in the world. 

Senator Cochran. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am 

pleased to join you in welcoming our distinguished panel of witnesses before the committee today. Secretary Johnson, Admiral 

Clark, Commandant Hagee, thank you very much for your cooperation with our committee. We are looking forward to your presentation about the budget request for the next fiscal year and your 

observations about how we can be helpful to ensure that our Navy 

and Marine Corps remain well-supplied and well-funded with the 

resources that you need in order to do your part to protect the security of our great Nation, and to continue to successfully wage the 

war against terror. I think your accomplishments to date have been 

truly outstanding in every way. You have reflected credit on our 

country and we thank you for your service. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. May we begin with the 

testimony of the Secretary? 

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY JOHNSON

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran. It is an honor to appear before you today and update you on 

the Department of the Navy and discuss our 2004 budget. 

Today in the Persian Gulf and around the world, our Nation is 

served by the most professional and capable naval force in the 

world. You should take immense pride as you did in your comments, Senator Inouye, with how you helped fund this force and 

prepare it to do what they are doing today. On behalf of each sailor 

and Marine, I thank you for your continuing strong support. 

The Navy and Marine Corps, alongside their Army, Air Force 

and Coast Guard partners, are on station in every corner of the 

world, taking the fight and global war on terrorism to the enemies, 

determining aggression against our Nation and our allies and representing U.S. interests abroad. 

Today, over 68 percent of our ships are underway, including 

seven deployed carrier groups. Sixty-six percent of Marine operating forces are deployed. The Navy-Marine Corps team’s successes 

are reflective of this strong sustained support that you and the 

Congress have provided. 

As well as on the home front, our dedicated civilian and contractor employees, the great American moms and dads, wives, husbands and children who support these forward deployed defenders 

of freedom, we are eternally grateful for the hard work and sacrifice that they are making for our Nation each day. 

Our people remain our most precious asset. Our ships, submarines, aircraft and ground combat assets are of no value without 
125

them. The 2004 budget sustains the tremendous progress we made 

in personnel and readiness accounts. We have kept faith with our 

people by requesting targeted pay raises and further reduction of 

the out-of-pocket housing expenses. Recruiting goals are being met 

and retention remains strong. In sum, our Navy-Marine Corps 

team is well-trained, highly motivated, and meeting the Nation’s 

call. 

Having made great strides in our current readiness and personnel programs, we must now turn to recapitalization and modernization. Two-thirds of our Department’s top line increases for 

2004 is dedicated to increased procurement. 

Eleven billion four hundred million dollars is dedicated to shipbuilding. This provides for the construction of seven new ships, two 

SSBN to SSGN conversions, and the first ship in the cruiser conversion program. Shipbuilding, while not at the optimal ten ships 

per year, represents a significant increase and a step in the proper 

direction. 

I am also pleased to report that the budget funds 100 new aircraft, it sustains the MV–22 program, continues development of the 

joint strike fighter, and continues a procurement process for the advanced amphibious assault vehicle. Moreover, we are pressing 

ahead with innovative ways to ensure that we are not locked into 

purchasing platforms whose electronic sensor and weapons systems 

are obsolete upon delivery. 

We are moving forward to procure ships not as a total package, 

but in the phased approach, the sea frame or hull followed by the 

weapons and followed by electronics. This new strategy will allow 

us to acquire our systems in the right way and insert them at the 

right time in the construction process. 

The budget reflects careful balancing of competing demands and 

risks. This is most evident in our decision to accelerate the retirement of the oldest, least capable and most maintenance-intensive 

ships. We are convinced that by selecting near-term divestment of 

platforms least relevant to our future is the fastest and most efficient way to recapitalize and modernize, and transform the Navy 

and Marine Corps without compromising our ability to accomplish 

the ongoing missions. 

In total, the retirement of legacy systems and application of 

transformational business practices will result in savings of $1.9 

billion. More importantly, the budget builds the concept of transformation into our recapitalization and modernization. 

This commitment to transformational platforms includes the next 

generation aircraft carrier, the CVN–21, the DDX, which is the 

centerpiece of the Navy’s future family of ships, and the Littoral 

combat ship, LCS, which is the newest member of our family of 

ships and is designed from the outset as a focused mission ship 

that uses reconfigurable mission modules to counter the most challenging threats in Littorals. 

In aviation, we continue to move forward with the joint strike 

fighter, the advanced Hawkeye upgrade program, and this year we 

are introducing the EA–18G, which will replace the EA–6B Prowler, which is our most maintenance-intensive aircraft in the fleet 

today. 
126

Force Net is a future architecture that will enable netcentric 

warfare throughout our forces. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We have made some difficult choices in the 2004 budget request. 

We have carefully crafted it to sustain advances made in personnel, 

quality of life and readiness, to balance the risk while divesting 

legacy systems and concepts to invest in shipbuilding, aircraft procurement and transformational technologies, all to achieve the total 

force that the future demands. 

We look forward to working with you as we move forward. Thank 

you, sir. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HANSFORD T. JOHNSON

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TEAM: NATIONAL SEAPOWER—AROUND THE WORLD, AROUND THE

CLOCK

INTRODUCTION

The Navy-Marine Corps Team continues to provide extraordinary service and 

value to our Nation. Throughout the past year our Naval Forces have distinguished 

themselves around the globe, and our Sailors and Marines operating in the air, on 

and under the sea, and on the ground—including our space cadre—remain at the 

leading edge of the Global War on Terrorism. They have demonstrated the full effect 

of their lethal power, from the blue water to the littorals and well beyond, engaging 

and destroying the enemy in areas that previously would have been considered 

sanctuaries from sea-based forces. At a time of great consequence for our Nation, 

our Navy and Marine Corps not only have ‘‘answered the call,’’ but have done so 

while improving our combat readiness and retaining our Sailors and Marines at historic rates. 

Our successes in the Global War on Terrorism, while significant, have not been 

achieved in isolation. We have worked alongside, in partnership, with our sister 

Services to realize the true potential of joint, interoperable forces in the new environment of 21st Century warfare. The superior operational and personnel readiness 

levels we have been able to sustain are directly reflective of the strong, sustained 

support of the Congress. In fiscal year 2004, we seek your support for the President’s budget request to sustain the gains made to date, improve those areas where 

shortfalls remain, and continue transforming the Navy and Marine Corps for the 

21st Century. 

In the balance of this statement we will describe the significant accomplishments 

the Navy and Marine Corps have realized during the past year, the improvements 

in our warfighting readiness and capabilities that are supported by the President’s 

fiscal year 2004 budget request, and some details of our plans to transform and prepare for the challenges of the future. In assessing our request, it is important to 

note that our focus is on improving our ability to operate as an agile, lethal and 

effective member of a broader, networked joint warfighting force. To that end, we 

have given priority to the following overarching goals: 

—Successfully prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism while sustaining our current readiness; 

—Recapitalizing, modernizing and transforming our Navy and Marine Corps to 

meet the challenges of the future; 

—Fully networking our forces at sea and ashore to operate seamlessly in a joint 

and coalition environment; 

—Continuing to invest in our Sailors and Marines; and 

—Sustaining the quality of our operational training. 

In pursuing these principal objectives, we had to make some difficult tradeoffs 

within our proposed program. However, our fiscal year 2004 budget request is the 

best balance possible among important, but often competing priorities. 

CONTEXT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST: SUCCEEDING IN A TIME OF

GREAT CONSEQUENCE

Last year, our Navy and Marine Corps forces built on the historic response of our 

Sailors and Marines following the September 11, 2001 attacks on our Nation. Today, 
127

our forces continue leading the way on the front lines of the Global War on Terrorism. More than half of our Navy operating forces and over sixty percent of the 

Marine Corps operating forces are currently deployed around the globe. Since the 

beginning of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM more than 90,000 Sailors and Marines and 100 Navy ships have deployed in support of ongoing operations. Nine of 

our 12 aircraft carriers and half of our 12 Amphibious Ready Groups have seen action in this worldwide conflict. Additionally, over 5,000 members of the Naval Reserve and 15,000 members of the Marine Corps Reserve have been activated in support of these operations. 

Even after the effective defeat of the Taliban and the liberation of Afghanistan, 

our Naval Forces, whether sea-based or on the ground, continue their missions. For 

example, Marines from the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorism) provide support and security for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in 

Kabul, while others serve in Tactical Air Operations Detachments in support of air 

and Naval Special Warfare operations in Afghanistan. 

While the Global War on Terrorism remains our principal focus, the Navy-Marine 

Corps team still operates extensively, as in the past, representing U.S. interests 

throughout the world. In Southwest Asia, we maintained continuous carrier presence, conducting combat operations over Iraq in support of Operation SOUTHERN 

WATCH. At the same time, naval task forces continued Maritime and Leadership 

Interdiction Operations supporting United Nations economic sanctions against Iraq 

for the eleventh straight year. In addition to these operational commitments, over 

2,000 Marines participated in EAGER MACE 2002, an amphibious assault exercise 

in Kuwait in late September 2002. 

During May through August 2002, over 1,400 Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen participated in the eighth annual Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training 

(CARAT) exercise with countries including the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. Marines from the Third Marine Expeditionary Force 

participated with all CARAT nations in landing force operations as well as providing 

a Marine Security Element to advise and assist the armed forces of the Philippines 

in their efforts against global terrorism. 

In the Mediterranean, Navy ships, including surface combatants, submarines and 

patrol craft operated with friends and allies in over 60 exercises with NATO and 

Western European nations to enforce United Nations sanctions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Marines from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) demonstrated their capability to offload and move inland to reinforce Kosovo Forces’ security requirements. 

Our ability to sustain the preceding breadth of capabilities, from combat operations to peacetime coalition-building exercises, came as a result of difficult choices 

we made—choices that have proven wise by the manner in which history unfolded 

last year. As you recall, in last year’s budget we placed great emphasis on fixing 

some of the chronic problems that had been threatening our long term ability to 

man, operate and sustain the fleet we have today. We made a conscious decision 

to give the highest priority to our personnel and current readiness accounts. Within 

our critical procurement accounts we undertook a major effort to make the foundations for our shipbuilding programs healthy, even at the expense of being able to 

procure only five new ships in fiscal year 2003. While Congressional support for supplemental appropriations did much to decrease our maintenance backlog and fill our 

spare parts bins, we fully recognize our fiscal year 2003 plan devoted fewer resources toward recapitalization than either the Department or the Congress would 

have wished. Having made that difficult prioritization we committed to translating 

a healthy procurement base in fiscal year 2003 into earnest recapitalization in fiscal 

year 2004. We have kept that promise. 

FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET: BUILDING FROM A SOLID FOUNDATION

The Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget request reflects an increase of $3.5 billion above the amount provided in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act. 

It also reflects the Department’s commitment to get the most out of every dollar provided by the American taxpayers. We do not come to the Congress with ‘‘hat in 

hand,’’ but rather with a responsible request, optimally balanced across an entire 

department of competing priorities. In this budget request we have proposed an additional $1.9 billion for our priority programs with funds identified through our own 

rigorous cost savings and divestiture initiatives. 

Together, these sources of additional funds have enabled us to ‘‘turn the corner’’ 

in our most pressing recapitalization efforts. Two-thirds of our top line increase is 

dedicated toward increased procurement. This budget request reflects two more new 

construction ships and five more aircraft than appropriated by Congress last year. 
128

It increases our funding for transformational R&D initiatives by a half billion dollars while consolidating the critical gains in personnel and current readiness 

achieved in last year’s budget. The following represents the priority funding in fiscal 

year 2004 for the Department of the Navy: 

—We propose 7 new construction ships and 100 new aircraft; 

—We propose significant transformational capabilities, including the next-generation aircraft carrier (CVN–21), the next-generation destroyer (DD(X)), the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), two more SSBN-to-SSGN conversions, the Joint 

Strike Fighter (JSF), the V–22 Osprey, the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) and the Advanced Hawkeye (E–2C) Program; 

—The Administration proposes a range of military pay increases from 2.0 percent 

up to 6.25 percent, targeted by rank and years of service, and additional reductions in out-of-pocket housing costs from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent; 

—We propose sustained funding for our key operational readiness accounts, including an increase by over $200 million for aviation depot maintenance; 

—We implement Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Aviation Integration, a process that 

will maximize our combat power, optimize the core capability of Naval aviation 

forces, and introduce 200 modern aircraft across the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 

2009 program; 

—We improve the quality of our operational training through our Training Resource Strategy, and provide $61 million in fiscal year 2004 toward this end. 

Highlights of our fiscal year 2004 budget request are provided in the sections 

below. 

Current Readiness 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request builds upon the best successive two years in 

readiness budgets in more than a decade. It funds an OPTEMPO of 54.0 days per 

quarter for our deployed forces. This level supports the Global Naval Forces Presence Policy in terms of Carrier Battle Group (CVBG) and Amphibious Ready Group 

(ARG) availability as required by national security policy. However, accelerated deployment timelines and increased OPTEMPO will cause current year execution to 

run ahead of the existing plan. 

Funding for ship maintenance will achieve more than 96 percent of the fiscal year 

2004 notional goal. This reflects a virtually identical posture as compared to last 

year, both in terms of percent accomplishment and quantity of backlog remaining. 

The aggregate level of funding for ship maintenance declines from fiscal year 2003 

to fiscal year 2004, due in part to the positive effects of the additional maintenance 

funding provided in supplemental appropriations in the previous year, and in part 

to the accelerated retirement of our oldest, least capable, and most maintenance-intensive ships. 

Accelerating the retirement of these ships was one of the most difficult decisions 

we made in building this year’s budget. While aggregate warfighting capability is 

a better metric than the number of ships in our inventory, we recognize that below 

a certain threshold numbers do matter. However, our analyses indicate that the 

near-term inactivations we are proposing provide an acceptable level of risk without 

compromising our ability to accomplish our mission, and that the fastest and most 

efficient way to recapitalize and transform the Fleet is to pursue vertical cuts in 

our least capable type-model series, both in ships and in aircraft, and apply those 

savings toward procuring new ships and aircraft. 

The growing sophistication of potential threats, increasing complexity of modern 

warfare, advances in training technology, and the development of new weapons and 

tactics require more capable training facilities and methodologies. Under the leadership of Fleet Forces Command, the Department has produced the Training Resource 

Strategy (TRS), a multi-year plan to improve inter-deployment training for CVBGs, 

ARGs and Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs). The Department is committed to 

implementing and fully funding these improvements. 

The training technology, range and facility improvements programmed via the 

TRS will ensure the long-term combat readiness and effectiveness of our deploying 

forces and produce a training capability superior to that existing today. The fiscal 

year 2004 budget will ensure deploying forces are fully prepared for the challenges 

of armed conflict in the 21st Century. 

Personnel Readiness 

Our ships, submarines and aircraft have no ‘‘asset value’’ to the nation until 

manned by trained, educated, and motivated people. Sailors and Marines—along 

with our civilian workforce—remain the strong and steady foundation of our naval 

capabilities. The families of our service members also are vital to our readiness. It 

is a fact that we recruit Sailors and Marines, but we retain families, and we recog-
129

nize that the effectiveness of our forces is dependent in large measure on the support they receive from their loved ones. 

Over the past two years we realized significant gains in the manpower arena that 

translated directly into increased personnel readiness. In the process of maintaining 

an increased readiness posture while transforming Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection 

positions, Navy operated just below the Congressionally-allowed maximum endstrength flexibility in fiscal year 2002. Doing so permitted us to sustain CVBG and 

ARG manning readiness near 100 percent. Our ability to surge deploy forces around 

the globe in response to recent events is testimony to the success of our personnel 

readiness posture. Over the course of fiscal year 2003 and 2004, we anticipate endstrength will decrease slightly to reflect force structure changes. 

Active Duty.—The Navy and Marine Corps met recruiting and accession goals in 

2002, and continue to attract America’s finest young men and women to national 

service. The Marine Corps notched its seventh year of meeting monthly and annual 

recruiting goals. Navy achieved its recruiting goals for a fourth consecutive year. 

Both Services are well positioned for success in meeting 2003 officer accession requirements. The Sailors and Marines entering active duty truly represent our country’s best and brightest. In 2002, 92 percent of Navy’s enlisted accessions were high 

school graduates (up from 90 percent in 2001), while the Marine Corps accessions 

of high school graduates rose 1.3 percent to 97.5 percent. 

Retention rates in 2002 remained at record levels, with 58 percent of eligible firstterm Sailors deciding to ‘‘stay Navy.’’ The Marine Corps met retention goals in 2002 

in record time, achieving its highest occupational specialty match to date while also 

experiencing its highest officer retention rate in 18 years. Sailors and Marines have 

a sense of purpose and the desire to serve during this critical juncture in our nation’s history. We provide them unique opportunities to grow professionally and personally, to achieve and be recognized, and to lead. They see improvements to their 

quality of service, and they appreciate the outstanding compensation and benefits 

provided to them and to their families. Our recruiting and retention success is reflected in the fully manned and operationally capable CVBGs and ARGs currently 

on station around the globe. 

We are fully committed to providing the finest education and training for these 

bright young minds, as befits their place as future leaders of the Navy and Marine 

Corps. Graduation from ‘‘Battle Stations’’ or the ‘‘Crucible’’ is but the first step toward achieving the technologically advanced force required to conduct naval warfare 

in the 21st Century. Our ‘‘Revolution in Training’’ is establishing a career-long 

learning continuum, ensuring the continuous personal and professional development 

of every service member. 

Successful as we are in attracting and retaining the best, we must not lose focus 

on people programs. Our immediate goals include: 

—Increase Navy recruit high school graduation rates from 92 percent to 94 percent. Maintain Marine Corps recruit high school graduation rates between 97 

percent and 98 percent; 

—Increase the percentage of enlisted Navy recruits with previous college experience or technical/vocational training; 

—Continue the Training Transformation started by Navy Task Force EXCEL (Excellence through Commitment to Education and Learning), and Marine Corps 

training continuum synchronization, including partnering with industry and 

academia to impart individual training and education; 

—Continue to develop a live, virtual and constructive training environment both 

within the Department and for use in conjunction with the Joint National 

Training Capability; and 

—Explore innovative manning initiatives such as the Optimum Manning program, which relies on new technologies and creative leadership to reduce ship 

manning. 

Congressional support for a targeted pay raise in fiscal year 2004, which recognizes and reaffirms the value of our career force, is critical to staying the course. 

So, too, is continuing the reduction of out-of-pocket housing expenses and the extension and enhancement of essential special pay and bonus authorities. Selective Reenlistment Bonus remains an important tool for retaining our critical skill personnel. 

Reserves.—Our reserve community remains an integral part of our Navy and Marine Corps team, with 88,000 Naval Reservists and 40,000 Selected Marine Corps 

Reservists serving today. The seamless integration of the reserve and active components as a Total Force in the Global War on Terrorism has been a resounding success. The dedicated service, invaluable resources, and selfless sacrifices to duty each 

of these ‘‘citizen Sailors and Marines’’ provides on a daily basis are integral to operational success. We have recalled over 26,000 Navy and Marine Corps Reservists 
130

as of mid-March 2003. These patriots have provided force protection, staff augmentation, intelligence, and warfighting skills to the Nation’s war efforts. 

The Naval Reserve constitutes 19 percent of the Navy’s Total Force, with an additional 69,000 Sailors serving as Individual Ready Reservists (IRRs). In 2002 the 

Naval Reserve met both its officer and enlisted recruiting goals, the result of significant recruiting program efforts. These reserve forces provide our inter-theater airlift, harbor defense, Naval embarked advisory teams, and Naval Coastal Warfare capabilities. In addition, a large portion of the Navy’s port cargo handling support, 

Mobile Construction Battalions, intelligence, and medical capabilities are resident in 

the reserves. 

The Selected Marine Corps Reserve comprises nearly 25 percent of the Marine 

Corps’ warfighting capability, with an additional 58,000 Marines serving as Individual Ready Reservists (IRRs). The Marine Corps Reserve’s contribution to the 

Global War on Terrorism continues with individuals and units mobilized to provide 

a wide variety of support. The additional mobilization of hundreds of Individual Mobilizations Augmentees and IRRs provided a critical surge of ready expertise and 

staff augmentation to warfighting commands, both Joint and Marine. 

Civilian Personnel.—The civilian workforce, currently totaling approximately 

186,000, forms an essential role as part of our Total Force. Hard-working and dedicated civilian employees can be found in every major command, working alongside 

our Sailors and Marines, performing the vital work of the Department. We continually refine and shape this vital work force for current and future missions. Twentyone civilian occupational groups are targeted specifically for intensive active management. These include science and engineering, logistics, contracting, human resources, and financial management. Just as it is essential to recruit and retain the 

very best Sailors and Marines, it also is essential to recruit and retain the best and 

brightest civilians. We are in a competition for talent, and your support for a flexible set of civilian human resource management tools that will reward unconventional thinking will enhance our efforts to hire, develop, and retain this quality 

work force. The National Security Personnel System that is being considered would 

provide these tools in our competition for talent. 

Shipbuilding 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request provides funding for seven new construction 

ships, the final two of four planned SSBN-to-SSGN conversions, and the first ship 

in our Cruiser Conversion program. In all, our shipbuilding program includes $11.4 

billion, a significant increase above last year. Additionally, we invest more than $1.5 

billion for Research and Development (R&D) in transformational shipbuilding programs such as CVN–21, DD(X), LCS and SSGN, discussed later in this statement. 

The seven new ships include: 

—Three ARLEIGH BURKE Class (DDG–51) destroyers. These ships are being 

procured as part of a multi-year procurement (MYP) of 10 DDG–51 ships over 

the period fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005. In addition to the cost savings from this MYP, the Navy and its two principal DDG builders successfully 

negotiated a workload swap arrangement in June 2002 in which General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works will transfer LPD–17 ship construction work to Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in exchange for additional DDG–51 work. This 

arrangement will optimize production efficiencies and stabilize workload at all 

shipyards building DDG–51 and LPD–17 Class ships. 

—One VIRGINIA Class (SSN–774) fast attack submarine. The fiscal year 2004 

ship marks the initial year of a seven-ship, five-year MYP that will achieve significant savings while increasing submarine procurement to two per year starting in fiscal year 2007. The first VIRGINIA Class submarine (SSN–774) will deliver in June 2004. 

—One SAN ANTONIO Class (LPD–17) amphibious transport dock. The fiscal year 

2004 budget provides full funding to procure the sixth ship of this class. The 

program is on track, and represents an urgently needed contribution to the Marine Corps’ amphibious lift requirements. 

—Two LEWIS AND CLARK Class (T-AKE) auxiliary cargo and ammunition 

ships. Fiscal year 2004 funding procures the fifth and sixth ships of this class 

to continue recapitalization of our support fleet. Delivery of the lead ship is expected in fiscal year 2005. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2004, the Cruiser Conversion Program will provide selected TICONDEROGA Class Aegis-equipped cruisers with essential land attack, 

force protection, and Area Air Defense Commander capabilities, extending their mission-relevant service life to 35-plus years. 

Beyond the new construction ships and conversions, the fiscal year 2004 budget 

request provides additional incremental funding for LHD–8, service life extension 
131

for three Landing Craft Air Cushioned, and initial R&D efforts on the LHA Replacement (LHA(R)), scheduled for procurement in fiscal year 2007. In LHA(R) the Department is pursuing a far more capable replacement for aging amphibious ships 

such as the LHA. While the initial stages of design move forward, LHA(R) will offer 

many improvements over the LHA it will replace, and will set the stage for further 

development toward a new design that could offer capabilities such as concurrent 

flight operations of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. 

Aircraft 

The Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget maximizes the return on aviation investment, primarily through the use of MYP arrangements for the F/A–18E/F (both 

airframe and engine), the E–2C, and the MH–60S. We also have agreed to enter 

a joint MYP contract with the Air Force to procure KC–130Js to replace the Marine 

Corps’ fleet of KC–130F/Rs. In all, the fiscal year 2004 budget procures 100 new aircraft, including: 53 tactical, fixed wing aircraft (42 F/A–18E/F, 2 E–2C and 9 MV–

22); 28 helicopters (13 MH–60S, 6 MH–60R and 9 UH–1Y /AH–1Z); 16 trainer aircraft (15 T–45 and 1 T–39); and 3 support aircraft (2 UC–35 and 1 C–40A). 

The F/A–18E/F Super Hornet is the Navy’s principal tactical aviation recapitaliza- tion program until we get to the JSF. The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $3.0 billion for 42 planes, which constitutes the final installment of an fiscal year 2000-fiscal year 2004 MYP contract. Deliveries remain ahead of schedule, and the first 

squadron of F/A–18E/F recently conducted combat operations aboard USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN–72). Of note, a variant of the F/A–18 airframe, the EA–18G, 

has been selected as the Navy platform to replace the aging EA–6B Prowler. By 

using a common airframe, the EA–6B follow-on will deliver at lower cost while providing growth potential for improved future electronic warfare systems. The Marine 

Corps expects to fly the EA–6B (ICAP III) until approximately 2014 to 2015 before 

transitioning to a new Electronic Attack aircraft. 

Based on successful flight testing results, the Department felt confident to continue the minimum sustaining rate for the V–22 Osprey program and has requested 

nine MV–22s along with two CV–22s requested by the Air Force. Additionally, fiscal 

year 2004 funding supports key elements of the Department’s helicopter master 

plan. We have requested procurement of 13 MH–60S platforms (organic mine countermeasures, combat search and rescue, special operations and logistics missions) 

and 6 MH–60R platforms (tactical support missions for surface combatants and aircraft carriers). Together, these will continue replacing the Department’s aging fleet 

of H–46, SH–3, SH–60B and SH–60F helicopters. Fiscal year 2004 will mark the 

first year of procurement in the AH–1Z/UH–1Y program. These aircraft improve 

many capabilities for the Marine Corps, including increased payload, range and 

time on station, improved sensors and lethality, and 85 percent component commonality. 

Weapons 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request supports the Department’s objective to develop, upgrade and replace weapons and weapon systems to ensure we maintain our 

warfighting edge. 

Our precision guided munitions inventory will continue to improve in fiscal year 

2004 as the Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) system ramps up to full rate production. 

TACTOM will accelerate the transition of our land attack missile inventory from the 

older Tomahawk Land Attack Missile to the newer, more capable, less costly 

TACTOM. The budget request sustains the maximum Department of the Navy production rate for the Joint Direct Attack Munition of 1,000 units per month while 

procuring over 5,000 Laser Guided Bomb kits. Production of the Joint Standoff 

Weapon (JSOW) baseline variant (dispenser) increases in fiscal year 2004, and the 

JSOW unitary variant (penetrator) enters full rate production. 

Several land attack R&D efforts central to future littoral warfare continue in fiscal year 2004. Advanced naval gun technologies will enhance fire support to Marines operating ashore. Evolving toward a fiscal year 2005 ‘‘shoot-off,’’ either the Extended Range Guided Munition or the Autonomous Naval Support Round will enhance the range and accuracy of Navy 5-inch guns. The Advanced Gun System will 

provide the next generation of surface combatants with a modular, large caliber gun 

system including an automated magazine handling system. 

Key Warfighting ‘‘Core Competencies’’

While the fiscal year 2004 budget request devotes a significant amount of resources toward recapitalizing and transforming to meet future requirements, it also 

provides solid support for our longstanding naval ‘‘core competencies’’ of Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW), Mine Warfare (MIW), Ship Self Defense (SSD) and Air Defense (AD). 
132

ASW.—ASW remains a challenging mission area, particularly in the shallow 

water littoral regions populated by modern, quiet submarines. The fiscal year 2004 

budget request supports numerous improvements in ASW. The Improved Extended 

Echo-Ranging is incorporated into the USQ–78B Acoustic Processor, which will improve large area acoustic search capability on our Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Further 

enhancements to our capability for large area search will be provided by acquiring 

the Automatic Periscope Detection and Discrimination system. Additionally, the capability for our surface combatants to survive attacks from threat torpedoes will be 

enhanced through the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense effort. The success of the 

Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion (A–RCI) program in providing significant improvement in ASW sensor processing for our submarine force has spawned similar efforts 

in submarine combat control, communications, and upgrades to the surface fleet’s 

SQQ–89 combat suite. These programs validate the Navy’s decision to use commercially available technology to deliver superior performance at less cost. 

MIW.—The Navy continues to make advances in MIW capabilities, and our emphasis on organic capabilities to counter the growing mine threat is enhancing our 

ability to ‘‘get to the fight.’’ The fiscal year 2004 budget continues the development 

and acquisition of the Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS), which is 

on track for an fiscal year 2005 IOC on LOS ANGELES Class submarines. LMRS 

will provide a clandestine reconnaissance capability for mines and mine-like objects. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget also includes funding for the development and acquisition of the Remote Mine-hunting System (RMS), a surface ship—launched and recovered semi-submersible vehicle. RMS has an fiscal year 2005 IOC with near-term 

fielding planned for DDGs 91–96. RMS also is a strong candidate for future deployment on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). To meet the Department’s goal of an organic mine warfare capability by fiscal year 2005, the fiscal year 2004 budget continues the development and integration of five Organic Mine Subsystems into the 

MH–60S platform. 

SSD.—We continue to invest in upgrading our Ship Self Defense programs. Fiscal 

year 2004 funding covers the spectrum from electronic countermeasures to missiles 

to guns. The Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) is a spiral 

development effort initiated to provide a robust, full spectrum electronic warfare 

system following cancellation of the Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System 

in fiscal year 2002. SEWIP will build on the legacy SLQ–32 system to field capabilities against next-generation threats. The current budget expands procurement of 

the Close-in Weapons System, Block 1B. The internationally-procured Rolling Air 

Frame Missile will provide ship self-defense against missiles as part of a layered 

defense. Additionally, we are pursuing installation of minor caliber guns on our deploying ships to improve our ability to counteract a small boat threat in the 0 to 

8,000 yards range. We soon will install stabilized minor caliber guns on two DDGs. 

AD.—The fiscal year 2004 budget requests funds to develop the Extended Range 

Active Missile (ERAM). ERAM will enable over-the-horizon engagements against the 

most advanced anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles, and represents an important step in projecting area defense landward from the sea. 

Maneuver Warfare 

The fiscal year 2004 budget supports the continued development and fielding of 

all equipment used by the Marine Corps’ maneuver forces. This year we identify approximately $340 million for R&D and procurement of the Advanced Amphibious 

Assault Vehicle (AAAV). Last year we procured the first AAAV, which will serve as 

a full-up system, live-fire test vehicle. We will procure 186 systems over the remainder of the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009 program. Scheduled for IOC in fiscal year 

2008, the AAAV will provide a unique combination of offensive firepower, nuclearchemical-biological protection, and high speed mobility on land and on sea. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget will fund the next 60 Lightweight 155 mm (LW155) 

Howitzers. These units will provide significant improvements in Marine Corps fire 

support over the current M198 system. Compatible with all United States and 

NATO 155 mm rounds, the smaller footprint of the LW155 will reduce strategic sealift requirements while providing improved accuracy and greater lethality. 

C4I, Space and Network Initiatives 

The Department’s Command, Control, Communication, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) and space programs are an integral part of network centric operations, 

enhancing the combat capability of our Naval Forces and serving as critical enablers 

of a transforming Navy and Marine Corps. Our concept of Information Technology 

for the 21st Century (IT–21) is providing a common backbone for C4I systems to be 

linked afloat, ashore, and to the Internet. IT–21 combines satellite and line-of-sight 

communication paths with commercial IT hardware and software to establish secure 
133

and unclassified Internet Protocol network connectivity for ashore and mobile Naval 

forces. This is a critical first step toward transformational network centric operations. 

Our next major objective is to integrate the successes of IT–21 and incorporate 

them across the full spectrum of naval operations to achieve significant improvement in knowledge management and operational performance. This full dimensional 

approach, called FORCEnet, will provide the operational construct and architectural 

framework for naval warfare in the information age. We will address FORCEnet in 

greater detail later in this statement. 

Support from space is essential to many Navy and Marine Corps operations today, 

and grows increasingly important as the force becomes more network centric. The 

fiscal year 2004 budget supports the Department’s expanding efforts in space, including assured, high data rate satellite communications, precision navigation and 

targeting, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems and environmental 

support. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget continues critical enhancements that will provide our 

forces with a common tactical picture. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) 

will provide real time exchange of fire control quality data between battle force 

units and will permit a single, identical tactical picture. The Block 2 version will 

reduce cost, size and weight, with procurement beginning in fiscal year 2006. The 

Naval Fires Control System and Joint Fires Network will use existing fire control 

infrastructure to serve as the nerve center for surface land attack by automating 

shipboard land attack battle management duties, incorporating improved land attack weapons systems, and utilizing battlefield digitization. 

The Navy/Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) serves as the principal element of the 

IT–21 effort ashore and is a key enabler of IT transformation. Business Case Analyses conducted over the last two years have demonstrated that the NMCI strategy, 

characterized by having a single private sector entity provide IT services under a 

long-term commercial seat management contract is, in fact, a sound business decision compared to the way IT requirements previously were satisfied. Last year Congress approved a two-year extension to the base performance period of the original 

NMCI contract, extending coverage through fiscal year 2007. Fiscal year 2004 funding of $1.6 billion continues user seat roll-out and cutover to the NMCI architecture. 

Progressing toward a target end-state of 365,700 seats. 

Missile Defense Initiatives 

The Department of the Navy is poised to contribute significantly in fielding initial 

sea-based missile defense capabilities to meet the near-term ballistic missile threat 

to our homeland, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies. We are working 

closely with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to upgrade six DDGs in calendar 

year 2004 and another six in calendar year 2005 for ICBM surveillance and tracking 

duties. We also are supporting MDA’s procurement of up to 20 Standard Missile 

interceptors to provide a limited at-sea capability to intercept ballistic missiles in 

the ascent and mid-course phases of flight. Finally, USS LAKE ERIE (CG–70) will 

be assigned to MDA to facilitate a more robust testing program for missile defense. 

Our sea-based missile defense programs experienced tremendous success on the test 

range during 2002, and we look forward to building on these successes to accelerate 

development of this vital capability for our Nation. 

Shore Infrastructure 

The Department remains dedicated to maintaining and improving the quality of 

our support to Sailors and Marines. Maintaining and improving an aging infrastructure, while recapitalizing our operating forces, requires disciplined choices and innovative approaches. 

The fiscal year 2004 housing program continues the Department’s course toward 

the goal of eliminating inadequate family housing by 2007. The Navy’s threepronged strategy of improving allowances to service members, privatizing, and continuing traditional military construction is proving very successful. Increased Basic 

Allowance for Housing (BAH) is spurring local communities to provide necessary 

housing on the open market. Recent analysis shows we have reduced the total requirement for government furnished housing by over 9,500 units. 

Public/Private housing ventures are allowing us to achieve more with less commitment of resources. In fiscal year 2003 we will privatize over 10,400 homes in five 

locations; in fiscal year 2004 we are increasing this by another 7,000 units. Where 

BAH and privatizing do not apply we are renovating or replacing our inventory. 

We are building on our successes in Family Housing to help achieve our Homeport 

Ashore Program. Three bachelor housing pilot projects are being considered that 

could increase the number of spaces in San Diego, Norfolk and Camp Pendleton. 
134

The fiscal year 2004 Military Construction and Sustainment program reflects difficult but necessary trade-offs between shore infrastructure and fleet recapitalization. The Department remains committed to achieving a 67-year recapitalization 

rate by fiscal year 2008. In pursuing that goal we will explore innovative solutions 

to provide safe, efficient installations for our service members, including designbuild improvements, more efficient facilities and BRAC land sales via the GSA 

Internet. 

Business Practices 

We have embarked on a mission to improve the business practices of the Department. Every dollar saved by working smarter or by ending outdated methods of operations is another dollar that can be used for our Sailors and Marines to equip, 

train or fight. 

Information is key to improving the way we do business. Better information 

makes for better decision making, both on the battlefield and at the budget table. 

We have four pilot programs in place utilizing enterprise resource planning, or ERP, 

which aim to improve the quality of information available to our decision makers. 

These pilot projects will eliminate dozens of incompatible computer databases and 

the business processes that once supported those databases. Even more importantly, 

ERP should produce financial and managerial information that is more complete, 

more accurate and more timely. Our focus now is on converging these pilots to 

achieve even greater synergy of management information across a broader spectrum 

of the Department, and working with the Department of Defense Comptroller to ensure these efforts are advancing the uniform business management architecture 

under development. 

In addition to better information, we need flexible and innovative tools to help 

manage the Department. Some of these tools, like strategic sourcing, are being used 

already. Competition helps achieve the best quality support to the Sailor and Marine at the lowest possible cost by introducing the discipline of the marketplace. The 

acquisition process still needs considerable reform. We owe it to every Sailor and 

Marine to ensure that today’s technology arrives in their hands today, not tomorrow. It still takes too long from lab to live fire. Finally, the Navy and Marine Corps 

need better tools to recruit and manage the civilians who support our warfighter. 

This year’s budget request includes reforms that will allow us to continue to improve business practices. These proposed reforms include increasing Operations and 

Maintenance appropriations from one-year to two-year money and consolidating 

Military Personnel accounts from ten to four accounts. These initiatives would allow 

more effective management and execution of these programs. 

NAVAL POWER 21: A TRANSFORMATIONAL VISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Fundamentally, our Navy and Marine Corps exist to control the seas, assure access, and project power beyond the sea. Our vision, Naval Power 21, is built upon 

three pillars: 

—We assure access. We assure sea-based access worldwide for military operations, diplomatic interaction, and humanitarian relief efforts. 

—We fight and win. We project power to influence events at sea and ashore both 

at home and overseas. 

—We are transforming continually to improve. We are transforming concepts, organizations, doctrine, technology, networks, sensors, platforms, weapon systems, 

training, education and our approach to people. 

Although the Navy and Marine Corps team remains the greatest maritime force 

in the world, the emerging challenges of the 21st Century demand a joint, netted, 

power projection force that offers modern and ever-evolving combat capability. Together, under the supporting service visions of Seapower 21 and Marine Corps 

Strategy 21, we will provide funding for a full array of transformational initiatives 

in our R&D, investment and operational programs. Evidence of the scope and magnitude of these changes is highlighted by our transformation: from a single new 

class of destroyer to a family of surface combatants tailored for the full range of 21st 

Century missions; from a Cold War force of 18 SSBNs to a 21st Century force of 

14 SSBNs and 4 SSGNs; from evolutionary aircraft carrier improvements to the revolutionary promise of CVN–21; from no ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability 

to limited sea-based BMD capability; and from competing Navy and Marine Corps 

tactical aviation to an integrated Naval tactical aviation. 

Transformational Capabilities to Assure Access and Project Power 

The Navy and Marine Corps continue to meet the imperative of transformation. 

Our ‘‘way ahead’’ for the future capitalizes on transformational ideas that facilitate 

our recapitalization goals. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes funding for 
135

initiatives in shipbuilding, aviation and C4I that promise dramatic improvements in 

assuring access and projecting power. 

In shipbuilding, we are fulfilling the President’s stated goal to ‘‘skip a generation’’ 

of technology by restructuring our previous two-step (CVNX–1 and CVNX–2) evolutionary acquisition approach into a single transformational ship design that accommodates continuous evolution through the life of the class. The new design, named 

CVN–21, sustains the original development and construction schedule from CVNX–

1, but accelerates many critical technologies previously planned for the second step 

ship, CVNX–2. CVN–21 will feature a new propulsion plant, a greatly expanded 

electrical generation and distribution system, a new/enlarged flight deck, an improved sortie rate generation over CVNX–1, an electro-magnetic aircraft launching 

system (EMALS), a new advanced arresting gear, improved weapons and material 

handling systems, and improved survivability features—all with 800 fewer crew 

members. In support of this technology acceleration we have added significant funding across the fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009 program while providing $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. 

The centerpiece warship of our future surface combatant ‘‘family of ships,’’ the 

DD(X), is on track to move to an initial construction contract award in fiscal year 

2005. Fiscal year 2004 funding of $1.05 billion will enable further development of 

key electric drive, power grid, and combat system components. Through a spiral development acquisition process, DD(X) will be the principal technology engine that 

will feed the entire family of ships. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget requests approximately $160 million in R&D to begin 

moving out with the next member of our future surface combatant ‘‘family of ships,’’ 

the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). A networked, lethal, small, fast, stealthy, and highly maneuverable ship, LCS will be designed from the keel up as a focused mission 

ship capable of employing manned and unmanned mission modules to counter some 

of the most challenging anti-access threats our naval forces may encounter close to 

shore—mines, quiet diesel submarines and swarming small boats. Last year, we 

continued experimenting with a range of innovative hull forms, and the Congress 

supported us so we could get the program moving this year, avoiding a critical oneyear delay. The fiscal year 2004 effort will be aimed at defining requirements, improving our knowledge base for selecting an LCS design, and beginning mission 

module development. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request contains nearly $1.2 billion for SSBN-toSSGN conversion. This effort will provide a near-term transformational capability 

to the Nation by removing four OHIO Class submarines from their strategic mission, refueling their reactors to permit an additional 20 years of operation, and converting them into conventional strike platforms capable of carrying more than 150 

Tomahawk missiles and deploying over 60 special operations forces. Funding to commence the first two conversions was provided in fiscal year 2003; this year’s request 

supports the conversion of the third submarine and the advance procurement and 

planning for the final overhaul in fiscal year 2005. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget provides $2.2 billion to continue development of the 

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a stealthy, multi-role fighter aircraft designed to be an 

enabler for Naval Power 21. JSF replaces the Navy’s F–18A/C Hornet variants and 

the Marine Corps’ AV–8B Harrier and F/A–18C/D Hornet while complementing the 

Navy’s F/A–18E/F Super Hornet. JSF offers dramatic improvements in affordability 

and supportability. It has completed all major milestones to date on time, and remains on track to IOC for the Marine Corps in 2010 and for the Navy in fiscal year 

2012. 

A critical enabler of transformational intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, the E–2C Advanced Hawkeye Program will provide a robust overland capability against current and future cruise missile-type targets. The fiscal year 2004 

budget invests over $350 million for continued development. IOC is planned for fiscal year 2008 with a total procurement of 66 systems. 

As the Global War on Terrorism has demonstrated, unmanned technology will 

play an ever-increasing role in the battleground of the 21st Century. The Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget invests more than $300 million across a series of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) programs, including Tactical UAVs, Maritime Surveillance UAVs and an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) initiative, developed in 

partnership with the U.S. Air Force. Beneath the sea, we will invest more than $80 

million in Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) that are being developed to enhance capabilities in minefield reconnaissance and other submarine missions. 

Transformational Organizations and Operational Concepts 

Beyond pure technology, transformation also includes revolutionary methods for 

achieving dramatically greater utility out of our existing assets. The Department’s 
136

initiative to integrate its tactical aviation capabilities is one such transformational 

story. Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration will maximize forward deployed combat power and optimize the core capability of naval aviation forces. Its 

positive impact will be felt across the Department’s entire tactical aviation enterprise, from leaner, more capable fighting formations to streamlined procurement requirements (tactical and training) to manpower savings. In total, this innovative 

program promises to save $975 million over the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009 

program and provide approximately $19 billion in cost avoidance from fiscal year 

2007-fiscal year 2012. 

To support the ability of forward based naval forces to respond to a host of scenarios, the Navy and Marine Corps are exploring more robust strike capabilities for 

the ARG/MEU team. The Expeditionary Strike Group pairs the traditional ARG 

with surface combatants and an SSN so the force has greater capability to conduct 

independent operations in the ‘‘deter’’ and ‘‘swiftly defeat’’ scenarios outlined in our 

defense strategy. 

FORCEnet is the Department of the Navy’s catalyst for operational transformation. In the realm of network centric warfare and operations, it will enable orders of magnitude increases in combat power to ensure decisive influence and 

warfighting success across the full spectrum of military operations in the information age. FORCEnet is not a system. It is the architecture by which we will integrate our sensors, networks, decision aids, weapons and warfighters into a 

networked, distributed combat system, scalable across the entire range of conflict 

from seabed to space and sea to land. Leveraging powerful network infrastructure 

ashore, including NMCI and the various constituents of IT–21, with legacy and developing tactical networks at sea, including those as diverse as CEC, Joint Fires 

Network and the E–2C Advanced Hawkeye Program, FORCEnet will bring a dramatically expanded ‘‘toolbox’’ of capabilities to the joint warfare commander. 

Through FORCEnet the Navy and Marine Corps will transform to a joint, netted, 

distributed and forward stationed force. 

Transformational Initiatives for our People 

Sea Warrior is the process of developing 21st Century Sailors. Curriculum Mapping is the Marine Corps equivalent. These initiatives identify the knowledge, skills, 

and abilities needed for mission accomplishment; apply a career-long training and 

education continuum; and employ a responsive, interactive career management system to ensure the right skills are in the right place at the right time. 

Modern Naval Forces are manned by streamlined teams of Sailors and Marines 

who fight and manage some of the most complex systems in the world. We need 

Sailors and Marines who are highly educated and expertly trained. They must be 

creative thinkers and life-long learners, and it is for them that we undertook the 

Revolution in Training. They also deserve a human resource management and detailing system that provides information and choice, both to the Sailor and gaining 

commands, so that informed career decisions can be made. To this end, we are moving toward an interactive and incentivized distribution system that includes team 

detailing, web job listings, an information call center, and comprehensive and extensive engagement of our detailers with individual Sailors to help shape their careers. 

At sea, we are exploring two initiatives that promise a revolution in the way we 

man our ships. First, we have begun an ‘‘Optimal Manning Experiment’’ on board 

USS MILIUS (DDG–69) and USS MOBILE BAY (CG–53) to develop a more efficient 

model for the shipboard manning requirements of the 21st Century. Also, we have 

begun a crewing experiment, entitled ‘‘Sea Swap,’’ in which we will deploy two destroyers for 18 months consecutively, rotating the entire crews at six-month intervals. This initiative will realize significant operational savings by avoiding multiple 

six-week transits to and from the deployed operating areas. 

Transformational Initiatives for Doing Business 

Our ability to recapitalize and transform stems in large measure from a vigorous 

divestiture program that forced us to make hard choices across every facet of the 

Department’s operations. We looked hard at older systems with their limited capabilities and high infrastructure costs (maintenance, parts, training, etc.) and ultimately decided to accelerate retirement of 11 ships and 70 aircraft. We reorganized 

and then reduced the Secretary of the Navy Headquarters Staff by 25 percent. We 

divested ourselves from more than 50 systems and eliminated 70,000 legacy IT applications from an original baseline of 103,000. In the aggregate, these difficult decisions yielded $1.9 billion for reinvestment in higher priorities. 

In addition to divestiture initiatives, we are transforming the way we manage the 

entire Department’s internal affairs. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in 

our shipbuilding programs. Instead of locking ourselves into ‘‘pre-ordained obsoles-
137

cence’’ through rigid designs for hull, combat and information systems that take 

years to execute, we are capitalizing on computer-aided, design-build strategies in 

which we harvest commercial, ‘‘state-of-the art’’ technologies and insert them at the 

optimum time as the construction process moves from hull to combat system suite 

to information systems. We have undertaken some remarkable initiatives within our 

acquisition community that have stabilized key industrial bases, expanded our ability to capitalize on the best commercial practices, and laid a strong foundation for 

controlling the costs of our major acquisition programs. 

We are working with industry as partners across the full breadth of our shipbuilding programs. The tri-partite agreement between Navy, General Dynamics and 

Northrop Grumman stabilized both our DDG–51 and LPD–17 programs, avoided a 

‘‘second lead ship’’ challenge for the LPD program, and produced savings sufficient 

to purchase a third DDG in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005. We are working 

with the software industry to open all Navy architectures. These efforts are intended to lead to the development of a truly open architecture that can be shared 

between all of our current and future combatant ships. Finally, we have imposed 

a discipline on ourselves that severely limits change during the critical phases of 

our major shipbuilding programs. This discipline also has been implemented in the 

JSF program through a configuration steering board. By controlling the scope and 

timing of change, we hope to implement necessary changes in our programs in a 

planned fashion where we know what it will cost and how we will install it in the 

most economical manner. 

Through these transformational business initiatives and others, our Department 

will emerge with an optimal force structure; a healthy industrial base and an efficient and appropriately sized infrastructure. 

THE WAY AHEAD: POSITIONING TODAY’S NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FOR TOMORROW’S

CHALLENGES

Although the Global War on Terrorism is closer to the beginning than the end, 

our Navy and Marine Corps, as members our nation’s joint battle force, have disrupted terrorist networks and freed the people of Afghanistan. Our Nation can take 

pride that, in 2002, the Navy-Marine Corps Team continued its record of combat excellence, improved operational readiness and retained our magnificent people at historic rates. 

Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. The Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget request positions today’s Navy and Marine Corps to support 

tomorrow’s joint warfighting environment by sustaining hard-fought advances in 

personnel and operational readiness, investing in critical shipbuilding and aircraft 

programs, fueling transformational capabilities, and building a global, agile and 

fully networked force. As our Navy and Marine Corps Team confronts a future with 

challenges already visible on the horizon, we thank you for your terrific support of 

our Naval Forces, and urge your continued support for the course upon which we 

have embarked to fight and win our nation’s wars while preparing to meet the demands of an uncertain tomorrow.

Senator STEVENS [presiding]. Yes, sir. Who is next, Admiral 

Clark? 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK

Admiral CLARK. Thank you, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, 

Senator Cochran. Good morning. I am privileged to be here this 

morning to talk about our Navy and to talk about it in the context 

of the Navy-Marine Corps team. Mr. Chairman, I like to tell folks 

that the man sitting at the other end of the table is my number 

one joint partner, and I am extremely pleased and honored to be 

able to serve along General Mike Hagee, and especially at a time 

like this with what the Marine Corps is accomplishing in the theater of operations. 

This morning, Mr. Chairman, 54 percent of my Navy is forward 

deployed. As Secretary Johnson just talked about, they are forward 

deployed, they are at the tip of the spear, and they are doing what 

they are supposed to be doing and that is carrying out the orders 

of the President of the United States. 
138

And of course, most of them are engaged in Operation IRAQI 

FREEDOM. They are striking the enemy. They are providing close 

air support for Marines and Army troops, for coalition partners. 

They are clearing the sea lanes. They are providing supplies and 

logistics and are protecting our joint coalition forces at sea and on 

land. They remain ready, they are ready, and they are part of a 

very effective joint combined force. 

On the night before hostilities commenced, I passed a note to 

Secretary Rumsfeld and I said to him, Mr. Secretary, I have never 

seen our Navy as ready as it is today. And I never have. And I 

would just want to say to this committee that I am extraordinarily 

appreciative of the partnership that has been crafted by the leaders 

of America who have put the resources in place to see to it that 

we have the kind of ready Navy that we have today. And I can tell 

you that earlier in my career, I have not seen a time that we would 

have been able to surge this force forward with the kind of readiness statistics that we are realizing today, and I believe that the 

return on investment is showing itself on the battlefield and on the 

oceans in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. 

Of course as Senator Inouye said, today we are here to talk about 

the 2004 investment strategy. What we are seeing in Iraqi Freedom is the return on investment from previous investments. Today 

we are here to talk about the 2004 investment plan. 

I would like to focus on two areas, two areas for investment. 

Number one, people. Secretary Johnson talked about the things 

that are going on in our Navy. Seventy-seven thousand of our sailors are deployed in the theater of operations and about 10,500 reserves, and they are taking the fight to the enemy. I just want to 

say that Congress’ attention to their pay, to allowances, to housing, 

to infrastructure and the things, the tools that allow them to do the 

job, have made a difference, and the quality of life and quality of 

work for our sailors and families is good and improving. 

I just want to also say that our sailors are responding to the signals that they are receiving from the citizens of the United States 

and from the Congress. We are enjoying as I sit here this morning, 

the best retention, the best manning that I have ever witnessed in 

my career. Three straight years now of record retention, never better in our 227-year history of our institution. Last month, firstterm retention in my Navy was 79 percent, and for this fiscal year 

it has been 76 percent. Never in our history have we had anything 

like this. 

I want to say that at the heart of our readiness is our manpower 

readiness, the readiness of our people. It did not happen by accident, it happened because of actions by leaders of America. Our 

ships and squadrons are fully manned. They have been able to 

surge forward on a moment’s notice. 

Most noteworthy, the response by the United States Marine 

Corps and Amphibious Task Force East and West are great indicators of how ready the Navy and the Marine Corps team were at 

the time and are now in the battlefield. 

But I would like to say that numbers alone is not enough, and 

we have struck out on programs committed to the growth and the 

development of our people, of our skilled work force, and it is making a difference. We are focusing on something called sea warrior, 
139

I detailed it my written testimony. It is about a 21st century revolution, and it is about new and innovative techniques in growing 

and developing people. It is about getting the right skills in the 

right place and at the right time. 

And so, my conclusion of all this is that the unprecedented success that we are realizing in the battle for people has been spearheaded by the incredible readiness postures that we realize today. 

The challenge for us is to sustain the gains that we have achieved 

in the past couple of years in readiness and manpower, while focusing on the second thing I want to talk to you about, and that is, 

it is time to focus on our future and that is modernizing and transforming the force. 

That leads us to capital investments in hardware, ships, airplanes, submarines. Programs that needed to mature, that were 

not where we wanted them to be. And I want to say that this committee specifically helped us deal with the very difficult problem in 

prior year shipbuilding costs, you helped us fix it, and it is paying 

dividends this morning. Building approaches to improve the industrial base. We are grateful for the way this committee has helped 

us put ourselves on a solid foundation so that we can move forward 

with transforming the United States Navy. 

Our strategy for the future is detailed in our vision for the Navy, 

Sea Power 21, and again, it is detailed in my written testimony 

which is a matter of record and I will not go into detail with it this 

morning, except to say this: It is about the commitment to being 

on the offense. I call that sea strike, projecting offensive power. 

It is happening this morning with long range tac air, and Tomahawks launched a thousand miles or more. And it is about the 

United States Marine Corps and what they are doing projecting 

power. It is about sea shield, and that is projecting defensive 

power, a new strategic capability, tracking missiles over land. This 

morning we are operating in concert with the United States Army 

on those missiles that have been launched on our forces. The capability that we have seen in testing over the last year in missile defense is, in fact, in place on the battlefield providing tracking, and 

in partnership with the United States Army. 

And of course we cannot forget that it is about clearing the Littoral, of mine threats, and the humanitarian assistance that is 

going on right now, and has been seen on television. One of the 

reasons it is happening is because the mine warfare, the people 

executing the mine warfare function and application have been performing superbly. 

And then it is about sea basing. I call that projecting American 

sovereignty from the sea, going where we need to go, where we 

want to go. The operational independence that comes from operating from the maritime domain. And so, the Marine Corps and the 

Navy are committed to exploiting the maritime battle space to the 

advantage of U.S. joint and combined forces in the future. This 

year’s investment strategy is committed to building toward that vision of tomorrow. 

Starting with the family of ships for the 21st century. The Secretary mentioned it, DDX, the heart of the family of ships. And the 

Littoral combatant ship that is designed to deal with the kind of 

threats that we are facing in the first part of the 21st century, de-
140

signed to deal with the asymmetric threats that are going to come 

after us. Built with plug and play technology from the beginning, 

built and conceived for unmanned vehicles, unmanned air vehicles, 

unmanned surface vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles. That 

is the family of ships spiraling to CGX. 

And of course the Secretary mentioned EA–18G, a very important development in this program. And the new carrier. And there 

is an exciting future detailed for the Navy and the Marine Corps 

with the family of ships there, the replacement LHA and maritime 

preposition forces for the future, and the importance of LPD–17 

that is now a healthy robust program, with the first ship soon to 

be launched here in a couple months. Submarine programs, the exciting Virginia class and the new SSGN. 

So the challenge for us is figuring out how to find the resources, 

and of course that is what this committee is all about. And I just 

want you to know that we are trying to do our part. We are trying, 

we are working to find resources and make sure that we are putting resources in the right place to make our readiness what it 

needs to be today and for the future. 

We are challenging our people to innovate and to find deficiencies, and to get as much combat readiness as we can out of 

every dollar that is given to us by the taxpayers of the United 

States of America. And I would just say that the biggest example 

of that is Navy-Marine Corps tac air integration. This is a story 

that, you know, we could talk about for 30 minutes, but the bottom 

line is this program, this partnership between the Navy and Marine Corps will save billions of dollars and make us more combat 

ready in the future. 

So Mr. Chairman and committee members, in summary, your 

Navy is ready today. It is forward deployed, it is on scene, and it 

is carrying out in concert with the other services and our coalition 

partners Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. We are focused on the future while prepared for today, and the young men and women of 

our Nation’s Navy are serving on the point today with distinction, 

and I am extremely proud of them. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I thank you again for your continued support and for your roles 

as leaders of America in helping us create today’s Navy, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today. The investment you’ve made in America’s Navy has been vital to the 

nation’s security and your Navy’s ability to project more power, more protection and 

more freedom to the far corners of the earth. I speak for the entire Fleet in thanking 

you for your exceptional and continuous support. 

I: Your Navy Today—Enhanced Capabilities for the Joint Force 

This is a time of tremendous challenge and accomplishment for our Navy. Our 

men and women have been waging the Global War on Terrorism for well over a year 

and now they are in combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). They are on the 

front lines of the first wars of the 21st Century, serving with determination and distinction, leading the defense of America away from our own shores and our own 

homes. 
141

Today, there are 164 ships on deployment, over half of the Navy; this includes 

seven of twelve aircraft carriers, and nine of our twelve big deck amphibious ships 

(LHA/LHD). They are deployed in support of the nation’s interests in the Persian 

Gulf, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. Still others are 

preparing for deployment or continuing operations like strategic deterrent and 

counter-drug patrols in support of other national imperatives.

Our Navy is ready for these missions today and is preparing for the difficult future challenges that lie ahead. After all, this new century is fraught with profound 

dangers: rogue nations in possession of weapons of mass destruction, potential conflict between regional competitors, widely dispersed and well-funded terrorist organizations, and failed states that deliver only tyranny and despair to their people. 

We frequently talk about the asymmetric challenges such enemies might present, 

assuming these advantages belong only to potential adversaries. Your Navy possesses asymmetric strengths all its own: its persistence, precision, independence and 

agility are but a few. 

More importantly, our naval strengths are critical to our joint combat effectiveness. Our forward deployed, combat ready naval forces—sustained by naval and civilian shipmates around the world—are proving every day the unique and lasting 

value of sovereign, lethal forces projecting offensive and defensive power from the 

sea. There are numerous recent examples of the enhanced capability our Navy brings 

to the joint force. 

—In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the ABRAHAM LINCOLN, CONSTELLATION, 

KITTY HAWK, THEODORE ROOSEVELT and HARRY S. TRUMAN battle 

groups are providing persistent and credible combat power to the joint force 

commander. The USS NIMITZ is speeding to the Central Command’s area of 

responsibility and is ready to conduct combat operations. The CARL VINSON 

stands watch in the Western Pacific. Our widely dispersed Tomahawk equipped 

ships and submarines and our carrier-based aircraft—in combination with landbased Air Force tankers and bombers and our Marine Corps and Army ground 

forces—are delivering precise, time-sensitive strikes ashore and conducting decisive combat operations deep inland in OIF. 

—The Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC), is actively providing combat logistics support to U.S. Navy ships; is prepositioning joint military supplies and 

equipment at sea; and is providing sealift and ocean transportation of defense 

cargo. MSC’s high quality shipping, augmented by charters, continues its sealift 

of the Army’s 4th Infantry Division. MSC is also delivering fuel and aviation 

support equipment and supplies to deployed Army and Air Force units. All eight 

of our Fast Sealift Ships and nineteen of our twenty new large, medium speed 

roll-on/roll-of ships are employed. Over half of our ready reserve ships have 

been activated, and when combined with other chartered shipping, MSC has 
142

more than 130 ships committed to the sealift of the joint team, and nearly 210 

ships under their control. This includes the eleven of our fifteen deployed Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) that have offloaded supplies and equipment for 

our Marine force. In all, 95 percent of all equipment and supplies needed by 

U.S. forces in time of crisis moves by sea on MSC controlled ships. 

—Working alongside the Marine Corps, our Amphibious Ready Groups, including 

7 big decks (LHA/LHD) in the Persian Gulf area, are supporting over 60,000 

Marines ashore in OIF. Permanently installed command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) suites 

and information technologies on these ships are enhancing the entire joint 

team’s knowledge superiority picture. Troops ashore are supported with sustained logistic support and we are hosting, operating and maintaining Marine 

aircraft—all from the security our ships enjoy in the maritime domain. Most importantly, these ships fully utilize the vast maneuver area of the world’s oceans, 

leveraging our asymmetric advantage and improving our ability to bring decisive power to the point of attack. 

—The AEGIS cruiser USS LAKE ERIE (CG 70) completed three medium range 

ballistic missile defense tests last year, successfully acquiring, tracking and hitting target ballistic missiles in the mid-course or ascent phases with a Standard 

Missile 3 (SM–3) in all three tests. LAKE ERIE and the AEGIS destroyer USS 

JOHN PAUL JONES also supported three successive Missile Defense Agency 

intercontinental class ballistic missile tests; the AEGIS system performed exactly as predicted in each of these tests, acquiring the targets immediately and 

passing high fidelity digital track data to national nodes ashore. These cruisers’ 

and destroyers’ organic AEGIS Weapons System and their SPY–1 multi-function, phased array radars, demonstrate the capability and capacity to conduct 

a sea based missile defense against those ballistic missiles that can target our 

homeland, allies, forward operating bases, and joint forces ashore. They could 

also provide important surveillance and cueing of intercontinental class weapons directed at our homeland. 

—The USS FLORIDA (SSBN 728), an Ohio-class fleet ballistic missile submarine, 

successfully launched two Tomahawk missiles, confirming the ability to launch 

a Tomahawk from a configuration similar to the tightly packed cluster of Tomahawk All-Up-Rounds (AUR) we will use in the SSGN. This experiment was conducted in support of the SSGN program’s Sea Trial experiment, Giant Shadow, 

which also explored how a network of forces, including special warfare forces, 

and various unmanned aerial, underwater and ground vehicles and sensors 

could be used to provide surveillance, collect real-time intelligence, and develop 

and launch a time critical strike in support of the joint force commander. This 

included the first vertical launch of a UUV, testing of nuclear-biological-chemical sensors, and the insertion of SEALs from one of the submarines we will 

convert to an SSGN. 

These examples represent the return on investment the American people have 

made in our Navy: an agile, connected fleet that enhances deterrence, sustains our 

access, conducts precision strikes, exercises joint command and control, enhances 

knowledge superiority, responds to crisis, projects, sustains and operates with the 

joint force ashore, and leverages the priceless advantage of our command of the 

seas. It is why we are a critical component of the nation’s joint defenses in peace, 

in crisis, and in conflict. 

None of the foregoing would be possible without the energy, expertise, and enthusiasm of our active and reserve Sailors, and our Marine and civilian shipmates in 

the Department of the Navy. After all, it is people that put capability to practice, 

and it is their dedicated service that makes these capabilities ready—around the 

world and around the clock. 

II: A Culture of Readiness—A Commitment to Transformation 

This century’s dangerous and uncertain strategic environment places a premium 

on credible combat forces that possess speed of response, immediate employability, 

and the flexible force packaging that brings the right capability to bear at the right 

time. It demands forces that can pair this capability with readiness, both today and 

in the future. 

Readiness is the Navy’s watchword. Readiness is the catalyst that brings combat 

power, speed of response, and the ability to disrupt an enemy’s intentions in both 

crisis and conflict. Readiness brings capability to bear wherever and whenever it is 

needed. We are making readiness a key element of our Navy’s culture. 

The forces we’ve placed forward today are the most ready force in our history; 

properly manned, superbly trained and well provisioned with ordnance, repair parts 

and supplies so they can provide both rotational deployment and surge capability. 
143

Our operational forces are ready earlier and are deploying at a higher state of readiness than ever before. 

A greater percentage of our ships are underway today than at any time in the 

last dozen years. Our ability to do so is the direct result of two things: the investment of the American people and the extraordinary commitment and accomplishment of our men and women in the Navy this past year. We made a concerted effort 

in last year’s budget request to improve our current readiness and reduce our immediate operational risk and I am proud to report to you today that this force is ready 

to fight and win! 

At the same time, it is apparent that the 21st century sets the stage for tremendous increases in precision, reach, and connectivity, ushering in a new era of joint 

operational effectiveness. We clearly will be able to integrate sea, land, air, and 

space through enhanced network technology to a greater extent than ever before. 

And in this new, unified battlespace, the sea will provide the vast maneuver area 

from which to project direct and decisive power. 

To navigate the challenges ahead and realize the opportunities, we developed this 

past year a clear, concise vision—Sea Power 21—for projecting decisive joint capabilities from the sea. It is a vision that stresses our asymmetric strengths of information dominance, advanced technology, and highly skilled and motivated professionals. 

Sea Power 21 advances American naval power to a broadened strategy in which 

naval forces are fully integrated into global joint operations across this unified 

battlespace and against both regional and transnational aggressors. It provides the 

transformational framework for how we will organize, align, integrate, and transform our Navy to meet the challenges that lie ahead. 

It also includes the transformed organizational processes that will accelerate operational concepts and technologies to the fleet; shape and educate the workforce 

needed to operate tomorrow’s fleet; and harvest the efficiencies needed to invest in 

the Navy of the future. 

The capabilities needed to fulfill this broadened strategy are grouped into three 

core operational concepts: Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing, which are enabled by FORCEnet. The triad of transformed organizational processes that supports these concepts is: Sea Warrior, Sea Trial, and Sea Enterprise.

Together, these concepts will provide increased power, protection, and freedom for 

America. 

—Sea Strike is the projection of precise and persistent offensive power. Sea Strike 

operations are how the 21st century Navy will exert direct, decisive and sustained influence in joint campaigns. Sea Strike capabilities will provide the 

Joint Force Commander with a potent mix of weapons, ranging from long-range 

precision strike, to clandestine land-attack in anti-access environments, to the 

swift insertion of ground forces. 
144

—Sea Shield is the projection of layered, global defensive assurance. It is about 

extending our defenses beyond naval forces, to the joint force and allies and providing a defensive umbrella deep inland. Sea Shield takes us beyond unit, fleet 

and task force defense to provide the nation with sea-based theater and strategic defense. 

—Sea Basing is the projection of operational independence. Sea Basing will use 

the fleet’s extended reach of modern, networked weapons and sensors to maximize the vast maneuver space of the world’s oceans. It is about extending traditional naval advantages to the joint force with more security, connectivity, and 

mobility from netted forces at sea. 

—FORCEnet is the enabler of our knowledge supremacy and hence, Sea Strike, 

Sea Shield, and Sea Basing. It is the total systems approach and architectural 

framework that will integrate warriors, sensors, networks, command and control, weapons, and platforms into a networked, distributed force and provide 

greater situational awareness, accelerated speed of decision, and greatly distributed combat power. 

Our transformed organizational processes are: 

—Sea Warrior is our commitment to the growth and development of our Sailors. 

It serves as the foundation of warfighting effectiveness by ensuring the right 

skills are in the right place at the right time. 

—Sea Trial is a continual process of rapid concept and technology development 

that will deliver enhanced capabilities to our Sailors as swiftly as possible. The 

Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command is leading this effort and developing 

new concepts and technologies, such as the Joint Fires Network and High Speed 

Vessels. 

—Sea Enterprise is our process to improve organizational alignment, refine requirements, and reinvest the savings to buy the platforms and systems needed 

to transform our Navy. It is the means by which we will capture efficiencies 

and prioritize investments. Sea Power 21 is dedicated to a process of continual 

innovation and is committed to total jointness. It extends American naval superiority from the high seas, throughout the littorals, and beyond the sea. It both 

enhances and leverages persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance 

capabilities and precision weaponry to amplify the nation’s striking power, elevate our capability to project both defense and offense, and open the door to the 

afloat positioning of additional joint capabilities, assets and forces. 

Sea Power 21 will extend the advantages of naval forces—speed of response, agility, immediate employability, and security—to the unified, joint warfighting team. 

It will increase our deterrence, crisis control and warfighting power. It will ensure 

our naval forces are fully integrated into global joint operations to bring more 

power, more protection, and more freedom to America. 

We will put our Sea Power 21 vision into practice through a new Global Concept 

of Operations (CONOPs) to distribute our combat striking power to a dispersed, 

networked fleet. This will optimize our flexible force structure and create additional, 

scaleable, independent operating groups capable of responding simultaneously 

around the world. This distribution of assets will take us from 19 strike capable 

groups to 37 strike capable groups with the full implementation of the Global 

CONOPs.
145

—Carrier Strike Groups will remain the core of our Navy’s warfighting strength. 

No other force package matches their sustained power projection ability, extended situational awareness, and survivability. 

—Expeditionary Strike Groups will augment our traditional Amphibious Ready 

Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit team with strike-capable surface combatants 

and submarines to prosecute Sea Strike missions in lesser-threat environments. 

When combined with a Carrier Strike Group, the resulting Expeditionary Strike 

Force will possess the full range of our netted, offensive and defensive power. 

We will deploy at least one pilot ESG this year. 

—Missile-Defense Surface Action Groups will increase international stability by 

providing security to allies and joint forces ashore from short and medium 

range ballistic missile threats. 

—Our future SSGN forces—specially modified Trident submarines—will provide 

large volume clandestine strike with cruise missiles and the capability to support and insert Special Operations Forces. 

—An enhanced-capability Combat Logistics Force and Maritime Prepositioned 

Force will sustain a more widely dispersed and capable Navy/Marine Corps 

team. 

It is our intention to continue to nurture this culture of readiness and invest in 

this vision in the years ahead. 

III. Our Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request 

This past year the Navy improved its current readiness by properly funding our 

current readiness accounts, deepening the growth and development of our people, 

and developing innovative operational concepts and capabilities. 

This year, we intend to: 

—Sustain our current readiness gains to support the war on terror; 

—Deepen the growth and development of our people into the 21st Century, hightechnology personnel force that is our future; and 

—Invest in our bold new Navy vision—Sea Power 21—to recapitalize and transform our force and improve its ability to operate as an agile, lethal and effective 

member of our joint, networked warfighting team. 

At the same time, we will continue to actively harvest the efficiencies needed to 

fund and support these priorities in both fiscal year 2004 and beyond. Our Navy 

budget request for fiscal year 2004 supports this intent and includes: 

—7 new construction ships, two more SSBN-to-SSGN conversions, one cruiser conversion and 100 new aircraft; 

—Investment in accelerated transformational capabilities, including the next-generation aircraft carrier (CVN–21), the transformational destroyer (DD(X)) and 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the Joint Strike Fighter, the Advanced Hawkeye 

(E–2C RMP) Upgrade Program and the EA–18G Electronic Attack aircraft; 
146

—An 4.1 percent average pay increase in targeted and basic pay raises, and a reduction in average out-of-pocket housing costs from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent; 

—Investment in housing and Public Private Venture that will help eliminate inadequate family housing by fiscal year 2007 and enable us to house shipboard 

Sailors ashore when their vessel is in homeport by fiscal year 2008; 

—Continued investment in key operational readiness accounts that includes an 

increase in aviation depot maintenance funding, improvement in our annual deferred maintenance backlog for our ships, submarines and aircraft carriers, and 

sustained funding for our ordnance, ship operations and flying hours accounts; 

—Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Aviation Integration, a process that will maximize 

our forward-deployed combat power, optimize the core capability of naval aviation forces, introduce 200 modern aircraft across the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 

2009 program and save billions of dollars; 

—Divestiture of aging, legacy ships, systems and aircraft, producing nearly $1.9 

billion in fiscal year 2004 for reinvestment in recapitalization; 

—Improvements in the quality of our operational training through a Training Resource Strategy; and 

—Investment in transformational unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV), unmanned aviation vehicles (UAV), experimental hull forms and other technologies. 

A. Sustaining our Current Readiness 

Your investment last year produced the most ready force in our history. Training, 

maintenance, spare parts, ordnance, and fuel accounts enabled our Fleet to be ready 

earlier, deploy at a higher state of readiness, and as we are witnessing today, build 

a more responsive surge capability. These investments were vital to sustaining the 

war on terrorism, assuring friends and allies and leading the nation’s global response to crisis. 

—Ship Operations and Flying Hours requests funds for ship operations 

OPTEMPO of 54.0 days per quarter for our deployed forces and 28 days per 

quarter for our non-deployed forces. The flying hours request receives an additional $137 million this year to sustain the investment level we established in 

support of last year’s budget. This level of steaming and flying hours will enable 

our ships and airwings to achieve required readiness six months prior to deployment, sustain readiness during deployment and increase our ability to surge in 

crisis. However, sustained OPTEMPO at levels above this force-wide target, as 

is beginning to occur during fiscal year 2003’s time of accelerated and extended 

deployments, will cause our current year execution to run both ahead and in 

excess of the existing plan. 

—Ship and Aviation Maintenance. Last year, we reduced our major ship depot 

maintenance backlog by 27 percent and aircraft depot level repair back orders 

by 17 percent; provided 32 additional ships with depot availabilities; ramped up 

ordnance and spare parts production; maintained a steady ‘‘mission capable’’ 

rate in deployed aircraft; and fully funded aviation initial outfitting. Our request for fiscal year 2004 aviation maintenance funding adds over $210 million 

to fiscal year 2003’s investment and will increase the number of engine spares, 

improve the availability of non-deployed aircraft, and meet our 100 percent deployed airframe goals. 

Our ship maintenance request continues to ‘‘buy-down’’ the annual deferred 

maintenance backlog and sustains our overall ship maintenance requirement. 

The aggregate level of funding for ship maintenance actually declines from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, due in part to the positive effects of the additional maintenance funding provided in supplemental appropriations in the previous year, in part to the accelerated retirement of the oldest and most maintenance-intensive surface ships, and as a result of scheduling and timing. 

—Shore Installations. The fiscal year 2004 request provides 93 percent of the 

modeled sustainment cost for facilities, an increase from fiscal year 2003’s 84 

percent. Although the overall investment in facility recapitalization has reduced 

from last year, slowing the replacement rate of facilities, our increased investment in sustainment will better maintain existing facilities as we continue to 

pursue innovations to improve our base infrastructure. Our Base Operations 

Support funding request is based on sustaining the current level of common installation and important community and personnel support functions; we have 

factored in management and business efficiencies to reduce the cost of providing 

these services. We continue to support a Base Realignment and Closure effort 

in fiscal year 2005 to focus our future investment and improve our recapitalization rate in the years ahead. 
147

—Precision Guided Munitions receive continued investment in our fiscal year 

2004 request with emphasis on increasing inventory levels for the Joint StandOff Weapon (JSOW), optimizing the Navy’s Joint Direct Attack Munition 

(JDAM) production rate and commencing full rate production under multi-year 

procurement for the Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM). Our partnership with the 

Air Force in several of our munitions programs will continue to help us optimize 

both our inventories and our research and development investment. 

—Training readiness. The Training Resource Strategy (TRS) has been developed 

to provide for more complex threat scenarios, improve the training of our deploying ships, aircraft, Sailors and Marines, and support the range and training 

technology improvements necessary to ensure the long-term combat readiness 

of deploying naval forces. The TRS has identified the training facilities necessary to provide this superior level of training as well. Their dispersed character is more like the battlefield environment our forces will face today and tomorrow and will better challenge our deploying forces—before they are challenged in combat. Our fiscal year 2004 request includes $61 million to support 

the Training Resource Strategy. 

At the same time, encroachment and environmental issues continue to impact 

our ability to maintain an acceptable level of access to our valuable testing and 

training ranges and operating areas. As a result, we are looking for a balanced 

approach that would protect our environmental obligations and our ability to 

both train in realistic scenarios and develop transformational systems for our 

future. Our approach would be limited to only the most critical issues, such as 

the designation of critical habitat on military lands designated for military 

training, and the scientific measurements that achieve an appropriate balance 

between our environmental concerns and our obligation to ensure our Sailors 

are properly trained and our transformational systems are properly tested. We 

will focus the use of our ranges for these purposes while continuing to be an 

excellent steward of these environmental resources. We look forward to working 

with the Congress and the American people on this important and urgent issue 

impacting our Sailors and Marines. 

B. Deepening the Growth and Development of our People 

We are winning the battle for people. Thanks to superb leadership in the fleet 

and the full support of the American people and Congress, we are making solid 

progress in addressing long-standing manpower and quality of service issues vital 

to having what it takes to win the competition for talent today and tomorrow. 

We are enjoying now, the best manning I have witnessed in my career. With few 

exceptions, we achieved C–2 manning status for all deploying battle group units at 

least six months prior to deployment. These accomplishments enabled our Navy to 

develop a more responsive force—one that surged forward with the right people, at 

the right time to fulfill our national security requirements.
148

Retention is at record levels and recruiting has never been better. We achieved 

a 58.7 percent Zone A (<6 Years of service (YOS)) reenlistment rate, 74.5 percent 

Zone B reenlistment rate (6–10 YOS), and a Zone C (10–14 YOS) reenlistment rate 

of 87.4 percent in 2002. While we are also off to a great start in fiscal year 2003, 

we are instituting measures to ensure our annualized reenlistment rate meets our 

established goals (Zone A—56 percent, B—73 percent, C—86 percent). 

Additionally, attrition for first term Sailors was reduced by 23 percent from fiscal 

year 2001 levels. 92 percent of our recruits are high school graduates and 6 percent 

of them have some college education.
149

These tremendous accomplishments allowed us to reduce at-sea manning shortfalls last year and reduce our recruiting goals. We were also able to increase the 

overall number of E–4 to E–9s in the Navy by 1.3 percent to 71.5 percent working 

toward a goal of 75.5 percent by fiscal year 2007. This healthy trend allows us to 

retain more of our experienced leaders to manage and operate the increasingly technical 21st century Navy. 

Targeted pay raises, reenlistment bonuses, improved allowances, enhanced educational benefits, retirement reforms, support for improved family services, and better medical benefits are making a difference and can be directly attributed to Congressional support and the outstanding work of our Navy leaders in our ships, 

squadrons, bases and stations. 

Our fiscal year 2004 request capitalizes on last year’s accomplishments and provides the opportunity to align our manpower and skills mix to balance our end 

strength and shape our 21st century workforce. As part of Sea Power 21’s transformed organizational process improvements we will begin our Sea Warrior process. 

Our goal is to create a Navy in which all Sailors are optimally assessed, trained, 

and assigned so that they can contribute their fullest to mission accomplishment. 

It is important that we sustain our manpower progress by furthering our supporting 

initiatives, to include: 

—Perform to Serve will align our Navy personnel inventory and skill sets through 

a centrally managed reenlistment program. This initiative makes Commander, 

Navy Personnel Command the final authority for first term reenlistments and 

extensions and will steer Sailors in over manned ratings into skill areas where 

they are most needed. It provides the training necessary to ensure these sailors 

will succeed in their new rating. Most importantly, it will help us manage our 

skills profile. 

—Navy Knowledge Online introduces our integrated web-based lifelong learning 

initiative for personnel development and learning management. It connects Sailors to the right information in a collaborative learning environment; tracks 

their individual skills and training requirements; and provides lifelong support 

between our rating, leadership and personal development Learning Centers and 

our Sailors. 

—Task Force EXCEL (Excellence through our Commitment to Education and 

Learning) is transforming the way we train and educate our people. A more responsive organizational structure has been established to include the Navy 

Chief Learning Officer, Naval Personnel Development Command, and Human 

Performance Center. We also partnered with Fleet, industry, and academia to 

improve individual training and education; and with colleges, through the Commissioned Navy College Program, to provide rating-related Associate and Bachelor degrees. 

—Project SAIL (Sailor Advocacy through Interactive Leadership), will web-base 

and revolutionize the personnel assignment process by putting more choice in 

the process for both gaining commands and Sailors. It will empower our people 

to make more informed career decisions and for the first time, create a more 

competitive, market-oriented process. 

Our Sea Swap initiative is underway now, with the first crew-change on USS 

FLETCHER taking place in the Western Australia port of Fremantle last month. 

We will continue this pilot with another crew change this summer and we intend 

to continue to examine pilot programs in optimal manning, rotational crewing, assignment incentive pay, rating identification tools, and rate training. 

Your support of our fiscal year 2004 request for a targeted pay raise that recognizes and reaffirms the value of our career force and acts as an incentive to junior 

personnel to stay Navy is critical to staying the course. So, too, is continuing the 

reduction of average out-of-pocket housing expenses and the extension and enhancement of essential special pay and bonus authorities. All these efforts enable our 

Navy to sustain our forces in the war on terrorism, continue the increase in our Top 

6 (E4 to E9), and develop the 21st Century, high-technology personnel force that is 

our future. 

C. Investing in Sea Power 21

Our 21st Century Navy will be a joint, netted, dispersed power projection force 

and Sea Power 21 is the framework for how our Navy will organize, integrate, and 

transform. It prescribes a strategy-to-concepts-to-capabilities continuum by which 

current and future Naval Forces will exploit the opportunity that information dominance and rapid, highly accurate power projection and defensive protection capabilities bring to us. 
150

Together, these concepts will compress our speed of response and provide the nation with immediately employable, secure and sovereign forward ‘‘capability sets’’ 

from which to project firepower, forces, command and control, and logistics ashore. 

The following describes the core capabilities, and our initial investments in our 

highest priority programs that support this vision. 

Sea Strike is the projection of precise and persistent offensive power. The core capabilities include Time Sensitive Strike; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Ship to Objective Maneuver; and Electronic Warfare and Information Operations. We are already investing in impressive programs that will provide the capabilities necessary to support Sea Strike; these include the following fiscal year 2004 

priorities:

—F/A–18E/F Super Hornet.—The F/A–18E/F is in full rate production and when 

combined with this year’s request for the EA–18G, will be the backbone of Navy 

sea-based precision and time-critical strike, electronic attack and airborne tactical reconnaissance. It is in the fifth of a five-year multi-year procurement 

(MYP) contract (fiscal year 2000–04) that will yield $700 million in total savings. The second multi-year contract for 210 aircraft will yield approximately 

$1 billion in savings as compared to the single-year price. The Super Hornet 

employs new knowledge dominance technologies, such as the Joint Helmet 

Mounted Cueing System, Advanced Tactical Forward Looking Infrared System, 

Shared Reconnaissance System, and Multi-Informational Display System data 

link. It provides 40 percent increase in combat radius, a 50 percent increase in 

endurance, 25 percent greater weapons payload, 3 times the ordnance bring 

back, and is more survivable than our older Hornets; most importantly, it has 

the growth capacity to remain a mainstay of our tactical aviation for years to 

come. Three of these squadrons are already deployed today at one-third the 

operational cost of our legacy F–14 aircraft. Fiscal year 2004 budgets for 42 E/

F aircraft; this program maximizes the return on our procurement dollars 

through a multi-year procurement contract and a minimum economic order 

quantity buy. —EA–18G.—The EA–18G will replace the aging EA–6B Prowler for joint force 

electronic attack. Using the demonstrated growth capacity of the F/A–18E/F, 

the EA–18G Growler will quickly recapitalize our Electronic Attack capability 

at lower procurement cost, with significant savings in operating and support 

costs and three years earlier than previously planned; all while providing the 

growth potential for future electronic warfare (EW) system improvements. It 

will use the Improved Capability Three (ICAP III) receiver suite and provide 

selective reactive jamming capability to the war fighter. This will both improve 

the lethality of the air wing and enhance the commonality of aircraft on the carrier deck. It will dramatically accelerate the replacement of our aging Airborne 

Electronic Attack capability. Engineering and developmental efforts commence 

with our fiscal year 2004 budget request. 
151

—JSF.—The Joint Strike Fighter will enhance our Navy precision with unprecedented stealth and range as part of the family of tri-service, next-generation 

strike aircraft. It will maximize commonality and technological superiority 

while minimizing life cycle cost. The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $2.2 billion in accelerated development funds; initial production is planned for fiscal 

year 2006. 

—MV–22.—The Joint Service MV–22 Osprey tilt-rotor, Vertical/Short Take-Off or 

Landing (V/STOL) aircraft represents a revolutionary change in aircraft capability. It will project Marines and equipment ashore from our amphibious shipping, operationalizing Ship to Objective Maneuver from the Sea Base and improving our expeditionary mobility and force entry needs for the 21st century. 

The MV–22 program has been restructured, redesigned, rebuilt and is undergoing testing to deliver an operationally deployable aircraft on the restructured 

schedule. The MV–22 will replace the Vietnam-era CH–46E and CH–53D helicopters, delivering improved readiness, upgraded capability, and significantly 

enhanced survivability. It is overwhelmingly superior to our legacy CH–46E 

providing twice the speed, five times the range, and three times the payload capacity. 

—Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV).—We increased our commitment to a focused 

array of unmanned air vehicles that will support and enhance both Sea Shield 

and Sea Strike missions with persistent, distributed, netted sensors. We are initiating the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV this year to develop 

a persistent, multi-mission platform capable of both Sea Shield and Sea Strike 

surveillance and reconnaissance of maritime and land targets, communications 

relay and some intelligence collection. We have provided funding for testing, experimentation and/or demonstration of the Fire Scout Demonstration Systems, 

Global Hawk Maritime demonstration and the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle—Navy (UCAV–N) demonstration vehicle as well. 

Sea Shield is the projection of layered, global defensive power. It will soon enhance deterrence and warfighting power by way of real-time integration with joint 

and coalition forces, high speed littoral attack platforms setting and exploiting widely distributed sensors, and the direct projection of defensive powers in the littoral 

and deep inland. It will enhance homeland defense, assure, and eventually sustain 

our access in the littorals and across the globe. Sea Shield capabilities include, 

Homeland Defense, Sea and Littoral Control, and Theater Air and Missile Defense.

Our highest priority Sea Shield programs this year include: 

—Missile Defense.—Our Navy is poised to contribute significantly in fielding initial sea based missile defense capabilities to meet the near-term ballistic missile 
152

threat to our homeland, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies and we 

are working closely with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to that end. As 

partners, USS LAKE ERIE will be transferred to MDA to facilitate a more robust testing program for missile defense. In turn, MDA is requesting funds to 

upgrade three AEGIS guided missile destroyers (DDG) for ICBM surveillance 

and tracking duties and procurement of up to 20 Standard Missile interceptors 

to help us provide a limited at sea capability to intercept short and medium 

range ballistic missiles in the boost and ascent phases of flight. Our sea-based 

missile defense programs experienced tremendous success on the test range 

during 2002, and we look forward to building on these successes and developing 

a vital capability for our Nation. 

—CG Conversion.—The first Cruiser Conversion begins in fiscal year 2004. The 

Cruiser Conversion Program is a mid-life upgrade for our existing AEGIS cruisers that will ensure modern, relevant combat capability well into this century 

and against evolving threats. These warships will provide enhanced land attack 

and area air defense to the joint force commander. Core to these conversions 

is installation of the Cooperative Engagement Capability, which enhances and 

leverages the air defense capability of these ships, and the 5 inch/62 Gun System with Extended Range Guided Munitions to be used in support of the Marine Corps Ship-to-Objective-Maneuver doctrine. These converted cruisers could 

also be available for integration into ballistic missile defense missions when 

that capability matures. 

—Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV).—We will continue development of 

UUVs for minefield reconnaissance in the littoral and other surveillance missions; including funding that will result in initial operating capability for the 

Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS) in fiscal year 2005. 

Sea Basing is the projection of operational independence. Our future investments 

will exploit the largest maneuver areas on the face of the earth: the sea. Sea Basing 

serves as the foundation from which offensive and defensive fires are projected—

making Sea Strike and Sea Shield a reality. Sea Basing capabilities include, Joint 

Command and Control, Afloat Power Projection and Integrated Joint Logistics. Our 

intent is to minimize as much as possible, our reliance on shore-based support 

nodes.

At the top of my list is the surface combatant family of ships—centered on the 

next-generation multi-mission destroyer DD(X), the next-generation cruiser (CG(X)), 

and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)—this combination of ships will provide joint 

force commanders with a robust range of transformational capabilities across the 

spectrum of warfare. From the long-range precision strike and volume-fires of 

DD(X), to the overland, theater and strategic ballistic and cruise missile defensive 

reach of the CG(X), to the ability to clear the way for the joint force in the tough 
153

littoral environment with LCS, the Navy’s future surface warships will be designed 

from their keels up to operate as critical elements of our dispersed, networked, joint 

force. 

At the heart of this family is DD(X). Our DD(X) research and development effort 

is the baseline that will enable us to keep pace with today’s rapid technological advances; it will spiral promising technologies to both CG(X) and LCS, and hence, permit us to both lead the threat and leverage the capabilities needed for the 21st Century. It will also enable us to upgrade in-service Aegis cruisers and destroyers with 

selected leading-edge technologies to ensure this vital core of our legacy, multi-mission fleet will maintain operational effectiveness throughout their lifetimes and 

until the DD(X) and CG(X) program comes to fruition. Specific highlights include: —Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).—Our most transformational effort and number one 

budget priority, the Littoral Combat Ship will counter anti-access threats, 

namely small, fast surface craft carrying anti-ship missiles, torpedo-armed 

ultra-quiet diesel submarines, and large numbers of inexpensive mines. It will 

be the first Navy ship to separate capability from hull form and will provide 

a robust, affordable, focused-mission ship to enhance our ability to establish sea 

superiority not just for our Carrier Strike Groups and Expeditionary Strike 

Groups, but for all the joint logistics, command and control and pre-positioned 

ships that must transit the critical littoral threat area to move and support 

forces ashore. They will be dispersed and netted, both leveraging and enhancing 

the knowledge superiority and defense of the theater joint force. They will be 

the backbone of our organic battle group mine warfare capability. 

We will separate capability from platform by developing ‘‘tailorable’’ mission 

modules that can be rapidly changed in forward locations. This kind of ‘‘forward 

fit and fight’’ capability will enable us to distribute these small, minimally 

manned, persistent, high-speed vessels across the globe and it will permit us 

to use innovative crewing techniques. By employing networked sensors, modular 

mission payloads, a variety of manned and unmanned vehicles, and an innovative hull design, they will also have the inherent capacity for further transformation. We will capitalize on DOD initiatives, spiral development, and new 

acquisition methods to streamline the acquisition process and begin construction of the first LCS by 2005. The fiscal year 2004 budget accelerates development and construction of 9 LCS in the FYDP, key to ramping surface force 

structure to Global CONOPs levels outside the FYDP. —DD(X).—The DD(X) advanced multi-mission destroyer will be armed with an 

array of land attack weapons to provide persistent, distributed offensive fires 

in support of joint forces ashore. Transformational and leap ahead technologies 

include an integrated power system and electric drive; the Advanced Gun System with high rate of fire and magazine capability; the new Multi-Function 

Radar/Volume Search Radar suite; optimal manning through advanced system 

automation, stealth through reduced acoustic, magnetic, IR, and radar cross-section signature; and enhanced survivability through automated damage control 

and fire protection systems. The capacity in both hull form and integrated electric power system, and the revolutionary radar development work will allow us 

to spiral DD(X) to both an entirely new class of ships—our robust, sea-based 

missile defense CG(X) platform of the future—as well as other potential systems, like the electro-magnetic rail gun, in the years ahead. 

In addition to the surface combatant family of ships, our other high priority efforts include: 

—CVN–21.—We have accelerated transformational technologies from the CVNX 

development plan into CVN–21 while sustaining the CVNX–1 development 

schedule submitted last year. This is the first new carrier design since 1967. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request provides $1.5 billion in RDT&E and advanced procurement for the first CVN–21 and programs for split-funded construction for two years beginning in fiscal year 2007. The transformational technologies include a new electrical generation and distribution system, improved 

flight deck design with Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), 

improved sortie generation, enhanced survivability, reduced manning, and incorporation of a flexible infrastructure that will allow the insertion of new capabilities as they evolve. CVN–21 will be the centerpiece of our Carrier Strike 

Groups in the future and will replace USS ENTERPRISE in fiscal year 2014. 

—VIRGINIA-class submarine (SSN–774).—The first four ships of this class are 

under construction: Virginia will commission in 2004; the keel was laid for 

Texas (SSN–775) in July 2002; Hawaii (SSN–776) was begun in 2001; and 

North Carolina (SSN–777) in 2002. This class will replace LOS ANGELES-class 

(SSN–688) attack submarines and will incorporate new capabilities, including 

an array of unmanned vehicles, and the ability to support Special Warfare 
154

forces. It will be an integral part of the joint, networked, dispersed fleet of the 

21st Century. —SSGN Conversions.—We have requested two additional conversions in fiscal 

year 2004; these ships will be configured to carry more than 150 Tomahawk 

missiles, enabling covert, large-volume strike. The SSGN will also have the capability to support Special Operations Forces for an extended period, providing 

clandestine insertion and retrieval by lockout chamber, dry deck shelters or the 

Advanced Seal Delivery System, and they will be arrayed with a variety of unmanned systems to enhance the joint force commander’s knowledge of the 

battlespace. We will leverage the existing TRIDENT submarine infrastructure 

to optimize their on-station time. The first two ships, the USS OHIO and USS 

FLORIDA, enter the shipyard in fiscal year 2003 to begin their refueling and 

conversion. USS MICHIGAN and USS GEORGIA will begin their conversion in 

fiscal year 2004. We expect this capability to be operational for the first SSGN 

in fiscal year 2007. —Maritime Prepositioning Force Future (MPF(F)).—Our vision for the future Maritime Prepositioning Force and tomorrow’s Amphibious force continues to develop. This fiscal year’s budget and the Joint Forcible Entry Operations study 

will refine our effort and posture us for enhanced sea basing of Navy and Marine Corps assets. I expect MPF(F) ships will serve a broader operational function than current prepositioned ships, creating greatly expanded operational 

flexibility and effectiveness. We envision a force of ships that will enhance the 

responsiveness of the joint team by the at-sea assembly of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade that arrives by high-speed airlift or sealift from the United 

States or forward operating locations or bases. These ships will off-load forces, 

weapons and supplies selectively while remaining far over the horizon, and they 

will reconstitute ground maneuver forces aboard ship after completing assaults 

deep inland. They will sustain in-theater logistics, communications and medical 

capabilities for the joint force for extended periods as well. 

Other advances in sea basing could enable the flow of Marine and Army forces 

at multiple and probably austere points of entry as a coherent, integrated combined 

arms team capable of concentrating lethal combat power rapidly and engaging an 

adversary upon arrival. The ability of the Naval Services to promote the successful 

transformation of deployment practices of the other Services will dramatically improve the overall ability of the Joint Force to counter our adversaries’ strategies of 

area-denial and/or anti-access. We are programming RDTE funds to develop the future MPF and examine alternative sea basing concepts in fiscal year 2008. 

FORCEnet is the enabler of the foregoing capabilities, and the operational construct and architectural framework for naval warfare in the joint, information age. 

It will allow systems, functions and missions to be aligned to transform situational 

awareness, accelerate speed of decisions and allow naval forces to greatly distribute 

its combat power in the unified, joint battlespace. It puts the theory of network centric warfare into practice. We are just beginning this effort and we have requested 

$15 million in funds to administer the development of FORCEnet, the cornerstone 

of our future C4I architecture that will integrate sensors, networks, decision aids, 

warriors and weapons. Programs that will enable the future force to be more 

networked, highly adaptive, human-centric, integrated, and enhance speed of command include: 

—E–2C Advanced Hawkeye Radar Modernization Program.—E–2 Advanced 

Hawkeye (AHE) program will modernize the E–2 weapons system by replacing 

the current radar and other aircraft system components to improve nearly every 

facet of tactical air operations. The modernized weapons system will be designed to maintain open ocean capability while adding transformational surveillance and Theater Air and Missile Defense capabilities against emerging air 

threats in the high clutter and jamming environment. The advanced Hawkeye 

will be a critical contributor to Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air, and 

to Sea Strike and Shield. The fiscal year 2004 budgets over $350 million for continued development with first production planned for fiscal year 2008. 

—Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI).—NMCI continues to bring together 

Navy personnel, government civilians and contractors into a single computing 

environment. This program is fostering fundamental changes in the way we 

support critical war fighting functions, conduct Navy business, and train and 

advance Sailors. Fiscal year 2004 funding of $1.6 billion continues user seat 

rollout and cutover to the NMCI architecture, progressing toward a target endstate of 365,000 seats. Although NMCI seat cutover was slowed initially by the 

need to resolve the challenges of numerous, disparate legacy applications, the 

transition to NMCI has succeeded in eliminating more than 70,000 legacy IT 

applications and we are on track for the future. 
155

Sea Trial.—Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) is now in charge of 

our Navy’s revitalized process of experimentation, and is rapidly developing emergent concepts and experimenting with new technologies to speed delivery of innovation to the fleet. CFFC will reach throughout the military and beyond to coordinate 

concept and technology development in support of future warfighting effectiveness. 

Embracing spiral development, the right technologies and concepts will then be matured through targeted investment and rapid prototyping. 

CFFC is working in concert with the U.S. Joint Forces Command to refine the 

Sea Trial process and integrate select wargames, experimentation and exercises. We 

are already testing new operational concepts and technologies like the Collaborative 

Information Environment, Joint Fires Initiative, and the Navy Joint Semi-Automated Force Simulation in operations and exercises. We will continue to pursue 

evaluation of multiple platforms and systems, including experimental hull forms 

and electro-magnetic rail guns, among others. 

The Systems Commands and Program Executive Offices will be integral partners 

in this effort, bringing concepts to reality through technology innovation and application of sound business practices. 

IV. Harvesting Efficiencies for Transformation 

We are working hard to identify and harvest the efficiencies needed to balance 

competing priorities and invest in our Sea Power 21 vision. Called Sea Enterprise, 

this process is intended to ensure our warfighting capability both now and in the 

future. It will help identify and produce those initiatives that both optimize our 

warfighting capability and streamline our organization and processes; to make it operate more efficiently, to reduce our overhead and to produce the savings needed 

for investment in recapitalization and our future. We have already identified several 

initiatives that have produced over $40 billion in savings and cost avoidance across 

the defense program—and many more billions outside the FYDP—to help fund our 

future. A few of the highlights include: 

—USN–USMC Tactical Aviation (TACAIR) Integration plan shows the promise of 

cross-service partnerships. It will maximize forward deployed combat power, enhance our interoperability, more fully integrate our services, and save $975 million across the FYDP. This aggressive effort introduces 200 modern aircraft in 

the next six years while retiring legacy F–14, F/A–18A/B, S–3, and EA–6B airframes, and it reduces our F/A–18 E/F and JSF total buy requirements by 497 

aircraft while enhancing our warfighting capability. There is more than $30 billion in projected cost avoidance outside the FYDP as well.

—Partnerships. We are pursuing other promising partnerships to include new 

munitions with the U.S. Air Force, common communications and weapons systems with the U.S. Coast Guard’s Deepwater Integrated Systems program, and 
156

joint experiments with high-speed vessels with the U.S. Army. We will continue 

to leverage the gains made in programs like joint weapons development (JDAM, 

JSOW, AMRAAM) as well. 

—Identifying savings within the force for recapitalization. Last year we promised 

we would sharpen our focus on our force structure in the years ahead—to buy 

the ships, aircraft and the capabilities needed for tomorrow’s Navy. At the same 

time, we cannot overlook the important gains our focus on current readiness 

made these last few years; it produced the more responsive force on deployment 

today. As a result, we are obligated to look hard at the ways we could balance 

these priorities and our discretionary investments to both satisfy the near term 

operational risks and prepare for the long term risks of an uncertain future. 

This year we made some hard choices across the Fleet to do more to address 

our future risk, sustain our current readiness gains and strike this balance. We 

looked hard at older systems with limited growth potential and high operating 

and support costs (maintenance, parts, training, etc.), and ultimately decided to 

accelerate the retirement of 11 ships and 70 aircraft, divest more than 50 systems and eliminate 70,000 legacy IT applications from an original baseline of 

103,000. 

Accelerating the retirement of these ships was a difficult decision. However, 

our analysis indicates that our proposed near-term inactivations and our remaining warfighting capability provide an acceptable level of risk without compromising our ability to accomplish our mission. Vertical cuts in our least capable type-model series, both in ships and in aircraft, allowed us to use the savings to recapitalize, modernize other legacy platforms, and invest in Sea Power 

21. In all, these difficult decisions yielded $1.9 billion for reinvestment and will 

do much to help reduce our future risk. 

—Improved business operations and processes. We are improving both the way we 

run the Fleet and our ability to control costs. The LPD–DDG swap produced 

savings sufficient to purchase a third guided missile destroyer in fiscal year 

2004. We are using multi-year procurement contacts and focusing where possible on economic order quantity purchase practices to optimize our investments. We conducted the Workload Validation Review, and made Performance 

Based Logistics improvements. Other initiatives like piloting mission funding 

for two of our public shipyards, Enterprise Resource Planning, strategic 

sourcing, NMCI and eBusiness are helping us find the funds necessary to 

emerge with the optimal force structure, a healthy industrial base and an efficient and appropriately sized infrastructure. 

—Installation Claimant Consolidation. In October 2003 we will establish a single 

shore installation organization, Commander, Navy Installations Command 

(CNIC), to globally manage all shore installations, promote ‘‘best practices’’ development in the regions, and provide economies of scale, increased efficiency, 

standardization of policies where practicable and improved budgeting and funding execution. This initiative has the potential to save approximately $1.6 billion in the next six years. 

We will continue to pursue the efficiencies that improve our warfighting capability. We are committed to producing the level investment stream that will help 

implement our bold new Navy vision and produce the number of future ships, aircraft and systems we need to counter the 21st Century threat. Harvesting savings 

for reinvestment is an important part of that effort, and we will continue to examine 

the potential efficiencies while weighing the operational risks, both now and in the 

future. 

V. Conclusion 

The President has called upon us to ‘‘be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in 

any dark corner of the world.’’ We are answering that call in the Global War on 

Terrorism and in the opening salvos of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We will also prepare our force for the battles of tomorrow by integrating Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and 

Sea Basing into the Joint Force; capturing the funds needed to build the 21st century Navy; and developing our workforce. We are creating the future capabilities 

and force structure required to counter these 21st century threats. In pursuing victory, the United States Navy—forward deployed, highly capable, and poised for action—will continue to provide our nation persistent combat power. 

At the same time, our people remain at the heart of all we do; they are the real 

capital assets in our Navy. We have invested heavily to do what is right for the people who are investing themselves in our Navy. ‘‘Growth and development’’ is our 

byline. As we look to the future, we will build on the impressive progress we have 

made in recruiting, assigning, and retaining our military and civilian professionals. 

Active leadership is making it happen today and will do so in the years to come. 
157

I thank the Committee for your continued strong support of our Navy, our Sailors, 

and our civilian shipmates. Working together, I am confident we will win the Global 

War on Terrorism, make our great Navy even better, and provide our Nation with 

more power, more protection, and more freedom in the years ahead.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. All this paper work is 

about what is going on on the floor. General Hagee. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE

General HAGEE. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran, other distinguished members of this committee, it is indeed an 

honor for me to be here today representing your Marine Corps. I 

would like to thank this committee for its strong support for the 

issues and programs that are of such vital importance to the readiness of the Marine Corps and the Navy-Marine Corps team. 

I would also like to thank my good friend, Admiral Vern Clark, 

for his leadership of the Navy and his participation in truly making 

the Navy-Marine Corps team a reality. And as he mentioned, nothing reflects that more in my opinion, than these 14 amphibious 

task force ships, 7 from each coast, that left within about a 2 to 

3-week alert, carrying approximately 6,000 to 7,000 Marines on 

each task force, and all of them arrived in the Gulf on time and 

on target. Now, Admiral Clark would say it is because of the sailors that he has in his Navy, and he is absolutely correct, but it 

takes leadership and vision, and that comes from the top, and I 

thank him for that. 

The actions of your Marines in Iraq attests to their morale, readiness and warfighting capability better than any words that I could 

say here today. They are performing magnificently. In addition to 

the events that constantly scream from our televisions, radios and 

newspapers, the Navy-Marine Corps team continues to play a key 

role in the global war on terrorism and in the establishment of stability and security in many of our world’s other trouble spots. 

Active and reserve Marines are operating alongside soldiers, sailors, airmen, non-governmental officials (NGOs) and diplomats in 

diverse locations around the globe, from Afghanistan to the Arabian Gulf, to the Horn of Africa, to the Georgian Republic, Colombia, Guantanamo Bay, and the Philippines. Today Marines are flying from Baghram Air Base in Afghanistan and from Navy carriers 

at sea. Currently 67 percent of the Marine Corps operating forces 

are forward deployed and almost 80 percent of our operating forces 

are either forward deployed, forward stationed, or forward based. 

Marine Corps operations continue to highlight the versatility of 

our expeditionary forces. We have had one of our busiest years in 

terms of operational deployments, participation in realistic worldwide exercises and training events. To that end we have a thoroughly trained, ready and capable force for the Nation. 

Though the Nation is focused on current operations in Iraq, we 

continue to develop the capabilities we will need for tomorrow’s 

challenges as well. Along with the Navy, we are moving out with 

new organizational concepts mentioned by the Chief of Naval Operations. These include tac air integration, carrier and expeditionary 

strike groups, and our concept of enhanced networked sea bases. 

These concepts will make us more responsive, flexible and effective 

in the future. 
158

The fiscal year 2004 budget continues our efforts to modernize 

and transform the force. The support that you have provided over 

the last 2 years has helped us make real progress in our modernization, transformation, personnel and readiness accounts. 

While Marines and their families have benefitted from increased 

appropriations for targeted pay raises and improved family housing 

and barracks, this committee’s support for important procurement 

programs has also ensured that our Marines are better equipped 

and more likely to survive on the battlefield today. 

With regard to transformation and modernization, I am happy to 

report that our top Marine Corps ground programs are adequately 

funded over the near term. Among these are the advanced amphibious assault vehicle, the high mobility artillery rocket system and 

the lightweight 155 howitzer. On the aviation side, we are on track 

for funding for the V–22, the joint strike fighter, Short-Take-Off/

Vertical Landing (STOVL), and the four-bladed Cobra and Huey 

airframes. 

Finally, we continue to make needed progress in readiness. Having recently come from the operating forces, I can tell you that 

there is a marked positive improvement in the way we are funding 

for readiness now compared to just a few years ago. Much of that 

improvement can be directly attributed to the welcome attention 

readiness has received from this subcommittee over the last few 

years. I know you are actually working on the much needed supplemental and I thank you very much for that, sir. 

My main funding concern is the cost of reconstituting our forces. 

We are making a concerted effort to capture these costs and ensure 

we know what will be required to maintain the future readiness of 

our Corps. We are currently doing what we have been trained to 

do, and we are ready to support our Nation to whatever challenges 

may lie ahead. We are on solid ground regarding our mission and 

our direction. We will remain your own only sea-based, rotational, 

truly expeditionary combined armed force ready to answer the call 

as part of the integrated joint force. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you again, sir, on behalf of all your Marines, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE

Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the Committee; it 

is my honor to report to you on the state of your United States Marine Corps. First, 

on behalf of all Marines, I want to thank the Committee for your continued support. 

Your sustained commitment to improving the warfighting capabilities of our Nation’s armed forces and to improving the quality of life of our Service men and 

women and their families is vital to the security of our Nation, especially now, while 

our Nation is at war. 

INTRODUCTION

The Navy-Marine Corps Team continues to play a key role in the global war on 

terrorism and in the establishment of stability and security in many of the world’s 

trouble spots. Marines, both Active and Reserve, are operating side-by-side in Iraq, 

as well as in diverse locations, from Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Turkey, the 

Georgian Republic, Colombia, Guantanamo Bay, and the Philippines. The actions of 

your Marines—along with Navy Corpsmen and SeaBees—attest to their morale and 

readiness better than any words I could say here today. 
159

Marine Corps operations throughout the past year have highlighted the versatility 

and expeditionary nature of our forces. Missions in support of Operations Enduring 

Freedom and Noble Eagle marked the most visible accomplishments of our forwarddeployed forces. Marine Air Control Squadrons continue to provide air control, surveillance, and air traffic control support to Operation Enduring Freedom during 

their deployments to the Central Command area of responsibility. Elsewhere, the 

Marine Corps continues to support Operation Joint Forge in the Balkans by sending 

Civil Affairs teams to Bosnia. 

Even as the Marine Corps saw one of our busiest years in terms of operational 

deployments, participation in realistic, worldwide exercises remained critical to supporting the Combatant Commander’s Theater Security Cooperation Plans and ensuring that we maintained a ready and capable force. Over the last year, Marines 

participated in more than 200 service, joint, and combined exercises. These included 

live fire, field training, command post, and computer-assisted exercises. Participants 

varied in size from small units to Marine Expeditionary Forces. Overseas, Marine 

Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable) conducted exercises in Jordan, 

Italy, Croatia, Tunisia, the Philippines, Australia, Thailand, and Kuwait. 

At home, Marine reserve units were designated as ‘‘on call’’ forces to support the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s role in homeland security. In addition, 

the Marine Corps also conducted numerous training operations and internal exercises. This important training helps develop individual and unit proficiency and 

competency. It also allows the Marine Corps to examine unit operational skills and 

ensures that each unit has the capabilities required to execute our full range of missions. 

The Marine Corps continues to contribute to the Nation’s counter drug effort, participating in numerous counter-drug operations in support of Joint Task Force Six, 

Joint Interagency Task Force-East, and Joint Interagency Task Force-West. These 

missions are conducted in the Andean region of South America, along the U.S. 

Southwest border, and in several domestic ‘‘hot spots’’ that have been designated as 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. Individual Marines and task-organized units 

are assigned to these missions in order to provide support for domestic drug-law enforcement throughout the United States, and to provide conventional training to 

military forces in South America that execute counter-narcotics missions. Marine 

operational and intelligence teams also support Colombian military efforts to combat 

narco-terrorism. Marines of our reserve forces have executed the majority of these 

missions. 

Our successes in these global operations and exercises have not been achieved 

alone. We have worked closely alongside the Navy, our sister Services, and Federal 

agencies to realize the true potential of joint, interoperable forces in the new environment of 21st Century warfare. The operational and personnel readiness levels we 

have been able to maintain directly reflect the strong, sustained support of the Congress in last year’s National Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts. In fiscal year 2004, we seek your continued support for the President’s Budget so we can 

consolidate the gains made to date, improve those areas where shortfalls remain, 

and continue transforming the way the Navy-Marine Corps Team will fight in the 

21st century. 

BUILDING ON SUCCESS

The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget, together with your support, will provide 

a strong foundation on which we can continue building on our successes. Our focus 

is on improving our ability to operate as an agile, lethal, ready, and effective member of a broader joint force that takes the complementary capabilities provided by 

each Service, and blends them into an integrated and effective force for meeting future challenges. 

Increases in our Military Personnel accounts have a positive effect on the retention of our most valued assets—our Marines. Given the increasing pressure to modernize and transform the force, the Marine Corps is constantly working to identify 

and assess program tradeoffs to enable the most effectively balanced approach between competing demands and programs. These tradeoffs occur within a larger context of the Department’s overall program tradeoff decisions, which is driving the 

Navy and Marine Corps to work more closely than ever before in our planning, 

budgeting, and decision making. An additional concern that complicates this process 

is the sizeable unfunded cost of the ongoing global war on terrorism. 

Challenges also arise from the changing realities of our National security environment. The Marine Corps is committed to the idea that we will fight as an integral 

part of a joint team. We continue to place high priority on interoperability, shared 

concept development, and participation in joint exercises with our sister services. 
160

Additionally, the security environment now demands that we pay more attention to 

our role in Homeland Defense, our critical infrastructure, and force protection—even 

as we deploy more forces overseas. These challenges demand that we balance competing priorities while remaining focused on maintaining excellence in warfighting. 

Adapting to a Changing, Dynamic World 

While we adapt the advantages of technology to meet the changing face of warfare, we draw strength from the unique culture and core values that make us ‘‘Marines.’’ We look for innovation in four broad areas to address future challenges: 

Transformational technology; New operational concepts; Refined organizations; and 

Better business practices. 

Innovative approaches culled from these efforts should provide insight into new 

capabilities that we can adapt for future warfighting. In this regard, we are currently engaged in an immediate and critical tasking to define how we, along with 

our partners in the Navy, intend to project Naval power ashore in the 2015–2025 

timeframe. This effort requires the intellectual rigor and participation of all the elements of our Marine Air-Ground Task Forces and is influencing the entire Marine 

Corps—from our structure and training to the way we will fight on future battlefields as an integral component of a joint force. 

Technology and Experimentation 

The plan for realizing future joint concepts consists of three closely related processes: (1) Joint Concept Development, (2) Joint Experimentation & Assessment, and 

(3) Joint Integration & Implementation. The overall process is more commonly 

known as Joint Concept Development & Experimentation. In order to ensure support and engagement throughout this process, the Marine Corps reorganized to establish three Joint Concept Development & Experimentation divisions under the 

cognizance of the Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command. These three organizations are key elements of Marine Corps Transformation 

and enable full Marine Corps involvement in Joint Experimentation and Transformation as well as the Navy’s Sea Trial process for Naval Experimentation and 

Transformation. 

The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory maintains cognizance over Marine 

Corps-specific experimentation—with a focus on the tactical level—to develop enhanced warfighting capabilities for the future. Technologies and procedures are field 

tested in experiments conducted with the operating forces. In addition, the Lab coordinates closely with the Office of Naval Research to identify promising technologies that support the next generation of warfighting capabilities. 

New Concepts and Organizations 

The Marine Corps is streamlining force development from concept to acquisition 

under the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development. Our Expeditionary Force 

Development System is a single system of dynamic functions integrated into a process that produces and sustains capabilities to meet the needs of the Marine Corps 

and the Combatant Commanders. The Marine Corps advocates for ground combat, 

aviation combat, command and control, and combat service support, as well as the 

Marine Requirements Oversight Council, are key participants in the process. The 

Expeditionary Force Development System continuously examines and evaluates current and emerging concepts and capabilities to improve and sustain a modern Marine Corps. The system is compatible with and supports Naval and joint transformation efforts and integrates transformational, modernization, and legacy capabilities and processes. This integrated, concept-based driver for transformation is 

currently working on several ideas that will influence the future Marine Corps. 

Expeditionary Strike Groups.—The Marine Corps and Navy are engaged in a series of experiments that will explore the Expeditionary Strike Group concept. This 

concept will combine the capabilities of surface action groups, submarines, and maritime patrol aircraft with those of Amphibious Ready Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable), to provide greater combat capabilities 

to Regional Combatant Commanders. In the near future, the Navy-Marine Corps 

Team will conduct a pilot deployment on the west coast to test the Expeditionary 

Strike Group concept. Navy combatants have already been incorporated within the 

existing training and deployment cycle of the Amphibious Ready Group. This experiment will also allow us to test command-and-control arrangements for the Expeditionary Strike Group. It will provide critical information to support the future implementation of the concept and highlight any needed changes in service doctrine, 

organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities. 

Tactical Aviation Integration.—The Navy and Marine Corps Team has embarked 

on a Tactical Aircraft (Strike-fighter) Integration plan that will enhance core combat 

capabilities and provide a more potent, cohesive, and affordable fighting force. This 
161

integration is the culmination of a long-term effort to generate greater combat capability from Naval fixed-wing strike and fighter aircraft, and represents a shared 

commitment to employ the Department of the Navy’s resources as judiciously as 

possible. This integration has been ongoing for several years, with four Marine 

Corps F/A–18 Hornet squadrons operating as part of embarked carrier air wings. 

This Navy-Marine Corps effort will guarantee that Naval aviation will be integrated 

as never before, and will effectively support the Marine Air-Ground Task Force and 

the joint warfighter. Specifically, the integration plan: 

—Reinforces our expeditionary ethos 

—Provides a smaller, more capable, more affordable force for the Department of 

the Navy 

—Integrates Marine strike fighters in ten Navy Carrier Air Wings 

—Integrates three Navy strike fighter squadrons into the Marine Unit Deployment Program 

—Includes the global sourcing of all DoN strike fighter assets and ensures their 

support to Marine Air-Ground Task Forces and Regional Combatant Commanders 

—Provides increased combat capability forward 

—Complements the enhanced seabasing concept. 

A cornerstone of this plan is Department of the Navy funding and maintenance 

of legacy aircraft at the highest levels of readiness until the Joint Strike Fighter 

and F/A–18E/F replace them. This requires an unwavering commitment to level 

funding of strike fighter readiness across the Department of the Navy. These integration-driven readiness levels will allow the Navy-Marine Corps Team to surge 

more aircraft than what is possible today. 

Enhanced Networked Seabasing.—Fully networked, forward-deployed Naval forces 

and platforms that are integrated into our seabasing capability will provide Naval 

power projection for Joint Force commanders. These forces will use the sea as a 

means of maneuver, enabling a broad range of joint campaign operations. Sea-based 

operations incorporate, integrate, protect, and sustain all aspects of Naval power 

projection, from space to the ocean floor, from blue water to the littorals and inland—without dependence on land bases within the Joint Operating Area. 

Seabasing will provide enhanced capabilities to the Naval force, such as rapid force 

closure, phased arrival and assembly at sea, selective offload of equipment tailored 

for individual missions, and force reconstitution for follow-on employment. The traditional Naval qualities of persistence and sustainment—enhanced by advanced 

force-wide networks—underpin the staying power and flexibility of the sea base. 

Naval platforms can stay on-station, where they are needed, for extended periods 

of time. The at-sea maneuverability of the seabase, coupled with advanced underway replenishment technologies and techniques, will ensure force readiness over 

time. 

Integrated Logistics Capabilities.—The Integrated Logistics Capabilities effort 

began as a unique collection of military, industry and academic organizations collaborating to develop a future vision of Marine Corps logistics processes. The product is a set of transformational initiatives that will provide better support to the 

warfighter. The purpose of the Integrated Logistics Capabilities concept and process 

is to implement a transformation strategy, based on best practices, that provides the 

framework for the execution of agile, effective logistics support to the Marine AirGround Task Force, with the focus of streamlining the logistics chain. 

Capabilities are being conceptually refined and incrementally validated in the Operating Forces as they are identified and recommended. An assessment of the Proofof-Concept, published in November 2002 by the Center for Naval Analysis, reflected 

improved supply response time (68 percent reduction in time) and overall repair 

cycle time (33 percent reduction). 

Over both the mid- and long-term, improved combat effectiveness and efficiencies 

in the logistics chain are expected. However, efficiencies cannot be fully realized 

until the people, process and technology changes are applied across the entire operating force. The logistics transformation and process modernization, together with 

the cutting edge suite of technologies provided by the Global Combat Support System, will greatly enhance the combat capabilities of Marine forces. 

Reestablishment of Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison Companies.—We have validated the 

requirement to reestablish our Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison Companies (ANGLICO). 

These Companies will provide our Commanders a liaison capability with foreign 

area expertise to plan, coordinate, and employ terminal control of fires in support 

of joint, allied, and coalition forces. ANGLICO will be reestablished with a company 

on each coast, and a separate brigade platoon in Okinawa. Each company will have 

a habitual relationship with the reserves. Full operational capability is expected by 

late summer 2004. 
162

Marine Corps—U.S. Special Operations Command Initiatives.—Today, 105 Marines are filling Special Forces billets around the world. In addition to providing the 

current Chief of Staff to U.S. Special Operations Command (US SOCOM), the Marine Corps provides support to and ensures interoperability with Special Forces 

through the actions of the SOCOM-Marine Corps Board. That board met twice in 

2002 and developed initiatives in the areas of Operations, Training and Education, 

Communications/C4, Information Operations, Psychological Operations, Civil Affairs, 

Intelligence, Aviation, Future Concepts, and Equipment & Technology. One of the 

initiatives, pursued in coordination with the Naval Special Warfare Command, is 

the Marine Corps’ first sizeable contribution of forces to the Special Operations 

Command. Consisting of 81 Marines and 5 Sailors, a detachment has been organized, trained and equipped to conduct special reconnaissance, direct action, coalition support, foreign internal defense and other special operations missions, and will 

begin training at Camp Pendleton California in June 2003. They will subsequently 

transfer to the operational control of US SOCOM during October 2003, and deploy 

in April 2004 as augmentation to a Naval Special Warfare Squadron supporting 

both U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Central Command. 

Better Business Practices 

We continue to seek out and use better business practices to achieve greater costeffectiveness, improve performance, and sharpen our focus on our warfighting core 

competencies. In line with the competitive sourcing initiatives in the President’s 

Management Agenda, we are increasing emphasis across our Supporting Establishment on competing our commercial activities with the private sector. We are complementing this initiative with continued development of an effective Activity-Based 

Costing and Management initiative across our installations. This allows us to focus 

on the true cost of various functions and services and to develop benchmarks that 

enable us to improve performance and to focus analyses on cost-saving initiatives. 

This will occur both in commercial areas that we compete, and in non-commercial 

areas that cannot be competed. Competitions completed to date have resulted in 

saving millions of dollars annually and returning almost 900 Marines to the operating forces. We will continue to seek additional competition candidates. ActivityBased Costing and Management initiatives provided our installation commanders 

with cost and performance information that enabled them to save over $37 million 

last year. As we refine our databases, we expect continuing increases both in performance and cost effectiveness. 

Through all of the efforts outlined above, the Marine Corps is building on today’s 

success. As we build on our current capabilities, embrace innovation, and transform 

to meet the daunting conventional and asymmetric threats to U.S. security in the 

21st century, we will continue to be the Nation’s Total Force in Readiness, fielding 

warriors whose unique seabased expeditionary and combined-arms capabilities will 

be critical to success in crisis and conflict. In the process of balancing our programs 

to meet these goals, we will focus on two primary objectives: (1) our main effortmaintaining excellence in warfighting, and (2) taking care of our Marines and families. 

TAKING CARE OF OUR OWN

Providing for the needs of our Marines, their families and our civilian Marines 

remain among our top priorities. The most advanced aircraft, ship, or weapons system is of no value without highly motivated and well-trained people. People and 

leadership remain the real foundations of the Corps’ capabilities. It is important to 

note that the Marine Corps operates as a Total Force, including elements of both 

active and reserve components. We continue to strengthen the exceptional bonds 

within our Total Force by further integrating the Marine Corps Reserve into ongoing operations and training. 

Human Resources 

End Strength.—The Congressionally authorized increase in Marine Corps end 

strength to 175,000 in response to the global war on terrorism is very much appreciated. This increase of 2,400 Marines allows us to sustain the increased missions 

associated with the activation of the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorism), enabling us to replace Marines in the active units that we ‘‘borrowed’’ in 

standing up the Brigade, and continue to provide the Nation with a robust, scalable 

force option specifically dedicated to anti-terrorism. 

Recruiting.—Sustaining our ranks with the highest quality young men and 

women is the mission of the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. Recruiting Command has consistently accomplished this mission for more than the past seven years 

for enlisted recruiting and twelve years for officer recruiting. These achievements 
163

provide the momentum fueling the continuous pursuit to improve the recruiting 

process and enhance the quality of life for our recruiters. To continue to attract 

America’s finest youth, Recruiting Command has provided recruiters with the best 

tools available to accomplish their mission. The Marine Corps supports the National 

Call to Service Act and continues to work closely with DOD in developing an implementation policy. We expect to commence enlisting individuals under this program 

commencing October 1, 2003. The Marine Corps Reserve achieved its fiscal year 

2002 recruiting goals, accessioning 5,904 Non-Prior Service Marines and 4,213 Prior 

Service Marines. With regard to our Reserve Component, our most challenging recruiting and retention issue is the ability to fill out our Selected Marine Corps Reserve units with qualified officers. The Marine Corps recruits Reserve officers almost exclusively from the ranks of those who have first served a tour as an active 

duty Marine officer. 

While this practice ensures our Selected Marine Corps Reserve unit officers have 

the proven experience, knowledge and leadership abilities when we need it the 

most—during mobilization—it limits the recruiting pool that we can draw from to 

staff our units. As a result, the Selected Reserve currently has a shortage of company grade (Second Lieutenant to Captain) officers. We are exploring methods to increase the reserve participation of company grade officers through increased recruiting efforts, increased command focus on emphasizing reserve participation upon 

leaving active duty, and reserve officer programs for qualified enlisted Marines. We 

are also pursuing the legislative authority to provide an affiliation bonus to reserve 

officers as an additional incentive for participation in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve. Retention.—Retaining the best and the brightest Marines has always been a 

major goal of the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is by design a youthful service, 

however, it is of paramount importance to retain the highest quality Marines to lead 

our young force. History has proven that leadership in the Staff Noncommissioned 

Officer ranks has been the major contributor to the combat effectiveness of the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps has two retention standards. Our First Term Alignment Plan has consistently achieved its reenlistment requirements over the past 

eight years. With one-third of the current fiscal year completed, we have achieved 

87 percent of our first-term retention goal. A look at our Subsequent Term Alignment Plan (second tour and beyond) demonstrates that we have already retained 

51 percent of our goal for this fiscal year. Both of these trends indicate healthy continuation rates in our career force. 

Current officer retention is at an eighteen year high, continuing the strong performance of the last two years. Despite this positive trend, we cannot become complacent. As a Corps, we will continue to target specific qualifications and skills 

through continuation pay. Military compensation that is competitive with the private sector provides the flexibility required to meet the challenge of maintaining 

stability in manpower planning. 

Marine Corps Reserve—Partners in the Total Force.—It is important to note that 

the Marine Corps operates as a Total Force, including elements of both active and 

reserve components. We continue to strengthen the exceptional bonds within our 

Total Force by further integrating the Marine Corps Reserve into ongoing training 

and operations. Concurrent with the various initiatives underway to improve integration and update capabilities, the Marine Corps Reserve continues to support its 

primary mission of augmentation and reinforcement. Reserve units and Marines 

provided over 1.8 million man-days in fiscal year 2002. Reserves provided support 

at all levels within the Marine Corps and at Combatant Commands and High-Level 

Staffs. 

As we enter the 21st Century, the overall structure of Marine Forces Reserve will 

retain the current basic structure. However, Marine Forces Reserve is currently 

working to create new capabilities identified as part of its comprehensive review. 

Both as a structural and an operational change, Marine Forces Reserve is increasing 

its operational ties with the Warfighting Commanders by improving lines of communication with our operating forces. These increased operational ties will improve 

interoperability, increase training opportunities, and enhance the warfighting capabilities of the Total Force. 

Mobilization.—Since the events of 9/11, the Marine Corps judiciously activated Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Marines in response to both internal and joint operational requirements. The Marine Corps has maximized the use of individual volunteers to meet these requirements primarily in the areas of staff augmentation and 

force protection. In addition, Selected Marine Corps Units (SMCR), were activated 

for force protection requirements in support of homeland security. Because of emerging requirements associated with war on terrorism, we began involuntary recall of 

some of our Individual Ready Reserves on January 17, 2003. 
164

Stop Loss.—On January 15, 2003, the Marine Corps instituted Stop Loss across 

the Marine Corps to meet the emerging requirements associated with the expanding 

war on terrorism. Stop Loss was initiated to provide unit stability/cohesion, maintain unit readiness, meet expanded force protection requirements, and to reduce the 

requirement to active IRR personnel. We will continue to make judicious use of this 

authority and continue to discharge Marines for humanitarian, physical disability, 

administrative, and disciplinary reasons. We have instructed our General Officers 

to continue to use a common sense approach and have authorized them to release 

Marines from active duty if it is in the best interest of the Marine Corps and the 

Marine. 

Education 

Our leaders—especially our noncommissioned officers—throughout the entire 

chain of command have kept the Corps successful and victorious. Their sense of responsibility is the cornerstone of our hard-earned successes. We will continue to develop leaders who can think on their feet, act independently, and succeed. In the 

future, as today, leaders will continue to instill stamina and toughness in each individual while simultaneously reinforcing character that values honor, integrity and 

taking care of our fellow Marines—including treating each other with dignity and 

respect. Aggressive and informed leadership demands education, training, and mentoring. The importance of these key elements cannot be over-emphasized, and we 

must attend to each at every opportunity. 

Marine Corps University has responsibility and authority for the planning, coordinating and overseeing all education for our Marines. The University is accredited 

by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to confer Masters degrees and 

currently offers a Masters of Strategic Studies at the Marine Corps War College, 

and a Masters of Military Studies at the Command and Staff College. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff currently accredits the War College, Command and 

Staff College, and the College of Continuing Education for Phase I Joint Education. 

The President of the University also exercises command authority over the Expeditionary Warfare School and the Staff Noncommissioned Officer Academies worldwide. Notable accomplishments include Department of Education approval of a Masters of Operational Studies at the School of Advanced Warfighting, which is the first 

step toward our third Master’s degree program. 

Plans for the future include providing coordination and continuity through a coherent education plan for all Marines. Our goal is to develop better warfighting 

leaders at all levels through an increased emphasis on relevant, structured education—at the graduate and undergraduate level—through both resident programs 

and distance education. Our intent is to greatly expand beyond the current emphasis on field-grade officers to support leadership development throughout the training 

and education continuum from Marine Private through General Officer, and to specifically bring senior Non-commissioned Officers further along the education continuum. 

Our Lifelong Learning mission is to establish an integrated approach to learning; 

providing Marines with one destination for enrollment in a college program, access 

to research tools such as books, periodicals, and the Internet, basic skills enhancement, and nonresident courses. In the face of a requirement to increase Tuition Assistance from 75 percent to 100 percent of tuition costs, and the rate from $187.50 

per semester hour to $250 per semester hour, the Marine Corps added the necessary 

funds to expand the Tuition Assistance program in the fiscal year 2004 POM, which 

provides sustainment until fiscal year 2009. 

Quality of Life/Quality of Service 

Congressional support for increases in the Basic Allowance for Housing, as well 

as the aggressive Marine Corps use of the Public Private Venture (PPV) authority 

provided by Congress five years ago, are resulting in dramatic improvements to the 

housing of our Marines and their families. Your continued support of our budget to 

help us achieve zero out-of-pocket expenses by fiscal year 2005 is greatly appreciated. The condition of other infrastructure, such as our barracks, workspaces, and 

training ranges, are also key factors in overall quality of life. While our infrastructure budgets reflect only the minimal essential military construction and re-capitalization necessary, they will allow us to achieve a re-capitalization rate of 67 years 

within the FYDP (down from 100 years in fiscal year 1999) and an improvement 

of our facilities readiness by fiscal year 2013. 

We have been aggressively working to reduce the number of Marines and civilian 

Marines in non-core business areas, reapplying the Marines to other operational requirements, and looking to optimize the use of civil service/contractor support where 

appropriate. Our track record is good. By example, we have reapplied Marines in 
165

the garrison food service and mobile equipment areas back to the operating forces 

and competed a significant number of civilian positions. We will continue this process in line with the President’s Management Agenda to review fifty percent of our 

positions by fiscal year 2008. By ensuring that quality of service remains high, we 

will help maintain our successful record of recruitment and retention. 

Families 

The Marine Corps is an expeditionary force prepared to deploy on short notice to 

accomplish assigned missions. While we may recruit Marines, we almost always retain families—it becomes a family decision for a Marine to stay for an entire career. 

Because of our expeditionary culture, deployment support is provided to Marines 

and their families as part of our normal operations, largely through the efforts of 

Marine Corps Community Services. In addition to concerted efforts to improve housing and family services, security and support is offered during pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment phases of our operations. The Marine Corps also offers numerous programs focused on new parent support and the prevention of domestic violence, as well as services and programs for infants, toddlers, children and 

teens. The Exceptional Family Member Program focuses on assistance to service 

personnel who have a family member with special needs before, during and after 

Permanent Change of Station Orders. 

Safety 

Ensuring a safe command climate and working environment remains a critical 

concern for the Marine Corps. Often, the settings and the work our Marines do are 

dangerous, but effective command climates continually mitigate those dangers 

through planning and leadership. Our safety programs are integral to force protection and operational readiness. Leadership and programming in safety awareness 

and standards are vital to providing Marines and their families with a meaningful 

quality of life and service. On the heels of a very successful year prior, fiscal year 

2002 was a disappointing year for safety in the Corps, as we lost more Marines to 

mishaps in fiscal year 2002 than we had in any single year for the preceding decade. 

Our aviation mishap rate increased as well (from 1.40 to 3.9 class A mishaps per 

100,000 flight hours). 

These results do not indicate a lack of desire to safeguard Marines. Rather, several factors were involved that made it particularly difficult to prevent mishaps 

through normal operational risk management efforts. Demographically, the Marine 

Corps is a younger force than the other Services (by an average six to eight years), 

with maturity being a contributing factor in many mishaps; however, none of these 

factors are excuses for any failure to avoid preventable mishaps. Our leadership at 

all levels is deeply concerned about the negative trend and we are actively involved 

in multiple efforts to improve readiness and save our most precious Marines and 

valuable equipment. 

OUR MAIN EFFORT—EXCELLENCE IN WARFIGHTING

Marines have a vision for the future, and we are moving forward with the modernization and transformation efforts needed to make this vision a reality. We fully 

understand that our vision cannot be achieved independent of our sister Services. 

Each of the Services has its own critical role to play in providing for our Nation’s 

collective security; however, it is important that each of our contributions be, simultaneously, both unique and complementary. In particular, the Corps stresses the importance of our key partnership with the Navy. The Navy-Marine Corps Team has 

never been stronger, or more necessary for our Nation. 

We have stated that our first concern is with the care and stewardship of our people. This philosophy extends to the rest of our programming in that we focus on procuring the programs and equipment that will maximize the abilities of our Marines 

to perform effectively in combat. With the foundation of requirements drawn from 

our emerging concepts, the Marine Corps is transforming its warfighting systems 

and assets throughout the elements of our Marine Forces. The following examples 

reflect but a few of our transformation and modernization efforts. A more comprehensive description of the Marine Corps’ entire acquisition program can be found 

in the publication entitled Marine Corps Concepts & Programs 2003. 

Training 

We believe the enduring wisdom, ‘‘you fight the way you train.’’ Because of this, 

our training exercises are becoming ever more Joint and Combined to provide our 

Marines with the experience they will need when called upon to respond to crises—

because there is no doubt that we will work alongside our sister Services and coalition partners from other Nations in such circumstances. The Marine Corps Combat 
166

Training Center at Twenty-nine Palms, California focuses on integrated live fire and 

maneuver, as well as combined arms training, and will continue to play a central 

role as our foremost training and testing site for Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare. 

Ongoing initiatives will expand the role of the Combat Training Center and transform it into a ‘‘Center of Excellence’’ that will focus the training efforts across our 

operating forces. The Combat Training Center facilitates and supports the development of new concepts and capabilities, thereby reinforcing our combat effectiveness, 

enhancing joint interoperability, and supporting Dodd transformation efforts. 

The future role of the Combat Training Center will grow beyond its current emphasis on battalion-level integrated live fire, combined arms training to support expanded training opportunities for all elements (ground, air, combat service support, 

and command) of Marine Air-Ground Task Forces up to and including a Marine Expeditionary Brigade. This will include: enabling multi-site, distributed training evolutions that tie together units from various bases; and investing in technology that 

simultaneously links live, virtual, and constructive training. Additionally, improvements to the existing Expeditionary Air Field and construction of a large-scale 

urban training facility are being studied as possible ways to enhance training opportunities at Twenty-nine Palms. All of these efforts have the potential to increase the 

capability of our training center to support evolving training requirements, enabling 

the Corps to maintain its focus on uniquely Marine training skills, while providing 

a vehicle to further integrate Marine Corps capabilities into those of the Joint Force. 

Infrastructure 

Marine Corps infrastructure consists of fifteen major bases and stations and 185 

Reserve facilities in the United States and Japan. In keeping with the Corps’ expeditionary nature, these installations are strategically located near air and seaports 

of embarkation, and are serviced by major truck routes and railheads to allow for 

the rapid and efficient movement of Marines and materiel. Recognized as the ‘‘fifth 

element’’ of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force because of the close link to the operating forces and their operational readiness, the condition of the Corps’ bases and 

stations is of vital importance. With the ability to train as an integrated force being 

a fundamental requirement of the Corps, infrastructure development planning is designed to provide the facilities, training areas, and ranges (both air and ground) to 

accomplish this requirement while minimizing excess and redundant capacities. 

With increasing encroachment pressures and constrained fiscal resources, the Marine Corps face significant challenges to provide and maintain a lean and efficient 

infrastructure that fully meets changing mission demands. 

Blount Island Acquisition.—We are committed to undertake the wisest possible 

course to conserve our real property and, when necessary, to acquire any additional 

property that is mission critical. The Blount Island facility in Jacksonville, Florida, 

is a National asset that must be acquired to ensure its availability for long-term 

use. Blount Island’s peacetime mission of supporting the Maritime Pre-positioning 

Force is vitally important, while its wartime capability of supporting large-scale logistics sustainment from the continental United States gives it strategic significance. The facility will play a vital role in the National military strategy as the site 

for maintenance operations of the Maritime Pre-positioning Force for years to come. 

The Marine Corps plans to acquire the Blount Island facility in two phases. Phase 

1, funded in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, is currently in progress and is 

will acquire interests in approximately 311 acres of land for the primary purpose 

of ensuring public safety on parcels adjacent to the leased central management operational area. Phase 2, planned for fiscal year 2004, involves acquisition of the central maintenance operational area, consisting of over 1,000 acres. 

Training at Eglin Air Force Base.—With cessation of training at Vieques, Puerto 

Rico, the established training ranges, quality of training support, and proximity to 

the ocean available at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, can provide Naval Expeditionary Forces with an alternative training capability. Eglin’s capabilities, location, 

and tenant commands provide the opportunity to facilitate joint training between 

Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Special Operations Forces. Development 

of an expeditionary force training capability at Eglin can support the Secretary of 

Defense’s vision and direction for training transformation and the development of 

a Joint National Training Capability. This type of training will be critical to Naval 

expeditionary combat-readiness. 

The Marine Corps proposes to execute two ten-day training exercises with a Marine Expeditionary Unit at Eglin each year. These exercises include a variety of scenarios such as amphibious landings, raids, mechanized operations, helicopter operations, and live fire and maneuver exercises. No final decision on training activities 

will be made until an Environmental Assessment currently underway is completed. 
167

The Navy and Marine Corps are actively working to develop and sustain cooperative 

relationships with the local community and the State of Florida. 

Encroachment and Environmental Issues.—Encroachment—defined as any deliberative action that can cause the loss of, or restrict, the use of land, airspace, frequency, or sea maneuver areas—is a serious threat to the operational readiness of 

the Corps. Urban and residential areas now surround many Marine installations 

that were originally remotely situated. This growth is often accompanied by pressure for access to Marine Corps resources, or demands to curtail Marine Corps operations to make them more compatible with surrounding land uses. The Corps’ training lands often provide excellent habitat for threatened and endangered species, 

serving as islands of biodiversity amid the crush of densely populated urban areas 

that surround many of our installations. The Marine Corps is proactively engaged 

with federal, state, and local agencies and governments, as well as nongovernmental 

organizations, to provide win-win solutions to these encroachment pressures, and 

ensure compatible land usage and environmental security without degrading training and mission readiness. Unimpeded access to our installations and ranges is critical to the Marine Corps remaining America’s ‘‘Force in Readiness.’’

Our Nation has crafted a strong environmental code of conduct structured on a 

wide range of federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Vague or inflexible environmental requirements, however, can present significant challenges for Marines 

performing their primary mission. We support ongoing efforts to seek clarity and 

limited flexibility in certain environmental laws, so that we may more effectively 

balance our training requirements with our long-term environmental stewardship 

responsibilities. Our ultimate goal is to ‘‘fight the way we train,’’ while preserving 

the natural environment. Today, Marines at all levels perform their jobs with an 

increased awareness of potential environmental impacts. All of our bases and stations, for example, have implemented Integrated Natural Resource Management 

Plans and aggressive pollution prevention programs. The hard work does not end 

with these initiatives. The impact of encroachment on the Corps’ ability to fully utilize its installations are varied and require constant vigilance and attention to ensure that operational readiness is not diminished. 

Command and Control 

Interoperability is the key to improving Naval expeditionary command and control 

effectiveness, especially as we begin to integrate battlespace sensors residing in our 

manned and unmanned aerial, space, and ground vehicles. This is particularly true 

as the Marine Corps continues to work routinely with a range of government, nongovernment, and international agencies. The command, control, communication, and 

computer (C4) end-to-end interoperability of the Global Information Grid will serve 

to enhance our ability to conduct joint, multi-department, and multi-agency operations through the use of technology, standards, architectures, and tools. 

The Marine Corps works closely with the Joint Staff, combatant commanders, operating forces, and other Services to ensure that, where possible, joint concepts of 

operations are developed for common capabilities. An example of this process is occurring with the development of the Joint Tactical Radio System, which combines 

numerous single function programs of current inventories into a single, interoperable, joint radio program that will provide secure digital communications while enhancing wideband tactical networking. 

Intelligence 

Our fiscal year 1996-fiscal year 2003 enhancements to Marine Intelligence Support are paying off during Operation Enduring Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism. Intelligence Support organic to Marine Forces combined with capabilities 

from our Marine Corps Intelligence Activity in Quantico, Virginia to provide federated production (reachback) support has been validated through current operations. Marine Expeditionary Unit’s forward deployed with organic all-source intelligence collection and production capabilities provide current intelligence support to 

Marine and Special Operations units. Our deployed signals intelligence, human intelligence, ground sensor, and reconnaissance teams provide the commander current 

situational awareness. All-source intelligence Marines have the systems and training to integrate organic collection, network with the joint force on the ground, and 

effectively reach back to the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity and joint centers at 

secure locations. 

Mobility 

While the global war on terrorism has demonstrated the current capabilities of 

the Navy-Marine Corps Team, our continuous transformation and modernization efforts hold even greater potential for increasing Naval power projection capabilities 

in the future. Many of these efforts focus on increased speed, range, payload, and 
168

flexibility of maneuver units—mobility. This concept includes a vision of an allvertical lift Air Combat Element, with the introduction of tiltrotor and Short-TakeOff/Vertical-Landing (STOVL) aircraft. The following initiatives are some of the 

keys to the achievement of Marine Corps operational mobility objectives: 

MV–22 Osprey.—The MV–22 remains the Marine Corps’ number one aviation acquisition priority. While fulfilling the critical Marine Corps medium lift requirement, the MV–22’s increased capabilities of range, speed, payload and survivability 

will generate truly transformational tactical and operational opportunities. With the 

Osprey, Marine forces operating from the sea base will be able to take the best of 

long-range maneuver and strategic surprise, and join it with the best of the sustainable forcible-entry capability. Ospreys will replace our aging fleets of CH–46E Sea 

Knight and CH–53D Sea Stallion helicopters. 

KC–130J.—The KC–130J will bring increased capability and mission flexibility to 

the planning table with its satellite communications system, survivability, and enhancements in aircraft systems, night systems, and rapid ground refueling. The 

KC–130J is procured as a commercial off-the-shelf aircraft that is currently in production. We are pursuing a multi-year program for purchase with the U.S. Air 

Force. 

Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle.—The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) is the Marine Corps’ only Acquisition Category 1D program and will be 

one of the principal enablers of the Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare concept. AAAV 

will provide never before realized high-speed land and water maneuver, a highly lethal day/night fighting ability, and advanced armor and Nuclear-Biological-Chemical 

protection. This—coupled with a systematic integration into emerging service and 

Joint Command and Control networked information, communications and intelligence architectures—will provide the Marine Corps with increased operational 

tempo, survivability, and lethality across the spectrum of operations. 

Maritime Pre-positioning Force.—The Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future) 

will be the true enabler of primarily sea-based operations. When it becomes operational, the future Maritime Pre-positioning Force role will expand beyond that of 

today, and will provide a true seabasing capability. In this regard, it will serve four 

functions that the current capability cannot: (1) Phased at-sea arrival and assembly 

of units; (2) Selective offload of equipment and cargo; (3) Long-term, sea-based 

sustainment of the landing force; and (4) At-sea reconstitution and redeployment of 

the force. The Naval Services are exploring several new technology areas during the 

development of Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future). Currently, the Maritime 

Pre-positioning Force (Future) Program is conducting an analysis of alternatives to 

inform an acquisition decision by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

High-Speed Vessel (HSV).—High-speed vessels will enhance the Marine Corps’ capability to perform a wide range of missions, from providing support to a theater 

security cooperation plan to sustaining long-term operations ashore. High-speed vessels can enhance our ability to conduct sea-based operations and use the sea as maneuver space. HSVs do not have the loitering and forcible entry capabilities of amphibious ships or the pre-positioning capacity of our Maritime Pre-positioned Force 

Squadrons. However, their shallow draft, high speed, maneuverability, and open architecture make them a valuable link in a seamless logistics system that extends 

from source of supply to the sea base and the joint force, enabling a faster, more 

responsive, and capable deployment of a range of force modules from forward-based 

‘‘hubs’’ such as Okinawa, or from the United States. The Marine Corps is currently 

testing and validating these concepts by employing a high-speed vessel in the Pacific 

theater as a form of strategic lift. 

Power Projection Platforms.—Combined with embarked Marines, Naval expeditionary warships provide the Nation with forward-presence and flexible crisis response forces. They also provide a truly unparalleled expeditionary forcible-entry capability. As part of a joint effort, the Marine Corps will remain capable of getting 

to the fight rapidly in order to decisively deter or defeat adversaries who try to impose their will on our country or its allies. A fiscally constrained programmatic goal 

of twelve Amphibious Ready Groups—one that deliberately accepts increased operational risk by attempting to balance force structure with available resources—does 

not change the warfighting requirement to lift the Assault Echelons of three Marine 

Expeditionary Brigades via future platforms for amphibious shipping. The Marine 

Corps supports the LPD–17 and a modified LHD–8 (‘‘Plug Plus’’) ship design in fiscal year 2007 and will evaluate the adequacy of the R&D and SCN funding for the 

development of future LHA(R) ships for the remainder of the class. 

Mine Countermeasure Capabilities.—Naval expeditionary forces require an effective counter-mine warfare capability to open and maintain sea lines of communication and to operate within the littoral battle space. This is probably our greatest 

concern when it comes to projecting power in an anti-access environment. With re-
169

spect to mine countermeasures, we require a family of capabilities that encompasses 

mine detection, location, neutralization, marking, and data dissemination. Designed 

to provide an organic mine counter-measures capability within operationally acceptable timelines and with acceptable levels of operational risk, this next generation 

of systems includes the Advanced Mine Detector, the Assault Breacher Vehicle, the 

Remote Minehunting System and the Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System. Our 

most critical mine countermeasures deficiencies exist in the area near the shoreline 

through the high water mark and beyond, where detection and neutralization capabilities are extremely limited. Given the broad proliferation of known and unknown 

mined areas throughout the world, we must improve our ability to operate in this 

exceptionally lethal environment. Our intent is to leverage America’s strength in 

technology to dramatically improve our ability to locate and avoid or neutralize 

mines and obstacles as necessary, and eventually remove the man from the minefield. 

Fires and Effects 

With the increased range and speed of expeditionary mobility assets, the landward area of influence of Naval forces has increased by an order of magnitude. Consequently, the Nation requires weapon systems with correspondingly greater range, 

lethality, flexibility and tactical mobility. A range of lethal and non-lethal fire-support programs is moving the Corps in that direction. The development and acquisition of non-lethal weapons systems will expand the number of options available to 

commanders confronted with situations in which the use of deadly force is inappropriate. The Marine Corps is developing a robust non-lethal capability that will address the non-lethal core requirements of clearing facilities, crowd control and area 

denial. Additionally, we are enhancing the capabilities with which we can affect our 

adversaries that defy the traditional concept of weapons and fire-support means. 

Technical advances in directed-energy weapons hold much promise for future capabilities in this area. 

Joint Strike Fighter.—The Joint Strike Fighter is the next-generation 

strikefighter for the Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy and will replace the Marine 

Corps’ AV–8B and F/A–18A/C/Ds. The JSF family of aircraft will include a short 

takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant, a conventional take-off and landing 

(CTOL) variant, and an aircraft carrier-capable variant. Commonality between the 

variants will reduce both development and life cycle costs and will result in significant savings when compared to the development of three separate aircraft. The Marine Corps requires that its STOVL variant be able to operate from large-deck amphibious ships, austere sites, and forward operating bases. The STOVL Joint Strike 

Fighter version can use from three to five times more airfields around the world 

than our existing conventional take-off and landing aircraft. Moreover, because the 

STOVL variant can operate from both conventional carriers and amphibious assault 

ship decks, it thereby effectively doubles the number of platforms available for 

seabased operations. The advantages of a stealthy STOVL strike fighter—capable of 

taking off from an expeditionary base on land or at sea, flying at supersonic cruise, 

accomplishing its mission with advanced sensors and weapons, and then returning 

to its expeditionary site—are dramatic. The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter will provide 

the reliability, survivability, and lethality that Marines will need in the years 

ahead, and transform the very foundations of Naval tactical air power for the 21st 

Century. 

Naval Surface Fire Support.—Our ability to provide fires in support of expeditionary forces operations beyond the beach has not kept pace with the dramatic increases in mobility. Critical deficiencies currently exist in the capability of the Navy 

to provide all-weather, accurate, lethal and responsive fire support throughout the 

depth of the littoral in support of expeditionary operations. The Marine Corps supports the Navy’s near-term efforts to develop an enhanced Naval surface fire support capability with the fielding of the 5-inch/62-caliber Naval gun and the development of extended-range munitions. In the far-term, the Marine Corps supports the 

development and fielding of the Advanced Destroyer [DD(X)], armed with 155 mm 

Advanced Gun Systems and Land Attack Missiles, to fully meet our Naval surface 

fire support requirements. Our Nation’s expeditionary forces ashore will remain at 

considerable risk for want of suitable sea-based fire support until DD(X) joins the 

fleet in significant numbers. 

Indirect Fire-Support.—A triad of indirect fire-support programs will provide 

needed firepower enhancements for Marines in the near- to mid-term. The first element of the triad is the Lightweight-155 mm (LW–155) towed howitzer needed to 

replace our current M–198 howitzer, which is at the end of its service life. The 

Lightweight-155 is a joint Marine Corps-Army effort that will meet or exceed all the 

requirements of the current system while significantly reducing its weight. 
170

The second element, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), will 

deliver very high volumes of rocket artillery in support of the ground scheme of maneuver. The HIMARS will provide accurate, responsive general support and general 

support reinforcing indirect fires at long range, under all weather conditions, and 

throughout all phases of combat operations ashore. It will fire both precision and 

area munitions to a maximum range of 36 miles. 

The Expeditionary Fire Support System, the third system of the land-based fire 

support triad, will accompany Marines in any expeditionary mode of operation. It 

will be the primary indirect fire-support system for the vertical assault element of 

the ship-to-objective maneuver force. The Expeditionary Fire Support System, as a 

system, will be internally transportable by helicopter or tilt-rotor aircraft to allow 

the greatest range and flexibility of employment for our future operations. 

Information Operations.—Defense planners are engaged in studies exploring Information Operations as a core military competency, fully integrated into both deliberate and crisis action planning. The Marine Corps intends to enhance our operational capability in both offensive and defensive Information Operations. Marine 

Corps doctrine and warfighting publications are being reviewed and revised to acknowledge Information Operations as a core warfighting capability fundamental to 

all operations spanning the spectrum of conflict with equal significance during noncombatant and humanitarian operations. We recognize a requirement to develop 

and train an Information Operations career force of trained professionals from the 

ground up in support of joint and inter-agency efforts. 

New Weapons Technologies.—The Corps is particularly interested in adapting 

truly transformational weapon technologies. We have forged partnerships throughout the Department of Defense, other Agencies, and with industry over the past several years in an effort to develop and adapt the most hopeful areas of science and 

technology. Several notable programs with promising technologies include: (1) advanced tactical lasers, (2) high-power microwave, non-lethal active denial systems, 

(3) free electron lasers, (4) electro-magnetic guns (rail guns), and (5) common modular missiles for aircraft. 

Logistics and Combat Service Support 

The Marine Corps logistics’ vision is to significantly enhance the expeditionary 

and joint warfighting capabilities of our Operating Forces. Key warfighting capabilities encompassed in our future concepts—Enhanced Networked Seabasing and ShipTo-Objective-Maneuver—will be defined by our logistic capabilities and limitations. 

Hence, we are committed to exploring and implementing actions to increase combat 

power, operational versatility, and deployability. The concept of focused logistics in 

Joint Vision 2020 is guiding the Marine Corps as we strive to increase the sustained 

forward-deployed capability of our forces. Future force combat service support—and 

the Marine Corps logistics that enables it—will be changing as we shift more of our 

operations to the sea base. At the forefront of this effort is the Marine Corps Logistics Campaign Plan that outlines essential objectives and tasks based upon overarching Marine Corps, Naval, joint, and DOD concepts and guidance. Our strategy 

encompasses four pillars: 

Logistics Information Fusion and C2.—A key to current and emerging warfighting 

capabilities is a robust and responsive logistics information technology capability—

one that is integrated with our command-and-control architecture and interoperable 

with Naval and joint systems. The Global Combat Support System—Marine Corps 

(GCSS–MC) and shared data environment, along with the Common Logistics Command and Control System, provide logisticians across the Marine Corps with a set 

of common logistics assessment, planning, and execution tools that are interoperable 

with the common operating picture. 

Seamless Distribution.—The single capability that defines Marine Forces in a 

joint environment is its ability to sustain itself over an extended period of time. The 

principal goal is to move from defining sustainment in terms of deployable ‘‘days of 

supply’’ to a continuous uninterrupted sustainment capability for the force. A key 

element in achieving this is integrating current distribution processes and systems 

into broader Naval and joint distribution processes. Achieving this capability will 

not only greatly enhance Naval operations, but will be transferable to the task of 

sustaining joint forces and operations. 

Enhanced Equipment Readiness.—The bulk of our logistics effort and associated 

‘‘footprint’’ is driven by its equipment-support activities. The Marine Corps seeks to 

reduce the required level of support for equipment by greatly improving the reliability, availability, and maintainability of ground tactical equipment. 

Enterprise Integration.—Achieving the emerging warfighting capabilities envisioned by future concepts require dynamic shifts in our logistics processes and orga-
171

nizations. Leading this effort toward logistics modernization is true enterprise integration consisting of GCSS–MC, process reengineering, and organizational reform. 

CONCLUSION

The major challenges confronting the Marine Corps today center on organizing, 

training, and equipping our force to better support joint force commanders, now and 

in the future. The modernization programs and the transformational systems that 

we are pursuing are key to our ability to meet the Nation’s wartime, crisis, and 

peacetime requirements. We have put into place well-conceived programs addressing 

the needs of our Marines and their families, the requirement to enhance the current 

readiness of legacy systems, the critical role infrastructure plays in present and future readiness, and the balance between modernization and transformation. 

We are focusing on the development of integrated capabilities that, when combined with those of our sister Services and Special Operations Forces, will effectively meet the challenges of an increasingly varied and threatening National security landscape. You can remain justifiably proud of what your Marine Corps contributes as America’s forward engagement and expeditionary combined-arms force. We 

are grateful for the unwavering support you provide in this vitally important work.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, gentlemen, and I apologize for not being here at the opening so I will just submit my 

opening statement in the record. We will soon take up the supplemental, and I was working on it, as I said. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Secretary Johnson, Admiral Clark and General Hagee, I welcome all of you today. 

Today we will discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Navy and Marine Corps. We are currently considering the Administration’s request for a fiscal 

year 2003 supplemental for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the continuing Global War 

on Terrorism. We know how much the Navy and Marine Corps need this additional 

funding and will do all we can to get this to you as quickly as possible. 

The last two years have been a time of extraordinary accomplishment, effort, dedication, and duty for the men and women of our Navy and Marine Corps. Since September 11, 2001, the Navy/Marine Corps team expanded the role of what was 

thought possible for carrier-based flight operations and expeditionary landing forces. 

Now, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, our Navy and Marine Corps continue this excellence in the air, on the ground, and at sea. 

Right now, the Navy has 54 percent of the fleet forward deployed and 68 percent 

of the fleet underway. I believe that this is the highest deployed percentage since 

World War II. Also interesting, is that the Navy is also the smallest it’s been since 

World War II—dropping to about 300 ships this year. All this, while at the same 

time, the Navy is achieving its highest retention rates in history. 

The Marine Corps is equally engaged. 90 percent of the deployable Marine Corps 

force is deployed today. This is 56 percent of the total U.S. Marine Corps end 

strength, the highest percentage since World War II. 

We look forward to your testimonies today on your priorities for the fiscal year 

2004 budget. As always, your full statements will be made a part of the record.

Senator STEVENS. I do want you to know we are grateful to you 

for what you are doing, and for what all of the Navy and Marine 

Corps are doing to support the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan and the war against terrorism. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Let me start off by saying this, that the Army and Air Force 

have informed us that because of the funds that have already been 

expended for these efforts that I mentioned, there will be a shortage in funds for operation and maintenance (O&M) for their services by sometime in May. Is that the situation with you also? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would say the summer, but it will vary 

from May to July, but the same time frame. 
172

Senator STEVENS. They said their initial shortages will start in 

May. Is that the situation with the Navy and Marines? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. General Hagee? 

General HAGEE. Yes, sir, it is. Without the supplemental that is 

a true statement, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Admiral Clark? 

Admiral CLARK. I will run out of money in June, the first part 

of June. 

SEA BASING

Senator STEVENS. We have just seen the situation that has developed because of our lack of access to the land mass of Turkey. I 

was reminded last night of the proposal that was outlined to us 

just informally by one of your predecessors, Admiral Clark, a man 

for whom I had great regard, and unfortunately he left us in a 

strange way, Admiral Boorda. 

He outlined the plans for a floating cargo type landing facility 

that could be easily moved from theater to theater. Whatever happened to his proposal? 

Admiral CLARK. I did not see the specifics of that proposal, Mr. 

Chairman, but I will tell you that when I talked about an exciting 

future for the Navy-Marine Corps team, I will tell you that as we 

look at the development of future ways to exploit the sea under our 

sea basing concept and construct, we have taken the approach that 

we are going to challenge every assumption, and in the coming 

years, it is not reflected in this budget because we are doing a lot 

of examination of potential concepts right now with the Marine 

Corps, looking at ways we can exploit the operational advantage 

and independence of operating from the sea. And so I will tell you 

that we believe that there is potential for new kinds of approaches 

and new kinds of platforms, and this is a key part of the Maritime 

Prepositioning Force (MPF) future concept. I will tell you that 2 

years ago when we heard the word MPF future——

Senator STEVENS. What does that mean? 

Admiral CLARK. That is the maritime preposition force for the 

Marine Corps. I will tell you that now General Hagee and I are 

looking at ways that that kind of capability can be exploited by 

both of us. And I will not try to define it this morning, Mr. Chairman, but I will tell you that I believe that our future is about exploiting those kind of potential opportunities. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I commend to you the research that Admiral Boorda had done, and urge you to go back and look at it to 

see what happened to it because it sort of disappeared, but I will 

not belabor it here now. 

General Hagee, I think it is clear that the concept of air superiority is something we must maintain. One of the things that we 

have been very interested in is the new cutting edge aircraft, the 

V–22. Tell us, what is the situation now? 

V–22 PROGRAM

General HAGEE. Sir, we continue to work on testing the V–22 

and I can report to you, sir, that that testing is going very well. 

We are about 80 to 85 percent finished with a high rate of dissent 
173

testing, which investigates the so-called vortex ring state phenomena where the aircraft comes down and actually flies through 

its own wash when it is in the helicopter mode. And what we have 

found is that the model accurately predicts what will happen to 

that aircraft when it enters its downwash. 

We have found that the envelope for the V–22 is actually larger 

than for a normal helicopter, in other words, it is not as vulnerable 

to this phenomena as a normal helicopter is. In addition, we have 

found that it is easier to exit this phenomena in the V–22, you simply rotate the nacelles forward and you go into horizontal flight 

and you fly out of it. 

We are also about 80 percent finished with the low speed maneuverability testing, and that is going very well. A couple months ago 

we landed on board amphibs, absolutely no problem at all. 

Through inspections we have found that the rubbing that was 

noticed before we did the redesign on the engine is no longer occurring, so I can report to you that that testing is going very well and 

I am very optimistic about the aircraft. 

Senator STEVENS. Good. Your predecessor made a commitment to 

me that I would ride on that very soon, and I believe it is one of 

the real significant portions of our aeronautical capabilities. You 

are testing a plane that will be used in the future not only by you 

but by the Army and by the civilian sector to a great extent. 

As a matter of fact, there is a civilian portion of it that has not 

had some of the problems that the larger ones have, as I understand it. So, I would hope you keep us posted. 

PRIOR YEAR SHIPBUILDING COSTS

Let me ask Secretary Johnson, and then I have to leave, Secretary Johnson, last year at the request of I believe your Department, added $635 million to the President’s budget request to help 

the Navy pay for shipbuilding cost overruns. My staff advises me 

that despite the fact we provided those funds to pay for those bills, 

that the overruns and deficits remain the same. What happened to 

the $635 million we provided last year? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sir, our deficits this year are the lowest they 

have been in, I think we said 10 years, and that is largely due to 

the great work that John Young is doing as our head of research, 

development and acquisition. We are watching those very carefully, 

and I can provide you the exact number. 

Senator STEVENS. Am I improperly advised that your bills for 

past overruns are—have been paid? I have been told they were not 

paid, despite the fact that we put up the $635. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sir, it is my understanding that they have 

been paid. This year the deferred ones are on the order of 100, 

which is less than it has been in 10 years or more. So the account 

is in better shape now than it has been in a long, long time. 

Senator STEVENS. Will you give us a statement for the record of 

the prior year bills that have not been paid for the Navy? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir, I will. 

[The information follows:]

Question. Explain status of overall PY bill throughout the FYDP to include why 

fiscal year 2004 PB request is the same as the fiscal year 2003 PB despite the Congressional increase. 
174

Answer. From PB03 to PB04 there was a $225.5 million increase in the overall 

PY bill (PB03—$3,546, PB04—$3,771.5). The $635 million Congressional increase in 

fiscal year 2003 was used to pay for this increase in the overall PY bill and to reduce the PY bill in fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2006 by $409.5 million. The upcoming 

PY bills were reduced as follows:

[In millions of dollars] 

PB03 PB04 Change 

Fiscal year: 

2004 .......................................................................................................................... 645.9 635.5 ¥10.4

2005 .......................................................................................................................... 743.7 484.4 ¥259.3

2006 .......................................................................................................................... 185.3 45.5 ¥139.8

Total ...................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ¥409.5

Question. Explain SECNAV’s statement that PY bill was in the ‘‘best shape it has 

ever been in’’. 

Answer. The initiatives described in our Prior Year Report to Congress of 2002 

February 2003 have been very effective in reducing the rate of increase in prior year 

shipbuilding costs. The prior year cost growth from the fiscal year 2003 President’s 

Budget request to the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget request is 6 percent, as 

compared to the 16 percent and 256 percent growth rates from the two previous 

budget submissions. 

Initiatives undertaken over the past year to address the prior year shipbuilding 

costs, and to prevent cost estimate increases in future programs include: (1) Elimination of configuration changes except to remedy Government responsible defects; 

(2) Executive oversight and new funding in addition to the budget baseline for mandatory changes in requirements; (3) Reinstitution of the Chief of Naval Operations 

(CNO) Ship Characteristics Improvement Panel Process; (4) Budgeting to Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) estimates; (5) Employment of Engineering Development Models to mitigate technology risk; and (6) Adjustment of scope prior to contract award to better ensure budget alignment. 

Question. Breakdown all cost increases (by platform) and provide the reason for 

the increase. 

Answer. In recent years, the shipbuilding industry has experienced material and 

labor escalation rates that exceeded the Department’s projections. Contributing factors include cost increases for health care and workman’s compensation costs that 

are not unique to the shipbuilding industry. 

A breakdown of all cost changes by platform (PB03 to PB04):

DDG 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

PB03 ......................................................................................... 125.5 59.4 70.2 38.1 ............ 293.2

PB04 ......................................................................................... 383.5 75.9 128.3 0 ............ 587.7

Change ..................................................................................... 258.0 16.5 58.1 ¥38.1 0 294.5

Reason for $294 million increase: 

—$100 million—Higher labor, overhead, & production hour estimates. 

—$96 million—PB03 budgeted change orders at 3 percent of basic, whereas historic data supports 5 percent. 

—$98 million—Increase in DDG 102 ship cost as a result of the ship being transferred from NGSS to BIW.

VA CLASS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year—

Total 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

PB03 ........................................................................... 276.682 213.1 254.4 75.8 .............. 820.0

PB04 ........................................................................... 326.7 300.4 91.3 38.7 .............. 757.1
175

VA CLASS—Continued

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year—

Total 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Change ....................................................................... 50.018 87.3 ¥163.1 ¥37.1 0 ¥62.882

Reason for $62.9 million decrease: 

—$62.9 million for Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) moved to the Post Delivery 

and Outfitting (PD/OF) line. 

—PSA costs are properly funded in PD/OF, not in ship end cost.

LPD 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year—

Total 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

PB03 ....................................................................................... 242.7 373.4 419.1 71.4 ............ 1,106.6

PB04 ....................................................................................... 569.7 259.2 264.8 6.8 ............ 1,100.5

Change ................................................................................... 327.0 ¥114.2 ¥154.3 ¥64.6 0 ¥6.1

Reasons for $6.1 million decrease: 

—$10 million of PB03 request absorbed by program. 

—$3.9 million net increase resulting from decrease in PYC bill, Swap, increases 

from higher CAIG estimate, and increases in shipyard rates.

IMMINENT DANGER PAY AND FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE

Senator STEVENS. I hope, gentlemen, you will excuse me. We had 

the Army hearing on March 19th and the Air Force hearing on 

March 26th, and I asked your predecessors, and maybe I should 

not just throw it at you, but we have an amendment pending that 

would increase the hazardous duty pay. 

In the Persian Gulf War, the amount going into the war was 

$100 and now it has increased to $150. Family separation was increased from $75 to $100. The proposal was to increase the $150 

to $400 and the $100 to $400, and that would come out of your existing appropriations. We are talking about fiscal year 2003 now, 

2003 bills. 

Have you looked into the question of the adequacy of the pay, we 

used to call it combat pay, you call it imminent danger pay, or family separation allowance? Has that been looked at yet by the Navy? 

Admiral CLARK. Mr. Chairman, that has not come before me and 

I have not looked at that issue, no. 

Senator STEVENS. I did some rough calculations and the increase 

in 1991 was a 36 percent increase, which was made permanent. As 

I said, it was raised from $110 to $150. We are in the position of 

having to go out to offer an amendment right now, and I wonder, 

when you say you have not studied it, have you studied it at all, 

Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Have you, sir? 

General HAGEE. Nor have we, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. I worry about the amount that has been proposed, a $400. We are prepared to go to about a 50 percent increase 

in each of those allowances, but to go to $400 is going to cost an 

enormous amount of money from the money that we have made 
176

available so far, and this is the last bill I believe we are going to 

have for Defense for fiscal year 2003, so it will be a matter of substantial problems to fund much more than a 50 percent increase. 

That would take the funds up from $150 to $225, and the separation from $100 to $150, but you still would have to absorb those 

increases. 

I would appreciate it if you would put some comments in the 

record with regard to those figures. 

[The information follows:]

The Congressionally proposed rate increase will entitle military personnel receiving Imminent Danger Pay (IDP), an additional $75 per month retroactive to October 

1, 2002, raising the statutory entitlement from $150 per month to $225 per month, 

and entitle military personnel receiving Family Separation Allowance (FSA), an additional $150 per month retroactive to October 1, 2002, raising the statutory entitlement from $100 per month to $250 per month. The increased rate is projected to 

cost Navy an additional $131.6 million ($48.9 million for IDP and $82.7 mission for 

FSA) and the Marine Corps $141.2 million ($67.8 million for IDP and $73.4 million 

for FSA) in fiscal year 2003. Funding is required to support the rate change for both 

this fiscal year and future years if the increased rate for the entitlement extends 

beyond October 1, 2003.

Senator STEVENS. The matter will be decided at least in the Senate before we get the replies. I do not know if my colleagues have 

looked into that. I am worried about the allowance because I do not 

foresee a substantial increase, but yet I do believe that because of 

changes in the level of pay between 1991 and now, that an increase 

in the imminent danger pay, and I think my colleagues will remember I raised that with, but we asked for a study by the Department here about what, 3 weeks ago. 

Gentlemen, I have to leave. Thank you very much. Senator 

Inouye. 

Senator INOUYE. My only comment, Mr. Chairman, is I doubt if 

anyone here would want to give anything less to our men and 

women in combat. For those in combat, $400 does not suffice, but 

the question before us will be if that means that we may have to 

forego procurement of munitions, procurement of ships, what choice 

do we take? Because there is a limit to what this Government can 

raise from our taxpayers. As one who has had a little experience 

in combat, every little dime is welcomed, no question about that, 

but if it means giving up ammunition, giving up weapons systems, 

we will have to give it a hard look. 

Secretary JOHNSON. You captured it very well, sir, and we would 

like to give more money to our combat people but protecting them 

with good equipment is equally or more important now. 

DEPLOYMENT DAYS

Senator INOUYE [presiding]. Admiral, may I ask you a question, 

sir? How many days per year has the average sailor spent deployed 

away from home since 9/11? 

Admiral CLARK. Senator, I do not have a specific answer for you, 

but I can certainly put it in perspective. The average sailor has 

spent more time away from home and underway since 9/11 than he 

did before. I do not have specifics. I have a policy in my Navy that 

we try to limit deployments to 6 months and then guarantee a twoto-one turnaround when they are home. I will tell you that I have 

violated that policy and when my people have asked me about it, 
177

I told them I will do the very best I can to hold to that, and that 

is a peacetime construct. 

But then I told them this: If them staying longer on deployment 

would make one difference in winning the global war on terrorism, 

that I would not blink twice about having them stay. And in the 

context of this current operation, I have several units that are over 

the 6-month period. 

NAVY RETENTION

Senator INOUYE. I was well aware, as you pointed out, that you 

spent less time deployed before 9/11 than since 9/11. I asked that 

question because I am amazed that with those numbers, your retention level has gone up. 

Admiral CLARK. If I can, I believe it is a tribute to the people 

and to the challenges we have given them, and it says a lot about 

America’s young people. And what we have tried to do, Senator, is 

say this: The young men and women—and by the way, 2 days ago 

I just reduced my retention goal for this year for the second time, 

I cut 3,000 more out of the retention objective, and the reason is 

because more and more people are staying in. 

What we have said to them is that we are going to do our best, 

we are going to commit ourselves. They promised to support and 

defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, 

foreign and domestic, and to obey the orders of the President and 

all the people in the chain of command. And I have challenged our 

leaders to, you know, what do we promise them in return? What 

we are promising them is a chance to make a difference, and I 

promised them that I am going to come up here and sit in front 

of this committee and talk to them about the things that our men 

and women need so that they have the right tools so they can get 

the job done. 

And Senator, you have been out there, you have seen them. They 

are fired up. They believe in what we are doing. They believe that 

we are engaged in a just cause, and it shows in their face and it 

shows in the work they are doing on station. 

RETIRING SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT

Senator INOUYE. Your plans for this budget request call for the 

retirement of 16 ships and I believe about 260 aircraft. In light of 

the mission that you have at this moment, can this be carried out? 

Admiral CLARK. Senator, I believe it is the right plan and let me 

describe it this way. The proposal to retire ships early, principally 

the ships of the 963 class, that recommendation from me to the 

Secretary and from him to the Secretary of Defense (SecDef), is 

built upon the belief that we need to retire those platforms that no 

longer bring the kind of combat capability to the point that we can 

retire those and we can accept the risk in retiring them. 

And this strategy retires old airplanes as fast as we possibly can. 

Yesterday, we lost an F–14 over southern Iraq. That is one of the 

classes of airplanes that I am recommending that we retire as rapidly as possible. It just turns out that the aircraft that went down 

was the oldest one in the wing, and one of our oldest airplanes. It 

is one of the most expensive airplanes to operate and maintain, because of its age. 
178

And I have talked to this committee before about the high age 

of our air force, and the only way out of this dilemma is to rapidly 

procure new aircraft, and the F–18E and F, which will take the 

place of the F–14, is currently on its first deployment and it is part 

of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and is performing brilliantly. So, 

Senator, those recommendations, those are hard choices. They were 

choices that I recommended because I believe that we should divert 

those resources to recapitalize and transform our Navy for the future, and I believe that this is the time to do it and I believe that 

the operational risk is acceptable. 

MARINE CORPS RETENTION

Senator INOUYE. General Hagee, the Marine Corps has traditionally surpassed any other service in recruiting goals. Since 9/11, 

have the trends kept up? 

General HAGEE. Yes, sir, they have. In fact, for this fiscal year, 

about the middle of the second quarter we were at 85 percent of 

our retention goal for the entire year. In November of this year, we 

will reach the hundredth month of having met mission on the enlisted side. On the officer side, our retention goals have never been 

better over the last 12 years. 

Senator INOUYE. It seems like your retention goals are better 

than the Naval Academy. Am I wrong on that? 

General HAGEE. I would have to check the numbers, Senator. I 

am not sure. 

NAVY RESERVE

Senator INOUYE. Admiral Clark, according to the statistics that 

we have received, compared to the Army, Air Force and Marine 

Corps, the Navy has called a substantially low proportion of its 

Ready Reservists to active duty. Can you tell us why? 

Admiral CLARK. Yes, I can. We currently have about 10,500, the 

number changes every day and is growing, and we have authorized 

in the neighborhood of 12,000 and some of them are in the process, 

but it is fundamentally because we do not have to have Reserves 

to conduct the kind of operations, with the force structure that we 

have to call forward, we do not need more than we have called up. 

We have been very careful with the number that we have called 

up because we wanted to make sure that we have got jobs with 

real requirements and real job content for the people that we have 

called up. And I will tell you, Senator, that a large number of those 

that we have called up have been for force protection. But on the 

ships and in the squadrons and in the submarines themselves, we 

do not require the Reserves for us to conduct these combat operations. So it is the way our forces are shaped. 

I will tell you also that after 9/11, we saw areas where we had 

force structure, an example would be harbor security kinds of capabilities, that existed only in the Reserve structure. And it became 

clear to us that we were going to have to recreate some of that in 

the active force. And so in the last 2 years we have been adding 

active duty people in the force protection area and in some of these 

areas that I addressed like harbor security and so forth, so we 

would not have to rely solely and completely on recalled Reservists. 
179

FLEET SIZE

Senator INOUYE. Admiral, the Administration speaks of a 310 

ship fleet and the Department of the Navy 375. What number 

should this committee follow? 

Admiral CLARK. Well, obviously the Secretary of Defense when 

they speak to it, and the Quadrennial Defense Review had numbers in it that identified the program for the current force. They 

have, and the Secretary of Defense has commented on this in congressional testimony, and when the question was asked about Admiral Vern Clark talking about the number 375, he has given me 

the leeway to talk about what I believe a longer range projection 

is for the right number of ships in the Navy. 

In the context of our current program and our current—the program that we have today, that number is in the low 300s, but the 

proposal that I have before you now takes us down under 300. It 

is not the objective that we want and that we believe that we need. 

So, I have used the number about 375. I do not believe numbers 

alone are the right answer. For example, I could give you a program that would give you 375 ships that were not the right kind 

of capability. Capability is more important to me than the numbers 

per se, but the Secretary has given me the authority to talk about 

a vision for the future and where I believe it needs to go. 

And so I believe when you look at the kinds of missions that are 

going to come to us in the future, you look at the addition of the 

Littoral combatant ship, the capability that we are going to have 

to add to dominate the near land areas, when you look at the addition of things like missile defense and sea based missile defense, 

I believe those numbers are going to grow. I cannot tell you exactly 

what the number is this morning, Senator, but I believe that the 

375 target is about correct. 

HARRIER

Senator INOUYE. Let me now go to the Marines. Does the Marine 

Corps intend to use the Harrier in operations in Iraq? I say this 

because according to articles we have read, that aircraft has been 

plagued with problems. 

General HAGEE. Sir, the Harrier is in Iraq right now. We have 

a number of them flying, almost every night. Their availability is 

about 75 percent, which is extremely good. We have a squadron flying out of Baghram, Afghanistan. They are flying every night. 

Their availability is over 90 percent, and they are flying at night 

and being maintained during the day. We are very happy with the 

performance of the Harrier to date. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Senator Cochran. 

SHIPBUILDING

Senator COCHRAN. Admiral Clark, I was interested in your comments in response to Senator Inouye’s question about the shipbuilding rate and the number of ships that are projected to be 

needed by the Navy over the next several years. Our challenge is 

to put a number in the appropriations bill for this next fiscal year 

that meets our near-term needs and what can be foreseen just for 

next year or the next. So I wonder if you have in mind a suggestion 
180

to the committee about how we can most effectively use funding for 

shipbuilding in the near term. 

Admiral CLARK. Well, the program recommendation is the recommendation for what we can do in the near term, Senator, and 

I would say this. I have testified before this committee now, this 

is my third year, talking about my belief that we need to take 

every measure that we can to level fund the major acquisition accounts. I believe that is a two-way street. I think we have to do 

our part, and one of the reasons I am so pleased about this submission is that it commits a significant addition in the major investment accounts over last year. 

We have worked hard to find resources to commit to the shipbuilding and aircraft acquisition accounts. You know, last year’s 

submission had five ships; for this year, this has seven. It is capability, not just numbers, but as you look at the projection, we have 

diverted $39 billion in this multiyear program and we have put 

that toward shipbuilding. I believe, and there have been studies, 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did a study that talked about 

the total amount of investment that needed to be made long-term 

to support future modernization and transformation requirements, 

and I have testified that I believe that we need to be planning on 

a level fund of $12 billion a year in new construction, so that we 

get the best kind of balance. That would be the best balance that 

we could put forward. 

And we have done studies, for example, with the war games actually, with the shipbuilding industry that said if we could get to 

a level funding approach, we actually would produce more product, 

we would be a better partner and we would produce more product 

for each dollar that the taxpayer puts into shipbuilding. So, I would 

say that that means then that multiyear stands us in high, because 

they fit that mold, multiyears are good. 

If you look at what has gone in Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD)-

A, an incremental approach to funding that has allowed use to proceed with construction without having the spike of it in 1 year. The 

split funding approach that is in this budget for the carrier in fiscal 

year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 is I believe the right way to do 

these kinds of things. 

Senator COCHRAN. We appreciate your leadership in helping figure out how we can most efficiently use scarce funds that are available to us and meet the needs that we have to continue to keep 

forces deployed in areas that are so important to our national security. 

In that connection, General Hagee, I know you have some 30 

ships deployed to the operation theater, I think 32 are forward deployed in support of current operations, I hope that is not classified. But with so many of our Marines and amphibious ships forward deployed, I have to ask the question, do we have enough Amphibious Transport Dock (LPDs) and LHDs to meet future requirements? 

General HAGEE. I believe the ones we have on the books right 

now will meet our future requirement. I can tell you we need the 

LPD–17, we need all 12 of them, and we need them as soon as we 

can based upon the resources that we have. 
181

Senator COCHRAN. I notice the LPD–17, which Admiral Clark 

mentioned we are going to see launched here in a couple of months 

at the Avondale Shipyard on the Gulf Coast, what are your 

thoughts about the LPD–17 program profile? I notice you have 

funds requested for fiscal year 2004, but no LPD is in the fiscal 

year 2005 plan. Should we do something about that? 

Admiral CLARK. Well, we put forward a recommendation again. 

When you do this whole program, you put together the program in 

the best balance that we knew how to put it together, Senator. And 

so we had a number of ships under construction, and so we left fiscal year 2005 that way, with then a couple in fiscal year 2006, and 

the whole idea was that we had ships under construction when we 

thought—you know, it is enough, and we would look at it again in 

fiscal year 2005 to see—you know, one of our responsibilities, and 

John Young as the acquisition official who works the industrial 

base balance questions all the time. So the way we put it together 

for the fiscal year 2004 submit was the best way we knew how to 

balance the total resources that we had, and that is what we recommended. 

I do know that there have been unsolicited proposals that have 

been submitted to Secretary Young looking at potential ways to 

work through that void in fiscal year 2005. I do not know the specifics and details of that recommendation and frankly, that is not 

in my area of authority or responsibility. Secretary Young will deal 

with that kind of unsolicited proposal. 

But I have been, I believe rock solid in my testimony on this. 

Last year when people asked me, I said my first priority is to get 

the LPD line healthy and producing, and I am extremely pleased 

with where we stand now. You know, we introduced this ship and 

we had this computer aided design approach, it was new, we experienced the kind of things that one experiences when they are 

going through new first time ever kind of developments. We are at 

a stage now where we are reaping the benefits of that computer 

aided design, in the acquisition process. 

So the program is healthy. General Hagee said it right, we believe that this ship is a tremendously capable ship, and provides 

the kind of lift that the Marine Corps needs. And it is at, from 

where I sit, it is going to be a key part of the Marine Corps structure in expeditionary strike groups which we talk about in our 

written testimony, our vision for the way this force is going to operate and function in the future, LPD–17 is going to be a key part 

of it. 

HOMEPORTING

Senator COCHRAN. One of the other concerns I have is the Navy’s 

plan for the future of the use of home ports around the country. 

Back in the 1980s a decision was made to distribute ships among 

several or numerous home ports around the United States, and 

then there came along something called a fleet concentration area 

plan which was based on trying to achieve maintenance and supply 

efficiencies. 

One thing that concerns me, if we get too carried away about 

concentration and putting all our ships in one place or just a few 

places, in the face of the terrorist threats, does this make us more 
182

vulnerable to a cataclysmic event that would look like Pearl Harbor, or would we be wiser to think through that again and think 

about distribution for safety’s sake? Is anybody thinking about 

that? Mr. Secretary, maybe that is a question that is a good one 

for you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We always think about that, sir. We have to 

make the trade-off of the cost involved of protecting the ships no 

matter where they are and also the maintenance associated. As we 

look at the great armada that we have at sea now, when we bring 

them back we will have to maintain them, and that will be a great 

expense. There is a trade-off between dispersion and protection, 

and we look at that continuously, sir. 

PATROL COASTAL CRAFT

Senator COCHRAN. One of the programs that you mentioned, Admiral Clark was the Littoral combat ship program. This is an exciting new program, and I am told that in fiscal year 2005 the Navy 

is considering transferring five of its patrol coastal craft to the 

Coast Guard and decommissioning the remaining eight patrol craft. 

I wonder, before we get too far along on that plan, whether consideration can be given to transferring the remaining patrol craft to 

the Navy Reserve. I was told that they would like to have those 

under their responsibility with a mission that may very well make 

good sense. Have you had an opportunity to look at that and has 

a final decision been made? 

Admiral CLARK. We have had discussions, Senator, and in fact 

we have had discussions with the Coast Guard. I do not know if 

it is widely known or not, but on 9/11 the second call I made was 

to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and we talked about a 

memorandum of understanding between the two of us that we had 

just signed. And we have had one for a number of years but we 

had renewed it, sharpened it on points that we needed to, and that 

memorandum is about going to war and that in wartime the Coast 

Guard would become an operating support of the Navy. 

And I told him that day, I said obviously this one is different, 

so tell me what you need. And then in the ensuing weeks, I transferred all 13 of them to him, and we have been operating. There 

have been discussions about potential distribution, because indications are that the Coast Guard will not need all 13 on a full-time 

basis. There have not been decisions made, so for me to make a 

comment about potential distribution would be premature, and 

that will have to be submitted up the chain of command for a decision and approval. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator COCHRAN. You mentioned missile defense capabilities 

and the tracking of missiles by the Navy ships, and the support 

you are giving to the operations in the Persian Gulf area. I understand you do have plans to upgrade several Arleigh Burke class destroyers with significant missile defense capability. Can you give us 

some idea of that program? 

Admiral CLARK. Absolutely. Thank you for asking the question. 

The President announced last year that we would develop an interim sea based capability in fiscal year 2004. And in my guidance 
183

to the Navy for this year, I laid out the direction for us to develop 

the path to achieve that objective. The last 12 or 13 months has 

been an extraordinarily successful period for the Navy and the missile defense program. We have had six tests, 100 percent success 

in all six of them, three tracking events and three firing events. 

And so, the Missile Defence Agency runs this program. The Missile Defense Agency was thinking about and proposing to build a 

test ship, and in cooperation with key players in the Office of the 

Secretary of the Navy, and I am talking specifically about John 

Young, the Secretary and myself, and key members of our team, we 

made the decision to offer an existing ship to speed up this process. 

And we are going to commit the U.S.S. Lake Erie to the full-time 

testing that operates in Hawaii full time to rapidly develop this capability. It is our belief that this is the right thing to do for the 

country. 

The capability that we have demonstrated in the last year, we 

have taken that and we are still in research and development, but 

we have taken that tracking capability and we have been using it 

in the theater of operations and it has been very successful. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple 

more questions but I did not want to encroach on anyone else’s 

time. 

UAV PROGRAM

I know in these unmanned vehicles such as Global Hawk, Fire 

Scout, and others that are under development, the Navy is investing substantially in this technology. General Jumper last week referred to the Global Hawk when we had the Air Force before our 

subcommittee as a very effective low level satellite in terms of capability. What are the plans of the Navy specifically in using this 

technology in the future? 

Secretary JOHNSON. First of all, Admiral Clark and General 

Jumper are working very, very closely in the unmanned air vehicle 

program. The Marine Corps has the Pioneer, which General Hagee 

can talk about, but we are moving forward on unmanned vehicles 

in all media, in the air obviously, underwater, and we are working 

very closely with the other services, most closely with the Air Force 

of course. 

Admiral CLARK. Senator, this is one of the major changes between last year and this year in our submission. We are moving 

forward strongly in the UAV program. There is $3.6 billion across 

the FYDP in the program, and as the Secretary said, General 

Jumper and I are working real closely together. 

In February one of the S&T programs for the unmanned combat 

air vehicle, the first flight was conducted on February 23. We have 

put resources against the development of another vehicle, and Secretary Young is working in concert with the Air Force to accelerate 

this kind of capability. We are investing in two Global Hawks ourselves. 

We are seeing now the vertical take-off UAV that has been in development, we are now seeing the potential utility in that vehicle 

for our new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), and so we see a lot of potential here. We are also very interested in developing long dwell 

surveillance capability that we believe will be best done in an un-
184

manned vehicle because of the ability to persist long on station 

times without the wear and tear on people, and that kind of long 

duration capability, crucial for us to dominate the battle space in 

the maritime domain. 

So this budget has significant additions for the Navy and we are 

moving out as rapidly as we know how to move out in this area 

that we believe is going to greatly improve our warfighting effort. 

LIGHTWEIGHT 155 HOWITZER PROGRAM

Senator COCHRAN. My last question which I am going to submit, 

and then I will have a question or two to submit for the record, is 

to General Hagee. I notice the budget request includes funding for 

60 lightweight 155 howitzers. Could you provide us an assessment 

of that how this program is progressing. 

General HAGEE. Yes, sir, I can. The program is actually progressing very well. We are in the operational test phase of the program. We are quite excited about it. It is going to provide us the 

ability to lift heavy artillery with the Osprey. 

The digital fire control is somewhat behind in its development, 

but we are going to purchase that when it is available. We project 

that will be available probably one to 2 years after we actually 

start receiving the lightweight 155, but all the mounts will be on 

the artillery piece and as soon as it is available, we will purchase 

it. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate you 

being here today, and thank you all for what you are doing to serve 

our country. I have a family affection for the Navy as I had two 

brothers who served during the Korean War, and I have a political 

and personal connection to the Marine Corps by virtue of the fact 

that the first man I ever worked for on Capitol Hill was a Senator 

from Illinois named Paul Douglas, who in 1942 enlisted in the Marine Corps and went through basic training in Parris Island at the 

age of 50. And that is still amazing as I reflect on what he did in 

the service. He served in combat in the South Pacific and suffered 

a serious wound, but went on to a great public career. I thank you 

all for being here today. 

FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE AND IMMINENT DANGER PAY

One of the things that I would like to reflect on was brought to 

my attention by Senator Inouye on the floor of the Senate, who 

rose one day to make a point that I think we should all keep in 

mind. And that is in World War II, maybe you will remember the 

exact percentage, Senator, but you told us that I believe over 80 

percent of the people in uniform in that war were single, not married, and I believe today that statistic has changed dramatically, 

that the majority of those in service to our country are married 

with families. Could you tell us for the record if you know, in each 

of your branches, what percentage of your personnel are married 

today? 

General HAGEE. Yes, sir, I can. As you know, the Marine Corps 

is a relatively young force, but even though we are a young force, 

44 percent of our personnel are married today. 
185

Senator DURBIN. Admiral. 

Admiral CLARK. Senator, I do not have the number, I will provide it for the record, but what we are fond of saying is that we 

know that we recruit individuals and we retain families, and the 

major focus of our retention effort is to make sure we are touching 

families and dealing with their needs. So there is no question about 

that the numbers have changed dramatically over time. 

[The information follows:]

Fifty-three percent of Navy Enlisted personnel and 76 percent of Navy Officer personnel are married.

Secretary JOHNSON. That is particularly true at this time, sir. I 

was up at Bethesda yesterday and the families were there. We care 

about the families at home very much. Our sailors and Marines forward are not as concerned about their own safety as they are that 

their families are well cared for, and everybody goes out of their 

way to take care of the families. 

Senator DURBIN. The estimates I have read, Mr. Secretary, suggest that about 60 percent of the servicemen now in the war zone 

in Iraq have families back home, servicemen and women have families back home. And that is the reason why I wanted to speak for 

a moment and ask your thoughts about an issue. When I meet with 

these families, as I recently did at the Rock Island Arsenal back 

in my home State, I find of course they are extremely proud of the 

member of the family that is serving, they are encouraging it, praying for them, as we are all very proud of them. 

But they are also facing some unusual hardships that may not 

have been the case even a few years ago, hardships involving 

childcare, involving medical expense, additional expenses related to 

the separation. And I was surprised to read and learn that the current family separation allowance is $100 a month, and that the imminent danger pay, the combat pay is $150 a month. I think that 

perhaps those, particularly the family separation allowance, was a 

figure that was established at a time when fewer servicemen and 

women came to serve our country with a family or had a family, 

and may not reflect the reality of the cost of service to those families. 

One of the amendments which I hope to offer to the supplemental to the Appropriations Bill will attempt to increase both the 

imminent danger pay as well as the family separation allowance, 

and I am working with Senator Inouye and others to try to find 

if there is a way to do this in a bipartisan fashion. Could you either, General Hagee or Admiral Clark, or the Secretary, reflect on 

the concerns that you hear expressed by the families of those who 

have been activated to serve, beyond the obvious, that they want 

their loved ones home as quickly and as safely as possible. General? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Can I say something first? 

Senator DURBIN. Of course. 

Secretary JOHNSON. You make a very interesting observation. 

The current environment with family members is much different 

now. We have women who are quite involved in almost every aspect of our business, not necessarily as a rifle person. And we have 

a bigger problem of oftentimes a husband and wife being in the 

military. And it looks really bad when we send both of them off to 
186

war, but yet, that is what they trained and desire to do, and when 

we have to execute it, it looks like we do not care. We care very 

much and we try very hard to take care, and particularly where 

they have children, they have to have well laid out plans to care 

for them. 

Senator DURBIN. General? 

General HAGEE. Obviously the most important things for the 

families is that their Marine or sailor is well-trained and wellarmed and well-prepared so that they will come back. That is obvious. And as Senator Inouye was really quite articulate on this, on 

how we balance how much money we are able to pay them, as compared to how much money we put into procurement and insuring 

that they are properly trained and armed is something that we 

have to work with the committee on. So the number one thing is 

they want them to come back. 

I think we have to look at this from a holistic standpoint. If I 

could give you one example, the impact of family separation allowance and hazardous duty pay that has occurred to a Marine family 

out in California, and I strongly support family separation allowance and hazardous duty pay, I am not sure that we pay them 

enough for that, and I am not sure that we can pay them enough 

for that, but we come back to the balance again. But this particular 

Marine had a child that needed special care and was getting that 

from the State of California, and the State of California was providing about $80,000 a year in care for this child, and that was 

based on the income of this particular Marine. When he was deployed to the Gulf, he received family separation allowance and he 

received hazardous duty pay. That put him above the line, and 

California by law was ready to take that funding away from him. 

We are working that issue, I think that we can solve that issue, 

but that is why I say we have to look at this from a holistic standpoint, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. But what concerns do you hear expressed by 

the families, aside from that very extraordinary one case? Do you 

hear any particular concerns of the families of your Marines that 

are left behind in terms of their economic situation? 

General HAGEE. There are concerns. I have been a Marine for 35 

years, I have deployed quite often. I know firsthand what happens 

when an individual Marine leaves their family. The costs actually 

go up, they do not go down. As the Secretary mentioned, that is 

especially true today when we have male Marines, female Marines, 

sometimes they are married, sometimes they are not. They may 

have children. They have particular challenges and I have heard 

those concerns from the families, yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. Admiral Clark? 

Admiral CLARK. I recall vividly being an ensign in the Navy and 

being off on my first deployment, and family separation was a dollar a day. Like any kind of pay like that, it has to have—you must 

periodically review to see if it is at the right level. I am not hearing 

about family separation pay. 

The one issue I am hearing raised is the issue of the tax exclusion, which is, to most of our people is a significant financial issue 

and so that when they are in a combat zone and war, it makes a 

difference. And the issue of it being addressed from my folks is that 
187

I have a large force in the Eastern Mediterranean and they are not 

in it. 

I will tell you that we have a large family support structure that 

is a formal part of our Navy life whether we are at war or not, and 

it runs on the back of volunteers and people who are determined 

to be involved, and they make it work. 

Senator DURBIN. I am not going to dwell any further on this 

other than to say to you, Admiral, that we are particularly proud 

to have your training facility at Great Lakes in my State, and I 

have visited there and seen the wonderful work that is being done 

there, and we want to continue to help you in any way we can to 

train the sailors to serve our Nation. 

Admiral CLARK. Thank you very much for your support, and 

Great Lakes is doing superbly. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator 

Inouye. 

Senator INOUYE. Senator Domenici. 

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

sorry I was late, I had to be somewhere else, but I hurried. 

First, I want to take just a minute to do what I hope to do every 

time I have the military before me in the future. I am convinced 

that the story of this war is going to be told for a long time and 

it is going to be what kind of men and women are these Americans. 

It is absolutely fantastic for Americans and the world to see the behavior of these young men and women. That is the story. They are 

warriors but they are gentlemen. They are warriors but they are 

considerate, they are articulate. What kind of training they get and 

what kind of esprit de corps and spirit they have is beyond what 

I could have expected from any group of Americans or any group 

of humans, so we are doing something very right. 

We have had books written about other generations of American 

warriors and I have read them. Now I am seeing these, and I do 

not think the past books about American valor or American military men or women, I do not think what we are seeing, I think it 

far exceeds anything written about previous generations of American fighters. It will be the story, what kind of men and women are 

there and how did we happen to bring them up that way. Concerning what goes on in American streets and American neighborhoods and American families in terms of the difficulties we have, 

it is truly something kind of miraculous that is happening with reference to the transition that the training and bringing of them together has brought. 

NAVY PROGRAMS IN NEW MEXICO

So I say that for openers, and then I just have a couple local 

issues. Believe it or not, even in the State of New Mexico where 

things are very dry, the Navy has a program going for water desalinization, and I just wanted to commend you for the work being 

done on it. It is being done on a very large inland aquifer in New 

Mexico, it is $6 or $7 million, I believe being spent, and I want to 

commend you for bringing the technology together, I think better 

than anyone else has brought it together. We may see some breakthroughs as a result, and we want to thank you for that and wish 
188

that program success not only for the Navy but for the United 

States. 

Secondly, there is a most incredible observatory that the Navy is 

building in the State of New Mexico also, it is called the Magdalena 

Ridge Observatory. It is a new kind of observatory on top of a very 

beautiful mountain, and when it is finished, this new approach to 

observing outer space is going to magnify what we can see by many 

fold. It will not look like a telescope and those things related to it, 

it is something completely different. So as one who is a primary 

supporter of this new approach, this program which is going to create a new method for observing outer space, is also something the 

Navy can be very proud of, and I want to commend you and thank 

you for the work that is being done on that. 

Are you aware of that, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We expect to have the 

groundbreaking on the 20th of October of this year. 

And the first one you talked about, we know more and more, 

anyplace we go, we have to take care of the water. Just drilling and 

drinking and using the water around the world does not work and 

in our business, a lot of it is on the seacoast, and of course we have 

the reverse osmosis plants to take care of the fresh water, but seawater is quite different. 

Senator DOMENICI. I will tell you that the only significant breakthrough on clean water is also in New Mexico technology, you all 

are using it in the Marines. Have you seen any Marines carrying 

around a water purification device that looks like a fountain pen, 

General? 

General HAGEE. No, sir, I have not. 

Senator DOMENICI. They are practicing with it now. It is the size 

of a thick fountain pen and literally, you can take a glass of muddy 

water with whatever bugs, bacteria are in it, and you can purify 

it if you do not mind drinking muddy water, and you can drink it, 

and it is absolutely pure. 

Secretary JOHNSON. It probably tastes better at night. 

Senator DOMENICI. That is an invention that came out of one of 

the laboratories and actually it is quite the thing. And I would assume the next conflict, if there is one, everybody will be using 

those, but only a few thousand are using them now. It is an interesting invention. 

I also have one other item that I want to comment on with reference to technology. The Navy has a high energy laser-testing program in New Mexico, it is called High Energy Laser (HEL). The 

Army has a program there that is not moving as rapidly, but I 

want to express my interest in the testing that is going on there, 

which has been putting pressure on the Army to move ahead a little more quickly. That is to defend against anti-ship cruise missiles. It is the first study that will prove the feasibility of killing 

a missile head on with reference to something like the cruise missile coming in our direction. And again, that is moving ahead with 

great dispatch and right on target, and I wanted to comment on it 

and thank you for that effort. 

Secretary JOHNSON. And we understand it takes a different approach than some of the airborne lasers and others, it is a new type 

of laser, and we are very excited, as you are aware. 
189

Senator DOMENICI. That is correct. I will put something into the 

record that goes into one of those in a little more detail. I thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I apologize for keeping the committee. Thank you all. 

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)

Senator INOUYE. My last question is to the Commandant. The 

Joint Strike Fighter will be the future Marine Corps fixed wing 

strike fighter. I gather it will replace the Harrier and the current 

F–18C and D, and you have no plans to purchase the F–18E and 

F. What is the status of the JSF now? 

General HAGEE. Sir, you are absolutely correct on what our plans 

are. The Joint Strike Fighter will replace both the F–18C and D 

that we have, and the Harriers, and we are going to wait and not 

purchase the E and F, we are going to wait for the Joint Strike 

Fighter, which is currently in the system development phase. 

My reports are that it is going relatively well. There is some recent concern about weight growth, we expect that during this 

phase about a 6 to 8 percent weight growth, both for the Short 

Take-Off and Landing (STOL) version and the carrier (CV) version; 

it is above that right now. We are talking with the contractor, sharing our concern with them about that weight growth. 

Senator INOUYE. I suppose you have concerns over the Navy’s F–

18 and the Air Force F–22, do you not? 

General HAGEE. No, sir, we do not. I think the Navy has made 

the absolute right decision to go to the E and F during this interim 

period. Admiral Clark has already talked about legacy systems and 

how he wants to move legacy systems out. We believe, firmly believe that during this intervening period that the Cs and Ds and 

the Harriers will stand us in good stead. 

I have to say, we look forward to having the Joint Strike Fighter, 

especially as we move into tac air integration, and the efficiencies 

that that is going to provide us where we have one common air 

frame, common pilot training, common mechanic training, it is 

going to provide us great efficiencies. At the same time, it is going 

to significantly increase the operational effectiveness. 

Admiral Clark has talked about this significant range increase 

that we will get with the Joint Strike Fighter, which means we 

need less gas and less tankers. 

Secretary JOHNSON. In our current environment we find that 

most often the critical element is fuel, refueling, and these aircraft 

will give us much longer range, and Admiral Clark has some wonderful examples. 

Admiral CLARK. If I might comment on this, Senator, I would 

like to talk about, I think it is important for all of us to keep learning. I tell all of my leaders that we all have to keep learning and 

I am continuing to learn, and my biggest lesson learned from Afghanistan in these current operations is the importance of combat 

range. We have told you the stories about our pilots flying from a 

carrier to Afghanistan, some of those missions 700, 800, 900 miles 

in range, and 7 or 8 hours in the cockpit. Several times going to 

the tanker. 

We have an E and F that, they are on their maiden deployment 

right now on the U.S.S. Abe Lincoln. The U.S.S. Nimitz will come 
190

into the theater in the next few days, I will not talk about specific 

time on it, but the E and F is doing so well, we springboarded some 

of the airplanes forward while the U.S.S. Nimitz was en route, and 

the U.S.S. Nimitz E and Fs are in theater flying off of the U.S.S. 

Lincoln right now. 

The reason it is important is that it has 40 to 50 percent more 

combat range, and so they can get to the target without tanking. 

It is also important because this airplane can go with Cs, and Ds 

for that matter, and it has such a much bigger payload, and we can 

load it up with fuel and the E and F can fuel three or four other 

airplanes and get them to the target area, without going to the big 

airplane for fuel. 

As good as that is, the JSF is going to be even better. The projection is that it will fly 800 miles unrefueled out and back to the target area. That kind of capability, we would not—the whole investment in the tanking structure will be totally different for Navy air. 

So we are very pleased with what is going on in the E and F. 

I am in an enviable position. I have got an effective program that 

is performing, is delivering on time and performing very well in the 

battle space. JSF is still going to bring us important things that 

I very much want, an improved, designed in from the beginning, 

improved reliability. It will in fact change—and this is why when 

the Commandant and I put together the Navy-Marine Corps tac air 

integration program, it was based upon these new factors that 

allow us not to have to replace airplanes on a one-for-one basis. 

And so, this kind of delivery of this capability is important, and 

this budget we have invested significantly in JSF. 

Senator INOUYE. Senator Cochran? 

Senator COCHRAN. I have no further questions. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator INOUYE. If not, Mr. Secretary, Admiral Clark, General 

Hagee, thank you very much. Your full statements will be made 

part of the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HANSFORD T. JOHNSON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

NAVAL FORCES—SOUTHERN COMMAND

Question. Do you have plans to relocate the headquarters of Southern Command’s 

Navy Forces from Puerto Rico? 

Answer. In August 2001 the Secretary of Defense directed all Combatant Commanders to review overseas basing requirements and to examine opportunities for 

joint use of facilities and land by the Services, consolidate infrastructure, and enhance training. The study, which was recently completed, did not recommend any 

changes that were not already contemplated to either our overseas forces or basing 

structure. While the Department of Defense is continuing to examine its overseas 

basing and presence within the context of a global strategy, Commander, U.S. Naval 

Forces Southern Command is expected to remain at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads 

for the foreseeable future. 

Question. What locations are you considering? 

Answer. The relocation of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command is 

not under consideration at this time. 
191

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (F–35) PROGRAM PROGRESS

Question. Highlight the progress the Joint Strike Fighter is making. 

Answer. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program continues moving forward in the 

early design stages of the program. It is 16 months into a 126-month Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. Design milestones the program passed 

early this year include numerous sub-system Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs) 

encompassing Mission Systems and Air Vehicle Systems that lead up to the Air System PDR in March. The March 2003 PDR has not been completed due to weight 

concerns with JSF, particularly in the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) 

variant. A Blue Ribbon Action Team has been convened to review mitigation measures and a final report is due in June 2003. 

The Pratt and Whitney F135 engine will complete its Critical Design Review in 

May 2003 leading to the F135 First Engine to Test currently planned for September 

2003. First flight of the Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant of the 

F–35 is currently planned for the 4th Quarter calendar year 2005. First flight for 

the STOVL aircraft is scheduled for 2nd Quarter calendar year 2006 and the first 

flight of the Carrier (CV) JSF variant is scheduled for 1st Quarter calendar year 

2007. 

The F–35 is the Department’s largest cooperative development program. In fiscal 

year 2002, the F–35 program successfully concluded SDD cooperative agreements 

with seven additional international partners: Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, 

Norway, Italy, Turkey, and Australia. Including the United Kingdom, this brings 

the total number of international partners to eight. 

V–22

Question. Provide a detailed update on the progress the V–22 program is making. 

Answer. The V–22 program is currently mandated to continue production at the 

minimum sustaining rate until the Secretary of Defense certifies this aircraft meets 

the requirements outlined in Section 123 of the fiscal year 2002 National Defense 

Authorization Act. The program continues to ensure a methodical and event driven 

test flight program to validate all engineering and software changes. Program reviews have been comprehensive; the organizational, technical and programmatic 

issues are well addressed. The plan represents a rational ‘‘event driven’’ approach 

to flight testing. 

The V–22 has flown over 400 flight hours (as of May 2003) since return to flight 

May 29, 2002 and has accomplished the following: 

—Three Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) aircraft have returned to flight. 

—Three Low Rate Initial Production aircraft have been modified and delivered 

early or on time. 

—CV–22 EMD Aircraft 9 has accomplished 40 percent more test points than 

planned in the Benefield Anechoic Chamber (BAF) at Edwards AFB CA, resulting in a significant flight test savings. 

—EMD CV–22, Aircraft 7 is progressing well thru multi-mode terrain following 

radar testing to include flat rolling and isolated peak at over 200 kts. 

—Simultaneous deployments to U.S.S. IWO JIMA (shipboard suitability) and Fort 

Bragg, NC (parachute loads testing). 

Since return to flight the V–22 program has had no hydraulic failures or software 

anomalies attributed to earlier mishaps. 

MINE WARFARE FUNDING AND CAPABILITY

Question. What funding is there in the 2004 request for mine warfare and what 

will it enable you to do? 

Answer. The Department of Navy (DON) budget request for fiscal year 2004 is 

$734 million. The DON commitment to maintain readiness of the dedicated Mine 

Countermeasure (MCM) Force is balanced with the requirements to fund transformational capabilities, to include: the development of seven organic MCM systems 

to integrate into Battle Groups, replacing diver and mammal with unmanned systems, and the development of a modular MCM capability from the Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS). The mine warfare ships, helicopters, and Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD) force demonstrated their readiness in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, by clearing mines from Iraqi waterways and opening the port of Umm Qasr for humanitarian relief supplies. Highlights of the request include: 

Organic Airborne MCM (OAMCM).—To meet the DON’s goal of an organic mine 

warfare capability by fiscal year 2005, the fiscal year 2004 budget continues the development and integration of five OAMCM subsystems into the MH–60S platform. 
192

The notional plan for consideration by companies planning proposals for the LCS 

Flight 0 design is that the OAMCM systems would be part of the mission modules 

on the LCS, giving the LCS great flexibility to support the Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups (CSG/ESG) in the MCM role. 

ALMDS/AQS–20A.—In fiscal year 2005, the Navy will introduce the 

minehunting suite of OAMCM systems. The AN/AQS–20A Advanced 

Minehunting Sonar and Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) (AN/

AES–1) are scheduled for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in fiscal year 

2005. The ALMDS will detect near surface and floating mines with a water-penetrating laser, while the AN/AQS–20A will detect, classify, and identify moored 

and bottom mines with a towed sonar/laser system. The DON is requesting 

$17.2 million for the AN/AQS–20A to continue system developmental testing, 

and $21.9 million to complete developmental testing and award two AN/AES–

1 Low Rate Initial Production units. 

RAMICS/AMNS.—In fiscal year 2007, the Navy will introduce the mine neutralization suite of OAMCM systems. The Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMICS) (AN/AWS–2) is being developed to neutralize the near surface 

and floating mines found by ALMDS. The RAMICS uses a supercavitating 

30 mm projectile to pierce the mine case, causing deflagration of the mine explosive, and flooding of the case. The DON is requesting $31.2 million to complete 

critical design review and begin developmental testing of AN/AWS–2. The Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) is being developed to counter deeper 

moored mines and visible bottom mines and DON is requesting $14.5 million 

to continue development through critical design reviews. The AMNS uses tethered, small expendable neutralization vehicles to approach the mine and destroy 

the mine with an explosive charge. 

OASIS.—In fiscal year 2008, the Navy will introduce the Organic Airborne 

and Surface Influence Sweep (OASIS) system. The OASIS will generate magnetic and acoustic signals to satisfy the firing logic of influence mines, causing 

them to actuate. The DON is requesting $14.8 million for completion of critical 

design review and commencement of development testing. 

LMRS.—The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $56.1 million funding to continue 

the development and acquisition of the Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System 

(LMRS), which is on track for an fiscal year 2005 IOC on the LOS ANGELES Class 

submarine and will be incorporated on the VIRGINIA Class as it delivers. The 

LMRS system features an untethered Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV), 

launched and recovered covertly from the submarine’s torpedo tubes. The LMRS will 

provide a clandestine reconnaissance capability for mine-like objects. 

RMS.—The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $55.5 million funding for the development and acquisition of the Remote Minehunting System (RMS), a surface shiplaunched and recovered semi-submersible vehicle. The RMS gives surface ships the 

capability to conduct low-observable minehunting operations from over the horizon, 

maintaining control of the vehicle from a safe standoff distance. The RMS will reach 

IOC in fiscal year 2005, fielding on six new construction DDG Flight IIA ships 

(DDGs 91–96). The RMS also is a strong candidate for future deployment on the 

Littoral Combat Ship. 

Very Shallow Water (VSW) MCM.—The capabilities of the Naval Special Clearance Team ONE were highlighted in port clearance operations in Umm Qasr. In addition to the superb performance of EOD forces and marine mammals, small UUVs 

played a vital role in identifying mine-like objects in very low visibility conditions. 

$6.6 million is requested in the fiscal year 2004 DON budget to support small UUV 

programs to operate from surface MCM ships, in VSW MCM applications, and in 

force protection missions. 

High Speed Vessel (HSV).—The fiscal year 2004 budget contains funding ($17 million) for the charter of a High Speed Vessel (HSV 2 SWIFT) for fleet experimentation and concept development, focusing on MCM command and control issues and 

new technology demonstrations that may feed into development of the LCS program. 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).—The LCS will become the focal point of DON efforts 

to transform Mine Warfare (MIW). Within the DON fiscal year 2004 request for 

LCS Mission Modules, $18.4 million contributes to the development of the MIW Mission Modules. When equipped with the appropriate Mission Package, LCS will conduct mine warfare missions with on-board and off-board systems from deep water 

through the beach. The potential for modernization through its modular, multi-mission design will allow LCS to incorporate new unmanned vehicle technologies as 

they mature. 

Dedicated MCM ships.—The surface MCM fleet faces several challenges in current readiness issues, which are addressed in this proposed budget. The DON has 
193

requested $8.4 million in fiscal year 2004 OPN funds for the initiative to improve 

the operational readiness of the surface MCM ships through replacement of low-reliability engines. $1.8 million is requested in fiscal year 2004 to fund acoustic generators to replace antiquated acoustic sweep systems on the MCM–1 class ships. $3.8 

million is requested for sonar data recorders for the AN/SQQ–32 minehunting sonar 

to record sonar targets of interest. 

T–45 COCKPIT 21

Question. I understand that the Cockpit 21 program for T–45A aircraft is unfunded in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Does the Navy plan to fund this in 

2005 or 2006? What is the impact of not funding the program? 

Answer. The Navy remains committed to the T–45 program as an integral part 

of undergraduate flight training. Cockpit 21 addresses several avionics obsolescence 

issues in both the T–45A and the T–45C. If left uncorrected, degradation in aircraft 

‘‘Ready For Training’’ will eventually affect the ability to maintain the required pilot 

training rate. The Navy will closely examine funding for Cockpit 21 as part of the 

fiscal year 2005 Budget development process, but must continue to balance this requirement against competing priorities. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

HSV PLANS

Question. Admiral Clark, I understand the Navy has been impressed with the 

early feedback in operating a High Speed Vessel under a lease arrangement. Can 

you comment on the HSV hull form, and how it might fit into our shipbuilding planning? 

Answer. Currently, there are three High Speed Vessel craft under lease agreement with the Department of the Navy. The lease for HSV X1, Joint Venture, originally contracted under a joint arrangement between the Army and the Navy in October 2001 has been extended through September 2003. HSV 2, Swift, a slightly 

larger version of Joint Venture, will deliver in late July 2003 and will incorporate 

additional military enhancements to its hull that support mine warfare experimentation. Additionally, the USMC has been conducting intra-theater lift missions with 

a third HSV, Westpac Express. All three vessels are wave piercing, aluminum 

hulled, commercial catamarans, based upon existing high-speed ferry designs. 

The Navy is continuing its efforts to explore the concept of advanced high-speed 

hull forms and propulsion systems, evaluating new hull designs in monohulls, catamarans, trimarans and surface effect ships. Additionally, efforts are underway to 

combine the lessons learned from these vessels for application in the design of future classes of Navy ships. 

The U.S. shipbuilding industry has limited experience in the design and construction of these categories of vessels with the necessary displacement and speed. U.S. 

shipbuilders are, however, working together with industry to explore the concepts 

and viability of these advanced hull forms and propulsion systems for Naval applicability. 

LONG-TERM HSV PLANS

Question. Admiral Clark, it seems leasing these craft during the experimentation 

phase was appropriate. If the experiments have proven successful, we should explore procuring U.S.-made craft to meet the Services’ needs. Can you explain the 

Department of the Navy’s long-term plan to eliminate the need for leasing commercial High Speed Vessels? 

Answer. The High Speed Vessel (HSV) project is a joint effort with the Navy, Marine Corps, Naval Special Warfare Command and Army. The goal for HSV(X1) is 

to explore the concepts and capabilities associated with commercial high-speed vessels with respect to advanced hull and propulsion technologies integrated with advanced communications technologies. HSV 2 will continue to build on these concepts 

and evaluate the utility of the craft, while supporting new doctrine associated with 

advancing Mine Warfare systems, including experimentation with the use of unmanned underwater and surface vehicles. Successful experimentation with Joint 

Venture has demonstrated the utility and potential suitability of high-speed vessels 

for military operations. 

While experimentation to date with HSV(X)1 and Westpac Express has been 

promising, the Navy is still assessing the utility of this type platform to support Sea 
194

Power 21. Should an operational requirement be developed for HSV to permanently 

support the Navy or USMC, the vessel(s) will be competitively procured from a U.S. 

shipyard. 

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP—HULL FORM

Question. Admiral Clark, I understand the Navy has not yet determined a hull 

form on which to base the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Given the variety of roles 

and missions anticipated for these ships, is it possible there may need to be more 

than one ‘‘final’’ hull form for LCS, perhaps a percentage would be catamarans and 

a percentage would be composite mono-hulls? 

Answer. The current acquisition strategy envisions two Flight 0 ships to start construction in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. These ships may be different designs built 

in different yards. The Navy will evaluate both ships and will then make a decision 

on the remainder of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) flights. Flight 1 LCS ships are 

scheduled to start construction in fiscal year 2008. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Question. I am concerned we take all measures necessary to prevent a recurrence 

of Gulf War Syndrome now that our troops are in Iraq. One way is to medically assess our troops before they deploy to establish a health baseline. What percentage 

of Marines had a health baseline established before they deployed to Southwest 

Asia? What percentage of our personnel was pre-screened (with a health survey) before deployment? 

Answer. Pre-screening is required per Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 

6490.3 for personnel deploying out of CONUS for more than 30 days. The screening 

form is completed by the Marine or Sailor and kept in his/her medical record for 

future reference. DODI 6490.3 included no reporting requirements to higher headquarters. Because a centralized reporting requirement did not exist, the percentage 

of personnel who deployed to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom and who were 

pre-screened is unknown at this time. On April 23, 2003, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued a directive Memorandum, stating new 

reporting requirements for both Pre- and Post-Deployment Surveillance. The new 

guidance requires the Services to conduct and track post-deployment health surveys 

for all personnel who were involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. On May 1, 2003, 

Health Services, HQMC, released a message to Marine Corps units identifying the 

new requirements and providing further guidance. In addition, The Medical Officer 

of the Marine Corps, in conjunction with the Naval Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, is developing a comprehensive plan to conduct required surveys and monitor 

compliance.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. The next scheduled subcommittee meeting is 

Wednesday, April 9. At that time we will receive testimony regarding the activities of the Missile Defense Agency. 

Thank you very much, and the hearing is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Wednesday, April 2, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 9.]
(195)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

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

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Shelby, and Inouye. 

DEFENSE AGENCIES 

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH, USAF, DIRECTOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS P. CHRISTIE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL 

TEST AND EVALUATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Our distinguished co-chairman is stuck in traffic. 

General KADISH. So were we, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Since it took me a long time to get in this 

morning and I only live 5 miles away, I appreciate what you’re saying. He has asked us to proceed, if that’s all right, and we’ll do 

that. 

We welcome you and Mr. Christie, General. Thank you for being 

with us. You’re really a trusted partner in the whole endeavor for 

national missile defense, and I’m sure Senator Inouye will make 

similar comments. This capability that you have in Alaska is very 

encouraging to us and we plan to go up there as soon as possible. 

We had one trip scheduled and had to cancel it. Our staff will be 

going over to Hawaii in the coming recess to visit that area, and 

we know that there has been a great deal of change. If it’s possible, 

we’d enjoy both of you coming to join us on our trip, but I’m not 

sure that will be possible. We haven’t got it scheduled yet because 

of the problems we have in the appropriations process right now. 

We look forward to receiving an update from you, and Senator 

Inouye will make some comments when he comes in, but right now, 

I would appreciate it if you would proceed with your statement. 

General KADISH. Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I would like to take just a few 

minutes to highlight some of the key points about our missile de-
196

fense program that we have today and really underscore the 

progress we’ve made to date. 

And if you would allow that my prepared statement in its entirety be——

MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM

Senator STEVENS. Your statements will go in the record. 

General KADISH. In early 2001, we started restructuring the missile defense program to develop capabilities to defend the United 

States, our allies, our friends, and our deployed forces against all 

ranges of missiles in all phases of flight. With the support of Congress and in particular this committee, we have made considerable 

progression in demonstrating key missile defense technologies and 

the integration of those technologies into a system. 

Our testing analysis gives us confidence that hit-to-kill technology works and that we can take the initial steps we are proposing to provide a modest initial defensive capability where none 

exists today. 

Altogether, we have made great progress in our missile defense 

program. Our testing has been aggressive and productive. Over the 

past 2 years we achieved four for five successful ground-based 

intercepts of long-range targets and we are three for three in our 

sea-based intercepts of medium-range targets. We were five for 

seven with the Patriot Advanced Capability, or PAC–3 interceptor. 

We are making steady progress with the airborne laser to develop the revolutionary speed of light technologies, but we have 

had failures and in all probability, we will have some more failures 

in this process. But this score card has increased our confidence in 

our basic technical approach. 

Last December, the President directed the Department of Defense to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities in view 

of our technical progress, and our total lack of missile defenses 

against the intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles. Given 

our fielding approach using the testbed we have been working on, 

and given our testing successes and our analysis of those to date, 

I believe we are ready for this step. With the President’s decision, 

we now have a clear basic near-term architecture for a limited system to address a range of missile threats. 

I want to stress that we have no fixed long-term architecture, 

however. We will evolve and improve the capability of the Block 04 

system over time so that when we propose to field initially—so 

what we propose to field initially in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 

2005 may evolve to look very different maybe a decade later. 

EVOLUTIONARY CAPABILITY-BASE ACQUISITION APPROACH

The number and type of missile defense assets and their locations and basing parameters may be expected to change to make 

the system more integrated and more capable. This is consistent 

with the approach I have described in previous hearings. We are 

building and fielding limited military useful capabilities as soon as 

they can be made available. 

We have said all along that when we do field, we will not have 

a system that will fully meet our missile defense needs, so there 

are no illusions there. The system we will be fielding initially will 
197

be modestly operational, but we went down this road knowing we 

would need improvement and we have a process that’s specifically 

designed to make those improvements as soon as practicable. 

With an evolutionary capability-based acquisition approach, we 

put capability into the field, we test it, use it, get comfortable with 

it, learn what works well and what doesn’t, and improve it as soon 

as we can. Before the President’s decision, the fiscal year 2004 

President’s budget would have reflected the development of a set 

of testbed capabilities that could have been made operational. 

Today we are asking Congress to authorize and appropriate funds 

to allow us to add to this testbed and make it operational in fiscal 

year 2004. 

OPERATIONAL TESTBED

In other words, instead of building a testbed that might be used 

operationally, we are fielding an initial defensive capability that we 

will continue to test. Because of this relationship between initial 

defense capability and testing, we are asking that all associated 

funding with both efforts be under the defense-wide appropriations 

funding. 

Now with respect to the issue of operational testing before deployment, I would argue that we are faced today with some timely 

issues. This is a unique and unprecedented technology in its early 

stages of maturity. We have to strike a balance between our desire 

for perfection in missile defenses that we employ and our desire to 

have as soon as possible some defensive capability which does not 

exist today. 

We can continue to test the elements and components of the system and we can use them to defend ourselves. I believe we can do 

this because we have shown that the nuts and bolts of the missile 

defense system and its capabilities we are funding to build upon 

Block 04 can work. 

Over the past 2 years, we have conducted a total of 55 flight 

tests and 60 ground tests. Seventeen of these tests were intercept 

flight tests. These tests built our confidence. We know hit-to-kill 

works. We have had a significant degree of repeatability represented in the testing up to date, and we are well along our goal 

of demonstrating this reliability. 

Mr. Christie will state that our relationships, I believe, that we 

are building between Operational Test and the Missile Defense 

Agency are in good shape, and that we are structured to make the 

best decisions in the interests of missile defense. 

Regardless of the names we apply to our testing, we must have 

the assets and infrastructure in the field if we are going to begin 

to test the system in operationally realistic conditions. If we do not 

have the weapons and sensors fielded in operationally useful locations, we cannot really do a good job of looking at how they work. 

This program and its budget proposes to do just that. 

Our intentions are to test the complete system as soon as possible. Over the next 2 years we are planning another 68 flight 

tests, 58 ground tests, and about the same number of intercept 

tests as before. We have done the testing and have confidence to 

proceed, and we want to continue to strike the right balance in the 

testing effort. 
198

The elements of the testbed will also have some inherent defensive capability. We can do operational testing while having the system on alert. We should take advantage of that. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are ready to take the next step 

in missile defense for another reason. Our testbed evolutionary approach to a missile defensive capability is rational from a cost 

standpoint as well. We do not now have adequate understanding 

of our long-term architecture to submit a budget committing tens 

of billions of dollars, and we don’t need to submit such a budget 

to achieve our goals in the interim. 

FIELD CAPABILITY

We are able, however, to purchase a fielded capability, through 

small numbers, and this approach will allow us to control costs. 

With an increase of about $1.5 billion over 2 years, we can provide 

this country with a modest missile defense capability where none 

exists today. 

Mr. Chairman, America’s missile defense program is on track. 

The Missile Defense Agency is doing what we told Congress it 

would do, and your support has been important to the progress we 

have made. We listened to your concerns and we sought to address 

them in a responsible manner. Our tests and analysis have given 

us the confidence we can take the first steps toward initial defensive operations while we continue to prove out our technology and 

demonstrate missile defense combat utility through a realistic testing regime. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I believe there are tremendous benefits in putting some threatprecedented technology into the field in manageable increments to 

provide some defense, to learn more about it and gain experience, 

and improve it over time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think 

I will stop there to allow more time for questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. It is an honor to appear before you to present the Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2004 Missile Defense Program and budget. 

In early 2001 we restructured the missile defense program to develop the capability to defend the United States, our allies and friends, and deployed forces 

against all ranges of missiles in all phases of flight. With the support of Congress, 

we have made considerable progress in demonstrating key ballistic missile defense 

(BMD) technologies and system integration. Our testing and analysis give us confidence that hit-to-kill technology works and that we can take the initial steps we 

are proposing to bolster defenses against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles 

and introduce a modest defensive capability to defeat a limited long-range threat. 

Today I will review our progress, discuss why we are confident in our approach, and 

outline our plans and challenges ahead. 

Over the past two years we have conducted several successful intercept tests. We 

achieved four for five successful long-range, Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

(GMD) intercept flight tests, demonstrating the hit-to-kill technologies of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, critical sensor technologies, and the integration of many 

geographically dispersed missile defense assets. The failure of the most recent such 

test (Integrated Flight Test-10) last December resulted from the non-separation of 

the interceptor and the surrogate booster rocket. This was not a failure of new missile defense technology, but a failure of our quality control processes. We are increasing our already focused quality control efforts. We are taking steps to ensure 
199

this separation problem is not repeated. Furthermore, future GMD tests will no 

longer use the surrogate booster and instead will use one or both of the boosters 

currently under development. 

We are three for three in our ship-based exo-atmospheric intercept tests. Last 

year Aegis BMD successfully completed its Aegis Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) Intercept (ALI) project. Based on these results we accelerated the insertion of the follow-on Aegis BMD capability into the Test Bed. Our third intercept 

in November 2002 was the first ever intercept of a ballistic missile in the ascent 

phase of flight. 

Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC–3) has made significant strides. Since January 2001, we have had five for seven successful intercepts of ballistic missile targets 

and have begun fielding the first PAC–3 missiles. We also executed more than a 

dozen successful test flights of the Airborne Laser (ABL) aircraft, completed significant aircraft modifications, and accomplished successful subsystem testing and fullup ground-tests of the first laser module. While we are in the difficult phase of integrating the components into the ABL, our progress to date has increased our confidence that ABL can eventually be integrated into the BMD system (BMDS). 

Mr. Chairman, America’s missile defense program is on track. The Missile Defense Agency is doing what we told Congress it would do. We listened to your concerns and have sought to address them in a responsible manner. We have faced significant technical and management challenges, but through aggressive testing we 

have proven that hit-to-kill technology works. We have demonstrated system integration through complex system testing. These tests, combined with analysis of simulations and exercises, give us confidence that the system can take the first steps 

toward initial defensive operations while performing as a test bed for further realistic testing and continued spiral development. 

The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget will allow us to continue this significant 

progress and is structured to incorporate the recommendations of the Defense 

Science Board summer study of 2002. 

Evolutionary Approach to Missile Defense 

The BMD system involves many sensors and interceptors that are integrated and 

layered to enable engagements against hostile missiles in the boost, midcourse, and 

terminal phases of flight. Layered defenses can allow multiple shot opportunities 

across all of the engagement segments and potentially within each one of those segments, greatly enhancing our ability to handle countermeasures and destroy inflight missiles and their payloads. 

As I have explained in past hearings, we are building the missile defense system 

using an evolutionary acquisition approach, so that the system’s capability can be 

enhanced over time. Our plan continues to be one of incrementally providing the decision makers the ability to field militarily useful capabilities based on their technological readiness, suitability for operational use and threat developments. 

Last December the President directed the Department to field an initial set of 

missile defense capabilities in order to reduce the vulnerabilities of the United 

States, our troops, and our allies and friends. Given our fielding approach, and 

given the successful testing we have accomplished to date, I believe we are ready 

for this. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2004 and across the 2004–2009 Future 

Years Defense Program (FYDP) supports Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) activities to accomplish that goal. We plan to begin operating modest 

land and sea defense capabilities in 2004 to provide limited protection of our country 

as well as our troops and critical assets overseas. 

In missile defense, we deal routinely with revolutionary technologies and unprecedented engineering requirements. The program we are currently executing recognizes the unique challenges we face and sets out a disciplined course to develop the 

BMD system in an evolutionary way. Having spent the last couple of years looking 

at different missile defense options, we are now narrowing our program activities 

and focusing on development and fielding of the most promising elements. 

Consistent with the approach I have described in previous hearings, we are building and fielding limited, militarily useful capabilities as soon as they can be made 

available. This approach takes into account known and projected threats and the 

present state of technology. With a capability-based acquisition approach we put capability into the field, test it, use it, get comfortable with it, and learn what works 

well and what does not. We have structured Test Bed fielding opportunities to occur 

in ‘‘blocks’’ every two years to improve what we have fielded as needed. Block 2004 

(initial defense capabilities) represents 2004–2005, Block 2006 represents 2006–

2007, and so on. These blocks will deliver elements and components that are ready 

for continued rigorous testing and full integration into the system. 
200

With the President’s decision, we now have a basic near-term architecture for a 

limited system to address a range of missile threats. I want to stress that we have 

no fixed, long-term architecture. We will evolve and improve the capability of the 

Block 2004 system over time, so that what we propose to field initially in 2004 and 

2005 may evolve to look very different a decade later. The number and type of missile defense assets and their locations and basing arrangements may be expected 

to change to make the system more integrated and capable. 

We have adopted this evolutionary approach because a single acquisition cycle is 

not responsive to rapid changes in threat and technology and is not structured to 

deal with surprise. We want to avoid prematurely constraining system design by 

using the traditional requirements process and waiting up to twenty years or more 

for a defensive capability that would result from using traditional acquisition rules. 

In a world marked by increasing ballistic missile activity, our nation, forces, and 

allies cannot afford to wait that long. 

In using this evolutionary approach, we still have the ability to incorporate the 

discipline and intent of the traditional acquisition process. For example, the 

warfighting community has been heavily involved from the beginning in the development of system elements and components. We are successfully using a spiral development process to put new technologies into play more quickly than if we were 

to use the traditional approach. Spiral development requires regular dialogue and 

active participation between user and developer for delivering a militarily useful set 

of capabilities. Once we field the initial capability, uniformed personnel will operate 

the system. 

Despite the many uncertainties we face, this approach allows us to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. The President’s recent announcement stands as a 

good example of this. We are not making an early commitment to large-volume serial production and very large-scale investments. Our fielding commitment will be 

scaled over time and rise with our confidence that we are on the right development 

path for this complex, multifaceted system. 

Aggressive Research, Development and Test Activities 

As we prepare to implement the President’s directive, we plan to continue the program’s intensive testing activities up to and beyond the 2004–2005 timeframe. We 

have a single, robust RDT&E program dedicated to the development and demonstration of missile defense technologies and integration concepts. In fact, consistent with 

our investments over the past two years, the lion’s share of the fiscal year 2004 

budget request of $7.7 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, roughly $6 billion, will 

support RDT&E activities that are not directly tied to system fielding. Significant 

development efforts in fiscal year 2004 include continued work on Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), ABL, and kinetic energy boost-phase interceptors in 

the post-Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty environment. 

These aggressive RDT&E activities are the basis for proceeding as the President 

has directed and for continuing development work to build a multi-layered BMD 

system. We will continue our practice of assessing these activities on a regular basis 

to see if they can be accelerated or whether they must be truncated or modified in 

some manner. RDT&E activities occurring in fiscal year 2004 will contribute to 

Blocks 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010. 

We are still evaluating the impact of our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. The 

treaty successfully did what it was intended to do. It severely restricted missile defense development and fielding options. The President’s action has made it possible 

to begin to develop and test aggressively the full range of missile defense technologies and pursue capabilities that make the most sense from the standpoints of 

technology, operations, and cost. 

For example, as a result of the treaty withdrawal, Aegis BMD, the sea-based defense element, began its successful participation in GMD integrated flight tests conducted last October and December. While initially only collecting boost and ascent 

phase radar data, Aegis BMD has begun engineering efforts to become a full participant in future tests and will eventually provide fire control data to the BMD system. 

Our intercept tests against long-range ballistic missiles are very complex, yet 

since October 1999 we were forced to restrict ourselves to the same intercept flight 

geometries because of artificial constraints in our current Test Bed and our obligation to remain compliant with the ABM Treaty. Today, in order to test our GMD 

interceptors, we must launch targets from Vandenberg, AFB in California and interceptors from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. We are changing that. The Test 

Bed we are building will introduce flexibility into our test approach and help overcome some basic geographic and geometric limitations by allowing us to test weapons and sensors against ballistic missiles of all ranges along different azimuths and 
201

using different trajectories. For test purposes we will introduce variable target 

launch and impact points and engagement areas. 

Robust, realistic testing is absolutely critical to developing an effective missile defense system. Over the past two years we conducted a total of 55 flight tests and 

60 ground tests. Seventeen of these tests were flight-intercept tests. Each test builds 

our confidence in the BMD system. From our flight-testing, we know that the hitto-kill approach works. We know our sensors can successfully detect and track the 

target and that our software algorithms can discriminate between reentry vehicles 

and basic decoys and debris. We know our battle management system can generate 

orders that put a kill vehicle in a position to achieve intercept. We will continue 

to refine and improve the system’s performance in all areas. Our test program continues to add to our confidence that the basic technologies are sound and that they 

will work together to provide the nation an effective BMD system. 

Our program and budget will continue to maintain a high tempo of increasingly 

complex ground- and flight-testing. Over the next two years we are planning another 68 flight tests, 58 ground tests, and maintaining the same pace of intercept 

tests as before. We do system testing to give us confidence that we have the ability 

to integrate geographically dispersed missile defense elements and components into 

an effective system. This does not include the many experiments we conduct routinely, the modeling and simulation activity, and the wargame exercises. Our computer predictions are very valuable in this process and give us a great deal of confidence that we are on the right paths. 

We remain committed to our aggressive testing approach, where we mature midcourse, boost, and terminal missile defense components and elements through rigorous testing under increasingly realistic and challenging conditions. When we have 

adequately demonstrated technologies, decisions can then be made concerning their 

integration into blocks for fielding. Testing activities remain central to what we do 

and are well supported within our funding request. 

Initial Defense Capabilities 

The Congress has already funded plans to put five midcourse interceptors into the 

test bed in silos at Fort Greely in Alaska, develop Aegis BMD, and test the SM–

3 interceptor at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. Other activities are 

currently underway to improve the missile defense Test Bed by upgrading or developing launch sites (including Vandenberg, AFB), radar sensors, battle management 

and command and control components, communications terminals and networks, 

and associated test infrastructure in the United States and the Marshall Islands (including airborne, sea-based, and ground-based data collection assets). 

Today we are asking the Congress to appropriate funds that will allow us to add 

to this Test Bed and make it operational by 2004. These initial defense capabilities, 

fielded over a two-year period, will include ground-based interceptors to counter 

long-range threats, sea-based interceptors to defeat short- and medium-range 

threats, additional PAC–3 units, and early warning and tracking sensors based on 

land, at sea, in the air, and in space. 

Before the President’s decision, the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget would 

have reflected the development of a set of Test Bed capabilities that could have been 

made operational. Instead of building a Test Bed that might be used operationally, 

we are fielding an initial defensive capability that we will continue to test. All 

RDT&E activities will support the initial defense capability, and the system elements and components we field will continue to support RDT&E. Because of the relationship between initial defense capabilities and testing, we are asking that all 

funding associated with both efforts be under Defense-wide appropriations RDT&E. 

With the December announcement we have quickened the pace at which we are 

moving forward, but we have not changed the direction in which we are moving. 

We are proposing to do in fiscal year 2004 what we said we were going to do in 

previous hearings, that is, field tested missile defenses a little at a time using a step 

approach. The missile defense operations we are proposing are unprecedented, and 

there still is much to learn. I believe there is tremendous benefit in putting this unprecedented technology into the field, in manageable increments, to provide some 

defense, to learn more about it, gain experience with it, and improve it over time. 

The Israeli Arrow program stands out as an example of how fielding militarily 

useful capability in block increments and in a timely manner can work and how successful it can be. With only four successful intercept flight tests, Israeli officials declared their first Arrow battery operational on October 17, 2000 and fielded that 

country’s first capability to defeat incoming ballistic missiles launched from nearby 

states. The Israeli system has been operational for more than two years now, and 

during that time it has conducted additional intercept and flight tests to enhance 

the system’s performance. Plans are moving forward to augment it even further. 
202

Surrounded by states having an active interest in ballistic missiles, Israel found a 

way to field a limited defensive capability on an accelerated timeline and at a time 

when it could not afford to wait for system testing to be completed. 

We in the United States, of course, are not strangers to fielding an unprecedented 

military capability on an accelerated schedule. Our leadership struggled in the early 

stages of deploying the first reconnaissance satellites and land- and sea-based ballistic missiles. Urgent national security requirements pressed us to deploy capability 

soon, and through trial and error we did. Despite test failures, the country persevered and made militarily useful capabilities operational. Since that time, we 

have dramatically improved the capabilities of those first-generation systems. The 

parallels between these pioneering programs and the missile defense program are 

clear. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are ready to take this next step in missile defense. Our fielding approach will not only help rationalize the force structure we deploy from the technological and threat standpoints, but also from the standpoint of 

cost. We do not now have adequate understanding to submit a bill of many tens of 

billions of dollars for a huge, long-term fixed architecture. We are able, however, to 

purchase, produce, and field capabilities in small numbers. This approach will allow 

us to control costs. With a modest investment and increase by the Department of 

a total of $1.5 billion spread over the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 budgets, we will 

provide this country with militarily useful capabilities where none exists today. 

In short, this $1.5 billion primarily will add a small number of ground-based 

interceptors as well as more SM–3 interceptors to the test bed capability we are already building. Future fielding decisions, as we have said all along, will be made 

in the outlying years based on the progress of technology and the evolution of the 

threat, subject to the annual congressional appropriations process. 

Confidence in Initial Defensive Operations 

In assessing our level of confidence with the planned initial missile defense capabilities, we have to strike a balance between our desire for perfection in the missile 

defenses we deploy and our desire to have as soon as possible a defensive capability 

where none exists today. 

Adequate testing is the key to achieving that balance. And while this testing may 

not fit the mold of classical operational testing that would traditionally take place 

prior to full-rate production, we do follow a testing discipline that I believe can give 

us the confidence to say that what we deploy will work as we have said it would 

under threat circumstances that we believe we might have to face. 

I believe that to strike the right balance we must go through an intense period 

of testing to demonstrate that the technologies on which we are relying can work 

consistently under conditions that are increasingly stressful and realistic. We have 

spent the past two years demonstrating the technologies we propose to employ in 

the Block 2004 Test Bed. We have said all along that when we do field we will not 

field a system that will fully meet our missile defense needs. We will face limitations and have gaps, let there be no illusions there. The system we are initially 

fielding will be limited operationally. But we went down this road knowing that 

there would be gaps and with a process that is specifically designed to fill those 

gaps and make up for performance limitations as soon as practicable. 

Among the limitations that should be included here is that of operational experience. We need to build operational experience over time with the system that will 

be guarding our nation and our troops. There is no better way to do that then to 

put basic elements out into the field and to begin working with those assets to develop the doctrine and concepts of operation we will need and to train the military 

personnel who will operate it. 

We have spent significant amounts of money on testing the GMD and Aegis BMD 

elements of system. All of the tests to date have been what we have called ‘‘developmental tests.’’ Regardless of the names we apply to our testing, we must have assets 

and infrastructure in the field if we are going to begin to test that system under 

operationally realistic conditions. If we do not have the weapons and sensors fielded 

at operationally useful locations, we cannot really do a good job of hooking it all up 

to make sure it works. 

The President’s decision allows us to put this materiel out in the field for testing, 

in locations that make sense from an operational point of view. Given the recent 

events in the international security environment, the President’s decision reflects an 

urgent need to make that test bed as operational as we possibly can. That decision 

also recognizes that we will not be fielding the perfect system at the outset. 

What we are faced with today is a timing issue. Must we do what has been traditionally called ‘‘operational testing’’ before we can say that we have a capability we 

can use in an extreme security situation, or can we do both? Can we continue to 
203

test the elements and components of a system we also could use to defend ourselves 

if needed? I believe we can. 

Why do I believe that? Because we have shown that the nuts and bolts of the missile defense capabilities we are planning to field in Block 2004 can work. We have 

had a significant degree of repeatability represented in the tests we have conducted 

to date, and we are well along in our goal of conducting these tests reliably. We 

are now to the point where we need to assemble selected missile defense elements 

into a test bed that will permit operationally realistic testing using different azimuths and trajectories, different launch and target points, and different arrangements in our sensors and weapons. That test bed will allow us to test in different 

ways so that we can refine our all-too-important battle management and command 

and control infrastructure. The elements of the test bed also will have some inherent defense capability. We can do operational development testing while having the 

system on alert. We should take advantage of that. 

Our intentions are to test the complete system and to be ready to respond to ballistic missile threats against the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends 

and allies. We have conducted the rigorous testing needed to give us the confidence 

that we are far enough along to do operationally realistic testing in an integrated 

way. Testing will always be an important part of this system—always. We will always be improving what we have in the field. The budget we have submitted will 

support the testing required to ensure that the elements of the Block 2004 system 

we would like to field will adequately serve the defense needs of this nation. 

Our RDT&E activities are extensive and are important part of our acquisition approach. Below are three areas of special interest. 

BMD System Radar Activity 

The MDA’s Family of Radar concept is continuous and flexible global detection, 

tracking, discrimination, and hit assessment. Ideally, we want to be able to watch 

missile payloads deploy and accomplish prompt and early battle assessment. We are 

currently pursuing multiple sensor technologies and identifying and developing sensors to give the BMD system the ‘‘eyes’’ it will need. In order to identify the most 

promising technologies and reduce risk, we are investigating, in parallel, sensor alternatives on land-, sea-, air- and space-based platforms to add robustness to the 

BMD system and improve opportunities to collect multiple phenomenology on the 

threat missile or target complex. Evaluations of different sensor and weapon combinations and alternatives will help us assess their overall benefit to an integrated, 

layered BMD system. An important element in this effort is the mobile Sea-Based 

X-Band radar (SBX), which we plan to build by September 2005 to greatly improve 

both testing and our initial defense capability. 

The BMDS Radar project, a new activity, is funded in the fiscal year 2004 budget 

to expand the engagement battle space and assess missile defense concepts of operation that we were not allowed to consider under the ABM Treaty. We will validate 

the concept of forward-basing and sensor layering and evaluate advanced algorithms 

using both MDA- and non-MDA-owned sensors. Current plans call for the BMDS 

Radar to be available for integration into the Test Bed in late 2006. We will support 

continuous sensor research to improve capabilities and develop advanced algorithms 

for Block 2008 and beyond. 

BMD System Infrared Sensor Activities 

The Department restructured the Space Based Infrared System-Low (SBIRS Low) 

element in fiscal year 2002, renaming it the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS). We will explore new technologies to enhance missile detection, improve 

reporting on ballistic missile launches regardless of range, azimuth, or launch point, 

and provide critical midcourse tracking and discrimination data. 

The Russian-American Observation Satellites (RAMOS) project is a cooperative effort between the United States and the Russian Federation to improve early warning technologies. RAMOS represents an innovative space-based sensor R&D initiative. We are proceeding towards a joint Preliminary Design Review this summer 

and expect to conclude the design and development phase in early fiscal year 2005. 

The United States is actively striving to reach a bi-lateral agreement to conduct activities beyond the design and development phase. If we are able to move forward 

with this project, we would launch two satellites in late fiscal year 2008. 

BMD System Interceptor Activity 

Our longer-term goal is to develop low-cost enhanced interceptors for integration 

with different platforms to defend against missiles in the boost, midcourse, and exoatmospheric terminal phases of flight. We are consolidating all next-generation kinetic energy interceptor (booster and kill vehicle) development efforts and placing 

them under our BMDS Interceptor activity. Relying heavily on existing hardware 
204

and proven technology, we will develop a hit-to-kill boost phase capability by Block 

2008 and deliver capability enhancements for Block 2010 and beyond. 

In fiscal year 2004 we will begin developing a space-based kinetic energy interceptor Test Bed to explore the technological feasibility and operational advantages 

of engagements from space. This plan is consistent with the Defense Science Board’s 

recommendation, released last August, to establish a comprehensive development 

program for a space-based kinetic system. Following up on last year’s successful experiments to understand key sensor technologies, we will conduct in 2004 a Near 

Field Infra-Red Experiment to observe from space a boosting rocket. This data will 

assist in the selection of seeker and sensor technologies for a ground-based boost 

interceptor and development of interceptor guidance and homing algorithms. 

Block Activities and Budget 

We are working within the MDA and with the Department’s operational community to meet the President’s objective to establish an initial defense capability in 

2004, which begins with Block 2004. The following describes by block our planned 

fielding opportunities across the FYDP. 

Block 2004

This block continues development and integration of elements, components, and 

facilities in the Test Bed. Block 2004 RDT&E funding will deliver capabilities directed by the President for operational use in fiscal year 2004–2005. We plan to add 

different capabilities to point-defense capabilities already provided by PAC–3 units. 

This initial fielding will grow the RDT&E program and expand the physical infrastructure of the Test Bed. 

Funds in this block will enable us to conduct major target and countermeasure 

development and capability demonstrations, integration tests, and experiments. We 

are investing in a substantive system test program to test system command, control, 

and battle management (C2BM) and communications across the elements. The Block 

2004 Master Test Plan lays out the strategy for conducting a comprehensive set of 

integrated and distributed ground- and flight-tests to verify performance and characterize the capability of the system. This test program will form the basis of operational and military utility assessments of the Block 2004 initial defense capability. 

We will have three major system integration flight tests, the first of which is a 

large-scale integration event that tests C2BM and communications during multiple 

element intercept tests. We plan to demonstrate C2 capabilities and communications 

among C2 and battle management nodes, weapons, and sensors and to continue 

work with the Services, Combatant Commands, and the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense to ensure BMD system interoperability with legacy and planned Department systems and standards. 

We are requesting $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 to support RDT&E for fielding 

Block 2004. Our estimated expenditure for Block 2004 activities across the FYDP 

is $6.2 billion (see Table 1).
205

TABLE 1.—BLOCK 2004 FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002–09

($M then-year) 1

Project 

Fiscal year— FYDP fiscal year 

2004–09

Totals fiscal year 

2002–09 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

C2BMC Block 2004 ........................................................................................................................... 21 80 114 79 .............. .............. .............. .............. 194 295Hercules Block 2004 ......................................................................................................................... .............. .............. 18 27 .............. .............. .............. .............. 46 46Joint Warfighter Support Block 2004 ............................................................................................... .............. .............. 24 13 .............. .............. .............. .............. 37 37Test & Evaluation Block 2004 .......................................................................................................... 47 57 37 33 .............. .............. .............. .............. 70 174Targets & CM Block 2004 ................................................................................................................ 75 104 197 170 .............. .............. .............. .............. 367 547THAAD Block 2004 ............................................................................................................................ 808 888 622 635 65 .............. .............. .............. 1,322 3,018GMD Test Bed Block 2004 ................................................................................................................ 636 452 1,205 868 .............. .............. .............. .............. 2,073 3,161Aegis BMD Test Bed Block 2004 ..................................................................................................... 413 440 648 894 98 .............. .............. .............. 1,640 2,492ABL Block 2004 ................................................................................................................................ 454 348 345 150 .............. .............. .............. .............. 494 1,296

TOTALS ................................................................................................................................. 2,454 2,369 3,212 2,868 163 .............. .............. .............. 6,242 11,065

1 Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding. 
206

Boost Elements.—We are developing directed energy and kinetic energy boost 

phase intercept capabilities to create a defense layer near the hostile missile’s 

launch point. We require quick reaction times, high confidence decision-making, and 

redundant engagement capabilities to counter ballistic missiles in this phase. 

ABL is currently under development to acquire, track, and kill ballistic missiles 

in boost phase using speed-of-light technology. ABL integrates three major subsystems (Laser; Beam Control; and Battle Management, Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (BM/C4I)) into a modified commercial Boeing 747–400F aircraft. We will continue major subsystem integration and testing activities. Block 2004 activities involve completion of ground-testing, to include first 

light on the test bed aircraft, first flight of the complete weapons system, and the 

successful track and high-energy laser engagement of a missile-shaped target board 

dropped from high-altitude. In fiscal year 2005, we will deliver one aircraft for BMD 

system integration and testing and demonstrate a missile shoot-down against a 

boosting threat-representative target. 

Midcourse Elements.—Midcourse defense elements engage ballistic missiles in 

space after booster burnout and before the warhead re-enters the atmosphere. The 

GMD element defends against long-range ballistic missile attacks, and Aegis BMD 

will counter from the sea medium- and short-range ballistic missiles. 

The Department’s plans are to add by the end of fiscal year 2004 one more 

Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) at Fort Greely in Alaska for a total of six GBIs at 

that site, and four interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base, for a total of up to 

10 interceptors at both sites. The decision to develop two interceptor sites is consistent with our layered approach and operational concept and will allow us to work 

through critical integration, battle management, and command and control issues 

early on. 

There are a number of other activities we need to undertake in fiscal year 2005. 

We are asking for appropriations to produce up to ten additional GBIs for fielding 

at the Fort Greely site, for a total of sixteen interceptors in Alaska and four in California. We also plan to produce by the end of 2005 between ten and twenty SM–

3 missiles for deployment on three Aegis ships converted to the missile defense mission. Because we are starting from a base of zero, each interceptor we field between 

now and 2005, up to the full complement of twenty ground-based and twenty seabased interceptors, will increase significantly our overall capability to defend this 

country, our troops, and friendly countries against long- and medium-range threats. 

Included in the Test Bed and as part of the initial missile defense architecture 

are plans for integrating Early Warning Radars (EWR) at Eareckson AS (the Cobra 

Dane radar at Shemya, Alaska) and Beale AFB (Upgraded EWR). We will add to 

this infrastructure multiple fire control nodes and improved lines of communications 

connecting sites in Alaska and the continental United States using fiber optics and 

satellites. As you know, the Administration is working to secure allied approval to 

upgrade and integrate into the BMD system early warning radars currently located 

in the United Kingdom and Thule, Greenland to view threat missiles launched out 

of the Middle East. The United Kingdom already has approved the use of the 

Fylingdales radar. We also plan to build by September 30, 2005 a Sea-Based X-Band 

Radar (SBX) to improve the testing regime and enhance initial missile defense system performance. 

We have made dramatic progress in recent months with the GMD element, including in the areas of silo construction, development of a nationwide communications network, and integrated flight-testing. We have excavated six silos at Fort 

Greely, seven weeks ahead of schedule, and we are in the process of constructing 

and establishing appropriate security for multiple Test Bed facilities at Fort Greely 

and Eareckson. 

By the end of 2005, we will upgrade SPY–1 radars on fifteen Aegis warships for 

enhanced surveillance and track capability. Three prototype surveillance and track 

Aegis destroyers will be available starting in 2003; we will modernize additional destroyers for surveillance and track and BMD engagement capability. Two Aegis 

cruisers in addition to the USS LAKE ERIE, our test cruiser, will receive BMD engagement modifications. 

The next SM–3 flight test, scheduled for later this year, will use a reengineered 

Monolithic Divert and Attitude Control System (MDACS) for the first time in the 

interceptor’s kinetic warhead. MDACS has proved to be more reliable than the previous model, faster to build, and less expensive. Five at-sea flight tests and numerous tracking exercises, including participation in GMD integrated flight-tests, are 

planned through 2005. Our cooperative research with Japan will continue to enhance the capabilities of the SM–3 interceptor. The focus of that research is on four 

components: sensor, advanced kinetic warhead, second stage propulsion, and lightweight nosecone. 
207

Terminal Elements.—THAAD is designed to be rapidly deployable and protect forward-deployed United States and friendly troops, broadly dispersed assets, population centers, and sites in the United States by engaging short- to medium-range 

ballistic missiles or their payloads at endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes. THAAD 

could have more than one intercept opportunity against a target, a layering potential that makes it more difficult for an adversary to employ countermeasures effectively. This terminal defense capability will help mitigate the effects of a WMD payload. 

This year we will complete missile and launcher designs, initiate manufacturing 

of missile and launcher ground test units, and begin testing the first completed 

radar antenna. We will continue fabrication of the second radar and building the 

battle manager and launcher test beds. A total of four exo-atmospheric flight tests 

at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico are planned for fiscal year 2004–

05. 

PAC–3 provides terminal missile defense capability against short- and mediumrange ballistic missiles, anti-radiation missiles, and aircraft with a low radar crosssection employing advanced countermeasures. PAC–3 successfully completed initial 

operational testing last year, intercepting ballistic missiles, aircraft, and cruise missiles. The tests uncovered problems that we have since corrected in collaboration 

with the Army. We have completed development of the PAC–3 missile and made 

C2BM modifications to enable PAC–3’s integration into the BMD system. We will 

continue to conduct PAC–3 tests this year. Later in Block 2004 we will demonstrate 

PAC–3’s integration with other BMD system elements. 

With the support of Congress, the Department already has accelerated PAC–3 

missile production and currently has a plan to increase that production rate to 20 

missiles per month in 2005. Given current production plans, by the end of 2005 the 

PAC–3 inventory will stand at 332 missiles. 

The Department has transferred PAC–3 procurement and RDT&E funding to the 

Army, which is reflected in the Army’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. The MDA 

will retain responsibility for defining and testing BMD system interoperability and 

continue to work with the Army on PAC–3 engineering, development, and testing. 

The Department realigned the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program on March 31, 2003 to the Army. 

The Arrow Weapon System, developed jointly by the United States and Israel to 

counter short- to medium-range ballistic missiles, is operational at two sites in 

Israel and interoperable with U.S. missile defense elements. We worked with Israel 

to deploy its first two Arrow batteries, and are currently assisting that country to 

procure a third battery. 

The Arrow System Improvement Program, a spiral development upgrade of the 

current operational system, includes technical cooperation to improve the performance of the Arrow system and test it at a U.S. test range. The first flight test was 

conducted successfully on January 5, 2003. We continue to support additional Arrow 

flight-testing to assess technology developments and overall system performance 

and to collect data and conduct annual hardware-in-the-loop exercises with Israel 

to enhance interoperability. 

Block 2006

Block 2006 work continues to improve existing capabilities and provide new sensors and interceptors for integration with fielded elements. Our focus will be on 

evolving and integrating the capability to achieve a more synergistic and layered 

BMD system. We will continue rigorous system and element flight-test demonstration and validation efforts and use wargames to help develop concepts of operation 

and operational procedures. 

We are requesting $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 to support RDT&E for Block 

2006. Our estimated expenditure for Block 2006 activities across the FYDP is $11.3 

billion (see Table 2).
208

TABLE 2.—BLOCK 2006 FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002–09

($M then-year) 1

Project 

Fiscal year— FYDP fiscal year 

2004–09

Totals fiscal year 

2002–09 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

C2BMC Block 2006 ........................................................................................................................... 4 27 53 104 116 .............. .............. .............. 273 304Hercules Block 2006 ......................................................................................................................... .............. .............. 19 18 45 45 .............. .............. 127 127Joint Warfighter Support Block 2006 ............................................................................................... .............. .............. .............. 12 24 12 .............. .............. 48 48Test & Evaluation Block 2006 .......................................................................................................... 1 1 2 9 41 39 .............. .............. 92 93Targets & CM Block 2006 ................................................................................................................ 1 4 32 110 213 172 .............. .............. 526 530THAAD Block 2006 ............................................................................................................................ .............. .............. 109 208 598 498 113 .............. 1,525 1,525GMD Block 2006 ............................................................................................................................... 2,460 2,109 1,605 1,774 1,354 1,235 .............. .............. 5,969 10,538Aegis BMD Block 2006 ..................................................................................................................... .............. .............. 24 73 377 299 .............. .............. 773 773ABL Block 2006 ................................................................................................................................ .............. .............. 10 86 150 79 81 55 461 461BMDS Radars Block 2006 ................................................................................................................ .............. .............. 101 145 134 .............. .............. .............. 380 380STSS Block 2006 ............................................................................................................................... 55 232 276 285 285 204 75 35 1,160 1,447

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................... 2,520 2,372 2,232 2,823 3,335 2,583 270 90 11,333 16,225

1 Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding. 
209

Boost Elements.—We will enhance and test the integration of the ABL aircraft 

into the BMD system. Candidate enhancements include improvements in BMC4I, 

interoperability, pointing and tracking, and target engagement. We will continue 

evaluation of the ABL test aircraft capability against a range of threats. This aircraft will be available to provide an emergency operational capability except for a 

maximum of six months during fiscal year 2007 when it may undergo modifications 

and enhancements. 

Midcourse Elements.—We plan to enhance defensive capability and further develop the Test Bed by maturing hardware and software of all GMD interceptor, sensor, and C2BM components. We will continue our ground- and flight-testing to demonstrate improved weapon and discrimination performance and critical interfaces 

with external sensors. We also plan to complete the upgrade of the Thule EWR 

should we get approval from Denmark. 

Aegis BMD flight missions will incorporate remote engagements of targets as well 

as demonstrations against intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) targets. We 

will continue development of Aegis BMD sensor discrimination capability. Prototype 

BMD signal processors will be tested aboard Aegis ships with SPY–1 radar modifications. SM–3 missile deliveries will begin in 2004. Our plans are to build an inventory of up to thirty-five SM–3 interceptors by the end of 2006. Also, if directed, 

we would prepare to field up to twenty additional SM–3 interceptors in 2007. We 

will proceed with our cooperative BMD research with Japan to enhance the SM–

3. We have two joint flight tests of the advanced nosecone planned in the fiscal year 

2005–2006 timeframe, and we will continue to look at possibilities for co-development. 

Terminal Elements.—The THAAD interceptor begins in the third quarter fiscal 

year 2006 a series of five flight tests that are scheduled to conclude in first quarter 

fiscal year 2008. We will improve THAAD’s exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric 

endgame discrimination capability against increasingly complex targets. 

Sensors.—Current plans call for a new forward-based radar in late 2006 for positioning close to the threat at sea or on land. Enhanced forward-based sensor capabilities and improved sensor netting will enable the BMD system to handle threats 

posing a more difficult discrimination challenge and provide a launch-on-remote capability. A midcourse radar will be added as part of our layered approach. Additional radar configurations will be procured as necessary to satisfy Block 2006 objectives. 

Current plans are to launch two low-earth orbit satellites in fiscal year 2007 to 

validate space-based sensor concepts for target acquisition, tracking, and discrimination and to provide a space node for the Test Bed. STSS will improve in subsequent 

blocks to provide data fusion, radar/sensor cueing over-the-horizon, and interceptor 

handover and fire control. Production alternatives will be evaluated at least annually based upon element performance and integrated BMD system performance. 

Block 2008

Block 2008 represents a major step in BMD system evolution. We plan to complete multiple layers of weapons and sensors, based on fixed and mobile platforms, 

to counter a range of ballistic missiles. This block will include C2BM components 

that enable integrated control of all system assets throughout the battlespace. Primary development projects include adding boost phase weapons to the Test Bed, integrating space sensor platforms, and fusing multi-sensor discrimination products. 

We will integrate capability-based targets and payload suites (to include new and 

more complex countermeasures) into our system testing to demonstrate effectiveness 

against evolving threats. 

We are requesting $572 million in fiscal year 2004 to support RDT&E for Block 

2008. Our estimated expenditure for Block 2008 activities across the FYDP is $16.3 

billion (see Table 3).
210

TABLE 3.—BLOCK 2008 FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002–09

($M then-year) 1

Project 

Fiscal year— FYDP fiscal year 

2004–09

Totals fiscal year 

2002–09 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

C2BMC Block 2008 ........................................................................................................................... .............. .............. 1 12 27 144 145 147 476 476Hercules Block 2008 ......................................................................................................................... .............. .............. 19 17 17 17 62 60 192 192Joint Warfighter Support Block 2008 ............................................................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 12 29 31 71 71Test & Evaluation Block 2008 .......................................................................................................... .............. .............. 1 1 4 13 85 87 190 190Targets & CM Block 2008 ................................................................................................................ .............. .............. .............. 57 77 68 239 253 694 694THAAD Block 2008 ............................................................................................................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 237 227 369 300 1,134 1,134GMD Block 2008 ............................................................................................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 878 877 1,756 1,756AEGIS BMD Block 2008 .................................................................................................................... .............. .............. .............. 116 186 322 470 386 1,481 1,481ABL Block 2008 ................................................................................................................................ 11 237 256 402 582 561 366 267 2,435 2,683BMDS Radars Block 2008 ................................................................................................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 136 102 22 261 261STSS Blk 2008 .................................................................................................................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 82 177 89 348 348BMDS Interceptor Block 2008 .......................................................................................................... 54 100 296 529 1,013 1,562 1,939 1,890 7,229 7,383

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................... 65 337 572 1,134 2,145 3,146 4,862 4,409 16,268 16,669

1 Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding. 
211

Boost Elements.—ABL will integrate new technologies to improve performance 

and lethality and enhance operational suitability. We will continue development of 

promising technologies for insertion into Block 2008 and beyond and design and develop a system-level ground-test facility for ABL. We plan to test a second ABL aircraft in the Test Bed during Block 2008. 

Plans also are to develop and integrate a mobile ground-based boost phase hitto-kill capability into the Test Bed for flight-test demonstration. We will initiate a 

space-based test bed development to determine the feasibility of intercepting missiles from space. Initial on-orbit testing would commence with three to five satellites 

in Block 2008. 

Midcourse Elements.—We will conduct up to three GMD flight-tests annually to 

demonstrate advanced engineering and pre-planned equipment improvements for 

the boosters, interceptors, early warning and fire control radars, and C2BM and 

communications software builds. We plan to enhance the Aegis Weapons System 

AN/SPY–1 radar to improve discrimination for engaging both unitary and separating targets. We will assess GMD integration with the BMDS Interceptor and also 

test the interceptor on board an Aegis warship. 

Terminal Elements.—We will complete the development and testing of the 

THAAD weapon system. We are planning up to eight developmental and operational-type flight tests to stress interceptor, radar, and C2BM performance in realistic scenarios that include advanced countermeasures. 

Sensors.—Our work will build on the initial BMDS Radar configuration and conduct sensor research to improve capabilities and develop advanced algorithms. We 

will improve Family of Radar coverage, performance, and flexibility and address vulnerability within the context of the overall BMD system global sensor network. 

STSS operations will continue to be integrated with other BMD elements in the Test 

Bed and support enhanced C2BM development initiatives. STSS will demonstrate 

the ability to acquire, track, and discriminate midcourse objects with space-based 

infrared sensors. 

Block 2010

Work in this block will continue spiral development projects for weapon and sensor improvements and platform integration. C2BM and communications improvements will enable highly resolved sensor data to be exchanged with all BMD system 

elements. 

We are requesting $24 million in fiscal year 2004 to support RDT&E for Block 

2010. Our estimated expenditure for Block 2010 activities across the FYDP is $4.7 

billion (see Table 4).
212

TABLE 4.—BLOCK 2010 FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002–09

($M then-year) 1

Project 

Fiscal year— FYDP fiscal year 

2004–09

Totals fiscal year 

2002–09 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AEGIS BMD Block 2010 .................................................................................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 8 104 145 257 257STSS Block 2010/2012 ..................................................................................................................... 179 55 24 44 232 565 750 1,065 2,680 2,914BMDS Interceptor Block 2010 .......................................................................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 97 146 585 974 1,803 1,803

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................... 179 55 24 44 329 719 1,439 2,184 4,740 4,974

1 Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding. 
213

Boost Elements.—Block 2010 activities will improve exo-atmospheric BMDS Interceptor performance and enable greater basing mode flexibility, to include possible 

adaptation to sea-based platforms. We will develop and test an advanced spacebased test bed to augment or replace the Block 2008 space-based test bed. 

Midcourse Elements.—We will continue flight-testing improved weapon and sensor 

components and work toward the integration of an advanced BMDS Interceptor. 

Aegis BMD will incorporate prior block developments into the Navy-developed nextgeneration, open architecture Combat System. 

Terminal Elements.—THAAD will integrate proven technologies to enhance its capability against longer range and faster ballistic missiles without sacrificing existing 

mobility and performance. Fielding and survivability upgrades also are planned to 

demonstrate a capability against both IRBM and ICBM threats. 

Sensors.—New technologies will be inserted into subsequent STSS blocks to provide precise threat tracking and improved discrimination. We will develop and 

launch a satellite with improved sensors integrated into the first common satellite 

bus, and develop and integrate advanced ground station equipment and software. 

The Block 2010 STSS will deliver a space-based capability to acquire, track and discriminate ballistic missiles based on larger aperture track sensors, increased vehicle 

lifetime, and increased, near-real-time on-board data processing. The funding also 

includes launch services for Block 2010 satellites. C2BM funding focuses on integrating STSS data into the sensor net. 

Mission Area Investments 

Our Mission Area Investments are investments common to the entire BMD system that enable us to implement over time our block fielding approach. Mission 

Area Investments maintain core development and testing infrastructure and facilitate the integration of future block capabilities. The President’s Budget requests 

$1.69 billion in fiscal year 2004 for these investments. This program activity accounts for about $11.3 billion, or just over 20 percent of the total funding estimate 

across the FYDP. Table 5 provides a detailed breakdown of funding for each investment activity.
214

TABLE 5.—MISSION AREA INVESTMENTS FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002–09

($M then-year) 1

Project 

Fiscal year— FYDP fiscal year 

2004–09

Totals fiscal year 

2002–09 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

System Engineering .......................................................................................................................... 236 397 436 474 501 510 580 578 3,079 3,713C2, BM & Communications .............................................................................................................. 16 16 119 125 178 201 204 218 1,045 1,076Test & Targets .................................................................................................................................. 359 332 338 332 328 352 316 333 1,998 2,688International Programs ..................................................................................................................... 211 205 148 215 129 100 89 89 769 1,185Advanced Concepts ........................................................................................................................... 347 176 388 418 363 437 524 534 2,664 3,187Program Operations .......................................................................................................................... 232 170 264 252 283 306 317 333 1,754 2,156

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................... 1,400 1,296 1,692 1,817 1,783 1,904 2,029 2,083 11,309 14,005

1 Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding. 
215

The significant Mission Area Investments are as follows: 

System Engineering 

The System Engineering activity defines, manages, and integrates the layered 

BMD system. Capability-based acquisition requires continual assessment of technical and operational alternatives at the component, element, and system levels. 

Our system engineering process assesses and determines system design and element 

contributions and the impact of introducing new technologies and operational concepts to ensure properly synthesized system blocks. These activities provide the 

technical expertise, tools, and facilities to develop the BMD system and maintain 

an intelligence and research capability to ensure that the system evolves in a way 

that is responsive to known and anticipated threats. 

We are increasing our focus on risks related to producibility, manufacturing, quality, cost, and schedule of the BMD system elements. We dedicate resources to examine the applicability of technology to system needs and transition readiness. Industrial and manufacturing investment strategies for achieving system affordability 

and facilitating insertion of successive new capabilities are increasingly vital to the 

program. 

Command and Control, Battle Management & Communications (C2BMC) 

Our activities related to C2BMC create interoperability among a wide variety of 

legacy systems and emerging elements over joint and coalition networks. The 

C2BMC activity will continue development and integration of the C2BM and communications functions for the BMD system. By fielding software development spirals 

that improve system synergism, integration capability, and interoperability with external systems, this activity expands the inherent C2BM capabilities of fielded terminal, midcourse, and boost defenses. Communications funding will develop and improve BMD system-wide communication links and sensor netting functions to enable 

enhanced early warning and quicker interceptor response times. The Joint National 

Integration Center (JNIC) provides a common environment for the BMD elements 

to conduct experiments, demonstrations, and exercises and is a key-operating C2BM 

component of the Test Bed. 

BMD Tests & Targets 

The missile defense program includes significant test and evaluation infrastructure, test execution capabilities, and analytical tools for program-wide use. The 

Agency conducts risk reduction, developmental, and operational element and component testing as well as tests to collect critical measurements, such as plume signatures. We also have a rigorous measurements test program to collect data in support 

of design, development, and engineering activities. Measurements from dedicated 

test events and targets of opportunity enable us to design components, characterize 

potential countermeasures, test algorithms, undertake lethality and kill assessment, 

and validate our critical models and simulations. 

Investments providing ballistic missile targets, countermeasures, and other payloads support our test objectives. Presentation of the targets and payloads for flight 

test events involves designing, prototyping, developing, procuring, certifying, and 

qualifying for testing. In fiscal year 2003 we will establish a single prime contractor 

to further enhance system level management of targets and countermeasures activities. 

In fiscal year 2004 we will continue to resource critical test facilities, launch capabilities, instrumentation, telemetry, communications, and safety systems underpinning our testing regime. With the enhanced realism of the Test Bed, the increasing 

complexity of our tests, and the escalating tempo of test activity, our investments 

in this area will emphasize flexibility, standardization, and mobility. 

International Programs 

The President has underscored the importance of working with other countries to 

develop missile defenses and provide protection against ballistic missile threats. We 

are building defensive layers that could potentially involve a variety of locations 

around the globe and probably involve many other countries. Last summer interagency teams briefed key allies on the international participation framework. Today 

we are well along in our discussions with several governments regarding their possible participation in the missile defense program and improvements in our industrial relationships. 

Advanced Concepts 

We have several Science and Technology (S&T) initiatives to increase BMD system firepower and sensor capability and extend the engagement battle space of terminal elements. In fiscal year 2004, we will continue to focus on the Miniature Kill 
216

Vehicle (MKV) project, which could lead to a flight-test in fiscal year 2005. Fiscal 

year 2004 funding will support investigating Early Detection and Tracking (ELDT) 

technology, Laser/LADAR technologies for improved tracking, weapon guidance, and 

imaging, and technologies for a space-based, high-power laser. While our S&T activities are not on a critical path for insertion into the BMD system, each one of them 

is being considered for their block enhancement value. 

Program Operations 

Our Program Operations expenses are primarily for government personnel performing management support activities, contractors that assist in performing these 

activities, and O&M-like costs associated with operations and maintenance at numerous facilities around the country, supplies and equipment, communications and 

printing, travel and training, and information technology management. 

Management and Oversight 

The missile defense program uses an acquisition approach tailored to the unprecedented nature of the technology involved in missile defense. We will continue to 

work very hard to ensure that the program has adequate management and congressional oversight. There is an improved process in place within the Department that 

preserves management, technical, and financial oversight by cognizant authorities 

on the Senior Executive Council and the Missile Defense Support Group. Senior 

warfighters, including the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, have reviewed 

missile defense objectives and will continue to do so several times a year. Internally 

we have in place configuration management procedures, and we produce on a regular basis the necessary threat, system, and configuration control documentation to 

ensure that our activities continue to support our development and fielding objectives. As directed in the 2002 and 2003 Defense Authorization Acts, we have identified cost, schedule, testing, and performance goals and developmental baselines in 

the President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget justification materials and shown clear linkages between the Agency’s budget and key performance measures. 

Closing 

Mr. Chairman, we are on track with our missile defense program. We know that 

the technology fundamental to the current generation of missile defenses works. We 

have demonstrated many times over the past two years that we can collide with a 

warhead and destroy it. We have the confidence to proceed with plans for an initial 

defense capability. A few years ago, I could not have said this to the American people. Today I can. We will build confidence in the system over time as we invest in 

the program. 

We also recognize that we have much more work to do to improve the BMD system. The architecture we have in 2004 and 2005 will probably be very different a 

decade later, depending on how our RDT&E efforts proceed. Our objective continues 

to be one of improving missile defense capability over time. We have made considerable progress in missile defense over the past three years. With the President’s direction, and with your approval of our budget request, we will take another important step on that long road before us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, General. 

I apologize to my colleagues. I had some things in the way, and 

I didn’t call on the Senators. Senator Cochran, did you have an 

opening statement? 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will be 

glad to proceed to hear from Mr. Christie. I think they have done 

a great job with this program, but I appreciate the recognition. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Same with me. I’d rather hear from the witnesses. 

OPERATIONAL TESTING

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Christie. 

Mr. CHRISTIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 

members of the committee. I also appreciate this opportunity to ap-
217

pear before you today to discuss operational test issues involved 

with building a missile defense testbed that may also have some 

inherent defensive capability. 

Let me emphasize up front my strong support for building this 

testbed as a means of conducting more realistic ballistic missile defense testing. It will provide us with an excellent capability to test 

the integrated missile defense system against more challenging targets and under more realistic engagement conditions. Designed to 

accomplish this testing mission, this testbed will have some limited 

capabilities to defend against an actual threat, depending of course 

on certain assumptions about intelligence of an imminent attack 

and the positioning of sensors to acquire, track, and target the 

threat. 

Regardless of what we call this initial collection of equipment, 

communications, and personnel, the fact remains that we must 

build this test capability and put it in the field before we can test 

the system. Additionally, it is prudent to develop operational concepts and to train personnel in concert with the testbed’s development so that whatever inherent capability exists in the testing infrastructure, it could be employed to defend the United States in 

the event of a ballistic missile attack. 

I understand and share the concerns raised by several members 

of Congress with the precedent of fielding operational systems 

without adequate operational testing. The Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) under General Kadish is proceeding with a design and development strategy that is very proactive when it comes to testing. 

My staff and I are involved on a daily basis with the MDA and the 

program managers for the various ballistic missile defense system 

developments. We are reviewing test plans, participating in planning meetings, witnessing tests, providing coordinated advice, and 

responding in written reports to Congress on the adequacy of these 

testing programs. I have access to all the information I need to fulfill these responsibilities. 

I have completed my assessment of the PAC–3 initial operational 

test and evaluation and documented the results in a classified beyond low rate initial production report that was provided to the 

Congress last November. I have also completed my annual assessment of the overall MDA testing programs and submitted that report to the appropriate committee of this Congress. 

In that report I do conclude that the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 

(BMDS) has yet to demonstrate operational capability. This conclusion is based on the fact that many essential components of the 

GMD element have yet to be built. We cannot test the GMD element without these critical components and we cannot test it realistically without the testbed. 

This was illustrated recently when the exoatmospheric kill vehicle failed to separate from the booster in Integrated Flight Test 10. 

MDA subsequently restructured the flight test program, eliminating further testing with the old booster system. This decision 

considered the poor performance of the surrogate booster system, 

and the risks of diverting booster developers from the objective 

booster design effort, compared with the advantages of gathering 

additional data from those flight tests. 
218

Beginning later this year and prior to the 2004 decision, testing 

will resume with two flight tests for each of the candidate boosters 

and a risk reduction flight for a target launched from Kodiak in 

Alaska. Intercept testing will continue in IFTs–14 and 15, using a 

new booster motor. This is followed by integrated ground testing of 

the testbed and culminates in a system test readiness review. 

Current plans call for three more intercept flights for the Aegis 

Ballistic Missile Defense system prior to the end of fiscal year 

2004; the first two intercepts against a non-separating target and 

the last flight conducted against a separating target. Additional 

flight testing beyond this point is still in the planning stage. The 

purpose of the testbed is to establish and define a baseline capability to realistically integrate and test components of the BMDS, 

and to enhance capability incrementally through block development. 

The real challenge is to develop an operational concept for using 

this testbed that integrates components of the BMDS as they become available in order to evaluate the operational capability of the 

system and to defend against a ballistic missile attack, if needed. 

If we don’t develop an operational concept and an attack does come, 

then we will have failed in a most serious way. On the other hand, 

if an effort to refine an operational concept for an interim system 

significantly distracts from building the objective system in an expeditious fashion, then we risk similar failure against more sophisticated threats down the road. 

While the testbed is a research and development system, this 

does not preclude us from addressing operational test and evaluation. In fact, it is common for systems in development to combine 

developmental and operational test objectives. The testbed, including missiles, will provide us an early opportunity to acquire valuable ground test data on intra- and interoperability between the 

command and control center and the silo/missile complex; on the 

system and missile health and status built in testing capability; 

and on system safety, reliability, maintainability, and logistics 

supportability. Availability of this data will permit lessons learned 

from the testbed to be considered in improving the objective GMD. 

Every major GMD ground and flight test, both prior to and after 

the 2004 testbed is available, formally addresses both developmental testing and operational testing objectives, consistent with 

the maturity level of the system. The Service Operational Test 

Agencies personnel are dedicated to planning the details of the 

operational test portions of these ground and flight tests, and analyzing and reporting relevant operational test data. My staff is 

working with these agencies to define independent operational 

plans for the operational test activities. I will review and approve 

these operation test and evaluation plans and their associated data 

requirement. I will use both developmental and operational test 

data as the basis for my operational assessment in advising General Kadish and the Defense Acquisition Executive. This assessment will also be the basis for my annual report to the Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my staff has worked diligently with the MDA staff to build what I feel is a very effective 

relationship. I will continue to work closely with General Kadish to 

ensure that the mission of the testbed, as a testbed, is kept in per-
219

spective. I will continue to monitor planning and testing activities 

to ensure that we test as realistically and as thoroughly as we can, 

advise the Director, MDA of operational testing concerns, and report my assessments of progress to the Secretary and to you. 

This concludes my opening remarks and I welcome your questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. CHRISTIE

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye and distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today and discuss operational test 

issues involved with building a missile defense testbed that may also have some limited inherent defensive capability. Let me emphasize up front that I strongly support building this testbed as a means of conducting more realistic ballistic missile 

defense testing. It will provide us with an excellent capability to test the integrated 

Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) against more challenging targets under 

more realistic engagement conditions. Designed to accomplish this testing mission, 

this testbed will have some limited capability to defend against an actual threat, 

depending, of course, on certain assumptions about intelligence of an imminent attack and the positioning of sensors to acquire, track, and target the threat. 

Regardless of what we call this initial collection of equipment, communications, 

and personnel, the fact remains that we must build this test capability and put it 

in the field before we can test the system. Additionally, it is prudent to develop 

operational concepts and train personnel in concert with the testbed’s development, 

so that whatever inherent capability exists in the testing infrastructure could be 

employed to defend the United States in the event of a ballistic missile attack. 

I understand and share the concerns raised by members of Congress with the 

precedent of fielding operational systems without adequate operational testing. Let 

me take a moment here to discuss my assessment of this situation. 

The Missile Defense Agency under General Kadish is proceeding with a design 

and development strategy that is very proactive when it comes to testing. My staff 

and I are involved on a daily basis with the Missile Defense Agency and the program managers for the Ballistic Missile Defense System elements. We are reviewing 

test plans, participating in planning meetings, witnessing tests, providing coordinated advice, and responding in written reports to Congress on the adequacy of the 

testing programs. I have access to all the information I need to fulfill these responsibilities. 

I have completed my assessment of the PAC–3 Initial Operational Test and Evaluation test results, which is documented in a classified Beyond Low Rate Initial 

Production report, provided last November to the Congress. I have also completed 

my annual assessment of the MDA testing programs and submitted the report to 

the appropriate committees of the Congress. In that report, I conclude that the 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense element of the BMDS in essence has not yet demonstrated operational capability. This conclusion is based on the fact that many essential components of the GMD element have not yet been built. We cannot test the 

system without these critical components, and we cannot test it realistically without 

the testbed. 

This was illustrated recently, when the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) failed 

to separate from the booster in Integrated Flight Test-10 or IFT–10. MDA subsequently restructured the flight test program, eliminating further testing with the 

old booster system. This decision considered the poor performance of the surrogate 

booster system and the risks of diverting booster developers from the objective 

booster design effort, compared with the advantages of gathering additional data 

from those flight tests. 

Beginning later this fiscal year and prior to the 2004 decision, testing will resume 

with two test flights for each of the candidate boosters and a risk reduction flight 

for a target launched from the Kodiak target launch site in Alaska. Intercept testing 

will continue in IFTs–14 and 15, using the new booster. This is followed by integration ground testing of the testbed and culminates in a system test readiness review. 

Current plans also call for three more intercept flights for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system prior to the end of fiscal year 2004, with the last flight conducted against a separating threat target. Additional flight testing beyond this point 

is still in the planning stage. The purpose of the testbed is to establish and define 

a baseline capability, to realistically integrate and test the components of the 

BMDS, and to enhance capability incrementally, through block development. 
220

The real challenge is to develop an operational concept for using the testbed that 

integrates components of the BMDS as they become available, in order to evaluate 

the operational capability of the system and defend against a ballistic missile attack 

if so needed. If we don’t develop an operational concept and an attack does come, 

then we will have failed in a most serious way. On the other hand, if an effort to 

refine an operational concept for an interim system significantly distracts us from 

building the objective system in an expeditious fashion, then we risk similar failure 

against more sophisticated threats down the road. 

While the testbed is a research and development system, this does not preclude 

us from addressing operational test and evaluation issues. In fact, it is common for 

systems in development to combine developmental and operational test objectives. 

The testbed, including missiles, will provide an early opportunity to acquire valuable ground test data on intra- and interoperability between the command and control center and the silo/missile complex; on the system and missile health and status 

or built in testing capability; and on system safety, reliability, maintainability, and 

logistics supportability. Availability of this data will permit lessons learned from the 

testbed to be considered in improving the objective Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

system. 

Every major GMD ground and flight test, both prior to and after the 2004 testbed 

is available, formally addresses both developmental testing and Operational Testing 

objectives, consistent with the maturity level of the system. The Service Operational 

Test Agencies personnel are dedicated to planning the details of the operational test 

portions of the ground and flight tests, and analyzing and reporting relevant operational test data. My staff is working with the Operational Test Agencies to define 

independent evaluation plans for the operational test activities. I will review and 

approve these Operational Test and Evaluation plans and their associated data requirements. I will use both developmental and operational test data as the basis for 

my operational assessment, in advising General Kadish and the Defense Acquisition 

Executive. This assessment will be the basis for my annual report to the Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, my staff has worked diligently with the 

MDA staff to build what I feel is a very effective relationship. I will continue to 

work closely with General Kadish to ensure that the mission of the testbed, as a 

testbed, is kept in perspective. I am working with the Service Operational Test 

Agencies to identify data requirements for an operational evaluation plan that I will 

review and approve. I will continue to monitor planning and testing activities to ensure that we test as realistically and thoroughly as we can, advise the Director, 

MDA of operational testing concerns, and report my assessments of progress to the 

Secretary and to you. 

This concludes my opening remarks and I welcome your questions.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Christie. Senator 

Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I first want to congratulate both of you, General Kadish and Mr. 

Christie, for a very workman-like and outstanding performance in 

the duties that you have. This is a very challenging task that we 

have given to you, but I think you have demonstrated an ability 

to use the resources that you have been given by the Congress and 

to develop tests and field some very impressive missile defense systems. I think the comprehensive approach is the right approach, for 

long-range ballistic missile defense to shorter-range tactical challenges that we face, and most recently in Iraq. 

I would like, building on the experience we have had in Iraq, to 

ask you what your assessment is of the missile systems that we 

utilize to protect our troops and population centers in the recent 

conflict. Could you tell us specific observations that you have about 

the efficacy of the PAC group for example, and other systems that 

we may have used? 

General KADISH. Let me start first, Senator Cochran, and give 

you some insight from where we sit on the Patriot as a system and 

Patriot-3 in particular, and Mr. Christie can add to it. 
221

PATRIOT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

As you would expect, a lot of the data that I would like to talk 

about is classified, so I will keep it in the unclassified range. But 

I guess when you look at the performance right now of Patriot as 

a system, which includes earlier versions of Patriot as well as Patriot-3, I would characterize the overall performance as very encouraging. And the reason I say it that way is that I think it is 

probably more proper for us to discuss this when the war is over 

and we have the chance to look in detail at all the engagements 

of Patriot and Patriot-3 that occurred during the war. 

Now having said that, I would like to talk about some of the 

things that we really know about the engagements and some of the 

things that we think we know about the engagements. 

What we know about the engagements is that from a ballistic 

missile standpoint, we have engaged I think nine ballistic missiles 

of short range character. In addition, what we know is we have engaged those nine targets with a combination of Patriot-2s and 3s. 

And the final thing we know is that they didn’t hit their targets 

for one reason or another. There were some shots that we let go 

because they did not threaten any particular defended area, but 

overall, the performance is very encouraging from that standpoint 

that we seem to have engaged the targets successfully. 

Now what we think we know enters into a lot of speculation because of the data gathering from the war and those kinds of things 

we have ongoing, and it is probably better to wait until the end of 

the war and we will have some more information coming in to 

make definitive statements about it. 

But from every indication I have seen and from the data available, we have a pretty good combination and capability against 

these missiles, and effectively it provides a national missile defense 

capability, if you will, for Kuwait and so forth. 

In addition to that, I think you know that the Israeli system, the 

Arrow is working in combination with their own Patriot-2s and are 

in country on that side. So overall, the performance of Patriot, and 

particularly Patriot-3, which has had two specific engagements 

against BDMs, has been very very good and as expected, but there 

is a lot of data we have to gather to make sure that we can stand 

behind those statements based on the battlefield type of information we’re getting. 

But it is a major first step and kind of a microcosm of what we 

are trying to do in missile defense, because I can conclude now that 

if this data proves out to be as I expect, that hit-to-kill works in 

combat conditions, at least against short range missiles. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Christie, do you have any comments? 

Mr. CHRISTIE. I would add a couple thoughts to that. You have 

received my classified report of last fall which pointed out some 

problems that we experienced in the initial operational testing. I 

am heartened that it appears some of the more serious problems 

encountered in the operational testing had been addressed and 

fixed by the Army before the deployment. While we cannot get into 

the classified aspects of Patriot Performance, it appears to have 

worked quite well. 
222

My other comment is that I am concerned about the fratricide incidents, and of course they are under investigation. We don’t know 

at this point in time whether we can blame them on Patriot or 

blame them on problems with the aircraft that were engaged. 

I support General Kadish’s statements otherwise. 

U.S. NAVY INTEGRATION IN MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator COCHRAN. The other day we had before the committee 

the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Vern Clark, and he made 

some comments about the Navy’s capabilities that they were testing and developing, that he said offered promise for I think a midrange defense surveillance system based on cruisers. Tell me what 

your assessment is now of our capabilities and the promise that we 

may be able to utilize the Navy in that way. Are you encouraged 

by the progress of testing programs or do you have plans for more 

aggressive testing in this area to prove these systems? 

General KADISH. Yes, Senator. The Aegis system itself is part of 

the testbed that we’re talking about here, and the early fielding of 

equipment. We are very encouraged by the SM–3 successes, which 

is a component of that system now. We were three for three and 

planning more tests this year and next before we actually start 

building more of these early missiles. 

In addition to that, I will just point out again that in the Gulf 

area, the U.S.S. Higgins has been providing early warning cues to 

the Patriot system for these engagements, which is again, the type 

of integration that we want to see between the systems and among 

the systems to make them work better. 

So, I am very encouraged with the Aegis BMD program and the 

Navy is working very well with us to handle the operations impact 

of having surveillance capability as well as potentially a defense 

against medium range missiles in the 2004 time frame, very big 

steps forward in that regard. 

Senator COCHRAN. I’m only going to ask one more question and 

then yield to others. 

MISSILE DEFENSE TESTBED

The fact that you have made a decision to use the testbed in 

Alaska as a deployed system in fact that would provide our Nation 

some defense or a defense capability against ballistic missiles is encouraging to me, and I applaud you for it, and I want you to know 

you have supporters in that decision. And I wonder, when do you 

think you will be able to have the first test of that testbed, what 

is the timetable? 

General KADISH. I think we’re still nailing down some of the details, but I think it will be in the first quarter of calendar year 

2005 is when we’re planning the first integrated test of the testbed 

with an intercept test. Prior to that time we will be doing an awful 

lot of ground testing, integration testing on all the equipment 

across the board. So if I’m not mistaken, I think that’s the target 

time frame. 

Mr. CHRISTIE. In particular, we will be using different geometries, firing the target from Kodiak with an intercept or launching 

from Vandenberg. That would be the first time we have gotten 

away from the relatively unrealistic geometries used in testing to 
223

date with the interceptors out of Kwajalein and the targets from 

Vandenberg. 

General KADISH. The plan currently includes, and we’re still debating this internally, two to three tests a year out of the testbed 

configuration involving intercepts, and many more ground tests involved. And we are even starting the planning to do multiple systems integration, where we will try to do a test against a longrange missile and at the same time will try to intercept a mediumrange missile with Aegis and other types of systems. So that planning is ongoing and we haven’t nailed all those things down because this is new and quite complicated, but that’s the direction 

we’re going. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Shelby. 

MINIATURE KILL VEHICLE (MKV)

Senator SHELBY. General, would you tell us what you can about 

where the development of the miniature kill vehicle, the MKV program currently is, and what improvements your 2004 budget request will allow you to make in this program? And just say what 

you can. I understand where we are. 

General KADISH. The miniature kill vehicle advanced development is ongoing. We have an acquisition strategy to put contractors 

on contract to actually build these vehicles and start testing them. 

And I am very encouraged by the whole process. In fact, we’re looking even closer at how we can do that better than where we started 

because of what we found out over the past year. 

And the budget request supports that effort in the overall process, and we’re looking cautiously optimistic about having that 

added to the architecture in the latter part of the decade, if we 

have the success that we expect. 

STRATEGIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND

Senator SHELBY. What about the role of the SMDC and the Technical Center is playing in this? They are right in the center of this, 

are they not? 

General KADISH. That’s right. The SMDC and the folks surrounding that, particularly in the Huntsville area, have been the 

key to a lot of our successes. In fact when I look across the board, 

we have an awful lot of people counting on us across the country, 

particularly in places like Huntsville and others at SMDC, to make 

it successful. And we only have about 550 some odd days before we 

want to actually declare the testbed in operational capability, and 

everyone is working hard to make that work. 

Senator SHELBY. General, do you feel pretty confident that the 

mission of the MKV is on track to meet your flight experience test 

goal in 2005. 

General KADISH. I do, Senator. It’s not going to be easy. 

Senator SHELBY. Like Senator Cochran says, it’s a real challenge 

but, you have been meeting those challenges. 

General KADISH. We have, and I’m confident in our planning and 

the management approach that we’re taking, it all comes down to 

people in the end, and we have some good people. 
224

Senator SHELBY. General, I fully support the President’s plan to 

field initial BMD capabilities in 2004. Establishing the testbed is 

a critical step for the ground-based missile defense strategy. This 

initial BMD strategy will set the stage as we have been talking 

about, for a more robust and realistic testing of ground integration 

of the future layered ballistic missile defense capability. I expect 

there’s enormous complexity to this program, more than complex, 

I guess, and want you to succeed. 

GROUND BASED MID-COURSE DEFENSE

But some of us are concerned about the health of the groundbased midcourse defense segment. I am concerned that the GMD 

segment has been used to cover other funding requirements within 

the MDA, to the extent that near-term objectives are threatened. 

Is the GMD segment currently facing a budget shortfall and if so, 

how large? 

General KADISH. Well, Senator, we always have more requirements than we do funding. So starting from that premise, as I look 

at the GMD budget, we have increased the budget over our last 

year’s request in the 2004 column by about $400 million. We have 

added some tasks to make the operational testbed portion of this, 

and I would say that overall in every program, we rebalanced and 

reallocated, and it was somewhere around $400 million to $800 

million that had to be readjusted, but there is a net increase to the 

overall budget in GMD. And it’s a matter of prioritizing the tasks 

to be done, and at this point in time, I believe our request is adequate for what we have set out to do. However, just like any other 

program, if we run into problems and we have issues that we have 

to use money, we’re going to have to make some tough decisions 

in the overall process. 

Senator SHELBY. Do you believe that you will be able to meet 

your deployment testing and development objectives of GMD? 

General KADISH. I believe we can under the current framework, 

and I will be the first to let you know if we run short. 

Senator SHELBY. Yes, sir, let this committee know. 

General KADISH. Yes, sir. 

MDA NATIONAL TEAM

Senator SHELBY. Lastly, we are concerned about the impact of 

the National Team. Is it fair to say that the National Team is central to the MDA’s ability to accomplish its mission? 

General KADISH. I believe it is, and we have been—there is some 

misunderstanding about what I mean by the National Team. What 

I mean by the National Team is it includes government, contractors, industry members across MDA to pull together and do the 

hard engineering among and between the systems. And quite 

frankly, I don’t know how to get the technical job done without that 

kind of effort. 

And we have been 14 or 15 months into it. I would like it to be 

a little further downstream in terms of our ability to solve some of 

the problems. 

Senator SHELBY. Is that your major concern? 

General KADISH. I think so, it’s a major concern, but you know, 

from a realistic standpoint, I think we’re doing about as good as 
225

we possibly could do at this point in the process. And by this time 

next year, I think we will be much better off than we are today in 

that regard. 

Senator SHELBY. General, we appreciate the job you’re doing and 

the leadership that you have shown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. I regret that I was late, 

Mr. Chairman, and I request that my statement be made part of 

the record. 

Senator STEVENS. It will be. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Today I am pleased to join our Chairman in welcoming to the committee Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish, Director of the Missile Defense Agency and Mr. 

Thomas Christie, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. 

Missile defense is, of course, a program of great interest to many, and one not 

without controversy. Indeed, the missile defense program is one of the most critical 

national security issues of today and for the foreseeable future. 

There is no question that the ballistic missile threat against our nation and our 

troops in the field will continue to grow as technologies to develop and acquire ballistic missiles continues to proliferate. 

The question our country faces is how best to meet this threat. The administration’s plan calls for a ‘‘layered’’ defense to intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges, 

and in all phases of flight to defend the United States, our allies and friends, and 

our deployed forces around the world. 

This is an expensive program. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes over $7.7 billion for the Missile Defense Agency. It is also a complex program. Despite 

successes in recent tests—and for that I commend you both—there are still many 

technological hurdles to overcome. 

Let me assure you, General Kadish, this committee views the missile defense program as critically important to our national security. And we will do our best to support your efforts. Nevertheless, given the risks and costs of this program we will 

remain ever vigilant in our oversight. 

Today’s hearing provides the committee an important opportunity to understand 

the Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget request and the priorities and challenges 

of the missile defense program. 

Gentlemen, we welcome your testimony. 

AIRBORNE LASER (ABL)

Senator INOUYE. General, can you give us an update to the status of the airborne laser, its cost, its schedule, the so-called weight 

increase, and why the funds were less for 2004 than this year? 

General KADISH. Senator, the overall situation in the ABL is that 

I guess I would characterize it is we are cautiously optimistic about 

our ability to execute the ABL effort. We have about 18 percent of 

the effort left to go if you measure it in terms of the cost versus 

the tasks that we think we have to do. So, about 80 percent done 

or thereabouts, with the toughest 18 percent to go. 

From a cost standpoint, I believe we have enough budget to handle the program as we currently understand it. We are heading towards a shoot-down of a ballistic missile sometime in the 18 to 20 

month timeframe ahead of us. We’re working that schedule hard 

every day because when, if you look at Edwards Air Force Base 

where we have all the hardware coming together, it’s all out there 

and we’re putting it in the ground, and the system that we have 

there in the carcass of a 747. 

One of the things I’m looking forward to right now this year is 

something we call ‘‘first light’’. That is, when we get the laser to 
226

work in the ground-based configuration that we have, and then 

we’re going to put it in the airplane and do it in the air, prior to 

shoot-down. If we accomplish that first light this year, my confidence in meeting our scheduled goal of 18 to 24 months or thereabouts to do the shoot-down will go up tremendously. 

So that’s what I’m looking for next, and we’re having some technical issues meeting those schedules, but I think on balance we’re 

doing pretty good given the technology. 

There’s this issue that kind of surrounds the program about the 

weight of the laser modules in the airplane. Now certainly, I would 

invite the committee members to go out to Edwards to see this 

technical marvel, in my opinion. If you look in the back of that 747, 

you can imagine how big the back of this cargo airplane is. We fill 

up that cargo airplane with a lot of plumbing and a lot of exotic 

material, and things that produce this laser and the beam surrounding it. 

The weight issue gets down to how heavy all this equipment is 

for the overall airplane, and the fact that some of it is in a certain 

part of the airplane. And you can overgross a part of an airplane 

in terms of its floor weighting and that type of thing, but not affect 

the overall weight of the airplane and how it flies. So it’s a complex 

interaction but the way I would say it is, the weight issue is really 

not a problem with the lasers, from my opinion. We know what it 

is. 

What it affects is how long it flies; instead of 4 hours it may be 

31⁄2 hours before refueling. And we know that it meets the individual weight requirement for where we put it in the airplane. So 

it’s pretty heavy for the spot we put it in, but it’s still okay for the 

overall weight. Now what it means for the long-term health of ABL 

is whether or not we can make the airplane stay airborne longer 

from the overall operational context, and certainly that will be desirable. But my main goal right now, along with the many hundreds of people working that program, is to make the laser work 

and shoot down a missile with it, and the weight issue is not preventing us from doing that and in fact is not something that we’re 

worried about too much for this configuration, it will be for later. 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004, I think is a little bit less 

than what we asked for last year, but that reflects the fact that we 

want to be finished with this particular part of the program in the 

fiscal year 2004 time frame. 

Now we’re going to have to look at our performance on the airplane to see whether or not we’re actually going to finish on time. 

As I said, we still have some uncertainty between 18 to 24 months, 

or when exactly that shoot-down is going to occur. But to sum it 

all up, I am cautiously optimistic. 

The cost issue, we potentially could overrun somewhere between 

15 to 20 percent on the program. We have enough budget to cover 

the program effort and we are right on the edge of making this 

very revolutionary technology to prove itself or fail, and we just 

don’t know the answer to that question, yet. 

Senator INOUYE. So we should not be too concerned about your 

reduction in the request? 

General KADISH. At least not right now, Senator. It’s kind of like 

I was telling Senator Shelby about the ground based. It will depend 
227

on how well we can execute this year’s budget for ABL, and I think 

we have enough money now. 

NAVY INTEGRATING, AEGIS

Senator INOUYE. What is your arrangement with the Navy on the 

Aegis system? There’s a cruiser under your command isn’t there? 

General KADISH. That’s right. We needed to have a dedicated 

vessel to do a lot of our testing for Aegis and in talking with the 

Navy senior leadership, particularly the CNO, Admiral Clark, we 

came to an arrangement where the Navy will actually give us a 

cruiser to use for full-time testing. And they are also working, having operational ships doing the mission for the testbed that we described earlier. So we have been making pretty good progress and 

we have the assets now, and we can do the job. 

Senator INOUYE. So you would say you are pleased with the 

agreement so far? 

General KADISH. Yes, sir, very pleased. 

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

LASER FUNDING

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Senator. 

General, I’m a little concerned about the reduction in laser 

money funding too. Is there any real reason for that in terms of, 

was that your decision or was that a decision of others? 

General KADISH. Well, Senator, that was done internally at MDA 

and we basically made the allocation decisions I guess over the 

past 6 or 8 months, and that’s what you’re seeing in the final budget release. But as I said earlier, the time difference between when 

we put the budget together and the execution of the program may 

yield a different answer, but right now I believe we have enough 

dollars to do the job. I could get back with you later, both you and 

Senator Inouye, with details of that for the record, and talk to you 

about it. 

[The information follows:] 

AIRBORNE LASER

We were able to rephase ABL’s fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 funding between the submittals of PB03 and PB04. The fiscal year 2004 reduction from $830 

million to $610 million is due primarily to the ‘‘just in time’’ payment schedule of 

the ‘‘Green aircraft’’ in fiscal year 2005 and stretching of the iron bird funding and 

a better definition of the Block 2004 requirements. 

MDA TESTBED, FORT GREELY

Senator STEVENS. Is your Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for 

Fort Greely still the same? 

General KADISH. It is. 

Senator STEVENS. For 2004 or 2005? 

General KADISH. We’re heading—I have to be more precise in 

order to manage the program and set goals, so our precise date is 

September 30, 2004. Now recognize that date could move depending on the problems we deal with in execution, but we are driving 

the schedules to that date on balance. 
228

Senator STEVENS. And how many interceptors does that call for 

at Fort Greely? 

General KADISH. That’s up to 10 interceptors. 

Senator STEVENS. Will there be any interceptors at Kodiak? 

General KADISH. No, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Will there be any at Vandenberg? 

General KADISH. There will be four at Vandenberg and six at 

Fort Greely, and then the next year we add 10 to Fort Greely. 

AIRBORNE LASER

Senator STEVENS. Back to the laser. Do you have a schedule for 

that in terms of what its IOC is? 

General KADISH. I guess the way, the sort of short answer is no 

right now, because we have to actually do the demonstration and 

the test before we can be confident on when we can actually build 

more of those systems. But another way to look at it is that once 

we have the shoot-down with the airplane that we have today, we 

will have a basic capability in that airplane if it’s needed for other 

reasons, just like we do with the ground-based testbed. 

So, a prerequisite for me to answer that question with some certainty is when we actually demonstrate the capability to shoot 

down a missile with high energy laser from that airplane, we could 

make a decision on whether or not we should proceed or how we 

should proceed to build more of those systems. That planning is ongoing now but we haven’t nailed down a date. I would assert that 

it would be as soon as practical if it’s successful, because it’s such 

a big addition to the overall architecture. 

BOOST VEHICLE TESTING

Senator STEVENS. Our staff tells me that the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) fiscal year 2002 Annual Report indicates that testing of boost vehicles thus far has been limited to relatively low velocity intercepts, which tests only a small 

portion of the threat engagement space. What’s your comment on 

that? Why is that? 

General KADISH. That’s true. This gets back to having the test 

geometry that flies our targets out of Vandenberg and intercepts 

the interceptors out of Kwajalein. Two years ago we didn’t know 

whether hit-to-kill could actually work, so what we were trying to 

do with that basic test geometry is to show that it not only can 

work but it can repeatedly do it in the same geometry. We have 

proven that. 

So it is true that the overall envelope, if you will, all the different 

points that we could actually possibly intercept an incoming missile, has not been tested. But the key element of whether or not 

we could do it at all and do it reliably has been tested in a very 

small part of that envelope. Now we have models and simulations 

that tell us that all the other parts of the envelope, even with that 

limited amount of testing, we could be confident to some degree 

that this thing would work if it was in the right place and deployed 

configuration. 

So I think this is a natural progression, and that is why we need 

the testbed, so that we could take different geometries and plot 

them within the overall envelope, and then we would have more 
229

confidence in our computer models and simulations, even more 

than we do today, that it’s accurate with real data. 

So, we started out very legitimately with what we are testing 

today, and that provides us some data but it’s directed to a very 

limited part of the envelope. Now we want to build a testbed and 

over the next few years fill out the rest of it, and that will give us 

more confidence in our operational capabilities. 

PATRIOT FRIENDLY FIRE INCIDENTS

Senator STEVENS. Turning to Patriot, there have been two instances in Iraq where the Patriot has really locked on to friendly 

force equipment. It was explained to us that that was the result 

of a failure of the use of proper Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF) 

codes. Is that true? 

General KADISH. Well, certainly that might be a contributor, but 

I just don’t think we know yet based on all the things that we need 

to have from the investigation of that problem. Now certainly what 

we call combat identification, which these IFF codes help us with, 

has been a problem for friendly fire incidents for a long time, and 

any system like this has to deal with it. But I don’t think we can 

definitively answer that question until we get the investigation 

over with and we get the ops tempo of the war to the point where 

we can do even more investigation on it. 

Senator STEVENS. Have we ever tested the Patriot-3 against 

Scuds? 

General KADISH. Yes, Senator, we have, and Scud-type materials, 

and we have a pretty good characterization of what we think Patriot-3 can do against those types of threats. Going beyond that, I 

would prefer to give you more classified information on that. 

PATRIOT TESTING/PERFORMANCE

Senator STEVENS. I’m just interested in whether we have really 

explored the full capability and envelope on what the Patriot 

should be relied upon and whether there is a gap there in terms 

of our basic missile defense system. 

General KADISH. I would say that with the testing we’ve done, 

we have anchored the models and simulations. I think maybe Mr. 

Christie could add some comments to this, but we have a pretty 

good analytical capability anchored in actual test data on the capabilities of Patriot-3. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Christie? 

Mr. CHRISTIE. As I stated earlier, we forwarded a classified report to Congress last November which is explicit as far as the 

PAC–3 system’s demonstrated capabilities and against the various 

threat targets, that we feel confident about. 

Senator STEVENS. I’m not familiar with that report. Did you give 

it to the Armed Services Committee? 

Mr. CHRISTIE. That was a report sent to Congress in November 

2002, and we can certainly make sure that you get a copy. 

The report was based on the testing that was done prior to that 

time, the initial operational testing for PAC–3. PAC–2 was used 

during those tests also. As I stated earlier, problems that we encountered in testing, the Army took action to clear up. Without get-
230

ting into detail, I would recommend that you take a look at the 

classified report. 

SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR

Senator STEVENS. I will. Those are PAC–3s that are over there 

now, right? 

Mr. CHRISTIE. Yes. I think we have fired four. 

General KADISH. We have fired four PAC–3s, but most of the engagements have involved the PAC–2 version in the blast fragmentation activities, so it’s an integrated system, and they’ve used 

it to good advantage. One of the reasons we’re not using only PAC–

3s in my view is that we just don’t have enough of them in the initial production, and I think the PAC–2 is handling it. 

Senator STEVENS. You know, I feel a little responsible for that to 

a certain extent, given that we asked the question of why it should 

be used solely against an incoming vehicle, I remember that, but 

we asked the military to boot it up to a PAC–2 level and now this 

PAC–3 level. 

But I really don’t totally understand the problem of interception 

with a combat identification or IFF concept. Maybe we ought to 

talk about that in classified session. 

General KADISH. I think that would be helpful. 

Senator STEVENS. Why don’t we do that, and I want to ask is 

whether that’s a defect in the system or a defect in the application 

of the system. 

General KADISH. I think it may be both, it could possibly be both. 

Mr. CHRISTIE. There are investigations underway into each of the 

three incidents. I think we should wait until they are complete before we begin jumping to conclusions as to where the fault lies. 

Senator STEVENS. You talked before about this in terms of the 

sea-based X-band radar concept. Where does that stand now and 

where is the platform? 

General KADISH. The sea-based approach is ongoing and they are 

doing the engineering and naval architecture and everything they 

need to do to build that radar. I believe the platform is about ready 

to be brought to the United States for construction and modification, and we’re on the verge of doing that. 

Senator STEVENS. What’s the time frame on that? 

General KADISH. I believe that’s imminent. I would have to get 

you the exact date for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

SEA-BASED X-BAND RADAR

The SBX platform departed Sandefjord, Norway, under tugboat power, on April 

25, 2003. It arrived in Brownsville, Texas, on May 30, 2003.

Senator STEVENS. This has been significantly accelerated, as I 

understand it; is that right? 

General KADISH. I’m not sure it’s accelerated, but it’s an aggressive plan that we had to build this radar. The platform, we were 

planning on doing it by September 2005, have it in the testbed and 

part of the test for architecture. 

Senator STEVENS. Is that going to be added or part now of the 

ground-based midcourse defense system? 
231

General KADISH. From a testbed standpoint, yes, and then we 

will have to decide whether or not it can contribute from an operational standpoint. 

Senator STEVENS. Is it planned to move that to various portions 

of the world to test it? 

General KADISH. There is a plan to move it all around the Pacific, to be a part of the tests that we have been describing here. 

And that’s important, because that also has an envelope that we 

have to characterize. And the disadvantage we have now with the 

radar we have in Kwajalein is that it’s out of place, it’s too far back 

in the trajectory. And these radars are rather huge, this is a 5 million pound radar, the construct it’s going to sit on. And the advantage we have is that we can move it around the Pacific, we don’t 

have to place it on land somewhere, and then do the types of trajectory tests that we need to do. So it’s key from that standpoint. 

Senator STEVENS. I hate to tell you, General, but my mind goes 

back to the films my son showed me when he was the captain of 

a king crab boat, a 170-footer, in the Pacific facing 30-foot seas. I 

hope your people are nautical enough to know what you’re doing 

to put that kind of a weight on a barge and trying to move it 

around the North Pacific. 

General KADISH. That’s something we’re paying a lot of attention 

to, Senator. The last thing we want to do is jeopardize that type 

of an asset. We appear, and I have good confidence in the naval 

architects that are doing this and all the contractors involved, and 

I have seen the data on the 100-year wave type of activity, and 

operationally I don’t envision we would be putting it in that kind 

of harm’s way unless we absolutely had to. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, respectfully, I don’t think you can tell 

you which direction they are going to come from out there. That 

earthquake that hit Hawaii put a tidal wave up our inlet, and it 

came across the sea as a 60-foot wave. Anything that was even anchored on shore in either Hawaii or Alaska was destroyed and a 

cruise ship. I really seriously question putting that kind of equipment—it’s going to be on a platform, it’s going to be barge-operated, isn’t it, pulled by a barge? 

General KADISH. No, it has its own power. 

Senator STEVENS. It’s self-propelled? What’s its dimension, do 

you remember, how wide is it? 

General KADISH. I would have to get the actual numbers for the 

record but I think it’s got, the platform on top is at least 300 yards 

wide. 

[The information follows:] 

SEA-BASED X-BAND RADAR

The SBX platform is self-propelled, and when complete it will be able to travel 

at a maximum rate of approximately 10 knots. Normal transit speed will be approximately 7 knots. The Moss CS–50 platform is 238 feet across at its beam and 389 

feet long. It is 137 feet tall, from its keel to the main deck.

Senator STEVENS. So it’s self-propelled and 300 yards wide? 

General KADISH. This type platform operates in the North Sea 

today doing oil drilling, so it’s designed to be stationary. 

Senator STEVENS. I’ve seen it; in fact, it’s Norwegian. 

General KADISH. That’s right. 
232

Senator STEVENS. It has a drilling rig on it, it didn’t have that 

kind of weight on it. Well, I’m not going to belabor it, but I have 

serious questions in terms of, you know, the shores of Alaska are 

just loaded with barges which got struck broadside by a wave. 

General KADISH. I understand, and we’re taking those concerns 

to heart, Senator. 

MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS)

Senator STEVENS. With regard to the MEADS concept, this is an 

international program now with Germany and Italy, correct? 

General KADISH. That’s correct, Senator. 

Senator STEVENS. Last year we transferred that program to MDA 

and this budget transfers it back. Is this going to be a ping pong 

game? Why is it coming back within 1 year? 

General KADISH. Well, I think there are a couple reasons for 

that. One is that the basis of the MEADS program is the PAC–3 

missile. As a key component we decided to make that particular 

weapons system, and overall it is an international practical system 

designed to take a PAC–3 missile and make the radars and the mobility of this system fit our operating style for the next decade. It 

is fundamentally an air defense system with a ballistic missile defense capability, basically what Patriot is today. 

And so that combination, along with the fact that we’re using the 

Patriot-3 missile which we basically developed already, makes 

sense to put it under the management of the United States Army 

as an integrated system, within Patriot, and have a transition from 

Patriot to a MEADS type of configuration over time. And we discussed this long and hard within the Department, and the overall 

conclusion is that this is a better way to manage the program and 

I think you will see management or program improvements as a 

result of this process. And from an overall funding perspective, it 

makes sense to integrate these programs within the Army, and 

that’s why you see it coming back into the Army line. 

It is more than just budget, it is how we manage the program. 

Now, we will still have partnership with the Army over its integration into the overall missile defense system and we’re working that 

management linkage today. But fundamentally it needs to be an 

air defense and ballistic missile defense integrated system, which 

is best managed with the Army handling those issues. I don’t know 

if you wanted to add anything. 

Mr. CHRISTIE. No, I agree with that. In fact, we just had a review 

of the program, I guess Monday morning, at which these issues 

were aired in support of the decision to transfer the overall management responsibility to the Army because of the considerations 

that General Kadish has outlined here. 

Senator STEVENS. Have the current problems we have with Germany and Italy at all affected this program? 

General KADISH. I think actually we’re coming to the end of what 

we call the Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) phase, 

the research and development stage of this program, getting ready 

to negotiate the next section of the international agreement. And 

I think overall, they haven’t affected the execution of the present 

program in the process. Now we may need some adjustments as we 

go forward into the next phase of the program. 
233

Senator STEVENS. This will require a contribution from all three 

countries to affect this newest phase? 

General KADISH. That would be the hope, yes, Senator, so we can 

share some of the development costs with the partners that are enrolled. If I recall correctly, I think the cost share is somewhere in 

the neighborhood of 45 percent for our partners and 55 percent for 

us, so if we can really make this relationship work, we get a better 

deal from the overall cooperative program. 

MDA TESTBED—KODIAK

Senator STEVENS. This is my last question. You made a comment 

about the Kodiak phase of this, that there would be no interceptors 

there, just the missiles to be tested, right? 

General KADISH. Targets. 

Senator STEVENS. The target missiles; is that right? 

General KADISH. That’s the current plan. 

Senator STEVENS. Have you put a schedule out for that, so we 

will know in advance how many of those will be tested there? 

General KADISH. I think we’re working on the next 2 years, and 

we will get you that information. 

[The information follows:] 

KODIAK TARGETS SCHEDULE

Over the next two years, our current plan shows two tests using the Kodiak 

Launch Complex. A STARS target launch conducted as part of a GMD Integrated 

Flight Test in the 1st Qtr fiscal year 2004 and a STARS target launch conducted 

as part of a GMD Risk Reduction Flight in the 4th Qtr fiscal year 2004. On the 

first test the target will fly a trajectory towards Kwajalein. The second test will include a target flying a trajectory toward the open ocean area west of Vandenberg 

AFB.

Senator STEVENS. I was just wondering, how far out is it going, 

2 years? 

General KADISH. Right now we’re working on the next 2 years 

with the follow-on program right after that. 

Senator STEVENS. That’s fiscal year 2004? 

General KADISH. Fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and then we will 

work on the next 2-year process as soon as we get that. 

Senator STEVENS. Again, I congratulate you. I share Senator 

Cochran’s point of view that utilizing the testbed concept and having some missiles available, due to the tensions that exist in the 

North Pacific, is a very wise course to be on, and I congratulate you 

for it. You were ahead of the curve on that one. 

Certainly with some of the developments taking place over there 

now, I just told Senator Inouye, I went home and talked to them 

about some of the things that have been going on, and our people 

are very worried about what’s going on in North Korea, and we 

have every reason to worry about it. 

But we look forward to perhaps getting a schedule, gentlemen, 

if you wish, right after we come back, if we could have a classified 

session, no hearing, just session where you might talk to the people 

here who are really concerned about the security phase of this, I 

would appreciate it. 

General KADISH. I would be more than happy to, Senator. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Cochran, further questions? 
234

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AIR DEFENSE (THAAD)

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple 

more questions. One is about the theater high altitude air defense 

program, which seemed to have gotten off to a pretty fast start, 

and there was some sense of urgency following the Gulf War that 

we needed this system. But it seems that it slowed down, and a 

fairly low risk schedule at this point seems to characterize the program. I wonder what your plans are for your next intercept test. 

I understand it’s not scheduled until fiscal year 2005. Is that going 

to be a program that’s going to go slower rather than faster? 

General KADISH. I think, if I may take a crack at that first, I 

think some of the lessons we learned from that in what we call the 

PDRR phase in the latter part of the nineties, we took it to heart 

and as you know, the last two intercepts were very successful, gave 

us great confidence in proceeding with THAAD and the program. 

The program we put together basically redesigned the missile 

and the processes involved within THAAD as well as some of the 

radar work to get a much more capable system than what we had 

been working on, even in the PDRR phase. 

That flight test program was laid up, I guess we started that in 

the 2000 time frame, and we have been working real hard on that. 

And the first flight tests are still scheduled for late 2004, early 

2005, with the first two tests of the missile being a non-intercept 

test. 

And we believe that is exactly the right development approach 

for us to take and there are two reasons for that. One is that we’re 

doing extensive ground testing right now at the component level so 

that we can wring out the quality and design flaws at the component level before we assemble them and then test them in these 

first two or three flight tests. The second reason why I think that’s 

important is that if we are successful in doing what I just described, that I would have high confidence that our early intercept 

tests would all be successful. And under those conditions, we could 

move faster with the balance of the program than if we had failures in the overall sequence. 

So, I’m expecting now that we are about 30 percent and climbing 

complete, almost 40 percent overall finished with this design phase, 

that we will have done the job that I described and we will set the 

foundation for success and that in the end, we will have made 

THAAD in a deployed configuration sooner than if he had tried to 

go faster. And I know that has been a major debate, but only time 

will tell if we were right about that. 

Mr. CHRISTIE. I totally agree with that. I think we learned some 

harsh lessons, and in fact that’s where the term rush to failure was 

coined in the description of some of the activities that we had underway in THAAD. As General Kadish says, we have backed up 

and are doing some component testing which have been successful 

recently, walking before we run and doing this right, so when we 

get to the actual flight tests of the system next year, the latter part 

of next year, we will have confidence and we will not encounter 

some of the problems that we had before. 
235

SPACE TRACKING SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (STSS)

General KADISH. And I would add one thing. If we add those successes early on, we will find it’s taking major risks if we accelerate, 

and we feel that it is adequate. 

Senator COCHRAN. Last year you restructured the Space Based 

InfraRed System (SBIRS) low program and renamed it STSS. What 

does that stand for? 

General KADISH. Space tracking and surveillance system. 

Senator COCHRAN. My question is, it seems to be a less ambitious 

program than the earlier version. Do you still think that you need 

to have these advanced tracking systems deployed in space, or are 

you rethinking that entirely? 

General KADISH. I know we’re rethinking the combination of sensors we have without the treaty now. We want to make sure that 

we have the best combination of sensors, and there is a major debate inside the community, if you will, over whether we should 

have space sensors or land-based or terrestrial-based radars, or a 

combination of things based on affordability reasons and a whole 

host of other catch phrases. In my view, that debate is not resolved 

yet, and the STSS program that we put together is designed to get 

us more data than just view graphs to base the decision on, and 

it is important for us to proceed in that regard. 

So, we are rethinking the overall sensor requirements for a system without treaty restriction. What I see today does not dissuade 

me that we do not need to do—I should probably say that I am persuaded that the track we’re on is the right track, and we need to 

get these systems better understood. And a fundamental issue 

around STSS is whether the long-wave infrared is the appropriate 

technology to use for that satellite, and we will answer that question with the STSS program. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye? 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. 

MISSILE DEFENSE COUNTERMEASURES

Mr. Christie, some of the critics have suggested that very inexpensive countermeasures such as balloons or chaff can foil our very 

expensive missile defense systems. Are we testing more complex 

countermeasures and decoys? 

Mr. CHRISTIE. As we go on with our flight tests, yes, we will, you 

know, address more complex countermeasures than we have in the 

past. You know, one has to step back and think, do these complex 

countermeasures, we have a difficult time building them ourselves, 

and we have to wonder what kinds of capabilities are really going 

to be there with the enemy’s system. But yes, we do plan to get 

into more complex, more difficult countermeasures. 

We, again, in the program or test flights that we’ve had to date, 

we were trying to demonstrate primarily the hit-to-kill capability, 

and we were using simple countermeasures to get some idea about 

the ability of the seeker to discriminate. And again, that was walk 

before you run, so some of the criticisms I think have been misplaced. You can’t just jump in with a massive countermeasure to 

defeat the purpose of your original test, which was more technology 
236

oriented. But as we go along with our flight tests, our present plan 

is to increase the complexity of the systems that we are targeting, 

yes. 

MDA TEST SCHEDULE

Senator INOUYE. So you’re satisfied with your testing schedule? 

Mr. CHRISTIE. Well, as a tester, one would always want to test 

more, but I understand and support the concepts of the plan that 

we have underway right now, and I think it’s so important that we 

get this testbed in place in order to overcome some of the artificialities that we have had in our testing to date, which the critics have 

jumped on. This testbed will permit us to do far more realistic testing, not just in the context of countermeasures, but geometries, velocities that we talked about, crossing angles and other parameters 

that we need to be looking at in a more realistic fashion. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator INOUYE. Like my colleagues, I would like to tell you that 

I am very satisfied with the work your agency is doing, and I for 

one will be in favor of keeping your roles. But, as you know, my 

friend from Alaska and I do live in the Pacific, and we do get a 

little edgy once in a while. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Any more questions, Senator? 

Senator COCHRAN. No, sir. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

AGGRESSIVE TESTING SCHEDULE

Question. Thomas P. Christie, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation for the 

U.S. Department of Defense, cited the past tests lacked realistic positioned midcourse sensor to track incoming enemy missiles and variety in test intercept locations, and asserts more stringent and improved testing procedures are needed to ensure the success of the program. 

Can you confirm that we have in fact embarked on an aggressive testing schedule 

that adequately addresses the real world intercept and decoy scenarios a missile defense system may face? 

Answer. Yes, I can confirm that both the ground and flight testing that is planned 

for the BMDS system and its elements are aggressive and build in complexity, to 

include more realistic test geometries and more sophisticated countermeasures. One 

of the characteristics of the capabilities based approach is to take manageable steps 

toward the objective system, while learning how to improve performance and expand 

coverage based on its performance during earlier block testing. This is particularly 

important in and evolving threat environment. 

AVAILABILITY OF A MATURE EFFECTIVE BMDS

Question. At our current rate of testing and development, when do you think we 

will have the technological maturity to fully field an effective missile defense system? 

Answer. Since the state of threat technology continues to progress, we will have 

to continually improve BMDS performance and verify new capabilities through testing. This will include conducting tests against new, more challenging targets, and 

associated countermeasures. In this respect, technological maturation will continue 

even after full fielding is realized. If we successfully complete testing that is currently scheduled, I believe that we will improve the BMDS and, more importantly, 

our confidence in its performance, so that by the end of the decade we will have 
237

a well-characterized capability that can be relied upon. It is more difficult to predict 

whether or not countermeasures designed to defeat the BMDS will keep pace with 

development. 

BOOSTER ENHANCEMENTS FOR AEGIS

Question. Before deployment, the Sea and Ground Based Mid-Course segment will 

need to improve the effectiveness of the Standard Missile-3 (SM–3) to intercept 

ICBMs during the ascent phase of mid-course flight. To achieve this, the current 

SM–3 will need to be larger and faster than the current model used for testing. 

Is the improved SM–3 ready for testing? 

Answer. Because the Block 04 Aegis BMD is not intended to engage ICBMs, only 

SRBMs and MRBMs, no propulsion improvements to the SM–3 missile are currently 

planned. Consequently, readiness for testing becomes moot. 

NO AEGIS BOOST PHASE CAPABILITY IN BLOCK 04

Question. If not, will any delay dramatically affect the capabilities of the Block 

04 system the administration is looking to deploy? 

Answer. The lack of an enhanced booster for the Aegis BMD system will not affect 

the capabilities of the Block 04 system. The role of Aegis in the Block 04 system 

will be to provide engagement capability against SRBMs and MRBMs, surveillance 

and tracking of long-range targets, automatic search and acquisition of a target 

from a cue provided by an external sensor, and limited ship self defense. The target 

cue provided by Aegis will be used by the Ground-based Midcourse element of the 

Testbed to launch ground-based interceptors at the threat. Subsequent block development will include the enhancements to the Aegis Weapon System for IRBM capability. 

Question. The 2004 missile defense budget is seeking $7.7 million for RDT&E (research, development, test and evaluation). 

Given the high costs that have already been projected for RDT&E, based upon 

current research and success, what do you estimate the complete layered system 

will cost? 

Answer. As directed by the President, we have a near-term architecture for a limited missile defense system. A capabilities-based architecture provides the flexibility 

to evolve the system over time in response to changes in threat and technology. 

Fielding opportunities occur throughout the development, starting with Block 2004. 

The cost of a ‘‘complete’’ system is unknowable at this time because the threat we 

may have to counter is unknowable. We’re embarking on an affordable R&D program that fields modest capabilities in fiscal year 2004 and then improves them 

over time to keep pace with an evolving threat. 

Question. The completed ballistic missile defense system will need to be an overlapping system-of-systems that is reliable, robust, capable of incorporating up-grade 

features as their feasibility is demonstrated, and able to engage threats at each 

stage of their employment-boost phase, midcourse, and terminal. The President requested to have a missile defense system in place by fiscal year 2004 and the implementation of a final overlapping system-of-systems by fiscal year 2010. 

Based on the current success of the program, do you believe that this milestone 

will be met? 

Answer. We have an aggressive RDT&E program that is on track to develop a 

set of missile defense capabilities for initial defensive operations in fiscal year 2004. 

Our recent testing and analysis gives us confidence in responding to the President’s 

December direction to deploy an initial capability, and we will continue robust 

RDT&E to build on that initial capability in an evolutionary manner to keep pace 

with emerging threats and technological advances. 

Question. In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, there was a request for an exemption of further operational testing of the ballistic missile defense system. In 

March, the Undersecretary of Defense, Edward Aldridge announced, ‘‘It was not our 

intent to waive operational testing.’’

If the intent was not to exempt testing prior to fielding the weapon system, what 

was the purpose of the exemption request? 

Answer. The question refers to proposed section 8061, which read in full:

‘‘Sec. 8061. Funds available to the Department of Defense under the heading, ‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide’ may be used to develop 

and field an initial set of missile defense capabilities, and such fielding shall be considered to be system development and demonstration for purposes of any law governing the development and production of a major defense acquisition program. The 

initial set of missile defense capabilities is defined as ‘Block 04’ Ballistic Missile Defense system fielded in fiscal year 2004 and 2005. Subsequent blocks of missile de-
238

fense capabilities shall be subject to existing laws governing development and production of major defense acquisition programs.’’

This was not drafted to waive operational testing, as the fielded developmental 

items will continue to be tested. However, we understand concerns that the language ‘‘and such fielding shall be considered to be system development and demonstration for purposes of any law’’ would have that effect, and agree to delete it 

and all that follows. 

Question. Does testing under the guidelines of the Director of Operational Testing 

and Evaluation negatively impact the program? 

Answer. No, the program is not negatively impacted by DOT&E testing guidelines. MDA and DOT&E have established an effective working relationship. DOT&E 

is a member of the Missile Defense Support Group and provides testing advice to 

the Director, MDA and to USD (AT&L). Additionally, DOT&E produces a congressionally directed annual report on the status and effectiveness of the MDA test program. 

Question. What is the current MDA position on this request? 

Answer. MDA supports striking all after ‘‘capabilities’’, so that Sec. 8061 will read 

as follows: ‘‘Funds available to the Department of Defense under the heading, ‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide’ may be used to develop 

and field an initial set of missile defense capabilities.’’

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THOMAS P. CHRISTIE

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Question. Is the Theater High Altitude Area Defense program experiencing a 

shortfall in funding that will delay the program’s progress? If so, please explain your 

plan to remedy the situation. 

Answer. The THAAD program is not experiencing a shortfall in funding that 

would delay the program’s progress. The THAAD element just completed a program 

re-plan that provides for the most efficient use of resources, the most effective program schedule, and realigns the flight tests for a balanced program. The program 

is progressing well in Block 04 and executing on plan to initiate Block 04 flighttesting with first flight in 4QFY 2004, followed by four additional flight tests to be 

conducted before the end of Block 04 (December 2005). The THAAD program is currently engaged in intensive piece part, assembly, and component ground testing to 

assure Block 04 flight test success. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Question. Mr. Christie, in your statement, you mentioned your initial assessment 

(annual review) concluding the GMD (Ground-based Midcourse Defense) element of 

the BMDS has not yet demonstrated operational capability is based on the fact that 

many essential components of the GMD element have not yet been built. 

What are these components? 

Answer. Booster motors, sea-based radar (x-band), missile silo complex at Fort 

Greely and Vandenberg. 

Question. Are any of these components scheduled for procurement at a later 

block? 

Answer. Booster motors.—Booster motors that are currently under development 

will be used for the Block 2004 Test Bed and initial defensive operational capability. 

Testing of the OSC and BV∂ boosters is a high priority for MDA, and there will 

be four flight tests (two booster verification flights and two integrated flight tests 

with simulated intercepts) during the rest of this fiscal year. 

SBX.—The SBX is planned to be added to Block 2004 at the end of 2005. 

Missile silo complex at Fort Greely and VAFB.—The silos at Fort Greely are currently under construction as part of the Block 2004 initial GMD parts of the BMDS 

Test Bed and IDO capability. The additional silos at VAFB will be renovated to support Block 2004 IDO. 

Question. When should we expect the essential components to be fielded? 

Answer. Booster motors.—Booster motors will be fielded in the initial defensive 

operational capability no later than September 30, 2004. 

SBX.—The SBX is planned to be added to Block 2004 at the end of 2005. 

Missile silo complex at Fort Greely and VAFB.—Six silos at Fort Greely and four 

at VAFB will be a part of the initial defensive operations capability fielded in 2004. 

Question. When will the MDS be accurately tested for operational capability? 
239

Answer. With the President’s decision to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities, we now have a clear, basic, near-term architecture for a limited system 

to address a range of missile threats. The initial testbed will be used to test maturing BMD systems as they become available to evaluate the operational capability 

of the system. 

Current testing of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Element developmental prototype is structured as combined Developmental Testing/Operational 

Testing (DT/OT), occurring in a Combined Test Force (CTF) environment. A CTF 

environment brings together developmental and operational testers from both the 

prime contractor team and the government in a common forum to plan and execute 

all testing in accordance with combined DT and OT objectives to the maximum extent practicable. Because GMD is an evolutionary development, at designated intervals this process culminates in BMD Elements characterization, performed by the 

Operational Test Agencies (OTAs), i.e., Army Test and Evaluation Command 

(ATEC), Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), and Joint 

Interoperability Test Command (JITC). 

The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program has a Memorandum of Agreement 

with Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR), the 

Navy’s OTA, to participate in the planning and observe all Aegis BMD Block 04 

testing. Within 60 days of the conclusion of each test, COMOPTEVFOR provides a 

‘‘Letter of Observation’’ which provides formal OTA feedback regarding system performance to the Program Director, Aegis BMD. COMOPTEVFOR’s recommendations 

are then considered and, if possible, implemented in subsequent testing. Flight Mission 9, which is currently the last test of the Aegis BMD Block 04 program, is currently being planned as a combined DT/OT in that COMOPTEVFOR will conduct 

a formal Operational Assessment of the system. 

Current planning efforts for Initial Defensive Operations (IDO), scheduled to be 

in place on September 30, 2004, include the identification of test objectives based 

upon element interoperability; Command and Control, Battle Management, and 

Communication (C2BMC); Engagement sequences, and Warfighter operational control issues. These will be overlayed onto GMD and Aegis BMD element tests scheduled between now and IDO that will afford an opportunity for an operational assessment of BMDS Initial Defensive Capability (IDC). Tests will be conducted in the 

BMDS Test Bed with operational configurations and user participation. 

Question. Mr. Christie, if the initial fielding of the BMDS is to develop a testbed 

for further research and not employ an actual defense system, wouldn’t it be more 

cost effective to complete the testing under the initial fielding, with minimum missiles, than to field the budget request and have to go back later to retrofit? 

Answer. Before the President’s December decision to deploy a missile defense, the 

fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget reflected the development of a set of test bed 

capabilities that could be made operational. The fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget 

I, based on the President’s direction, asks Congress to authorize and appropriate 

funds to allow us to add to this test bed and make it operational in 2004. Therefore, 

instead of building a test bed that might be used operationally, we are fielding an 

initial defensive capability that we will continue to test. 

There is tremendous benefit to fielding this unprecedented technology, in manageable increments, to provide some defense, to learn more about it, gain experience 

with it, and improve it over time. To achieve this benefit for MDA and our 

warfighters, we must have the assets and infrastructure in the field if we are going 

to begin to test the system under operationally realistic conditions. If we do not 

have the weapons and sensors fielded at operationally useful locations, we cannot 

realize these benefits and ensure the integrated system works in a useful manner 

for our military. 

Additionally, there is historical precedence in this approach as evidenced with development of our first reconnaissance satellites and land- and sea-based ballistic 

missiles. Urgent national security requirements pressed us to deploy capability 

soon, and through trial and error we did. The parallels between these pioneering 

programs and the missile defense program are clear. 

Our test bed evolutionary approach to initial defensive capability is rational from 

a cost standpoint as well. We do not now have adequate understanding of our longterm architecture to submit a budget for many tens of billions of dollars, and we 

don’t need to submit such a budget to achieve our goals in the interim. We are able 

to purchase and field capabilities in small numbers and this approach will allow us 

to control costs and mitigate the requirement for retrofitting. 

Finally, we have to strike a balance between our desire for perfection in missile 

defenses that we deploy, and our desire to have, as soon as possible, some defensive 

capability where none exists today.
240

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, General Kadish and 

Mr. Christie. We appreciate you being with us this morning and 

look forward to you talking to us after the recess. 

The subcommittee will next meet on April 30 for the defense 

medical program hearing. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., Wednesday, April 9, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 30.]
(241)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Stevens and Inouye. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

MEDICAL PROGRAMS

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES B. PEAKE, SURGEON 

GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Just to advise the chairman of the committee, 

I have just been advised Chairman Stevens is at the White House 

meeting with the President. He will be slightly delayed, so in his 

behalf I’d like to welcome you to our hearing this morning to review the Department of Defense (DOD) medical programs, facilities 

and the health program. 

As you know, under the chairman’s leadership, this subcommittee has a long history of supporting and protecting the medical needs of our military. As our soldiers, Marines, airmen, and 

sailors are deployed in harm’s way, our military health system is 

vitally important. We have all been captivated by the scenes displayed on television 24 hours a day, enabling the public to witness 

our military in action. 

What we do not see is the entire force health protection. Our 

military health care covers all the bases from the TRICARE program, medical treatment facilities, predeployment physicals, medics and field hospitals to the continued monitoring of our military 

personnel in the field and after they return. These all are essential 

pieces to the health of our military. 

Over 24,000 medical personnel have been deployed in support of 

Operation Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. 

Unfortunately, the services have been granted limited authority to 

backfill those positions, and cannot afford to contract all the additional support that is needed. In order to address some of these 

shortfalls, Congress provided additional funding in the fiscal year 
242

2003 supplemental appropriations for the medical treatment facilities and care for the service members and their families at home. 

At this morning’s hearing, I hope the committee will hear how 

the fiscal year 2004 budget request addresses our medical treatment facilities, and our medical care, and how we do deal with the 

potential gap in resources if the current OPTEMPO remains as 

high during fiscal year 2004. And so we look forward to a frank 

and open discussion this morning with our panels. 

In particular, we will want to look into the status of the next 

generation contracts for TRICARE, our force health protection system, optimization, and the rising costs of health care, among others. I’d like to thank our chairman for continuing to hold hearings 

on these issues, which are very important to our military and their 

families. 

If I may, I’d like to call upon the first witness, Lieutenant General James Peake, Surgeon General for the United States Army. 

General PEAKE. It is an honor to represent Army medicine before 

you today. Once again, it is the support of this committee that it 

has given to the care of soldiers and their families, support of the 

committee for military medical infrastructure to train the medical 

force, their research over an extended period of time that really has 

allowed us to field items like advanced skin protectant, or chem/

bio protective systems for medical units, or vaccines to protect the 

soldiers, or for hemostatic dressings. 

That support has paid off for the men and women injured and 

wounded in the service to their nation. Wounded soldiers have been 

treated far forward with surgical teams that we really didn’t have 

during Desert Shield, Desert Storm. They moved rapidly back 

through our combat support hospitals, now modularly configured 

hospitals. They flew back on Blackhawk medevac helicopter fleet, 

not the old UH–1s, military helicopters, including the UH60 Limas 

with specially designed patient care compartments facilitating in 

route care. 

Our soldiers have been strategically evacuated with critical care 

teams back to Landstuhl or Rota. I had the honor of pinning a Purple Heart on one of our noncommissioned officers at the burn unit 

at Fort Sam Houston last week. Both arms were outstretched with 

fresh skin grafts. The burns on his face were extensive and covered 

with silvadene cream which had its genesis from the burn research 

unit in years past. 

He told me about each of his men, and he told me about the tremendous care that he received as he and they moved back from the 

theater of operations on Army hospitals on the U.S.N.S. Comfort

back to Landstuhl, and at the burn unit. 

I can tell you that the soldiers with me that were taking care of 

him stood taller as he related the story to us. 

That burn unit is another story. It is an institute for surgical research working not only on burns, but on the physiology of injury. 

It is where some of the work on hemostatic bandages is going on 

now, where we have done key studies on orthopedic consequences 

of land mines. There they deal with trauma every day as part of 

the Trauma Consortium in San Antonio. It is commanded by Colonel John Holcomb, a trauma surgeon with our special operations 

forces in Somalia during Blackhawk Down. 
243

The issue is key people at the right places who understand not 

only the environment in which we work, but the bonds of soldiers 

in combat. Key people in the right places like the Ranger doc 

whose hand of Private First Class (PFC) Lynch would not let go of 

during her rescue, medics at the tip of the spear. 

At Walter Reed, our land mine center of excellence is a strong 

partnership with the Veterans Administration as we look at the 

long-term care and leveraging the very best care across the country. As we do all of this, military medicine is resetting the 

TRICARE contract, looking to improve the service we give with 

fewer regions, with some functions returning to the direct care system in 2004 with the national pharmacy coverage, to improve portability and all of that is important to taking care of our soldiers, 

but also in keeping a full and rewarding practice for those doctors 

that are in Iraq today taking care of patients. 

It is fundamental to our medical readiness and medical retention. Our joint training programs at places like Walter Reed and 

Wilford Hall and San Diego are the force generators of our medical 

force of the future. The care we give in such places as the 121 Hospital in Korea or Fort Irwin or Fort Polk or on a distant battlefield 

is linked to the quality base that those centers provide. 

As always, this committee’s support for keeping the full spectrum 

of military medicine of a quality befitting our soldiers, sir, and 

their families, is appreciated by all of us here and by those across 

the world serving our Nation. 

Things as important and as big as the things we talked about, 

things as important as being able to purchase clothing for our soldiers as they are evacuated back from military treatment facilities 

or the authority recently authorized in the supplemental in that 

allow military families to see their patients that are in military 

treatment facilities (MTFs), and for us to be able to facilitate that. 

And so for the little things, sir, and the big things, we thank you 

for your support and the chance to be with you today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, General Peake. May I 

now call on Vice Admiral Michael Cowan, Surgeon General of the 

Navy. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES B. PEAKE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Lieutenant General James 

B. Peake. I thank you for this opportunity to appear again in front of your committee. This is my third time before you as the Army Surgeon General and each 

time it has been a different environment of challenges. Each has underscored the 

importance of Army Medicine specifically and military medicine in general. 

All around the world, Army medical personnel are serving in splendid fashion to 

carry out our mission of supporting America’s Army as it defends freedom. 

That a soldier could be severely wounded in Afghanistan on a Monday and on Saturday night be at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., telling 

me of his care at the forward surgical team in Afghanistan, his movement to the 

combat support hospital in Uzbekistan; the transit through the Air Force facility at 

Incerlick, Turkey, and the operation he got at Landstuhl, Germany—all in less than 

a week—is nothing short of miraculous. 

The Army fighting for freedom in Iraq has confidence in its medical support. 

While we help carry out national policy in that arena, we also carry on other missions. We are providing quality medical assistance in over 20 countries today. Med-
244

ics are helping keep the peace in the Balkans, standing guard in Korea and Europe, 

supporting anti-terrorist efforts in the Philippines, training on medical assistance 

missions in Central America and supporting assistance missions in Africa. 

We made visible progress in the past year transforming our field medics into the 

new 91W Healthcare Specialist Military Occupational Specialty. I am frankly excited at the increase in emphasis on medical skills that can mean the difference between life and death for a soldier on the battlefield. 

To continue this success between the garrison and field units is paramount. Visiting the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii, I walked the lanes for combined Expert 

Infantry and Expert Field Medical Badge testing. It reaffirms the unique link that 

we in the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) have with those who close with and 

destroy the enemy, and underscores the need to hone medical skills as we are doing 

with the 91W program. 

This marriage between garrison and field operations is also where we need to go 

for the longitudinal, digital record of patient care. We are not where we need to be, 

but we have an exciting axis of advance with CHCS (Composite Health Care System) II and the linkage with the corresponding theater system, CHCS II (T). I am 

anxious to see the Stryker Brigade at Fort Lewis demonstrate the use of the hand 

held input devices at the level of the medic, in garrison or in the field. This device 

digitizes the key information of the patient encounter at the first level of care and 

will follow that patient, ensuring that vital information is archived and longitudinally available, to enhance his or her care wherever in our system he receives his 

follow on care. Resourcing this transformational process will create the model for 

health care across the nation. 

We have transformed 28 percent of Corps and Echelon Above Corps medical force 

structure through the Medical Reengineering Initiative (MRI). The transformed 

units promote scalability through easily tailored capabilities-based packages that result in improved tactical mobility, a reduced footprint and an increased modularity 

for flexible task organization. 

MRI supports the Army Legacy and Interim Forces and is the organizational 

‘‘bridge’’ to the Objective Medical Force. MRI enables supported Army, Joint Force, 

Interagency and Multinational leaders to choose among augmentation packages that 

result in rapid synchronization of enabling medical capabilities. 

Within the Army Reserve, this force structure results in improved personnel readiness due to reduced personnel requirements. It also improves the average age of 

Army Reserve hospital equipment sets, due to redistribution of newer sets against 

reduced requirements. We must keep moving along this path to improved responsiveness. 

Medical Research and Materiel Command is making great progress in equipping 

medics to serve with the transformed Army of the future on expanded, technologydense, rapidly-changing battlefields. 

Some of the recent initiatives include: 

—The Forward Deployable Digital Medical Treatment Facility, a research platform to develop lighter, more mobile field hospitals using new shelters and technology. Plans are for two to four soldiers to be able to carry and set up a tent 

and all the equipment in it. The facility will include a wireless local area network and a communication system interoperable with the Warfighter Information Network architecture. 

—Portable oxygen generators to avoid the necessity of transporting numerous 

150-pound canisters of oxygen to field medical units. We have already seen the 

value of this as we prototyped into Afghanistan. 

—The Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center is exploring how 

personal digital assistants can be used to improve medical record keeping, give 

providers instant access to medical information and patient histories, alert providers of lab results, speed the flow of information and shorten the time medics 

on the battlefield must spend filling out forms. One deploying brigade has been 

outfitted with a prototype of an electronic ‘‘dog tag’’ to make sure we understand how this might change our business practice and improve our record 

keeping in the ground combat scenario. 

—The U.S. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity and Meridian Medical 

Technologies developed an improved autoinjector for nerve-agent treatment 

shots, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration last year. The 

injector allows a soldier to inject atropine and 2 pralidoxime chloride through 

the same needle. Compared to older equipment, it will take up less space, is 

easier to carry, easier to use and puts the drugs to work faster. 

The Interim Brigade Combat Teams are beginning to receive the first Stryker 

Medical Evacuation Vehicles. With a top speed of 60 miles an hour, this armored 

ambulance will be able to keep up with the fight. It can carry four litter patients 
245

or six ambulatory patients, and allows basic medical care to be provided during 

transport. The excitement is palpable in our young soldiers who have had their first 

hands on experience with this vehicle. They see it designed with enroute care in 

mind; a medical vehicle that can keep up with the force, share a common, maintainable platform, and link to the common operating picture with those they support. 

The deadly potential of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons has been known for centuries, but never before has the 

threat seemed as evident or as imminent. 

This history underscores the importance of the medical system as the front line 

of defense. In the past year we have emphasized the training of all Army Medical 

Department (AMEDD) personnel to ensure we have the edge when it comes to responding to the threat of terrorism using CBRNE weapons. The Army Medical Department Center and School has prepared exportable, tailored and scalable courses 

for use at medical treatment facilities; it is addressing CBRNE in every short and 

long course; and addressing CBRNE casualties in every ARTEP (Army Training and 

Evaluation Program) unit testing program. 

Among the course changes: 

—AMEDD soldiers common skills.—In addition to long-established NBC defense 

skills and buddy aid, all AMEDD soldiers get CBRNE orientation and patient 

decontamination training. —Advanced Individual Training and functional courses.—Military specialty training courses and specialized skill courses have incorporated specialty-specific 

CBRNE instruction, including both classroom and field exercise segments. —Leadership courses.—These now include basic, intermediate or advanced Homeland Security classes including information about the Federal Response Plan, 

the Army’s CBRNE role and leader skills required by the audience. —Primary Care courses.—Army medics are learning CBRNE first-responder 

skills. CBRNE training for physicians, nurses, physician assistants and dentists 

is part of officer basic training. ‘‘Gold standard’’ courses, such as the Medical 

Management of Chemical and Biological Casualties, and Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation, are being incorporated into physician/physician assistant 

lifecycle training plans. —Postgraduate Professional Short Course Program (PPSCP).—These courses now 

embody course-specific CBRNE training, plus a Web-based ‘‘Introduction to 

CBRNE’’ review that is now a prerequisite for PPSCP enrollment. The interactive program is available at www.swankhealth.com/cbrne.htm. It provides 

both narration and text, with additional details available at the click of a 

mouse. It includes a history of CBRNE incidents, the nature of the terrorist 

threat, descriptions of agents and symptoms, a glossary of terms and links for 

additional information. 

Our AMEDD Center & School is also developing and disseminating exportable 

products, including emergency-room training materials; a SMART (Special Medical 

Augmentation Response Team) training package; a CBRNE mass-casualty exercise 

program for medical treatment facilities; ARTEP tests that embody CBRNE challenges; and proficiency testing materials. 

A three-day CBRNE Trainer/Controller course was held in San Antonio, Texas. 

It brought in 226 people from all Army medical treatment facilities—including caregivers and officials charged with planning emergency-response plans. The audience 

was schooled on both clinical aspects of managing CBRNE casualties and the organizational aspects of managing CBRNE mass-casualty emergencies. Attendees went 

home with materials they can use to deliver CBRNE instruction to their colleagues, 

guidance for developing CBRNE emergency plans that meet Joint Commission on 

Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations standards; and scenarios and evaluation 

guidelines for CBRNE exercises. 

Planners at the U.S. Army Medical Command have drafted formal guidance to 

medical treatment facilities for planning, training and preparing to support their installations, communities and regions during CBRNE incidents. They are aggressively pursuing links with other commands and civilian agencies to smooth the processes of communication, synchronization, coordination and integration needed to 

support the Federal Response Plan. 

We have organized Special Medical Augmentation Response Teams (SMART) to 

deliver a small number of highly-skilled specialists within hours to evaluate a situation, provide advice to local authorities and organize military resources to support 

response to a disaster or terrorist act. These teams, located at Medical Command 

regions and subordinate commands throughout the country, have critical expertise 

in nuclear, biological and chemical casualties; aeromedical isolation and evacuation; 

trauma and critical care; burn treatment; preventive medicine; medical command, 
246

control, communications and telemedicine systems; health facilities construction; 

veterinary support; stress management; and pastoral care. 

These teams are organized, equipped, trained and ready to deploy within 12 hours 

of notice. Their capabilities were demonstrated last year when seven members from 

Tripler Army Medical Center deployed from Hawaii to the Pacific island of Chuuk 

to assist residents injured during a typhoon. 

Last year patient decontamination equipment was fielded to 23 medical treatment 

facilities with emergency rooms, and personnel have been trained in its use. With 

this equipment, up to 20 ambulatory patients an hour can be decontaminated. Another 33 MTFs will be similarly equipped during the current fiscal year. 

We also purchased 1,355 sets of personal protection equipment for emergency responders and SMART team members; and 11 chemical detector devices for selected 

medical centers and the SMART–NBC. 

We are partners with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Laboratory Response Network, which is augmenting a regional system of reference labs 

to quickly test and identify suspected pathogenic agents like anthrax. The AMEDD 

is designing seven high-containment Biosafety Level 3 labs—five in the continental 

United States, one in Hawaii and one in support of our Forces in Seoul, Korea. Construction is scheduled to begin in September. 

The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at 

Fort Detrick, Md., is a great national resource of expertise on dealing with dangerous diseases, whether natural outbreaks or the result of biological warfare. When 

anthrax-laced letters were sent through the mail in 2001, USAMRIID geared up for 

a phenomenal effort to analyze thousands of samples collected from possibly-exposed 

sites, looking for the deadly bacterium. They continue to assist law enforcement 

agencies attempting to identify the criminal responsible for these acts of terrorism. 

USAMRIID now is partnering with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at Fort Detrick on biodefense-related diagnostics, drugs and 

vaccine research. This effort will marshal research capabilities while leveraging resources in response to the nation’s changing needs and builds on a long, productive 

relationship in collaborative research. 

Addressing these changing needs required additional research infrastructure. 

USAMRIID is planning to expand its current facilities and continue its mission of 

research on drugs, vaccines and diagnostics to safeguard the health of the nation’s 

armed forces. NIAID is set to construct an integrated research laboratory to implement its complementary mission of conducting biodefense research to protect the 

public health. The new facilities will house biosafety laboratories comprised of Biosafety Level 2, 3 and 4 areas. 

USAMRIID and NIAID have been joined by representatives from the Department 

of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies to 

lay the groundwork for an Interagency Biodefense Campus at Fort Detrick. The 

interagency campus takes advantage of existing infrastructure and security at Fort 

Detrick to promote potential sharing of facilities and leveraging of intellectual capital among federal researchers studying disease-causing microbes that may be used 

as agents of bioterrorism. Construction is expected to take place over the next several years. 

While all this is going on, we still have a mission of operating hospitals and clinics, providing day-to-day health care for our beneficiaries. Last year we began providing care under TRICARE For Life, and we are preparing for a new generation 

of TRICARE contracts. 

It seems one cannot open a newspaper or a magazine without reading about the 

soaring cost of health care; about the escalating malpractice crisis that is driving 

physicians to leave the practice of medicine; about the increasing cost shifting from 

employer to individual; about the restrictive practices that third-party payers impose to be able to profit and survive in this market. 

We in Army Medicine coexist in that world of health-care costs. But we continue 

to place our patients first, whether we are talking about families, retirees or soldiers 

on point. The ability to respond to warfighters, providing care from forward surgical 

teams to combat support hospitals, depends on the quality base of our direct-care 

system. 

We are in the era of accountability—for efficiency as well as outcomes and quality. 

We have adopted a business case approach to justifying requirements that has established credibility for our efforts. 

Metrics show improvement in medical board processing, operating-room backlogs 

and cancellation rates. Routine things like officer and NCO efficiency report timeliness; travel card payment and data quality show positive trends. Both Congress and 

the GAO have cited the AMEDD as a leader in health facility planning and lifecycle 

management. 
247

Recently we presented the second annual Excalibur Awards, recognizing excellent 

performance by AMEDD units and providing an opportunity to share information 

and stimulate improvements. The medical activity at Fort Hood, Texas; the AMEDD 

Center and School at Fort Sam Houston, Texas; the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort 

Bragg, N.C.; and the Kentucky Army National Guard’s 1163rd Area Support Medical Company were recognized for initiatives in management of patients with resource-intensive medical conditions, use of satellite communications for extended 

learning, and innovative approaches to 91W training. 

I am confident that the restructuring of the new TRICARE contracts will lead to 

smoother business processes and better fiscal accountability across the Military 

Health System. The reduction in contract regions will have a direct effect on the 

portability issue, as will the national carve-out for pharmacy services. All of this is 

an important component of our ability to keep faith with the promise of health care 

for those serving and those who have served. But the TRICARE Contracts are only 

a component. The heart of our ability to project the right medical force with and 

for those we put in harm’s way comes from our Direct Care base. The quality of 

the training programs, the focus on the unique community of soldiers with their 

world wide movement in support of our National Military Strategy, understanding 

unique stresses and strains on their families, the trust and confidence engendered 

by customer focused quality care is a force multiplier for the service member and 

the insurance for quality care on the battlefield. General Shinseki has established 

THE Army as our standard. It underscores the tremendous importance of our Reserve Components. The importance of the interplay with the direct care system of 

these Twice-the-Citizen Medical Soldiers cannot be overstated. The current tempo 

of this Global War on Terrorism could not be sustained without them. The continuity of our system with consistent care and in the familiar medical environment—‘‘Institutional Continuity of Care’’ even if their usual doctor is deployed is important and a constant in a disrupted life. It is our dedicated reservists who train 

to this mission, and to whom we turn to sustain the care and continue the quality 

of our training programs that are feeding the force for the next battles in this Global War on Terrorism. 

We looked closely at the lessons of Desert Storm and Desert Shield on the use 

of our Reserve medical force and have implemented 90-day rotation to minimize the 

impact on the home communities and to reduce the potential for unrecoverable financial hardships. We have made extensive use of Derivative Unit Identification 

codes that allow us to identify and only mobilize the exact skill sets that we need 

in the minimum numbers to sustain the mission and targeting them specifically to 

the location where they are needed. This is in contrast to the wholesale mobilization 

of these units and later sorting out where and how they might be best used. Many 

Medical professionals want the opportunity to serve their country. These policies 

and procedures will enable them to stay with us in the Reserves and contribute to 

this important mission. 

We appreciate the support from this committee to improve the medical readiness 

of the Reserve components and their families. The Federal Strategic Health Alliance 

(FEDS-Heal) program is improving our visibility of their health care needs and the 

potential for allowing dental care during the annual training periods using FEDSHeal would be a step towards improved readiness. 

The level of quality, the ingenuity, the leadership of our noncommissioned officers, 

the flexibility and agility of leaders at all levels meeting the unique demands of each 

mission, tailoring the capabilities packages as missions demand—all make me proud 

of our AMEDD. It is the kind of ‘‘quiet professionalism’’—as it was described by a 

senior line commander—that will assure our success in supporting the force as we 

continue to root out terrorism. 

All that I have highlighted reinforces our integration into tenets of General 

Shinseki’s transformation strategy. One can only speculate on what this new year 

of 2003 might bring—where we in the Army Medical Department might find ourselves committed around the globe. However, one can confidently predict that wherever we find ourselves, we will be caring for soldiers and soldiers’ families with excellence and compassion. 

I would like to thank this Committee for your continued commitment and support 

to quality care for our soldiers and to the readiness of our medical forces.

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL MICHAEL L. COWAN, SURGEON GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

Admiral COWAN. Thank you, Senator Inouye. I’m also pleased to 

be here to be able to share Navy medicine’s activity and our plans 

for the future. At this time foremost on all of our minds is the U.S. 
248

global war on terrorism and military efforts in Iraq even as they 

wind down. 

As the men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps go in 

harm’s way, I take special pride in the men and women of Navy 

medicine who are present with them on the front lines throughout 

the theater of operations and back home providing health protection. 

A Marine general eloquently summed all of this up by saying ‘‘no 

Marine ever took a hill out of the sight of a Navy corpsman.’’ As 

we move into this new millennium, we are likely to be continued 

to be challenged by a growing variety of worldwide contingencies. 

Deployable medical assets might have the capability to respond to 

various missions. Today we are more flexible than yesterday. 

Our new forward resuscitative surgical systems and the expeditionary fleet hospitals that General Peake alluded to in the Army 

have proven their unique life and limb saving value in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. I have been unable to document a single case of 

anyone entering our health care system who is more than an hour 

between the time he was wounded in battle and first received 

resuscitative care. 

Our wounded patients at Bethesda tell me about these rapid response of the first responders tending to them instantly and timely, 

and of the lifesaving surgical care nearby. Further, it is not just 

casualty response that has improved. 

The net of environmental and weapons of mass destruction protection that surround our deployed forces is unparalleled in military history. Through military medical research and development 

programs, we continue to develop and to field new lifesaving products, practices and policies for the best of force health protection. 

As only one example, individual Marines deployed to Iraq were 

equipped with a new clotting accelerator called Quick Clot. It is a 

bandage that with one hand a wounded Marine can open and administer immediately and effectively stemming hemorrhage before 

the arrival of any health care professionals. 

Navy medicine cares not just for deployed sailors and Marines, 

but also for their families and our retired beneficiaries. All of these 

responsibilities are carried out through our mission of force health 

protection which consists of four key components. That is first fielding a healthy and fit force. 

Second, deploying them to protect against all possible hazards; 

third, providing world-class restorative care for sickness or injury 

on the battlefield, while at the same time caring for those who remain at home and providing health care for our retirees and their 

families. 

To serve these diverse needs, Navy medicine has made substantial investments to become family centered. We believe that promotion of the health and welfare of the entire family is paramount 

to the health of the service member. 

Furthermore, for active duty members and their families, health 

care is a key quality of life factor affecting both morale and retention, and that is why I say with no sense of irony that family centered services such as perinatal care—having a baby—are readiness and retention issues. One might think that combat support 

and having babies are worlds apart, but they are not. Our warriors 
249

love their families and cannot be distracted by unnecessary concerns for family’s health. 

We understand that, and are dedicated to being there for all the 

health needs of the entire family. Accordingly, military medicine 

has moved away from being a system that provided periodic and 

reactive health care to one whose portfolio is invested in health 

promotion, disease prevention and family centered care. With our 

sister services and TRICARE partners, we are dedicated to meeting 

all the needs of all of our patients in every way. 

Finally, I would note that the global war on terrorism has been 

a watershed for military medicine, as well as for American medicine in general. The aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 2001 have 

revealed that Americans are vulnerable in our homeland and that 

the very nature of threats against us has changed. We understand 

conventional violence. We now must understand chemical violence. 

We understand germs as disease. We now must understand 

germs as a weapon. We understand protecting our citizens by fighting our Nation’s battles overseas, we now must understand protecting them in their own homes. Over the months and years to 

come, America’s medical and public health infrastructures will 

evolve to become a defensive weapons systems in ways never before 

imagined. 

In partnership with the Nation’s medical agencies, military medicine will play a vital part in that defensive shield against biological, radioactive, and chemical weapons and will serve our Nation 

well in these uncertain times. I’ll end my opening remarks by saying I still wear the cloth of my Nation for 30 years and one of the 

reasons I do this is the privilege to associate with some of the finest men and women this Nation has ever produced. 

I was speaking to a corpsman in Bethesda, who lost his foot to 

a land mine while running to tend to a wounded Marine. When he 

appeared somewhat sad, he was consoled that certainly the loss of 

a foot would affect anyone that way, to which he responded, ‘‘No, 

sir, that is just a foot. In fact, I have another one. What I’m worried about is that I do not know who’s taking care of my Marines.’’

PREPARED STATEMENT

We can be proud of all of them, Army, Navy and Air Force as 

they serve in homeland and abroad and it is an honor to serve 

them. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman Stevens. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL MICHAEL L. COWAN

This has been a challenging and rewarding year for the Navy Medical Department. We have successfully responded to many challenges placed before us, and we 

continue to face a period of unprecedented change. 

For Navy Medicine, it meant changing our very being and even our motto from 

Charlie-Golf-One, which means in naval signal flag vernacular ‘‘standing by, ready 

to assist’’ to Charlie-Papa, ‘‘steaming to assist,’’ deploying with Sailors and Marines 

who will go in harm’s way, taking care of the full spectrum of world events from 

peacemaking to major regional conflicts. 

It has been a decade of uncertainty, and what has emerged from the confusion 

and uncertainty is the ascendancy of enemies who know our military superiority, 

yet won’t allow it to dampen their ardor to harm us and influence our power, prestige, economy, and values. 
250

Our enemies have struck with tools that are seemingly effective: global terrorism 

and asymmetrical warfare. During the years of the Cold War, America’s paradigm 

was to train and prepare for war in safe homeland bases in our country that were 

protected by two large bodies of water. We defended the citizens of the United 

States by fighting our wars overseas. But these enemies have successfully brought 

the war to our backyard. Now the challenge is how to also protect the citizens of 

the United States in their own homes. 

FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION

The primary focus of Navy Medicine is Force Health Protection. We have moved 

from ‘‘periodic episodic healthcare’’ and the intervention and treatment of disease 

to population health and prevention and the maintenance and protection of health. 

This doesn’t, however, change the physiological deterioration of the human body 

when pierced by a bullet. Medical support services are more essential than ever 

since those fewer numbers have greater responsibilities within the battle space. 

Take these complexities, and translate them into providing good medicine in bad 

places over great distances and the challenge become even more daunting. Yet one 

thing is certain—no organization in the world provides healthcare from the foxhole 

to the ivory tower the way Navy Medicine does. 

Force health protection can be summed up in four categories: First, preparing a 

healthy and fit force that can go anywhere and accomplish any mission that the defense of the nation requires of them. Second, go with them to protect our men and 

women in uniform from the hazards of the battlefield. Third, restore health, whenever protection fails, while also providing world-class health care for their families 

back home. And fourth, help a grateful nation thank our retired warriors with 

TRICARE for Life. Navy Medicine has to make all those things work; and they have 

to be in balance. Any one individual may only see a bit of this large and complex 

organization. But if each of us does our part right, we end up with force health protection. 

To ensure its ability to execute its force health protection mission under any circumstances, Navy Medicine has executed multiple initiatives to ensure optimal preparedness, which includes establishing a Navy Medicine Office of Homeland Security. The office is fully operational and has executed an aggressive strategic plan 

to ensure highest emergency preparedness in our military treatment facilities 

(MTF’s). Its accomplishments include: 

Execution of an MTF Disaster Preparedness Assist Visit Program.—The Navy 

Medicine Office of Homeland Security crafted a multi-pronged assist visit program 

to strengthen preparedness in Navy MTFs. A team of homeland security experts is 

visiting each MTF between November 2002 and April 2004 to conduct a unique program known as ‘‘Disaster Preparedness, Vulnerability Analysis, Training and Exercise’’ (DVATEX). Through this activity, each facility receives a hazard vulnerability 

analysis to identify where they may be vulnerable to attack or the impact of disaster, emergency medical response training, and an exercise of the hospital’s emergency preparedness plan is executed—a critical step in enhancing readiness. This, 

and multiple other critical initiatives, were funded by a mid-year Congressional supplemental funding action. 

Enhanced Education for Medical Department Personnel.—Well-educated clinicians 

are a critical part of homeland security. Navy Medicine sent over 450 physicians, 

nurses and corpsmen to the ‘‘gold standard’’ medical management of chemical and 

biological casualties training program at the U.S. Army Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID). An extensive online training program for Navy Medical Department personnel on response to weapons of mass impact and emergency preparedness is in development at the Naval Medical Education and Training Command. 

Pharmacy Operations Emergency Preparedness.—A task force of Navy Medicine 

pharmacy experts is taking action to ensure strong emergency pharmacy operations 

and adequate stockpiles of critical medicines and antidotes. 

Smallpox Threat Mitigation.—Navy Medicine is leading 2 DOD Smallpox Emergency Response Teams (SERTs) and has executed the initial phase of the DOD 

smallpox immunization plan. 

READINESS/CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

As we move into this new millennium, our Navy and Marine Corps men and 

women are called upon to respond to a greater variety of challenges worldwide. This 

means the readiness of our personnel is now more important than ever. Military 

readiness is directly impacted by Navy Medicine’s ability to provide health protection and critical care to our Navy and Marine Corps forces, which are the front line 

protectors of our democracy. That’s what military medicine is all about—keeping our 
251

forces fit to fight. Our readiness platforms include the two 1,000 bed hospital ships, 

6 Active Duty and 4 Reserve 500 Bed Fleet hospitals, as well as different medical 

units supporting Casualty Receiving and Treatment Ships (CRTS) and a variety of 

units assigned to augment the Marine Corps, and overseas hospitals. Navy medicine 

is more flexible now than we were even a few short years ago. Fleet hospitals have 

been modified to allow smaller and lighter expeditionary modules to be deployed. 

Yet even those are not flexible enough. Our combat planners are designing a more 

modular approach to enhance our operational capabilities. The ultimate goal is an 

ability to task and organize a medical force to rapidly provide support for the full 

range of potential military operations anywhere on the globe. 

I am very glad to report that the Next Generation 4/2 (DUAL SITE) Concept Fleet 

Hospital (FHSO) gained final approval in April 2002. The first ever-major Fleet 

Hospital reconfiguration and program change since the command’s inception over 20 

years ago, this achievement will provide a truly modular, plug and play hospital 

that will better meet the challenges of today and provide a bridge to the development of the ‘‘Fleet Hospital of the Future’’. This month we will begin building the 

first 4/2 concept hospital as part of the Integrated Logistics Overhaul (ILO) of Fleet 

Hospital NINE and will ultimately provide greater flexibility and operability to the 

Maritime Preposition Forces. In addition, a design for a small 10-bed Expeditionary 

Surgical Unit (ESU) with an even smaller 4-bed Surgical Component (SSC) is being 

developed. These new, smaller products have been imbedded into the recently approved Next Generation 4/2 Concept Fleet Hospital for less than $100,000, and provides Navy Medicine with a new response package to meet the new threat of asymmetrical warfare by providing between Level II and III care. Both the ESU and SSC 

are intended to provide the FH program with its first ever air-mobile asset and will 

serve as the foundation for providing humanitarian and disaster relief. The first of 

these products was implemented with the rebuild of FH08 EMF in September 2002. 

Last year, Navy medical personnel supported numerous joint service, Marine 

Corps, and Navy operations around the world. We flawlessly performed dozens of 

deployments supporting the war in Afghanistan, and in support of our national 

strategy, a fleet hospital still provides daily health care services to the Al Qaeda 

and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Our medical personnel have also 

provided preventive medical services, humanitarian care and relief to many countries around the globe. 

Over the last few weeks, thousands of Navy Medical Department personnel have 

deployed to the 1,000 bed hospital ship USNS Comfort, to three fleet hospitals (in 

their 116 bed Marine Expeditionary Force Configuration) and have augmented Navy 

and Marine Corps forces world wide, many of whom are deployed in forward areas. 

Navy Medicine will continue focusing on improved contingency flexibility in the 

field and afloat. Our medical care starts right in the midst of battle through the 

service and dedication of hospital corpsman. Navy Hospital Corpsmen have been 

awarded the Medal of Honor more often than any specialty in the Navy. Navy-Marine Corps history is filled with heroic acts performed by corpsmen to reach and retrieve wounded Marines. As the Marines deployed to Afghanistan and now to the 

Middle East, there are always hospital corpsman with them. The ratio can vary according to the mission, but the ratio is around 11 corpsmen per infantry company, 

which has between 120 and 130 Marines. 

Corpsman training includes surgically opening an obstructed airway, field dressing battle wounds, starting IVs, patching a lung-deep chest wound, treating battle 

injuries in an environment contaminated by chemical or biological weapons, and immobilizing spines of Marines whose backs are broken by explosions. 

Navy Medicine has also established training for combat surgical support to enhance the capabilities of the Forward Resuscitative Surgical System deployment by 

USMC. The cornerstone is the Navy Trauma Training Center at LA County/University of Southern California Medical Center, which convened its first class in August 

2002 of physicians, nurses and hospital corpsman tasked with far forward surgery 

operational assignments. The program is projected to train approximately 120–150 

students annually. 

In the 1991 Gulf War, our forward units moved so quickly into Iraq that it took 

an average of two hours to get a casualty to rear-guard medical facilities. Navy 

Medicine now has trauma doctors with the equivalent to a six-bed emergency room, 

as part of the Marine Corps’ Combat Service Support Company, that follows the 

front lines on trucks and helicopters. Navy medicine will have trauma doctors available within 30 to 60 minutes of an injury, which reflects our persistent effort to 

push high quality medical care close to combat. The physicians staffing these units 

are combat doctors, who the Marines refer to as ‘‘Devil Docs’’ in reference to the 

nickname ‘‘Devil Dogs’’ that the Marines earned in World War I. Its expected that 

the emergency and surgery teams will receive the 10 to 15 percent of casualties who 
252

will need immediate treatment to stay alive before they can be sent to more fully 

equipped echelon II or III facilities in the rear. These teams of two general surgeons, one anesthesiologist and five nurses and corpsmen can perform basic tests 

and can handle 18 casualties in 48 hours without resupply from the rear. In just 

one hour, the team can pack up its two tents, one a holding area and the other a 

surgery room with operating lights, along with ultra-quiet power generators and Xray and hand-held sonogram machines. 

As your aware one of our hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, deployed to the Persian Gulf on 6 January 2003, and is now being fully staffed to provide 1,000 hospital 

beds, 12 operating rooms, CAT Scan capability and advanced medical care equivalent to university medical centers. Yet, the Navy’s first-response medical vessel for 

injured troops may be a gray hull and not the white USNS Comfort. At the tip of 

the spear are amphibious assault ships like the USS Tarawa. They launch Marines 

by helicopter and giant hovercraft, but also serve as Casualty and Treatment Receiving Ships (CTRS: secondary floating hospitals). The USS Tarawa, comes with 

four operating rooms and beds for 300 patients when Marines are ashore. The medical team manning the facility includes surgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists, 

nurses and hospital corpsmen. They know how to treat nearly every battlefield trauma, including gunshot wounds and exposure to chemical and biological attacks. 

Their training also included the Navy’s new hand-held ‘‘Bio/Chemical Detection Devices. The detection devices can determine within minutes if Marines or sailors have 

been exposed to chemical agents, and identify the agents. Patients treated on-board 

are stabilized and transferred either to hospital ships or military hospitals in Europe or the United States. 

PERSONNEL READINESS

Navy Medicine tracks and evaluates overall medical readiness using the readiness 

of the platforms as well as the readiness of individual personnel assigned to those 

platforms. One of our measures of readiness is whether we have personnel with the 

appropriate specialty assigned to the proper billets; that is, do we have surgeons assigned to surgeon billets and operating room nurses assigned to operating room 

nurse billets, etc. 

The readiness of a platform also involves issues relating to equipment, supplies 

and unit training. Navy Medicine has developed a metric to measure the readiness 

of platforms using the Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS) concept 

tailored specifically to measure specific medical capabilities such as surgical care or 

humanitarian services. Using the SORTS concept, Navy Medicine has increased the 

readiness of 34 ‘‘Tier 1’’ deployment assets by 23 percent. 

Navy Medicine also monitors the deployment readiness of individual personnel 

within the Navy Medical Department. Feeding the SORTS system is a program 

known as the Expeditionary Medical Program for Augmentation and Readiness 

Tracking System (EMPARTS), which Navy Medicine uses to monitor the deployment readiness of individual personnel and units within the Navy Medical Department. Personnel are required to be administratively ready and must meet individual 

training requirements such as shipboard fire fighting, fleet hospital orientation, etc. 

Individual personal compliance is tracked through EMPARTS. 

Augmentation requirements in support of the operational forces have significantly 

increased. Our Total Force Integration Plan utilizing both active and reserve inventories has greatly improved our ability to respond to these requirements. Navy 

Medicine’s demonstrated commitment to supporting the full spectrum of operations 

is mirrored in our motto ‘‘steaming to assist’’ and is in full partnership with the 

Navy’s ‘‘Forward Deployed, Fully Engaged’’ strategy. 

I also believe that in order to achieve Force Health Protection we need a metric 

for measuring the health readiness of our fighting forces. This measure must be beyond the traditional ‘‘C-Status metric’’, which lacks a true measure of one’s health. 

Navy Medicine has developed a measure of individual health, which will also facilitate our measure of population health. Our model has been accepted by the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, and is being expanded for use 

by all the Services. A final version of the model and a Health Affairs policy memorandum is expected in a few weeks. In short, the model develops a metric that categorizes an individual’s readiness status in one of four groups. The categories to be 

used include: Fully Medically Ready; Medically Ready with minor intervention; Unknown (i.e. no current evaluation or lost medical record) and Medically Not Ready. 

Each active duty member will fall into one of the four categories. The elements that 

will decide what category an individual falls into includes: Periodic health assessments, such as the physical exam, deployment limiting conditions, which include injuries, or long term illnesses, dental readiness using the same standards that have 
253

always been established, Immunization status and possibly vision evaluations and 

individual medical equipment like gas mask eye-glass inserts. The software needed 

to collect and track the data has already been developed and is compatible with current data systems. Readiness data can either be entered via SAMS (Shipboard automated medical system) or through our Navy Medicine on-line program. The information can also be stored in the DEERS database. Secure individual readiness data 

will therefore be available from SAMS, DEERS or Navy Medicine on-line. Reports 

will array data by command and drill down to an individual, and can be accessed 

by line leadership. 

I am also pleased to report that we recently implemented a new Reserve Utilization Plan (RUP) that has optimized our use of reservists during peacetime and contingencies. The Medical RUP is Navy Medicine’s plan for full integration of Medical 

Reserves into the Navy Medical Department. The RUP is being currently used to 

support the allowed 50 percent reserve augmentation of our deployed active duty 

staff and matches up reserve specialties with the needed services at each of our hospitals. 

OUR PEOPLE

People are critical to accomplishing Navy Medicine’s mission and one of the major 

goals from Navy Medicine’s strategic plan is to enhance job satisfaction. We believe 

that retention is as important if not more so than recruiting, and in an effort to 

help retain our best people, there has been a lot of progress. Under our strategic 

plan’s ‘‘People’’ theme, we will focus on retaining and attracting talented and motivated personnel and move to ensure our training is aligned with the Navy’s mission 

and optimization of health. Their professional needs must be satisfied for Navy 

Medicine to be aligned and competitive. Their work environment must be challenging and supportive, providing clear objectives and valuing the contributions of 

all. 

All Navy Medicine personnel serving with the Marine Corps face unique personal 

and professional challenges. Not only must they master the art and science of a demanding style of warfare, but they must also learn the skills of an entirely separate 

branch of the armed services. Whether assigned to a Marine Division, a Force Service Support Group, or a Marine Air Wing, Navy medical personnel must know how 

Marines fight, the weapons they use, and the techniques used to employ them effectively against harsh resistance. To excel in this endeavor is an accomplishment that 

should be recognized on a level with other Navy warfare communities. 

As we work to meet the challenges of providing quality health care, while simultaneously improving access to care and implementing optimization, we have not forgotten the foundation of our health care—our providers. We appreciate and value 

our providers’ irreplaceable role in achieving our vision of ‘‘Navy Medicine being the 

provider of choice by achieving superior performance in health services and population health.’’

Within each of our medical facilities there has been an overall initiative to reward 

clinical excellence and productivity and to ensure that those who are contributing 

the most are receiving the recognition they deserve. Additionally, selection board 

precepts now emphasize clinical performance in the definition of those best and fully 

qualified for promotion. 

I would like to report to you on the status of our corps: 

Medical Corps 

The Medical Corps is currently manned at approximately 101 percent. This number is deceptive because there are several critical specialties in which undermanning 

is high and needs to be watched to avoid impacting our ability to meet wartime requirements and provide INCONUS casualty medical care: Anesthesia (82 percent 

manned), General Surgery (72 percent manned), Pathology (82 percent manned), 

Dermatology (83 percent manned), Diagnostic Radiology (79 percent manned) and 

Radiation Oncology (80 percent manned). Because the average loss of providers exceeds the currently programmed input, shortages are expected in fiscal year 2005 

in Anesthesiology, General Surgery and its subspecialties, Urology, Pathology, Radiology, Gastroenterology, and Pulmonary/Critical Care. We are also monitoring specialties in which we’re currently overmanned. Because of the nature of medical 

training, it can take from 8 to 12 years to train a medical specialist. Various training and accession programs feed that pipeline and loss rates are often hard to 

project. We have improved our management oversight of those communities and will 

continue to seek improved means of meeting end-strength goals. 

In order to compete in the marketplace for a limited pool of qualified applicants 

for medical programs, and to retain them once they have chosen the Navy as a career, adequate compensation is critical. The civilian-military pay gap that has al-
254

ways existed has increased steadily, which makes it almost impossible to recruit or 

retain physicians in these high demand specialties. Strategic increases in the use 

of Incentive Special Pay, Multiyear Specialty Pay and use of Critical Skills Retention Bonuses that correspond to the Navy’s medical specialty shortages may help 

improve retention in these critically manned specialties. 

Dental Corps 

Despite continued efforts to improve dental corps retention, the annual loss rate 

between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2002 increased from 8.3 percent to 11.8 percent. Current projections for fiscal year 2003 predicts a 12.6 percent loss rate. These 

numbers represent higher actual and projected loss rates compared with similar 

data from last year. In addition, declining retention rates of junior officers has negatively impacted applications for residency training, which have dropped 16 percent 

over the last five years. The significant pay gap compared to the civilian market and 

the high debt load of our junior officers seem to be the primary reasons given by 

dental officers leaving the Navy. 

Nurse Corps 

Closely monitoring the national nursing shortage and increasing number of competitive civilian compensation packages, Navy Medicine continues to meet military 

and civilian recruiting goals and professional nursing requirements through diversified accession sources, pay incentives, graduate education and training programs, 

and retention initiatives that include quality of life and practice issues. Successful 

tools have been the Nurse Accession Bonus, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist 

Incentive Pay, Board Certification Pay, and Special Hire Authority; it is imperative 

that they are continued in the future years to meet our wartime and peacetime missions. In addition, clinical and patient care needs are continuously evaluated to target our education and training opportunities in support of specific nursing specialties, such as advanced practice nurses, nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, and 

perioperative nurses. Over the past 2–3 years, CRNAs have been successfully retained in the Navy, creating a consistent fill of available billets based on a variety 

of factors. The combination of special pays (Incentive Specialty Pay and Board Certification Pay), lifting of practice limitations, and a focus on quality of life issues 

have been the major factors for this success. The most recent Critical Skills Retention Bonus has had a positive influence on CRNAs staying beyond their obligated 

service period. 

Medical Service Corps 

Medical Service Corps (MSC) loss rates in general are relatively stable at about 

8.5 percent, but as with the rest of the Navy, were lower than that in fiscal year 

2002 (6 percent). Loss rates vary significantly between specialties however, and are 

not acceptable in all MSC professions. A key issue for this Corps is increasing educational requirements and costs. Many of our health professionals incur high educational debts prior to commissioning. Recent increases in loan repayment requirements causes issues for many junior level officers trying to repay their education 

loans. Additionally, the increasing number of doctoral and masters level requirements for the various healthcare professions is beginning to put a strain on the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) promotion constraints for this 

Corps, an issue we will be monitoring. Currently our critical specialties to recruit 

and retain are optometry, pharmacy, clinical psychology, social work, entomology, 

and microbiology. When funded, we expect the new pharmacy and optometry special 

pays to help our retention in those two communities. Further we have begun using 

the Health Profession Loan Repayment Program for some specialties and are having 

success with it. 

Hospital Corps 

Within the Hospital Corps, we are currently under-manned, defined as being 

below 75 percent, in seven Navy Enlisted Classifications (NECs). In the operational 

forces, USMC reconnaissance corpsman are currently manned at 53.8 percent. In 

the MTFs, cardio-pulmonary technicians are staffed at 74.3 percent, occupational 

therapy technicians 63.2 percent, bio-medical repair technicians 66.3 percent, psychiatric technicians 72.4 percent, morticians 50 percent and respiratory technicians 

at 73.5 percent. In the Dental technician community, we are currently undermanned in the dental hygiene community at 63.1 percent. An enlistment bonus for 

hospital corpsman and dental technicians would assist in competition with the civilian job market. 
255

Medical Special Pays 

The primary mission of the Military Health System (MHS) is Force Health Protection. This readiness focus involves programs to ensure we maintain a healthy and 

fit force, providing medical care in combat. The MHS also has an important peace 

time mission of providing health services to active duty members and other beneficiaries. In order to provide these services, the MHS must retain health providers 

that are dedicated, competent and readiness trained. This challenge is particularly 

difficult because uniformed health professionals are costly to accession, train, and 

are in high demand in the private sector. 

It’s essential for the MHS to maintain the right professionals, the right skill mix 

and the right years of experience to fulfill our readiness requirements. Continued 

military service is not only based on pay, but also the conditions and nature of the 

work. Yet, adequate compensation must be provided. One of the major tools used 

to retain providers are special and incentive pay bonuses. 

National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2003 (NDAA 03) set new upper 

limits for specific medical pays. Where as this act delineates the dollar limits at 

which pays may be paid; it leaves the administration of these pays to the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Services. The administrative policy 

for special pays is accomplished through a tri-service effort where specific manpower 

needs for each service and community pay is evaluated and applied to an annual 

tri-service pay plan. It is this pay plan that determines at what pay levels will be 

paid for specific specialties at any given time. Currently there have been no decisions or budgetary inputs to provide for any increase in these pays for fiscal year 

2003 or fiscal year 2004. 

Workgroups both within each service and as a tri-service collective are examining 

the application of special pays to include increases utilizing the new upper pay caps. 

However, it is too early to comment on possible applications. 

UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES

As the Executive Agent of the Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences (USUHS), I would like to comment on the extraordinary achievements of 

the University in 2002. USUHS granted 163 Medical Degrees for a current total of 

3,268 uniformed physician graduates since the first USUHS graduation in 1980. 

USUHS graduates, with retention averaging twenty years of active duty service, 

now represent over 22 percent of the total physician officers on active duty in the 

Armed Forces. And, as provided to the Congress during 2002, the median length of 

non-obligated service for physician specialists in the Military Health System, not including USUHS graduates, is 2.9 years; however, the median length of non-obligated service for USUHS graduates is 9 years. Thus, USUHS graduates are exceeding the original expectations of Congress when the university was established, thus 

ensuring physician continuity and leadership for the military health care system. 

In addition, a total of 183 Masters of Science in Nursing Degrees have been granted 

since the establishment of the USUHS Graduate School of Nursing in 1993; and, 

728 Doctoral and Masters Degrees have been granted through the USUHS School 

of Medicine Graduate Education Programs. 

The military unique curricula and programs of the Uniformed Services University, 

successfully grounded in a multi-Service environment, draw upon lessons learned 

during past and present-day combat and casualty care to produce career-oriented 

physicians, advanced practice nurses, and scientists with military unique expertise. 

The USUHS-unique training centered in preventive medicine and combat-related 

health care is essential to providing superior force health protection and improving 

the quality of life for our service members, retirees, and families. USUHS also provides a significant national service through its continuing medical education courses 

for military physicians in combat casualty care, tropical medicine, combat stress, 

disaster medicine, and the medical responses to weapons of mass destruction 

(WMD). 

Four USUHS activities, internationally recognized by the emergency responder 

and health care communities, stand by ready to provide cost-effective, quality-assured WMD-related training and consultation. The Casualty Care Research Center; 

the Center for Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance Medicine; the Center for the 

Study of Traumatic Stress; and, the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute 

have established credibility in providing military unique expertise covering four 

areas of WMD-related concerns: (1) the preparation of emergency responder communities; (2) ensuring communication and assessment of military medical humanitarian assistance training; (3) addressing traumatic stress of both civilian and uniformed communities during WMD-related incidents; and, (4) the development of 
256

medical radiological countermeasures to include the provision of unique training for 

the response to radiological emergencies. 

I am pleased to report that USUHS has begun collaborative efforts with the Department of Veterans Affairs on its WMD-related educational and training programs. As directed by H.R. 3253, The Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency 

Preparedness Act, Public Law 107–287, VA education and training programs on 

medical responses to terrorist activities, shall be modeled after programs established 

at USUHS. The cost-effective provision of quality-assured, web-based training and 

expertise for the medical response to WMD for the emergency and health care provider communities is ready to be transmitted from the USUHS Simulation Center 

located in Forest Glen, Maryland. I look forward to the further development of these 

collaborative efforts and the future contributions of USUHS. 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NAVAL MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND

The Naval Medical Education and Training Command (NMETC) was established 

under the command of a Flag Officer, as a result of BUMED realignment activities. 

NMETC is going to be a central source of learning that will act as a catalyst for 

web based education and training initiates available to our staff on a world wide 

basis. The Command’s mission also dovetails well with CNO’s Task Force Excel 

(TFE) initiative, whose cornerstone is the stand up of primary organizations with 

responsibility for training, education, human performance/development, and alignment of resources and requirements. Current Navy Medicine training staff is conducting a gap analysis between NMETC key functions, and those functions envisioned in CNO’s training commands, in collaboration with TFE staff. 

FAMILY CENTERED CARE

Our health system must remain flexible as we incorporate new technologies and 

advances in medical practice, struggle to maintain our facilities, optimize our health 

care delivery, embrace new health benefits, enhance patient safety, and increase our 

ability to provide care to beneficiaries over age 65 in the coming months. Navy Medicine has been working tirelessly to maintain our superior health services in order 

to keep our service members healthy and fit and ready to deploy while providing 

a high quality health benefit to all our beneficiaries. As you know, healthcare is an 

especially important benefit to service members, retirees and family members. It is 

an important recruitment and retention tool. For active duty members and their 

families it’s one of the key quality of life factors affecting both morale and retention. 

A deployed service member who is secure in the knowledge that his or her family’s 

healthcare needs are being met is without question, more effective in carrying out 

the mission. Additionally, the benefits afforded to retirees are viewed by all as an 

indicator of the extent to which we honor our commitments. 

I’m proud of the cultural transformation Navy medicine has undertaken in support of Family Centered Care. Our patients, our Navy leadership, and Navy medicine understand that if we want to evolve beyond being a reactive health care system—with periodic, episodic, reactive healthcare—we have to make our customers 

partners in their care. Our goal is to be a proactive health system with the achievement of unprecedented levels of population health, the ultimate measure of our success. But we can’t get there if patients aren’t comfortable with their healthcare. We 

can’t achieve higher states of health without individuals being actively involved in 

the process. Navy medicine has made a commitment to the cultural transformation. 

We are working every day towards being patient-centric. 

We have placed particular emphasis on achieving customer satisfaction with our 

perinatal services. Delivering babies is a very important component of our force 

health protection. It is one of the richest opportunities we have to affect health behaviors, and for building strong families from the beginning. What better opportunity is there to interest our Sailors and Marines in their health than when they 

are creating a family? The Navy’s Family Centered Care (FCC) program promotes 

practices that enhance patient safety, health, cost efficiency, and patient and staff 

satisfaction. Elements of the FCC program were derived directly from patient and 

staff responses to multiple survey instruments and convenience samples. During 

2002, Navy Medicine demonstrated its commitment to patient-centered care by investing $10.2 million in the FCC program. MTFs were able to upgrade equipment 

and furniture and received enhanced maternal-infant safety and patient-centered 

care training. Our accomplishments include a Tri-service effort to develop a uniform 

Family Centered Care program. We have collaborated with Army and Air Force 

Medical departments to develop coordinated plans since February 2002. We have 

also increased the availability of private post-partum rooms in Navy MTFs by 52 

percent from 2001, while simultaneously increasing provider continuity for prenatal 
257

visits to at least 75 percent in those MTFs not affected by the current OPTEMPO. 

We have deployed the DOD developed Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE) system to monitor patient satisfaction with the FCC program and have established 

partnerships between the BUMED Perinatal Advisory Board, Health Services Organizations, and the BUMED Inspector General to assist in implementing and monitoring of the FCC program. 

We have standardized and enhanced prenatal education in all MTFs through the 

purchase of the USAF developed Spring Garden interactive education material and 

have contracted with a nationally recognized expert on Single Room Maternity Care 

to provide consultative services at MTFs undergoing the construction of Labor, Delivery, Recovery and Postpartum units. We are ensuring that MTFs review and revise policies to include family members at prenatal visits and at the delivery and 

are currently implementing the DOD/VA Clinical Practice Guideline for Uncomplicated Pregnancy in Navy MTFs. 

Finally, we have funded, filmed, and distributed marketing video spots, introducing patients to the Navy’s Family Centered Care program. 

Optimization 

Readiness, must be supported by integration and optimization forming what I 

refer to as the ‘‘ROI concept’’—Readiness, integration and optimization. ROI is simply our effort to be good business people. Our optimization efforts have met with 

good success and led to more integration in our military health system. We work 

with our sister services very closely, both within the health care system, and operationally. We are all utterly dependent on one another for our mutual success. Nothing of any significance is done alone. Further, we have increased our integration and 

cooperation in other areas. A prime example is our continued efforts to build mutually advantageous health care and business relationships with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

There is no more important effort in military medicine today than implementing 

the MHS Optimization Plan to provide the most comprehensive health services to 

our Sailors, Marines and other beneficiaries. Optimization is based upon the pillar 

of readiness as our central mission and primary focus. 

For several years now, we have attempted to shift our mindset from treating illnesses to managing the health of our patients. Fewer man-hours will be lost due 

to treatment of injury or illness because we manage the health of our service men 

and women, which keeps them fit and ready for duty. With this in mind, TRICARE 

Management Activity and the three services created an aggressive plan to support 

development of a high performance comprehensive and integrated health services 

delivery system. We took lessons learned from the best practices of both military 

and civilian health plans. The outcome was the MHS Optimization Plan. Full implementation of this plan will result in a higher quality, more cost effective health 

service delivery system. 

The MHS Optimization Plan is based on three tenets. First, we must make effective use of readiness-required personnel and equipment to support the peacetime 

health care delivery mission. Second, we must equitably align our resources to provide as much health service delivery as possible in the most cost-effective manner—

within our MTFs. And third, we must use the best, evidence-based clinical practices 

and a population health approach to ensure consistently superior quality of services. 

During the last year, we accomplished a lot, both locally and at an enterprise level 

by focusing on concept education, primary care management techniques, clinic productivity standards, administrative health plan management and best practice integration. Accomplishments include: 

Clinical Advisory Boards 

Clinical Practice Guidelines 

Primary Care Manager By Name 

implementation 

Patient Safety Initiative 

Population Heath Improvement Plan and 

Tools 

Population Health Navigator 

Primary Care Optimization Model 

Optimization Report Care 

TRICARE On-line 

Clinic Business Reengineering 

Provider Support Staff and Exam Rooms 

Clinic Management Course 

Access monitoring 

Appointment Standardization 

Data Quality Initiatives 

Transition to New DEERS 

Medical Record Control 

Pharmacy Profiling 

Fleet Liaison Instruction 

Policy Statement to Reward Clinical Excellence 

Our Optimization funding has allowed us to pursue investment opportunities designed to achieve an ‘‘Order of Magnitude Change’’ within Navy Medicine Treatment 

Facilities. Over 140 field proposals underwent a rigorous review; those demonstrating the most significant Return on Investment (ROI) are being implemented: 
258

—Musculoskeletal initiatives at 4 sites 

—Mental Health initiative at 1 site 

—Primary Care initiatives at 4 sites 

—Pharmacy initiatives at 4 sites 

—E-Health /TRICARE On-Line 

—Webification of Navy Medicine 

—Population Health Navigator/Primary Care Optimization Model 

—Clinic Manager Course 

—Radiology Residency—NMC Portsmouth 

—Birth Product Line Expansion at 2 sites 

—Virtual Colonoscopy 

—Carido-thoracic Surgery at NMC Portsmouth 

—Sleep Lab Expansion at 3 Sites 

—Nurse Triage/Nurse Advise Line at 2 sites 

—Chile Health Center—NMC San Diego 

—Case Management Project 

The Optimization Fund projects are at various points in the approval, funding and 

implementation process. Implementation plans and outcome metrics will be monitored closely. 

Although many commands report numerous efforts to optimize or improve their 

facility, I am concerned that frequently these efforts are not tied to specific goals 

or objectives. This is where performance measurement comes in. Performance measurement provides focus and direction, ensures strategic alignment and serves as a 

progress report. 

In the Navy, we are making available comparative performance data on all facilities—so MTF commanders can see where they stand and learn from each others’ 

successes. Ultimately, it allows us to raise the bar for the whole organization. 

We have already made adjustments to our measures and have found that many 

of the measures have data that only changes once a year. This may be fine to measure how well we are doing in moving towards some of our strategic goals, but they 

are not adequate by themselves to manage the complexity of the Navy Medical department. This year we’ve added more ‘‘levels’’ to our metrics. One is a group of Annual Plan measures. After reviewing our strategic plan in light of the current environment, understanding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to 

our organization, we identified several priorities for the year. We then identified 

measures to track progress on these items—and this data has to be measurable at 

least quarterly. Finally, we have added more measures for our ‘‘Dashboard of Leading Indicators’’ that our leadership will be looking at on a monthly basis. Once we 

look at the historical data for these dashboard indicators, we will be setting not only 

targets for where we want to be but also action triggers in case we are going the 

wrong direction in some area. We will agree on a level below which, we will no 

longer just watch and see if it improves, but we will take action to change the processes. We in the Navy have web based our Optimization Report Card and the satisfaction survey data is provided to MTF commanders in a more user friendly display 

on a quarterly basis. As we continue to improve our performance measurements, we 

will begin to identify targets for our system and for each MTF. Holding MTF CO’s 

accountable for meeting those targets will be the next step in this evolution. 

NAVY MEDICINE/DVA RESOURCE SHARING

As I mentioned, VA resource sharing is part of our optimization program. Collaboration between the Veterans Affairs and Navy Medicine is an important way to enhance service to our beneficiaries and veterans. Navy Medicine is an active participant in the DOD/VA Executive Council working to establish a high-level program 

of DOD/VA cooperation and coordination in a joint effort to reduce cost and improve 

health care for veterans, active duty military personnel, retirees and family members. The Executive Council is made up of senior DOD and VA healthcare executives and has established seven workgroups to focus on specific policy areas. Navy 

Medicine participates on three of the workgroups (Benefit Coordination, Financial 

Management and Joint Facility Utilization/Resource Sharing). The Presidential 

Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery to our Nation’s Veteran’s meets monthly and representatives from BUMED attend every meeting as well as members from 

the VA and other Services. To date, BUMED currently manages 193 sharing agreements with the VA and provides resource sharing with the VA on over 2,800 individual healthcare line items. We have also established a new BUMED/VA web site, 

which will provide our commands an overview of joint sharing ventures and updates 

on local command initiatives. It’s essential that our Commanding Officers pursue 
259

VA sharing initiatives in their daily business activities. Specific Navy/VA Joint Ventures and other MTF agreements initiatives include: 

—NH Great Lakes and the North Chicago VAMC have reached agreement on 

forming a joint North Chicago Ambulatory Healthcare system which will support the mission at Naval Training Center (NTC), Great Lakes with modern 

and efficient healthcare services. 

—The NMC Key West, Florida and VA Medical Center, Miami, Florida are sharing a new joint medical clinic that is staffed by VA and Navy providers. 

—NH Corpus Christi and the VA have also signed an agreement to share surgical 

services and various ambulatory care services. 

—In Guam, the VA Outpatient Clinic is collocated at USNH GUAM; Navy is considered the primary inpatient facility for veterans. 

—NH Pensacola has several VA/DOD agreements in place and is working to establish additional agreements: Current agreements include: Emergency Room 

Services, Inpatient services, OB services and Orthopedic services, Lab and Radiology Services, Active Duty physicals and Mental Health Services. Options are 

also under review for new shared ambulatory healthcare settings. 

—NMC San Diego and NH Cherry Point are working with the VA to establish 

a Joint Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC). 

—NH Lemoore is negotiating a new sharing agreement with the VA in Fresno, 

California to replace a recently expired agreement. 

—Agreements under development include: Corry Station—a combined DOD/VA 

Outpatient Clinic. A project workbook has been started and discussions continue. A site location has not been determined at this time. 

The Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP) Pilot Program is also providing promising results. The purpose of the CMOP pilot is to evaluate the impact 

and feasibility of shifting some of the DOD prescription refill workload from MTF 

pharmacies to VA CMOPs while maintaining quality service to DOD beneficiaries. 

VA and DOD have made important progress in their efforts to conduct a DOD/VA 

CMOP pilot for evaluating the merits of using CMOPs MHS wide. Timelines and 

metrics have been established, pilot sites have been selected, and the interfaces are 

developed and are being tested. A Navy pilot site is at the Naval Medical Center 

San Diego. 

E-HEALTH TECHNOLOGY

The Internet has dramatically changed the way we live and do our business in 

ways totally unforeseen even as recently as ten years ago. This is especially true 

in Medicine where the Internet offers the opportunity to extend healthcare access, 

services, and education to improve the care we provide our patients. Online services 

and information offer patients the ability to take control of their healthcare and 

partner with their healthcare provider to stay healthy. 

In Navy Medicine, we have recognized the enormous potential of the Internet, 

both in healthcare services and in accomplishing our mission. We want to move 

from reactive interventional healthcare, waiting for people to get sick before we intervene, to more proactive Force Health Protection where we identify the most common causes of illness and injury in our patients and then aggressively act to prevent 

those things through good preventive services and education. We realize we cannot 

achieve this vision if our patients have to come to the hospital for those services. 

As a result, we look to the internet to help us extend healthcare services, access, 

and education outside the hospital in a convenient, easily accessed manner. 

We also realize that the internet can help us extend healthcare services to remote 

areas where specialty care has historically required medically evacuating patients. 

Finally, we also realize that the internet can be a valuable tool to help us support 

our operational commanders while concurrently improving our internal efficiency 

and effectiveness. 

These four goals, (1) extending healthcare services outside our hospital to help 

move us to proactive Force Health Protection, (2) extend healthcare services to the 

patient, regardless of location, (3) improve support to operational commanders, and 

(4) improve our internal efficiency and effectiveness comprise the four main goals 

of Navy Medicine’s e-health initiatives. 

There are three initiatives I would like to highlight to demonstrate our progress 

in this area: 

—TRICARE OnLine.—This is the MHS new healthcare portal. A revolutionary 

concept, it allows our patients to go online, create an account, and access 

customizeable personalized healthcare information for their specific needs. They 

can also create an online healthcare journal for their healthcare providers to 

use and to help them track their health. There are no comparable services in 
260

the civilian sector and it represents the very hard work of a dedicated staff who 

took this from concept to widespread deployment in less than two years. Navy 

Medicine is partnering with TRICARE OnLine to share applications, jointly develop new applications, and ensure interoperability for new innovations in the 

future. 

—RADWORKS.—Radiology is increasingly important in the rapid diagnosis and 

treatment of patients. Rapid access to radiology expertise is critical to getting 

the best and quickest care for our patients. Since we cannot have radiologists 

everywhere, we are leveraging digital radiography over the web to provide this 

service. We recently completed installation of this technology onboard USNS 

COMFORT for use in supporting optimal care and disposition of any casualties. 

Our patients will have immediate access to the best radiologic support quickly 

regardless of their location anywhere in the world. 

—Smallpox Tracking System.—With the threat of smallpox, it is critical for us to 

both immunize the force and provide our commanders with as near a real time 

view of their immunization status as possible. Previous reporting used to be 

paper-based, was very labor-intensive, and was almost always out of date when 

received. We did smallpox immunization tracking differently. Within two weeks 

of program start, a dedicated Navy Medicine web team developed and implemented a real time web-based tracking system that allowed us to provide, on 

a daily basis, real time immunization reports to line commanders for their use. 

This was subsequently upgraded to a more robust system in use today. Navy 

Medicine responded quickly and effectively to the needs of our commanders and 

the support we needed to give to keep our Sailors and Marines healthy and 

ready to go. 

The bottom line is that Navy Medicine is at the vanguard of leveraging the net 

and emerging web-based technologies to improve our healthcare services, better support our operational commanders, and ensure our Sailors, Marines, family members, 

and retirees receive the very best care possible anywhere, at any time. 

MEDICAL RESEARCH

Navy Medicine also has a proud history of incredible medical research successes 

from our CONUS and OCONUS laboratories. Our research achievements have been 

published in professional journals, received patents and have been sought out by industry as partnering opportunities. 

The quality and dedication of the Navy’s biomedical R&D community was exemplified this year as Navy researchers were selected to receive prestigious awards for 

their work. CAPT Daniel Carucci, MC, USN received the American Medical Association’s Award for Excellence in Medical Research for his work on cutting edge DNA 

vaccines. His work could lead to the development of other DNA-based vaccines to 

battle a host of infectious diseases such as dengue, tuberculosis, and biological warfare threats. Considering the treat of Biological terrorism, DNA vaccine-based technologies have been at the forefront of ‘‘agile’’ and non-traditional vaccine development efforts and have been termed ‘‘revolutionary’’. Instead of delivering the foreign 

material, DNA vaccines deliver the genetic code for that material directly to host 

cells. The host cells then take up the DNA and using host cellular machinery 

produce the foreign material. The host immune system then produces an immune 

response directed against that foreign material. 

In the last year, Navy human clinical trials involving well over 300 volunteers 

have demonstrated that DNA vaccines are safe, well-tolerated and are capable of 

generating humoral and cellular immune responses. DNA vaccines have been shown 

to protect rodents, rabbits, chickens, cattle and monkeys against a variety of pathogens including viruses, bacteria, parasites and toxins (tetantus toxin). Moreover recent studies have demonstrated that the potential of DNA vaccines can be further 

enhanced by improved vaccine formulations and delivery strategies such as nonDNA boosts (recombinant viruses, replicons, or, importantly, exposure to the targeted pathogen itself). 

A multi-agency Agile Vaccine Task Force (AVTF) comprised of government (DOD, 

FDA, NIH), academic and industry representatives is being established to expedite 

research of the Navy Agile Vaccine. 

As other examples of scientific achievement, Navy Medicine is developing new 

strategies for the treatment of radiation illness. Navy Adult Stem Cell Research is 

making great strides in addressing the medical needs of patients with radiation illness. The terrorist attacks of 2001 identified the threat of weapons of mass destruction, to potentially expose large numbers of people to ionizing radiation. Radiation 

exposure results in immune system suppression and bone marrow loss. Currently, 

a bone marrow transplant is the only life saving procedure available. Unfortunately, 
261

harvesting bone marrow is an expensive and limited process, requiring an available 

pool of donors. 

In the past year, NMRC researchers have developed and published a reproducible 

method to generate bone marrow stem cells in vitro after exposure to high dose radiation, such that these stem cells could be transplanted back into the individual, 

thereby providing life-saving bone marrow and immune system recovery. This is the 

type of technology that will be needed to save the lives of a large number of victims. 

In this same line of research, Navy Medicine is developing new strategies for the 

treatment of combat injuries. We are developing new therapies to ‘‘educate’’ the immune system to accept a transplanted organ—even mismatched organs. This field 

of research has demonstrated that new immune therapies can be applied to ‘‘programming stem cells’’ and growing bone marrow stem cells in the laboratory. The 

therapies under development have obvious multiple use potential for combat casualties and for cancer and genetic disease. 

Other achievements during this last year include further development of handheld assays to identify biological warfare agents. During the anthrax attacks, the 

U.S. Navy analyzed over 15,000 samples for the presence of biological warfare (BW) 

agents. These hand-held detection devices were used in late 2001 to clear Senate, 

House and Supreme Court Office Buildings during the anthrax attacks and contributed significantly to maintaining the functions of our government. Some of the most 

important tools that are used to analyze samples for the presence of BW agents in 

the field are hand-held assays. The hand-held assays that are used by the DOD 

were all developed at Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC). Currently NMRC 

produces hand-held assays for the detection of 20 different BW agents. These handheld assays are supplied to the U.S. Secret Service, FBI, Navy Environmental Preventive Medicine Units, U.S. Marine Corps, as well as various other clients. Since 

September 2001, NMRC has produced over 120,000 assays and has fielded approximately 23,000 assays. In addition to the in-house production, NMRC has also provided emergency production capacity of antibodies needed for DOD fielded bio-detection systems, including the hand-held assays produced by JPO/BD for DOD use. The 

hand-held Assays have recently been upgraded with Platinum detection systems 

which will be 10 to 100 times more sensitive than the current systems, depending 

on what agent is being identified. 

The Navy’s OCONUS research laboratories are studying diseases at the very forefront of where our troops could be deployed during future contingencies. These laboratories are staffed with researchers who are developing new diagnostic tests, evaluating prevention and treatment strategies, and monitoring disease threats. One of 

the many successes from our three overseas labs is the use of new technology, which 

includes a Medical Data Surveillance System (MDSS). 

The goal of the MDSS is to provide enhanced medical threat detection through 

advanced analysis of routinely collected outpatient data in deployed situations. 

Originally designed to enable efficient reporting of DNBI statistics and rapid response of preventative medicine personnel, MDSS may also enable supply utilization 

tracking and serve as a method of detecting the presence of chemical and biological 

agents. MDSS is part of the Joint Medical Operations-Telemedicine Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (JMOT–ACTD) program. Interfacing with the shipboard SAMS database system, MDSS employs signal detection and reconstruction 

methods to provide early detection of changes, trends, shifts, outliers, and bursts in 

syndrome and disease groups (via ICD–9 parsing) thereby signaling an event and 

allowing for early medical/tactical intervention. MDSS also interfaces with CHCS 

and is operational at the 121st Evacuation Hospital in South Korea, and is being 

deployed at the hospital and clinics at Camp Pendleton. Currently, MDSS may have 

an opportunity to collaborate with other industry and service-related efforts for the 

purpose of developing homeland defense-capable systems. Homeland defense initiatives are currently being coordinated through the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 

CONCLUSION

Navy Medicine has covered a lot of ground over the last year and we face the future with great enthusiasm and hope. The business initiatives, along with new technical advances join to make our Navy Medical Department a progressive organization. I thank you for your continued support and in making the military health care 

benefit the envy of other medical plans. You have provided our service members, 

retirees and family members a health benefit that they can be proud of. 

I think we have been extraordinarily successful over the years, and we have opportunities for continued success, both in the business of providing healthcare, and 

the mission to supporting deployed forces and protecting our citizens throughout the 

United States. 
262

We are one team, with one fight, and we are now in the middle of that fight. I 

am certain that we will prevail.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. I apologize for being 

late. I had another meeting. John Taylor. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DR. GEORGE PEACH TAYLOR, 

JR., AIR FORCE SURGEON GENERAL 

General TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, Senator, it is a pleasure to be 

here today for the first time. It is also my very great privilege to 

represent the Air Force Medical Service. They are dedicated to providing outstanding force protection to our Armed Services as they 

have so ably demonstrated over the last year and a half. 

The Air Force Medical Service brings important capabilities to 

support any operation or contingency as a key component of agile 

combat support to the Nation’s Aerospace Expeditionary Forces 

(AEFs), our sister services and allied forces both abroad and at 

home. 

We have been transforming for many years. Since the first Gulf 

War, we have achieved improvement in every step of the deployment process from improving predeployment health to post deployment screening and counseling. We believe in a lifecycle approach 

to health care. It starts with accession and lasts as long as the 

member is in uniform, and beyond through the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

As we deploy, we are now seeing a more fit and healthy fighting 

force for which we have the best fitness and health data ever. And 

we know how to take care of them. Our medical personnel are more 

prepared than ever. Training such as our advanced trauma training and readiness skills verification program assure that our wartime skills are current. 

Expeditionary medicine has enabled us to move our medical 

forces forward very rapidly, as in the initial deployments during 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. The capabilities we bring to the fight 

today provide troops a level of care that was unimaginable just 10 

years ago, capabilities that make us a lighter, smarter and a much 

faster medical service. 

Our preventive medicine teams go in on the very first planes into 

the theatre of operations. This small team of experts gives us vital 

food and water safety capabilities. They begin collecting vital water 

hazard data and provide basic primary care. In fact, during Iraqi 

Freedom, one of our environmental medicine flight personnel actually parachuted with the Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade as part of 

the Air Force’s 86th contingency response group and the initial contingent deployed in a Northern Iraqi air base. This independent 

duty medical tech was later joined by five remaining members of 

the flight to provide on-scene environmental security and force protection at that location. 

EXPEDITIONARY MEDICAL SUPPORT UNITS

Our surgical units, lightweight, highly mobile Expeditionary 

Medical Support units, or EMEDs, can be on the ground within 3 

to 5 hours. EMEDs are comprised of highly deployable medical 

teams that can range from large tented facilities to five-person 

teams with backpacks. These five person mobile field surgical 
263

teams or MFSTs, travel far forward with 70 pound backpacks. In 

them is enough medical equipment to perform 10 lifesaving surgeries anywhere, at any time, under any conditions. 

OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

During a 6-month rotation for Operation Enduring Freedom one 

of these mobile surgical teams performed 100 infield surgeries, 39 

of those were for combat surgeries. And when our sick and injured 

must be removed from the theater and transported to definitive 

care, we have the state of the art medical air evacuation system. 

In fact, another major advance since the Gulf War is our ability 

to move large numbers of more critically injured patients. Our Critical Care Air Transport Teams tend to these very ill patients 

throughout the flight providing lifesaving intensive care in the air. 

Last year in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, we transported 1,352 patients through the air evac system of whom 128 

were just such critically ill or injured patients. And for Iraqi Freedom, we performed over 2,000 patient movements, 640 of those 

were people with combat injuries. 

And thanks to the Department of Defense (DOD) TRANSCOM 

Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation System 

(TRAC2ES), we were able to track each patient from the point of 

pickup to the point of delivery in real time. 

It is important to note that each of these new programs have 

been woven seamlessly into a joint medical capability. This joint 

service interoperability was demonstrated during the crash of an 

Apache helicopter last April in Afghanistan. The two pilots had 

massive facial and extremity fractures. The injured pilots were initially treated and moved by an Air Force pararescue member who 

had been delivered onsite by an Army Special Forces helicopter 

crew. The two were then stabilized by an Army surgical team, 

transferred to a C–130 and then air evacuated out on a C–17. 

In flight they were restabilized by one of our Air Force Critical 

Care Air Transport Teams and landed safely at a military base in 

the European theater to be cared for by a jointly staffed military 

regional medical center, and all this was done within 17 hours of 

the time they hit the mountain in Afghanistan. This is just one 

seemingly unbelievable but in fact increasingly routine example of 

our integrated medical operations. 

Together, the three medical services have built an interlocking 

system for care for every airman, soldier, sailor, Marine or Coast 

Guardsman in harm’s way. We have fielded data-capture mechanisms to extend and enhance our force protection efforts. Using 

automated systems, we have documented and centrally stored almost 37,000 deployed medical patient medical records since 9–11, 

capturing almost 71,000 patient encounters. This is an update to 

what I told the House Armed Services Committee last week because it includes Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

We have tools in place to collect relevant environmental health 

data and are forwarding them for centralized analysis. This linkage 

between individual patient encounters and environmental data is 

absolutely critical to ongoing and future epidemiological studies. 

We are working hard with health affairs to ensure we maintain a 

solid, finely tuned deployment health surveillance system. 
264

In fact, the Air Force inspection agency assesses the deployment 

health surveillance program in each of our bases, active duty and 

Air Reserve Component, to ensure the quality of this vital program. 

And in the last 2 years, largely through their efforts and crosstalk, 

we have reduced significant discrepancies fourfold. 

TRICARE

Another crucial element of protecting our troops is ensuring 

peace of mind of their families. We continue to work hard to optimize the care we provide in our facilities for more than 1 million 

TRICARE patients and 1.5 million TRICARE for Life patients. 

We are doing this in many ways by ensuring providers have support staff, that their processes are efficient, and that their buildings and equipment are adequate. We look forward to the next generation TRICARE contracts and are stepping forward in optimization for these. Both are structured to give more resources and more 

flexibility to our local commanders. 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

After all, politics and health care ‘‘is local’’. The challenge we continue to face is medical professional recruiting and retention. I personally believe the solution is twofold. First, incentives such as 

loan repayment, accession bonuses, increased specialty care, and 

increased specialty pay are beginning to make a difference. And 

again, we appreciate your critical support. 

Secondly, I believe that optimization and facility improvement 

projects, those that I mentioned above, will create a first-class environment of care for our outstanding, well-trained and highly talented staffs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In conclusion, as we face the many challenges of our missions at 

home and abroad, your Air Force Medical Service remains committed to offering families quality, compassionate care and to supporting our troops as they protect and defend our great country. I 

thank you for your vital support, the support that you provide to 

your Air Force and to our families, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DR. GEORGE PEACH TAYLOR, JR. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss with you some of the challenges and successes of the Air Force Medical 

Service, or the AFMS. 

As with all other aspects of the military, the AFMS is transforming itself. 

Transformation is a word that is being regularly used around Washington these 

days. To the Air Force, transformation is not just new technology, such as 

uninhabited combat aerial vehicles or space-based radars. Transformation is merging new technologies with new concepts of operations and new organizational structures. 

Think about the Air Force combat controllers on the ground in Afghanistan directing B–52s to drop directed-munitions within 500 meters from their positions. This 

was accomplished by using global positioning satellites, laser range-finding devices, 

and new state-of-the-art munitions to provide a new kind of effect: enhanced closeair support, which proved to be pivotal in the fight with the Taliban. This success 
265

serves as an example of one of many progressive steps the Air Force is taking in 

its march toward Transformation. 

The Air Force Medical Service is no stranger to transformational changes. In 

many ways we lead the Air Force and like to say ‘‘that we were transforming before 

transformation was cool.’’ Our modular, lightweight medical and preventive medicine teams, same-day laparoscopic surgery, advanced imaging—among many other 

components—have changed the face of military medicine, from home base to battlefield. 

Our five Air Force Medical Service core competencies provide compelling lenses 

through which we view the transformational activities. 

I would like to briefly describe each core competency and share some of the exciting accomplishments we have achieved under each. 

Our first Air Force Medical Service’s core competency is population-based health 

care. As the name indicates, population-based health care strives to keep our entire 

beneficiary population healthy by preventing disease and injury. But, if any do become sick or injured, our system will provide exceptional care. 

Our next core competency is human performance enhancement and sustainment. 

These include methods and equipment that protect our forces from harm and permit 

our troops to perform their missions better. 

Fixed wing aeromedical evacuation, our third core competency, addresses the innovative and life-saving ways we use aircraft to transport patients from the theater 

of operations to the nearest capable medical treatment facility. 

Our fourth core competency, medical care in contingencies, entails all the training, equipment, and logistics needed to provide care during humanitarian or combat 

operations. 

World health interface, our final core competency, recognizes the importance of 

interaction with other nations. Air Force medics are called to serve from Atlanta to 

Afghanistan, and from San Antonio to Sierra Leone. Therefore, we have institutionalized training programs that teach medics the language and customs of those 

countries in which they might be called to serve. 

These five core competencies are the heart and soul of the Air Force Medical Service. I would like to describe each in a bit more detail to better demonstrate to you 

the innovative ways in which the Air Force Medical Service is transforming itself. 

Population-Based Health Care 

The U.S. military health care system cares for 8.3 million people and costs $26 

billion. This huge system is in every state and in numerous countries. Yet, as immense as this system is, I adhere to the philosophy that all health care is local. 

What matters most in medicine and dentistry is the care our patients receive from 

their provider. It is my mission—my passion—to ensure that every provider has the 

leadership, training, people, facility space, and medical equipment he or she requires to give those patients the care they need, the care they deserve. Our first 

core competency, population-based health care, is critical to ensuring this becomes 

a reality. 

We have transitioned from the old medical paradigm—treating sick people—to the 

new paradigm of preventing people from getting sick in the first place. The old way 

makes for better TV drama, but the new way makes for better medicine. This new 

paradigm is called population-based health care. The programs I will discuss support population-based health, especially how it applies to our active duty forces. 

Because of the global war on terrorism, there has never been greater imperative 

to have a military force that is fully ready to ‘‘fly the mission.’’ Our comprehensive 

Individual Medical Readiness program, ensures our military members are ‘‘medically ready’’ to perform. 

To help illustrate the Individual Medical Readiness program, I ask you to think 

of an aircraft—a new F/A–22 fighter, for instance. From the moment each aircraft 

enters our arsenal, it undergoes continuous monitoring, routine inspections, preventive maintenance, and if needed, repairs. These activities happen before, during, and 

after this weapon system is employed. 

A far more valuable resource—our airmen, the ‘‘human weapons system’’—receive 

that same level, if not more, of devoted care. Through our Individual Medical Readiness program, we constantly monitor the health of our airmen through inspections 

and preventative maintenance—called Preventive Health Assessments—and, if 

needed, repairs. 

The Individual Medical Readiness program has four main components, the first 

of which is the Preventive Health Assessment. At least once a year, we review the 

total health care needs and medical readiness status for every airman. During this 

appointment we make sure they have received all recommended and required preventive care, screenings, immunizations, and assessments. Preventive Health As-
266

sessments are the equivalent of the routine inspections and preventive maintenance 

provided to aircraft. 

Second, at each visit, whether in garrison or deployed, we take care of our troop’s 

complaints, look for other preventive interventions, and ensure their fitness for 

duty. 

Third, we perform medical evaluations before and after troops deploy so that we 

can monitor the effect—if any—the deployments have on their health. 

Finally, we have created innovative new information systems designed to track all 

individual medical readiness and preventive health care requirements. It is called 

the Preventive Health Assessment Individual Medical Readiness program (PIMR). 

At the local level, PIMR can tell the medics which troops need blood tests, evaluations, or vaccines, who is healthy enough to be sent to the field, and who should 

remain behind until they are healthy. At the global level, PIMR provides leaders 

near real-time statistics that tell them what percent of their troops are medically 

fit to deploy. PIMR’s metrics are also used to provide feedback and shape policies 

and programs so we can continually improve the readiness of our force. 

Population-Based Health Care is more than just the method to keep the active 

duty members healthy. It benefits all beneficiaries—active duty, their families, retirees and their families, and is our overarching model for healthcare. Our AFMS must 

accomplish three critical processes to ensure full-fledged Population-Base Health 

Care. 

First, care team optimization. An optimized primary care team, for example, has 

as its members a provider, nurse, two medical technicians, and one administrative 

technician. The team is provided the optimal number of exam rooms, medical equipment, and support staff needed to ensure that such things as facility constraints and 

administrative responsibilities do not hinder their ability to provide care to our airmen and their families. In such teams, our medical staff flourish. 

Where we have optimized our primary care clinics, we have enjoyed success. 

Based upon this success, the AFMS has embarked upon expanding this strategy. 

Soon, every clinical and non-clinical product line will undergo an expeditionary capability analysis, clinical currency analysis, and business case analysis to determine 

how best to optimize the use of our resources. 

In short, we have seen that optimization has great potential in the primary care 

setting, so now we hope to spread that success by optimizing specialty care. This 

year we will launch pilot programs for the optimization of orthopedics, general surgery, otolaryngology, OB/GYN, and ophthalmology. 

The result of optimization is clear: Our people are receiving outstanding 

healthcare delivered by highly trained teams. 

A second critical process of Population-Based Health is ‘‘PCM by name.’’ PCM 

stands for ‘‘primary care manager.’’ A PCM is a provider who takes active oversight 

in every aspect of a patient’s care. Beneficiaries are assigned a ‘‘PCM by name,’’ 

meaning they will routinely see that same provider. Previously, beneficiaries would 

arrive at the clinic and frequently did not know who their provider would be that 

day. Now, through PCM by name, they are assigned to a PCM who will see the patient for all routine medical care. The PCM becomes much like a trusted, small-town 

family doctor who becomes intimately involved in the care of the patient and his 

or her family. 

We have over 1.2 million customers enrolled to our 74 medical locations—and 100 

percent of those beneficiaries are enrolled to a PCM by name. 

The tandem success of the Optimization and Primary Care Manager by Name efforts are serving our TRICARE beneficiaries well. The Health Employee Data Information Set Standards—or HEDIS—are the civilian national standards by which 

most Managed Care Organizations are measured. Here is how HEDIS ranks some 

of our efforts compared to civilian commercial health care plans: 

—For providing timely cervical cancer screenings, the Air Force is in the top 10 

percent of all health care plans in the United States. 

—For breast cancer screenings the Air Force surpasses 66 percent of commercial 

plans. 

—Our diabetic care program is in the top 9 percent of all similar plans nationwide. 

And, recently, the Air Force Medical Service was recognized by civilian experts 

at the Kilo Foundation as one of two U.S. health care organizations on the cutting 

edge of optimizing health care delivery—the other organization being KaiserPermanente. 

We optimized our care teams to deliver the best care, now we must also optimize 

the buildings in which our patients receive that care. Facility recapitalization is the 

third critical process that must be accomplished to support population-based health. 
267

Whether we are talking about the human body, aircraft, or buildings, the more 

each ages, the more they wear out, break down, creak and leak. They become more 

expensive to maintain. For that reason, the Defense Health Program currently supports the goal of medical facility recapitalization at a 50-year rate rather than the 

67-year rate provided to other, non-health-care facilities. 

We use the funds we are provided annually to pay for necessary renovations, modernization, and replacement needs. 

Before I discuss our remaining AFMS core competencies, I will mention a few population-based health care items I find worthy of mention, one of which is our success 

in suicide prevention. 

Suicide is the most preventable cause of death, yet is the 11th leading cause of 

death in the United States. Among people of military age, it is the fourth leading 

cause of death behind accidents, cancer, and heart attacks. 

Fortunately, suicide among our Air Force members and their families is nearly 

the lowest it has been in 20 years. 

We teach our leadership, airmen, and family members how to recognize, assist, 

and intervene when they identify members who might be contemplating suicide. 

Our efforts are succeeding. Throughout the mid 1990s, there were over 14 Air Force 

suicides for every 100,000 members. That number is now just 8.3 for every 100,000. 

We are striving hard—very hard—to lower it yet more. We recognize that we can 

never completely eradicate suicide, but every life saved is crucial to the Air Force. 

And the quality of life for all those who seek and receive care is immeasurably enhanced. 

Another important quality of life initiative is our focus on enhancing obstetrical 

care in our military treatment facilities for our patients. We are working very hard 

across the Air Force, and indeed DOD, to optimize our OB programs. We are increasing routine prenatal ultrasound capability, improving continuity of care with 

patients and OB providers, and enhancing OB facilities to provide more comfortable 

labor and delivery rooms. 

Preliminary findings from the specialty care optimization pilot at Nellis AFB, 

show increases in access to care, in patient-provider continuity, and an increase in 

mothers desiring to deliver their babies at Nellis. In the last year alone nearly 

11,000 mothers-to-be visited our OB clinics for a total of 193,000 visits. Carrying 

through on these optimization efforts, we feel confident that when it is time for our 

OB patients to choose their provider, they will choose their local military treatment 

facility. They will choose us. 

Our optimization efforts throughout the Air Force Medical Service are complemented by partnerships with Department of Veterans Affairs clinics and hospitals. The DOD has seven joint venture programs with the VA; the Air Force oversees four of them at Travis, Elmendorf, Kirtland, and Nellis Air Force Base Hospitals. 

One of our most successful joint ventures is our first—Nellis Air Force Base’s VA/

DOD hospital. This joint venture replaced the outdated Nellis hospital and offered 

VA beneficiaries a local federal inpatient facility for the first time in the area’s history. The facility enjoys a fully integrated Intensive Care Unit, operating suite, 

emergency room, post anesthesia care unit, and shared ancillary services. 

Kirtland’s joint venture is also impressive. There, the joint venture has gone beyond the sharing of staff and facilities. At Kirtland, the Air Force and VA have created Joint Decontamination and Weapons of Mass Destruction Response Teams. 

Their teamwork will permit a homeland defense capability that is superior to either 

organization could provide separately. 

Our four joint venture opportunities saved $2.5 million and avoided over $16 million in the just the last two fiscal years. Not all DOD hospitals are candidates for 

joint ventures, but we are excited about finding those that are and investing in the 

opportunity. 

Partnerships with the VA where they make good sense not only save money; they 

enhance care to both of our beneficiary populations. The new contracts promise enhanced pharmacy support and health care to beneficiaries. 

An additional enhancement to the DOD’s health care benefit is that of Tricare For 

Life—the extension of Tricare benefits to our retirees. This program has dramatically improved the quality of life for our Medicare-eligible retirees and their families. In the first year, Tricare for Life produced 30 million claims. The program also 

significantly improved access to pharmaceuticals to our retiree population. Retirees 

appreciate both the quality of care and the knowledge that the country they proudly 

served is now there to serve them. 

I have described many activities the AFMS performs to ensure that the airmen 

we send into the field are healthy. But, once they are there, we must also work to 

ensure they stay that way—that they are protected from injury, disease, and biologi-
268

cal and chemical weapons. We must provide an operations environment that is safe. 

This leads me to our second core competency, Human Performance Enhancement 

and Sustainment. 

Human Performance Enhancement and Sustainment 

Airmen are our most valuable assets. Their readiness directly impacts the combat 

effectiveness of the United States Air Force. Therefore, it is not good enough to just 

have disease-free troops, they need to be working at their optimal performance level 

during strenuous military operations. To that end, the Air Force Medical Service 

has developed a Deployment Health Surveillance program that ensures and protects 

the health of its members from the day they enter service and don their first uniform, during deployments, and throughout their entire career. 

Deployment Health Surveillance is more than just the application of exams immediately before and after a deployment; it is a Life Cycle approach to health care that 

lasts as long as the member is in uniform and beyond. Some of the most recent developments in Deployment Health Surveillance are the most exciting. These include 

technologies that rapidly detect and identify the presence of weapons of mass destruction, technologies such as genomics, bio-informatics, and proteomic clinical 

tools. 

Each of these state-of-the-art efforts promises speedy revolutionary diagnostics, 

enabling near real-time bio-surveillance. And, whereas, most bio-chemical detectors 

take hours or days to detect and warn us that agents have been released into the 

environment, the sensors we are now developing will have near real-time capability 

to warn us of an attack. 

The AFMS was the first to transition polymerase chain reaction technologies into 

a fielded biological diagnostic detection system. This technology keeps watch over 

troops in the field and our homeland. It provides better protection for our entire nation while simultaneously revolutionizing daily medical practice. 

Whether these detection units stand sentinel over military men and women overseas or guard major population centers here at home, their presence translates into 

markedly decreased mortality and morbidity. Additionally, because it can quickly 

detect and identify pathogens, it decreases wasted time and resources in laboratory 

and therapeutic interventions. 

The AFMS is working to overcome another threat to our troops and citizenry—

a threat more often associated with science fiction than with current events: directed energy weapons—lasers. Directed energy devices are now commonplace. Hundreds of thousands of lasers are employed by many countries around the 

world... mostly for peace, many for war. Militaries, including our own, use lasers 

in weapons guidance systems to help them drop bombs with pinpoint accuracy. 

In response to this threat from our enemies, we developed—and continue to improve upon—protective eyewear and helmet faceplates. These devices are designed 

to absorb and deflect harmful laser energy, thus protecting pilots from the damaging 

and perhaps permanent eye injuries these weapons inflict. 

We are also investigating commercial off-the-shelf, portable medical equipment 

that can quickly scan retinas and automatically determine if a person’s eye has suffered damage from lasers. 

The AFMS is teaming with other Air Force organizations to transition several 

protecting and surveillance technologies to allow our forces to enter, operate and 

safely prevail within the laser-dominated battle space. 

Lasers are not the only threat to our forces. There is also the familiar threat of 

biological and chemical weaponry. Congressional members and their staff, journalists, post office workers, and average citizens fell victim to anthrax attacks in the 

fall of 2001. As sobering as these attacks were, we were fortunate they were committed with a biological weapon for which we had a ready defense—an antibiotic—

and that the anthrax was delivered in small amounts. 

Our nation and its medical community learned much from the incident; so did our 

enemies. They will know better how to strike us next time, and we must be prepared. 

To detect and combat such a threat, the AFMS is developing detection, surveillance, and documentation systems to help us recognize and respond to future biological and chemical warfare attacks. The Global Expeditionary Medical System—

or GEMS—is one such system. 

GEMS was first developed and deployed during Operation DESERT SHIELD/

DESERT STORM as a means to monitor and help protect the health of deployed 

forces. During that initial deployment, it captured over 11,000 patient encounters 

in the field and relayed this valuable information to what is now the Brooks City 

Base in Texas for analysis. 
269

GEMS is now a mature, fully functioning asset. It establishes a record of every 

medical encounter in the field. It then rapidly identifies clinical events such as a 

potential epidemic. Whether the outbreak is accidental such as food poisoning, or 

intentional such as the release of a weapon of mass destruction like Anthrax at an 

airbase, GEMS can quickly alert medics about the presence of the weapon and allows our medics to attack and defeat the biological or chemical agent before its effect can become catastrophic. 

GEMS does not look like much . . . it is a ruggedized laptop computer with a 

few small attachments, but its toughness and small size make it ideal for troops in 

the field. GEMS will soon be incorporated into the Epidemic Outlook Surveillance 

system, or EOS. EOS is an initiative to network—to link together—all systems that 

detect and identify biological and chemical warfare agents. It also incorporates all 

data produced from provider-patient encounters. From this, medics and leadership 

can monitor the possible presence of weapons of mass destruction, determine their 

current and predicted impact on troops, and respond with precision to defeat their 

effect. This is all accomplished to protect not just a base, nor theater of operations; 

rather EOS will provide overarching, worldwide oversight of the health of our 

troops. 

What is fascinating about this system is its speed. The current standard to detect 

and identify a biological or chemical agent—and contain the epidemic it could create—is five to nine days. Aboard ship, or in a military base, the resources needed 

to care for the infected and the high casualty rate would overwhelm the mission. 

Even if the agent were detected in the first three days, we expect that up to 30 percent of our troops would fall ill or worse. 

When it comes to identifying chemical and biological weapons attacks, lost time 

means lost lives. We are fast now. We strive to be faster. Our goal is to recognize 

and combat a potential epidemic within the first three hours of its introduction into 

the population. We are working with the other services to create sensors with this 

capability. These technologies are just over the horizon, but we are developing manportable sensors capable of detecting chemicals and pathogens almost instantly. 

When fully developed, these sensors will have the capability to read the genetic 

structure of a biological agent to tell us exactly what it is and what antibiotics 

would best defeat the attack. 

Obviously, such programs have both military and civilian application, so we are 

working with many other military, federal, university, and civilian organizations to 

develop, deploy, and share this amazing technology. 

The enemy is not the only threat our troops face. During extended operations, our 

airmen find themselves combating fatigue. Physical and mental exhaustion lead to 

judgment errors, errors that in combat can cost lives. With its ‘‘Global Reach, Power 

and Vigilance’’ mission, the Air Force continues to strain the physiologic limits of 

its aircrews. It must develop methods of protecting its troops from the dangers of 

fatigue, for fatigue is a killer in the battlefield. 

We have been working hard with the Air Force Research Laboratory, Air Combat 

Command and our aircrews to develop advanced techniques to maximize performance and safety on long-duration missions. These techniques include planning missions around the body’s natural sleep cycles—the circadian rhythm—diet manipulation, and pharmacological and environmental assistance. 

Such activities greatly aid our force-protection measures in an ever-changing battle space. But, during operations, the AFMS’ ‘‘bread and butter’’ is the level to which 

we can properly treat and move wounded battle participants. 

This leads me to our third core competency: Fixed Wing Aeromedical Evacuation. 

Fixed Wing Aeromedical Evacuation 

We have invested many resources and much time into keeping troops healthy and 

enhancing their performance. But in the operational environment, people do become 

sick. They do get injured. For such cases we developed an aeromedical evacuation 

system that can move patients from the field to definitive care, often within hours 

of their acquiring the illness or injury. 

The Aeromedical Evacuation System is a unique and critical part of our nation’s 

mobility resources. The need to move critically injured, stabilized patients from forward areas to increasing levels of definitive care has driven significant changes in 

the fixed-wing environment. 

In the past, Aeromedical missions were limited to certain airframes such as the 

C–141 cargo aircraft or our special C–9 Nightingale AE aircraft. However, 

aeromedical evacuation is a mission and not a particular aircraft platform; and it 

is a mission recognized as a core competency within the larger airlift mission. As 

we retire our aging AE platforms and transition from dedicated to designated air-
270

craft in the mainstream of airlift flow, we are developing new tools such as the Patient Support Pallet, or PSP. 

The PSP is a collection of medical equipment compactly assembled so that it can 

easily fit into most any cargo or transport aircraft. When needed, it is brought 

aboard, unpacked, and within a short time is transformed into a small patient care 

area. This means that patients no longer have to wait hours or even days for an 

aeromedical evacuation flight. Just give our medics a PSP and an hour, and they 

will take the C–5 that just unloaded troops and tanks, and will convert a small corner of that plane into an air ambulance. 

Our 41 PSPs strategically positioned around the globe permit any suitable airframe in the airlift flow to be used. This awesome capability minimizes delay of 

movement, maximizes available airlift, and most importantly, saves lives. We plan 

to buy more. 

Insertion of critical care skills early in this process is provided in the form of specially trained Critical Care Air Transport Teams, or CCAT teams. These teams—

comprised of a physician, nurse and cardiopulmonary technician—receive special 

training that enables them to augment our air evacuation crews and deliver intensive care support in the airborne environment. Our Active Duty medics have 42 

CCAT teams, but our ARC forces are full partners in this new capability. The Air 

Force Reserve contributes 25 CCAT teams, and the Air National Guard 32 teams 

to our AE mission. Each is ready for rotation into the AEF along with their Active 

Duty counterparts. 

Another valuable tool is the TRANSCOM Regulating and Command & Control 

Evacuation System, otherwise known as TRAC2ES. TRAC2ES is a DOD/Joint enterprise that allows us to plan which patients should fly out on what aircraft, what 

equipment is needed to support each patient, and what hospital they should fly to; 

and it provides us in-transit visibility of all patients all the time. TRAC2ES provides 

command and control of global patient movement in peacetime, contingencies and 

war. 

TRAC2ES is an overwhelming success. It has accomplished all of the goals specified in the re-engineering process and has produced benefits that no one anticipated. 

To date: 

—There have been more than 1,700 patients/soldiers moved as a result of activities during OEF, and nearly 17,000 such moves worldwide last year. 

—Every patient was directed to the appropriate treatment facility for the needed 

care. 

—And an amazing 100 percent in-transit visibility has been maintained on all patients moved through the TRAC2ES system. 

TRAC2ES is also de-linked to specific aircraft. This is critical to its success, especially during the activation of our Civil Reserve Air Fleet or CRAF. The CRAF is 

comprised of up to 78 commercial aircraft—both cargo and passenger—that are provided to the Department of Defense by civilian airline companies. We use them to 

transport material and people into the theater of operations. We could also use them 

to potentially evacuate sick or injured troops out of the theater. If so, TRAC2ES will 

still function, regardless of the service, regardless of the aircraft. 

Patient movement during current operations has incorporated all aspects of this 

continuum: maintenance of health in the field, use of organic airlift, versatile equipment support packages, early-on critical care intervention, and information systems 

that track and inform leadership of the health and location of their troops. 

From battlefield injury to home station, there is seamless patient movement 

under the umbrella of qualified, capable aircrew members and trained critical care 

professionals. 

I must mention here, that 87 percent of the aeromedical evacuation capability I 

have described resides within the Air Force Reserve Command and Air National 

Guard. These dedicated men and women of these organizations are truly our Total 

Force partners. 

Medical Care in Contingencies 

Medical Care in Contingencies, is our fourth core competency and one in which 

we have also seen significant transformation. 

The Air Force Medical Service provides the full spectrum of ground-based medical 

care during contingencies. Described as a ‘‘Red Wedge’’ capability, expeditionary 

medical care begins with a rapid ramp-up of medical capability. First into the field 

is our small Prevention and Aerospace Medicine—or PAM—Team. PAM teams are 

2- to 4-person teams who are our first-in-and-last-out medics. They are inserted 

with the very first troops and are capable of providing health care, on location, before the first tent stake is in the ground. 
271

Team members include an aerospace medicine physician, bioenvironmental engineer, public health officer and an independent duty medical technician. They provide initial health threat assessment and the surveillance, control, and mitigation 

of the effects of the threat. Additionally, the aerospace medicine physician and independent duty medical technician provide primary and emergency medical care and 

limited flight medicine. 

As forces start to build in theater, so does the size of the medical contingency. 

The PAM team is quickly followed by a small but exceptionally skilled Mobile Field 

Surgical Team [MFST]. 

This highly trained surgical team includes a general surgeon, an orthopedic surgeon, an emergency medical physician and operating room staff, including an anesthesia provider and an operating room nurse or technician. The 5 team members 

each carry a 70-pound, specially equipped backpack of medical and surgical equipment. Within these few backpacks is enough medical equipment to perform 10 emergency, life-or-limb-saving surgeries without resupply. 

By putting backpack providers deep into the theater or operations we save time 

and we save lives. No longer do we wait for the wounded to come to us, we take 

the surgery to the soldier. 

The MFST’s capability has been proven in Operation Enduring Freedom. For example, less than one month after Sept. 11, Air Force medics assigned to Air Force 

Special Operations in OEF saved the life of an Army sergeant who lost nearly twothirds of his blood volume when he fell and severely damaged his internal pelvic 

region. Within minutes, an Air Force MFST reached him and worked more than 

four hours to stabilize him enough for transportation to a U.S. military medical facility. 

A Canadian journalist at Bagram Air Base—not far from Kabul, Afghanistan—

was horribly injured when a grenade ripped open her side. Our medics were there 

instantly to provide initial stabilization, treatment, and her first surgery. Our 

Aeromedical and CCATT teams arranged rapid aeromedical evacuation and provided care in the air. The TRAC2ES system tracked her movement from Southwest 

Asia to Europe. It provided early warning to the receiving facility of her condition 

and extent of her wounds. When she landed she was met by our medics and taken 

to a military hospital for definitive care. 

Both patients survived. Just a few years ago, before we created this capability, 

both would have died. 

We can provide full spectrum care—anytime—anywhere. 

Expeditionary Medical Support—EMEDS—is the name we give our deployed inpatient capability. The small PAM and MFST teams I described are the first two 

building blocks of an EMEDS. To them, we add 17 more medical, surgical, and dental personnel. These medics bring with them enough tents and supplies to support 

four inpatient beds. We can keep adding people and equipment in increments as 

needed until we have erected a 125-bed field hospital. A unique capability of 

EMEDS is that they are equipped with special liners, ventilation and accessories 

to protect against biological and chemical warfare attacks. 

As an additional measure to defend against these weapons, we field Biological 

Augmentation Teams. They provide advanced diagnostic identification to analyze 

clinical and environmental samples centered around RAPIDS, our Rapid Pathogen 

Identification System. Each team has two laboratory personnel who can deploy as 

a stand-alone team or in conjunction with an EMEDS package. 

After our successful deployment of Biological Augmentation Teams to New York 

City in response to the October 2001 anthrax attack, we realized just how invaluable these teams were to local public health and Centers for Disease Control officials. Since then, we have reached a total of 30 fully staffed and equipped teams, 

and additional 14 manpower teams designed to backfill or augment the other teams. 

They have been—and continue to be—deployed throughout OPERATION Enduring 

Freedom. 

A common attribute of each medical team I have described is that they are small. 

The Air Force expeditionary medical footprint is shrinking. These smaller units can 

be assembled in increments; therefore, are flexible to the base commander’s requirements. 

Their small size makes them cheaper, easier, and faster to transport. A few years 

ago we used to talk about how many aircraft we needed to move our huge Air 

Transportable Hospitals into a theater. Now we talk about how many pallets we 

need on an aircraft. 

In just a little over a decade, we have become far more capable with fewer people, 

less size, less weight, less space—and less time. 

This is important. Speed counts. CNN claims it can have a journalist anywhere 

in the world reporting within seven minutes of an incident. We may not beat CNN 
272

to the scene, but our light, highly-mobile expeditionary medical support teams will 

be on the ground shortly thereafter—perhaps within as little as three to five hours. 

For any humanitarian or combat contingency, our EMEDS concept is a true force 

multiplier. It gives the combatant commander state-of-the-art, worldwide medical 

care for his deployed forces. 

Our transformation has accelerated the speed with which Air Force medics get to 

where they are needed. Our training programs ensure that once they get there, they 

are fully capable of providing life-saving care. 

Two medical training programs are especially crucial to this capability; one is our 

Readiness Skills Verification Program (RSVP). 

Each member of a deploying health care team, whether a physician, logistician, 

administrator or nurse, will be called upon to perform numerous tasks in the field, 

tasks they would never encounter in their home-base medical facility. The RSVP ensures these troops train on, and master, each of these must-know tasks. 

Our medics practice them routinely. The list is varied: treating tropical diseases, 

linking our computer to foreign networks, using ruggedized surgical equipment in 

field tents—troops must master these tasks before their boots touch the ground in 

a deployed location. 

The other medical training program vital to our expeditionary medicine mission 

is the Center for the Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills, or C–STARS. 

Because our military physicians care for arguably the healthiest population in the 

world, the medical problems they see during the normal duty day are different from 

the traumatic and life-threatening injuries the providers will encounter in the battlefield. 

To prepare our medics to care for these injuries, we train them in one of three 

C–STARS locations: civilian hospitals in Cincinnati—where our Reserve personnel 

train; St. Louis—where Air National Guard medics train; and Baltimore where active duty personnel train. Our staff work side-by-side with civilians in these facilities to care for patients suffering from knife and gunshot wounds, crushing injuries, 

and other traumatic wounds; the kind of injuries our medics can expect to encounter 

while deployed. 

Hundreds of our medics have trained at C–STARS over the last 2 years. At one 

time, more than 75 percent of the Air Force special operations medics in Afghanistan received their first ‘‘battle-field medicine’’ experience at C–STARS, as have all 

of the CCAT care-in-the-air teams I mentioned earlier. 

Interfacing with World Health 

Our allies and coalition partners around the world are paying close attention to 

these initiatives. They are eager to work with us in improving their military medicine programs. This leads me to discuss our final core competency, Interfacing with 

World Health. 

The Department of Defense’s Joint Vision 2020 states that today’s U.S. forces 

must be prepared to operate with multinational forces, government agencies, and 

international organizations. The Air Force International Health Specialist Program 

fulfills this mission. The International Health Specialist program identifies medics 

with specialized language and/or cultural skills, trains these airmen to enhance 

their skills, and provides a database of medics tailor-made for specific international 

missions. 

Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve International Health 

Specialists regularly interact with the U.S. Unified Command Staff, non-governmental agencies, members of foreign military units, and interagency personnel. 

They provide insightful recommendations on a variety of issues and situations. 

Whether assisting with blast resuscitation and victim assistance missions in Cambodia, conducting on-site capability surveys in Sierra Leone and Senegal, or by participating in discussions on international humanitarian law, our International 

Health Specialists are at the forefront of global health engagement. Their involvement in host-nation exercises and civic assistance activities ensures we are ready 

to deploy assets wherever and whenever needed, and that the Air Force Medical 

Service can effectively engage in multi-national environments. 

Through our Professional Exchange Program, foreign military physicians provide 

care shoulder-to-shoulder with our staff in Air Force medical facilities. In addition, 

our Expanded International Military Education and Training Program uses Air 

Force medics to ‘‘train the trainers’’ of foreign military and civilian medical facilities. 

In the last couple of years we have trained 1,700 healthcare providers in 18 countries. We share our expertise on how to train and prepare for, and react to, medical 

contingencies. Often, our foreign students are receiving such instruction for the very 

first time. 
273

Ultimately, if a regional contingency does occur, our medics will be able to respond to it as one of many partners in a carefully orchestrated international coalition of medics. 

To summarize, those are our five core competencies: Population-based Health 

Care, Human Performance Enhancement and Sustainment, Fixed Wing Aeromedical 

Evacuation, Medical Care in Contingencies, and Interfacing with World Health. 

Human Resources 

Our successes in these core competencies could not be accomplished were it not 

for the phenomenal people whom we recruit and maintain among our ranks. We 

know our medics are among the best in their fields. For example, the internal medicine program at Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland AFB, Texas, recently 

scored third out of 398 programs nationwide during the Medical Resident in Training examinations, placing them in the top 1 percent in the nation. This is extremely 

impressive when one considers we’re being compared to medical programs such as 

Harvard’s. This is but one example of the caliber of our nearly 45,500 Active Duty 

and Reserve Component medical personnel. This number includes more nearly 1,400 

dentists, 5,000 physicians, and 7,000 nurses. However, attracting and keeping these 

troops is difficult. We seek only the most educated and dedicated nurses, physicians, 

and dentists. Obviously, those attributes are also highly sought by civilian health 

care organizations. 

The Air Force offers these young professionals a career of great self-fulfillment, 

awesome responsibility, and excitement. The civilian market offers these incentives, 

too, but in many cases—in most cases—provides a far more attractive financial compensation. Furthermore, the life and family of a civilian provider is not interrupted 

by deployments—something our troops are experiencing at a frequency not seen 

since World War II. 

These deployments are a burden to our active and reserve forces. I am keenly 

aware of the elevated use of our Air Reserve Component over the last decade, and 

the difficulties deployments create for their family and work lives. My staff does 

their utmost to only use ARC forces on voluntary status, to activate them for the 

shortest time possible, and to call upon their services only when other options are 

not available. 

However, it is for these reasons—the lure of more attractive civilian compensation 

and the frequent deployments—that we find it difficult to attract the kind of medical professionals we badly need. 

For instance, our fiscal year 2002 recruiting goal was to acquire over 300 fully 

trained physicians—we recruited 41. We required 150 new dentists—we recruited 

39. Nurses, we needed nearly 400—we recruited 228. 

Fortunately, last year’s National Defense Authorization Act permits increased 

compensation for these skills. It allows for loan repayment, increased accession bonuses and specialty pay. I thank you for providing these incentives. They are very 

useful tools and a good start toward obtaining the quality and quantity of medical 

professionals we so urgently need. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I am incredibly proud of our Air Force medics and honored to lead 

them. Each of these five core competencies demonstrates how far the Air Force Medical Service has transformed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, especially in the last 

five years. We will continue to anticipate the challenges of tomorrow to meet them 

effectively. 

We are very proud to have a leading role in support of our expeditionary Air 

Force. As the U.S. Air Force focuses more and more on improved effects, we are in 

lockstep with the line in our ability to provide the right care at the right time with 

the right capability. We remain at the right shoulder of war fighters, at home base 

to provide for a healthy workplace and home, and in the field to keep war fighters 

protected and at the peak of their mental and physical capabilities. 

We thank you for the critical support you provide that makes this possible.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye, you heard most of the testimony. Would you like to ask questions first? 

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before 

I proceed with my questions, I’d like to make four observations. 

Whenever a military person is wounded on the field or on a ship 

or in the air, I believe the first person he calls for is a medic or 

corpsman. That was my experience. No one called for his wife, but 

they called for a medic. 
274

Secondly, whenever the chairman and I have visited bases and 

camps, met with enlisted personnel and officers, the first question 

or the bulk of the questions asked refer to health care for dependents. In fact, very few have ever touched upon pay raises. It is always on health care for my kids or my wife. 

Third, it is obvious that morale depends upon the level of care 

that the personnel, their spouses, and their children receive. 

And fourth, this is a personal matter, but I say it in looking over 

the citations of medals for high bravery, especially for medals of 

honor. This is a common phrase, he killed 25, captured 18. Medics 

do not kill or capture. As a result, medals of courage for medics are 

very, very rare, and I think something should be done with that because if you ask any infantrymen or any Marine who will tell you 

that the bravest of them all are the medics or the corpsmen. And 

somehow, our award giving system does not cover that. 

INCREASED MEDICAL COSTS

And so with my question, I have a general question for all three 

of you. Since 9–11 the military has been taxed with additional missions both here and abroad. You have cited all of them. Each additional requirement results in increased medical costs, which are 

not always accounted for in the budget or fully covered in the supplemental request. The monitoring of our personnel before, during 

and after they are deployed is a result of the lessons learned after 

the Gulf War. 

Additionally, costs increased to backfill deployed medical personnel, handle casualties of war, and treat personnel in theater 

and at home. With our continued involvement in these missions in 

the upcoming fiscal year, I’d like to hear from the services on how 

they are executing fiscal year 2003 and what they anticipate for 

the next fiscal year 2004. 

MEDICAL BUDGET SHORTFALL

And my question will be for the services, will your services have 

sufficient funds to execute fiscal year 2003 and do you anticipate 

any budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2004? Are there ways to address the potential shortfall in fiscal year 2004? 

Because I’m certain all of us realize that we will be involved in 

the continuous global war on terrorism, not for the next 6 months, 

not for the next 6 years but much more than that. So with that in 

mind, General Peake? 

General PEAKE. Well, sir, first I would like to thank the committee for the help with the supplement that is working its way to 

us now and the $501 million that was designated for the Defense 

health program with the comments that need to get focused down 

to the direct care system. 

We haven’t seen yet the amounts that will come down to us. It 

is clearly needed because we have been forward funding the effort 

that you have described, sir, from opening places like Fort McCoy 

and Fort Dix, where we do not necessarily have a presence yet, mobilizing soldiers, purchasing their prescriptions, providing them 

their glasses, all of those things to make them ready medically to 

go with the force. 
275

We have deployed in the Army now about 3,471 professional 

fillers out of the day-to-day health care environment into the hospitals that are in Iraq and into the brigades and battalions of our 

Army to provide them with medical support. And those people we 

have backfilled partially with reservists. They are terribly important to us. But others we have had to reach out and contract. 

Those numbers we are trying to do good accounting for and we 

look forward to the moneys coming out of the supplement to help 

us to defray those costs so that we, because what we had borrowed 

from is the day-to-day health care operations that go on in our 

large organization, that deliver health care to families and soldiers 

and so forth. We also have family members coming in from the Reserves who now are TRICARE eligible and we have an obligation 

to provide them quality care as well. 

So from the, from the global war on terrorism, aspects of it, sir, 

we are looking to see the money that gets to us from the supplement and there may or may not be more required to cover just that 

particular aspect for fiscal year 2003. 

Regarding fiscal year 2003, I am leveraging potential money in 

our maintenance accounts to be able to ensure that we are covering 

the health care that we are, should be doing at the quality we 

should be doing it for our full regular mission. I would tell you, sir, 

we are busier than just Iraq. We have Afghanistan going. We have 

people in Colombia, the Philippines, Honduras and Bosnia and a 

Kosovo mission as well. So it is a very, very busy military and 

therefore very busy medical structure as well. 

With all of that activity, it creates a bit of a unsettling of our 

business process so we really do have additional expenses that 

come up. This is a new expense that will have to be accounted for 

that is not yet accounted for. 

As we look to 2004, we will be redeploying our forces. As you say, 

sir, we will still have people deployed doing the variety of missions 

that go along with the post-Iraq business as well as the other areas 

that I have spoken about. 

We will have to face what potentially happens with the retention 

of our soldiers and so forth, which always creates a bit of a turmoil 

when folks start to return and readjust their lives and so forth. 

Right now, we are, we use the civilian care and we hire other professionals and nurses, as an example, to come and work in our hospitals to make up that delta, so we can continue the missions in 

our military hospitals. So those become the kind of bills that we 

will be facing in fiscal year 2004 as well. 

In addition, we are doing the next contracts. There are a variety 

of things like appointing and utilization management that come 

back to the military treatment facilities instead of at the contractor 

level, and we will have to figure out how much that is going to cost 

us to get those things restarted within our own organizations. 

In the long run, we think it is absolutely the right thing to do, 

but there may be some startup costs that will have to be identified, 

and we are looking at that as well for 2004. 

Admiral COWAN. Sir, I will try to answer your question with a 

little different approach. Both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, 

Navy medicine has been funded adequately. We are often asked are 

you fully funded and we say we are adequately funded. We have 
276

enough money to get properly through the year to execute our mission and to not require either supplementals or reprogramming. 

At an adequate funding level, we are sustainable for a long period of time, but we do not get at our backlog of military construction, repair, investment, capital investment, new equipment and so 

on. In fact, we may at this level be getting slightly behind. The 

newest building in which health care is delivered in Guam was 

built in 1952. 

The budget that we submitted for fiscal year 2004 will also be 

adequately funding. We are comfortable operating in the fiscal year 

2004 time frame. This part of my answer is for the known mission 

of the health care to our beneficiaries. 

The second part of your question is the unknown missions, the 

ones that we have been involved with, both Iraq and Afghanistan, 

as well as the others that General Peake mentioned, and others 

that may come in the future. 

That is a harder question for us to answer. For example, right 

now, I would not be able to tell you the cost of the medical care 

caused by the Iraq war because much of that has been moved into 

our TRICARE networks and purchased care and we won’t even see 

those bills for another 120 days. 

So, we are working with the TRICARE partners to normalize and 

make as much of the health care delivery as routine as we possibly 

can, as we go through these iterations of deployments. But to say 

that we are, can predict a budget for operational issues is not 

something I would be comfortable with right now. 

Senator INOUYE. General Taylor? 

General TAYLOR. Senator, I wanted to say first of all, I would be 

glad to mount up with you on that charge for recognizing the medics who are in harm’s way and are doing a great job for our Nation. 

I think all three of us would be more than happy to get on our 

steeds and mount that charge with you. 

In terms of fiscal year 2003, due to your great efforts through the 

supplemental, the Air Force is very comfortable that we are going 

to get through this year in good stead. 

In terms of next year for what we budgeted and what Health Affairs submitted for us through the President’s budget, we are pretty comfortable. As Admiral Cowan said we are adequately funded. 

There is no provision in there for additional costs for the global war 

on terrorism. If we have Reservists and National Guard who remain activated into the next fiscal year, we have to account for 

their costs. 

We have done a very good job I think over the last few months 

of capturing all of the additional costs that go with a forward deployed force, and we are pretty comfortable we have been able to 

identify those costs to the Department. There is great uncertainty 

as the next generation TRICARE contracts come in, for instance, 

what kind of immediate resources we will have to use within the 

services to help bridge any gaps that occur as we move from one 

contract to the other. 

And finally, I believe that the optimization funds that are provided have been a Godsend in terms of giving us venture capital 

to allow each of us to increase the amount of care we deliver in the 
277

direct care system, generating dollars for the pennies invested and 

giving us that capability. 

So in summary, I think the Air Force Medical Service is in a 

solid state for the rest of this year and as budgeted for fiscal year 

2004. 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Senator INOUYE. A bit more specifically, do you have any problems in recruiting and retention, and if so, what areas of concerns 

do you have on specialties? 

General PEAKE. Sir, I think it is a concern for us, and we had 

good success with critical skills retention bonuses that we, each of 

our services funded for us this last year that we do not have. It 

is not a programmed payment. But we have, in terms of a net loss 

of physicians last year between 2002 and 2003 was 43 and you say 

that is not that many, but when you start looking at them, 17 of 

them were anesthesiologists, 17 radiologists. That becomes very expensive. 

We are looking to get a change in our benefit in terms of the 

bonus packages for physicians to be able to recruit better. We are, 

and I think that that is going to be an important thing for us to 

follow through on over the course of this year. 

Nursing is also a shortage for us, and I think we will hear about 

that on the next panel more expansively, that they are absolutely 

critical for our ability for us to do our business. We have had the 

direct hire authority to be able to hire civilian nurses and that’s 

been really a big plus for us to be able to go out and quickly hire 

folks and we would, we need to have that authority continued. 

Admiral COWAN. Sir, we have shortages in each of the corps. In 

the medical corps we have traditional shortages, and those specialties that you would expect to have shortages because of pay discrepancies between the civilian and military world. 

Unfortunately, many of those tend to be wartime specialties, 

trauma surgeons, anesthesiologists and the like, and they frequently run in the 80 percent range. We are right in the process 

of undertaking some initiatives to get at that. We think there are 

two ways to improve those numbers. 

One is through changing the bonus structure for those particular 

specialties, and the other is providing other nonmonetary incentives for people to come in and serve in various roles, both active 

duty and Reserves, providing a variety of incentives that we do not 

have now, particularly in Reserves. 

We have a particular problem in the dental corps among young 

dental officers who accrue large personal debts because of the 

equipment that they have to buy to get through dental school and 

the pay differences between civilian practices and the military 

makes it uncomfortable for them to be financially stable in the 

military. And we have similar problems with health care providers 

in the medical service corps such as podiatrists who have large 

debts and find military service financially unattractive. 

We are understaffed in some areas in the hospital corps, and 

again looking to new programs and incentives that will move corpsmen into those critical specialties. 

Senator INOUYE. Are those shortfalls occurring right now? 
278

Admiral COWAN. Sir, the shortfalls in the medical field have been 

chronic for many years. 

Senator INOUYE. And the anesthesiologists? 

Admiral COWAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. You do not have enough? 

Admiral COWAN. No, sir. We do have enough, but we do not have 

everybody back home. So if we went to two full wars at the same 

time, it would be very difficult for us to populate all those billets 

that we need. 

General TAYLOR. Very similar in the Air Force. One story is that 

last summer we had 39 internal medicine physicians who were eligible to leave the service and 38 of them did. There are pay issues 

in terms of improving pay. We have great authorities to increase 

pay. We are working diligently to get the funds to match that capability and flexibility. 

But it is not only specialty pay and loan repayment plans, it is 

the environment of work, and all three of us are working very hard 

to enhance the capabilities of our direct care system facilities, 

equipment, and staffing to enable all specialties from dental care 

to nursing corps to podiatrists to anesthesiologists to be able to 

practice the full spectrum of their capability. 

The money has been important to the Air Force as we try to 

bridge the gap that exists between the staffing we should have and 

the staffing that we actually have. 

We are going to have some terrible shortages in radiology coming 

up in the next 2 or 3 years. We have a terrible problem with anesthesia, and a 50 or 60 percent staffing range in internal medicine. 

Those are difficulties that we can contract in for if we can get the 

funds freed up. That’s why the TRICARE-Nex program will lift 

those funds in the local group, and that optimization money gives 

us that venture capital to cover. 

So those are two important parts. It is not just specialty pay and 

loan repayment. It is the environment of care that will help greatly 

in recruiting and retaining wonderful people. 

Senator INOUYE. I have a few other questions, Mr. Chairman. 

STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. I will submit some 

questions for the record in view of the time frames. I am interested, though, in that line of questions Senator Inouye asked. 

In terms of the debts that your professionals have as they come 

into the service, do you have the system that we have here that 

we can pay a portion of the debts for each year that they serve, 

the debts they come to Government with from school, student 

loans? Are you paying off student loans for those who went to 

school when they joined the services? 

Admiral COWAN. Yes, sir. The way the Navy accesses physicians, 

we get about 300 a year through either scholarships or paying 

back, helping them pay their medical school debts. We get about 

another 50 through the Uniformed Service University and we get 

a handful through direct accession. 

We have similar programs for the dental corps and nurse corps, 

and in the nurse corps we have a very good incentive program that 
279

sends them along pending successful careers into master’s and 

even Ph.D. programs as a part of their professional development. 

Our abilities, for example, to pay for the dentist’s debt is, however, limited and because of changes in the way dental education 

has occurred, we now find ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. 

Senator STEVENS. We will be glad to hear some of the problems 

you have encountered and see if funding is any part of the problem. 

Admiral COWAN. Sir, that would be very kind of you. 

Senator STEVENS. Particularly where we have a situation where 

people who are called up, for instance, we ought to find some way 

to take on that, those debt repayments while they are on the service. I’m talking reservists. They have substantial burdens that we 

have discovered in this last call-up period. 

I’m sure Senator Inouye and I would like to pursue that, but we 

would be pleased to have you help us with some suggestions that 

you might have about how we can have a call up bonus, termination, a bonus on return to civilian life, but somehow reflect the 

costs that they have incurred by coming back in. The Reserve is a 

very important part of our medical services now. 

MEDICAL COMBAT TECHNOLOGIES

Secondly, I would like to ask, we spend a lot of time trying to 

help finance development of new systems of care for those who are 

critically wounded, right at the point nearest to the point of injury, 

so that during the period of transportation to a permanent care facility, they could receive the best care possible. Were any of those 

new technologies utilized in this recent Iraqi conflict? 

General PEAKE. Yes, sir. There were three different types of hemostatic dressings that were quickly pulled off the shelf, some out 

of the research base to be applied. Admiral Cowan talked about 

Quick Clot. Chitosan dressing was also purchased and investigational new drug fibrin dressing was provided to the special operations units as well. 

Senator STEVENS. We had a description once of a possibility of 

developing a chair with diagnostic capability within 90 seconds of 

determining the extent of critical harm to that person, in order 

that they might be instantly treated. Were any of those facilities, 

were any of those type of facilities utilized in this recent conflict? 

General PEAKE. Sir, this was some life support trauma and 

transport system forward with a mini intensive care unit with a 

stretcher with the built-ins, which I think you are referring to. 

There were folks treated on it. We are getting ready to send a team 

in for clinical after action lessons learned findings, and those are 

the kinds of things that are going to be looked at. 

We had the UH60 Lima helicopters were deployed for the first 

time in the theater with the forward looking infrared radar with 

the patient care capacity in the back that really allows you to work 

on a patient, and that’s the first time we have had that asset. We 

are really looking forward to hearing the after action reviews on 

how well all of that worked, and the glass cockpit for aviation. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I do hope if you will convene sort of a 

symposium of medics who were there and try to get from them, 

what didn’t you have? What could you have used? What type of 
280

procedures or particularly support concepts did you feel you needed, but did not have? 

We have to really investigate support right now for military and 

Defense appropriations. If history repeats itself, it is going to go 

away fairly soon, and we will be back to battling to get just the 

moneys that are necessary to continue basic support of the military. 

This is the time to fund the innovations that we proffered from 

the lessons we learned in Iraq, so I hope that you will move quickly, move very quickly to determine that. I have heard my good 

friend’s comments about his four points, and he is absolutely right 

about the medics. That the difference is right now, with embedded 

journalism and cell phones, I think the world and families and everyone were contacted quicker, and this was more real exposure to 

what was going on in Iraq than any war in history. And that will 

only continue to expand. 

So I think that the comments that we have heard, at least that 

I have heard, at least from those people who were embedded journalists, was nothing but praise for your people and for the medics 

of this period. I certainly will join Senator Inouye, and I thank you 

all in trying to see to it that there is more recognition and valor 

for those people who were right there with the combat forces. 

I think we have to do something more than that, in terms of recognition for the future, and again, I think we would like to sit 

down with you all and talk about that. In terms of not only recognition for exceptional service and valor, but recognition for commitment. I think it takes a special person to be a combat medic. We 

both had experience on that. In our days, things were a lot simpler 

than they are now, and I think the stress on these medics must be 

extreme. Very much extreme. 

I would like us to consider spatial periods of readjustment for 

those medics and have some concept of rest and relaxation (R&R) 

that are built in to give people incentive to want to be medics in 

combat periods. But I commend you for what you are doing and 

hope you will follow through. I do not want to get too—our period 

up here is not going to be that much longer. 

I’m not sure how many wars we are going to sit through. We 

have sat through, in the last past 35 years, all of them. But we had 

eight wars so far. That ought to be a record for people on this committee. We want to make sure that we, on our watch, do everything 

we possibly can to make certain that the next one is handled even 

better than this one. This one has been handled exceptionally well. 

I agree with you about the comment you made about the young 

soldier who lost his foot. The difference between this generation 

and ours is a majority of ours was drafted. This was a volunteer. 

Admiral COWAN. Sir, one of the most inspiring things I have seen 

ever is listening to the Marines and corpsmen at the hospital. The 

corpsmen will only talk about the Marines that they feel responsible for and the Marines will only talk about the corpsmen who 

they think saved their lives. 

Senator STEVENS. Any other questions, sir? 
281

MENTAL HEALTH

Senator INOUYE. Just one question. A few days ago, I was watching the networks as most Americans do. And this network spent 

about half an hour covering an activity with the Marines, and I 

suppose he said that it covers all services. All of the men who were 

scheduled for deployment back to the United States were undergoing some psychiatric exercise. Is that the usual practice? 

General PEAKE. Sir, I think maybe it was referring to the combat 

stress debriefing business which we, I think, we all have sort of 

embraced the notion that you want to get folks able to talk about 

in a structured environment, the kind of trauma that they may 

have experienced or seen or been involved with. 

As we do the post deployment screening, we expanded the format, as some questions that apply to mental health to try to get 

at somebody who is having a particular problem. 

We will be doing an extensive post deployment screening process 

as every one of our soldiers, sailors, airmen come back. We will 

then score that centrally, be able to compare it against their 

predeployment screening, so what we want to do is identify those 

that might need additional help or need additional follow up, and 

so I think we are all planning on being a part of that kind of thing, 

but there is really two different pieces to it. 

Admiral COWAN. Sir, exactly the same way we have found over 

the years that people subjected to psychological trauma who sit 

with the others who they went through that with and talk through 

their feelings have good health outcomes, and the number of people 

who end up with post traumatic stress syndrome and these sorts 

of things goes way down, so all three services do that extensively. 

General TAYLOR. That’s exactly right. The lessons we have 

learned over the last 100 years in mental health is to treat as far 

forward as you can with your peers. That’s exactly what each of the 

services does. We feel, as the other services do, that these stress 

teams are a necessity in all major locations and must interact with 

troops on a daily basis. This is an ongoing process for all of us. 

General PEAKE. If I could add a follow-on, sir, in terms of this 

notion being an ongoing process. That’s something important and 

something we in the Army are wrestling with now. 

The Coast Guard has had an employee assistance program independent of the medical that offers counseling and family counseling 

and those kinds of things without a ‘‘medical statement’’ or ‘‘medical record.’’ I think that’s something we do not have in our budget 

that is something we really need to take on and be able to expand 

and get support for. 

As part of the larger holistic approach was, as you point out, sir, 

this global war on terrorism doesn’t stop with Iraq. This is going 

to be an ongoing level of activity for us, and a level of stress for 

our families and our service members, and that kind of support will 

be important for us in the future, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. I’m glad you are doing that because in war, 

mental illness or mental health is considered a stigma and Section 

8, so no one talked about it. We just assumed that everything was 

fine. But reality tells us that there are psychiatric problems, and 
282

I’m glad you are doing that. Mr. Chairman, I have many other 

questions I would like to submit for the record. 

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir. We will submit some questions for 

each of you, if you will, and what Senator Inouye said, again, I 

really think if we look back over the years, the people who were 

not really compelled to talk about the problems right from the start 

were the ones that had the greatest problems. 

I urge you to think about that, along with we ought to have a 

psychological advisor right there. It will work much better in the 

long run. Thank you all very much. We appreciate what you are 

doing. I hope you’ll on behalf of all of us here congratulate all of 

the people for the wonderful job they have done under our flag. 

Thank you very much. 

We are now going to hear from the chiefs of the service nursing 

corps. This committee’s views on this is critical to our future. We 

will here from the Army, General William T. Bester, Chief of the 

Army Nurse Corps. We thank you very much for the service to the 

Army and our country. We welcome Admiral Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, and it is really a great pleasure 

to have you with us again, Admiral. We will proceed with General 

Bester, since this is his last appearance on our watch. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM T. BESTER, CHIEF, 

ARMY NURSE CORPS 

General BESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator. Thank you 

for this opportunity to provide you an update on this state of the 

Army Nurse Corps. During the past year the Army Nurse Corps 

has again demonstrated our flexibility and determination to remain 

ready to serve this great Nation during a very challenging time in 

our history. 

Senator STEVENS. Let me first, if I may, rearrange your testimony. Welcome, General Barbara Brannon, Assistant Surgeon 

General for Air Force Nursing Services. We welcome you back and 

apologize to you for not turning the page. General. 

General BESTER. Mr. Chairman, what we ask of and receive from 

our nurses in today’s uncertain world is nothing short of amazing. 

I’d like to begin by telling you what Army nurses are doing at this 

very minute in places and under conditions as austere as soldiers 

in this country have ever experienced. 

In Iraq and Kuwait, Army nurses have been moving forward 

with the operational flow, saving lives and treating the wounded as 

they do so. Army nurses are integral to the success of each and 

every forward surgical team, Mobile Army Surgical Hospital 

(MASH) and combat support hospital in the theater. 

And as we sit here today, nearly 2,500 active and Reserve component Army nurses have or are currently deployed, with time away 

from home exceeding last year’s level by sixfold. These are selfless 

dedicated Army nurses who are proud to serve this country of ours 

and to care for our most precious resource, the American soldier. 

I’d like to highlight some of the units currently on the ground 

supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, the fine soldiers of the 86th 

Combat Support Hospital from Fort Campbell, Kentucky are providing far forward medical care. We have watched them perform 

their expert skills on the television, and we have read about them 
283

in the newspapers. Hundreds of patients have benefited from their 

presence, although the full impact of their support will not be fully 

appreciated until the conflict ends. 

The 212th MASH from Miesau, Germany initially deployed to 

Kuwait is now providing the highly mobile surgical care needed for 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is the last MASH unit left in the 

Army inventory and is again demonstrating the needs for flexible, 

rapid and mobile medical surgical assets. 

Our Reserve component colleagues have stepped to the plate to 

support current operations. The 396th Combat Support Hospital 

out of Vancouver and Spokane, Washington activated on January 

25 and moved to Fort Lewis, Washington in a matter of 3 days. 

Scheduled to be part of the contingent that was to go into Turkey, 

this unit has remained stateside and is now integral to the manning requirements of Madigan Army Medical Center. 

The personnel of the 396th that performed over 400 surgical 

cases and are providing expert care in in-patient and outpatient 

critical care units, thereby allowing Madigan to maintain a high 

level of operation, in spite of significant personnel losses to deployment. The men and women of the 396th are just another example 

of extreme importance of active and Reserve integration. 

Army Nurse Corps officers are providing care for our combat casualties throughout the entire continuum of care. As I pointed out 

earlier, nurses are far forward in order to quickly receive an ill or 

injured soldier. Our nurses at the higher level care facilities in Europe and in the United States are ready and waiting to provide the 

care needed once a combat casualty is stabilized for movement. 

At Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany, nurses are providing critical care for soldiers such as PFC Jessica Lynch. Nurse 

case managers have been manning the Deployed Warrior Management Control Center since Afghanistan and are now in full operation during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This center was established 

to enhance case management of any casualty from their initial injury in theater through his or her return to the United States and 

has facilitated the coordination of care amongst all three services. 

Army nurses are also proud to be an integral part of the transformation of the new 91 Whiskey health care specialist, our combat 

medic. 

We are embedded in the training unit as leaders and educators 

and positively impact on sustainment training of this critical military occupational specialty at every medical treatment facility. I’d 

also like to commend one of our outstanding young Army nurses, 

Captain Timothy Hudson, the recipient of the 2002 White House 

Military Office Outstanding Member of the Year award for a company of great officers. 

Clearly, Senators, Army nurses are at the forefront of caring and 

are responding with excellence to the needs of those all the way 

from the President of the United States to our great soldiers and 

their families and our very deserving retirees around the world. 

On the recruiting front, we continue to struggle with our recruitment of nurses to support today’s health care needs and the needs 

of the Army in the years to come. The affect of the national nursing 

shortage continues to affect our ability to attract and maintain 

quality nurses. 
284

We are still below our budgeted end strength of 3,381, but are 

actively pursuing incentives to counteract this shortfall and promote the force in our years to come. As a direct result of the 2003 

National Defense Authorization Act, we are actively pursuing an 

increase in the accession bonus beginning in fiscal year 2005. 

This spring we plan to implement the health professional’s loan 

repayment program for both newly recruited nurses as well as our 

cornerstone company grade officers who are serving in their first 

8 years of commissioned service. 

Understanding the great potential of our enlisted soldiers to 

serve as commissioned officers, we continue to sponsor dozens each 

year to complete their nursing education to become Registered 

Nurses (RN) and subsequently Army Nurse Corps officers via the 

Army Enlisted Commissioning Program. 

We are very proud of these successes, yet we will continue to 

pursue all recruiting and retention avenues in order to secure more 

long-term stability in our manning posture. 

Sir, the general referred earlier this afternoon to our civilian 

nurses and they now comprise about 60 percent of our total nurse 

work force and are clearly key to our nursing care delivery in the 

medical treatment facilities. I’m pleased to tell you, Senator, in fiscal year 2002, we achieved an 89 percent fill rate of documented 

civilian Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) positions. This is an increase of 7 percent and 13 percent, respectively, from last year. 

In the direct hire authority that the Surgeon General talked 

about earlier, granted to us by Congress, has dramatically reduced 

the length of time it takes from recruitment to first day of work 

from 111 days to a remarkable 23 days for Registered Nurses. This 

has resulted in a 50 percent reduction of unfilled RN positions in 

our facilities. 

Clearly, we need to continue this approach to civilian RN recruitment and we will continue to seek expansion of this authority to 

include LPNs and legislative approval that makes direct hire authority permanent. 

Although many of our nurses are deployed or dedicating the majority of their time to the support of the global war on terrorism, 

nurses are still actively engaged in other nursing activities such as 

research and education. 

I want to offer my thanks and appreciation to this committee for 

the continued steadfast support of the TriService Nursing Research 

Program (TSNRP). Since 1992, TSNRP has funded 230 research 

proposals that have resulted in continued advances in nursing 

practice for the benefit of our soldiers and for their family members 

and for our great retirees. 

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Uniformed 

Services University of the Health Sciences for their continued flexibility and support of the Advanced Practice nurses. Adeptly responding to the needs of Federal nursing, they have established 

perioperative nursing as well as a doctoral program in nursing, 

with the first candidates for study in each of these programs to 

begin this summer. 

Our continued partnership is key to maintaining sufficient numbers of professional practitioners necessary to support our mission. 

Finally, Senators, the Army Nurse Corps once again reaffirms its 
285

commitment to recognizing the Bachelor of Science degree in nursing as the minimum educational requirement and basic entry level 

for professional nursing practice. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In closing, I assure you that the Army Nurse Corps is comprised 

of professional leaders who are totally committed to providing expert nursing care. It has been my honor and it has truly been my 

privilege to lead such a tremendous organization. Thank you for 

this opportunity to present the extraordinary contribution made by 

today’s Army nurses. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM T. BESTER

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am Brigadier General William T. Bester, Commanding General, United States Army Center for 

Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine and Chief, Army Nurse Corps. Thank 

you for this opportunity to update you on the state of the Army Nurse Corps. In 

the past year, the Army Nurse Corps has again demonstrated our flexibility and determination to remain ready to serve our great Nation during challenging and difficult times. 

The effects of the National nursing shortage continue to impact the ability of the 

Army Nurse Corps to attract and retain nurses. The decline in nursing school enrollments over the past several years, coupled with the increasing average age of 

a registered nurse, clearly dictate the need to focus recruitment and retention efforts towards enhancing the image of nursing as a worthwhile and rewarding longterm career choice. We are encouraged by the fact that for the first time in over 

six years, enrollment in baccalaureate nursing programs in 2001 increased. However, since education resources are limited, there is still a need for such initiatives 

as the Nurse Reinvestment Act and we applaud the support that you have provided 

towards this effort. It will be critical that we continue to develop programs of this 

magnitude. 

We are well aware of the impact that the decreased nursing personnel pool has 

had on our civilian nurse recruitment and retention. Civilian nurses now comprise 

over 60 percent of our total nurse workforce and we have worked diligently to 

streamline hiring practices, improve compensation packages and enhance professional growth and development in order to attract the types of nurses who will commit to the military healthcare system. I am pleased to report to you that we have 

experienced some success in our civilian recruitment actions over the past year. In 

fiscal year 2002, we achieved an 89 percent fill rate of documented civilian Registered Nurse positions and an 83 percent fill rate of documented civilian Licensed 

Practical Nurse positions. This is an increase of 7 percent and 13 percent, respectively, from the previous year. The Direct Hire Authority granted to us has dramatically reduced the length of time it takes from recruitment to first day of work from 

111 days to a remarkable 23 days for Registered Nurses. This initiative has resulted 

in a 50 percent reduction of unfilled RN positions in our Medical Treatment Facilities. Clearly, we need to continue this type of long-term approach to civilian RN recruitment. 

The Army Nurse Corps is actively engaged in a DOD effort to simplify and 

streamline civilian personnel requirements. The intent is to recruit, compensate, 

and promote civilian nursing personnel with the flexibility necessary to respond to 

the rapidly changing civilian market. We have clearly identified our needs related 

to the payment of these greatly needed premium, on-call, overtime and Baylor Plan 

pay strategies and are very ready to implement these strategies when the Defense 

Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) support is available. In addition, we are progressing with the clinical education template currently required in the legislation 

in order to ensure consistency of hiring practices. We strongly value continuing professional development of our civilian nurse workforce and are reenergizing our already established Civilian Nurse Tuition Assistance Program to enhance retention 

and symbolize our trust in the civilian nurse workforce abilities and commitment 

to taking care of soldiers. We firmly believe that enhancing job opportunities for our 

military family members is consistent with the Army’s overall goal to support the 

well being of our soldiers and families. 
286

We are also well aware of the impact of the decreased nursing pool on our military nurse recruiting efforts. The Army Nurse Corps is still below our budgeted endstrength of 3,381. We ended fiscal year 2002 at a strength of 3,152, a deficit of 229. 

We have taken aggressive measures to strengthen our position in both the Army 

Reserve Officer Training Corps (AROTC) and U.S. Army Recruiting Command 

(USAREC) recruiting markets. We have re-established targets in the AROTC program and expanded school participation in our AROTC scholarship program by fourfold. As a direct result of the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, we are actively pursuing an increase in the accession bonus beginning in fiscal year 2005. 

This year, we were successful in offering a Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) 

to 54 percent of our Nurse Anesthetists and 76 percent of our Operating Room 

nurses. This spring, we are implementing the Health Professions Loan Repayment 

Program (HPLRP) for newly recruited nurses as well as to our cornerstone company 

grade Army Nurse Corps officers who are serving in their first eight years of commissioned service. The HPLRP and accession programs, in conjunction with our already established and robust professional and clinical education programs, will 

allow us to consistently reinforce the value of our Army Nurses through the critical 

early career timeframe. Finally, we have been extremely successful in providing a 

solid progression program for our enlisted personnel to obtain their baccalaureate 

nursing degree through the Army Enlisted Commissioning Program. This year 

alone, we will sponsor 85 enlisted soldiers to complete their nursing education to 

become Registered Nurses and subsequently, Army Nurse Corps officers. Since last 

year, we have increased the number of available slots for soldiers qualified for this 

program by 30, a 55 percent increase. I want to emphasize that this program provides us with nurses who already possess the strong soldiering and leadership skills 

that we foster and desire in Army Nurses. 

Retention of our junior nurses is extremely important to us. We continue to closely monitor the primary reasons that our company grade officers leave the Service 

and have determined that the reasons are primarily related to quality of life, work 

schedules and compensation. We have taken this feedback and used it as the basis 

to address the focus of our senior leadership efforts at the local level. Compensation 

strategies such as the Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) and the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) have been paramount in our effort to 

recognize individuals for their tremendous efforts and sacrifices. The Army Nurse 

Corps continues to sponsor significant numbers of nurses each year to pursue advanced nursing education in a variety of specialty courses as well as in masters and 

doctoral programs. We are all working to improve the practice environment, foster 

mentoring relationships, and ensure equitable distribution of the workload among 

our nurses. We intend to aggressively capitalize on all financial, educational and 

benefit packages available to recruit and retain dedicated officers. 

The Army Nurse Corps continues to answer the call to support the Nation’s War 

on Terrorism as well as other contingency missions. In fiscal year 2002, 1,001 Army 

Nurses deployed to over 20 countries totaling 25,133 man-days. Since October 2002, 

the deployment pace is swifter than ever, with 1,162 Army Nurses deployed totaling 

80,083 man-days. Our nurses continue to provide expert nursing care on Forward 

Surgical Teams (FSTs), which provide far forward immediate surgery capability that 

enables patients to withstand further evacuation to more definitive care. Currently, 

nurses are deployed in multiple FSTs in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other missions worldwide. The 250th FST was the 

first to deploy to Kandahar, Afghanistan in direct support of the Combined Special 

Operations Task Force South-Forward and executed medical operations under the 

most austere combat conditions. The 274th FST provided surgical coverage of northern Afghanistan and provided care to more than 500 patients to include over 200 

combat casualties. In March 2002, the 274th FST received and treated all combat 

casualties sustained during Operation Anaconda and provided extensive orthopedic 

and surgical care for the detainees held at the Bagram Airbase. Each of these outstanding forward surgical elements contains a substantial nurse element that is 

critical to the team’s success. 

The 86th Combat Support Hospital (CSH) is now supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and is providing far forward medical care in the most austere conditions for 

both coalition forces and local nationals. The full impact of their support on the 

numbers of casualties cared for by these fine soldiers is not known at this time. Always ready, this same Combat Support Hospital was also the most forwardly deployed Level III Combat Support Hospital in Central Asia to support Operation Enduring Freedom. At that time, the personnel in the 86th included Army Nurses from 

Fort Campbell, Kentucky with augmentation by Army Nurses from Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Fort Rucker, Alabama and West Point, New 

York. This hospital, consisting of a 2-bed operating room, 7-bed emergency medical 
287

treatment section, and 24-bed inpatient area, provided care for 63 combat related 

casualties as well as the care for the acute health care needs of the deployed forces. 

In the past year, we provided expert nursing care with the 28th Combat Support 

Hospital from Fort Bragg, North Carolina in support of Task Force Med Eagle 

(TFME) in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the same theater, the 249th General Hospital 

conducted Medical Civil Action Programs (MEDCAPs) to improve relations by providing basic medical screenings and care to 130 local national personnel within the 

Multinational Division-North Area of Operations in Bosnia. In addition, nursing 

personnel provide support to an ongoing multidisciplinary health promotion program for soldiers and civilian employees in the Task Force. Flexible and ready, some 

of these same units are now providing the needed support to the soldiers currently 

in Southwest Asia. 

The Army Nurse Corps continues to strengthen our commitment to integrating 

our Active and Reserve Components. Last year, the 212th Mobile Army Surgical 

Hospital from Miesau, Germany teamed with the 5501st United States Army Hospital from San Antonio, Texas to conduct maneuvers at the Combat Maneuver 

Training Center (CMTC) in Hohenfels, Germany. This was the first time that level 

III health care support was incorporated directly into a CMTC rotation. This is just 

one example of many where Active and Reserve Army Nurses join forces to provide 

expert patient care and superb clinical leadership. 

In light of current world events, we have imbedded training on the personal and 

medical response to the chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear and high explosive 

threat into all our professional nursing and military education courses and deployment preparations. I can assure you that all Army Nurse Corps Officers will continue to be ready to meet any deployment challenge in any environment that they 

may encounter. 

It is a pleasure to be able to highlight good news stories about nurses at the many 

medical treatment facilities around the world. As a result of a productive collaboration among the Department of Defense, the Army Medical Department’s Outcomes 

Management Section, and the Veteran’s Health Affairs Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Office, we implemented an additional nine Clinical Practice 

Guidelines (CPGs) in 2002. The practice guidelines relate to the care of Low Back 

Pain, Asthma, Diabetes, Tobacco Use Cessation, Post Deployment Health, Post-operative Pain, Major Depressive Disorder, Substance Abuse Disorder & Uncomplicated 

Pregnancy. These compliment the seven other Practice Guidelines already in place 

and demonstrate the unprecedented collaboration between clinicians and researchers working at Army, Air Force, Navy and Veteran’s Affairs facilities. Clinical nurse 

specialists, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, nurse educators, community health 

nurses, and staff nurses are intimately involved in both the development and the 

implementation of the guidelines. These guidelines may be applied to patient care 

in both the peacetime and combat hospital settings and aim to decrease variation 

in the management of specific conditions, thereby improving quality of care. A notable success associated with the implementation of the CPGs includes the fact that 

none of the 28 Army Medical Treatment Facilities surveyed by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) have had any findings 

related to the new JCAHO CPG implementation mandates. 

Nurses have embraced new technology in support of patient care. The Great 

Plains Regional Medical Command and Brooke Army Medical Center nurse practitioners are currently testing a new composite computer software program called 

MEDBASE that will allow Commanders at all levels to have visibility of the data 

necessary to ensure soldier medical readiness. This database will also facilitate electronic medical record documentation, soldier profiling and tracking, worldwide immunization tracking, electronic health and wellness documentation, procedure and 

diagnostic coding, and numerous practical medical readiness reports for all levels of 

the military system. This tool, designed to interface with current and programmed 

DOD information technology systems, has incredible potential to conserve personnel 

and fiscal resources and will directly impact our performance improvement initiatives. 

MAJ Laura Favand and MAJ Lisa Lehning, Army Nurse Corps Officers from William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas and Brooke Army Medical 

Center in San Antonio, Texas, respectively, assisted in the development of another 

valuable data management tool. The Combat Trauma Registry was employed at 

Landstuhl, Germany and contains data entered on soldiers injured in Afghanistan 

in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. The purpose of the Combat Trauma 

Registry is to examine the feasibility of identifying, collecting, and reporting combat 

trauma care information from the point of injury to return to duty, discharge from 

active duty, or death from combat casualties. The data collected in this registry will 

be used as input into the planning factors used to develop combat health support 
288

models such as casualty estimates, personnel at risk, and injury types for future 

military operations. This is the first attempt to collect this type of data since the 

Vietnam conflict. 

Army Nurses at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are supporting disaster and 

bioterrorism preparedness with the implementation of Phase I of the DOD plan for 

smallpox vaccinations. Phase I includes the vaccination of the military’s smallpox 

response teams and hospital and clinic teams located in military hospitals. Walter 

Reed personnel prepared and conducted a two-day conference for their staff and personnel, providing smallpox education and training for people who are to be vaccinated and for those administering the vaccine. As Federal agencies reorganize and 

lines of authority are adjusted in the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, it is clear that nurses across all specialties will play a significant role in the 

overall medical disaster response strategy. 

Army Nurses are proud to be an integral part of the transformation of the new 

91W Healthcare Specialist Military Occupational Specialty. We are imbedded in the 

training units as leaders and educators. In fact, there are thirteen Army Nurse 

Corps officers directly assigned to the training battalion at Fort Sam Houston, TX 

in which each new 91W soldier is initially trained. In addition, Army Nurse Corps 

officers were directly responsible for developing and implementing the hospital 

based clinical training experience that is part of the sixteen-week 91W initial entry 

training. Army Nurse Corps officers also serve as preceptors and mentors for these 

soldiers throughout their initial entry training as well as the sustainment training 

programs in place across the Army. I want to share with you my impression of these 

soldiers. Simply put, they are the best-trained combat medics in our history and we 

are proud to serve side by side with these exceptional soldiers. We will continue to 

steadfastly support all aspects of this transformation until it is completed. 

Army nurses continue to be at the forefront of nursing research. We aggressively 

pursue evidence-based research focusing on critical military healthcare problems 

that nurses can positively impact. Last year, I shared with you our five primary research focus areas: the identification of specialized clinical skill competency training 

and sustainment requirements; issues related to pre-, intra-, and post-deployment; 

issues related to the nursing care of our beneficiaries in garrison; nurse staffing requirements and their relationship to patient outcomes; and finally, issues related to 

civilian and military nurse retention. Today I will share with you our progress and 

accomplishments in these five priority areas. 

To insure that our combat medics are trained in critical life-saving skills and ever 

ready for battle, they are required to become nationally certified as Emergency Medical Technicians. The nurse researchers at Madigan Army Medical Center are assessing the impact of a computer-based three-dimensional virtual Emergency Medical Technician training simulator on overall educational outcomes of students and 

the resulting national certification pass rates. To date, one hundred thirteen 91W 

students are enrolled in this study. This adjunct to our educational design could result in improved pass rates and related cost savings as soldiers will be better prepared to pass the national certification examination the first time taken. 

The recent increase in our deployment tempo has kept all our medical personnel 

busy. Nurse researchers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are engaged in a 

study to identify the physiologic, psychosocial, work and lifestyle factors of Army 

Medical Department soldiers who have experienced musculoskeletal injuries. They 

will examine how these factors may be associated with the occurrence of these injuries. The results of this study will help us devise strategies targeted at reducing the 

frequency of these injuries in these soldiers. In addition, students in our Nursing 

Anesthesia graduate program have studied the safety and efficacy regarding the use 

of an oxygen concentrator in the field environment. Use of this device will allow for 

the delivery of required oxygen to patients in the field and eliminate the need to 

transport heavy oxygen bottles. Army Nurse researchers are also conducting a largescale study to identify the ethical issues nurses encounter in caring for patients in 

deployed and garrison-based military hospitals. Early results from this study indicate that our military and civilian nurses most often encounter the challenges of 

staffing patterns that limit quality of nursing care, protecting patient rights to quality nursing care and staffing patterns that limit patient access to nursing care. The 

intent of this study is to develop pre-emptive educational programs that will prepare 

nurses in a variety of military settings to best manage the ethical challenges presented to them. All of the studies mentioned are truly targeted at improving nursing 

care for soldiers in all our practice environments. 

Nursing research consistently examines the potential of new technology on practice. Nurse researchers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are examining the use 

of telenursing for our remote, home-based patients who are in need of cardiac rehabilitation following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. This program will allow 
289

nurses to ‘‘virtually’’ visit patients up to three times per week to follow both the 

physiological progress of the patient such as vital signs, surgical incision assessment, and electrocardiograph analysis as well as provide educational interventions 

that the home-bound patient might otherwise not receive. The nurse researchers at 

Brooke Army Medical Center have designed a study to decrease ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients at Brooke Army Medical Center and at Wilford Hall Air 

Force Medical Center. This study has dramatic potential in both human outcomes 

as well as cost outcomes by determining care criteria that could decrease the number of days that a person is on a ventilator. 

Nurse researchers at Madigan and Walter Reed Army Medical Centers completed 

the Army Nursing Outcomes Database study initiated in 2001 and have extended 

the concept to include medical treatment facilities from both the Air Force and 

Navy. This Tri-Service project is dedicated to the collection of standardized and high 

quality data related to the effects of nurse staffing and patient outcomes. The expanded Military Nursing Outcomes Database will assess data integrity, examine 

new indicators of quality nursing care and will add a dimension of the rapidity of 

patient movement into and out of the hospital. The Army Nurse Corps also continues to collect data from nurses who have chosen to leave the military in order 

to identify those issues that we can positively impact upon with the goal of retaining 

as many quality Nurse Corps officers as possible. This ongoing assessment indicates 

that nurses leave the military in order to pursue life goals such as having a family 

and stabilizing their location. We have taken this feedback seriously and are striving to address the retention needs of our nurses through the initiatives and incentives outlined earlier in this testimony. 

In conclusion, Army nurse researchers continue to seek the solutions to the important challenges facing military healthcare. The Army Nurse Corps continues to identify areas for collaboration with researchers in the Navy and the Air Force. Since 

1992, the TriService Nursing Research Program has funded 230 research proposals 

and during fiscal year 2002, seventeen military nurse researchers received funding 

in areas that include nursing practice during operations other than war, air evacuation, fitness among National Guard personnel, sexually transmitted disease and 

pregnancy prevention during deployment, and educational strategies for chemical 

warfare. The Tri-Service Nursing Research Program continues to offer a breadth of 

supportive activities such as workshops and symposiums to promote, encourage and 

develop both our novice and seasoned researchers. It is clearly evident by the types 

of proposals submitted that nursing research is, and will continue to be, focused on 

relevant and timely research problems that necessitate solid outcome data. Your 

continued support of the TriService Nursing Research Program is truly appreciated 

and has resulted in continued advances in nursing practice for the benefit of our 

soldiers, their family members, and our deserving retiree population. 

I would like to extend my appreciation to the leadership and faculty of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) for their continued support in the training of our Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists and Family 

Nurse Practitioners. USUHS continues to provide us with professional nursing graduates who have a near perfect pass rate for national certification, easily exceeding 

the national standard. Adeptly responding to the needs of Federal nursing, USUHS 

established this past year the Clinical Nurse Specialist Program in Perioperative 

Nursing as well as the foundation for the Doctoral Program in Nursing, with the 

first candidates for study in each program to begin this summer. USUHS continues 

to refine and evolve strong curricula that have three focused research and practice 

areas including Operational Readiness in Changing Environments, Population 

Health and Outcomes, and Clinical Decision-Making in the Federal Health Care 

System. In addition, they have placed cross cutting emphasis on patient safety, ethics, force protection, and international health and leadership. The curricula are 

interwoven with the necessary military applications essential for the response to 

any global challenge, such as scenarios involving deployment of weapons of mass destruction, disaster or humanitarian assistance, and contingencies other than war. 

USUHS continues to be flexible and responsive to our Federal Nursing needs and 

our continued partnership is key to maintaining sufficient numbers of professional 

practitioners necessary to support our mission. 

Finally Senators, the Army Nurse Corps once again reaffirms its commitment to 

recognizing the Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing (BSN) as the minimum educational requirement and basic entry level for professional nursing practice. We appreciate your continued support of this endeavor and your commitment to the educational advancement of all military nurses. We continue to be resolute in meeting 

the challenges we face today and are ready and determined to meet the uncertain 

challenges of tomorrow. We will continue with a sustained focus on readiness, expert clinical practice, professionalism, leadership and the unfailing commitment to 
290

our Nation that has been the hallmark of our organization for over 102 years. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the extraordinary contributions made by 

Army Nurses.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, General. Admiral Lescavage. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL NANCY J. LESCAVAGE, NURSE CORPS, 

UNITED STATES NAVY, DIRECTOR, NAVY NURSE CORPS 

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Good afternoon, Chairman Stevens, Senator 

Inouye. I am Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, the 20th Director of 

the Navy Nurse Corps and Commander of the recently established 

Naval Medical Education and Training Command. It is indeed an 

honor and a privilege to represent a total of 5,000 active duty and 

Reserve Nurse Corps officers. I welcome this opportunity to testify 

regarding the status of the Navy Nurse Corps. 

The Navy Nurse Corps is ‘‘living’’ the mission of Navy medicine 

today providing preeminent health care in worldwide missions. 

When called to duty recently, our Navy nurses readily packed their 

seabags and moved forward. Meanwhile, our remaining military 

and civilian nurses back home continued to be the backbone in promoting, protecting and restoring the health of all entrusted to our 

care, including those heroes who have gone before us in harm’s 

way. 

Not a beat was missed in our mission. This year, to chart the 

course, we have revised our strategic plan which now parallels 

Navy medicine’s goals of being ready, caring about our people, delivering that health care benefit to all, and promoting best practices. 

Through our collective leadership, I’m happy to tell you we are 

also united with our Federal nursing partners to advance professional nursing practice. What a thrill that is to be one team with 

my fellow colleagues. 

I will now speak to each of our goals and address the status of 

professional nursing in Navy medicine relative to the national 

nursing shortage. First of all, to stand ready. Our mission is exemplified in our continuous commitment to readiness in peacetime, 

wartime, humanitarian and other contingency missions. 

Augmenting our 70 Navy nurses who are routinely assigned to 

operational billets, we have deployed a total of approximately 600 

Navy nurses in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on a variety of 

platforms. They have been and remain assigned to forward 

resuscitative surgical support teams, fleet surgical teams, Marine 

Corps medical battalions, Marine Corps force service support 

groups, our fleet hospitals, our casualty receiving and treatment 

ships, and our hospital ships such as the U.S.N.S. Comfort currently deployed. Part of that crew will be returning today. 

And they also serve aboard our aircraft carriers. Eighty-nine out 

of 140 nurse anesthetists have been deployed and are serving us 

well. We have also recalled approximately 400 Reserve Navy 

nurses to support our operational missions and the continuum of 

care in our military treatment facilities. You see, we really do truly 

work as a team, both active duty and Reserve. 

During this past year, there have been an additional 43 Navy 

nurses involved in other missions, such as at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Operation Provide Hope and Operation Enduring Freedom. Almost 400 Nurse Corps officers have also been in-
291

volved in various training exercises in the past year, such as in our 

fleet hospital training, fleet hospital operational readiness evaluation, and Exercise Battle Griffin. 

Strengthening our emergency preparedness posture, Navy nurses 

now serve in vital leadership roles in Navy medicine’s Office of 

Homeland Security, the Department of Defense smallpox response 

team, the Marine Corps chem/bio incident response team, and in 

command emergency preparedness offices. In meeting our readiness mission in all operational environments, training opportunities occur across Federal, as well as civilian agencies. As an example, this past fall, the Navy medicine’s trauma training program rotated its first class through the Los Angeles County University of 

Southern California Medical Center, one of the Nation’s top level 

one trauma centers. We successfully trained many Nurse Corps officers by enhancing their combat trauma skills and medical readiness, and they do that along with their respective platform teams, 

so they truly are ready for trauma cases. 

In addition, five of our Navy medical treatment facilities have established agreements with local trauma centers, training numerous 

emergency and critical care nurses, as well as our operating room 

nurses. Collaborating with the Army and the Air Force, we have 

also shared instructors and training opportunities to enhance these 

critical skills. 

Secondly, in caring about our people, we continually strive to be 

recognized as an employer of choice in recruiting, training and retaining the right professional nurses. We closely monitor the national nursing shortage projections and civilian compensation packages and determine the best course for us to take in the competitive market. 

The Navy Nurse Corps amazingly continues to meet active duty 

military and civilian recruiting goals and professional nursing requirements. We do that through diversified accession sources. 

Those are our pipeline programs, for example, in our Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). 

We also do that through pay incentives, graduate education and 

other retention initiatives that address quality of life issues, to 

meet our special needs, such as critical care. And I really believe 

we need more Navy nurses in the mental health arena, in midwifery and neonatal nursing. We too are exploring the health professional’s loan repayment program in those areas. 

For our Civil Service nurses who make up a huge part of our 

backbone, recruitment, retention and relocation bonuses are used, 

along with special salary rates and that wonderful special hire authority which we can thank you so much for. 

We also had our certified registered nurse anesthetists and operating room nurses this year participate in the critical skills retention bonus. Ninety percent of our operating room nurses who were 

eligible took that, as well as 70 percent of our nurse anesthetists. 

I’d like to highlight our Navy Reserve component. We have processed 63 percent of our accession goal of 261 nurses to enter the 

Reserves, maintaining the same pace as we did last year. Beneficial 

incentives in procuring our Reservists in critical wartime specialties include an accession bonus for the Reserves, as well as loan repayment and stipend programs for graduate education. I have no-
292

ticed through the years that the one thing nurses most want is to 

be greater educated. We are now proposing to expand bonus eligibility to new nursing graduates. In addition, we are in the initial 

stages of exploring the feasibility of instituting a pipeline scholarship program for our Reserve enlisted component, those corpsmen 

who desire to go on to become Navy nurses. And that’s similar to 

the pipeline program for our active duty colleagues. 

Through several surveys, graduate education opportunities have 

been cited as one of our most important retention initiatives. We 

now are able to focus all of our scholarship training, as Admiral 

Cowan stated, on master’s degrees and doctorate degrees based on 

our operational specialty requirements, specific health population 

needs and staffing projections. 

We are sending several of our nurses to the recently established 

perioperative clinical nurse specialist program at the Uniform Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS). We greatly look forward to the new doctoral program at USUHS, and are additionally 

considering nurse fellowship opportunities in such arenas as gerontology, business management and mental health. 

This year, we also instituted nursing internship programs at our 

three major medical centers and other naval hospitals for all new 

nursing graduates. The news is good on this as well. There have 

been several hundred military and civilian nurses who have completed these programs. These new nurses attest to increased selfconfidence with clinical practice and are eager to assume greater 

responsibilities. 

Thirdly, delivering that health care benefit. Population health 

management is at the forefront and our Navy nurses are actively 

engaged in various clinical settings through health promotion, disease management and case management programs. These innovations do four things for us. They expedite a much quicker return 

to full duty for our sailors and Marines. They decrease lost work 

hours, increase productivity, and enhance our customer satisfaction. You see the benefits are endless and the line really appreciates the return to duty. 

Embracing force health protection, numerous programs have 

been developed to ensure a healthy and fit force such as a command preventive health assessment program, nurse managed 

hyperlipidemia clinic at our naval hospital in Rota, Spain, the ingarrison rehab platoon program at Camp Pendleton and clinical 

care services, which we call drive-by health care. They pull up to 

the pier in a van and are able to render basic primary care to our 

sailors who have just returned. 

Just as the health and fitness of our military members is critical 

to force readiness, so is the health of our extended military family 

and other eligible beneficiaries. In at least four medical treatment 

facilities, our nurses are leading the way in the assessment and 

management of our patients. Diabetes case management has significantly enhanced patient compliance with their recommended 

plan of care. In support of the unique needs of seriously ill and terminally ill patients, our first Navy palliative care clinic was established at our medical center in Portsmouth. Our mother baby clinic 

provides follow-up for high-risk mothers and babies for early detection and prevention of complications. Pediatric nurses at our naval 
293

hospital in Naples liaisoned with the Department of Defense school 

nurses and teachers to collaborate on taking care of asthmatic children to prevent asthmatic attacks. This sampling of programs demonstrates that Navy nurses indeed are innovative and have specialized knowledge that can be applied in any form in a military setting. 

Lastly, promoting best health care business practices. Nurse 

Corps officers continue to be strategically placed in pivotal roles 

where they can influence legislation, health care policy and delivery systems. We have active duty and Reserve Nurse Corps officers 

in executive roles, including our current Navy’s Deputy Surgeon 

General and many others such as commanding officers, executive 

officers and officers in charge. Personally, I am honored to have 

been chosen to lead the charge in revolutionizing Navy medicine’s 

education and training. 

Always striving for nursing excellence, many commands have 

aligned their performance metrics with the American Nurse’s Association magnet recognition program and Malcolm Baldrige criteria 

for excellence. These standards provide the framework for sustained quality patient care. Our goal is to complete our first application which is at our medical center in Portsmouth, Virginia, and 

have that completed by next year. 

Nursing research has become our cornerstone for excellence in all 

settings, from military treatment facilities to the operational environment. Our revised Navy Nurse Corps research plan provides the 

foundation and scope of military nursing research ranging from the 

utilization of doctorally prepared Nurse Corps officers in key leadership positions to their responsibilities in leading evidence-based 

practice studies. 

With authority and influence, our Navy nurse researchers now 

create health policies and delivery systems and are right at the tip 

of the spear in leading the way in our major medical treatment facilities. We were honored to have one of our nurse anesthetists 

named researcher of the year by the American Association of Nurse 

Anesthetists. 

We do as well appreciate your support of the TriService nursing 

research program funding. I would like to highlight just a little bit 

of our research programs out there. A program involving the studies examined Navy recruits at risk for depression, after undergoing 

the bootstrap intervention program. This is at Great Lakes. Preliminary results indicate a potential for decreased attrition, improved recruit performance, and an identified cost-effective method 

of recruit retention. 

On the cutting edge of molecular research, a team led by a Navy 

nurse is investigating the potential use of a readily accessible medication to be used in the field to treat respiratory problems. We also 

have a multidisciplinary team with nurses in it working on diabetic 

care and that has enhanced the patient’s ability to achieve the 

mastery of self-care and live independently with potential savings 

of $7,000 to $42,000 per patient a year. 

In closing, I appreciate your tremendous support of legislative 

initiatives and the opportunity to share our accomplishments. In 

our 95th year of the Corps, our Navy nurses are very proud of our 
294

heritage and professional practice as innovators, change agents and 

leaders. 

In my other role as Commander, Navy Medical Education and 

Training Command, I fully support the philosophy that continuous 

learning and guidance for all health care professionals is integral 

to what we do in meeting our peacetime and wartime missions. 

Regarding lessons learned, Chairman Stevens, my command with 

education and training has a command under it called the Naval 

Operational Medical Institute. Several years ago, we did come up 

with the lessons learned program and we are very excited about 

that. That has already been launched, which really has value in 

learning from what has just occurred. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I look forward to continuing to work with you and my colleagues 

during my tenure as the Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Thank 

you for this great honor and privilege. In my view, there is no better job. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL NANCY J. LESCAVAGE

Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished members of 

the Committee. I am Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse 

Corps and Commander of the recently established Naval Medical Education and 

Training Command. It is an honor and a privilege to represent a total of 5,000 Active Duty and Reserve Navy Nurse Corps officers. I welcome this opportunity to testify regarding our achievements and issues. 

The Navy Nurse Corps is ‘‘living’’ the mission of Navy Medicine today and fulfilling the vision of the Navy Nurse Corps of preeminent health care in executing 

worldwide missions. When called to duty, Navy Nurses readily ‘‘packed their seabags’’ and moved forward, with dynamic leadership, clinical expertise, teamwork, 

perseverance and patience. Meanwhile, military and civilian nurses who remained 

at the homefront continue to be the backbone and structure in promoting, protecting 

and restoring the health of all entrusted to our care. 

This year, to ‘‘chart the course,’’ we have revised our Strategic Plan, which parallels Navy Medicine’s goals of Readiness, People, the Health Benefit, and Best 

Health Care Business Practices. Through collective leadership, we have also united 

with our federal nursing partners to advance professional nursing practice. 

I will now speak to each of our goals in the Navy Nurse Corps Strategic Plan and 

address the status of professional nursing in Navy Medicine relative to the national 

nursing shortage. 

READINESS

Our mission to promote, protect and restore the health of all entrusted to our care 

is fully actualized through our continuous commitment to readiness in peacetime, 

wartime, humanitarian and other contingency missions. Both active duty and reserve components have exemplified unselfish devotion to duty, working side-by-side 

in the continental United States and abroad in a multitude of care delivery environments. 

Readiness and Contingency Operations 

Augmenting our seventy Navy Nurses in operational billets, we have deployed a 

total of approximately six hundred nurses in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom 

on a variety of platforms, such as Marine Corps Force Service Support Groups, Fleet 

Hospitals, Casual Receiving Treatment Ships, Hospital Ships and with Command 

Headquarters staff to plan and operationalize our health care delivery system. 

Eighty-nine out of a total of one hundred and forty Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) alone have been deployed. We have also recalled approximately four 

hundred reserve nurses to support our operational missions and the continuum of 

care in our military treatment facilities. During this past year, there have been an 

additional forty-three nurses involved in other missions, including Camp X-Ray at 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Operation Provide Hope and Operation Enduring Freedom. 
295

Almost four hundred Nurse Corps officers have also been involved in various exercises in the past year such as Fleet Hospital Field Training, Fleet Hospital Operational Readiness Evaluation, and Exercise Battle Griffin. 

Homeland Security 

Strengthening our emergency preparedness posture, Navy Nurses serve in vital 

leadership roles in Navy Medicine’s Office of Homeland Security, the Department 

of Defense Smallpox Epidemiological Emergency Response Team, the Marine Corps 

Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force and in command Emergency Preparedness Offices. Involvement in key initiatives to execute our Force Health Protection 

mission under any circumstance include: multiple training programs; military-civilian partnerships with U.S. hospitals; innovative site visits to identify vulnerabilities 

and exercise command emergency preparedness plans; and development of disaster 

response curriculum with other federal agencies. 

Readiness Training 

In meeting our readiness mission in all operational environments, training opportunities are collectively optimized across federal and civilian agencies. Last summer, 

Navy Medicine’s Trauma Training Program rotated its first class through the Los 

Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center, one of the nation’s finest Level I Trauma Centers. We successfully trained many Nurse Corps officers by enhancing their combat trauma skills and medical readiness with their respective platform teams, the Forward Resuscitative Surgical Support or Fleet Surgical Teams. In light of recent events and the national focus on homeland security 

and terrorism, the curriculum has added treatment of casualties under these 

stressors, as well as conventional battle injuries. 

Seeking to expand training opportunities for nurses assigned to other operational 

platforms, five military treatment facilities have established agreements with local 

trauma centers, training over fifty emergency and critical care nurses through didactic and clinical experiences. Collaborating with the Army and Air Force, we have 

shared instructors and training opportunities in support of critical skills enhancement at the Army Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany; Wilford Hall Medical 

Center in San Antonio, Texas; the Critical Care Air Transport Team Course at 

Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio to name a few facilities. In addition, Navy 

Nurses at the Naval Hospital in Rota, Spain are involved in training Embassy, Department of State and foreign military physicians and nurses. 

PEOPLE

We continually strive to be recognized as an employer of choice in recruiting, 

training, and retaining the right professionals. To attain our prestigious standing, 

we closely monitor national nursing shortage projections and civilian compensation 

packages and determine the best course for us to take in the competitive market. 

National Nursing Shortage 

A 2002 study conducted by the Health Resources and Service Administration predicted that the national nursing shortage will experience a deficit of over 275,000 

nurses by 2010, based on the dwindling supply of registered nurses and the increasing demand for their clinical expertise. A report by the American Association of 

Critical Care Nurses, cited factors impacting the nursing work force supply including the declining number of nursing school graduates, job dissatisfaction, and inadequate compensation. We continuously monitor each of these factors because the 

strength of our nursing work force can best be maintained through a blend of 

counter initiatives to these dissatisfiers. 

Recruitment and Retention Initiatives

FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACCESSION SOURCES: ACTIVE DUTY 

Direct Procurement ............................................................................................................................................... 77 

Reserve Recall ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Nurse Candidate Program .................................................................................................................................... 62 

Naval Reserve Officer Training Program ............................................................................................................. 52 

Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program .......................................................................................................... 42 

Other ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5

The Navy Nurse Corps amazingly continues to meet military and civilian recruiting goals and professional nursing requirements through diversified accession 

sources, pay incentives, graduate education and training programs, and other reten-
296

tion initiatives that address quality of life and practice satisfaction. The increase of 

the maximum allowable compensation amount for the Certified Registered Nurse 

Anesthetist Incentive Special Pay (CRNA ISP) and the Nurse Accession Bonus 

(NAB) in the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act will further enhance our competitive edge in the nursing market. To meet specialty needs, such 

as critical care, mental health, midwifery and neonatal nursing, we are exploring 

the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program. Successful recruitment and retention tools have been the NAB, CRNA ISP, Board Certification Pay and the recent 

Critical Skills Retention Bonus for our uniformed members. For our civil service 

nurses, recruitment, retention and relocation bonuses; special salary rates; and Special Hire Authority have significantly decreased our vacancy rates in several of our 

facilities. All of these pay initiatives will become even more critical in the future 

years to meet our wartime and peacetime missions and maintain authorized 

endstrength. 

Now, I’d like to highlight our Navy Nurse Corps, Reserve Component. We have 

processed sixty-eight percent of our fiscal year 2003 accession goal of two hundred 

and sixty-one nurses, maintaining the same pace as last year. Beneficial incentives 

in procuring our reservists in critical wartime specialties include: the accession 

bonus, loan repayment and stipend programs for graduate education. To meet our 

contributory support mission, we are proposing to expand bonus eligibility to new 

nursing graduates. In addition, we are in the initial stages of exploring the feasibility of instituting a pipeline scholarship program for the reserve enlisted component similar to those given to our active duty colleagues. 

Education and Training Initiatives 

Since graduate education opportunities have been cited as one of our most important retention initiatives, we constantly evaluate our patient care requirements to 

annually update our Duty Under Instruction Scholarship Plan. We now focus our 

training on Master’s Degrees, Doctoral Programs, and fellowships based on operational and specialty requirements, specific health population needs and staffing 

projections. This year, we are sending several of our nurses to the recently established Perioperative Clinical Nurse Specialist Program at the Uniformed Services 

University of Health Sciences (USUHS). We look forward to the new Doctoral Program at USUHS and are currently exploring nursing post-graduate fellowship opportunities. 

Nursing internship programs have been initiated at the National Naval Medical 

Centers in Bethesda, Maryland; Portsmouth, Virginia; San Diego and the Naval 

Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida for all new nursing graduates. There have been a 

total of one hundred and forty military and civilian nurses who have completed 

their respective programs. Outcome measures for these new nurses attest to increased self-confidence with clinical practice and the ability to assume greater responsibilities which facilitates their integration into the Navy Nurse Corps. 

Navy Nursing supports national initiatives to increase the nursing work force 

numbers in several ways. Our robust scholarship pipeline programs help to support 

nursing school enrollment. Through agreements with schools of nursing, military 

treatment facilities provide varied clinical experiences and clinical experts, who may 

also serve as adjunct faculty. We also enhance the image of nursing in the community through numerous presentations and approved advertisement campaigns. 

HEALTH BENEFIT

Through an innovative framework of nursing practice, we deliver high quality, 

cost-effective and easily accessible primary and preventive health care services. Population health management has been at the forefront in various clinical settings 

through health promotion, disease management and case management programs. 

These innovations expedite a much quicker return to full-duty; decrease lost work 

hours; increase productivity and enhance customer satisfaction. 

Healthy and Fit Force 

Embracing Force Health Protection, many programs have been developed to ensure a healthy and fit force. For instance, command Preventive Health Assessment 

Programs identify at-risk active duty members and promote therapeutic lifestyle 

changes, such as in the Nurse-Managed Hyperlipidemia Clinic at our Naval Hospital in Rota, Spain. The In-Garrison Rehabilitation Platoon Program at our Naval 

Hospital in Camp Pendleton, California has expedited the Marines’ return to training through improved continuity and coordination of all aspects of patient care, saving 2,100 convalescent leave days over a two-month period. Health Promotion efforts 

instituted the Choices Program at our Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Sicily. This 

program focuses on pregnancy prevention through education, including the use of 
297

baby simulators to mimic seventy hours of parenthood. Based on a comparison 

study, female Sailors who successfully completed the course were three times less 

likely to get pregnant. Additionally, Family Nurse Practitioners continue to provide 

support to the Fleet through pierside clinical services, health promotion programs, 

and disaster training. 

Family Centered Care 

Just as the health and fitness of our military members is critical to force readiness, the health of our extended military family and other eligible beneficiaries is 

equally important. Case Management targets prevention, early diagnosis, cost effective intervention and quality outcomes. In at least four medical treatment facilities, 

Diabetes Case Management has significantly enhanced patient compliance with 

their recommended plan of care. In support of the unique needs of seriously-ill and 

terminally-ill patients, the Palliative Care Project at our Naval Medical Center in 

Portsmouth is the first of its kind in Navy Medicine. This program embraces the 

philosophy of caring during the final phase of life. Our Mother Baby Clinics provide 

follow-up visits for high risk mothers and babies for early detection and prevention 

of complications. Pediatric nurses at Naval Hospital Naples liaison with Department 

of Defense school nurses and teachers to collaborate on the development of students’ 

Asthma Action Plans based on the National Asthma Education & Prevention Guidelines. This initiative alone has decreased emergency room visits by seventy-five percent and inpatient admissions by eleven percent. Our Nurse-Run Primary Care 

Clinics use approved protocols to increase access and incorporate population health 

concepts. This sampling of the aforementioned programs demonstrates that Navy 

Nurses are innovative and have specialized knowledge that can be applied to many 

forums unique to military settings. 

BEST HEALTH CARE BUSINESS PRACTICES

Nurse Corps officers continue to be strategically placed in pivotal roles where they 

can influence legislation, health care policy and delivery systems. There are active 

duty and reserve Nurse Corps officers in executive roles, including the Deputy Surgeon General, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, Officers in Charge, policy 

makers and many others. 

Strategic Planning and E-technology 

Always striving for nursing excellence, many commands have aligned their performance metrics with the American Nurses Association Magnet Recognition Program and the Malcolm Baldridge Criteria for Excellence. These standards provide 

the framework for sustained quality patient care outcomes, visionary leadership, 

strategic planning, and exceptional staff performance. 

To enhance communication and conduct business, we have strategized and marketed clinical outcomes, research findings and business practices through video teleconferences, newsletters, conferences, and professional journals. Online clinical 

training sources, Navy e-learning modules and nursing practice resources are tested 

for effectiveness and linked through our website or Navy Medicine’s Telelibrary. 

Research

Navy Nurse Corps Research Plan: Focus on 

Deployment Health 

Developing and Sustaining Competencies 

Recruitment and Retention of the Work Force 

Education and Training Outcomes 

Clinical Resource Management 

Military Clinical Practice 

Our revised Navy Nurse Corps Research Plan provides the foundation and scope 

of military nursing research ranging from the utilization of doctoral prepared Nurse 

Corps officers to their responsibilities in leading evidenced-based practice studies. 

Placed in positions of authority and influence, our nurse researchers create health 

policies and delivery systems, advance and disseminate scientific knowledge, foster 

nursing excellence, and improve clinical outcomes. In addition, our senior nurse executives have promoted a culture of scientific-based practice in all settings from 

military treatment facilities to the operational environment. Ongoing nursing research and evidence-based practice ultimately effects quality outcome, captures cost 

effectiveness and enhances patient satisfaction. Nursing Research has become our 
298

cornerstone for excellence. In fact, we have the honor of having one of our Navy 

Nurses named ‘‘Researcher of the Year’’ by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. 

Through your support of TriService Nursing Research Program funding, research 

has been conducted at our three major medical centers, our two Recruit Training 

Centers, several Naval Hospitals, on more than six aircraft carriers and collaboratively with our uniformed colleagues and more than thirteen universities across 

the country. Navy nursing TSNRP-funded research has been published in numerous 

professional journals. 

I would like to highlight some of the research that has been supported by TSNRP 

funds. A program of research involving three studies examined Navy recruits at-risk 

for depression. After undergoing the BOOT STRAP Intervention Program, preliminary results indicated potential for decreased attrition, improved recruit performance and an identified cost-effective method of recruit retention. On the ‘‘cutting 

edge’’ of molecular research, a team led by a Navy nurse is investigating the potential use of a readily accessible drug to be used in the field to treat military personnel with respiratory problems. Through a multidisciplinary team approach to diabetic care, a third study focuses on enabling the patient’s ability to achieve mastery of self-care and live independently, with potential cost savings of $7,000–

$42,000/patient/year. Participants report more independence and greater satisfaction with the disease management intervention. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, I appreciate your tremendous support of legislative initiatives and the 

opportunity to share our accomplishments and issues that face the Navy Nurse 

Corps. Our nurses are very proud of our heritage and professional practice as 

innovators, change agents and leaders at all levels from policymaking to program 

implementation, across federal agencies and in all clinical settings. In my other role 

as Commander, Navy Medicine Education and Training Command, I fully support 

the philosophy that continuous learning and guidance for health care professionals 

is integral to enabling uniformed services personnel to meet our peacetime and wartime missions. This foundation transcends across all levels of practice and the ‘‘Five 

Rights’’ of nursing, which involves placing the right person in the right assignment 

at the right time with the right education and the right specialized training. Herein 

lies the basis of our superior performance in promoting, protecting and restoring the 

health of all entrusted to our care. 

I look forward to continuing to work with you during my tenure as the Director 

of the Navy Nurse Corps. Thank you for this great honor and privilege.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Admiral. General Brannon. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL BARBARA BRANNON, ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, AIR FORCE NURSING SERVICES AND 

COMMANDER OF MALCOLM GROW MEDICAL CENTER 

General BRANNON. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye. It is once 

again an honor and my great pleasure to present the great accomplishments of Air Force nursing. As we vigorously execute our mission at home and abroad, Air Force nurses and enlisted nursing 

personnel are meeting the increasing challenges with great professionalism and distinction. 

Aeromedical evacuation is the critical link between casualties on 

the battlefield and definitive medical care. Our superb medical 

crews and the advances in medical technology make care in the air 

more sophisticated than ever before. 

CRITICAL CARE AIR TRANSPORT TEAMS

Our critical care air transport teams or CCATTs were instrumental in the lifesaving airlift of four Afghan children who were 

caught in the crossfire of war. They received emergency care from 

an Army forward surgical team and then were treated by our 

CCATT team during the 2-hour flight to a combat Army surgical 
299

hospital. The team worked in total darkness using night vision goggles until the aircraft was out of danger. 

Medical teams from all three services have worked together very 

smoothly in the operational environment and the patient handoffs 

were virtually seamless. The teamwork has been phenomenal. Embedded journalists and continuous network coverage have enabled 

the world to watch this war unfold. 

What the world hasn’t seen is our Air Force independent duty 

medical technicians working with pararescue units at the battle’s 

forward edge, their critical skills and training and special operations have made a lifesaving difference during evacuation of the 

wounded. 

They have employed leading edge technology, and the experiences of these brave airmen have set new standards for wartime 

emergency care. While much of our energy has been directed toward wartime support, there were also exciting initiatives continuing at the home station. 

POPULATION HEALTH PROGRAMS

Last year, I talked about our great progress in deploying population health programs. We are now engaged in comprehensive 

health care optimization to improve effectiveness and efficiency of 

services in every clinical area. Nurses and medical technicians are 

the backbone of successful optimization. Their expanded support to 

providers enable not only treatment of disease, but also stronger 

focus on preventive services and population health management. 

A great example comes from Charleston Air Force Base, South 

Carolina, where primary care teams launched an aggressive preventive screening campaign. Capitalizing on technology, they use 

an automated program to generate a letter to patients in their 

birth month inviting them to come for the recommended screening. 

This is very successful and the percent who complete screening exceeds national benchmarks by 6 percent. 

NURSE CORPS GRADE STRUCTURE

The key to success in nursing is a strong nursing force, a force 

with the right numbers and with the right experience and skills. 

Today, almost 79 percent of our authorizations are in the company 

grade ranks of lieutenant and captain, with only 21 percent in field 

grade rank. Having a relatively junior Nurse Corps is a growing 

concern due to the higher acuity of our in-patients, complexity of 

outpatient care and the robust role that we play in wartime support. 

To validate a rebalance in our Nurse Corps grade structure we 

initiated a top down grade review last year, that will identify by 

position the skill and experience required. Early data shows a significant need to increase our field grade authorizations. A by-product of this increase would be a greater promotion opportunity, 

bringing it more in line with other Air Force officer specialties. We 

expect to recommend that to our leadership in the very near future. 
300

RECRUITING

Recruiting continues to be a significant challenge. We ended last 

year with 104 nurses below our authorized end strength of 3,974. 

This was significantly better due to an unusually low rate of separations. We continue to implement new recruiting strategies both 

at headquarters and local levels. We are currently working with 

our sister services to fund an increased accession bonus for a 4-

year commitment and exploring the feasibility of accession bonus 

for nurses who choose a 3-year obligation. 

Our recruiting at the Air Force Academy has been extremely successful. Six academy seniors have selected nursing for their military profession, the largest group since it became an option in 

1997. They will attend Vanderbilt University School of Nursing to 

earn a 2 year graduate degree. 

We are making great strides in enhancing the strength of our 

nursing care team by capitalizing on the talents of our enlisted personnel. We are partnering with the Army Nurse Corps to enable 

our medical technicians to attend a superb licensing program at 

Fort Sam Houston. We hope to increase the capacity of the current 

program to include 60 Air Force medics per year. 

We also recognize the needs to increase our enlisted in baccalaureate nursing programs and are exploring stipend initiatives 

similar to those used by the Navy Nurse Corps to make it easier 

for enlisted Nurse Corps to earn a BS, and be commissioned in our 

Nurse Corps. This year 300 nurses participated in a research program. Collective work expanded evidence-based nursing practices 

in several clinical and operational areas. 

AIR MEDICAL EVACUATION

A key study was on air medical evacuation. As we have increased 

the use of cargo aircraft for patient movement, the inability to control the temperature in patient areas has adversely affected the seriously ill and injured. Researchers have now identified patient location priorities and tested the effectiveness of improved monitoring and warming devices. Other researchers are using the lessons learned from our deployed nurses and technicians to validate 

war readiness training programs. 

One of the roles I enjoy most is being an advisor to the Uniformed Services University Graduate School of Nursing. They have 

made incredible progress in their first decade. Under energetic and 

visionary leadership, the school continues to grow in scope and 

build programs to meet the emerging needs of military nursing. 

Barely 2 years ago we began discussion on the feasibility of a 

master’s program in perioperative nursing, and this fall the first 

class begins. The nursing Ph.D. program also went from concept to 

reality in just 1 year and the new curriculum will prepare nursing 

leaders in research and for key roles in health care strategy and 

policy. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for allowing me to 

share just a few of the many activities of Air Force nursing with 

you today. On behalf of the men and women of the nursing services, I want to thank you for your tremendous advocacy, not only 
301

on behalf of military nursing, but also for the advancement of nursing across our Nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

You can trust that Air Force nursing will continue to serve in 

peace and war with the same professionalism, pride and patriotism 

that we have demonstrated for almost 54 years. There has never 

been a better time to be a member of the Air Force nursing team. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL BARBARA BRANNON

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am Brigadier 

General Barbara Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force Nursing Services 

and Commander of Malcolm Grow Medical Center at Andrews Air Force Base. This 

is my fourth testimony before this esteemed committee and, once again, I am very 

proud to represent Air Force Nursing and delighted to share our accomplishments 

and challenges with you. 

First and foremost, as the Air Force aggressively executes its mission in support 

of our great nation, Air Force medics are keeping our people fit and providing outstanding healthcare wherever it is needed. Air Force nurses and enlisted nursing 

personnel are meeting increasing commitments and challenges with great professionalism and distinction. Today I’d like to review the following: deployments, training, force management, optimization and research, as examples of these commitments and challenges. 

Over the past year, hundreds of Nursing Service personnel have been deployed 

to every corner of the globe to support the ongoing war on terrorism and to provide 

humanitarian relief. There are more than 400 nurses and technicians currently deployed in Expeditionary Medical Systems (EMEDS) facilities, and hundreds more 

prepared and awaiting orders to deploy. The Air Force continues to rely on an ambitious Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) rotation cycle to accomplish deployment missions and maintain home station health care services. 

In addition to supporting ongoing commitments to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, IRAQI FREEDOM and other deployments, Air Force medical personnel have 

been called frequently to support humanitarian operations throughout the world. 

Four months ago, twelve nurses and technicians from Yokota AB Japan deployed 

to Guam to assist in federal medical support in the aftermath of the devastating 

Super Typhoon Pongsona. Arriving in the middle of the night, they established initial medical capability to triage and treat casualties within 24 hours. 

Nurses and technicians also provide humanitarian support through their active 

engagement in the International Health Specialist program. They are successfully 

forging and fostering positive relationships around the world. A great example is 

Major Doreen Smith, recognized as the Air Force International Health Specialist of 

the Year in Europe 2002 for her outstanding work in Africa. She was instrumental 

in establishing the first Republic of Sierre Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) HIV/AIDS 

Prevention Committee that developed treatment protocols used by field medical 

technicians to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS. She later implemented training 

programs in both Ghana and Nigeria. 

Aeromedical evacuation remains a unique Air Force competency and our ability 

to respond to urgent transport requirements is second to none. Nurses and technicians were integral members of teams providing care during the evacuation of over 

2,548 patients from forward areas in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI 

FREEDOM. Aeromedical evacuation is the critical link between casualties on the 

front lines and progressive levels of restorative healthcare abroad and in the continental United States. 

Captain Michael McCarthy was on a Critical Care Air Transport Team mission 

over hostile territory to rescue two CIA operatives critically injured during the prison uprising in Kandahar, Afghanistan. This was not a typical mission for our critical care team—the mission was flown in blackout conditions due to Special Operations requirements. Captain McCarthy’s expert critical care saved the life of a casualty whose condition deteriorated in-flight. He received the prestigious Dolly 

Vinsant Flight Nurse Award from the Commemorative Air Force for his heroic actions on this mission. 
302

The tremendous accomplishments of our Air Force Flight Nurses have also been 

heralded by civilian flight nurse organizations. The Air and Surface Transport 

Nurses Association (ASTNA) presented the 2002 Matz-Mason Award to Captain 

Greg Rupert, Critical Care Air Transport Team Program Coordinator, Lackland 

AFB, Texas, for exceptional leadership and positive impact on flight nursing on a 

global scale. 

Three years ago the Air Force identified that many medical personnel’s peacetime 

healthcare responsibilities did not adequately sustain their proficiency in critical 

wartime skills. Medical career field managers and specialty consultants developed 

the specific readiness skills required for each specialty and established training intervals to ensure our people were prepared to meet deployment requirements. This 

year, we refined the program based on lessons learned in the deployed environment. 

As I briefed last year, the Air Force has entered into partnerships with civilian 

academic medical centers to provide intense training for nurses and technicians 

prior to deployment. The first ‘‘Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness 

Skills’’ (CSTARS) was initiated in January 2002 at the Shock Trauma Center in 

Baltimore. This program provides our health care personnel with valuable handson clinical experience that covers the full spectrum of acute trauma management, 

from first response to the scene, during transport, to trauma unit care, to operating 

room intervention and finally to management in the intensive care unit. The threeweek session also incorporates the Advanced Trauma Care Course for nurses and 

the Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support Course for our medical technicians. To date, 

over 200 personnel have been trained in Baltimore. 

Building on the success of this first site, the Air Force has developed and opened 

two new CSTARS programs, one at St. Louis University primarily for the Air National Guard (ANG) team training, and the other at the University Hospital of Cincinnati for Reserve teams. The St. Louis program started in January 2003, and we 

expect to train over 270 personnel during their two-week annual tour. Early feedback is impressive as reflected by an end-of-course survey comment, ‘‘this is far and 

away the greatest training program I have been able to attend in the Air Force/

ANG’’. 

The CSTARS partnership between the University of Maryland Medical Center 

(UMMC) and the Air Force was key to the great success of the exercise ‘‘Free State 

Response 2002’’ conducted in Baltimore, Maryland in July of last year. The purpose 

of the exercise was to train as many people as possible in community disaster response and to foster effective coordination and collaboration between agencies involved in disaster management. The exercise received wide media coverage in the 

national capital area and was judged a huge success. 

Expeditionary Medical Systems (EMEDS) is a five-day course that provides 

hands-on field training for personnel assigned to EMEDS deployment packages to 

prepare them to work in the operational environment. There are currently three 

sites for EMEDS training: Brooks City Base, Texas primarily for active duty, 

Sheppard AFB, Texas for Reserves, and at Alpena, Michigan for ANG personnel. So 

far, 3,608 personnel have been trained in this critical operational requirement. 

Overall trends in healthcare delivery and the National Defense Authorization Act 

of 2001, allowing care for beneficiaries over age 65, have resulted in an increase in 

the acuity and complexity of the patients we serve. This has increased the need for 

experienced nurse clinicians. Facility chief nurses have expressed growing concerns 

over the challenge of providing the most effective care with a relatively junior staff. 

In our military system, rank reflects the relative experience of the individual. When 

we look at our current Nurse Corps force structure, we note that more than 72 percent of our authorizations are for second lieutenants, first lieutenants and captains. 

These nurses range from ‘‘novice to proficient’’ in their nursing skills. Nurses at the 

major and lieutenant colonel level are ‘‘expert to master’’ in their practice. The ratio 

of company grade to field grade nurses is significantly higher than for other medical 

career fields or the line of the Air Force. 

To correct the imbalance in our mix of novice and expert nurses, authorizations 

for field grade nurses would need to be increased. The Air Force Nurse Corps has 

initiated a Top Down Grade Review (TDGR) to identify, justify, and recommended 

needed adjustments. We are nearing the end of our data collection and research 

phase of the study and anticipate draft recommendations for our surgeon general 

in the next couple of months. If approved, and if additional field grade billets are 

indicated, the process to adjust authorizations among career fields can be initiated 

with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s approval. 

In a separate but related issue, the Nurse Corps has the poorest promotion opportunity among Air Force officers. With only 28 percent of our authorizations in field 

grade ranks compared to 46 percent in the line of the Air Force, it is easy to understand why so many excellent officers are not getting selected for promotion. This 
303

lack of promotion opportunity is a major source of dissatisfaction in our Nurse 

Corps. The inequity in promotion opportunity has caught the eye of many line and 

medical commanders and garnered some support for our TDGR initiative. It is anticipated that a TDGR would validate increases in field grade Nurse Corps requirements. An increase in field authorizations would improve Nurse Corps promotion 

opportunity and bring it closer to that of other Air Force Officers. 

Although the programs instituted on a national level to address the nursing crisis 

are encouraging, recruiting enough nurses to fill positions is still a huge challenge 

across the United States and in many other nations. Last year was the fourth consecutive year the Air Force Nurse Corps has failed to meet our recruiting goal. We 

have recruited approximately 30 percent less than the goal each year since fiscal 

year 1999. At the end of fiscal year 2002, we had 104 fewer nurses than our authorized end strength of 3974. Early personnel projections forecasted we would end the 

year 400 nurses under end strength. Our final end strength reflects an abnormally 

low number of separations last year, 136 compared to our historical average of 330. 

Our fiscal year 2003 recruiting goal is 363 nurses, and, as of February 2003, 100 

have been selected for direct commission. This year recruiting service is able to offer 

an accession loan repayment of up to $26,000 as an incentive. With $6.2 million 

available to fund this initiative, we are hopeful that it will be as successful as last 

years retention loan repayment program and boost our accession numbers closer to 

the goal. 

Last year we revived an earlier policy that allowed Associate Degree (ADN) 

nurses who had a Baccalaureate degree in a health-related field to join the Nurse 

Corps. This was in response to Recruiting Service’s belief that this would give access 

to a robust pool of recruits. But, in reality, only 13 ADN nurses were commissioned 

under this carefully monitored program. I rescinded the policy in October 2002 since 

it did not produce the desired effect. 

We continue to recruit nurses up to the age of 47 because it proved very successful in fiscal year 2002. Thirty-four nurses over age 40 were commissioned into the 

Air Force last year. Many of them have the critical care skills and leadership we 

need to meet our readiness mission and most have the years of experience to make 

them valuable mentors for our novice nurses. 

‘‘We are all recruiters’’ is our battle cry as we tackle the daunting task of recruiting the nurses we need, and I continue to partner closely with recruiting groups to 

energize our recruiting strategies. Among other activities, I have written personal 

letters to nurses inviting them to consider Air Force Nursing careers and have 

manned recruiting booths at professional conferences. I look for opportunities to 

highlight and advertise the exciting opportunities Air Force Nurses enjoy, and have 

had nurses featured in print media coverage. I encourage each nurse wearing ‘‘Air 

Force’’ blue to visit their alma mater and nursing schools near their base of assignment to make presentations to prospective recruits. I have also assigned four nurses 

to work directly in recruiting groups to focus exclusively on nurse recruiting. Recruiters are using innovative marketing materials that my staff helped develop to 

champion Air Force Nursing at conferences, in their website, and in other publicity 

campaigns. 

Retention is another key factor in our end strength. In an effort to identify factors 

impacting separations, I directed the Chief Nurse of every facility to interview 

nurses who voluntarily separate. Exit interviews were standardized to facilitate 

identification of the factors that most influenced nurses to separate. Nurses indicated they might have elected to remain on active duty if staffing improved, if 

moves were less frequent, if they had an option to work part time, or if they could 

better balance work and family responsibilities. Most of these are requirements of 

military life that cannot be changed by the Nurse Corps. With regards to staffing, 

our nurse-patient ratios are fairly generous compared to civilian staffing models. 

The Air Force Medical Service has launched an aggressive initiative to develop 

standardized staffing models for functions across all medical facilities to optimize 

staffing effectiveness. 

We are developing a new survey for all nurses to identify workplace/environmental impediments so we can target opportunities to increase satisfaction. We continue to recommend Reserve, National Guard, and Public Health Service transfers 

for those who desire a more stable home environment but enjoy military service and 

can meet deployment requirements. 

We appreciate the continued support for the critical skills retention bonus authorized in the fiscal year 2001 NDAA. The Health Professional Loan Repayment Program, implemented in fiscal year 2002, was embraced by 241 active duty nurses 

saddled with educational debt. These nurses had between six months and eight 

years of total service and were willing to accept an additional 2-year active duty obligation in exchange for loan repayment of up to $25,000. This program improved 
304

our immediate retention of nurses and has great potential to boost long-term retention in critical year groups. 

The TriService Health Professions Special Pay Working Group identified Certified 

Registered Nurse Anesthesiologists (CRNAs) and Perioperative Nurses as critically 

manned and therefore eligible for a retention bonus. This program was enthusiastically welcomed with 66 percent of eligible CRNAs and 98 percent of Perioperative 

Nurses applying for a critical skills retention bonus in exchange for a one-year service commitment. 

We are looking at the benefits of increasing the number of civilian nurses in our 

workforce. We are grateful for the support of Congress in implementing U.S. Code 

Title 10 Direct Hire Authority to streamline the civilian nurse hiring process. During the period from August to December 2002, the Air Force was able to use direct 

hire to bring 14 new civilian registered nurses on duty. With use of Direct Hire Authority, positions that had been vacant for as long as 18 months were filled within 

weeks. Our ability to hire civilian nurses would be greatly enhanced if we could hire 

at a competitive salary. We greatly appreciate your support and interest in Title 38-

like pay authority for health professions. 

We are delighted to report that this year six Air Force Academy graduates selected the profession of nursing for their career field. This is the largest group to 

choose nursing since the option was instituted in 1997. Cadets selected for direct 

entry into the Nurse Corps attend Vanderbilt University School of Nursing via the 

Health Professions Scholarship Program. This accelerated degree program allows 

non-nurses with a bachelor’s degree to obtain a master’s degree in nursing after two 

years of study. To date, eight academy graduates have completed this program. 

Graduates of the Vanderbilt program have the leadership skills gained at the Academy coupled with a nursing degree from a prestigious university. They are prepared 

as advanced practice nurses and have the leadership base and potential to become 

top leaders in military healthcare. 

Air Force Nursing has been actively engaged in optimizing the contributions of 

our enlisted medical technicians by expanding their responsibilities and, in some 

cases, merging skill sets. In November 2002, the Air Force consolidated three career 

fields, the aeromedical technician, medical service technician and public health technician. We now have two key career fields, the aerospace medical service technician 

and public health technician. This consolidation provides more robustly trained enlisted medics and increases manpower to support force health protection and emergency response. In this transition, every health care facility stood up a Force Health 

Management element responsible for ensuring designated personnel are medically 

cleared, prepared and ready to deploy at a moment’s notice. 

Air Force Independent Duty Medical Technicians (IDMTs) have been tasked to 

support an expanding variety of missions and have become high demand, low-density assets. In Operation Enduring Freedom, they have been added to Special Forces 

teams for a variety of missions. IDMTs have provided medical care during prisoner 

transports, on an expedition into Tibet for recovery of remains, on drug interdiction 

operations, in austere, remote locations and on the front lines. This year, we are 

substituting IDMTs for the medical technicians assigned to our Squadron Medical 

Elements, teams deployed with flying squadrons to provide medical care in the operational environment. To support these additional taskings, we have increased our 

IDMT training program from 108 to 168 per year. 

We continue our efforts to expand the scope of enlisted nursing practice through 

licensed practical nurse (LPN) training programs. This past year, we continued to 

send personnel to St. Phillip’s College in San Antonio, Texas for a six-month program that prepares graduates to take the state board LPN licensure exam. To date, 

48 medical technicians have completed the LPN program at St. Phillips College. 

This year, we are partnering with the Army Licensed Vocational Nurse Program to 

provide a more structured and comprehensive training program and increase our 

numbers of graduates to 60 students per year. As of 1 November 2002, a special 

experience identifier was implemented to provide visibility in the personnel system 

for licensed practice nurses and enable appropriate assignment actions. 

We are successfully maintaining our medical enlisted end strength. The overall 

manning for technicians in the aerospace medical service career field remains above 

90 percent, which can be construed as a positive reflection of satisfaction and the 

impact of quality of life initiatives. The neurology technician career field has been 

critically manned for some time, and I am pleased to report that the implementation 

of a selective reenlistment bonus has been very successful. The neurology career 

field manning has improved from 69.2 percent in May 2001 to 88.5 percent in November 2002 and is projected to grow to over 90 percent with the graduation of the 

next training course. 
305

Nursing services is actively engaged in optimizing health care. This maintains a 

healthy, fit and ready force, improves the health status of our enrolled population 

and to provides health care more efficiently and effectively. The Air Force has seen 

continuing growth in the success of Primary Care Optimization (PCO) and we are 

now beginning the optimization of specialty services throughout our system, moving 

towards Health Care Optimization (HCO). Nurses and medical technicians continue 

to be the backbone of successful optimization, and we are refining the roles of the 

ambulatory care nurse, medical service technician, and Health Care Integrator 

(HCI) to ensure the patient receives the right care, at the right time, by the right 

provider. 

The PCO team is the epicenter for preventive services, management of population 

health and treatment of disease. We use civilian benchmarking to assess our 

healthcare outcomes and progress. The Health Plan Employer Data and Information 

Set (HEDIS) measures the health of our population and compares our outcomes to 

those of comparable civilian health plans. Using ideas generated from ‘‘Best Practices’’, we have seen impressive increases in the indicators of good diabetic management. In fact, 91 percent of Air Force facilities exceed the quality indicators for diabetic control measured through blood screening. 

Air Force facilities have been highlighted for other outstanding achievements in 

healthcare. Nurses and technicians at VA/DOD Joint Venture, 3rd Medical Group 

(MDG), Elmendorf AFB, AK were part of a project to increase the involvement of 

family and friends in patient care. This initiative’s tremendous success led to the 

facility’s selection by the Picker Institute as the #1 Benchmark Hospital in the 

United States for patient-centered surgical dimensions of care. 

In the 3rd MDG’s ICU and multi-service unit (MSU), Air Force and Veteran Affairs (VA) nursing personnel are working side-by-side to deliver the highest quality 

care to DOD and VA beneficiaries. Air Force nurses train VA nurses in the MSU 

and VA nurses train Air Force nurses in the ICU. The robust and successful professional collaboration is the bedrock of this joint venture. 

Another great success in ambulatory care is the implementation of a populationbased approach to case management. This program proactively targets at-risk populations and individuals along the health care continuum. One of our leading case 

managers, Lt. Col. Beth Register at Eglin AFB, FL has built an integrated approach 

that allows her six team members to each manage 50 cases, 200 percent above civilian industry caseload standards. Lt. Col. Register is preparing a TriService Nursing 

Research grant proposal to look at ‘‘Efficacy of Case Management at an Air Force 

Facility’’ and to test and validate the success of this case management program. 

Air Force nurse researchers continue to provide the answers to clinical questions 

that improve the science and the practice of nursing. Twenty-three Air Force nurses 

are actively engaged in TriService Nursing Research Program (TNSRP) funded research. 

The TNSRP-funded Nurse Triage Demonstration Project is in its second and final 

year of looking at the effective and efficient delivery of TeleHealth Nursing Practice. 

There have been some demonstrated positive outcomes. Clinical practice has been 

standardized through the use of medically approved telephone practice protocols; 

documentation has been improved through computer-based technologies and training programs have been developed and implemented. 

Another study conducted on in-flight invasive hemodynamic monitoring identified 

inaccuracies due to procedural variance. The recommendations resulted in significant process changes—and for the first time change was driven by scientific research. These process changes will be incorporated into the training programs for 

Critical Care Air Transport Teams (CCATT) and Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) 

nurses. 

The nurse researchers at Wilford Hall Medical Center in Texas are studying the 

care of critical patients in unique military environments. One of these studies 

looked at physiological responses to in-flight thermal stress in cargo aircraft used 

for aeromedical evacuation. The study identified areas in the aircraft where thermal 

stress was at a level that could be detrimental to critically ill patients. They also 

identified previously unrecognized limitations in accurate measurement of patient 

oxygenation during flight. These findings led to a study of warming devices to protect trauma victims from the deleterious effects of thermal stress following exposure 

in cold field environments or on cargo aircraft. 

It has been an exciting year for the Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed 

Services University and it is wonderful to be part of the planning for the development of a PhD nursing program. This program is crucial for Air Force Nursing to 

help us build leaders who are strategically prepared to lead in our unique military 

nursing environment. 
306

CLOSING REMARKS

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I have had the 

opportunity to lead the men and women of Air Force Nursing Services for three 

years and each has been full of new challenges, great opportunities and many rewards. Our nurses and aerospace medical technicians remain ready to support our 

Air Force by delivering best-quality healthcare in peace, in humanitarian endeavors 

and in war. The escalation of world tensions in the last year has afforded a showcase for their enormous talent, stalwart patriotism and devotion to duty. On behalf 

of Air Force Nursing, I thank this committee for your tremendous support of military men and women, and in particular, for the special recognition and regard you 

have shown for our nurses. We are forever grateful for your advocacy and leadership. Thank you and may GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much, all of you and 

General, thank you very much for your appearances before our 

committee and wish you well in your further endeavors. I’m going 

to have to excuse myself now. I had an appointment at noon. This 

is one of the strangest days. Senator Inouye will complete the hearing. Thank you very much. 

NURSE SHORTAGE

Senator INOUYE [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I believe all of you are aware, the American Hospital Association just 

announced that there is a shortage at this moment in excess of 

126,000 nurses in our Nation’s hospitals, and the American Medical Association announced that by the year 2020, this shortage will 

exceed 400,000. 

Add to this the fact that all three services have had to send and 

deploy nurses to Operation Iraqi Freedom. My question to all of 

you is that during this period, were we able to provide appropriate, 

adequate, and effective nursing care to the patients at home here? 

General BESTER. Senator, I can answer that question with an unequivocal yes. I think each one of our facilities has carefully looked 

at our nursing staffing situations with our Reserve backfill. Of 

course, as you had mentioned earlier not at the level that we would 

like to see it, but certainly with the Reserve backfill that we have 

got with hiring some additional contract nurses, and then with the 

support the continued support of our civilian nursing staff, we have 

looked at the staffing situation by hospital. 

In some cases, it means that we have had to divert some patients 

downtown and in some cases, on rare cases we have had to close 

or at least decrease the number of operational beds that we have, 

but I think we have always kept our focus on the quality of care 

to be sure that we are providing the same quality of care that we 

did prior to the war. 

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Senator, I believe the answer all boils down 

to great attitude and team spirit. We watched very carefully as we 

deployed several hundred nurses and saw our wonderful Reservists 

step in who are used to working in our facility anyway during their 

Reserve time, as well as our civilian nurses, our backbone. 

We also are in line with the Institute on Health Care Improvement, with their big safety initiatives. We have safety programs 

that occur in our hospitals constantly looking for any discrepancies 

in care. We have seen zero, and I’m truly confident that our patients continue to receive the best and safest care that they possibly can, both in the war scenario, as well as back at our MTFs. 
307

HOSPITAL SERVICES REDUCTION

Senator INOUYE. I have been told that in some facilities they had 

to curtail certain services like obstetrical surgery and such. Did we 

experience anything like that? 

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Senator, we have curtailed slightly. We 

worked with the network to take care of those patients, but between what we expected compared to what truly did happen, there 

wasn’t that big of a difference. 

Senator INOUYE. So Bethesda is still a full-service hospital? 

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Yes, sir. 

General BRANNON. Yes. I would echo the comments from my colleagues with careful attention to staffing ratios and the acuity of 

the patients in our facilities. We have been able to ensure that the 

care we are rendering is just as safe as when we had those other 

nurses who were deployed. 

We did get some backfill after many of our nurses deployed, and 

that enabled us to keep full services at most installations. Occasionally we needed to close beds and divert patients downtown. At 

most facilities it was temporary until the acuity of the patients was 

lower, the same procedure we use in peacetime. 

SPECIALIZED TRAINING

Senator INOUYE. Very few of our nurses have combat care experience. What sort of specialized training did you provide to prepare 

them for this? General? 

General BESTER. Senator, our nurses are actively engaged in a 

number of programs. First of all, as was mentioned by General 

Peake of the Army Trauma Training Center down at Ryder Trauma Training Center in Miami is a place where we train all of our 

forward surgical teams. We have five full time Army Nurse Corps 

officers assigned to that facility and in just this last year, we have 

trained 290 Army Nurse Corps officers, both active and Reserve 

through that facility. 

We send our nurses to the combat casualty care course, a 9-day 

course in San Antonio, that they experience taking care of patients 

under combatlike conditions. General Peake initiated a couple 

years back a superb type of program that is now mandatory to take 

before any of our courses, short courses that we take. And so many 

of our Nurse Corps officers are actively engaged in that training. 

We feel in addition to that, we have a lot of professional training 

that goes on. We have some facilities that actually have medical 

sites, and they do real wartime training in those facilities. We feel 

we have kept well ahead of that rolling ball as far as training our 

nurses on a continual basis, so we feel they were very well prepared when it came time for them to deploy. 

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Senator, we saw this coming and in order 

to increase our comfort level, a while ago, we instituted training 

not only for our nurses but for the teams, the corpsmen, the physicians, as well as the nurses who would be dealing with combat casualties. 

As I stated in my testimony, we instituted trauma training 

courses with LA County. That’s working very well. We also have 

joined our sister services in some of their training as General 
308

Bester just alluded to, such as the combat casualty care course. 

Across all of our joint service nurses, many of them go to that, as 

well as to our education and training command. We offer many 

courses and again I’m fully confident that they are trained very 

well. 

General BRANNON. Well, I think training is one of the real 

strengths in our Air Force and in our air expeditionary platforms. 

We ensure that people go for the training they need prior to deployment. 

What we have done in the medical service is identify, by task, 

all of the skills needed by people who are in specific deployment 

modules and we make sure that they have current training in each 

of those tasks. We have set up a modular deploying medical force 

sized from very small units all the way up to our EMEDS unit, 

which provide more sustaining patient care. 

For those smaller, more acute critical teams, we use the Baltimore shock trauma system at the University of Maryland for training through a collaborative partnership. That program has been in 

existence for more than 1 year. We have trained more than a couple of hundred medics including 70-some nurses. We also have 

EMEDS training in San Antonio at Brooks City Base. All of our 

EMEDS people go through that training prior to deployment. 

Finally, for many years we have had the Top Start programs at 

different medical centers where medics, both enlisted and officers, 

get training for a variety of tasks and procedures. It is a great performance-based training. 

PERCENTAGE OF MALE NURSES

Senator INOUYE. One last question, and I will submit the rest 

and Senator Stevens has requested that his questions be submitted 

also. What percentage of your nurses in the Army are male? 

General BESTER. Senator, at the current time, 36 percent. 

Senator INOUYE. Navy? 

Admiral LESCAVAGE. One-third of our nurses or 3,200. 

General BRANNON. A little over 30 percent, sir. Similar percentage. 

Senator INOUYE. I’m glad to see it coming up. For too long, nursing has been looked upon as a secondary position filled with women 

only. And apparently, this is a man’s world yet, and so the more 

men you get, the bigger pay you’ll get. That’s not a nice thing to 

say, but——

General BRANNON. It is very true. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator INOUYE. Those are the facts of life around here. Without 

objection, all of the statements of the witnesses will be made part 

of the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]
309

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO VICE ADMIRAL MICHAEL L. COWAN

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

DEPLOYMENT OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL

Question. The staff’s discussions with the Surgeons General indicate that the 

Services have backfilled for deployed medical personnel at the Medical Treatment 

Facilities at varying levels. 

Some of the Services are relying more heavily on private sector care rather than 

backfilling for deployed medical personnel. 

To what extent has the recent deployment of military medical personnel affected 

access to care at military treatment facilities? What are you doing to ensure adequate access to care during this time? 

Answer. We have been able to maintain services required to address the needs 

of both patients coming in from the battlefields and those seeking regular care 

through significant deliberate planning. We implemented core doctrine and conducted intense scrutiny of Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) services availability. 

We identified the appropriate reservists to support the Military Treatment Facilities 

(MTFs) in maintaining services, in some cases adding contract personnel. Each week 

we tracked the availability of services at each MTF. Our MTF personnel, along with 

activated reservists worked at unsustainable levels during the deployment and were 

able to ensure that access to care was maintained at all MTFs. A survey of activated 

reservists is now underway to fully assess the productivity and effectiveness of all 

of our personnel, including our reserve support in ensuring that access to care was 

maintained for all beneficiaries during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

MOBILIZED RESERVISTS IN MEDICAL SPECIALTIES

Question. What percentage of mobilized Reservists in medical specialties are being 

used to backfill positions in the United States? 

Answer. Backfilling of Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) using Reservists in 

medical specialties is determined on a ‘‘case-by-case’’ basis, and approved by USD 

(P&R). During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the Navy was approved to backfill 

Navy MTFs (in a phased plan) at a rate of 53 percent of deployed active duty medical personnel. Due to the short course of OIF, Navy MTFs were actually backfilled 

at 43 percent. 

Question. Are there shortages of personnel in some specialties? If so, which specialties are undermanned and by how much? 

Answer. 

Dental Corps 

Due to a significant downward trend in retention of LT/LCDR General Dentists 

coupled with significant under execution of CNRC DC accessions the Dental Corps 

is undermanned; specifically Oral Surgeons, Endodontists, and General Dentists. 

Dental Corps overall manning has been trending downward for the last three 

years, ending fiscal year 2002 at 94.4 percent manning (1,294 INV/1,370 BA or 

¥76). The EFY 2003 projection is estimated at <90 percent. 

In addition to General Dentists, the Oral Surgeon and Endodontist communities 

are significantly short due to reduced numbers of officers entering the training pipeline as direct impact from the shortfall in the General Dentist community, and an 

increase in the loss rates in these communities.

Corps Specialty (PSUB) INV BA PCT ∂/¥

Fiscal 

Year 

2004

Fiscal 

Year 

2005

DC—Dentist (1,700) .................................................................. 486 594 82 ¥108 80 78

DC—Oral Surg(1,750J/K) ........................................................... 66 82 80 ¥16 78 72

DC—Endodontist (1,710J/K) ...................................................... 44 52 85 ¥8 83 80

The remaining Dental Corps specialties are stable at this time with sufficient 

gains to compensate for losses, but is anticipated to become a problem in the future 

if General Dentist retention and accessions is not significantly improved, as this is 

the applicant pool for specialty training. 

Medical Corps 

The Medical Corps continues to have difficulty in retaining certain specialties. 

The Medical Corps has less than 80 percent manning in Anesthesia, Radiology, General Surgery, Pathology, and Radiation Oncology. Internal Medicine and subspecial-
310

ties (84 percent) and Dermatology (83 percent) are near the critical point of under 

manning. 

Inability to access or retain specialties noted above can be attributed to significant 

military-civilian pay gaps and declining number of quality of work attributes that 

once made practicing in Navy Medicine enticing over the private sector (e.g., increased operational tempo). Additionally, the changing face of medicine in the civilian sector (e.g., fewer applicants for medical school and even fewer medical school 

graduates going into the above specialties) is affecting Navy Medicine as well. 

The primary pipeline for Navy physicians is the Health Professions Scholarship 

Program (HPSP), which brings in 300 of the 350 individuals entering as medical 

students. The HPSP recruiting goal for fiscal year 2003 is 300. The Navy is behind 

in recruiting in that by May, there are usually about 150 recruited. Presently there 

are only 51. It should be noted that not only is the number of HPSP recruits diminishing, but the quality has also decreased when utilizing MCAT scores as an indicator of quality. In he past, HPSP recipients had MCAT scores of 26–30. Applicants 

with scores as low as 22 are being considered in order to fill quotas. 

Medical Service Corps 

Retention in the Medical Service Corps is good overall. End of fiscal year 2002 

manning was at 98.5 percent with projections for the next two years at or near 98 

percent manning. However, difficulties remain in retaining highly skilled officers in 

a variety of clinical and scientific professions. 

The Medical Service Corps is comprised of 32 different health care specialties in 

administrative, clinical, and scientific fields. The education requirements are unique 

for each field; most require graduate level degrees, many at the doctoral level. 

Biochemistry, Entomology, and Podiatry are undermanned by more than 10 percent. Average yearly loss rates are high in Biochemistry, Physiology, Environmental 

Health, Dietetics, Optometry, Pharmacy, and Psychology. Loss rates this year are 

very high for Microbiologists & Social Workers. 

The Medical Service Corps does not have available to them retention tools or special pays for scientists and very limited ones for clinicians such as Optometrists, 

Pharmacists, and Podiatrists. 

Nurse Corps 

The Nurse Corps continues to be healthy considering the national nursing shortage. The affect of a decreasing number of students who choose nursing as a career 

and the ever-increasing demand for professional nursing services will need to be 

closely monitored to ensure Navy Nurse Corps is able to meet the requisite number 

and specialty skill mix. 

Ability to meet Navy Nurse Corps requirements are due to concerted efforts in 

diversifying accession sources and increased retention rates and as a direct result 

of pay incentives and graduate education opportunities. 

Hospital Corps 

The Hospital Corps continues to have difficulty in retaining certain specialties. 

Currently there is less than 80 percent manning in 11 Hospital Corps and one Dental Technician NEC. Inability to access or retain some of these specialties can be 

attributed to significant military-civilian pay gaps. 

Question. Are there other ways of structuring the staffing of military medical 

units that might help address shortages in a few specialties, such as making increased use of civilian contractors or DOD civilian personnel in MTFs stateside? 

Answer. MTF Commanders have been tasked with creating business plans for the 

optimal operation of medical treatment facilities within each market area. An integral part of the business planning process is the assessment of the supply of critical 

staffing as compared with the expected demand in a given market. MTF Commanders use this analysis in determining shortfalls of critical medical staff. Meeting 

these critical requirements can be accomplished using a variety of methods. MTF 

Commanders may shift existing DOD civilian personnel where feasible, hire additional contract personnel or request changes in the billet structure via Manpower 

at the Bureau of Medicine. 

Question. Is DOD considering any changes to the mix of active duty and reserve 

personnel in medical specialties? 

Answer. At this time, no changes are anticipated regarding the mix of active and 

reserve personnel within medical specialties from Navy Medicine’s perspective. Various studies have been initiated but the current view of casualty causes for OEF 

and OIF do not suggest that any major changes in force structure mix or specialty 

will be necessary. 
311

MONITORING THE HEALTH OF GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL

Question. An April 2003 GAO report documents deficiencies by the Army in monitoring the health of the early-deploying reservists. Annual health screening is required to insure that reserve personnel are medically fit for deployment when call 

upon. 

Review found that 49 percent of early-deploying reservists lacked a current dental 

exam, and 68 percent of those over age 40 lacked a current biennial physical exam. 

What improvements have been made to the medical information systems to track 

the health care of reservists? Are they electronic, do they differ among services? 

Answer. The Naval Reserve is utilizing the Reserve Automated Medical Interim 

System (RAMIS), a web-based Oracle product, deployed in March 2002 to serve as 

an interim system until the Naval Reserve’s full participation in the Theater Medical Information Program (TMIP). The system tracks medical and dental readiness 

requirements and provides roll up reporting capabilities to produce a ‘‘readiness 

snapshot’’ for unit commanders, activity commanding officers and headquarters. 

Plans are currently being drafted to begin development work in 2004 for an all Navy 

(Active/Reserve) web-based system using technology from RAMIS and a Navy active 

duty product, SAMS Population Health. This product will be part of TMIP and will 

provide interoperability between all DOD components and services. 

NUMBER OF RESERVISTS WITH MEDICAL PROBLEMS

Question. During the mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom, how many reservists could not be deployed for medical reasons? 

Answer. 436 Naval Reservists were unable to be deployed due to disqualifying 

medical or dental reasons. 

NUMBER OF RESERVISTS NOT IN DENTAL CLASS 1 OR 2

Question. How many deployments were delayed due to dental reasons, and how 

many reservists are not in Dental class 1 or 2? 

Answer. The Naval Reserve averages 90 percent of our personnel in dental categories 1 and 2. We estimate that less than 1,600 personnel out of more than 20,000 

Naval Reservists mobilized (approximately 8 percent) were delayed for any amount 

of time for dental reasons. 

Question. What is the current enrollment rate in the TRICARE Dental Program 

for reservists and what action has DOD taken to encourage reservists to enroll in 

TDP? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2003 end strength numbers for eligible Navy and Marine 

Corps Selected Reserve sponsors is estimated to be 127,358 (Navy Reserve 87,800 

and Marine Corps Reserve 39,558). TDP enrollments as of January 2003 for this eligible population were 8,599 (Navy Reserve 6,566 and Marine Corps Reserve 2,033). 

These figures represent a 6.8 percent enrollment rate. Marketing of the TRICARE 

Dental Program (TDP) to all eligible populations is conducted by the TDP contractor. The initial marketing effort by the contractor entailed sending TDP information to each reserve and guard unit. Quantities of information sent were based 

on unit end strengths. Health Affairs policy 98–021 directed the services to ensure 

all members of the Selected Reserve undergo an annual dental examination. The 

documenting tool provided by HA is DD Form 2813; DOD Reserve Forces Dental 

Examination. A provision in the TDP contract requires network providers to complete the DD Form 2813 for TDP enrolled reservists. It is the responsibility of the 

reservist to present the form to the dentist. The Defense Manpower Data Center 

(DMDC) provides the TDP contractor quarterly file listing newly eligible sponsors. 

This file is used for the ongoing marketing efforts under the TDP. The TDP contractor has also established a website for the TDP. The contractor has a staff of 

Dental Benefits Advisors (DBA) that travel to military installations to include reserve and guard facilities. TMA’s Communications & Customer Service marketing 

office has worked with Reserve Affairs to developed and post TDP fact sheets on 

the TMA website that are linked to other reserve and guard websites and the TDP 

contractor. 

REMAINING MEDICAL AND DENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Question. What needs to be done and what will it cost to ensure that reservists 

are medically and dentally fit for duty? 

Answer. The Reserve Components have little or no identified funding support for 

medical and dental readiness and, under Title 10 authority, are not eligible for Defense Health Program (DHP) funds. OSD(RA) is presently drafting a White Paper 

in support of a Reserve Health Program that will require a separate appropriation 
312

to support Medical/Dental Readiness for the seven Reserve/Guard Components. Cost 

estimates will be available when the White Paper is complete. 

REPERCUSSIONS FOR UNFIT UNIT MEMBERS

Question. Are there any repercussions for commanders who do not ensure that 

their troops are fit for duty? 

Answer. Unit commanders are responsible for ensuring personnel are trained and 

ready in all aspects, including medical and dental fitness, for mobilization. Unit 

commanders are evaluated and ranked, in part, in Fitness Reports based upon total 

unit readiness. 

COMBAT TREATMENT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Question. All of the Services have undertaken transformation initiatives to improve how medical care is provided to our front line troops. 

The initiatives have resulted in more modular, deployable medical units which are 

scalable in size to meet the mission. 

How well have your forward deployed medical support units and the small modular units performed in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom? 

Answer. Most of the information provided is anecdotal. We will not have significant formal input until the ‘‘lessons learned’’ are provided by the deployed platforms 

and the receiving component commanders. The formal collection of feedback is still 

ongoing as units return from Iraq. Initial reports indicate that the 116 bed Expeditionary Medical Facilities forward-deployed into Iraq functioned as they were designed. The 250-bed Fleet Hospital staged in Rota, Spain also functioned well. The 

USNS Comfort was on station, on time to receive casualties. The casualties received 

were handled well. Use of the Comfort by the theater commands raised issues related to inter-theater movement of patients. These issues are being reviewed as part 

of the overall assessment of CASEVAC/MEDEVAC. The Casualty Receiving and 

Treatment Ships were stationed and staffed as required. Due to the nature of the 

conflict, they saw limited action. The Forward Resuscitative Surgical Systems were 

deployed in pairings with the surgical companies. These locations were less far forward than initially planned and the optimal placement is under review. Reports 

from Level II and Level III facilities strongly support that interventions by the 

FRSS were critical in saving lives that might have been lost in previous conflicts. 

Three PM–MMART teams were deployed to Iraq and were highly successful in providing disease vector assessment/control, epidemiology and epidemiological humanitarian support, industrial and environmental site assessment, sanitation assessment 

and public health education. 

Question. What are some of the lessons learned from our experience in Iraq? 

Answer. Smaller, lighter, more mobile works and works well. Task orienting enhances the likelihood of success. Communications in the field between Level I care 

and higher levels are not optimal. This is also true for inter-service communication. 

Component UIC’s work and work well. Management of the component UIC’s needs 

to remain centrally located. Arbitrary peripheral changes to platforms by individuals and units disrupted the ability to fully staff platforms with qualified personnel 

and hampered the ability to identify replacements and augments for future needs. 

Using Fort Benning to inprocess individual augmentees and equip them prior to deployment was highly successful and emphasized joint inter-operability. Personnel 

policies regarding stop-loss or stop-move should be determined before deployments 

commence. The policies need to be tailored to the circumstances and not applied 

across the board unless this is indicated. Provision needs to be made for providing 

transportation for the PM–MMART units, either as part of COCOM support or as 

part of the intrinsic equipment package. 

Question. What tools/equipment is still required to improve the care provided to 

combat casualties? 

Answer. Dedicated, durable, mobile, state-of-the-art, easily up-gradable communications, both between levels of care and between services is needed. Better 

CASEVAC capability is required under all circumstances. As we gather ‘‘lessons 

learned’’ through the formal process, more needs may be identified and further recommendations will be forthcoming. 

T-NEX—NEXT GENERATION OF TRICARE CONTRACTS

Question. The award date for these contacts has slipped from the scheduled date 

in July of 2003. Since the timeline for awarding the contracts has slipped, what is 

the expected start date for the delivery of T-Nex? 

Answer. The overall schedule for the suite of T-Nex solicitations has not been 

changed although some award dates may be delayed if proposals require more ex-
313

tensive review. The TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Contract was awarded, and 

performance began on March 1, 2003. The TRICARE Retiree Dental Contract was 

also awarded and performance on this contract began on May 1, 2003. Proposals 

have been received for both the TRICARE Healthcare and Administration Managed 

Care Support and the TRICARE Dual-Eligible Fiscal Intermediary contracts, and 

the evaluation process for both of these is ongoing. Requests for Proposal have been 

issued for the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy and National Quality Monitoring contracts, and those proposals are due June 11 and June 3, respectively. Procurement 

sensitivity rules prohibit disclosure of any specific information or details about the 

ongoing evaluation of proposals. However, I can tell you that the evaluations are 

ongoing. No decision has been made to alter the implementation schedule for any 

of the contracts. 

Question. What planning is taking place to help ensure that when the contracts 

are entered into there will be a seamless transition for beneficiaries? 

Answer. No transition of this magnitude is easy. A customer focused perspective 

in execution is central to making this as seamless as possible. We have already 

transitioned the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy contract with success. The 

TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan contract was also awarded without protest and now 

is in its first month of operation without issues. With regard to our managed care 

contracts, going from seven contracts to three will simplify administration, but more 

importantly better serve our beneficiaries with incentivized performance standards, 

greater uniformity of service, alleviation of portability issues, and simplified business processes. 

I have instituted a solid oversight structure (see attachment), and appointed a 

senior executive to spearhead this transition and supervise all aspects of the procurement including the implementation of the new regional governance structure. 

This operational approach and structure requires my direct involvement through the 

Transition Leadership Council made up of the Surgeons General, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Health Affairs Deputy 

Assistant Secretaries of Defense. This body is supported by a TRICARE Transition 

Executive Management Team which is chaired by TMA’s Chief Operating Officer. 

An area of detailed focus right now is access to care and all business processes 

that will impact access including: networks, provider satisfaction, appointing and 

scheduling, Military Treatment Facility (MTF) optimization, and local support for 

MTF commanders. We are optimistic that robust networks can be maintained. On 

all customer service fronts, my staff and other participants are poised to execute a 

smooth transition immediately following contract award. Regular meetings are underway to measure our progress and formulate sound decisions on any problematic 

issues. A contract transition orientation conference is planned for June 2003 to fully 

engage government participants in all aspects of the transition process. 

Question. Are beneficiaries experiencing any change in quality of care due to 

DOD’s inability to enter into new long-term managed care agreements? 

Answer. The evaluation of contractor proposals is now underway and will culminate in the awarding of three new Health care and Administration regional contracts. A planned 10-month minimum transition period will precede start of health 

care delivery. Surveillance for the delivery of services of outgoing contractors during 

the transition period will remain focused to avoid any deterioration in customer 

service standards. Current contracts have been extended beyond original termination dates to ensure there is no adverse impact on the beneficiary or quality of 

care. 

Any signs of negative shifts in quality during this transition period will be quickly 

recognized and dealt with on a priority basis. Our proactive posture is expected to 

result in a near-seamless transition to next generation contracts. Additionally, in TNex contracts, industry best business practices are fully expected to emerge through 

the competitive process. Customer service protocols will be favorably impacted by 

outcome-based requirements and accompanying performance standards. Additionally, web-based service applications will also improve business processes and the 

way customers can access information. This is all very exciting and bodes well for 

our customers in the new contracts. 

Question. Under T-Nex, what services currently provided by the TRICARE contractors will shift to the direct care system and what are the costs associated with 

this shift in services? 

Answer. Appointing, Resource Sharing, Health Care Information Line, Health 

Evaluation & Assessment of Risk (HEAR), Utilization Management, and Transcription services will transition from the Managed Care Support Contracts to MTFs 

under T-Nex. The Services have been tasked to provide requirements in each of 

these areas, cost estimates, and transition timelines. We have worked with the 

Services to develop a joint approach to determine local support contract method-
314

ology. Transition of Local Support Contract services must be completed not later 

than the start of health care under T-Nex in each region. Based on known contract 

and staffing lag times, funding is required six months prior to the start of health 

care delivery to ensure smooth and timely stand up of new services. At this stage, 

cost estimates are varied and of limited value until the requirement is validated and 

fully known. Initial rough estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The 

funding source for Local Support will come from funds committed to the current 

Military Health System (MHS) Managed Care Support contracts. Those funds were 

programmed based on existing purchased care contracts that included these services. Because it is understood that these funds may not cover the entire spectrum 

of Local Support contracts, the Medical Services have prioritized these services 

across the MHS into three tiers based on impact and need. Initial costs may ultimately include some investment in telephone and appointing infrastructure, thus 

driving a significant increase in front end costs. 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Question. Personnel shortfalls still exist in a number of critical medical specialties 

throughout the Services. The Navy reports shortfalls in Anesthesiology, General 

Surgery, Radiology, and Pathology, and has stated the civilian-military pay gap is 

their greatest obstacle in filling these high demand specialties. Recruiting and retaining dentist appears to be a challenge for all the Services. 

To what extent have Critical Skills Retention Bonuses or other incentives been 

successful in helping to retain medical personnel? 

Answer. 

Dental Corps 

When the CSRB was combined with the renegotiation of Dental Officer Multi-year 

Bonus (DOMRB) contracts, the effect was increased obligation for those that took 

DOMRB contracts. This in effect tied the one-year CSRB to a multi-year obligation, 

having some positive effect. 

Medical Corps 

The CSRB helped retain some individuals in Anesthesia, Radiology, Orthopedics, 

and General Surgery who would have otherwise gotten out of the Navy. Because the 

CSRB was limited to a one year contract, the long term benefit is minimal. 

Medical Service Corps 

The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was not offered to any of the Medical Service 

Corps specialties. 

Nurse Corps 

The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was offered to qualified nurses resulting in 

acceptance rates of 87 percent for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) 

and 98 percent for Perioperative Nurses. For the CRNAs, it has been a positive influence for staying beyond their obligated service period. We are presently at endstrength in both communities based on a combination of factors such as special 

pays, scope of practice satisfaction and a focus on quality of life issues. 

Hospital Corps 

When incentive and special pays have been put in place for undermanned specialties, accessions have increased. 

Psychiatry Technician and Respiratory Therapy Technician communities manning 

increased, 36 percent and 28 percent respectively, after implementation of the Selective Training and Reenlistment (STAR) Program and increased Selective Reenlistment Bonus. 

Question. What else needs to be done to maximize retention of medical personnel? 

Answer. 

Dental Corps 

The NDAA fiscal year 2003 raised the caps on the Dental Officer Multi-year Retention Bonus (DOMRB). It is hoped that the anticipated increase in pay while falling significantly short of comparable civilian pay, will demonstrate a commitment 

by Navy to increase compensation for dentists in the interim while a more comprehensive plan is developed. 

There was a slight enhancement in overall retention as a result of increases in 

dental ASP in 1997 and the initial offering of DOMRB in 1998 compared to previous 

years, but that effect has since worn off. Despite the introduction of the DOMRB 

and increase in ASP rates, the overall loss rate continues to climb to the highest 

it has been at 12.2 percent in fiscal year 2002, higher than the 11-year average of 
315

10.8 percent. The majority of losses are junior officers (LT–03) releasing from active 

duty at the completion of their first term of obligated service. These year groups are 

not eligible for the DOMRB at this point in their careers and the current ASP rates 

are too low to impact their decision to stay on active duty. Furthermore, under current legislation, if the junior officer were to enter residency training they would 

have to give up the ASP for up to 4 years depending on the program length. Again, 

reducing the incentive to remain on active duty and pursue training. 

There is no incentive special pay (ISP) for dental officers, although it may be helpful to target pay increases for dental specialties with the largest military-civilian 

pay gap. A comparison of representative civilian and military average pays is as follows (source—the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons):

Avg Mil LCDR Pay Military Pay Civilian Pay Differential 

Specialist ................................................................................................... $94,654 $202,360 $107,706

Oral Surgeon .............................................................................................. 94,654 297,360 202,706

General Dentist .......................................................................................... 68,871 154,741 85,870

Medical Corps 

In addition to closing the civilian to military pay gap, physicians look for similar 

qualities of life as their line counterparts. The ability to increase their level responsibility, take on clinical, operational and administrative challenges, practice their 

profession the way they feel they should, hone their skills, select for the next higher 

rank, maintain geographic stability for their families, and have time to spend with 

family and friends are all important in retaining physicians. Having support staff 

in adequate numbers, well maintained and current technical specialty equipment, 

and a professional environment which respects the physician is tantamount to maintaining our physician workforce. 

Medical Service Corps 

Retention in the Medical Service Corps is good overall. However, difficulties remain in retaining highly skilled officers in a variety of clinical and scientific professions. Retention of these highly skilled officers is predominately affected by: —Civilian to military pay gap.—Economic influences as well as civilian workforce 

shortages can have a profound effect on the size of the pay gap. With the evolving Home Land Security requirements, the demand for our scientific officers 

with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training and experience in 

the private sector is becoming a significant factor in retention. Need to explore 

the implementation of U.S. Code: 37, Section 315, Engineering and Scientific 

Career Continuation Pay to improve the retention of our highly skilled scientific 

officers. 

—Significant student debt load.—Many of our clinical and scientific professions 

require a doctorate level degree to enter the Navy. Frequently, there are a limited number of training programs available in the United States and often only 

available at private institutions. For example, there are approximately seven institutions that train Podiatrists. All of the schools are private institutions. Podiatry school is a four-year academic program after completing their undergraduate pre-professional requirements,. The average student debt load for our 

entering Podiatrists is $150,000. The use of HPLRP, AFHPSP and HSCP alleviates much of the student debt load for a few of these officers. —Personal issues.—Dual family careers, child care and frequent PCS moves can 

impact retention. However, what may be considered a strong reason to leave 

military service by one member may be considered a strong reason to stay on 

active duty for another. 

Nurse Corps 

Nurse Corps officers seek scope of practice satisfaction that includes continuing 

formal education opportunities, collegial relationships with physicians and other allied health personnel and current technical capability. Nurse Corps officers also vocalize the need to attend to quality of life issues such as affordable housing and 

childcare and geographic stability for their families. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

JESSE SPIRI MILITARY MEDICAL COVERAGE ACT

Question. In 2001, a young Marine Corps 2nd Lieutenant from New Mexico lost 

his courageous battle with cancer. Jesse Spiri had just graduated from Western New 
316

Mexico University and was awaiting basic officer training when he learned of his 

illness. 

However, because his commission had triggered his military status to that of ‘‘inactive reservist,’’ Jesse was not fully covered by TRICARE. As a result, he was left 

unable to afford the kind special treatment he needed. 

I believe that it is time to close this dangerous loophole. That is why I intend to 

offer a bill entitled the ‘‘Jesse Spiri Military Medical Coverage Act.’’

This bill will ensure that those military officers who have received a commission 

and are awaiting ‘‘active duty’’ status will have access to proper medical insurance. 

Would you agree that this type of loophole is extremely dangerous for those who, 

like Jesse, suffer with a dreaded disease? 

Answer. When an individual accepts an offer of a commission in the USN or 

USMC, there is a period of time prior to the beginning of Active Duty when they 

are in a ‘‘inactive reservist’’ status. During this time, the individual is not covered 

as a health care beneficiary in the TRICARE program. The individual remains responsible for obtaining their own health care insurance because they are not yet in 

‘‘active duty’’ status. 

Question. And do you agree that our military health care system should close this 

loophole, and can do so very cost effectively (given the relatively low number of officers it would affect)? 

Answer. We would like the opportunity to more carefully study this situation. 

There are other categories of individuals who have agreed to serve in the Armed 

Forces and who need to maintain their own health insurance until they begin active 

duty or active training. These would include all officer candidates on some type of 

delayed entry program such as medical students in the Health Scholarship Program, 

ROTC students, as well as personnel who agree to join the military following college. In addition, there are many enlisted personnel who join the military on a delayed entry program and are required to maintain their health insurance until they 

begin active training. These individuals are also awaiting entry on ‘‘inactive reservist’’ status. Without studying each of these categories of individuals, estimating their 

numbers and their likelihood of developing illnesses, it is premature to estimate the 

financial burden to the Navy in implementing the proposed changes. 

MILITARY FAMILY ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE ACT

Question. I think everyone here is familiar with the adage that we recruit the soldier, but we retain the family. That means taking care of our military families and 

giving them a good standard of living. 

I have introduced a bill that would provide a benefit to military families seeking 

dental care, but who must travel great distances to receive it. 

Specifically, my bill, the ‘‘Military Family Access to Dental Care Act’’ (S. 336) 

would provide a travel reimbursement to military families in need of certain specialized dental care but who are required to travel over 100 miles to see a specialist. 

Often, families at rural bases like Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, NM meet 

with financial hardship if more than one extended trip is required. This bill reimburses them for that travel and is a small way of helping our military families. 

Given that current law provides a travel reimbursement for military families who 

must travel more than 100 miles for specialty medical care, do you believe it is important to incorporate specialty dental care within this benefit? 

Answer. Concur. The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery recommends that Sec. 

1074i of title 10 United States Code be amended incorporate specialty dental care 

within this benefit. By providing a travel reimbursement to military families in need 

of specialized dental care who must travel over 100 miles to seek that care, we demonstrate our utmost support and recognition of their roles as critical members of the 

Navy healthcare team. 

Currently family members who are enrolled in TDP (TRICARE Dental Program) 

(Sec. 1076a.—TRICARE dental program) are not eligible for care in military DTFs 

except for emergencies or when OCONUS. All other (nonenrolled) Family Members 

are only eligible for ‘‘Space A’’ Care in CONUS. The USAF (with input from USN/

USA) is currently sponsoring a proposal to change Title 10 to permit limited treatment of AD family members to meet training, proficiency and specialty board certification. 

Question. Do you think this benefit would improve the standard of living of our 

military families? 

Answer. Yes. Dental care is a quality of life enhancement. Reducing out of pocket 

costs for specialty dental care available only at distances away the homebases of 

Military Family Members would increase the likelihood that needed dental services 

would be accessed and result in increased dental health. 
317

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

RESEARCH ON COMPOSITE TISSUE TRANSPLANTATION

Question. Admiral Cowan, it is my understanding that the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery has been engaged in important research into composite tissue 

transplantation. Clearly, such research has great potential to radically advance our 

ability to perform reconstructive surgeries on limbs and patients with considerable 

burn injuries. I have followed similar research into hand-transplantation that is 

being done in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, and have been impressed with 

the great potential for such surgical and tissue regeneration techniques. 

Could you please provide information regarding the extent of injuries sustained 

by members of our Armed Services who could benefit from reconstructive or transplantation surgeries due to combat or service related injuries? 

Answer. During the period of March through May 2003, NNMC received a total 

of 251 medevac casualties transferred from the Iraqi theater of operations, primarily 

via Army Medical Center—Landstuhl, Germany and Naval Fleet Hospital—Rota, 

Spain. Of these, 135 patients required admission to NNMC (112 Marines, 22 Sailors, and 1 Soldier) and 116 were evaluated as transient ‘‘RONs’’ in the NNMC Ambulatory Procedures Unit (104 Marines and 12 Sailors) during their transit through 

the Aero-Medical Staging Facility at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. 

Of the 135 patients admitted to NNMC, 63 percent were combat casualties. Of 

the combat casualties, the majority of patients sustained either blast injuries to 

upper or lower extremities, crush injuries, or gun shot wounds. These injuries resulted in many extremity fractures, both open and closed. Many of these patients 

underwent emergency surgery at forward treatment sites which included emergency 

fasciotomies. As a result, many of the patients required subsequent plastic surgical 

repair as part of their tertiary care at NNMC. This might be one area of combat 

injury that would be enhanced by reconstructive or tissue transplantation surgeries. 

In addition to the large number of fractures, 6 patients sustained significant traumatic amputations of extremities (3 lower leg, one foot, one forearm, and two patients with finger amputations). These would also be patients who might benefit 

from tissue transplantation advances. 

Question. Could you describe the Navy’s composite tissue transplantation program? What is the current level of annual funding for this program? And could you 

describe work being done under related extramural grants funded by this program. 

Answer. The Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery has had, for many years, a 

research effort in the induction of ‘‘tolerance’’ in transplanted tissues with the hope 

of developing non-immune suppressing therapies to allow active duty victims of 

trauma to return to active duty. To this end, a kidney transplant model has been 

studied, since the mechanisms of rejection are similar to other tissues, though the 

kidney is a less immune-provoking organ than composite tissues. Thus, the kidney 

transplant serves as a simpler model for studying rejection and developing therapies 

against it. The transplant effort is now contained within the Combat Injury and Tissue Repair Program of the Combat Casualty Care Directorate at the Naval Medical 

Research Center (NMRC), under the leadership of Barry Meisenberg, M.D. The 

funding for ‘‘transplantation’’ research has been reduced over the past 5 years, leading to a significant scale-back and unfortunate turnover in personnel. The current 

funding is through the direct Congressional appropriation via the Office of Naval 

Research. The lead physician investigator on this effort is Dr. Stephen Bartlett, Director of Organ Transplantation at the University of Maryland School of Medicine 

in Baltimore. The Navy laboratory supports Dr. Bartlett’s efforts with laboratory investigations into the science of transplantation and mechanisms of rejection. The 

sum of $964,690 was received from fiscal year 2002 Congressional funding for these 

efforts. In addition to this, the NMRC supplied $250,000 from internal ‘‘core competency’’ dollars for a specific project, initiated in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 

2003, no core competency funds were available to continue this research. It is anticipated that approximately another $1 million will be received from direct Congressional appropriation for fiscal year 2003. 

Question. Has the Navy conducted research on efforts to reduce the extent to 

which current procedures rely on immuno-suppressive drugs to combat rejection of 

tissue in transplant patients? 

Answer. A brief description of the work that is being performed at NMRC is provided: 

Project 1: Cytokine mediators of rejection in kidney transplant patients. This 

study performs real-time PCR to measure low levels of inflammatory molecules, 

such as cytokines that may predict rejection among actual patients receiving clinical 

kidney transplants who undergo periodic surveillance kidney biopsies. Specimens 
318

are obtained in a clinical program at the University of Maryland Transplant Program and transported to laboratories at the NMRC in Bethesda. 

Project 2: Cytokine mediation of rejection in primate composite tissue transplant. 

Pre-clinical research at the University of Maryland School of Medicine involves 

transplantation of complex tissues (bone, muscle and skin) in primates. The Navy 

research laboratories perform assays on biopsied tissue, looking at mediators of information and rejection. Tailored immunosuppressive therapies are being developed 

and studied featuring an anti-CD154 ligand to block the pathways of immune rejection. 

Project 3: Studies into the mechanism of action of anti-CD154 ligand—Studies 

into the mechanisms of thrombotic complications with the use of anti-CD154 ligand. 

Currently, available supplies of anti-CD154 ligand do inhibit immune recognition, 

but may also cause activation of platelets leading to clinical thrombosis. These investigations look at the mechanisms involved in both lymphocyte blockade, as well 

as the mechanisms of thrombosis. 

Project 4: Cell-signaling mechanisms after CD154 binding. This study is funded 

by core capability money from fiscal year 2002 and looks at the cell-signaling mechanism after CD154 binds the lymphocyte to look for potential targets for blockade 

of lymphocyte activation. A skin transplant model in mice is being developed and 

potential therapies will be tested in the mice model and available for use in the primate model currently at the University of Maryland. In addition to the above 

projects, funding has been requested from ONR for studies into the problem of ischemia/re-perfusion injury, which injures tissues both in the hemorrhagic-shock battle field situation, as well as transplantation of harvested tissues. 

Additional techniques for immune suppression, including the use of immature 

dendritic cells, bone marrow cells, expanded bone marrow cells, other ligands with 

inhibitory properties against lymphocyte activation, are in the preparatory stages 

pending funding availability. 

Question. Does the Navy plan to extend this program to the stage of human clinical trials? 

Answer. The Navy would like to see advances in the pre-clinical biology of ‘‘tolerance’’ inducing molecules so that clinical trials can be conducted. More pre-clinical 

science, however, needs to be performed, including animal models. There are many 

potentially interesting avenues of investigation, which require collaboration with 

university laboratories and biotechnology companies. 

Question. Are you aware of the clinical research and experience in human handtransplantation at the University of Louisville and Jewish Hospital in Louisville, 

Kentucky? 

Answer. The Combat Injury and Tissue Repair Program of the NMRC has had 

informal contacts with the University of Louisville Jewish Hospital in Louisville, 

Kentucky. There is interest on both sides in conducting collaborative efforts into the 

pre-clinical biology of tolerance. Currently, there is no funding for such collaboration, although both sides see scientific merit. Other collaborations exist with other 

universities that also show promise and need further development. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

PATIENT PRIVACY (TRICARE)

Question. I would like to get your comments about several concerns and questions 

I have related to the December 14, 2002 break-in of the offices of TriWest, a 

TRICARE contractor. I am told that TriWest did not notify the Department of Defense of the break-in and theft of personal information of over 500,000 TRICARE 

beneficiaries for almost a week after the event. Apparently, TriWest didn’t have 

even basic security equipment—guards, locks, cameras—and, as a result, this incident amounts to the biggest identity theft in U.S. history. 

Is this information true? 

Has the Department of Defense finished its investigation of this case and have 

sanctions been levied against TriWest or punitive actions taken against TRICARE 

officials? 

Answer. The criminal investigation is being conducted by the Defense Criminal 

Investigative Service (DCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in coordination with other Federal and local law enforcement agencies. The Assistant 

Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs [ASD(HA)] directed the Services and TRICARE 

Managed Care Support Contractors to conduct an assessment of their information 

security safeguards using a matrix composed of Defense Information Systems Agency physical security requirements and industry best practices. TRICARE Manage-
319

ment Activity (TMA) conducted on-site validation of these assessments. The 

ASD(HA) asked the DOD Inspector General to conduct facility security evaluations 

and a draft report is expected by July 2003. 

Sensitive information pertaining to TRICARE beneficiaries is maintained by 

TRICARE contractors subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as implemented by the 

DOD Privacy Program (DOD 5400.11–R). The Act provides criminal penalties for 

any contractor or contractor employee who willfully discloses such protected information, in any manner, to any person or agency not entitled to receive the information. The Act also provides for civil penalties against DOD if it is determined that 

the Department (or contractor) intentionally or willfully failed to comply with the 

Privacy Act. To date, no sanctions have been levied upon or punitive actions taken 

against TriWest or TRICARE officials. The investigation is still ongoing, and its 

findings are pending. 

Question. Would you please share what you can about the lessons learned as a 

result of this incident and the steps the Department and the TRICARE organization 

and its contractors are taking to guarantee beneficiary privacy? 

Answer. Maintaining information security controls and awareness has always 

been a critical priority for the senior leadership of the Military Health System 

(MHS), in the interest of both national security and beneficiary privacy. 

Some of the lessons learned as a result of the TriWest incident include: 

—Scrutinized security practices across the entire MHS; 

—Emphasized the necessity of staying alert to new information security threats; 

and 

—TriWest widely publicized a new process whereby individual beneficiaries may, 

through TriWest, seek to place fraud alerts on their records at national credit 

bureaus. 

Some of the steps taken by the Department and its TRICARE contractors to enhance beneficiary privacy include: 

—Led and coordinated a health care information security assessment at MTFs 

and contractor locations; 

—Reviewed existing procedures at all locations; 

—Ensured physical security of facilities that house beneficiary information; 

—Conducted on-site validations of its contractors’ assessments; 

—Initiated DOD Inspector General facility physical security evaluations; 

—Verified that DOD health information systems are compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Protected Health Information requirements; 

—Established plan of action for TRICARE contractors to correct deficiencies of the 

facility security assessment; 

—Strengthened the overall security posture of the Military Health System 

(TRICARE Management Activity, its contractors, and Military Treatment Facilities); and 

—Broadened the scope of information assurance and security programs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES

Question. Healthcare, pay, and housing are the greatest Quality of Life issues for 

our troops and their families. With the numbers of health care staff deployed from 

your Military Treatment Facilities, what strategies did you use to effectively plan 

and care for beneficiaries back home? 

Answer. Navy Medicine implemented core doctrine and conducted intense scrutiny 

of Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) services availability. We identified the appropriate reservists to support the Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) in maintaining services, in some cases adding contract personnel. Navy Medicine made 

every effort to take care of our patients in the MTFs, and assisted in both referral 

and care management for those patients that required care in the local healthcare 

network. Each week we tracked the availability of services at each MTF. Personnel 

(both active duty and reservists) exerted extraordinary efforts (which were possible 

in the short term but would not be sustainable indefinitely) to ensure access to care 

was maintained at all MTFs. The health care team felt the same devotion to their 

special duties during the conflict as did the deployed forces. They recognized that 

providing care for both returning casualties and local beneficiaries was their part 

in the war effort. For these reasons, individual productivity was particularly high 

and resulted in minimal reductions in health care access. A comprehensive survey 

of activated reservists and MTF operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom is now 
320

underway to fully assess the productivity and effectiveness of our MTFs in ensuring 

that access to care was maintained for all beneficiaries. 

Question. How are you able to address the needs of patients coming in from the 

battlefields and is this affecting the care of beneficiaries seeking regular care? 

Answer. We have been able to maintain services required to address the needs 

of both patients coming in from the battlefields and those seeking regular care 

through significant deliberate planning. We implemented core doctrine and deployed 

active duty forces that were well trained in providing advanced medical care in the 

field. As a result, intense scrutiny of Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) services 

availability and their ability to sustain the Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs were conducted, and we identified the appropriate reservists to support the 

Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) in maintaining services and future readiness 

via sustainment of GME programs. 

Question. What authority were you given to back-fill your vacancies and are the 

funds sufficient to attain that goal? 

Answer. Navy Medicine issued $18 million that was originally targeted for our 

Maintenance of Real Property, Facility Projects in order to provide MTFs with the 

funding needed to obtain contract physician and medical personnel needed as backfill in addition to the 50 percent Reserve Recall. The commands were able to obligate $11 million of that $18 million and obtained critical physician specialists on 

short timeframe contracts and other medical support personnel. 

Question. What measurements were used in determining what the services were 

able to back-fill and how does that compare to current requirements? 

Answer. The measurement tool used to assess services requiring augmentation 

was based on weekly reports that monitored facility services by beneficiary category 

i.e. AD/ADFM/RET/RETFM. This tool provided the level of detail needed to reflect 

which MTFs were in need of support based on the services identified, taking into 

account geographic issues related to Network availability and GME program sustainability. The report is being utilized to follow the flow of returning forces ensuring efficient demobilization of reserve personnel while maintaining MTF service 

availability. 

RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT

Question. With increasing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

the Global War on Terrorism, can you describe your overall recruitment and retention status of the Medical Department in each of your services? What specific corps 

or specialties are of most concern? 

Answer. There is no way to predict the influence the current increased operational 

tempo will have on recruiting and retention. Because active duty personnel must request release from active duty 9–12 months in advance in order to arrange for their 

billet to be backfilled, the effect upon release from active duty rates won’t be known 

until approximately spring/summer 2004. 

Dental Corps: The Dental Corps is currently undermanned at 93 percent 

The loss rate for dentists in fiscal year 2002 was 12.2 percent, which was above 

the 11-year average of 10.8 percent. Projections are for increasing shortfalls with 

manning at 90 percent or below at the end of fiscal year 2003. 

Accession goals have not been reached over last 3 years; accessed only 85 percent 

of goal. Most significant shortfall is in the Direct (non-scholarship) accession category. 

Recruiting goals are not being met with only 10 percent of the goal for Direct accessions (3/39), Reserve Recalls (2/7) and 1925i Dental Student program (0/5) met 

midway through the third quarter fiscal year 2003. The primary accession pipelines 

for Navy dentists are the scholarship programs. The Health Professions Scholarship 

Program (HPSP) and the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP) have both 

been successful in meeting 100 percent of goal for fiscal year 2003 and we expect 

to access 67 HPSP and 22 HSCP students upon graduation from dental school. 

HSCP has in the past been a significant but not the largest source of accessions for 

the Dental Corps. Currently only 25 percent of the combined fiscal year 2004/05 recruiting goal has been attained for HSCP accessions in fiscal year 2004 (12/25) and 

fiscal year 2005 (0/25). Interest in this program has significantly declined due to the 

increasing cost of dental school education, which continues to diminish the benefits 

offered through this program. 

Retention rate at first decision point for junior officers steadily declined over past 

6 years; low point was 38 percent in fiscal year 2001 from high of 64 percent in 

fiscal year 1995. Disparity between military and civilian pay and education debt are 

major factors in low retention rates. 
321

Medical Corps 

The Medical Corps continues to have difficulty in retaining certain specialties. 

The Medical Corps has less than 80 percent manning in Anesthesia, Radiology, General Surgery, Pathology, and Radiation Oncology. Internal Medicine and subspecialties (84 percent) and Dermatology (83 percent) are near the critical point of under 

manning. 

Inability to access or retain specialties noted above can be attributed to significant 

military-civilian pay gaps and declining number of quality of work attributes that 

once made practicing in Navy Medicine enticing over the private sector (e.g., increased operational tempo). Additionally, the changing face of medicine in the civilian sector (e.g., fewer applicants for medical school and even fewer medical school 

graduates going into the above specialties) is affecting Navy Medicine as well. 

The primary pipeline for Navy physicians is the Health Professions Scholarship 

Program (HPSP), which brings in 300 of the 350 individuals entering as medical 

students. The HPSP recruiting goal for fiscal year 2003 is 300. The Navy is behind 

in recruiting, in that by May, there are usually about 150 recruited. Presently there 

are only 51. It should be noted that not only is the number of HPSP recruits diminishing, but the quality has also decreased when utilizing MCAT scores as an indicator of quality. In he past, HPSP recipients had MCAT scores of 26–30. Applicants 

with scores as low as 22 are being considered in order to fill quotas. 

Medical Service Corps 

Retention in the Medical Service Corps is good overall. End of fiscal year 2002 

manning was at 98.5 percent with projections for the next two years at or near 98 

percent manning. However, difficulties remain in retaining highly skilled officers in 

a variety of clinical and scientific professions. 

The Medical Service Corps is comprised of 32 different health care specialties in 

administrative, clinical, and scientific fields. The education requirements are unique 

for each field; most require graduate level degrees, many at the doctoral level. 

Biochemistry, Entomology, and Podiatry are undermanned by more than 10 percent. Average yearly loss rates are high in Biochemistry, Physiology, Environmental 

Health, Dietetics, Optometry, Pharmacy, and Psychology. Loss rates this year are 

very high for Microbiologists & Social Workers. 

The Medical Service Corps does not have available to them retention tools or special pays for scientists and very limited ones for clinicians such as Optometrists, 

Pharmacists, and Podiatrists. 

Nurse Corps 

The Nurse Corps continues to be healthy considering the national nursing shortage. The affect of a decreasing number of students who choose nursing as a career 

and the ever-increasing demand for professional nursing services will need to be 

closely monitored to ensure that the Navy Nurse Corps is able to meet the requisite 

number and specialty skill mix. 

The successful ability of the Nurse Corps to meet requirements is due to concerted 

efforts in diversifying accession sources and increased retention as a direct result 

of pay incentives and graduate education opportunities. 

Hospital Corps 

HM and DT Retention has never been higher and we have met/fulfilled recruiting 

goals for the last two years. In the past two years our overall manning has significantly increased from 87 percent to 97 percent. 

8404 HM E1–6 are on STOP LOSS per NAVOP 005/03 over 2,616 Sailors are affected by this program. 

Per the OPHOLD MSG NAVADMIN 083/03 all hospital corpsmen assigned to deployed USMC units, possessing NEC’s 8403, 8404, 8425 and 8427 may be OPHELD. 

The HM Rating ended fiscal year 2002 at 95.8 percent manning (23,218 INV/

24,320 BA or ¥1,102). The HM Rating has been undermanned since 1997 (low point 

was 89.1 percent manning as of end fiscal year 2000), but has steadily increased 

to current end February 2003 of 97.1 percent (23,843/24,553). The improved manning is the result of an increase in the HM A-School plan from a traditional 3,000 

inputs to 4,500 inputs per year along with a reduction in HM A-school attrition from 

18 percent to 8 percent. Out year projections have the rating maintaining 98 percent 

manning for the next two years. 

As overall HM rating manning has improved, C school seats are increasingly 

being filled. Along with realignment of SRB and SDAP to retain existing and attract 

applicants, inventories in the shortfall NECs are steadily improving. Of the 40 distinct HM NECs, the following are critically manned (manning <90 percent) as of end 

February 2003.
322

NEC NAME INV EPA PCT ∂/¥

HM–8401 SAR TECH ............................................................................................... 89 111 80 ¥22

HM–8403 RECON IDC ............................................................................................. 26 29 90 ¥3

HM–8408 CARDIOVASULAR TECH ........................................................................... 77 105 73 ¥28

HM–8416 CLIN NUC MED TECH ............................................................................. 59 70 84 ¥11

HM–8425 SURFACE IDC ......................................................................................... 868 1,020 85 ¥152

HM–8427 RECON IDC ............................................................................................. 43 70 61 ¥27

HM–8432 PREV MED TECH .................................................................................... 642 710 90 ¥68

HM–8452 ADV XRAY TECH ..................................................................................... 566 654 87 ¥88

HM–8466 PHYS THERAPY TECH ............................................................................. 201 252 80 ¥51

HM–8467 OCC THERAPY TECH .............................................................................. 12 19 63 ¥7

HM–8478 MED REPAIR TECH ................................................................................. 197 270 73 ¥73

HM–8485 PSYCH TECH .......................................................................................... 273 376 71 ¥103

HM–8486 UROLOGY TECH ...................................................................................... 68 87 78 ¥19

HM–8489 ORTHO TECH .......................................................................................... 124 153 81 ¥29

HM–8492 HM SEAL ................................................................................................ 124 164 76 ¥20

HM–8493 HM DIVER ............................................................................................... 83 106 78 ¥23

HM–8494 HM DIVER IDC ........................................................................................ 69 80 86 ¥11

HM–8495 DERMATOLOGY TECH ............................................................................. 40 54 74 ¥14

HM–8506 LAB TECH ............................................................................................... 1,246 1,594 78 ¥348

HM–8541 RESP THER TECH ................................................................................... 102 147 69 ¥45

Dental Technicians 

—Overall DT rating manning has held constant over the last several years with 

end February 2003 inventory at 102 percent (3,177/3,150). The DT NECs listed 

below are critically manned.

NEC NAME INV EPA PCT ∂/¥

DT–8703 DT ADMIN TECH ..................................................................................... 241 268 90 ¥27

DT–8708 DT HYGIENE TECH .................................................................................. 53 84 63 ¥31

DT–8753 DT LAB TECH ......................................................................................... 100 113 89 ¥13

DT–8783 DT SURGICAL TECH ................................................................................ 99 111 89 ¥12

The shortages in these NECs have been caused by limited availability of school 

quotas at tri-service schools. The exception is DT Hygiene Tech, established in fiscal 

year 2000. The Hygiene Tech school pipeline is two years long and inventory has 

been slowly growing toward the billet target. For the remaining shortages, efforts 

continue to obtain quotas at the tri-service schools to ensure that we obtain the seat 

increases we need to maintain the inventory. 

Question. Did the Critical Skills Retention Bonus given for this year help these 

specialties? In light of shortages and the disparity between military and civilian salaries, how have you planned for additional retention bonuses in future years? 

Answer. A detailed explanation is provided by Corps in order to detail the impact 

of the CSRB. 

Dental Corps 

When the CSRB was combined with the renegotiation of Dental Officer Multi-year 

Bonus (DOMRB) contracts, the effect was increased obligation for those that took 

DOMRB contracts. This in effect tied the one-year CSRB to a multi-year obligation, 

having some positive effect. However, a more comprehensive pay plan is needed for 

the long term. 

—The NDAA fiscal year 2003 increased the caps on the Dental Officer Multi-year 

Retention Bonus (DOMRB). 

—Fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 dental pay plans need to take advantage 

of the increase in the cap for the DOMRB as provided by the fiscal year 2003 

NDAA which would help bring pay to higher levels, although are not in parity 

with civilian pay, demonstrate a commitment by Navy to increase compensation. However, in fiscal year 2004, funds have not been budgeted for increases 

in Medical Special Pays. 

—The Health Professions Incentives Work Group (HIPWG) is working on a ULB 

fiscal year 2006 proposal that will raise Additional Special Pay (ASP) for targeted year groups to enhance retention after the first decision point for junior 

officers and after training obligations are paid off by mid-career officers. This 

ULB also proposes retaining ASP while in a training (DUINS) status in efforts 

to attract more qualified applicants for residency training. This proposal is 

under review within the Department. 
323

—A comprehensive pay plan is needed to enhance retention and narrow the civilian-military pay gap. In the absence of such a plan and in recognition that the 

status of the Incentive Optimization Plan previously worked by OSD/TMA is 

unknown, the Navy has proposed utilizing a multi-year dental CSRB to critical 

shortages, namely dental officers with 3 to 7 years of service. This is designed 

to address a significant downward trend in retention of LT/LCDR General Dentists (anecdotally due to high debt load). This shortage in turn has significantly 

diminished our pool of applicants for residency training. Applications for postgraduate residency training are down 54 percent over past 10 years, which has 

resulted in increasing difficulty of producing specialists with the skills required 

to meet mission requirements. This proposal is under review within the Department. 

Medical Corps 

The CSRB helped retain some individuals in Anesthesia, Radiology, Orthopedics, 

and General Surgery who would have otherwise gotten out of the Navy. Because the 

CSRB was limited to a one year contract, the long term benefit is minimal. 

The fiscal year 2003 NDAA raised the maximum on special pays to increase flexibility and utility of special pays. Development of a special pay plan for fiscal year 

2005 by OOMC and N131 is in progress which takes advantage of the new maximums and increases the Multiyear Special Pay (MSP) to levels that although not 

in parity with civilian pay, demonstrates a commitment by the Navy to increase 

compensation. Because of the process involved in creating a DOD Pay Plan, the final 

pay plan for fiscal year 2005 may not emphasize the Navy’s needs, reflecting instead 

the overall needs of DOD (Air Force and Army.) This proposal is under review within the Department. 

Medical Service Corps 

The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was not offered to any of the Medical Service 

Corps specialties. 

During fiscal year 2001, DOD (HA) provided guidance allowing the Services to 

begin paying an Optometry Retention Bonus and a Pharmacy Special Pay based on 

each Service’s ‘‘own accession requirements and capabilities.’’ The Army and Air 

Force have funded the new pays. Due to funding constraints, the Navy has not yet 

begun paying the Optometry Retention Bonus or the Pharmacy Special Pay, however, the Navy has planned and budgeted for future funding of these bonuses and 

specialty pays. 

Nurse Corps 

The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was offered to qualified nurses resulting in 

acceptance rates of 87 percent for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) 

and 98 percent for Perioperative Nurses. For the CRNAs, it has been a positive influence for staying beyond their obligated service period. We are presently at endstrength in both communities based on a combination of factors such as special 

pays, scope of practice satisfaction and a focus on quality of life issues. Therefore 

because the process involved in creating a DOD Pay Plan must reflect the overall 

needs of DOD (including Army and Air Force,) the final pay plan for fiscal year 2005 

may not emphasize the Navy’s specific requirements. 

The fiscal year 2003 NDAA raised the maximum on special pays to increase flexibility and utility of special pays. Development of a special pay plan for fiscal year 

2005 by the Nurse Corps Office and N131 is currently under review within the Department. The proposal, which takes advantage of the new maximums and increases 

the Nurse Accession Bonus and CRNA Incentive Pay to levels that although not in 

parity with civilian pay, demonstrates a commitment by the Navy to increase compensation. 

Hospital Corps 

We are working on an increase in our critical NEC’s in SRB, SDAP and accelerated advancement programs. 

Question. Are there recruitment and retention issues within certain specialties or 

corps? If so, what are your recommendations to address this in the future? 

Answer. 

Dental Corps 

As a result of a significant downward trend in retention of LT/LCDR General 

Dentists coupled with significant under execution of CNRC DC accessions, the Dental Corps is undermanned. 
324

—Dental Corps overall manning has been trending downward for the last three 

years, ending fiscal year 2002 at 94.4 percent (1,294 INV/1,370 BA or ¥76). The 

EFY 2003 projection is estimated at <90 percent. 

—A BUMED-BUPERS working group is evaluating the following recommendations for the future: increase in HPSP Scholarships from 70 to 85 per year, establish a special pay that targets General Dentists with 3 to 7 years of service; 

establish Dental Corps Health Professions Loan Repayment (HPLRP) Program; 

increasing the number of years of service for statutory retirement to 40 years 

of service for 06s, along with raising the age limit to 68. Active Duty dentists 

tend to leave the service at 22 years vice 30 in order to enter the civilian market at a competitive age range. If given the option of a career for an additional 

ten years of service, many dentists would choose to stay on Active Duty. Prior 

to approval additional study is required on how this will impact the 06 promotion cycle. 

—The shortage of General Dentists has directly impacted the Oral Surgery and 

Endodontic communities, which are also significantly undermanned. Since we 

train the vast majority of our specialists from within, the shortage of General 

dentists and the increase in loss rates has resulted in a reduction in the numbers of officers available to enter the training pipeline.

Corps Specialty (PSUB) INV BA PCT ∂/¥

Fiscal 

Year 

2004

Fiscal 

Year 

2005

DC—Dentist (1,700) ........................................................ 486 594 82 ¥108 80 78

DC—Oral Surg(1,750J/K) ................................................. 66 82 80 ¥16 78 72

DC—Endodontist (1,710J/K) ............................................ 44 52 85 ¥8 83 80

—The remaining Dental Corps specialties are stable at this time with sufficient 

gains to compensate for losses, but that will take a turn for the worse if the 

problems with General Dentist retention and accessions are not corrected, as 

this is the applicant pool for specialty training. 

Medical Corps 

Although pay is just one part of the benefits of a military career, the civilian to 

military pay gaps are so large in some specialties that it is difficult to recruit or 

retain someone after completion of their obligated service for training. A comparison 

of civilian and military average pays is as follows (this data was retrieved from an 

internet physician pay site used by medical students):

Specialty Civilian Pay LCDR Mil 

Pay Differential 

Anesthesia .................................................................................................................... $278,802 $140,556 $138,246

Radiology ...................................................................................................................... 319,380 140,556 178,824

General Surgery ............................................................................................................ 261,276 133,556 127,720

Pathology ...................................................................................................................... 197,300 120,556 76,744 

Internal Medicine ......................................................................................................... 160,318 118,556 41,762

Dermatology ................................................................................................................. 232,000 122,556 109,444

Orthopedics .................................................................................................................. 346,224 140,556 205,668

Neurosurgery ................................................................................................................ 438,426 140,556 297,870

To improve accessions (in the above specialties), the following monetary and marketing tools are being evaluated by CNP/BUMED Integrated Process Team (IPT): 

—A Health Professional Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). 

—An increase in recall and direct accession goals for medical officers. 

—An increase in accession bonuses for health professionals from $30,000 to an 

$80,000 cap for high demand specialties. 

—An increase in Incentive Specialty Pay (ISP) and Multiyear Specialty Pay (MSP) 

to decrease the pay gap. Emphasis is being placed on increasing MSP so that 

retention may be improved. 

Medical Service Corps 

All specialties have met (or are expected to meet) fiscal year 2003 recruiting goals 

except for: 

—Entomology (Goal: 4; 0 attained) have not met direct accession goal since fiscal 

year 1999. There are limited Medical Entomology graduate programs in the 

United States. Fiscal year 2002 manning was 89 percent. 
325

—Physiology (Goal: 2; 0 attained) have not met direct accession goal since fiscal 

year 1998. Fiscal year 2002 manning was 86 percent. 

Use of the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP), a Navy student pipeline 

program for Entomology was instituted in fiscal year 2002 and for Physiology in fiscal year 2003. 

Retention in the Medical Service Corps is good overall. However, difficulties remain in retaining highly skilled officers in a variety of clinical and scientific professions. 

Explore the possible use of Engineering and Scientific Career Continuation Pay 

(U.S. Code: 37, Section 315) to improve the retention of our highly skilled scientific 

officer. 

Other tools being considered: 

—Health Professional Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). Those HPLRP scholarships allocated to Medical Service Corps will be used for both retention and accession. 

Nurse Corps 

The Active Duty force is expected to meet fiscal year 2003 recruiting goal. 

The Reserve force has met 61 percent of the fiscal year 2003 recruiting goal, 

maintaining the same pace as last year. Successful recruiting incentives for reservists in the critically undermanned specialties include: The $5,000 accession bonus 

and loan repayment and stipend programs for graduate education. 

The BUMED Integrated Process Team (IPT) will evaluate two initiatives to improve the end-strength of the Reserve force: 

—Allocating the $5,000 accession bonus for all new nursing graduates to the Reserve force. With the civilian recruiting bonuses and loan repayment programs 

for student graduates, new nurses are deferring entry into the Navy Nurse 

Corps Reserves until they gain the one-year experience required to qualify for 

a bonus. 

—Instituting ‘‘pipeline’’ scholarship nursing programs for the reserve enlisted 

component similar to those available to active duty enlisted. 

Hospital Corps 

No recruitment issues as CNRC has been able to fill requirements. 

We have increased retention and programs have been put in place directing Sailors into our undermanned NEC’s. Some of the programs instituted include job fairs, 

Detailers visits along with visits from the Force Master Chief. 

Question. Have incentive and special pays helped with specific corps or specialties? 

Answer. 

Dental Corps 

Although pay is just a portion of the military benefits package, the dental military-civilian pay disparity is so large in certain specialties that it is very difficult 

to recruit or retain a dental officer after completion of their obligated service for 

training. 

—There was a slight enhancement in overall retention as a result of increases in 

dental ASP in 1997 and the initial offering of DOMRB in 1998 when compared 

to previous years, but that effect has since worn off. Despite the introduction 

of the DOMRB and increase in ASP rates, the overall loss rate continues to 

climb to the highest it has been at 12.2 percent in fiscal year 2002, higher than 

the 11-year average of 10.8 percent. The majority of losses are junior officers 

(LT–03) releasing from active duty at the completion of their initial obligated 

service. These year groups are not eligible for the DOMRB at this point in their 

careers and the current ASP rates are too low to impact their decision to stay 

on active duty. 

Medical Corps 

There is no study that correlates retention and accession with special pays. 

Medical Service Corps 

The Medical Service Corps has very limited incentive and special pays. 

—Optometry Special Pay (U.S. Code: Title 37, Section 302a).—Each optometry is 

entitled to a special pay at the rate of $100 a month. This special pay has not 

been increased in thirty years and therefore has lost value as an incentive or 

retention tool. Fiscal year 2001 and 2002 manning was 88 percent and 98 percent. The manning is expected to drop below 98 percent during fiscal year 2003. 

—Psychologist and Nonphysician Health Care Providers Special Pay (U.S. Code: 

Title 37, Section 302c).—This Special Pay is better known as Board Certification 
326

Pay. Board Certified Nonphysician Health Care Providers are entitled to a pay 

of $2,000 per year, if the officer has less than 10 years of creditable service; 

$2,500 per year (10–12 yrs); $3,000 per year (12–14 yrs); $4,000 per year (14–

18 yrs); and $5,000 per year (18 or more). This special pay does not become a 

significant annual amount until late in an officer’s career and therefore has a 

minimal impact as a retention tool. The Navy is manned at 70 percent licensed 

psychologists. 

—Accession Bonus for Pharmacy Officers (U.S. Code: Title 37, Section 302j).—This 

accession incentive of $30,000 may be paid to a person who is a graduate of an 

accredited pharmacy school and who, executes a written agreement to accept a 

commission as an officer and remain on active duty for a period of not less that 

four years. This accession bonus was first used in fiscal year 2002 and accession 

quotas were met in that year. Long-term effectiveness as a successful accession 

incentive has not yet been established. Fiscal year 2002 manning was 96 percent. The manning is expected to drop below 96 percent during fiscal year 2003. 

Nurse Corps 

The Nurse Accession Bonus, Incentive Pay for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), and Board Certification Pay (for those eligible) contribute to successful recruitment and retention efforts. Current CRNA manning is 108 percent. 

Manning is expected to drop to 100 percent throughout the year as members depart. 

The increase of the maximum allowable compensation amount under NDAA for 

the CRNA Incentive Pay and the Accession Bonus will further enhance our competitive edge in the nursing market. 

Hospital Corps 

When incentive and special pays have been put in place for undermanned specialties, accessions have increased. 

Psychiatry Technician and Respiratory Therapy Technician communities manning 

increased, 36 percent and 28 percent respectively, after implementation of the Selective Training and Reenlistment (STAR) Program and increased Selective Reenlistment Bonus. 

Question. How does the fiscal year 2004 budget request address your recruitment 

and retention goals? 

Answer. 

Medical Service Corps 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes funding for the Optometry Retention 

Bonus and the Pharmacy Special Pay (both discretionary pays). 

Nurse Corps 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes increases to both the Nurse Accession Bonus and the Incentive Pay for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists. 

FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION (FHP)

Question. As a result of concerns discovered after the Gulf War, the Department 

created a Force Health Protection system designed to properly monitor and treat our 

military personnel. What aspects of the Department’s Force Health Protection system have been implemented to date? What are the differences between the system 

during the Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Noble Eagle? 

Answer. There has been a fundamental shift in Navy Medicine from treating illness, to focusing on prevention and health. Our mission is to create a healthy and 

fit force, so that when we deploy a pair of muddy boots, the Sailor or Marine wearing them is physically, mentally and socially able to accomplish any mission our nation calls upon them to perform. This focus on prevention and health includes the 

delivery of care to the spouses and families at home because by caring for them, 

our warriors can focus on the fight. The Navy Medicine ‘‘office place’’ is the battlefield because our Sailors and Marines deserve the best possible protection from all 

potential hazards that could prevent mission execution. A critical element of our 

FHP continuum is having in place, along with the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(DVA), mechanisms for making sure that people who become ill after deployment 

are evaluated fully. Navy Medicine has several established mechanisms with the 

DVA regarding post deployment illnesses. Between the Gulf War and Operation 

Noble Eagle, several specific Force Health Protection (FHP) measures were implemented. These include: Pre-Deployment Health Assessment with the DD2795, Disease and Non-Battle Injury (DNBI) surveillance, Post-Deployment Health Assessment with the DD2796, pre- and post-deployment serum archival at the DOD 
327

Serum Repository, anthrax and smallpox vaccination programs, occupational and 

environmental health surveillance, formation of specialized deployable teams for 

FHP (Navy Forward Deployable Preventive Medicine Units, Theater Army Medical 

Laboratory, and Air Force Theater Medical Surveillance Team), and the Post Deployment Health Clinical Practice Guideline. Just before Operation Iraqi Freedom, 

the Joint Medical Work Station (JMeWS) was deployed in the CENTCOM theater 

of operations, providing the capability to collect patient encounters, DNBI, and general medical command and control reports. With over 26,000 patient encounters and 

1,000 DNBI reports, this system has provided a substantial analysis and archival 

tool for the combatant commanders and senior leadership. 

OPTIMIZATION

Question. Congress initiated optimization funds to provide flexibility to the Surgeons General to invest in additional capabilities and technologies that would also 

result in future savings. It is my understanding that a portion of these funds are 

being withheld from the Services. Can you please tell the Committee how much Optimization funding is being withheld from your service, what are the plans for distributing the funds, and why funds since fiscal year 2001 are being withheld? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2002 59 Optimization Projects were approved but only one 

was funded before April 2002. Total funding for fiscal year 2002 was $49.6 million. 

Twenty-seven of the projects were funded in late September 2002 and are in their 

infancy. Since most of the projects involved personnel actions, up to six months 

passed before personnel were in place due to required DOD civilian hiring processes. 

Hard evidence of financial return on investment is not yet available. Anecdotal positive feedback, however, is plentiful, especially in the following areas: 

—Case management ($8.5 million fiscal year 2002).—All facilities are reporting 

that the recently hired case managers are champions for the transition from 

intervention to prevention. Commanders have commented that case management is ‘‘one of the best BUMED programs in 30 years.’’ The primary barrier 

to success is the lack of integration of case management software with the Composite Health Care System (CHCS). 

—Clinic manager’s course ($400,000 fiscal year 2002).—Over 500 personnel have 

benefited from the week long course and 80 percent of participants reported in 

follow up surveys that the course adequately prepared them to implement optimization concepts within their clinics. Barriers to achievement of the goal of improved clinic effectiveness include lack of reliable, readily available performance 

data and high turnover of clinic management teams. 

—Population Health Website ($400,000 fiscal year 2002).—Access to real time patient level data regarding disease prevalence, care provided, and patient panel 

demographics was viewed as ‘‘extremely valuable’’ by the 103 users trained thus 

far. Key to success is WEB access (begun January 2003) and dedicated training. 

$11.4 million was devoted to critical advances in Medical Practice supporting 

longer term goals of sustaining quality and reducing invasive procedures where possible. The remaining $29.3 million was devoted to targeted improvements in the Primary Care Product Line, Birth Product Line and Mental Health Product Line as 

well as specific interventions designed to ensure continued excellence in training in 

mission-critical specialties (radiology and cardiology). Many of the initiatives are designed to correct staffing ratios allowing clinicians more time to devote to direct patient care. A full review of financial and non-financial performance measures is underway for each of the projects but conclusive data is not yet available given the 

recent start up of the vast majority of the initiatives. 

Question. How have you benefited from optimization funds? What projects are on 

hold because OSD has not released funding? 

Answer. Navy Medicine has not delayed projects due to OSD withholding funds. 

Question. What are the projected projects using the proposed $90 million in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request? 

Answer. If the Navy’s share of the $90 million in the fiscal year 2004 budget request amounted to $30 million, the following is the current proposal for the use of 

funds. Continuation of current optimization projects is expected to require $16.6 

million, planned advances in medical practices (AMP) programs will require an additional $10 million, and focused improvements in perinatal care, early mental 

health intervention and training of clinic managers will require the final $3.4 million. A full review of the proposed use of the funds is underway as part of the annual budget and business planning process. 
328

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES B. PEAKE

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

DEPLOYMENT OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL

Question. The staff’s discussions with The Surgeons General indicate that the 

Services have backfilled for deployed medical personnel at the Medical Treatment 

Facilities at varying levels. 

Some of the Services are relying more heavily on private sector care rather than 

backfilling for deployed medical personnel. 

To what extent has the recent deployment of military medical personnel affected 

access to care at military treatment facilities? 

Answer. Recent deployments of medical personnel have had varying impacts upon 

access to care in individual Army medical treatment facilities (MTFs). With the initial deployment of medical personnel, there was an approximate 15–30 day underlap 

until Reserve Component (RC) personnel arrived at the various MTFs. Additionally, 

RC backfills were authorized only at approximately 50 percent of the deployed 

losses. Although some have indicated that there should be no impact on access to 

care because medical personnel were deployed as well as troops (i.e., patients), this 

assumption is flawed. Troops are generally the healthiest of the patient population 

served and do not comprise a significant portion of the care provided at any one 

MTF. In addition, at several posts, the medical personnel deployed long before the 

troop populations mobilized. 

While MTFs had varying strategies in dealing with these significant shortages, 

there was some impact on access to routine and wellness care. Strategies included 

utilization of the network, hiring/contracting for civilian positions and reserve backfill. Success was limited by network inadequacy, inability to hire, and insufficient 

reserve backfills. Success varied by location due to the variability of these factors. 

Question. What are you doing to ensure adequate access to care during this time? 

Answer. Most MTFs have skillfully attempted to manage the access to care issue 

by closure/consolidation of clinics, beds and operating rooms; shifting of care to the 

network; extending shifts for both physicians and nurses; double-booking appointments; overtime, including mandatory weekend overtime; increasing resource-sharing contracts and increasing contract hires. Urgent care access was maintained, but 

all MTFs have had varying degrees of success in maintaining access to routine and 

wellness visits. They have managed to decrease the number and significance of access-to-care issues, but most MTFs continue to struggle with the issue. 

Question. What percentage of mobilized reservists in medical specialties are being 

used to backfill positions in the United States? 

Answer. The Reserve Component (RC) provided 22 percent of its mobilized medical specialties to backfill the Army’s Active Component (AC) losses in the Medical 

Treatment Facilities (MTFs). This accounts for 1,631 reservists’ backfilling AC personnel losses in MTFs out of the total mobilized RC medical force of 9,195. This does 

not take into consideration the physicians, dentists, and nurse anesthetists that are 

on a 90-day rotation policy. There are 485 scheduled 90-day rotators in the aforementioned 1,631 RC personnel backfill. To further compound the backfill requirements the Senior Civilian Leadership only authorized a 50 percent backfill cap or 

one RC backfill for every two AC losses. 

Question. Are there shortages of personnel in some specialties? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. If so, which specialties are undermanned and by how much? 

Answer. The Reserve Component (RC) backfill was initially undermanned by 

seven medical specialties for a total of sixteen personnel. These medical specialty 

shortages were Nuclear Medicine Officer, Pulmonary Disease Officer, Dermatologist, 

Allergist, Pediatric Cardiologist, Peripheral Vascular Surgeon, and ten Obstetrics 

Nurses. The 90-day rotation policy added additional requirements by having to rotate physicians, dentists, and nurse anesthetists. In the second 90-day rotation the 

following medical specialties were undermanned by an additional ninety-five physicians and dentists: three Urologists, an Obstetrician and Gynecologist, six Psychiatrists, thirty-six Family Physicians, six General Surgeons, five Thoracic Surgeons, 

five Orthopedic Surgeons, two Radiologists, five Emergency Physicians, and twentysix Dentists. 

Question. Are there other ways of structuring the staffing of military medical 

units that might help address shortages in a few specialties, such as making increased use of civilian contractors or DOD civilian personnel in MTFs stateside? 

Answer. The staffing of Army Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) is a mix of Active Duty military, direct hire civilians, and resource sharing/contract arrange-
329

ments. The Active Duty component is based upon the wartime needs of the numbers 

and types of health care providers needed to staff the deploying medical support 

units (Professional Filler System and cadre hospital organizations). Many of the 

more expensive specialties required at the MTF are the same specialties needed for 

deployments. Even though more than 50 percent of the MTFs’ staffing is non-military, this tends to be in specialties that can be afforded by the General Schedule 

payment tables. Beyond the direct hire civilian staffing, MTFs also form a number 

of resource sharing agreements and local contracts for services available in the area. 

These contracting efforts are in addition to the TRICARE network that may have 

some health care resources in the area. Healthcare providers not already engaged 

with the MTF are fulltime engaged in their own practices with limited expansion 

capability. The sudden demand for additional health care services in an area is an 

immediate shock and drain on the limited healthcare resources in the area. 

Changes to structure and policy would assist in the future. There should be a restructuring of Reserve Component Table of Distribution & Allowance assets to 

match those of PROFIS losses in our MTFs. Modules within Combat Support Hospitals (CSHs) and Forward Surgical Teams (FSTs) to facilitate the mobilization/

movement of mission-specific teams should have corresponding backfill modules in 

the reserves. Military authorizations for high OPTEMPO specialties—61J (General 

Surgery), 61M (Orthopedic), 60N (Anesthesia), 66F (Nurse Anesthetists), 66H8A (Intensive Care Nursing) and 66E (Operating Room Nurse)—should be increased for 

these hard-to-hire specialties. Pay scales need to be increased for health care specialties as current scales and funding levels for Civil Service and contracts are outof-sync with the civilian market. Increasing military authorizations for primary care 

specialties in order to fill the PROFIS requirements for 62Bs (Field Surgeon) would 

prevent the military from having to use critically short subspecialties, such as pediatric cardiologists, to fill these slots. Some specialties—60C (Preventive Medicine) 

and 61N (Flight Surgeons)—have had to be structured to the military setting and 

it is difficult to recruit for these same positions through the civilian sector since the 

training, education, and experience levels are so different. This lack of military-focused training in these specialties has made it impossible to backfill losses in these 

specialties with the reserves. 

MONITORING THE HEALTH OF GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL

Question. What improvements have been made to the medical information systems to track the health care of reservists? Are they electronic, do they differ among 

services? 

Answer. The Army Medical Department’s (AMEDD) Medical Operational Data 

System (MODS) has added modules to address the need of improving the health 

care for both the Guard and Reserve. The Active Duty Medical Extension (ADMR) 

Web Reporting module manages those Guard and Reserve soldiers requiring medical 

treatment that cannot be completed in less than 30 days. The Line of Duty (LOD) 

Automated module automates the completion of LOD Investigations and ancillary 

activities. To assist the National Guard (NG) MODS has a NG Physical Web Reporting module that allows the NG to obtain the physical information on each soldier 

by state. The Automated Voucher System (AVS) facilitates scheduling physical 

exams, dental exams, and immunizations for Army National Guard and Army Reserve personnel. As a closeout to the AVS cycle, AVS provides Medical Readiness 

results to MEDPROS module. MEDPROS provides the Army Knowledge On-line 

(AKO) with a real time update of Active Duty, National Guard and Army Reserve 

Individual Medical Readiness elements to over 1.2 million registered AKO users at 

logon. 

There is no significant difference in the Individual Medical readiness tracking between the active or reserve component of the Army. 

Question. During the mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom, how many reservists could not be deployed for medical reasons? 

Answer. Overall the medically non-deployable rate for reserve component (RC) 

soldiers was 2.2 percent or 3,147 out of 141,365 RC soldiers processed for mobilization. 566 of these non-deployable soldiers are currently undergoing a medical board. 

More than 80 percent of the non-deployable soldiers had a chronic medical problem. 

The most common medical reasons for non-deployability were orthopedic and mental 

health problems followed by adult onset diabetes. 27 percent of reserve component 

soldiers had orthopedic conditions with the most common problem areas being the 

back (32 percent), knees (24 percent), and shoulders (14 percent). 8 percent of the 

non-deployable RC soldiers had mental health problems and 6 percent had diabetes. 

Orthopedic conditions and diabetes are expected to be more common in reserve component soldiers given their generally older average age. 
330

This information will be used to guide policy changes. Health Affairs has mandated an Individual Medical Readiness metric that requires the armed services to 

monitor compliance with required periodic health assessments and identification 

and management of those soldiers with deployment limiting conditions. Improving 

and enforcing the profile process will enable earlier identification of significant medical problems. However, until a digital profile process is in place early identification 

of deployment limiting conditions will remain problematic. 

Question. An April 2003 GAO report documents deficiencies by the Army in monitoring the health of the early-deploying reservists. Annual health screening is required to ensure that reserve personnel are medically fit for deployment when called 

upon. Review found that 49 percent of early-deploying reservists lacked a current 

dental exam, and 68 percent of those over age 40 lacked a current biennial physical 

exam. In addition, monitoring the health of reservists returning from deployment 

will be critical to ensuring the long term health of those service members, and assisting in the identification of common illnesses, such as those associated with the 

Gulf War Syndrome. 

How many deployments (soldiers) were delayed due to dental reasons, and how 

many reservists are not in Dental Class 1 or 2? 

Answer. Only 192 soldiers (0.11 percent of 176,846 mobilized) were delayed due 

to dental reasons; 33 were disqualified (0.02 percent). However, several factors contributed to this extremely low number. First, dental assets at mobilization sites, 

composed of both active and reserve dental assets, worked very assiduously to bring 

mobilizing reservists to deployable standards. Despite poor dental health of many 

reservists, dental facilities worked tirelessly to accommodate their acute oral health 

needs. Second, as funding for dental readiness of the reserve components is lacking, 

Army G–3 provided an additional $23 million in OMA funds to support medical and 

dental readiness. As a result, many reservists obtained dental examinations and 

requisite dental care prior to mobilization. This care was provided primarily by contracts with civilian network providers. Recent figures from mobilization sites reflect 

that only 14 percent of those reporting to mobilization sites were dental class 3 

(non-deployable), reflecting a vast improvement in dental readiness of our reserve 

forces over previous mobilizations. 

Current dental readiness of the reserves, reflected in MEDPROS data, reflects 

that 64.4 percent (223,140) of the Army National Guard are dentally nondeployable, and 72.9 percent (241,907) of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) are dentally non-deployable. For the USAR, a significant number of Class 4 soldiers are in 

the Individual Ready Reserve, who are not considered early deployers. With adequate funding, these statistics would be greatly improved. 

Question. What is the current enrollment rate in the TRICARE Dental Program 

(TDP) for reservists, and what action has DOD taken to encourage reservists to enroll in TDP? 

Answer. Data provided by TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) reflects an 

overall DOD reserve component enrollment rate of 4.9 percent as of January 2003. 

Mobilizations and deployments have decreased enrollment temporarily; as a result, 

latest numbers were not used. Army specific numbers are: USAR = 4.3 percent, and 

ARNG = 3.1 percent. 

The TDP contractor markets the plan to its potential beneficiaries. The initial 

marketing effort by the contractor entailed sending TDP information to each reserve 

and guard unit. Quantities of information sent were based on unit end strengths. 

The Defense Manpower Data Center provides the TDP contractor quarterly files 

listing newly eligible sponsors. This file is used for the ongoing marketing efforts 

under the TDP. The contractor has also established a website for TDP. The contractor has a staff of Dental Benefits Advisors that travel to military installations 

to include reserve and guard facilities. TMA’s Communication and Customer Service 

marketing office has worked with Reserve Affairs to develop and post TDP fact 

sheets on the TMA website that are linked to other reserve and guard websites. 

Question. What needs to be done and what will it cost to ensure that reservists 

are medically and dentally fit for duty? 

Answer. Despite numerous initiatives, the active component dental assets shoulder the majority of Reserve Component (RC) mobilization workload, a requirement 

for which they are not resourced. Additionally, when active component dental assets 

are shifted to accommodate RC mobilization requirements, a concomitant drop in active component dental readiness occurs (a 7 percent drop in dental readiness of the 

3rd Infantry Division occurred at Fort Stewart during mobilization of the 48th Infantry Brigade [ARNG]). Use of active component dental assets will remain a necessity, but ideally only as a back up and not the primary means of preparing RC soldiers for deployment. 
331

Title 10 USC Section 1074a authorizes members of the Selected Reserve that are 

assigned to units scheduled for deployment within 75 days after mobilization, an annual dental screen and dental care required to ensure deployability, at no cost to 

the soldier. However, funding for this requirement is lacking. When OMA funds 

were recently shifted to support this requirement for current operations, dental 

Class 3 (non-deployable) rates dropped to 14 percent for RC soldiers reporting to 

mobilization sites, a vast improvement from earlier deployments that documented 

a range of 20–35 percent dental Class 3 (depending on mobilization and units involved). If a greater response time had been available, even greater improvements 

in dental readiness would have been realized. Adequate funding for this requirement would greatly enhance dental readiness of the RC. 

Several avenues are being studied to fulfill the dental requirements outlined in 

Title 10 USC Section 1074a. DOD(HA) has chartered an integrated process team to 

determine the best course of action. However, one estimate of Class 3 costs, based 

on a Tri-Service Center for Oral Health Studies Year 2000 Recruit Study of oral 

health needs reported a cost of $334 per trainee. Annual dental examination and 

required radiographs are estimated at $116 per soldier. Another estimate using the 

TRICARE Dental Program to pay the entire premium and selected co-pays to eliminate only Class 3 dental conditions resulted in a government cost of $124.4 million 

for premiums and $16.5 million for Class 3 dental care. 

Question. Are there any repercussions for commanders who do not ensure that 

their troops are fit for duty? 

Answer. Fitness for duty effects overall readiness of a unit. It is the commander’s 

responsibility to ensure that all of his soldiers are medically fit. He can do this by 

ensuring the soldiers have current physicals, immunizations, dental exams, and participate in the semi-annual Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and weigh-in. It is 

also the commander’s responsibility to take appropriate action when a soldier does 

not meet the medical fitness standards as prescribed in Army Regulation (AR) 40–

501, Standards of Medical Fitness. Appropriate action would include the medical 

board process and/or separation of soldiers in accordance with (IAW) AR 135–175, 

Separation of Officers or AR 135–178, Enlisted Administrative Separations. Repercussions for commanders who do not enforce individual medical readiness standards 

are not punitive in nature, but could include relief of command or less than adequate comments on the commander’s performance evaluations. 

COMBAT TREATMENT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Question. How well have your forward deployed medical support units and the 

small modular units performed in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom? 

Answer. The transformation initiatives have greatly enhanced the ability of the 

medical planners and commanders to place the appropriate amount of medical care, 

up close where the soldiers needs it, yet balanced with an economical use of the 

force. The Forward Surgical Teams (FST) were used very effectively first in Afghanistan and then they demonstrated dramatic results in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

(OIF). The FST is extremely lightweight, 100 percent mobile and has the speed to 

stay close to the combat element and provide immediate surgical care close to the 

place of injury. In OIF a FST was placed with each Brigade Combat Team. In addition each Brigade Combat Team was assigned 3 Medical Evaluation Helicopters to 

link the FST with the next element of care the Combat Support Hospital (CSH). The 

CSH has a split base operating capability demonstrated in OIF with the 21st CSH 

and the 86th CSH. This flexibility allowed for the unit to more appropriately move 

with the flow of Combat, remain with evacuation distance, yet provide the next echelon of medical care in the theater. Three CSHs were assigned to the 5th Corp and 

3 CSHs were in the theater rear. 

DEPLOYMENT OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL

Question. What are some of the lessons learned from our experience in Iraq? 

Answer. Operation IRAQI Freedom (OIF) reinforced the timeless lessons of military medicine of proximity to the wounded, preventive medicine, echeloned care, 

flexibility, and mobility. What was unique about this war was the large dimensions 

of the battlefield and the speed of the operation. The AMEDD has applied many of 

the lessons learned from the first Gulf War and recent operations other than war. 

As a result, our service members reaped the benefits of revised doctrine and procedures during OIF. During the first Gulf War, Combat Support Hospitals (CHSs) designed for the Cold War were large and immobile. Today our CSHs are modularized 

and able to provide split based operations. This war validated the importance of 

Forward Surgical Teams (FST), which are attached to brigade combat teams. These 
332

teams are light, extremely mobile, and have been trained as a trauma team at some 

of the most advanced trauma centers in the United States. FSTs take advantage 

of the ‘‘Golden Hour’’ and quickly provide life-saving surgery close to the point of 

wounding. OIF also validated our 91W transformation program. The 91W (Health 

Care Specialist) program increased the training of basic combat medics to the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) level. Furthermore, medical planning officers were 

included at the various operational staff levels in the planning of OIF military campaign plan. 

The Army and the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) have a formal lessons 

learned process. As part of the initial OIF planning, The Surgeon General directed 

comprehensive data collection to facilitate the lessons learned process. Currently 

data collection is in process and additional lessons learned will result from formal 

data analysis. 

The preliminary analyses of injuries from this war indicate that improved ballistic 

protection for the head and thorax resulted in a reduction of immediately life threatening injuries. Patterns of injury were very different in Iraqi vs. U.S. soldiers. Iraqi 

soldiers experienced the whole spectrum of injuries: upper and lower extremities, 

chest, abdomen and back. U.S. soldiers have had predominately upper and lower extremity injuries. The use of body armor has reduced abdominal, chest and head penetrating injury. 

Excellent pre-deployment screening and preventive medicine kept the disease rate 

extremely low. Increased automation of the AMEDD’s major systems such as logistics and patient tracking highlighted the need for improved access to assured data 

communications throughout the battlefield. The TRANSCOM Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation System (TRACES) improved the ability to evacuate 

casualties. However this system is still evolving and with appropriate funding, 

should have the capability to electronically track patients from point of injury to 

final disposition. The lessons learned from this war indicate that the AMEDD is on 

the right track and will keep improving as medical transformation continues. 

IMPROVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE

Question. What tools/equipment is still required to improve the care provided to 

combat casualties? 

Answer. In order to expedite treatment, it is critical that evacuation assets be 

available to facilitate the continuity of patient care. Current modes for patient evacuation include ground and air platforms, which includes the modernization of the 

UH60 Aero-medical fleet. As part of the Aviation Modernization Program, the HH60 

Aero-medical evacuation helicopter has demonstrated exceptional capability in providing enroute care in Afghanistan and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is a 

significant improvement in the standard of care provided during Operation Desert 

Storm. Continued fielding throughout the entire MEDEVAC fleet is paramount to 

continued future success. 

T-NEX, THE NEXT GENERATION OF TRICARE CONTRACTS

Question. The next generation TRICARE contracts will replace the seven current 

managed care support contracts with three contracts. This consolidation is intended 

to improve portability and reduce the administrative costs of negotiating change orders and providing government oversight across seven contracts. 

The award date for these contacts has slipped from the scheduled date in July 

of 2003. 

Since the timeline for awarding the contracts has slipped, what is the expected 

start date for the delivery of T-Nex? 

Answer. The Army has not been notified of the slippage of award date you describe. However, if that were to occur, we anticipate that the currently planned start 

dates for all regions except Region 11 will likely remain the same and that the Region 11 start date will be adjusted to allow for a full ten month transition period. 

Question. What planning is taking place to help ensure that when the contracts 

are entered into there will be a seamless transition for beneficiaries? 

Answer. It is very important that transition to the T-Nex family of contracts be 

seamless to beneficiaries and that continuity of care be preserved to the greatest 

extent possible. Planning for seamlessness and continuity started with the development of the T-Nex contract request for proposals (RFP). Rules for interfacing of outgoing and incoming contractors to ensure smooth hand off of claims, records, and 

the like are designed into each RFP. A communications plan to inform beneficiaries 

and providers about the change has been developed and is being executed. Further, 

our beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators are trained and ready to assist beneficiaries should T-Nex issues, questions, or problems arise. For example, 
333

the first T-Nex contract—TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy (TMOP)—occurred March 

1, 2003. Based on a very low number of patient complaints, hand off of patient 

records and prescriptions and delivery of pharmaceuticals according to schedule 

went well from the beneficiary perspective. When problems occurred, they were relatively minor and the incoming contractor moved quickly to correct them. Our beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators were prepared and ready to assist 

beneficiaries if problems occurred. 

The larger Managed Care Support Services T-Nex contract, due to be awarded 

this summer, is a larger and more complex contract than TMOP, but the principles 

of execution to support seamless transition and continuity still apply: intense prior 

planning and designing in phase in/phase out rules to ensure smooth hand offs of 

records and claims information, develop and execute a communication plan to inform beneficiaries and all TRICARE providers of the coming contract change, and 

intense preparation of the cadre of beneficiary counselors to directly assist with beneficiary problems, issues, and concerns should they occur. Other more specific provisions in this contract include requiring the incoming contractor to negotiate with all 

current network providers and encourage them to remain in the network, careful 

planning to preserve continuity of care when resource sharing agreements are converted to direct contracts or other contracting arrangements within the military 

treatment facilities, preservation of the access standards as in the previous contracts, preservation of the primary care manager concept, and continuation of major 

programs—like TRICARE for Life and TRICARE Prime Remote—continue unchanged. 

Question. Are beneficiaries experiencing any change in quality of care due to 

DOD’s inability to enter into new long-term managed care agreements? 

Answer. Due to extensions of all seven current managed care support contracts, 

beneficiaries continue to access quality health care both in military treatment facilities and in the civilian networks just as they have over the course of the current 

contracts. Quality of care complaints from beneficiaries remain rare and almost always come from beneficiaries in remote areas. When quality of care issues are 

raised by beneficiaries, the complaint is immediately validated and is brought to the 

attention of the relevant Lead Agent medical director. The medical director presents 

the case to the responsible managed care support contractor for investigation and 

resolution of the complaint. 

Question. Under T-Nex, what services currently provided by the TRICARE contractors will shift to the direct care system and what are the costs associated with 

this shift in services? 

Answer. Services that shift from the current TRICARE contractors to the direct 

care system are military treatment facility appointing/referral management, management of all resource sharing agreements, internal utilization management services, management of the Health Evaluation Assessment Report, management of the 

health care information line, and transcription services. The estimated total cost to 

implement these services by Army facilities is $753.4 million through the last contract option, fiscal year 2008. 

The cost for appointing services consists of personnel and essential telephone 

equipment upgrades. To start health care delivery in fiscal year 2004 (prorated to 

account for staggered start ups) $16.7 million is required with $26.5 million needed 

for the full fiscal year, 2005. 

The estimated cost for replacing contractor personnel and equipment to perform 

internal utilization management services for fiscal year 2004 is $6.5 million and 

$21.9 million in fiscal year 2005. 

Converting over 1,100 resource sharing providers to direct contracts or other arrangements to preserve continuity of care requires $15.8 million in fiscal year 2004 

and $104.6 million in fiscal year 2005. 

To manage the health care information line, we estimate $2.3 million in 2004 and 

$7.3 million in 2005 is necessary. To assume management of the Health Evaluation 

Assessment Report within our facilities, the Army requires $.3 million in 2004 and 

$1.1 million in 2005. 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Question. Personnel shortfalls still exist in a number of critical medical specialties 

throughout the Services. The Navy has reported shortfalls in Anesthesiology, General Surgery, Radiology, and Pathology, and has stated the civilian-military pay gap 

is their greatest obstacle in filling these high demand specialties. Recruiting and retaining dentists appears to be a challenge for all the services. 

To what extent have Critical Skills Retention Bonuses or other incentives been 

successful in helping to retain medical personnel? 
334

Answer. The table below shows the results of the recent Critical Skills Retention 

Bonus (CSRB).

Corps Eligible Takers Percentage 

Medical Corps ........................................................................................................ 753 177 24

Dental Corps .......................................................................................................... 596 416 70

Nurse Corps ........................................................................................................... 493 329 67

As can be seen, the program seems more successful within the Dental and Nurse 

community than the physician. What overall effect this will have on retention has 

yet to be determined. We are hopeful that those who opted for the CSRB in fiscal 

year 2003 will remain in the force beyond that. The increases in the Fiscal Year 

2003 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to the special pay ceilings may 

help us retain some assuming that appropriation support for these increases is also 

forthcoming. 

Question. What else needs to be done to maximize retention of medical personnel? 

Answer. The retention of our highly trained and skilled health care professionals 

is one of our greatest challenges. A recent study submitted to Congress indicated 

that the pay compatibility gap at seven years of service is between 13 and 63 percent, depending on the specialty. The Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) raised the ceilings on discretionary special pays for our health care 

providers for the first time in ten years. We are now working within our system 

to obtain funding to support increases in our special pays against these new ceilings. However, we need to recognize that it isn’t all about the money. The pay compatibility gap will never be completely closed. There are a multitude of other factors 

that we have addressed and keep addressing. Such things as adequate and skilled 

administrative support staff to allow our clinicians to maximize the time they spend 

practicing their craft is vitally important. That, coupled with modern facilities and 

equipment, create an environment of practice that is attractive to health care providers, and is often more important than pure economics. In many cases the scope 

of practice of our non-physician health care providers is greater than that in the 

civilian community and is extremely satisfying. The ability of our personnel to enter 

academic or research fields, in additional to the purely clinical is another important 

facet that we will continue to support. Quality of life is equally important to many 

of our personnel. The benefits of service, such as housing, paid leave, and base facilities, are difficult to replicate in the civilian sector. By addressing the whole package—money, quality of life and environment of practice, we hope to retain dedicated 

health care professionals that will insure the soldier on point will not be alone and 

will have world class health care both at home and while deployed. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

JESSE SPIRI MILITARY MEDICAL COVERAGE ACT

Question. In 2001, a young Marine Corps 2nd LT from New Mexico lost his courageous battle with cancer. Jesse Spiri had just graduated from Western New Mexico 

University and was awaiting basic officer training when he learned of his illness. 

However, because his commission had triggered his military status to that of ‘‘inactive reservist,’’ Jesse was not fully covered by TRICARE. As a result, he was left 

unable to afford the kind of special treatment he needed. I believe it is time to close 

this dangerous loophole. That is why I intend to offer a bill entitled the ‘‘Jesse Spiri 

Military Medical Coverage Act.’’ This bill will ensure that those military officers who 

have received a commission and are awaiting ‘‘active duty’’ status will have access 

to proper medical insurance. 

Would you agree that this type of loophole is extremely dangerous for those who, 

like Jesse, suffer with a dreaded disease? 

Answer. Yes, we agree that for someone like Jesse, who has a terminal illness, 

having no health insurance is very dangerous. We mourn, as well, for the tragic loss 

of Jesse Spiri. The death of one’s child is perhaps the most difficult thing a parent 

must bear, and my heart goes out to his family. The more potent issue for the Military Health System is that Jesse suffered from a disease which made him unable 

to perform military duties, and that existed prior to service (EPTS). Similarly, any 

soldier on active duty who had Jesse’s condition would have been separated from 

active duty. And for those on active duty less than 8 years who suffer from congenital or hereditary conditions, they would not receive any disability benefits or 

coverage for health care after they are discharged. 
335

Question. And do you agree that our military health care system should close this 

loophole, and can do so very cost effectively (given the relatively low number of officers it would affect)? 

Answer. We agree that individuals such as Jesse, who are part of the 41.2 million 

uninsured (2001) in our country, face negative health and financial consequences 

from terminal illnesses. We also recognize that finding solutions to the problem of 

health coverage for the uninsured is difficult and will require the efforts of both the 

government and private sectors. The mission of the Military Health Care System 

is to meet the challenge of maintaining medical combat readiness while providing 

the best health care for all eligible personnel. These include active duty and retired 

members of the uniformed services, their families, and survivors, which today total 

approximately 8.5 million. Congress can expand the categories of eligible personnel, 

but there are significant policy and equity issues of expanding eligibility only to selected inactive Reserve Component officers. And any expansion of TRICARE benefits 

to any Reserve Component personnel and/or families must be accompanied by increases in Defense Health Program budgets. The list of hereditary or congenital 

components (e.g., brain damage from an Arteriovenous malformation, certain types 

of breast cancer, retinitis pigmentosa) is continually growing as medical science advances, making it impossible to implement fairly a system that mandates denial of 

benefits if a condition is determined to be hereditary or congenital. The Army would 

like to attain congressional approval of an initiative that would reduce the 8-year 

provision to requiring only 18 months of continuous active service before pre-existing conditions are covered. 

MILITARY FAMILY ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE ACT

Question. I think everyone here is familiar with the adage that we recruit the soldier, but we retain the family. That means taking care of our military families and 

giving them a good standard of living. I have introduced a bill that would provide 

a benefit to military families seeking dental care, but who must travel great distances to receive it. Specifically, my bill, the ‘‘Military Family Access to Dental Care 

Act’’ (S. 336) would provide a travel reimbursement to military families in need of 

certain specialized dental care but who are required to travel over 100 miles to see 

a specialist. Often, families at rural bases like Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, NM 

meet with financial hardship if more than one extended trip is required. This bill 

reimburses them for that travel and is a small way of helping our military families. 

Given that current law provides a travel reimbursement for military families who 

must travel more than 100 miles for specialty medical care, do you believe it is important to incorporate specialty dental care within this benefit? 

Answer. I fully concur with the concept of providing a travel reimbursement for 

military families who must travel more than 100 miles for specialty dental care. 

However, most active duty family members participate in the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP), the DOD-sponsored dental insurance program. If these family members 

must travel greater than 100 miles for specialty dental care at a civilian TDP provider, travel reimbursement would ease some of their financial burden. Management of this program may prove difficult, however. Unlike the TRICARE Health 

Plan, DOD does not monitor nor control where TDP enrollees go for care. 

Verification of that travel may prove problematic, as greater reliance on the contractor (United Concordia) for verification would be necessary. 

Question. Do you think this benefit would improve the standard of living of our 

military families. 

Answer. Clearly, this benefit would improve the standard of living of our military 

families. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

PATIENT PRIVACY (TRICARE)

Question. I would like to get your comments about several concerns and questions 

I have related to the December 14, 2002 break-in of the offices of TriWest, a 

TRICARE contractor. I am told that TriWest did not notify the Department of Defense of the break-in and theft of personnel information of over 500,000 TRICARE 

beneficiaries, for almost a week after the event. Apparently, TriWest didn’t even 

have basic security equipment—guards, locks, cameras—and as a result, this incident amounts to the biggest identity theft in U.S. history. Is this information true? 

Answer. The physical break-in of the locked TriWest Healthcare Alliance corporate offices and theft of computer equipment occurred on Saturday, December 14, 

2002. On Monday, December 16, 2002, the break-in and theft was discovered, au-
336

thorities contacted, and TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) operations staff 

were advised. Back-up tapes were run on Tuesday, December 17, 2002, (which took 

30 hours), and on Friday, December 20, 2002, TMA/HA leadership was notified of 

the beneficiary information theft. TriWest at that time had available from their 

back-up tapes beneficiary information including names, addresses, phone numbers, 

Social Security Numbers, some claims information with relevant procedure codes, 

and personal credit card information on 23 individuals. 

To date, the Army Medical Department has not received notification of a single 

verified case of identity theft related to TriWest stolen computer equipment. 

Question. Has the Department of Defense finished its investigation of this case 

and have sanctions been levied against TriWest or punitive actions against 

TRICARE officials? 

Answer. The criminal investigation is being conducted by the Defense Criminal 

Investigative Service (DCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in coordination with other federal and local law enforcement agencies. 

To date, no sanctions have been levied upon or punitive actions taken against 

TriWest or TRICARE officials. The investigation is ongoing, and its findings are 

pending. 

Sensitive information pertaining to TRICARE beneficiaries is maintained by 

TRICARE contractors subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as implemented by the 

DOD Privacy Program (DOD 5400.11–R). The Act provides criminal penalties for 

any contractor or contractor employee who willfully discloses such protected information, in any manner, to any person or agency not entitled to receive the information. The Act also provides for civil penalties against DOD if it is determined that 

the Department (or contractor) intentionally or willfully failed to comply with the 

Privacy Act. 

Question. Would you please share what you can about the lessons learned as a 

result of this incident and the steps the Department and the TRICARE organization 

and its contractors are taking to guarantee beneficiary privacy? 

Answer. As a result of close evaluation of our physical and information security 

we found the following: 

—Backup tapes not protected. For example, tapes left on the top of servers, or 

left lying out in the open. 

—A general lack of proper security in areas where servers reside. In particular, 

Defense Blood Standard System and Pharmacy servers were not being properly 

protected. 

—Most sites had excellent password management policies and guidelines in place, 

but they were not being followed. 

—In general, there were proper locks on doors, but in several cases, not being 

properly used. Many doors that should have been locked after hours were found 

open which allowed entry to areas where patient information is kept. Most 

items not secure were portable medical devices containing patient medical information and medical records. 

—In many cases contingency plans for disaster recovery were lacking or out-ofdate. 

—Lost hardware not reported through official channels. 

—Hardware being turned in without data being wiped from hard drives. 

—Concerning recent physical security self-assessments, a second look found almost 60 percent of local assessments were inaccurate or inexact. 

—As a result of the TriWest issues all Army medical activities participated in a 

Health Affairs directed self-assessment of local physical security practices. Mitigation plans for all deficiencies are due on May 16, 2003. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES

Question. Healthcare, pay, and housing are the greatest Quality of Life issues for 

our troops and their families. With the numbers of health care staff deployed from 

your Military Treatment Facilities, what strategies did you use to effectively plan 

and care for beneficiaries back home? 

Answer. The most expeditious means to maintain services for our beneficiaries 

was accomplished by looking across our own regional medical commands for opportunities to cross-level providers when possible. The TRICARE Health Plan was designed with contingency operations in mind and the Managed Care Support Contractor’s (MCSC) network of providers becomes the second echelon for health care 

services if the MTF is unable to provide the care. Before requesting any reserve 
337

component activation for backfill support, the MEDCOM staff coordinated with the 

TRICARE Lead Agents and the MCSC to evaluate the adequacy of the civilian provider network, especially in relation to specific clinical specialties and locations that 

were hard hit. When network adequacy was less than adequate, the request for reserve component backfill request was prepared to maintain health care services. Additionally, the MCSC provided backfill providers and support staff through resource 

sharing agreements. A summary of resource sharing backfill by DOD Region and 

skill type is provided below for Army MTFs. The MCSC was successful in providing 

88 percent of the requested backfill. The majority of those filled by the MCSC were 

in the Registered Nurse and Para-Professional skills. For those positions capable of 

being filled with resource sharing personnel, the MCSC’s average ‘‘fill time’’ was 16 

days compared to the industry standard of 90 days.
338

Skill Type Data 

DOD TRICARE Region 

Grand Total Percent By Type 3 5 6 12 7/8

Physicians ................................................................................................................................. Subtotal FTEs Requested ....................... 3 5 0.5 1.66 8.5 18.66 12

Subtotal FTEs Filled ............................... 3 5 0.5 1.66 8.5 18.66 14

PAs/NPs ..................................................................................................................................... Subtotal FTEs Requested ....................... 1 1 ............ ............ ................ 2 1

Subtotal FTEs Filled ............................... 1 1 ............ ............ ................ 2 1

RNs ........................................................................................................................................... Subtotal FTEs Requested ....................... 21 9 ............ ............ 39 69 45

Subtotal FTEs Filled ............................... 11 9 ............ ............ 39 59 43

Paraprofessionals ..................................................................................................................... Subtotal FTEs Requested ....................... 19 5 ............ ............ 30 54 35

Subtotal FTEs Filled ............................... 10 5 ............ ............ 30 45 33

Administrative ........................................................................................................................... Subtotal FTEs Requested ....................... ............ 9 ............ ............ 2 11 7

Subtotal FTEs Filled ............................... ............ 9 ............ ............ 2 11 8

Total FTEs Requested .................................................................................................. ................................................................ 44 29 0.5 1.66 79.5 154.66 ............Total FTEs Filled .......................................................................................................... ................................................................ 25 29 0.5 1.66 79.5 135.66 88
339

Question. How are you able to address the needs of patients coming in from the 

battlefield and is this affecting the care of beneficiaries seeking regular care? 

Answer. Casualties evacuated from Operation IRAQI Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) were initially sent to either the fleet hospital at 

ROTA Spain or Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC). The staffing of LRMC 

was increased to manage the flow of casualties. This enabled LRMC to execute both 

its peacetime mission of providing health care to beneficiaries stationed in Europe 

and its wartime mission of the primary OCONUS military treatment facility (MTF) 

supporting the Global War on Terrorism. Evacuation from Europe was facilitated 

by the TRANSCOM Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation System 

(TRACES). This system improved the ability to send casualties to medical centers 

best equipped to manage their specific medical problem. For example: TRACES expedited the evacuation of burn patients to the specialized burn center at Brooke 

Army Medical Center (BAMC). 

Army Medical Centers, such as Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Womack 

Army Medical Center/Fort Bragg, and Army Community Hospitals, such as the hospital at Fort Hood, deployed many health care providers and paraprofessionals. Reserve component backfill and cross leveling within the Army Medical Department 

maintained the capacity of most MTFs in the Army. Localized shortages of certain 

beneficiary services did occur. However, when the network capability was adequate, 

beneficiaries were able to obtain health care on the local economy through 

TRICARE if care within the MTF was not available or if waiting times exceeded 

TRICARE access standards. In some locations, the TRICARE network capability 

and the adequacy of that network, remains problematic. In these areas, TRICARE 

access standards were exceeded. Across the Army there has been approximately a 

20 percent increase in purchased care. This increase combined with the augmented 

numbers of reserve soldiers on active duty, and the need to send health care providers on extended temporary duty, will significantly increase the resource requirements of the Army Medical Department. 

Question. What authority were you given to backfill your vacancies and are the 

funds sufficient to attain that goal? 

Answer. The Army Medical Department has supported and is supporting a number of missions requiring the deployment of medical personnel in addition to those 

deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Noble Eagle. 

None of our MTFs are overstrength, and the impact of these deployments is always 

felt, but can generally be managed for the short duration missions. 

Dr. David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, authorized a 50 percent backfill by Reserve Component personnel of the number of vacancies created by the deployment of active duty in PROFIS (professional filler system) 

positions to OIF only. Additionally, limiting the amount of active duty time to 90-

day rotations for RC physicians, dentists, and Nurse Anesthetists has been problematic as there are insufficient reserves to fill multiple rotations in some specialties. 

Attempting to maintain the high quality of care and the access to care for our beneficiaries with this reduction in personnel has been extremely challenging. Increasing 

the amount of funding for reserve backfill would increase the ability to replace 

losses, especially in areas of inadequate TRICARE networks. To accommodate the 

90-day rotational policy, a significant increase in the number of slots for reserves 

will be needed. 

Question. What measures were used in determining what the services were able 

to backfill and how did that compare to current requirements? 

Answer. Current staffing before deployment; staff losses, by specialty, due to deployment; loss of borrowed military manpower; losses due to other taskings; 

TRICARE network adequacy; non-network adequacy; historical ability to hire/contract healthcare workers; reserve availability; and the ability of the regions to crosslevel losses, especially low-density specialties, were all taken into account to determine the level and kind of backfill needed. As deployment schedules, troop mix and 

actual units changed for this fluid operation, reserve backfill and cross-leveling were 

and continue to be adjusted. 

RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT

Question. With increasing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

the Global War on Terrorism, can you describe your overall recruitment and retention status of the Medical Department in each of your services? 

Answer. Our current accession projections for the year (as of May 7, 2003) are 

in the table below:
340

Corps Mission Projection Percentage 

Army Nurse Corps ...................................................................................... 373 283 75.87

Dental Corps .............................................................................................. 117 112 95.73

Medical Corps ............................................................................................ 389 389 100.00

Medical Service Corps ............................................................................... 369 369 100.00

Medical Specialist Corps ........................................................................... 83 106 127.71

Veterinary Corps ......................................................................................... 40 43 107.05

Total .............................................................................................. 1,371 1,302 94.97

Our current loss projections seem to be following a historical glide path, but this 

may have been influenced by the various programs put in place to stop personnel 

from exiting the service. Once these programs are no longer in place, it is unclear 

how our force will react. If we utilize, for example, the number of people eligible 

for Incentive Special Pay compared to those that elected to execute a contract, we 

see that this fiscal year is significantly below the last three years. This may well 

indicate a problem within the Medical Corps. We project meeting our accession program for Medical Corps officers. However, chronic shortages in some specialties 

(such as surgical subspecialties) continue to exist in the Medical Corps. 

Question. What specific corps or specialties are of most concern? 

Answer. Currently, the Army Nurse Corps is of the most concern. The nation wide 

shortage, coupled with two years of an inability to achieve our accession target, has 

created a significant shortage of skilled nurses. We are hopeful that utilization of 

the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program, changes with United States Army 

Cadet Command and planned increases in the Accession Bonus will enable us to 

more successfully compete within the civilian market place for these skills. Within 

the Medical Corps, our surgical specialties continue to present us with the largest 

challenge. General surgery, orthopedic surgery and anesthesiology continue to be 

specialties with a high Operational Tempo. This high Operational Tempo, coupled 

with a significant pay gap when compared to civilian situations, makes the retention 

of these specialties difficult. Our radiology community is also experiencing a decline 

in the inventory. Our past efforts within the Dental Corps are now starting to pay 

dividends. While still short in terms of total inventory, past increases in our student 

program support for this Corps has resulted in positive strides toward eliminating 

our accession problems. 

Question. Did the Critical Skills Retention Bonus given for this year help these 

specialties? 

Answer. Within the Nurse Corps, 55 percent of the Nurse Anesthetists and 76 

percent of the Operating Room Nurses that were eligible for the Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) opted for the program. Within the Dental Community, 70 percent of those eligible took the program. Medical Corps response was somewhat less 

than this with only 24 percent of the eligible physicians opting for the program. 

Question. In light of shortages and the disparity between military and civilian salaries, how have you planned for additional retention bonuses in future years? 

Answer. The Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) increased the ceilings on our retention and accessions pays. In the absence of any appropriation to support these additional authorizations, we have attempted to make 

small modifications within existing budgets for fiscal year 2004. However, working 

with our sister services and Health Affairs, we are developing an aggressive plan 

with increases in all specialties for fiscal year 2005 and beyond. The actual amount 

of the increase will be determined based on projected inventory. The proposed increases range anywhere from $2,000 to $25,000 (assuming a four year contract) depending on the specialty. This plan is contingent on the availability of funds. Currently funds are not programmed within the Defense Health Program or the services military personnel accounts for this initiative. 

Question. Are there recruitment and retention issues within certain specialties or 

corps? 

Answer. Currently, the Army Nurse Corps is of significant concern. The nationwide shortage, coupled with two years of an inability to achieve our accession target—86 percent (288 of 333 authorizations) and 79 percent (291 of 367 authorizations) for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 respectively—has created a significant shortage of skilled nurses. Our predominant nursing shortages are for Operating Room Nurses—86 percent (290 of 339 authorizations), Nurse Anesthesists—

72 percent (200 of 277 authorizations) and OBGYN Nurses—73 percent (129 of 177 

authorizations). We are hopeful that utilization of the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program, changes within United States Army Cadet Command and 

planned increases in the Accession Bonus will enable us to more successfully com-
341

pete within the civilian market place for these skills. Within the Medical Corps, our 

surgical specialties continue to present us with the largest challenge. General Surgery—50 percent (126 of 251 authorizations), Orthopedic Surgery—54 percent (116 

of 215 authorizations) and Anesthesiology—84 percent (138 of 164 authorizations) 

continue to be specialties with a high Operational Tempo. This high Operation 

Tempo, coupled with a significant pay gap when compared to civilian situations—

36 percent for General Surgeons, 48 percent for Orthopedic Surgeons and 42 percent 

for Anesthesiologist (data as of fiscal year 2000 for providers at seven years of service as reported in the Health Professions’ Retention-Accession Incentives Study Report to Congress by the Center for Naval Analysis) makes the retention of these specialties difficult. Our radiology community—58 percent (119 of 204 authorizations) 

is also experiencing a decline in the inventory. Our past efforts within the Dental 

Corps are now starting to pay dividends. While still short in terms of total inventory—87 percent (987 of 1,136 authorizations), past increases in our student program support for this Corps has resulted in positive strides toward eliminating our 

accession problems (achieved an average of 77 percent of accession requirements 

over the past five years, as opposed to an average of 64 percent success rate over 

the last ten years). We continue to use a variety of bonus programs as well as initiatives to improve the quality of medical practice to enhance provider satisfaction and 

improve retention. 

Question. If so, what are your recommendations to address this in the future? 

Answer. Fully funded student programs coupled with accession incentives comparable with those offered within the civilian market place will be critical to maintaining our force structure. Aggressive utilization of the Health Professions Loan 

Repayment Program as a retention tool within the Nurse Corps will hopefully 

change some retention behavior. We are also increasing the use Reserve Officer 

Training Corps scholarships, restructuring bonuses and seeking increased funding 

to increase bonus payments. We are also working to improve our providers’ satisfaction with the quality of their clinical practice to improve retention. If this is successful within this Corps, we will evaluate its utility within other Corps. 

Question. Have incentive and special pays helped with specific corps or specialties? 

Answer. This is a difficult question to quantify. The percentage of officers who 

elected to avail themselves of these special pays can be an indication of success. For 

example, when we offered new retention pays to our Optometry and Pharmacy community, 86 percent and 88 percent respectively, opted for the pays. There is no way 

to refute the argument that some of these individuals would have been retained 

without these pays, however the bottom line is they work and are a valuable aid 

to retention. 

Question. How does the fiscal year 2004 budget request address your recruitment 

and retention goals? 

Answer. The Army has funded to 100 percent the requested Program Objective 

Memorandum (POM) through fiscal year 2004. Even though the fiscal year 2003 

NDAA increased the discretionary special pay caps, additional dollars were not appropriated. The Army is supportive of validated POM requirements submitted for 

fiscal year 2005–09. We anticipate the ability to implement partial changes in fiscal 

year 2004 and further aggressively increase special pay rates in fiscal year 2005 and 

the out-years. 

FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION

Question. As a result of concerns discovered after the Gulf War, the Department 

created a Force Health Protection system designed to properly monitor and treat our 

military personnel. 

What aspects of the Departments’ Force Health Protection system have been implemented to date? 

Answer. The Persian Gulf War and experience with illnesses among Gulf War veterans highlighted some deficiencies in the Army’s force health protection capabilities. The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) has made significant progress in addressing these shortfalls, but more needs to be done. 

The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 

(USACHPPM) was formed in 1994 to improve integration of AMEDD’s force health 

protection efforts for the warfighter. The emerging capabilities of USACHPPM allow 

the AMEDD to anticipate, communicate, and protect against health threats to deployed soldiers, including those posed by the environmental health threats on the 

battlefield, through Occupational and Environmental Health Surveillance. The 

USACHPPM, in collaboration with the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center 

(AFMIC) and other elements of the Defense intelligence community, has dramati-
342

cally improved the intelligence preparation of the battlefield so that commanders 

are informed about potential environmental health risks before they occupy a site 

that could cause their soldiers to become ill. This is accomplished in part through 

a secure website. The USACHPPM deploys preventive medicine teams to survey the 

occupational and environmental health (OEH) risks to our forces. As these potential 

OEH risks are identified, control measures are quickly recommended to local commanders in the field. In addition, these exposure data are now archived and will 

be included as part of the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS) for review in later retrospective health studies. Occupational and environmental health surveillance policy, doctrine, tactics, techniques 

and procedures are also continually being developed and updated by the AMEDD 

to further promote the safety of our deployed forces. 

The AMEDD tracks soldiers health throughout the career life-cycle through the 

Defense Medical Surveillance System, which includes data on pre- and post-deployment health assessments, episodes of health care, immunizations, reportable disease 

conditions for over 7.6 million personnel serving on active duty since 1990, and is 

linked to the DOD Serum Repository in Silver Spring, MD, housing over 31 million 

serum specimens collected from active duty service members since the late 1980’s. 

The 520th Theater Army Medical Laboratory, bringing state-of the-art medical 

laboratory science and technical support for the combatant commander, was established in 1995 and first deployed to Bosnia in early 1996. 

The Medical Protection System (MEDPROS) automates the Army’s medical readiness system, including tracking immunizations for soldiers, beginning with anthrax 

vaccine in 1998, and continuing with smallpox and other militarily important vaccines today. 

The Army is Executive Agent for the DOD Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System (GEIS), established in 1996. Since 2001, GEIS has operated Project ESSENCE to provide early notification of outbreaks of infectious diseases in military communities around the world, including those that may represent 

manifestations of use of a biological weapon. 

Since 1991, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has licensed vaccines against 

hepatitis A, Japanese encephalitis, and smallpox, and Soman Nerve Agent 

Pretreatment, Pyridostigmine (SNAPP). These and other products of military medical research allow the AMEDD to provide high quality disease countermeasures to 

protect the deployed force. 

As always, the AMEDD attends to the health care needs of soldiers while they 

are deployed. In 2000, the AMEDD began the transformation of the combat medic 

into the 91W (‘‘Whisky’’), the medical soldier for the objective force. 

The AMEDD provide quality care for soldiers following deployment, employing 

valuable lessons learned from the first Persian Gulf War in the Deployment Health 

Clinical Practice Guideline, and establishment of the DOD Deployment Health Clinical Center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC in 1998. 

Question. What are the differences between the system during the Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Noble 

Eagle? 

Answer. All accomplishments listed above reflect the growth and evolution of the 

Army’s robust deployment surveillance capability since 1991. Probably the most significant improvements in this capability are the Deployment Health Clinical Practice Guideline and the extensive longitudinal baseline health database provided by 

the Defense Medical Surveillance System. 

The Deployment Health Clinical Practice guideline is a very useful tool for health 

care providers to assist patients with any health problem or concern that the patient 

judges to be related to a military deployment. By addressing deployment-related 

concerns proactively, we anticipate that this guideline will facilitate appropriate, 

timely, and trusted health care for soldiers and their families following deployments. 

The Defense Medical Surveillance System permits extensive analysis of health 

issues among deployed personnel from all Services. In the wake of the Gulf War, 

we were unable to answer many basic questions about health and disease among 

military members due to lack of appropriate data. With the establishment and 

growth of the Defense Medical Surveillance System, including the DOD Serum Repository, we can provide much more timely, accurate, and comprehensive answers 

to questions about the health of the service members, individually and collectively, 

including those deployed on contingency operations. 

For Operation Iraqi Freedom, the deployment health surveillance program has 

been enhanced with the addition of a more extensive post-deployment health assessment questionnaire, a requirement for face-to-face encounter between a health care 

provider and each service member before demobilization, and the collection of a 

post-deployment serum specimen to be added to the DOD Serum Repository. In this 
343

way, we are collecting adequate information on the health of redeploying service 

personnel to satisfy our surveillance requirements while assuring that each service 

member receives the appropriate medical attention and care he or she deserves before demobilization. 

OPTIMIZATION

Question. Congress initiated optimization funds to provide flexibility to the Surgeons General to invest in additional capabilities and technologies that would also 

result in future savings. It is my understanding that a portion of these funds are 

being withheld from the Services. 

Can you please tell the Committee how much Optimization funding is being withheld from your service, what are the plans for distributing the funds, and why funds 

since fiscal year 2001 are being withheld? 

Answer. The AMEDD validated and approved 23 projects in fiscal year 2003. At 

this point, 15 of those projects with a fiscal year 2003 cost of $2,143,800 have not 

been funded by OSD. My staff is reviewing an additional 14 Optimization projects 

targeting fiscal year 2003 funding. Once approved, they will be forwarded to OSD 

for funding. Optimization funding is being held by OSD to resource a portion of 

their fiscal year 2003 $800 million shortfall. OSD does not plan to distribute funding 

until they resolve the funding shortfall. 

Question. How have you benefited from optimization funds? 

Answer. Army Medical Treatment Facilities have benefited greatly from your support to optimize the direct care system. This support enables the Army to exploit 

cost effective opportunities to achieve maximum benefit from existing MHS structure. The AMEDD actively manages 32 Optimization initiatives with an annual investment value of $16 million and a projected net annual savings at maturity of $5 

million. Although these projects are in varying stages of maturity the majority have 

achieved self-financing status and are positioned to recoup their initial investment. 

Much of the savings occur in private sector care expenditures. Optimization funding 

is being used not simply to recapture workload from the private sector but rather 

optimize the mix of services making the most efficient use of existing MHS infrastructure and private sector care capability. The benefits of optimization may not 

always be apparent due in large part to the gap between budgeted and actual medical inflation rates and changes to the medical benefit. Optimization funding reduces 

the overall cost to the MHS. Those costs would be rising at an increased rate absent 

your support and commitment to the Optimization program. 

Question. What projects are on hold because OSD has not released funding? 

Answer. The AMEDD has 15 Optimization projects on hold awaiting OSD release 

of funds. Although time may not permit me to go into great detail on each, there 

are some interesting characteristics of this group. A VA/DOD sharing agreement 

brings MRI capability to the Fort Knox community while increasing the VA’s capacity to deliver those same services in their local market. Optimization projects targeting child mental health in the Northwest, active duty inpatient psychiatry in the 

Southwest, and substance abuse in Hawaii are awaiting funding. A number of 

projects such as lithotripsy at Fort Bliss and automated surgical clothing swap stations at Fort Campbell can be implemented quickly and offer rapid return with a 

modest investment. 

Question. What are the projected projects using the proposed $90 million in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request? 

Answer. My subordinate commanders continue to develop optimization opportunities in anticipation of fiscal year 2004 and beyond funding. The AMEDD has institutionalized the optimization process. Early successes improved our ability to develop 

and implement initiatives. I anticipate increasing incremental benefit of the Optimization program going forward. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

PATIENT PRIVACY (TRICARE)

Question. In December, 2002, one of the Department’s managed care support contractors for the military’s TRICARE program experienced a significant theft of military beneficiary personal identification—possibly the largest personal identification 

theft in U.S. history. This theft has potentially significant and serious implications 

for those beneficiaries, and the vulnerability of these individuals may well extend 

for years. 
344

The Department pledged a full investigation of this matter, yet little has been 

heard on the status and outcome of internal and external reviews and investigations. 

What is the status and outcome of the Department’s Inspector General investigation into this theft? 

Answer. As requested by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 

[ASD(HA)], the DOD Inspector General will complete all facility physical security 

evaluations, by the end of May 2003. Soon thereafter, they will brief the ASD(HA) 

on their preliminary findings. 

Question. Has the Department determined that its policies and oversight of its 

TRICARE managed care support contractors’ personal information security are adequate given the December incident? 

Answer. We believe that our policies are strong, sound and adequate, and this has 

been verified by a study conducted by the Gartner consulting group. Each TRICARE 

contractor has the primary responsibility for implementing sufficient security safeguards to prevent unauthorized entry into its data processing facility and unauthorized access to TRICARE beneficiary records in contractor custody. We have also initiated a review of TRICARE contract language to ensure that it incorporates current 

security policies. In addition, we continue with oversight of managed care support 

contractors through DOD’s process of ongoing accreditation and certification of contractor systems and networks, a process which incorporates into its criteria a variety of facility physical security controls. 

Question. Is the Department convinced its policies for the security of personal 

health care information adhere to established industry best practices? 

Answer. The results of recent assessments, validations and the Gartner study 

demonstrate that the Department’s policies for the security of personal health information meet, and in some cases, exceed established Federal, DOD, and industry information security standards. 

Question. Does the Department need any new authorities to address personal information security and deal appropriately with entities failing to adequately safeguard such sensitive information? 

Answer. At this time, DOD does not require any additional authorities to address 

personal information security. 

Question. Is the Department considering implementing a system of sanctions or 

penalties against companies who fail to provide reasonable protections for personal 

information? 

Answer. DOD currently has procedures and mechanisms in place to address inappropriate management of personal and medical information. Sensitive information 

pertaining to TRICARE beneficiaries is maintained by TRICARE contractors subject 

to the Privacy Act of 1974, as implemented by the DOD Privacy Program (DOD 

5400.11–R). The Act provides criminal penalties for any contractor or contractor employee who willfully discloses such protected information, in any manner, to any 

person or agency not entitled to receive the information. The Act also provides for 

civil penalties against DOD if it is determined that the Department (or contractor) 

intentionally or willfully failed to comply with the Privacy Act. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL GEORGE PEACH TAYLOR, JR. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

DEPLOYMENT OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL

Question. The staff’s discussions with the Surgeons General indicate that the 

Services have backfilled for deployed medical personnel at the Medical Treatment 

Facilities at varying levels. 

Some of the Services are relying more heavily on private sector care rather than 

backfilling for deployed medical personnel. 

To what extent has the recent deployment of military medical personnel affected 

access to care at military treatment facilities? What are you doing to ensure adequate access to care during this time? 

Answer. Despite deployments, access to routine health care in the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) has improved seven percent since August 2002. Currently, military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) are able to provide routine access to health 

care (within seven days) 83 percent of the time. MTFs are able to provide access 

to acute care (within 24 hours) 96 percent of the time. MTFs have met peacetime 

standards, but there has been an overall increase in costs, particularly to supple-
345

mental care, in order to meet the health care needs of Guard and Reserve members 

called to active duty. 

Through the working relationships between our Managed Care Support Contractors (MCSCs) and our MTFs, gaps in beneficiary access were determined and resolutions sought throughout the activation and deployment of service members to contingency locations. A multi-level communication plan was developed and disseminated to support our MTF effort to educate our beneficiaries of where and how medical services could be accessed. 

Question. What percentage of mobilized reservists in medical specialties are being 

used to backfill positions in the United States? 

Answer. No Air Force medical reservists were activated as backfill during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Question. Are there shortages of personnel in some specialties? If so, which specialties are undermanned and by how much? 

Answer. The Air Force Medical Service has personnel shortages in a variety of 

specialty areas. According to the Health Manpower Personnel Data System Data 

from September 30, 2002, some of our more significant shortages can be found in: 

—Anesthesiology (63 percent staffed) 

—Aviation/Aerospace Medicine (Residency Trained Only) (81 percent staffed) 

—Cardiology/Cardiovascular (64 percent staffed) 

—Emergency Medicare (79 percent staffed) 

—Otorhinolaryngology (ENT) (77 percent staffed) 

—Radiology (65 percent staffed). 

Question. Are there other ways of structuring the staffing of military medical 

units that might help address shortages in a few specialties, such as making increased use of civilian contractors or DOD civilian personnel in MTFs stateside? 

Answer. The TRICARE Next Generation (T-Nex) of contracts addresses this very 

issue. While the current contracts provide staffing during times of war, the new contracts allow for civilian backfill staffing through a spectrum of military operations. 

Specifically, the T-Nex Statement of Work states: ‘‘a contingency plan designed to 

ensure that health care services are continuously available to TRICARE eligible 

beneficiaries as the military treatment facilities respond to war, operations other 

than war, deployments, training, contingencies, special operations, et cetera.’’ Additionally, contingency plans require an annual review and require the contractor to 

implement their contingency plan within 48 hours of notification. 

Question. Is DOD considering any changes to the mix of active duty and Reserve 

personnel in medical specialties? 

Answer. The mix of skill sets in the Active and Reserve Components is currently 

being examined in several forums. The Operational Availability Study, the OSD AC/

RC Mix study, as well as individual Service studies are all looking at the right mix 

of Active and Reserve capabilities to ensure that the needs of the National Security 

Strategy are met through the key factors of availability, responsiveness, agility, and 

flexibility. The studies are ongoing, but initial results indicate some capabilities 

need to be addressed. We will be examining the possibility of rebalancing capabilities within war plans and between the Active and Reserve Components. While recent mobilizations have highlighted shortages in certain capabilities that stressed 

Reserve forces, there are multiple solutions to address those issues. Application of 

a variety of actions, including innovative management techniques for the Reserves, 

will maximize the efficiency of our existing forces and may therefore require very 

little change to existing force structure. 

MONITORING THE HEALTH OF GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL

Question. An April 2003 GAO report documents deficiencies by the Army in monitoring the health of the early-deploying reservists. Annual health screening is required to insure that reserve personnel are medically fit for deployment when call 

upon. 

Review found that 49 percent of early-deploying reservists lacked a current dental 

exam, and 68 percent of those over age 40 lacked a current biennial physical exam. 

In addition, monitoring the health of reservist returning from deployment will be 

critical to ensuring the long term health of those service members, and assisting in 

the identification of common illnesses, such as those associate with the Gulf War 

Syndrome. 

What improvements have been made to the medical information systems to track 

the health care of reservists? Are they electronic, do they differ among services? 

Answer. Although I am not familiar with the capabilities of the other services, 

both the Air Force Reserve Command, and Air National Guard unit programs have 

developed independent state-of-the art computer physical exam management sys-
346

tems that track the health and dental status of all assigned personnel, in real time. 

Data is available at each supervisory level so all commanders can know the status 

of their troops. 

The Air National Guard and the Air Reserve Personnel Center implemented the 

Reserve Component Periodic Health Assessment and Individual Medical Readiness 

(PIMR) software this fiscal year to track the medical readiness of the Air National 

Guard. Air Force Reserve Command will soon attain this milestone. This software 

tracks six key elements identified by Health Affairs for monitoring individual medical readiness. 

Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center has developed an access database for 

all the 12,000∂ Individual Mobilization Augmentees. It provides Direct demographics downloaded from personnel system; Tracking/recording of physical exam 

dates; Tracking/management of medical/dental deferment, assignment and deployment restrictions, and medical board action; Tracking/management of deployment 

and post-deployment medical information (DD2796). Post-deployment assessment 

has recently been upgraded to include a more robust questionnaire, an interview 

with a provider, and a blood sample for later analysis. 

Question. During the mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom, how many reservists could not be deployed for medical reasons? 

Answer. The Air Force Reserve Unit program was able to meet 100 percent of its 

taskings with 1.5 percent not being able to deploy for medical reasons (only 22 out 

of 1,450 total mobilized). 

Five percent of our Individual Mobilization Augmentees were unable to deploy; 40 

out of 800 mobilized. Of these 40, four were later mobilized by exception to policy 

(ETP) due to mission requirements. A plan of care for these members was identified 

before mobilization and approved by the wing commander. 

The Air National Guard was able to meet 100 percent of its mission taskings with 

5,500 members deploying, each being medically and dentally qualified for deployment. Local units may have substituted personnel, but numbers are not available 

at this time. 

Question. How many deployments were delayed due to dental reasons, and how 

many reservists are not in Dental class 1 or 2? 

Answer. Air Force Reserve Command: Five personnel had deployments delayed 

for dental reasons. Currently 1,470 reservists are dental class three and 34,473 are 

in dental class four (35,943 are not class one or two). It is important to note that 

the majority of class three or four reservists are in that category because of administrative and dental records issues that can be corrected quickly if notified of deployment. At a minimum, 78 percent of all class three and four members are in that 

category because they have yet to insert their most recent civilian dental examination paperwork into their Air Force dental record. This issue is usually rectified immediately upon notification of deployment and has not had negative impact on readiness during Operation Iraqi Freedom or previous contingencies. 

Air Reserve Personnel Center had 21 personnel out of 800 (2.6 percent) with delayed deployments for dental reasons. Currently the Immediate Medical Associates 

(IMA) dental program has 328 personnel in class three, and 4,616 (37 percent) who 

are class four. 

Air National Guard had no deployments delayed due to dental reasons. As of 

April 15, 2003 with 50 percent of the Air National Guard units reporting: One percent was Class III (622); five percent was Class IV—no exam (2,488). NOTE: When 

PIMR gets 100 percent populated (July 2004) with data, the Air National Guard will 

be able to see percentages on a real time basis. 

Question. What is the current enrollment rate in the TRICARE Dental Program 

for reservists, and what action has DOD taken to encourage reservists to enroll in 

TDP? 

Answer. Air Force Reserve Command (unit and IMA programs): 11 percent (8,290 

Personnel with Dental Contracts of the 73,961 assigned); Air National Guard 8 percent (6,158 Personnel with Dental Contracts of the 78,663 assigned). 

The Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard have all fully advertised the TDP 

including notices on their web pages, coverage of the program at major conferences 

and direct mailings to all personnel. 

Question. What needs to be done and what will it cost to ensure that reservists 

are medically and dentally fit for duty? 

Answer. Both the Air Force Reserve Command and the Air National Guard welcome enactment of legislation authorizing funding for annual dental exams. 

The Air Force Reserve favors funding annual dental exams, which would cost approximately $3 million to $4 million. It is likely this cost will be offset by the number of personnel who see their civilian dentists and provide a completed DD Form 

2813 (DOD Active Duty/Reserve Forces Dental Examination). To ensure that reserv-
347

ists are medically ready for duty, full funding of validated dental support Unit Type 

Codes and full time manpower requirements will give medical units the requirements necessary to accomplish the exams and assessments. 

The Air National Guard favors providing dental treatment as a benefit; pay the 

member’s premium for dental insurance. The projected cost to provide such a benefit 

to 78,663 traditional members at $9.00 per month is $8.5 million. 

Unlike medical examinations, annual dental examinations are a new unfunded requirement. Compliance with this requirement is contingent on receipt of funds unlike the medical examination process, which is well established and fully supported 

through POM submissions. 

Both Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard continue to enhance 

long established medical examination processes and record keeping. This evolving 

process enjoys a robust partnership with active duty support, the guidelines for 

which are included in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM). No additional 

funding is required. 

Question. Are there any repercussions for commanders who do not ensure that 

their troops are fit for duty? 

Answer. Although there are no commander-specific repercussions specified in Air 

Force Regulations, fitness for duty is part of the overall unit readiness equation 

along with factors such as dental fitness and training reports. These factors are reviewed at Wing, Numbered Air Force (or State), and Command levels. Disciplinary 

actions for low readiness levels are at commander’s discretion at each of these levels. 

COMBAT TREATMENT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Question. All of the Services have undertaken transformation initiatives to improve how medical care is provided to our front line troops. 

The initiatives have resulted in more modular, deployable medical units which are 

scalable in size to meet the mission. 

How well have your forward deployed medical support units and the small modular units performed in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom? 

Answer. Our transformation to these smaller, highly mobile, units has paid huge 

dividends in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although many Expeditionary Medical Support 

(EMEDS) activities in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF) are still classified, I can share with you that we have positioned 24 

EMEDS facilities in 12 countries. Four of these units are currently far forward in 

Iraq. 

When U.S. forces captured one of the Iraqi air bases, elements of the Air Force 

Medical Service were there with the entering forces. Prior to creation of EMEDS 

units, it would have taken two to three weeks before we could have erected an Air 

Force medical facility to care for or troops occupying the base. In this conflict, we 

had the capability to provide care to our troops the same day we took the air base. 

Within just a couple days, we had established, equipped, and manned a fully functioning EMEDS unit. 

EMEDS not only ensures we can provide health care far forward, it also helps 

us prevent illnesses and injuries. In OIF we have achieved the lowest disease and 

non-battle injury rate in military history—almost 20 percent lower than Operation 

DESERT SHIELD/STORM. 

I am also quite proud of the Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) piece of the EMEDS 

system. To date they have moved more than 2,000 patients (including 640 battle 

casualties) in OIF without using dedicated AE aircraft. 

Aeromedical Evacuation operations in OIF comprise the most aggressive evacuation effort since Vietnam, with not a single patient death in transit, which makes 

it the most successful aeromedical operation in military history. 

Question. What are some of the lessons learned from our experience in Iraq? 

Answer. The Air Force Medical Service is in the initial stage of collecting Operation IRAQI FREEDOM lessons learned. Two major issues identified at this point 

are as follows. 

First, concerns with ‘‘In-Transit visibility’’ (ITV). ITV of our deploying personnel 

and equipment is a significant problem. Many man-hours were spent searching each 

Aerial Port of Embarkation (APOE) pallet yard for medical equipment pallets that 

did not meet the required delivery dates. Additional man-hours were spent tracking 

down individuals who departed their Continental United States (CONUS) duty station, but did not make it to the deployed destination by the required in-place dates. 

This severely hampered the ability of operational planners and commanders to effectively employ constrained resources to meet mission requirements. 
348

TRANSCOM Regulating and Command & Control system (TRAC2ES) was designed to provide ITV of patients returning from the theater of operations to more 

definitive care. TRAC2ES was never designed to provide visibility of patients when 

they exit the system, nor does it provide information to deployed commanders on 

a return to duty status or the patient’s medical condition. Therefore, commanders, 

who have overall responsibility for these individuals, in some cases had no visibility 

of their status or medical condition, and no service-wide system exists to provide 

them that critical information. 

Second, validation of our concept of Critical Care in the Air. Operation IRAQI 

FREEDOM demonstrated the value of teaming our Critical Care Air Transport 

(CCAT) teams and our Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) system. The CCAT teams are 

capable of providing critical care in the air, a level of medical service that was unavailable to our forces until our recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Additionally, CCATs can accompany their wards on most any cargo aircraft transiting the 

theater through the use of innovative Patient Support Pallets (PSPs). These pallets 

contain the tools and equipment that permit CCAT team members to quickly convert cargo aircraft into aeromedical evacuation platforms. The synergistic relationship between our AE, PSPs, and the CCAT teams who use them, permitted the AE 

movement of over 2,000 patients, some critically ill/injured and unstable, in the first 

35 days of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, including 640 battlefield casualties. 

Question. What tools/equipment is still required to improve the care provided to 

combat casualties? 

Answer. The challenges facing the deployed medical commander drive requirements that the traditional conventional wartime scenario never anticipated. As conflicts become more diverse and the potential for unconventional warfare increases, 

so does our need for tools and equipment that will assist us in preventing, detecting, 

and operating within an unconventional chemical or biological environment. 

Of great importance is the research and development, testing and evaluation of 

initial patient decontamination equipment. These tools are being developed now and 

will greatly aid our medics by allowing them to perform their life-saving activities 

while protecting both provider and patient from the contaminated environment. 

Once biological, chemical, or radiological weapons are detected, the Air Force medics will need NBC Casualty Treatment Capabilities (ventilators, facility and personal protective equipment, etc.). This equipment currently exists, but we require 

more to ensure a full spectrum protection of our fielded medics and the patients for 

whom they will provide care. 

Disease surveillance programs are critical to early identification of disease trends 

and appropriate responses. This includes both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) 

detection units and the software programs capable of aggregating their data and 

providing meaningful information to commanders and medics about potential 

epidemics or WMD attacks. 

Another critical component to any casualty treatment plan is oxygen, specifically 

the ability to generate oxygen for treatment in a deployed environment. The Air 

Force Medical Service requires Deployable Oxygen Systems (DOS) that can be inserted into its modular treatment facilities in austere environments. 

Finally, although TRAC2ES performs successfully to provide us visibility of our 

patients as they are transferred in virtually any aircraft, that visibility becomes 

much more difficult once the patient enters the receiving medical facility. As of yet, 

there is no TRAC2ES-like system that track the patient’s discharge or transfer to 

other locations. The entire Department of Defense health care system would benefit 

from a program that would provide overarching patient location visibility in both 

the sky and on the ground. 

T-NEX—NEXT GENERATION OF TRICARE CONTRACTS

Question. The next generation TRICARE contracts will replace the seven current 

managed care support contracts with three contracts. This consolidation is intended 

to improve portability and reduce the administrative costs of negotiating change orders and providing government oversight across seven contracts. 

The award date for these contracts has slipped from the scheduled date in July 

of 2003. Since the timeline for awarding the contracts has slipped, what is the expected start date for the delivery of T-Nex? 

Answer. The overall schedule for the suite of T-Nex solicitations has not been 

changed although some award dates may be delayed if proposals require more extensive review. The TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Contract was awarded, and 

performance began on March 1, 2003. The TRICARE Retiree Dental Contract was 

also awarded and performance on this contract began on May 1, 2003. Proposals 

have been received for both the TRICARE Healthcare and Administration Managed 
349

Care Support and the TRICARE Dual-Eligible Fiscal Intermediary contracts, and 

the evaluation process for both of these is ongoing. Requests for Proposal have been 

issued for the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy and National Quality Monitoring contracts, and those proposals are due June 11 and June 3, respectively. 

Procurement sensitivity rules prohibit disclosure of any specific information or details about the ongoing evaluation of proposals. However, I can tell you that the 

evaluations are ongoing. No decision has been made to alter the implementation 

schedule for any of the contracts. 

Question. What planning is taking place to help ensure that when the contracts 

are entered into there will be a seamless transition for beneficiaries? 

Answer. No transition of this magnitude is easy. A customer-focused perspective 

in execution is central to making this as seamless as possible. We have already 

transitioned the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy contract with success. The 

TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan contract was also awarded without protest and now 

is in its first month of operation without issues. With regard to our managed care 

contracts, going from seven contracts to three will simplify administration, but more 

importantly better serve our beneficiaries with incentivized performance standards, 

greater uniformity of service, alleviation of portability issues, and simplified business processes. 

I have instituted a solid oversight structure (see attachment), and appointed a 

senior executive to spearhead this transition and supervise all aspects of the procurement, including the implementation of the new regional governance structure. 

This operational approach and structure requires my direct involvement through the 

Transition Leadership Council made up of the Surgeons General, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Health Affairs Deputy 

Assistant Secretaries of Defense. This body is supported by a TRICARE Transition 

Executive Management Team which is chaired by TMA’s Chief Operating Officer. 

An area of detailed focus right now is access to care and all business processes 

that will impact access including: networks, provider satisfaction, appointing and 

scheduling, Military Treatment Facility (MTF) optimization, and local support for 

MTF commanders. We are optimistic that robust networks can be maintained. On 

all customer service fronts, my staff and other participants are poised to execute a 

smooth transition immediately following contract award. Regular meetings are underway to measure our progress and formulate sound decisions on any problematic 

issues. A contract transition orientation conference is planned for June 2003 to fully 

engage government participants in all aspects of the transition process.
350

Question. Are beneficiaries experiencing any change in quality of care due to 

DOD’s inability to enter into new long-term managed care agreements? 

Answer. The evaluation of contractor proposals is now underway and will culminate in the awarding of three new Health Care and Administration regional contracts. A planned 10-month minimum transition period will precede start of health 

care delivery. Surveillance for the delivery of services of outgoing contractors during 

the transition period will remain focused to avoid any deterioration in customer 

service standards. Current contracts have been extended beyond original termination dates to ensure there is no adverse impact on the beneficiary or quality of 

care. 

Any signs of negative shifts in quality during this transition period will be quickly 

recognized and dealt with on a priority basis. Our proactive posture is expected to 

result in a near-seamless transition to next generation contracts. 

Additionally, in T-Nex contracts, industry best business practices are fully expected to emerge through the competitive process. Customer service protocols will 

be favorably impacted by outcome-based requirements and accompanying performance standards. Additionally, web-based service applications will also improve business processes and the way customers can access information. This is all very exciting and bodes well for our customers in the new contracts. 

Question. Under T-Nex, what services currently provided by the TRICARE contractors will shift to the direct care system and what are the costs associated with 

this shift in services? 

Answer. Appointing, Resource Sharing, Health Care Information Line, Health 

Evaluation & Assessment of Risk (HEAR), Utilization Management, and Transcription services will transition from the Managed Care Support Contracts to Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) under T-Nex. 

The Services have been tasked to provide requirements in each of these areas, 

cost estimates, and transition timelines. We have worked with the Services to develop a joint approach to determine local support contract methodology. 

Transition of Local Support Contract services must be completed not later than 

the start of health care under T-Nex in each region. 

Based on known contract and staffing lag times, funding is required six months 

prior to the start of health care delivery to ensure smooth and timely stand-up of 

new services. At this stage, cost estimates are varied and of limited value until the 

requirement is validated and fully known. Initial rough estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The funding source for Local Support will come from 

funds committed to the current Military Health System (MHS) Managed Care Support contracts. Those funds were programmed based on existing purchased care contracts that included these services. Because it is understood that these funds may 

not cover the entire spectrum of Local Support contracts, the Medical Services have 

prioritized these services across the MHS into three tiers based on impact and need. 

Initial costs may ultimately include some investment in telephone and appointing 

infrastructure, thus driving a significant increase in front end costs. 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Question. Personnel shortfalls still exist in a number of critical medical specialties 

throughout the Services. The Navy has reports shortfall in Anesthesiology, General 

Surgery, Radiology, and Pathology, and has stated the civilian-military pay gap is 

their greatest obstacle in filling these high demand specialties. Recruiting and retaining dentist appears to be a challenge for all the services. 

To what extent have Critical Skills Retention Bonuses or other incentives been 

successful in helping to retain medical personnel? 

Answer. Critical Skills Retention Bonuses (CSRB) helped retain several hundred 

medical specialists, but may have had a greater impact if it were to have been executed in its original form, as a two-year program. This additional impact may have 

provided each Service with a bridge to the long-term initiative of optimizing Special 

Pay incentives, currently a goal for fiscal year 2005. Just over 850 physicians, dentists, and nurses in critical specialties accepted the CSRB despite its one-year design. The CSRB became more of a good faith gesture to show that we are making 

plans for the future, acknowledging to those in the field that special pay increases 

are necessary if we value the professions and the investment that the Air Force has 

made by training highly specialized personnel. 

We have a success story with the incentives that were implemented to improve 

recruitment and retention of Pharmacists. We are interested in repeating this success for physicians, dentists, and nurses if we are allowed to optimize new special 

pay authority from the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. The 

Pharmacy accession bonus increase to $30,000 in fiscal year 2002 and especially the 
351

Pharmacy Officer Special Pay (implemented in fiscal year 2002) has greatly improved recruiting and retention of pharmacists to the point that we will reach our 

targeted endstrength in fiscal year 2003. Obtaining appropriation for optimizing 

Special Pays by fiscal year 2005 is a priority. 

Lastly, we have seen short-term success in applying the Health Professions Loan 

Repayment Program (HPLRP) and hope to continue using it over the next several 

years. We currently offer HPLRP for both recruiting (accession) and retention, and 

the program has been quite successful in buying-down debt in our critically manned 

specialties within Biomedical Sciences Corps, Dental Corps, and Nurses Corps with 

133, 74, and 241 HPLRP contracts signed respectively in fiscal year 2002. The 

HPLRP not only improves quality of life for personnel by reducing their debt, it benefits the Service by adding a minimum of two-year active duty commitment for oneyear of loan repayment amount of up to $26,000. (Note: The recipient of HPLRP has 

a two year minimum active duty obligation attached to the first year of loan repayment and for second, third and fourth year of loan repayment it is a one for one 

active duty obligation payback). The goal is to enable officers to remain serving and 

not be overburdened with financial commitments (debt). For all Corps it is seen as 

a good faith gesture and carries active duty obligation payback. For the Medical 

Corps (MC) and Dental Corps (DC) and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist 

(CRNA) program it is a bridge to the long-term optimization of the Health Professions Scholarship Program (increased quotas for MC, DC and CRNAs. It is also a 

bridge to implementing the discretionary pay increases authorized by the Fiscal 

Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act (mentioned). Funding of HPLRP is 

necessary beyond fiscal year 2005 to offer the accession incentive necessary to recruit the critical Nurse Corps and Biomedical Sciences Corps specialties. We are 

hoping to realize additional success especially with the new allowance for Health 

Profession Scholarship Program and Financial Assistance Program recipients to 

apply for HPLRP. MC and DC officers will then have better access to the benefits 

of this program. The Air Force has committed funding through fiscal year 2005 at 

$12 million per year (since fiscal year 2002). This commitment is a testament to our 

belief that HPLRP should remain a tool for both recruiting and retention in the future. 

Question. What else needs to be done to maximize retention of medical personnel? 

Answer. I perceive a three-fold approach to improving retention of medical personnel: (1) Increasing incentives such as special pays, bonuses, and loan repayment 

is a key component. The special pays and health professions scholarship programs 

are two high-impact tools used to recruit and retain medical professionals. Our collective effort to increase the authorizations for these tools under the National Defense Authorization Act 2003 was a true victory, but our commitment will be proven 

when we provide funding to see these programs through execution. Only then will 

our people see the benefits of our efforts. (2) Another component linked to improving 

medical officer retention is continued support for optimizing the medical officer promotion policy. The policy should be enhanced to ensure our clinical staff members 

are provided equitable opportunity for advancement. (3) Another tool to maximize 

the retention of our medical personnel is improving the clinical practice environment. This is accomplished by investing in our medical infrastructure—our facilities—and optimizing our support staff. Such optimization funding improves workplace support, enhances workflow, and contributes to both provider and patient satisfaction. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

DOD/VA HEALTHCARE RESOURCE SHARING

Question. Combining the resources of the Veterans’ Administration and the Department of Defense to address health care needs of active duty personnel and our 

veterans is a concept that I am proud to say I championed a number of years ago. 

That initial effort combined brought together the resources of the VA and AF to provide care for the military at Kirtland Air Force Base and the city of Albuquerque’s 

sizable veteran population. To date, the results have been very good. 

General Taylor, can you provide an update on the progress of the joint venture 

concept in general, and between DOD and VA at the Albuquerque VA hospital specifically? 

Answer. The Air Force Medical Service continues to partner with the Department 

of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) in a number of locations. Examples include joint ventures 

at Elmendorf AFB, AK; Nellis AFB, NV; Travis AFB, CA; and Kirtland AFB, in Albuquerque, NM. 
352

The Albuquerque joint venture in particular has demonstrated the benefits of 

joint venture relationships. In fiscal year 2002, the VA and Kirtland AFB medical 

group exchanged $6.5 million in health care resources. This facilitated 8,100 outpatient referrals, 3,400 emergency department visits, and 14,000 ancillary procedures. If the two partners had purchased the services from local providers—as they 

would have before the joint venture—it would have cost an additional $1.32 million. 

In fiscal year 2003, the joint venture program will build upon its success and expects to execute $6.7 million of sharing. 

Question. What is the status of their agreement to provide professional VA psychologist oversight to our Air Force mental health services in Albuquerque? 

Answer. The Veteran’s Administration and Kirtland Air Force Base have been extremely successful in this endeavor. The agreement has been in place since 2001 

and provides supervision to Air Force psychology residency graduates. This supervision is required as 49 of the 50 states require at least one year of post-doctoral 

supervision. Without this agreement, the Air Force would be forced to hire additional psychologists. The agreement with the Veteran’s Administration is a vital and 

successful part of the Air Force mental health mission at Kirtland. 

Question. Also, has there been progress in reducing the veterans’ colonoscopy procedures backlog? 

Answer. Over the past year, the Kirtland Air Force Base medical facility has provided both operating room space and support personnel in assisting the VA in completing colonoscopies on veterans. This is another example of the cooperative efforts 

ongoing between Kirtland and the VA, and allowed the Air Force to perform about 

40 VA colonoscopies a month. However, although I do not know how exactly how 

many procedures are ‘‘backlogged,’’ I do know that demand is still outpacing supply. 

Recent deployments have required we cease sharing activities for colonoscopies. 

As most of the combat activity appears to be behind us now, our facility in Albuquerque will soon be able to turn its attention once again toward the joint venture 

and determine how it can best assist the VA with this and other issues. 

JESSE SPIRI MILITARY MEDICAL COVERAGE ACT

Question. In 2001, a young Marine Corps 2nd Lieutenant from New Mexico lost 

his courageous battle with cancer. Jesse Spiri had just graduated from Western New 

Mexico University and was awaiting basic officer training when he learned of his 

illness. 

However, because his commission had triggered his military status to that of ‘‘inactive reservist,’’ Jesse was not fully covered by TRICARE. As a result, he was left 

unable to afford the kind special treatment he needed. 

I believe that it is time to close this dangerous loophole. That is why I intend to 

offer a bill entitled the ‘‘Jesse Spiri Military Medical Coverage Act.’’ This bill will 

ensure that those military officers who have received a commission and are awaiting 

‘‘active duty’’ status will have access to proper medical insurance. 

Would you agree that this type of loophole is extremely dangerous for those who, 

like Jesse, suffer with a dread disease? 

Answer. Lieutenant Spiri’s tragedy with cancer is a loss not only to his family, 

but also to our country that he spent years preparing to serve. This is indeed a tragic case; however, limiting TRICARE coverage legislation to commissioned inactive 

reservists would establish an inequity with over 40,000 annual Air Force delayed 

enlistees that have also pledged themselves to our country. Additionally, all new recruits and officers are counseled that they must maintain their private health insurance until they enter active duty to ensure there are no gaps in medical coverage. 

Question. And do you agree that our military health care system should close this 

loophole, and can do so very cost effectively (given the relatively low number of officers it would affect)? 

Answer. To understand the scope of the issue, my staff has done some preliminary 

research on the cost of the change in legislation. 

The studied group includes Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and other 

commissioning sources where there is a delay from commissioning to active duty 

and our delayed enlistment programs. Air Force ROTC commissions approximately 

2,500 lieutenants annually, while our direct commissioning program for the Judge 

Advocate Corps, Chaplains and Medical professions bring in about 1,500 officers annually. The delayed entry program for enlistees ensures our military training 

schools have a steady flow of students and provides new recruits with increased 

choice of available career fields. We estimate 40,000 enlisted enlistees would be affected. 

Your proposed benefit change will affect each source differently due to the commissioning/enlistment dates of the various programs. These delays may be a month 
353

to multiple years based on approved delays (i.e. educational delay). For the purposes 

of this analysis, we used an estimate that the average wait is two months prior to 

active duty. 

Our 2003 evaluation of military compensation and benefits compared to the civil- ian sector equates our healthcare benefit to a monthly value of $279.35 per individual and $758.36 family rate respectively. Our estimate of 3,000 inactive reserve 

officers would potentially cost $1.6 million annually, while the delayed enlistment 

program would require an additional $22.3 million bringing the total annual cost 

for just the Air Force to about $24 million. 

The impact of this legislation on our Sister Services must also be analyzed in 

order to truly appreciate the total cost and provide an informed recommendation. 

MILITARY FAMILY ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE ACT

Question. I think everyone here is familiar with the adage that we recruit the soldier, but we retain the family. That means taking care of our military families and 

giving them a good standard of living. 

I have introduced a bill that would provide a benefit to military families seeking 

dental care, but who must travel great distances to receive it. Specifically, my bill, 

the ‘‘Military Family Access to Dental Care Act’’ (S. 336) would provide a travel reimbursement to military families in need of certain specialized dental care but who 

are required to travel over 100 miles to see a specialist. 

Often, families at rural bases like Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, NM meet 

with financial hardship if more than one extended trip is required. This bill reimburses them for that travel and is a small way of helping our military families. 

Given that current law provides a travel reimbursement for military families who 

must travel more than 100 miles for specialty medical care, do you believe it is important to incorporate specialty dental care within this benefit? 

Answer. Yes, although the proposed legislation (S. 336), as written, does not enhance the current travel benefit because travel reimbursement is already provided 

when a Primary Care Manager refers a TRICARE Prime enrollee for covered dental 

adjunctive care under 10 USC 1074i. 

Question. Do you think this benefit would improve the standard of living of our 

military families? 

Answer. Yes, travel reimbursements do enhance beneficiary quality of life. Such 

benefits become especially important to beneficiaries in rural or remote areas since 

their travel costs can be expensive if they are referred to multiple treatment appointments for a dental condition. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

PATIENT PRIVACY (TRICARE)

Question. I would like to get your comments about several concerns and questions 

I have related to the December 14, 2002 break-in of the offices of TriWest, a 

TRICARE contractor. I am told that TriWest did not notify the Department of Defense of the break-in and theft of personnel information of over 500,000 TRICARE 

beneficiaries, for almost a week after the event. Apparently, TriWest didn’t even 

have basic security equipment—guards, locks, cameras—and as a result, this incident amounts to the biggest identity theft in U.S. history. Is this information true? 

Answer. The physical break-in of the locked TriWest Healthcare Alliance corporate offices and theft of computer equipment occurred on Saturday, December 14, 

2002. On Monday, December 16, 2002, the break-in and theft was discovered, authorities contacted, and TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) operations staff 

were advised. Back-up tapes were run on Tuesday, December 17, 2002, (which took 

30 hours), and on Friday, December 20, 2002, TMA/HA leadership was notified of 

the beneficiary information theft. TriWest at that time had available from their 

back-up tapes beneficiary information including names, addresses, phone numbers, 

Social Security Numbers, some claims information with relevant procedure codes, 

and personal credit card information on 23 individuals. 

To date, the Army Medical Department has not received notification of a single 

verified case of identity theft related to TriWest stolen computer equipment. 

Question. Has the Department of Defense finished its investigation of this case 

and have sanctions been levied against TriWest or punitive actions against 

TRICARE officials? 

Answer. The criminal investigation is being conducted by the Defense Criminal 

Investigative Service (DCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in coordination with other federal and local law enforcement agencies. 
354

To date, no sanctions have been levied upon or punitive actions taken against 

TriWest or TRICARE officials. The investigation is ongoing, and its findings are 

pending. 

Sensitive information pertaining to TRICARE beneficiaries is maintained by 

TRICARE contractors subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as implemented by the 

DOD Privacy Program (DOD 5400.11–R). The Act provides criminal penalties for 

any contractor or contractor employee who willfully discloses such protected information, in any manner, to any person or agency not entitled to receive the information. The Act also provides for civil penalties against DOD if it is determined that 

the Department (or contractor) intentionally or willfully failed to comply with the 

Privacy Act. 

Question. Would you please share what you can about the lessons learned as a 

result of this incident and the steps the Department and the TRICARE organization 

and its contractors are taking to guarantee beneficiary privacy? 

Answer. As a result of close evaluation of our physical and information security 

we found the following: 

—a. Backup tapes not protected. For example, tapes left on the top of servers, or 

left lying out in the open. 

—b. A general lack of proper security in areas where servers reside. In particular, 

Defense Blood Standard System and Pharmacy servers were not being properly 

protected. 

—c. Most sites had excellent password management policies and guidelines in 

place, but they were not being followed. 

—d. In general, there were proper locks on doors, but in several cases, not being 

properly used. Many doors that should have been locked after hours were found 

open which allowed entry to areas where patient information is kept. Most 

items not secure were portable medical devices containing patient medical information and medical records. 

—e. In many cases contingency plans for disaster recovery were lacking or outof-date. 

—f. Lost hardware not reported through official channels. 

—g. Hardware being turned in without data being wiped from hard drives. 

—h. Concerning recent physical security self-assessments, a second look found almost 60 percent of local assessments were inaccurate or inexact. 

—i. As a result of the TriWest issues all Army medical activities participated in 

a Health Affairs directed self-assessment of local physical security practices. 

Mitigation plans for all deficiencies are due on 16 May 2003. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES

Question. Healthcare, pay, and housing are the greatest Quality of Life issues for 

our troops and their families. With the numbers of health care staff deployed from 

your Military Treatment Facilities, what strategies did you use to effectively plan 

and care for beneficiaries back home? 

Answer. The Air Force Medical Service, our sister Services, TRICARE Management Activity, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs collaborated to develop a Regional Contingency Response Plan to be executed 

by each Lead Agent to ensure continued beneficiary care during the current deployments. 

Specifically, each Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) and Managed Care Support 

Contractor (MCSC) were tasked to analyze their capacity and that of the local civilian network with attention paid to possible mobilized assets deployed over a specific 

period of time. 

Working together, MCSCs and MTFs identified potential gaps in beneficiary access that might be caused by the deployment of service members. The MCSCs and 

MTFs then drafted a comprehensive communication plan MTFs could use to educate 

beneficiaries of where and how medical services could be accessed. 

The uncertainty of the duration of the operations precluded a one-for-one reserve 

backfill of forces to our MTFs. Specific guidance and requirements to mobilize a 

Guard or Reserve medical backfill in our MTFs was developed to guide MTFs and 

Air Force Major Commands. 

To ensure continuity of care with our current beneficiaries and the addition of activated Guard and Reserve members and their families, a coordinated Health Affairs letter was disseminated to the field directing our MTFs and Major Commands 

to prioritize and efficiently use available resources of the direct care system and net-
355

work system as available. These resources consist of reallocation of internal staff, 

Major Comman leveling manning assistance, expansion by resource sharing and 

continued partnering with the Veterans Affairs. 

Despite deployments, access to routine health care in the AFMS has improved 

seven percent since August 2002. Currently, MTFs are able to provide routine access to health care (within seven days) 83 percent of the time. MTF are able to provide access to acute care (within 24 hours) 96 percent of the time. 

Question. How are you able to address the needs of patients coming in from the 

battlefields and is this affecting the care of beneficiaries seeking regular care? 

Answer. The operational success of our young women and men was not only in 

our combat victories, but also in our delivery of care from the battlefield through 

our joint evacuation responsibilities to our theater hospitals. We were able to address the needs of patients coming from the battlefield; one of the most successful 

was the use of our aeromedical evacuation system. Using non-dedicated available 

aircraft, aeromedical evacuation crews and our TRAC2ES regulating system provided continuity of care and visibility of our patients from the theater to our 

CONUS receiving facilities. 

United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) revised the Concept of Operations for patient distribution for treatment in DOD/TRICARE facilities ensuring 

our casualties were closer to their unit’s home location and individuals support network. These facilities included the direct care MTFs, TRICARE network partners 

including the VA and finally the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) if needed. 

Fortunately our casualties were limited and our Military Healthcare System was 

able to support both missions of caring for patients returning from the Theater of 

Operations and our regular non-contingency beneficiaries without significant impact 

to access or quality of care to either. 

Question. What authority were you given to back-fill your vacancies and are the 

funds sufficient to attain that goal? 

Answer. The Air Force did not require the Air Reserve Component (ARC) forces 

to backfill our medical facilities during Operation Iraqi Freedom; however, if we had 

required backfill to sustain Graduate Medical Education or to expand beds to receive war illness or injuries, the policy providing for this activity was developed in 

concert with both Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) (ASD/HA) and the 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Manpower and Reserve Affairs (SAF/MR) guidance. Funding was readily available for backfills. Funds to support pay, allowances, and 

per diem for mobilized personnel are reimbursable funds. Had ARC forces been required, all associated costs would have been charged to Emergency Special Program 

Coded (ESP Coded) fund which was reimbursable to the Air Force Major Commands. 

Question. What measurements were used in determining what the Services were 

able to back-fill and how does that compare to current requirements? 

Answer. AF/SG backfill policy was developed in concert with both ASD/HA and 

SAF/MR guidance. Backfill requests had to meet the following specific criteria listed 

below. Before using members to backfill: 

—Medical treatment facilities and headquarters certified all non-mission essential 

deployed personnel had been returned to base for mission support. 

—Headquarters re-directed their own personnel who were not mission-essential or 

working in their specialty to be moved to the unit level to support mission essential requirements. 

—Major Commands had to certify that their support requirement could not be 

met through internal headquarters cross leveling. 

—Efforts to support missions through Major Command-to-Major Command headquarters cross leveling/sharing had been exhausted. 

—Volunteers had to have been unsuccessfully sought for the position. 

—The backfill request had to be in direct support of OPERATION NOBLE 

EAGLE or OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. 

—Before receiving backfills, the gaining unit had to prove that their personnel in 

the requested specialty were working extended duty hours and that their leave/

TDYs had been restricted. 

—Services that would be provided by the requested specialty had to be unavailable in local area TRICARE Support network. 

—Services requested were not currently covered by Resource Sharing Contracts 

and that ARC assistance was required only for minimum time until a new contract could be approved and funded. 

—Services provided by the requested backfill had to be unavailable through VA 

partnering. 
356

—If the member was involuntarily mobilized, his or her mobilization must be for 

the shortest duration possible. 

Comparison to current requirements is extremely difficult to answer as all medical facilities have different situations. Some were not heavily tasked with contingency responses and have little impact. Others were heavily tasked and have significant numbers of mobilized ARC dependents authorized care. Additionally these facilities have the added weight of post deployment health assessments and followup care for both returning active duty and ARC personnel. 

RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT

Question. With increasing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

the Global War on Terrorism, can you describe your overall recruitment and retention status of the Medical Department in each of your services? What specific corps 

or specialties are of most concern? 

Answer. Recent operations have truly challenged the Services’ resources, but our 

people have responded with vigor and determination. We have noticed little change 

in the recruitment of medical professionals during recent operations and are on pace 

to meet or exceed last year’s recruiting averages. Retention has artificially improved 

due to STOP LOSS policy (effective May 2, 2003 for the Air Force) and programs 

such as Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB). 

The specialties we were forced to STOP LOSS provided a summary of our specific 

concerns (see Table 1). Note that on May 14, 2003, stop loss specialties were released due to the winding down of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

TABLE 1.—AIR FORCE SPECIALTIES UNDER STOP LOSS (MAY 2, 2003) 

Specialty AFSC 

Officer Personnel: 

BIOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER ........................................................................................................................... 43EX 

PUBLIC HEALTH ................................................................................................................................................... 43HX 

BIOMEDICAL LABORATORY .................................................................................................................................. 43TX 

EMERGENCY SERVICES PHYSICIAN ..................................................................................................................... 44EX 

INTERNIST ............................................................................................................................................................ 44MX 

ANESTHESIOLOGIST .............................................................................................................................................. 45AX 

ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON ....................................................................................................................................... 45BX 

SURGEON ............................................................................................................................................................. 45SX 

AEROSPACE MEDICINE SPECIALIST ..................................................................................................................... 48AX 

GENERAL MEDICAL OFFICER ............................................................................................................................... 48GX 

RESIDENCY TRAINED FLIGHT SURGEON .............................................................................................................. 48RX 

FLIGHT NURSE ..................................................................................................................................................... 46FX 

NURSE ANESTHETIST ........................................................................................................................................... 46MX 

CRITICAL CARE NURSE ........................................................................................................................................ 46NXE 

OPERATING ROOM NURSE ................................................................................................................................... 46SX 

Enlisted Personnel: 

MEDICAL MATERIAL ............................................................................................................................................. 4A1XX 

BIOMEDICAL EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 4A2XX 

BIOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ..................................................................................................................... 4B0XX 

PUBLIC HEALTH ................................................................................................................................................... 4E0XX 

CARDIOPULMONARY LABORATORY ...................................................................................................................... 4H0XX 

Question. Did the Critical Skills Retention Bonus given for this year help these 

specialties? In light of shortages and the disparity between military and civilian salaries, how have you planned for additional retention bonuses in future years? 

Answer. Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) helped retain several hundred 

medical specialists, but may have had a greater impact if it was executed in its 

original form, as a two-year program. This additional impact may have provided 

each Service with a bridge to the long-term initiative of optimizing Special Pay incentives, currently a goal for fiscal year 2005. Just over 850 physicians, dentists, 

and nurses in critical specialties accepted the CSRB despite the one-year design. 

The CSRB became more of a good faith gesture to show that we are making plans 

for the future, acknowledging to those in the field that special pay increases are necessary if we value the professions and the investment that the Air Force has made 

by training highly specialized personnel. 

We are currently drafting the fiscal year 2004 Special Pay Plan to address critically manned specialties with application of minimum increases allowed within our 

current projected allocation. 
357

Question. Are there recruitment and retention issues within certain specialties or 

corps? If so, what are your recommendations to address this in the future? 

Answer. We do have several challenges in maintaining our required number of 

medical personnel to perform our mission optimally. I believe in a three-fold approach to improving retention of medical personnel. (1) Increasing incentives such 

as special pays, bonuses, loan repayment and health professions scholarship programs. Our collective effort to increase the authorities under the National Defense 

Authorization Act 2003 was a true victory, but our commitment will be proven as 

we provide funding to see these programs through execution. Only then will our people see the benefits of our efforts. (2) Improving the clinical practice environment 

by investing in our medical infrastructure and optimizing support staff. (3) A final 

component linked to improving medical officer retention is continued support for optimizing medical officer promotion policies to ensure our clinical staffs are provided 

equitable opportunity for advancement. 

Question. Have incentive and special pays helped with specific corps or specialties? 

Answer. The final results of our efforts to increase incentive and special pays are 

not yet available, but we have witnessed a noticeable impact from increasing our 

accession and retention bonuses as well as offering Health Professions Loan Repayment. In fiscal year 2002, 241 nurses signed Health Professions Loan Repayment 

Program contracts and extended their individual service commitments by two years. 

Likewise, we have seen positive trends in our Optometry and Pharmacy specialties 

due to increased accession and retention incentives. We have not realized as much 

improvement in our physician and dental communities as the military-civilian pay 

gap is much wider. However, we are highly committed to optimizing our health professions officer special pay program. 

Special pays are targeted at professional staff (physicians, dentists, nurse anesthetists, and several allied health professionals), and are designed to improve both 

recruiting and retention, as well as recognize the market value of these highly 

trained officers. The National Defense Authorization Act 2003 provided significant 

increases in the authorities to fund special pays and the three Services are in the 

process of developing their fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 special pay plans 

with ASD/HA. We plan to increase several discretionary special pays for the various 

specialties that are difficult to recruit and retain. Coupled with improved opportunity to train medical professionals under Health Professions Scholarship Program, 

increasing these pays will help improve the staffing shortages we’ve experienced in 

recent years. We would appreciate your continued support in these efforts. 

Question. How does the fiscal year 2004 budget request address your recruitment 

and retention goals? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes three items that have significant impact on recruiting and retention: 

Special Pays.—The fiscal year 2004 Special Pays Plan will serve as a bridge to 

better optimization of special pays in fiscal year 2005. We are currently drafting the 

fiscal year 2004 Special Pay Plan to addresses critically manned specialties with application of minimum increases allowed within our current projected allocation. 

Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP).—The Air Force has committed funding through fiscal year 2005 at $12 million per year (since fiscal year 

2002). This commitment is a testament to our belief that HPLRP should remain a 

tool for both recruiting and retention in the future. HPLRP not only improves quality of life for personnel by reducing their debt and making it more affordable to remain in the military, but adds a minimum two-year active duty commitment for a 

one-year loan repayment amount of up to $26,000. (Note: The recipient of HPLRP 

has a two-year minimum active duty obligation attached to the first year of loan 

repayment while the second, third and fourth year of loan repayment has a onefor-one active duty obligation payback). The goal is to enable officers to remain serving and not be overburdened with financial commitments (debt). 

Health Professions Scholarship Program/Financial Assistance Program (HPSP/

FAP).—For fiscal year 2004, Health Professions Scholarship Program and Financial 

Assistance Program will continue to be one of the best recruiting tools for physicians 

and dentists. Even though we would like to see an increase in HPSP/FAP allocations in fiscal year 2004, this will not be possible because the budget has been 

locked for that fiscal year. With the rising costs of medical and dental schools, we 

will actually have fewer allocations in fiscal year 2003 than we had in fiscal year 

2002. We hope to increase allocations from 1300 to 2000 between fiscal year 2006 

and fiscal year 2009. 
358

FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION

Question. As a result of concerns discovered after the Gulf War, the Department 

created a Force Health Protection system designed to properly monitor and treat our 

military personnel. What aspects of the Departments’ Force Health Protection system have been implemented to date? What are the differences between the system 

during the Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Noble Eagle? 

Answer. The Department places the highest priority on protecting the health of 

military personnel throughout their military careers and beyond. Deployments and 

other military operations often involve unique environments that must be addressed 

by force health protection procedures. We use lessons learned from each military operation to improve our force health protection program. 

Requirements to assess health before, during and after deployments and to assess, 

monitor and mitigate environmental hazards predate OPERATION DESERT 

STORM. However, the Department has implemented a number of significant 

changes since the Gulf War to further inculcate and improve these procedures. In 

1997, deployment health surveillance policy was released directing pre and post-deployment health assessments and the collection of pre-deployment serum samples. 

If concerns or medical problems are identified, a comprehensive evaluation by a provider is required. Data from health assessments and serum samples are stored in 

a central DOD repository. Health assessments and records of medical evaluations 

are placed in the member’s permanent medical record. 

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff released an updated deployment health 

surveillance policy in February 2002. The policy provides more detailed guidance on 

required health assessments and required prevention countermeasures for deploying 

personnel. It also greatly enhances the requirements for environmental assessments 

and implements operational risk management processes for the theater of operations. From the time the Department standardized the requirements for pre and 

post deployment health assessments, the Air Force has submitted more that 420,000 

pre and post deployment assessments to the DOD repository. 

After the Gulf War, the Air Force implemented a deployed electronic medical 

record, called GEMS (Global Expeditionary Medical System), to record clinical care 

provided in theater. The Air Force implemented an immunization tracking and 

management system that allows visibility of immunization records and requirements both at home and in theater. The Air Force also has had an ongoing quality 

assurance program to assess all Active Duty and Air Reserve Component installations for compliance with deployment health surveillance requirements. 

Since the beginning of OPERATIONS ENDURING FREEDOM and NOBLE 

EAGLE, the Department has accelerated efforts to automate the collection of deployment heath surveillance information. OSD is developing a theater medical record 

system and is now testing parts of a comprehensive theater information management program. Pending implementation of these OSD systems, the Air Force has 

continued to improve GEMS so it now captures public health and environmental/

occupational surveillance information as well as electronically forwards disease and 

non-battle injury data to headquarters. To date, more than 73,000 theater medical 

encounters are stored in GEMS. 

Furthermore, the Department has implemented a policy for checking, at every patient visit, whether or not a deployment-related health concern exists. The Department implemented a clinical practice guideline, developed by Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, to ensure military members receive orderly, standardized 

evaluations and treatments for deployment-related conditions. 

Despite the myriad improvements implemented since the Gulf War, the onset of 

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM illuminated the need for further enhancements to 

the Department’s post-deployment health assessment requirements. Just released 

OSD policy enhances post-deployment health assessment procedures by requiring 

that each military member returning from deployment have a blood sample sent to 

the DOD repository and receive an assessment by a provider to address potential 

health problems, environmental exposures and mental health issues. The policy also 

requires more detailed quality assurance programs to validate, within 30 days, that 

returning personnel have completed all deployment health assessment requirements 

and that all information is in permanent medical records, and to report on compliance. 

OPTIMIZATION

Question. Congress initiated optimization funds to provide flexibility to the Surgeons General to invest in additional capabilities and technologies that would also 

result in future savings. It is my understanding that a portion of these funds are 
359

being withheld from the Services. Can you please tell the Committee how much Optimization funding is being withheld from your service, what are the plans for distributing the funds, and why funds since fiscal year 2001 are being withheld? 

Answer. No optimization funds are being withheld from the Air Force Medical 

Service. Optimization funds have been released relatively quickly upon request. 

Question. How have you benefited from optimization funds? What projects are on 

hold because OSD has not released funding? 

Answer. I view optimization funding as critical to patient care and staff retention. 

Optimization funds have enabled the Air Force Medical Service to institute loan repayments for selected health professions, with anticipated improvement in recruitment and retention in critical medical and dental specialties; Automate several 

pharmacies, thereby improving productivity and recapture of pharmacy workload 

from the private sector; Improve the efficiency of the Heating, Ventilation and Air 

Conditioning system at Nellis AFB; Hire coders at Medical Treatment Facilities to 

improve data for billing, population health and accounting; Contract with industry 

leading business consultants to identify best practices and industry benchmarks to 

improve Air Force Medical Service business processes; Upgrade Medical Treatment 

Facility telephony for first time in years for many Medical Treatment Facilities; 

Contract for providers/staff to address mission critical shortages in Active Duty 

staffing; Implement a Specialty Care Optimization Pilot resourcing strategy to validate new manpower standards, metrics, and training to improve readiness and clinical currency and increase recapture from network; Perform advanced testing of a 

Light-weight Epidemiology Detection System; Accelerate deployment of Tele-Radiology capabilities at bases without Active Duty radiology support; Fast-track deployment of counter-chemical warfare training; Accelerate refractive surgery pilot to 

identify the best technology to address flight crew refractive deficiencies; Accelerate 

implementation of Long View resourcing strategy Air Force wide for general surgery, orthopedics, ENT, Ophthalmology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB/GYN) 

to improve expeditionary and clinical currency and increase recapture from private 

sector to decrease overall DOD cost of healthcare. 

No optimization projects are on hold because OSD has not released funding. 

Question. What are the projected projects using the proposed $90 million in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request? 

Answer. The Air Force Medical Service intends to use its portion of fiscal year 

2004 optimization dollars for Health Professions Loan Repayments ($12 million) and 

Long View Execution ($18 million). The Long View is our strategy for achieving the 

optimal mix of assigned and contracted manpower to Medical Treatment Facilities 

in such a way as to maximize expeditionary medical capability, clinical currency and 

cost effectiveness. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM T. BESTER

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Question. Recruitment within the services for all the Nurse Corps is better than 

the civilian market. There have been several tools to help with the recruitment effort including the accession bonus of $5,000 for Nurses joining the services. The 

greatest retention tool for all services has been the opportunity for advanced outservice education for a masters or doctorate degree. Other issues that have also 

positively affected retention are: challenging assignments, more leadership responsibility, and greater promotion opportunities. Of the many tools for recruiting and retention, which tools have been most successful? 

Answer. We believe that it is vital to have a combination of recruiting and retention tools in order to maintain a successful manning posture. All the tools provided 

allow us to retain the flexibility to address regional differences in the civilian recruiting market as well as address the retention needs of our officers currently on 

active duty. It is imperative that we proactively anticipate the continued civilian 

competition and must have the money to increase our accession bonuses plus our 

retention bonuses for our critical specialties such as nursing anesthesia. We also anticipate strong results for both recruiting and retention once we implement the 

Health Professions Loan Repayment Program. Our current promotion percentages 

are strong in all ranks except for Colonel. We are taking the appropriate actions 

to resolve some of the systemic personnel issues that have stalled the promotion to 

Colonel in the past with the intent to enlarge the promotion rate in the future. 
360

Question. Do you think a Loan Repayment Program would be helpful to recruit 

more nurses? 

Answer. Absolutely. The Health Professions Loan Repayment Program is absolutely essential to our efforts to remain competitive with the recruitment activities 

currently in place by our civilian counterparts. In fact, we plan to execute the 

Health Profession Loan Repayment Program through fiscal year 2005 with monies 

we obtained through a Defense Health Program (DHP) Venture Capital Initiative. 

We plan to program monies for fiscal year 2006 to sustain this program in the future. 

WAR’S EFFECT ON THE NURSE CORPS PLAN

Question. The number one retention tool is the opportunity for advanced education. The war could negatively affect the number of Nurses that will be available 

to begin out-service education opportunities in fiscal year 2004, thereby mitigating 

the effectiveness of this important retention tool. How has the war in Iraq and deployments of personnel to the Middle East affected your overall out-service education plan for this year and next? 

Answer. We are taking all measures possible to ensure that all Army Nurse Corps 

officers scheduled to attend an out-service education program this year and next 

year are redeployed in the appropriate amount of time to begin their education program. At this time, we do not anticipate any education losses due to deployment. 

Question. For instance will you have to send fewer nurses to school for advanced 

degrees this year because of the numbers deployed? 

Answer. At this point, we are taking all measures to ensure that officers scheduled to attend out-service education in fiscal year 2004 are redeployed in a timely 

manner. If redeployment for some or all of the officers is delayed for reasons out 

of our control, it could result in a decrease in the number of officers attending outservice education and would negatively affect our overall numbers. 

Question. How will the continued deployments affect you staffing plans for the 

Medical Treatment Facilities? 

Answer. To ensure we have had adequate numbers and mix of providers, we have 

taken the following measures to ensure acceptable staffing plans. We have initiated 

regional cross leveling of staff to ensure appropriate distribution of staff to provide 

care and meet patient demand and used internal management decisions by commanders such as decreasing the number of beds available for care, and in some instances, decreasing the number of surgical cases performed. In addition, we have 

combined patient care units, used creative scheduling to ensure appropriate staffing 

coverage, increased the use of contract nurses, requested and received reserve backfill up to the 50 percent authorized fill rate and invoked the local commander’s consideration to send patients to the TRICARE network for care as needed. We will 

continue to use all appropriate staffing management tools to ensure that we meet 

the care needs of our beneficiary population. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Question. In light of a national nursing shortage, please describe the status of 

your recruitment and retention efforts in the Nurse Corps for each of your services? 

Answer. We are approximately 230 Active Duty nurses below our budgeted end 

strength of 3,381. We are proceeding with the following initiatives to improve accessions and maintain a steady state retention posture. We are developing an implementation plan with the Triservice Recruitment and Retention Workgroup to obtain 

the funding to support an incremental increase in the accession bonus starting in 

fiscal year 2005. It is imperative that we proactively anticipate the continued civilian competition and must have the resources necessary to increase our accession bonuses plus our retention bonuses for our critical specialties such as nursing anesthesia. Funds for HPLRP are available now (fiscal year 2003) until fiscal year 2005 

and we plan to POM funds beginning in fiscal year 2006. We are also exploring the 

feasibility of reinstituting the Army Nurse Candidate Program as funding permits 

and have expanded the number of slots available for the Army Enlisted Commissioning Program from 50 to 85 per year. We will continue to send approximately 

100 Army Nurse Corps officers to out-service schooling each year and will continue 

to provide specialty care courses in all our specialty areas. We will continue to provide a wide variety of clinical and work experiences in both the inpatient and ambulatory care settings as well as in the field setting, both in the United States and 

overseas. We feel strongly that providing leadership opportunities early in the offi-
361

cer’s career is crucial in preparing officers for positions with greater scope of responsibility. We strongly promote collegiality, camaraderie, and teamwork and develop 

these concepts initially in our entry-level officer basic course and reinforce these 

concepts throughout the officer’s career. We continue to support career progression, 

educational opportunities, and continuing education for all our officers. Finally, we 

are proud of our excellent promotion opportunities as well as the military benefit 

package that all soldiers and their families are entitled. 

MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES

Question. With the numbers of nurses and medics/corpsmen deployed from your 

facilities, how have you ensured the delivery of safe patient care at the military 

medical facilities here at home? 

Answer. To ensure we have had adequate numbers and mix of providers, we have 

taken the following measures to ensure acceptable staffing plans. We have initiated 

regional cross leveling of staff to ensure appropriate distribution of staff to provide 

care and meet patient demand and used internal management decisions by commanders such as decreasing the number of beds available for care, and in some instances, decreasing number of surgical cases performed. In addition, we have combined patient care units, used creative scheduling to ensure appropriate staffing coverage, increased use of contract nurses, requested and received reserve backfill up 

to the 50 percent authorized fill rate and invoked the local commander’s consideration to send patients to the TRICARE network for care as needed. We will continue 

to use all appropriate staffing management tools to ensure that we meet the care 

needs of our beneficiary population. 

DOCTORATE PROGRAM IN NURSING

Question. Fiscal year 2003, this Subcommittee appropriated funds to create a 

Nursing PhD program at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. 

Students will begin in the fall of 2003. How do you plan to use this PhD Program 

to educate your leaders and nurse researchers? 

Answer. The Army Nurse Corps has 33 validated Army Nurse Corps prepared positions with a current inventory of 26 Active Duty nurses holding Doctorate degrees. 

The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) PhD program 

will afford us additional diversity for our fully funded doctoral education program. 

In addition, this program will provide the unique focus on content that is out of the 

ordinary from civilian content and specific to the needs of the military. This year, 

we will send two Active Duty Army Nurse Corps officers to USUHS and in the future, will attempt to send 3–4 per year. We also plan to support attendance by Active Duty personnel on a part-time basis. We are exploring the options for attendance by Reserve personnel. 

NURSING RESEARCH

Question. The Committee appropriated $6,000,000 for the TRISERVICE Nursing 

Research Program and directed the Secretary of Defense to fully fund it in the fiscal 

year 2004 budget request. To my knowledge, there are no funds for this program 

in fiscal year 2004. Why was this not funded and what are the potential implications if this is not funded in future years? 

Answer. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) has long 

been a strong supporter and proponent of nursing research and the TriService Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) and any decline in this program would have a negative effect on our pursuit of nursing research. In addition, TSNRP has historically 

been physically located at USUHS. We have learned that USUHS is exploring the 

development of a center focused on military health and research. If this concept is 

developed and approved, we feel that this may be an ideal conduit for research funding in the future. We have made contact with USUHS regarding the feasibility of 

identifying the funding through this option and will continue to explore all options 

regarding the feasibility of funding TSNRP via USUHS. 
362

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO REAR ADMIRAL NANCY J. LESCAVAGE

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Question. Recruitment within the services for all the Nurse Corps is better than 

the civilian market. There have been several tools to help with the recruitment effort including the accession bonus of $5,000 for Nurses joining the services. 

The greatest retention tool for all services has been the opportunity for advanced 

out-service education for a masters or doctorate degree. Other issues that have also 

positively affected retention are: challenging assignments, more leadership responsibility, and greater promotion opportunities. 

Of the many tools for recruiting and retention, which tools have been most successful? 

Answer. Our recruitment and retention efforts targeting active duty Navy Nurses 

have been successful through a blend of initiatives, such as: 

—Diversified accession sources, which also include pipeline scholarship programs 

(Nurse Candidate Program, Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps, Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program, and Seaman to Admiral Program). 

—Pay incentives (Nurse Accession Bonus, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist 

Incentive Special Pay, Board Certification Pay and Critical Skills Retention 

Bonus). 

—Graduate education and training programs focus on Master’s Programs, Doctoral Degrees, and fellowships. Between 72–80 officers/year receive full-time 

scholarships based on operational and nursing specialty requirements. 

—Initiatives that enhance personal and professional quality of life, mentorship, 

leadership roles, promotion opportunities, operational opportunities, professional collegiality and full scope of practice. 

Question. Do you think that a Loan Repayment Program would be helpful to recruit more nurses? 

Answer. With the increasing number of competitive loan repayment programs for 

student graduates, a Loan Repayment Program with fiscal support will be helpful 

to recruit more nurses as the national nursing shortage worsens, particularly if the 

program has the flexibility to be used to repay either baccalaureate degree loans or 

master’s degree loans for critically under manned specialties. 

WAR’S EFFECT ON THE NURSE CORPS PLAN

Question. The number one retention tool is the opportunity for advanced education. The war could negatively affect the number of Nurses that will be available 

to begin out-service education opportunities in fiscal year 2004, thereby mitigating 

the effectiveness of this important retention tool. 

How has the war in Iraq and deployments of personnel to the Middle East affected your overall out-service education plan for this year and next? For instance 

will you have to send fewer nurses to school for advanced degrees this year because 

of the numbers deployed? 

Answer. Our Navy Nurses in outservice training have continued with their curriculum, unaffected by present deployments. We do not anticipate any delays in the 

release of our nurses from their present duty stations to begin their advanced education program this coming academic year. 

Question. How will the continued deployments affect your staffing plans for the 

Medical Treatment Facilities? 

Answer. Military and civilian nurses who remained at the homefront continue to 

be the backbone and structure in promoting, protecting and restoring the health of 

all entrusted to our care. In addition, key Reserve personnel in designated specialties are utilized at specific Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs). Ultimately, all 

MTFs do everything possible to conserve and best utilize the remaining medical department personnel through appropriate resource management practices and staffing plans (i.e. leave control, overtime compensation, streamlined hiring practices). 

Through an active Patient Safety Program, our military, civil service and contract 

personnel are constantly monitoring the delivery of patient care. To insure consistent superior quality of services, we utilize evidence-based clinical practices with 

a customized population health approach across the entire health care team. To 

maintain TRICARE access standards, patients may be guided to the appropriate 

level of care through the Managed Care Support Contract Network resources, assisting them every step of the way. The TRICARE network is designed to support the 

military direct care system in times of sudden and major re-deployment of MTF 

staff. 
363

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Question. In light of a national nursing shortage, please describe the status of 

your recruitment and retention efforts in the Nurse Corps for each of your services? 

Answer. The Navy Nurse Corps continually strives to be recognized as an employer of choice. National shortage projections and civilian compensation packages 

are very closely monitored to determine the best course to take in the competitive 

market. Our recruitment and retention efforts targeting active duty Navy Nurses 

have been successful through a blend of initiatives such as: 

—Diversified accession sources, which include pipeline scholarship programs such 

as the Nurse Candidate Program, Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps 

(NROTC), Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program, and Seaman to Admiral 

Program. 

—Pay incentives including the Nurse Accession Bonus, Certified Registered Nurse 

Anesthetist (CRNA) Incentive Special Pay, Board Certification Pay and the onetime Critical Skills Retention Bonus. 

—Graduate education and training programs that focus on Master’s Programs, 

Doctoral Degrees, and postgraduate fellowships. Between 72–80 officers/year receive full-time scholarships based on operational and nursing specialty requirements. 

—Initiatives that enhance personal and professional quality of life including 

mentorship, leadership roles, promotion opportunities, operational opportunities, professional collegiality and full scope of practice. 

Recruiting incentives for reservists include: 

—The Nurse Accession Bonus ($5,000) for critical wartime specialties. 

—Loan repayment and stipend programs for graduate education. 

—Several additional initiatives are under review with the Department. 

MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES

Question. With the numbers of nurses and medics/corpsmen deployed from your 

facilities, how have you ensured the delivery of safe patient care at the military 

medical facilities here at home? 

Answer. Navy Medicine is committed to high quality, cost-effective and easily accessible primary and preventive health care services, such as our population health 

management programs through health promotion, disease management and case 

management. Military and civilian nurses who remained at the homefront continue 

to be the backbone and structure in promoting, protecting and restoring the health 

of all entrusted to our care. In addition, key Reserve personnel in designated specialties are utilized at specific Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs). Ultimately, all 

MTFs do everything possible to conserve and best utilize the remaining medical department personnel through appropriate resource management practices (i.e. leave 

control, overtime compensation, streamlined hiring practices). Through an active Patient Safety Program, our military, civil service and contract personnel are constantly monitoring the delivery of patient care. To insure consistent superior quality 

of services, we utilize evidence-based clinical practices with a customized population 

health approach across the entire health care team. To maintain TRICARE access 

standards, patients may be guided to the appropriate level of care through the Managed Care Support Contract Network resources, assisting them every step of the 

way. The TRICARE network is designed to support the military direct care system 

in times of sudden and major re-deployment of MTF staff. 

DOCTORATE PROGRAM IN NURSING

Question. In fiscal year 2003, this Subcommittee appropriated funds to create a 

Nursing PhD program at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. 

Students will begin in the fall of 2003. How do you plan to use this PhD Program 

to educate your leaders and nurse researchers? 

Answer. Navy Nurse Corps participation in civilian PhD programs has resulted 

in a community of nurses with an in-depth knowledge of clinical specialty practice, 

leadership, organizational behavior, health policy, education, and/or scientific research. Historically, only two or three PhD candidates are trained annually, one of 

which is required to support the Navy Nurse Corps Anesthesia Program. When the 

PhD program is offered at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, 

Navy Nurses will be strongly encouraged to apply. We anticipate that one will be 

selected annually to attend USUHS and adjusted accordingly, based on needs. In 

our vision, nurse researchers will take on the most senior executive positions to create health policies and delivery systems. Their valued experience will be critical to 
364

advance and disseminate scientific knowledge, foster nursing excellence, and improve clinical outcomes across Navy Medicine and Federal agencies. As role models, 

they will instruct military and civilian nurses in the accomplishment and utilization 

of nursing research. 

NURSING RESEARCH

Question. The Committee appropriated $6,000,000 for the TRISERVICE Nursing 

Research Program and directed the Secretary of Defense to fully fund it in the fiscal 

year 2004 budget request. To my knowledge, there are no funds for this program 

in fiscal year 2004. Why was this not funded and what are the potential implications if this is not funded in future years? 

Answer. The TriService Nursing Research Office, through their component organization, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, submitted a request for 

a fully funded program budget of $30 million beginning in fiscal year 2004 to fiscal 

year 2009. Since the first budget request submission in 1994, Health Affairs determined that the fiscal support requirements of other competing programs superceded 

this request. Health Affairs has not released any fiscal year 2004 funding, however 

we continue to work within the system to stress the importance of TriService Nursing Research. Through your support of TriService Nursing Research Program 

(TSNRP) funding, Navy Nurses have expanded the breadth and depth of our research portfolio, increased military nursing research capacity, developed partnerships for collaborative research and built an infrastructure to stimulate and support 

military nursing research. TSNRP-funded research has been conducted at our three 

major medical centers, our two Recruit Training Centers, several Naval Hospitals, 

onboard more than six aircraft carriers and collaboratively with our uniformed colleagues and more than thirteen universities across the country. In addition, our 

Navy nursing research has been published in numerous professional journals. Without TSNRP funding, the contractual management of 58 current active ongoing research grants will cease. Some open studies may require additional dollars, which 

would no longer be available. Promising new evidence-based practice initiatives to 

current and emergency military health care delivery and services will be discontinued. Past and current findings to affect change will be not systematically disseminated and military nursing science will only be a dream. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY BRIGADIER GENERAL BARBARA BRANNON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Question. Recruitment within the services for all the Nurse Corps is better than 

the civilian market. There have been several tools to help with the recruitment effort including the accession bonus of $5,000 for Nurses joining the services. 

The greatest retention tool for all services has been the opportunity for advanced 

out-service education for a masters or doctorate degree. Other issues that have also 

positively affected retention are: challenging assignments, more leadership responsibility, and greater promotion opportunities. 

Question. Of the many tools for recruiting and retention, which tools have been 

most successful? 

Answer. Although the Air Force has many excellent recruiting tools, we cannot 

yet claim to be better than—or to have reached parity with—the recruitment capabilities of our civilian counterparts. However, each tool currently at our disposal has 

proven to be essential building a strong Air Force nursing force—a force with the 

right numbers and the right clinical experience and skills. 

We believe the General Accession Bonus and Health Professions Loan Repayment 

Programs are our most successful recruiting tools. The civilian market is flooded 

with incentives to capture the best nurses, and our incentive programs offer us the 

opportunity to compete for this scarce pool. As the nursing shortage grows we feel 

it is imperative that our recruiting tools remain competitive, and funding is crucial. 

Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP).—Based on the success of 

HPLRP as a retention tool last year, we have been able to offer up to $26,000 in 

exchange for an additional 2-year obligation for new accessions. This is the first 

time we have offered loan repayment as a recruiting tool and will monitor its impact. HPLRP appears to be a positive incentive for recruitment, a random data pull 

of 22 new accessions showed 100 percent opted for loan repayment. 

General Accession Bonus.—We currently offer a $5,000 bonus for a four-year service obligation. We have the authority to offer up to $30,000. The Health Affairs/
365

Services Special Pays Working Group is currently working the funding to increase 

this bonus. 

The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was hugely successful and boosted retention 

82 percent in the limited specialties targeted, the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist and Perioperative nurses. This year, 66 percent of CRNAs and 98 percent 

of Perioperative nurses accepted the bonus for a one-year obligation. Further application and funding would positively impact nurse retention. 

The Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) supports nursing, physician, 

biomedical science and dental education. We are aggressively seeking an increase 

in HPSP scholarships for nursing to boost recruiting in the Certified Registered 

Nurse Anesthetist specialty. 

Critical Skills Accession Bonus (CSAB).—We have the authority to provide a 

CSAB to those specialties manned at less than 90 percent. The Air Force Nurse 

Corps has submitted packages through the appropriate channels on those specialties 

to be considered for this bonus. Initiative still pending. 

Retention in the Air Force Nurse Corps appears to be healthy overall. We have 

several specialties that are below the 90 percent staffing threshold. They are: Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), Perinatal Nurses, Neonatal Intensive 

Care Nurses, Women’s Health Nurse Practitioners, and Emergency Room Nurses. 

One of the most successful retention tools targeting our Certified Registered 

Nurse Anesthetist is our Incentive Special Pay. We have the authority to offer up 

to $50,000 on an annual basis for a one-year obligation. Currently we are funded 

to offer $15,000 for those personnel who are unconstrained by school obligations and 

$6,000 for those with school obligation. The Tri-Service Health Professions Incentive 

Pay Group is working to increase the funding by $5,000 in fiscal year 2004 and then 

incrementally by $5,000 until the desired retention is met. This program is instrumental in bridging the pay gap between civilian and military systems. 

Health Professions Loan Repayment Program was offered to junior Nurse Corps 

officers with outstanding college debt. Results were outstanding, for fiscal year 

2002, 241 nurses accepted up to $25,000 for loan repayment in exchange for a 2-

year service obligation. 

Question. Do you think that a Loan Repayment Program would be helpful to recruit more nurses? 

Answer. This year the Air Force Nurse Corps was able to offer loan repayment 

as an accession tool. This is the first time we have offered loan repayment as a recruiting tool and we will closely monitor its impact. Preliminary data indicates this 

will be a tremendous success. Technical challenges have limited our ability to fully 

implement this program and we are working hard to overcome the barriers. Loan 

repayment appears to be a powerful recruiting tool and we will engage to sustain 

this tool for the Air Force Nurse Corps. 

WAR’S EFFECT ON THE NURSE CORPS PLAN

Question. The number one retention tool is the opportunity for advanced education. The war could negatively affect the number of Nurses that will be available 

to begin out-service education opportunities in fiscal year 2004, thereby mitigating 

the effectiveness of this important retention tool. 

How has the war in Iraq and deployments of personnel to the Middle East affected your overall out-service education plan for this year and next? For instance 

will you have to send fewer nurses to school for advanced degrees this year because 

of the numbers deployed? 

Answer. The Air Force Nurse Corps has made every effort to ensure the integrity 

of our advanced degree program starts. We have worked pre, during and post-deployment personnel actions to ensure all selected for programs will be able to start 

as requested. We will not change our requirements based on deployments or operations tempo as these programs are vital to retention and the enhancement of quality patient care. We will validate all future advanced education requirements 

through our usual Air Force processes and will stay the course to ensure system 

integrity. 

Question. How will the continued deployments affect you staffing plans for the 

Medical Treatment Facilities? 

Answer. The Air Force Nurse Corps could and did meet all of our deployment requirements. We sparingly applied stop-loss to three of our critical Air Force nursing 

specialties as an insurance policy against potential expanded deployments of a prolonged conflict for future requirements. 

The Air Force Nurse Corps uses a variety of staffing options to avoid patient risk. 

We can employ reserve units, individual mobilization augmentees, manning assistance and contract personnel. 
366

In addition, our facilities will continue to be staffed based on patient nurse staffing ratios advocated by National Specialty Organizations. If we cannot meet safe patient care standards we divert to civilian facilities, enroll patients to the civilian network or extend clinic hours. This was needed on a limited basis at some of our Air 

Force Medical Treatment Facilities. 

The Air Expeditionary Forces (AEF) cycle continues to be crucial to maintaining 

not only deployment unit integrity, but also to planning patient care delivery. Most 

deployments include multiple personnel specialties from physicians and nurses to 

technicians. The advanced deployment projections of the AEF allows a facility to 

plan for manning assistance, service closures and/or contracting of personnel to fill 

voids. By this methodology we ensure safe patient care through planning. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Question. In light of a national nursing shortage, please describe the status of 

your recruitment and retention efforts in the Nurse Corps for each of your services? 

Answer. The programs initiated on a national level to address the nursing crisis 

are encouraging. Recruiting nurses will continue to be a huge challenge in the coming decade. Fiscal year 2002 was the fourth consecutive year the Air Force Nurse 

Corps failed to meet its recruiting goal. We recruited approximately 30 percent less 

than our recruiting goal and shortfall has remained relatively consistent since fiscal 

year 1999. Our fiscal year 2003 recruiting goal is 363 and as of March 2003, we 

had recruited 120 nurses. 

We believe the General Accession Bonus and Health Professions Loan Repayment 

Programs are critical to healthy recruiting. The civilian market is flooded with incentives to capture the best nurses and our incentive programs offer us the opportunity to be competitive for this scarce pool. As the nursing shortage grows we feel 

it is imperative that our recruiting tools remain competitive and funding is crucial. 

Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP).—Based on the success of 

HPLRP as a retention tool we have been able to offer up to $26,000 in exchange 

for an additional 2-year obligation for new accessions. This is the first time we have 

offered loan repayment as a recruiting tool and will monitor its impact. We received 

the funding to start this program in January 2003 and we are working the loan reimbursement constraints. HPLRP appears to be a positive incentive for recruitment, 

a random data pull of 22 new accessions showed 100 percent opted for loan repayment. Full accounting will be available once all the loan repayments have been 

made. 

General Accession Bonus.—Currently offering a $5,000 bonus for a four-year service obligation. We have the authority to offer up to $30,000. 

The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was hugely successful and boosted retention 

82 percent in the limited specialties targeted, the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) and Perioperative nurses. This year, 66 percent of CRNAs and 98 

percent of Perioperative nurses accepted the bonus for a one-year obligation. Further application and funding would positively impact nurse retention. 

The Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) supports nursing, physician, 

biomedical science and dental education. We are aggressively seeking an increase 

in our HPSP scholarships for nursing to boost recruiting in the CRNA specialty. The 

program covers tuition costs and provides a monthly stipend. 

Critical Skills Accession Bonus (CSAB).—We have the authority to provide a 

CSAB to those specialties manned at less than 90 percent. 

Retention in the Air Force Nurse Corps appears to be healthy overall. We have 

several specialties that are below the 90 percent staffing threshold. They are: 

CRNAs, Perinatal Nurses, Neonatal Intensive Care Nurses, Women’s Health Nurse 

Practitioners, and Emergency Room Nurses. 

One of the most successful retention tools targeting our Certified Registered 

Nurse Anesthetist is our Incentive Special Pay. We have the authority to offer up 

to $50,000 on an annual basis for a one-year obligation. Currently we are funded 

to offer $15,000 for those personnel who are unconstrained by school obligations and 

$6,000 for those with school obligation. The Tri-Service Health Professions Incentive 

Pay Group is working to increase the funding by $5,000 in fiscal year 2004 and then 

incrementally by $5,000 until the desired retention is met. This program is instrumental in bridging the pay gap between civilian and military systems. 

Health Professions Loan Repayment Program was offered to junior Nurse Corps 

officers with outstanding college debt. Results were outstanding for fiscal year 2002, 
367

241 nurses accepted up to $25,000 for loan repayment in exchange for a 2-year service obligation. 

MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES

Question. With the numbers of nurses and medics/corpsmen deployed from your 

facilities, how have you ensured the delivery of safe patient care at the military 

medical facilities here at home? 

Answer. Patient safety remains the central focus of our health care delivery. Our 

staffing models support healthy patient staff ratios which will not be breached. The 

Air Force Nurse Corps endorses and supports the standards of practice outlined by 

nursing specialties or organizations. These standards guide nursing practice and 

provide the Chief Nurse Executives at our medical treatment facilities the framework for safe care delivery. 

We have many tools available to support safe nursing practice. We divert patients 

to other civilian facilities if patient acuity is higher then the nurse staffing can support. The decision for diversion is a collaborative decision between all healthcare 

disciplines. Nursing plays a dual role in the diversion option; they are the advocate 

for patients and staff ensuring neither is placed at risk. 

Air Force facilities have embarked on a robust Patient Safety Program that prevents patient harm. The focus of this program is preventive in nature, putting into 

place the procedures and processes to keep healthcare delivery safe and patients 

and staff members free from harm. 

We have employed the Managed Care Support Contracts and local contracts to fill 

the gap when deployments have taken their toll on staffing. Air Force Reserve personnel have also been mobilized to fill critical shortfalls. 

DOCTORATE PROGRAM IN NURSING

Question. In fiscal year 2003, this Subcommittee appropriated funds to create a 

Nursing PhD program at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. 

Students will begin in the fall of 2003. How do you plan to use this PhD Program 

to educate your leaders and nurse researchers? 

Answer. Each year the Air Force sends nurses back to school for doctorate education in Nursing. Currently there are a total of 20 PhDs in the Air Force Nurse 

Corps. 

The Air Force will request two nurse corps doctoral requirements at the Integrated Forecast Board in June 2003, which is the process the Air Force uses to validate educational requirements. Both of the officers will attend the doctoral program 

at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. This program prepares 

leaders skilled in military-specific health care issues, preparing graduates to conduct research and take leadership roles in federal and military policy development. 

This program is integral to provide experts who are uniquely qualified in issues specific to the Department of Defense and orchestrates research supporting evidencedbased nursing practice that positively impacts patient outcomes in peacetime and 

wartime. 

NURSING RESEARCH

Question. The Committee appropriated $6,000,000 for the TRISERVICE Nursing 

Research Program and directed the Secretary of Defense to fully fund it in the fiscal 

year 2004 budget request. To my knowledge, there are no funds for this program 

in fiscal year 2004. Why was this not funded and what are the potential implications if this is not funded in future years? 

Answer. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) has long 

been a strong supporter and proponent of nursing research and the TriService Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) and any decline in this program would have a negative effect on our pursuit of nursing research. In addition, TSNRP has historically 

been physically located at USUHS. We have learned that USUHS is exploring the 

development of a center focused on military health and research. If this concept is 

developed and approved, we feel that this may be an ideal conduit for research funding in the future. We have made contact with USUHS regarding the feasibility of 

identifying the funding through this option and will continue to explore all options 

regarding the feasibility of funding TSNRP via USUHS.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. And I thank all of you for your testimony this 

morning and the subcommittee will reconvene next Wednesday, 
368

May 7 when we will hear from the chiefs of the National Guard 

and Reserve components. We will stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., Wednesday, April 30, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 7.]
(369)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

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

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison, 

Burns, Inouye, Leahy, and Dorgan. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

NATIONAL GUARD

STATEMENTS OF: 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL DANIEL JAMES III, DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. We welcome you, General, all of you who are 

Generals. I’ll tell you one of the reasons I’m late, I just had a little 

demonstration session up on the ninth floor with the Special Operations and Logistics Center. It is extremely interesting. They have 

brought to show to us here in the Senate a whole series of devices 

that were really created in demand to situations that developed in 

Iraq, and it’s just a wonderful, wonderful demonstration of the ingenuity of American service people. 

They’ve just adapted to the need and developed even a device to 

go down into a well. They saw the problem and devised an answer, 

and produced a result in 4 hours. Now, they can look right down 

at the bottom of the wells and see if they’ve hidden anything down 

at the bottom—very interesting. I was on the phone telling other 

Senators to get up there and see it before they move it. They’re not 

going to be there very long. 

Senator DORGAN. How long are they going to be there? 

Senator STEVENS. 10:30. 

General, we welcome you to our hearing, and I thank you for 

stopping by to visit with us yesterday. We’ve got two panels scheduled today. First, we’re going to hear from the National Guard 

leadership followed by the leaders of the four Reserve forces. On 
370

our first panel, obviously, Lieutenant General Steven Blum, the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Roger 

Schultz, Director of the Army National Guard, and Lieutenant 

General Daniel James, Director of the Air National Guard. 

General Blum, General James, we welcome you to your first 

hearing before this subcommittee and look forward to working with 

you throughout your assignments, and General Schultz, it’s nice to 

have you back with us today. 

Let me yield to my friend from Hawaii, our co-chairman, and see 

if he has any comments to make. 

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. First I 

want to commend you on that show on the ninth floor. It’s something that all of us should see, and I wish to join you in welcoming 

all of the Generals this morning, General Schultz, General Blum, 

and General James. 

May I request that my full statement be made part of the record? 

Unfortunately, at quarter to 11:00, Mr. Chairman, I will have to 

leave. I have to get to our favorite place, Walter Reed, for a function. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming our witnesses today, General 

Blum, General Schultz, and General James of the National Guard who will be followed by General Helmly, Admiral Totushek, General McCarthy, and General 

Sherrad of the Reserves. 

Since September 11th, our Guard and Reserve personnel have been called up at 

unprecedented rates. They have performed their service in almost every aspect of 

homeland security and the global war on terrorism. Once again, they have reinforced their integral role in our military. 

As a result of the increased activations and deployments, many concerns have 

arisen on the strain placed on our Guard and Reserve and their families. One must 

not forget that our Guard and Reserve not only leave their families in most cases 

but must take leave from their jobs as well. This can cause undo strain on both employers and family finances. Our Guard and Reserve also cover a wide professional 

spectrum outside the military, including first responders, medical specialists, and 

engineers. These professions, and many others, are crucial for both civilian and military and their activations create an additional burden on our states and localities. 

We hope to address some of those issues during today’s hearing. 

We will also want to focus on the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 Budget proposal that merges the Military Personnel Accounts of Active, Guard, and Reserve. 

As you can imagine, this proposal is being met with some resistance on Capitol Hill 

and I assume among yourselves as well. As I understand it, this is the first of many 

account mergers that are headed our way in future budget requests and we would 

like to begin the discussion today. 

This committee also continues to be concerned over the longstanding issues of procuring weapons and equipment for our Guard and Reserve. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and look forward to hearing 

the testimony of our witnesses.

Senator STEVENS. I will be pleased to yield to you, Senator. Does 

any other Senator have an opening statement? 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to welcome 

our witnesses with you and Senator Inouye and commend them for 

the leadership they have given in this time of real test for the men 

and women who serve in the National Guard. It’s been very impressive. They’ve been involved in every respect of the national defense, from combat to rear guard operations, and they’ve achieved 

conspicuous success, and we appreciate very much your leadership. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator, do you have any opening statement? 
371

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, just to echo your thanks to the 

Guard and Reserve. In North Dakota, over a third of the members 

of our Guard and Reserve have been deployed, and I want to ask 

some questions about that, but I’m enormously proud of our citizens soldiers and what they have done for this country, and thank 

you for appearing today. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici. Happy birthday, Senator 

Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, thank you so much. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Burns, do you have any comments to 

make? 

Senator BURNS. I have a statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for this hearing, and I’ll submit it and look forward to hearing from 

the witnesses. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all of you for being here today 

to discuss the status of your respective National Guard and Reserve Components. 

I know you are all—as so many are—incredibly busy, considering the current situation around the world. 

The men and women of the Guard and Reserve have seen an increased operations 

tempo over the past few years and have been pitching in, working with the Active 

Component on a more regular basis. This increased optempo does not, however, 

come with out costs. Short lead times for call-ups, coupled with uncertain or lengthy 

periods of service can make life very difficult. Employers and communities and families have been incredibly understanding and supportive of these men and women 

in our volunteer service. However, one can only be supportive and understanding 

for so long. The difference between military and civilian pay can cause undue stress 

on families. The loss of one or two employees is a big deal to a small business. In 

Montana, specifically, where business is small business, some business owners, despite how supportive they have been, have been pushed to the line and are having 

a real difficult time making ends meet. I know you are all aware of this and are 

working towards solutions. 

Our Guardsmen and Reservists have performed nobly in the latest missions with 

which they have been tasked—the Global War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. Both the Guard and Reserve are extremely skilled, capable forces, responding to various missions across this nation and across the world. They continue 

to play very important, but somewhat diverse roles in the protecting our homeland 

and warfighting operations overseas. This further lends credence to the flexibility, 

adaptability and rapid reaction of this force. 

Ensuring that our Guard and Reserve Components have the proper training, 

equipment and facilities necessary to carry out their duties is essential. I pledge to 

do what I can to make sure that our Guardsmen and Reservists have the support 

they need to get the job done. 

Again, I thank all of you for being here today. I look forward to hearing the testimony today and listening to the discussion that takes place this morning. 

Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. I have no statement, but I do want to take 

this occasion to join with all of you in thanking the National Guard 

and the Reserve for their great service, and particularly those from 

New Mexico. New Mexico is having a very, very large contingency 

at every level. They’ve done a marvelous job, and we thank you for 

the leadership you provide for them. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. It’s a pleasure to serve in this committee with 

such a young man, Senator. 

Senator DOMENICI. That’s correct. Am I the youngest, looking 

around? Oh, no, you must be slightly—no. No. 
372

Senator STEVENS. General, I remarked to General Blum yesterday that we’ve just witnessed the real absolute success in Senator 

Stennis’ policy with regard, which really ultimately led to the total 

force concept, but when he initiated a concept of trying to get the 

Guard and Reserve really into active duty formations and have 

their training with the active duty formations in Europe. I think 

he started something that we will live with for the rest of our military service people. The concept of total integration, as Senator 

Burns has said, has just absolutely been demonstrated in Iraq, so 

we welcome you, and we welcome your statement. 

We will put all of your statements in the record in full, and make 

such statements as you wish. General Blum. 

General BLUM. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good 

morning. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to address you 

this morning on what we consider to be a national treasure, the 

National Guard of the United States, and you’re all very correct, 

each and every one of the States that you represent and every 

State in our Union and our four territories has soldiers right now 

in 84 countries around the world prosecuting the global war on terrorism and defending our homeland simultaneously, and we have 

not dropped a single mission in order to do that, and we still have 

a fairly robust capability available to the Governors to respond for 

State emergencies, as you have seen happening, unfortunately in 

the last few days. 

On a personal note, I’d like to thank each and every one of you 

for your solid strong support of my nomination. I intend to lead the 

National Guard Bureau in a manner that will fully justify your 

confidence in that nomination and the confidence that you have 

placed in me. I think the National Guard has assembled a superb 

leadership team, with Lieutenant General Roger Schultz and Lieutenant General Danny James who will ably assist me. With their 

vast experience and wide and varying backgrounds I think we have 

put together a leadership team that will deliver to this Nation the 

kind of defense and security that they have come to expect from 

our Army and Air National Guard. 

We will also fulfill our obligation as a channel of communications 

between the Secretaries and the Services in the several States of 

the United States, the Governors and their Adjutants General. 

We will be one National Guard Bureau. We will be unified in our 

effort. We will be agents of change. We’re very proud of our past, 

but we’re more interested in our future, and we need to make sure 

that the National Guard of the United States is ready to provide 

the kind of security to our Nation and its citizens for future generations that past generations and the present generation has come to 

accept as a standard of excellence, so toward that end we will have 

the following priorities. 

First and foremost, it has always been and is today and will always be our number one priority to defend the homeland of the 

United States of America. It is our oldest mission, but with today’s 

realities and new emerging threats it takes on even a more significant meaning than it did only 2 years ago. We will at the same 

time support the global war on terrorism, which we view as an extension of homeland defense. 
373

We see it as an away game on defending our homeland. We will 

take the fight to the enemy anywhere in the world, and we would 

hope that we could keep that off of the homeland of the United 

States of America, and in order to do these things, we’re going to 

have to change and transform the National Guard Bureau, the 

headquarters of the National Guard in the various several States, 

and some of the units and functions and organizations will need 

some rebalancing and revisiting so that we are not curators of the 

historical reenactment group but prepared for current threats and 

future threats that may face our Nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Both General Schultz and General James will now offer some 

brief comments, after which we would welcome your questions, but 

I want to take this last opportunity now to thank you once again 

for the magnificent opportunity to appear before this committee. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ, AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL DANIEL JAMES III 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to come before you today to discuss your National Guard. Your continued support and trust have been instrumental in making the National Guard what 

it is today—a highly capable force, responsive to a myriad of homeland security missions as well as warfighting operations overseas. 

Since the first muster of three militia regiments in Salem, Massachusetts, December 13th, 1636, the National Guard has protected America at home and abroad. 

Nearly every generation in American history can attest to the significant contribution citizen-soldiers and airmen have made in defense of our freedoms and way of 

life. Long before September 11th, 2001, the National Guard, both at home and 

abroad, had served this nation at unparalleled levels. In the recent past, the National Guard contributed substantial forces, equipment and personnel to critical stabilization forces in Bosnia and Kosovo; peacekeeping forces in the Sinai; no-fly zone 

enforcement in Southwest Asia; State-to-State partnerships; domestic emergencies; 

humanitarian operations; and numerous contingency operations across the world. 

The National Guard’s number 1 priority is the security and defense of our homeland. For the past 366 years, the National Guard has been actively engaged in this 

endeavor, which has solidified our roots. We lead Department of Defense efforts in 

providing force protection, critical infrastructure protection, border security, missile 

defense, intelligence, Weapons of Mass Destruction civil support, communications 

support, as well as medical, and air sovereignty capabilities to homeland security. 

The National Guard is present for duty—bringing great skills, talent and capabilities to bear in an increasingly dangerous world. Our presence in more than 2,700 

communities throughout the United States and its territories serves to connect the 

American people to their fighting forces. 

As the Department of Defense works to define its role in providing homeland security, the National Guard will play a key role because of our inherent and unique 

capability to cultivate better federal/state relationships. In nearly every conceivable 

scenario, local National Guard units—under the control of State Governors and Adjutants General—will be the first military responders on the scene. The statutory 

role of the National Guard Bureau is to be the channel of communication between 

the Army and the Air Force and the National Guard of the several states. Recently, 

we have coordinated with the Combatant Commander of U.S. Northern Command 

to perform that same role between NORTHCOM and the states. As part of this arrangement, the National Guard Bureau provides situational awareness on statecommanded National Guard operations to General Eberhart to augment his ability 

to effectively plan for and manage his command’s diverse missions. Having previously served as Chief of Staff to NORTHCOM and NORAD, I witnessed the need 

for and value of this relationship. 

The National Guard’s second priority is to support the Global War on Terrrorism 

here and abroad. On September 11th, 2001, while already heavily engaged in other 
374

mission areas, numerous National Guard troops responded to our local, state and 

national needs. Citizen soldiers and airmen dropped everything and ran to the defense of our nation and communities—many were on the scene literally within minutes. Since then, over 131,000 others have been mobilized to support the front lines 

of the Global War on Terrorism at home and abroad. This is in addition to the nearly 35,000 Active Guard Reserve members whose already-heavy workload grew significantly as well. Today’s National Guard deploys citizen-soldiers and airmen 

worldwide to dangerous and complex places in 84 countries to include Afghanistan 

and Iraq to conduct combat operations in the Global War on Terrorism. 

Wherever this anti-terrorist warfight goes—the National Guard will go with it—

alongside our joint partners in the Active and other Reserve Components. The National Guard has the will and the fighting spirit, however we need sustaining resources for both our people and equipment. This includes simplified and standardized benefits for all National Guard and reserve members, regardless of the status 

in which they serve their country. 

Over the last 18 months, American leaders have come to appreciate fully the 

adaptability and ability to react quickly provided by the National Guard’s three different duty statuses—State Active Duty as the state militia; the federal-funded and 

state-executed operations under Title 32 as the National Guard of the several states; 

and the federal role as the National Guard of the United States in Title 10 status. 

This flexibility should be protected and well-resourced at all times. In addition, 

many discovered that while Partial Mobilization authority is critical at times of 

great need, the use of volunteerism in combination with the necessary Partial Mobilization authority gives National Guard commanders the proper tools and flexibility 

to ensure sustained and ready forces over the longer term. 

Still, many of the issues that surfaced following mobilization of National Guard 

personnel for Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom revolved around the 

disparity of benefits associated with different service statuses. Those mobilized 

under USC Title 10 could claim protection under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, while those serving under USC Title 32 could not. 

Many factors influence the abilities of our forces to meet today’s increasing demands. Certainly, the level of full-time manning available to the Army National 

Guard has been a readiness factor for years. Now more than ever, the Air National 

Guard depends on its full-time force as well to sustain growing air sovereignty alert, 

force protection, and command and control requirements. Full-time management 

has always been a critical factor in how we deal with logistics, administration and 

training, and their impact on readiness, and includes the ability to support traditional forces that contribute at extraordinary rates and in new mission areas. 

Infrastructure and facilities are increasingly important. Many National Guard facilities are well past their useful life. Inadequate facilities impact both the training 

and quality of life of soldiers and airmen, as well as drain valuable resources. Our 

facilities have to be able to support the developing roles and missions of increased 

National Guard participation in both homeland security and global contingencies. 

Infrastructure also includes the tremendous information technology capabilities distributed across the 54 states and territories. This technology is both a current and 

future warfare enabler—both at home and abroad. 

America insists on a relevant, reliable and ready force that is transformed for the 

21st Century. Consequently, Transformation, the National Guard’s third priority, is 

necessary to achieve our first two objectives. National leaders have consistently gone 

on record stating that America cannot go to war without the National Guard. History demonstrates repeatedly, the sage wisdom, and indeed democratic necessity, of 

including the National Guard in America’s warfighting efforts. The National Guard, 

like no other military entity, ensures the American will and support for military action. 

‘‘When you call up the National Guard, you call up all of America.’’ The future 

in this regard will not be different. National Guard members must be prepared to 

fight in new combat environments that include high-technology equipment and complex weapon systems. As major contributors to the force structure and capability of 

the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force, the National Guard must not be left behind. 

From the outset and throughout the process, we must be a full and integral part 

of any plan to transform our military Services. 

Now, more than ever, the Army and Air National Guard are critical components 

of the Total Force and employed in a much different manner than just 15 years ago. 

Current Operational Tempos are placing wear and tear on our equipment at a much 

greater pace than planned. Legacy systems that cannot be replaced must be recapitalized to preserve combat capability and retain mission relevance. Life extension 

programs, re-engining, and modern targeting systems are a few examples of the improvements that continue to be needed to maintain our superior force. It is nec-
375

essary that the National Guard be a full partner within all Services’ modernization 

plans. This will allow the National Guard to provide the modern joint forces needed 

by the Combatant Commanders to fight and win America’s wars. 

The National Guard is strong, our personnel ready, and our missions crucial for 

the security of America, her interests and her people. Around the world, both Army 

and Air National Guard commanders have stepped up to the challenge, accepting 

leadership positions which have allowed them to interact not only with other Service 

components, but the international community as well. Having commanded multi-national peacekeeping coalition forces in Bosnia, I can personally attest to the full 

spectrum capabilities National Guard forces bring to a theater. As Chief of Staff to 

NORTHCOM and NORAD, I saw firsthand that both of these commands cannot perform their missions without the National Guard. Our troops have contributed to and 

learned from the ‘‘jointness’’ of these environments. This experience will allow National Guardsmen in the future to further leverage their unique core competencies 

when fighting alongside other Services and our allies. 

Whether at home or abroad, securing the safety of Americans through homeland 

security functions or fighting the Global War on Terrorism are inherent responsibilities of the National Guard. With proper resourcing of both people and equipment, 

the Guard will always be there when the nation calls. As Former Congressman 

Sonny Montgomery has repeatedly said, ‘‘This nation would be nearly paralyzed by 

various crises if the Guard did not exist.’’ Thankfully the Guard does exist and will 

be even better prepared to respond to future threats with the proper support and 

direction. National security is a team effort. We are proud to be part of that team. 

Together we must lead our National Guard forward with determination and vision. 

We must orchestrate a future for the National Guard that combines modern and effective resources, relevant and comparable mission profiles, an enthusiasm to adapt 

to changing environments, and the unique spirit and patriotism of the National 

Guard citizen-soldier and airman. 

Army National Guard 

We have a non-negotiable contract with the American people to win our nation’s 

wars and are entrusted with their most precious assets, America’s sons and daughters. These sons and daughters are proud and patriotic members of the Army National Guard family. 

The Army National Guard plays a crucial role in providing security to the nation, 

the nation’s citizens, and the interests of the country overseas. We fulfill our role 

in the National Military Strategy by supporting combatant commanders and conducting exercises around the world. Within our borders, Guard soldiers continue to 

provide assistance to victims of disaster and protection from our enemies. Our soldiers always stand ready to support the United States and its citizens whenever and 

wherever they are needed. 

From September 2001 to September 2002, the Army National Guard alerted and 

mobilized more than 32,000 soldiers throughout the country and around the world, 

fighting the Global War on Terrorism and defending freedom with our engagement 

in numerous operations. Operation Noble Eagle has mobilized in excess of 16,000 

soldiers from 36 States and Territories to provide force protection at various Department of Defense facilities and at our nation’s borders. Operation Enduring Freedom 

has mobilized about 16,100 soldiers from 29 States and Territories to support the 

Global War on Terrorism in Southwest Asia through the U.S. Central Command 

area of operations. Army National Guard soldiers are also involved in other peacekeeping operations throughout the world. The Global War on Terrorism, homeland 

security, and Peacekeeping are expensive undertakings for the country. It is critical 

that the U.S. armed forces receive the required funding and intelligently utilize 

those resources throughout what is expected to be a protracted war. 

Beyond the war effort, the Army Guard is fully integrated in the Army’s transformation. The Objective Force for 2015 will incorporate the Army National Guard 

as part of a seamless joint, interagency, and multi-national team in support of rapid 

deployment and operations against a range of threats, including homeland security 

and the maintenance of a strategic reserve for extended campaigns and multiple engagements. 

The nation asks a great deal of the Army National Guard soldiers, and it is our 

responsibility to ensure that these citizen-soldiers are equipped with the best possible training, the most current aircraft and vehicles, and the most lethal weapon 

systems. 

Army National Guard soldiers, most of whom have successful civilian careers, sacrifice their normal lifestyle in an effort to preserve democracy and freedom in the 

nation and the world. Family members of our troops provide us with great support 

and thus help us maintain unit readiness and strength. Employers of these patriotic 
376

soldiers are now being asked to sustain a much greater level of employee absence 

due to an increased rate of deployment. Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to the 

soldiers themselves, but no less gratitude is due our families and our employers who 

allow us to accomplish our missions. Our ability to be ready when called upon by 

the American people is, and will always be, our top priority and our bottom line. 

Readiness 

Full-Time Support 

Recent events, including fighting the Global War on Terrorism, underscore the 

vital role Full-Time Support personnel have in preparing Army National Guard 

units for a multitude of missions both in the homeland and abroad. Full-Time Support is a critical component for achieving unit-level readiness during this period in 

the nation’s history. To meet readiness requirements, the Chief, National Guard Bureau, in concert with the State Adjutants General, has placed increasing Full-Time 

Support authorizations as the number-one priority for the Army National Guard. 

Those full-time Guard members are responsible for organizing, administering, instructing, training, and recruiting new personnel, as well as the maintenance of 

supplies, equipment, and aircraft. Full-Time Support personnel are critical links to 

the integration of the Army’s components. 

The Department of the Army validated total and minimum Full-Time Support levels for the Reserve Components in fiscal year 2000 and determined the minimum 

level should be attained as quickly as possible. The Army, Army National Guard, 

and United States Army Reserve cooperatively developed an incremental ramping 

method for achieving minimum Reserve Component Full-Time Support levels by fiscal year 2012. The Army National Guard minimum support level end-state is reflected in the ‘‘DA High-Risk Requirement’’. The Full-Time Support end-state provides 71 percent of the resources required. Congress has supported increases in authorizations and funding in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Army National 

Guard received 794 additional Active Guard and Reserve authorizations and 487 

Military Technician authorizations above the fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget; 

these increases were funded in fiscal year 2003. 

While recent developments represent progress, the increase in missions for the 

Army National Guard has emerged, missions including the Global War on Terrorism 

and Homeland security that require a further increase in Full-Time Support personnel. 

Recruiting and Retention 

The United States cannot undertake any worldwide military contingency or operational effort without the National Guard. The events of September 11, 2001 have 

placed increased demands on the Army National Guard to recruit and retain a quality force of 350,000 soldiers. This force of officer and enlisted soldiers is vital to integrating sufficiently trained and equipped personnel and units for response to State 

or federal missions. 

There is a correlation between the frequency of military deployments and the retention rates of Guard soldiers. This attrition of trained personnel, combined with 

the soft recruiting market, present new challenges for the Guard to sustain readiness levels. 

Although the Army Guard historically recruits and retains a sufficient number of 

enlisted soldiers to achieve strength objectives, it is currently experiencing a shortage of junior officers. Incentive programs will continue to assist the Army National 

Guard in keeping readiness levels high in this time of war. 

Accelerated Officer Candidate School Program 

The Army National Guard initiated a very successful accelerated Officer Candidate School Program in 1996. This accelerated program cuts 11 months off the traditional course duration (eight weeks of full-time versus 13 months of part-time 

training). This is particularly beneficial to States experiencing large company-grade 

officer vacancies. Class sizes were increased to 200 students in 2001 and to 400 students in fiscal year 2002 to meet the forecasted training requirements submitted by 

the States. Moreover, an additional class was conducted beginning in January 2003 

to support the current war effort. The Army National Guard will continue to grow 

the program to address the shortage of company-grade officers. 

Initial Entry Training Management 

The Chief of Staff of the Army has provided guidance to the Reserve Component 

to have at least 85 percent of assigned soldiers qualified in their duty specialties 

by fiscal year 2005. The Army National Guard fully intends to meet or exceed this 

goal. In the past, the Army National Guard has had difficulty getting the proper 
377

Initial Entry Training quotas to meet the demands of the force. As a result, the 

Army National Guard has been lacking in qualified personnel in certain occupational specialties. These shortages affect its ability to mobilize and/or deploy. 

In order to meet the quota goal, the Army National Guard has taken input from 

the Adjutants General and has developed a new Initial Entry Training management 

system. This system has refined the Army National Guard’s ability to accurately 

forecast Initial Entry Training requirements. These forecasts will more closely 

match that necessary to meet Army National Guard readiness goals than previous 

methods. 

The Army School System and Qualifying Army National Guard Soldiers 

The Army School System is a multi-component organization of the United States 

Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Army National Guard, and the U.S. 

Army Reserve that has been organized to deliver Military Occupation Skills Qualification Reclassification, Noncommissioned Officer Education System, Officer Education System, and functional military courses. This system provides the National 

Guard with the means to train and retain quality soldiers and leaders who are so 

essential to rapidly and effectively responding to the federal mission or to missions 

of homeland security. 

The Army National Guard has developed an In-Unit Training program that has 

enhanced the ability to produce a larger number of soldiers who have achieved Duty 

Military Occupational Skill Qualification. The Army National Guard has also provided Mobile Training Teams overseas to sustain the training of its soldiers who are 

deployed around the world. The Army Guard and Reserve instructional, training development, and budget management staffs are combining efforts to build a future 

United States Army Training and Doctrine Command that can deliver seamless 

training to standards as part of the institutional training within the Army. 

The Army National Guard supports the initiative by the Army Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Personnel to hold selective retention boards that will allow selected captains and majors to be retained so that they may reach 20 years of active service. 

The Army National Guard also supports the Deputy Chief’s initiative to select captains for promotion who do not possess a baccalaureate degree or military education 

certification. The actual promotion to the next higher grade will become effective 

once the individual completes the required civilian or military education. 

Distributed Battle Simulation Program 

The Army National Guard has structured the Distributed Battle Simulation Program to satisfy congressionally mandated requirements. Concerned with readiness 

and training issues, these mandates explore the processes of integrating training 

aids, devices, simulations, and simulators into live, virtual, and constructive training environments. The program focuses training on individual and crew qualification, platoon maneuver, and leader development/battle staff training at the level of 

organization. It provides technical support personnel and advisors to commanders 

at various levels to recommend ‘‘best practice’’ strategies and methodologies to provide objective feedback, continuity, and technical support. With the proper training, 

simulations, simulators, and advanced training technologies increase opportunities 

for soldiers and units to minimize post-mobilization training time required for combat units. 

The challenge for the Army National Guard is to make maximum use of advanced 

technologies and simulations so as to develop mechanisms and processes that efficiently and effectively integrate and synchronize individual and collective training 

requirements. 

Empirical data reveals that soldiers who have practiced on various gunnery and 

maneuver simulators have much higher gunnery qualification rates and conduct 

maneuvers at higher levels of readiness than soldiers who are not exposed to simulators. Further, after action reviews from both the National Training Center and 

war-fighter exercises reflect that the Armory Based Battle Staff Training units have 

increased synchronization and raised the competencies of commanders and staff at 

brigade and battalion levels. 

The continued support for this successful program will ensure the readiness of the 

Guard in meeting future missions; live, virtual, and constructive training infrastructure; and training modernization. 

Combat Training Centers 

In fiscal year 2002, over 35,000 Guardsmen in 25 Army National Guard Combat 

units, including two Enhanced Separate Brigades and a host of support units, conducted war-fighting training at the National Training Center, Joint Readiness 

Training Center, and Battle Command Training Center. The training contributed to 
378

enhanced unit readiness by allowing these units to execute their wartime combat, 

combat support, and combat service support missions in realistic wartime scenario. 

Mobilization Issues 

Mobilizing Active Guard Reserve Soldiers under Title 32

The Active Guard Reserve program is designed to ensure that the training and 

readiness of Army National Guard soldiers are maintained at a high level. These 

codes have very specific limits on how the Army or the States and Territories can 

utilize their Active Guard Reserve force in times of need. 

The events of September 11, 2001 brought these limitations to the forefront. 

Under Title 32, Active Guard Reserve soldiers are not authorized to support State 

missions after 72 hours unless specific criteria are met, such as the imminent loss 

of life. The inability of State Governors and Adjutants General to utilize all of their 

full-time soldiers caused some significant organizational and leadership problems 

within affected formations. 

Active Guard Reserve members are critical assets to the force, enabling units to 

rapidly respond to State emergencies and homeland security efforts. 

Medical and Dental Readiness 

Individual medical readiness of Army Guard soldiers has become a heightened 

priority since September 11, 2001. Individual medical readiness requirements include immunizations, dental, and medical screenings. The speed at which units deploy today places significant time constraints on the Guard to properly identify or 

correct medical or dental deficiencies at mobilization stations. 

In October 2001, the Army National Guard initiated the Medical Protection System, an automated tracking system for medical and dental records. This system also 

tracks Physical Exam readiness data, as well as HIV and DNA readiness data on 

file at the Army and Department of Defense repositories; it is used at mobilization 

stations to verify Individual Medical readiness in the Mobilization Level Application 

Software. When fully implemented, the system will allow commanders and human 

resource managers to monitor individual medical readiness of their soldiers. Resources can then be directed where needed, and early decisions can be made regarding the readiness of individuals and units to be deployed. 

It is important to understand that with very few exceptions, Army National 

Guard soldiers are not entitled to medical or dental care for pre-existing disorders, 

only for injury or illness incurred in the line of duty. Dental readiness is particularly problematic. Both Congress and Department of Defense have attempted to 

positively influence dental readiness, but the remedy is not yet available. Units are 

still arriving at mobilization stations with soldiers in need of dental care to bring 

them to deployment standards. 

If the nation continues to utilize the Army National Guard and Army Reserve in 

support of the Global War on Terrorism, it must ensure that these Reserve Components maintain the same high level of medical readiness as the active component. 

Current Operations 

Force Protection 

In fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard provided soldiers for deployments 

in the continental United States and overseas. Almost 20,000 soldiers worked 

1,490,000 mandays conducting force protection missions and executing border security missions at 83 sites owned by the Army Materiel Command; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command; U.S. Army Forces Command; Immigration and Naturalization Service; and U.S. Customs Service. The National Guard supported homeland security missions by guarding airports, nuclear power plants, domestic water 

supplies, bridges, and tunnels in support of the State Governors. 

Contingency Operations 

The Army National Guard has assumed the lead as the stabilizing force in the 

Balkans and in Southwest Asia. Six Army National Guard brigades and numerous 

battalions participated in rotations as part of the Multinational Force Observers in 

the Sinai, and in Southwest Asia, providing support to the Air Defense Artillery 

units in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Army National Guard is scheduled to provide Division Headquarters and maneuver units to four of the next six rotations to 

Bosnia. 

Partial Mobilization 

During fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard contributed tens of thousands 

of soldiers to support the Global War on Terrorism. By September 2002, over 20,000 

soldiers were mobilized from within the Army Guard’s ranks, and those numbers 
379

are expected to continue to increase. These fine citizen-soldiers were deployed with 

very little post-mobilization training, yet stand ready to enforce the will of the 

United States. 

Military Support to Civilian Authorities 

Since September 11, 2001, Army National Guard soldiers have responded to 263 

requests for emergency support for a total of 645,419 mandays. These soldiers provided security, logistics support, transportation, and family care centers. They 

worked in support of World Trade Center relief, the Winter Olympics, and security 

at American icons such as Mount Rushmore, the Boston Marathon, and the Super 

Bowl in Louisiana. Major wildfires involving 21 States and consuming over 6.6 million acres required 47,519 mandays of support. The Army National Guard provided 

aviation support with water-bucket drops, security, and command and control as 

needed. The Guard’s soldiers supported flood recovery operations in Kentucky, West 

Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas for a total of 23,882 mandays. 

Modern Infrastructure and Facilities 

Army National Guard facilities are vital for the operations, preparation, and execution of emergency assistance and the Global War On Terrorism missions. Readiness centers, maintenance facilities, and training centers provide the citizen-soldier 

a base from which to train, maintain equipment, and mobilize at a moment’s notice. 

Most of the Army National Guard’s existing infrastructure was built prior to 1990, 

with a very significant number being more than 50 years old. The Army National 

Guard has refined the method used to validate requirements for its aging facilities. 

This refinement has given the Army National Guard a much more accurate analysis 

of what is needed to maintain and improve the Guard’s facilities. The validated requirement in fiscal year 2004 is approximately $1.18 billion. 

Military Construction 

The Army National Guard’s Military Construction, Sustainment, Restoration and 

Modernization and Facilities Base Operations programs support construction, maintenance and operations of Army National Guard facilities. 

The programs provide facilities for Guard units and personnel to operate, prepare 

for, and execute required missions. The priority is to afford units with readiness, 

maintenance, and training facilities that enhance unit capability to effectively mobilize and deploy when called. 

Military Construction funding in 2004 supports general facilities revitalization, 

the Army National Guard Division Redesign Study, planning and design for Range 

and Training Lands Program, Aviation Transformation, and the Stryker Brigade 

Combat Team. General facilities revitalization consists of restoration and modernization based on 67-year recapitalization of existing facilities for current missions 

and building out facilities to support existing missions. The Army Facilities Strategy 

is a component of Facilities Revitalization. The program supports readiness by providing standard facilities to support training of personnel and maintenance of equipment for existing and new missions. 

The existing infrastructure is outdated and inadequate with many facilities unable to support current unit training or operational requirements. The ranges do not 

meet current standards and without adequate facilities, units cannot meet war 

fighting or homeland security readiness. At present, newly fielded vehicles are unable to fit into existing maintenance bays, and there is insufficient space to store 

equipment properly to ensure adequate operation. 

The increased requirements for these programs have been staggering. Funding for 

Military Construction is on the increase, though not at the same level as requirements. The requirement increases 62 percent in fiscal year 2004 and reaches almost 

107 percent for fiscal year 2009. The funding of Military Construction increases over 

5 percent in fiscal year 2004 and reaches an increase of about 38 percent in fiscal 

year 2009. 

The Military Construction funding ramp increases considerably over the next five 

years to address the Army National Guard’s facilities shortfalls in quality and quantity. A significant portion of this ramp addresses the 56th Stryker Brigade Combat 

Team, Aviation Transformation, Army Range and Training Lands program, and 

Army National Guard Division Redesign. These transformational programs address 

the facilities needs of our transforming force structure. A full two-thirds of the Military Construction program addresses facilities revitalization from fiscal years 2007 

through 2009. 

The refinement of the Army National Guard real property inventory has increased 

the validated requirements for sustainment by an average of $4 million per year for 

fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Funding for sustainment in fiscal year 2004 is approximately 93 percent of validated requirements as generated by the Department 
380

of Defense Facilities Sustainment Model. Base Operations, requirements have increased significantly; however, funding has not increased at the same rate. 

Environmental Programs 

The Army National Guard Environmental Program is a world-class environmental 

management program; its core competency is ‘‘ensuring the sustainable use of Army 

National Guard training lands and facilities to enable essential training and support 

functions critical to operational mission accomplishment.’’ Through National Guard 

pollution prevention, conservation, and restoration activities, the Army National 

Guard maintains compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The Army 

Guard also practices sound stewardship and promotes innovative ways to ensure 

compatible use of sustainable natural resources in its charge and military training 

lands to support national defense. 

Within the past year, the Army National Guard has met statutory requirements 

to develop and begin implementation of Integrated Natural Resource Management 

Plans for 90 of the Army Guard’s installations. The Army National Guard is aggressively continuing development of Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plans 

in a similar fashion, in addition to completing many precursor planning-level surveys, such as wetlands and forest inventories that fed the above major environmental management plans. The Army Guard’s Environmental Compliance Assessment System program has innovative technology solutions to maintain the Guard’s 

leadership role in this program. 

There are approximately 42 listed threatened and endangered species on 36 Army 

National Guard training sites, and the Army National Guard has proven it can 

maintain compatible use. The Army National Guard has taken the lead in developing a comprehensive computer-based tool that will provide near real-time data on 

environmental resource sustainment factors at training centers. These facilities are 

critical to realistic unit and weapons training. The new electronic tool will be used 

to assess environmental vulnerabilities to ensure ranges and maneuver lands are 

available for training. This capability has great potential for pre-emptive rather 

than reactive environmental management. 

Homeland Security 

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program 

The National Guard is playing a significant role in the defense against ballistic 

missile threat by organizing, manning, and deploying Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Units. The Army National Guard received approval to activate a Missile Defense Brigade, based on the results of the Total Army Analysis 2009. The Brigade 

Headquarters will be located in Colorado and the first Battalion will be located in 

Alaska. These organizations will serve as the cornerstone for the Ground-Based 

Midcourse Defense program. 

The Missile Defense Agency, Ground-Based Midcourse Defense-Joint Program Office has agreed to provide pay and allowance for initial personnel required for this 

program in preparation for Initial Defensive Operations beginning in fiscal year 

2004. 

As critical as this mission component is to the national defense, it requires adequate full-time manning to achieve full operational capability. By offering the needed manpower to the Army Space Command and the Space and Missile Defense 

Command, the Army Guard will provide this primary land-based homeland security 

system. 

Anti-Terrorism Force Protection 

The Army National Guard’s Anti-Terrorism Force Protection and physical security 

programs provide for security and protection of facilities, personnel, and equipment, 

as well as the monitoring and maintenance of intrusion detection systems that detect and assess threats at 397 critical sites. Intrusion systems, closed circuit television, and access control systems decrease the number of personnel needed to 

guard facilities as well as prevent personnel from exposure to potentially harmful 

situations. The security systems save on personnel costs: Fewer soldiers are needed 

to guard Department of Defense facilities, equipment, and property and are channeled instead into mission deployment or crisis management. 

Guard Knowledge Management 

The Guard Knowledge Management initiative and the Distributive Training Technology Project support the Army National Guard’s ability to maintain and improve 

individual and unit readiness, the ability to mobilize, and quick, efficient deployment. Through the effective integration of information technology programs and implementation of Knowledge Management initiatives, the Army Guard is enhancing 
381

its capability to identify, distribute, and access critical information that directly impacts the Army Guard’s ability to meet readiness goals and mission objectives. 

For example, the Army National Guard saves money and resources and heightens 

readiness by providing increased foreign language sustainment and enhancement 

training using distance-learning technologies. Courseware is being developed at several sites throughout the United States, including Iowa, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Arkansas, and New Jersey. In addition, the Vermont Army National Guard has been 

conducting Information Operations training since February 1999 for all components 

of the Army. The Army National Guard made full use of its Knowledge Management 

capabilities to conduct extensive pre-deployment training for the 29th Infantry Division (Light) Headquarters for their peacekeeping rotation in Bosnia. 

The Army Guard has also partnered with the National Air and Space Administration to deliver a wide array of educational content to young people to stimulate interest in science, math, and technology. The Army National Guard is building on 

these and other success stories to help increase readiness through a vigorous implementation of Knowledge Management principles. 

Transformation 

Legacy Force Sustainment 

While still experiencing critical modernization challenges in High-Mobility MultiPurpose Wheeled Vehicles, Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radios, chemical 

and biological detection equipment, and Night Vision Devices, the Army National 

Guard continues to improve its overall readiness posture. The redistribution of assets will continue to be a part of the remedy to a variety of shortfalls throughout 

the Army National Guard’s force. As the Army National Guard completes its Division Redesign, some equipment will be made available for use in other formations. 

Similarly, as the 56th Brigade in Pennsylvania transforms, equipment will be redistributed. 

Over the last decade, the Army National Guard has made significant progress in 

modernizing the heavy force with the M1A1 Abrams, M2A2 Bradley, M109A6 Paladin, and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. It is the Army National Guard’s 

plan to continue efforts to transform equipment and technologies to ensure interoperability and readiness levels. 

Interim Force 

The Army National Guard modernization strategy provides for a compatible and 

fully networked force. A key component of the transformation strategy is the activation of the 56th Brigade of Pennsylvania that is expected to become the first Army 

National Guard Stryker Brigade prior to 2008. Overall, the six Army-wide Stryker 

Brigade Combat Teams’ mission is to be a rapid deployment force that can be deployed anywhere in the world in 96 hours. 

The Army National Guard’s highest priority remains maintaining war-fighting 

readiness. In support of this imperative, the organization is pursuing a modernization strategy that will provide the nation with compatible, interoperable, and strategically viable forces well into the future. The transformation campaign plan articulates the strategy of how to achieve the Army vision of an objective force that is 

more responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, and sustainable in times of crisis. Current forces will continue to be viable long into the future and will provide 

the margin of security that allows the Army to undertake transformation. The Army 

will maintain the combat overmatch capabilities of the current force through selective modernization, technology insertion, and recapitalization. The Army’s plan is to 

have all of Pennsylvania’s Stryker Brigade Combat Team’s facility construction and 

other infrastructure requirements started by fiscal year 2006. 

Objective Force 

The Army National Guard Division Redesign Study is a four-phase transformation 

project. Phases I and II of this study will involve the conversion of six brigades 

along with a portion of two divisions. The purpose is to address a long-standing U.S. 

Army concern regarding a lack of combat support and combat service support in the 

force structure. 

Military construction is required to meet this critical change, and with the assistance of 24 participating States, the Army National Guard is in the process of planning the modification and rebuilding of older facilities to accommodate this new mission. Phases III and IV are under revision, and the pending Army Guard Restructuring Initiative will most likely impact these later stages of restructuring; funding 

for this initiative is in excess of $370 million. 
382

Restructuring Initiative 

On September 8, 2002, Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White introduced the 

Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative at the 2002 National Guard Association of the United States annual conference. Mr. White stated that ‘‘in light of our 

new plan for national defense [we] are now undertaking a new initiative which we 

will call the Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative. Whereas the original 

initiative Army Division Redesign Study converts combat formations to support 

structure, the new initiative restructures a sizeable portion of the National Guard 

combat formations to better support our combatant commanders’ requirements.’’

The concept is to convert existing heavy and light combat structure to new designs that better support Combatant Commanders (including the new Northern 

Command) under the new defense strategy. Tentatively called Multi-Functional Divisions and Mobile Light Brigades, these new organizations will be first and foremost war-fighting organizations prepared for full-spectrum operations. The first unit 

could begin conversion as early as fiscal year 2005. 

The conversion to these new organizations, combined with efforts already under 

way as part of the Army National Guard Division Redesign Study effort, will result 

in a 30 percent decrease in the current number of tracked vehicles in Army Guard 

Combat Divisions and Brigades. Although this constitutes a reduction of heavy assets, the National Guard is determined to ensure that the Army Guard does not 

maintain obsolete systems that are inconsistent with future Army operational concepts including unit design, support and sustainment. 

Aviation Transformation 

Army National Guard aviation is one of the nation’s highest value assets for both 

wartime and peacetime missions. In wartime, these Army National Guard aviation 

units provide the sustaining and reinforcing power required for successful execution 

of the National Military Strategy, as well as the most readily available Army aviation assets for homeland security. In peacetime, these critical aviation assets are 

equally important for the widest possible range of missions at both the State and 

Regional levels. These peacetime missions range from Air Ambulance, Search and 

Rescue, and Counterdrug support in areas having no such civilian capacity, to widescale and timely response to both natural and man-made disasters. 

The Army National Guard’s aviation units continue to contribute almost half of 

the Army’s aviation structure, including Counterdrug Reconnaissance and Aerial 

Interdiction Detachments in 37 States and Territories, which use specially modified 

OH–58 observation aircraft to support federal, State, and local law enforcement 

agencies with counterdrug efforts in the United States. These units are also postured to support homeland security efforts. Six of these units were deployed along 

the Northern Border supporting the U.S. Border Patrol and Operation Noble Eagle 

during fiscal year 2002. 

Since fiscal year 2002, the Army’s Aviation Transformation effort, coupled with 

other aviation modernization and recapitalization improvements, has not only significantly improved the readiness and capabilities of Guard aviation units, but also 

has reduced the overall aviation footprint. While significant quantities of modern series UH–60, CH–47, and AH–64 aircraft have been cascaded from active Army units 

to Army Guard units, the associated equipment (tool set, tool kits, test equipment, 

and parts) critical for the successful support of these aircraft has not kept pace. Current Army procurement levels will leave the Army Guard permanently short of its 

required number of aircraft. In addition, many of the remaining allocated aircraft 

are not scheduled for upgrade to the most current standard configurations: 

—AH–64 ‘‘Apache’’.—Army National Guard will receive 254 of 296 required (42 

short). Of the 254 AH–64s to be provided, only 63 will be the most modern AH–

64D model. 

—CH–47 ‘‘Chinook’’.—Army National Guard will receive 136 of 150 required (14 

short). Of the 136 CH–47s to be provided, only 93 will be the most modern CH–

47F model. 

—UH–60 ‘‘Blackhawk’’.—Army National Guard will receive 687 of 775 required 

(88 short). All 687 are scheduled for eventual upgrade to most modern UH–60M 

model. 

—Homeland Security/RAID Aircraft.—The OH–58A/C aircraft currently used for 

this mission are nearing the end of their useful life span. 

Personnel Transformation 

The Army Guard’s Permanent Electronic Records Management System is a webbased system utilizing digital imagery to store and retrieve personnel records. The 

importance of the Permanent Electronic Records Management System lies in its 
383

seamless records management capability throughout the Army, enhancing both mobilization and personnel readiness. 

By consolidating the administrative operations of human resources in one place, 

the Permanent Electronic Records Management System allows personnel records to 

follow a soldier regardless of component. In the past, the system was slow and 

labor-intensive, resulting in pay problems, promotion delays, difficulties in making 

new assignments, and low personnel morale. Fixing the problem involves the conversion of paper files to electronic files; and is a practice currently used by the Department of the Army for all of its personnel actions. At present the Army National 

Guard is the only military component that lacks electronic records storage capability. 

Under the Department of Defense’s vision for a ‘‘paperless environment,’’ the 

Army National Guard will be required to provide electronic capabilities for personnel records in the 50 States, three Territories, and the District of Columbia. 

The Army National Guard will adopt an Automated Selection Board System to 

support and improve the process under which information and votes regarding personnel actions are processed by military personnel boards. 

Departing from an obsolete ‘‘paper’’ system to a digital system that views data 

and images from the Permanent Electronic Records Management System and the 

Department of the Army Photo Management Information System is a time-consuming process. However, once the Automated Selection Board System is adopted, 

it will save the Army National Guard more than $150,000 per year in microfiche 

production and postage costs. 

This system is essential to achieve and fully support Personnel Transformation. 

The Army National Guard must remain interoperable with the Army and the Army 

Reserve by adopting this system. The conduct of boards at the State level will become extremely cumbersome due to unavailability of routine printed information. By 

failing to adopt the Automated Selection Board System, the Army National Guard 

will be required to download paper copies of an automated viewing and storing system. 

Strategic Readiness System 

The Army National Guard’s Strategic Readiness System was developed pursuant 

to the Chief of Staff of the Army’s guidance for a more holistic assessment of readiness information. The Strategic Readiness System is an integrated strategic management and measurement system that ensures that all levels of the Army, including the National Guard Bureau and the Army National Guard, recognize and align 

their operations to the vision, objectives, and initiatives of the Army Plan. The system also measures each element’s success in achieving these goals. 

The Army Scorecard is the tool used to measure progress toward stated goals and 

objectives. This tool will enable the Army National Guard leadership to see the resource and readiness linkages throughout the system and better predict a modeling 

capability that improves the allocation of resources to achieve the highest degree of 

readiness. 

Conclusion 

The Army National Guard comprises diverse individuals from all walks of life 

united by the desire to keep the American people safe and secure. Many soldiers 

in the Guard leave behind promising career tracks and loving families to serve their 

country without compromise or hesitation. These soldiers lead dual lives; their sacrifices are overwhelming and should not be forgotten or discounted. 

Army National Guard soldiers have accomplished much work ‘‘behind the scenes’’ 

in the past fiscal year, providing relief to victims of catastrophes, security at numerous vulnerable locations, and mobilization to various military operations world-wide. 

The Army National Guard, the crucial foundation of the Army, reinforces and augments the efforts of fellow soldiers to ensure that objectives are achieved and initiatives are met. 

While it has succeeded on many fronts, certain challenges still face the Army National Guard. The issues of recruitment, retention, and subsequent development of 

junior officers continue to be areas of discussion. Dental and medical care remain 

sub par or lacking for many soldiers in the Guard. Furthermore, the dearth of cutting-edge, state-of-the-art facilities and equipment hampers the efforts of the Army 

National Guard to perform at an optimum level. 

The Army National Guard is a stalwart entity that is ever ready to protect and 

defend the United States with zeal and determination. With proper and judicious 

funding over the coming years, its continued transformation will ensure brighter 

prospects for the Army itself and the American people. 
384

Air National Guard 

The year 2002 will be marked by the volunteer spirit and dedication of Air National Guard men and women spanning the globe: the War on Terrorism at home, 

the War on Terrorism abroad, and ‘‘routine’’ deployments as full partners in the Air 

and Space Expeditionary Force. Since September 11, 2001, we’ve been busier than 

ever before. We’ve been flying fighter combat air patrols over cities keeping our 

country safe. We’ve been seeking out terrorists where they live. We’ve been gathering and interpreting data supporting the warfighters and securing airports, 

bridges, and military installations. We’ve maintained our aircraft and communications infrastructure so the mission can be accomplished. We’ve done this with volunteers and mobilized personnel, most of whom left their families and jobs to serve. 

We’ve done this as proud members of the Total Force even while we continued to 

train for what lies ahead. 

During his campaign in Tunisia, General Eisenhower said, ‘‘It is not the man who 

is so brilliant who delivers in time of stress and strain, but rather the man who 

can keep on going.’’ The Air National Guard not only delivered in a time of stress 

and strain but also kept on going. In this past year we’ve gone from a surge force 

to a sustaining force. At the peak of operations in February 2002, almost 15,000 

people were mobilized and almost 8,000 were volunteers. Throughout the summer 

both the volunteers and mobilization numbers came down as the War on Terrorism 

reached a lower tempo. Often times we were employed as a ‘‘just in case’’ force rather than a ‘‘just in time’’ force, mobilizing personnel in case they were needed rather 

than when needed to fulfill immediate requirements. On many occasions Air National Guard members were mobilized to backfill deploying active duty troops. Employers understand better, as do families, when Guard men and women deploy overseas rather than backfill. Whatever the call, we were there. 

We’ve been a solid team player in Operation Enduring Freedom and the Air and 

Space Expeditionary Force. As fiscal year 2002 came to a close, we had flown 25 

percent of the fighter sorties, 31 percent of the tanker sorties, and 27 percent of the 

airlift sorties. Through innovative management techniques such as ‘‘rainbowing’’ 

units, we’ve been a seamless part of the Total Force. We will continue to prosecute 

the War on Terrorism on all fronts. 

Combat operations couldn’t happen without the exceptional support capabilities 

provided by maintainers and logisticians; civil engineers and security police; communicators and intelligence analysts. These myriad support skills are brought to bear 

to make operations successful. Many of these specialties are ‘‘stressed’’ but the 

troops keep on giving. 

Air National Guard citizen-airmen are the backbone of Operation Noble Eagle. By 

the end of fiscal year 2002 we had flown 74 percent of the fighter sorties, 62 percent 

of the tanker sorties, and 36 percent of the airlift sorties. We maintained almost 

100 percent of the alert sites. The Air National Guard is extremely proud of its ability to execute the homeland security mission. Through smart management of resources and capabilities, we can continue to participate in the homeland security 

mission as a by-product of our wartime tasking. Continued Air National Guard participation in the Air and Space Expeditionary Force is vital to our wartime readiness. Any unique homeland security missions should be appropriately resourced. 

As the War on Terrorism continues, our people and systems will be employed at 

above-average rates. Through utilization of civilian skills and innovation, Air National Guard professionals are keeping our aging systems up and running. But in 

the face of fiscal and manpower constraints the nation will not be able to afford the 

high costs associated with maintaining legacy systems; therefore, the Air National 

Guard will need to be transformed across the full spectrum of missions with our active brethren. Through transformation to future high-tech systems such as information operations, space-based capabilities, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, C–17, and F–

22 and Joint Strike Fighter, we will be able to continue to leverage our civilian 

skills to make the most of these systems’ capabilities. 

Technology, however, is only one part of transformation. Other parts include concepts of operations and organizational structures. The Air National Guard stands 

ready to explore and implement new concepts of operations and organizations. We’ve 

done so already with the 116th Air Control Wing at Robins AFB, Georgia. Together 

with the active force we’ve established a Total Force unit that will highlight the capabilities of both components and have broken down barriers that would have otherwise precluded this structure. This is the right kind of unit for the right mission. 

Not all future total force units should look like this but should be reviewed on a 

case-by-case basis. Additionally, we should consider ‘‘Reverse Associate’’ units where 

active duty members are associate to an Air National Guard unit. This will take 

advantage of the operational infrastructure savings associated with Air National 
385

Guard installations while broadening assignment opportunities and experiences for 

active members. 

Since the entire force cannot be transformed at once, some part of the force will 

need to be modernized to include the latest capabilities. Areas that are best suited 

for modernization include facilities, precision-guided munitions, communications 

systems, air refueling platforms and engines. These systems are necessary to provide the required capabilities to fly and fight in today’s battlefields. Today, the Air 

National Guard is a vital part of this great nation’s security. We will proactively 

face the challenges ahead to remain a ready, reliable, and relevant force. 

Ready speaks to being sufficiently manned with trained personnel capable of 

doing the global mission on short notice. Ready means jumping into an aircraft and 

launching in minimum time should we be attacked. Ready means support troops 

who can build and sustain support facilities at austere airfields anywhere in the 

world when called upon. Ready is being able to deploy in support of the Air and 

Space Expeditionary Force to Turkey, Bosnia, or Iceland. Ready is the ability to patrol airports or deliver food and supplies to those affected by natural disasters. We 

are ready! 

Reliable means that we can be accessed when we are needed. Reliable means that 

whether through volunteerism or mobilization we have the required people ready to 

go when and where needed. Reliable means we can respond to the Governor of a 

state when in state duty or to a Combatant Commander when federalized. Reliable 

means we’ll be there, and we will be! 

Relevant means we are modernized and transformed to carry out missions that 

are important to support the national security strategy. Relevant means we’ve got 

targeting pods and the latest radar and protective gear. Relevant means we’re part 

of the F/A–22, Space, C–17, ISR, and information operations. It means we are an 

important part of our nations defense, and right now, we are. 

This is our biggest challenge. 

As the War on Terrorism continues, as does operations in other critical regions 

of the world, the Air National Guard will be there. We will continue the militia heritage of defending freedom as we did over 366 years ago. Our citizen-airmen will 

respond to the nations call to put on their uniforms to fight for our nation’s interests. While they answer our call, we must answer theirs as we provide them with 

the tools to accomplish the mission. We must give them what they need to be Ready, 

Reliable, Relevant. Air National Guard. Now More Than Ever! 

Air National Guard Infrastructure 

The Air National Guard Infrastructure provides the Department of Defense enhanced operational capacity with its presence at 176 locations throughout the country. As a recurring problem, the Air National Guard has experienced significant difficulties in absorbing new mission projects without adversely affecting restoration 

and modernization efforts to support current weapon systems. 

Air National Guard facilities continue to deteriorate due to inadequate funding 

levels. Many facilities are in ‘‘forced use’’ condition, which requires unit personnel 

to endure substandard facilities. Lack of safe, efficient and modern facilities is impacting Air National Guard ‘‘Quality of Life’’, recruiting and retention. The condition 

of the facilities directly impacts how effectively units are able to respond to training, 

staffing, and other wartime needs. 

With respect to homeland defense, we are concerned about the attention to the 

operational needs of alert aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland; Buckley 

Air Force Base, Colorado; Truax Field, Wisconsin; and other sites either standing 

alert with fighters and tankers. After September 11, 2001, interim facilities were 

quickly provided, however little progress has been made since the initial surge to 

address permanent facilities alert missions at existing and potential sites. The Air 

National Guard is also concerned about the level of anti-terrorism and force protection funding to protect our personnel and equipment. Terrorism in the homeland 

has forced us to rethink and reprioritize how we secure our bases and sites. 

Our fiscal year 2004 funding request allows us to achieve a recapitalization rate 

of 170 years, meaning that we renovate or replace our facilities an average of every 

170 years. Our goal remains a 67-year recapitalization rate, and our current program would achieve that level in 2000?. Between now and then we plan to follow 

a smooth glide path down to that level. 

Readiness (Full-Time Manning) 

As an integral partner in the Total Force, fully imbedded into a formalized Air 

Expeditionary Force construct, the Air National Guard will routinely provide force 

structure for day-to-day operations, contingencies and the Global War on Terrorism. 

Historically, as a ‘‘force in reserve’’ the Air National Guard was funded with limited 
386

full-time manpower to operate and maintain facilities, repair aircraft and equipment, and train the drilling force. Today’s operational tempo, combined with aging 

aircraft, weapon systems and ever increasing support requirements, the Air National Guard must be adequately resourced to ensure these weapon systems are 

available for training and deployment. 

We recently accomplished a complete review of both our full-time and traditional 

manpower requirements. Our review identified areas where we need to realign our 

manpower and validated increased requirements. Our fiscal year 2004 budget supports and reflects our realignment and provides some increased full-time funding 

and end strength. This is just the first step in getting our manpower resources 

right. Emerging homeland security tasking and mission readiness needs will drive 

additional manpower requirements and further realignments. 

As demonstrated in Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, the Air Force 

could not go to war without the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. Additionally, the Air Force would be severely hampered in conducting peacetime operations without its reserve components. 

The National Guard and Reserve Operations Tempo currently provide 25 percent 

of the aviation and almost 30 percent of the combat support elements for steady, 

peacetime deployments of the Air and Space Expeditionary Forces. They also provide more than 65 percent of the Air Force’s tactical airlift capability, 35 percent 

of the strategic airlift, 60 percent of the air refueling, 38 percent of the fighters, 20 

percent of combat rescue and make significant contributions to bomber, and combat 

support missions. 

Information Operations and Management 

The Air National Guard is fully involved in the defensive elements of information 

supporting the nation’s homeland security efforts. The civilian sector is heavily dependent on the national information infrastructure, and the military relies upon the 

Air National Guard to carry out its missions at home and overseas. 

In addition to preparing for conventional combat, the Air National Guard must 

now provide the most up-to-date protection against what has become known as information or cyberspace’ wars. Participation in this mission area requires an investment in infrastructure to allow for the Air National Guard to connect with classified 

network systems that have sufficient bandwidth and capacity to store, process, and 

transmit unprecedented amounts of data. 

By using advanced technology information weapons systems, the Air National 

Guard directly supports the Department of Defense’s vision of transformation. A 

new age of warfare includes information that consists of a wide variety of operations 

and activities, such as psychological operations, electronic warfare, military deception, physical attack, computer network attack, defense, and exploitation, public affairs operations, counter deception, counterintelligence, and counterpropaganda operations. 

Annual Dental Examinations Program 

Currently, the Air National Guard is required to accomplish a dental examination 

every five years. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 

has mandated that this exam be accomplished annually beginning February 2004. 

Air National Guard Medical Squadrons are only authorized two dentists and two 

dental technicians; however, many units may only have one or no dentists assigned 

to accomplish these dental requirements. Air National Guard Medical Squadrons 

are struggling to accomplish the current 400–500 dental exam requirements along 

with their mandated training. This mandate will increase their workload to 1,100–

1,300 dental exams each year. 

Mobilization 

In today’s Air Force, the Air National Guard is central to the Total Force, and 

plays an ever-increasing role as a partner in the Global War on Terrorism. Now, 

more than ever, the Guard is needed by the nation to perform the mission they have 

been trained to do. Most Air National Guard members have served in support of 

Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, and many more will continue to deploy to fill Air and Space Expeditionary Force steady state requirements around the 

globe. Their service is not without sacrifice and their sacrifice is not without meaning. 

Numerous personnel issues have surfaced around the disparity of benefits associated with different status of service following mobilization. Of notable importance, 

protection under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act applies only to a member 

mobilized under the provisions of Title 10 U.S.C., and was not afforded to our citizen-airmen serving in airport security. 
387

Current policies and laws are now under scrutiny to alleviate issues of disparity 

such as per diem limitations, down-time restrictions, Basic Allowance for Housing 

I vs. II, income pay protection, leave issues, and a myriad of entitlements and benefits that are affected by either status or length of active duty tours. The Air National Guard, as a full partner in the Total Force, will continue its advocacy for parity in pay, entitlements and benefits. In its role as a force provider, the Air National 

Guard will honor the commitment to provide the right person, at the right place, 

at the right time. 

Chemical Warfare Defense Equipment Program 

The Air National Guard’s Chemical Warfare Defense Equipment program plans 

to be strategically positioned to provide individual equipment protection, including 

individual chemical suits, gas masks, filter canisters, hoods, boots, and gloves, to 

protect each member against chemical or biological attack. The Air National Guard identified a $66.8 million Chemical Weapons Defense Ensemble Mobility Bag requirement to provide initial protection for all members and 

to fund the replacement of Mobility Bag shelf-life assets. 

Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance 

The Air National Guard’s Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance Account pays 

for depot level maintenance of all aircraft, aircraft engines, special purpose vehicles, 

and other major items of equipment (e.g., ground radar/radio sets). The major goal 

of the program is to decrease the levels of deferred depot maintenance. 

The Air National Guard is concerned about the spiraling costs for organic and 

contract programmed depot maintenance and the impact on our aging aircraft fleet. 

Increasing costs and under funded budget requirements have resulted in an Air National Guard’s Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance program that approximates an 80 percent funded level. 

Based on fiscal year 2003 projected budgets, funding shortfalls may result in eight 

KC–135, three F–15 and one C–5 aircraft not being inducted into the Depot Maintenance Program at the appropriately scheduled time frame. We are concerned about 

what impact this continuing annual funding shortfall has upon the current and future readiness of the Air National Guard. 

Vehicle Priority Buy Program 

The Air National Guard Vehicle Priority Buy program is struggling to keep pace 

with mission requirements associated with homeland security, new Alert sites, Security Force protection, medical evacuation teams and new aircraft conversions. 

At the present time, 43 percent of the Air National Guard vehicle fleet is due for replacement, at a cost of approximately $315 million. Our budget includes $40 million, or roughly 13 percent of this requirement, to replace vehicles in the inventory 

in fiscal year 2004. 

The Air National Guard vehicle fleet will continue to age and become more costly 

to maintain. This underscores the need to replace vehicles. While we plan to replace 

the rest of the aging vehicles over time, the rate at which we are currently replacing 

them, coupled with additional requirements to support newly emerging homeland 

security needs, could severely impact our near-term vehicle readiness. 

Nationwide Information Technology Network 

The Air National Guard is in the process of modernizing its nationwide information technology network that serves a vital role in homeland security and national 

defense. Reliable, available and secure information technology is essential to Air National Guard, Air Force, Department of Defense, and state authorities in their ability to exercise control and command of information resources impacting their various constituencies. 

The Air National Guard Information Technology Network is critical to the successful transmission of information within a unit, between units, and among the 

various states. Without a healthy and robust Information Technology network most 

other Air National Guard missions will not be able to function. No Air National 

Guard function can stand alone without interface and interaction with several other 

functions and the network is the link that provides the medium to share information at all levels. 

The Air National Guard has made significant progress in procuring network hardware and personal computer and server software that decreases complexity and increases network communication with Air Force and Department of Defense partners. Striving to accomplish a nationwide reduction of network servers by consolidating core network services to regional operations centers, the Air National Guard 

must first upgrade its own communications and network infrastructure, technologies, and facilities. 
388

Continuing to fund the Air National Guard Enterprise Network at last decades 

level will continue to give us last decade’s capabilities. The rapidly changing hardware and software requirements of our warfighting and combat support functions 

come with a significant cost to upgrade and maintain a fully capable Information 

Technology network. The Air National Guard network is funded and maintained at 

the same level it was during the 1990’s. Without a significant infusion of new technology, all other Air National Guard mission areas will be less than fully capable 

of prosecuting their missions. One time cost estimates to bring the Air National 

Guard Enterprise Network up to a fully capable and robust condition are approximately $80 million, coupled with a significant increase in sustainment and refreshment funding to maintain and upgrade the Information Technology Enterprise to 

fully support all other mission areas in the continuing war on terrorism and homeland security. This modernization initiative will certainly enhance the Air National 

Guard’s interoperability with other federal and state agencies. 

Capabilities Based Military Force 

The Air National Guard is a solid partner with the Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and all collective units of the Department of Defense designed to protect national security and maintain international peace. The Defense Department priority 

is Transformation and therefore the priority of the active services and the reserve 

components. 

Transformation as ‘‘relevancy’’ is dependent on the Air National Guard readiness, 

in both state and federal missions, being able to support service apportioned and 

Joint Chiefs validated Combatant Commander required ‘‘capabilities.’’ Becoming a 

‘‘capabilities based’’ military force translates into the Air National Guard’s need to 

acquire new technology and equipment to maintain a state of readiness and relevancy now and in the future. The Air National Guard must embrace the process 

of transformation and intelligent risk-taking to provide a fully trained, equipped and 

ready force to defend the nation at home and overseas. 

The Air Force is pursuing innovative organizational constructs and personnel policies to meld the various components into a single, unified force. Future Total Force 

integration will create efficiencies, cut costs, ensure stability, retain invaluable 

human capital, and, above all, increase our combat capabilities. Another transformation effort is to ‘‘blend,’’ where sensible, units from two or more components 

into a single wing with a single commander. Active, Guard, and Reserve personnel 

share the same facilities and equipment, and together, execute the same mission. 

This is a level of integration unprecedented in any of the Services. 

Potential future missions might include Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and their 

training programs, combining the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle squadrons with their 

manned fighter counterparts; integrated fighter squadrons realizing the benefits of 

highly trained personnel flying legacy systems during the transition period to newer 

fighter aircraft like the Joint Strike Fighter. The Air National Guard has been 

steadily increasing its participation in space operations over the years and already 

plays a vital role in missile warning, satellite command and control, and launch operations. These contributions will be key during conflicts envisioned in the future. 

These changes confirm and continue the trend in which air and space forces carry 

a heavier share of the burden in the nation’s wars. The new strategy and forcesizing standard point to an increase, not a decrease, in aerospace power. 

Since September 11, 2001, Air Force components have flown most of the subsequent air defense sorties in Operation Noble Eagle, with the Air National Guard flying 74 percent of the total missions. The Air National Guard must be resourced in 

order to sustain our nation’s fight against the war on terrorism in defense of the 

homeland. This new theatre of operations paves the way to transform the experience 

of the Air National Guard to effectively respond to homeland security missions in 

an expeditionary role. 

The Air National Guard will continue on its Total Force journey hand-in-hand 

with the Air Force, the Air Force Reserve and, indeed, all of the Department of Defense away from a threat based force toward the ‘‘capabilities based’’ force that will 

be required into the future. The Air National Guard will always provide a ready, 

reliable, and relevant force that America can count on now, and, through Transformation, solidly into the future. 

Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance 

As a strong defense, Air National Guard eyes in the skies’ approach to surveillance and reconnaissance provides the nation with protection from hostile air or 

land attacks. To increase its intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, the Air National Guard seeks to expand our capabilities to intelligence imagery 

with deployable commercial imagery downlink and exploitation system (Eagle Vi-
389

sion), and modernize and increase the capability of the Air National Guard’s signals 

intelligence. This system will be very beneficial to homeland security missions 

across the broad spectrum from natural disasters to terrorism assessments. 

In much the same way that National Guard assets have been effectively employed 

in the war on drugs, the mission of the global war on terrorism plays a large role 

in how the Air National Guard is directing its focus and personnel. New intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities will be particularly useful in 

conducting domestic missions dealing with natural disasters in which the Air National Guard can assist states with relief efforts caused by tornadoes, floods, and 

hurricanes. 

Air National Guard Space Operations Program 

For the Air National Guard, Space Operations provide a critical communications 

link to communities throughout the nation in the form of satellite support for everyday uses (television, computers, wireless phones), but also serve as an important 

military deterrence from external threats. Recently, two Air National Guard units 

in Wyoming and California have come out of conversion to provide operational command control support to Northern Command and to provide round-the-clock support 

to the Milstar satellite constellation. 

Additionally, the 114th Range Flight in Florida is partnered with an active Air 

Force unit performing the Launch Range safety mission. There are future plans by 

the Air Force to transition additional space program assets to Air National Guard 

control. 

Logistics Information Technology Program 

The National Guard Logistics Information Technology Modernization programs 

will enable the Air National Guard to operate seamlessly with active and reserve 

counterparts in support of combat operations or other contingencies in all operational theaters. 

This Air National Guard initiative ensures that the organization maintains interoperability with common worldwide contingency systems. This involves plans to 

modernize logistical information technology systems, including Digital Technical 

Data, Joint Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support, Wireless Local Area 

Network, Tool Accountability Systems, and Integrated Maintenance Data Systems. 

The Air National Guard effort to sustain these modernization programs and initiatives has been estimated to cost $314 million. 

Expeditionary Medical Support (EMEDS) Transformation 

The Air National Guard’s Expeditionary Medical Support response platform is a 

comprehensive medical system that is designed to provide for homeland security 

consistent with meeting the requirements of major theater warfare or peacetime disaster response support. Like an airborne portable hospital, this is truly the lightest, 

leanest, and most capable deployable medical platform available to the Air National 

Guard today. 

The Air National Guard Air Surgeon’s Office has established personnel packages 

that will be able to support 15 Expeditionary Medical Support packages (two on-call) 

for each Aerospace Expeditionary Force deployment and 13 available for homeland 

security if deployed through state-to-state compacts or the national-level Emergency 

Management Assistance Compact. The personnel packages were placed in each Air 

National Guard unit, effective with the publication of the unit manpower and planning documents. Once the equipment sets have been acquired, they will be strategically pre-positioned throughout the continental United States and will provide the 

flexibility of responding to any disaster within several hours from activation. The 

equipment and personnel packages will be positioned to provide both a distinct wartime capability and military support to civil authorities in each Federal Emergency 

Management Agency region. Each region will have an Expeditionary Medical Support ∂25 or Expeditionary Medical Support ∂50 capability, with the ability to provide multiple medical response teams configured for support of the first responders. 

Our objective is to obtain two Expeditionary Medical Support equipment sets, one 

to be placed on each coast. 

With Operation Iraqi Freedom, our transformed ANG Medical Service deployed 

for the first time ever these revolutionary medical wartime platforms. In several 

cases, our ANG medical personnel were deploying with this new capability at the 

same time many active duty units deployed. A remarkable point to be made is that 

this capability, added to the Guard in January 2003, is currently being deployed to 

serve our fighting forces in Iraq. Though we are currently recruiting to fill full 

teams, we have identified 39 teams of critical care physicians, nurses, and technicians, across the ANG, volunteering to go forward. The Air Mobility Command Surgeon General, who is responsible, as the force provider, for these critical care teams, 
390

could not have accomplished this mission without the critical day-to-day clinical expertise of our guard members. We are clearly postured medically for the future. 

Modernization 

The Air National Guard Modernization program is a comprehensive effort to leverage programs from the Air Force with appropriated funding to keep the Air National Guard ready, reliable and relevant for today and tomorrow’s operational theaters. The Modernization Program is segmented into three time frames: short-term 

(the current and next year’s Defense budget), medium-term (out to 2010), and longterm (out to 2015). 

The Air National Guard Modernization Program directly supports the Global War 

on Terrorism by providing weapon systems engaged in combat operations overseas, 

domestic surveillance and combat air patrols. As upgrades are made to the various 

systems, it is incumbent on the Air National Guard to provide reliable systems, as 

well as effective training, to ensure the highest state of readiness for forces participating in the on-going combat operations. The arrival of the Block 25/30/32 F–16s 

into the Afghan theater, with their Litening II precision targeting pods, provided 

the Special Forces engaging Taliban and Al Qaeda forces on the ground with a 

unique, laser-spot-tracking capability. With our forces closely engaged with a tenacious enemy in very rough terrain, the Block 25/30/32 F–16s were the number one 

choice of the ground troops when requesting close air support. Air National Guard 

forces were an integral part of Operation Enduring Freedom from the beginning to 

the end because the Modernization Program that provided a ready, reliable and relevant force. 

The Air National Guard Modernization Program directly supports homeland security, most obviously through the combat air patrols flown during Operation Noble 

Eagle. Well versed in the air sovereignty mission, the Air National Guard responded 

within minutes to the attack on the World Trade Center, and were immediately patrolling the airspace across the United States. Many American citizens expressed 

comfort at seeing armed fighter aircraft flying above them while unanimously stating they never thought they would live to see the day American military air power 

would be used in combat operations so close to home. These continuing operations 

since September 11th, 2001 highlight the atrophy of the command and control systems associated with our Air Defense network due to decades of neglect. As Northern Command clarifies the air sovereignty mission, this modernization program will 

be crucial to ensuring the evolving mission needs correspond with the capability of 

the assigned forces and that any required improvements are adequately resourced. 

Besides Operation Noble Eagle, the enhanced defense of the airspace above the 

United States, the Air National Guard supports Operation Enduring Freedom, the 

global counter-terrorism campaign. We also continue to support other on-going operations through the Air and Space Expeditionary Force commitments. These commitments include regular deployments to Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, and the air defense alert commitment in Iceland. The domestic missions 

include continued counter-drug flights, fire fighting missions, disaster relief airlifts, 

and civilian rescue missions. 

The key to transforming Air National Guard assets to the future force structure 

is ensuring that systems are ready, reliable, and relevant. This program begins with 

a national conference of war fighters from all of the major weapon systems. Given 

the missions they expect to fight over the next ten years, the war fighters then outline what is needed to keep their platforms relevant. From these requests, the Air 

National Guard reviews the Air Force modernization program, calculates any resulting shortages, and finds a way to obtain at least an equivalent capability so the Air 

National Guard can bring a relevant capability to the mission. As OPSTEMPO increases and contingencies multiply, there is an increasing focus on short-term capabilities, restricting funding available for long-term investment. The Modernization 

Program is a comprehensive effort affecting all aspects of the Air National Guard. 

One of the premier accomplishments in the past year is the very short-term identification, development and fielding of the Transparent Multi-Platform Gateway integrated into the Joint Range Extension gateway providing interoperability and 

connectivity between the Situation Awareness Data Link and Enhanced Position Reporting System network and Link 16. The Modernization Program funded the 

groundwork required for this capability. By leveraging the on-going Air Force Joint 

Ranger Extension program, the Block 25/30/32 F–16s were successfully networked 

into the command centers, providing a major increase in theater-wide situational 

awareness. One system is already in operation overseas while follow-on systems are 

now being acquired to ensure increased flexibility. Additionally, the North American 

Air Defense Contingency Suite was fielded giving North American Air Defense Command the ability to track targets within the United States and integrate the Federal 
391

Aviation Administration tracks into the military transponder network in support of 

Operation Noble Eagle. 

The A–10 continued its role as the venerable attack aircraft supporting operations 

from both Kuwait and Bagram AB, Afghanistan. The key modernization program 

for this aircraft is called Precision Engagement. Precision Engagement will ensure 

the A–10’s continued relevance on tomorrow’s battlefields. This cost-efficient program will transform the current A–10 cockpit into a 21st century cockpit, greatly 

reducing pilot workload and providing additional combat capability in the form of 

precision guided munitions. Associated with Precision Engagement was a watershed 

decision to install the new Joint Tactical Radio System on the A–10 making it the 

first aircraft to be equipped with this future data link and communication suite. 

During the past year, the A–10 experienced an aircraft modification to improve the 

personal locator system and consolidate countermeasures equipment. Other modernization efforts include further research into an adequate, engine replacement, an 

AN/ALR 69 Radar Warning Receiver antenna replacement, and continued COMET 

infrared countermeasures pod testing. 

During the last year, the Air National Guard F–16’s provided crucial combat capabilities in both Operation Noble Eagle and Operation Enduring Freedom using 

Litening targeting pods for precision-guided munitions funded by the Modernization 

Program. The Commercial Central Interface Unit, and the AN/ALR–69 Radar Warning Receiver Antenna Optimization kits, are all part of our modernization effort over 

the past year. Initial funding for the Advanced Identify/Friend/Foe upgrade was secured along with funding for 25 more engine upgrade kits for our F–16 Block 42 

aircraft. The Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System continued its spiral development and Night Vision Imaging System lighting for the A and B models to support 

Operation Noble Eagle was installed. 

The HC–130 began installation of the Forward Looking Infrared system. Also, installation of aircraft night vision imaging systems and acquisition of rapid onload/

offload ‘‘canary ramps’’ for austere locations increase our capability to provide critical combat support day or night. 

The HH–60 program started integration of the new M3M .50 caliber defensive 

weapon, installed an improved insertion extraction system for deploying personnel 

and bought skis for the Alaska aircraft to facilitate Arctic operations. The 

Pararescue/Special Tactics program replaced personal equipment for the pararescue 

jumpers and combat controllers with state-of-the-art weapons and technologies. 

The Operational Support Aircraft Modernization Program leased two 737 Boeing 

Business Jet aircraft and secured funding for a C–40C in fiscal year 2004. The existing Boeing Business Jets will also get upgraded to the C–40C configuration as part 

of the lease program. 

Three new C–130 Js will be delivered in fiscal year 2004. These aircraft will be 

a welcome addition to our tactical airlift inventory as we move toward an Initial 

Operational Capability milestone. 

The modernization of the Air National Guard training and simulation systems includes partial fielding of the Full Combat Mission Trainer for our A–10 units. Half 

of these units have received the advanced trainer system and additional funds are 

required to complete the beddown at the remaining units. The F–16 Block 30 distributed mission training capable flight simulators are in engineering development 

while funding was secured for two F–15 advanced flight simulators at our flying 

training unit at Kingsley Field, Oregon. The Iowa Air National Guard’s 132nd 

Fighter Wing has been officially designated as the site of the ANG’s Distributed 

Training Operations Center making it a major hub of Air Force-wide distributed 

training. The ANG’s four Combat Readiness Training Centers and fourteen Ranges 

are ideal assets for the Joint National Training Capability. The increased use of 

Precision Guided and Stand Off weapons will drive changes in the airspace and 

range requirements to properly and safely train. Evolving training requirements, 

such as ‘‘lights out’’ operations in special use airspace, create unique challenges for 

operating in the National Airspace System. The potential contentiousness and 

length of time it can take to establish new or modified airspace makes it essential 

to identify requirements as early as possible. 

The modernization of the F–15 included the initial acquisition of the BOL Infrared countermeasures improvements system, continued installation of the Multi-functional Information Distribution System Fighter Data Link, and the purchase of the 

first 25 engine upgrade kits. 

The C–130 modernization program purchased more aircraft armor; and continued 

acquisition of the AN/APN–241 Low Power Color Radar, the installation of the 

Night Vision Imaging System, the Air National Guard-driven development of Scathe 

View to include various technological spin-offs having application in a myriad of civilian and military efforts; and supported Air Force’s development of the AN/AAQ–
392

24 (V) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures system. We also completed final design review and testing of the new advanced Airborne Fire Fighting System to bolster the fire and protection capabilities nationwide. The Air National Guard is supporting a Joint Program, along with the Navy and Marine Corps, to test and qualify 

an Electronic Propeller Control System for the C–130. 

The Air National Guard fully supports the Air Force plan to acquire the new 767 

tanker aircraft and the plan to move more KC–135Rs to the Air National Guard. 

Modernization of complex weapons systems is a continuous process, not a goal. 

Traditionally the Air National Guard gets legacy systems through the equipment 

that is trickled-down from the active duty forces. With the exception of the Block 

50 F–16s and the C–17, these legacy systems do not have the funding to upgrade 

their capabilities to make them equivalent to the active Air Force. The Air National 

Guard requires an aggressive program to meet the combat capabilities required for 

the missions assigned to the Air and Space Expeditionary Forces built, in part, with 

Air National Guard forces. To keep the Modernization Program focused and to maximize combat capability per dollar, we use the Combat Quadrangle to summate the 

fundamental combat capabilities required to meet assigned missions. The Combat 

Quadrangle, derived from the Air Force’s core competencies, consists of enhanced 

survivability, 24-hour operations, combat identification, and precision strike. The 

Air National Guard includes all aircraft, ground command and control systems, 

training and simulation systems in the modernization effort. The requirements definitions required to focus this effort must be grounded in clearly defined combat capabilities and missions. The foundation of future efforts is relevance with reliability 

and readiness. It is increasingly difficult to keep the Air National Guard legacy systems relevant given the transformation of the Air Force to better, more effective 

technologies. Systems funding will be a continuous and serious challenge since funding levels continue to fall short of mission requirements. Over the foreseeable future, the military services, specifically the Air Force, will be stretched to simultaneously fund current operations, modernization and future Research and Development projects. 

The Air National Guard Modernization Program is the key to fielding and supporting a relevant combat capability to meet any emerging challenges for the next 

10–15 years. We must sustain an open and honest dialogue from the warfighter 

through to the President and the Congress in order to maximize the investment of 

precious tax dollars. The Modernization Program works as seen in the examples 

above. The Air National Guard Modernization Program will continue to provide success stories as the United States Air Force transforms to meet the future. 

We in the Air National Guard are proud to serve this great nation as Citizen-Airmen. Building the strongest possible Air National Guard is our most important objective. Our people, readiness modernization programs and infrastructure supported 

through your Congressional actions are necessary to help maintain the Air National 

Guard as the best reserve force. With your continued support, we are confident that 

the men and women of the Air National Guard will meet the challenges set before 

us. 

Joint Programs 

National Guard State Partnership Program 

The National Guard State Partnership program is constituted to encourage and 

build long-standing institutional affiliations and interpersonal relationships with 

those nations that are striving to establish democratic military organizations. Our 

citizen-soldiers provide military leaders in partner nations an opportunity to witness 

our highly trained and capable soldiers at work. National Guard members who 

serve as role models become a compelling argument for the ideals of democracy, professionalism, and deference to civilian authority. Our personnel gain valuable experience interfacing with people of diverse cultures, as they will encounter when activated and deployed overseas during a federal mission. This also provides the United 

States with the opportunity to demonstrate the necessity and economy of reserve 

component personnel who are trained and equipped to respond immediately to civil 

or military emergency. The program also supports homeland security by helping to 

develop dependable and collaborative partners for the United States. It supports 

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s New Concepts of Global Engagement and has the 

capacity to link states with partner nations for the purpose of improving bilateral 

relations. 

The National Guard State’s Partnership Program supports missions in which 

troops prepare to depart their partnership countries for cooperative events, mobilization skills are refined, and National Guard personnel interface with diverse cultures, helping to prepare them for active deployment overseas during potentially 

hostile activities. The State partners actively participate in a host of engagement 
393

activities ranging from bilateral familiarization and training events, exercises, fellowship-style internships, and civic leader visits. 

National Guard Family Programs 

As the role of the National Guard becomes focused on the dual missions of Global 

War on Terrorism and homeland security, units will continue to maintain a high 

level of readiness for overseas and homeland operations. An integral part of service 

member readiness is family readiness. The National Guard Family Program Office 

was established to provide policy, guidance, and resources for developing the Family 

Program quality of life and family readiness infrastructure to the Adjutants General 

of all 54 States and Territories, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the 

Directors of the Army and Air National Guard. 

The National Guard Family Program office implements Department of Defense directive to ensure service members and their families are provided a quality of life 

that reflects the high standards and pride of the Nation they defend, and that this 

policy be achieved by working in partnership with Department of Defense personnel 

and their families, recognizing their role in the readiness of the Total Force. 

If family members are not prepared for deployments, a service member’s readiness, morale, and eventually retention are affected. Family programs are currently 

in place to assist families during the challenging stages of deployment: pre-mobilization, mobilization, and reunion. The Family Program office provides support to the 

family program coordinators through information, training, volunteer management, 

workshops, newsletters, family events, youth development programs, and other such 

programs. The primary challenge lies in awareness and communication. Consistent 

feedback indicates many family members are unaware of the various resources 

available to them. The goal is to increase the level of awareness and participation 

in existing family resources to improve overall mission readiness and retention. 

National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program 

The award-winning National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program is a communitybased program that leads, trains and mentors at-risk youth at 31 sites to become 

productive citizens in America’s future. As the second largest mentoring program in 

the nation, the ChalleNGe program is coeducational and consists of a five-month 

‘‘quasi-military’’ residential phase and a one-year post-residential phase. Corps 

members must be volunteers, between 16 and 18 years of age, not in trouble with 

the law, drug free, unemployed, and high school dropouts. 

As a national model, since its inception, the 31 National Guard Youth ChalleNGe 

program sites have graduated over 42,000 young men and women who leave the 

program equipped with the values, skills, education and self-discipline necessary to 

succeed as adults in society. Significantly, although many ChalleNGe candidates are 

from at-risk populations, over two-thirds of ChalleNGe graduates have attained either a General Equivalency Diploma or high school diploma. Furthermore, approximately 30 percent of all graduates choose to enter military service upon graduation. 

Although the program graduation rate is above 90 percent, and the general equivalency diploma attainment is over 66 percent, the National Guard seeks to increase 

output in both of these areas. 

The National Guard is ‘‘Hometown America’’ with deep roots in every community. 

Its strong community ties makes the National Guard a highly visible and effective 

entity in many towns and communities across the United States. Involved are men 

and women who, in their civilian lives, are influential across the spectrum of business, education, and government. National Guard units across the country have traditionally been involved in youth programs designed to help young people become 

positive and productive members of their community. 

Homeland Security 

As we begin the 21st century, homeland security is the most important issue facing the United States. For the first time in almost 200 years, the continental United 

States was attacked with the prospects of future attacks high. To better defend the 

United States, the government has mobilized its resources and has undertaken a 

major reorganization to more effectively meet the challenge. While the National 

Guard performed superbly in response to the attacks of September 11th, 2001, we 

have begun to make changes to better respond to future attacks. 

The National Guard has a significant role in homeland security. Just as the active 

force is the first to deploy in support of U.S. operations abroad, the National Guard 

is the first military force to deploy in support of most homeland security requirements. The National Guard is a unique dual status, citizen-soldier force that can 

be activated by the Governor in support of state emergencies and also can be federalized to support national contingency requirements. The Governor can employ 

the National Guard under state active duty (state commanded, state financed) and 
394

Title 32 (state commanded, federally financed), or the National Guard can be federalized under the provisions of Title 10 (federally commanded, federally financed). 

Its dual state-federal status makes the National Guard a cost effective, flexible force 

that can be deployed in a variety of circumstances. Like the Guard units in the 

states, the National Guard Bureau (a Title 10 entity) has dual roles. We communicate policy, requirements and situational awareness information in both directions 

through the federal-to-state channel. Further, because most of the state Adjutants 

General are also the emergency manager for their state, and because many are also 

their state’s Homeland Security Director, we are involved in intergovernmental 

issues, as well as federal military and interagency ones. This dual-mission multifaceted capability of the Guard was demonstrated in the aftermath of September 

11th. 

Immediately after the attack on September 11th, the National Guard responded. 

National Guard air assets took to the skies to secure our airspace and other forces 

were quickly sent to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to assist with security and recovery efforts. Soon after, the President asked the Governors to secure 

critical U.S. airports and they responded by deploying Guardsmen in Title 32 status 

at airports in a matter of hours. In addition, many of the states’ governors ordered 

their Guardsmen, in State Active Duty Status, to secure critical infrastructure facilities, such as bridges, nuclear power plants, and federal buildings, throughout their 

states and many of those missions continue today. Other National Guard units and 

personnel were activated under Title 10 to augment security at the U.S. borders. 

Their mission was to support the Department of Justice and the Department of 

Treasury in ensuring that commerce continued to flow while our vital interests were 

protected. These homeland security missions and others were conducted, and some 

have continued to be conducted, while Army and Air National Guard forces have 

been deployed for peacekeeping and stabilization actions in the Balkans and elsewhere, and as a critical part of the war in Southwest Asia. The Guard has also been 

mobilized to perform force protection missions in the United States in support of our 

war efforts. As expected, the National Guard has conducted and continues to conduct all missions in an exceptional manner. 

As we move forward, it is apparent that the National Guard will be increasingly 

involved in all aspects of the homeland security mission. The areas we focus on include: 

—Combating terrorism 

—Military Assistance to Civilian Authorities 

—Responding to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives incidents 

—Missile Defense 

—Critical Infrastructure Protection 

—Information Operations 

—Force Protection 

—Protecting the Nation’s Sovereignty. 

In addition to these mission areas, the National Guard Bureau’s recently-established Office of Homeland Defense will facilitate military support to civil authorities 

by the Army and Air National Guard. Military support to civil authorities includes 

domestic disaster relief operations that occur during fires, hurricanes, floods, and 

earthquakes. Our support also includes counter-drug operations and incident management assistance, such as would occur after a terrorist event employing a weapon 

of mass destruction. The National Guard Bureau, in addition to our statutory role 

as the channel of communication between the Army and the Air Force and the National Guard of the several states, has coordinated with the Combatant Commander 

of U.S. Northern Command to perform that same role. As part of this, the National 

Guard Bureau provides situational awareness on state-commanded National Guard 

operations to the Commander of U.S. Northern Command to augment his ability to 

effectively plan for and manage the overall role of his command. 

The fight against terrorism and the protection of our homeland is expected to be 

a protracted endeavor much like the Cold War. To that end, many policy experts, 

reports, and studies have advocated an expanded role for the National Guard in 

homeland security. While some have suggested that the National Guard should be 

reoriented, re-equipped, and retrained for the homeland security mission, the reality 

is that the National Guard is an integral part of the Army and Air Force Total 

Force mission capability and that role is vital to the survival of the nation. In the 

past the resources, personnel, equipment and training provided for the war-time 

mission was sufficient to allow the National Guard to also fulfill its local and state 

support role by responding to local disasters and military support to civilian authorities. Times have changed, however. The threat posed by well-financed, sophisticated and determined international terrorist groups has raised the bar as to what 
395

the National Guard must be able to do. While the National Guard will continue to 

maintain a high state of readiness for overseas operations, it must also better prepare itself to respond to the homeland security mission within the United States, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. possessions and territories. To 

that end, we are working hard to find ways to meet the increased demands of the 

homeland security mission while still maintaining our ability to execute our Total 

Force requirements. 

The increased threat and global proliferation of ballistic missiles poses a significant threat to the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies. In response 

to this threat, in December 2002 the Department of Defense directed the deployment of an effective missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the 

United States against limited ballistic missile attack. The Army National Guard accepted the mission to man the Army portion of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

(GMD) system, including both operational and security force elements. The GMD 

segment is the cornerstone of the Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Bed, and 

will have an Initial Defensive Operations (ID)) capability by September 2004. This 

high-visibility program, which will provide protection against limited ballistic missile attack, is an example of the evolving role of the National Guard in Homeland 

Defense. 

Over the next year, and as much longer as it takes, the National Guard Bureau 

will take the lead in improving the posture of the National Guard for its homeland 

security mission. The National Guard Bureau will work with the States as they perform a mission area analysis to determine what additional capabilities are needed 

to accomplish the homeland security mission and will utilize a systematic programmed approach designed to build our homeland security posture for the future. 

These are the features of that program: 

—Consolidate the National Guard homeland security requirements of the 50 

States, territories and the District of Columbia. (States know the actual operational requirements better than anyone.) 

—Validate these requirements at the National Guard Bureau level and craft them 

into packages for submission to the appropriate Combatant Commanders, to the 

Army and Air Force as requirements that can be built into programs for funding, and to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security. 

—Use our developed requirements to advise and educate agencies, offices, commands, and leaders that have an interest in supporting homeland security. 

—From valid requirements we will build funded programs that ensure the success 

of homeland security by using a systematic long-term approach. We believe that 

a long-term approach is needed to ensure a sustained, comprehensive protective 

posture for our nation. 

The road ahead also includes a transformation of National Guard Counter Drug 

efforts into an integrated Counter Narcotics/Homeland Defense Counter Terrorism 

program. These mission areas employ many of the same tactics, techniques and procedures, as well as equipment, training and skills. Therefore, a great deal of crossskill transfer will begin immediately once the change is effected, and a quick, effective, seamless transition between and across mission sets will allow Guard troops 

to readily take their places on the front lines of the war against terrorism at home 

and abroad. 

Our government has initiated a massive reorganization to better respond to the 

homeland security challenge. Northern Command has been activated, the new Department of Homeland Security is in the process of being organized, and the Department of Defense has created a position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense. The National Guard Bureau will work with the Assistant Secretary 

for Homeland Defense and Northern Command to insure that National Guard missions and capabilities are fully integrated into the overall plan for homeland security. Specifically, it will assist Northern Command as that command moves from an 

initial operating capability to a full operating capability by: 

—Providing situational awareness of activities within the 50 states and territories. 

—Integrating and synchronizing existing plans. 

—Coordinating National Guard resource and training requirements. 

—Facilitating communication between Northern Command and the State Area 

Commands. 

Northern Command will undergo a critical year as it transitions from an initial 

operating capability to a full operating capability by October 2003. During the coming year, the National Guard will be providing personnel to Northern Command in 

order to fill critical personnel requirements. Additionally, the National Guard is 

working to develop situational awareness for Northern Command as to the activities 

that affect homeland security within the 50 states and territories. Although most 
396

activities of incident management at the federal level will fall under the control of 

the Department of Homeland Security, a constant monitoring of state-level activities 

and interests is needed by Northern Command in order to support the lead federal 

agency when needed. The National Guard, through the National Guard Bureau, is 

the natural conduit for DOD elements to the states and territories on military-related matters. The majority of the states use the Adjutant General of that state as 

the state emergency manager. The National Guard is intimately involved in all activities of homeland security at the state level. The National Guard Bureau is actively pursuing discussions and several initiatives within the Department of Defense 

which will likely result in better exploitation by all segments of the Department of 

Defense of the Bureau’s capability as a two-way channel of communication to the 

National Guard of the several states. We are excited about assisting Northern Command in its emerging role and look forward to facilitating federally funded support 

of state activities. 

In addition, the National Guard Bureau will work, through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, with the new Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the National Guard’s capabilities and requirements are fully 

integrated in the overall homeland security plan. The new Department of Homeland 

Security will be greatly assisted by the National Guard plans that are already in 

effect in all of the states and territories. Since the vast majority of homeland security activities come under state and municipal or other local control, the National 

Guard planning and activities under State Active Duty (state controlled and funded) 

and under Title 32 (state controlled, federally funded) will be an integral part of the 

processes being crafted by the new Department. National Guard Training Centers 

are existing assets that can be economically expanded to support realistic training 

and exercises with first responders, law enforcement agencies, and all levels of government integrating National Guard capabilities in homeland security roles. Several 

states have initiated pilot programs for this effort with federal support at the request of Congress. The National Guard is taking an open supportive approach to 

intradepartmental, interagency and intergovernmental cooperation for the defense 

of our Homeland. We each must succeed for all to succeed. 

The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard bring several inherent 

strengths to the homeland security environment. Aside from a capable, trained and 

organized force, there is also an in-place information technology infrastructure that 

has the potential to provide an efficient, reliable, interoperable, and user-friendly 

channel of communications for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Northern 

Command through the National Guard Bureau to the Army and Air Guard. The 

present information technology infrastructure provides a robust reach-down capability to Army and Air Guard units in the states. However, to meet the emerging 

needs of homeland security missions, enhancements in network reliability and security will have to be incorporated. Additionally, the new requirements pose new challenges in areas such as wireless technology that will allow direct command, control 

and communications with on-site responders. The National Guard Bureau is uniquely positioned to provide this coordinated, controlled capability, consistent with the 

statutory requirements of Title 10. 

The National Guard supports any overseas fight primarily by supporting Army 

and Air Force initiatives. Most programmatic and force structure actions, therefore, 

are Service specific, supporting either the Air War or the Ground War through the 

respective Services. Examples of initiatives underway in this area include the Army 

National Guard Restructuring Initiative, an initiative to replace a portion of the existing heavy and light combat structure with Mobile Light Brigades prepared for full 

spectrum operations in support of the new defense strategy This will meet the 

Army’s evolving needs for expeditionary warfare, as well as giving us more Guard 

forces well-suited to homeland security tasks in support of U.S. Northern Command 

and U.S. Pacific Command. In the Air National Guard, a Transformation Initiative 

will result in capabilities-based forces with improved Intelligence, Surveillance and 

Reconnaissance, Information Technology, Medical Service and operational aircraft 

with the ability to make strong contributions to both aspects of the Guard’s dual 

federal-state mission. As we render homeland security support to the Lead Federal 

Agencies, however, we must change our approach and support them as a Joint 

Force—not two separate Services. The lead agencies need and want to deal with a 

single entity within the National Guard and this year we are prepared to provide 

that in a seamless manner. A Joint Staff approach out of the National Guard Bureau will present a single flow of information and will strive for a single funding 

line to support operations. In addition, the State Area Command will become a true 

joint state headquarters with enhanced capabilities. In this way, our team is coming 

together to support our communities and homeland institutions with expanded capabilities and improved linkages to national command and control mechanisms. In ad-
397

dition, the National Guard will continue to participate in the planning and execution of interagency exercises with local, state and federal agencies thereby building 

relationships that may prove useful during future contingency operations. 

The ability of the National Guard Bureau to maintain awareness, conduct coordination, provide guidance and resources to the National Guard must be strong to 

meet the growing needs of homeland security. To that end, the National Guard Bureau’s Office of Homeland Defense has evolved as the focal point for that effort. It 

has assumed responsibility for these initiatives. To further ensure continuity and 

centralized management of all homeland security activities, our Office of Homeland 

Defense recently incorporated the civil support function under its control. The NGB 

Office of Homeland Defense will work with the States to determine their requirements to accomplish the homeland security mission. It will be this entity within the 

National Guard Bureau that will coordinate with the States, The Joint Staff, U.S. 

Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and, through the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense, with other federal government agencies to manage all homeland security 

efforts. 

For the past two years the National Guard has had a very tangible asset to offer 

in support of the civilian and emergency first responder communities in the area 

of homeland security—its Civil Support Teams. The Guard has continued to 

strengthen the Civil Support Program, under which these teams fall. The teams provide rapid support to local, state and federal authorities in dealing with the consequences of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high yield explosive events. 

Of the 32 Civil Support Teams that have been established, the Secretary of Defense 

has operationally certified all 32 teams. An additional 23 teams have been authorized by the Congress, and DOD is developing a plan to field them as expeditiously 

as possible. 

Several of the certified teams were integrally involved in response efforts to the 

September 11th terrorist attack and to the anthrax attacks and hoaxes that were 

perpetrated throughout the nation in the ensuing months. The Civil Support Teams 

have been increasingly integrated into the planning, training and operations at 

every level of emergency response ever since. In fact, during the year following the 

September 11th attacks, the 27 certified teams collectively performed nearly 800 

missions at the request of the agencies they support. 

These teams provide state and local authorities specialized expertise and technical 

assistance to the incident commander to: 

—Identify chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high yield explosive substances or agents. 

—Assess the situation; determine the type of weapon used and the likely consequences. 

—Advise the incident commander on potential courses of action. 

—Assist the local incident commander’s response strategy with cutting edge technology and expertise. 

Operationally, these teams are under the command and control of the governors 

through their respective Adjutants General in a USC Title 32 status. Should it be 

required, a team can be federalized and called to serve in a USC Title 10 capacity. 

The National Guard Bureau provides logistical support, standardized operational 

procedures and operational coordination to facilitate the employment of these teams 

and to provide depth and backup capability to states currently without a full-time 

Civil Support Team. 

In order to be the best resource possible to those entities they assist, it is crucial 

that the teams continue to be interoperable with all of the federal, state and local 

organizations with whom they work. This means that they must continue to be 

equipped with and trained on the state of the art technologies, requiring that they 

remain a high priority for resourcing at all levels within the Department of Defense. 

Issues of importance that are being addressed at many levels in support of improving this program include the following: coordination with Transportation Command and other commands to formalize the processes of requesting airlift for these 

units. This is required to minimize response times to remote and/or hard to access 

incident sites and thereby optimizing their utility to incident commanders. Intensive 

recruiting, special pay and acquisition issues are being worked by staff at the National Guard Bureau’s Homeland Defense Office to address some of the more challenging issues the program faces in remaining a value-added capability to their civilian counterparts. 

Our adversaries will not rest—‘‘the clock is ticking’’—so our preparation must be 

immediate, exact and effective. The National Guard gives this nation a tremendous 

capability in that its members live, work and play within the communities they defend. Many of them are first responders—the Guardsmen know their home turf. The 

people trust their National Guard and always feel comforted by their presence dur-
398

ing a crisis. During the next year, we will take that trust and solid experience to 

build the National Guard into a proactive, technologically superior team that is 

trained and ready to deal with any and all threats to our homeland. To further that 

end, the National Guard will continue to cooperate with all local, state and federal 

agencies in an effort to improve response capabilities. In its dual State and Federal 

roles, the National Guard will continue to support other government agencies when 

asked, and will take the lead, when appropriate, in the defense of our homeland. 

The National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities 

The National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities provides airborne support to the domestic counterdrug effort through the Counterdrug Reconnaissance and Interdiction Detachment Program and the Counterdrug Program. 

These special programs employ specially modified helicopters and C–26 aircraft to 

detect and track counterdrug targets identified by local, state or federal drug law 

enforcement agencies. Currently eleven states have counterdrug C–26 units and 37 

states have the interdiction units. 

The National Guard supports counterdrug operations by providing support that 

helps law enforcement to stop illegal drugs from being imported, manufactured or 

distributed; and by supporting community-based drug demand reduction programs. 

There are six general counterdrug mission categories under current program regulations: program management; technical support; general support; counterdrug-related 

training; reconnaissance/observation; and demand reduction support. 

The National Guard is a partner in a variety of demand reduction activities ranging from educational programs in schools, summer camps and with community antidrug coalitions. The National Guard operates four counterdrug training academies 

across the country that specialize in supply and demand reduction curriculum. The 

courses are available to civilian and military personnel at no cost. 

Information Technology Infrastructure 

The National Guard has a dual role, the National Guard of the United States (federal mission) and the National Guard of the Several States (state mission). Under 

Title 10 of the United States Code, the purpose of the National Guard Bureau is 

to be the channel of communications on all matters pertaining to the National 

Guard, the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard 

of the United States and the Departments of the Army and Air Force. This is a core 

competency of the Bureau, and its success is dependent on a strong information 

technology infrastructure under the management of the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, there is a potential requirement for the National Guard to integrate its communication network 

with that agency. The National Guard must be empowered to plan, program, and 

budget its information management program. Additionally, it should control, manage, and operate an information technology infrastructure that meets the requirements of both the federal mission of the National Guard of the United States, and 

the state missions that include homeland security. 

The National Guard network should provide an efficient, reliable, interoperable, 

and user-friendly information technology channel of communications for the Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, U.S. Northern Command, Department of Homeland Security, and others. There is also a need for a channel of communications to be established by the states through the National Guard Bureau 

with the Department of Homeland Security. This is a proper role for the Bureau, 

and the Bureau’s mission should be expanded to include that it serve as a channel 

of communications to the Department of Homeland Security. In this new role, the 

Chief Information Office would manage the information technology requirements for 

the homeland security mission. The Chief Information Office would also provide 

leadership for establishing National Guard information technology strategy, policy, 

standards, and infrastructure to support National Guard forces performing their 

federal and state missions. In addition to federal funds for information technology 

to support the National Guard of the United States, the National Guard Bureau 

Chief would plan and administer federal funds that are appropriated for information 

technology support for states under the homeland security mission. The Chief Information Office would work with the Army, Air Force, U.S. Northern Command, and 

Department of Homeland Security Chief Information Offices to assure that our information technology network is integrated and standardized with each other as 

well as other partners.

Senator STEVENS. General, if I may, before hearing from General 

Schultz and General James I’d like to yield to Senator Inouye for 

any questions he might have. He’s going to leave here at 10:45 to 
399

go to an important meeting, and I thought perhaps he might have 

some comments or questions to make before he left. Sir. 

Senator INOUYE. General Blum, the strain on Reserve forces may 

also depend on the skills needed for duty in Iraq compared to the 

number of active duty forces with these skills. What are the top 

skill groups for those who have been mobilized to Iraq thus far? 

FORCE PROTECTION

And the other question I have is that I understand that the 

Guard will be providing personnel to help the Air Force increase 

force protection; while in the fiscal year 2004 budget, the Army 

itself will be experiencing a 53 percent increase in force protection 

requirements. Do you have enough to take care of your force protection, in addition to the Air Force? 

General BLUM. Sir, let me answer those questions in turn if I 

may. General Schultz, you can come in there any time, and General James, you can come in any time you think it would be helpful. 

Sir, the skill sets, if I understood the question correctly, you 

wanted to know what skill sets were required in Iraq. It is across 

the full spectrum, everything from special operations, the kind of 

innovation that you just saw up on the ninth floor and the unconventional approach to dealing with the combat in Iraq. We have 

significant special operations forces over there, both in Special 

Forces psychological operations as the United States Army Reserve 

and Civil Affairs, but in addition, we have infantry on the ground 

over there, combat support units and combat service supports of 

every stripe and color, so there’s nothing specific. It is full spectrum across-the-board combat formations that were called upon by 

the combatant commander that we provided from the National 

Guard. 

Back here at home, it’s a little bit different. They’ve mostly been 

security forces for critical infrastructure protection, and the amazing work that the civil support teams were able to provide almost 

on a daily basis to keep the populations calm, that we were not 

under an attack by any chemical or biological agent from a foreign 

nation. 

The very fact that they were able to test and sample and verify 

that these samplings were not something lethal or threatening to 

our population has helped, a very calming influence, and I think 

the soldiers and airmen that we have had doing our critical infrastructure protection in nearly every State in this Nation has served 

as a significant deterrent, and have probably prevented any disruption of our mobilization process, our ability to project forces abroad, 

and to attack our citizenry or our ability to provide good Government here at home. 

I hope that addresses your question. If not, please press me a bit. 

Roger. 

General SCHULTZ. Senator, if I could help with a piece of that answer from the Army Guard point of view. We have 24,000 soldiers 

from the Army Guard in Central Command duty today. Primary 

duty is going to be, obviously, in support-related fields, military police (MP), perhaps chemical, perhaps medical, perhaps engineer. 
400

That’s kind of the skills that are going to be required more so, even 

now, as the mission changes in theater. 

We’re working today with the leadership in the Central Command land component command to figure out what kind of units, 

how long they need to stay, and do we have the right mix. 

Now, specifically to your point, we’re short military police in the 

Army, in the Guard, and we’re going through the acquisition process of acquiring more. We can use more military police here in the 

homeland as well, so today in the homeland we have over 16,000 

soldiers securing critical facilities; 8,100 of those members are securing Air Force bases, and the money, in the case of the Army 

Guard, is coming by way of the Air Force, so that’s an Air Force 

budget line item. We think that will be a 2-year mission, so we’re 

in the first year of that mission, standing by for a second. 

So security police in the Air Force, military police in the Army. 

We’re short those kinds of forces today. 

Senator INOUYE. What are you doing about that? 

General SCHULTZ. We’re actually going through the process of 

finding units, turning in units, buying more military police units, 

if I could explain it that way. We’re going through the acquisition 

process right now, today, acquiring more MP units in the Guard. 

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

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. General Schultz. 

General SCHULTZ. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, the distinguished committee members. We say thanks for allowing us to be here today, 

and for your ongoing support for our first priority, our soldiers. 

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to introduce Command Sergeant 

Major Frank Lever. He’s senior enlisted soldier in the Army National Guard. He’s the person, with me, that has the honor of looking after our members across this Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, our members have met and satisfied every mission asked, from the homeland through the deployed theaters, and 

it’s an accomplishment that we are most proud of. If you think 

about the Guard today, we have over 78,000 soldiers deployed, and 

obviously we talk about the strength of who we are, our first priority would be the members in our formations. Now, today in a special way that also means our families. 

And then as you think about our mission since September 11, 

2001, just a couple of years ago, we obviously have had tremendous 

support from our employers, and it’s that team that makes what 

we’re doing today possible. 

Mr. Chairman, we say to you, for your ongoing support, thanks. 

Senator STEVENS. General James. 

General JAMES. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I also 

would like to add my thanks, as my colleagues have, for the support of this committee and the opportunity to speak to you today 

on behalf of our Air National Guard. 

Like our Army counterparts, our Air National Guard has been 

very, very busy around the world and here at home. We have approximately 22,000 airmen mobilized at this time, with another 

1,100 volunteers added to that figure. Some have been mobilized 

for almost 2 years. Currently, 55 percent of the Air National Guard 
401

is performing some type of full-time duty when you add in the fulltime force. 

OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE

In Operation Noble Eagle which is the defense of the homeland, 

an air sovereignty mission was applying 75 percent of the fighter 

force, and half of the tanker sorties this past fiscal year. 

OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

As you have noted, though, the Air National Guard is not a stayat-home force. We, too, have been deployed around the globe. As of 

the end of March, we flew 64 percent of the fighter sorties supporting the Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF), 48 percent of the 

airlift sorties, and during that same time we flew almost one-quarter of both fighter and tanker sorties for Operation Enduring Freedom. 

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

We’ve had significant contributions to Operation Iraqi Freedom, 

and to answer part of your question from the air side, Senator 

Inouye, we experienced some high frequency/low density specialties 

in firefighters and also in security forces, but we are in fact total 

force partners with our great reserve counterparts and our active 

duty. The National Guard flew 43 percent of the fighter sorties, 

and an amazing 86 percent of the tanker sorties in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. 

This committee is directly responsible for our ability to participate in these operations and do our mission, because you have provided the resources for us in areas like targeting pods and funds 

for our miscellaneous National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) account. You’ve helped make us a part, a 

very relevant and important part of the total force, and Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we’re very grateful for that 

support. 

In closing, I would just like to say that in the future we too are 

looking to transform. I’ve developed a concept called Vanguard that 

will enable us to transform the Air National Guard into a force of 

the future. We also are looking forward to participating in new 

weapons systems such as the C–17 and the F/A–22, the joint strike 

fighter, and hopefully the KC–767. We do strongly support the 

lease of this aircraft. It will allow us to replace our aging K–135E 

models with R models, and maybe even participate in KC–767 aircraft in some selected Guard units. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity. 

MERGING GUARD AND RESERVE ACCOUNTS

Senator STEVENS. General, we’re grateful to you for those statements and, as you’ve said, each of you, this committee has been 

very supportive, but we’re getting questions at home now, and I 

wonder if we’re getting to the point where we’re burning the candle 

at both ends. 

Before we went into Iraq, we already had 50,000 reservists called 

up and mobilized for the global war on terrorism. We mobilized 
402

more during the war and, as you said, General James, some of 

them have been mobilized for the best part of 2 years now. That 

gets beyond the role of citizen soldier that’s there in the event of 

emergency, and I’d like to have your comments on where we’re 

going. You add that to the Department’s request that we merge 

your accounts into a single account now, and we wonder what’s 

happening as far as the future of the identity of the Army Guard, 

the Air Force Guard, and the Reserves as separate entities. 

Would you comment on those situations, General Blum? 

General BLUM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

First, on the identities, the Constitution will guarantee—unless 

we change the Constitution we will not lose the identity of the National Guard of the United States because of their dual mission 

status, unique among the other reserve components. 

As far as the operational tempo and the overuse of our National 

Guard citizen soldiers, I think it’s a little too early to tell just yet 

on what those trends will bring in the long term. Certainly, there 

are anecdotal episodes or evidences that all of us can quote where 

it is less than a desirable condition, where there are great hardships on families and significant interruptions, particularly the 

small businesses, when you pull key people out, or key people in 

a community that are responsible for either law enforcement or 

emergency services, but what we have done is set up procedures 

whereby the Adjutants General of each State can make corrections 

and modifications and substitutions so that we don’t do something 

that does not pass the common sense test when it’s closely examined the next day on mobilizing guardsmen. 

The information so far that we’ve received is relatively positive. 

In spite of this increased use, the propensity to serve in these 

young men and women is extraordinary. Remember, they volunteered to serve their Nation. They volunteered to be members of 

the Army and Air National Guard, and they are proud to respond 

when their Nation needs them. 

I think what we need to do now is pay very close attention to 

the process that we follow when we demobilize these young men 

and women and return them back to their civilian jobs and their 

families. That will play an important part. How they do that will 

be very important to whether they make a decision to stay with us 

long term. 

LIMITS ON DEPLOYMENT

Senator STEVENS. Well, should Congress consider putting a limitation on the amount of time that a guardsman, a person in the 

Guard or Reserve can be compelled to serve in any 1 year? We 

have situations where we have all been contacted—I’m certain I 

have—by small business people, by persons who ran support facilities for clinics in terms of medical supply units, and they have been 

called up and, as you say, they’re ready to serve, and they did volunteer, but I’m not sure they volunteered to become a regular 

member of the service to be—they are compelled to stay, once 

they’re called up, for as long as the Commander-in-Chief wants 

them to stay, and I think there ought to be some sort of a contract 

with these citizen soldiers that they will not be called up more than 
403

a certain amount of time in any 1 year unless there’s a declaration 

of war. 

And we’ve gone through a series of situations now in the last 20 

years where we’ve had these problems, more than 20 years, really, 

without a declaration of war, all the way back to Korea, and when 

you think of the number of people that have been called up and 

their lives have just been completely changed, I think it’s time for 

us to take a look at it. It may not be this committee. 

But we do have before us, however, the thing that bothers me, 

and that is this concept of the consolidation of personnel accounts 

into a single active personnel appropriations for each service. In 

other words, you won’t be getting money for the Guard directly. 

You’ll be getting money as part of the Army’s appropriation and 

the Air Force appropriation, and eventually that will lead to less 

control for the Commanding General of the National Guard. 

I don’t think I’m going to embarrass you by asking you what you 

think of that, because you’re in uniform and you must respond to 

the direction of the civilian authorities and your Departments, but 

this direction worries me as a Senator, and I don’t know about others, what they think, but I believe we should do everything we can 

to encourage an enormous number of young men and women to join 

the Guard and Reserve, particularly those who have had any service before, and they’re Ready Reserve. They’re really a magnificent 

force in the total force concept, but I think we have offended 

against some of them now and changed their lives and put some 

of them into bankruptcy, and we’ve got a job to do to try and 

straighten that out, in my opinion. 

I don’t know if you want to make any comments about it, as I 

said. It’s not right, General. It’s not right that someone joins the 

Guard and Reserve and thinks they’ll be called up in the event of 

real war, to be called up on a semi-permanent basis. 

Have you got any orders yet to release any of these people? 

General BLUM. Well, sir, Mr. Chairman, you’ve thrown a couple 

of questions at me at once here. 

Senator STEVENS. Several, yes. I’m sorry about that. 

General BLUM. Let me try to sort these out. First, are we abusing the soldiers in how often and how long they’re called up for? 

Again I say there are anecdotal evidences that each one of your 

constituents can articulate where that was probably the case. 

What I would argue for here, or urge the committee to do, is to 

give the leadership of the Guard the maximum flexibility to manage the force. If we are given the flexibility, we have a robust capability. Over 50 percent—even with all of the things that we’ve 

talked about here today, we still have a pretty robust capability remaining on the shelf that we can dip into and substitute and plug 

in place, so to speak, capabilities and special skill sets that are 

needed so that we don’t have to abuse the same citizen soldier over 

and over, but we must retain that flexibility to do that, and I would 

urge this committee to make sure that the leadership that’s represented here in all of the seven, reserve components have the authority to have some flexibility in that process. 

If we do that, I think we can mitigate much of what you’re talking about, but as I stated earlier, it is still too soon for me to tell 

you definitively. We don’t have any real trend evidence that says 
404

that this is going to cause us a long-term retention problem or a 

long-term recruiting problem, and so far it’s been quite the opposite 

in terms of satisfaction, and the feeling that they did something 

worthwhile for their country when they came back off of service, 

and in most cases they have assimilated back into their civilian 

jobs and their families quite well. 

On the other issue about the consolidation of pay accounts, you’re 

quite right, I can’t comment on that for really two reasons. One is 

the Department of Defense (DOD) policy, and that I would support 

the policy, but however, I can’t even tell you that today, because 

I have not seen the implementing instructions for that consolidation, so as you well know, the devil may well be in the details of 

that, and we have not seen those yet, so I don’t know enough about 

that consolidation initiative to tell you whether that’s a good thing 

or a bad thing for us here today. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, could I just mention something? 

Senator Bond and I are the co-chairs of the National Guard Caucus, and we have sent a letter actually signed by a number of members of this committee to Senator Warner, Senator Levin and yourselves, Senator Inouye, expressing the same concerns that you’ve 

just raised. 

Senator Bond and I made sure it was a very bipartisan letter, 

but it is coming your way and expresses the same concerns you’ve 

just expressed. 

Senator STEVENS. Good. Thank you very much. 

Senator Burns was first under the early bird rule. He went upstairs, I understand, to see the exhibit, so we’ll count that as being 

present. 

Senator BURNS. I’ve already been up there. We’re really getting 

a little late down here. 

I guess the chairman raised a very important question here, and 

what we hear out in my State of Montana, not only are we getting 

some pressure from the employers, but we’re also getting some 

pressure from the self-employed. If you take my State, it has an 

agricultural base, you’ve got a young man that’s probably had previous active duty, wants to maintain his edge, wants to serve, and 

also does it in a sort of a way that he makes a little extra money 

on the side, and doesn’t mind that at all, and will spend the extra 

time in training, but there also are times when the crop’s got to 

go in and when it’s got to come out. He’s also charged with paying 

for that farm, and that’s a tough enough thing nowadays all by 

itself, so I’m going to follow this issue very closely. 

And also we recruited some people into the Guard that had some 

special talents, education, skills to fill some of our needs, and I will 

tell you that all you had to do was go up to 902 and take a look 

at the new toys that we’ve got now that have worked very well in 

the range of high tech. So the people that we’re recruiting are really highly skilled people in the private sector, but there again 

they’ve got a responsibility there, and I would say most of them 

want to stay trained. 

General James, I thank you very much for the support of our Air 

Guard in Montana. We’re very proud of our Air Guard up there. 

We’ve upgraded now to Block 30s, as you well know, and they performed very well, and we’re very proud of them, and we appreciate 
405

your leadership, and all of you understanding these problems, but 

as the chairman says, we’ve got to start somewhere in coming up 

with a master plan on how we’re going to help these people either 

survive in the private sector and still rely upon their skills and 

their talents in time of an emergency. 

I think when they joined the Guard they didn’t mind a short deployment to hone their skills, or to even go and be away forever 

on a declared war in the defense of this country, because they’re 

motivated in that direction. They’re highly motivated people, we 

find, but nonetheless—and that’s a different circumstance, and we 

all understand that, but I am going to follow this issue very closely, 

but I think somebody has got to come up with a plan, a plan B so 

to speak, in the event that we get into a situation as we face today. 

And by the way, I want to iterate that in the Iraqi operation our 

warriors, all kidding aside, were the best ambassadors we had on 

the ground over there, and the way they performed, not only in 

their skills but also in their mission, but also that extra little bit 

it takes to establish a relationship with the people of Iraq, and that 

was truly a very sensitive area, and it was also noticed by a lot of 

folks in this country as being gentlemen and gentleladies of a very 

special force, so we appreciate that very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me say that I 

agree with all of the expressions by the chairman. I may be wrong, 

but I think there could be recruitment and retention issues in the 

future unless we address this issue. The men and women who 

serve don’t complain, do so willingly, and are enormously proud of 

doing so, but let me just give you an example. 

Part of the 142nd Engineers Battalion from Wahpeton, North 

Dakota, was deployed to Kosovo in January 2000. They spent 7 

months in Kosovo, came back for about 2 years, and now deployed 

to Kuwait. In all, 700 members of the 142nd were alerted on January 20, mobilized on the 24th, 4 days later, and 2 days after that 

they began moving their trucks from North Dakota to Fort Carson. 

I know normally there’s a 30- to 60-day warning before deployment. That’s what the Army would like to do, but in this case it 

was just a matter of a couple of days, so I think these issues are 

important, and as I say, these are not complainers, they’re proud 

to serve their country, but I think we should address the issues the 

chairman mentioned. 

I’d like to ask more specifically a question I don’t think, General 

Blum, you answered when the chairman asked it. Tell me about 

demobilization. If there are not now specific plans for beginning to 

demobilize, who will make those plans, and when will they make 

them, and I ask that I think on behalf of the families and employers and others. What do you expect with respect to the demobilization of those units that have been sent overseas at this point? 

General BLUM. Senator, there are, in fact, plans being formulated as we speak for the demobilization of National Guard soldiers 

and airmen that were called up for duty. I wish I could give you 

a simple rule of thumb as to how they’re doing that, last in, last 

out, first in, first out. It unfortunately doesn’t work that way, as 
406

nice as we’d like, because they did not follow the normal troop sequencing procedure in the way they called up our units. 

We are in an extraordinary time, as you are aware, 9/11, and no 

one foresaw we were going to prosecute a war in Afghanistan and 

then very quickly prosecute a war in Iraq. We provide military capability when called upon, and we did not make those plans. We 

respond to those plans. 

The demobilization will—here are our concerns, that we get people off of active duty as quickly as they are not absolutely needed 

there. These people, these great Americans that you have all talked 

about, do not mind for the most part interrupting their lives to 

serve their Nation, but they want to do something meaningful. 

There are many people right now that are in various stages in the 

pipeline of going and coming out of there, and we are trying to sort 

that out so that we don’t abuse this precious resource, our citizen 

soldiers, in that process. 

DEMOBILIZATION

Senator DORGAN. But how much notice might you give for demobilization, and when can families and employees, employers and 

others expect some basic notion of whether this unit will continue 

to be mobilized for 6 months or 1 year, or whether perhaps within 

3 months that mobilization will be over? 

General BLUM. We are hoping to sort this out in short order. As 

soon as we have that information we share that immediately with 

the local commander, in this case the Adjutant General of the 

State, and then it immediately goes to the family support group 

and employers within a matter of hours and days. 

So we understand the angst that it causes. The uncertainty really creates some frustration and some tensions in employer support 

and with the family support piece. We are very concerned about 

this. I hope you didn’t take my answer to mean that we are not 

concerned about the issues the chairman brought up. We are 

watching this very carefully, and we are advocating for the soldiers. Unfortunately, the General Officers represented here today 

do not control that process. 

COMMUNICATIONS

Senator DORGAN. Let me mention one other thing and then ask 

General James a question. I met with a large group of families recently. They had two big concerns. One is mail, and the second is 

telephone contact. I’m sure you’re working hard to try to resolve 

those issues, but it is critical to the families. To be able to communicate is just a critical connection. 

The families are very proud of their loved ones serving. They 

weren’t complaining to me. They were just asking for the opportunity to have the Defense Department provide better communications, better movement of mail, and I know in staging areas sometimes that’s very hard, but I just wanted to pass that on to you. 

That was their concern. 
407

AGING AIRCRAFT

General James, you know the Happy Hooligans, the Air National 

Guard in Fargo, North Dakota have three times won the William 

Tell Award, the award for the best fighter pilots in the world. Yet 

they are flying the oldest fighters in the Air Force, which is incongruous to me. You and I have talked about this at great length. 

They fly the Block 15s. They’re the only operational unit in the 

country still flying them. This needs to be remedied. Are we any 

closer to a solution to that? 

General JAMES. Not currently. The hold that was put on the decision that I had to make about upgrading Fargo was generated by 

the fact that on relook the active component who supplies us with 

our equipment, our aircraft, are relooking the need for any more 

offensive counterair or air sovereignty resources going to the Guard 

in the F–15. 

As you know, as we talked before, the F–15, one squadron was 

identified. The Guard was approached about taking that squadron, 

and that squadron was to be activated and put either in Fresno or 

Fargo, so in either case it would have generated an upgrade in 

your equipment. 

The decision was put on hold. We’re still looking at some possible 

alternatives. I’ve asked my staff to look at even the possibility of 

looking at other alternatives, and right now we don’t have anything. I cannot give you a positive answer on that. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, on 9/11, when the Pentagon 

was hit, the first jet fighters flying air cover over the Nation’s capital were the F–16s of the Happy Hooligans flying out of Langley 

Air Force Base. 

As I indicated, these are people who run drugstores and family 

farms, and mechanics, and the fact is they’ve gone out three times 

and won the William Tell Award against the best pilots and the 

best equipment in the world, beating all of the Air Force and everybody else, and the fact is, they’ve been shortchanged here with respect to these planes. They’re flying F–16s that are out of time, and 

they do it, but the cost to maintain them is incredibly high. 

And I’ve heard the same answer about these issues for the last 

3 or 4 years, and General, we’ve got to try to resolve the issue with 

these planes. You and I need to meet again, and I guess we need 

to meet with the Air Force Chief of Staff as well, but year after 

year after year we get the same answer with respect to these old 

A-model aircraft. 

I mean, we’ve a lot of wonderful people, a lot of missions, a lot 

of great units around the country, but this one begs for a solution 

and it hasn’t been forthcoming, and I hope I can count on you to 

do what we ought to do for one of the best units in this country. 

General JAMES. We’re trying to come up with some solution, because it’s unconscionable to have a unit that good flying airplanes 

that old and still tout ourselves as an important member of the 

total force, and this is one of my top priorities, Senator, and we’ll 

talk about it more. 

I have an out-of-the-box kind of solution that I have had my folks 

put their pencil to and try to see if it’s feasible. I don’t know that 

it’s going to be acceptable to the Air Force, but we’re going to look 
408

at something that’s quite different in the way of getting some new 

airplanes. 

Senator DORGAN. General, I like out-of-the-box solutions. As long 

as they’re solutions, I like them. 

General JAMES. Okay. 

Senator DORGAN. So this begs for a solution. I appreciate your 

willingness to put it at the top of your list. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, members of our panel for being here today and helping us understand 

the implications of the budget request that’s being submitted on behalf of the National Guard. We appreciate very much, as I said in 

my opening statement, the leadership you have provided in the mobilization as a part of Iraqi Freedom, but it comes on the heels of 

other mobilizations for Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. There’s 

been a very heavy concentration of activity in the National Guard 

units around the country. 

RETENTION

I was impressed with the comments of the Senator from North 

Dakota about the fact that very little notice has been given for 

some of these activations. Usually it was a 30-day notice. That’s 

been a tradition or a guideline. Do you worry, as I do, that this 

may have implications of people not looking with favor on reenlisting in the National Guard, or depletion of our forces? Have 

you seen any evidence of that? I know it may be anecdotal at this 

point. What is your reaction to the effect that that may have on 

our ability to attract men and women to serve in the National 

Guard in the future? 

General BLUM. Senator, I think you’re right to highlight that as 

an issue. All of the airmen and soldiers that this leadership team 

have talked to over the last past year have expressed their concern 

and desire for predictability, for knowing in advance what is required of them as far as possible for knowing when they will be 

needed and when they will be released. Employers, families, and 

the service members seem to do much better when we can give 

them a predictable time line of when they’ll be called, how long 

they’ll serve, and when they will return home. 

This is not just a service member here. The National Guard is 

a three-legged stool. The three legs are the airmen and the soldiers, the citizen soldiers and airmen, but their families are equally 

important, and their employers are as equal partners with the citizen soldiers and airmen and their families for the defense of this 

Nation. If either of those three legs gets out of balance, we threaten 

the integrity of the stool, so we are watching this very, very carefully, and the predictability would be highly welcomed by the three 

General Officers sitting before you today, and I’ll let the others 

speak when they come up here, but any reserve component soldier 

really would love to have what you’re suggesting. 

Unfortunately, with some of the realities that have happened, 

some of these campaigns, the global war on terrorism, ongoing commitments around the world that we were already supporting, the 

war in Afghanistan and then the follow-on war in Iraq, and then 
409

what may follow on as our involvement in phase 4 of Iraq has yet 

to be determined, so the predictability puzzle has not yet been 

solved for all of those events. 

Senator COCHRAN. General James, do you have any comments on 

that issue? 

General JAMES. Yes, Senator. I agree predictability is the key. 

The Air Force has realized this, and that’s why they established 

the AEF concept, the Aerospace Expeditionary Force, to give predictability to the airmen and the families so that they would know 

when they were eligible to be deployed, and they used this concept 

in Iraq, in Iraqi Freedom. They actually used the people that were 

due to rotate into theater, and they also kept some people that 

were in theater because of the AEF. 

Unfortunately, the predictability part for the reserve component 

is not as good as it is for the active component. We have to be part 

of our active team. We have to be engaged in these AEFs and activities and contingencies around the world to remain a relevant 

member of the team, so the predictability is very important. 

I would say also that these airmen are very proud to be a part 

of that, and they’re proud to serve, but we don’t know exactly what 

their breaking point is. When is it going to impact on our retention, 

and one of the things we did in the Air Guard is, we surveyed at 

the end of the first year and we looked at the results, and I’m 

pleased to say that they really were more positive than we thought. 

However, we’re going to have to do it again at the end of the second 

year, and we’re going to have to do it again another year or so 

down the road, because our operations tempo will continue to maintain a pretty high pace. 

Normally we lose—we turn over, excuse me, 10 percent of our 

force. The survey showed us that we’ll probably turn over 13, at the 

very most 15 percent of our force, so it’s not going to be an issue 

that will beg—excuse me, would cause us much concern right now, 

but again we’ll have to relook that, but in doing so we still do have 

those stress career fields in security forces and in firefighters and 

in support personnel and in red horses, we call them, people who 

build these bases. 

The Chief of Staff said this morning the most stressed career 

field in the Air Force right now is—the most limited capability is 

tents, because we’ve built over 30 bases around the world just in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom—not around the world, but to support 

Iraqi Freedom, and as such we have some stresses in areas we 

didn’t anticipate in our standard Air Force, so we’re looking very 

carefully at that predictability piece, at continuing to be part of the 

AEF and yet surveying our people to find out what their needs are. 

One of the things we do in the Air Guard is, we have contracted 

family support representatives. My predecessor, General Weaver, 

started this. We have at least one full-time person at every Air National Guard installation and separated unit for support of the families. Just as General Blum mentioned, the support of the families 

is very important, and if we can keep the family happy we’ll keep 

the airman happy and they’ll stay with us. 
410

EMPLOYER SUPPORT

The second part of that is the employers, the employers’ support. 

By and large, our employers don’t have, quote, anything for them. 

They don’t have the predictability that we talked about earlier. 

They don’t have any type of a tax incentive, anything, an incentive 

on the books that allows them to feel good about, other than being 

patriotic about having their folks be involved, so we need to get 

some way to give something back to the employers, and we are 

working very hard with our Employer Support of the Guard and 

Reserve (ESGR) people to keep them in the loop, to keep them in 

the communication loop and feeling good about what they do. The 

problems we’ve had have been really very small in terms of the 

scope of the operation. 

Thank you. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. General Schultz. 

General SCHULTZ. Senator Cochran, the issue is very serious 

with us. Overly concerned, I would not describe it quite that way, 

but we are most interested in the impacts of a schedule that drastically changed in the case of an employer or a soldier or a family 

on short notice as we put together the plans for an ever-changing 

war concept. 

But for the outstanding leadership across our States we couldn’t 

have pulled this off. But for the outstanding soldiers, we couldn’t 

have pulled this off, and some really understanding employers 

here, so we took plans and greatly moved the line to the left, as 

we say, and so instead of 30 days, many of our units were actually 

alerted and mobilized in less than 7, some 1-, some 2-, some 3-day 

notices, and so I don’t know that we’ve begun to realize the full implication of that activity set here, and of course our Nation’s at 

war. That’s why we’re, across this country, willing to respond the 

way we do, and yet we understand there must be some discipline 

in the schedule over time. I mean, today we have plans that take 

our unit schedules out 3 and 4 years. You go to this theater, you’ll 

deploy for this period, here’s your major training event, and all of 

that turned upside down as we put together the final plan for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and of course the Guard units were involved 

in a number of those changes, and we’ve responded to everybody’s 

credit across this country, but there are second and third order 

county implications. 

Now, what do we think long term? The Army Guard will meet 

our end strength this year. We’re off our program target just a little bit. Retention is actually higher overall than we had planned. 

The active component has a stop loss policy in place, and about half 

of our members in the Army Guard come from active duty, so that’s 

30,000 soldiers that come into our ranks every year from active 

duty, so when the stop loss rules are all in place, consider those 

candidates not available to join the Guard, so we’re off just a little 

bit in terms of our prior service accessions. 

Senator, we’ll get through all of this, but the question you ask 

we take very seriously, and that is long-term outcomes, the implications, effect of how we handle this mission set, and our soldiers 

without a doubt will respond to the way we treat them. 
411

Senator COCHRAN. I had a chance just recently to visit the Mississippi National Guard Training Center. It’s a regional, 

counterdrug training facility. It’s located on the property of Naval 

Air Station Meridian, Mississippi, and I want to ask you to answer 

for the record, if you could, questions about the future possibilities 

for expanding the activities there to include homeland security and 

other law enforcement challenges that we have as a result of the 

war on terror and the threats we have against our country. 

C–17 FLEET AT JACKSON AIR NATIONAL GUARD FACILITY

And I also have a question for General James for the record relating to the conversion to the C–17 fleet at the Jackson Air National Guard facility. We’ve talked about that before, and it would 

be good if you could bring us up to date and let us know how those 

plans are proceeding, and when we can expect to see that as a fully 

integrated part of the Air Force responsibility. 

General JAMES. Senator, we have kept in touch with that. As you 

know, I visited the unit. You had your staffers there. We had briefings on the unit, and I’m pleased to tell you things are going quite 

well. We’re on track. We’re a little behind on one of the facilities 

in the construction, but I think there are some work-arounds that 

are going to bring that up to timetable pretty soon. 

The actual aircraft delivery was 2004, I think January, February 

2004. It’s been moved up 60 days. The first airplane should arrive 

this fall, in December, and right now we did have some discussion 

about the Block airplanes that you’re getting. You’re still getting 

the Block 14 airplanes and the Block 15, two other Block 15 airplanes later. There may be some dialogue about making them all 

the same blocks. As long as they’re fairly new airplanes, and having the Air Force take the Block 15s and two more, as I said, low 

time or new Block 14s so you’d have a homogenous fleet. That’s the 

only thing that’s come up lately, and I’m talking with General 

Handy and General Lipscomb to decide if that’s what they want to 

do. Other than that, it’s really a good new story. Things are working, progressing very well. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. We appreciate your leadership on 

that issue. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Senator Domenici. 

BORDER PATROL

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

by way of a matter that I have some criticism, there’s a major story 

in New Mexico today. It’s styled, critics blast border plan, and essentially, General Blum, what it’s talking about is that an area on 

our border, the National Guard provides some valuable support to 

the Customs department and border inspection operations, and 

hundreds of guardsmen around the country have become experienced inspectors in inspecting cargo at our borders, seaports, and 

mail facilities. As a result, Customs inspectors are better able to 

focus on inspecting terrorists, intercepting terrorists who try to infiltrate our borders. 

This work is very important to New Mexico on our border with 

Mexico. In all, there are approximately 52 guardsmen along the 
412

New Mexico border supporting a total of 90-plus Customs and immigration and agricultural inspectors. In addition to these inspections, the Guard is performing an effective counternarcotics surveillance as well. 

Recently, it has come to my attention that the Department of Defense plans to divest the National Guard of its inspection support 

duties. The rationale is that the inspection mission is not, and I 

quote, militarily unique. 

General, given the heightened state of alert that we have assumed since the terrorist attacks on our country, do you believe 

that now is an appropriate time to remove experienced guardsmen 

from our borders, and how does the DOD plan to effect the National Guard counternarcotics mission? 

General BLUM. Senator, I have an office call and a meeting set 

up with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is in 

charge of that particular operation, Andre Hollis. Mr. Hollis and I 

have had discussions on this when I was in a different job——

Senator DOMENICI. All right. 

General BLUM [continuing]. As the Chief of Staff of Northern 

Command. There is a four-star Air Force General named General 

Eberhardt who is deeply concerned about what moves across the 

Mexican border, both ways. 

Senator DOMENICI. Right. 

General BLUM. The immigration and the narcotics, once viewed 

as a problem in itself, is an even greater problem when you consider the counternarcoterrorist nexus that can be connected to that, 

and the goodness in protecting our borders from hostile people, or 

hostile weapons systems, chem, bio, or nuclear, or high yield explosives coming across, or shoulder-fired missiles——

Senator DOMENICI. Right. 

General BLUM [continuing]. That could be used against our civilian aircraft coming across the border. We intend to engage with 

Mr. Hollis and present the National Guard’s position in support of 

a combatant commander concern, so we do this in a unified effort, 

to reexamine the counternarcotics and immigration issue not as 

narcotics and immigration issues but national security issues, 

which may change the way the Department of Defense views that 

activity. 

I am not sure they totally understand the full value and the implications of what’s being considered, but this is too early to tell 

you how that’s going to work out, but at least you know what our 

concerns and interests are on that. 

Senator DOMENICI. General, you know what my concerns are. 

You’ve expressed it exactly right, and when the Attorney General 

and U.S. Attorney there expressed their concerns saying that 

they’re not quite sure we’re going to be able to handle it without 

this component, it does send signals to me that I have to get in 

touch with people like you and ask you how come this will happen. 

Now, on the positive side I want to say that New Mexico has a 

number, like other States we have a number of areas where weapons of mass destruction civil support teams have been put together. 

These teams have been trained and certified to respond to biological, chemical and nuclear incidents on key military installations 

and national laboratories. 
413

General, I applaud the quick action of the Guard, recognize the 

importance of the national laboratories, recognizing those in a 

proactive way. You have that going on in our State at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, White Sands Missile Range, and the Air 

Force Research Laboratory installation right in the middle of Albuquerque. We compliment you on that and thank you for it. 

Mr. Chairman, for the record, as part of the discussion that has 

just taken place for the last hour with reference to how are we 

going to react in the future and what have we learned with reference to the Reserve and National Guard in this last couple of 

years, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is an opportune 

time for us to get information from our Reserve and National 

Guard units precisely as to how, how we can help them by changing rules and regulations on our end so that the Reserves and National Guard can serve us, as a people, better. 

It’s obvious to me that we can’t treat them in a willy-nilly way, 

that they just respond and if they’re needed, they’re needed, and 

if they’re not needed, they’re not needed. I think we have to have 

more objective standards and rules and regulations, because at the 

heightened time of everybody being excited about being in a war 

and wanting to serve, that’s one thing, but the aftermath, when 

that’s all settled down, then you have to measure what’s really 

happened, what’s happening to the attitude of the workers, the employers, and the parents, the families, and I would hope that you 

would be expressing concern in behalf of those that you represent 

so that you are not just used by the rest of the military to fill in 

and say, whatever’s needed you all are going to have to do, regardless of the ramifications, and we’ll take care of it later. I think that 

would be bad. 

And secondly, we have had to change what we pay to our military people and what we do in terms of helping their families during this war, during this war effort. I hope that if there are things 

we should be doing, whether—where we are paying more, remunerating better, offering better compensation and the like, and 

even some tax relief if necessary, I hope you are looking for those 

to recommend to us with reference to the Guard and the Reserve, 

because we have been surely looking for instances where we could 

be more fair, more equitable in that regard. 

REDUCING SIZE OF GUARD AND RESERVE

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

Senator STEVENS. Senator, thank you for the comments. I’ll have 

some comments later, but I think the Department’s answer so far 

that we’ve seen, I’ll send you the issues study, is that we should 

enlarge the strength of the active units and reduce the size of the 

Guard and Reserve. I think a few Governors are going to have 

some comments about that, and besides that, I wonder—if you 

don’t mind, Pat, if I just ask one question—what are we doing at 

the time of all these tornadoes? Every one of those States, the first 

responders should have been the National Guard, and many of 

those units are in Iraq or off on terrorism duty. Have you got any 

complaints yet about that? 

General BLUM. Sir, we have not received any complaints about 

that because General Schultz and General James, to the degree 
414

that they were allowed, were very, very careful to not strip any 

Governor of their total capability to do State mission and anticipate 

the typical bad weather patterns and the normal Mother Naturetype catastrophes that happen, or leave them a response force in 

the State if they were to be attacked, particularly during the prosecution of the war in Iraq, by some agents or surrogates of the 

Iraqi, or sympathizer of the Iraqi people, so we were very careful 

to leave in every State and territory as much of a robust capability 

to respond as possible. 

Incidentally, in Missouri with the latest tragic events, the unit 

that responded to that tornado had been activated for war in 

Southwest Asia. They were at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, at the 

mobilization station. The unit heard its home town had been hit 

and devastated, and the unit marched back to their home town and 

responded to their own neighbors and families and friends. Even 

though they were on active duty, ready to go to war, they interrupted that process to come home to take care of the homeland, 

and then when that’s done they’ll go back to Fort Leonard Wood 

and prepare to go, so the short answer to your question is, we are 

watching that extraordinarily close. 

We want to make sure no Governor is left uncovered, no community is left without a National Guard, and as you may or may not 

know, the States have interstate agreements where they can mutually support one another now, which they did not have in years 

past. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the last Congress 

I commissioned a General Accounting Office (GAO) study and 

asked them to look at health insurance requirements of the Guard 

and Reserve. The report found over 20 percent of our reservists, 

people who were ready to be deployed across the globe at a moment’s notice, currently don’t possess adequate health insurance. 

The report shows that this not only threatens readiness but it certainly raises questions on recruiting, and definite questions on retention. I’ve introduced S. 852, the National Guard and Reserve 

Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. It makes reservists eligible 

for TRICARE on a cost-share basis. The bill would open up 

TRICARE to help alleviate some of the problems on both readiness 

and retention. 

General BLUM. Senator, any help in that area would be greatly 

appreciated. We at this table do not view that as an entitlements 

program. We view that as a readiness issue. The health and dental 

care of our soldiers and airmen is absolutely vital for them to be 

able to perform their mission when called upon. If you extend those 

kinds of benefits to our citizen soldiers and airmen, it also makes 

them very attractive for employers if they have health care, as you 

well know, because that gives them an advantage when they’re 

competing for a job, and it may help mitigate some of the downside 

that an employer may view of hiring a citizen soldier or a reservist. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. General James, General Schultz, do 

you agree with that? 

General SCHULTZ. I agree with that, Senator. 

General JAMES. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 
415

CALL-UPS OF GUARD FORCES

Now, the National Guard has always been America’s homeland 

security force, and the events of September 11, the war in Iraq, 

demonstrated the Guard’s ready to deploy abroad or at home to defend the country. The Green Mountain Boys from Vermont were 

flying their aged F–16s over New York City almost immediately 

after the tragedy there. 

Actually, I was pretty impressed. I went there and watched some 

of the operations and you see these mechanics working literally 

around the clock to keep the planes flying and then the pilots doing 

the same thing. They weren’t carrying dummy missiles, obviously, 

at that time. 

When the Guard is carrying out missions at home, it’s usually 

most effective when it serves under the command and control of 

the Nation’s Governors. They know their communities, and if 

there’s a question of the Guard cooperating with local law enforcement or State law enforcement they know best how to do it. I’m 

concerned that the Department of Defense has not sufficiently supported callups under the title 32 status. How do you feel, General 

Blum? Do you support call-ups of Guard forces under the title 32? 

General BLUM. Senator, yes, I do. It goes back to the issue of 

flexibility and responsiveness. To me, you should leave in the 

hands of whoever is responsible for responding to an event the 

most flexibility to respond to that event as possible. The unique 

dual status of the National Guard should not be discarded, it 

should be embraced. It actually is value-added in most instances. 

Senator LEAHY. General James, do you agree with that? 

General JAMES. I do agree with that. I think he’s right on the 

mark on that, and as a former the Adjutant General (TAG) I will 

tell you that it’s very important that the Governor and the Adjutant General of that State have the flexibility to utilize and maintain command and control of those forces under title 32 status as 

opposed to title 10. There are some cases where title 10 status has 

its benefits, but overall I believe title 32 would be the first choice 

of the Governor and the Adjutant General. 

Senator LEAHY. And General Schultz? 

General SCHULTZ. I agree with that, Senator, and if title 32 

would bring along a certain set of definitions, meaning it’s a training status, perhaps it’s time for another status that gets at the realities of post-September 11 attacks on this Nation, where a Governor still would control those first responses in a status, and then 

maybe the Federal force, the title 10 forces follow on at some logical point in an emergency mission, so I think we’ve got some work 

on this, but I do support what’s been outlined by our chief here. 

Senator LEAHY. As you all know, this committee has, or subcommittee has made the Guard and Reserve equipment account a 

high priority over the past several years, not that any parochial 

questions ever arise from this committee, but I——

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT

You have gotten out of me my comments about the F–16s and 

the 158th Fighter Wing, the oldest such equipment. They fly more 

hours than any other F–16s in the Air Force inventory, and are 
416

doing it well. How do we keep the Guard’s equipment as modern 

as possible? We’ve got the Guard and Reserve equipment account, 

but should we be doing more? I mean, how do we do this, and if 

that’s not an open-ended softball you’re never going to get one in 

your life. 

General BLUM. Senator, let me thank this committee for what 

they’ve done in providing for us in the past in the most generous 

fashion. The bottom line of that National Guard Reserve equipment 

account is that it allows the local commander, those charged with 

responsibility for ensuring readiness, the flexibility they need to 

manage our readiness, and I think the results are proven. This is 

a very, very good program, and it’s much appreciated by us. Not 

to be open-ended, but since we are using this equipment at a muchincreased rate than we projected even a year and a half ago, the 

wear-out rate would tend to lean toward, we would like to see this 

program continued, and if you wish to expand it, that would be 

most welcome. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, the reason I raise that, as we all 

know, we have to come up with a lot of money for the Department 

of Defense. We all understand that. Just replacing the munitions 

expended in Iraq will be very considerable, but it’s been a strain 

on all the equipment, all the way through, but I just don’t want 

anybody to forget the Guard’s equipment was strained, too. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. Gentlemen, it’s 

good to see all of you, and thank you. 

General JAMES. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your support of the LITENING. If it had not been for the LITENING pods 

and the monies that were spent from the National Guard equipment account, we would not have been able to participate in the 

last contingency, very simple. LITENING gave us the precisionguided munitions capability that we needed, it kept us relevant, it 

put us in the fight. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, General, you made it very clear to me how 

important those were and I appreciate it. 

Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Hutchison. 

OVERUSE OF GUARD AND RESERVE

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say first 

that the Easter of 2000 was probably the best Easter I’ve ever 

spent. It was with General James in Bosnia with our Guard unit. 

He was the head of the Texas Guard at the time, and we went over 

there. It was the first time we had a Guard unit in command and 

control. It was kind of the test case, and our Texans did so well 

that many have followed since, and it was a wonderful opportunity 

to go to that sunrise service and visit with our troops. 

I won’t belabor it, because my staff tells me that others before 

me have made the same comments and questions about overusing 

the Guard and Reserves, and I have great concerns in this area as 

well. I talked to a lot of those young men and women in Bosnia, 

and have since, about the strains that occur when they are deployed so much, and talked with Senator Stevens on a trip that we 

took to Saudi Arabia, where we had Air Guard units that had been 

over there three times over a 2-year period, and they were pretty 
417

worn out, so I am concerned about that, and I just will look forward to working with the Department of Defense on the issues that 

relate to what is our troop strength in active duty, and what can 

we realistically expect from the Guard, and do we have the right 

troop strength there as well, but I won’t ask the question because 

I understand you have thoroughly gone through that. 

There is, though, one question that I do have, and it was in the 

base tour that I took 2 weeks ago, and I found a woman near Diaz 

and Goodfellow whose husband had gone out with a Guard unit out 

of Collin, out of Fort Hood, and she was having trouble getting the 

access that we know our families of deployed have, and it turns out 

that we don’t have a clear mechanism for deployed Guard and Reserve units to be able to go to the nearest base to their home if it’s 

not close to where they’re actually deployed from, so I am working 

on legislation right now that would require that contact to be made 

to the nearest base for a deployed reserve personnel, and that that 

person, the next of kin would have the contact at the base, that 

there would be someone at the base who would be in charge of 

dealing with the reserve families who are left behind, but I’m going 

to just ask you if you are aware of this, and if it’s something that 

you could work on before I hopefully pass my bill. 

General BLUM. I think that would be most welcome. As you 

know, the active duty bases are not really ideally located against 

population centers. Our membership mostly comes from population 

centers, so anything you could do to make that easier on families 

and make their access more eased would be most appreciated. 

Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I will introduce the bill and then either get it in the authorization bill or offered as an amendment, 

and I don’t think there’ll be a problem with it, but I don’t even 

think it should be a big problem for you. I think it’s just having 

that little communication mechanism so that—I mean, these people 

are under a lot of stress, because they’re not active duty, so in 

many instances they don’t have the same family support and infrastructure, so I want to give them that to the greatest extent possible. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator STEVENS. We want to thank you very much, gentlemen, 

for your testimony. We look forward to working with you on these 

difficult issues. The subjects that we discussed may primarily be in 

the province of the Armed Services Committee, although several of 

them are in the budget transmittal to us, which would require us 

to act on them, too, so we will be back in touch on some of those 

issues before we’re through. Thank you very much. 

General BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]
418

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

SEAMLESS ENVIRONMENT

Question. What measures are you taking to ensure National Guard soldiers and 

airmen can operate seamlessly in the Joint Environment and Combined Environment? 

Answer. The National Guard is increasingly being called upon to participate in 

joint and combined operations. The peacekeeping task force in Bosnia is just one of 

those examples. At the same time, we are undertaking several measures to ensure 

that Guardsmen can more effectively operate in the full spectrum of operations. 

These formal and informal opportunities will be evolving as the National Guard’s 

transformation process takes shape over the coming months. 

The National Guard is rapidly moving toward a joint configuration and joint operations. The National Guard Bureau is being reorganized into a true joint organization with an effective date of July 1, 2003. Headquarters in the 50 states, 3 territories and the District of Columbia are being reorganized into Joint Force Headquarters effective October 1, 2003. Once formed, these headquarters will better align 

and mirror our Combative Commands, Joint Staff, and Reserve Component forces 

within each state. 

The transformation of the Guard will be a dynamic and ongoing process. The National Guard Bureau and the National Guard of the Several States will operate in 

a joint environment on a day-to-day basis. We will undertake joint professional military training for our officers and enlisted personnel; train and groom our future 

leaders for joint operations; seek joint and combined assignment opportunities for 

our best leaders; and continue to embrace and expand upon our successful current 

joint operations, such as Bosnia, Sinai, Iraq, Afghanistan and the numerous National Guard State Partnership programs. 

Our soldiers and airmen are being actively encouraged to take advantage of increasing opportunities to serve on Joint Staffs. We have aggressively provided National Guardsmen to serve at U.S. Northern Command. Another set of opportunities 

will soon exist as U.S. Northern Command stands up its National Guard Augmentation Unit. We continue to monitor with interest the efforts at Joint Forces Command 

to launch Joint Professional Military Education for Reserve Component members. 

The best preparation is experience. WMD Civil Support Team (CST) operations 

and counter-drug operations involve Army and Air National Guard assets working 

together. As we stand-up more CSTs, this experience base will expand. Our successful airport security mission involved both Army and Air National Guard members. 

By virtue of these and other experiences, as well as the planned changes, current 

and future generations of Guardsmen will be able to operate seamlessly and successfully in all types of joint and combined operations they will be called upon to 

support at home and abroad. 

IMPROVED WMD RESPONSE CAPABILITY

Question. How is the National Guard preparing to improve the capability to better 

respond to WMD events? 

Answer. The National Guard Bureau and the National Guard are engaged in a 

myriad of initiatives designed to enhance the scope and timeliness of a National 

Guard response to a WMD incident. 

Congress authorized and resourced the current 32 WMD Civil Support Teams 

(CST) and the National Guard fielded those units on or ahead of schedule. The 

CSTs have made major contributions to our national readiness and they are responding to civilian authorities on a daily basis. The National Guard Bureau is constantly monitoring new technology that might enhance their capabilities in the future and uses every opportunity to expand and strengthen the skills of CST members as well. 

The National Guard Bureau, with Congressional support, developed the Comprehensive Review and Report of September 11th outlining actions taken throughout the emergency management and response communities in the minutes and days 

following the 9/11 incident. The report’s purpose was to make available to the civilian and military communities an overview of actions taken, so that all could be 

aware of the challenges faced, areas of need and opportunities to further refine response and support capabilities. 

The report led to the Automated Exercise and Assessment System (AEAS), funded 

by the Congress and initially fielded in April 2003. The AEAS’ primary objective 

was to create a fully automated and integrated electronic tabletop exercise tool that 
419

allows Emergency Responders and Emergency Managers to prepare and assess their 

communities’ readiness to respond to incidents concerning WMD. AEAS thoroughly 

exercises the emergency response community and assists the National Guard in 

identifying potential mission support requirements by individual jurisdiction. 

Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) training for the Guard was funded 

by the Congress and conducted during the past year. The National Guard trained 

500 personnel as Certified CISM trainers, doubling the number of internationally 

certified and recognized trainers in the world. These CISM-qualified personnel are 

available to assist communities as well as their military organizations in time of 

need. 

We have been in close coordination with the Department of Defense to prepare 

an effective fielding plan to stand up the additional 23 WMD Civil Support Teams 

per Section 1403 of the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. 

I announced as part of my ‘‘Transforming the Guard’’ initiative, that the National 

Guard would organize itself as a truly joint organization beginning at the National 

Guard Bureau on July 1, 2003 and in the various states on October 1, 2003. It is 

the right thing to do for America and it is critical for the National Guard to ensure 

that we are fully capable of operating across the full spectrum—from the combat 

war fight, through Homeland Defense and Security, to responding to the governors 

in times of natural disaster or civil disturbance. Furthermore, this initiative will 

allow the National Guard to quickly and efficiently respond to the requirements of 

U.S. Northern Command either as the force provider and/or as the Joint Force 

Headquarters coordinating a follow-on federal military response. 

The second element of the transformation initiative is to leverage our existing war 

fight capabilities. We must leverage our existing structure and capabilities to ensure 

our forces are never late to need. We will task-organize 10 National Guard Chemical, Biological Incident Response Forces (NGCBIRF). The task forces will consist of 

a National Guard CST, an enhanced division medical company with 150 person per 

hour decontamination/treatment capability, an enhanced engineer company with 

specialized search and rescue equipment, and task-trained combat units capable of 

supporting law enforcement. These task forces will meet a previously identified 

NORTHCOM request for capabilities that are currently limited. 

We will expand National Guard involvement in Ground-based Mid-course Missile 

Defense by including both the Army and Air Guard. We will build on the Nike Hercules Guard model and intend to include Traditional Guard members and M-day 

units. We will create National Guard Reaction Forces through dual missioning and 

training existing units. These units will be immediately available to state and federal governments, and for Homeland Security purposes are already forwarded deployed throughout the United States. The units will retain full war fight and homeland security capabilities. These forces will also meet a previously identified 

NORTHCOM request for available forces. 

IMPROVED EFFICIENCIES AT NGB

Question. What effort, if any, are you making to improve efficiencies at the National Guard Bureau to reduce redundancies and improve the response time in routine and crisis operations between State National Guard HQ’s, OSD, Northern Command, and civil authorities? 

Answer. The transformation of the National Guard Bureau and the headquarters 

of each State National Guard to joint configuration is the first step to increasing 

efficiencies and reducing response times to the full spectrum of National Guard response requirements. 

The National Guard Bureau is currently increasing its ability to communicate directly with the Department of Defense, U.S. Northern Command, the State National 

Guard Headquarters, and the civil authorities at all levels. 

This is being achieved in two ways. We are reorganizing our communication and 

information systems to provide more timely, relevant information to those officials 

who have an immediate ‘‘need to know’’. This can range from the on-scene incident 

commanders to regional combatant commanders. Critical to the information flow is 

the soon to be formed Joint Force Headquarters-State, which will be able to rapidly 

facilitate information passing to and from first responders and other civil authorities 

within their states. This is a top priority at the National Guard Bureau and will 

be implemented in the coming months. 

Joint Forces Headquarters at the state level will provide NORTHCOM and other 

federal entities with capabilities that are currently not available. The Joint Force 

Headquarters will provide a seamless transition and escalation from the almost immediate response by National Guard forces to the later arrival of federal forces. This 

will provide for continuity of operations and full integration of federal military sup-
420

port in response to, and in support of, the emergency management, emergency response, and elected officials communities. 

CHAIN OF COMMAND

Question. Are you satisfied with the current reporting chain of command that requires you to report through the Air Force and Army Service Chiefs when raising 

an issue that requires the attention of the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs? 

Answer. The present Channel of Communications is an efficient and effective 

means of dealing with Service-specific issues. This has effectively produced a highly 

ready Army and Air National Guard force that has proven itself over and over 

again. However, since September 11, 2001, the various National Guard in the states 

have become increasingly engaged in homeland security operations under the command and control of state governors. At the National Guard Bureau, we monitor 

these operations and facilitate access to equipment within and between states. 

The Commander U.S. Northern Command has expressed interest in being situationally aware of state operations and capabilities. The National Guard Bureau is 

working to help provide NORTHCOM with that awareness and to serve as a communication channel to the states as needed. Our on-going re-organization to a more 

fully joint staff reflects the National Guard’s requirement to more effectively operate 

in the joint environment. 

There may be merit in studying the possible expansion of the National Guard Bureau’s purpose by adding service as the Channel of Communications between the 

states and the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This would enhance the National Guard’s capability to effectively work in this joint operational 

environment and capitalize on our on going transformation. Strengthening links 

with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security, and the commanders of U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern 

Command, would provide mutual benefits to those organizations as well as the 

states. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMS

Question. What are your key Transformation programs in the 2004 budget request? 

Answer. The key Army National Guard (ARNG) transformational programs contained in this year’s budget request include the fiscal year 2004 portion of Aviation 

Transformation and conversion of the Pennsylvania ARNG’s 56th Brigade to a 

Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). The fiscal year 2004 portion of SBCT conversion is fully funded in the request, but Aviation Transformation is not. The 56th 

Brigade SBCT is programmed for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in fiscal year 

2010. The ARNG is looking at options to accelerate IOC to fiscal year 2008. 

There are several key Air National Guard (ANG) transformational programs funded in the fiscal year 2004 budget request: the ‘‘blended’ active Air Force/Air National 

Guard (ANG) JSTARS wing at Robins AFB, Georgia; the ANG support squadron to 

the Rivet Joint wing at Offutt AFB, Nebraska (it was formed from the Nebraska 

ANG’s air refueling wing); and ongoing funding for the Washington ANG’s 162nd 

Information Warfare Squadron at Bellingham, Washington, which was re-missioned 

from a ‘‘sunset’’ combat communications role. 

TRICARE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE

Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health care coverage 

to members and families of the National Guard on a cost-share basis? Would this 

provide a needed service to our Guardsmen? Would employers view it as an incentive to hire Guardsmen? 

Answer. In general, the National Guard supports extending health care coverage 

under TRICARE for Reserve Component members and families to improve medical 

readiness, recruitment, and retention. We believe it would be appropriate to extend 

this benefit to National Guard members as part of a more equitable compensation 

package that has become more compelling in light of increasing military commitments and operational tempo shared with the active component. 

Compared to the untenable costs of citizen-soldiers and citizen-airmen being unfit 

to deploy, extending TRICARE coverage to all of our members would provide a costeffective means of ensuring medical readiness. Providing health care coverage to 

those Reserve Component members who do not have private health insurance be-
421

cause it is not affordable would not be an entitlement as much as it would be a 

readiness issue. Furthermore, employers would definitely view this as an incentive 

to hire Reserve Component members, as it would provide a direct cost benefit. 

SOLDIERS AND SAILORS RELIEF ACT

Question. How well has the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Relief Act supported your members and are there any improvements to the act you can suggest? 

Answer. In the past, the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) did not 

support the National Guard as well as it could because the SSCRA only applied to 

National Guard members in Title 10 status. As a result, Guardsmen who provided 

security to the nation’s airports following the events of September 11, 2001 were not 

eligible for SSCRA benefits because although requested by the President, they conducted operations under section 502(f) of Title 32. Last year’s addition to the SSCRA 

to include members of the National Guard called to Active Duty at the Request of 

the President was a tremendous and appreciated improvement. It has helped many 

members of the National Guard who have been called to active duty. 

Additional considerations the Congress may wish to take up include: increasing 

rent protections for high cost areas; the ability to terminate car leases; protecting 

tuition and class standing for members who are college students; and lowering home 

mortgage interest rates to the prime, but no greater than 6 percent. 

H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, introduced in the House, proposes 

to revise the SSCRA and provides a new definition of servicemember, which is the 

term used to trigger many protections. If H.R. 100 moves forward, the definition of 

‘‘servicemember’’ should be modified to include Army and Air National Guard members when acting under section 502(f) of Title 32, or the trigger for servicemember 

protections should be tied solely to the proposed definition of ‘‘military service’’. 

EMPLOYER SUPPORT OF THE GUARD AND RESERVE

Question. How can you recommend we better support the employers of our National Guard members? 

Answer. With the increased utilization of reserve component personnel, employers 

are being impacted more than ever. As a result, programs such as the Employer 

Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) are key to our efforts in gaining and 

maintaining the support of our civilian employers. ESGR greatly assists civilian employers with their Guard and Reserve employees by providing information, rewarding them for their sacrifices, and if necessary, resolving disputes. Accordingly, Congress should support the continued resourcing of this important program. 

We conduct numerous employer symposiums during the course of the year and we 

hear from employers about their concerns. One way we can make a significant difference with the employers of our soldiers and airmen is by providing them advance 

notification (at least 30 days or more, if possible) of any mobilizations, and we are 

continuously working with the Services to allow sufficient prior planning. Small 

businesses are especially hard hit by mobilizations so more predictability would be 

very beneficial to them. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM HARKIN

COUNTERDRUG SCHOOLS

Question. This year the Iowa National Guard received $3.5 million to set up the 

fifth National Guard Counterdrug School (Mid-West Counterdrug Training Center) 

for training of law enforcement officers and community based personnel at Camp 

Dodge, Iowa. Utilizing existing facilities and National Guard personnel to administer the program, the Iowa Guard has begun to provide training by certified law 

enforcement personnel to thousands of officers in over ten states throughout the 

Midwest. In fiscal year 2004, MCTC needs $3.0 million to continue the training of 

thousands of law enforcement and community leaders, who currently have no training available in their areas. Could you describe the assistance and training the 

MCTC is providing to regional law enforcement to reduce drug trafficking in the 

Midwest, and the number of people being trained? 

Answer. The Midwest Counterdrug Training Center (MCTC) facilitates law enforcement and community-based organization training, with a drug nexus, by setting the conditions for training at Camp Dodge, Iowa, and through the use of mobile 

training teams as requested by the host state law enforcement agency. The yearly 

training calendar is established based on training requirements set by county sheriffs, police chiefs, and state patrol commanders primarily in the fifteen-state Northwest Counterdrug Region. 
422

In its first year, the MCTC has planned for thirty-three courses and nine training 

seminars. Our goal in the first year is to facilitate the training of 900 personnel. 

Indications are that MCTC will exceed the ‘‘number trained’’ goal by 600–700 personnel. MCTC’s students represent thirty-three states and territories. Classes range 

from highway interdiction techniques and procedures to street-wise Spanish. MCTC 

facilitates Intelligence Analysts training with threat assessment instruction, ‘‘followthe-money’’ techniques, and computer evidence recovery. Other courses include clandestine laboratory certification, highway drug investigations, and drug nexus interview and interrogation techniques. 

COUNTERDRUG SCHOOLS

Question. By utilizing existing facilities and manpower at Camp Dodge to support 

the community and law enforcement personnel, does this cause any decrease in the 

combat capability or readiness of any National Guard soldiers or airmen? 

Answer. No. In fact, we believe that it enhances readiness. There is no decrease 

in combat capability, readiness or availability as National Guard soldiers and airmen remain assigned to their units and are deployable as members of those units. 

Facilitating training for law enforcement through training centers, such as the Midwest Counterdrug Training Center (MCTC), does not affect any unit’s deployable 

status or readiness posture. Soldiers and airmen who support MCTC are better prepared because they have already been medically screened to deployment standards, 

and are already in the Army’s medical data banks. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 56TH STRYKER BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM

Question. General Schultz, I have been informed that the Secretary of Defense has 

reconsidered the planned transformation of the Pennsylvania Army National 

Guard’s 56th Brigade to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, a unit which is currently 

ahead of schedule and doing well. Failure to continue the transformation, a process 

already well under way, will have great consequences and would be detrimental to 

the Army, the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, and to the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. With this in mind, do you not believe that implementing the Secretary of Defense’s plan to scrap the first transformational Army unit in the National Guard would degrade the modernization of the Guard and Reserve Components by not including them in the early phases of the SBCT program? 

Answer. The 56th Brigade conversion to become a Stryker Brigade Combat Team 

is on schedule. It has been our intent from the beginning to transform Army National Guard units. Plans are on schedule to field the brigade in its new design. The 

Army Guard is fully capable and prepared to modernize units across our formations. 

The 56th Brigade is leading the way in our efforts to modernize Guard units. The 

Army’s efforts to modernize include the Guard. Any delays to the current schedule 

will degrade our ability to accomplish the emerging mission we are currently assigned. It has been my recommendation to proceed with fielding the Stryker Brigade 

Combat Team in the 28th Infantry Division. 

Question. Is it possible that transformation of the Guard and Reserve may 

produce different results than transformation of active units? 

Answer. No. The 56th Brigade will provide the Army with the same organization, 

structure and capability as an AC SBCT. It will provide a modernized combat brigade that is quickly deployable, lethal, survivable and have the ability to operate 

in a joint environment. 

Question. What impact will exclusion of the transformation of the Guard’s 56th 

Brigade have on readiness? 

Answer. In the short term, readiness will remain status quo in the 56th Brigade 

and the Army National Guard. However, the lack of modern equipment and systems 

that are programmed to accompany a SBCT would mean that the Army National 

Guard would not receive some of the newest systems and the new equipment training associated with the fielding of these systems. The 56th Brigade, and the other 

divisional maneuver brigades are not equipped with the same modern systems 

found the active army, and are short major equipment such as tactical wheeled vehicles. The SBCT is programmed to be fielded with the latest equipment and be 

filled to 100 percent of the authorized amount. 
423

FUTURE FIXED WING AVIATION REQUIREMENTS

Question. I understand that the Army National Guard forwarded a study in July 

2001 to the Committee on Appropriations that identified future fixed wing aviation 

requirements to support and sustain planned missions such as weapons of mass destruction and national missile defense. 

Answer. To develop the 2001 response, and answer the Appropriations Committee’s inquiry on fixed wing requirements to support weapons of mass destruction 

and national missile defense, the Army National Guard thoroughly reviewed the 

minimum fixed wing cargo capabilities required by the approved Fixed Wing Investment Strategy (FWIS) dated August 1993. The FWIS’s minimum required FW cargo 

aircraft capabilities were compared to those necessary to adequately support weapons of mass destruction and national missile defense efforts. The overall finding of 

the Congressional response demonstrated the Army National Guard requires an improved fixed wing cargo aircraft, with the minimum required capabilities defined in 

the Army’s FWIS in order to support both weapons of mass destruction and national 

missile defense mission requirements. The Army has developed a new FW requirements document called The Fixed Wing Operational and Organizational Plan. This 

TRADOC and G3 approved document maintains the same minimum FW cargo aircraft requirements that were defined in the in the FWIS with some additional mandates. 

C–23 SHERPA CARGO AIRCRAFT

Question. Have you determined whether the C–23 Sherpa cargo aircraft currently 

operated by the Army National Guard can perform the missions identified in the 

Army National Guard Fixed Wing Study? 

Answer. The C–23 Sherpa does not meet any of the minimum required capabilities defined in the Army’s Fixed Wing Operational and Organizational Plan. The C–

23 does not adequately support mission requirements for weapons of mass destruction or national missile defense. 

Question. If you have determined that the C–23’s performance limitations necessitate the procurement of a future aircraft capable of meeting projected mission requirements, please indicate whether you have identified such an aircraft. 

Answer. There are a few commercial off the shelf (COTS) fixed wing cargo aircraft 

available which are able to fully meet the Army’s stated minimum performance requirements as well as meeting those critical mission requirements in support of 

homeland security and national missile defense. The Army National Guard does not 

have a research and development staff to specifically identify or provide the name 

of an aircraft that meets both the Army’s mission demands and homeland security. 

Question. If you have, in fact, identified an aircraft that can better support the 

projected mission requirements identified in the July 2001 study, please state the 

funding level that would be required to support its initial procurement in fiscal year 

2004. 

Answer. Shortly after the completion of the Congressional response, the National 

Guard general staff received an unsolicited bid for 44 cargo aircraft that fully met 

all of the Army’s minimum required cargo aircraft performance parameters. The unsolicited bid was for approximately $3.0 billion. As indicated in the bid, this cost 

included the complete life cycle funding, flying hours and maintenance for the 44 

aircraft over a 25 year period. It is not known if the bid and the offer are still valid 

or accurate for today’s dollars. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

C–23 SHERPA CARGO AIRCRAFT

Question. The C–23 Sherpa, the Army’s medium cargo fixed wing aircraft, experienced some shortfalls during operations in Iraq, including limitations for flight into 

icy conditions, lack of short takeoff and landing capability, and poor performance in 

high/hot conditions, lack of short takeoff and landing capability, and poor performance in high/hot locations. Does the Army National Guard have any plans to modernize or replace the C–23s? 

Answer. The C–23 was originally designed as a short distance commuter aircraft. 

As the Army’s only tactical fixed wing cargo aircraft it has all of the performance 

limitations mentioned and more. The C–23 does not meet any of the Army’s minimum cargo aircraft performance parameters as defined in the Fixed Wing Operational and Organizational Plan. The modernization of the Army National Guard C–

23 fixed wing aircraft is tied to Army modernization and funding. Currently, the 
424

Army has a small amount of money identified in the fiscal year 2009 time frame 

to look at a possible replacement FW cargo aircraft. 

C–27J SPARTAN TACTICAL AIRCRAFT

Question. Would the C–27J Spartan tactical lift aircraft provide a more capable 

alternative? 

Answer. The C–27J Spartan was designed and built as a tactical support aircraft. 

From what I understand, its capabilities meet all of the Army’s stated minimum 

performance requirements and would greatly increase the Army National Guard’s 

ability to perform its Federal and State missions including homeland security and 

national missile defense.
(425)

RESERVES

STATEMENTS OF: 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE 

VICE ADMIRAL JOHN B. TOTUSHEK, CHIEF, NAVAL RESERVE 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. McCARTHY, CHIEF, MARINE 

FORCES RESERVE 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES E. SHERRARD III, CHIEF, AIR 

FORCE RESERVE

Senator STEVENS. We’ll now call for the commanders of the Reserve forces to join us today. We have with us today Lieutenant 

General James Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserve, Vice Admiral 

John Totushek, Chief of the Naval Reserve, Lieutenant General 

Dennis McCarthy, Chief of the Marine Force Reserve, Lieutenant 

General Sherrard, Chief of the Air Force Reserve. 

I’m told that it would be proper for me to extend to you, Admiral, 

a bravo zulu. Well done. We understand this is your last appearance before us. We certainly wish you well in all your endeavors, 

and thank you for your service to our country. 

I assume the best way to proceed would be just in the order that 

I read the names, if that’s agreeable, so we’ll start with General 

Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserve. 

General HELMLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of this 

distinguished subcommittee. I thank you again for the opportunity 

and the privilege to testify on behalf of the 205,000 soldiers, 11,000 

civilian employees, and their family members, all members of the 

United States Army Reserve. 

Today, as we speak, over 68,000 Army Reserve soldiers are mobilized throughout the world in America’s global war on terrorism. 

They serve alongside their Army National Guard and active component counterparts courageously, skillfully, and proudly. These modern-day patriots have willingly answered the call to duty to perform the missions they’ve trained for and to honor their commitment as an indispensable component of the world’s finest ground 

force, the United States Army. 

This committee, through its dedicated support of the soldiers in 

the Army Reserve has played a major and integral part in increasing the relevance and, indeed, strengthening the readiness of today’s Army Reserve. Your concern, witnessed here today, for our 

people, our most precious resource, who dedicate a significant part 

of their lives to defending our Nation, in addition to honoring commitments to employers and families, as well as their communities, 

is evidenced by your invitation to review the present state of the 

Army Reserve. Thank you for that. 

One of our units, the 459th Multirole Bridge Company, based in 

Bridgeport, West Virginia, is a unit so honoring their commitment. 

This unit of 172 soldiers supported fact, the First Marine Expeditionary Force and similar to traveled first with the Marine Recon 
426

Battalion so that they could bridge the various rivers en route to 

Baghdad. This unit fought as infantry in a Marines firefight in alNasariya. One of the soldiers, a noncommissioned officer, Sergeant 

Paul Abernathy, remarked upon leaving al-Nasariya, we all signed 

up knowing that we might have to go do this. Now that we’re here, 

you have to keep in mind this is our job as soldiers. We came to 

fight and win. 

I might add that they were proud to serve with the United States 

Marine Corps in this operation. It shows that we fight not only 

intracomponent, but also jointly amongst all the components, and 

with combined forces. But excelling in current missions is not sufficient by itself. It is also necessary that we concurrently confront today’s challenges while preparing for tomorrow’s. 

The Army must at all times maintain its nonnegotiable contract 

to fight and win the Nation’s wars as we concurrently transform 

to become more strategically responsive and dominant across the 

spectrum of military operations. The concurrence of these dual 

challenges, transforming our force while fighting, winning, and preparing for today’s wars, is the crux of our challenge today, transforming while concurrently at war. 

Today’s war has mobilized 35.4 percent of the United States 

Army Reserve. That is far higher than the 27 percent of the Army 

Reserve mobilized for Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Since 

1996, we have averaged 9,265 Army Reserve soldiers mobilized annually. On December 31, 2002, we had approximately 9,900 Army 

Reserve soldiers mobilized. Three months later we had over 69,000 

mobilized. That is a vertical spike of unprecedented proportions in 

terms of the speed. You have alluded to that this morning. 

Since September 11, 2001, our world has changed drastically. 

The very nature of this global war on terrorism, long duration, very 

fluid and volatile at various places and times around the world, 

dictates that in fact major changes are required to practices, procedures, and policies related to how we organize, man, train, compensate, and mobilize for use the soldiers of the Army Reserve. 

What was once a force in Reserve has now become a full partner, 

indeed almost an auxiliary force, of the Army across the spectrum 

of operations needed to satisfy the demand and need for highly 

skilled, specialized soldiers and units. Our ability to remain relevant and responsive depends on the interoperability and condition 

of our equipment but principally and foremost on the training, 

readiness, and support welfare of our soldiers. 

We’re grateful to the Congress and the Nation for supporting the 

Army Reserve and the centerpiece of our formations, our soldiers, 

the sons and daughters of America. I cannot in words express how 

very proud I am of our soldiers, as well as their families. They are 

in the hearts and prayers of a grateful Nation, and they will stay 

there until the job that we have come to finish is at hand. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you again, sir, for the opportunity to appear before you 

and the distinguished members of this subcommittee this morning, 

and I look forward to addressing any questions that you may have. 

[The statement follows:]
427

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity and the privilege to testify on behalf of the 205,000 soldiers, 11,150 civilian employees, and their family members of the United States Army Reserve. 

Today, over 69,000 Army Reserve soldiers are mobilized in America’s Global War 

on Terrorism, serving courageously and proudly around the world. These modern 

day patriots have willingly answered the call to duty to perform the missions they 

have trained for and to honor their commitment as part of a responsive and relevant 

force, an indispensable component of the world’s finest ground force, the United 

States Army. 

This committee, through its dedicated support of the soldiers in the Army Reserve, has played a major part in increasing the relevance and strengthening the 

readiness of the Army Reserve. Your concern for the reserve soldier and employee 

who dedicates a significant part of his or her life to defending our nation, in addition to honoring commitments to employers and families, is evidenced by your invitation to review the present state of the United States Army Reserve. I am honored 

by that opportunity. 

The occasion to testify before this subcommittee comes at a time of profound importance and immense change in our nation’s security environment, as well as dynamic change in the international political landscape and unprecedented improvements in technology that add significantly to both friendly and enemy military capabilities. We are engaged with a wily, determined enemy, intent on destroying our 

very way of life; confronting regional powers and potential use of weapons of mass 

destruction at home and abroad; and struggling with the challenges of how to secure 

our homeland while preserving our precious rights and freedoms. It is within this 

very challenging environment that the Army Reserve serves with excellence today. 

Excelling in current missions is not sufficient by itself. It is necessary that we 

concurrently confront today’s challenges while preparing for tomorrow’s. The Army 

must maintain its non-negotiable contract to fight and win the nation’s wars as we 

concurrently transform to become more strategically responsive and dominant at 

every point on the spectrum of military operations. The concurrence of these dual 

challenges, transforming our force while fighting, winning, and preparing for other 

wars, is the crux of our challenge today—transforming while at war. 

This is my first opportunity to address this subcommittee as the Chief, Army Reserve. I am humbled and sobered by the responsibility bestowed to me. The Army 

Reserve is an organization that demonstrates its ability to be a full and equal partner, along with the Active Component of the Army and the Army National Guard, 

in being the most responsive dominant ground force the world has seen. 

The strength and goodness we bring to that partnership is drawn from the people 

who serve in our formations. The Army Reserve is the most ethnically and gender 

diverse force of all the armed services. Overall, ninety-two percent of our force holds 

high school diplomas. Our force consists of individuals who are community and industry leaders, highly trained and educated professionals, experts in their chosen 

field who give of their time and expertise to serve our nation. 

The Army Reserve has been in a continuous state of mobilization since December 

of 1995. Prior to that, our contributions to Desert Shield/Desert Storm numbered 

over 84,000 soldiers. The Army Reserve also mobilized over 2,000 soldiers in support 

of Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti. Since 1996, the average number of soldiers 

mobilized has been 9,265 soldiers per year. Our soldiers are part of the rotational 

forces that are keeping the peace in Eastern Europe. Military police, medical and 

public affairs soldiers provide ongoing capabilities in Operation Joint Endeavor and 

Operation Joint Guardian in Bosnia and Kosovo. The depth of the current mobilization reflects a higher percentage of the force since Desert Shield/Desert Storm and 

still our soldiers are raising their hands to re-enlist in the Army Reserve, making 

our enlisted troop retention rates the best they have been since 1992. 

The attacks of September 11th intensified the pace of operations. Within hours 

of those attacks, the Army Reserve deployed a mortuary affairs company from Puerto Rico—a company that ten years earlier performed its mission with distinction in 

Desert Shield/Desert Storm—to deploy to the Pentagon to assist with searching and 

recovering the remains of the victims of the attack. They proved to be so invaluable 

to the recovery efforts that they did not return to their homes until September of 

2002, after cataloging not only all of the personal effects of the dead but items from 

the Pentagon as well. It is worth noting that we prepared and deployed the unit 

in advance of a Presidential declaration of mobilization on Army Reserve training 

orders. To those who question the Army Reserve’s ability to respond rapidly and 
428

completely to dynamic short notice missions, we are pleased to provide the 311th 

Mortuary Affairs Company’s responsiveness as a case study. There are numerous 

other, similar examples as well. 

In downtown Manhattan, Army Reserve soldiers were also assisting with the recovery efforts after the attack on the World Trade Center. Emergency Preparedness 

Liaison Officers were on site shortly after the attack to assist with rescue and later, 

recovery efforts. Army Reserve units provided equipment, Army Reserve center 

space and other logistical support throughout the days and months that followed. 

Similarly, these responses were in advance of formal mobilization. 

This Global War on Terrorism is unique for Americans because its battlefronts include not only far-off places like Afghanistan and the Philippines but our own homeland. What was once a ‘‘force in reserve’’ has become a full partner across the spectrum of operations to satisfy the demand and need for Army Reserve soldiers and 

units around the world. Wherever the Army committed forces in the world—Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Kuwait, Iraq and here at home—Army 

Reserve soldiers are an integral part, providing critical specialized capabilities and 

augmentation. 

In the time that has followed those days, our military has been engaged in fighting the Global War on Terrorism around the world. Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan seriously impaired Al Qaeda’s ability to continue to spread terror and ousted 

the Taliban. Civil Affairs units consisting of Army Reserve soldiers who possess civilian acquired and sustained skills in the fields of engineering, city planning, and 

education were deployed to the region to lead in establishing a free, functioning society. Numerous new schools were built and medical aid offered to the people of Afghanistan. These soldiers represent the goodwill and interests of the American people with every classroom they build and every skill they teach, every functioning 

society capability they help create, and every contact they make with the native 

population. And they are doing an incredible job. 

But despite the clear relevance and strength demonstrated by the aforementioned 

examples, we are, as an institution not without our challenges. It is necessary that 

we not only transform the institution, but we must also resource our requirements 

and transform the institution to even higher levels of readiness, responsiveness and 

capabilities. These resourcing requirements include recruiting and retention, family 

programs, information technology, anti-terrorism and force protection, equipment 

procurement and modernization, and facility revitalization. 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Recruiting and retention is an area of the highest importance to the Army Reserve and a volunteer force. Our responsibilities require the best soldiers America 

can provide. In this regard, we are most appreciative of the help your subcommittee 

has provided us. We would be remiss if we did not thank you for the attention you 

have paid to our recruiting needs in recent legislation. With your help we have met 

our recruiting mission for three straight years from 2000 to 2002. In fiscal year 

2003, however, we are 213 accessions short of expected year-to-date mission. While 

cause for concern, I am not alarmed over this because we are at 102 percent 

strength. 

Although generally successful in overall mission numbers, we continue to experience difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified individuals in certain critical 

wartime specialties, particularly within the Army Medical Department. Your continued support on behalf of recruiting and retention incentives, allowing for innovative 

readiness training and the funding of continuing health and educational opportunities will help us with this difficult task. 

The Army Reserve, in partnership with the United States Army Accessions Command, conducted a thorough review of Army Reserve recruiting. This review has 

helped us forge a stronger relationship with the Accessions Command and has 

streamlined our processes to support the symbiotic relationship between recruiting 

and retention. To that end, we will seek to ensure that all Army Reserve soldiers 

are involved in recruiting and retention activities—we all are a part of the Army’s 

accessions efforts. We are removing mission distracters allowing the Accessions 

Command to focus on their core competency of recruiting non-prior service applicants; we are focusing on life cycle personnel management for all categories of Army 

Reserve soldiers and our retention program seeks to reduce attrition, thereby improving readiness and reducing recruiting missions. 

During 2003, the responsibility for the entire prior service mission will transfer 

from the Accessions Command to the Army Reserve. Tenets of this transfer include: 

establishment of career crosswalk opportunities between recruiters and retention 

transition NCOs; localized recruiting, retention and transition support at Army Re-
429

serve units and increased commander awareness and involvement in recruiting and 

retention efforts. 

To support recruiting and retention, the Army Reserve relies on non-prior service 

and prior service enlistment bonuses, the Montgomery GI Bill Kicker and the Student Loan Repayment Program in combinations that attract soldiers to fill critical 

MOS and priority unit shortages. The Army Reserve must be able to provide a variety of enlistment and retention incentives, for both officer and enlisted personnel, 

in order to attract and retain quality soldiers. Fully funded incentive programs must 

be available to ensure success in attaining recruiting goals and maintaining critical 

shortages and skills. 

Our retention program is a success. Faced with an enlisted attrition rate of 37.5 

percent at the end of fiscal year 1997, we adopted a corporate approach to retaining 

quality soldiers. Retention management was an internal staff responsibility before 

fiscal year 1998. In a mostly mechanical approach to personnel management, 

strength managers simply calculated gains and losses and maintained volumes of 

statistical data. Unfortunately, this approach did nothing to focus commanders on 

their responsibility of retaining their most precious resource—our soldiers. 

The Army Reserve developed the Commander’s Retention Program to correct this 

shortcoming. A crucial tenet of this program places responsibility and accountability 

for retention with commanders at every level of the organization. Commanders now 

have a direct mission to retain their soldiers and must develop annual retention 

plans. Additionally, first line leaders must ensure all soldiers are sponsored, receive 

delivery on promises made to them, and are provided quality training. In this way, 

the Commander’s Retention Program ensures accountability because it establishes 

methods and standards and provides a means to measure and evaluate every commander’s performance. Since the introduction of the Commander’s Retention Program, the Army Reserve has reduced enlisted Troop Program Unit attrition by nearly nine percentage points. The enlisted attrition rate in fiscal year 2002 was 27 percent. Current projection for fiscal year 2003 is an increase of 28.6 percent, due to 

projected demobilization, the Commander’s Retention Program, and increased retirements. 

The Army Reserve is experiencing a 4,200 company grade officer shortfall. Retention goals focus commanders and first line leaders on junior officers. The establishment of a sound leader development program is a cornerstone of Army Reserve 

Transformation. Providing young leaders the opportunity for school training and 

practiced leadership will retain these officers. A transformed assignment policy will 

enhance promotion and leader development. Increased Army Reserve involvement 

in transitioning officers from active duty directly into Army Reserve units will keep 

young officers interested in continuing their Army career. Allowing managed flexibility during their transition to civilian life will be a win for the Army and the officer. 

Overall, the Army Reserve successfully accomplished the fiscal year 2002 recruiting mission while achieving the Department of the Army and Department of Defense quality marks. This year our enlisted recruiting mission will stabilize at approximately 20,000 non-prior service due to the success of our retention efforts. The 

accomplishment of the recruiting mission will demand a large investment in time 

on the part of our commander’s, our retention NCOs, and our recruiters as they are 

personally involved in attracting the young people in their communities to their 

units. 

However, the same environmental pressures that make non-prior service recruiting and retention difficult affect prior service accessions. With the defense drawdown we have seen a corresponding decrease in the available prior service market 

in the Individual Ready Reserve. This impacts Army training costs, due to the increased reliance on the non-prior service market, and an overall loss of knowledge 

and experience when soldiers are not transitioned to the Army Reserve. Consequently, the Army Reserve’s future ability to recruit and retain quality soldiers 

will continue to be critically dependent on maintaining competitive compensation 

and benefits. 

Special attention needs to be placed on the recruiting budget, for advertising, to 

meet our requirements in the next several years. Young people of today need to be 

made aware of the unique opportunities available in the different military components. The best way to get this message out is to advertise through the mass media. 

Funding our critical advertising needs is imperative if we are to be honestly expected to meet our recruiting goals. Your continued support of our efforts to recruit 

and retain quality soldiers is essential if we are to be successful. 
430

Family Programs 

Family programs provide invaluable family assistance during peacetime and mobilization, to include training for family program directors and volunteers in support 

of family readiness activities. These volunteers and contract employees provide information referral and outreach to family members and deployed soldiers. Within 

this system are twenty-five contractors serving in Family Program Director positions whose duties include aiding in promoting families’ awareness of benefits and 

entitlements, orienting family members to Army Reserve systems, programs, and 

way of life. These directors also assist in the deployment of unit Family Readiness 

Groups during peacetime and deployment. 

In preparation for mobilization deployment, these volunteers and service members 

provide an extensive briefing for both families as well as members. These family 

services include briefings by members of the Chaplains Corps who explain what 

happens to spouses or families upon separation. We also provide briefings when the 

service member returns and coach the family members to expect changes upon the 

soldier’s return to home. 

During Desert Shield/Desert Storm Army Reserve family readiness programs were 

sparse. Today, these programs are extensive, and they are working to provide refuge 

and support network for our families. We have been able to meet the needs of our 

deployed soldiers of which about 4,000 Army Reserve soldiers are on a second consecutive year of mobilization. We are anticipating challenges in the future. 

Information Technology 

Network Service/Data Center 

The Army Reserve is redesigning its information technology infrastructure to support the Global War on Terrorism and greatly increase the survivability of our information technology infrastructure in the event of a cyber or physical attack. This redesigned infrastructure will establish a network service/data center which supports 

the Continental United States. A robust provision of network defense for protection 

at the consolidated and interconnected sites will be integral to the redesign and creation of the network service/data centers. 

Our plan to establish a Reserve component network and data center would give 

the Army Reserve the capability to manage dissemination of information supporting 

command and control concerning mobilization, training and overall data exchange 

as well as Joint and Army wide information technology systems. 

Secure Communications 

Secure communications ensures the protection and sustainment of the Army Reserve’s information and information systems during peacetime, war and national 

emergencies. The geographic dispersion of the Army Reserve makes telecommunication services the primary means of conducting command and control, mobilization 

timelines, training data exchange, and ‘‘reach back’’ capabilities in support of the 

combatant commands. The Army Reserve is challenged to expand applications and 

service demands, increased security requirements and increased network capability 

to ensure throughput and reliable connectivity. 

With this redesign, the Army Reserve would have the technological capability to 

sustain existing Army systems or field any new Army systems to meet readiness 

requirements, manage timely dissemination of information supporting command and 

control in the areas of mobilization, training, and overall data exchange. 

Antiterrorism and Force Protection 

Security and preparedness to meet the known and unknown threats facing Army 

Reserve installation and facilities worldwide are an integrated set of three distinct 

programs: Antiterrorism, Force Protection, and Installation Preparedness. 

Antiterrorism is the foundation of the overall Force Protection program within the 

Army Reserve. It assesses vulnerabilities at stand alone facilities and Army Reserve 

installations. 

Force Protection programs correct, upgrade, and repair facilities in accordance 

with Department of Defense Antiterrorism and Force Protection construction standards. This program also determines the level of access to installations and facilities 

within the Army Reserve. 

Installation Preparedness concentrates on training and equipment for first responders such as fire, police and emergency services to weapons of mass destruction 

incidents near or at Army Reserve installations and facilities. 

The Army Reserve is challenged with its existing military and civilian manpower 

structure as well with its capability to adequately plan, execute and assess this real 

world critical program at all levels. Therefore, we must expand contract require-
431

ments for antiterrorism vulnerability assessments, exercise planning, and training 

for the entire Army Reserve. 

Currently, the Army Reserve is able to restrict access to its installations, but 

sustainment of access control combined with additional security requirements since 

the Global War on Terror has become a challenge. Funding of these programs will 

allow the Army Reserve to meet security and preparedness for threats facing Army 

Reserve installation and facilities worldwide. 

Equipment procurement and modernization 

Increasing demands placed on the Army Reserve highlight the importance of 

equipment that is mission-essential. In addition, the increased use of Reserve forces 

in operational missions and the Global War on Terrorism has highlighted the importance of having compatible and modern equipment. In order for our soldiers to be 

able to seamlessly integrate on the battlefield, our equipment must be operationally 

and technically compatible. Without complete interoperability, the ability of the 

Army Reserve to accomplish its Combat Support and Combat Service Support missions would be diminished. 

Combat support and combat service support transformation is a vital link to the 

Army Transformation Plan. The Army Reserve is the main provider of this capability for the Army and the Army must continue to modernize the Reserve components along a timeline that ensures the Reserve components remain interoperable 

and compatible with the Active component. 

Equipment modernization of the Army Reserve is indispensable in meeting the 

goals of the Army’s Transformation Campaign Plan. Full integration into the Army’s 

modernization plan to implement force interoperability enables our units to deliver 

required Combat Service and Combat Service Support ensuring our Army’s operational success. 

In the Army’s Combat Service and Combat Service Support Transformation Plan, 

key enablers are identified to meet the deployment vision outlined by the CSA. 

These enablers help to reduce the Army’s Combat Service and Combat Service Support Demand on Lift and Logistical Footprint requirements while increasing strategic responsiveness. To reduce the Combat Service and Combat Service Support 

Demand on Lift and Footprint, investments are required in the appropriate Army 

Reserve Combat Service and Combat Service Support Enablers. 

The Army Reserve has 20 percent of Combat Support and 47 percent of the Combat Service Support requirements in the Army. We must have these enablers on 

hand to support the Army’s Combat Service and Combat Service Support Transformation Strategy. 

Facility revitalization 

The Army Reserve installation community proudly sustains two of the Army’s 

major installations and 12 Regional Support Commands. These regional commands 

function as ‘‘virtual installations’’ with facilities in 1,300 communities across all 50 

states, most United States territories, and in Europe. 

Our primary facilities, Army Reserve centers, are prominent symbols of The Army 

on ‘‘Main Street America’’. They often create the very first impressions of the entire 

Army and present a permanent ‘‘billboard’’ for all Americans to see. Unfortunately, 

most Army Reserve facilities consist of 1950’s era structures that remain virtually 

the same as when they were constructed. They are sorely in need of modernization 

or, as in most cases, replacement. 

Army Reserve soldiers train in widely dispersed reserve centers and support facilities worldwide that use 45 million square feet. This equates to more square footage than Forts Hood, Sill and Belvoir combined. Our facilities experience the same 

type of challenges active Army posts do. The impacts of poor facility conditions are 

even more acute for our soldiers. Overcrowded, inadequate and poorly maintained 

facilities seriously degrade our ability to train and sustain units as well as decay 

soldier morale and esprit de corps. 

Transformation 

Clearly, our priorities and the way we approach national security changed. We 

must and will win the war on Terrorism. But the nature of this war dictates that 

major changes are required to practices, procedures and policies relating to use of 

our force. The processes and policies in place were designed for a different time and 

a different type of war than we are engaged in today. As a result, some have challenged our ability to respond early in a contingency operation, and to sustain continuous mobilization while continuing to attract and retain quality young men and 

women such as the ones who currently populate our force. I challenge this assertion. 

The Army Reserve is preparing changes to training, readiness and policies, practices and procedures. We are restructuring how we train and grow leaders within 
432

the Army Reserve by establishing a Trainee, Transient, Holdee, and Student Account, much like the Active Army, to manage our force more effectively. We are preparing implementation plans for the continuum of service concept recently proposed 

by the Office of the Secretary of Defense that would allow ease of movement between Army components as dictated not only by the needs of the Army but also by 

what is best for the soldier developmentally and educationally. We are excited by 

the potential of such proposals. 

A challenge to realizing the capabilities and potential of our highly skilled, loyal 

and sacrificing soldiers is a antiquated Cold-War era mobilization process. The nation’s existing mobilization process is designed to support a linear, gradual buildup of large numbers of forces and equipment and expansion of the industrial base 

over time. It follows a construct of war plans for various threat-based scenarios. It 

was designed for a world that no longer exists. Today, multiple, operational requirements, unclear, uncertain, and dynamic alliances and the need for agile, swift, and 

decisive combat power, forward presence in more responsive ways, and smaller-scale 

contingency operations, demand a fundamentally different approach to the design, 

use, and rotation of the Army Reserve. Rather than a ‘‘force in reserve’’, it has become and serves more as a force of discreet specialized, skill rich capabilities and 

a building block for teams and units of capabilities, all essential to force generation 

and sustainment. The process to access and employ these forces must be streamlined, flexible, and responsive to the President and Nation’s needs yet considerate 

and supportive of the soldier, family and civilian employer. 

There is an ongoing debate concerning the wisdom of reliance on the nation’s Reserve components both for operations of a smaller scale nature, such as the Balkans 

rotations and early reliance in the opening phases of a contingency operation. Only 

thirty-three percent of the Army Reserve troop strength is currently mobilized. But 

raw troop strength numbers are not an accurate indication. Often, Army Reserve 

capabilities in Civil Affairs and Medical support are cited as but two of many examples of over reliance on the reserve components. There are specific types of units 

that have been used more than others. The demand for certain type units to meet 

the mission requirements of the Global War on Terrorism is higher in some more 

than others. Military Police, Civil Affairs, Military Intelligence, Transportation and 

Biological Detection and Surveillance capabilities are the highest in utilization. As 

an example, the Biological Detection and Surveillance units consist of one Active 

component unit and one Army Reserve unit. The Army Reserve unit has mobilized 

five times since 1997 and is currently in their second year of mobilization. A second 

Army Reserve unit will be organized this month and is prepared to mobilize by the 

fall of this year. There are future plans for additional such units in both the Army 

Reserve and the active component. This is but one example of a high demand, low 

density unit. Currently, 313 Standard Requirement Codes (types of units) are exclusively in the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve has been able to meet the challenges 

to date with this structure but clearly the structure requires change to meet the 

continuing demand for these skill rich capabilities which are more practical to sustain in a reserve component force. 

The Army Reserve has been transforming its force since 1993 when it reorganized 

to produce a smaller, more efficient and effective structure. Our overall strength 

was reduced by 114,000 soldiers, or thirty-six percent, leaving us with a 205,000 soldier end strength today. In our transformation from a Legacy Force Army Reserve 

(or a Cold War Force) to an Interim Force, we are poised to put changes in place 

that will keep us moving on the path of transformation to the Objective Force. In 

the 1990s, we cut the number of our Army Reserve Commands by more than half 

and re-invested that structure into capabilities such as medical and garrison support units as well as Joint Reserve Units. We reduced the number of our training 

formations by 41 percent and streamlined our training divisions to better meet the 

needs of the Army and its soldiers. Our transformation journey actually began ten 

years ago and is accelerating rapidly today. 

Changing the way we mobilize starts with changing the way we prepare for mobilization. The current process is to alert a unit for mobilization, conduct the administrative readiness portion at home station and then send the unit to the mobilization 

station for further administrative and logistical preparedness and to train for deployment. This process, alert-mobilize-train-deploy, while successful in Desert 

Shield/Desert Storm, today inhibits responsiveness. By changing to train-alert-deploy, and performing the administrative and logistical requirements prior to mobilization, we will reduce the time needed to bring a unit to a campaign quality level 

needed for operations. 

The Army Reserve is the nation’s repository of experience, expertise and vision 

regarding soldier and unit mobilization. We do have forces capable of mobilizing in 

twenty-four hours and moving to the mobilization station within forty-eight hours, 
433

as we did in response to September 11th. This demonstration of quick and precise 

mobilization ability will become institutionalized in the processes and systems of the 

future and give our forces the ability to mobilize rapidly and smoothly. We will overcome challenges posed by units manned with untrained soldiers through initiatives 

that strengthen soldier readiness and leader development. 

While changing industrial age mobilization and personnel training and development policies is necessary, restructuring our force so that we can implement predictable and sustainable rotations based upon depth in capability is also necessary. Predictable and sustainable utilization is a key factor in soldier, family, and civilian 

employer support. One of the goals of transforming our force is to change policies 

that are harmful to soldiers and families. Predictable rotation schedules will allow 

the Army Reserve to continue to be a value-added source of skill rich capabilities 

for small-scale contingency conflicts and follow-on operations. It will provide our 

units with operational experience; provide a sense of fulfillment for our soldiers; impart a sense of predictability for our soldiers and evens out the work load across 

the force. We must begin now to implement new strategies to build a force with rotational capabilities. 

Individual Augmentee Program 

Under the current Army posture, there is a growing need to establish a capabilitybased pool of individual soldiers across a range of specialties who are readily available, organized, and trained for mobilization and deployment as Individual 

Augmentees. In spite of numerous force structure initiatives designed to man early 

deploying Active Army and Reserve component units at the highest possible levels, 

a requirement remains for individual specialists for unforeseen, unplanned-for-contingencies, operations, and exercises. Therefore, I have directed the establishment 

of an Individual Augmentee Program within the Selected Reserve to meet these 

needs. 

The purpose of the Individual Augmentee Program is to meet real-world combatant commander requirements as validated in the Worldwide Individual Augmentation System (WIAS). Additionally, this program will preclude the deployment of individual capabilities from active or reserve component units adversely impacting 

their readiness, cohesion, and future employment possibilities. It will allow soldiers 

to participate at several levels of commitment and supports the Office of the Secretary of Defense proposal for a continuum of service. 

Continuum of service offers the Army flexibility in accessing and managing personnel. Soldiers can serve through a lifetime in different ways from active duty to 

troop program unit to individual augmentee to retiree. The ability to move 

seamlessly through components and statuses can only benefit the Army and the soldier. Matching the right soldier in the right status at the right time makes sense. 

The Army Reserve will lead the way in making a reality of the phrase ‘‘Once a Soldier, Always a Soldier’’. 

Our initiatives concerning the management of individuals in the Army Reserve 

are the catalyst of Army Reserve Transformation—The Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative. In order for the Army Reserve to continue to transform, six imperatives must be implemented. These imperatives are: re-engineer the mobilization 

process; transform Army Reserve command and control; remove unready units; implement human resources life cycle management, build a rotational base in our 

force; and re-engineer individual capabilities. 

The Chief of Staff, Army has stated that the engine of transformation is our people. Our Army Reserve transformation plan attacks directly those outdated, unresponsive policies, practices, and procedures that inhibit our people’s ability to transform. Your awareness and Congressional support of our efforts is invaluable. 

SUMMARY

In our current military environment, the Army Reserve has many challenges that 

we accept without hesitation. These challenges are embedded in the current wisdom 

of early reliance on the reserve component in early contingency operations and the 

wisdom of the use of the reserve components in scheduled operational rotations such 

as Bosnia and Kosovo. Historically our nation has placed great reliance on the reserve components of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, to expand the armed 

forces for operations during time of war. The nature of warfare has changed drastically and we must also change. This Global War on Terrorism, as our President 

has described, is a long-term campaign of inestimable duration, fought in many different places around the world. The issues we have brought to you today—changing 

how we recruit, prepare, maintain, and resource our force recognizes the Commander-in-Chief’s intent, to prepare for future wars of unknown duration, in places 

we have yet to fight, and against enemies who threaten our freedoms and security. 
434

We are grateful to the Congress and the Nation for supporting the Army Reserve 

and our most precious resource, our soldiers—the sons and daughters of America. 

I cannot adequately express how proud I am of our soldiers. They are in the 

hearts and prayers of a grateful nation and will continue to stay there until we finish the job at hand. 

Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, General. Admiral. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN B. TOTUSHEK

Admiral TOTUSHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you on 

a personal note for the kind words about my service to the country. 

I’m just humbled and proud to be representing the 88,000 men and 

women of the Naval Reserve Force, and I would tell you that they 

have once again stood forth, just as the other component members 

have, when the Nation needed them. 

I’d like to talk a little bit about the Naval Reserve Force as a 

whole, just talk about a couple of things you’ve already brought up. 

The first is the overuse issue. It seems to me that perhaps, rather 

than changing the numbers in the active component and reserve 

component mix, perhaps we need to be looking at the mission areas 

so that we don’t recall people year after year after year. 

In the Naval Reserve we’ve done a pretty good job of doing that, 

and the data that we have, which is current as of the end of AEF—

OEF, I’m sorry—shows that the people that have been mobilized 

actually have a higher retention rate than those people that have 

not been mobilized, so at least for the Naval Reserve Force, as of 

current, after the Afghanistan operation, we have not seen, and the 

data reflects about a 50 percent better attrition rate, if you will, 

than the people that are just doing their time, if you will, drilling. 

I think that shows us that the men and women of the Naval Reserve Force at least, and I would expect the other components as 

well, are willing to serve and, in fact, are expecting to serve a little 

bit more differently than they have in the past, and I would just 

ask that as we think about the way we’re going to try to structure 

the military of the future, that we don’t try to put a one-size-fits 

all, or put too many constraints on us that prevents us from doing 

our mission, or allowing our people to serve. 

The second thing is that we’ve heard some talk about the fact 

that it’s not a good idea to have 100 percent of any capability in 

the reserve component, because that would also suggest that we 

would be overusing them. The Naval Reserve has several capabilities that we do the entire mission for the Navy. One of the good 

examples is our intratheater airlift. All the transport airplanes that 

we have, if you see an airplane that says Navy on the side, it’s either carrying people or cargo, that’s a Naval Reserve airplane. 

Once again, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, we did wonderfully 

well there, bolstering the support to the theater by about 300 percent, and we did much of it without mobilization. Much of it was 

on a volunteer and a detachment type of basis, so I think we have 

proven over and over again that we can do that mission for the 

Navy cheaper, better, and with more expediency than even trying 

to outsource this would be able to do, and I would just ask us to 

keep that in mind as well, that there are certain missions that are 

perfect for the reserve components. 
435

Lastly, I’d like to talk about the length of time it takes to mobilize. We all expect and would like to give our members as much 

notice as we can, but in these times when we are at war, I think 

everybody understands that if it is a quick mobilization, that there 

are some instances where that is necessary, and our people are 

willing to sign up for that as long as it isn’t the usual case. If we 

can plan, as the other commanders have pointed out, on a regular 

basis, and then perhaps understand that once in a while it’s going 

to be now, people will understand that. 

I, too, would tell you that just like the other component commanders, the employers and the families of our people have been 

very, very important to us. We’ve taken steps in both cases to make 

sure that those equities are recognized, and I would tell you that 

by and large all of those families are standing up and doing a wonderful job, just as our people have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you very much for our continued support. I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN B. TOTUSHEK

It has been a remarkably challenging and successful past year for the Naval Reserve. We are continuing at an unprecedented pace in support of the war on terrorism, while at the same time navigating the Naval Reserve through the complex 

process of Transformation. Today, Navy’s ability to surge rapidly and decisively to 

new crisis points rests primarily on active force capabilities with some Naval Reserve augmentation. Yet, any new crisis could potentially strain Navy’s ability to 

sustain existing commitments, thus increasing the value of maintaining—and using, 

when needed—flexible operational capabilities resident in the Naval Reserve.

The Naval Reserve provides Navy with necessary operational and organizational agility 

—Operational readiness 

—Parallel capability—reinforcing/sustaining/optimizing for crisis 

—Incubating new capabilities 

—Stand alone missions 

We ask a lot from our individual Reservists. And they have responded heroically. 

As Operations Noble Eagle and Iraqi Freedom demonstrate, mobilized Naval Reserve capabilities are often required to meet the risks associated with surge, and 

to sustain Navy commitments. Despite various opinions to the contrary, my Reserve 

Force has not been overtasked during the continuing Global War on Terrorism. 

We’ve recalled nearly 19,000 Naval Reservists to-date, or approximately 25 percent 

of our force. We’ve recalled entire commissioned units as well as individuals with 

unique skills. While attrition across my force has been averaging in the high 20 percentile, our Career Decision Surveys targeted to those personnel demobilizing indicate that their attrition is holding at a mere 12 percent. We are confident that we 

have policies in place to manage and mitigate the strains we place on our Sailors 

and their employers. The bottom line is that Naval Reserve personnel are staying 

Navy, and we were able to reduce our enlisted recruiting goal by 2,000 endstrength 

this year.
436

The Naval Reserve: a proven source of Navy flexibility 

—Mobilization for war or contingency 

—Relieving stress on active PERSTEMPO 

—War fighting and support capability at reduced cost 

Observing the work performed by our Naval Reservists over the past year, I have 

concluded that heroes are just ordinary people who do extraordinary things. 

Among the Naval Reserve heroes who represent the extraordinary sacrifices made 

by all of our members in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle and 

Iraqi Freedom are people such as these: 

—Commander Neal Bundo, from Crofton, Maryland, and members of Navy Command Center Unit 106 at the Pentagon mobilized and drilled around-the-clock 

to maintain the watch in the aftermath of the destruction of the center and the 

murder of fellow Sailors. 

—Utilityman Second Class Marianne Johnson, who lives in San Diego and is a 

single parent of two daughters and an accounts receivable clerk for Pepsi. She 

was mobilized to Pearl Harbor with Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 

303 to provide security support for Commander, Navy Region Hawaii. Although 

she could have waived her commitment, she arranged for a friend to take her 

apartment and temporary custody of her children for a whole year. 

And there are Naval Reserve heroes among the spouses of our reservists. 

—The husband of Susan Van Cleve was also recalled with Construction Battalion 

Maintenance Unit 303. Without any formal Ombudsman training, Mrs. Van 

Cleve took on the task of representing the dependents and relatives of more 

than 180 mobilized Seabees. What’s remarkable is that the Van Cleves, from 

Lake Elsinore, California, have five children at home under age five. 

Ordinary people. Summoned to do extraordinary things. I call them heroes. Anyone associated with the Reserve Components of this nation could go on and on with 

such stories because there are thousands of them. They are the people whose dedication we honor and must support. 

We are at the height of the mobilization in support of Operations Noble Eagle, 

Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, with more than 12,000 sailors providing 

support around the world today. A perfect example of this is Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 201, based at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas, 

which was ordered to active duty by President George W. Bush, as a unit of Carrier 

Air Wing (CVW) 8 embarked aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). Reports 

indicate that the ‘‘Hunters’’ of VFA 201 are leading the Air Wing in every measurable category. 

The majority of Naval Reservists that have been mobilized are individuals with 

unique specialties. They included significant numbers of law enforcement officers 

and security specialists. Medical, supply, intelligence and other specialties continue 

to be heavily tasked. Entire units of the Naval Coastal Warfare commands were activated. 

Naval Reserve fighter pilots flew combat air patrol over our great cities. P–3C 

Orion pilots and crews are still flying surveillance missions. Logistics aircraft crews 

maintain a continuous presence in Bahrain and their operations tempo has increased by 25 percent, most of which is being done without mobilization. 

Top Five Priorities.—And while our deckplate sailors continue training to support 

combatant commanders, at the headquarters level we are still adhering to our Top 

Five priorities for the Naval Reserve. Let me briefly review highlights of these goals 

to illustrate how we are making progress.

The Fiscal Year 2003 Top Five Priorities for the Naval Reserve 

—Manpower 

—Training 

—Equipment & Information Technology Compatibility 

—Force Shaping 

—Fleet Support 

Manpower.—Our recruiting numbers look good, and we are meeting goal. A continuing challenge is to fill targeted rates. While we initially saw that the percentage 

of prior service Navy entering the Naval Reserve bottomed out after 9/11, it quickly 

rebounded, and we finished the year over end strength. Our attrition rate hovers 
437

near 25 percent, sharply down from a few years ago but short of our goal of 22 percent. One major improvement is that we are consolidating our recruiting efforts with 

the active Navy and expect that benefits will accrue to both. 

Training.—Our training emphasis is on supporting the Chief of Naval Operation’s 

Task Force Excel and Commander, Naval Education and Training, through integration of Naval Reserve personnel at all levels in the Navy Training Organization. 

This integration will enable the Naval Reserve to be in a position to take advantage 

of training initiatives underway throughout the Navy. We are also providing Joint 

Professional Military Education and ultimately building a cadre of Reserve Officers 

with joint experience and designated as Fully Joint Qualified. This will involve 

working closely with joint gaining commands to identify billets requiring joint experience to be filled by Reserve Officers, an opportunity that has previously been nonexistent. Additionally, in order to take advantage of current and future training 

available through Distance Learning, we have been working hard to develop and implement a policy to provide drill pay to those personnel completing Distance Learning courseware at the direction of their Commanding Officer. 

Equipment and Information Technology Compatibility.—In fiscal year 2004 we see 

a continuation of the decline in procurement of equipment for the Naval Reserve. 

Total Naval Reserve equipment procurement steadily decreased from $229 million 

in fiscal year 1997 to about $91 million in fiscal year 2003. 

Among the few bright spots in the fiscal year 2004 equipment budget is funding 

for the acquisition of one new C–40A logistics aircraft. These aircraft are of vital 

importance to fleet logistics since the Naval Reserve provides 100 percent of the 

Navy’s organic lift capability and direct logistics support for combatant commanders 

in all operating theaters. In addition, the fiscal year 2004 budget calls for the procurement of another C–40A aircraft. 

Other programs slated to receive procurement funding in the fiscal year 2004 

budget include: the C–130T Aviation Modernization Program that will make 18 logistics aircraft compliant to fly worldwide; surveillance equipment upgrades and 

small boats for Naval Coastal Warfare forces; and ground and communication equipment for the Naval Construction Force. 

Despite these welcome Reserve modernization efforts, essential F/A–18 modifications, P–3C upgrades, and SH–60B helicopters still require substantial investments. 

Currently one squadron of Reserve F/A–18A aircraft lack the capability to deliver 

precision-guided munitions and need ECP–560 upgrades to avionics, software and 

accessories. Under the Navy-Marine Corps TACAIR integration plan, a Naval Reserve squadron is slated for disestablishment in fiscal year 2004. 

P–3C aircraft used by the Naval Reserve constitute approximately 40 percent of 

the Navy’s capability. Currently, these aircraft provide only limited support to operational commanders because they lack the Aircraft Improvement Program (AIP) upgrade. Active component AIP aircraft were used extensively in Afghanistan due to 

their improved communication and surveillance capabilities. To enable our P–3C 

squadrons to fully participate and integrate with the active component in support 

of operational requirements, an investment needs to be made to upgrade our 42 P–

3C aircraft in the Naval Reserve’s seven P–3C squadrons. Improving Reserve squadron integration with active forces will reduce active component’s operational tempo 

and increase overall Navy mission capability. Spending to achieve equipment compatibility and equivalent capability between active and Reserve components is always a wise investment. Finally, the Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) provides 

timely assured receipt of all-weather, day/night maritime and littoral intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance data. For fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated 

funds for a second LSS to support Naval Coastal Warfare. I’m encouraged that the 

emerging Homeland Security requirement to secure land and sea borders from potential terrorist attack is an emerging mission to which LSS capability can contribute. It is joint, transformational, and is consistent with Naval Reserve capabilities. I look forward to working with our Coast Guard friends in assisting them in 

protecting our coastal waters and ports. 

In the Information Technology area, we have implemented the New Order Writing 

System (NOWS) online, and it is up and running smoothly. Within budget constraints, we continue with implementation of the Navy Marine Corps Intranet 

(NMCI). By the end of 2003, 100 percent of the Naval Reserve Force will be on the 

NMCI. Our goal is a seamless information and communication systems integration 

between the active Navy and the Naval Reserve. To meet our primary mission of 

delivering sailors, equipment and units to combatant commanders requires information technology improvements in the manpower, personnel, communications, training and financial management areas. 

Force Shaping.—On July 20, 2002, the Naval Reserve stood up the Naval Reserve 

Forces Command. In doing so, it eliminated the old title of Commander Naval Sur-
438

face Reserve Force and merged separate Naval Reserve air and surface chains of 

command. This ongoing alignment, which is examining every facet of Naval Reserve 

operations—is making the Naval Reserve more flexible and responsive, improving 

its systems and focusing on customer service. The alignment of the New Orleans 

headquarters staff allows one-stop shopping for the active duty Navy to reach the 

Naval Reserve Force and has provided additional full time support to the fleet. 

Fleet Support.—Earlier I mentioned the direct support we have been providing to 

combatant commanders, and we are prepared to do more. While we continue monitoring potential risks of sustained and repeated recalls, to date we have seen improved retention rates of recallees measured against the rest of the force. Every one 

of our 86,000 Naval Reservists wants to participate in winning the war on terrorism. We must ensure that they have the tools to do their jobs and integrate 

smoothly into the Fleet. 

Transformation.—Within the think tanks of Washington and in the Pentagon ERing hallways, there is much talk about how the Navy will participate in the DODwide Transformation process. And though the Naval Reserve’s traditional mission 

of reinforcing active forces and sustaining capabilities has always been valid, there 

are additional ways in which we can support Transformation. 

The Naval Reserve is the ‘‘flex’’ Navy needs to navigate, and even accelerate its 

passage through a challenging and uncertain future. As it did throughout the Cold 

War, Post-Desert Storm and Post 9/11 periods, the Navy will continue to depend on 

its Reserve as a mobilization asset, affordably extending Navy’s operational availability. At the same time, the Navy will continue to rely on Naval Reserve units 

and individuals to provide day-to-day peacetime’ operational capabilities and to reduce the stress on active personnel tempo. The extensive operational warfighting 

and service support experience resident in the Naval Reserve will be crucial to assisting Navy in achieving its Sea Strike, Sea Shield and Sea Basing capabilities. 

Some of our terminology will change as we transform. We no longer talk about 

CINCs; we talk about combatant commanders. We don’t talk about TARs; we talk 

about Full Time Support personnel. We’re not using the phrase Total Force, but we 

are talking about a transformational force that is simply one Navy. 

The Navy is shaping itself in the 21st century in an environment of competitive 

resources, fluid planning assumptions, and operational uncertainty. As it begins the 

transformation, the Navy is also fighting the war on terrorism and maintaining a 

challenging global forward presence. Juggling such priorities involves risk. 

The Naval Reserve’s traditional function as a reservoir of capabilities that are not 

needed continuously in peacetime, but are needed in crisis, is crucial to mitigate 

such risks. 

As one example, Naval Coastal Warfare forces have been called upon to provide 

a security framework on the home front as well as overseas. The mission—protection of strategic shipping, shallow water intrusion detection, traffic control, and harbor defense—has resided exclusively in the Naval Reserve for more than 10 years. 

Today, this force protection presence is made up of 100 percent Naval Reservists, 

who conduct fully integrated command, control, communications, surveillance and 

harbor defense missions around the globe. Because these are ongoing requirements 

in this mission area, we will be integrating an active Mobile Security Force with 

existing Naval Reserve Coastal Warfare forces. 

Another example is also tied to the aftermath of 9/11: the immediate requirement 

for Master-at-Arms and law enforcement specialist to provide force protection to the 

Navy. This was a very small mission area for the Navy that, when the need arose, 

they were unable to fill with active duty Sailors. The Naval Reserve took care of 

the requirement until the Navy could implement long-term measures. 

However, the Naval Reserve can do more. Our agility can spread across a spectrum of other challenging areas: manpower, operations, planning, force structure 

and mix. We can be a great reservoir for experimentation and innovation. In these 

and many other ways, the Naval Reserve can mirror and complement the Chief of 

Naval Operation’s visions in Sea Power 21: to project power, protect U.S. interests, 

and enhance and support joint force operations. 

Myths.—Before I close, since this is probably the last opportunity I will have to 

appear before this committee, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly comment on several myths about the Naval Reserve that I have encountered during my 

tour as the Chief of Naval Reserve. 

The first myth is the popular opinion of many that Reserve Forces have been 

overused during the GWOT. As I mentioned in the beginning, I can assure you that 

the Naval Reserve has not been overused and is ready and able to do more to support the Navy. I know this not only because of the conversations that I have had 

with Naval Reservists on a daily basis, but also because of some very interesting 

statistics that have come out of our 9/11 mobilizations, such as the one measure 
439

that indicates our current attrition rate for those mobilized for the GWOT is approximately 12 percent, which is considerably lower than our historical attrition 

rate. I’m a firm believer that the Naval Reserve Force needs to be used to be relevant. 

The second myth is that it is unwise to place 100 percent of a mission within the 

Reserve. I firmly believe that certain missions are designed perfectly for the Reserve 

and are very cost effective. A perfect example is the 14 Naval Reserve squadrons 

of our Fleet Logistics Support Wing which have very successfully provided 100 percent of the Navy’s worldwide intra-theatre airlift support on a continuous basis for 

over a decade. There are currently 14 Naval Reserve logistics aircraft deployed outside the continental United States, which is a 230 percent increase since 9/11, yet 

we have done this while only mobilizing one airlift squadron. 

You may have heard discussions about changing the mix of active component 

versus Reserve component. The Naval Reserve is working closely with the Navy to 

address High Demand/Low Density type units. Through innovative sharing of assets 

and essential skill sets, Reserve personnel have been used to train new Active Component crews as well as carry some of the load of the deployment rotation. VAQ 209, 

flying EA–6B electronic warfare jets based at NAF Washington, deployed overseas 

for 45 days this past summer flying combat patrols in support of Operation Northern Watch, their fifth such deployment in the last seven years. Yet when they were 

here at home, they provided personnel and aircraft to the Fleet to support multiweek flight training detachments. By doing this they maximize the value of the dollars Navy has already spent to train and equip them while sustaining and exercising their warfighting skills. The renewed demand for Naval Coastal Warfare 

units, as mentioned before, has caused Navy to reevaluate the requirement and to 

create Active Component units. Naval Reserve, in this case, has served to provide 

the storehouse of skills so that as the demands of warfighting changed Navy was 

able to quickly meet the new challenge. These are just two examples of how your 

Naval Reserve Force provides the organizational flexibility needed to navigate the 

rapid changes of a transforming world. 

A myth that certainly has to be dispelled is that Naval Reservists cost more than 

their active duty counterparts. A cost comparison done for a seven year period from 

fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2009 shows that a Selected Reservist, not mobilized at any time during that period, costs approximately 21 percent of the cost of 

an active member. The cost of a Selected Reservist mobilized for a two year period 

during the 7 year time frame still reflects a considerable savings—less than half of 

that of an active member. In 2002, Navy estimated that it costs $1.26 million to 

train an F–18 pilot, taking that ‘‘nugget’’ pilot from ‘‘street to fleet.’’ By the time 

that same pilot will become a member of the Reserve Force, Navy will have invested 

many more millions of dollars to hone his or her skills. When that pilot joins a 

Naval Reserve squadron we will have recaptured every one of those training dollars. 

My point is that the cost of a valuable mobilization asset should not be looked at 

only in the limited context of the period during mobilization, but, rather in the larger context; that of an amazingly cost effective force multiplier available both during 

periods when the nation’s active forces are able to handle the PERSTEMPO and 

OPTEMPO without Reserve augmentation and during those periods of crisis that 

require Citizen-Sailors to leave their civilian lives and jobs and be mobilized. 

An additional myth is that the Naval Reserve should only be employed for full 

mobilization scenarios. Much like VAQ 209, which I mentioned earlier, our Naval 

Special Warfare units and Naval Special Warfare helicopter squadrons, either by 

providing personnel or by providing deploying units, have participated in smaller 

scale contingency operations such as Uphold Democracy in Haiti. Our Naval Reserve intelligence community is contributing daily to the processing and evaluation 

of intelligence information. Our maritime patrol squadrons and Naval Reserve Force 

frigates are continuously employed in the war on drugs. These scenarios do not involve full mobilization, they involve ad hoc contributions that keep our Naval Reservists engaged in something that is important to them—the safety, security and 

preservation of our country. If we want to continue the capable reserve force we 

have today, we must utilize their talents or they will not stay. 

And the last myth is that it takes too long for us to mobilize and be ready. Fortunately, I have a timely example to use to dispel this myth. On October 4th, 2002, 

a mobilization order was issued to VFA–201. Within 72 hours 100 percent of squadron personnel had completed the mobilization process, and within 90 days, all refresher training had been completed and the squadron was deployed on board the 

U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt. Every aviator has cruise experience, over 1,000 flight 

hours, and many have 2,000 hours in aircraft type. Squadron aviators provided leadership to the air wing in strike planning, flight execution, and carrier operations. 

Their experience in operations around the world and in adversary tactics continue 
440

to aid increased air wing readiness. Since mobilization, the Hunters of VFA–201 

have flown more than several thousand Sorties, have flown over 300 hours in combat and have dropped over 60,000 lbs. of precision-guided munitions. Not only were 

we ready to respond to the call quickly, but, I am please to report that VFA–201 

pilots had the highest qualification grades in the Air Wing and were awarded the 

Squadron ‘‘Top Hook’’ award. I am also pleased to report that VFA–201’s twelve F–

18A∂ aircraft are equivalent to F–18C aircraft primarily because of funding for 

equipment upgrades provided by Congress via the NG&RE appropriation.

Running Myths about the Naval Reserve 

—Naval Reserve forces are being overused 

—It is unwise to place a mission entirely in the Naval Reserve 

—The active/reserve force mix for High Demand/Low Density units should 

be changed 

—The Naval Reserve should be used only for full mobilization scenarios 

—It takes too long for the Naval Reserve to mobilize and get ready 

Summary.—The Naval Reserve is meeting big challenges with a Force that is remarkably fit and ready to continue doing the heavy lifting for the Navy Marine 

Corps Team. If we are successful at procuring the compatible equipment we need, 

we can become even more effective at world-class service to the Fleet. We look forward to meeting the challenges ahead, both within the Naval Reserve and in support of the Navy’s strategic vision. 

As I review the state of our Naval Reserve Force over the past year, I take pride 

in what the Naval Reserve has accomplished. All things considered, it has been a 

remarkable year.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. I think the committee 

would be very interested in the number of volunteers that came 

forth in each one of your branches. I’ve got to tell you, I’ve had 

more calls from people who were irritated that they weren’t called 

up than I got for those who called up who were irritated, so there’s 

a balance there somewhere. 

General McCarthy. 

General MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, 

with my colleagues I thank you for the opportunity to appear and 

to talk briefly about the Marine Corps Reserve. Most importantly, 

I would like to say that as an advocate for the Marine Corps Reserve I want to thank the Congress and this committee in particular for the support that you have provided over the years, and 

I think it’s clear that the investments that the Congress and this 

committee have made in the Marine Corps Reserve have been well 

used, and have borne fruit in this most recent period of combat for 

our country. 

As you pointed out, Senator Stevens, it is truly a totally integrated force. The Marines and their units in the Marine Corps Reserve are indistinguishable from their active units. They are part 

of those units. Their units are combined, and it truly is, I believe, 

a validation of the concept of a total force. 

Over 50 percent of the marines and sailors who serve with us in 

Marine Reserve units have been mobilized, and the vast majority, 

I think over 75 percent of those mobilized right now, were mobilized for service in the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility. They have been directly engaged with the enemies of our 

Nation. They have suffered their share of casualties. They’ve 

served across the full spectrum of Marine operations, infantry, 

aviation, tanks, light armored reconnaissance, reconnaissance 

units, engineers, combat service support, ANGLICO units serving 
441

with Special Operations Command and with the first United Kingdom forces in Southern Iraq. In short, in every aspect of Marine 

operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Marine Reserves and their 

units have been an integral part. 

We are now focused at my headquarters on bringing these units 

home, on demobilizing them and refitting them and getting them 

ready for whatever challenges may lie ahead. That demobilization 

process is our number one focus of effort, and as soon as that process is complete, we will begin to focus on reconstituting and rebuilding the capabilities of the Marine Corps Reserve, and that is 

going to be a challenging task, but it is one that I believe we can 

accomplish. 

It’s clear that as we bring units home there will still be units remaining in the area of operations. Some of the last units to leave 

Iraq, I believe, will be Marine Corps Reserve units, Civil Affairs 

units, a couple of infantry battalions, and light-armored reconnaissance come immediately to mind, but I just left the theater on Sunday night, and I talked to I think hundreds, maybe thousands of 

Marines while I was there, I visited with the senior marine commanders, and I come away convinced that your Marine Corps Reserve has done a tremendous job, and that it will continue to do 

so. It will come out in good order, and we will begin the process 

of getting ready for whatever challenges lie ahead. We will work 

in close coordination with the Congress, and again I would state 

my appreciation for your support. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. MCCARTHY

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished members of the Committee, 

it is my privilege to report on the status and the future direction of your Marine 

Corps Reserve as a contributor to the Total Force. On behalf of Marines and their 

families, I want to thank the Committee for its continued support. Your efforts reveal not only a commitment for ensuring the common defense, but also a genuine 

concern for the welfare of our Marines and their families. 

YOUR MARINE CORPS RESERVE TODAY

Today’s Marine Reserves are ready, willing and able to support the Active component and to serve our communities in peace or war. During the Global War on Terrorism, Reserve units have filled critical roles in our nation’s defense—whether deployed to Afghanistan, Djibouti or the Persian Gulf or on standby to respond to 

Homeland Security crises. 

As of April 21, approximately 21,100 Marines were activated as part of units or 

individual augmentees in support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, 

and Iraqi Freedom. This represents approximately 52.8 percent of the Selected Marine Corps Reserve and 4.7 percent of the Individual Ready Reserve. Roughly 75 

percent of the Selected Marine Corps Reserve Marines currently activated are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. From the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment operating up front with the 1st Marine Regiment, to Reserve KC–130s flying 

supplies into Iraq and evacuating prisoners of war, to the 6th Engineer Support 

Battalion purifying over a million gallons of water, to members of the 3rd Civil Affairs Group establishing local police forces and organizing joint patrols with Iraqi 

policemen, Marine Reserves continue to play a major role in Coalition operations in 

Iraq. 

Reserve integration readily enhances Marine Corps operational capabilities, however, the Commandant of the Marine Corps recognizes that the Reserve is a finite 

resource and insists on its judicious use. In the first year of Operations Noble Eagle 

and Enduring Freedom we activated no more than 11 percent of the Selected Ma-
442

rine Corps Reserve (units and Individual Mobilization Augmentees) and less than 

2 percent of the Individual Ready Reserve. All of the Individual Ready Reserve 

members were volunteers. 

Mobilization readiness is our number one priority all the time and the men and 

women in the Marine Corps Reserve have responded enthusiastically to the call to 

duty. Only 1.8 percent of those receiving orders have requested delay, deferment or 

exemption from duty. The hard work and dedication of the Marines and Sailors to 

this task has resulted in the efficient execution of the mobilization. We moved personnel and cargo directly from reserve training centers to embarkation points using 

tractor-trailers, chartered buses and flights—without missing a designated arrival 

date. No reserve unit had to ask for relief to enter theater without the required anthrax and smallpox inoculations. As we begin to see combat operations taper off, we 

are now preparing for the equally efficient demobilization of many of our reserve 

units. 

The ability of the Reserve to rapidly mobilize and integrate into the Active component in response to the Marine Corps’ operational requirements is a tribute to the 

dedication, professionalism and warrior spirit of every member of the Marine 

team—both Active and Reserve. Our future success relies firmly on the Marine 

Corps’ most valuable asset—our Marines and their families. 

MARINES AND THEIR FAMILIES

We continue to evaluate personnel policy changes regarding entitlements, training 

and employment of Reserve forces, and support for family members and employers 

to minimize the impact of mobilization on our Marines. Success in this area will enhance our ability to retain the quality Marines needed to meet our emerging operational requirements. 

We need your continued support to attract and retain quality men and women in 

the Marine Corps Reserve. Our mission is to find those Marines who choose to manage a commitment to their family, their communities, their civilian careers, and the 

Corps. While such dedication requires self-discipline and personal sacrifices that 

cannot be justified by a drill paycheck alone, adequate compensation and retirement 

benefits are tangible incentives for attracting and retaining quality personnel. This 

challenge will be renewed when mobilized units return from Active duty and begin 

the process of reconstitution. 

Last year, the Marine Corps Reserve achieved its recruiting goals, accessing 5,900 

non-prior service and 4,213 prior service Marines. This is particularly challenging 

because the historic high rate of retention for the Active component has reduced the 

pool for prior service recruiting. Enlisted attrition rates for fiscal year 2002 decreased approximately 2.8 percent from our four-year average. Marine Corps Reserve officer attrition rates were slightly higher than historical averages which can 

in part be attributed to Reserve officers leaving non-mobilized Selected Marine 

Corps Reserve units to be mobilized in support of individual augmentation requirements. 

The incentives provided by Congress, such as the Montgomery G.I. Bill and the 

Montgomery G.I. Bill Kicker educational benefits, enlistment bonuses, medical and 

dental benefits, and commissary and Post Exchange privileges, have helped us to 

attract and retain capable, motivated, and dedicated Marines, which has contributed 

to the stability of our Force. Congressional enhancements allowed us to increase our 

recruiting and retention incentive programs during fiscal year 2002. We are funding 

these programs to the same levels in fiscal year 2003 through internal realignment. 

The increase is also reflected in our fiscal year 2004 budget request. The tangible 

results of your support for these incentives are the aforementioned decreased attrition and recruiting successes. 

The Marine Corps is the only Service that relies almost entirely on its prior service population to fill the ranks of its Reserve officer corps. Although the Marine 

Corps Reserve exceeded its recent historical Selected Marine Corps Reserve unit officer accession rates in fiscal year 2002, staffing our unit officer requirements at the 

right grade and military occupational specialty continues to be our biggest recruiting and retention challenge. We are exploring ways to increase the Reserve participation of company grade officers. 

The long-term impact of serial or repeated mobilizations on recruiting and retention is still undetermined. More than 3,000 of our activated reserves have now exceeded the one-year mark. We will not know the overall retention impact until we 

demobilize a significant number of these Marines and they have an opportunity to 

assess the impact of mobilization on their families, finances and civilian careers. 

Should Active or Reserve Marines choose to make a transition back to civilian life, 

the Marine for Life program is an initiative which is already proving to be of im-
443

measurable value to our returning citizens. The Marine For Life Program was developed to achieve the Commandant’s vision of ‘‘improving assistance for our almost 

29,000 Marines each year who honorably leave Active service and return to civilian 

life, while reemphasizing the value of an honorable discharge.’’ While work continues to complete all necessary details of this broad program, Marine For Life has 

begun the transition toward initial stand up. Combining a nationwide network of 

hometown links administered by Reserve Affairs at Headquarters Marine Corps, 

Marine For Life provides Marines with information and assistance required to make 

a successful transition from Active service to civilian life in their desired hometown. 

This year marked the release of numerous policies and information outreach campaigns on the use and benefits provided by Marine For Life to the Total Force Marine Corps as part of our ongoing efforts to improve the overall life of all Marines. 

The Marine For Life Program will build, develop and nurture a nationwide network 

of transitioning Marines, veterans, retirees, Marine Corps affiliated organizations, 

and friends of the Corps. 

Combat readiness and personal and family readiness are inseparable. Our Marine 

Corps Community Services organization works aggressively to strengthen the readiness of our Marines and families by enhancing their quality of life. Our many Marine Corps Community Services programs and services are designed to reach all Marines and their families regardless of geographic location—a significant and challenging undertaking considering the geographic dispersion of our Marines and their 

families throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. During the current mobilization we are seeing the payoffs of our significant investment over the past several 

years in family readiness programs. Key volunteers and site support personnel are 

assisting families and keeping communities informed. 

In December 2002, the Marine Corps began participating in a two-year Department of Defense demonstration project providing 24-hour telephonic and online family information and referral assistance. Referred to as ‘‘Marine Corps Community 

Services One Source’’, it is similar to employee assistance programs used by many 

of the nation’s major corporations as a proven Human Resource strategy to help employees balance work and homelife demands, reduce stress and improve on-the-job 

productivity. We are already receiving positive feedback from users. 

The support our Reserve Marines receive from their employers has a major impact on their ability to serve. We have partnered with the National Committee for 

Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve to foster a better mutual understanding and working relationship with employers. During the current partial mobilization many employers have voluntarily pledged to augment pay and extend benefits which has greatly lessened the burden of activation on our servicemembers and 

their families. I would like to acknowledge and thank the public and private sector 

employers of our men and women serving in the Marine Corps Reserve for their continued support. 

Like the Active component Marine Corps, the Marine Corps Reserve is a predominantly junior force with historically about 70 percent of Selected Marine Corps Reserve Marines serving their first enlistment. Many of our young Marines are also 

college students. Currently, there are no laws that would offer academic and financial protections for students and schools affected by mobilization. We support Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve’s new initiative to improve communication 

between Reserve component personnel and their educational institutions. 

In addition to supporting Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi 

Freedom, Marine Reserves continued to provide operations tempo relief to the Active forces. Notably, more than 300 reserves volunteered to participate in UNITAS 

43–02, creating the first Reserve Marine Corps UNITAS (an annual U.S. sponsored 

exercise in South America). From August to December, the Marines sailed around 

South America conducting training exercises with military forces from Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Peru, Chile and other countries. Marine Forces Reserve 

also provided the majority of Marine Corps support to the nation’s counter drug effort, participating in numerous missions in support of Joint Task Force 6, Joint 

Interagency Task Force-East and Joint Interagency Task Force-West. Individual 

Marines and Marine units support law enforcement agencies conducting missions 

along the U.S. Southwest border and in several domestic ‘‘hot spots’’ that have been 

designated as high intensity drug trafficking areas. 

The Active Duty Special Work Program funds short tours of active duty for Marine Corps Reserve personnel. This program continues to provide critical skills and 

operational tempo relief for existing and emerging augmentation requirements of 

the Total Force. The demand for Active Duty Special Work has increased to support 

pre-mobilization activities during fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 and will be 

further challenged during post mobilization. In fiscal year 2002, the Marine Corps 

executed 1,208 work-years of Active Duty Special Work. Continued support and 
444

funding for this critical program will ensure our Total Force requirements are fully 

met. 

Maintaining overall Selected Marine Corps Reserve end-strength at current levels 

will ensure the Marine Corps Reserve’s capability to provide operational and personnel tempo relief to Active Marine Forces, maintain sufficient full-time support 

at our small unit sites, and retain critical aviation and ground equipment maintenance capabilities. Selected Marine Corps Reserve units are structured along the 

Marine Air Ground Task Force model, providing air combat, ground combat and 

combat service support personnel and equipment to augment and reinforce the Active component. Less than one percent of our Selected Marine Corps Reserve unit 

strength represents a reserve-unique capability. The current Marine Forces Reserve 

structure also reflects a small tooth-to-tail ratio with a minimal number of Active 

duty and Reserve personnel in support roles, and a majority of our Reserve and active Marines and Sailors as deployable warfighters. 

The Marine Corps Reserve also provides a significant community presence in and 

around our 187 sites nationwide. One of our most important contributions is providing military funerals for our veterans. The Active duty staff members and Reserve Marines at our sites performed approximately 6,170 funerals in 2002 and we 

anticipate supporting as many or more this year. The authorization and funding to 

bring Reserve Marines on Active duty to perform funeral honors has particularly assisted us at sites like Bridgeton, Missouri, where we perform several funerals each 

week. We appreciate Congress exempting these Marines from counting against active duty end strength. 

CURRENT READINESS

I am happy to report that the the general state of readiness in the Marine Corps 

Reserve today is good. This condition is attributable to the spirited ‘‘can do’’ attitude 

of our Marines, and increased funding in the procurement and operations and maintenance accounts provided by the Congress in fiscal year 2002. Most important, we 

remain ready and prepared to augment the Active Component in support of standing and crisis action requirements. 

The $5 million provided by National Guard and Reserve Appropriations in fiscal 

year 2002 was used entirely for warfighting priorities which will help us get to the 

fight and remain effective. Night vision upgrades to our KC–130s and CH–53 helicopters have been extremely valuable—enabling support of operations in Afghanistan and of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Your support of National Guard 

and Reserve Appropriations proposed for fiscal year 2004 will continue to enhance 

the readiness of the Reserves and their ability to integrate with the Active duty 

forces. The $10 million provided in fiscal year 2003 National Guard and Reserve Appropriations will further enhance the Reserve aviation assets as well as provide 

communications systems compatible with our Active duty counterparts. Additional 

funding provided by Congress has also enabled us to begin issue of the new Marine 

Corps combat utility uniform. By the end of 2003 every Marine in the Marine Forces 

Reserve will have at least one set. 

During the most recent mobilizations, the benefits of previous Congressional support that provided for the creation of our Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense 

equipment storage facility were realized. Every Reserve Marine deployed with modern, serviceable equipment. 

Maintaining current readiness levels into the future will require continued support as our equipment continues to age at a pace which, unfortunately, exceeds replacement. Within our Reserve aviation community, the average age of our ‘‘youngest’’ platform is the UC–35 at 5 years, followed by the AH–1W Cobra at 10 years, 

CH–53E at 15 years, KC–130T at 17 years, F/A–18A at 19 years, and F–5 at 30 

years. Our oldest platform, and platforms which have exceeded programmed service 

life, include the UH–1N at 32 years (20-year service life) and the CH–46E at 36 

years (20-year service life with ‘‘safety, reliability, and maintainability’’ extension to 

30 years). Maintaining these aging legacy platforms requires increased financial and 

manpower investment with each passing year due to parts obsolescence and higher 

rates of equipment failure. Aircraft maintenance requirements are increasing at an 

approximate rate of 8 percent per year. For example, for every hour the CH–46 is 

airborne, it requires 37 man-hours of maintenance. 

The situation within our Reserve ground community, while not as dire as the 

aviation force in terms of nearing or exceeding service life of platforms, also is a 

growing concern. The average age of our Logistics Vehicle System fleet is 16 years; 

Light Armored Vehicles at 17 years; High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle 

A1s at 18 years; 5-ton trucks at 21 years; M–198s at 20 years; Reverse Osmosis 

Water Purification Units at 18 years and Assault Amphibious Vehicles at 30 years, 
445

although all of our Assault Amphibious Vehicle P7A1 personnel carriers have been 

upgraded through the Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability/Rebuild to 

Standard program which significantly increased vehicle readiness and lowered the 

support cost. Our 5-ton trucks have exceeded their programmed service life, but will 

be slowly replaced with the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement beginning in 

June 2003. The Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit, which currently has a 

critical role in Iraq, has also exceeded its programmed service life but will not be 

replaced until fiscal year 2006. While some are being replaced or upgraded with 

service life extensions, maintaining these aging legacy platforms still requires increasing financial and manpower investments for the reasons cited earlier. Due to 

affordability, we have taken some near-term readiness risk with the level of funding 

we proposed in fiscal year 2004 for depot level maintenance. 

In addition to equipment aging, operations and maintenance expenses are also 

being driven upwards by increasing equipment utilization rates brought about by 

greater integration and support with the Active component, both in peacetime and 

more recently in support of the Global War on Terrorism. We are pursuing various 

measures internally to mitigate these trends by focusing on better business practices. One example is transferring unit non-essential equipment to central storage 

locations for preservation and maintenance. 

We are thankful for and remain confident that the additional funds provided by 

Congress in fiscal year 2003 will ensure the continuing readiness of the Marine 

Corps Reserve, and we seek your continued support in the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Our long-range strategy to maintain our connection with communities in the most 

cost effective way is to divest Marine Corps owned infrastructure and to locate our 

units in Joint Reserve Centers wherever feasible. With the opening of the new Joint 

Reserve Center in Wahpeton, North Dakota, this year, Marine Forces Reserve units 

will be located at 187 sites in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

Over 75 percent of the reserve centers we are in are more than 30 years old, and 

of these, about 37 percent are over 50 years old. 

Investment in infrastructure has been a bill-payer for pressing requirements and 

near-term readiness for most of the last decade. The transition to Facilities 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization funding has enabled us to more accurately capture our requirements. Like the Active Component Marine Corps, we do 

not expect to be able to bring our facilities to acceptable levels of readiness before 

fiscal year 2013. Thirty-seven percent of our facilities are currently rated below acceptable levels. We have over a $20 million backlog in restoration and modernization across the Future Years Defense Program. Maintaining facilities adequately is 

critical to providing quality training centers our Marines need. 

Last year’s vulnerability assessments identified $33.6 million in projects to resolve 

anti-terrorism/force protection deficiencies at the 42 sites that we own or otherwise 

have responsibility for site maintenance. We are prioritizing and addressing these 

deficiencies now and in the future years. The age of our infrastructure means that 

much of it was built well before anti-terrorism/force protection was a major consideration in design and construction. These facilities will require resolution through 

structural improvements, relocation, or the acquisition of additional stand off distance. All of these more expensive solutions will be prioritized and achieved over 

the long term to provide the necessary level of force protection for all our sites. Our 

fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget submission for Military Construction, Naval Reserve is $10.4 million, 20 percent lower than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The 

fiscal year 2004 request addresses our most pressing requirement—a new Reserve 

Training Center at Quantico, Virginia. Joint construction often provides the most 

cost effective solution. We support a Joint construction funding account, as long as 

it is structured correctly. 

In addition to the Military Construction, Naval Reserve program, we are evaluating the feasibility of other innovative solutions to meeting our infrastructure 

needs, such as real property exchange and public-private ventures. The overall condition of Marine Corps Reserve facilities continues to demand a sustained, combined 

effort of innovative facilities management, proactive exploration of and participation 

in Joint Facility projects, and a well-focused use of the construction program. 

MODERNIZATION AND TRANSFORMATION

In recent years the Marine Corps has made a deliberate choice to fund current 

readiness over recapitalization and transformation. It is well documented that this 

practice has led to a downward spiral in which we annually invest more funds for 
446

operations and maintenance to maintain aging equipment leaving insufficient funds 

for new equipment procurement. Generating savings to reinvest in procurement, 

while essential for recapitalization and transformation efforts, should be accomplished with great care, using a risk management approach to evaluate existing legacy equipment. The following modernization priorities represent low investment/

high pay-off capabilities, closely linked to Marine Corps operational concepts and 

doctrine, relevant to the combatant commanders, and essential to the survival of our 

Marines in combat. 

Modernization 

F/A–18A Engineering Change Proposal 583

Our top modernization priority remains unchanged from fiscal year 2003: upgrading our fleet of 36 F/A–18A Hornet aircraft with Engineering Change Proposal 583. 

This Marine Corps Total Force program encompasses 76 aircraft. This Engineering 

Change Proposal converts early lot, non-precision, day fighter/attack aircraft into F/

A–18C Lot 17 equivalent aircraft capable of day/night operations employing the 

newest generation of air-to-air and air-to-ground precision-guided munitions, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, Joint Standoff Weapon, Standoff Land Attack 

Missile-Expanded Response, and AIM 9X. Additionally, this Engineering Change 

Proposal replaces the APG–65 radar with the APG–73, adds a global positioning 

system to the navigation suite, replaces radios with the ARC–210—a digital communication system, and installs new mission computers and many other components. 

As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated in recent testimony, there is 

‘‘increased reliance on our Reserve components to defend the Nation’s coastlines, 

skies and heartland, as well as protect our interest worldwide.’’ For the relatively 

low investment cost of $5.2 million per aircraft, the combatant commanders, first, 

will have access to an additional 76 capable and interoperable war-fighting assets. 

Second, with many F/A–18C aircraft nearing service life limits, upgrading these aircraft helps to mitigate the Navy’s decreasing inventory of tactical aviation assets. 

Third, it is supportive of a goal outlined by the Secretary of Defense in recent testimony—to continue transforming for the threats we will face in 2010 and beyond. 

Congress has funded 52 aircraft Engineering Change Proposal 583 upgrades 

through fiscal year 2003 with 20 more aircraft requiring follow on funding. The fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget funds $27.0 million, which will provide 6 aircraft 

with the 583 upgrades. 

CH–53E Helicopter Night Vision System 

Our second modernization priority also remains unchanged from fiscal year 2003: 

upgrading our fleet of 21 CH–53E helicopters with Helicopter Night Vision Systems. 

This Marine Corps Total Force program encompasses 152 aircraft, including 131 Active Component aircraft. The primary component of the Helicopter Night Vision Systems is the AN/AAQ–29 Forward Looking Infrared. Helicopter Night Vision Systems 

‘‘expands the envelope’’ by providing improved night and all-weather capability. The 

importance of having a robust and capable heavy lift capability was displayed in Afghanistan where the Corps’ CH–53Es transported Marines and supplies hundreds 

of miles inland to austere operating sites. To operate effectively and within safe 

margins mandates that our CH–53Es be equipped with Helicopter Night Vision Systems. Congress has funded 84 Helicopter Night Vision Systems through fiscal year 

2003 with 68 remaining unfunded (59 Active Component/9 Reserve Component). 

The fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget funds $5.6 million, which will provide another 5 Helicopter Night Vision Systems. 

Initial Issue Equipment 

On the ground side, our most important priority concerns the need for adequate 

initial issue equipment for our individual Reserve Marines. Individual issue equipment includes body armor, cold weather items, tents, and improved load bearing 

equipment. Supplemental funding provided through the Defense Emergency Response Fund in fiscal year 2002 allowed us to replace/replenish unserviceable gear 

which was paramount to the success of the recent mobilization of the Reserve forces. 

Transformation 

The value of the Marine Corps Reserve has always been measured in our ability 

to effectively augment and reinforce the Active Component. Over the next several 

years, the overall structure of the Marine Corps Reserve will remain largely the 

same; however, we are working to create new capabilities to adapt and orient the 

reserve force to the changing strategic landscape. The capabilities were identified 

as part of an internal comprehensive review begun in 2001 and do not involve any 

changes to the number of reserves or the geographic laydown of the force. 
447

—Foremost among these capabilities will be the creation of two Security Battalions and an Intelligence Support Battalion. The Security Battalions will provide 

a dual-use capability consisting of eight Anti-Terrorism Force Protection platoons and an augmentation unit for the Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response Force. 

—Recognizing the increased requirements at Marine Corps and Joint Commands 

for rapid, flexible staff augmentation, the Marine Corps Reserve is enhancing 

and modifying the Individual Mobilization Augmentee program to increase the 

quantity and distribution of augmentee billets to better support the warfighting 

commander’s needs. 

—Additional Reserve capability improvements involve information technology, environmental protection, and foreign language skills. 

CONCLUSION

In early February this year while visiting a group of Marines in Qatar, the Commandant of the Marine Corps made the following comment: ‘‘I understand from the 

numbers that two-thirds of you here are reservists—I know you simply as Marines—and looking at performance I can’t tell the difference.’’ Testaments like this 

tell the real story of our success. Our greatest asset is our outstanding young men 

and women in uniform. Your consistent and steadfast support of our Marines and 

their families has directly contributed to our success. The Marine Corps appreciates 

your continued support and collaboration in making the Marine Corps and its Reserve the Department of Defense model for Total Force integration and expeditionary capability.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. General Sherrard. 

General SHERRARD. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I, too, would like to thank you for the opportunity to come 

before you representing the men and women of the Air Force Reserve Command, nearly 76,000 strong, of which we have in excess 

of 15,000 mobilized today. 

As has been expressed by all the members of your committee, as 

well as my colleagues, the men and women of our command, along 

with all our cohorts, have just been fabulous in what they’ve done 

in response to the needs of the Nation, and we could not be more 

proud. We have a responsibility, each one of us, to make certain 

that we in fact look after their needs and make certain that they 

in fact are met, and I want to thank the committee for the things 

that you have done for us in the past, and for those that you’ll do 

for us in the future in terms of pay and education benefits, in 

terms of modernization capabilities for our equipment, and as General James mentioned the LITENING II pods. That’s one of the 

greatest things we’ve ever done for your Air Force, in terms of giving that capability to our F–16s, and we’re now taking it into the 

A–10 and the B–52, and it gives it remarkable capability, and if 

it were not for your support that would not have been possible. 

MOBILIZATION

I would tell you that our priorities in the command remain our 

people, readiness and modernization. We want to make certain that 

our people are always our number one objective. In doing so, as we 

go through the mobilization period we were faced with the same 

things that my cohorts have already mentioned, in some cases very 

short notice. We did not have the normal 30-day notice that we 

would like to have had. The members responded. In fact, I will tell 

you in reality they responded in the volunteer state and deployed 

before we had mobilization authority. They deployed as volunteers, 

and then we mobilized them in place in some cases. 
448

READINESS

In terms of the readiness side, we want to continue to pursue our 

accessing as many prior active service members as possible. That 

gets to be a major challenge for us, particularly as was mentioned 

by the earlier panel. When there is a stop loss of the active force, 

that does put a restriction on our recruiters, but I am very proud 

to tell you that our recruiters are out there, they met goal by getting as many of the nonpriors to fill in those holes where the prior 

service members were, in fact, not available, but the prior service 

members are certainly our key to success. They give us that experience level that is so critical for us to be able to do the things that 

we ask our members to do in light of the very limited time that 

they would have to serve with us when they’re not in a mobilized 

state. 

MODERNIZATION

In terms of modernization, as I mentioned, we need to continue 

to make certain that our weapons systems are relevant. The combatant commanders insist upon that. If not, they don’t invite you 

to the fight. We’ve got to make sure that they’re interoperable not 

only with our active force and the Air National Guard, but also 

with our other component friends here, because we’re all using the 

same battle space, and we’ve got to make certain that we can communicate and know who is the friend and who is the foe. 

DEMOBILIZATION

The things that I would tell you are most critical to us, as I mentioned earlier on the demobilization side, we have demobbed just 

under 3,000 people to date. We are bringing the people back as fast 

as the combatant commander releases them, back to the gaining 

major commands, who in turn will release them to us, but we want 

to make certain we do it in a very rational manner, that we provide 

the member the opportunity to exercise all the rights of reconstitution, of leave, and most importantly of the medical assessment, so 

we can determine if there have been some issues that would need 

to be addressed in the future for that member. We take that time 

and ensure that we don’t do something that would place our members into harm’s way when we could have prevented that if we had 

just taken some time and been a bit more orderly in the way we 

go about it. 

I think the Air Force has got a very reasonable and rational plan 

in bringing our members back and making certain that we do it 

properly. I will tell you, that as we in the blue suit community 

know very well, we are in fact all tied together, the active force, 

the Air Force Reserve, and the Air National Guard, seamlessly, 

and I would tell you our unit equipped units as well as our very 

cost-effective associate units give us a capability that allows us to 

meet the Air Force needs worldwide. 

I’d like to just close with the statement that I had the opportunity to discuss with one of my outstanding troops. I was having 

a conversation with one of our special operators when he was in 

theater, and he put it very succinctly, but also it touched what I 

think is the very reason that all of you are talking about today, 
449

why are our men and women willing to go sacrifice in some cases 

maybe their business, they certainly sacrifice time with their families and with their employers, and he put it very straightforward. 

He said, you know, if it’s not me, then who, and if it’s not now, 

then when, and I think that statement, or those two statements 

are, in fact, the things that each member of the Guard and Reserve 

components ask themselves, because it is their dedicated efforts 

that allow it to happen, and we could not be more proud of the response that they have stepped forward when asked. I thank the 

committee again for their service and support of us, and I also will 

tell you that we’re very, very proud to be serving with our Air 

Force, and I look forward to questions that you may have. Thank 

you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES E. SHERRARD III 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and distinguished members of the Committee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and I certainly want to thank 

you for your continued support, which has helped your Air Force Reserve address 

vital recruiting, retention, modernization, and infrastructural needs. Your passage 

of last year’s pay and quality of life initiatives sent a clear message to our citizen 

airmen that their efforts are not only appreciated and supported by their families, 

employers, and the American people, but also by those of you in the highest positions of governing. 

HIGHLIGHTS OF 2002

We culminate 2002 and begin 2003 focused on transforming our air and space capabilities as well as streamlining the way we think about and employ our forces. 

We continue to develop our airmen into leaders, bring technology to them at their 

units and in the battlespace, and integrate operations to maximize our combat capabilities. These three basic core competencies are critical to the Air Force Reserve as 

we become more and more relevant in the future total force. 

The Air Force, with the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), has enjoyed over 

30 years of unparalleled Total Force integration success. We were the first to establish associate units which blend Active and Reserve forces into the correct mix. Our 

members perform in almost every mission area and seek involvement in all future 

mission areas, as those areas become relevant. Key to our successes, to date, is the 

fact that AFRC is a very dynamic organization in a dynamic environment, still putting our airmen first, and using new technology to seamlessly integrate all our 

forces, whether associate or unit equipped, in both peace and war. 

DEVELOPING OUR AIRMEN

I am pleased to tell you that the Air Force Reserve continues to be a force of 

choice for the Air Force and the warfighting commanders, as we respond swiftly to 

each phase of the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT). We focus our attention on our 

people to assure they are provided the full spectrum of training opportunities, enhancing their war-fighting skills, the capabilities of the Air Force Reserve, and thus, 

the capabilities of the Air Force. 

As we strive to retain our best and brightest, we must continue to reward them 

through compensation and benefits. We continue to challenge our family support 

personnel, commanders, and first sergeants to find improved ways to look after the 

families who remain while our members deploy. We reach out to their employers 

with our thanks for their sacrifice and support. We encourage open dialogue among 

the troops, and from the troops, through their chain of command, to me, to exchange 

ideas and receive feedback. Finally, it is critical to partner with you to ensure we 

remain the strongest air and space force in the world. 

The Air Force is a team—we train together, work together, and fight together. 

Wherever you find the United States Air Force, at home or abroad, you will find 

the active and Reserve members working side-by-side, trained to one tier of readiness, READY NOW! and that’s the way it should be. 
450

RECRUITING

In fiscal year 2002, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) exceeded its recruiting 

goal for the second year in a row. This remarkable feat was achieved through the 

outstanding efforts of our recruiters, who accessed 107.9 percent of the recruiting 

goal, and through the superb assistance of our Reserve members who helped tell our 

story of public service to the American people. Additionally, AFRC was granted permission by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 

in coordination with the Under Secretary for Defense (Personnel and Readiness), to 

surpass its fiscal year 2002 end-strength due to the ongoing support of current operations. AFRC end strength reached 102.59 percent of congressionally authorized requirements. 

Several initiatives contributed to Air Force Reserve recruiters once again leading 

the Department of Defense in annual accessions per recruiter. For example, in fiscal 

year 2001, AFRC permanently funded 50 recruiter authorizations through accelerated authorizations and appropriations by the Congress, we extended the much appreciated Congressional action through the Programmed Objective Memorandum 

process. Further, they instituted a new 1–800 call center, redesigned the recruiting 

web site, launched an advertising campaign targeting those accessed from other 

services, and re-energized the ‘‘Get One’’ program, whereby Air Force Reserve members receive incentive awards for referrals and accessions given to recruiters. 

Moreover, AFRC received permanent funding for an ‘‘off-base’’ real estate program 

to set up offices in malls and other high visibility areas. This initiative was desperately needed to provide recruiters greater exposure in local communities and access to non-prior service (NPS) applicants—a significant recruiting requirement 

since the active duty drawdown. 

While fiscal year 2002 was an outstanding year for Recruiting, fiscal year 2003 

is shaping up to be a very challenging year. A personnel management program, 

‘‘Stop-Loss,’’ was implemented for Air Force members. Historically, Reserve Recruiting accesses close to 25 percent of eligible separating active duty Air Force members 

(i.e. no break in service), accounting for a significant portion of annual accessions. 

Although Stop-Loss has since been terminated, the continued high OPS/PERS 

tempo may negatively impact our success in attracting separating airmen. As a result, Recruiters will have a difficult task accessing through other sources, including 

NPS, Air Force separatees with a break in service, and accessions from other service’s former members. 

Additionally, one of the biggest challenges for recruiters this year is a shortage 

of Basic Military Training (BMT) and technical training school (TTS) quotas. BMT 

and TTS allocations have not kept pace with increasing NPS recruiting requirements. Specifically, Recruiting Services enlisted almost 1,500 applicants in fiscal 

year 2002 without BMT and TTS dates. We are working closely with Air Force Specialty Code Functional Managers (FAMs) and the personnel community to increase 

the future number of BMT and TTS quotas available. In the interim, when we cannot match Basic Training and Technical Training Schools back-to-back, new airmen 

can complete basic training, report back to their unit for orientation and local training, then attend their technical school at a later date convenient to both the Air 

Force Reserve and the applicant. 

Finally, while overall end-strength of the Air Force Reserve exceeds 100 percent, 

some career-fields are undermanned. To avoid possible readiness concerns, recruiters will be challenged to guide applicants to critical job specialties. To assist in this 

effort, we continually review enlistment bonus listings to achieve parity with active 

duty listings for our airmen in these critical career-fields. It is an on-going management process involving all levels from career advisors to those of you on this committee to look into the future, anticipate the high demand specialties, and increase 

bonuses to balance supply and demand. 

RETENTION

Retention is a major concern within the Air Force Reserve. With the lifting of 

Stop Loss and extended partial mobilizations, the full impact on Reserve retention 

remains to be seen. Nevertheless, our over-all enlisted retention rate of 86 percent 

for fiscal year 2002 exceeded the five year average. For officers, retention remains 

steady at approximately 92 percent. 

We continue to look at viable avenues to enhance retention of our reservists. We 

are exploring the feasibility of expanding the bonus program to our Active Guard 

and Reserve (AGR) and Air Reserve Technician (ART) members; however, no decision has yet been made to implement. In addition, the Aviation Continuation Pay 

(ACP) continues to be offered to retain our rated AGR officers. The Reserve has 

made many strides in increasing education benefits for our members, offering 100 
451

percent tuition assistance for those individuals pursuing an undergraduate degree 

and continuing to pay 75 percent for graduate degrees. We also employ the services 

of the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES) for College Level Examination Program (CLEP) testing for all reservists and their spouses. 

These are our most notable, but we continue to seek innovative ways to enhance 

retention whenever and wherever possible. 

QUALITY OF LIFE INITIATIVES

In an effort to better provide long term care insurance coverage for its members 

and their families, the Air Force Reserve participated in the Federal Long Term 

Care Insurance Program (a commercial insurance venture sponsored by the Office 

of Personnel Management). This program affords members of the Selected Reserve 

insurance coverage for a variety of home and assisted living care requirements. Legislative changes are being pursued to open program eligibility to those members 

who are ‘‘gray area.’’ The Air Force Reserve expanded its Special Duty Assignment 

Pay (SDAP) program to include an additional 17 traditional, 7 Active Guard and Reserve (AGR), and 10 Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Air Force Specialty 

Codes, and continues to advance staff efforts to mirror the active duty SDAP program. Additionally, an initiative to pay Congressionally authorized SDAP to members performing inactive duty for training was approved on the thirteenth of February, this year. 

THE BIG PICTURE

We have learned much from the events of September 11, 2001, as it illustrated 

many things very clearly, not the least of them being the need for a new steady 

state of operations demanding more from our people and our resources. Within 

hours, and in some cases within minutes of the terrorist attacks, AFRC units 

throughout the country were involved in transporting people and resources to aid 

in the massive humanitarian relief effort. Air Force Reserve aeromedical evacuation 

(AE) aircrews were among the first to respond and provided almost half of the immediate AE response provided. However, the larger need was mortuary affairs support, of which the Air Force Reserve provides 75 percent of Air Force capability. 

Again, one hundred eighty-six trained Reservists immediately stepped forward, in 

volunteer status, for this demanding mission. Reserve airlift crews were among the 

first to bring in critical supplies, equipment and personnel, including emergency response teams from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), fire 

trucks, search dogs, and earth moving equipment. F–16 fighters and KC–135/KC–

10 air refueling tankers immediately began pulling airborne and ground alert to 

provide combat air patrol support over major U.S. cities. 

In direct support of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), Air Force reservists have flown a multitude of combat missions into Afghanistan. Most notably, 

the 917th Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana (B–52s), the 419th Fighter Wing at 

Hill AFB, Utah (F–16s), the 442d Fighter Wing at Whiteman AFB, Missouri (A–10s) 

and the 926th Fighter Wing at NAS Joint Reserve Base, New Orleans (A–10s). Reserve aircrews have flown C–17 airdrop missions into Afghanistan delivering humanitarian aid, provided refueling tanker crews and support personnel from the 

434th Air Refueling Wing at Grissom ARB, IN, and 349th Air Mobility Wing at 

Travis AFB, California (KC–10). Additionally, Air Force Reserve F–16 units have 

been involved in support of Noble Eagle by flying combat air patrols over American 

cities (301st Fighter Wing, JRB NAS Fort Worth, Texas, 482d Fighter Wing, Homestead ARB, Florida, and 419th Fighter Wing, Hill AFB, Utah). Our AWACS associate aircrew from Tinker AFB, OK, flew 13 percent of the OPERATION NOBLE 

EAGLE sorties with only 4 percent of the Total Force crews. Air Force Reserve C–

130s with their aircrew and support personnel, under the direction of NORAD, in 

support of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE, provided alert for rapid CONUS deployments of Army and Marine Quick response Forces and Ready Response Forces. Reserve units were also refueling those combat air patrol missions with refueling assets from various Reserve wings. Also in direct support of OPERATIONS ENDURING FREEDOM/NOBLE EAGLE, Air Force space operations’ reservists have conducted Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), Defense Support Program 

(DSP), and Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) operations, providing critical weather, 

warning, and navigation information to the warfighter. Additionally, Air Force reservists have supported Aerospace Operations Center efforts providing 

COMAFSPACE with situational awareness and force capabilities to conduct combat 

operations at all levels of conflict. 

Also, to date in support of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF), we have seen 

our reservists make huge contributions to each discipline key to its ongoing success. 
452

In strategic airlift, we contributed 45 percent of the C–17 support, 50 percent of the 

C–5 support, and 90 percent of the C–141C aircraft to not only move the people and 

supplies into theater, but to repatriate the Prisoners of War (POW) after their 

amazing recoveries. Intra-theater operations have also been critical to the success 

of the Operation, thus far. We have supplied 25 percent of the KC–10 and KC–135 

support for theater refueling and 45 percent of aeromedical evacuation of the injured. Many thanks to you for your help in procuring cutting edge medical equipment such as Modular medical capability that allowed us to safely transport the injured. Our F–16s, B–52s, and A–10s, outfitted with the LITENING II pods and integrated with Army assets on the ground, through the Situation Awareness Data Link 

(SADL), proved invaluable for Strategic Attack, Close Air Support, and hunting 

down SCUD missiles. Three more areas that become more critical with each conflict 

are Special Operations, Combat Rescue, and Space Operations. Again, the Air Force 

Reserve plays a significant role in their success and support to the mission. We provided 33 percent of the HC–130 and HH–60 combat rescue, 62 percent of the Special 

Operations crews, and more than 900 space operators, providing Battlefield Situational Awareness key to the Commander’s decision loop at all levels. 

What makes these units and individuals unique is the fact that our reservists 

have demonstrated time and time again, the success of an all volunteer force. In 

fact, many of those who were mobilized, had volunteered to perform duty, and day 

to day, a significant percentage of Air Force missions are performed through or augmented by AFRC. We are no longer a force held in reserve solely for possible war 

or contingency actions—we are at the tip of the spear. The attacks on our freedom—

on our very way of life—cemented the Total Force policy already in place and AFRC 

continues to work shoulder-to-shoulder with the Active Duty (AD) and Air National 

Guard (ANG) components in the long battle to defeat terrorism. 

Effective modernization of Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) assets is our key 

to remaining a relevant and combat ready force. It is apparent to all, that the Reserve Component is crucial to the defense of our great nation and our modernization 

strategy is sound, but is dependent upon lead command funding. AFRC has had limited success in getting the lead commands to fund our modernization requirements 

(CCIU and C–17 sim are two examples), but unfortunately lead command funding 

of AFRC modernization priorities remains below the level needed to maximize our 

capabilities. Although the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation 

(NGREA) funding helps offset some of these modernization shortfalls, the level of 

funding precludes us from addressing our larger modernization priorities. Success 

in meeting our modernization goals depends on robust interaction with the lead 

commands and in keeping Congressional budgeting authorities informed of AFRC 

initiatives. 

INTEGRATING OPERATIONS

AFRC made major Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) contributions in fiscal year 

2002. We met virtually 100 percent of both aviation and combat support commitments, by deploying over 20,700 volunteers overseas and another 12,600 supporting 

homeland defense, in volunteer status. The challenge for 2003 will be to meet ongoing AEF commitments with volunteers from a Reserve force which has had much 

of its operations and combat support mobilized for homeland defense and the war 

on terrorism. As of today, over 12,000 Air Force Reservists are mobilized, and thousands more continue to provide daily support as volunteers. Over 1,500 of those mobilized are Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), providing critical support to 

the Unified Commands, active component MAJCOMs, and various defense agencies 

supporting Homeland Security and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. Required 

support functions span the entire breadth of Reserve capabilities including security 

forces, civil engineering, rescue, special operations, strategic and tactical airlift, air 

refueling, fighters, bombers, AWACs, command and control, communications, satellite operations, logistics, intelligence, aerial port, services, mission support, and 

medical. 

AEF CY02—IN REVIEW

2002 ended as it began, in transition. It began with surging requirements brought 

on by the GWOT. To manage the surge, we remained true to the AEF concept to 

hold the negative impact of operations and personnel tempos to a minimum. AFRC 

was meeting the new taskings brought on by the war and the associated mobilizations while at the same time meeting AEF commitments we made prior to September 11. From the AFRC AEF Cell perspective it was a magnificent effort by all 

the wings in the command to meet the challenges. The full impact is appreciated 

when it is understood we did not ask to be relieved of any AEF tasking, met all 
453

new ONE/OEF taskings, and were still able to find volunteers to help fill other identified shortfalls. As the year ended, we transitioned to a lower activity level through 

demobilizations, but continued to plan for a potential new demanding operation. The 

constant is that we still have our AEF commitments, we are still meeting them, and 

we do not have any shortfalls. For next year we expect the number of AEF requirements to reflect the increase brought on by the war on terrorism. The culture 

change to an expeditionary air force is being realized through all levels of the command and is demonstrated in action as well as words by the response to the AEF, 

ONE, and OEF taskings of the past year. 

ARC participation is central to the AEF construct. The ARC normally contributes 

10 percent of the Expeditionary Combat Support and 25 percent of the aviation for 

steady-state rotations. Air National Guard (ANG) and AFRC forces make up nearly 

half of the forces assigned to each AEF, with the ARC making up the majority of 

forces in some mission areas. 

TECHNOLOGY TO THE WARFIGHTER

F–16 Fighting Falcon 

Air Combat Command and AFRC are upgrading the F–16 Block 25/30/32 in all 

core combat areas by installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation system, Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) and NVIS compatible aircraft lighting, 

Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL), Target Pod integration, GPS steered 

‘‘smart weapons’’, an integrated Electronics Suite, Pylon Integrated Dispense System (PIDS),and the Digital Terrain System (DTS). 

The acquisition of the LITENING II targeting pod marked the greatest jump in 

combat capability for AFRC F–16s in years. At the conclusion of the Persian Gulf 

War, it became apparent that the ability to employ precision-guided munitions, specifically laser-guided bombs, would be a requirement for involvement in future conflicts. LITENING II affords the capability to employ precisely targeted Laser Guided 

Bombs (LGBs) effectively in both day and night operations, any time at any place. 

LITENING II was designed to be spirally developed to allow technology advances 

to be incorporated as that technology became available, and provides even greater 

combat capability. This capability allows AFRC F–16s to fulfill any mission tasking 

requiring a self-designating, targeting-pod platform, providing needed relief for 

heavily tasked active duty units. 

These improvements have put AFRC F–16s at the leading edge of combat capability. The combination of these upgrades are unavailable in any other combat aircraft and make the Block 25/30/32 F–16 the most versatile combat asset available 

to a theater commander. Tremendous work has been done keeping the Block 25/30/

32 F–16 employable in today’s complex and demanding combat environment. This 

success has been the result of far-sighted planning that has capitalized on emerging 

commercial and military technology to provide specific capabilities that were projected to be critical. That planning and vision must continue if the F–16 is to remain 

usable as the largest single community of aircraft in America’s fighter force. Older 

model Block 25/30/32 F–16 aircraft require structural improvements to guarantee 

that they will last as long as they are needed. They also require data processor and 

wiring system upgrades in order to support employment of more sophisticated precision attack weapons. They must have improved pilot displays to integrate and 

present the large volumes of data now provided to the cockpit. Additional capabilities to include LITENING II pod upgrades, are needed to nearly eliminate fratricide 

and allow weapons employment at increased range, day or night and in all weather 

conditions. They must also be equipped with significantly improved threat detection, 

threat identification, and threat engagement systems in order to meet the challenges of combat survival and employment for the next 20 years. 

A/OA–10 Thunderbolt 

There are five major programs over the next five years to ensure the A/OA–10 

remains a viable part of the total Air Force. The first is increasing its precision engagement capabilities. The A–10 was designed for the Cold War and is the most effective Close Air Support (CAS) anti-armor platform in the USAF, as demonstrated 

during the Persian Gulf War. Unfortunately, its systems have not kept pace with 

modern tactics as was proven during Operation Allied Force. The AGM–65 (Maverick) is the only precision-guided weapon carried on the A–10. Newer weapons are 

being added into the Air Force inventory regularly, but the current avionics and 

computer structure limits the deployment of these weapons on the A–10. The Precision Engagement and Suite 3 programs will help correct this limitation. Next, critical systems on the engines are causing lost sorties and increased maintenance activity. Several design changes to the Accessory Gearbox will extend its useful life 
454

and reduce the existing maintenance expense associated with the high removal rate. 

The other two programs increase the navigation accuracy and the overall capability 

of the fire control computer, both increasing the weapons system’s overall effectiveness. Recent interim improvements included Lightweight Airborne Recovery System 

(LARS) and LITENING II targeting pod integration. 

With the advent of targeting pod integration, pods must be made available to the 

A–10 aircraft. Thirty LITENING II AT pods are required to bring advanced weapon 

employment to this aircraft. AFRC looks forward to supporting the Precision Engagement program to further integrate targeting pods. Looking to the future, there 

is a requirement for a training package of 30 PRC–112B/C survival radios for 10th 

Air Force fighter, rescue, and special operations units. While more capable, these 

radios are also more demanding to operate and additional units are needed to ensure the aircrews are fully proficient in their operation. One of the A–10 challenges 

is resources for upgrade in the area of high threat survivability. Previous efforts focused on an accurate missile warning system and effective, modern flares; however 

a new preemptive covert flare system may satisfy the requirement. The A–10 can 

leverage the work done on the F–16 Radar Warning Receiver and C–130 towed 

decoy development programs to achieve a cost-effective capability. The A/OA–10 has 

a thrust deficiency in its operational environment. As taskings evolved, commanders 

have had to reduce fuel loads, limit take-off times to early morning hours and refuse 

taskings that increase gross weights to unsupportable limits. 

B–52 Stratofortress 

In the next five years, several major programs will be introduced to increase the 

capabilities of the B–52 aircraft. Included here are programs such as a Crash Survivable Flight Data Recorder and a Standard Flight Data Recorder, upgrades to the 

current Electro-Optical Viewing System, Chaff and Flare Improvements, and improvements to cockpit lighting and crew escape systems to allow use of Night Vision 

Goggles. 

Enhancements to the AFRC B–52 fleet currently under consideration are: 

—Visual clearance of the target area in support of other conventional munitions 

employment; 

—Self-designation of targets, eliminating the current need for support aircraft to 

accomplish this role; 

—Target coordinate updates to JDAM and WCMD, improving accuracy; and 

—Bomb Damage Assessment of targets. 

In order to continue the viability of the B–52 well into the next decade, several 

improvements and modifications are necessary. Although the aircraft has been extensively modified since its entry into the fleet, the advent of precision guided munitions and the increased use of the B–52 in conventional and Operations Other Than 

War (OOTW) operation requires additional avionics modernization and changes to 

the weapons capabilities such as the Avionics Midlife Improvement, Conventional 

Enhancement Modification (CEM), and the Integrated Conventional Stores Management System (ICSMS). Changes in the threat environment are also driving modifications to the defensive suite including Situational Awareness Defense Improvement (SADI) and the Electronic Counter Measures Improvement (ECMI), and integration of the LITENING II targeting pod. 5 LITENING II AT pods are required 

to support this important new capability. 

The B–52 was originally designed to strike targets across the globe from launch 

in the United States. This capability is being repeatedly demonstrated, but the need 

for real time targeting information and immediate reaction to strike location 

changes is needed. Multiple modifications are addressing these needs. These integrated advanced communications systems will enhance the B–52 capability to 

launch and modify target locations while airborne. Other communications improvements are the Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) Phase 1, an improved ARC–

210, the KY–100 Secure Voice, and a GPS–TACAN Replacement System (TRS). 

As can be expected with an airframe of the age of the B–52, much must be done 

to enhance its reliability and replace older, less reliable or failing hardware. These 

include a Fuel Enrichment Valve Modification, Engine Oil System Package, and an 

Engine Accessories Upgrade, all to increase the longevity of the airframe. 

MC–130H Talon 

In 2006, AFRC and Air Force Special Operations Command will face a significant 

decision point on whether or not to retire the Talon I. This largely depends on the 

determination of the upcoming SOF Tanker Requirement Study. Additionally, the 

MC–130H Talon II aircraft will be modified to air refuel helicopters. The Air Force 

CV–22 is being developed to replace the entire MH–53J Pave Low fleet, and the 

MC–130E Combat Talon I. The CV–22 program has been plagued with problems 
455

and delays and has an uncertain future. Ultimately, supply/demand will impact 

willingness and ability to pay for costly upgrades along with unforeseeable expenses 

required to sustain an aging weapons system. 

HC–130P/N Hercules 

Over the next five years, there will be primarily sustainability modifications to 

the weapons systems to allow it to maintain compatibility with the remainder of the 

C–130 fleet. In order to maintain currency with the active duty fleet, AFRC will accelerate the installation of the APN–241 as a replacement for the APN–59. Additionally, AFRC will receive two aircraft modified from the ‘‘E’’ configuration to the 

Search and Rescue configuration. All AFRC assets will be upgraded to provide Night 

Vision Imaging System (NVIS) mission capability for C–130 combat rescue aircraft. 

HH–60G Pave Hawk 

Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Mission Area modernization strategy currently focuses on resolving critical weapon system capability shortfalls and deficiencies that pertain to the Combat Air Force’s Combat Identification, Data Links, 

Night/All-Weather Capability, Threat Countermeasures, Sustainability, Expeditionary Operations, and Pararescue modernization focus. Since the CAF’s CSAR 

forces have several critical capability shortfalls that impact their ability to effectively accomplish their primary mission tasks today, most CSAR modernization programs/initiatives are concentrated in the near-term (fiscal year 2000–06). These are 

programs that: 

—Improve capability to pinpoint location and authenticate identity of downed aircrew members/isolated personnel 

—Provide line-of-sight and over-the-horizon high speed LPI/D data link capabilities for improving battle space/situational awareness 

—Improve Command and Control capability to rapidly respond to ‘‘isolating’’ incidents and efficiently/effectively task limited assets 

—Improve capability to conduct rescue/recovery operations at night, in other low 

illumination conditions, and in all but the most severe weather conditions 

—Provide warning and countermeasure capabilities against RF/IR/EO/DE threats 

—Enhance availability, reliability, maintainability, and sustainability of aircraft 

weapon systems. 

WC–130J Hercules 

The current WC–130H fleet is being replaced with new WC–130J models. This replacement allows for longer range and ensures weather reconnaissance capability 

well into the next decade. Once conversion is complete, the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron will consist of 10 WC–130J’s. Presently, there are seven WC–130J 

models at Keesler AFB, MS undergoing Qualification Test and Evaluation (QT&E). 

The remaining three aircraft have been transferred to AFRC and are currently at 

Lockheed Marietta scheduled for delivery to Keesler AFB. Deliveries are based on 

the resolution of deficiencies identified in test and will impact the start of operational testing and the achievement of interim operational capability (IOC). Major 

deficiencies include: propellers (durability/supportability), radar modification to correct (range to range inconsistencies), tilt and start up blanking display errors and, 

SATCOM transmission deficiencies. AFRC continues to work with the manufacturer 

to resolve the QT&E documented deficiencies. 

C–5 Galaxy 

Over the next five years, there will be sustainability modifications to the weapon 

system to allow it to continue as the backbone of the airlift community. The fleet 

will receive the avionics modernization which replaces cockpit displays while upgrading critical flight controls, navigational and communications equipment. This 

will allow the C–5 to operate in Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) airspace. 

Additionally, the C–5B models and possibly the C–5As, will undergo a Reliability 

Enhancement and Re-engining program which will not only replace the powerplant, 

but also numerous unreliable systems and components. The 445th Airlift Wing at 

Wright Patterson AFB, OH will transition from C–141 Starlifters to C–5As in fiscal 

year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. Finally, the 439th Airlift Wing at Westover ARB, 

MA will modernize its C–5 fleet in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 when it 

transitions from C–5As to C–5Bs. 

C–17 Globemaster 

Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Air Force Reserve Command will enter a new 

era as the 452nd Air Mobility Wing at March Air Reserve Base, CA transitions from 

C–141s to C–17 Globemasters. Although reservists have been associating with active C–17 units since their inception in the active Air Force, March ARB will be the 
456

Command’s first C–17 Unit Equipped Unit and will aid in maintaining diversity in 

the Reserve Command’s strategic mobility fleet. 

C–141 Starlifter 

For the past 30 years, the C–141 has been the backbone of mobility for the United 

States military in peacetime and in conflict. In the very near future, the C–141 will 

be retired from the active-duty Air Force. However, AFRC continues the proud heritage of this mobility workhorse and will continue to fly the C–141 through fiscal 

year 2006. It is crucial that AFRC remains focused on flying this mission safely and 

proficiently until units convert to follow-on missions. 

Replacement missions must be more than the insertion of another airframe. They 

must be a viable mission that includes modernized equipment. 

C–130 Hercules 

AFRC has 127 C–130s including the E, H, J and N/P models. The Mobility Air 

Forces (MAF) currently operates the world’s best theater airlift aircraft, the C–130, 

and it will continue in service through 2020. In order to continue to meet the Air 

Force’s combat delivery requirements through the next 17 years, aircraft not being 

replaced by the C–130J will become part of the C–130X Program. Phase 1, Avionics 

Modernization Program (AMP) program includes a comprehensive cockpit modernization by replacing aging, unreliable equipment and adding additional equipment necessary to meet Nav/Safety and GATM requirements. Together, C–130J and 

C–130X modernization initiatives reduce the number of aircraft variants from twenty to two core variants, which will significantly reduce the support footprint and increase the capability of the C–130 fleet. The modernization of our C–130 forces 

strengthens our ability to ensure the success of our warfighting commanders and 

lays the foundation for tomorrow’s readiness. 

KC–135E/R Stratotanker 

One of AFRC’s most challenging modernization issues concerns our unit-equipped 

KC–135s. Five of the seven air refueling squadrons are equipped with the KC–135R, 

while the remaining two squadrons are equipped with KC–135E’s. The KC–135E, 

commonly referred to as the E-model, has engines that were recovered from retiring 

airliners. This conversion, which was accomplished in the early-mid 1980s, was intended as an interim solution to provide improvement in capability while awaiting 

conversion to the R-model with its new, high-bypass, turbofan engines and other 

modifications. AFRC’s remaining two E-models units look forward to converting to 

R-models in the very near future. The ability of the Mobility Air Forces (MAF) to 

conduct the air refueling mission has been stressed in recent years. Although total 

force contributions have enabled success in previous air campaigns, shortfalls exist 

to meet the requirements of our National Military Strategy. AMC’s Tanker Requirements Study-2005 (TRS–05) identifies a shortfall in the number of tanker aircraft 

and aircrews needed to meet global refueling requirements in the year 2005. There 

is currently a shortage of KC–135 crews and maintenance personnel. Additionally, 

the number of KC–135 aircraft available to perform the mission has decreased in 

recent years due to an increase in depot-possessed aircraft with a decrease in mission capable (MC) rates. An air refueling Mission Needs Statement has been developed and an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) will be conducted to determine the most 

effective solution set to meet the nation’s future air refueling requirements. 

FUTURE VECTOR

As we think about our future, the nature of warfighting, and the new steady 

state, we anticipate many challenges. While this new mission activity continues, we 

need to keep our focus—assess the impact of Stop Loss on our operations, provide 

adequate funding for continuing activations, and keep an eye on sustaining our recruiting efforts. The challenge will be to retain our experience base and keep our 

prior service levels high. 

With your continued support, and that which you have already given, we will be 

able to meet each new challenge head-on, without trepidation. 

Our Citizen Airmen, alongside the Active Duty and the Air National Guard, continue to step through the fog and friction as we prosecute the GWOT. Our support 

for them is not just in the battlespace, but at home. We will continue to refine the 

ways we support their families, their employers, and the members themselves as 

we keep the lines of communication open to you. We must ensure that we are doing 

as much for them through increased pay, benefits, and finding the right mix between equity and parity with their Active Duty counterparts, as we continue to ask 

more and more of them. We must continue to think outside the box, to protect their 

rights as students who are called away from an important semester, as employees 
457

who must turn that big project over to someone else in the company for a while, 

and just as critically, as sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and parents who will 

miss birthdays, graduations, and a litany of other events many of us take for granted. 

We are making strides at leveling the operations tempo by finding the right skill 

mix between the ARCs and the AD. In a Total Force realignment of scarce Low Density/High Demand (LD/HD) resources, the 939th Rescue Wing’s HC–130s and HH–

60s will transfer to the active component in order to reduce the Total Force 

PERSTEMPO in the LD/HD mission of Combat Search and Rescue. The transfer of 

these assets to the active component increases full-time personnel without increasing already high volunteerism rates or having to mobilize a significant number of 

CSAR reservists. The activation of the 939th Air Refueling Wing, Portland, OR addresses the need for more aerial refueling assets on the West coast enhancing our 

ability to rapidly respond to any crisis. 

Additionally, AFRC has assumed responsibility for supporting the National 

Science Foundation DEEP FREEZE mission. The next three years, the men and 

women of the 452nd AMW at March ARB, CA, will be flying C–141 support missions in support of this Antarctic operation. We have also assumed 16 percent of 

the total force Undergraduate Pilot Training programs at seven bases around the 

United States and we continue to balance, assume, and relinquish missions or parts 

of missions to accommodate the goals of the Air Force and Department of Defense 

as world events unfold and dictate change, and as necessary to lessen the burden 

on our members and the AD. 

All of the distinguished members on the committee, and we in the Air Force and 

Air Force Reserve, have been given an incredible opportunity and an incredible responsibility to shape not only the structure of the world’s premiere air and space 

force, but to shape its environment—its quality people, and the quality of their lives. 

Our mission will continue to be accomplished more accurately, more timely, and 

with an even greater pride, as we focus on our best resource. 

These and other evolving missions are just some of the areas into which we hope 

to continue to expand, keeping reserve personnel relevant, trained, and READY 

NOW when we are called. I’d like to extend my thanks again to the committee for 

allowing me the opportunity to testify before you here today and for all you do for 

the Air Force Reserve.

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you all. The actions of your people 

and your supervision of them more than validated all the work that 

we’ve done to try to upgrade the reserve and to make certain that 

it had the equipment, you all had the equipment to train and to 

deploy that would be needed. 

RETIREMENT POLICY

You sat through the questions that we had for your predecessors. 

If you have any comments about those, we would be glad to have 

them, but I’ve been thinking about the problem of a total force and 

what it means to be deployed as often as we have had people deployed during these past years going back to Bosnia and Kosovo, 

and even back further than that into Panama and various other 

problems, and I wonder if you’ve ever thought about the concept of 

active Guard Reserve having a multiplier for the retirement credit 

for the times they actually serve in combat status. Any of you ever 

reviewed that, some added incentive, really reward for those who 

do answer the call? 

We’ve had people go through prolonged periods of peacetime who 

had reserve credits towards retirement, but I think when these 

people are called up, particularly under the circumstances that 

we’ve had in the past few years, there should be a change in the 

retirement system so that there’s a recognition for those who have 

answered the call, and I think it would be an incentive for those 

who might be called up to respond. Do you have any comments 

about that? Admiral. 
458

Admiral TOTUSHEK. If I may, Mr. Chairman, everywhere I go 

today people ask me about a change in the retirement policy and 

this, of course, was proposed last year to lower the retirement age 

for reservists down to age 55. 

I understand that in the form that it was presented it was a very 

big bill to the country, but it seems to me there has to be some recognition of, if we’re going to use reservists more often, that we in 

fact do recognize the fact that they are no longer weekend warriors 

and are very much a part of the total force, so I think an idea like 

that, or an idea that combines something that allows them to get 

a little bit of their retirement a little bit earlier, if it makes sense 

for them, would make sense for all the reserve components. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, this would make their retirement come 

earlier. If you had 2 years’ service and it gave you 4, or maybe 6 

years’ credit to your retirement, then obviously you’re going to get 

it sooner. 

Admiral TOTUSHEK. Right. 

Senator STEVENS. Because it is a combination of age and total 

service, isn’t it? 

Admiral TOTUSHEK. Yes. It’s your number of points that you 

earn, and those basically are done by the year, and this would—

an idea like that, but there is an idea out there somewhere, if we 

put all these things together, that’s going to work for our people. 

Senator STEVENS. I will ask for a review of that and see if we 

can get some studies made. There ought to be some recognition so 

that those—we’re in a situation where some people are not called 

up, and they will go through and get the same retirement as those 

who were, and I think there ought to be some mark on the wall 

for having answered the call to duty, and for those people who are 

already on duty to have intensive duty as compared to just normal 

peacetime service, but it’s one of those things—is there anything 

you’re doing now to assure that we’re going to meet the recruiting 

goals in the future? Are we going to have a drop-off now? 

We had an increase in volunteerism, I’m sure you know, a spike 

there, as this whole situation built up, but I think now that this 

is over, there’s sort of a lull that comes. What are your plans for 

recruiting in this post-war period? We’re not there yet, but it’s coming soon, I assume. 

General HELMLY. Senator, if I may, for the Army we went back 

and I looked at Desert Shield/Desert Storm as a point in time. We 

experienced—since Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the soldiers who 

served in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, that cohort group has 

attrited since then by about 85 percent. I’ve been unable to break 

that, the number who, if you will, left as opposed to those who completed a term of service, that is, retired after 20 years, and I might 

add one correction. Your proposal regarding retirement under current law, though, would still not allow the reserve member to receive benefits from retirement until age 60. They might get there 

faster, but wouldn’t get any benefits. 

Senator STEVENS. I may not have explained it, but I would reduce——

ATTRITION

General HELMLY. Yes, sir, okay. 
459

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. The age by the equivalent 

amount. 

General HELMLY. I understand. 

Senator STEVENS. So that if you served 5 years and you’re supposed to retire at 65, you would actually be able to stand down at 

55. 

General HELMLY. Yes, sir. But regarding attrition, for myself, I 

dare say for all of us, in an all-volunteer force, that is something 

we cannot take for granted. We’re addressing that. I proposed to 

the Department of the Army that we retain a stop-loss in place. 

That stop-loss is good for the period of mobilization plus 90 days. 

I’ve asked for that solely because we wish to have the soldier deal, 

not with emotions and external pressures, but, rather, facts. It is 

a very volatile situation. 

Where we are today, if we retain the current stop-loss in place, 

based on the number we have mobilized and just the physical factors of how fast you can bring them back home and demobilize 

them in a humane, considerate sort of way, we will exceed our end 

strength at the end of fiscal year 2003 by as much as 9,000. Our 

end strength is 205. We have projections we could come in at 214. 

In turn, our worst case attrition model says that we could come in 

as low as 192 at the end of next fiscal year 2004, so I will tell you 

that it is an extremely volatile situation. 

My biggest concern falls in the area of professional medical staff. 

Two-thirds of the Army’s combat medical care is resident in the 

Army Reserve. Our highest attrition rates are suffered by our professionals in the AMEDD field, self-employed. In fact, we put them 

some years ago on a 90-day rotation model to be considerate of not 

breaking private practices, so I don’t have any ready-made solutions, other than to say we’re putting a full court press on, to include starting tomorrow, myself, personally, going out to hold town 

hall meetings with soldiers that we have mobilized, and we have 

about 25,000 in this category that we have mobilized in less than 

10 days’ notice, gotten trained, and gotten certified for deployment, 

but the war was over quickly, and they’re hung up literally at a 

mobilization station waiting for us to either demobilize them, give 

them a subsequent mission in another part of the world, or send 

them to the desert and bring another unit home, but again, the law 

of physical mass applies in terms of strategic lift transportation, 

what kind of unit is needed in theater, sequencing that, et cetera. 

So I would just close by saying there’s a passage in a new book 

out, and I apologize, I don’t remember the author’s name. The book 

is, The Principles of War for the Information Age. One of the passages in that book deals with the requirement for precision mobilization. That is what I alluded to in my remarks when I said that 

largely the policies, practices, procedures that we employ in the Department with regard to the mobilization and use of reserve members were designed for an age which is no longer with us; that is, 

a mobilization of masses of people over a long period of time with 

subsequent demobilization of virtually everyone. We just have to 

come to grips with that and develop the procedures, policies, and 

practices to be more precise and, in so doing, very considerate of 

people and their employers. 
460

Senator STEVENS. Well, I do appreciate that. Do any of the other 

of you have comments? I do want to make one request, and I’m 

sure Senator Cochran’s got some questions, but I’d like to have 

each of you for the record provide us information about the percentage of your people who actually stay in your service to retirement 

time, as compared to the volume that come through your reserve 

units. 

How many of them really stay with you to retirement, particularly with the age you mentioned, 65? That would be interesting for 

us to look at, because I think there ought to be some greater incentive to keep people through at least the 50, 55 age group, and I’d 

like to see where that break-off is. Where do they start fluffing off 

and saying, this is not worth it? 

General HELMLY. We can get you that data. We’ve got that. 

[The information follows:]

RETIREMENT

The following information is presented to provide a short introduction to the current retirement program for members of the Air Force Reserve as set forth by provisions found in 10 United States Code, Sections 12731, 8911, and 8914. The most 

notable distinction between reserve (non-regular) retirement and active duty (regular retirement) is that reservists do not receive retired pay until attaining age 60 

while active duty (regular retirees) receive an immediate annuity upon retirement. 

The Retired Reserve consists of two categories of members. The first category is 

composed of those members that are actually receiving retired pay. The second category is composed of those members who have met all requirements for retired pay 

EXCEPT for the attainment of age 60. The Reserve components use age 60 as the 

‘‘cut-off’’ for retirement as public law prohibits military service past age 60 (with the 

exception of general officers, chaplains, and those officers in medical specialties). 

Originally, the age 60 retired pay eligibility corresponded to the retirement age for 

federal civil service. The retirement age for full civil service annuity was lowered 

to 55 over 25 years ago. 

Members must complete at least 20 years of satisfactory service to attain eligibility for retired pay (a satisfactory year is a year in which a member earns 50 or 

more ‘‘points’’ toward retirement). Additionally, the last six or eight qualifying years 

of this service must have been served in the Reserve component (as directed by 

changes in public law). The 2003 National Defense Authorization Act made permanent the six-year requirement for qualifying duty in the Reserve component. 

Retired pay for active duty members who first joined any military service on or 

after September 8, 1980 is computed using the average of the highest 36 months 

of base pay and the member’s grade and years of service. Members qualifying to retire under the ‘‘active duty’’ retirement provision (Sections 8911 and 8914), and who 

have a ‘‘date of initial entry to military service’’ on or after August 1, 1986 may elect 

to receive a career status bonus at the 15-year point. However, their retired pay will 

be computed using 40 percent of the ‘‘high-three’’ years of service for 20 years and 

additional 3.5 percent for each additional year up to a maximum of 75 percent. As 

with any retirement plan, the greater the time of satisfactory service, the greater 

the retirement pay at the culmination of the career. This provides an increased incentive for members to stay longer in the Reserve component. 

RESERVE COMPONENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Qualification for payment of retired pay for non-regular service (Reserve component retirement) is outlined in Title 10, United States Code 12731. It requires that 

the person: 

—Is at least 60 years of age; 

—Has performed at least 20 years of service; and 

—Performed the last six years of qualifying service while a member of the Reserve 

components. 

Regardless of the total number of years served beyond 20 years, receipt of retired 

pay is delayed until age 60. 

The only monetary incentive for participation beyond 20 years of service (assuming member has served at least the last six in the RC) is the payment of duty per-
461

formed and the accumulation of additional points to increase the value of the members retirement pay upon receipt at age 60. 

Reduction of receipt of retired for RC members acknowledges the contribution of 

these members when DOD is asking more and more of these citizen airman, soldiers, sailors, marines and coast guardsmen. 

Analysis of Congressional bills introduced in the 108th Congress:
462

H.R. 331 H.R. 742 S. 445

Introduced By ......................................................... Rep Wilson (R-2-SC) ................................................. Rep Saxton (R-3-NJ) ................................................. Sen Landrieu (D-LA) Title ........................................................................ Armed Forces Retirement Equity Act ........................ To amend title 10 United States Code, to reduce 

the age for receipt of military retired pay for non-regular service from 60 to 55.

Reservists Retirement and Retention Act of 2003

Requirement of Bill ............................................... Member qualifies for receipt of retired pay at 20 

years of service, assuming all other requirements of 10 U.S.C. 12731 are met.

Reduces receipt of retired pay to age 55, assuming 

all other requirements of 10 U.S.C. 12731 are met.

Reduces receipt of retired pay by 1-year for every 2 

years the member serves beyond 20, assuming all other requirements of 10 U.S.C. 12731 are met, not to be reduced below age 55 

Pros ........................................................................ (1) Pays retirement immediately, based on same 

length of service commitment as active duty members; (2) Incentive for prior active service members to join the RC.

(1 Reservist waits 5-years less for receipt of retirement pay; (2) Recognizes and rewards the increased use of RC members; (3) Possible incentive for prior active service members to join the 

RC; (4) Reduces the pay gap between actual retirement and receipt of retired pay at age 60.

(1) Encourages service beyond 20-years to increase 

the value of members retirement pay and thus reduce age for receipt of payment; (2) Retention tool of current RC members and recruiting tool of prior active service members—good deal for the RC; (3) Members continued service beyond 20 determines the receipt of retired pay before age 60; (4) Reduces the pay gap between actual retirement and receipt of retired pay at age 60

Cons ....................................................................... (1) No incentive for continued service beyond 20 

years; (2) Cost prohibitive; (3) To make the proposal cost neutral, would have to reduce the value of each retirement point significantly, thus value of monthly retired pay is reduced.

(1) Little incentive for continued service beyond 20 

years—Not a good deal for the RC; (2) Increased cost to pay 5-years early and to include current gray-area Reservists between age 55 and 59; (3) Includes these members and their dependents in the TRICARE Health Program 5-years early.

(1) Increased cost, but as member continues to 

participate, additional dollars are added to the retirement accrual account thus reducing the up front bill to the services required in H.R. 742 

Costs ...................................................................... Unknown; highest cost ............................................. Unknown; middle cost .............................................. Unknown; lowest cost 
463

NAVAL RESERVE RETIREMENT DATA

The following chart shows the percentage of Naval Reservists that became eligible 

for retirement for the past four years (1999–2002).

Year Drilling Reserve 

Strength 

# of Notices of 

Eligibility for Retirement Percent 

1999 ........................................................................................................... 70,872 3,200 4.5

2000 ........................................................................................................... 64,163 3,163 4.9

2001 ........................................................................................................... 69,636 2,754 4.0

2002 ........................................................................................................... 73,142 2,724 3.7 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. Admiral, do you have any comments? 

Admiral TOTUSHEK. Yes, and in our case actually, because as I 

was saying, with some of the mobilizations, that actually increased 

and helped us, I believe, drive down the attrition that we’ve experienced historically in the Naval Reserve. I actually lowered my recruiting goal by 2,000 for my enlisted people this year. The war 

had a little bit more impact on officers and my officer recruiting 

has dipped off a little bit. We’re working hard to try and get that 

up by the end of the year, but in the near term we don’t see a big 

impact on us. 

Now, we’re going to carefully measure and again survey to find 

out exactly what the implications are after the second large mobilization in a row, and I think this additive thing is a thing we’re 

going to have to deal with, now that we’re looking at two big ones 

right back to back. That will have some impact, and we’re just 

going to have to assess what it is. 

Senator STEVENS. General McCarthy. 

General MCCARTHY. Senator, I would like to just make the point 

that this question of retention and so forth is another one of those 

indications that one size doesn’t fit all in terms of the various 

Armed Services. The Marine Corps Reserve, just like the active 

component of the Marine Corps, is very, very largely a first-term 

force, about 70 percent. In each case, both the active component 

and reserve component are first term marines. We are not a longterm or a large career force like some of the others, and so the implications of what constitutes retention are different and vary by 

service. 

Having said that, there clearly is a portion of our force, most of 

the Officer Corps and those enlisted marines who will go on to be 

staff noncommissioned officers that we’re very, very interested in 

retaining, and we’ll have to study over the next year what the implications of that, of a prolonged mobilization will have on that portion of our force. 

Recruiting has continued apace while we’ve been deployed, and 

we’ve continued to meet all of our goals on recruiting, and so I’m 

less concerned about our recruiting and our ability to recruit in the 

future than I am about this issue of retention, but as I say, for the 

Marine Corps, the proportions, or the percentages are significantly 

different than my colleagues, and so the remedies or the tools that 

we need to use may be somewhat different as well, but it is an 

issue that we’re very watchful of. 

Senator STEVENS. Do you have an in-grade step increase? For instance, you know, in the Civil Service, if you’re grade 13 you can 
464

be grade 13 step 1 through 12, I think. Do you have that for sergeants in the Marines? 

General MCCARTHY. Yes, sir, and our pay scale is exactly the 

same as everybody else, so that a corporal with 3 years’ service 

makes less money than a corporal with 4 years’ service, and progressing on, yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I’d be interested in what you might think 

would extend some of those people beyond one term, not now, but 

if you have any incentives in mind—you do have a particularly different force. 

General MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

RETENTION

Senator STEVENS. If you have any concept of what might lead 

people to re-up for another hitch, particularly coming from active 

to reserve for at least one additional hitch, those sort of things 

would augment the total force in a tremendous way, because we all 

know the Marines have a different focus in terms of mobilization, 

and they’re needed now, you know, so it’s a different thing. 

General Sherrard. 

General SHERRARD. Yes, sir. I would tell you that, as I mentioned 

in my earlier statement, our key to success is prior service and retaining those members. Anything that we can do that would retain 

that member to the maximum extent possible, ideally for the enlisted force to their high-year tenure date, or for the officers to 

their mandatory separation date, it certainly would enhance our 

ability to keep that experience base that is so critical for us to do 

our jobs. 

As you know, and it was mentioned earlier, when you have attained 20 years of satisfactory service, you are eligible to declare 

yourself for retired status, realizing you’re not going to draw pay 

until age 60. I’m a firm believer and have been a strong advocate 

all along that if I can keep them from 20 to 30 years, that 10 years, 

every time I keep three of those members, that’s one that I’ve reduced the training requirement and a huge training dollar cost significantly for my force and for this Nation. We need to keep that 

base there. 

So I would welcome you to look at all these options, sir, whether 

it be a multiplier, as you mentioned, for combat service, or whether 

it would be some option for service beyond 20 years, or some 

incentivization that you could offer to the member that, as you 

know, all bonuses and things of that type, with the exception of the 

pilot bonus for the active duty members, ends at the 20 years. 

So really they’re working for points that they’re going to achieve 

toward retirement, but if there would be a way to incentivize them 

beyond that 20-year point, it would certainly be a boon, I think, for 

our service, and most certainly for our Nation. 

Senator STEVENS. I shouldn’t get too personal about it, but I remember when I moved to Alaska, the Air Force had a concept that 

you couldn’t have reserve duty in a territory, and that meant that 

I would have to fly at my own expense to Seattle to train. Obviously, I sent a nasty letter to the Air Force and resigned, but I do 

think that there are subjective factors in retention that each service ought to look at. Mobility is one. Our people move so much now 
465

around the country, and sometimes the disjunctive of moving from 

one area to another, where there’s no longer a unit that you can 

join, has a lot to do with retention. 

Senator Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I was reminded about my reserve experiences personally as well. 

I got through law school primarily because I could earn money by 

going back on active duty in the summers and being a member of 

the teaching complement at the Officer Candidate School at Newport, Rhode Island, and the money I made in the summer I spent 

in the fall and the spring semesters of law school, so I’ve always 

had an appreciation for the opportunity that the Navy gave me to 

continue to serve while pursuing another career. 

LITTORAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

I know the Navy is planning to transfer some of its resources in 

my State of Mississippi over to the Naval Station in Pascagoula. 

Admiral Totushek, I understand you’re basing your second littoral 

surveillance system at the Naval Station. I wonder if you could tell 

us what role you envision this system playing in force protection 

and possibly with homeland security as well? 

Admiral TOTUSHEK. Thank you, Senator Cochran. We think that 

there is gold in them thar hills in this system. The Coast Guard 

is very interested in it. Just a quick little primer here. It is a system that allows us to integrate any kind of sensor that the Nation 

has, whether it be an unmanned sensor, a manned sensor, a satellite kind of sensor, and to integrate that to give you a total picture of an area as large as you would like, depending on how far 

out you want to employ these sensors, to be able to have situational awareness and, if need be, to mensurate targets. It’s that 

good that it can actually spit out the coordinates of the targets you 

might be interested in. 

We think the implications of that for homeland security are immense. The Coast Guard agrees with us, and we are starting to 

talk with them about how we can integrate a Naval Reserve capability using this littoral surveillance system, along with what the 

Coast Guard is doing around our ports,and as they pointed out, in 

a lot of cases there are areas of interest in the country where there 

isn’t a robust capability, and this would allow us, because it’s portable, to take it to another part of the country where you might 

have an area of interest for a short period of time, and to take a 

look at something that may be going on in that area. 

One scenario would be, as some of these tankers and freighters 

come into our ports, that we really don’t have a good idea of what’s 

on them. If we had a tip that perhaps one of them belonged to 

somebody we didn’t trust, we might want to go out and take a look 

at that while it’s still hundreds of miles from our shores instead 

of just close in as it’s entering the port. 

So I think there’s going to be a great synergy there between what 

the Coast Guard’s doing and what we’re able to support them with 

in homeland security. 
466

NAVAL COASTAL WARFARE UNITS ROLE IN HOMELAND SECURITY

Senator COCHRAN. I understand also you’re planning to move two 

of your naval coastal warfare units from Gulfport, Mississippi, to 

Pascagoula Naval Station. When these units are not forward-deployed, what role do you see them providing in support of Coast 

Guard or homeland security missions? 

Admiral TOTUSHEK. We originally got the littoral surveillance 

system to marry up with these units that basically would surveil 

a port, and so their being right there, not only is it a great training 

opportunity for us to have the port there, to have the boats and 

have the littoral surveillance system, to be able to train for it, but 

also we now have a great capability for looking at not only the port 

of Pascagoula, but basically the Gulf of Mexico, and we think that 

there’s a great synergy there not only to train, but to offer that 

force protection to the entire gulf as well. 

Senator COCHRAN. And I also understand the Navy plans to 

transfer some patrol coastal (PC) craft to the Coast Guard and decommission as many as eight other patrol craft. Do you see a role 

for these PCs in the Naval Reserve as well? 

Admiral TOTUSHEK. The problem with the PCs is, they’re very 

expensive to operate. They’re gas turbine engine ships, boats, and 

they move real fast but they burn a lot of gas, and that’s the main 

reason that the Navy is interested in getting rid of them. They’re 

in great shape. The Coast Guard is taking over six of those, I believe is the number, for use in being able to get out very quickly 

to look at contacts of interest further from our shores than usual. 

We have proposed the idea of the Reserve force taking over some 

of these. The problem again is the operating cost of the platform. 

We think there will be a mission area that’s going to require something with this kind of capability. Whether that’s the right platform or not we’re still talking to the Navy about, but we think that 

it’s a real capability that could be used not only in the gulf, but 

up and down the shores of the Nation. 

HURRICANE HUNTERS

Senator COCHRAN. General Sherrard, the Air Guard—no, the Air 

Reserve unit down in the Biloxi-Gulfport area has what they call 

hurricane hunters that go out and fly right into the eye of hurricanes, and they conduct surveillance. It’s been a mission that has 

been unique for sometime, and I understand there is some conversation about transferring this. As a matter of fact, there’s probably a proposal to transfer this to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Oceanographic Administration. 

My concern is, whether or not there is a continuing need for 

weather reconnaissance that’s related directly to military operations. I notice the hurricane hunters were deployed recently to 

Guam to conduct weather reconnaissance support of some operations. They also were operating last month out of Elmendorf, 

where Senator Stevens has invited me to visit on a couple of occasions, supporting winter weather reconnaissance missions there. 

What’s your view about the utility of the hurricane hunters as 

a part of the military force, as opposed to transferring them to 

NOAA? 
467

General SHERRARD. Well, sir, as you know we have been asked 

to work with NOAA to look at the transfer. In fact, there has been 

one meeting and there will be a subsequent meeting scheduled for 

the 13th, but I was told yesterday that that may be slipped for a 

week. 

I have asked our staff, and we’ve got some information, sir, and 

I want to be very candid with you. We’re in dialogue with the Air 

Force leadership about the very issue that you addressed in terms 

of military utilization, simply because of the fact that we have just 

recently, as you know, activated that unit, and we are sending 

them—they are at Guam to do the mission, and there is some concern that on behalf of the organization that I have asked the leadership that I be allowed to bring to them for discussion, and until 

that happens, sir, I really can’t go beyond that, but I will tell you 

that we’re going to have that conversation with the leadership of 

the Air Force. 

Senator COCHRAN. That’s good. Well, I appreciate knowing about 

that very much. 

F/A–18 AIRCRAFT UPGRADES

General McCarthy, my question to you has to do with the upgrade of the F/A–18 aircraft, bringing it to a level of modern capability. The upgrade includes the Global Positioning System (GPS) 

launch precision, guided munitions, et cetera. Could you give us an 

update on the plans and the likelihood for funding needs in this 

area? 

General MCCARTHY. Yes, Senator Cochran, I can. It’s an overall 

package called the ECP–583, and it’s a group of technologies that 

brings our F–18A models up to the equivalent of an F–18C, enables 

them to fire precision-guided munitions and some other things. It’s 

been very successful. 

We’re about 60 percent through our fleet of 48 F/A–18As, and 

there’s a steady program to continue until all of those aircraft are 

completed, and the impact on the capability of these aircraft is phenomenal, and then fortunately our F–18As, which have never been 

used in a carrier role, therefore have an extended life so that with 

this upgrade and their extended life they become among the most 

capable F–18s that the Marine Corps has. 

Admiral TOTUSHEK. I’d like to point out if I could, Senator, that 

the Naval Reserve has the same kind of a program, slightly different nomenclature, but basically doing the same thing to upgrade 

As into what we call A pluses. We took one of those squadrons and 

deployed it into Iraqi Freedom. They flew combat operations and 

basically led that air wing with some of the oldest airplanes out 

there, but once again, as we heard earlier, some of our great pilots 

out there are doing great things, and we would not have been able 

to do it if it had not been the support of this committee that got 

us those kits that upgraded those airplanes, so thank you very 

much. 

Senator COCHRAN. That’s interesting to know, and we appreciate 

your advice and counsel on these issues. 

General Helmly, I know that there’s already been some discussion today about whether some units ought to be active duty or 

whether they should be reservists, but some I know, medical sup-
468

port, civil affairs, have had more than the usual amount of activation and active duty experience. Is this going to cause disruption 

that’s a problem for Army reservists? Are you going to have a proposal to make about maybe transferring these responsibilities to 

active duty units, because these people have been in a perpetual 

state of activation, many of them, and what’s your reaction to that? 

General HELMLY. Senator, a couple of facts I’d like to cite, if I 

may, regarding this issue on the table of overuse. The first caution 

is that use is much different than abuse, and in a volunteer force 

one can go to the abuse side with an active force also, and we 

should be cautious of that. Admiral Totushek in his opening remarks cautioned similarly. I would say that there’s concern on all 

of our parts here. I certainly speak for myself. 

The solutions put forth to date are too simple. What we’ll do is, 

either we’ll grow the end strength of the active component, or we’ll 

transfer missions to the active component, which implies some sort 

of tradeoff. You transfer Civil Affairs, some number from the Army 

Reserve to the active component, and then in turn we pick up some 

other mission. 

I do not concur with those. There were two primary ingredients 

that went into the Abrams doctrine, and some have described that 

doctrine as outdated. I would not go down that road so quickly. 

One was political. That’s the one often alluded to, and that was the 

desire on the part of General Abrams to ensure that we never send 

the Army to war again without the support of the American people, 

certainly a valid requirement. 

But the other one was more pragmatic and business-like, and 

that was a recognition that in certain skill sets it is, in fact, more 

cost-effective to put those into the Reserve. We in the Army Reserve are quite proud of our record in such areas as medical support, civil affairs. The issue that we have on the table is that we 

are structured wrong. We do not have sufficient depth in those capabilities. General Schultz in the last panel spoke to the issue of 

military police. The reason we have high-demand, low-density units 

is that we made a conscious decision to make them at a density 

level which now proves too low. 

We are involved and have put forth to the Army leadership what 

some would call a radical, I would call it a measured, practical, but 

still very strong transformation plan which proposes to reduce our 

structure in some cases, units that we have had little requirement 

for, and in turn to stand up additional civil affairs capability, medical capability, transportation, military police, a couple of other specialties that are in the high demand area that we believe we can 

maintain equally effective and at reduced cost within the Army Reserve as opposed to transforming to the Active Component. 

We did have in the past year about 6,000 spaces, 6,000 soldier 

positions, authorizations in the active component that increased in 

the combat support, service support area. In turn, we in the Army 

Reserve adjusted slightly by picking up in those high demand areas 

about 13,000 more authorizations. It’s our proposal to go much 

deeper over the next 3 to 5 years. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
469

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator STEVENS. We thank you all, gentlemen, and you’ve got 

sort of think tanks. I’d urge you to just think about retention incentives and give us some ideas. We’re perfectly willing to give you 

some authority to have pilot projects to try to initiate some changes 

and test them outright during this period. This would be a good 

test period on a lot of ideas that might lead us to further retention. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

ARMY RESERVE TRANSFORMATION

Question. General Helmly, in the fall of 2000, the Chief of Staff of the Army announced a far reaching initiative to transform the Army’s combat units and the systems the Army would field to support those units. Could you comment on the 

progress the Army Reserve has made in transforming itself over the past three 

years? 

Answer. Sir, the Army Reserve is transforming as the Army transforms and we 

will play a crucial role as the Army fields the Objective Force. Transformation is 

not new to the Army Reserve. We have essentially transformed ourselves since the 

end of the Cold War, when we reduced and restructured our force to a smaller, more 

efficient infrastructure with a greater focus on our core competencies of combat support and combat service support. We have continually improved on this force structure to enhance accessibility to our invaluable capabilities for the Army to achieve 

a seamless integration of the Army Reserve with the active component. The Army 

Reserve is pursuing six imperatives to accomplish transformation. First, we are reengineering the mobilization process to remove impediments between the time competent legal authority authorizes mobilization and the time soldiers arrive at the 

place they are needed. Second, we will transform Army Reserve command and control to focus on soldier readiness, unit readiness, and shortened mobilization 

timelines. Third, we are resourcing a smaller more focused, high demand, and capable force manned and organized at Level One of Authorized Level of Organization. 

A resourced Trainee, Transient, Holdee, and Student account will be a critical enabler to reach this transformational end state. Fourth, we will implement Human 

Resources Life Cycle Management of Army Reserve soldiers that ensures ‘‘once a 

soldier, always a soldier’’ is a statement of fact, not a desire. Fifth, we are building 

a rotational base in our force that will facilitate Army Reserve engagement in a 

wide variety of Army operations. This provides our units with operational experience, and provides operational tempo relief for the active Army. It also imparts a 

sense of predictability for our soldiers and evens out the work load across the force. 

Finally, we are re-engineering the individual capability that the Army Reserve provides to the Army, built to meet real-world combatant commander requirements as 

validated in the World-Wide Individual Augmentation System. 

Question. Of those initiatives, which do you feel are most important to maintaining the momentum for change? 

Answer. Sustaining the momentum for change is a very important element of our 

effort to transform the Army Reserve. The Objective Force of the Army will bring 

greater capabilities for the nation in its mission to fight and win our nation’s wars. 

Our six imperatives of Army Reserve Transformation will ensure the Army Reserve 

remains capable of supporting the Objective Force when it is fielded. As such, these 

imperatives are functionally interrelated and mutually supporting. Any one imperative may generate some positive effect; however, all imperatives will be necessary 

for Army Reserve Transformation to be able to produce ready soldiers, ready units, 

shortened deployment timelines, and reduced costs. As I have said, this is a complete package. While certain aspects of it, such as Human Resources Life-Cycle 

Management and maintenance of a Trainee, Transient, Holdee, and Student account 

are new functions that will require resources to perform, significant savings will be 

generated in other areas. These include force structure adjustments that will balance the force for future operational requirements and reduce base operations and 

equipment costs. A smaller, more focused peacetime command and control structure 
470

will generate efficiencies. Finally, Army Reserve Transformation will produce a 

ready force organized at Level One of Authorized Level of Organization. This force 

will be readily deployable without extensive cross leveling, post mobilization training, validation, or equipment purchases, prior to deployment. 

RECONSTITUTION OF ARMY RESERVE FORCES

Question. General Helmly, today, we have a large number of forces forward deployed while we simultaneously pursue elements of terror at home and globally. Do 

you believe we will be able to reconstitute our Army Reserve forces in an orderly 

manner for a sustained war against terror while meeting our many other commitments around the globe? 

Answer. Reconstitution is an ongoing activity. Recently the reconstitution of Army 

Reserve forces has become increasingly difficult due to the continued growth of our 

enduring commitments. Some of our mobilized units have been re-missioned to ensure that those commitments can be met. As units demobilize, commanders are 

tasked with keeping their soldiers trained and prepared for future missions while 

sustaining high morale and retention. The existence of high demand/low density requirements exclusive to our war against terror, countered by portions of our force 

that are rarely used, confirms that we need to be able to build the right force to 

accomplish our changing mission. One of our Transformation Imperatives is to build 

a Rotational Force within the Army Reserve, which will add depth to those capabilities which are subjected to heavy use. 

ARMY RESERVE’S ROLE IN REBUILDING OF IRAQ

Question. As our troops take on the responsibility for shoring up security and 

starting the rebuilding process in Iraq, what do you see as the Army Reserve’s role 

within that mission? 

Answer. The Army Reserve will have a major role in the rebuilding of Iraq. We 

have the right mix of Combat Support/Combat Service Support units that would 

allow us for example to be tapped for construction, fresh water, and medical support. The Army Reserve has the capability to provide significant amounts and types 

of forces required in nation building efforts. The critical operational capabilities that 

reside at a 75 percent level or more in the Army Reserve include Civil Affairs at 

97 percent, Public Affairs at 82 percent, Personnel Services at 87 percent, Supply 

Operations at 76 percent, Psychological Operations at 83 percent, and Chemical at 

75 percent. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMS IN FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST

Question. What are your key Transformation programs in the 2004 budget request? 

Answer. The Army Reserve has no key Transformation programs identified in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request. The Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative 

(FRRI), which is a key structure decision that supports the Army Reserve Transformation and includes the reduction of theater support requirements, incorporation 

of a Trainee, Transient, Holdee and Student account, and redesign of Army Reserve 

Command and Control, was accepted as an Army Transformation initiative and endorsed by senior Army leadership. The initial start up costs in fiscal year 2004 for 

FRRI actions can be accomplished within our requested Operations and Maintenance funding. Building rotational depth in our force that facilitates Army Reserve 

engagement in a wide variety of Army operations is critical to Army Reserve force 

development. This operational depth provides our units with operational experience, 

OPTEMPO relief for the active Army, imparts a sense of predictability for our soldiers, and evens out the workload across the force. The Army Reserve experience 

in current operations has validated the FRRI imperatives of re-engineering the mobilization process and demonstrated the need for structural and individual adjustments that we knew had to be made. The Army is not a static organization. All components are interconnected; therefore, any change to one component impacts the entire Service. 

MOBILIZATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST

Question. How has mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom influenced next 

year’s budget request? 
471

Answer. Since the length of the current mobilization is not known, the impact on 

the fiscal year 2004 budget request cannot be determined at this time. Although 

lengthy mobilizations can create under execution in the personnel appropriations, 

any perceived savings often fail to materialize in a period in which the Army is both 

mobilizing and de-mobilizing Army Reserve soldiers. Additional requirements may 

be driven by de-mobilization and the re-constitution of equipment and by additional 

pre-mobilization training requirements. Depending on the speed of de-mobilization 

and the status of equipment that needs to be re-constituted, the Army Reserve may 

require additional transfer authority between appropriations or additional funding 

in fiscal year 2004. 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM MOST RECENT MOBILIZATION

Question. What lessons have you learned from the most recent mobilization and 

how can you improve the process for next time? 

Answer. Lessons learned from our most recent mobilization are being addressed 

internally and are being incorporated in the transformation of the Army Reserve. 

The mobilization process needs to be reengineered. We must adopt new doctrine and 

legislation to streamline and automate the mobilization process, which is currently 

time-intensive, paper-based, and multi-layered. We need to improve the mobilization 

process to enable flexible, rapid response when necessary, while protecting the 

rights and lives of Reserve soldiers. Our current force structure must be redesigned 

to meet a global asymmetrical threat versus any defined adversary. There must be 

rigor in our decision making process to ensure that support assets required for large 

mobilizations are established prior to units flowing into the Area of Responsibility. 

TRICARE HEALTH COVERAGE

Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health coverage to 

members and families of the Reserve on a cost-share basis? 

Answer. For those who are self-employed or lack adequate civilian-employer provided medical insurance, the availability of such coverage would be a welcome benefit. The immediate benefit would be offset somewhat, however, by the actual cost 

to the member—those who typically lack medical insurance are also least likely to 

be able to afford premium payments—and by the relative inaccessibility of the Military Health System to Reserve Component members. For example, only 20.5 percent 

of the Reserve soldiers live within an Army catchment area. The vast majority 

would not reap the full benefit of the TRICARE program unless it was tied to liberal 

access to TRICARE Remote and TRICARE Prime Remote. Still, limited health insurance is better than none, and I would be inclined to support this effort. 

Question. Would this provide a needed service to our Reservists? 

Answer. A recent survey by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Reserve Affairs and the Defense Manpower Data Center showed that 86 percent of Reserve soldiers with dependents have health insurance coverage of some sort. The 

greatest benefit would be afforded to the remaining 14 percent who lack medical insurance coverage. 

Question. Would employers view it as an incentive to hire Reservists? 

Answer. Employers are required to offer the same level of healthcare insurance 

coverage to all employees. TRICARE health coverage would most likely be viewed 

in neutral terms by civilian employers. 

SUPPORTING EMPLOYERS OF RESERVISTS

Question. How can you recommend we better support the employers of our Reservists? 

Answer. The Army Reserve strongly supports initiatives to reach the employers 

of the over 76,000 Army Reserve personnel mobilized for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Retaining the support of employers is essential to the retention of quality personnel within our force. This is even more essential given that 

our force is largely built upon the civilian skills that many of our Reserve soldier 

bring to their respective military positions. We are working with the Department 

of the Army personnel chain to develop an effective means to centrally collect employer information of our soldier. The Army Reserve will continue to support initiatives to recognize employers of mobilized personnel at both home station and as part 

of a greater strategic effort aimed at retaining employer support for the Army. In 

April 2003, we implemented the Army Reserve Employer Recognition Program initiating actions to ensure every employer of a mobilized Reserve soldier is recognized 

by the first General Officer in the chain of command. 
472

EQUIPMENT SHORTFALLS

Question. The Army Reserve has performed world-wide missions in support of the 

War on Terrorism since September 12, 2001. I am interested in knowing more about 

the equipment readiness of the Army Reserve and how the deployments might impact that readiness. Specifically, please tell me: What significant equipment shortfalls exist in the Army Reserve? 

Answer. Sir, prior to the start of mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), 

the U.S. Army Reserve had reached a level of fill for equipment considered essential 

to effective performance of a unit’s mission with the appropriate authorized substitutions. Without substitutes, the percentage of items on-hand would have dropped 

below 70 percent of the required equipment on hand to perform the mission. Although authorized for substitutions, this equipment is very maintenance intensive 

and expensive to sustain and in many cases provides less capability than the required system. For example, the Army Reserve is utilizing older 1960’s technology 

2.5 and 5 Ton trucks as authorized substitutes for the more modern Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles and the Combat Utility Commercial Vehicle instead of the 

High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle. The significant equipment shortages 

that exist in the Army Reserve today include materiel handling equipment; petroleum, oil, and lubrication and water systems such as the 5,000 gal fuel tankers; fuel 

system supply points; and forward area water points. Additionally, we are short 

line-haul prime movers and tactical trailers, heavy High Mobility Multi-purpose 

Wheeled Vehicles, high frequency radios, and night vision goggles. Although short 

the above requirements, the Army Reserve was able to meet the mission through 

extensive cross-leveling of equipment from non-deploying units to those deploying 

units in support of OIF. 

Question. How do these shortfalls impact the Army Reserve’s mission in support 

of the war on terrorism? 

Answer. Sir, the end result was that the Army Reserve was forced to redistribute 

assets internally throughout the force to meet the requirement, both prior to and 

during the mobilization of units. The original minor shortfalls were exacerbated by 

the increased readiness targets for unit deployments and the additional equipment 

requirements beyond normal authorizations. The change in mobilization requirements resulted in the Army Reserve units that were not immediately mobilized 

being depleted of their equipment to support the additional requirement to fill units 

to 100 percent of their authorizations. As such, there would be a significant challenge for the Army Reserve to provide operational units for any additional contingency operations beyond OIF. 

Question. What are the potential future impacts of these equipment shortfalls? 

Answer. Sir, as the Army transforms, so will the Army Reserve. Part of our transformation objective is to assure unit readiness and relevance, add operational depth 

to the Army, successfully meet continuous contingency operations, relieve Army 

operational tempo, and transform the Army Reserve to the Objective Force. As the 

Army Reserve transforms and eliminates non-relevant structure, we will redistribute equipment internally to offset current shortfalls, thus improving equipment 

on-hand shortages. While the proposed force restructuring initiatives will reduce the 

Army Reserves’ equipment shortages, future contingency missions will continue to 

be successfully met by retaining and maintaining, for some percentage of the fleet, 

less modern and capable equipment, at increasing operations and sustainment costs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

MODERNIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT CRITICAL SHORTFALLS

Question. General Helmly, the Army Reserve has been utilized continually since 

1991. The Army Reserve’s operational tempo in support of the War against Terrorism, both at home and globally, has kept a large portion of the Army Reserve 

mobilized since September 11, 2001. It appears we are asking the Army Reserve to 

do more and more. I’m concerned whether we are providing these units and soldiers 

with the resources to accomplish the missions our nation is asking them to perform. 

For the record, could you please—state the Army Reserve’s modernization and 

sustainment critical shortfalls and explain the near term and long term consequences of not funding these shortfalls. 

Answer. Sir, the Army Reserve has maintained a high operational tempo because 

we are a fully engaged, ready, relevant, and reliable force supporting the nation and 

the Army’s global war on terrorism. Since recent world events indicate that the 

Army will continue to be engaged in and support a wide variety of contingency operations, equipment modernization and sustainment efforts must be a high priority in 
473

order to continue to successfully meet the full spectrum of operations. The Army Reserve must be modernized to keep pace with the requirements of Army transformation. Some examples of modernization shortfalls include our combat wheeled 

vehicle fleet of 2.5 and 5 ton vehicles and High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). Additionally, we are short materiel handling equipment; petroleum, oil, and lubrication and water systems; line-haul prime movers; night vision 

goggles; communication equipment; and the heavy HMMWVs for our frequently deployed Military Police units. 

The near term consequences are the reliance on limited overhaul and rebuild programs to sustain older less modern equipment. Additionally, extensive internal 

cross-leveling is necessary to fill shortages to 100 percent of the requirement for mobilizing and deploying Army Reserve forces. The extensive cross-leveling of equipment from mobilizing to non-mobilizing units poses unique challenges to equipment 

on hand readiness levels. 

The long term consequences are increased maintenance and operational costs as 

equipment exceeds its economical useful life and eventually some degree of incompatibility with the Active Army forces. This incompatibility is a result of the Army 

Reserve having older less modern equipment that creates a host of maintenance and 

compatibility challenges to include Army training programs for mechanics and operators, the establishment of separate repair parts inventories, and special tools and 

test equipment unique to each equipment model. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO VICE ADMIRAL JOHN B. TOTUSHEK

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

REDESIGN OF THE NAVAL RESERVE

Question. We understand Navy is involved in an initiative to redesign the Naval 

Reserve. What changes do you anticipate will be made to force structure, missions 

and roles, and end strength? 

Answer. The Navy continuously reviews how to achieve greater capability from its 

budget, and redesign of the Naval Reserve is the subject of much review as part 

of this process. The final outcome of these studies is yet to be determined so identification of future force structure changes, other than those cuts proposed in the 

President’s fiscal year 2004 budget, would be pre-decisional. The Naval Reserve provides a low-cost means to preserve capability and recapture training and knowledge 

investments. My expectation is that Navy will continue to leverage these investments as we identify ways to maximize the Naval Reserve’s contribution to the 

country’s future war-fighting force. 

RECAPITALIZATION OF THE NAVAL RESERVE

Question. What is your plan to recapitalize your Naval Reserve force with reduced 

NG&REA funding levels? 

Answer. The $10 million of NG&REA appropriated during each of the past two 

fiscal years was used to fund critically needed equipment and upgrades. During this 

same period there was limited funding provided in Navy’s APN and OPN accounts 

to upgrade Naval Reserve aircraft and surface craft to fleet equivalent mission capabilities. The President’s Budget for fiscal year 2004 reflects an upturn in new equipment funding using APN (C–40 Logistics Aircraft, F–5 replacements, MH–60s and 

C130T Avionics Modernization Program), but there remains a sizeable requirement 

to upgrade or replace aging Naval Reserve equipment. Until sufficient funds are 

identified in the Navy’s procurement appropriations, Naval Reserve equipment will 

continue to be replaced by equipment transferred from the active force. 

Question. What equipment investments has Navy made into the Naval Reserve 

in the fiscal year 2004 budget request? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request contains the following equipment investments for the Naval Reserve: 

—Procurement of one C–40A aircraft to replace aging Naval Reserve DC–9 aircraft. ($64 million) 

—Funding commences on an Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) to upgrade 

18 Naval Reserve C–130T aircraft. The total AMP requirement is $122 million. 

This is the initial funding for these upgrades currently scheduled to be complete 

in fiscal year 2013. ($3.3 million) 

—Funding to upgrade Naval Reserve cargo aircraft (C–9B, DC–9, UC–12B, C–

37A, C–40A) to meet CNS/ATM mandated requirements. This is a multiyear 
474

program with fiscal year 2004 being the initial funding received to perform the 

upgrades. ($4.3 million) 

—Procurement of 32 Swiss F–5 aircraft to replace 32 Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve F–5E aircraft. ($4.7 million) 

—Funding to procure small boats, table of allowance equipment and upgrade Mo- bile Inshore Undersea Warfare surveillance equipment. ($45.6 million) 

—Funding to procure table of allowance construction and communication equip- ment for reserve Naval Construction Force units. ($10.5 million) 

Question. What are the top five Naval Reserve equipment unfunded items for fiscal year 2004? 

Answer. Our top five unfunded items for fiscal year 2004 are: 

—Procurement of two additional C–40A aircraft to replace aging DC–9 aircraft. ($131.0 million) 

—Funding to upgrade two Littoral Surveillance Systems. ($19.2 million) 

—Procurement of remaining equipment to fill out 10,000 CBR-D sets including storage and phased replacement. ($8.0 million) 

—Procurement of two P–3C AIP kits in order to achieve commonality/compat- ibility with Active P–3C UD III Squadrons. ($28.8 million) 

—Upgrade third (of three) Naval Reserve VFA squadrons (F/A–18A) with precision-guided munitions capability and procure Advanced Targeting Forward 

Looking Infrared Radar for three Naval Reserve VFA squadrons. ($52.8 million) 

LITTORAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (LSS)

Question. The Navy’s Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) and Navy Patrol Craft 

are critical assets we need in Homeland Security. Have you considered assigning 

these assets a Homeland Security mission? If not, why not? 

Answer. The Naval Reserve is currently investigating a potential role for the Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) in Homeland Security. Plans are being discussed 

for LSS participation in two Naval Reserve/Coast Guard Joint Harbor Operations 

Centers. The Naval Reserve’s two LSS systems, being developed and funded from 

1999 through 2003, may be used to further expand this systems capability in the 

Homeland Security mission. 

The Navy will transfer five Patrol Craft (PC) to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 

2004. The Coast Guard has been using PC’s for Homeland Security missions since 

the September 11th attacks and will continue to do so. Plans for the remaining 

eight PC’s are undecided at this time. 

NAVAL RESERVE EQUIPMENT LIST

Question. We understand Navy is considering drastically altering the equipment 

list for Naval Reserve units. If this is true, how extensive are the cuts and what 

will the impact be on readiness and the Navy’s ability to access its Reserve force? 

Answer. The Navy continuously seeks to balance resources and requirements in 

order to maximize war-fighting wholeness within realistic fiscal restraints. Options 

to expand integration of Active and Reserve forces are under review; however, identification of potential force structure changes, beyond those proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget, if any, would be pre-decisional. 

PB04 makes a significant effort to maximize DON total force warfighting wholeness. The Secretary of Defense identified TacAir Integration as the model transformational program. Leveraging the synergy of a better integrated Navy and Marine Corps Aviation team provides a readier, more surge-capable, and affordable 

force. Additionally, the PB04 decommissioning of selected E–2 and P–3 reserve 

squadrons will provide resources necessary for transformation, integration, and recapitalization. The SecDef Counter Drug (CD) Execute Order has reduced the annual requirements for deployed E–2 coverage. The resultant reduction in force structure meets this new E–2 CD commitment. For P–3s, PB04 transitions two Reserve 

squadrons to augmentation units. Three additional Reserve P–3 squadrons will 

transition within the FYDP. This migration of reserve units to augmentation units 

allows for tighter integration between reserve and active forces, facilitates enhanced 

interoperability, and keeps reservists in the most modern weapons systems. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

RESERVE HEALTH CARE

Question. What are your key Transformation programs in the 2004 budget? 

Answer. The Naval Reserve’s overall role in the Transformation of the Department of Defense focuses on the continuing process of integrating the Naval Reserve 
475

with the Active Component. Several ongoing studies are addressing the changing 

role of the Naval Reserve in a transforming Navy and Department of Defense. 

Internally, the Naval Reserve is defining its appropriate role in Homeland Security (HLS), and is actively engaged with Northern Command in the identification 

of potential requirements. The fielding of the Littoral Surveillance System, for example, will help meet today’s threat, contribute to the NORTHCOM mission, and 

efficiently utilize unique Naval Reserve capabilities. Although these transformational initiatives have not yet progressed to the point of resulting in programmatic changes in the fiscal year 2004 budget, it is anticipated that future budget submissions will reflect increased emphasis on the Littoral Surveillance System 

and HLS in general, as well as supporting the continued integration of the Naval 

Reserve with the Active Component. 

IMPACT OF MOBILIZATION ON BUDGET REQUEST

Question. How has mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom influenced next 

year’s budget request? 

Answer. The current goal is to reduce Navy Reserve personnel mobilized from 

nearly 12,000 to 3,000 (3.4 percent) by the end of fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 

2004 mobilization end state is projected to be zero. In the fiscal year 2004 budget 

the Reserve participation rates have been adjusted slightly to compensate for remaining ‘‘demobilization’’ from 3,000 to 0, and is therefore considered to have no 

budgetary impact. 

In fiscal year 2004, the O&MNR appropriation is currently priced for peacetime 

operations. Any increase in operating tempo due to further conflict would have to 

be addressed with supplemental funding. 

From an aviation depot maintenance point of view, it has yet to be determined 

if any reconstitution costs resulting from increased operating tempo in OIF are required. The aviation depot maintenance budget is currently priced for peacetime operations. Any necessary reconstitution of airframes or engines work would require 

supplemental funding. 

RESERVE MOBILIZATION LESSONS LEARNED

Question. What lessons have you learned from the most recent mobilization and 

how can you improve the process for next time? 

Answer. The Navy is continuously reviewing the processes and progress of our 

mobilization efforts since September 2001, incorporating several improvements 

along the way. The Navy headquarters staff was inadequately organized to properly 

prioritize mobilization requirements and orchestrate the mobilization process. Within days, the Navy created the OPNAV Mobilization Cell to serve as a single submission point for all Navy mobilization requests. The Mobilization Cell is now the single-point of contact for all Navy decisions on mobilization and demobilization 

sourcing priorities. 

Additionally, Navy learned early on that it needed a single, web-based ADP program for tracking and processing mobilization requirements. Within a remarkably 

quick two-month period, a modified version of the pre-existing Marine Corps Mobilization Processing System (MCMPS) was fielded as the Navy MCMPS (NMCMPS). 

NMCMPS provides a web-based medium, accessible worldwide, that allows Naval 

Reserve Activities and Navy Mobilization Processing Sites to update the status of 

mobilizing Reservists. It also provides gaining Commands and Navy leadership the 

ability to track the Reservist’s status. NMCMPS also consolidates all Navy mobilization order writing at Navy Personnel Command, a task previously executed by over 

140 individual Naval Reserve Activities. This consolidation of mobilization (and demobilization) orders writing has eliminated all of the administrative errors experienced when orders were written by individual Commands. There is a third part to 

NMCMPS that is not yet operational. Navy is working to field a secure, classified 

part of NMCMPS for the submission and review of mobilization requirements. When 

this is complete, Combatant and Service Component Commanders will be able to 

view the status of their Navy requirements from generation and submission, 

through the Navy Headquarters review process, to the selection and in-processing 

of Reservists, all the way to their actual arrival at gaining Commands via an automated real-time web-based application. Navy is working to incorporate the full 

functionality of NMCMPS in the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS). 

Just as the OPNAV Mobilization Cell provides a single point of contact Commands to submit and staff Navy mobilization requirements, Navy realizes the immense importance of having a single organization to serve as an advocate for our 

mobilized Reservists. In April of 2002, the Navy created the Noble Eagle Sailor Ad-
476

vocacy (NESA) Office at the Navy Personnel Command to aid in ensuring a positive 

mobilization experience for our mobilized Reservists. In particular, a foremost tenet 

of the NESA team is to pay special attention to those Reservists who are experiencing genuine hardships as a result of early demobilization, or other problems, and 

forwarding those issues up the chain of command for individual mitigation. Since 

its creation, NESA has evolved into a program that not only helps mobilized Reservists with hardship issues, but also closely emulates many detailing functions found 

within the active duty Navy and its Project SAIL (Sailor Advocacy through Interactive Leadership) program, including contacting every mobilized Reservist prior to 

the end of their orders to discuss their desires and ensure they understand the options available to them. 

Many of the same concerns that led to the creation of NESA reaffirm the importance of continuous, open, and clear communication with our Reservists. Throughout 

the current mobilization, we have maintained communication through such means 

as messages and public affairs publications, town hall meetings, and leadership visits with our mobilized forces. 

As we demobilize over 12,000 Naval Reservists currently serving in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Noble Eagle, Navy is focusing on 

performing formal assessments of the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom, including 

the mobilization process. We will undoubtedly find many more ways to improve our 

mobilization process during these assessments, and look forward to sharing those 

with the Congress once the assessments are completed. 

RESERVE HEALTH CARE

Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health care coverage 

to members and families of the Reserve on a cost-share basis? 

Answer. Approximately 80 percent of Reservists have health insurance coverage 

when not on active duty as reported in the GAO Report, GAO–02–829, ‘‘Defense 

Health Care: Most Reservists Have Civilian Health Coverage But More Assistance 

Needed When TRICARE is Used’’, dated September 6, 2002. This coverage is 

through employer-sponsored programs or spouse’s employer health plans. This report found of that 80 percent, 90 percent maintained their civilian coverage when 

deployed. The GAO report (GAO–03–549T), ‘‘Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations Related to Income, Benefits, and Employer Support for Reservists During 

Mobilizations’’ reiterates that most reservists maintain their own healthcare coverage when mobilized. 

In addition, 70 percent of Reservists and their families live outside of Military 

Treatment Facility catchment areas and cannot take advantage of the assistance 

and array of services found near military treatment facilities (MTFs). These families 

must rely on the limited TRICARE network of providers for support. 

The GAO report also estimates that any TRICARE healthcare program providing 

continuous TRICARE coverage for reservists and their dependents during the entire 

enlistment period—regardless of reservists’ mobilization status—with benefits similar to those for active duty will cost DOD about $10.4 billion. This estimate assumes 

that the current number of DOD MTFs remains constant in services and providers, 

which is unlikely based on BRAC and manpower adjustments. This cost would escalate with the increased number of active duty and reserve members in need of care 

through the TRICARE network. 

Question. Would this provide a needed service to our Reservists? 

Answer. No. It would only serve an extremely small percentage of Reservists. The 

precedence for opposition to this proposal lies with the TRICARE Dental Program 

(TDP). Selected Reservists and/or their family members can participate in the TDP. 

As of May 2003, only 7.8 percent of Naval Reservists are enrolled in the TDP plan. 

Question. Would employers view it as an incentive to hire Reservists? 

Answer. This question would be best answered by the National Committee for 

Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (NESGR), but the impact of employees 

with other health insurance may be dependent upon their company’s benefits. It 

may negatively impact small business owners by reducing the number of eligible 

employees for a plan size and increasing plan costs. Larger corporations might not 

be similarly impacted. 

RESERVE EMPLOYER SUPPORT

Question. How can you recommend we better support the employers of our Reservists? 

Answer. The best support to the employers of our Reservists is to ensure we have 

an active Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) organization. We 

must continue supporting ESGR’s efforts to educate employers on their rights and 
477

responsibilities, as well as those of the employed Reservists. Navy believes Congress 

provides sufficient authority in Title 10 to enable the Services to obtain the employer data the ESGR needs to provide improved support to employers through their 

Civilian Employment Information (CEI) Program. 

Additionally, Navy is implementing lessons learned in the mobilization and demobilization of our Naval Reservists. This allows the Reservists more time to prepare 

for a ‘‘career transition,’’ and provides earlier notification to their employers. DOD 

policy is to notify Reservists whenever possible at least 30 days prior to their mobilization. While we cannot always provide this much advance notification due to operational concerns, it is essential that every effort be made to meet or exceed DOD’s 

policy. 

RESERVE EQUIPMENT

Question. The Navy Reserve has performed worldwide missions in support of the 

War on Terrorism since September 12, 2001. I am interested in knowing more about 

the equipment readiness of the Navy Reserve and how the deployments might impact that readiness. Specifically, please tell me: 

What significant equipment shortfalls exist in the Navy Reserve? 

Answer. The Naval Reserve is short the following equipment: 

Airlift, C–40A Transport Aircraft, Qty short—8, Unit Cost $65 million. This aircraft replaces aging C–9 aircraft. 

Individual Protective Equipment, Qty short—30,000, Unit Cost $1,000. 

P–3C Aircraft-BMUP Kits to achieve commonality with Active P–3C UD III Aircraft, Qty short—13, Unit Cost $9 million. 

P–3C Aircraft-AIP Kits to improve ASW capability, enhance weapons suite, improve target sensing, and achieve commonality with Active P–3 Aircraft; Qty short—

12; Unit Cost $14.4 million. 

Naval Coastal Warfare Table of Allowance equipment and small boats for a total 

cost of $45 million. 

F/A–18 Aircraft Modification (ECP 560) to provide precision munitions capability, 

Qty short—12, Unit Cost $3.5 million. 

F/A–18 Aircraft Modification (Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Kits) 

to provide precision guided munitions capability, Qty short—16, Unit Cost $2.5 million. 

F–5 Aircraft Radar Upgrade to better simulate enemy aircraft. Qty short—36, 

Unit Cost $360,000. 

P–3C Counter Drug Upgrades to provide day and night electro-optic capability, 

Qty short—13, Unit Cost $1.5 million. 

SH–60B Helicopter Forward Looking Infrared Kits to improve surveillance capability, Qty short—5, Unit Cost $1.4 million. 

Question. How do these shortfalls impact the Navy Reserve’s mission in support 

of the war on terrorism? 

Answer. The Naval Reserve supports the overall mission of the Navy, which is, 

‘‘Be prepared to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations at sea in support 

of U.S. national interests’’, which naturally includes any missions in the Global War 

on Terrorism. 

The following equipment enhancements could all be, at some time, used by the 

Naval Reserve to support Navy Global War on Terrorism missions; 

Airlift, C–40A Transport Aircraft, Qty short—8, Unit Cost $65 million. This aircraft replaces aging C–9 aircraft. 

Individual Protective Equipment, Qty short—30,000, Unit Cost $1,000. 

P–3C Aircraft-BMUP Kits to achieve commonality with Active P–3C UD III Aircraft, Qty short—13, Unit Cost $9 million. 

P–3C Aircraft-AIP Kits to improve ASW capability, enhance weapons suite, improve target sensing, and achieve commonality with Active P–3 Aircraft; Qty short—

12; Unit Cost $14.4 million. 

Naval Coastal Warfare Table of Allowance equipment and small boats for a total 

cost of $45 million. 

F/A–18 Aircraft Modification (ECP 560) to provide precision munitions capability, 

Qty short—12, Unit Cost $3.5 million. 

F/A–18 Aircraft Modification (Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Kits) 

to provide precision guided munitions capability, Qty short—16, Unit Cost $2.5 million. 

F–5 Aircraft Radar Upgrade to better simulate enemy aircraft. Qty short—36, 

Unit Cost $360,000. 

SH–60B Helicopter Forward Looking Infrared Kits to improve surveillance capability, Qty short—5, Unit Cost $1.4 million. 
478

Question. What are the potential future impacts of these equipment shortfalls? 

Answer. Naval strategy identifies the need for the integration of the Active and 

Reserve components into a seamless and cohesive Total Force capable of meeting 

all operational requirements in peacetime and in war. These shortfalls impact the 

ability of the Reserves to maintain compatibility and relevance with the Active 

Navy’s mission accomplishments. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. MCCARTHY

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

TRANSFORMATION

Question. What are your key transformation programs in the 2004 budget request? 

Answer. The Marine Corps’ transformation is broken down into several categories: 

technological, organizational, operational and acquisition policies and procedures. 

Currently, we are investing approximately $1.5 billion per year in transformational 

initiatives, to include our top ground and aviation investment programs—the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (formerly referred to as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle) and the MV–22. 

Within the above listed categories, three investment areas warrant mention as 

priority and material enablers to transformation. First, Sea Viking 2004 (SV04) represents the main experimentation effort designed to support decisions and strategies 

for 2015 transformational goals. SV04 will examine Seabasing and Operational Maneuver from the Sea (OMFTS) within a joint context and will provide the conceptual 

foundation for Naval transformation. Second, an On the Move Combat Operations 

Center (OTM COC) capability will feature Over the Horizon Communications (OTH 

Comm), an iridium-based voice and data tactical communication system, and Position Location Information (PLI) imperative for future combat operations. Third, initiation of a synergistic land counter-mine capability. This capability will provide 

both near term Marine Expeditionary Unit capability sets, as well as science and 

technology investment in the areas of advanced signature duplication, family of tailored explosives systems and light-weight mechanical breaching systems. Fourth, 

our fiscal year 2004 program will include the first dedicated funding for Joint High 

Speed Vessel (JHSV) experimentation. JHSV will have a pervasive transformational 

impact by providing exponential capability improvements in support of expeditionary maneuver warfare. Finally, in fiscal year 2004, Marine Corps Science & 

Technology resources will be used to validate the designs and concepts of the first 

three categories. 

Both our Active and Reserve forces will benefit from these transformation initiatives to confront future conflicts as we have in the past, as a Total Force. Our Selected Marine Corps Reserve units are structured and trained based on the Marine 

Air Ground Task Force model and are ready to augment the Active component with 

personnel and equipment whenever the need arises. 

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM MOBILIZATION

Question. How has mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom influenced next 

year’s budget request? 

Answer. Next year’s budget request was already submitted before mobilization of 

forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom. A request for funding of mobilization costs was 

submitted with the request for fiscal year 2003 Supplemental Funding. Most of the 

mobilization cost has been covered with funds received from the fiscal year 2003 

Supplemental; however, because forces are still mobilized, requirements have not 

been fully assessed. It is premature to budget for such costs until they have been 

completely assessed. Our unfunded fiscal year 2004 costs will be addressed in a supplemental budget request in fiscal year 2004. 

LESSONS LEARNED

Question. What lessons have you learned from the most recent mobilization and 

how can you improve the process for the next time? 

Answer. The Marine Corps Reserve was able to successfully mobilize and provide 

trained war fighters to combatant commanders on a timeline that rivals that of active duty units. 24,221 Reserve Marines were activated and approximately 74 percent were forward deployed to the CENTCOM area of responsibility. Most mobilization plans proved sound and were properly executed by all levels of command. 
479

In addition to the joint lessons learned effort, the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps tasked the Enduring Freedom Combat Assessment Team Reserve (EFCAT–

R) to perform a detailed study of the Reserve experience. The EFCAT–R team surveyed over 4,000 active and reserve component Marines to produce a valuable report. Commander of Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES) established a 

MARFORRES Mobilization Assessment Team (MMAT). Several key areas require 

early action. 

Security Clearances 

Many Reservists reported to the Gaining Force Command (GFC) without current 

security clearances. The primary cause was a shortage of field grade Officers with 

Top Secret (Special Compartmentalized Information) clearances throughout the Reserves and especially in the Individual Ready Reserve. 

A meaningful improvement will require both organizational changes and a significant increase in funding for background investigations. 

Program Nine Activation 

The Navy mobilization process for medical and chaplain personnel does not fully 

support Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) unit deployment. Navy personnel 

in support of SMCR units are mobilized separately from the Marine unit and take 

longer to reach the GFC. For Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, most SMCR units took 7–9 days from notification until they reported to 

the GFC. The typical Navy corpsman or chaplain required over 22 days from notification to arrival at the GFC. 

The solution is to ‘‘integrate’’ Navy personnel into SMCR units for mobilization 

purposes Navy and Marine personnel in each SMCR unit would mobilize together 

and travel jointly to the GFC. We are working cooperatively with Commander Naval 

Reserve Force and may make joint requests for support to implement this important 

initiative. 

Table of Equipment/Allowance 

To reduce the maintenance burden, reserve units have only a portion of their combat equipment at their Reserve Centers. Upon mobilization, the units expect to receive the additional needed equipment from a variety of sources including Logistics 

Command (LOGCOM), Remain Behind Equipment (RBE), and the GFC. Obtaining 

this additional equipment not only caused significant confusion but also only a portion of the additional equipment was obtained in a timely manner. Similar problems 

were experienced during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. 

To increase the efficiency of equipment sourcing, equipment reporting accuracy 

will be improved and Reserve-specific logistics planning will be incorporated into the 

deliberate planning process. A revised Force policy on internal redistribution of 

equipment by major subordinate commands will be published. Although this may increase our transportation of things costs, it will better position our equipment for 

future mobilizations. In order to ensure that sufficient amounts of communication 

and other ‘‘high value-low density’’ equipment are available upon mobilization, the 

Single Site Storage Facility (SSSF) program may be expanded. 

Personal Recovery/Mortuary Affairs 

The mission of a mortuary affairs unit is to respectfully recover, preserve, tentatively identify, and return all remains to the country of origin. Unlike the Army, 

a Marine mortuary affairs unit functions at the tactical level, occasionally performing its duties on the battlefield. In addition, this unit provides the necessary 

link between the Marine component and theater agencies responsible for evacuation 

of remains to CONUS. However, Marine Mortuary Affairs currently lack a doctrine 

consistent with its utilization in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm. 

As a result, units are inappropriately organized, trained, and equipped to support 

the Marine combatant commander in a joint environment. 

We plan a revision of the unit organization, manning, and the acquisition of additional equipment. 

Key Volunteer Program 

The information flow from deployed units to Marine families at home is greatly 

enhanced by an active and engaged Key Volunteer Network (KVN), an official Marine Corps program. Since the KVN program only has a small operating budget, it 

is very dependent on the enthusiasm of individual volunteers. As there are 187 separate Reserve centers throughout the United States, Marine Forces Reserve must 

fight the ‘‘tyranny of distance’’ as it tries to build a close-knit Key Volunteer organization. Information flows are further complicated upon activation. While a Reserve 

unit may smoothly join the GFC, it is difficult to merge the Reserve and Active Key 
480

Volunteer Networks. As a result, families of Reservists find it more difficult to obtain authoritative answers to questions and concerns. 

Making the successful ‘‘MCCS One Source’’ experiment (sponsored by Office of the 

Secretary of Defense) a permanent program will be recommended. We anticipate 

working with the National Guard and other Reserve components to develop a system of joint Family Service Centers nationwide. 

Accountability Protocol 

The active and reserve components of the Marine Corps maintain separate computer systems for tracking personnel. In order to bridge this difference, 

MARFORRES units were forced to improvise by creating locally generated computer 

spread sheets. Navy personnel were tracked using a third system. 

We will recommend continuing improvements to the current, Manpower Management systems. 

TRICARE BENEFITS EXTENSION

Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health care coverage 

to members and families of the Reserve on a cost-share basis? Would this provide 

a needed service to our Reservists? Would employers view it as an incentive to hire 

Reservists? 

Answer. I encourage the continued exploration of TRICARE health coverage alternatives for Reserve Marines, and studying the effectiveness implementation might 

have on both the reserve component and active component retention. My personal 

sense is that it would not be a disincentive for active duty retention. Providing such 

coverage is not duplicative to private insurance coverage as much as an alternative. 

The challenges associated with implementation—cost, administration of the program, (the mechanisms for enrollment, billing, premium payment, reimbursements, 

etc.) are considerable; however, this alternative would provide a vital service for our 

Reserve Marines and would be viewed as an employer incentive to hire Reserve Marines. 

SUPPORT FOR EMPLOYERS OF RESERVISTS

Question. How can you recommend that we better support the employers of our 

reservists? 

Answer. Thanks to the good work of the Employer Support to the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) and our concerted partnership with them in the time since Desert 

Shield/Desert Storm, we have made significant strides in better supporting our nation’s employers when our Reserve Marines are called to active duty. But, there is 

work yet to do. We should: (1) provide employers with tax incentives for supporting 

Reserve Marines, (2) develop business insurance options for small business owners/

employers and self-employed Marines, (3) subsidize companies that maintain health 

care coverage on the family members of activated Reserve Marines, and (4) continue 

to explore avenues through which TRICARE could contribute to medical insurance 

for Reserve Marines, including periods of activation and when not activated. 

RESERVE EQUIPMENT SHORTFALLS

Question. The Marine Corps Reserve has performed worldwide missions in support of the War on Terrorism since September 11th, 2001. I am interested in knowing more about the equipment readiness of the Marine Reserve and how the deployments might impact that readiness. 

What significant equipment shortfalls exist in the Marine Reserve? 

Answer. I am not aware of any significant legacy equipment shortfalls. However, 

the program manager for infantry weapons has projected significant new acquisition 

system shortfalls. Systems impacted are: 

1. AN–PVS–17 B & C.—The AN/PVS–17B night vision device provides 2.25 system magnification and is designed to be used with the M16A2 rifle. The AN/PVS–

17C provides 4.5 system magnification and is designed to be used with the M249 

Squad Automatic Weapon and M240G Medium Machine Gun. The systems are designed to provide high performance observation, quick man sized target acquisition, 

and aiming capabilities during night operations. Projected shortfalls: AN/PVS–17B. 

Qty: 1,037. AN/PVS–17C. Qty: 403. 

2. Thermal Weapon Sight (TWS) AN/PAS–13 (V3) Heavy Thermal Weapon Sights 

(HTWS).—The TWS is a high performance forward looking infrared (FLIR) device. 

The system is virtually unaffected by weather and obscurants. Primarily designed 

for target detection and engagement with Marine Corps crew serve weapons [M2 50 

Cal Machine Gun & MK19 Grenade launcher], it can also be used for all weather 

surveillance. Projected shortfall: AN/PAS–13. Qty: 644. 
481

Question. How do these shortfalls impact the Marine Reserve’s mission in support 

of the war on terrorism? 

Answer. Night capability of reserve units will lag active duty units without this 

equipment and this could affect mission effectiveness. 

Question. What are the potential impacts of these equipment shortfalls? 

Answer. Reserve units will be required to use alternative or less capable types of 

equipment to accomplish assigned missions and tasks. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES E. SHERRARD III 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMS

Question. What are your key Transformation programs in the 2004 budget request? 

Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command’s (AFRC) key Transformation programs 

in the 2004 budget request involve implementation of the Air Force’s mobility modernization plan, tanker roadmap and plans to alleviate active duty Low Density/

High Demand (LD/HD) issues. AFRC will retire its C–141 fleet located at Wright 

Patterson AFB, Ohio, Andrews AFB, Maryland, and March ARB, California—converting those units to C–5A, KC–135R and C–17A missions respectively. The 2004 

budget request also funds conversion of one each C–5 Associate squadron located at 

Dover AFB, Delaware and Travis AFB, California to C–17 Associate units. The Portland IAP, Oregon conversion transfers eight HH–60 and five HC–130 aircraft to the 

active duty while standing up a KC–135R unit in its place. Additionally, AFRC will 

transfer two C–130H aircraft to the active duty—part of an overall transfer plan 

of 14 aircraft moving to Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to alleviate LD/HD 

issues. AFRC will divest itself of aging KC–135Es at Selfridge Air National Guard 

Base (ANGB), Michigan and Beale AFB, California in exchange for less costly, and 

more reliable KC–135Rs. Lackland AFB, Texas is also programmed to take on the 

role as the AF’s sole C–5 Formal Training Unit (FTU) replacing Altus AFB, Oklahoma in fiscal year 2007. Manpower savings from the C–141 retirements and the 

active duty retirement of Continental United States C–9 at Scott AFB, Illinois allows AFRC to increase its KC–135 Unit Equipped crew ratios from 1.27 to 1.5, and 

C–130 crews from 1.75 to 2—allowing the Command to better use those assets in 

accordance with increased requirements in recent years. Overall, the 2004 budget 

request realigns and changes over 4,500 reserve military and civilian positions in 

fiscal year 2004, matching personnel to requirements while divesting AFRC of legacy missions. These realignments and changes are primarily driven by AFRC’s 

transformation programs. 

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

Question. How has mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom influenced next 

year’s budget request? 

Answer. Mobilization has not influenced our budget request at all. AFRC budgets 

are developed to maintain normal training for the entire Air Force Reserve as if 

there were no mobilization. Because mobilization effects are undeterminable at the 

time budgets are developed, mobilization is dealt with as an execution year issue. 

Question. What lessons have you learned from the most recent mobilization and 

how can you improve the process for next time? 

Answer. Our lessons learned from previous mobilizations helped us immensely in 

dealing with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Perhaps one of the most important lessons 

learned is the need for a centralized up-to-date handbook for readiness/mobilization 

policy and procedures for all three Air Force components to use. As of this writing, 

a new version of the out-of-date publication (AFH 10–416 Personnel Readiness and 

Mobilization dated December 22, 1994) is being finalized and coordinated by the active Air Force. 

Timely submission of mobilization requirements would improve coordination with 

gaining MAJCOMs and AFRC and improve the mobilization package for processing 

and approval by Air Force Manpower and Reserve Affairs (SAF/MR). 

Based on a much clearer vision of requirements under this operation, we learned 

that only the most stressed Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) needed to be included under Stop Loss. Through the use of a Total Force formula for identifying 

‘‘stressed’’ AFSCs, only those that are absolutely needed will be Stop Lossed. 

Finally, we learned that we needed continuous communication and coordination 

with our gaining MAJCOM partners, in emphasizing the necessity for rotation of 
482

reservists to allow sufficient time prior to demobilization to provide for the use of 

accrued leave, downtime, medical assessments and reconstitution if appropriate. 

TRICARE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE

Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health care coverage 

to members and families of the Reserve on a cost-share basis? Would this provide 

a needed service to our Reservists? Would employers view it as an incentive to hire 

Reservists? 

Answer. Reserve component members become eligible for military health benefits 

when they are placed on active duty orders. The family members become eligible 

for TRICARE benefits when the member receives orders for greater than 30 days. 

The recent changes to policy permitting reserve component members and their families to enter TRICARE Prime at 31 days of active duty orders instead of 179, had 

a positive impact on members of the reserve in general. It brought a significant benefit in reach to members that required low cost quality health insurance. The proposed legislation of Senate Bill 852 extending health care coverage on a cost share 

basis to reserve members and their families will complement, complete and make 

comprehensive the medical benefits we offer Reservists. 

GAO report dated September 2002 on Defense Health Care, ‘‘Most Reservists 

Have Civilian Health Coverage, but More Assistance is Needed When TRICARE is 

Used’’ identified that 20 percent of Americas are without health insurance and the 

reserve forces are a microcosm of American society. Therefore at a estimated minimum 20 percent of our reserve component population is without health insurance 

for themselves and their families. The GAO in their report also indicated that a government purchased/cost share plan would be well received. Offering medical benefits 

through TRICARE on a cost shared basis, like the TRICARE Dental Program would 

be a welcomed benefit. There also exist advantages for both the DOD and the member and their family to participate. Below is a short examination of those advantages: 

1. Offering a low cost insurance plan will offer greater incentive for individuals 

to join and/or remain in the reserve. This is especially true for the self-employed. 

2. TRICARE as a health plan offers equal to or better benefits than many smaller 

employers can offer. 

3. Keeping the same health insurance and the same physicians even when the 

member moves from one employer to the next (and mobilization), providing the ultimate experience in health insurance portability and continuity of care. This too 

serves as an incentive to remain in the reserve and make it a career. 

Many small companies/employers may not be able to offer health insurance to 

their work force so this provides the reserve member the option to look for work 

in these areas. It frees the member from linking employers to the type of job they 

must look for. 

Advantage to the DOD will be seen in fewer members having problems using 

TRICARE benefits when activated, since more members will know the TRICARE 

system better. 

Transitioning from active duty status to Transitional Health Care Benefits to a 

Reserve TRICARE Health Benefits plan would make it seamless, and offers reserve 

members that don’t have jobs to return to more flexibility and make their reserve 

duty experience less stressful. 

4. It may serve as an incentive to hire the reservist. Health insurance, next to 

salaries, is the most expensive benefit an employer may pay. Ranging any where 

between $6600.00 to $7,500.00 annually, an employer may even offer to reimburse 

the reservist a portion of their premiums if they use their TRICARE benefit. The 

member themselves may be in a position to negotiate a higher salary or wage based 

upon lower cost. Many employers will translate this as a ‘‘real savings’’ and bottom 

line issue. 

5. Since this offers real saving to the employer, the government controversy to 

offer tax saving/incentives to employers who have reservists, the availability of 

TRICARE health coverage may be seen as benefit without offering additional tax 

credits. 

6. Benefit to the government may be seen in the shape of fewer problems with 

members and their families transitioning from one health plan to another when 

brought on active duty or mobilized. 

7. Identifying family members that have special medical needs may be easier and 

reduces the burden/stress on the Military Healthcare System, TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) and the member on how to get care when the member is activated. 

Other Recommendations: 
483

1. Law should include that all aspects of TRICARE benefits be extended. Many 

members live in remote areas and TRICARE Prime Remote/TRICARE Prime Remote for Active Duty Family Members’ equivalent must be offered to make this plan 

relevant to all reservists. 

2. Law should direct TMA to expand provider networks and update their participating provider listings annually to keep them current. Many listings are currently 

long out of date. 

3. Cost share premiums must be low enough to serve as incentive to join the plan. 

Since many employers cost share their plans with their employees, the average coat 

share (employee cost) ranges from $150 to $300 monthly. 

RESERVISTS

Question. How can you recommend we better support the employers of our Reservists? 

Answer. Employers of reservists are key enablers for maintaining the readiness 

of our reserve service members and their support is vital to the Total Force. Employers give up key personnel from their workforce to provide support for national 

defense for extended duration periods. Beyond that, many employers have stepped 

forward to assure their employee-reservists do not take a substantial cut in pay 

when called to active duty by making up the difference between their active duty 

pay and their civilian pay. Other employers have provided continuing health care 

premium payments to assure ongoing health care coverage for family members of 

reservists. While these efforts are laudable, it is unreasonable to expect such generosity to continue for an extended period as reservists enter the second year of, or 

subsequent mobilizations. Moreover, it is also the case that employers should not 

be faced with a financial disincentive to hire reservists, nor bear an unreasonable 

proportion of the financial costs of mobilization. 

In recognizing employer support of reservists, Congressional leaders have introduced several bills tailored to recognizing the contributions of employers of reservists that would go far in supporting employers. Among these bills are proposed tax 

relief in the form of tax deductions and credits for employers of reservists, health 

care initiatives that would address care ‘‘gaps’’ and ‘‘continuity of care’’ issues reported by some reservists. In particular, allowing reservists to participate in a proposed group TRICARE cost-share program would benefit employers, and encourage 

hiring of reservists at a time when anecdotal reports indicate a less than enthusiastic propensity by some employers to hire reservists. As a major benefit cost for 

employers would be eliminated, this would provide a strong incentive for civilian 

employers to hire Reserve Component members. Also, civilian employers would not 

incur the expense of paying premiums for employees who are mobilized if the member elected to have TRICARE benefits only. Furthermore, TRICARE would be the 

sole payee for any valid insurance claims. 

We must also continue supporting employers and enhance assistance through support-organizations such as Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR). Ongoing communication between Reserve Component leadership, individual service 

members, support organizations and employers will strengthen relationships among 

these groups, minimize problems that arise, and facilitate swift resolution to problems as they occur. 

EQUIPMENT READINESS

Question. The Air Force Reserve has performed world-wide missions in support 

of the War on Terrorism since September 12, 2001. I am interested in knowing more 

about the equipment readiness of the Air Force Reserve and how the deployments 

might impact that readiness. Specifically, please tell me: 

What significant equipment shortfalls exist in the Air Force Reserve? 

Answer. With regard to equipment shortfalls as it relates to the War on Terrorism, and the readiness of the Air Force Reserve to support the War on Terrorism, 

the following list of items is submitted. 

The WC–130J radar modification. 

F–16 color display processor. 

F–16 Litening II pod upgrade. 

F–16 Litening AT pod procurement. 

Security Forces UTC/LOGDET mobility equipment. 

A–10 Litening AT procurement. 

B–52 Litening AT procurement. 

Deployable secure tactical radios. 

C–5 Airlift Defensive Systems. 

APN–241 radar replacement for C–130E/H. 
484

Question. How do these shortfalls impact the Air Force Reserve’s mission in support of the war on terrorism? 

Answer. The lack of equipment effectively prevents the Air Force Reserve from 

achieving its maxim combat capability. 

WC–130J radar modification is required to correct display inconsistencies and 

boost detection range of weather hazards through software and hardware changes 

for the 10 Hurricane Hunter aircraft. Without these radar modifications the WC–

130 J-model is not currently capable of penetrating hurricanes. 

F–16 Color Display Processor replaces the overloaded and logistically 

unsupportable data display processor and provides color multi-functional display for 

weapons, navigation, and aircraft systems information. The upgraded display will 

enhance pilot situational awareness in combat and increase overall combat capability of the 69 F–16 aircraft fleet in the Air Force Reserve. 

F–16 Litening II pod upgrade enhances target detection range and target tracking 

accuracy. Pilots will have greater flexibility with increased safety while attacking 

targets with greater precision and minimizing collateral damage. This upgrade will 

bring the existing pods up to the capability of the enhanced Litening AT version. 

F–16 Litening AT pod is the most capable multi-sensor targeting pod, which provides enhanced precision strike capability while minimizing collateral damage. The 

Litening II pod was used with great success during the War in Afghanistan and 

during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently, there are 30 Litening II pods shared between 132 aircraft F–16, A–10 and B–52’s. 

Security Forces UTC/LOGDET mobility equipment funds are required to replace 

assets such as field telecommunication equipment, tactical radios, night vision devices, pallets and cargo nets. These assets were deployed in direct support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and left in country in support of commander’s request. Funds are also required to acquire equipment for newly assigned 

Security Forces, which have already started deploying without all required equipment due to short notice taskings and previously deployed equipment. 

A–10 Litening AT pod is the most capable multi-sensor targeting pod, which provides enhanced precision strike capability while minimizing collateral damage. The 

Litening II pod was first used by the A–10 in combat with great success during the 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently, there are 30 Litening II pods shared between 

132 aircraft F–16, A–10 and B–52’s. 

B–52 Litening AT pod is the most capable multi-sensor targeting pod, which provides enhanced precision strike capability while minimizing collateral damage. The 

Litening II pod was first used by the B–52 in combat with great success during the 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently, there are 30 Litening II pods shared between 

132 aircraft F–16, A–10 and B–52’s. 

The Deployable secure tactical radios are needed to replace the Scope Shield I and 

II tactical field radios which are unsupportable and must be replaced. They are no 

longer depot repairable and are technically unsupportable. Secure tactical radios are 

the Air Force’s primary means of communication for force protection operations. 

The C–5 Airlift Defensive System is intended to provide protection against infrared (IR)-guided surface-to-air missile threats in low-threat and some medium-threat 

environments. The system is designed to detect the threat, alert the crew, and automatically expend IR countermeasure decoys. 

The APN–241 Radar replacement for C–130 E/H is the AMC standard radar to 

replace the APN–59 for combat delivery aircraft. The current APN–59 radar system 

does not meet mission reliability, maintainability, and supportability requirements. 

Cost to maintain an antiquated APN–59 system is becoming prohibitive. HQ AMC 

is working a program to replace the APN–59 radar on the entire C–130 fleet with 

new generation low-power color radars under the Avionics Modernization Program 

(AMP); however, the AMP Program has taken several budget cuts and is being extended into the future. 

Question. What are the potential future impacts of these equipment shortfalls? 

Answer. The potential future impact of these equipment shortfalls will prevent 

the Air Force Reserve from maintaining interoperability not only within the total 

force construct, but the entire battle space shared by our sister services and allies. 

In order to maintain relevance and provide the combat capability required by the 

Combatant Commanders, the Air Force Reserve must modernize.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. We appreciate your service and your willingness to be with us today. We’re going to reconvene on May 14 to 

hear from the Secretary of Defense. 
485

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 a.m., Wednesday, May 7, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 14.]

(487)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:33 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

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

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Specter, Domenici, Shelby, 

Burns, Inouye, Hollings, Byrd, Leahy, Durbin, and Feinstein. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

DOV ZAKHEIM, Ph.D., COMPTROLLER, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL PETER PACE, U.S. ARMY, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT 

CHIEFS OF STAFF 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, General Pace, 

and Secretary Zakheim. We welcome you back before the committee. 

Because of the number of people I believe will come to the table, 

before we get started I ask that all members limit their comments 

to not more than 2 minutes as we get started on this hearing so 

we can listen to the Secretary and get Senators’ questions. 

The committee continues to review the fiscal year 2004 defense 

budget and we are going to be very interested in hearing from you 

about the expenditure of the 2003 supplemental for military operations in Iraq and for the global war on terrorism. We also look forward to hearing today your priorities in the budget request regarding investments for the future derived from lessons learned from 

these overseas operations we have been involved in. 

It may be too early to really understand all of those lessons, but 

we do hope to hear from you about our operations, not only in Iraq, 

but Afghanistan. I know we will have many times in the coming 

months to review your statement in full, which we will put in the 

record as though read. 

I yield to my good friend from Hawaii, and I hope all Senators 

will abide by the 2-minute limitation. 
488

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to 

your request, may I request that my statement be made part of the 

record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Good morning Mr. Secretary. I want to join our chairman in welcoming you as 

the subcommittee concludes its Defense Department hearings on the fiscal year 

2004 budget request. Mr. Secretary, these days we hear the word transformation a 

lot. I am sure you and the chairman will recall that it was General Shinseki who 

first used the term to describe his plans for the Army. 

Mr. Secretary, today we hope you will inform us how the concept of transformation is incorporated in your budget request for fiscal year 2004. But Mr. Chairman you and I are also keenly aware that the systems that were so successful in 

the recent war in Iraq were not part of transformation; virtually all resulted from 

investments by previous administrations. 

The M–1 tank, Apache helicopter, and the F–117 were developed in the 1970’s. 

The Tomahawk missile, the B–2 bomber, the aegis ships were first purchased in the 

1980’s. Even JSTARS, and JDAM missiles were developed long before the current 

administration came into office. 

So we hope to hear as well Mr. Secretary how your fiscal year 2004 request builds 

on the successes of your predecessors. 

During our hearings this year we received testimony from the leaders of the military departments and the Guard and Reserves, and from the Surgeons General. As 

we have examined the testimony of these officials, it is clear they are basically 

pleased with your budget request. 

The Navy might not have enough ships, but that is mostly because the ship programs aren’t ready to be accelerated. 

This year, we learned more about the shortfall and aging of our Air Force tanker 

and transport aircraft while we await your decision on leasing. 

General Hagee gave us an optimistic assessment of the V–22 for the marines. We 

would like to hear your assessment as well. 

The Army testified that it desperately needs six Stryker brigrages. Again, we 

await your thoughts on this matter. 

We would also like to hear about your reviews of our amphibious forces and submarine fleet, and the status of our space programs. Mr. Secretary, you know this 

committee wants to help you transform the military to ensure that we can prevent 

future wars. As always, we stand ready to assist you. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing the Secretary’s testimony 

and responses to the committee’s questions.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Good morning. 

Senator INOUYE. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I want to join my 

chairman in welcoming you and your staff to be with us today for 

a very important hearing. May I congratulate you and, through 

you, the troops of the United States of America. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you very much, sir. They did a wonderful job. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Burns. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. I will submit my statement for the record, Mr. 

Chairman. We want to welcome the Secretary of Defense this 

morning and look forward to hearing his comments. We are looking 

at a different kind of a world now since the Iraqi operation and I 

look forward to working with the Secretary in doing some of that 

planning. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 
489

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you, Secretary Rumsfeld, for 

being here today. I know you all are—as so many are—incredibly busy, considering 

current events around the world. 

Our active military forces have seen a lot of action as of late. The Guard and Reserve components have experienced an increased operations tempo as well. The performance of our military men and women has been outstanding. 

Our military has performed honorably in the latest missions with which it has 

been tasked—the Global War on Terrorism, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. While there indeed was a lot that was done right in all of these 

operations, I hope we continue to look back to see where we could have done better. 

Here at home, we have witnessed employers and communities coming together to 

support these men and women and their families. 

Ensuring that our military men and women have the proper training, equipment 

and facilities necessary to carry out their duties is essential. I pledge to do what 

I can to ensure that the United States military has the tools, skills and support 

needed to maintain its position as the finest fighting force in the world. 

Again, I thank you for being here today. I look forward to hearing your testimony 

and listening to the discussion this morning. 

Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Hollings. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I have supported you before you became popular, 

and the jointness that I have in what we call SPAWAR down in 

Charleston, South Carolina, I want you to see that. That is a 

Rumsfeld operation and I want you to come and visit it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Shelby. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to welcome the Secretary back here. There is nothing like success and you epitomize 

that. 

Thank you. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Byrd. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to congratulate the Department on the 

work that it has done with respect to cleaning up the information 

concerning the status of accounts. We talked several months ago 

about the fact that the Defense Department could not trace, could 

not trace $3 trillion of its inventory, of its accounts. Dr. Zakheim 

was just telling me a little while ago that you have gotten that 

down now to less than $800 million, you are still working on it, and 

I want to congratulate you on that, on that progress. 

You indicated at that time that you were going to get your teeth 

into it, that you were going to get hold of it, and you were going 

to turn it around, and you are doing that. You are doing that. I 

want to thank you and congratulate you. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Mrs. Feinstein. 
490

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

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

I would just say welcome. I have a number of questions and I 

will reserve them for the appropriate time. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. I thank you all for your cooperation. Senator 

Leahy, did I call on you? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. You did not, but I am glad to see the Secretary. 

When he first—when he was first Secretary of Defense, he was the 

youngest Secretary of Defense; I was the second youngest member 

of the Senate. I have aged. He has done a Dorian Gray; he has not. 

I am glad to see him here. 

Senator STEVENS. Again, I thank you all. 

Mr. Secretary, pleased to hear from you, and the statements you 

have presented will be printed in full in the record. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee. I appreciate your putting the entire 

statement in the record and I will make some remarks from that 

statement. 

Senator STEVENS. We do not have copies of that statement. They 

gave them out to the press, but we do not have them up here. It 

would be nice if we had one, too. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I will see that that happens. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, we do. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Others seem to have it. I do not know. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. We can pass one up to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

SECRETARY RUMSFELD’S OPENING STATEMENT

Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am accompanied by Dr. Dov Zakheim, Comptroller of the 

Department of Defense, and General Pete Pace, the Vice Chief of 

Staff—the Vice Chairman correctly, the Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, in Dick Myers’ absence. 

We thank you for this opportunity to update the committee on 

our progress in our efforts to try to strengthen the Department to 

meet the challenges of the 21st century and to discuss the President’s request for fiscal year 2004 to 2009. I also want to thank the 

members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, and you for the action, 

prompt action, on the President’s emergency 2003 supplemental request for the global war on terror. Passage of that legislation will 

certainly help provide the fighting men and women with the capabilities they need, to prosecute the war on terror in the weeks and 

months ahead. 

As several of you have said, our troops have been and are doing 

a truly superb job all across the globe, and we are certainly grateful to them for their dedication and their courage, and also for the 

fact that they are all volunteers who stepped forward to serve their 

country. They crossed hundreds of miles in Iraq, facing death 

squads and dust storms, and liberated Baghdad in less than a 

month. 
491

What they accomplished is very likely going to go down in history books. 

APPLYING LESSONS LEARNED

The Department, as you point out, cannot wait for history to be 

written. We need to meet the threats that this dangerous new century poses, and threats that emerge often without warning. We 

have to apply the lessons from the experiences in Afghanistan and 

Iraq to transform the Department and the services as to how they 

organize, how they train, how they equip and exercise and fight. 

Even now, while the lessons learned process is still in its early 

stages, we can already see that the experience in Iraq has validated some of the strategic decisions that we made in our defense 

reviews over the past 2 plus years, decisions that in some ways 

contributed and drove this 2004 budget. 

Consider a few of the lessons. One is speed, and it matters. Coalition forces pressed through southern Iraq in a matter of weeks. 

It seems likely that the enemy was not able to mount a coherent 

defense or attack its neighbors, as it had in 1991 with Scud missiles, or destroy its oil wells. It did manage to destroy a handful 

or so, but not all of them, as they did in Kuwait 12 years ago. We 

believe that in part this was because the coalition advance was so 

much faster than had been anticipated. 

The experience highlights the value of capabilities that can move 

quickly into theater, reach targets with speed and agility. 

Another important lesson involves intelligence and the ability to 

act on intelligence rapidly. In Iraq, using time-sensitive targeting 

cells, the coalition was able to launch attacks on enemy targets in 

some cases in 20 minutes, based on intelligence information that 

was fresh. Planes taking off for bombing runs on occasion did not 

receive their targeting information until they were in the air and 

well on their way. 

The success of Operation Iraqi Freedom helps to validate the recommendation in the budget for increased investments in command, 

control, communications, intelligence, and persistent surveillance. 

Another is the importance of precision. The capabilities employed 

in Iraq were discrete. One new weapon used for the first time in 

Iraq, a thermobaric Hellfire missile, can take out the first floor of 

a building without damaging the floors above and is capable of 

reaching around corners, striking enemy forces that hide in caves 

or bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes. It went from development to deployment in less than 1 year. 

Coalition military planners used a sophisticated computer model 

to determine the precise direction, the angle of attack, and the type 

of weapon needed to destroy desired targets while sparing nearby 

civilian facilities. 

It was important that we won, but it was also important how we 

won, and the fact that this conflict was done with greater precision 

than any conflict in history and as a result it had to have persuaded the Iraqi people that the effort was not against the country 

of Iraq, was not against the Iraqi people, was not against the religion, but, in fact, was against a regime. 

We believe that these experiences support the decision to request 

increases in the 2004 budget for research and development, testing, 
492

evaluation, procurement, as well as the decision to try to begin 

changing how we develop new capabilities by employing spiral development to allow us to bring new weapons to the field in a matter of months or years instead of decades, which has been the pattern. 

Another lesson in Iraq is the importance of joint operations. U.S. 

forces, as General Tom Franks properly points out, did not fight as 

individual services on a deconflicted basis, which has been historically the pattern. Instead, they fought as a truly joint force. One 

example is the rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch, which was made possible by a joint team of Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, Marines, Air 

Force Special Operators, of course with the help of an Iraqi citizen. 

The joint warfighting experience in Iraq supports the request in 

the budget to make new investments in joint training and in joint 

warfighting capabilities. 

Another lesson was the importance of Special Operations Forces. 

In Iraq the special operators were the first coalition forces to hit 

the ground. Indeed, a number of them went in before the war formally began, with hundreds more pouring into the western portion 

of Iraq and other regions just before the ground invasion, securing 

airfields, attacking terrorist facilities and regime targets, and taking out the regime’s capability to launch attacks against neighboring countries. 

These experiences, as well as the remarkable performance of special operators in Afghanistan, we believe support the decisions that 

we have made and the proposals we have made to transform the 

Special Operations Command and to request needed new investments in Special Operations in the budget. 

There will be other important lessons as we study Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. But the point is this. This budget was developed 

with warfare of this kind in mind and the experiences in fighting 

this war have confirmed the decisions made in the defense review, 

which are reflected in the budget before the committee. 

TRANSFORMING TO MEET CHANGING THREATS

Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 years the senior civilian and military leaders of the Department have been working to determine 

how the Department of Defense (DOD) can best transform to meet 

the changing threats of the new century. This year’s budget request 

before you is the first to fully reflect the new defense strategies and 

policies and the lessons of the global war on terror. Our defense review identified six goals that drive transformation efforts: 

First, we have to be able to defend the homeland and bases of 

operations. 

Second, we have to be able to project and sustain forces in distant theaters. That is clear after these two recent events. 

Third, we have to be able to deny enemy sanctuaries. 

Fourth, we have to improve space capabilities and maintain 

unhindered access to space. 

Fifth, we need to harness our substantial advantages in information technology to link up different kinds of United States (U.S.) 

forces so that they can fight jointly. 
493

And sixth, we have to be able to protect U.S. information networks from attack and to be able to disable the information networks of our adversaries to limit their ability to communicate. 

This budget request funds investments that support these transformational goals. Over the next 6 years, we have proposed a 30 

percent increase in procurement funding and a 65 percent increase 

in funding for research, development, testing, and evaluation above 

the 2002 baseline budget. That is an investment of roughly $150 

billion annually. 

In addition to these increases, the research, development, test, 

and evaluation (RDT&E) spending will rise from 36 percent to 42 

percent of the overall investment budget. This shift reflects a decision to accept some near-term risk in order to accelerate the development of needed next generational systems. 

Among the more important transformational investments we propose is a request for funds to establish a new Joint National Training Capability. To ensure that U.S. forces train like they fight and 

fight like they train, we have budgeted $1.8 billion over the forward year defense plan to fund range improvements and to permit 

more of both live and virtual joint training, an annual investment 

of about $300 million. 

The total investment in transforming military capabilities in this 

budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $24 billion or about $240 billion over the Future Year Defense Program. 

BALANCING RISK

Even as we accept some increased near-term risk—and this 

budget does accept near-term risk—so that we can prepare for the 

future, it also recognizes that new and unexpected dangers will 

likely be awaiting us over the horizon. That is why this budget requests increased investments in critical areas such as readiness, 

quality of life, improvements for the men and women in uniform, 

and to make certain existing capabilities are properly maintained 

and replenished. 

We have made investments that should stabilize funding for 

training, spares, and OPTEMPO and put a stop to past practices 

of raiding the investment accounts to pay for the immediate operations and maintenance needs. So we stop robbing the future to 

pay for today’s urgent bills. 

In this request for fiscal year 2004, we increase the shipbuilding 

budget by $2.7 billion, making good on our hope last year that we 

could increase shipbuilding from five to seven ships per year. 

We increase the Special Operations budget by $1.5 billion to pay 

for equipment lost in the global war on terror and for an additional 

1,890 people. 

We increase military and civilian pay proposals by $3.7 billion, 

increase missile defense by $1.75 billion, including increased funding for Research and Development of promising new technologies, 

and to deploy a small number of interceptors beginning in 2004. 

The President has asked Congress for a total of $379.9 billion for 

2004. That is a $15.3 billion increase over last year’s budget. But 

even that increase only moves us part of the way, requiring us to 

make tough choices between competing demands, and that means 

that some desirable capabilities do not get funded in this budget. 
494

Yet, in making those decisions we believe we made better choices 

this year because we followed a new approach to balancing risks 

that we developed in last year’s defense review. It is an approach 

that tries to take into account not just the risks to operations and 

contingency plans, but also the risks to the force, to the men and 

women in uniform, to make sure we can attract and retain the 

right people, and risks to modernization or the failure to modernize, if you will, as well as the risk to the future or the failure 

to transform, risks that in the past had often been crowded out by 

more immediate, pressing demands. The result is, we believe, a 

more balanced approach and a more overall coherent program. 

To free resources, the services have stepped up and will be canceling, slowing, or restructuring a number of programs so that they 

can invest those savings in transforming capabilities. In all, by retiring or restructuring less urgent programs we believe we can 

achieve savings of some $80 billion over the Future Year Defense 

Program, money that will be reinvested by the services in capabilities for the 21st century. 

As you consider the budget, I am sure you will hear pleading for 

a number of programs and plausible arguments as to why this or 

that program should be saved or funded at a higher rate. I suspect 

some may disagree with decisions that have been made in this 

budget and may want to make changes in the budget proposal, and 

certainly as a former member of Congress I recognize that Article 

I of the Constitution, the Congress is Article I, that the President 

proposes and the Congress disposes. I know that. 

But it is also important, it seems to me, that as the committee 

considers potential changes it recognizes that this budget—we have 

tried to balance those risks, and it is not an easy thing to do. This 

is not to suggest that the budget before you is perfect. Certainly 

no one has a monopoly on wisdom, and there are a number of examples I could cite wherein Congress pressed the Executive Branch 

over the years to invest in programs, such as the Joint Surveillance 

Target Attach Radar System (JSTARS), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 

(UAV’s), that later proved critical to the success of the armed 

forces. 

What I am suggesting is that if changes are made, and they will 

be, that they be made in a coherent way, that we have a chance 

to talk them through, and that they are made with a full understanding of the implications, not only on the program in question 

that somebody may want to increase, but also on the costs in terms 

of the reductions that have to take place in other areas. 

We have done our best to develop a budget with what we believe 

has been unprecedented transparency. We hope that this spirit of 

openness and cooperation will continue as Congress deliberates. 

IMPROVING MANAGEMENT

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we really cannot transform unless we 

have the ability to better manage the Department. In an age where 

terrorists move information at the speed of an E-mail, money at 

the speed of a wire transfer, and people at the speed of a commercial jet liner, the Defense Department is, to be very honest, still 

bogged down in bureaucratic processes that resulted from the industrial age, not the information age. 
495

Some of our difficulties are self-imposed by the Department, to 

be sure. Others, however, are the result of law and regulation, and 

together they have created a culture that too often stifles innovation in the Department. The result is we are fighting the first wars 

of the 21st century with a Department that was fashioned, organized, to meet the challenges of the mid-20th century. 

Our legislative proposal, the Defense Transformation Act for the 

21st Century, would give the Department the needed flexibility. 

Among the provisions in this legislation, many of which I admit are 

controversial, and I know that, we have proposed more flexible 

rules for the flow of money through the Department to give us the 

ability to respond to urgent needs as they emerge. We have proposed elimination of some of the more onerous regulations that 

make it difficult or virtually impossible for many small businesses 

to do business with the Department of Defense. 

We have proposed expanded authority for competitive 

outsourcing so that we can get military personnel out of non-military tasks and back into the field. We have proposed measures for 

transforming our system of personnel management so that we can 

gain more flexibility and agility as to how we manage the more 

than 700,000 civilians who provide the Department such vital support. We need a performance-based promotion system for our civilian work force that rewards excellence, just like the one Congress 

insisted on for the men and women in uniform. 

Mr. Chairman and members, transformation, as you know well, 

is not an event; it is not something that starts and then ends. It 

is a process, it is a culture, it is a frame of mind. Our goal is to 

set in motion that process and culture that will keep the United 

States several steps ahead of our potential adversaries. To do that, 

we need not only resources, but equally we need flexibility to use 

those resources with speed and agility so we can respond quickly 

to the new threats that we face as this century unfolds. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention. General Pace and 

Dov Zakheim and I are available to respond to questions, unless 

you have a statement, General Pace. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD H. RUMSFELD

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

update the Committee on our progress in strengthening the Department of Defense 

for the 21st century challenges, and to discuss the President’s budget request for 

fiscal year 2004–2009. 

I also want to thank you and the members for your action on the President’s 

emergency supplemental request for the global war on terror. Your prompt passage 

of that legislation will help to provide for our fighting men and women as they prosecute the global war on terror in the weeks and months ahead. 

Our troops are doing a superb job and deserve our thanks for their courage and 

dedication to duty. 

What coalition forces have accomplished in Operation Iraqi Freedom is remarkable. They crossed hundreds of miles in Iraq—facing death squads and dust 

storms—to liberate Baghdad in less than a month. 

Today, because of coalition forces’ tenacity and skill, the regime of Saddam Hussein is no longer—and the Iraqi people are free to determine their own destiny. 
496

Visiting with the troops, I told them that what they accomplished will go down 

in the history books. And it will. But at the Department, we cannot afford to wait 

for history to be written. The threats we face in this dangerous new century are 

emerging, often without warning. We need to apply the lessons from the experience 

in Iraq to transform how the Department and the Services organize, train and equip 

for the 21st century. 

The ‘‘lessons learned’’ process for Operation Iraqi Freedom is well underway. It 

will likely impact budgets and procedures, training and doctrine, and the security 

of our country for some years to come. But even now, while that process is still in 

its early stages, we can already see that the experience in Iraq has validated a number of the strategic decisions that were made in our defense reviews over the past 

two years—decisions that drove the development of this 2004 budget. 

Consider a few of those lessons: 

One lesson is that speed matters. Coalition forces pressed through Southern Iraq 

in a matter of weeks, racing towards Baghdad. The enemy was unable to mount a 

coherent defense, use WMD, attack neighboring countries with SCUD missiles, destroy oil wells, or blow up dams, bridges and infrastructure—in part, we believe—

because the coalition advance was so fast. This experience highlights the value of 

capabilities that can move quickly into theater and reach targets with speed and 

agility. 

Another is the importance of intelligence—and the ability to act on that intelligence rapidly. In Iraq, using ‘‘Time Sensitive Targeting Cells,’’ the coalition was 

able to launch attacks on enemy targets, in some cases within 20 minutes of receiving the intelligence information. Planes taking off for bombing runs on occasion did 

not receive their targeting information until they were in the air and well on their 

way. Ground forces were able to stay ‘‘in contact’’ with the enemy forces, and attack 

them with great effect, even as those forces made every effort to avoid contact. The 

success of these efforts in Operation Iraqi Freedom validates the recommendation 

in this budget for increased investments in command, control, communications, intelligence, and persistent surveillance. 

Another is the importance of precision. The capabilities employed in Iraq were 

discreet. One new weapon used for the first time in Iraq—a ‘‘thermobaric’’ Hellfire 

missile—can take out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors above, 

and is capable of reaching around corners, into niches and behind walls to strike 

enemy forces hiding in caves, bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes. It went 

from development to deployment in less than a year. Coalition military planners 

also used a sophisticated computer model to determine the precise direction, angle 

of attack and type of weapon needed to destroy a desired target, while sparing nearby civilian facilities. 

This unprecedented precision allowed the coalition to fight this war with unprecedented care—protecting innocent lives while delivering devastating damage to the 

Iraqi regime. There was no refugee crisis because Iraqis felt safe to stay in the cities 

as long as they stayed clear of military targets. As a result, the Iraqi people saw 

that this war was being waged not against a country, or a people or a religion, but 

against a regime—and that we were coming not as conquerors but as liberators. We 

believe these experiences support the decision to request increases in the 2004 budget for research, development, testing and evaluation, and for procurement, as well 

as the decision to change how we develop those new capabilities—by employing ‘‘spiral development’’ to allow us to bring new weapons to the field in months or years 

instead of decades. 

Another lesson in Iraq was the importance of joint operations. U.S. forces did not 

fight as individual deconflicted services. Instead, they fought as a truly joint force. 

One example is the rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch—it was made possible by a joint 

team of Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, Marines, and Air Force Special operators—

with the help of an Iraqi citizen. The joint war fighting experience in Iraq supports 

the request in the 2004 budget to make new investments in joint training and in 

joint war fighting capabilities. 

Another lesson was the critical importance of special operations forces. In Iraq, 

special operators were the first coalition forces to hit the ground—some of them before the war formally began—with hundreds more pouring into Western Iraq and 

other regions just before the ground invasion—securing airfields, attacking terrorist 

facilities and regime targets, and taking out the regime’s capability to launch attacks against neighboring countries. These experiences—as well as the remarkable 

performance of special operators in Afghanistan—support the decisions to transform 

the Special Operations Command and to request needed new investments in Special 

Operations in the 2004 budget. 

There will be other important lessons as we study Operation Iraqi Freedom. But 

the point is this: the 2004 budget was developed with warfare of this kind in mind—
497

and the experiences in fighting this war have confirmed the decisions made in the 

defense review which are reflected in the budget before the Committee today. 

Mr. Chairman, over the past two years, the senior civilian and military leaders 

of the Department have been working to determine how DOD can best transform 

to meet the changing threats of a new century. Together we have: 

—Fashioned a new defense strategy. 

—Replaced the decade-old two Major Theater War approach to sizing our forces 

with an approach more appropriate for the 21st century. 

—Developed a new approach to balancing risks that takes into account the risks 

in contingency plans and also the risks to the force, to modernization and to 

transformation. 

—Reorganized the Department to better focus our space activities. 

—Adopted a new Unified Command Plan, which establishes the new Northern 

Command to better defend the homeland; a Joint Forces Command that focuses 

on transformation; and a new Strategic Command responsible for early warning 

of, and defense against, missile attack and the conduct of long-range attacks. 

—Expanded the mission of the Special Operations Command, so that it cannot 

only support missions directed by the regional combatant commanders, but also 

plan and execute its own missions in the global war on terror. 

—Worked with Allies to develop a new NATO command structure and begin the 

development of a NATO Response Force that must be able to deploy in days 

and weeks, instead of months. 

—Taken steps to attract and retain needed skills in the Armed Forces, with targeted pay raises and quality of life improvements. 

—Reorganized and revitalized the missile defense research, development and testing program, freed from the constraints of the ABM Treaty. 

—Completed the Nuclear Posture Review, with a new approach to deterrence that 

will enhance our security, while permitting historic deep reductions in offensive 

nuclear weapons. 

—Moved from a ‘‘threat-based’’ to a ‘‘capabilities-based’’ approach to defense planning, focusing not only on who might threaten us, or where, or when—but also 

on how we might be threatened, and what portfolio of capabilities we will need 

to deter and defend against those new asymmetric threats. 

These are significant changes. Last year’s budget—the 2003 request—was finalized just as this defense review process was nearing completion. So while it included 

a top-line increase, and made important, and long-delayed investments in readiness, 

people, maintenance, and replacement of aging systems and facilities, we were only 

able to begin funding some transforming initiatives as the new defense strategy 

came into focus. 

But this year’s budget—the 2004 request before you today—is the first to fully reflect the new defense strategies and policies and the lessons of the global war on 

terror. 

Our defense review identified six goals that drive our transformation efforts: 

—First, we must be able to defend the U.S. homeland and bases of operation overseas; 

—Second, we must be able to project and sustain forces in distant theaters; 

—Third, we must be able to deny enemies sanctuary; 

—Fourth, we must improve our space capabilities and maintain unhindered access to space; 

—Fifth, we must harness our substantial advantages in information technology to 

link up different kinds of U.S. forces, so they can fight jointly; and 

—Sixth, we must be able to protect U.S. information networks from attack-and 

to disable the information networks of our adversaries. 

The President’s 2004 budget requests funds for investments that will support 

these transformational goals. For example: 

—For programs to help defend the U.S. homeland and bases of operation overseas—such as missile defense—we are requesting $7.9 billion in the 2004 budget, and $55 billion over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). 

—For programs to project and sustain forces in distant theaters—such as the new 

unmanned underwater vehicle program and the Future Combat Systems—we 

are requesting $8 billion in 2004, and $96 billion over the FYDP. 

—For programs to deny enemies sanctuary—such as unmanned combat aerial vehicles, and the conversion of SSBN to SSGN submarines—we are requesting 

$5.2 billion in 2004 and $49 billion over the FYDP. 

—For programs to enhance U.S. space capabilities—such as Space Control Systems—we are requesting $300 million in 2004 and $5 billion over the FYDP. 

—For programs to harness our advantages in information technology—such as 

laser satellite communications, Joint Tactical Radio, and the Deployable Joint 
498

Command and Control System—we are requesting $2.7 billion in 2004 and $28 

billion over the FYDP. 

—For programs to protect U.S. information networks and attack those of our adversaries—such as the Air and Space Operations Center—we are requesting 

$200 million in 2004 and $6 billion over the FYDP. 

Over the next six years, we have proposed a 30 percent increase in procurement 

funding and a 65 percent increase in funding for research, development, testing and 

evaluation (RDT&E) above the 2002 baseline budget—an investment of roughly 

$150 billion annually. 

In addition to these increases, RDT&E spending will rise from 36 percent to 42 

percent of the overall investment budget. This shift reflects a decision to accept 

some near-term risk in order to accelerate the development of needed next generation systems. 

Among the more important transformational investments we propose is a request 

for funds to establish a new Joint National Training Capability. As we saw in Iraq, 

wars in the 21st century will be fought jointly. Yet too often our forces still train 

and prepare for war as individual services. That needs to change. 

To ensure that U.S. forces train like they fight and fight like they train, we have 

budgeted $1.8 billion over the next six years to fund range improvements and permit more of both live and virtual joint training—an annual investment of $300 million. 

The total investment in transforming military capabilities in the 2004 request is 

$24.3 billion, and about $240 billion over the FYDP. 

We propose not only transforming the capabilities at our disposal, but also the 

way we develop new capabilities. The old way was to develop a picture of the perfect 

system, and then build the system to meet that vision of perfection, however long 

it took or cost. The result was that, as technology advanced, and with it dreams of 

what a perfect system could do, capabilities were taking longer and longer to develop and the cost of systems increased again and again—Time is money. 

A different approach is to start with the basics, simpler items, and roll out early 

models faster—and then add capabilities to the basic system as they become available. This is what the private sector does—companies bring a new car or aircraft 

on line, for example, and then update it over a period of years with new designs 

and technologies. We need to do the same. 

Take, for example, the approach to ballistic missile defense. Instead of taking a 

decade or more to develop someone’s vision of a ‘‘perfect’’ shield, we have instead 

decided to develop and put in place a rudimentary system by 2004—one which 

should make us somewhat safer than we are now—and then build on that foundation with increasingly effective capabilities as the technologies mature. 

We intend to apply this ‘‘spiral development’’ approach to a number of systems, 

restructured programs and new starts alike over the course of the FYDP. The result 

should be that new capabilities will be available faster, so we can better respond 

to fast moving adversaries and newly emerging threats. 

BALANCING RISK

Even as we accept some increased near-term risk so we can prepare for the future, this budget also recognizes that new and unexpected dangers will likely be 

waiting just over the horizon—and that we must be flexible to face them. 

That is why the 2004 budget requests increased investments in critical areas such 

as: readiness, quality of life improvements for the men and women in uniform, and 

to make certain existing capabilities are properly maintained and replenished. 

Over the next six years, the President has requested a 15 percent increase for 

Military Personnel accounts, above the 2002 baseline budget, and an increase in 

funding for family housing by 10 percent over the same period. The 2004 budget 

includes $1 billion for targeted military pay raises, ranging from 2 percent to 6.25 

percent. Out of pocket expenses for those living in private housing drop from 7.5 

percent to 3.5 percent in 2004, and are on a path to total elimination by 2005. 

Over the next six years, we have requested a 20 percent increase for Operations 

and Maintenance accounts above the 2002 baseline budget. We have proposed $40 

billion for readiness of all the services and $6 billion for facilities sustainment over 

the same period. 

These investments should stabilize funding for training, spares and OPTEMPO, 

and put a stop to the past practice of raiding the investment accounts to pay for 

the immediate operations and maintenance needs, so we stop robbing the future to 

pay today’s urgent bills. 

In our 2004 request: 
499

—We increased the shipbuilding budget by $2.7 billion, making good on our hope 

last year that we could increase shipbuilding from five to seven ships. —We increased the Special Operations budget by $1.5 billion, to pay for equipment lost in the global war on terror and for an additional 1,890 personnel. —We increased military and civilian pay by $3.7 billion. 

—We increased missile defense by $1.5 billion, including increased funds for research and development of promising new technologies, and to deploy a small 

number of interceptors beginning in 2004. The President has asked Congress for a total of $379.9 billion for fiscal year 2004—a $15.3 billion increase over last year’s budget. That is a large amount of the 

taxpayers’ hard-earned money. But even that increase only moves us part of the 

way. 

Our challenge is to do three difficult things at once: 

—Win the global war on terror; 

—Prepare for the threats we will face later this decade; and 

—Continue transforming for the threats we will face in 2010 and beyond. 

Any one of those challenges is difficult—and expensive. Taking on all three, as 

we must, required us to make tough choices between competing demands—which 

meant that, inevitably, some desirable capabilities do not get funded. For example: 

—Despite the significant increase in shipbuilding, we did not get the shipbuilding 

rate up to the desired steady state of 10 ships per year. Because of planned retirements of other ships, we will drop below a 300-ship fleet during the course 

of the FYDP. The Navy is in the process of transforming, and has two studies 

underway for amphibious ships and for submarines—we have increased shipbuilding in 2004, but we do not want to lock ourselves into a shipbuilding program now until we know precisely which ships we will want to build in the outyears. 

—We have not been able to modernize our tactical air forces fast enough to reduce 

the average age of our aircraft fleet. 

—We have had to delay elimination of all inadequate family housing by 2007—

though we got close! 

—We have not fully resolved our so-called ‘‘high-demand/low density’’ problems—

systems like JSTARS, which, because they have been chronically under funded 

in the past, will still be in short supply in this budget. 

—We opted not to modernize a number of legacy programs—taking on some nearterm risks to fund transforming capabilities we will need in this fast moving 

world. 

—We did not achieve the level of growth in the Science and Technology (S&T) ac- counts we had hoped for. Our request is $10.2 billion, or 2.69 percent of the 

2004 budget. 

—We have delayed investments to completely fix the recapitalization rate for 

DOD infrastructure. We still intend to get the rate down from 148 years to 67 

years by 2008, and we expect to accelerate facilities investments in 2006 after 

we have made the needed decisions with respect to the appropriate base structure, at home and abroad. We are reviewing our worldwide base structure, and 

starting the steps to prepare for the 2005 BRAC. We want to think carefully 

about how best to match our base structure and force structure. 

That’s the bad news. But there is good news as well. In making those difficult 

decisions, we believe we made better choices this year because we followed the new 

approach to balancing risks that we developed in last year’s defense review—an approach that takes into account not just the risks in operations and contingency 

plans, but also the risks to our force—the people, and risks to modernization and 

to the future—risks that, in the past, often had been crowded out by more immediate pressing demands. The result, we believe, is a more balanced approach and 

a more coherent program. 

To help free resources, the services have stepped up, and will be canceling, slowing or restructuring a number of programs so they can invest those savings in transforming capabilities. For example: 

—The Army came up with savings of some $22 billion over the six-year FYDP, 

by terminating 24 systems, including Crusader, the Bradley A3 and Abrams upgrades and reducing or restructuring another 24, including Medium Tactical Vehicles. The Army used these savings to help pay for new transformational capabilities, such as the Future Combat Systems. 

—The Navy reallocated nearly $39 billion over the FYDP, by retiring 26 ships and 

259 aircraft, and merging the Navy & Marine air forces. They invested these 

savings in new ship designs and aircraft. 

—The Air Force shifted funds and changed its business practices to account for 

nearly $21 billion over the FYDP. It will retire 114 fighter and 115 mobility/
500

tanker aircraft. The savings will be invested in readiness, people, modernization 

and new system starts and cutting edge systems like unmanned aerial vehicles 

(UAVs) and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). 

In all, by retiring or restructuring less urgent programs, we believe we can 

achieve savings of some $80 billion over the FYDP—money that will be reinvested 

by the services in capabilities for the 21st century. 

We feel a deep obligation to not waste the taxpayers’ dollars. We need to show 

the taxpayers that we are willing to stop doing things that we don’t need to be 

doing, and take that money and put it into investments we do need. 

As you consider this budget, I am sure you will hear pleading for a number of 

programs—and plausible arguments for why this or that program should be saved 

or funded at a higher rate. I suspect some may disagree with decisions that have 

been made, and may want to make changes in this budget proposal. As a former 

Member of Congress, I recognize that the Congress is Article 1 of the Constitution—

the President proposes and Congress disposes. But it is also important that, as the 

Committee considers potential changes, it recognizes that this budget has been 

crafted to balance a number of risks. And with every change, that balance of risks 

is affected. 

This is not to suggest that the budget before you is perfect—no one has a monopoly on wisdom. And there are numerous examples of instances when Congress 

pressed the executive branch to invest in programs—such as JSTARS and UAVs—

that later proved critical. What I am suggesting is that if changes are made, they 

be made in a coherent way—that we talk them through, and that the decisions be 

made with a full understanding of the effects they may have—not only on the program in question, but the costs in terms of the investments in other areas that will 

be put off as a result. 

We have done our best to develop this budget with what we believe has been unprecedented transparency—providing detailed briefings to those interested in defense here on Capitol Hill. Congress was not simply presented with the President’s 

budget—it was kept in the loop as decisions were being made. I am told that the 

extent of consultation from the Defense Department to the Congress this year has 

been unprecedented. We hope that this spirit of openness and cooperation will continue as Congress deliberates—so that the final budget is crafted in a way that preserves the balance of risks. 

Our hope is that, with this budget, we can further transform not only our military 

capabilities, but also the relationship between the Defense Department and the Congress—by establishing a new spirit of trust and cooperation. 

RESULTS

As a result of these strategic investments and decisions, we can now see the effects of transforming begin to unfold. Consider just some of the changes that are 

taking place: 

—Today, the missile defense research, development and testing program has been 

revitalized and we are on track for limited land/sea deployment in 2004–05. 

—Today, the Space Based Radar, which will help provide near-persistent 24/7/365 

coverage of the globe, is scheduled to be ready in 2012. 

—In this budget, we believe SBIRS-High is properly funded. 

—Today, we are converting 4 Trident SSBN subs into conventional SSGNs, capable of delivering special forces and cruise missiles to denied areas. 

—Today, we are proposing to build the CVN–21 aircraft carrier in 2007, which 

will include many new capabilities that were previously scheduled to be introduced only in 2011. 

—Today, instead of 1 UCAV program in development, the X–45, which was designed for a limited mission of suppression of enemy air defense, we have set 

up competition among a number of programs that should produce UCAVs able 

to conduct a broad range of missions. 

—Today, we are revitalizing the B–1 fleet by reducing its size and using savings 

to modernize remaining aircraft with precision weapons, self-protection systems, 

and reliability upgrades—and thanks to these efforts, we are told the B–1 now 

has the highest mission capable rates in the history of the program. 

—Today, in place of the Crusader, the Army is building a new family of precision 

artillery—including precision munitions and Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon for the 

Future Combat Systems. 

—Today, we have seen targeted pay raises and other reforms help retain mid-career officers and NCOs, so that fewer of them leave the service while still in 

their prime, so the country can continue to benefit from their talent and experience. 
501

These are positive changes that will ensure that our country will have the capabilities needed to defend our people, as well as a menu of choices from which we 

can select to shape the direction of the Department, as the 21st century security 

environment continues to change and evolve. 

DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION ACT

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we can’t truly transform, unless we have the ability to 

better manage this Department. To win the global war on terror, our forces need 

to be flexible, light and agile—so they can respond quickly to sudden changes. The 

same is true of the men and women who support them in the Department of Defense. They also need flexibility—so they can move money, shift people, and design 

and buy new weapons more rapidly, and respond to the continuing changes in our 

security environment. 

Today, we do not have that kind of agility. In an age when terrorists move information at the speed of an email, money at the speed of a wire transfer, and people 

at the speed of a commercial jetliner, the Defense Department is bogged down in 

the bureaucratic processes of the industrial age—not the information age. 

Some of our difficulties are self-imposed by the Department, to be sure. Others, 

however, are the result of law and regulation. Together they have created a culture 

that too often stifles innovation. Consider just a few of the obstacles we face each 

day: 

—This department spends an average of $42 million an hour, and yet we are not 

allowed to move $15 million from one account to another without getting permission from four to six committees, a process that sometimes takes months. 

—Instead of being streamlined for the fast-paced 21st century, the defense authorization bill has grown with each passing year. Just consider the changes over 

my brief career: 

—When I was first elected to Congress in 1962, the defense authorization bill 

was one page. 

—The last time I was Secretary of Defense, a quarter of a century ago, the 1977 

authorization bill had grown to 16 pages. 

—When I came back to the Pentagon for this second tour, the 2001 authorization bill had grown to 534 pages. 

—I can’t even imagine what it will look like in another 25 years. 

—Today we have some 320,000 uniformed people doing what are essentially nonmilitary jobs. And yet we are calling up Reserves to help deal with the global 

war on terror. The inability to put civilians in hundreds of thousands of jobs 

that do not need to be performed by men and women in uniform puts unnecessary strain on our uniformed personnel and added cost to the taxpayers. This 

has to be fixed. 

—The department is required to prepare and submit some 26,000 pages of justification, and over 800 required reports to Congress each year—many of marginal value, I am sure many not read, consuming hundreds of thousands of man 

hours to develop, and untold number of trees destroyed. 

—Despite 128 acquisition reform studies, we have a system in the Defense Department that since 1975 has doubled the time it takes to produce a new weapons system, in an era when new technologies are arriving in years and months, 

not decades. 

The point is this: we are fighting the first wars of the 21st century with a Defense 

Department that was fashioned to meet the challenges of the mid-20th century. We 

have an industrial age organization, yet we are living in an information age world, 

where new threats emerge suddenly, often without warning, to surprise us. We cannot afford not to change and rapidly, if we hope to live successfully in this new 

world. 

The Department is already engaged in substantial transformation. We have reduced management and headquarters staffs by 11 percent. We have streamlined the 

acquisition process by eliminating hundreds of pages of unnecessary rules and selfimposed red tape. And we have begun implementing a new business management 

structure. These internal changes are important—but they are not enough. We also 

need legislative relief. 

Our legislative proposal, the Defense Transformation Act for the 21st Century, 

would give the Department some of the needed flexibility, and ability to more rapidly move resources, shift people and bring new weapons systems on line more 

quickly, so we can adapt to changing events. 

Among the provisions in this legislation: 

—We have proposed more flexible rules for the flow of money through the Department to give us the ability to respond to urgent needs as they emerge. 
502

—We have proposed elimination of some of the more onerous regulations that 

make it difficult or virtually impossible for many small businesses to do business with the Department of Defense. 

—We have proposed expanded authority for competitive outsourcing so that we 

can get military personnel out of non-military tasks and back into the field. 

—We have proposed measures that would protect our military training ranges so 

that our men and women will be able to continue to train as they fight while 

honoring our steadfast commitment to protecting the environment. 

—We have proposed measures for transforming our system of personnel management, so that we can gain more flexibility and agility in how we manage the 

more than 700,000 civilians who provide the Department such vital support. We 

need a performance-based promotion system for our civilian workforce that rewards excellence—just like the one Congress insisted on for our men and 

women in uniform. 

In other U.S. government agencies, major portions of the national workforce have 

already been freed from archaic rules and regulations. We need similar relief. If the 

Department of Defense is to prepare for the security challenges of 21st century, we 

must transform not just our defense strategies, our military capabilities, and the 

way we deter and defend, but also the way we conduct our daily business. 

Transformation is not an event—it is a process. There is no point at which the 

Defense Department will move from being ‘‘untransformed’’ to ‘‘transformed.’’ Our 

goal is to set in motion a process and a culture that will keep the United States 

several steps ahead of potential adversaries. 

To do that we need not only resources, but equally, we need the flexibility to use 

them with speed and agility, so we can respond quickly to the new threats we will 

face as this century unfolds. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’d be happy to respond to questions.

General PACE. Sir, I do not have a statement, but I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not point out that the incredible performance of your armed forces in battle in Iraq is directly attributable to the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the sustained bipartisan 

support of the Congress. We deeply appreciate that, sir. 

If I may have the temerity to ask to put into the record that our 

thoughts and prayers are with the families of all those who lost 

their loved ones in this battle, sir. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Dr. Zakheim, do you have a comment? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. No, I don’t. I am ready to take questions as they 

come in. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Secretary, many of the things you addressed are really pending before the Armed Services Committee. 

I hope we will address questions before this committee that pertain 

to the budget that has been presented, and I would ask Senators 

to limit themselves to 7 minutes in the first round to see how well 

we can do. We may not get through them all in the time that is 

allotted to us today. 

Mr. Secretary, much of what you said is correct and I think we 

all stand in awe of this generation and what they have done. I have 

often compared this generation to the generation that Senator 

Inouye and I and Senator Hollings were part of, that some people 

call ‘‘the greatest generation.’’ But most of our people were draftees. The people you have dealt with now are volunteers, people 

that place themselves in harm’s way on the basis of their own decisions, and I think they are the finest military force the world has 

ever seen. 

VISITING TROOPS IN THE FIELD AND TANKER LEASING

We are all proud of them, very proud of them, and want to do 

everything we can to assist you to see to it that we maintain that 

force as we go out into the future. Having said that, though, I do 
503

express again our sadness that we are not able to go visit the war 

zone. We have done that on every occasion. I remember when Senator Bellmon and I went into Vietnam two or three times. We were 

under attack and bombed and shelled and everything else. We 

never asked for special protection. But in this instance we have 

been denied so far the opportunity to see Iraq. 

I hope that those restrictions will be lifted in the near future. I 

do not ask for any commitment; just I do express that hope. 

One of the things that continues to bother me as a former cargo 

plane pilot is the status of the tankers. They now average more 

than 45 years in age. At least one third of them are in the depots 

for repair. It was suggested to me the other day that I should ask 

you and Mitch Daniels to join some of us here and go out to Tinker 

and take a look at those planes that we are trying to repair. Even 

after we put them through a year of repair, they are still unfit for 

service. They still have rust and every kind of deterioration in 

terms of their structural capability, and yet we are insisting on 

putting them back out and putting money into them to try and 

make them fly some more, when they average 44 years of age. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, we provided several times now for the funds 

to start a tanker leasing program. I know—I hope that you are 

going to be able to tell us what is going to happen to that program 

now. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I believe it is very important that members of the House and the Senate who are on relevant committees and interested have opportunities to visit the men and women in uniform and to observe firsthand and fulfil their responsibilities, their oversight responsibilities. 

I have talked to General Franks about this. We have worked out 

what we believe is an appropriate arrangement with the Speaker 

of the House and with the leadership in the Senate and there certainly will be an opportunity for you and your associates to be able 

to go to Iraq and Afghanistan in the period ahead. 

Second, with respect to the tanker issue, everything you have 

said, sir, is clearly correct. The tanker fleet is old. It has to be replaced. It will be replaced. The lease-buy issue is one that the Department has been wrestling with for some time and I regret to say 

still is. We are plowing new ground here. It is not something that 

the Department has done in the past to any great extent. It certainly will be precedent-setting. 

I felt it required appropriately a look by an outside entity and 

asked one to make a study of it. That report is back. The sheer size 

of this leasing proposal that was pending is something like 125 

pages, with 80 different clauses, and it is not something that can 

be done quickly or easily, nor is it something that should take as 

much time as it has taken. 

You are right about the corrosion, you are right about the need 

for replacement, and certainly the Department will be pressing for 

a conclusion with respect to it. One of the things that is taking 

place, I am told, at the present time by those folks working on it—

and you may want to comment, Dov—is they are still trying to negotiate a better price, and there is some active debate about what 

the appropriate price ought to be. 
504

Senator STEVENS. Well, Mr. Secretary, I only have 5 minutes. I 

can only say this: We suggested that leasing proposition when we 

came back from Afghanistan after talking to tanker pilots who expressed to us their fear of flying those planes. That is almost 21⁄2

years ago, I think. That is 2 years ago, at least. 

I think we ought to put some of the people who are holding this 

up in those tankers and let them fly a little bit and see them and 

listen to them clank, creak. This delay is unconscionable as far as 

I am concerned. I hope we can find some way. 

Again, I urge you, I ask you. We will get one of your planes and 

fly down there next week and just take the people from the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) that are holding this up and let 

them see those planes, because if they see them and understand 

the concept of really metal fatigue and the whole concept of rust 

and what that means to these people that are flying them, the idea 

of putting money into them so they can go out there and fly again 

for another 20 years is just absurd. 

SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

I have got one other question to ask and I would like to get down 

to the money if I can. I want to ask particularly because of the 

problems we face now. We passed the Iraq supplemental in record 

time; and that was based mostly on cost models and upon operational assumptions. I would like to know, do you have enough 

money to finish this year, fiscal year 2003? Are we going to be able 

to see through the remainder of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq 

with the money we have provided you? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I guess it is now May 14th. The fiscal year 

ends October 1st. We still have a number of months in fiscal year 

2003. I can say that I have not seen anything at the moment that 

persuades me that we will necessarily have to come back for an additional supplemental in 2003. Is that——

Dr. ZAKHEIM. That is right. As things now stand, it actually looks 

that the target which we submitted and that the Congress gave us 

is pretty accurate. We are reviewing the spending rates very carefully. We have 41⁄2 months to go in this fiscal year. We have al- ready released over $30 billion out of the supplemental, with more 

to come. But it is looking like we are pretty much on target, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inouye. 

PASSAGE OF DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION ACT

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, the Defense Transformation Act 

that you discussed in the closing moments is before the Senate authorizing committee. I gather that the chances of passage do not 

look so well. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I cannot hear you very well, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. If the details of that legislation are not incorporated in the defense authorization bill, how would it affect your 

program? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Let me make a couple of comments and 

then have Dov make a couple of comments. One, I am told that we 

have 300,000, 320,000 to be precise, men and women in uniform 

doing jobs that are not jobs for men and women in uniform. They 
505

are jobs that should be done by civilians. They are jobs that should 

be done by contractors. 

And we are doing that because people are rational. We have got 

three choices in the Department. We can either use someone in 

uniform, who you can manage; or you can use a contractor, who 

you can manage; or you can use the civil service, which is very, 

very difficult to manage. So people do the logical thing. They go 

and put a military person into a job that is not a military job. 

Well, we are worried about the OPTEMPO. We are worried about 

the fact that we have had to call up Guard and Reserve. We are 

worried about the fact that we have had to have stop-losses and we 

would prefer to have fewer stop-losses and fewer Guard and Reserve activated and have them activated a fewer number of times 

and be more respectful of their lives. 

But with 320,000 military people doing civilian jobs, why? Simply 

because the rules are so difficult, they are so burdensome. 

A second example: We cannot hire people right out of school. It 

is almost impossible. Everyone else—a company can go over and go 

to a job fair at a college, they can walk in and offer someone a job. 

We cannot. It takes months to work through all the paperwork, all 

the civil service requirements. 

Now, we have had a bunch of experiments going on at China 

Lake and other places through authorities that Congress gave us 

and they have worked. They have done a good job. China Lake is 

one of them. 

In my view we need some flexibility to manage the Department 

and we are wasting taxpayers’ dollars because of the absence of 

that flexibility in my view. 

STRYKER BRIGADES

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, everyone agrees that our military 

must transform. The Army has taken the lead with the creation of 

the Stryker Brigades. This year the Army testified that it needs six 

brigades. Do you support this? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. We have supported it by putting in the 

budget the money for all six Stryker Brigades. As I recall, the decision that was made was to—the first three are already funded and 

in route. The next one has been funded and approved, as I understand it. Correct me, Dov, if I am wrong. 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. That is right. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. And the next two will be subject to a discussion as to the Army coming back and discussing ways they 

think they might improve or strengthen the Stryker model for the 

fifth and sixth. 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. I could add to that if I may. The first brigade is 

actually undergoing a Congressionally mandated evaluation at Fort 

Polk, Louisiana, for its operational effectiveness. The second one is 

being fielded. It is at Fort Lewis. The team is being fielded with 

the Stryker vehicles. The Army’s plan will be presented in July, so 

it is coming relatively soon. 

Senator INOUYE. I gather that advance drafts of that plan have 

been distributed and they seem to support the fifth and sixth brigades; is that correct? 
506

Dr. ZAKHEIM. The funding for all of them is in the plan and it 

will be for the Secretary of Defense to decide when he looks at the 

Army’s plan as to how and in what way the Stryker is being improved. 

LPD–17

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, if I still have time, the Navy’s 

LPD–17 has had some problems, cost overruns and schedule slippage. What are your plans for this program? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Do you have that? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Yes, I do. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Do you want to comment on it? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Sure. 

As you know, we essentially are gapping, as it were, not funding 

an LPD–17 in fiscal year 2005. We will have two LPD–17s in fiscal 

year 2006. We believe that the shipbuilding industrial base can 

support the production gap. 

In addition, we are talking about a move from these sorts of 

ships to a new kind of maritime prepositioning ship, which is also 

in the outyears. We are going to evaluate how that transition will 

take place. So the line remains open, we are funding those ships, 

the LPD–17, but at the same time as part of our overall transformation we are looking at this new kind of prepositioning ship. 

Senator INOUYE. What sort of ship is that? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. They are looking at designs right now. The concept 

is to incorporate some of the elements of the amphibious type 

LPD–17, which simply stands for ‘‘Landing Platform Dock ship,’’ 

but in addition to take account of the prepositioning needs that 

were demonstrated again in Iraqi Freedom as well as Enduring 

Freedom before it. 

Senator INOUYE. Has this type of ship served its purpose and 

does it continue to do so? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. There is a sense on the part of the Marine Corps 

and the Navy that for future requirements you may need considerably more flexibility than the LPD–17 gives you. Again, by definition in funding one in 2004 and two more in 2006 you are committed to those ships for 30-odd years beyond. So it is not a question of those ships being useless or anything. The real issue is 

when you go past those do you want to have a further flexible capability than what they give you, and there seems to be a consensus 

that the answer is yes and they are looking at just how to design 

it. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. And the Navy Department and the Chief of 

Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy have been reviewing that as part of a broader look at the shipbuilding budgets generally. 

General PACE. And there is no backing off at all, sir, from the 

requirement to be able to project combat power from ship to shore. 

But as Admiral Clark and General Hagee and General Jones before 

General Hagee have looked at this, and in looking at the opportunities presented by the Joint Strike Fighter and the Osprey and the 

potential adding of a flight deck of some limited capability to the 

prepositioning ships, that opens up a whole new horizon and they 

want to make sure that the recommendations they give to the Sec-
507

retary and the money that is spent is spent on the most capable 

ship in the future. 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Let me also add that we will continue to buy these 

ships through fiscal year 2010, which again is an indication that 

we are not giving up on a ship like this. 

Senator STEVENS. We are running out of time. 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Sorry. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator Burns. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a question and maybe a thought, Mr. Secretary, this 

morning. As we have seen in the operation in Iraq, it was pretty 

evident that the technology and the training that we had done 

prior to that operation really paid off. I am told that your ability 

through communications, the ability of systems that were interoperable, that it gives the striking force a lot of flexibility even before the operation started and during the operation, that any mission could be changed. 

There is no doubt about it that it was a force—we had the most 

physically fit and I think mentally alert military this Nation has 

ever known and really people that understand technology and 

know how to use it. We are also seeing in this country as we train 

for the force that you visualize that will be our force of the future, 

we are also seeing our ability to train both in the air space and 

land-based facilities for our troops and our equipment, we see that 

being eroded due to encroachment, environmental laws, and a variety of other challenges that we have in front of us. 

I would wonder. You will be making the decisions of what kind 

of facilities and what we are going to need to train for the future 

and make that assessment, and then probably would start dealing 

with those challenges ahead. Can you tell us if there is a process 

in place now where you are making those determinations based on 

what we have experienced in the Middle East, and at such time as 

when Congress will be advised or assessed of what your needs will 

be in the future areas of training and new technologies? 

TRAINING RANGES AND FACILITIES

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, thank you. You are right that the 

armed forces of the United States are living in the world and they 

have training ranges and facilities, and as the world’s rules and requirements change and evolve the restrictions grow and the ability 

to function is limited. We currently have proposals in the transformation legislation before the Congress that would provide some 

relief from some of the laws that are hampering defense training 

and that type of activity. 

For example, we have been delayed over 6 years in deployment 

of a surveillance towed array sensor system, low-frequency active 

sonar system, which is needed against ultra-quiet diesel submarines. It is part of the Marine Mammal Act. We proposed last 

year several adjustments. They tend not to really be directed at 

any of the laws that exist, but rather at the legal interpretations 

that have evolved over the decades since those laws were passed 

that we feel we need some freedom from. 

Do you want to comment, Pete, on this? 
508

General PACE. Sir, thank you. 

Senator, we want to be good stewards of the environment and we 

believe that we can do both, be good stewards of the environment 

and train. One of the provisions is for this National Training Center that will be both live fire environments, such as TwentyNine 

Palms and the National Training Center and Nellis Air Force Base, 

and the virtual environment, that you can pull together people 

from throughout the entire Nation without having to move anywhere to do a very, very robust exercise. 

We are looking at that, sir. We do have a process we are working 

through the Defense Department to highlight those things that are 

current constraints, but also to be able to project ways that we can 

protect the environment and train. 

Senator BURNS. Well, General Pace, you know as well as anyone 

else that Camp Pendleton, parts of Camp Pendleton have come 

under fire, that we cannot train in that we used to use many years 

ago, or even in modern day, your training out there. That sort of 

concerns us. 

We look at air space use, especially in the southwestern part of 

the country, where you have a lot of commercial flights, where we 

see a restricting of air space both in the space and altitude in 

which we can train. And I an wondering if those assessments are 

not going on now, that we will be able to be sharp as we were in 

this 21 days in the Iraqi operation. If we cannot train and we cannot train under conditions like we are going to have to fight, then 

I worry about those kind of conditions. 

We can talk about equipment, we can talk about money and that, 

but if we cannot train our troops that is something that we have 

got to look at very seriously. I would also add that maybe my home 

State of Montana might have something to offer—strictly parochial. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Senator Byrd? Senator Hollings? 

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

Mr. Secretary, that is an outstanding statement and I congratulate you on bringing Defense into the new century. What happens—and the reason I take the committee’s time here to ask about 

this little installation down in Charleston, back in 1992 at the Base 

Realignment and Closure Commission there was one thing that 

both George Bush Senior and Clinton could agree on and that was 

we are not going to close the Portsmouth Navy Yard. I mean, we 

got the run-up there in that primary. 

So they closed Charleston, which had won all the NAVALEX and 

everything else. But at the time I debated and argued to have 

NAVALEX, that you would remember as the former Secretary back 

in the 1970s, and NAVALEX was combined into SPAWAR. They 

combined Pawtucket, Maryland, Nebraska Avenue where Secretary 

Ridge is right now on Nebraska Avenue, Norfolk, and Charleston. 

The reason for the question, of course, or comment is an admiral 

now has asked for a study to find about the cost of moving it. I 

hope we get that study, because the Secretary of the Navy has just 

completed a cost efficiency study by Booz-Allen-Hamilton of 15 

navy engineering centers and they found that the SPAWAR facility 

down in Charleston was ranked number one in overall efficiency. 
509

We do not receive appropriated funds. What we do is we design, 

build, test, and support computer, command and control systems. 

There are a bunch of little small contractors, and since the big 

Navy yard was closed the rent is cheap. They love it down there 

and they have got room to move and expand, and they serve Army, 

Navy, Air, Marines, but they serve the White House, the Secret 

Service, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and everything else. It is all contract. It has the joint use that Secretary 

Rumsfeld is insisting on. 

If you could come visit us down there, you will see it, and I think 

you can use that as an example of succeeding in this joint use effort. 

Otherwise, Mr. Secretary, with respect to rebuilding Iraq, do you 

look upon that as a military or a contract operation? 

REBUILDING IRAQ

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, I think I would rather say what I 

think of it as, rather than either-or. First of all, I think it is ultimately a task for the Iraqi people. I do not think anyone can rebuild another country for a person. It is up to them to do that. 

They are going to have to invest their time and their energy and 

their funds in seeing that that country rebuilds after decades of 

leadership by a vicious despot who did not invest in the people, did 

not invest in the infrastructure. He was building palaces and building weapons and putting money in his own accounts outside the 

country. 

So it is going to take some time. It is probably, second, going to 

be a task for the international community to create—to help the 

Iraqi people do what needs to be done. It will take time. 

Third, I do not think it can be done unless the country is in a 

reasonably secure and permissive environment, and that is what 

we need to help with. 

Senator HOLLINGS. That is the main point. It has got to start off 

military, because you must establish law and order. Even after law 

and order is established, I look upon it and remember the countries 

of Greece and Portugal coming into the Common Market and the 

others, Germany, Italy, and all, taxed themselves $5 billion over 5 

years so they could develop the entities of free speech, free press, 

a respected judiciary, property ownership, and all those kind of 

things, but first thing was to establish law and order. 

Otherwise, if you begin with the people and the people themselves doing it, I agree with you generally, if you allow that you 

are going to end up with an Islamic democracy. It will be quite 

some time before we get one man, one vote in downtown Baghdad, 

and the military is going to have to establish order. I had this experience with all of the demonstrations and everything else: Salus 

populi suprema lex, the safety of the people is the supreme law. 

When you have got all kind of entities demonstrating, looting, 

stealing, and everything else of that kind, you have got to establish 

the safety of the people. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. You are absolutely right. Unless it is a reasonably secure environment, nothing else happens. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Right. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. It just does not work. 
510

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir, thank you very much. 

Senator Shelby. 

IMPROVING INTELLIGENCE

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Rumsfeld, I want to first talk a little about intelligence 

community cooperation, DOD with the intelligence community. 

Could you give us a little analysis of how far the Department, that 

is the Department of Defense, has come since September 11th in 

improving your own intelligence capabilities and cooperating with 

other intelligence agencies, and what this budget would do to continue that work? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, let me answer the second part first, 

the cooperation. I suppose nothing is ever perfect in life. We are all 

human beings and we are not perfect. On the other hand, having 

been in and around government for a lot of decades, I honestly believe that the linkages between the Director of Central Intelligence 

and Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence agencies that 

reside in the Department of Defense and the combatant commanders is I would say better than ever in my knowledge. 

It is—I meet with George Tenet probably several times a week, 

but we have lunch once a week, and we have been able to knit it 

together at the top. General Franks was able to do that in the region and is currently doing it in Iraq. It is almost not quite seamless between the two. 

Senator SHELBY. It is better than it has been, is it not? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Absolutely, absolutely. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. And we work hard at it, and I think it is 

much better. 

How much progress are we making generally in the intelligence 

community? That is a tougher question. I think time will tell. We 

are doing some big things. As we rewrite war plans and contingency plans and think of them in the 21st century with the 

changed circumstances, there are things that can be done in intelligence that will inform those plans and enable us to do things differently. 

If we have in one case, for example for the sake of argument, 2 

weeks warning instead of 2 days’ warning, or 2 months’ warning 

instead of 2 weeks’ warning, it can affect how we arrange ourselves. We are into that, but we have not completed it. We are 

working hard at it. 

Senator SHELBY. But the intelligence initiative we are talking 

about, that is central to what you plan to do and how you do it, 

is it not? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Absolutely. 

DOD-NASA PARTNERSHIP

Senator SHELBY. The National Aerospace Initiative. Mr. Secretary, you have been outspoken on the importance of space to military operations and in your support of the National Aerospace Initiative. While the Air Force is partnering with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on various technology 
511

development initiatives that support both their shared and unique 

mission objectives, I think we can and should do much more to support the National Aerospace Initiative. 

Would you elaborate if you could on DOD’s partnership with 

NASA in this regard? Do you see it growing or not growing? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I do not know, to be very direct. The Department has had multiple linkages with NASA dating back to the 

time when I was on the Space Committee in the Congress in the 

1960s, and they have shifted as the focus of our space efforts shift. 

They each have a distinctive role, the civilian side and the military 

side. 

But we have over the decades, the Department has benefited by 

the relationship and certainly NASA has benefited by the relationship. How it will evolve in the future I think really I am just not 

in a position to say. 

Senator SHELBY. Would you talk briefly, if you would, about 

using space superiority to fight smarter and what space-based 

radar will add to the Department’s war-fighting capability? How 

important is space to all of this? I would say very important, but 

I would like to hear you. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Indeed it is. 

Dov just reminds me here that this budget does provide $118 

million for the National Aerospace Initiative to continue the development of the integrated approach. 

In the information age, space plays a critical role and it will increase, not decrease, over time. The need for information and the 

leverage it provides and the force multiplier it provides through improved situational awareness and through the ability to interconnect the different services and indeed different countries’ services into combined joint efforts, space plays a critical linking role 

there. So you are absolutely correct. 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Sir, as you know, some of our sensors are affected 

by weather. To answer your question about space-based radar, that 

would give us 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week capability to see what 

we want, when we want. 

Senator SHELBY. Very important, is it not? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Yes, sir. 

UNMANNED VEHICLES

Senator SHELBY. Secretary Rumsfeld, lastly, the Predator and 

the Hellfire missile. A lot of us view that as a real achievement, 

you know, integrating the Hellfire missile onto the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle. Do you see that growing in the future, unmanned vehicles, weaponizing them and so forth? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I do. I think that the things that unmanned aerial vehicles—indeed, I would go so far as to say unmanned vehicles; they may be aerial, they may be surface, they 

may be subsurface, they may be a variety of things—we will see 

evolving over the decades ahead in ways that we probably do not 

even imagine today. 

We have been significantly advantaged in the past 21⁄2 years by 

the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles. 

Senator SHELBY. And a lot of that was put together very quickly 

with the help of our organic labs, was it not? 
512

Secretary RUMSFELD. It was, and indeed, as I mentioned in my 

opening statement, with some prodding from the Congress. 

Senator SHELBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Hollings—no, Senator Byrd. 

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, General Pace and Dr. 

Zakheim. I note in yesterday’s Washington Post the following headline: ‘‘Baghdad Anarchy Spurs Call for Help.’’ I read excerpts therefrom: ‘‘Baghdad residents and U.S. officials said today that the U.S. 

occupation forces are insufficient to maintain order in the Iraqi 

capital and called for reinforcements to calm a wave of violence 

that has unfurled over the city, undermining relief and reconstruction efforts and inspiring anxiety about the future.’’

[The information follows:] 

[From the Washington Post, May 13, 2003] 

BAGHDAD ANARCHY SPURS CALL FOR HELP; IRAQIS, U.S. OFFICIALS WANT MORE

TROOPS

(Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer) 

Baghdad residents and U.S. officials said today that U.S. occupation forces are insufficient to maintain order in the Iraqi capital and called for reinforcements to 

calm a wave of violence that has unfurled over the city, undermining relief and reconstruction efforts and inspiring anxiety about the future. 

Reports of carjackings, assaults and forced evictions grew today, adding to an impression that recent improvements in security were evaporating. Fires burned anew 

in several Iraqi government buildings and looting resumed at one of former president Saddam Hussein’s palaces. The sound of gunfire rattled during the night; 

many residents said they were keeping their children home from school during the 

day. Even traffic was affected, as drivers ignored rules in the absence of Iraqi police, 

only to crash and cause tie-ups. 

The calls for more U.S. troops to police the city coincided with the arrival of L. 

Paul Bremer III, the Bush administration’s new civilian administrator assigned to 

run the Pentagon’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. The U.S. 

occupation authority, which had previously been headed by retired Army Lt. Gen. 

Jay M. Garner, has struggled to restore Iraqi institutions since Hussein’s government collapsed April 9 in the face of a U.S. military invasion. 

Bremer, who met with senior staff members tonight inside the 258-room Republican Palace, pledged that he and Garner would work together for an ‘‘efficient and 

well-organized’’ transfer of power, with Garner assisting him for an undetermined 

period. He described his own work as a ‘‘wonderful challenge’’ and said the U.S. task 

is to ‘‘help the Iraqi people regain control of their own destiny.’’

But the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, expressed disappointment with efforts so far to bring democracy to Iraq. He told the British Parliament that ‘‘results 

in the early weeks have not been as good as we would have hoped.’’ Straw also said 

the lack of security in Baghdad has been disappointing. 

An office and warehouse belonging to the aid group CARE were attacked Sunday 

night. In two other weekend incidents, two CARE vehicles were seized by armed 

men, the organization reported today, asking the U.S. occupation forces to ‘‘take immediate steps to restore law and order to Baghdad.’’

‘‘The violence is escalating,’’ said Anne Morris, a senior CARE staff member. ‘‘We 

have restricted staff movement for their own safety. What does it say about the situation when criminals can move freely about the city and humanitarian aid workers 

cannot?’’

Baghdad residents have been increasingly preoccupied by violence and the uncertainty it has produced, slowing relief and rebuilding efforts. One U.S. reconstruction 

official said tonight, for example, that as the Americans seek to distribute salaries 

and pensions, 20 bank branches have been unable to open without U.S. protection 

in the absence of a credible Iraqi police force. 

‘‘Security is the biggest problem we have,’’ the official said. ‘‘The banks don’t feel 

comfortable opening, and I agree with that.’’
513

Another official said foreign companies have showed interest in installing a badly 

needed cell phone network, but remain unwilling to do so without a safe environment for workers. The security threat has also limited the ability of reconstruction 

workers to move through the city and interact with Iraqis. Civilian staff members 

still have instructions to wear body armor and helmets and travel with military escorts. 

Food warehouses, hospitals and government offices have reported security problems, with administrators pleading with U.S. forces to do more. A senior staff member with the U.S. reconstruction office said the responsibility for stabilizing the situation lies with the U.S. military, which President Bush assigned to run postwar 

Iraq. Any order to increase manpower would have to come from Washington. 

‘‘Any time you have a security vacuum,’’ the official said, ‘‘the only people who 

are going to be able to fill it are the military.’’

U.S. commanders have described Baghdad’s security as their top priority and 

have assigned several thousand troops to guard 200 sites and patrol neighborhoods. 

But they have also said they do not have enough troops to police the sprawling city 

or guard every facility that could be targeted by looters. 

Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of ground troops in Iraq, said the 

roughly 150,000 soldiers under his command are focusing on many assignments simultaneously, including hunting for weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s missing 

leaders while also imposing order on a country the size of California. 

‘‘Imagine spreading 150,000 soldiers in the state of California and then ask yourself could you secure all of California all the time with 150,000 soldiers,’’ McKiernan 

told reporters last week. ‘‘The answer is no. So we’re focused on certain areas, on 

certain transportation networks we need to make sure are open.’’

The Pentagon announced early this month that an additional 4,000 soldiers were 

being dispatched to Baghdad, bringing the total in the city to 16,000. The composition of the force will shift as combat units head home and the number of military 

police officers grows from 2,000 to about 4,000 by mid-June. 

McKiernan emphasized the importance of Iraqis taking charge of their city. So 

far, perhaps half the city’s police force has showed up for vetting and training. But 

relatively few have returned to active work. All 60 of the city’s police stations were 

looted—five main buildings are occupied by families of squatters. 

There is no working communications system, and only a small number of police 

cars were not ruined by looters during the postwar rampage. Police officers, prohibited by U.S. forces from carrying anything other than a sidearm, are wary of confronting antagonists who can outgun them. The overall situation is further complicated by a disabled court system and a lack of functioning jails. 

Carjackings have become particularly frequent. A furniture salesman, Abdulsalam 

Hussein, said he watched through the picture window of his store as gunmen chased 

down a Peugeot sedan on a busy square, ordered the occupants into the street and 

sped away. ‘‘They had weapons,’’ he said. ‘‘No one could do anything to help.’’

On Rashid Street today, a U.S. Army patrol endured a busy day in the section 

of the city soldiers call Looterville. After chasing down two looters inside a telecommunications building, set alight Sunday night, several soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division returned to their Humvees with sweat running down their dusty 

faces in rivulets. 

‘‘I don’t see it getting better. We can’t be everywhere, can we?’’ said Pfc. Jacob 

Weber, 21. ‘‘I feel like a cop, but I’m not a cop.’’

Across the Tigris River, another 3rd Infantry reconnaissance unit waded into a 

dispute over a shooting, seized an old pistol and warned the participants to settle 

their argument by calmer means. The troops headed wearily back to their base, only 

to stop within several hundred yards of it to investigate reports that gunmen were 

preventing people from putting out a fire near the gutted Culture Ministry. 

‘‘We’re like cops in Baghdad now,’’ said one officer in helmet and armored vest. 

‘‘Iraqi Vice,’’ deadpanned Sgt. Corey Tondre.

Senator BYRD. I was interested in your reference to the lessons 

that we need to have learned from the past and your comment that 

we need to apply the lessons from the experience in Iraq. It seems 

that we are learning the same lesson that Hannibal learned when 

he went through the entire length of Italy in 16 years. He learned 

that he needed an occupation force. He needed a force that could 

stabilize. 

He had the speed. He was a great general and I think he was—

it was stated by Napoleon that Hannibal was the greatest general 
514

of antiquity. So he could level the cities, he could take the cities, 

but he could not hold them because he did not have the forces to 

occupy and to stabilize. As a result, although he had numerous victories throughout the 16 years that he was in Italy, he simply did 

not have the forces to keep the cities, and as a result city after city, 

such as Capua, went back over to the Romans after a while. 

It seems we are having that same problem in Iraq. The news reports out of Iraq are using words such as ‘‘turmoil,’’ ‘‘chaos,’’ and 

even ‘‘anarchy’’ to describe the situation in Baghdad. At this point 

there is little evidence that the United States had in place any coherent plan for the reconstruction of Iraq following the end of combat. 

I fear that we may see a repeat of the situation in Afghanistan, 

where our forces worked hard to contain the chaos in Kabul, only 

to see the outlying cities fall back toward warlord control and turmoil. 

So I think we have other lessons to learn besides those that you 

have appropriately listed. We must learn from our mistakes and 

not be doomed to repeat them. Going into Baghdad, the military 

had the aim of overthrowing the existing government. Going into 

Baghdad, we were warned by U.N. agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations about the lack of water and the unsanitary situation 

in the city. We knew that medical supplies were scarce. We knew 

that military action would likely lead to mob action. 

I hope that the recent shakeup in the civilian leadership of the 

U.S. occupation authority will help the situation and will not 

amount to merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. But 

for the time being, it is the U.S. military that has the responsibility 

of maintaining order in Baghdad. 

What specific and immediate steps are you taking as Secretary 

of Defense to improve the security situation in Baghdad? 

SITUATION IN IRAQ

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, let me comment on a number of 

pieces of that. First of all, I think the characterization of ‘‘anarchy’’ 

is not accurate. It is a headline writer’s phrase and it certainly 

grabs attention. But we were on the phone with the people there 

and the circumstance is something other than anarchy. 

You are quite right, you do not need to learn that lesson that it 

is important to stabilize. That lesson has been learned throughout 

history. And General Franks and his team had plans, have plans, 

and have put in place plans to provide for the security in that 

country. It is important to note several things. 

Number one, every jail in that country to my knowledge was 

emptied. So on the street are looters, hooligans, and bad people. 

They have to be rounded up and put back in. That takes a little 

time. You do not do that in 5 minutes. If we emptied every jail in 

the United States of America today, you would not in 50 days or 

40 days or 30 days or however many days since that war has 

ended—what is it, 20? 20 days, I guess, 3 weeks—you would not 

be able to round up all those criminals and bad people and put 

them away again. 
515

There are also Baathists there. Not everyone was captured or 

killed. And they do not wish us well. They still are part of the old 

regime, and they have to be rounded up and identified. 

Next, we do have a good force there in the country. I forget what 

it is, but United States is probably 142,000, and coalition forces are 

probably another 20,000 plus. They have recruited and put back on 

the streets in that country I am going to guess close to 20,000 Iraqi 

police people. We have had donors conferences and force generation 

conferences in England and elsewhere to get coalition countries to 

come in and supply, provide additional forces. 

We have, if I am not mistaken, plus or minus 15,000 additional 

U.S. forces that are due to arrive in Iraq over the next 7 to 20 

days. The deployment of those forces and how they are actually utilized in Baghdad—and you asked, do we have a plan. The answer 

is yes. We were briefed on it again today and it is being implemented. 

My personal view is that the idea of chaos and turmoil and anarchy in the city is, as I say, an overstatement. We were told today 

that maybe two-thirds to three-quarters of the city is stable. Now, 

that is not permissive; it is stable. Another portion of it, particularly in the north, is less so, and most of the city at night the hooligans are out and the criminals, trying to loot and do things. 

We have had people shot, wounded, and killed in the last 48 

hours there in Baghdad. It is a problem. It is critically important, 

as Senator Hollings said, that the one thing that is central to success is security. We have a full court press on that. The forces 

there will be using muscle to see that the people who are trying 

to disrupt what is taking place in that city are stopped and either 

captured or killed. 

Senator BYRD. How many U.S. troops are currently in Baghdad? 

Do you expect to increase that number? And are there any other 

coalition forces currently in Baghdad? 

FORCES LEVELS IN BAGHDAD AREA

General PACE. Sir, if I may, the current number of coalition 

forces and U.S. troops in the greater Baghdad area is about 49,000. 

There are additional troops arriving as we speak. General Franks 

and his commanders are reviewing the situation on the ground to 

see how they might reset themselves in the city to be able to provide the kind of patrolling and presence that is necessary to provide the stability they need. 

Senator BYRD. Can you speak to the number, the increase in 

forces? 

General PACE. Sir, right now you have the First Armored Division is arriving as we speak and that is an additional 20,000 troops 

who are arriving right now, sir. 

Senator BYRD. So that would bring it up to 69,000? 

General PACE. If General Franks and his commanders determine 

that that is where they should go, yes, sir. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. But it is up to the combatant commander 

to decide how he deploys those troops and he has not to my knowledge made a final judgment. 

General PACE. He has not, sir. 
516

MR. JAY GARNER

And sir, we are out of time, but I would be wrong if I did not 

point out that Jay Garner is a great American doing a great job, 

and the term ‘‘shakeup’’ with regard to him and his administration 

and what he has been doing really does him a disservice. This new 

civilian going over has always been part of the plan. I should defer 

to the Secretary on this, but Jay Garner under the U.S. military 

command that he has been working under has done a fabulous job. 

Senator BYRD. My time is up. Let me ask one further question. 

What commitment has the United States received to date for 

peacekeeping forces from other nations? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. First let me just underline what General 

Pace said about General Garner. This is a first-rate individual. He 

has been working since late last year. He has done a spectacular 

job out there. He has put together a team of people and they are 

living in very difficult circumstances. 

He is not being replaced. From the very outset, it was clearly understood that at some point a senior civilian would be brought in, 

and Ambassador Bremer is that individual. They are working closely together and it is unfortunate when the implication is suggested 

that there is some sort of a shakeup because there is a problem. 

There is no shakeup. This has been part of the plan since the very 

outset. 

COMMITMENTS OF PEACEKEEPING FORCES

I cannot answer your question about how many foreign troops 

have agreed. There are I believe already something like eight or 

ten countries that have indicated their willingness to send troops. 

Some of them, it depends on their parliament approving it. Some 

of them, it may depend on having a United Nations (UN) connection of some sort, which is now being worked on in New York. 

But the talk was of—how many divisions, do you recall? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Sir, two divisions initially, between now and the 

next several months. 

Senator BYRD. Would you please list those? 

Senator STEVENS. Your time has expired. I am sorry, Senator. 

Senator BYRD. Yes, I understand. 

Would you please list those countries for the record? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. If they have publicly so stated, we will be 

happy to. 

[The information follows:]

The following is a list of countries who have publicly provided significant contributions to coalition operations. 

INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AND COALITION CONTRIBUTION TO OPERATION IRAQI

FREEDOM AND POST-WAR IRAQ

Countries supporting Coalition operations: 66. 

Troops in the Coalition: more than 40,000. 

Aircraft in the Coalition: 190, including ship-based helicopters. 

Ships in the Coalition: 58. 

Significant Coalition Ground Contributions 

Albania—Deployed an Infantry Company in Northern Iraq. 

Australia—Deployed Special Operations Forces (SOF). 

Bulgaria—Prepared to deploy a light Infantry unit. 
517

Czech Republic—Deployed a Nuclear, Biological, Chemical—Consequence Management (NBC–CM) unit to Kuwait. 

Republic of Korea—Deploying a Construction and Engineering Support Group to 

Iraq to conduct infrastructure reconstruction and repair. 

Italy—Prepared to deploy a Mechanized Infantry Brigade. 

Kuwait—Committed Peninsula Shield Forces for the defense of Kuwait. 

Lithuania—Deployed a cargo handling team to Kuwait. 

Netherlands—Deployed Patriot batteries to Turkey, to support NATO Article IV 

defense of Turkey during hostilities. 

Poland—Deployed a Coalition NBC–CM unit to Jordan; deployed Polish SOF; preparing to deploy a division and assume operational responsibility of one sector in 

Iraq. 

Romania—Deployed an NBC–CM unit to Kuwait, to respond to any Area of Responsibility-wide WMD event; maintains additional units on a Prepare to Deploy 

Order, to respond to component needs within the Iraqi Theater of Operations. 

Slovak Republic—Deployed an NBC–CM team to Kuwait, to support AOR-wide 

response to a WMD event. 

Ukraine—Deployed an NBC–CM Battalion to Kuwait, to support AOR-wide response to a WMD event. 

United Kingdom—Deployed Special Operations Forces; UK forces were directly responsible for coalition successes in Basrah and southern Iraq. 

Significant Coalition Air Contributions 

Australia—Provided 14 fighter aircraft, three helicopters, and two aircraft for airlift. 

United Kingdom—Provided 66 fighter aircraft, 14 tanker aircraft, 41 helicopters, 

10 reconnaissance aircraft, four AWACS aircraft and four aircraft for airlift. 

Significant Coalition Naval Contributions 

Australia—Deployed three ships (two frigates and one support ship) to conduct 

Maritime Interception Operations in the Persian Gulf enforcing U.N. sanctions 

against Iraq; deployed two P–3 aircraft to conduct Maritime Patrol mission in support of OIF. 

Denmark—Deployed one coastal submarine and one frigate in the North Arabian 

Gulf. 

Spain—Deployed one frigate and one support ship to the North Arabian Gulf to 

support their Landing Platform Vessel (LPD) with embarked medical unit. 

United Kingdom—Deployed the largest number of coalition vessels in support of 

OIF, with a maximum of 31 vessels. These forces included destroyers, frigates, aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier, supply ships, mine counter measure forces, and submarines. 

Significant Coalition Humanitarian Assistance/Medical Contributions 

Australia—Delivered two C–130 aircraft full of medical assets to Talill, Iraq. 

Czech Republic—Deployed 50-bed Level III Field Hospital to Basrah; deployed six 

water purification units to Iraq to areas with urgent potable water requirements. 

Czech forces will train local Iraqi personnel to operate these units, and leave the 

units in Iraq. 

Denmark—Deployed a three man surgical team to Jordan. 

Italy—Deploying a Level III field hospital, with associated security personnel 

(Carabinieri and Army), water, sanitation, and civil engineering specialists. 

Republic of Korea—Deployed a Medical Support Group, consisting of a Level II∂

Field Hospital to An Nasiriyah. Hospital has 60 beds. 

Kuwait—Donated medical supplies to Umm Qasr; Kuwait flew the first non-U.S./

Australian/British military aircraft into Baghdad International Airport, delivering a 

Field Hospital with 40 beds. 

Lithuania—Deployed four medical personnel with trauma and orthopedic surgery 

specialties to Umm Qasr, where they are integrated in the deployed Spanish Field 

Hospital. 

Spain—Deployed one medical facility (Level II∂, 14 beds) embarked on an LPD 

and one deployable Field Hospital (Level II∂, 40 beds) to North Arabian Gulf and 

Umm Qasr, respectively. To date, they have treated in excess of 1,800 non-enemy 

prisoner of war personnel and incorporated Lithuanian medical personnel in Spanish facility at Umm Qasr. A Marine platoon and engineer unit are supporting humanitarian reconstruction in the Umm Qasr and Basrah areas.

Senator STEVENS. Very well. 

Senator Cochran. 
518

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PERFORMANCE OF ARMY PATRIOT PAC–3 SYSTEM

Mr. Secretary, the recent experience in Iraq indicated that the 

Army Patriot PAC–3 system successfully defended our forces 

against Iraqi missile attacks. My question is whether or not your 

assessment is consistent with the reports that were made available 

to us in the press that this system worked as it was intended and 

expected to work, and does the budget contain funds to continue to 

build systems like this and others that might protect our forces and 

our country against even longer-range missiles? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. The budget does have, as I note here, some $736 million for PAC–3, $561 million of which is for procurement 

and $174 million for research, development, test, and evaluation. 

My preliminary impression is identical to yours. I know that the 

lessons learned will be coming back with greater specificity, but 

from what you hear anecdotally there is no question but that the 

PAC–3 was effective. I should also add, however, that we do have 

to do a better job of deconflicting. You may recall that there were 

some incidents where PAC–3s actually intercepted U.S. aircraft 

and friendly aircraft. How that—what those lessons are and how 

we can improve that—it has always been true in every conflict that 

those things happen, but our goal obviously is to do it perfectly, 

and in that case we did not. 

Pete? 

General PACE. Yes, sir. United Kingdom (U.K.) aircraft, sir. 

Senator COCHRAN. General Pace, I understand that the Medium 

Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), may offer significant enhancements over the PAC–3, but because of funding constraints 

and other considerations it is not to be fielded until fiscal year 

2012. Is this an accurate assessment of when we will see this system deployed and what is the outlook for deployment of other systems that build upon the PAC–3’s successes? 

General PACE. Sir, there is about $280 million in this particular 

budget for the medium-range missile. I do not know the date. As 

you stated, I will have to take that for the record. But I can reinforce the fact that the PAC–3 system and, in fact, all the Patriot 

systems in Iraq and Kuwait were—first analysis is that every troop 

concentration was under an umbrella of a missile system and that 

no missile got into any of those umbrellas. 

[The information follows:]

The current fielding schedule for the Medium Extended Air Defense System 

(MEADS) is First Unit Equipped in fiscal year 2012. However, recent Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) direction to combine the PATRIOT and MEADS programs 

should provide a significantly increased Theater Air and Missile Defense capability 

earlier than fiscal year 2012. The DAB decision to combine the two programs is 

based upon the successes of the PAC–3 missile as the primary interceptor and the 

desire to field the MEADS capability to the Services and Allies as rapidly as possible.

MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I want to congratulate you and the Secretary in the leadership that is being provided to ensure that we 

can continue to build upon those successes of missile defense. We 

know that Testbed Alaska is under construction now and the intent 
519

is to deploy a system that can defend against much longer range 

missiles in the future. 

Do you think the budget request for those longer range systems 

and the construction schedule is sufficient to meet our needs for defense capability for our homeland? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, I know you have been long active 

in this important area. With the end of the Anti-Ballistic Missile 

(ABM) Treaty and the ability for the first time to go out and actually test different ways of doing things, we were able to move into 

a period that has contributed to our knowledge and to the country’s 

knowledge in these technologies. That is a good thing. It is a good 

thing from the standpoint of each possible alternative of boost and 

mid-range and terminal. It is a good thing from the standpoint of 

the system you mentioned for Alaska. It is also a good thing from 

the standpoint of sea-based systems. 

My feeling is that General Kadish has done a terrific job in that 

role in my view, has got a pretty good balance in his proposals as 

to where we ought to put our money to gain additional knowledge 

and, as you point out, to also develop this beginning of a capability 

to intercept relatively low numbers of Intercontinental Ballistic 

Missiles (ICBM’s). 

SHIP LEASING AND DEFINING REQUIREMENTS

Senator COCHRAN. On another subject, I know that both the 

Navy and the Army have been experimenting with leased vessels 

to define the requirements of the Littoral Combat Ship in the case 

of the Navy and the Theater Support Vessel that the Army considers important for its purposes. I understand too the Army is considering leasing a lot more of these vessels. They are catamarantype vessels, high-speed vessels. 

We have shipbuilding firms on the Mississippi Gulf Coast that 

are very capable of building cost-effective ships for our military and 

I wonder whether you will look at this leasing plan and see whether or not it might be more appropriate to build these ships rather 

than to lease foreign vessels for experimentation and analysis. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Let me have Dov answer that. 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. One of the reasons, Senator, that these leases are 

being looked at is because they are still trying to define exactly 

what kind of platforms they have in mind. The Littoral Combat 

Ship is a good example. I know down in Mississippi you have a tremendous composite facility which has come up with a completely 

new type of composite ship. 

The issue really is defining requirements, and until they have 

got them nailed down—and as you know, the Navy has been working on that for its part and the Army for theirs—in order to just 

get a sense of what requirements might be needed, they are leasing. I do not believe that that is the long-term intention. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Interesting listening to this and interesting how much we have 

improved in the high tech area of our military. Mr. Secretary, you 
520

and I have talked before about such things as using drones and all, 

but I think we are in absolute agreement on the fact, especially for 

surveillance and everything else, it is a lot easier to stick something up there that, if it does get shot down, we have lost a drone, 

we have not lost a person. It can stay longer and you have more 

flexibility. 

We also—I know this committee funded an Advanced Data Link 

that allowed target information to go to our aircraft quickly. That 

was an initiative that I had worked on. This committee had funded 

it. I hear that, from pilots over there, that the Gateway made a 

real difference and I want to compliment those who used it. 

In Iraq we confirmed the total force concept. We had the Guard, 

the Reserves, the Active force fighting side by side. The commanders tell me they were an integral part of our military victory. 

I am concerned, however, that benefits for our reservists have not 

changed. For example, about 20 percent of reservists do not currently possess adequate health insurance. I am told this undermines readiness, undermines recruitment, and so on, retention. 

TOTAL FORCE POLICY AND TRICARE FOR RESERVISTS

Would you support legislation to make reservists eligible for 

Tricare on a cost-share basis? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator——

Senator LEAHY. And I just say, I ask that—I am the Co-Chair 

of the Guard Caucus and it is a bipartisan group. We have a lot 

of members who are interested. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I have discovered that I best not answer 

questions like that until I look at the numbers and costs and see 

what one has to give up to have something like that. 

Senator LEAHY. Would you do that and submit it to me? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. We will be happy to take a look at it and 

see what the costs are. I would add this, that you are quite right, 

however; the total force concept works. It has worked in the conflict. It is working today. But one of the delays in calling people up 

was that, you are right, their teeth needed to be fixed and various 

other things that they had not paid attention to. 

It may very well be at some point that there would be some advantage in having certain elements of the Guard and Reserve more 

ready, that is to say having had their teeth checked and having 

had those kinds of physical checks so that there is not a delay and 

a big paperwork rush when you are trying to get people on active 

duty. 

Senator LEAHY. I am also concerned about the health insurance 

because there is a long hiatus and they may be without it. I would 

be glad to work with your staff on this, but this is a growing concern. Those of us in the caucus from both parties are concerned 

about it. We hear from our home States and all. 

I think it is something, we are pushing for legislation on this. I 

think it is something that can be done that would ultimately be a 

very cost-effective thing. I realize this is not a question where you 

have the answers on the top of your head, but would you direct 

your staff to work with mine so we can share this information with 

the whole Guard Caucus? 
521

Secretary RUMSFELD. We would be happy to dig into it. Thank 

you. 

[The information follows:]

The Department has over the past 2 years used existing legislative authority to 

ensure equality of benefits under TRICARE for the activated Reserve and active 

duty force and their families. 

TRICARE implemented its demonstration authority and provided immediate relief 

to activated Reserve family members by waiving the requirement that they obtain 

a non-availability statement from a Military Treatment Facility; by waiving the requirement that they meet their statutory deductible under TRICARE Standard; and 

by paying up to the legal liability limit to non-participating providers, thereby relieving them of the need to pay anything above their normal cost share. 

Recently, the Department changed its policy to allow the activated Reservist’s 

family member residing in the catchment area of Military Treatment Facilities to 

be eligible for TRICARE Prime after the Reservist has been activated for 30 days, 

as opposed to the previous 180 days. 

Congress last session provided the TRICARE Prime Remote for Active Duty Family Member (TPRADFM) benefit to reserve family members, but only if they ‘‘reside 

with’’ the reserve member. The Department is interpreting this language liberally 

to allow the family members to be eligible for TPRADFM as long as they reside with 

the Reservist at the time orders are received, rather than requiring the family to 

continuously reside with the member. 

The Department, however, does not support legislation that would make Reservists or their family members eligible for TRICARE when not on active duty. The 

GAO has estimated the cost of providing the TRICARE benefit for Reservists who 

are not on active duty at approximately $2 billion per year.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ

Senator LEAHY. Why haven’t we found the WMD? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Locating hidden WMD in a country the size 

of Iraq will be difficult and time consuming. Voluntary disclosure 

by Iraqi citizens will probably prove to be the best sources of evidence. Finding documents will aid in the search, however, and 

interviewing program personnel is critical for locating WMD. 

Senator LEAHY. Secretary, were you surprised we have not found 

any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Not really. I have believed all along that 

the inspections, the U.N. inspectors, had very little prospects of 

finding anything by discovery. I have always believed that they 

would be—they or the people on the ground, in this case us, will 

have the best prospect of finding the weapons programs and documentation and the weapons themselves through people who have 

been involved in those programs and come up and tell us where to 

look. 

The government lived many lies, but one of the lies they lived for 

decades, at least better than a decade, was the ability to fool the 

inspectors. They actually arranged themselves so that they could 

live with the U.N. inspectors. 

Senator LEAHY. No, I understand that, and I have read a number 

of the reports, as you have, reports we cannot go into in open session. But we are on the ground now. We have gone to a number 

of the areas, gone extensively into a number of the areas that we 

had felt and our military and our intelligence had felt would be 

areas of weapons of mass destruction and have not discovered anything. 

I wonder, if those weapons are there, why they—and if they 

were, they were not used against our troops. I am very thankful 
522

for that, as are you and General Pace and everybody else. But I 

wondered why, why they were not. 

I am also concerned, if they were there, especially in the areas 

that we had said that we wanted to look at and now have looked 

at, is there any possibility that they have seeped out and are now 

in the control of terrorists whose interests are inimical to us? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I certainly would not say that something 

like that is not possible. With porous borders—and that country I 

suppose had borders pretty much like we do with Canada and Mexico. There are plenty of things that move back and forth across 

those borders in Iraq that——

Senator LEAHY. You probably do not want to go too, too far with 

comparing Iraq’s and Syria’s borders with ours with Canada and 

Mexico. We are a little bit friendlier with those two countries, I 

hope. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. My goodness, yes. 

Senator LEAHY. I live only an hour’s drive from Canada. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. We have wonderful people on both sides 

trying to maintain the border. But the fact is that things move 

across those borders, and they are moving clearly across the Iranian border, the Syrian border, into Iraq and out of Iraq. I do not 

think that I could say that, with certainty, that things were not 

moved out, either by the Government of Iraq or by others. 

Senator LEAHY. But you do not have any indication that they had 

set up with the intent of using such weapons against our forces 

when we began to attack? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. There was—I am trying to think what I 

can say in an open session and I guess there is not much I can say 

in an open session. 

Senator LEAHY. Well then, perhaps what you may want to do is 

submit in the normal classified fashion a response on that one. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. The fact is we do see intel chatter that suggests that things might have moved, but——

Senator LEAHY. I am talking about the fact of why they did not 

use it against us. 

Senator STEVENS. Your time has expired. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, could I request the staff so 

cleared for such information follow up on that last question in a 

classified portion? Thank you. 

[The information follows:]

It is unclear why WMD was not used. The possibilities include, that the Iraqis 

were too busy moving the WMD for purposes of flight or hiding that they were unable to use it in combat, that no orders for WMD use came due to quick regime collapse, that Iraqi soldiers refused orders to use WMD, or that the Iraqis destroyed 

the WMD prior to coalition troops arrival.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Secretary, I did not come to the hearing 

this morning as familiar with what happened to Hannibal and the 

Romans, but let me tell you I came here just as concerned as Senator Byrd about the stability or lack of stability in the daily lives 

of the people of that country, and I remain genuinely concerned 

that we are in a situation where we may have won the war and 

we lose the battle. 
523

So I cannot stress enough that we do whatever is necessary to 

bring law and order to that country and that we establish some 

kind of a plan quickly for the orderliness of that society. I understand that we were surprised by a number of things, such as the 

condition of their infrastructure. We assumed that it was better 

than it is. It is breaking down in places and at intervals that we 

had not expected, and that causes confusion, causes concern, and 

ultimately blaming Americans if things are not going right. 

In that regard, I wonder why your answers continue to be that 

this will be handled by the distinguished General who won the 

war. I wonder why it is his job to keep that situation going and 

why there is not some other kind of order that is going to be established quickly that is not under his direct command. If you might 

answer that for me in a moment, I would appreciate it. 

Secondly, it seems to me that it is absolutely imperative that the 

United States maintain order, regardless of how difficult it is, because without it there is a real chance that the people of that country will assume that the victory that we claim is not a victory at 

all. Could I have your comments on that quickly, and I have two 

other very brief questions. 

U.S. COMMITMENT AND COMMAND ARRANGEMENTS

Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes. First, the President has said publicly 

that the United States and coalition forces will put whatever number of forces are needed for as long as they are needed, and there 

is no disagreement about the importance of providing security. 

Second, the command arrangements are as follows. The combatant commander reports to me and I report to the President. He has 

the responsibility for security in that country. The humanitarian 

side of that and the non-security side, the non-military side, is now 

in the hands of the individual who has been mentioned previously, 

Ambassador Jerry Bremer, and he has under him all of those 

things other than security, and he reports to me and I report to the 

President. 

The infrastructure, as you properly point out, was badly degraded over the decades. The power situation, for example, in 

Baghdad is so fragile that getting it back working 100 percent of 

the city 100 percent of the time is not a simple matter, and it takes 

some time. For example, prior to the war only 60 percent of Iraqis 

had reliable access to safe drinking water. Ten of Basras 21 potable 

water treatment facilities were not functional before the war. 

Now, as I said earlier, you empty all the jails and you put a 

bunch of hooligans out and you look at an infrastructure that was 

not working before the war, and then everyone says: Well, my 

goodness, it is chaos, it is turmoil; what is the matter with you? 

You have been there for 21 days and you have not solved all the 

problems. 

I think that they are doing a terrific job. They will continue to 

do a better job. The circumstances of the people in that country are 

better than they were before the war. They are going to get better 

every day. We are finding mass graves, thousands of human beings 

that were killed by that government. What should we do? Would 

you rather have a policeman here or someone down there guarding 

those graves? Would we rather have someone here? 
524

There are lots of priorities, and we cannot make a country that 

has been badly treated and abused and a people that have been 

badly treated and abused for decades, we cannot make it right, we 

cannot make it like the United States, in 5 minutes, and we know 

that. We have got wonderful people out there doing a darn good job 

and their circumstances are going to get better every single day. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Secretary, I wholeheartedly agree with 

you and I am not arguing with you. I am merely suggesting for the 

public record that if there is one thing we are good at it is establishing order and establishing a way of putting things into a sense 

of order and developing construction techniques and construction 

formats that are credible and that people will believe and can see. 

And I merely urge that these happen quickly. I have not heard 

much about that. I assume that I will, and I thank you for your 

answer. 

The second question has to do with one that has bothered me in 

terms of informing the public of something we did that was rather 

spectacular. Our ability to target our weapons was a spectacular 

achievement. It is a combination of technology, much of which is 

secret, much of which we cannot divulge. But I have wondered 

whether or not it is possible that you could have a neutral group 

evaluate how we went about, what care we took, how much emphasis, energy, time, money, and resources we put into this episode, 

and have it as some kind of a feature to show the world what we 

have done. 

So far it is just something that we can see in terms of the effect. 

It would seem to me it would make an incredible story, put forth 

by credible writers, as to what we had to go through to get there. 

I can imagine the hours spent in trying to determine which target 

versus another target. I can imagine time spent looking at a building to see who occupied it and when so we would know whether 

or not to strike it or not because the occupants are innocent people. 

In fact, I happen to know those kinds of decisions were made. 

It seems to me that to get that out in a tabloid form where everybody could understand and see it would be a remarkable positive 

for American involvement in this particular war. I would like your 

comments and I thank you for your testimony. 

CAREFUL TARGETING IN IRAQ

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, you are certainly obviously very 

knowledgeable and exactly correct. The amount of—the hundreds 

of hours and the hundreds of people that were involved in looking 

at targets and making judgments about which targets would give 

the greatest advantage with the least potential for collateral damage; what time of day to strike a target where there would be the 

fewest innocent people in any area; what direction the weapon 

should be directed so that it would avoid civilian areas; what type 

of weapon to use; how to use that weapon; how to fuse it. 

All of those things were gone into with enormous care and detail. 

And you are right, it would be a story that would reflect very well 

on the United States and on the people involved. 

Senator DOMENICI. Would you mind taking a look at whether 

that could be done? 
525

Secretary RUMSFELD. I will certainly take a look at whether it 

could be done. 

Senator DOMENICI. I do not mean to burden you with all the 

other things you have, but it seems to me to be public relations, 

a very, very positive kind of thing. 

Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Feinstein. 

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

ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

Mr. Secretary, I wanted to take this discussion in a slightly different way and I wanted to talk about the Robust Nuclear Earth 

Penetrator. I read the nuclear posture review when it came out in 

2002 and saw where, if that were put into actual public policy, 

there would be a substantial departure from where this Nation in 

the past was going with respect to nuclear weapons. 

Then as I looked at the doctrines of unilateralism and preemp- tion and see the authorization that has been requested for $15 million to continue the study of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 

(RNEP), the likelihood is that that authorization will pass and that 

we will be faced with an appropriation of money as well. 

The way I see it, development of the RNEP represents a blurring 

of the line between conventional and nuclear weapons that may 

very well undermine our efforts to limit proliferation, and which 

may give nuclear armaments a role in this new United States doctrine of preemption. So I am obviously very concerned about it and 

wonder why, with the massive conventional weaponry that we have 

at our disposal, whether it be a daisycutter or a conventional 

bunkerbuster or the other things that we have, why is it necessary 

at this particularly tenuous point in time to begin a new effort with 

respect to nuclear weapons which can only in my view take us 

down a disastrous course? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, let me make a few comments on 

some of the things you said so that the record is very clear. You 

indicated that there is a proposal that you think is going to pass 

to develop a tactical nuclear weapon, I believe you said. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. An authorization for $15 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Right. And I think that is not accurate. I 

think that there is a proposal to fund a study, not the development, 

not the production, but a study. Let me tell you why. And you 

smile, but it is a serious matter that we do not have in the inventory the ability to deal with an underground, deeply buried target. 

We are looking and studying a variety of ways that that might 

be done, one of which is the one you are mentioning, which is a 

study, not the development, not the building, no major departure 

as you suggested. 

I would say this, that I do not think it would blur—studying the 

possibility of developing in several different ways, one of which is 

the one you mentioned, an ability to hit a target that is deeply buried is not going to in my view blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. You are right, if you study it someone 
526

might say, well, then you could build it some day. And that is true, 

you could, you could decide it. But that is a totally different issue 

and it is not part of what is before the Congress, as your statement 

suggested. 

Why do I not think that it would blur it? Nuclear weapons were 

used once, in 1945, and they have not been fired since in anger. 

That is an amazing record for human beings. Never in the history 

of mankind have there been weapons that powerful or anything approximating it, that distinctly different, that have not been used. 

They have not been used. 

Now, what does that mean? It means at least civilized countries, 

democracies, the ones that have those weapons thus far, and the 

few that are not democracies that have them, have made a conscious decision that there is a big difference in crossing that 

threshold. The United States has been at war in Korea, we have 

been at war in Vietnam, we have been in war lots of places since 

1945, and they have never been used. 

No President is going to think that the line is blurred suddenly 

because of a study to see if we can develop an ability for a deep 

earth penetrator, in my view. Am I correct in——

Senator FEINSTEIN. May I ask you further on that? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Sure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. According to the press reports, the nuclear 

posture review puts forward several scenarios in which the United 

States would consider a first use of nuclear weapons. I can mention 

them here if you wish. And when that comes out in 2002, although 

it was somewhat debunked by the administration, a year later we 

find that the studies are beginning to develop new tactical nuclear 

weapons. 

Yes, nuclear weapons were only used once before, but they were 

used by the United States, and now we have concern about India 

and Pakistan, we have serious concern about North Korea, and our 

efforts have been to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. To 

me, it is counterproductive to our overall purposes of limiting proliferation to begin studies that take us into the area of the possible 

use of tactical nuclear weapons. 

Would you comment? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. You bet. I have to again correct what you 

said. You say we now found out that the United States is beginning 

to develop tactical nuclear weapons. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, I did not. I beg your pardon. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Oh, I misunderstood, then. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, no. I say we now find that a study. I 

mean, I accept your word. I have no reason not to accept your word 

that this is a study. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. My point is we have tactical nuclear weapons, theater nuclear weapons. We have had them for decades. They 

exist. We have lots of them. We have a fraction of those that——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can we confine it to the Robust Nuclear 

Earth Penetrator. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I did. I pointed out it is a study and it is 

not the development of a tactical nuclear weapon, as you suggested. 

It just is not. We have lots of studies and we should do studies. We 

have lots of war plans and contingency plans, and we should have 
527

those. We do not use them all. Obviously, the job of the Department of Defense is to be prepared to defend the American people, 

and that is what we do. We plan, we study things, we try to develop different kinds of capabilities from time to time. 

But any development program would have to come before this 

body. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, I understand that. It is just in the public 

policy that one might look at nuclear weapons. If we are trying to 

discourage their use, now that we have this well-established doctrine of preemptive action, unilateral action, and you add to this 

possible scenarios where nuclear weapons could be used, why does 

that not encourage other nations to become nuclear in response? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, first let me say one thing. You mentioned unilateral action. In the Iraq effort there were 49 nations involved. I keep reading in the press about unilateral this and going 

it alone that. It was balogna. There were 49 countries in one way 

or another assisting in that effort. It seems to me that that is just 

a fact. 

If you think about the proliferation problem, it is a serious problem, and I agree completely with you and I worry about it a great 

deal. The fact is we could have 50 percent more, even 100 percent 

more, nuclear nations in the next 15, 20 years, and that is not a 

happy world to live in. It is not a good thing. 

The idea that our studying a deep earth penetrator, studying a 

nuclear deep earth penetrator, is going to contribute to proliferation I think ignores the fact that the world is proliferating. It is 

happening. It is happening without any studies by us. It is going 

on all around us. North Korea will sell almost anything it has by 

way of military technologies for hard currency. That is what they 

do. 

I think that any implication that a study in the Department for 

that would contribute to proliferation simply is not consistent with 

the fact, because we have got a world that is filled with proliferation. It is pervasive. 

Senator STEVENS. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. We will now go to the second round and limit 

it, if it is agreeable, to 5 minutes. I have agreed that the Secretary 

and General and Deputy Secretary would be able to leave at 12:30. 

Let me start off with just one statement, Senator, Senator Feinstein. The implications of the Senator’s questions are that Harry 

Truman was wrong. Two of us sitting here were part of the 2-million-man force that was in the Pacific that might have had to be 

used to invade Japan. I think Harry Truman goes down in history 

for having the courage to make that decision. Not that I think any 

future President will make the same decision, but if in that same 

position I hope we have the weapons and I hope we have the President who has the courage to make the decision for our national 

survival. 

My question to you now, though, Mr. Secretary—that took 5 minutes? We have a situation on these weapons of mass destruction. 

Several of us were among those that were briefed by your intelligence people, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and others 
528

on the probable existence of those weapons. I think it is absolutely 

necessary we follow every possible avenue to get them. 

SOLICITING INFORMATION ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

My question is, have you advertised a reward for those people 

who might have that knowledge? Any one of those people who come 

forward and gives us the knowledge of the existence of those is 

dead unless we take care of them. I hope we are advertising a substantial sum of money for creating a new life if they come forward 

and help us get that information. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I have not seen radio or leaflets or specific 

documents that do that. I do know that we have asked that that 

be done and that there are reward systems and that people are 

being encouraged to come forward, and that I have said publicly to 

the Iraqi people that their circumstance will be much better if they 

come forward. 

The problem of amnesty is a difficult one because of the fact that 

the Iraqi people may decide to make judgments about Iraqi people 

who served Saddam Hussein’s regime. So it is a tricky business. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, we moved this gentleman who came forward on Private Lynch and brought him to this country immediately. I think we have that power now. I hope we use it in terms 

of this search for these weapons. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I agree, it is extremely important. 

CALLUP ON RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL

Senator STEVENS. Let me ask one last question so others may 

have some time. I know that we have taken into the regular service, I guess we have called up, guardsmen and reserve people. We 

are now, I am told, demobilizing 50,000 reservists and guardsmen 

per month, but we are still calling other people up. 

What can we see in terms of this process of demobilization as far 

as the Guard and Reserve is concerned? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, let me say a couple of things. First 

of all, we are not demobilizing 50,000 a month. I do not know 

where that came from. 

Senator STEVENS. That was a statement that was made to us 

during the supplemental on the record here, that we would demobilize 50,000 a month. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. We would is what it said, I think. You said 

we are, I thought. 

Senator STEVENS. That was the aggressive assumption that was 

given to us at the time, that we would demobilize 50,000 a month. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. I think that may have been an assumption 

in a proposal that suggested at that point where it was possible to 

do so from a security standpoint on the ground you would then 

begin demobilizing. Thus far, what we have returned to the United 

States both Active, Guard, and Reserve are essentially Navy and 

Air Force personnel. Practically no Army or Marines have been 

brought back. 

General PACE. Correct, sir. The projection, sir, in that budget 

supplement was about we thought perhaps 90 days of combat. That 

turned out to be not the right number. We thought there would be 

50,000 per month, because we had to have some kinds of projec-
529

tions so we could prepare a budget supplemental that had some validity to it. That is where the 50,000 per month comes from. 

As we sit here, the services are going through their own analyses 

and will present to the Secretary later this week or the beginning 

of next week their proposals on how to reconstitute the force, Active and Reserve, in a very systematic way that allows us to have 

the force on station that is needed today and allows us to regenerate our long-term capability. 

Senator STEVENS. Okay. I do not want to take the time for it 

now, but that assumption was the assumption for our supplemental. I started today by asking you about have you got enough 

money. That is tied into that matter. If we are not going to demobilize them, then we do not have enough money to keep them much 

longer. Would you give us a statement for the record of what we 

can see in terms of that demobilization, how it affects the money 

that you have still got available? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes, sir, we will do that. I will just say 

briefly, what we did was we made a set of assumptions and said 

they were only assumptions, and that if it played out this way this 

is roughly what it would cost. And then we said, if this were 

longer, this would be shorter. 

[The information follows:]

The fiscal year 2003 Supplemental provided $13.4 billion to the Department of 

Defense in Active and Reserve Military Personnel Pay. Presently, U.S. Central Command’s stability operations plan for Iraq is still evolving because of the dynamic environment inside the country. The final plan could require a greater than planned 

presence, including the Reserve Component. The current projection is that the Services will fully execute the funding appropriated in the Military Personnel Accounts. 

It remains our goal to reduce the numbers of our Reserve Component on active duty 

as quickly as possible, while at the same time not jeopardizing our commitment to 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism.

Senator STEVENS. Right. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. And therefore it balanced. And we thought 

that, regardless of whether the assumptions proved to be exactly 

right, which as Pete points out they are not right, nonetheless the 

money might be roughly the same. And at least at this moment, 

the Comptroller believes that is the case. 

Senator STEVENS. But it looks to me like both are longer, Mr. 

Secretary. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, the war was shorter. 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. The war was shorter and in addition, if you keep 

the people out there, then you are not spending the money that we 

did assume and budget to bring them back. So there really is an 

offsetting factor, and we are still pretty confident in the number 

that we got from you for the supplemental. 

Senator STEVENS. I would like to see a paper on it if we can. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. And sir, if we were continuing the war, instead of like 90 days, think of the ammunition we would be using 

and the cost of replenishing all of that. So there were so many variables that I think we are probably in the ballpark. 

FORCE LEVELS IN IRAQ THEATER

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. 
530

Mr. Secretary, if the information is not classified, can you give 

us the statistics on the number of troops, Army, Navy, Air Force, 

and Marines, in theater at the height of the battle 3 weeks ago? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Sir, I can give you a rough guesstimate and give 

you the exact numbers for the record. But right now Army is at 

about 160,000, the Marine Corps is at about 65,000, the Navy and 

Air Force are both at about 30,000 each, sir. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. That is in the theater, not in Iraq. 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. In the theater. That adds up today—I do not know 

these numbers, but I do know that the overall number today is 

right at about 309,000, of which United States in country, correct 

number, is approximately 142,000. 

Senator INOUYE. Is it correct that the Marines sent about 60 percent of their available combat forces there? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. I think that math is right, yes, sir. They had 

66,000 of their operating forces there. That sounds about right. 

Senator INOUYE. And the Army sent the equivalent of four divisions? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. That sounds right, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. And the Navy sent the equivalent of six carrier 

battle groups? 

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Five, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. Five. 

I ask this because this was the bulk of our military, was it not, 

Mr. Secretary? We have ten divisions available in the Army. Sixty 

percent of the Marines were there, 5 carriers out of 12 that are 

available. 

My question is, with that type of commitment and assignment, 

should we be discouraging some of our fellow Americans from considering ourselves invincible? Soon after the battle they were talking about going to Syria and possibly North Korea. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes, I see your point. 

I would like to answer for the record the answer as to whether 

it was the bulk, because the Reserve call-up was not the bulk, and 

therefore if we took the totality of the United States armed forces 

I think I would guess that it was not a majority. 

General PACE. That is true, sir. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Second, you are certainly right that—I 

should add, they were only there for a relatively short period of 

time. There was a gradual buildup and a gradual drawdown, with 

the Air Force and the Navy moving out within some cases a relatively short period of time. 

But you are right, no nation is capable of doing everything on the 

face of the Earth at every moment, and certainly those people in 

the Department of Defense who worry with these things every day 

and recognize the costs and the circumstance of our forces understand that fully. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator Byrd. 

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The word that I used earlier, Mr. Secretary, was ‘‘shakeup.’’

ASSIGNMENT TO AMBASSADOR BREMER

Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes. 
531

Senator BYRD. And you seemed to take some—not necessarily I 

would say umbrage, but you sought to differ that classification. Let 

me read from the Philadelphia Inquirer of May 13 as follows: ‘‘The 

new U.S. civilian overseer, former diplomat L. Paul Bremer, who 

arrived yesterday to take over the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance from retired Army Lieutenant General Jay 

Garner, is facing his own housecleaning. Barbara Bodine, the State 

Department official overseeing the reconstruction of Baghdad, was 

reassigned after 3 weeks on the job and at least five other senior 

members of the ORHA [Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian 

Assistance]’’—‘‘of the ORHA staff also will be returning home, a 

senior U.S. official said yesterday.’’

So I offer that for the record in support of the word which I used, 

that being ‘‘shakeup.’’ Now——

[The information follows:] 

[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 13, 2003] 

U.S. HINTS AT BOOST IN FORCES AMID IRAQI TROUBLES

(By Maureen Fan, Andrea Gerlin and Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson; Inquirer Staff 

Writers) 

Turmoil yesterday continued to dog Iraq and the American effort to rebuild the 

country, and the United States’ top uniformed military officer hinted that restoring 

order may require more American troops than originally planned. 

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 

that security and infrastructure problems were the two major issues facing Iraq and 

that U.S. troops would have a significant role until Iraqis could run their police 

force independently and basic services were returned. 

Additional military units headed to Baghdad—namely the First Armored Division 

based in Germany—were intended to replace the Third Infantry Division and other 

units that fought the war, but Myers yesterday said only that they ‘‘may’’ replace 

units now in Iraq. 

Myers also said that other countries had offered troops to buttress the American 

presence. He declined to be specific and said that their ‘‘exact disposition’’ had not 

been determined. 

Myers’ comments illustrated the problems facing the United States as it tries to 

put Iraq back on its feet without relying on either a lengthy American military occupation or recycled bureaucrats from Saddam Hussein’s regime. 

The difficulty was made clear again yesterday when Iraq’s U.S.-approved health 

minister resigned after questions were raised about his Baath Party pedigree. 

The new U.S. civilian overseer, former diplomat L. Paul Bremer, who arrived yesterday to take over the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance 

(ORHA) from retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, is facing his own housecleaning. 

Barbara Bodine, the State Department official overseeing the reconstruction of 

Baghdad, was reassigned after three weeks on the job, and at least five other senior 

members of the ORHA staff also will be returning home, a senior U.S. official said 

yesterday. 

In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, meanwhile, a tearful homecoming for the head 

of Iraq’s largest opposition group came to an abrupt end last night when dozens of 

followers of a rival cleric shoved their way toward the balcony on which the newly 

returned leader stood, prompting his bodyguards to hurry him indoors for fear that 

he might be assassinated. 

The bright spot in the day was an announcement that U.S. forces had captured 

Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha, the British-trained microbiologist known as ‘‘Dr. Germ’’ for 

her work developing biological weapons for Hussein. U.S. officials also said they had 

seized the former chief of staff of the Iraqi armed forces, Ibrahim Ahmad Abd alSattar Muhammad al Tikriti, but a Pentagon official cautioned that his identity had 

not been verified. 

The abrupt resignation of the health minister, Dr. Ali Shinan—whom critics accuse of corruption and diverting medical supplies at the expense of poor Iraqis—underscored the first challenge for the U.S. rebuilding effort: figuring out how to restore services and chart a new course for Iraq without relying on former Baathist 

officials. The task is complicated by the fact that Baath Party membership was vir-
532

tually a condition of employment for anyone who wanted a government job in the 

last three decades. 

‘‘We need to move humanitarian assistance,’’ said the ORHA’s Steve Browning 

yesterday after touring the 1,000-bed al Yarmouk Hospital. ‘‘We need to move medical supplies. We need to get people back to work. We need to make salaries. We 

need to produce petrol. We need to produce electricity. We need to get the sanitation 

systems working.’’ 

The chaos in Najaf highlighted another obstacle to U.S. reconstruction efforts, a 

growing power struggle within Iraq’s majority Shiite Muslim community. Since he 

returned to his homeland Saturday after 23 years in exile in neighboring Iran, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic 

Revolution in Iraq, has repeatedly called for an end to the struggle for religious control that has emerged since Hussein’s fall. 

The most visible instigator in this war for Shiite hearts and minds is Najaf cleric 

Moqtader al Sadr, the youngest son of Muhammad Sadiq al Sadr, a powerful 

marjah, or senior spiritual leader, who was slain by Hussein in 1999. Followers of 

the marjah and his son disrupted Hakim’s homecoming at Grand Imam Ali Shrine 

yesterday, holding up posters and a painting of the senior Sadr, whose name they 

chanted as they beat their chests.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Could I comment on that? 

Senator BYRD. Oh, yes. How much time do I have? 

Senator STEVENS. About 31⁄2 minutes, sir. It depends on when 

the Secretary wants to leave. 

Senator BYRD. Oh, he is in no hurry to leave. 

He is in a fighting mood, I can see that. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, let me comment on that article, 

from whatever paper it was. Because something is in the press, of 

course, does not make it so. 

Senator BYRD. The Philadelphia Inquirer. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Right. Now, first of all, just some facts. 

Number one, he was not sent out there as part of a shakeup. He 

was sent out there as presidential envoy. He was not sent out there 

to replace Mister—General Garner as head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. He was sent out there as 

a presidential envoy. 

The individual you mentioned who was reassigned had not been 

there 3 weeks. I can remember seeing her in December or January, 

which is months ago, when I visited their office in the Pentagon, 

and then again when I saw them off in the parking lot of the Pentagon to see them away, which was in I believe December or January. So it is a lot more than 3 weeks. 

There are a number of things in that article with which I would 

differ. 

NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES IN IRAQ

Senator BYRD. For months, Mr. Secretary, the administration 

warned of the potential nuclear capabilities of Iraq. Indeed, one of 

the main justifications for U.S. action in Iraq was to ensure that 

nuclear weapons and material did not fall into the hands of terrorists. It has been widely reported that U.S. troops in Baghdad have 

secured some buildings, including the oil ministry. But according to 

a story in the Washington Post on May 10, our forces failed to prevent looting at seven nuclear facilities. 

I quote from the article: ‘‘It is not clear what has been lost in the 

sacking of Iraq’s nuclear establishment, but it is well documented 

that looters roamed unrestrained among stores of chemical elements and scientific files that would speed development in the 
533

wrong hands of a nuclear or radiological bomb. Many of the files 

and some of the containers that held radioactive sources are missing.’’

The administration argued that war against Iraq was necessary 

to prevent the spread and development of nuclear weapons, and yet 

by failing to protect these sites we may have actually facilitated the 

spread and development of nuclear weapons. I understand the importance of protecting the oil ministry so that the daily running of 

Iraq could continue. But, given that one of the reasons for invading 

Iraq was to prevent the spread of nuclear materials and capabilities, why were these sites not protected, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, I do not believe anyone that I 

know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. So the statement I think you read, that we have warned of potential nuclear capability and weapons and materials in the hands 

of terrorists, in terms of their having them now I do not know anyone who suggested that that was the case. 

The Central Intelligence Agency I know has assessed that they 

had a nuclear program and assessed that they had chemical and 

biological weapons, a slight difference from the article. 

LOOTING IN IRAQ AND PROTECTING SITES

As to looting, my understanding is that a number of sites were 

located by U.S. forces, coalition forces, on the ground, they were 

looked at and a judgment was made that they should go to a different site and look at those other sites. In some cases, before they 

got there things were looted. In some cases, possibly after they got 

there and went to another site things may have been looted. 

It is not possible to have enough forces in a country instantaneously to guard every site before somebody can get into it. I do 

not know about the choice between the oil ministry and some site 

that that article may be referring to. I do know that they had a 

lot of tasks to do. They had to win the war, they had to deal with 

death squads of Fedayeen Saddam, they had to deal with Baath 

Party members in civilian clothes that were trying to kill them, 

and all in all I think they did a darn good job. 

We have no evidence to conclude, as that article suggests might 

have happened, that, in fact, nuclear materials did leave and get 

into the hands of people. I do not have evidence that it did or did 

not. That is the best I can do. 

Senator BYRD. Why was protecting these well-known nuclear facilities not at least as high priority as protecting the oil ministry? 

Secretary RUMSFELD. My impression is from what I know, and 

I would have to check, that a number of sites were protected. There 

are something like at the present time—the number changes every 

month or every week, but I believe there are something like 578 

suspected weapon of mass destruction sites. What does that mean? 

Does it mean they are all sites where something—no, it just means 

that there was a scrap of information here that suggested that 

somebody might have been doing something there and you ought 

to check it out. 

But there are hundreds of these possible sites. We also have intelligence that suggested that they took the documentation and a 

number of the materials, dispersed them and hid them, in some 
534

cases in private residences. So how does any force of any size instantaneously get to all of those locations and provide perfect security for them so someone cannot loot them? I think it is an unrealistic expectation. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator, I am sorry. I have got a bunch of appointments and we guaranteed the Secretary we would be through 

here at 12:30. He has, as I understand it, to go to the White House 

for a meeting. So with your cooperation, I would like to let him go. 

Senator BYRD. Is this a filibuster you are shutting off? 

Senator STEVENS. No. You are not filibustering yet, Senator. I 

have seen you filibuster. This is not that. 

Senator BYRD. Well, we will be talking with the Secretary again. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. We appreciate your cooperation. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that 

the article from the Washington Post of Tuesday, May 13, entitled 

‘‘Baghdad Anarchy Spurs Call for Help,’’ that it be included in the 

record in its entirety? 

Senator STEVENS. It will be. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

THE HURRICANE HUNTERS

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I understand the Hurricane Hunters based at 

Keesler Air Force Base were recently deployed to the Pacific operating out of Elmendorf, Alaska in support of Winter Weather Reconnaissance missions for the National 

Centers for Environmental Prediction. Similarly, a detachment of the Hurricane 

Hunters was recently deployed to Guam to perform weather reconnaissance in support of current operations. Can you provide the Subcommittee with an update on 

their deployment and the unique capability the Hurricane Hunters provide to our 

ability to predict weather around the world? 

Answer. Pacific Air Forces requested weather reconnaissance assistance to cover 

the period of transition between the failing Geo-stationary Meteorological Satellite 

GMS 5 and its replacement by the Pacific Geo-stationary Operational Environmental Satellite GOES 9. During the satellite transition, contingency bomber and 

fighter forces were also deployed to Anderson AFB, Guam in support of Pacific Command (PACOM) requirements. In order to ensure optimum utilization of the air assets, since the deployment coincided with the typhoon season, WC–130 aircraft and 

personnel from the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (WRS) were requested 

and subsequently deployed to Guam. The WC–130 capability filled the gap and performed the needed mission admirably. Shortly after the departure of contingency 

bomber and fighter forces, the 53rd WRS redeployed from Guam on 6 June 2003. 

Their presence allowed PACOM to operate in the Pacific area of responsibility 

while avoiding inadvertent typhoon evacuation of the bomber and fighter forces, enhancing the ability to maintain needed force presence and deterrence throughout 

the contingency. The unit was deployed for approximately 30 days and performed 

over 100 hours of tropical cyclone reconnaissance providing weather forecast centers 

world-wide (Joint Typhoon Warning Center, National Center for Environmental Prediction, Air Force Weather Agency, Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography 

Center, United Kingdom Meteorology Center, and others) with previously unavailable data over the western Pacific ocean. 

The WC–130 aircraft and crews provide a unique capability to gather meteorological data from remote and over water locations from the surface up to the operational capabilities of the aircraft, 30,000 feet or so. They accomplished this by collecting information from the aircraft’s special instruments called dropsondes and by 
535

airborne meteorological observations. The dropsondes collect wind direction and velocity, pressure altitude, air temperature, relative humility and position every onehalf second as it descends by parachute. 

Initial assessments of WC–130 data seem to indicate an enhanced ability to determine tropical cyclone location and forecast tracks in three separate storm events. 

WC–130 data fixed storm locations by as much as 80NM from satellite-derived 

storm locations. Data from the WC–130 missions increased definition of developing 

storm characteristics and intensities (not well defined by satellite coverage). The 

WC–130 data provided relevant and accurate information to military decision makers. A comparison study is now underway to determine how and to what degree 

WC–130 data improved overall typhoon model forecasts for the area of responsibility. The technical data will be assessed and reported through United States Pacific Command upon completion. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget process, I understand you have approved an initiative to transfer the weather reconnaissance 

mission presently performed by the Hurricane Hunters from the Department of Defense to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Considering 

recent deployments directly supporting current military operations, I am concerned 

with the ramifications of this proposed transfer. How will the military support missions be performed if this weather reconnaissance mission is transferred to NOAA? 

Answer. The recent deployment of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron 

(WRS) at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi is the only instance of unit activation 

for military weather support since the mission transferred from the active component to the Air Force Reserve in August of 1990. Currently, there is no equivalent 

military capability that exists to conduct the military weather mission performed by 

the 53rd WRS. 

After the weather reconnaissance mission is transferred to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there are two separate and distinct ways 

for the Department of Defense to achieve this type of weather reconnaissance support. First, if the President declares the situation a national emergency, he has the 

power to transfer resources and officers from NOAA to the Department of Defense. 

This is provided in 33 USC 3061. The second way is to request NOAA to perform 

the mission within their resources without being mobilized. This second process 

could be outlined in the construct of the memorandum of agreement for the mission 

transfer. 

UAVS

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, when General Myers last appeared before this Subcommittee, he referred to the need for persistent, long-loiter intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles such as Global 

Hawk have proven to be extremely valuable to our operations. Are we moving fast 

enough to procure systems such as Global Hawk and other necessary UAV systems? 

Answer. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Department deployed over 10 different UAV systems to support military operations. This was the widest use of 

UAVs in any operation to date; they not only provided persistent surveillance and 

broad area search but also target identification and designation for weapons employment plus battle damage assessment following a strike. UAVs were even, themselves, strike platforms; Predator flew in an armed reconnaissance role with Hellfire 

missiles engaging and destroying a number of tactical targets. Global Hawk also 

showed its ability to provide persistent surveillance. A single prototype flew over 

350 hours in direct combat support and located over 300 Iraqi tanks, about 38 percent of all the known armor assets of Iraq military. We are procuring Air Force 

Global Hawk and Predator UAVs at about the right pace when the additional components of communications, command and control and training are included. 

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, when General Myers last appeared before this Subcommittee, he provided testimony indicating the establishment of NORTHCOM has 

significantly improved the preparedness, responsiveness and integration between 

the U.S. military and other federal agencies defending the homeland. Considering 

this integration between the military and the Homeland Security Agency, do you believe integration would be enhanced if the military and the Homeland Security 

Agency used common UAV platforms, such as Global Hawk, in their operations? 

Answer. The Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, 

at the request of Senator Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are jointly examining the potential utilities of unmanned aerial vehicles for 
536

homeland security missions. When the examination is completed, the results will 

also be provided to the Subcommittee. 

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I understand the budget request contains funding 

for one LPD–17 amphibious ship in fiscal year 2004, but no LPD in fiscal year 2005; 

this appears to be an inefficient program profile. Admiral Clark and General Hagee 

have both indicated that they could use that ship sooner than later. Can you share 

your thoughts on the LPD–17 program profile and requirements? 

Answer. Yes. This is not an issue of when we need the ships but rather one of 

balancing requirements with limited resources in view of industrial base and program realities. I believe that everyone agrees that replacing the LPD–4 class earlier 

rather than later is a good thing. However, during last year’s budget review, the 

Navy concluded that leaving a gap year in fiscal year 2005 was appropriate for the 

time being because insufficient production data was available to justify adding more 

LPD–17 workload. Significant design problems led to a number of delays and cost 

increases—a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach—up to that point. They had four ships on 

contract with the lead ship still in early production and virtually no construction 

completed on the other three—and plans to award a fifth ship in the second half 

of fiscal year 2003. In short, the Navy had a lot of ships on contract or committed 

with no empirical data that proved the LPD–17 production schedule was back on 

track. Since the gap was an fiscal year 2005 issue, they had another opportunity 

to revisit the issue and make adjustments with the benefit of more production data. 

I reviewed the Navy’s plan and I agreed with their approach. 

My understanding today is that production on the LPD–17 is progressing well and 

that the design is proving to be stable. As a result, the Navy has made this issue 

a priority as part of their program/budget review process. I also intend to conduct 

a thorough review of this issue this fall as the Department finalizes the fiscal year 

2005 budget. 

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, and have known for several years 

now, the current rate of shipbuilding is not sufficient to meet the established goal 

of a 375-ship Navy. In fact, it will fall far short of even a 310-ship Navy, and require 

enormous investment in the out years simply to catch up. If more funding were 

available for shipbuilding, how could it be most effectively spent in the near term? 

Answer. Because of industrial base reasons and the fact we are in a transition 

period in shipbuilding—at the end of the production of DDG–51 and at the beginning of several new ship classes—more funding added to shipbuilding in fiscal year 

2004 would not be prudent. We currently have DDG–51s, LPD–17s, and T-AKEs already on contract or budgeted in sufficient numbers to load the shipyards to their 

capacities. Adding additional funds to put more ships on contract will not result in 

ships being built earlier. Similarly, the long lead-times and the limited industrial 

base for nuclear components preclude the possibility to increase Virginia class submarine production before the fiscal year 2007 timeframe. And finally, the kind of 

ships we need to start building (and in large numbers for some) to cope with the 

threats of the 21st century—DD(X), LCS, MPF(F), CVN–21 and LHA(R)—simply are 

not yet ready for production. 

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I understand you would like to consolidate the Active, National Guard and Reserve Military Pay Accounts into one Account that 

would be managed by the Active components. Do you think that we can make a significant change like this without jeopardizing the integrity of the Guard and Reserve Military Pay Accounts? 

Answer. I have proposed the consolidation of 10 Military Pay appropriation accounts into 4. However, I have not proposed that the consolidated accounts be managed by the Active components. The consolidation does not affect the Military Services Title 10 responsibilities. Further, I don’t see the consolidation as threatening 

the integrity of the Guard and Reserve Military Pay Accounts at all. The revised 

structure consolidates all Guard and all Reserve funding into single budget activities (one for the Reserves and a separate one for the Guard). The consolidation of 

personnel appropriations is designed to streamline and optimize funds management 

and eliminates the need to reprogram funds within the Reserve Components by 

eliminating the $10 million reprogramming threshold currently imposed on Reserve 

Component programs. The new structure merges the existing two budget activities 

for the Reserve and National Guard Personnel funding into one budget activity for 

each Reserve Component. Over time, the Reserve Components’ evolving role has 

made the two budget activities less meaningful and executable. 
537

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Question. What have you learned from the mobilization of the reserve component 

for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom? Where do you need to improve and what do you need to do it? 

Answer. The force structure and the timing of the use of the Reserve Components 

need adjustment. Due to post Viet Nam adjustments and the ‘‘Peace Dividend’’ of 

the 1990’s many military capabilities necessary to prosecute military actions of modest scale were placed entirely or predominately within the Reserve Components. 

This limits the flexibility necessary for the use of military force in a post cold war 

environment, particularly in the war on terrorism. 

Force structure and the timing of the use of the Reserve Components are both 

under review. Active/Reserve Component changes are up for revision (September 

2003) with more to soon follow. Review of Operation Plans that contemplate the 

early use of Reserve Component forces is also under review, with Combatant Commanders tasked to review and revise their plans, reducing the necessity for early 

mobilization of the Reserve Components. 

Question. Do we have the right mix of skill sets in the active and reserve component? Do we need more troops in the active component? 

Answer. The mix of skill sets in the Active and Reserve Components is currently 

being examined in several forums. The Operational Availability Study, the OSD AC/

RC Mix study, as well as individual Service studies are all looking at the right mix 

of Active and Reserve capabilities to ensure that the needs of the National Security 

Strategy are met through the key factors of availability, responsiveness, agility, and 

flexibility. The studies are ongoing, but initial results indicate some capabilities 

need to be addressed. 

I do not believe that additional active end strength is required to meet the national strategy. Instead, more progress needs to be made on distributing our skill 

mix to optimize our force capabilities within existing end strength. 

We will be examining the possibility of rebalancing capabilities within war plans 

and between the Active and Reserve Components. While recent mobilizations have 

highlighted shortages in certain capabilities that stressed Reserve forces, there are 

multiple solutions to address those issues. 

In addition, over 320,000 military manpower spaces have been identified as performing duties in specialties or situations that can potentially be performed by other 

kinds of personnel. I have directed my staff to conduct an in-depth review of these 

positions to determine how many can be reasonably converted to civilian performance, thus freeing military manpower to meet our most pressing demands. Application of a variety of actions including innovative management techniques for the Reserves will maximize the efficiency of our existing forces and may therefore require 

very little changes to existing force structure. 

Question. Should U.S. Forces be based overseas in new locations to better train 

and respond to today’s threats? What is the right level of troop strength overseas? 

Answer. Both these questions are under intense review by the Department. These 

are exactly the kind of new assessments we must do to take account of everything 

we know about 21st century threats. 

Question. Were more private contractors (and contractor employees) involved with 

Operation Iraqi Freedom than Operation Desert Storm? (Please provide as exact 

count as possible for each category.) How were private contractors used? What impact does the use of private contractors on the battlefield have for Transformation? 

Answer. Contracting for these services was done by a wide variety of Civilian 

Agencies, Defense Agencies, Military Departments and individual military commands. In addition, contracts and orders under existing contracts for support to deployed forces covered effort both in the country of operations and at other locations 

including the United States. At present there is no unique identifier in the contracts 

data system to allow for identification of an effort to a particular military deployment. Therefore, it is not possible to develop this data without having the Military 

Departments conduct a long and expensive manual data call. 

Contractors were used to provide the following services: laundry and bath facilities; clothing exchange and repair; food service; mortuary affairs; sanitation services; billeting/facilities management; moral, welfare and recreation facilities; information management; personnel support; maintenance; transportation; medical services; engineering and construction; signal support; power generation and distribution; automation operations; and physical security. 

The use of contractors on the battlefield is not new. The military has always used 

contractors to support its operations. The military will continue to use contractors 

to obtain capacity that the military does not possess, to facilitate faster movement 

into an area of operations, to reduce soldier OPTEMPO or deployment time, and to 
538

maximize combat forces when force size is constrained. Where these issues arise 

during the transformation process, the use of contractors will be one tool available 

to resolve the issue. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Question. What funds from the fiscal year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Act 

have been obligated to date? What is the timeline to distribute the remainder of the 

funds provided in the Supplemental, and how much of the Supplemental do you estimate will be carried over into fiscal year 2004? 

Answer. As of May 30, 2003 total obligations from funds made available in fiscal 

year 2003 for the Global War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom totaled 

$31,243 million. It is projected that approximately $4 billion of the $62.6 billion appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 Supplemental will be obligated in the early part 

of fiscal year 2004. 

Question. What are the Department’s total cost projections in fiscal year 2004 for 

keeping troops in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or any subsequent missions 

in Iraq? In the President’s pending budget request for fiscal year 2004 sufficient to 

cover these costs? 

Answer. A drawdown of troops in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom is currently 

underway. I expect the drawdown will continue through the middle of the next fiscal 

year. Presently, CENTCOM’s stability operations plan for Iraq is still evolving because of the dynamic environment inside the country, and may require a significant 

presence of our forces. The numbers of troops and pace of demobilization not yet 

been finalized. Therefore, the cost of supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom troops has 

not yet been determined. The President’s pending budget request does not specifically include funds to support Operation Iraqi Freedom troops. During fiscal year 

2004 we will assess our funding requirements and determine the means by which 

we can finance Operation Iraqi Freedom costs. It remains my goal to reduce the 

numbers of deployed troops as quickly as possible, while at the same time not jeopardizing our commitment to Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

DEPLOYMENT OF NATIONAL GUARD

Question. My office has heard reports that the 157th Military Police Company of 

the West Virginia National Guard has been deployed almost continuously since September 11 attacks, and has recently shipped out for a six-month deployment overseas. While the members of this unit are proud to serve their country, and they 

have served both in our homeland and around the world with great distinction, their 

families are increasingly being strained by what seems like a neverending string of 

mobilizations for citizen-soldiers. 

Secretary Rumsfeld, what steps are being taken to minimize the back-to-back deployments of members of the Reserves and the National Guard? 

Answer. I signed out a letter on July the 9th to the Secretaries of the Military 

Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Under Secretaries 

of Defense directing them to rebalance the forces. In that letter I enumerated three 

principal objectives that I wanted to achieve: 

—Structure active and reserve forces to reduce the need for involuntary mobilization of the Guard and Reserve, and structure forces to limit involuntary mobilization to not more than one year every six years. 

—Establish a more rigorous process for reviewing joint requirements; ensuring 

force structure is appropriately designed. 

—Make the mobilization and demobilization process more efficient. 

I levied actions that I expect to be completed, and an aggressive set of milestones 

for the responses. I assure you that I am as concerned as you are and will strive 

to ensure the continued judicious and prudent use of our valuable Guard and Reserve forces. 

Question. Congress enacted a $100-per-day extended deployment pay in 1999 to 

encourage shorter tours for our military personnel. This pay was suspended shortly 

after the September 11 attacks. Does your budget request contain any compensation 

to help Service members and their families who experience back-to-back deployments? Will these proposals help the families of those who have been deployed since 

September 11, 2001, or will the compensation only apply to future deployments? 
539

Answer. The Department submitted a proposal for the fiscal year 2004 Authorization Bill that would compensate members for both excessively long deployments and 

frequent deployments, with compensation at an appropriate scale. The proposal also 

includes Guard and Reserve members who have been called up for more than 30 

days for a second time in support of the same contingency operations. Both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have similar PERSTEMPO Pay provisions in their respective fiscal year 2004 authorization bills. 

The Military Departments did not project funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget 

for this payment since the current National Security waiver allows the SECDEF to 

suspend PERSTEMPO payments during a National Emergency. The Department is 

committed to paying qualified members PERSTEMPO pay once the National Security waiver is lifted. 

The Military Departments are also working initiatives to lessen the adverse impacts of high individual TEMPO. Those initiatives focus on providing predictability 

in deployments; optimizing time required for pre-deployment training work-ups and 

post-deployment maintenance; and implementing organizational initiatives, such as 

the Air Force Aerospace Expeditionary Forces. 

MANAGEMENT PLANS

Question. The OMB scores agencies on how well they comply with the President’s 

Management Agenda. Agencies are encouraged to submit management plans to the 

OMB, and to meet the competitive sourcing targets outlined in the President’s budget. The OMB has informed me that these plans, while submitted to the OMB for 

approval, can be released to the public at the discretion of the agency heads. If the Congress is to appropriate $380 billion to the Defense Department to employ 636,000 civilians and 2.4 million military personnel, I expect that you would 

first provide the Congress with a copy of any management plan or competitive 

sourcing plan that the Defense Department submits to the OMB. 

Secretary Rumsfeld, when do you expect to submit your next management plan 

to the OMB, and how soon can you make that plan available to the Appropriations 

Committee? 

Answer. OMB will receive the competitive sourcing management plan with the fiscal year 2005 budget. OMB must approve the submission, which will then be included in the President’s budget submission. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, before the war, we all read the assessments that 

Iraq possessed large stocks of weapons of mass destruction and that the military 

was prepared to use them in the event of attack. Thankfully, no attacks were made 

against our forces, but we still have not been able to locate any of these weapons 

stocks. Has DOD completed an intelligence assessment of why these predictions 

proved incorrect? Can the department provide the Committee with a detailed briefing about these reviews? Additionally, can you provide the Committee with a detailed briefing about the possibility that some of these weapons of mass destruction 

have fallen into the hands of forces hostile to us? 

Answer. DOD continues to investigate the extent of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction programs and stockpiles. The Iraq Survey Group has been established to 

coordinate the search for WMD in Iraq. In late July, the Intelligence Community 

provided to Congress every publication from 1992 to the present on Iraqi WMD programs and on its threat assessments. Additionally, numerous Intelligence Community and DOD officials have been to brief or testify before Congress on this issue. 

IRAQ

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I am told that the contract with Kellogg Brown & 

Root on fixing Iraqi oil facilities is classified. Giving a major contract in secrecy to 

a company with close ties to the administration will only increase suspicions of 

those inclined to think we are in Iraq to benefit American companies rather than 

the Iraqi people. 

Why is the contract with Kellogg Brown & Root classified (if that is correct)? 

Answer. The contract with Brown & Root Services, a division of Kellogg, Brown 

& Root (KBR), was awarded March 8, 2003, to support the DOD mission of repair 

and continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. The contract was classified because it was issued before the war started, when the mission was classified 

because the planning and limited activities being undertaken had to be integrated 
540

with CENTCOM’s military planning for the war effort. This included plans for military action to protect parts of the oil infrastructure against potential sabotage in 

the event of war. Disclosure, before the commencement of hostilities, of plans to repair and maintain continuity of oil operations would have run a serious risk of compromising the related military planning activity. Additionally, the contractor for repair and continuity of operations had to be ready to commence work immediately 

upon notice to proceed, but it was not known in advance when the commencement 

of work might be required, since that would depend on the timing of the military 

campaign and how events unfolded on the ground as the campaign progressed. 

Therefore, it was not possible to award an unclassified contract prior to hostilities 

without jeopardizing the success of the mission. 

On March 6, 2003, the Department declassified only the fact that it had plans for 

extinguishing fires and assessing damage to oil facilities in Iraq. The fact that the 

Department was planning for the possibility that it would need to repair and provide for continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure remained classified 

until March 22, 2003. This prevented earlier acknowledgement or announcement of 

potential requirements to the business community. 

The government’s strategy has been to compete the execution effort at the earliest 

reasonable opportunity consistent with the needs of the mission. The declassification 

of the mission has enabled the Department to plan a full and open competition in 

which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will solicit competitive proposals to provide 

the broad range of services that may need to be performed to support this mission 

in the months ahead. The contracts awarded as a result of this competition will replace the contract now in place with KBR. 

Question. How many other contracts addressing reconstruction in Iraq are classified, and what is the total potential value of those contracts? 

Answer. Contracts or task orders supporting the DOD mission of repair and continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure were classified because they were 

issued before the war started, when the mission was classified because the planning 

and limited activities being undertaken had to be integrated with CENTCOM’s military planning for the war effort. This included plans for military action to protect 

parts of the oil infrastructure against potential sabotage in the event of war. Disclosure, before the commencement of hostilities, of plans to repair and maintain continuity of oil operations would have run a serious risk of compromising the related 

military planning activity. Additionally, the contractor for repair and continuity of 

operations had to be ready to commence work immediately upon notice to proceed, 

but it was not known in advance when the commencement of work might be required, since that would depend on the timing of the military campaign and how 

events unfolded on the ground as the campaign progressed. Therefore, it was not 

possible to award an unclassified contract prior to hostilities without jeopardizing 

the success of the mission. 

On March 6, 2003, the Department declassified the fact that it had plans for extinguishing fires and assessing damage to oil facilities in Iraq. The fact that the Department was planning for the possibility that it would need to repair and provide 

for continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was classified until March 

22, 2003. This prevented earlier acknowledgement or announcement of potential requirements to the business community. 

The contractual actions related to the oil infrastructure mission are as follows: 

—Planning Effort—done under a Task Order issued November 11, 2002, under 

the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract. The 

value of the task order is approximately $1.8 million. 

—Pre-positioning Effort—done under a letter contract issued February 14, 2003. 

The value of the letter contract is $37.5 million. 

—Continued Pre-positioning, and subsequent Execution Effort—done under a contract awarded March 8, 2003. As of May 27, 2003, five task orders had been 

placed under this Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract. The 

first four task orders are classified since they were issued prior to March 22, 

2003. The fifth task order, issued May 4, 2003, is unclassified. The total estimated cost of the five task orders placed under that contract was, as of May 

27, 2003, $184,786,000. The total value of the contract will be the sum of the 

values of the orders placed under it. Since assessments of the condition of the 

infrastructure are still being done, it is not possible to predict with precision 

all work that will be required to complete the mission. The ID/IQ contract enables the government to obtain the services it needs once specific requirements 

are identified. The Corps of Engineers will limit orders under this contract to 

only those services necessary to support the mission in the near term. 

The government’s strategy has been to compete the execution effort at the earliest 

reasonable opportunity consistent with the needs of the mission. The declassification 
541

of the mission has enabled the Department to plan a full and open competition in 

which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will solicit competitive proposals to provide 

the broad range of services that may need to be performed to support this mission 

in the months ahead. The contracts awarded as a result of this competition will replace the contract now in place with KBR, and task orders will then be issued under 

the competitively awarded contracts. 

Question. Do we know whether Iraqi WMD have been given to terrorist groups 

since the war began? 

Answer. There is no credible indication former regime members have provided 

chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons or components to terrorist organizations since the war began. 

Question. How long will it take to search for WMD in Iraq? When will we know 

the extent of WMD in Iraq before the war? 

Answer. On both questions, it is impossible to predict. However, I am confident 

that we indeed will find evidence of prohibited activity related to weapons of mass 

destruction. 

Question. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Treaty has the responsibility to ensure nuclear materials in Iraq 

are safeguarded and the right to inspect nuclear facilities. When will you let IAEA 

inspectors back in? 

Answer. All of Iraq’s nuclear material under NPT safeguards is located at the 

Baghdad Yellow Cake Storage Facility (Location C). From June 7 to 23, 2003, the 

IAEA conducted a Physical Inventory Verification (PIV) inspection of Location C 

with support from Coalition forces. All of the proliferation sensitive and virtually 

all of the other material subject to NPT safeguards was accounted for. Location C 

has been resealed, and its perimeter is being guarded by U.S. military forces. What 

has been referred to as ‘‘looting’’ at this site appears to have been limited to the 

theft of items such as steel barrels or furniture, not nuclear material. 

Pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, the Coalition Provisional Authority is responsible for the disarmament of Iraq. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

Question. You plan to field a limited ground-based mid-course missile defense system by the end of 2003–2004. 

When do you plan to begin operational tests on this system? 

Answer. In January 2003, the President decided to capitalize on the demonstrated 

capabilities of the GMD element. His decision to allow concurrent defensive capabilities and continuing developmental testing is the basis for the Initial Defensive Capability (IDC) planned for September 30, 2004. 

MDA has established a joint organization, the Combined Test Force (CTF), to integrate the objectives of the operational tester—the warfighter—and the user into 

all developmental activities. Planning for formal operational testing continues; however, no final decision has been made regarding when to begin such testing. 

Question. When do you plan to test this system at night? When do you plan to 

test the system against a tumbling target? When do you plan to do a test with one 

or more decoys that resemble the target? 

Answer. Integrated Flight Test-10 (IFT) was planned to be a nighttime intercept; 

however, the EKV failed to separate from the booster, and an intercept was not attempted. MDA is currently looking at revising a future flight test to make up this 

missed IFT–10 objective. 

GMD flight test complexity continuously increases as additional functionalities 

are added. Target signatures, countermeasures, and flight dynamics are in concert 

with the current threat estimates. 

Question. When do you plan to test the system against a target without a beacon 

or GPS transponder? When do you plan to test the system without advance target 

trajectory and characterization information? 

Answer. The beacon is one of several artificialities to be deleted from the test program as the system matures and additional elements come on line. The actual point 

in the test program at which beacons or GPS data will no longer be used has not 

yet been determined. The C-Band beacon is currently required for range safety and 

truth data purposes until the various system radars are fully developed. Due to the 

lack of an X-Band Radar (XBr) or Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) in the 

mid Pacific, target RVs in current flight tests are equipped with a C-Band beacon 

which is tracked by the FPQ–14 range radar in Hawaii to generate the weapons 

task plan and to give the interceptor a box in space at which to aim. The flight test 

program to date has focused on proving and refining hit-to-kill technology, the cornerstone of GMD’s mission. Providing the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) with 
542

target trajectory and characterization information in advance allows us to develop 

this essential capability without having to wait until necessary BMDS radars and 

other sensor are in place. The GMD flight test program is constantly under review 

and evolving as we gain more experience and knowledge. 

IFT–21 is planned to be a ‘‘pop quiz’’ test. Current plan for IFT–21 is to withhold 

the exact launch time until the day of test. Additionally, the target type will be 

known, but the target complex will not be known a prior; however, all components 

in the complex will have been previously characterized and flown in a flight test. 

It is important to note however, that, in the event of a hostile missile launch, the 

BMDS will have targeting information in real time. The Block 2004 system will 

have hostile missile launch early warning and cueing from space-based infrared satellites. The predicted time and location in space where the intercept will occur is 

calculated in real-time from data provided by tracking radars (i.e., Cobra Dane, Upgraded Early Warning Radars, the Navy’s Aegis cruisers and destroyers, and the 

Sea-Based X-band radar). Based on this real-time information, targeting data is selected from a database and uploaded to the interceptor prior to launch. 

Question. Will any of these tests occur before deploying the system? 

Answer. 

Re: operational tests (OT).—Formal OT will not occur before September 30, 2004. 

Re: night test.—MDA is currently examining this issue and hopes to include this 

objective in an upcoming flight test. 

Re: decoys that resemble the target.—Target signatures, countermeasures, and 

flight dynamics are in concert with the current threat estimates. 

Re: without C-Band transponder & GPS.—The C-Band beacon is currently required for range safety purposes and truth data, and as such, it cannot be eliminated from testing; however, it is one of the artificialities that will be removed by 

development and construction of the BMDS Test Bed. 

Re: without advance target trajectory and characterization information.—No. IFT–

21, the first pop quiz, is currently scheduled for 2Q fiscal year 2006. 

Question. When will the X-band radar be operational? When will the SBIRS-Low 

and SBIRS-High be operational? How will the missile defense system track and discriminate targets without these key components? 

Answer. The Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) will be integrated into the Block 

2004 BMDS Test Bed during 4Q fiscal year 2005. 

SBIRS Low [renamed Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS)] is an R&D 

effort to demonstrate the value of midcourse tracking to the BMDS. No decision to 

field an operational system has been made. The first two R&D satellites will be field 

in fiscal year 2007 to support the Block 2006 test bed and demonstrate closing the 

fire control loop with BMDS interceptors. 

Please note SBIRS-High is a USAF program. The following response has been 

provided from USAF. The SBIRS-High development will field incremental increases 

in military utility for each of its mission areas—missile warning, missile defense, 

technical intelligence, and battlespace characterization. SBIRS supports MDA IDO 

requirements within the fiscal year 2005 BMDS need. Interim support will be available beginning October 4 and fully integrated support is scheduled to be in place 

April 2005. Major milestones related to certification of missile warning messages 

will be leveraged by SBIRS High missile defense supporting capabilities beginning 

with HEO certification in fiscal year 2005, GEO certification in fiscal year 2007, and 

multi-satellite certification in fiscal year 2009. SBIRS-High will be fully capable at 

Increment 2 completion in fiscal year 2010. 

The critical functions to be performed by an XBR are to detect, acquire, track, and 

discriminate. Other radars—including the Cobra Dane at Shemya, Alaska; the Beale 

UEWR in California; and the Navy’s Aegis—contribute to the performance of these 

functions to a greater or lesser degree. Discrimination is the function, which most 

depends on the XBR, but even this function is duplicated, specifically by the EKV’s 

on-board sensors and computer. Even with a system including an XBR, the final discrimination and target selection will be performed by the EKV. 

IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (IAAP)

Question. The fiscal year 2001 defense authorization bill and the fiscal year 2002 

defense appropriation bill required the Department to determine exposures at the 

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) and to notify current and former employees 

of the Army side of the plant of possible exposures to radioactive or hazardous substances. The appropriations reports from those years funded a health study of Army 

workers at IAAP, including screening of all workers for chronic beryllium disease. 

A report dated August 20, 2002, from Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz included a 
543

letter to the employees, and said that medical surveillance of former workers at 

IAAP should begin in December 2002. 

How many workers at IAAAP have been sent the required notification? 

Answer. None. The Army received the final version of the security release at our 

meeting May 23, 2003. When contacting the Department of Energy (DOE) cohort 

in December 2001 and January 2002, the Army included President Clinton and Secretary Richardson’s release to speak regarding nonclassified issues. Through this 

process, the Army contacted 2,954 former DOE workers or survivors of workers for 

whom the Army had a known address. In conjunction with this mailing, the Army 

contacted an additional 7,786 employees we had assumed were DOD employees to 

give them an opportunity to indicate to us if they had worked on line 1. The Army 

has not yet sent out the Secretary of Defense security release notice signed by Mr. 

Wolfowitz. The Army is planning to send that out as a separate mailing along with 

our cover letter and work history questionnaire. Certainly anyone we contact by 

mail in the meantime will be given the notification. 

Question. What is the status of the health screening, including for chronic beryllium disease? What is the current timeline for the project? 

Answer. The American Institute of Biological Sciences review should take eight 

weeks. The Army will need to resubmit the revised protocol to the University of 

Iowa Institutional Review Board for review of the modifications. 

They may suggest a full board review, which could take a week to one month. 

Once approved, gearing up should go quickly. The Army anticipates starting screening of the current workforce of about 1,000 at a rate of about 250 per month so it 

would take about four months. The Army predicts a late September or early October 

start date for screening. Concurrently we are pursuing access to the IH data to finalize the work/medical history questionnaire and get it in the mail to begin working with the former workers in March of 2004. The Army can screen former workers 

at a rate of 100 per month at startup. This screening of former workers can be 

ramped up depending on the total number to be screened and the extent of screening to be performed, all based on the protocol currently under review. 

Question. A recent report to Congress on cleanup activities at the IAAP suggested 

that only paperwork would take place this year (including important groundwater 

modeling), and said that further soil cleanup has been delayed due to insufficient 

funding. Contrary to a July 11, 2002, letter to me from Office of Management and 

Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Phase 4 soil cleanup is not scheduled to 

be completed until 2004 and 2005, with further cleanup activities extended many 

years after that. 

What is needed to accelerate cleanup at IAAP? How much funding is needed to 

complete Phase 4 soil cleanup? 

Answer. The Army recently conducted a Program Review of the IAAP restoration 

program and concluded that the installation met several criteria that made it an 

ideal candidate for implementation of a performance-based contract strategy. We do 

not believe that we can in fact accelerate the work effort in fiscal year 2004. The 

conversion to a performance-based contract is planned to begin in fiscal year 2004 

and is expected to improve schedule implementation and control financial liabilities. 

The implementation of this new contract vehicle is fully expected to accelerate the 

work efforts once in place. 

The current planned funding level of $150,000 for fiscal year 2004 will be sufficient to complete the Phase 4 soils effort. This information, of course, is based on 

what is currently known about the sites. Conditions may change once actual soil removal begins this fiscal year, however, substantive changes in cost are not expected. 

Question. Has inclusion of IAAP in the FUSRAP program delayed or accelerated 

cleanup of contaminants at the plant? 

Answer. The inclusion of IAAP in the FUSRAP has not delayed the cleanup of 

contaminants at the plant. Acceleration of the cleanup can be achieved if the 

FUSRAP cleanup execution schedule is concurred with by the regulators and stakeholders (USEPA Region VII project manager, Iowa Department of Health, and other 

concerned/interested stakeholders), and all the stakeholders work as a team to 

achieve the cleanup effort. Phase 4 and 5 soils clean up would have been delayed 

until fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008 start date without FUSRAP designation. 

Question. You have proposed specific exemptions for the Department from several 

environmental laws. IAAAP is a Superfund site, and provides habitat for one known 

endangered species, but I have had trouble getting answers on the implications of 

your proposal for this plant. 

Would any of the exemptions you have proposed apply to part or all of the IAAP 

site? 

Answer. There are five proposals included in DOD’s Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative. These five proposals are essential to range sustainment and reaf-
544

firm the principle that military lands, marine areas, and airspace that have been 

set aside for military use exist to ensure military preparedness, while ensuring that 

the Department of Defense remains fully committed to its stewardship responsibilities. The five provisions: 

—Authorize use of Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans in appropriate circumstances as a substitute for critical habitat designation under the 

Endangered Species Act; 

—Reform obsolete and unscientific elements of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act, such as the definition of ‘‘harassment,’’ and add a national security exemption to that statute; 

—Modestly extend the allowable time for military readiness activities like beddown of new weapons systems to comply with Clean Air Act; 

—Limit regulation of munitions on operational ranges under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) if and 

only if those munitions and their associated constituents remain there, and only 

while the range remains operational; and 

—Limit regulation of munitions on operational ranges under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) if and only if those munitions and their associated constituents remain there, and only while the range remains operational. 

Because IAAP provides habitat for one known endangered species, the Endangered Species Act proposal could apply if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were to propose any installation lands as critical habitat. The Marine Mammal Protection Act 

proposal is not applicable. The Clean Air Act proposal could apply to any new military readiness activities planned for IAAP in the future. The proposal would allow 

three years for those activities to meet the requirements of section 176(c) of the 

Clean Air Act. The CERCLA and RCRA proposals would apply to only operational 

ranges at IAAP. 

Question. Would your proposal remove part or all of the IAAP site from the Superfund program? 

Answer. No, Defense Department proposals for Readiness and Range Preservation 

would not remove IAAP from the Superfund Program. DOD’s RCRA and CERCLA 

legislative proposals clarify when RCRA and CERCLA apply at the military’s operational ranges. IAAP is addressing contamination from ammunition assembling operations, which is distinct from operational range activities. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

932ND AIRLIFT WING

Question. The Air Force is currently in the process of retiring the C–9 aircraft 

used for aero medical evacuation. Scott Air Force base has both an active and a Reserve wing, the 932nd Airlift Wing, which have carried out this mission. 

I am very concerned that C–9s will be retired and the Reservists’ mission mostly 

disbanded. These Reservists have served for a many years, and are part of the community. Several hundred Reservists will be left with no mission, and they are unlikely to move to find another Reserve mission. I think our Reservists deserve better 

treatment. 

The statistics that I have seen show that the peacetime domestic aero medical 

evacuation mission has been reduced because TRICARE allows many military patients to be cared for at local medical facilities. Yet, even by the beginning of the 

war with Iraq, the C–9s were quite busy—the 932nd Airlift Wing has flown 70 percent of its flying hours over only 6 months of the fiscal year—as of March 31, 2003 

the 932nd flew 1,888 hours of a 2,700 hour program. I am concerned that this unit 

is being disbanded based on peacetime, not wartime need. I understand that some 

of these flying hours were for mixed transportation missions. 

I would like to work with you in finding a solution to retain the 932nd Airlift 

Wing at Scott Air Force Base. I suggest the following alternate plan: 

—Phase out the C–9s instead of precipitously retiring them over the next 5 

months. 

—Use fewer C–9s, but use those that have recently come out of depot, saving operating costs. 

—Use C–40 aircraft in the future for a mixed mission of cargo and passenger 

transport, as well as patient movements to replace the C–9 aircraft. 

Mr. Secretary, will you work with me on this plan or some other plan so that the 

932nd Airlift Wing is not left without a mission? 
545

Answer. On behalf of the Secretary of Defense, thank you for your concerns regarding the Air Force’s readiness capability for aeromedical evacuation and 932nd 

Airlift Wing. 

The C–9A has been a valuable asset in the Air Force inventory, but under our 

new aeromedical evacuation concept a dedicated platform is no longer required. Extending the airplane’s service beyond the end of fiscal year 2003 would require the 

use of operations and maintenance funds dedicated to higher priorities. We acknowledge the contributions of the active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel who have 

served so nobly in support of the aeromedical evacuation mission and we are diligently examining other options for these airmen. However, we must balance the impact of these aircraft retirements against the demands to provide for the national 

defense. Competition for funding is particularly keen, and priority will be given to 

requirements supporting reconstitution from recent contingency operations as well 

as transforming the Air Force. Resources used to extend the C–9s would be particularly difficult to justify since a dedicated aeromedical evacuation platform is no 

longer needed. 

I appreciate your continued support as the Air Force works to modernize our air 

and space capabilities. Our goal is to balance prioritized requirements with available resources to produce an efficient, cost-effective Air Force. We value your interest and support in this important endeavor. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Question. For fiscal year 2004 the administration is seeking $379.9 billion for the Defense Department and has projected an average increase of roughly $20 billion 

per year over the next five years, a 32 percent increase above current levels. These 

dramatic increases do not fully cover actual combat and peacekeeping operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Since these operations are not fully covered in the budget, what do you believe 

the full costs will be to maintain robust and effective peacekeeping forces in Iraq 

and Afghanistan for the coming year? 

Answer. We cannot yet estimate those costs for the coming year. As soon as we 

do have an estimate, we will need to discuss with the President how to cover those 

costs. 

HIGH ALERT STATUS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Question. Under the recently approved Moscow Treaty, the United States and 

Russian Federation have agreed to reduce each nation’s nuclear arsenal by 3,200–

3,700 nuclear warheads. These weapons, even while designated for destruction, continue to operate on ‘‘high alert status.’’

Do you believe these weapons can and should be removed from ‘‘high alert status’’ 

pending their elimination? 

Answer. Under the recently approved Moscow Treaty, the United States and Russian Federation have both agreed to reduce their number of operationally deployed 

strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700–2,200 by December 31, 2012. The nuclear weapons stockpile’s composition, size, and warhead configuration (Active or Inactive) will 

be determined as part of the periodic assessment process established by the Nuclear 

Posture Review (NPR). Operationally deployed nuclear warheads remain at an alert 

status consistent with national security requirements. 

Dealerting (removing from ‘‘high alert’’) concepts have been studied in great detail 

over the years. Our heavy bombers were removed from nuclear alert a decade ago. 

Other dealerting proposals have been judged not to be in the United States’ interest 

and in many cases could add instability under certain circumstances. 

With regard to concern about accidental or unauthorized launch by U.S. forces, 

our Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and Submarine Launched Ballistic 

Missiles (SLBMs) are highly secure. 

With regard to concerns about accidental or unauthorized a launch by foreign 

forces, the NPR that was sent to Congress in January 2002 specifically reviewed 

dealerting and reaffirming the decision of the previous administration not to dealert 

U.S. ballistic missile forces. 

Question. If they were removed from ‘‘high alert status’’ what are the potential 

cost savings? 

Answer. There are numerous options for removing nuclear systems from alert, but 

none of the options would result in meaningful cost savings. 

Most of the costs for strategic nuclear systems are derived from the infrastructure 

investment in delivery systems and their associated warheads, and from the manpower costs necessary to maintain and operate these systems safely. 
546

De-alerting these systems, whether it is by something as complex as physically 

removing the warheads from the delivery systems or something as relatively simple 

as removing a critical component in the firing sequence, would not reduce the infrastructure or operating costs. 

However, some dealerting proposals could require the expenditure of additional 

money (1) to construct devices that would limit the ability to launch a bomber or 

ballistic missile while allowing for its lawful and timely execution under Presidential direction, or (2) to provide for additional manpower required for verification 

of the dealerting concept were it to be employed. 

ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

Question. As the United States attempts to diplomatically engage countries such 

as India and Pakistan to convince them to relinquish their nuclear ambitions, why 

should the Congress authorize $15 million to study a weapon such as the Robust 

Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which could undermine our efforts to limit proliferation 

internationally? 

Answer. Studying the feasibility of using an existing weapon to place at risk hard 

and deeply buried targets associated with weapons of mass destruction will not undermine our efforts to limit proliferation internationally. Nations seek and develop 

nuclear capabilities to address their regional security concerns, not because the 

United States has nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons readiness and capabilities will 

continue to play a key role in U.S. national security policy and strategy well into 

the future. Today, as well as in the future, the United States cannot predict with 

confidence what nations or non-state actors may pose a threat to our vital interests 

or those of our allies. The United States must possess forces sufficient to dissuade 

and deter any potential adversary armed with WMD. Studies aimed at finding costeffective ways to place facilities associated with WMD at risk—like the RNEP 

study—are fully consistent with maintaining an effective deterrent. 

In the 1960s, there were five nuclear weapons states: the USSR, Britain, France, 

China, and the United States. Today, at least 12 states possess nuclear weapons. 

Others are seeking nuclear weapons. The United States is making every effort to 

dissuade these nations from acquiring WMD. The U.S. nuclear deterrent plays a 

role in this effort by assuring our allies and friends that the United States intends 

to maintain its forces to deter any future aggression and persuade potential aggressors to halt developments. 

As the United States reduces the number of strategic, operationally deployed, 

weapons by two-thirds by 2012, we increasingly will have to look at options for more 

effective weapons for deterrence and achieving our defense goals, including programs like RNEP—a study of two existing gravity bombs repackaged to enhance 

survivability against hard and deeply-buried facilities. We have not abandoned conventional weapons to deal with the WMD facilities; rather, we have enhanced our 

conventional capabilities. We will need both advanced conventional and nuclear options to furnish the options we need to meet our defense policy goals. 

UTILITY OF ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR CLASS WEAPONS

Question. What military utility does this new class of weapons have? 

Answer. Nuclear weapons have been and likely always will be viewed as necessary to dissuade and deter the worst of threats to U.S. national security, particularly the threat of weapons of mass destruction use against us or our friends and 

allies. Those who may contemplate aggression against U.S. territory, troops, allies, 

and friends have learned from past conflicts and adapted new defensive postures 

against our weapon systems used a decade ago in Desert Storm. The war with Iraq 

demonstrated the effectiveness of U.S. technology. Technology, however, is perishable. New weapons, tactics, and technologies must be fielded to ensure the continued effectiveness of U.S. forces and our ability to deter weapons of mass destruction 

use. We must assure that potential adversaries cannot create a sanctuary by building hard and deeply buried facilities. We need to furnish effective options for the 

President to hold at risk confidently the most protected of capabilities that threaten 

U.S. territory, forces, allies, and friends—which may only be possible with RNEPlike capability. 

The capability technically of a conventional bomb to achieve the structure shock 

effects necessary to destroy a growing class of hard and deeply buried targets is limited. It can be enhanced by obtaining exquisite intelligence on, proper delivery to, 

and targeting of key points such as target facility entrances, vents, and other nodes 

for functional disruption. However, as the depth of these targets increases, the ability to hold them at risk decreases to a point where conventional weapons are no 

longer effective even when the precise location and nature of the facility is known. 
547

If RNEP delivery, impact, and penetration are made comparable to today’s conventional bombs, ground shocks produced by the nuclear blast are propagated hundreds 

of feet into the earth to address deeply buried facilities in regions where conventional weapons have no capability. 

Question. In the fiscal year 2004 budget, there is a request for an exemption of 

further operational testing of the ballistic missile defense system. In March, the Undersecretary of Defense, Edward Aldridge announced, ‘‘It was not our intent to 

waive operational testing.’’

If the intent was to not exempt testing prior to fielding the weapons system, what 

was the purpose of the exemption request? 

Answer. The question refers to proposed section 8061, which reads in full:

‘‘Sec. 8061. Funds available to the Department of Defense under the heading, ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide’’ may be used to develop 

and field an initial set of missile defense capabilities, and such fielding shall be considered to be system development and demonstration for purposes of any law governing the development and production of a major defense acquisition program. The 

initial set of missile defense capabilities is defined as ‘Block 04’ Ballistic Missile Defense system fielded in fiscal year 2004 and 2005. Subsequent blocks of missile defense capabilities shall be subject to existing laws governing development and production of major defense acquisition programs.’’

The Department’s version of section 8061, quoted above, confirms the developmental nature of the initial set of missile defense capabilities. Because Block 04 remains in system development and demonstration, the use of Research, Development, 

Test and Evaluation funds to pay for the development and fielding of the system 

is appropriate, and the Department ultimately must complete operational test and 

evaluation of the system. 

Question. Does testing under the guidelines of the Testing and Evaluation department negatively impact the program? 

Answer. No, the program is not negatively impacted by DOT&E testing guidelines. MDA and DOT&E have established an effective working relationship. DOT&E 

is a member of the Missile Defense Support Group and provides testing advice to 

the Director, MDA and to USD (AT&L). Additionally, DOT&E produces a congressionally directed annual report on the status and effectiveness of the MDA test program. 

TESTING

Question. Recently, the Missile Defense Agency cancelled Integrated Flight Test16, which was dubbed the ‘‘dress rehearsal for deployment.’’ This test was intended 

to increase the agency’s knowledge regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of 

GMD’s initial defensive capability. In addition, three more test scheduled for the 

coming years have also been canceled bringing the total number of canceled tests 

disclosed this year to nine. 

Do you believe the system has received sufficient testing to be proven feasible and 

effective enough to be deployed? 

Answer. MDA is confident that the overall BMDS test program is scoped to provide an effective defense against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Additionally, MDA 

is always reexamining the GMD flight test program to ensure that proven critical 

components and technologies will be resident in the Block 2004 BMDS Test Bed. 

Question. Our experiences in Operation Enduring Freedom and now Operation 

Iraqi Freedom have demonstrated the need for strategic lift able to access all theaters of the battlefield, regardless of the size and quality of available airstrips. 

With the armed forces relying on the C–17 to fulfill many of these missions, are 

there sufficient numbers of C–17’s in the inventory to fulfill your requirements? If 

not, how many additional aircraft will be needed? 

Answer. The Mobility Requirement Study 2005 (MRS05) established an airlift capacity requirement range between 51.1 and 54.5 Million Ton Miles per Day (MTM/

D). Further evaluation during the Quadrennial Defense Review established the objective capacity at 54.5 MTM/D. This airlift capacity requirement includes strategic 

airlift, intratheater airlift, special operations, EUCOM requirements, as well as 

other CINC requirements. The current C–17 program achieves an inventory of 180 

aircraft in fiscal year 2008. At that time, the fleet will be at the desired capacity. 

F–22

Question. Economic conditions in the former Soviet bloc may stimulate the proliferation of advanced military technology, particularly in regard to surface-to-air 

missiles and tactical aircraft like the Mig-29 and Su-27. Even though our current 
548

fighter aircraft have been successful in defeating various air defenses, they may not 

be capable of being modified to the extent needed to provide the stealth and other 

combat capabilities needed to cope with air defenses many countries may possess 

in future conflicts. 

Do you believe aircraft like the F–22 will be able to fill this role, ensuring air superiority and fulfilling the fighter/attack role in the decades to come? 

Answer. Yes. The F/A–22 is designed from the ‘‘ground up’’ to have the unique 

capability to operate in the presence of and suppress or destroy these anti-access 

adversary systems as required. The F/A–22’s fundamental attributes of stealth, 

supercruise, advanced maneuverability, lethality, and integrated avionics will ensure Air Dominance in this decade and the decades to come. In future conflicts the 

aircraft will be essential for successful initial joint forcible entry and follow-on operations. The F/A–22 is a benchmark for Department of Defense and Air Force transformation efforts. 

Question. DOD Directive 1344.7 governs personal commercial solicitation on military installations. The Directive protects Service members from unfair business 

practices. I understand that DOD is in the process of amending the Directive. I am 

concerned that the changes being considered should not unnecessarily restrict the 

access of Service members to beneficial insurance and financial planning services. 

I understand the Department is committed to working with affected parties, including the insurance and financial services companies that solicit business on-base to 

develop new policy. 

Can you offer your assurance DOD will consult with affected parties prior to 

issuing any proposed draft regulation to ensure the service members continue to 

have access to competitive insurance and financial planning products and services? 

Answer. The Department intends to host two public fora to allow for comments 

by all those affected by the policy. The Department first intends to host a forum 

at which the public may express views about the current commercial solicitation policy. These comments will be considered in preparing the draft for publication and 

public comments as a proposed rule in the Federal Register. After publication, the 

public will be invited to comment on the draft at an additional forum. The Department will carefully consider the written and oral comments on the proposed rule in 

promulgating the final rule. 

PERCHLORATE

Question. We have now written to you on three separate occasions since November 

of last year impressing upon you the urgency for the DOD to take an active leadership role in mitigating the contamination of drinking water by perchlorate, a chemical used in most DOD missiles and munitions. 

What steps are you taking to respond to our domestic public health problem that 

is a legacy of DOD operations over the past half century? 

Answer. The Department’s goal has been and continues to be support of a national process leading to mitigation of risks from perchlorate. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is currently engaged in a process of investigation intended 

to arrive at an acceptable level of perchlorate in the environment. The Department, 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DoE) and non-governmental organizations have been actively working with 

the EPA over the past several years to develop scientifically-defensible decisions regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and cleanup. Since 1997, the Department has 

spent $2 million on research to assist the EPA in determining whether low-level 

perchlorate exposure poses a risk to the American public. In addition, the Department has invested considerable resources in the development of environmental 

treatment technologies for perchlorate, and has issued several significant research 

grants to identify possible substitutes for perchlorate in military applications. The 

Department is committed to using the best available science to inform public policies and decisions. The Department believes that the research undertaken by DOD, 

NASA, and EPA to evaluate the potential risks associated with perchlorate is a 

clear indication of that commitment. Pending promulgation of a cleanup standard, 

the Department will continue to work directly with state and local officials on the 

best strategies to safeguard our public water supplies. 

Question. You have argued for a transformation of the military; a clear need is 

transformation of the policies and actions that endanger our citizens as a result of 

practices of the DOD. Currently, the policy of the DOD towards the need for you 

to clean up a legacy of environmental pollution appears to be old fashioned thinking 

and not that of a modern defense establishment. 

When will you change the policy at the DOD and take positive action? 
549

Answer. The Department is committed to fulfilling the public’s trust for protecting 

and restoring the natural and cultural resources on lands managed by DOD. The 

Department has an exemplary record of environmental stewardship and faithfully 

complies with all environmental laws and regulations. In addition, the Department 

has gone beyond legal requirements by funding and providing to EPA and state regulators important research that helps define the effect of perchlorate on human 

health. DOD has also conducted a number of surveys to ascertain perchlorate occurrence at DOD facilities since 1998, and issued policy allowing DOD components to 

sample for perchlorate at facilities where there is a reasonable basis to suspect both 

a potential presence of perchlorate and a pathway that could potentially threaten 

public health. My office is currently in the process of developing a more robust policy, which will be used for program planning and prioritization in advance of promulgation of a standard. The Department and EPA, in partnership with NASA and 

DOE, continue to work together to address unresolved science and science policy 

issues. The National Academy of Science is now scheduled to review the underlying 

science issues for a proposed standard. We have also conducted extensive studies 

in the technology required to cleanup perchlorate. These studies have developed 

technologies for and supported their use by U.S. industries. Several of these technologies are currently in use. DOD believes that information collected on potential 

presence of perchlorate and our long history of cooperation with EPA on resolving 

health science issues has served to augment and accelerate the EPA’s regulatory 

process which will lead to an eventual standard. 

Question. I am very frustrated by the lack of response and absence of leadership 

on the part of the DOD and I would like to see this changed. My staff is prepared 

to work with your department and other agencies to find a solution. 

Whom is the point of contact for my staff to follow-up with to work towards resolving the problem of an absence of leadership within the DOD? 

Answer. The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health, Mr. John Paul Woodley is available to discuss the Department’s position on this issue.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, General Pace, and 

Secretary Zakheim. The subcommittee will reconvene Thursday, 

May 15, to consider testimony from public witnesses concerning the 

President’s budget request. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., Wednesday, May 14, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

(551)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:47 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

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

Present: Senators Stevens, Burns, and Inouye. 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN IKE PUZON, U.S. NAVY RESERVE (RETIRED), 

DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, THE NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS [presiding]. I am not the chairman of this subcommittee. I am just another one of the hired hands. And it is terrible that you get scheduled on a day where we have vote-a-rama. 

It is not fair to you, it is not fair to us, it is not fair to anybody. 

So we will all go out and eat worms. 

This is the first time that I have participated in this part of the 

Defense appropriations process, so I feel ill-equipped and ill-prepared, unwashed and uneducated about this whole thing. But I am 

going to start it. We will be having votes every 10 minutes and 

that is just not fair. But nonetheless, your testimony will be taken 

and I am sure it will be reviewed as this committee is pretty good 

about those things. 

I am Senator Conrad Burns and of course our chairman and our 

ranking member will be back as soon as they cast their votes. I 

have already voted on this first one, but you have to watch those 

lights pretty closely. You know, if you miss one vote, well, that 

shows up in a 30-second spot the next time you run for reelection. 

We thank you for your patience and your indulgence with the inconvenience of this. We would like to start off with Captain Ike 

Puzon, United States Navy Reserve, Retired. He is Director of Legislation for the Naval Reserve Association. Captain, thank you for 

coming this morning. We look forward to your testimony. 

Captain PUZON. Thank you, sir. On behalf of my colleagues, we 

thank you for being here, and if we can strike quick while no one 

else is here we will appreciate that. 

Senator BURNS. Good. 
552

Captain PUZON. Thank you, sir, and the distinguished members 

of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the staff, for having 

us. It is an honor and a pleasure to be here before you representing 

22,000 members of the Naval Reserve Association on behalf of over 

86,000 members of the Naval Reserve, especially during these 

times of increased usage of the Guard and Reserve. 

I am sure you have already heard in the past several weeks and 

months what a magnificent job our Guard and Reserve has done, 

what their families have done, and what their employers have done 

in responding to the commitment that the Department of Defense 

has asked these members to do. It is still important to focus on the 

members today of these units in the Guard and Reserve and the 

Naval Reserve, as well as the active duty members. 

The challenges that our Reserve, Guard, and active components 

of the military face are gigantic, as you know, during these times 

of increased threat to our national security. It is encouraging that 

we have been so successful, but it is really no surprise because of 

the people. 

The focus of what we do next is blurred by constant deployments, 

constant recalls, increased usage of equipment and Guard and Reserve, and of course modern technology. In my mind, the center 

stage should always be the people, both Active, Reserve, and 

Guard, and also modern technology. I think in today’s age—good 

morning, sir. 

Senator STEVENS [presiding]. Good morning. 

Captain PUZON. All too often the technology charisma overrides 

the need for people. 

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir. Go ahead. 

Captain PUZON. Yes, sir, good morning. 

I recently studied for the Secretary of Defense in the 21st century and 2025 what technology would make a difference in 2025. 

Of the group that I was with in the study, we always came back 

to was what people we would have in 2025. 

Naval Reserve, as you know, are people. They are training, they 

are responding, they are waiting, and they are deploying. What the 

Guard and Reserve and the Naval Reserve in particular provides 

has been discussed several times. Operational readiness, standalone missions, parallel capability, and surge capabilities have been 

talked about. 

Yet in current operations and performance I think we need to 

look at transforming our program and planning documents and our 

appropriations process and our vision in the Navy. That includes 

what I call, in a sports metaphor, an all-pro team of experts. These 

are expert warfighters. They are not just experts from a Reserve 

component, and they have proven that. We need to include them 

in all planning documents. 

This Reserve force is ready to go, it is ready to fight. It is ready 

and it is capable units and individuals. I like to talk to them and 

refer to them as all-pro military experts. Some call them ordinary 

people doing extraordinary work and extraordinary things. I just 

refer to them as an all-pro team ready to go when you need them. 

In some cases in the past, as you know, only Congress has recognized that the Naval Reserve needed equipment and personnel benefits to keep the force healthy and parallel. We are at that time 
553

1Massive Call-Up of Reservists disrupts Careers, Workplaces; Kemba J. Dunham, Kris Maher 

and Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 18, 2003. 

again where you the Congress must provide that guidance. Due to 

affordability issues that you are very aware of and without a doubt 

have been in constant awareness of, the Congress must step in at 

this time and provide some guidance and vision for the Naval Reserve. Because of the cuts that are pending in 2004, fiscal year 

2004, we will see this decrease in our force structure. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN IKE PUZON

Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on 

behalf of the 22,000 members of the Naval Reserve Association, and the 86,000 active Naval Reservists and the mirrored interests of all members of the guard and 

reserve components, we are grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony. 

A popular fad in the press is to write about the plight of the mobilized Reservist. 

These articles emphasize the anxiety of being away from work and or family. As 

was stated in Wall Street Journal, ‘‘The activation of tens of thousands of military 

reservists is beginning to interrupt careers and disrupt workplaces on a scale not 

seen in more than a decade.’’ 1

In the press today, a climate of despair is painted about the Reservist. Focus is 

on the needless hardship for members of the Guard and Reserve, for their families 

and for their employers. The Naval Reserve Association would like to dispel this 

Myth. In defense of the Reservists, our indication is that there are a statistical few 

that complain about their circumstances. Portrayed as a predicament by the press, 

most Reservists, instead, view mobilization as an opportunity to serve their country. 

Reservists are serving their country in uniform proudly, and are not complaining. 

They do have concerns similar to anyone in or out of uniform, who is deployed 

quickly and unexpectedly. 

Reservists from any service have shown us time and time again that they’ll volunteer when asked, despite the impact of their personal and professional life. This 

service beyond self is not appreciated by many on the Active side or in DOD. Recent 

documents show that the Reserve Components are not integrated into the Vision of 

future conflicts, and Homeland Security. 

Since 1990, the Active Duty services have grown languorous from a diet of contributory assistance, recall, and mobilization support. The number of contributory 

man-days has risen from 1 million in the late 1980’s to nearly 13 million a year 

over the past few years. Rather than confront budget appropriators, the Active Components have been content to fill their force shortfalls with Reserve manpower. 

If there is a raw nerve among Reservists, it is caused by how individuals are 

being utilized, and how often that individual and the unit is being called up. And, 

why aren’t they being used. Pride and professionalism is a large factor in the profile 

of a Reservist, as it is with any member of the Armed Services. They want to be 

used how they have been trained, and they want to complement the Active Forces. 

Too often, they have been called up to do a marginal job, or stand weekend or night 

watches allowing active members time off. In situations like this, we often hear 

from our members that the active duty personnel of a particular command are not 

working overtime. The model used by the Navy calls for active duty personnel to 

be working a sixty hour work week before Reservists would be involuntarily recalled 

to active duty. Quite often, the requirement for recall is nothing more than to fill 

in the gaps in existing active duty manning. Recall and proper use of reservists 

needs constant monitoring and attention. We agree that transformation of legacy 

personnel manpower programs is overdue. But, Reserve Component involvement in 

personnel transformation is mandatory. 

Another raw nerve among Reservists is attempts by the Navy to deny individuals 

their full entitlements. Over and over, Reservists are asked to make a voluntary 

mid to long term commitment of combining drills with multiple sets of 29 day orders. There is an institutional bias to issuing Reservists one set of orders for longer 

than 30 days thereby denying them greater entitlements. We strongly believe that 

this is an injustice to the individual and his/her employer that Congress should 

question. Recent testimony by the Under Secretary of Defense indicates some entitlements may change, however, a continuum of entitlements for all Armed Services 

members is due in today’s military. 
554

2 Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to the Reserve Officers Association 

2002 National Conference, Philadelphia, PA, June 20, 2002. 

Over a year ago, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs meet 

with the Military Reserve Associations and asked how frequently is it acceptable to 

recall Reservists? His hope was an answer measured in years that could be programmed into a formula. Reservists are not inventory numbers, but individuals, and 

they belong to warfighting units. 

In today’s American way of war, the way a Reservist is used and recalled is vital 

to successful military operations, and essential to gaining the will of America. As 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has said, ‘‘How we manage our Reserve 

Components will determine how well we as a nation are prepared to fight, today 

and tomorrow.’’ 2

The question we are asking is: ‘‘Are today’s DOD legislative initiatives taking us 

in the right direction for a sound Military and a strong National Defense, and meeting the National Security Strategy?’’ The ultimate question for the Department of 

the Navy: ‘‘What is your Vision for use and equipping of the Naval Reserve Force?’’ 

We hope that DOD is learning lessons from the past to avoid repeating mistakes 

in the future, and the Naval Reserve Association stands ready to assist in turning 

lessons learned into improved policy. If current DOD and DoN planning and resource documents are used, there will not be a Naval Reserve Force in the next ten 

years. If there initiatives are followed, there will be a pool of people somewhere—

if they stay—that the Navy can call upon to fill gaps created by the next asymmetric conflict. The Naval Reserve Force has shown, time and again, when engaged—they are the All Pros that are as professional or better than any force. The 

recent VFA deployment is only one such example. 

Our Key message for all to remember: One: Our nation needs a Naval Reserve 

Force—with Air and Surface assets to go fight and win our nations conflicts, it 

should be a center piece of our National Security Strategy. Two: As a nation, we 

must start now to recapitalize these forces, to remain relevant. Three: With the people and pay and benefits at the center, the Naval Reserve Force can play a key role 

in Homeland Security. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity. Details of specific concerns by our Association on DOD initiatives follow, we hope you can help address them: 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INITIATIVES

Roles and Missions 

A Pentagon study has highlighted that the Guard and Reserve structure, today, 

is an inherited Cold War relic. As a result, the Guard and the Reserve organization 

has become the focus of ‘‘transformation.’’ While it won’t be denied that there could 

be a need for change, transformation for transformation sake could be disadvantageous. Visionaries need to learn lessons from the past, assimilate the technology of 

the future, and by blending each, implement changes that improve warfighting. 

Transformation is needed to move forward and ensure a Total Force that includes 

a strong Guard and Reserve. 

The Reserve Component as a worker pool 

Issue.—The view of the Reserve Component that has been suggested within the 

Pentagon is to consider the Reserve as of a labor pool, where Reservist could be 

brought onto Active Duty at the needs of a Service and returned, when the requirement is no longer needed. It has also been suggested that an Active Duty member 

should be able to rotate off active duty for a period, spending that tenure as a Reservist, returning to active duty when family, or education matters are corrected. 

Position.—The Guard and Reserve should not be viewed as a temporary-hiring 

agency. Too often the Active Component views the recall of a Reservist as a means 

to fill a gap in existing active duty manning. Voluntary recall to meet these requirements is one thing, involuntary recall is another. 

The two top reasons why a Reservist quits the Guard or Reserve is pressure from 

family, or employer. The number one complaint from employers is not the activation, but the unpredictability of when a Reservist is recalled, and when they will 

be returned. 

100 percent mission ownership 

Issue.—Department of Defense is looking at changing the reserve and active component mix. ‘‘There’s no question but that there are a number of things that the 

United States is asking its forces to do,’’ Rumsfeld said. ‘‘And when one looks at 
555

what those things are, we find that some of the things that are necessary, in the 

course of executing those orders, are things that are found only in the Reserves.’’

Position.—America is best defended through a partnership between the government, the military and the people. The Naval Reserve Association supports the continued recognition of the Abrams Doctrine, which holds that with a volunteer force, 

we should never go to war without the involvement of the Guard and Reserve, because they bring the national will of the people to the fight. While a review of mission tasking is encouraged, the Active Component should not be tasked with every 

mission, and for those it shares, no more heavily than their Reserve counterparts. 

Historically, a number of the high percentage missions gravitated to the Reserve 

components because the Active Forces treated them as collateral duties. The Reserve has an expertise in some mission areas that are unequaled because Reservists 

can dedicate the time to developing skills and mission capability, and sharing civilian equivalencies, where such specialization could be a career buster on Active Duty. 

Augmentees 

Issue.—As a means to transform, a number of the services are embracing the concept that command and unit structure within the Reserve Component is unnecessary. Reservists could be mustered as individual mobilization augmentees and be 

called up because often they are recalled by skills and not units. 

Position.—An augmentee structure within the Naval Reserve was attempted in 

the 1950’s/1960’s, and again in the 1980’s. In one word: Failure! Reservists of that 

period could not pass the readiness test. The image of the Selected Reservists, sitting in a Reserve Center reading a newspaper originates from the augmentee era. 

Some semblance of structure is needed on a military hierarchy. Early on, Naval Reservists created their own defense universities to fill the training void caused by 

mission vacuum. 

Combining Active and Reserve Appropriations 

Issue.—The fiscal year 2004 Defense budget request makes it clear that OSD intends to consolidate all pay and O&M accounts into one appropriation per service. 

These consolidations would require various legislative changes before they would become law. The rationale for the consolidations is to provide greater flexibility for the 

Active chiefs to move monies from the Reserve and Guard pay accounts to fund Active component pay and O&M shortfalls. Managing fewer appropriations would also 

make managing pay and O&M easier. 

Position.—The Naval Reserve Association strongly opposes the proposed consolidation of all Guard, Reserve and Active pay into one service pay appropriation. We 

similarly oppose the proposed consolidation of all Guard, Reserve and Active operations and maintenance accounts into one service O&M appropriation. While we 

support seeking efficiencies wherever possible, we view the proposed ‘‘business’’ consolidation as ill conceived, misrepresented as inefficient, and as an attempt to reduce Congressional oversight. We oppose it for a variety of other reasons, as well. 

Under current law, the Reserve chiefs are the directors for their respective Reserve pay and O&M appropriations. Public Law 90–168, as amended by the fiscal 

year 1997 NDAA, vested in the Reserve Chiefs full management and control of their 

respective Reserve financial resources. Consolidating Reserve and Active pay into 

one appropriation would divest the Reserve chiefs of this authority and preclude 

their executing the programs and responsibilities, and maintaining the readiness 

mandated by Congress. 

Much of the Guard and Reserve annual training occurs during the fourth quarter 

of a fiscal year, the same time frame when the Active components are most likely 

to run short of funds and to desire to use Reserve pay and O&M to fund their own 

shortfalls. Allowing the Active components the ‘‘flexibility’’ to use Reserve funds 

whenever they need to pay Active component bills means that somewhere a Reserve 

soldier will not be paid or a Reserve unit, Reservist will not be trained for mobilization or receive the specialized training needed for promotion, and ultimately retention. The Active Component will have flexible funding at the cost of Reserve Readiness. 

Inferred changes to DOPMA and ROPMA 

Issue.—It has been suggested within a DOD Roles and Missions study that promotions in the Reserve Component need not be tied to Active Duty promotion rates. 

It was further stated that allowing a skilled Reservist to remain at a certain midgrade rank enlisted or officer rank longer would allow that individual to perform 

a vital mission longer. 

Position.—While NRA might support a change to the ‘‘promote up or out’’ policy; 

we in no way endorse having the Selected Reserve become an advancement wasteland. 
556

Issue.—Secretary Rumsfeld has also publicly stated that he has the Personnel & 

Readiness office looking at how DOD can get the benefit of people in a specific job 

longer, and how we can have people increase the number of total years they serve 

if they want to. He is willing to extending military careers beyond 60 years of age. 

Position.—While current policy permits individual waivers to retain certain skill 

sets, the Naval Reserve Association feels that authorizing changes to the length of 

tenure would have a negative impact and a rippling effect. History has shown time 

and again, if senior leaders are not encouraged to retire, there will be a retention 

collapse in the middle ranks, which erodes the long-term future of a component 

force. Few are so skilled, that a junior member can’t fill the position with similar 

qualifications. 

Pay and Compensation 

Issue.—A premature release of information in the form of a Naval Reserve survey, 

revealed a DOD initiative to end ‘‘two days pay for one days work,’’ and replace it 

with a plan to provide 1/30 of a Month’s pay model, which would include both pay 

and allowances. Even with allowances, pay would be less than the current system. 

When concerns were addressed about this proposal, a retention bonus was the suggested solution to keep pay at the current levels. 

Position.—Allowances differ between individuals and can be affected by commute 

distances and even zip codes. Certain allowances that are unlikely to be paid include geographic, housing, education benefits, travel and adjustments for missing 

Healthcare. 

The Naval Reserve Association holds reservations with a retention bonus as a 

supplemental source. Being renewed annually bonuses tend to depend on the national economy, deficit, and political winds. Further, would this bonus just be grandfathered to current Reservists, with some future generation forfeiting the bonus as 

an income source? 

As one Reservists said, ‘‘With the nonreimbursed expenses for commuting and 

training, I could afford to drill at one days pay.’’

Healthcare 

Healthcare readiness is the number one problem in mobilizing Reservists. The 

governments own studies show that between 20–25 percent of Guardsmen and Reservists are uninsured. 

We applaud the efforts of the TRICARE Management Activity. TMA has a strong 

sense of which the customer is. They emphasize communications, and are proactive 

at working with the military associations. NRA would like to see a continued effort 

at: 

—Ensuring quality coverage for mobilized Reservist to provide continuity of 

healthcare. 

—Seeking consistency of how TRICARE is implemented for mobilized Reservists 

and families between regions, and 

—Establishing a TRICARE Health plan for uninsured drilling Reservists, similar 

to the successful SELRES Dental Program. 

Business Initiative 

Issue.—Many within the Pentagon feel that business models are the panacea to 

perceived problems with in military structure. 

Position.—Reservists have the unique perspective of holding two careers; many 

with one foot in business and one foot in the military. The Naval Reserve Association suggests caution rather than rush into business solutions. Attempted many 

times in the past, business models have failed in the military even with commands 

that proactively support. 

Among the problems faced are: 

Implementing models that are incompletely understood by director or recipient. 

Feedback failure: ‘‘Don’t tell me why not; just go do it!’’

The solution is often more expensive than the problem. Overburdened middle 

management attempting to implement. Cultural differences. 

While textbook solutions, these models frequently fail in business, too. 

Retirement: Age 55

Issue.—A one sided debate is being held through the press on whether changes 

should be allowed to Guard and Reserve to lower the retirement payment age. At 

a recent Pentagon press conference, Thomas F. Hall, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said he has ‘‘thought a lot about’’ lowering reserve retirement age. Hall said it would be ‘‘expensive’’ and might encourage Reservists to leave 

the workforce at too young an age. The Defense Department is now studying the 

issue to be part of a report to Congress next year. 
557

Position.—Over the last two decades, more has been asked of Guardsmen and Reservists than ever before. The nature of the contract has changed; Reserve Component members would like to see recognition of the added burden they carry. Providing an option that reduces the retired with pay age to age 55 carries importance 

in retention, recruitment, and personnel readiness. 

Most military associations are hesitant to endorse this because they envision 

money would be taken out of other entitlements, benefits, and Guard and Reserve 

Equipment budgets. The Naval Reserve Association suggests an approach to this 

issue that would not be that ‘‘expensive.’’

The Naval Reserve Association recommends for discussion/debate that Reserve 

Retirement with pay prior to age 60 be treated like taking Social Security retirement early—if you elected to take it at say age 55, you take it at an actuarially 

reduced rate. 

Most of the cost projected by DOD is for TRICARE healthcare, which begins when 

retirement pay commences. Again, if one takes Social Security before reaching age 

65 they are not eligible for Medicare. NRA suggests that TRICARE for Reservists 

be decoupled from pay, and eligibility remains at age 60 years. With Social Security 

as a model, Reservists understand the nature of offsetting payments. The real expense in this proposal would be the administrative startup costs and whatever 

would be lost in interest crediting in the retirement trust fund. 

Retention concerns should be set aside. Commissioned officers typically reach 

ROMPA limits at age 53. While enlisted are allowed to drill to age sixty, many in 

the Navy are limited by High Year Tenure policies that take them out of pay before 

then. When this happens, many submit their retirement without pay requests. By 

age 50, an enlisted has either already retired or is career. 

At a minimum, hearings should be held to broaden the debate. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY INITIATIVES

Temporary Recall of Reserve Officers (Three Years or Less) 

Issue.—To properly match the Reserve officer’s exclusion from the active duty list 

as provided for by 10 U.S.C. 641(1)(D) with a corresponding exclusion from the authorized grade strengths for active duty list officers in 10 U.S.C. 523. Without this 

amendment, the active component would have to compensate within their control 

grades for temporary recalled Reserve officers who are considered, selected and promoted by RASL promotion selection boards. This compensation causes instability in 

promotion planning and a reduction in ‘‘career’’ ADL officer eligibility and promotion 

for each year a Reserve officer remains on ‘‘temporary’’ active duty. Therefore, Naval 

Reservists are temporarily recalled to active duty and placed on the ADL for promotional purposes. End result—failure of selection due to removal from RASL peer 

group. 

Position.—Strongly support grade strength relief for the small percentage of Reserve officers who would possibly be promoted while serving on temporary active 

duty. Granting relief is a Win-Win situation. By removing the instability in promotion planning for the active component, Reserve officers can be issued recall orders specifying 10 U.S.C. 641(1)(D) allowing them to remain on the RASL for promotion purposes. 

Equipment Ownership 

Issue.—An internal study by the Navy has suggested that Naval Reserve equipment should be returned to the Navy. At first glance, the recommendation of transferring Reserve Component hardware back to the Active component appears not to 

be a personnel issue. However, nothing could be more of a personnel readiness issue 

and is ill advised. Besides being attempted several times before, this issue needs 

to be addressed if the current National Security Strategy is to succeed. 

Position.—The overwhelming majority of Reserve and Guard members join the RC 

to have hands-on experience on equipment. The training and personnel readiness 

of Guard and Reserve members depends on constant hands-on equipment exposure. 

History shows, this can only be accomplished through Reserve and Guard equipment, since the training cycles of Active Components are rarely if ever—synchronized with the training or exercise times of Guard and Reserve units. Additionally, historical records show that Guard and Reserve units with hardware maintain 

equipment at or higher than average material and often better training readiness. 

Current and future war fighting requirements will need these highly qualified units 

when the Combatant Commanders require fully ready units. 

Reserve and Guard units have proven their readiness. The personnel readiness, 

retention, and training of Reserve and Guard members will depend on them having 

Reserve equipment that they can utilize, maintain, train on, and deploy with when 
558

called upon. Depending on hardware from the Active Component, has never been 

successful for many functional reasons. The NRA recommends strengthen the Reserve and Guard equipment in order to maintain—highly qualified trained Reserve 

and Guard personnel. 

Closure of Naval Reserve Activities 

Issue.—A proposal has been made, suggesting that a large number of Naval Reserve Centers and Naval Air Reserve Activities be closed, and that Naval Reservists 

could commute to Fleet Concentration Areas to directly support gaining commands 

and mobilization sites. 

Position.—The Naval Reserve Association is opposed to this plan for the following reasons. —The Naval Reserve is the one Reserve component that has Reserve Activities 

in every state. To close many of these would be cutting the single military tie 

to the civilian community. 

—The demographics of the Naval Reserve is that most of the commissioned officers live on the coasts, while most of the enlisted live in the hinterland, middle 

America. The Naval Reservists who are paid the least would have to travel the 

farthest. 

—The active duty concept of a Naval Reserve is a junior force, a structure based 

upon enlisted (E1–E3s) and officers (O1–O2’s) billets that can’t be filled because 

the individuals haven’t left the fleet yet. When the Coast Guard ‘‘transformed’’ 

its Reserve force, it was a forced a restructuring that RIFFed many senior officer and enlisted leadership from the USCGR ranks, and caused a number of 

years of administrative problems. 

—If training at fleet concentration centers was correctly implemented, the Navy 

should bear the expense and burden of transportation and housing while on 

site. Additionally, at locations such as Naval Station Norfolk, the overlap of Active Duty and Reserve training has shown an increased burden on Bachelor 

Quarters and messing facilities. Frequently, Reservists must be billeted out on 

the economy. With these extra costs, training would prove more expensive. 

—Such a plan would devastate the Naval Reserves; retention would plummet, 

training and readiness would suffer. 

Replacement of Full Time Staff (TARs) with Active Duty ‘‘Station Keepers’’ 

Issue.—Another suggested initiative would to the replacement of Full Time Staff 

(TARs) with Active Duty ‘‘Station Keepers’’. 

Position.—This has failed in the past, because the Active Navy doesn’t commit its 

best or it’s brightest to administer Reservists. It is not viewed as career enhancing, 

and those who complete the assignments tend to do poorly before competitive promotion boards. The assignments tend to often gravitate to unqualified second and 

third string players who are dead-ended in their careers, and Reservists retention, 

recruitment, readiness and morale tend to suffer. 

CONCLUSION

The Four ‘‘P’s’’ can identify the issues that are important to Reservists: Pay, Promotion, Points, and Pride. 

—Pay needs to be competitive. As Reservists have dual careers, they have other 

sources of income. If pay is too low, or expenses too high, a Reservist knows 

that time may be better invested elsewhere. 

—Promotions need to be fairly regular, and attainable. Promotions have to be 

through an established system and be predictable. 

—Points reflect a Reservist’s ambitions to earn Retirement. They are as creditable 

a reinforcement as pay; and must be easily tracked. 

—Pride is a combination of professionalism, parity and awards: doing the job well 

with requisite equipment, and being recognized for ones efforts. While people 

may not remember exactly what you did, or what you said, they will always remember how you made them feel. 

If change is too rapid in any of these four, anxiety is generated amid the ranks. 

As the Reserve Component is the true volunteer force, Reservists are apt to vote 

with their feet. Reservists are a durable, and are the ‘‘All Pro Team’’ resource only 

if they are treated right. Current conditions about the world highlights the ongoing 

need for the Reserve Component as key players in meeting National Security Strategy, we can’t afford to squander that resource.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. I hate to interrupt you 

here now. We have been given a problem. There will be 30-plus 

votes on the floor today. They occur every 10 minutes. So we have 
559

to go back and forth to vote. We will have to limit you in time, and 

what we are going to try—Senator Inouye, Senator Burns, I do not 

know how long you are going to be here, but we are going to try 

to rotate so one of us is here at all times. But we will have to keep 

moving because it is going to be a difficult time. 

So I appreciate your courtesy. I do want to say this to everyone. 

I am going to say, whoever is here is going to say who is the next 

witness. For instance, the next one is Ms. Holleman, and after that 

is Mr. Butler. We want you to know who is coming up next so we 

can determine if that person is not here and call up the next person before the next witness. 

Is Mr. Holleman here now? Ms. Holleman. Pardon me. 

Captain PUZON. Thank you, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. I appreciate your courtesy. 

Good morning, ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN, ESQ., CO-DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MILITARY AND VETERANS ASSOCIATION, AND NATIONAL 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION 

Ms. HOLLEMAN. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burns, it is 

an honor for me to be here to testify on behalf of the National Military and Veterans Alliance. The alliance is an umbrella group 

made up of 26 military, retiree, veterans, and survivor associations, 

with almost 5 million members. Our concerns are many, but our 

time is brief, so I will just touch on a few issues. 

It is crucial that military health care is fully funded. These past 

few months have shown the important part the direct health care 

system plays in our military readiness. We must continue to be 

fully funded and the equipment and other supplies that have been 

used supporting our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan must be 

replaced. 

Additionally, the purchased health care system is essential to 

provide the services necessary to maintain a satisfied, healthy, and 

vigorous military family, whether active duty and their families, retirees, or survivors. It also helps to promote necessary retention. 

In the last several years it has been this subcommittee’s concerns 

and actions that stopped the constant funding shortfalls that have 

occurred for many years, and we are truly grateful. We ask that 

you continue to make sure that there is full funding in fiscal year 

2004 for all parts of the defense health care budget. 

The alliance is also deeply concerned about the changes that are 

going to occur shortly in the Tricare resource sharing program. 

Through this program at the present time approximately 3,500 

health care professionals work at the Medical Treatment Facility 

(MTFs), treating approximately 2 million patients every year. With 

the advent of the Temporary National Economic Committee 

(TNECs), all these contracts will end and new ones will have to be 

negotiated, presumably through the MTFs. It is crucial that there 

is no break in services caused by this contractual change. The alliance asks that this subcommittee provide sufficient transitional 

funding and direction to this valuable program so this valuable 

program can continue without interruption. 

With all the improvements that the military health care has seen 

in the last few years, one program has been ignored, Tricare Standard. Over 3.2 million military retirees under the age of 65 and 
560

their families are covered by Standard. At this time very little 

thought is given to them. Tricare Standard beneficiaries should be 

contacted yearly and informed about their program and any recent 

changes that have occurred. No such contact occurs at this time. 

It is especially important for the TRICARE Management Activity 

(TMA) to contact grey-area retirees when they reach 60 years old 

to tell them of their automatic qualification and benefits. They are 

not contacted now and often these retirees needlessly retain and 

pay for private health care insurance. 

Most importantly, we hope that Tricare Standard will start to 

help recruit providers and help beneficiaries find them. At this 

time there is no requirement to do either and therefore Standard 

is becoming a more and more illusory benefit. The alliance requests 

that both sufficient funding and direction are given to improve this 

important program. 

The Military and Veterans Alliance thanks you for having this 

hearing and listening to our concerns. Our written testimony deals 

with many additional areas. We hope that you will consider those 

points when finalizing your appropriations bills this year. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your attention. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you for your courtesy. It is nice to see 

you here today. 

Ms. HOLLEMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN, ESQ. 

INTRODUCTION

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the National 

Military and Veterans Alliance (NMVA) is very grateful for the invitation to testify 

before you about our views and suggestions concerning defense funding issues. 

The Alliance was founded in 1996 as an umbrella organization to be utilized by 

the various military and veteran associations as a means to work together towards 

their common goals. The Alliance’s organizations are: American Logistics Association, American Military Retirees Association, American Military Society, American 

Retiree Association, American World War II Orphans Network, AMVETS National 

Headquarters, Catholic War Veterans, Class Act Group, Gold Star Wives of America, Korean War Veterans Foundation, Legion of Valor, Military Order of the Purple 

Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Gulf War Resource 

Center, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval Reserve Association, Non Commissioned Officers Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, 

Society of Military Widows, The Retired Enlisted Association, TREA Senior Citizens 

League, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, Uniformed Services Disabled 

Retirees, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America. 

The preceding organizations have almost five million members who are serving 

our nation, or who have done so in the past and their families. 

The overall goal of the National Military and Veteran’s Alliance is a strong National Defense. In light of this overall objective, we would request that the committee examine the following proposals. 

CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING UNIFORMED SERVICES HEALTH CARE

The National Military and Veterans Alliance must once again thank this Committee for the great strides that have been made over the last few years to improve 

the health care provided to the active duty members, their families, survivors and 

Medicare eligible retirees of all the Uniformed Services. The improvements have 

been historic. TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy Program have enormously improved the life and health of Medicare Eligible Military Retirees their 

families and survivors. DOD’s new Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund has 

been put into place. This addition should help stabilize funding for military health 

care in the future. Additionally, reducing the catastrophic cap, improving the 

TRICARE Prime Remote program and making other TRICARE improvements have 
561

improved the situation of numerous other TRICARE beneficiaries. It has been a 

very successful few years. But there are still many serious problems to be addressed: 

An Adequate Health Care Budget 

As always, the most pressing issue facing military health care is an adequate Defense Department Health Care Budget. This is again the Alliance’s top priority. 

With the additional costs that have come with the deployments to Southwest Asia, 

Afghanistan and Iraq, we must all stay vigilant against future budgetary shortfalls 

that would damage the quality and availability of health care. 

Improving Tricare Standard 

While great steps forward have been made in health care for those uniform services’ beneficiaries covered under TRICARE Prime and TRICARE for Life, TRICARE 

Standard has withered on the vine. TRICARE Standard has truly become the stepchild of military health care. The Alliance asks that this Committee financially support this final group of forgotten beneficiaries. Some improvements in the situation 

can be easily accomplished, others will indeed be difficult. 

There should be a requirement that all TRICARE Standard beneficiaries be contacted at least once a year with information of the changes in the program and benefits. The Alliance believes that there is no other health care plan in the country 

that does not contact its beneficiaries on at least an annual basis. The TRICARE 

Management Activity (TMA) is considering plans to improve communications between TRICARE Prime and its beneficiaries. Including TRICARE Standard in such 

a plan would be an easy improvement. 

An additional population needing to be contacted is the ‘‘gray area’’ Reservists 

when they reach age 60 and finally qualify for retirement pay. Too often, this group 

of retirees is unaware of the automatic enrollment, and individuals carry unneeded 

medical coverage. They should be informed of the TRICARE Standard as a benefit, 

and what it covers. 

NMVA requests appropriations funding to support TMA making these contacts. 

A much harder improvement in TRICARE Standard involves creating initiatives 

to convince health care providers to accept TRICARE Standard patients. TRICARE 

reimbursement rates are tied to Medicare reimbursement levels. It is well known 

that health care providers are dissatisfied with TRICARE reimbursement levels. 

The Alliance was pleased and relieved by the Administration’s and Congress’ recent 

corrections and improvements in Medicare reimbursement rates. This correction in 

the Medicare program will also be a great help to the TRICARE Program. 

Yet this is not enough. The history of low and slow payments in the past for 

TRICARE Standard as well as what still seems like complicated procedures and administrative forms makes it harder and harder for beneficiaries to find health care 

providers that will accept TRICARE. Any improvements in the rates paid for Medicare/TRICARE should be a great help in this area. Additionally, any further steps 

to simplify the administrative burdens and complications for health care providers 

for TRICARE beneficiaries hopefully will increase the number of available providers. 

The Alliance asks the Defense Subcommittee to include language encouraging 

continued increases in Medicare reimbursement rates. 

One key tool in making low-cost MTF care available to military beneficiaries has 

been the resource sharing program: putting civilian health care professionals and 

support personnel into military hospitals and clinics. Currently, there are 3,500 people working and providing services in MTFs serving approximately 2 million patients annually. 

The Alliance is concerned that a gap exists in the transition of this program from 

its current configuration to that of the new generation of T-Nex contracts. All current agreements must end with the current contracts, yet there is no clear guidance 

on how the Services will continue the resource share program, nor when the individual MTFs will be able to renew access to the current resources to implement this 

program. 

The National Military Veterans Alliance request that this committee provide transitional funding to insure uninterrupted service between contracts. 

Tricare Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP) 

The focus of the TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP) is to maintain the dental 

health of Uniformed Services retirees and their family members. Several years ago 

we saw the need to modify the TRDP legislation to allow the Department of Defense 

to include some dental procedures that had previously not been covered by the program. Adding these procedures was necessary to fulfill the intent of the TRDP to 

maintain good dental health for retirees and their family members. With this modification the TRDP achieved equity with the active duty dental plan. 
562

With ever increasing premium costs, NMVA feels that the Department should assist retirees in maintaining their dental health by providing a government costshare for the retiree dental plan. With many retirees and their families on a fixed 

income, an effort should be made to help ease the financial burden on this population and promote a seamless transition from the active duty dental plan to the 

retiree dental plan in cost structure. Additionally, we hope the Congress will enlarge 

the retiree dental plan to include retired beneficiaries who live overseas. The Alliance would appreciate this Committee’s consideration of both proposals. 

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE HEALTH CARE

First, we would like to thank the efforts by the office of Secretary of Defense and 

TRICARE Management Activity for revising Health Affairs Policy 96–018. The 

changes made to TRICARE Prime allow families of activated Guardsmen or Reservists to be eligible for TRICARE Prime when the military sponsor has active duty 

orders for more than 30 days. This revision also allows the family to enroll without 

enrollment fees or co-payments. 

Changes made to the TRICARE Prime Remote for Active Duty Family Members 

program allow the families of activated Reserve and National Guard, Prime Remote 

coverage, no matter where the sponsor lives as long as they resided with the service 

member before he or she left for their mobilization site or deployment location, and 

the family continues to reside there. We are very thankful for these improvements, 

however, additional changes are still needed. 

Mobilized Health Care—Medical Readiness of Reservists 

The number one problem faced by Reservists being recalled was medical readiness. The government’s own studies indicate that between 20–25 percent of Reservists are without healthcare plans. Further study will show that another group is 

under insured. Congress needs to recommend a healthcare coverage for Reservists 

that could bridge this medical gap. 

A model for healthcare would be the TRICARE Dental Program, which offers subsidized dental coverage for Selected Reservists and self-insurance for SELRES families. Reservists pay $8.14 per month for an individual’s enrollment and $50.88 per 

month for a family enrollment. If mobilized to active duty for more than 30 consecutive days, the costs will be $8.14 for a single enrollment and $20.35 for a family 

enrollment. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve (Other than Special Mobilization Category) and their family members, and the family members of the Selected 

Reserve (not on active duty) will pay a new monthly rate of $20.35 for a single enrollment and $50.88 for a family enrollment. 

In an ideal world this would give universal dental coverage. Reality is that the 

services are facing some problems. Premium increases to the individual Reservist 

have caused some of the junior members to forgo coverage. Dental readiness has 

dropped. Mobilized members have been ‘‘readied’’ by tooth extraction rather than 

tooth filling. The Military services are trying to determine how best to motivate 

their Reserve Component members. It is hard to make dental coverage mandatory 

if the Reservist must pay even a portion of it. 

Position.—The National Military Veterans Alliance supports utilization of Guard 

and Reserve Dentists to examine and treat Guardsmen and Reservists who have 

substandard dental hygiene. The TRICARE Dental Program should be continued, 

because we believe it has pulled up overall Dental Readiness. Medical coverage 

plans should be explored to insure universal medical coverage for Guardsmen and 

Reservists; Reservists and their dependents should be allowed to join TRICARE. 

Some Options 

The Department of Defense has a model program extending FEHBP coverage to 

mobilized employees where basic employees premiums are paid. Other federal agencies can adopt this policy on an agency-by-agency basis but this policy is not uniform across all federal agencies. 

Position.—As an option to TRICARE standard, the Alliance would like to see the 

government pay equivalent premiums directly to private employers if these companies choose to extend health coverage to the Reservist as an option. 

Demobilized Health Care 

Under the revised transitional healthcare benefit plan, Guard and Reserve who 

were ordered to active duty for more than 30 days in support of a contingency and 

have more than six years total active federal service are eligible for 120 days of 

transition health care following their period of active service. Guard and Reserve 

members with less than six years service will get 60 days of continued medical care. 
563

Families were excluded from this coverage. An initial fix was a worldwide demonstration project, which permitted family members to be covered under this plan. 

Position.—While 75 to 80 percent of returning Reservists will have healthcare 

when they return to their employers, the balance will be without healthcare beyond 

the current 120 or 60-day limitation. 

—There should not be a demarcation at six years between 60 and 120 days. The 

jobs performed by the Reserve Component members were identical; their demobilization healthcare coverage should be identical. 

—Demobilization transition TRICARE coverage for the post activated Reserve 

Component members should be expanded. A civilian is allowed up to 18 months 

of coverage under COBRA when transitioning between jobs. Military should be 

permitted the same. 

Further.—The National Military Veterans Alliance supports OSD efforts to ensure 

the quality of demobilization processing. Each returning Guardsman or Reservist 

should be given a benchmark separation physical to document their health as they 

return from the ‘‘battlefields.’’

NMVA asks the committee for funding to support DOD’s demobilization health 

care demonstration programs. 

OTHER RESERVE/GUARD ISSUES (LONG-TERM)

Age 55 Retirement Payment Age 

Over the last two decades, more has been asked of Guardsmen and Reservists 

than ever before. The nature of the contract has changed; Reserve Component members would like to see recognition of the added burden they carry. Providing an option that reduces the retired with pay age from 60 to 55 years carries importance 

in retention, recruitment, and personnel readiness. Some are hesitant to endorse 

this because they envision money would be taken out of other entitlements, benefits, 

and Guard and Reserve Equipment budgets. The National Military and Veteran’s 

Alliance recommends that Reserve retirement with pay be allowed prior to age 60, 

but be treated like Social Security retirement offset, at lower payments when taken 

at an earlier age. If a Reservist elects to take retired pay at age 55, it would be 

taken at an actuarially reduced rate, keeping the net costs at zero. 

Most of the cost projected by DOD is for TRICARE healthcare, which begins when 

retirement pay commences. Again following the Social Security example, Medicare 

is not linked to Social Security payments. NMVA suggests that TRICARE for Reservists be decoupled from pay, and eligibility remain at age 60 years with Social 

Security as a model, Reservists understand the nature of offsetting payments. The 

only remaining expense in this proposal would be the administrative startup costs 

and adjustments to retirement accrual contributed to the DOD retirement accounts. 

Pay and Compensation For Guard and Reserve 

We are concerned about a recent DOD initiative to end ‘‘two days pay for one days 

work,’’ and replace it with a plan to provide 1/30 of a Month’s pay model, which 

would include both pay and allowances. Even with allowances, pay would be less 

than the current system. When concerns were addressed about this proposal, a retention bonus was the suggested solution to keep pay at the current levels. Allowances differ between individuals and can be affected by commute distances and even 

zip codes. Certain allowances that are unlikely to be paid uniformly include geographic differences, housing variables, tuition assistance, travel, and adjustments to 

compensate for missing Healthcare. 

The National Military and Veterans Alliance holds reservations with a retention 

bonus as a supplemental source. Being renewed annually bonuses tend to depend 

on the national economy, deficit, and political winds. Further, would this bonus just 

be grandfathered to current Reservists, with some future generation forfeiting the 

bonus as an income source. The NMVA strongly recommends that the reserve pay 

system ‘‘two days pay for one days work,’’ be retained, as is. 

OTHER RESERVE/GUARD RECOMMENDATIONS (SHORT-TERM)

Ensure adequate funding to equip Guard and Reserve at a level that allows them 

to carry out their mission. Do not turn these crucial assets over to the active duty 

force. In the same vein we ask that the Congress ensure adequate funding that allows a Guardsman/Reservist to complete 48 drills, and 15 annual training days per 

member, per year. This stems from the concern about a recent DOD plan, the ‘‘Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003’’ that would potentially use 

some of these same ‘‘Reserve’’ dollars to fund involuntary 90-day pre-mobilization 

call up for training. This funding should come instead from the active duty budget, 

which will most directly benefit from this ‘‘deployment standards’’ training. 
564

The NMVA strongly recommends that Reserve Program funding remain at sufficient levels to adequately train and support the robust reserve force that has been 

so critical and successful during our Nation’s recent major conflicts. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee the Alliance again 

wishes to emphasize that we are grateful for and delighted with the large steps forward that the Congress has affected the last few years. The new health care programs for Uniformed Service retirees 65 years and over (TRICARE for Life and the 

Senior Pharmacy) and active duty members and their families (TRICARE Prime Remote and the reduction of the catastrophic cap) have been great successes. We are 

also very appreciative of recent changes that impact our ‘‘citizen soldiers’’ in the 

Guard and Reserve. But there is still work to be done to improve health care programs for all qualified beneficiaries, and benefits and mission funding for our 

Guardsmen and Reservists. We understand that all of these issues don’t fall under 

the direct purview of your subcommittee. However, we are aware of the continuing 

concern all of the subcommittee’s members have shown for the health and welfare 

of our service personnel and their families. Therefore, we hope that this subcommittee can further advance these suggestions in this committee or in other positions that the members hold. We are very grateful for the opportunity to speak on 

these issues of crucial concern to our members. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Next is Mr. Butler, Deputy Director of Legislation, National Association of Uniformed Services. Good morning. 

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. BUTLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES 

Mr. BUTLER. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, the National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS) and the Society of Military 

Widows is very grateful for the invitation to testify before you 

about our views and suggestions concerning defense funding issues. 

There are several issues covered in my formal statement in detail. 

I would like to highlight a couple here today pertaining to survivors. 

First I would like to mention the age-62 survivor benefits program offset with Social Security. NAUS’s primary survivor goal is 

the elimination of the age-62 Strategic Business Plan (SBP) offset. 

This would increase the annuity from 35 percent to the original 55 

percent. Not only were many of the earliest enrollees not provided 

the full explanation of the social security offset, but the Federal 

Government provides a substantially higher annuity with no offset 

for Federal Civil Service survivors. We urge the committee to provide funding for the annuity increase and end the often devastating 

effects of the offset. 

On a related front, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

fiscal year 1999 provided a paid-up provision to the survivor benefit 

plan. The law states that, effective October 1, 2008, if a retiree has 

paid into the program for 30 years and is 70 years old then the premium is paid up. NAUS recommends the appropriate funding to accelerate the paid-up provisions and change the effective date from 

October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2003, the 30th anniversary of the 

program. Without a change, enrollees who meet this criteria are 

being penalized after that date for 5 years. 

Also on the survivor front, NAUS strongly urges funding for S. 

585. Currently, if the retired military sponsor who enrolls in the 

survivor benefits program dies of a service-connected disability, the 

surviving spouse is eligible for both the SBP annuity and dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC, from the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. However, the SBP annuity is offset by the full 
565

amount of DIC. Each program’s purpose is different. SBP’s goal is 

to provide for the loss of the sponsor’s earned retired pay and DIC’s 

goal is to provide the surviving spouse compensation for the loss 

of their spouse due to injuries caused by his or her service to their 

country. We strongly urge funding to eliminate this offset. 

Finally, I would like to mention the retention of DIC on remarriage after age 55. All other Federal survivor benefits are retained 

if the beneficiary remarries after a certain age. The only exception 

is the military widow or widower receiving DIC. Many survivors do 

not remarry because they cannot afford to lose their DIC. As a 

matter of equity, a DIC survivor who marries after the age of 55 

should retain his or her DIC status and benefits. 

We would like to see the funding made available to end the remarriage penalty. NAUS strongly supports the funding for this 

type of legislation and any legislation that takes care of those that 

we leave behind. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you for those suggestions and I think 

you are right about that 55-year-old. We will do our best, Mr. Butler. 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. BUTLER

INTRODUCTION

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, The National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS) is very grateful for the invitation to testify 

before you about our views and suggestions concerning the following defense funding issues: 

Survivor Benefits Program (SBP) Improvements 

Age 62 Survivor Benefits Program Offset 

The National Association for Uniformed Services primary survivor goal is the 

elimination of the age 62 Survivor Benefit Program annuity offset. This would increase the annuity from 35 percent to the original 55 percent. Not only were many 

of the earliest enrollees not provided the full explanation of the benefits and the Social Security Offset, but the Federal Government provides a substantially higher annuity with no offset for federal Civil Service survivors annuities. We urge the committee to provide funding for the annuity increase, and end the often-devastating 

effects of the offset. 

30 Year Paid-Up Status 

A secondary goal is the acceleration of the paid-up provisions by changing the effective date from October 1, 2008 to October 1, 2003, the 30th anniversary of the 

program. Enrollees who have reached the age of 70 and have paid their SBP premiums for more that 30 years (360 payments) are being penalized. We ask that you 

provide funding to allow those early enrollees to be allowed this relief. 

Survivor Benefits Program/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Offset 

The National Association for Uniformed Services strongly urges funding for S. 

585. Currently, if the retired military sponsor, who enrolled in the Survivor Benefits 

Program, dies of a service-connected disability, the surviving spouse is eligible for 

both the SBP annuity and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the SBP annuity is offset by the full 

amount of the DIC annuity. Each program’s purpose is different, SBP’s goal is to 

provide for the loss of the sponsors earned retired pay, and DIC’s goal is to provide 

the surviving spouse compensation for the loss of their spouse due to injuries caused 

by his/her service to the country. 
566

Defense Commissary Agency Funding and Staffing 

The active duty service member continues to rate the Commissaries as a top benefit of the Quality of Life and Family Program portion of the military pay and compensation package. The 2002 Active Duty Status of Forces Survey gave the Exchange and Commissaries a 67 percent satisfaction rating. And yet, the Commissaries and Exchanges are still under attack, during a time when our highly 

trained and motivated military forces are away from their home bases. How can we 

justify attacking their families’ convenient access to high quality food at savings 

that approach 30 percent? 

Issue.—Why would the Department of Defense want to reduce the commissary 

benefit at its greatest time of need? The answer is money. DOD wants to reduce 

the subsidy for the commissary system that provides food and other essentials to 

troops and families around the world, which will end up in the military community 

losing the benefit. 

Position.—The National Association for Unformed Services strongly urges you to 

continue to provide the funding for the Commissary Subsidy to sustain the current 

services, which garnished a 67 percent approval rating, provided to the men and 

women protecting our nation. Commissaries are a key component of the military pay 

and compensation package. Any action that reduces the benefit means a diminished 

quality of life and more out of pocket costs. 

Issue.—The Defense Commissary Agency has already begun the process of elimi- nating 2,650 personnel positions and reducing its funding by $137,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2003. 

Position.—NAUS believes that a reduction of this size will degrade the quality of 

the benefit by eliminating smaller commissaries and reducing days and hours of operation. 

Issue.—The Department of Defense is planning the consolidation of the Armed 

Services three-exchange services into one single entity, though still retaining the 

‘‘look and feel’’ of each store and maintaining the service culture to which the patrons are accustomed. The goal again, is to save money by elimination of redundant 

overheads, delivery systems, and the power of economy of scaling purchasing. 

Position.—NAUS does not endorse a consolidation, especially if consolidation is for 

consolidation’s sake. Streamlining, improving internal operations and implementation of cost saving measures must not reduce the value of the benefit. 

NAUS supports funding for system studies, but not an accelerated consolidation. 

Summary.—We all understand the importance of saving scarce taxpayer’s dollars. 

Every taxpayer dollar collected must be used wisely to keep down the amount of 

taxes the government collects; this is only common sense. Therefore, every government agency, department or system must be as efficient as possible. For example, 

the leaders of the commissary system have been and are continuing to make internal changes to improve efficiencies and reduce overhead operating costs. DOD 

should be setting goals, not mandating changes. 

Current and Future Issues Facing Uniformed Services Health Care 

The National Association for Uniformed Services would like to thank the SubCommittee and the Full Appropriations Committee for its leadership in the past for 

providing the landmark legislation extending the Pharmacy benefit and TRICARE 

system to Medicare eligible military retirees, their families and survivors, making 

the lifetime benefit permanent, establishing the DOD Medicare Eligible Retiree 

Health Care Fund, reducing the catastrophic cap and making other TRICARE improvements. However, we must again urge that the Senate provides full funding of 

the Defense Health Program, especially now, while more activated reserve beneficiaries utilize the program. 

In addition to medical care we are concerned that the current funding within 

DOD for maintenance and infrastructure improvements is inadequate. This lack of 

funding has forced commanders to make band-aid fixes that in the long term require 

more costly repairs, or even acceleration of closing completely. One example is the 

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, located on the grounds of the Walter Reed 

Army Medical Center and which Congress declared a national resource in 1976. 

This world-class national resource provides a broad range of patient care consultant 

activities, educational programs and research for the military medical system, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs and the civilian medical community nationally and 

internationally. It is housed in a building that is over 50-years old and deteriorating 

badly—like much of the Walter Reed complex that is in need of repair and maintenance. 

Mr. Chairman, the overall goal of the National Association for Uniformed Services 

is a strong National Defense. We believe that comprehensive, lifelong medical and 

dental care for all Uniformed Service beneficiaries regardless of age, status or loca-
567

tion furthers this goal. In light of these overall objectives, we would request that 

the committee examine the following proposals: 

TRICARE Improvements supported by NAUS 

Our first and foremost goal is to increase the provider reimbursement rates to 

more realistic amounts. Without adequate reimbursement rates, the ability to maintain a viable, qualified list of medical providers is hindered. That directly affects the 

health of our service members and their families. Secondly, we ask that you provide 

funding to improve the TRICARE Standard Program, to include increased communication between the TRICARE Management Activity and the Standard beneficiary 

about the benefits of the program and assisting the Standard beneficiary in locating 

an available provider. Finally, we encourage the subcommittee to maintain the 

TRICARE Standard plan as the fee-for-service plan that was initially created and 

continue its efforts to eliminate the pre-authorizations now required. 

Medicare Part B Enrollment 

The law enacting the TRICARE for Life program requires Medicare Part B enrollment for participation in the TRICARE for Life program. In addition, Part B is required for all retirees reaching age 65 on or after 1 April 2001 for them to participate in the new pharmacy program 

Secondly, some 12,000 retirees residing overseas are required to participate in 

Part B Medicare in order to enroll in TRICARE for Life. Since they cannot use the 

Medicare benefits overseas, we recommend that this requirement be eliminated for 

all retirees residing overseas and that upon their relocation to the United States be 

allowed to enroll in Part B without the delayed enrollment penalty. 

Also, some retirees who lived near military installations did not enroll in Part B 

because they relied upon the promise of lifetime medical care at the hospitals and 

clinics located on the military bases, which have subsequently been closed. Many 

are in their 70’s and 80’s now and cannot afford to pay the huge Part B delayed 

enrollment penalties. 

Position.—We recommend that those who relied on these hospitals and were 65 

on or before 6 October 2000, the date TFL was enacted by NDAA for fiscal year 

2001, be allowed to participate in TFL without enrolling in Part B Medicare or at 

the very least waive the delayed enrollment penalties. 

FEHBP 

The National Association for Uniformed Services has been a long time proponent 

of legislation that would provide military personnel the option of participating in the 

Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. Though confident that the TRICARE 

program and the TRICARE for Life program will be successful, because they are an 

outstanding value for most beneficiaries, in a few cases, the TRICARE/TRICARE for 

Life options may not be the best choice, or may not be available for the eligible beneficiary. For that reason, we believe the FEHBP option should be enacted. Providing 

the FEHBP, as an option would help stabilize the TRICARE program, provide a 

market based benchmark for cost comparison and be available to those for whom 

TRICARE/TRICARE for Life is not an adequate solution. 

Position.—NAUS strongly urges the committee to provide additional funding to 

support a full FEHBP program for military personnel as an option. 

Include Physician and Nurse Specialty Pay in Retirement Computations 

Results of the 2002 Active Duty Survey show that pay and benefits are the most 

important factors impacting retention. Improving specialty pay/bonuses and including specialty pay/bonuses in retired pay calculations would aid retention. Therefore, 

prompt action to retain these and other highly skilled medical professionals is needed. 

Position.—The National Association for Uniformed Services requests funding to 

allow the military physicians and nurses to use their specialty pay in their retirement computations. The military services continue to lose top quality medical professionals (doctors and nurses) at mid-career. A major reason is the difference between compensation levels for military physicians and nurses and those in the private sector. 

Uniform Claims processing and Billing 

It has been the long term hope that part of the growing costs of medical treatment 

in both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veteran Affairs could be 

paid by billing private insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid systems (DOD 

and VA Subvention). Numerous attempts to improve these financial streams have 

failed. 
568

Position.—In part this failure has been caused because the various systems do not 

share the same system for claims and billing. Since the dominant system of all medical claims in the country is clearly Medicare if DOD and the VA adopted the Medicare claims system ALL parties—Private Insurance Companies, DOD, the VA and 

Medicare/Medicaid would know what medical services, pharmaceuticals, laboratory 

services and the like have been provided. Such a uniform billing plan could also lead 

to improvements in allowing the VA to be a fully participating TRICARE network 

provider. This does not solve the other billing problems but at least it would put 

all the parties on the same sheet of music. 

DOD and VA Subvention 

The attempt of Medicare subvention (having Medicare pay for treatment of its 

beneficiaries at MTFs) with the DOD has been a huge disappointment. The Department of Defense has received no stream of payments. Medicare’s required level of 

effort’’ has never been reached by an MTF. But this goal should not be abandoned. 

The active duty member, his or her working spouse, the Veteran and the Military 

Retiree have all spent their working careers paying money into the Medicare system. The taxes have been paid but if they receive treatment in a MTF or a VA hospital or clinic the facility receives nothing from Medicare to help pay for that beneficiary’s services. 

Position.—The financially strained medical systems of the VA and DOD should receive some of the support their patients have paid. Again, if DOD and the VA adopted Medicare’s billing system it could support an effective attempt at subvention. 

Active and Reserve 

The most important element of military readiness is a high quality force. The 

quality force that we have fighting for us today is the result of over twenty years 

of effort. The National Association for Uniformed Services doesn’t want to see these 

gains lost. 

We understand that DOD plans budget cuts, with the services again looking at 

end strength reductions especially in the Reserve Components at a time that we are 

fighting a war against multiple undefined terrorist factions. 

We request that you consider language in the appropriations bill to direct DOD 

to cease further reductions in both Active and Reserve components until the threats 

to our Nation are properly determined and a National Defense Strategy is clearly 

defined. We shouldn’t forget the needs of our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen 

in the field. Quality of life includes quality on the job. The National Association for 

Uniformed Services supports a 4.1 percent pay raise for all seven of the Uniformed 

Services. We further support targeted pay raise proposals for enlisted members in 

grades E–5 to E–9, and selected warrant officers. 

Additionally, NAUS feels that it is important to invest defense dollars for equipment procurement beyond the administration’s budget. The service chiefs have provided non-funded requirements for both the active and Reserve components that will 

be needed by our people in the near future. 

We ask that funds be provided utilizing the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. While the Senate has pressured to reduce the NGREA, the services 

have failed in their responsibility to budget for Reserve equipment; until this is resolved we believe the NGREA should be used for this purpose. 

Reserve members were quick to step forward; some have already sacrificed their 

lives during this war as part of this nation’s total force. In recognition, we ask for 

parity between active and reserve components when it comes to pay and compensation and retirement. We encourage this committee to support future hearings dealing with pay and compensation as these proposals are developed. 

NAUS believes that funding lifelong medical and dental care for all of the uniformed service beneficiaries, regardless of age, Active or Reserve status or location, 

supports the goal of mobilization readiness. But we would like to call attention to 

the ongoing need of funding TRICARE providers and, in turn, supporting the troubled TRICARE network. 

This is especially hard on the families of reservists who don’t relocate when their 

warriors are mobilized. We hope the committee will support monies for military 

treatment facility subvention and utilization of veterans affairs hospitals as 

TRICARE providers. 

Transformation 

The Secretary of Defense’s office is conducting a series of studies emphasizing 

transformation, relying on costly, undeveloped technologies, seeking dollar savings 

by reducing end strength in a flexible, adaptive fighting force. 

The first suggested legislation has been released entitled the ‘‘Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003.’’ While Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s 
569

staff has attempted to come up with new solutions to old problems, blanket implementation may result in unintended consequences. 

Issues Affecting Appropriations 

Increased cost to the retirement fund is NAUS’s concern if the 75 percent ceiling 

is lifted, and a unrestricted multiplier is allowed, permitting flag and general officers to be paid more in retirement than on active duty. 

NAUS is concerned with removing the pay limitations on retired pay for general 

and flag officers, which is currently held equal to level III of the Executive Schedule. 

Enhanced General Transfer Authority; transfer of funds: NAUS opposes granting 

authority to SECDEF to permit the transfer of 2.5 percent of the total appropriations between funds (except MILCON) for military functions—five percent in times 

of war or emergency. 

This is too high a sum of money, undercuts the appropriations process, and creates a high risk to have authorized items stripped of funding to support a DOD 

project viewed as underfunded. 

Transfer of Funds to correct specific acquisition. NAUS feels there is no need to 

allow reprogramming of funds. This is a requested change from $10 million to $20 

million, again reducing Congressional oversight. 

Another suggestion within the Transformation Act is allowing ‘‘improved involuntary access’’ to Reserve Component members for enhanced training prior to mobilization. Suggested language calls this ‘‘up to 90 days of active duty for training,’’ 

which indicates that this preparation for mobilization will come from reserve training funds rather than from the budget of the active duty, which will most directly 

benefit from this ‘‘deployment standards’’ training. 

NAUS requests that the A.T. funding be expanded beyond the 15 days of A.T. per 

guardsman and reservist, to allow for these additional periods of training, otherwise 

this unit training will strip away training dollars from individual reservists. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Sub-Committee, we want to 

thank you for your leadership and for holding these hearings this year. You have 

made it clear that the military continues to be a high priority and you have our 

continuing support.

Senator STEVENS. Next will be Mr. Duggan. But, Mr. Duggan 

will you wait? We will start you when the Senator comes back. I 

will go vote and someone else will be here. 

Senator INOUYE [presiding]. Please forgive us for this vote-arama. 

Mr. DUGGAN. Yes, sir. Good morning, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. The next witness will be Dennis ‘‘Mike’’ 

Duggan, Deputy Director of the National Security, Foreign Relations Division of the American Legion. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. DUGGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

SECURITY, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN 

LEGION 

Mr. DUGGAN. Good morning, sir, and thank you. Mr. Chairman, 

the American Legion, as the Nation’s largest organization of wartime veterans, is extremely grateful for this opportunity to present 

its views regarding the Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2004. 

We have always valued your leadership in assessing and appropriating adequate funding for the defense establishment, including 

its military quality of life, readiness, and modernization or transformation. 

The stunning military successes in Iraq validate this committee’s 

investing in our armed services and I am sure we are all appreciative of that. As we speak, thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, 

and marines, Active and Reserve components, continue to valiantly 

serve in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. All Americans are 
570

proud of what they have achieved, while cognizant of the fact that 

the war on terrorism does in fact continue. 

Americans expect us to support our troops and to support a 

strong national defense and we believe this fiscal year 2004 bill 

does that. 

Mr. Chairman, our Armed Forces, as effective as they are, are 

spread thin and over 220,000 reservists have been activated for 

homeland security missions and the war on terrorism. Our reserve 

components are no longer reserve. They are on the front lines. The 

extent to which they are being used in larger numbers and over 

longer periods of time may well result, however, in reduced recruiting and retention. We do not know that at this stage. 

Some active component, reserve component shifts may be necessary and may improve force levels and strengthen the active capabilities. However, it appears that funding the increase of active 

duty end strengths is imperative. We believe that, the American 

Legion does, that the active duty end strengths need to be increased. 

We are also aware of a number of aging systems which the 

Armed Forces continue to keep in their active inventory which 

probably need replacing at this stage of the game, to include refueling tankers for one. Another, of course, that comes to mind is the 

CH, aging CH–46 Sea Knight, and there have been a number of 

accidents involving that and I just wonder if they just need to be 

replaced. 

We understand the CH–47 Chinooks have been pretty well upgraded, the Army version, with new engines and so forth. But the 

CH–46 Sea Knight may need replacing or at least greatly upgrading. 

The American Legion applauds the SASC, Senate Armed Services Committee, bill calling for a survey of military retirees by the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to determine the viability and the 

adequacy of the Tricare Standard benefit that was brought up by 

the last speaker. We do urge that Tricare reimbursement rates 

probably need to be increased and that the Defense health system 

as well be fully funded. Many care-eligible military retirees and 

their dependents remain forever grateful of the Tricare for Life program and the Senior Tricare Pharmacy Benefit as well for those 

over age 65. 

The American Legion applauds the raises in base pay and allowances for the active force. But family separation allowances, hostile 

fire pay, or imminent danger pays, we believe need to be increased, 

as does the rather archaic death gratuity benefits as well. The 

6,000 bucks is not a whole heck of a lot for families that lose a 

loved one in action. 

Reserve benefits need to be increased consistent with the extent 

to which reservists are being mobilized to perform active duty missions. Retired reservists should be eligible for reservist pay and 

Tricare health care before the age of 60 and also reservists should 

have unlimited access to military commissaries. 

Just one last word, Mr. Chairman, and that has to do with the 

recently enacted combat-related special compensation for disabled 

military retirees. It flagrantly to a large extent leaves off our disabled reservists and guardsmen who have served 20 or more years 
571

and who are not even eligible to really apply for that special compensation. 

Mr. Chairman, we thank you again for this opportunity. Thank 

you, sir. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. DUGGAN

Mr. Chairman, The American Legion is grateful for the opportunity to present its 

views regarding defense appropriations for fiscal year 2004. The American Legion 

values your leadership in assessing and appropriating adequate funding for qualityof-life, readiness and modernization of the Nation’s armed forces. 

Once again, the United States is involved in two wars—the war against terrorism 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom. American fighting men and women are proving that 

they are best-trained, best-equipped and best-led military in the world. As Secretary 

of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld has noted, the war in Iraq is part of a long, dangerous 

global war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is being waged on two fronts: overseas against armed terrorists and the other here protecting and securing the Homeland. Indeed, most of what we as Americans hold dear are made possible by the 

peace and stability, which the armed forces provide. 

The American Legion adheres to the principle that this Nation’s armed forces 

must be well manned and equipped, not to pursue war, but to preserve and protect 

peace. The American Legion strongly believes that past military downsizing was 

budget-driven rather than threat focused. Once Army divisions, Navy carrier battle 

groups, and Air Force fighter wings are eliminated from the force structure, they 

cannot be rapidly reconstituted regardless of the threat or emergency circumstances. 

Military recruitment has also been sporadic in the face of obvious quality-of-life concerns, frequent and lengthy deployments, and the recession, in spite of the patriotic 

American spirit which has followed the terrorist attacks of September 11th. 

The Administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 totals $2.2 trillion and 

authorizes $379.9 billion for defense or about 16.6 percent of the budget. The fiscal 

year 2004 defense budget represents a $14 billion increase in defense spending over 

the current funding level. It also represents 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, more than the 3.3 percent in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Active duty military 

manpower end strength is 1,388,100, only slightly changed from the 1.37 million of 

fiscal year 2002. Selected Reserve strength is 863,300 or reduced by about 25 percent from its strength levels during the Gulf War of 12 years ago.. 

Mr. Chairman, this budget must contain funding to fight the war on terrorism, 

sustain military quality of life and continue to transform the military. A decade of 

overuse of the military and it’s under-funding, however, will necessitate sustained 

investments. This budget must also address increases in the military endstrength 

of the Services, accelerate ship production, and funding for the concurrent receipt 

of military retirement pay and VA disability compensation for disabled military retirees. 

If we are to win the war on terror and prepare for the wars of tomorrow, we must 

take care of the Department’s greatest assets—the men and women in uniform. 

They are doing us proud in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. 

In order to attract and retain the necessary force over the long haul, the military 

continues to look for talent in an open market place and to compete with the private 

sector for the best young people our nation has to offer. If we are to attract them 

to military service in the active and reserve components, we need to count on their 

patriotism and willingness to sacrifice, to be sure, but we must also provide them 

the proper incentives. They love their country, but they also love their families—

and many have children to support, raise, and educate. We have always asked the 

men and women in uniform to voluntarily risk their lives to defend us; we should 

not ask them to forgo adequate pay and subject their families to repeated unaccompanied deployments and sub-standard housing as well. 

The President’s 2004 defense budget requests $98.6 billion for military pay and 

allowances, including $3.7 billion for a 2 percent to 6.3 percent pay raise and $300 

million for the option for targeted pay-raises for mid-grade officers and NCOs. It 

also includes $4.2 billion to improve military housing, putting the Department on 

track to eliminate most substandard housing by 2007—several years sooner than 

previously planned. It will also lower out-of-pocket housing cost for those living offbase from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent in 2004—so as to hopefully eliminate all outof-pocket costs for the men and women in uniform by 2005. 
572

Together, these investments in people are critical, because smart weapons are 

worthless to us unless they are in the hands of smart, well trained Soldiers, Sailors, 

Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen. 

The American Legion’s National Commander has visited American troops in 

South Korea, as well as a number of installations throughout the United States. 

During these visits, he was able to see first hand the urgent, immediate need to 

address real quality of life challenges faced by service members and their families. 

He has spoken with families on Womens’ and Infants’ Compensation (WIC). Quality 

of life issues for service members, coupled with heightened operational tempos, play 

a key role in the recurring recruitment and retention woes and should come as no 

surprise. The operational tempo and lengthy deployments must be reduced. Military 

missions were on the rise before September 11 and deployment levels remain high 

and the only way, it appears, to reduce repetitive overseas tours and the overuse 

of the Reserves is to increase military endstrengths for the services. Military pay 

must be on par with the competitive civilian sector. If other benefits, like health 

care improvements, commissaries, adequate quarters, quality child care, and impact 

aid for education are reduced, they will only serve to further undermine efforts to 

recruit and retain the brightest and best this nation has to offer. 

QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW (QDR)

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, America has conducted three substantial assessments of its strategy and force structures necessary to meet the national defense requirements. The assessment by the first President Bush Administration (‘‘Base Force’’ assessment) and the assessment by the Clinton Administration (‘‘Bottom-Up Review’’) were intended to reassess the force structure in light of 

the changing realities of the post-Cold War world. Both assessments served an important purpose in focusing attention on the need to reevaluate America’s military 

posture; but the pace of global change necessitated a new, comprehensive assessment of the current defense strategy for the 21st Century. The current QDR was 

formatted before September 11, 2001. 

The American Legion has supported the force structure proposed by the Base 

Force Strategy: Maintaining 12 Army active duty combat divisions, 12 Navy aircraft 

carrier battle groups, 15 Air Force fighter wings and three Marine Corps divisions, 

and a total manpower strength of at least 1.6 million. The American Legion initially 

supported the theory behind the two-war strategy: if America were drawn into a 

war with one regional aggressor, another could be tempted to attack its neighbor, 

especially if this aggressor were convinced that America and its allies were distracted, lacked the will to fight conflicts on two fronts, or did not possess the military power to deal with more than one major conflict at a time. Determining the 

right size of U.S. forces for more than one major conflict would provide a hedge 

against the possibility that a future adversary might mount a larger than expected 

threat. It would also allow for a credible overseas presence that is essential in dealing with potential regional dangers and pursuing new opportunities to advance stability and peace. The American Legion has always believed that any such strategy 

should be capabilities-based rather than budget-driven. 

The two-war, nearly simultaneously, strategy was criticized as being too narrowly 

focused on preparing for two specific conflicts, was under-prepared for other contingencies and was never adequately resourced. We believe that for the strategy to be 

credible it must employ more robust force structures and continued increased budgeting to improve quality-of-life, readiness and modernization. The American Legion 

believes the ‘‘win-win’’ two-war Bottom-Up Review strategy was delusional. With 

growing worldwide commitments, America has a ‘‘win-hold’’ strategy, at best, with 

only 10 Army active combat divisions, three Marine divisions, 12 Navy carrier 

groups and eight National Guard Divisions to utilize. 

The reality of a two-war strategy appears to have arrived. Once again, we have 

fought in the Persian Gulf while keeping an eye on developments in North Korea. 

The armed forces have appeared to be over committed for too long with their many 

missions to include preparation for conventional warfare, peacekeeping in the Balkans, counterguerilla operations in the Philippines and Colombia as well as Homeland Security and the global War on Terrorism to include combat operations in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

The American Legion also believes America can no longer afford to become the 

world peace enforcer by dispatching forces on unbudgeted operations whether the 

United Nations passes or does not pass a resolution to do so. The American Legion 

believes Congress needs to remain involved in the decision-making process regarding the commitment of U.S. military forces. These forces should be deployed only 

when the vital national interests of America are clearly at stake, supported by the 
573

will of the American people and Congress, and a clear exit strategy exists. Congress 

needs to become involved in the policy of committing U.S. troops before troops are 

actively committed, not afterwards. Clearly, our war in Iraq has satisfied all these 

conditions. For that reason, the Armed Forces are deserving of congressional support for increased resourcing. 

PROCUREMENT/TRANSFORMATION

Only a few major systems currently in production would be funded in the fiscal 

year 2004 defense budget. The funding level for procurement is improved but needs 

to be sustained. The American Legion fully supports the Army’s Transformation 

Program. Major development programs that The American Legion also supports include the Air Force F–22 fighter and C–17, F/A–18Es for the Navy, and Joint Strike 

Fighters for the Air Force and Navy. Unquestionably, the Navy needs to upgrade 

its aging fleet and air arm as well as acquire more submarines. The American Legion strongly believes that the seven-ship rate of ship-building needs to be increased 

so that at least 8–10 ships are built annually. 

If left unadvised, omissions in DOD’s modernization budget will have the following implications: 

—They will result in the continued deterioration of the defense industrial base. 

—The future technological superiority of American forces will be at risk thereby 

increasing the danger to servicemembers should they be called into combat. We 

are currently retiring ships and aircraft faster than they are being built. 

—The failure to replace and upgrade equipment in a timely manner will create 

a massive modernization shortfall in each of the military services and, possibly, 

lead to even more serious readiness problems in the long run. 

America’s winning technology in the Persian Gulf War, like its victorious all-volunteer force, did not develop overnight, but had its genesis in the decade of the 

1980’s. The modernization of the Armed Forces since the end of the Persian Gulf 

War, unfortunately, has been delayed and curtailed. The 2004 budget request is designed to advance each of the transformational goals mentioned by the Secretary of 

Defense in his Congressional testimony last year. It accelerates funding both for the 

development of transformation programs as well as by funding modernization. Recognizably, transformation is a process, and is a process that must continue. The 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during fiscal year 1998 defense budget hearings called for procurement budgets of $60 billion annually, which for the first time 

was reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Army procurement dollars alone have 

plummeted by almost 80 percent since the mid-1980’s, and by 67 percent for all the 

services. Trade-offs to maintain readiness within budget constraints have caused the 

Services to cancel a number of weapons systems and to delay others. 

A number of defense consulting firms have predicted that the armed forces are 

heading for a ‘‘train wreck’’ unless annual defense budgets called for procurement 

accounts in the $118 billion range, rather than in the $45–60 billion range. 

The American Legion urges Congress to preserve America’s defense industrial 

base by continuing to fund research, development and acquisition budgets so as to 

retain its technological edge in the 21st Century and assure that military production 

can surge whenever U.S. military power is committed. Some of these capabilities, 

such as tank production and shipbuilding, need to be retained. Key industrial capabilities that preserve more of the defense industrial base need to be identified and 

retained. 

The American Legion opposes termination or curtailing of essential service modernization programs, diminution of defense industrial capabilities, and rejects the 

transfers of critical defense technologies abroad. 

The American Legion firmly believes with the continuing threat of nuclear proliferation, America should retain its edge in nuclear capabilities as represented by 

the TRIAD system, and the highest priority should be the deployment of a national 

missile defense. Although the development and deployment of advanced theater missile defenses to protect U.S. forward deployed forces is imperative, any dismantling 

of acquisition programs to defend the American people is imprudent. America 

should continue to march on deploying an anti-ballistic missile detection and interception system that is capable of providing a highly effective defense against limited 

attacks of ballistic missiles. The price of maintaining a strong defense is expensive 

in terms of tax dollars, but failure to do so could prove much more expensive in 

terms of human lives and real threats to freedom. The national security framework 

provides the umbrella that allows Americans to work and prosper without fear. A 

strong national defense does not inhibit a strong economy; it complements it. Congress and the military establishment must spend tax dollars prudently and effec-
574

tively. DOD must ensure that all aspects of its procurement and manning levels are 

responsible and disciplined. 

QUALITY OF LIFE

The American Legion’s major National Security concern is the enhancement of the 

quality of life issues for service members, Reservists, National Guardsmen, military 

retirees, and their families. During the 107th Congress, President Bush and Congress made marked improvements in an array of quality of life issues for military 

personnel and their families. These efforts are visual enhancements that must be 

sustained. 

In the fiscal year 2002 defense budget, the President and Congress addressed improvements to the TRICARE system to meet the health care needs of military beneficiaries; enhanced Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits; and the addressed 

homelessness throughout the veterans community. For these actions, The American 

Legion applauds your strong leadership, dedication, and commitment. However, 

major issues still remain unresolved: the issue of concurrent receipt of full military 

retirement pay and VA disability compensation without the current dollar-for-dollar 

offset needs to be resolved as well as the need to improve Survivor’s Benefits. 

The American Legion will continue to argue that simple, equitable justice is one 

reason to authorize and fund concurrent receipt. Military retirees are the only Federal employees who must offset their retired pay with VA disability compensation. 

Also, proponents claim that the unique nature of military service, given their sacrifices and hardships, should merit these retirees receiving both military retired pay 

and VA disability compensation. For the past decade, many veterans’ programs have 

been pared to the bone in the name of balancing the budget. Now, military retirees 

must pay premiums to TRICARE for full health care coverage for themselves and 

their immediate family members. Many veterans’ advocates feel it is time that retirees receive compensation for these fiscal sacrifices. 

Often, VA service-connected disability compensation is awarded for disabilities 

that cannot be equated with disabilities incurred in civilian life. Military service 

rendered in defense and on behalf of the Nation deserves special consideration when 

determining policy toward such matters as benefits offsets. The American Legion believes it is a moral and ethical responsibility to award disability compensation to 

the needs of disabled veterans, given the sacrifices and hardships they incurred during honorable military service to the Nation. We are also aware that many of the 

disabled retirees receive retirement pay that is beneath established poverty levels 

and by definition in Title 38 are ‘‘indigent’’ veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, The American Legion and the armed forces owe you and this Subcommittee a debt of gratitude for your strong support of military quality of life 

issues. Nevertheless, your assistance is needed now more than ever. Positive congressional action is needed in this budget to overcome old and new threats to retaining the finest military in the world. Service members and their families continue 

to endure physical risks to their well being and livelihood, substandard living conditions, and forfeiture of personal freedoms that most Americans would find unacceptable. Worldwide deployments have increased significantly and the Nation is at war: 

a smaller armed forces has operated under a higher operational tempo with longer 

work hours, greater dangers, and increased family separations. 

Throughout the drawdown years, military members have been called upon to set 

the example for the nation by accepting personal financial sacrifices. Their pay 

raises have been capped for years, and their health care system has been overhauled to cut costs, leaving military families with lessened access to proper health 

care. The American Legion congratulates the Congress for their quality-of-life enhancements. The system, however, is in dire need of continued improvement. 

Now is the time to look to the force recruiting and retention needs. Positive congressional action is needed to overcome past years of negative career messages and 

to address the following quality of life features: 

—Closing the Military Pay Gap with the Private Sector.—The previous Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that the area of greatest need for additional 

defense spending is ‘‘taking care of our most important resource, the uniformed 

members of the armed forces.’’ To meet this need, he enjoined Members of Congress to ‘‘close the substantial gap between what we pay our men and women 

in uniform and what their civilian counterparts with similar skills, training and 

education are earning.’’ But 11 pay caps in the past 15 years took its toll and 

military pay continues to lag behind the private sector at about 7.5 percent. 

With U.S. troops battling terrorism in the Persian Gulf, The American Legion 

supports the proposed 4.1 percent military pay raise, without a 2 percent reduction. 
575

—Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).—For those who must live off base, the provision of the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is intended to help with their 

out-of-pocket housing expenses. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld set a goal of entirely eliminating average out-of-pocket housing expenses. This committee has 

taken strong steps in recent times to provide funding to move toward lowering 

such expenses. Please continue to work to close the gap between BAH and the 

members’ average housing costs. —Commissaries.—Several years ago, DOD had considered closing some 37 com- missary stores worldwide and reducing operating hours in order to resolve a $48 

million shortfall in the Defense Commissary Agency. Such an effort to reduce 

or dismantle the integrity of the military commissary system would be seen as 

a serious breach of faith with a benefit system that serves as a mainstay for 

the active and reserve components, military retirees, 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans, and others. The American Legion urges the Congress 

to preserve full federal subsidizing of the military commissary system and to 

retain this vital non-pay compensation benefit. Furthermore, The American Legion fully supports the full-time usage of commissary stores by members of the 

Reserve Components, that the system not be privatized, and that DECA manpower levels not be further reduced. 

RESERVE COMPONENTS

The advent of smaller active duty forces reinforces the need to retain combatready National Guard and Reserve forces that are completely integrated into the 

Total Force. The readiness of National Guard and Reserve combat units to deploy 

in the War on Terrorism will also cost in terms of human lives unless Congress is 

completely willing to pay the price for their readiness. With only ten active Army 

divisions in its inventory, America needs to retain the eight National Guard divisions, in heightened readiness postures, as its life insurance policy. 

Reliance on National Guard and Reserve forces has risen 13-fold over the pre-Gulf 

War era. This trend continues even though both reserve and active forces have been 

cut back 30 percent and about 25 percent, respectively, from their Cold War highs. 

Since the terrorist attacks on the American homeland on Sept. 11, more than 

200,000 Guard and Reserve troops have been activated to support homeland defense 

and overseas operations in the War on Terror. 

National Guard and Reserve service today involves a challenging balancing act 

between civilian employment, family responsibilities, and military service. Increasingly, National Guard and Reserve families encounter stressful situations involving 

healthcare, economic obligations, and employer uncertainty. Benefit issues of particular concern in this arena include: 

—Review and upgrade the Reserve compensation and retirement system without 

creating disproportional incentives that could undermine active force retention; 

—Restore the tax deductibility of non-reimbursable expenses directly related to 

Guard and Reserve training; 

—Streamline the reserve duty status system without compromising the value of 

the compensation package; 

—Improve Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits proportional to the active 

duty program; 

—Allow reservists activated for 12 months or longer to enroll in the active duty 

MGIB: 

—Allow them to accrue for retirement purposes all points earned annually; and 

—Permit Guardsmen unlimited access to military commissaries. 

Growing concerns are that the Reserve Components, especially the National 

Guard, should not be overused in contingency or peacekeeping operations, as these 

servicemembers have regular civilian jobs and families as well. The National Guard 

also has state missions in their home states. The American Legion understands that 

retention rates and, therefore, strength levels are falling in those states which have 

deployed or scheduled to deploy Guardsmen overseas. Governors of these states continue to express concern that state missions will not be accomplished. The National 

Guard from 44 states have had a presence in 35 foreign countries. 

The American Legion is also supportive of all proposed quality-of-life initiatives 

that serve to improve living and working conditions of members of the Reserve components and their families. 

HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY BENEFICIARIES

Today, there are approximately 8.2 million beneficiaries in the military health 

care program. Military retirees and their dependents make up nearly one half of 

that number, and over 500,000 retirees have lost or will lose their access to military 
576

health care as a result of the closure of approximately 40 percent of military treatment facilities. Access to affordable health care, regardless of age, status or location, 

has represented a major concern among military retirees. 

The creation of TRICARE for Life and a TRICARE Senior Pharmacy benefit in 

Public Law 106–398 was an historic triumph for Congress and those 1.3 million 

Medicare-eligible military retirees and dependents. While TRICARE for Life came 

with its own funding stream in fiscal year 2002, authorization must be budgeted to 

provide for the program for fiscal year 2004. The American Legion recommends that 

you continue to improve this important program by providing the necessary funding. 

The American Legion also applauds your work last year in eliminating TRICARE 

co-payments for active duty family members. We also salute the Department of Defense for reducing active duty time for Reservists to 30 days for their families to 

be eligible for TRICARE. 

Although Congress enacted legislation to restore TRICARE to Medicare-eligible 

beneficiaries as a wraparound to Medicare (TRICARE for Life) and to improve 

TRICARE for active duty families, further improvements are still needed, especially 

for retired beneficiaries under age 65. TRICARE must be a consistent, reliable and 

equitable health care benefit for all uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless of 

age or geography. 

The fiscal year 2001 NDAA eliminated copays for active duty family members enrolled in Prime, and enacted TRICARE For Life (TFL) and TRICARE Senior Pharmacy (TSRx) for Medicare-eligibles. With TFL implementation complete Congress 

and DOD must turn their attention to improving serious shortcomings in healthcare 

benefits for TRICARE beneficiaries under the age of 65. 

—Low reimbursement rates are causing providers to refuse any TRICARE patients or reduce the number of TRICARE patients they will treat, limiting beneficiary access and choice. Solution: Increase statutory (Medicare) payment rates; 

require use of existing authority to raise TRICARE rates where necessary to ensure sufficient numbers of participating providers. 

—TRICARE is cumbersome to use and causes administrative hassles for providers 

and beneficiaries attempting to obtain authorization, expedite claim repayment, 

or move between regions. Solution: Improve TRICARE Prime enrollment procedures, portability, and beneficiary education. Decrease administrative burdens, 

eliminate non-availability statement requirements, streamline claims processing 

requirements with greater reliance on electronic claims technology, and eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements. Require TRICARE contractors to assist beneficiaries in finding TRICARE Standard providers. 

—Institute ‘‘benefits plus benefits’’ reimbursement methodology. TFL pays beneficiary expenses not covered by Medicare (‘‘benefits plus benefits’’). For 

TRICARE Standard beneficiaries with other health insurance (OHI), TRICARE 

seldom pays expenses not covered by other insurance (‘‘benefits less benefits’’). 

Solution: Restore TRICARE reimbursement policy to pay up to what TRICARE 

would have paid had there been no OHI coverage (as was the policy before 

1993). 

Since the commencement of the first class of graduates of the Uniformed Services 

University of Health Sciences (USUHS) in 1980, over 3,200 physicians continue to 

pursue careers as physicians in the Army, Navy, Air Force and the U.S. Public 

Health Service each year. The USUHS education process emphasizes primary care 

medicine and also provides special training in military medicine and combat stress 

courses not found in civilian medical school curricula. USUHS graduates have also 

proven themselves willing to accept operational overseas assignments often viewed 

as less than desirable by civilian medical school graduates. 

Both the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Appropriations Act and the National 

Defense Authorization Act prohibit the closure of USUHS. The Defense Authorization Act also provided a five year prohibition on reducing the staffing levels of 

USUHS below the levels established as of October 1, 1993. The American Legion 

urges the Congress to resist any efforts to circumvent the law to downscale or close 

the USUHS. The American Legion is convinced that the USUHS is an economical 

source of career medical leaders who serve this nation during peace and war and 

provide military health care consistency and stability. The American Legion urges 

the Congress to retain and fully fund USUHS as a continued source of career military physicians for the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Public Health Service. The 

American Legion also supports the construction of an Academic Center to accommodate the USUHS Graduate School of Nursing. 
577

OTHER MILITARY RETIREE ISSUES

The American Legion believes strongly that quality-of-life issues for retired military members and families also are important to sustaining military readiness over 

the long term. If the Government allows retired members’ quality-of-life to erode 

over time, or if the retirement promises that convinced them to serve are not kept, 

the retention rate in the current active-duty force will undoubtedly be affected. The 

old adage that you enlist a recruit, but you reenlist a family is truer today than 

ever as more career-oriented servicemembers are married or have dependents. 

Accordingly, The American Legion believes Congress and the Administration must 

place high priority on ensuring that these long-standing commitments are honored: —VA Compensation Offset to Military Retired Pay (Retired Pay Restoration).—

Under current law, a military retiree with compensable VA disabilities cannot 

receive full military retirement pay and VA disability compensation. The military retiree’s retirement pay is offset (dollar-for-dollar) by the amount of VA disability compensation awarded. We would like to thank the committee for providing funding for the authorized special compensation programs; however, The 

American Legion supports restoration of retired pay (concurrent receipt) for all 

disabled military retirees. The purposes of these two compensation systems are 

fundamentally different. Longevity retirement pay is designed primarily as a 

force management tool to attract large numbers of high quality members to 

serve for at least 20 years. A veteran’s disability compensation is paid for an 

injury or disease incurred or aggravated during military service. Monetary benefits are related to the residual effects of the injury or disease or for the physical or mental pain and suffering and subsequently reduced employment and 

earnings potential. The American Legion also urges that disabled retired Reservists’ and those retired under the early retirement authority be eligible for 

the authorized Special Compensation programs. What better time to authorize 

and fund concurrent receipt than during this period of War? 

—Social Security Offsets to the Survivors’ Benefits Plan (SBP).—The American Legion supports amending Public Law 99–145 to eliminate the provision that calls 

for the automatic offset at age 62 of the military SBP with Social Security benefits for military survivors. Military retirees pay into both SBP and Social Security, and their survivors pay income taxes on both. The American Legion believes that military survivors should be entitled to receipt of full Social Security 

benefits which they have earned in their own right. It is also strongly recommended that any SBP premium increases be assessed on the effective date, 

or subsequent to, increases in cost of living adjustments and certainly not before 

the increase in SBP as has been done previously. In order to see some increases 

in SBP benefits, The American Legion would support a gradual improvement 

of survivor benefits from 35 percent to 55 percent over the next five-year period. 

The American Legion also supports initiatives to make the military survivors’ 

benefits plan more attractive. Currently, about 75 percent of officers and 55 percent of enlisted personnel are enrolled in the Plan. 

—Reducing the Retired Reservist age from 60 to 55.—The American Legion believes that retirement pay should be paid sooner as many of these retirees will 

not live to their 60th birthday. Similarly, these retirees and their dependents 

should be eligible for TRICARE health care and other military privileges when 

they turn 55. 

—Military Retired Pay COLAs.—Servicemembers, current and future, need the 

leadership of this Subcommittee to ensure Congress remains sensitive to longstanding contracts made with generations of career military personnel. A major 

difficulty is the tendency of some to portray all so-called ‘‘entitlement’’ programs, including military retirement, as a gratuitous gift from the taxpayer. In 

truth, military retired pay is earned deferred compensation for accepting the 

unique demands and sacrifices of decades of military service. The military retirement system is among the most important military career incentives. The 

American Legion urgently recommends that the Subcommittee oppose any 

changes to the military retirement system, whether prospective or retroactive, 

that would undermine readiness or violate contracts made with military retirees. 

—The SBP Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Offset for 

Survivors.—Under current law, the surviving spouse of a retired military member who dies from a service connected disability and was also enrolled in SBP, 

the surviving spouse’s SBP benefits are offset by the amount of DIC (currently 

$948 per month). A pro-rated share of SBP premiums is refunded to the widow 

upon the member’s death in a lump sum, but with no interest. The American 

Legion believes that SBP and DIC payments, like military retirement pay and 
578

disability compensation, are paid for different reasons. SBP is elected and purchased by the retiree based on his/her military career and is intended to provide 

a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a survivor whose sponsor’s death was caused directly by his or her 

uniformed service. In principle, this is a government payment for indemnity or 

damages for causing the premature loss of life of the member, to the extent a 

price can be set on human life. These payments should be additive to any military or federal civilian SBP annuity purchased by the retiree. There are approximately 31,000 military widows/widowers affected by the offset under current law. Congress should repeal this unfair law that penalizes these military 

survivors. 

—Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA).—The American 

Legion urges Congressional support for amending language to Public Law 97–

252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act. This law continues 

to unfairly penalize active-duty armed forces members and military retirees. 

USFSPA has created an even larger class of victims than the former spouses 

it was designed to assist, namely remarried active-duty service members or 

military retirees and their new family. The American Legion believes this law 

should be rescinded in its entirety, but as an absolute minimum, the provision 

for a lifetime annuity to former spouses should be terminated upon their remarriage. This is consistent with most divorce decrees. Based on this current provision, monthly provisions for life are being granted to former spouses regardless 

of marital status, need, or child custodial arrangements. The time has come to 

cease lifetime annuities to former military spouses, should they remarry. Judicial determinations of appropriate support should be determined on a case-bycase basis and not be viewed as an ‘‘entitlement’’ by former spouses as exists 

under current law. The American Legion urges hearings on the USFSPA. 

CONCLUSION

Thirty years ago, America opted for an all-volunteer force to provide for the national security. Inherent in that commitment was a willingness to invest the needed 

resources to bring into existence a competent, professional, and well-equipped military. The fiscal year 2004 defense budget, while recognizing the War on Terrorism 

and Homeland Security, represents another good step in the right direction. 

What more needs to be done? The American Legion recommends, as a minimum, 

that the following steps be implemented: 

—Continued improvements in military pay, equitable increases in Basic Allowances for Housing and Subsistence, military health care, improved educational 

benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, improved access to quality child care, 

impact aid and other quality-of-life issues. The concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA disability compensation needs to be authorized and funded. The Survivors’ Benefit Plan needs to be increased from 35 to 55 percent for 

Social Security-eligible military survivors. 

—Defense spending, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, needs to be maintained at a minimum of 3.5 percent annually, which this budget still does not 

achieve. 

—The end strengths of the active armed forces need to be increased to at least 

1.6 million for the Services. 

—The Quadrennial Defense Review strategy needs to call for enhanced military 

capabilities to include force structures, increased endstrengths and improved 

readiness which are more adequately resourced. 

—Force modernization needs to be realistically funded and not further delayed or 

America is likely to unnecessarily risk many lives in the years ahead. 

—The National Guard and Reserves must be realistically manned, structured, 

equipped and trained; fully deployable; and maintained at high readiness levels 

in order to accomplish their indispensable roles and missions. Their compensation, benefits and employment rights need to be continually improved. 

Although we realize that many of these recommendations must be authorized by 

the Armed Services Committee, The American Legion urges each member of this 

subcommittee to work with their colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and 

secure passage of these much needed improvements to quality of life for all components of our military, included those who have already served. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes The American Legion’s statement.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Duggan. I can assure you that Senator Stevens and I are equally concerned about 

the problems that families of reservists and guardsmen have expe-
579

rienced during the recent war, and we have begun discussions also 

on separation pay and on health programs. We are fully cognizant 

that the men and women who serve us in uniform and stand in 

harm’s way are volunteers. And if we want them to continue signing up and staying in, we better make certain that life can be made 

comparably comfortable to those who are not in uniform. We will 

do our best, sir. 

Mr. DUGGAN. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Dr. Wayne S. Sellman of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Sellman, welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE S. SELLMAN, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, THE HUMAN RESOURCES 

RESEARCH ORGANIZATION; ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 

Dr. SELLMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Steve Sellman. 

I am the Vice President and Director of Public Policy Issues for the 

Human Resources Research Organization, and I am former Director for Accession Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

For the past 40 years I have been involved in military personnel 

management, policymaking, and research. 

You have been a great friend to the military and military psychology and it is a particular pleasure for me to be here before you 

today. I have prepared testimony on behalf of the American Psychological Association, which is a scientific and professional organization of more than 150,000 psychologists and affiliates. 

Although I am sure that you are aware of the large numbers of 

psychologists providing mental health services to military members 

and their families, you may be less familiar with the broad range 

of behavioral research conducted by the psychological scientists 

within the Department of Defense. Military behavioral scientists 

work on issues critical to national defense, particularly with support from the Army Research Institute, the Army Research Laboratory, the Office of Naval Research, and the Air Force Personnel Research Laboratory. 

I would like to address the proposed cuts in the President’s fiscal 

year 2004 human-centered research budget for these laboratories 

within the context of the larger DOD science and technology, or 

S&T, program. The American Psychological Association joins the 

Coalition for National Security Research in urging the subcommittee to provide $11.4 billion for basic and applied defense research across DOD in fiscal year 2004. This figure for the S&T account also is in line with the recommendations of the Defense 

Science Board and the Quadrennial Defense Review. 

In terms of human-centered research, all of the military services 

conduct or sponsor science in the broad categories of personnel, 

training, and leader development, warfighter protection, sustainment and physical performance, and system interfaces and cognitive processing. There also are additional smaller human systems 

research programs funded through the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Marine Corps, and the Special Operations Command. 

Despite substantial appreciation for the critical role played by behavioral science in national security, total spending on this re-
580

search is cut from $405 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003 to 

$377 million in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget. An August 

2000 DOD report requested by your subcommittee in the face of 

continuing erosion of behavioral science funding found that this 

area of military research has historically been extremely productive, with particularly high return on investment and high operational impact. 

The American Psychological Association strongly encourages the 

subcommittee to restore planned fiscal year 2004 cuts to military 

behavioral science programs. There is more detail on the specific 

S&T accounts in my written statement, but the Army, Navy, and 

Air Force are facing cuts in their applied human-centered research 

programs. Psychological scientists address many critical and important issues and problems vital to our national defense with expertise in understanding and optimizing cognitive functioning, 

perceptional awareness, complex decisionmaking, and human-systems interfaces. In these dangerous times, such issues have unfortunately become even more mission-critical, and we urge you to 

support the men and women in uniform by reversing another round 

of psychological research cuts. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE S. SELLMAN

Conflict is, and will remain, essentially a human activity in which man’s virtues 

of judgment, discipline and courage—the moral component of fighting power—will 

endure—It is difficult to imagine military operations that will not ultimately be determined through physical control of people, resources and terrain—by people . . . 

Implicit, is the enduring need for well-trained, well-equipped and adequately rewarded soldiers. New technologies will, however, pose significant challenges to the 

art of soldiering: they will increase the soldier’s influence in the battlespace over far 

greater ranges, and herald radical changes in the conduct, structures, capability and 

ways of command. Information and communication technologies will increase his 

tempo and velocity of operation by enhancing support to his decision-making cycle. 

Systems should be designed to enable the soldier to cope with the considerable stress 

of continuous, 24-hour, high-tempo operations, facilitated by multi-spectral, allweather sensors. However, technology will not substitute human intent or the decision of the commander. There will be a need to harness information-age technologies, 

such that data does not overcome wisdom in the battlespace, and that real leadership—that which makes men fight—will be amplified by new technology. Essential 

will be the need to adapt the selection, development and training of leaders and soldiers to ensure that they possess new skills and aptitudes to face these challenges.—

NATO RTO–TR–8, Land Operations in the Year 2020

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I’m Dr. Steve Sellman, Vice 

President and Director for Public Policy Issues at the Human Resources Research 

Organization, and former Director for Accession Policy in the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense. I am submitting testimony on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA), a scientific and professional organization of more than 150,000 psychologists and affiliates. Although I am sure you are aware of the large number of 

psychologists providing clinical services to our military members here and abroad, 

you may be less familiar with the extraordinary range of research conducted by psychological scientists within the Department of Defense. Our behavioral researchers 

work on issues critical to national defense, particularly with support from the Army 

Research Institute (ARI) and Army Research Laboratory (ARL); the Office of Naval 

Research (ONR); and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). I would like to address the proposed cuts to fiscal year 2004 human-centered research budgets for 

these military laboratories within the context of the larger Department of Defense 

Science and Technology budget. 
581

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET

APA joins the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR), a group of over 

40 scientific associations and universities, in urging the Subcommittee to provide 

DOD with $11.4 billion for 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 level research in fiscal year 2004. This 

figure also is in line with recommendations of the independent Defense Science 

Board and the Quadrennial Defense Review, the latter calling for ‘‘a significant increase in funding for S&T programs to a level of three percent of DOD spending 

per year.’’

As our nation rises to meet the challenges of a new century, including current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as other asymmetric threats and increased demand for homeland defense and infrastructure protection, enhanced 

battlespace awareness and warfighter protection are absolutely critical. Our ability 

to both foresee and immediately adapt to changing security environments will only 

become more vital over the next several decades. Accordingly, DOD must support 

basic Science and Technology (S&T) research on both the near-term readiness and 

modernization needs of the department and on the long-term future needs of the 

warfighter. 

Despite substantial appreciation for the importance of DOD S&T programs on 

Capitol Hill, and within independent defense science organizations such as the Defense Science Board (DSB), total research within DOD has remained essentially flat 

in constant dollars over the last few decades. This poses a very real threat to America’s ability to maintain its competitive edge at a time when we can least afford it. 

APA, CNSR and our colleagues within the science and defense communities recommend funding the DOD Science and Technology Program at a level of at least 

$11.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 in order to maintain global superiority in an everchanging national security environment. 

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH WITHIN THE MILITARY SERVICE LABS

In August, 2000 the Department of Defense met a congressional mandate to develop a Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Behavioral, Cognitive 

and Social Science Research in the Military. The Senate requested this evaluation 

due to concern over the continuing erosion of DOD’s support for research on individual and group performance, leadership, communication, human-machine interfaces, and decision-making. In responding to the Committee’s request, the Department found that ‘‘the requirements for maintaining strong DOD support for behavioral, cognitive and social science research capability are compelling’’ and that ‘‘this 

area of military research has historically been extremely productive’’ with ‘‘particularly high’’ return on investment and ‘‘high operational impact.’’ Given such strong 

DOD support, APA strongly encourages the Committee to restore planned fiscal 

year 2004 cuts to military behavioral science programs and provide funding at fiscal 

year 2003 appropriated levels: 

—Increase the Army’s overall 6.2 budget from $66.034 million to $69.099 million; 

and the Army’s overall 6.3 budget from $63.508 million to $74.634 million in 

fiscal year 2004. 

—Increase the Navy’s overall 6.2 budget from $19.982 million to $24.554 million; 

and the Navy’s overall 6.3 budget from $28.746 million to $36.027 million in fiscal year 2004. 

—Increase the Air Force’s overall 6.2 budget from $51.764 million to $55.249 million; and the Air Force’s overall 6.3 budget from $31.641 million to $35.743 million in fiscal year 2004. 

Within DOD, the majority of behavioral, cognitive and social science is funded 

through the Army Research Institute (ARI) and Army Research Laboratory (ARL); 

the Office of Naval Research (ONR); and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). 

These military service laboratories provide a stable, mission-oriented focus for 

science, conducting and sponsoring basic (6.1), applied/exploratory development (6.2) 

and advanced development (6.3) research. These three levels of research are roughly 

parallel to the military’s need to win a current war (through products in advanced 

development) while concurrently preparing for the next war (with technology ‘‘in the 

works’’) and the war after next (by taking advantage of ideas emerging from basic 

research). 

All of the services fund human-related research in the broad categories of personnel, training and leader development; warfighter protection, sustainment and 

physical performance; and system interfaces and cognitive processing. In addition, 

there are additional, smaller human systems research programs funded through the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA), the Marine Corps, and the Special Operations Command. 
582

Despite substantial appreciation for the critical role played by behavioral, cognitive and social science in national security, however, total spending on this research is cut from $404.984 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003 to $376.753 million in the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget. Whereas basic research (6.1) 

increases by six percent, due to a substantial increase in the Navy’s budget (Air 

Force 6.1 decreases slightly and Army 6.1 increases slightly), all three services propose cuts in their 6.2 and 6.3 funding. Navy 6.2 human-related research decreases 

by over 18 percent, and 6.3 research declines by over 20 percent. Only small 6.2 

and 6.3 investments in behavioral research by OSD, DARPA, Special Operations 

Command, and the Marine Corps increase over fiscal year 2003 levels in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget. 

Behavioral and cognitive research programs eliminated from the mission labs as 

cost-cutting measures are extremely unlikely to be picked up by industry, which focuses on short-term, profit-driven product development. Once the expertise is gone, 

there is absolutely no way to ‘‘catch up’’ when defense mission needs for critical 

human-oriented research develop. As DOD noted in its own Report to the Senate 

Appropriations Committee:

‘‘Military knowledge needs are not sufficiently like the needs of the private sector 

that retooling behavioral, cognitive and social science research carried out for other 

purposes can be expected to substitute for service-supported research, development, 

testing, and evaluation . . . our choice, therefore, is between paying for it ourselves 

and not having it.’’

The following are brief descriptions of critical behavioral research funded by the 

military research laboratories. 

ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (ARI) AND

ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY (ARL)

ARI works to build the ultimate smart weapon: the American soldier. ARI was 

established to conduct personnel and behavioral research on such topics as minority 

and general recruitment; personnel testing and evaluation; training and retraining; 

and attrition. ARI is the focal point and principal source of expertise for all the military services in leadership research, an area especially critical to the success of the 

military as future war-fighting and peace-keeping missions demand more rapid adaptation to changing conditions, more skill diversity in units, increased informationprocessing from multiple sources, and increased interaction with semi-autonomous 

systems. Behavioral scientists within ARI are working to help the armed forces better identify, nurture and train leaders. One effort underway is designed to help the 

Army identify those soldiers who will be most successful meeting 21st century noncommissioned officer job demands, thus strengthening the backbone of the service—

the NCO corps. 

Another line of research at ARI focuses on optimizing cognitive readiness under 

combat conditions, by developing methods to predict and mitigate the effects of 

stressors (such as information load and uncertainty, workload, social isolation, fatigue, and danger) on performance. As the Army moves towards its goal of becoming 

the Objective Force (or the Army of the future: lighter, faster and more mobile), psychological researchers will play a vital role in helping maximize soldier performance 

through an understanding of cognitive, perceptual and social factors. 

ARL’s Human Research & Engineering Directorate sponsors basic and applied research in the area of human factors, with the goal of optimizing soldiers’ interactions with Army systems. Specific behavioral research projects focus on the development of intelligent decision aids, control/display/workstation design, simulation 

and human modeling, and human control of automated systems. 

OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH (ONR)

The Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division (CNS) of ONR supports research to 

increase the understanding of complex cognitive skills in humans; aid in the development and improvement of machine vision; improve human factors engineering in 

new technologies; and advance the design of robotics systems. An example of CNSsupported research is the division’s long-term investment in artificial intelligence research. This research has led to many useful products, including software that enables the use of ‘‘embedded training.’’ Many of the Navy’s operational tasks, such 

as recognizing and responding to threats, require complex interactions with sophisticated, computer-based systems. Embedded training allows shipboard personnel to 

develop and refine critical skills by practicing simulated exercises on their own 

workstations. Once developed, embedded training software can be loaded onto specified computer systems and delivered wherever and however it is needed. 
583

AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY (AFRL)

Within AFRL, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) behavioral scientists are responsible for basic research on manpower, personnel, training and 

crew technology. The AFRL Human Effectiveness Directorate is responsible for more 

applied research relevant to an enormous number of acknowledged Air Force mission needs ranging from weapons design, to improvements in simulator technology, 

to improving crew survivability in combat, to faster, more powerful and less expensive training regimens. 

As a result of previous cuts to the Air Force behavioral research budget, the 

world’s premier organization devoted to personnel selection and classification (formerly housed at Brooks Air Force Base) no longer exists. This has a direct, negative 

impact on the Air Force’s and other services’ ability to efficiently identify and assign 

personnel (especially pilots). Similarly, reductions in support for applied research in 

human factors have resulted in an inability to fully enhance human factors modeling capabilities, which are essential for determining human-system requirements 

early in system concept development, when the most impact can be made in terms 

of manpower and cost savings. For example, although engineers know how to build 

cockpit display systems and night goggles so that they are structurally sound, psychologists know how to design them so that people can use them safely and effectively. 

SUMMARY

On behalf of APA, I would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity 

to present testimony before the Subcommittee. Clearly, psychological scientists address a broad range of important issues and problems vital to our national security, 

with expertise in understanding and optimizing cognitive functioning, perceptual 

awareness, complex decision-making, stress resilience, and human-systems interactions. We urge you to support the men and women on the front lines by reversing 

another round of cuts to the human-oriented research within the military laboratories. 

Below is suggested appropriations report language which would encourage the Department of Defense to fully fund its behavioral research programs within the military laboratories: 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Behavioral Research in the Military Service Laboratories.—The Committee recognizes that psychological scientists address a broad range of important issues and 

problems vital to our national security through the military research laboratories: 

the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Army Research Institute and Army 

Research Laboratory, and the Office of Naval Research. Given the increasingly complex demands on our military personnel, psychological research on leadership, decision-making under stress, cognitive readiness, training, and human-technology 

interactions have become even more mission-critical, and the Committee strongly 

encourages the service laboratories to reverse cuts made to their behavioral research 

programs. A continued decline in support for human-centered research is not acceptable at a time when there will be more, rather than fewer, demands on military 

personnel, including more rapid adaptation to changing conditions, more skill diversity in units, increased information-processing from multiple sources, and increased 

interaction with semi-autonomous systems.

Senator INOUYE. Doctor, as you well know, I have an in-house 

adviser on my staff and he keeps me apprised of all the issues involved in your association. I can assure you of our support. 

Dr. SELLMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Rear Admiral Retired Richard D. West, 

President of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education. Admiral West. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL RICHARD D. WEST, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED), PRESIDENT, CONSORTIUM FOR OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 

Admiral WEST. Thank you, Senator Inouye. Good morning, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. Good morning. 
584

Admiral WEST. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you and your committee this morning. I would like to talk about 

basic research within the United States Navy. As you know, I am 

Rear Admiral Dick West, President of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, commonly referred to as CORE. 

I appear on behalf of 71 member institutions, including Penn State, 

Texas A&M, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institute, the Universities of Alaska, Hawaii, Southern Mississippi, New Hampshire, Texas, South Carolina, and California. These institutions and other members represent the nucleus 

of American academic oceanographic research. 

I joined CORE in August of 2002 after retiring from the United 

States (U.S.) Navy as oceanographer and navigator in the Navy. 

Prior to this position, I was deputy director for the Ballistic Missile 

Defense Organization. As an oceanographer, I was a primary customer for the products from our Nation’s oceanographic institutions. 

I come before you this morning to express concern about a specific direction within the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Since its 

founding in 1946, ONR has been one of the Nation’s leading supporters of high-risk, cutting-edge basic research. The Office has 

supported the research of 50 Nobel laureates. It has participated 

in breakthrough discoveries in areas such as lasers, precision 

timekeeping, and molecular biology. It has served the Navy and all 

of DOD well. 

When we look at the last 50 years, we see a history of courageous 

investment and bold discoveries that have helped end the Cold 

War. However, when we look to the coming decades the future of 

naval research does not appear so bright. Most of the science that 

underlies today’s Navy was high risk and cutting edge when conducted decades ago. None of the researchers then could have imagined how their research would have created the impressive technological edge we just had in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Today we are concerned that the ONR may be veering off course 

from its traditional support for high-risk, long-term basic research. 

We are concerned that the 6.1 account that is supposed to be for 

discovery-oriented basic research is being migrated to short-term, 

product-driven applied research. We firmly believe that applied research and advanced technology development are crucial parts of 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), but it is 

imperative there be basic research if we expect to have the scientific underpinnings for pioneering innovations in the 6.23 and 

more applied programs. 

It is because of the importance of basic science in the capabilities 

of the Navy After Next that we are concerned by ONR’s statements 

that the Navy’s basic research program will be ‘‘integrated with 

more applied S&T to promote transitions of discoveries.’’ This 

translates to a ‘‘show me what you can do for me now’’ and we fear 

that this message is going to the program managers and scientists. 

A focus on integrating discovery-oriented basic research with 

more application-driven research will have a negative influence by 

creating a risk-adverse atmosphere in both the universities and 

with the program management. Researchers are being discouraged 

from pursuing bold and innovative ideas, ideas that could take 
585

years to complete but provide those technical breakthroughs in the 

future, that one technology, that one technology answer, what we 

will need in the future. 

Instead, they are focusing on research that will result in products now. While the results will surely be high quality, they are 

unlikely to be the type of research that will result in breakthroughs 

in understanding and technology. 

We believe that a message needs to be sent to address research 

creep in the 6.1 account. While we believe greater investment in 

Navy S&T accounts is absolutely necessary, all the funding in the 

world may not lead to new discoveries if the 6.1 account does not 

address basic research. 

Adding congressional attention to the discussion of Navy basic 

research should serve as a reinforcement to ONR to renew its commitment to the regime of research that has served this country so 

well. Working together, Congress and the research community 

must communicate to the Secretary, the Chief of Naval Operations 

(CNO), and the Commandant that basic research is essential to the 

fleet and is a congressional priority. 

If ONR is not given the ability and direction to pursue an aggressive regime of high-risk, cutting-edge basic research now, we could 

be shortchanging our fighting forces in the future. 

Thank you for this opportunity to bring this to your attention, 

sir. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD WEST

Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and Members of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning and for the strong support you and your 

committee have shown for basic research within the United States Navy. 

I am Rear Admiral Dick West, President of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, commonly referred to as CORE. I appear on behalf of our 71 

member institutions, including Penn State, Texas A&M, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography and the Universities of Alaska, Hawaii, Southern Mississippi, New 

Hampshire, Texas, South Carolina, and California at San Diego. These institutions 

and our other members represent the nucleus of American academic oceanographic 

research. 

I joined CORE in August 2002 after retiring from the U.S. Navy as Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy. As you know, the Oceanographer provides oceanographic, meteorological, geospatial information and navigation support to the fleet. 

Prior to serving as Oceanographer, I was the Deputy Director for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Other shore assignments included Director, Surface Combat Systems Division on the CNO’s Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

CINCSOUTH, and Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force. From 

1992–1993, as Commanding Officer of the Surface Warfare Officers School, I directed a large, advanced studies academic institution, providing a continuum of professional education and training to prepare naval officers to serve at sea. I served 

in Vietnam with the riverine forces and commanded ships during hostilities in the 

Arabian Gulf. As Oceanographer, I was the primary customer for the products from 

our nation’s oceanographic institutions. 

Since its founding in 1946, the Office of Naval Research has been one of the nation’s leading supporters of high-risk cutting edge basic research. The Office has 

supported the research of fifty Nobel laureates. It has participated in breakthrough 

discoveries in areas such as lasers, precision timekeeping, and molecular biology. 

Without question the past five decades have seen the ONR fulfill its mission, ‘‘To 

plan, foster and encourage scientific research in recognition of its paramount importance as related to the maintenance of future naval power, forced entry capability, 

and the preservation of national security.’’

America’s oceanographers were and continue to be active partners with the Office 

of Naval Research in providing today’s and tomorrow’s sailors and marines with the 
586

tools necessary to be the finest warfighters in the world. When we look back at the 

past fifty years, we see a history of courageous investment and bold discoveries that 

paved the path for the end of the Cold War. However, when we look to the coming 

decades, the picture does not seem so bright. 

Bold, high-risk, cutting-edge basic research has been a crucial component of the 

Navy’s battlespace superiority for decades. For example, basic research into packet 

switching laid the foundation for what we know today as the Internet and has been 

the fundamental science behind the technology underlying net-centric warfare, an 

increasingly important asset to the Navy and Marine Corps. 

In the Iraqi theatre, ship-launched precision munitions played a crucial role in defeating Iraqi forces while limiting civilian causalities. Navy-supported basic research 

in precision timekeeping enabled the development of the highly accurate Global Positioning System (GPS). GPS is the backbone of the guidance system that allows 

commanders to launch and deliver fire-power to targets with previously unimaginable accuracy and lethality. Without the basic research decades ago into the fundamental physics necessary to develop the atomic clocks that are at the backbone of 

the GPS system, the Navy’s ability to accurately strike targets would be severely 

compromised. 

As you may know, basic research supported by the Navy led to the development 

of the laser. This discovery led directly to the advent of small, easily handled lasers 

that allow soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to accurately locate targets and provide coordinates for sailors and airmen to deliver munitions to targets. 

The research discussed above was high-risk and cutting edge when it was conducted decades ago. None of the researchers then could have imagined its application or importance in conflicts today. While such research was not focused on specific applications, without it and without the support that made it possible, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines would not have had the technological edge they 

enjoyed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Today, we are concerned that ONR may be veering off course in a direction that 

departs from its traditional aggressive support for high-risk basic research. This 

concern is not so much with the level of funding in the 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 accounts. 

Rather, it reflects a growing tendency to commit funding in the 6.1 account that is 

supposed to be used for discovery-oriented basic research to short-term applied research that is product-driven. Let me be clear, we firmly believe that applied research and advanced technology development are crucial parts of RDT&E, but it is 

imperative that there be robust basic research, if we expect to have the scientific 

underpinnings for pioneering innovations in the 6.2 and more applied programs. 

It is because of the importance of basic science in the capabilities of the Navy 

After Next, that we are concerned by ONR statements that the Navy’s basic research program will be ‘‘integrated with more applied S&T to promote transitions 

of discoveries.’’ Unfortunately, this statement could be interpreted as code for ‘‘show 

me what you’ve done for me lately’’ and program managers and scientists seem to 

be getting the message loud and clear. 

The focus on integration of discovery-oriented basic research with more application driven research could have a negative impact on naval basic research by creating a risk-averse atmosphere in both the universities and with program management and officers within the Navy. However, the greater risk is that researchers 

become discouraged from pursuing bold and innovative ideas and lines of research 

that could take years to complete and have practical application decades from now. 

Instead, researchers focus on pursuing research that they know will result in products. While the results will surely be high quality, they are unlikely to be the type 

of research that will result in breakthroughs in understanding. 

High-risk research offers the promise of transformational discoveries but it is 

prone to failure before it yields pioneering discoveries. On the other hand, it is only 

by pushing the boundaries, constantly taking risks, and looking for bold hypothesis 

that scientists foster the discoveries that may lead to the next laser, tomorrow’s 

global positioning system, or the net-centric warfare of 2030. 

CORE was particularly pleased to note your inclusion of language in the fiscal 

year 2003 Defense Appropriations report expressing discouragement at the low levels of Navy S&T investment and encouraging the Navy to resume its previously robust support for S&T. We believe that a similar message needs to be sent to address 

‘‘research-creep’’ in the 6.1 account. 

We are encouraging you today to provide clear instruction to the leadership of the 

Office of Naval Research to reaffirm the Navy’s commitment to high-risk, cuttingedge, basic research. The past successes of such basic research provide a clear justification for renewing this investment in the Navy’s future. 

We believe that this is a commitment that ONR can and should be willing to 

make. Often such issues as the character of research supported by ONR are eclipsed 
587

by more direct concerns like funding availability. While we believe greater investment in the Navy S&T accounts is absolutely necessary, all the funding in the world 

may not lead to new discoveries if the research funding in the 6.1 account is spent 

on applied research. Adding Congressional attention to the discussion of naval basic 

research should serve as a ‘‘wake-up’’ call for ONR and return it to the regime of 

research that has served America’s sailors and marines well for decades. 

We ask you to recognize and impress a message upon the Navy and Marine Corps 

leadership. While the basic research ONR supports today will not deliver today’s admirals and generals a product they can deploy, it may afford the lieutenants and 

captains under their command profoundly more robust weapons systems when they 

are combat commanders. It is because of an aggressive regime of basic research thirty years ago, when today’s military leaders were being commissioned, that an effective and diverse suite of combat systems is available to prosecute their mission now. 

Working together, Congress and the research community must communicate to the 

Secretary, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant, that basic research 

is essential to the fleet and is a Congressional priority. If ONR is not given the ability and direction to pursue an aggressive regime of high-risk cutting edge basic research now, the nation could be shortchanging our sons and daughters, the sailors 

and marines of the Navy After Next. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to bring these important issues to your attention. I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral West, we concur with you sir, because 

we believe that the proper underpinnings for research is basic research. And we believe the recent operation in Iraq demonstrated 

that, and we hope to convince our colleagues across the river that 

we should continue that. 

Thank you very much. 

Admiral WEST. We appreciate your support, sir. We are here to 

help. 

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the chief executive officer 

of Sanaria, Incorporated, Dr. Stephen Hoffman, representing the 

American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Dr. Hoffman. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN HOFFMAN, M.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SANARIA, INC.; ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY 

FOR TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE 

Dr. HOFFMAN. Good morning, Mr. Ranking Member. I am Stephen Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Sanaria, a company working to develop a malaria vaccine. I am a retired Captain 

in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps and past president of the American 

Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. I am here this morning 

to present testimony on the Society’s behalf. The American Society 

of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene is a professional society of 3,500 

researchers and practitioners——

Senator INOUYE. Doctor, can you press that button? 

Dr. HOFFMAN. The American Society of Tropical Medicine and 

Hygiene is a professional society of 3,500 researchers and practitioners, dedicated to the prevention and treatment of infectious and 

tropical diseases. The collective experience of our members is in the 

areas of tropical infectious diseases, basic science, medicine, insect 

vector control, epidemiology, vaccinology, public health, biodefense, 

and bioterrorism defense. 

I am here today to encourage your support for infectious disease 

research at the Department of Defense. The Military Infectious 

Diseases Research Program has done an excellent job in its mission 

to develop new products to protect and maintain the health of our 

troops wherever they are deployed. Working with other U.S. public 

health agencies, DOD scientists at the U.S. Army Medical Research 
588

Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), the Walter Reed 

Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), and the Naval Medical Research Center, the latter two working in the Inouye Building at 

Forest Glen very effectively, and DOD medical laboratories abroad 

are helping us to better understand, diagnose, and treat infectious 

and tropical diseases. These include viral diseases such as West 

Nile Virus, bacterial diseases such as tuberculosis, and parasitic 

diseases such as malaria. 

Infectious diseases are the second leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for over 13 million deaths. Twenty well-known 

diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, and Rift Valley 

Fever, have reemerged or spread geographically since 1973, often 

in more virulent and drug-resistant forms. Over 30 previously unknown disease agents have been identified in this period for which 

therapy is not optimal or does not exist at all, including Human 

Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Ebola, Marburg, and the most recent threat, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS. 

These naturally occurring diseases can strike our troops at any 

time and they are potential threats for biological warfare or bioterror attack. Historically, tropical diseases such as these have impaired military operations. For example, malaria had a large impact on U.S. service personnel serving in Southeast Asia. In some 

regions up to 60 percent of troops were reported to be infected. 

In the most recent conflict, suspicions of Iraqi supplies of anthrax, botulism, and plague led to fear of biological attacks. The 

successful administration of anthrax vaccine reduced the risk to 

American troops, but many suspected biological weapons have no 

proven treatments and further research is necessary to protect our 

military personnel. 

Military scientists have made significant accomplishments in the 

fight against these deadly illnesses, which I describe in my written 

statement. Suffice it to say that the Defense Department’s medical 

research programs are second to none and they play a critical role 

in our Nation’s infectious disease, biodefense, and bioterrorism defense efforts. 

The Society believes the military’s overseas laboratories deserve 

special mention. The U.S. Army and Navy currently support medical research labs located in five developing countries—Thailand, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, and Peru—with substations in neighboring countries. These research laboratories serve as critical sentinel stations, alerting military and public health agencies to dangerous infectious disease outbreaks and increasing microbial resistance to drugs. 

The research stations are an important national resource in the 

ongoing battle against emerging disease and should be strengthened with increased funding and increased opportunities for collaborations with civilian scientists. The laboratories provide field 

sites for important research that cannot feasibly be conducted in 

the United States, including basic research, testing of new drugs 

and vaccines, and increasing our understanding of disease and the 

spread of disease. 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene urges you to support the military infectious disease research program and asks for $70 million in fiscal year 2004. 
589

The Society also recommends $35 million for the military HIV research program, which has become a world leader in the study of 

HIV genetic variation and in the development and testing of new 

vaccines. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our borders remain porous to infectious and tropical diseases, including the West Nile virus found 

here in Washington, D.C., and of course most recently Severe Acute 

Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Other diseases still largely confined 

to the troops, like malaria, pose a major threat to our military and 

to American travelers. In all military operations in the last century 

where malaria was transmitted, including the Pacific theater in 

World War II, Vietnam, and Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, 

more casualties were caused by malaria than by combat injuries. 

Further research into infectious diseases can reduce the threat to 

American lives. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present the 

views of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 

Senator STEVENS [presiding]. Thank you, Doctor. This committee 

started the research on HIV at the Department of Defense and will 

continue to support it. I appreciate your courtesy. Thank you. 

Dr. HOFFMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN L. HOFFMAN

The American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) thanks the 

Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

The ASTMH is a professional society of 3,500 researchers and practitioners dedicated to the prevention and treatment of infectious and tropical diseases. The collective experience of our members is in the areas of tropical infectious diseases, basic 

science, medicine, insect vector control, epidemiology, vaccinology, public health, biodefense and bioterrorism defense. 

My name is Stephen L. Hoffman, I am a past president of ASTMH, a retired 

CAPT in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps, and currently the CEO of Sanaria, a company working to develop a malaria vaccine. I am here today to encourage your support for infectious disease research at the Department of Defense. 

IMPACT OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES ON THE MILITARY

Historically, tropical diseases have impaired military operations. For example, 

malaria had a large impact on U.S. service personnel serving in southeast Asia; in 

some regions up to 60 percent of troops were reported to be infected. During Desert 

Storm, potential exposure to the parasitic disease leishmaniasis led to banning 

American military personnel who had served in the Persian Gulf from donating 

blood to prevent infecting the U.S. blood supply. 

In the most recent conflict, suspicions of Iraqi supplies of anthrax, botulism, and 

plague led to fear of biological attacks. The successful research into anthrax vaccine 

reduced the risk to American troops. But, many suspected biological weapons have 

no proven treatments, and further research is necessary to protect our military personnel. 

THE MILITARY INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH PROGRAM

A Presidential Executive Order issued September 30, 1999, entitled ‘‘Improving 

Health Protection of Military Personnel Participating in Particular Military Operations,’’ mandates that ‘‘It is the Policy of the United States Government to provide 

our military personnel with safe and effective vaccines, antidotes, and treatments 

that will negate or minimize the effects of these health threats.’’

Many diseases are endemic to areas of military operations. Accordingly, the primary mission of the DOD’s Military Infectious Diseases Research Program is to develop new products with which to protect and maintain the health of our troops in 

the theater. With worldwide deployment of our military personnel, it is imperative 

to protect them against infectious diseases that occur around the globe. Often our 
590

troops are exposed to new strains of infections that do not exist within our own borders. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) medical research programs are vitally important to maintain the health of our troops wherever they are deployed. Furthermore, 

the programs play a critical role in our nation’s infectious disease, biodefense, and 

bioterrorism defense efforts. Working with other U.S. public health agencies, DOD 

scientists at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases 

(USAMRIID), the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), the U.S. Naval 

Medical Research Center (NMRC), and DOD medical laboratories in Asia, Africa, 

and South America are helping us to better understand, diagnose, and treat infectious diseases, especially tropical infectious diseases. 

The Society believes the military’s overseas laboratories deserve special mention. 

The U.S. Army and the Navy currently support medical research laboratories located in five developing countries, including Thailand, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, and 

Peru. These research laboratories serve as critical sentinel stations alerting military 

and public health agencies to dangerous infectious disease outbreaks and increasing 

microbial resistance to drugs. The research stations are an important national resource in the ongoing battle against emerging disease, and should be strengthened 

with increased funding and increased opportunities for collaborations with civilian 

scientists. The laboratories provide field sites for important research that cannot 

feasibly be performed in the United States, including basic research, testing of new 

drugs and vaccines, increasing our understanding of diseases and their spread. The 

overseas laboratories strengthen collaborations between U.S. and foreign countries, 

expanding our knowledge and understanding of infectious diseases, and providing 

hands-on training for both U.S. and local students and investigators, and for local 

health authorities. 

A MULTITUDE OF DISEASE THREATS

Infectious diseases are caused by a wide variety of viruses, bacteria, and 

parasites. For example, 

—Viruses cause West Nile Virus, dengue fever, yellow fever, Ebola, Marburg, 

HIV/AIDS, and the most recent threat, severe acute respiratory syndrome 

(SARS); 

—Bacteria cause cholera, tuberculosis, anthrax, plague, and botulism; and 

—Parasites cause malaria and leishmaniasis. 

Infectious diseases are the second leading cause of death worldwide, accounting 

for over 13 million deaths (25 percent of all deaths worldwide in 1999). Dozens of 

well-known diseases—including tuberculosis, malaria, and cholera—have reemerged 

or spread geographically since 1973, often in more virulent and drug-resistant 

forms. Over 30 previously unknown disease agents have been identified in this period for which therapy is not optimal or does not exist at all, including HIV, Ebola, 

Nipah virus, Marburg virus, hepatitis C, and the most recent threat, severe acute 

respiratory syndrome (SARS). 

Moreover, many of these same threats are potential agents for a biological warfare 

or bioterror attack. Research on these diseases stands to benefit the civilian population as well as the military. 

A HISTORY OF SUCCESS IN TROPICAL DISEASE RESEARCH

Consistent with the standard set by our nation’s armed forces and the men and 

women who selflessly serve in our military, it should come as no surprise to anyone 

that the Defense Department’s medical research programs are second to none. As 

the leader in tropical and infectious disease research, DOD programs have been 

vital for the successful outcome of military campaigns. It was the DOD research program that developed the first modern drugs for prevention and treatment of malaria, which even today affects 2.4 billion people, or about 40 percent of the world’s 

population, and causes up to 2.7 million deaths each year or about 5 percent of all 

fatalities worldwide. 

Along with Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis, the DOD also developed or supported 

promising vaccines for prevention of Rift Valley Fever, Argentine Hemorrhagic 

Fever, Adenovirus disease in recruits, and plague. Two of these vaccines (plague and 

adenovirus) are no longer licensed in the United States. 

As a result of a significant outbreak in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the first epidemic outside of Africa, Rift Valley Fever vaccine has become of interest to troops 

in the Middle East. Rift Valley fever is a deadly, fever-causing viral disease which 

can lead to hemorrhagic fever or encephalitis. It is commonly associated with mosquito-borne epidemics, and it can also be spread through contaminated meat. 

Spread of this disease to the United States is not out of the question, since mosqui-
591

toes capable of transmitting Rift Valley Fever are found in the United States. Further development of these vaccines is an important national priority. 

Other notable advances accomplished by military experts in tropical diseases 

working with corporate partners include the invention of hepatitis A vaccine at 

WRAIR and its ultimate licensure based on studies conducted at the U.S. Armed 

Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences (AFRIMS) in Bangkok; the discovery 

(during WWII), and later licensure of Japanese encephalitis vaccine, based on studies conducted at AFRIMS and WRAIR; and the discovery and licensure of 

mefloquine and halofantrine for treatment and prevention of malaria. U.S. Navy scientists working at the Naval Medical Research Unit-2 formerly in Taiwan developed 

intravenous therapy for cholera, and created the foundation for oral rehydration 

therapy for cholera and other diarrheal diseases, which has been hailed by some as 

the most important medical discovery of the 20th century. 

A significant accomplishment made by military scientists at WRAIR and their corporate partners is the discovery of the first prototype vaccine shown to be capable 

of preventing falciparum malaria. Novel vaccines, such as a DNA vaccine for malaria, are being developed under the leadership of scientists at the NMRC. Most recently, licensure has been awarded for Malarone, a new drug for prevention and 

treatment of malaria. Another anti-malarial drug, Tafenaquine, is in advanced field 

trials with a corporate partner. With the certainty that resistance to malaria drugs 

quickly appears, these drugs have a useful lifespan of only about ten years. Replacements must be sought continually. 

FURTHER DOD RESEARCH IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES NEEDED

A January, 2000, unclassified report from the CIA’s National Intelligence Council 

concluded that infectious diseases are likely to account for more military hospital 

admissions than battlefield injuries. ‘‘The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its 

Implications for the United States,’’ labeled global infectious disease a threat to U.S. 

national security. The report also assessed the global threat of infectious disease, 

stating ‘‘New and reemerging infectious diseases will pose a rising global health 

threat and will endanger U.S. citizens at home and abroad, threaten U.S. armed 

forces deployed overseas, and exacerbate social and political instability in key countries and regions in which the United States has significant interests.’’ The recent 

SARS epidemic has clearly highlighted the ongoing threat of infectious diseases, and 

it has demonstrated the profound impact these infectious diseases can have, both 

in terms of health, psychology, and a nation’s economy. 

ASTMH REQUEST

ASTMH urges a strong national commitment to the DOD infectious disease research programs to accelerate the discovery of the products that protect American 

military personnel and citizens at home and abroad, and to improve global health 

and economic stability in developing countries. The DOD’s Military Infectious Disease Research Program (MIDRP) has been a highly successful program. ASTMH 

urges the Subcommittee to make DOD infectious disease research a high priority 

in the DOD budget for fiscal year 2004, and to provide $70 million, up from the $42 

million in the current budget, to take full advantage of the high-quality research 

opportunities. 

The Society also hopes this Subcommittee will continue to oversee the DOD’s HIV 

Research Program as new agreements with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) develop. The HIV Research Program, mandated by Congress in 1987 because of the significant risk of active-duty personnel in acquiring 

the HIV virus, is a world leader in the study of HIV genetic variation world-wide 

and in the development and testing of new vaccines to be used against HIV strains 

anywhere in the world. It is critical that the overseas collaborations and agreements 

facilitated by the current leadership from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research be preserved to ensure the continued progress of current and planned clinical 

trials to test the efficacy of new vaccine products. ASTMH recommends $35 million 

for the HIV Research Program, up from approximately $23 million in the current 

budget. 

Finally the Society also supports the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act (S. 871) 

recently introduced by Senator Biden, which authorizes additional resources to increase the number of personnel and expand operations at the DOD overseas laboratories. The Society requests that the Subcommittee fully fund this initiative at the 

$18 million level authorized by the bill, if it is enacted into law during the upcoming 

year. 
592

CONCLUSION

Our borders remain porous to infectious and tropical diseases, including most recently the West Nile Virus, which has been found here in Washington, DC. Other 

diseases still largely confined to the tropics, like malaria, pose a major threat to our 

military and to American travelers. In all military operations in the last century 

where malaria was transmitted, including the Pacific Theater in World War II, Vietnam, and Somalia, more casualties were caused by malaria than by combat injuries. 

And with global warming, the increasing resistance of insect vectors to insecticides, 

and the increasing resistance of the malaria parasite to antimalarial drugs, the 

range of malaria and other vector-borne diseases is expanding. 

The ASTMH urges you to provide strong support for the DOD Military Infectious 

Diseases Research Programs. Our nation’s commitment to this research is critically 

important given the resurgent and emerging infectious disease threats that exist 

today. If we don’t make these important programs a priority, the health of our 

troops, as well as the health of all Americans, will continue to be at risk; we will 

continue to experience increased health costs; and infectious diseases will flourish 

around the world, prolonging economic and political instability. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the American Society of 

Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, and for your consideration of these requests.

Senator STEVENS. The next witness is Karen Peluso, Director of 

the Neurofibromatosis Corporation in New England. Good morning. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN PELUSO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEUROFIBROMATOSIS, INC., NEW ENGLAND 

Ms. PELUSO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the importance of continuing the Army’s neurofibromatosis (NF) research 

program. 

Neurofibromatosis is a genetic tumor disorder that causes tumors 

to grow anywhere on the nerves in or on our body. It can be disfiguring and debilitating. It can cause brain tumors, tumors of the 

spine, hearing loss, blindness, learning disabilities, and cancer. 

I was introduced to neurofibromatosis 20 years ago when my 

daughter was diagnosed with NF, and I was very fortunate at the 

time that my pediatrician was able to recognize the cafe au lait 

birthmarks on her body, which were an outward sign of NF. At 

that time I was very frustrated by the fact that I could not find 

any information. In fact, our pediatrician showed us his medical 

book, which had a very small paragraph which talked about 

neurofibromatosis. And myself with a group of other parents became an advocacy group to try to create awareness and promote research. 

1993 was a turning point in our quest to find a treatment and 

cure for NF when this subcommittee made an appropriation of $8 

million for a 3-year study of neurofibromatosis. After that 3 years, 

the results were astounding. The scientists were so enthusiastic 

about how studying NF would open new information regarding diseases that affect millions of people, like cancer and brain tumors 

and learning disabilities, not just the people who have 

neurofibromatosis. NF was also directly linked to military purposes 

as it can be used in studying wound healing and nerve regeneration after exposure to chemical toxins. 

Congress has given NF research strong partisan support and the 

Army’s NF research has produced dramatic results every year. Now 

clinical trials have begun to use drugs to try to shrink these tumors. 
593

Twenty years later after I learned that my daughter has 

neurofibromatosis, I work in the office of Neurofibromatosis, Incorporated, in New England and every day our phone rings with new 

parents who have received the diagnosis of NF, and they are filled 

with the same fear that I had 20 years ago: How will this affect 

my child? What is going to happen to her? NF is so unpredictable. 

I can give them the good news and the bad news. The good news 

is that, thanks to the Army’s innovative NF research program, 

great strides are being made and we are getting closer to a cure. 

But the bad news is we still do not have a treatment, we still do 

not have a cure, and we have to keep up this fight. 

That is why I am here today to respectfully ask that this committee make a recommendation of $25 million for the NF research 

program through the Army in fiscal 2004. We cannot stop our fight 

now, we have come so far and we are so close. I ask this subcommittee for your continued support and thank you for your past 

support. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN PELUSO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you today to 

present testimony to the Subcommittee on the importance of continued funding for 

Neurofibromatosis (NF), a terrible genetic disorder directly associated with military 

purposes and closely linked to many common ailments widespread among the American population. 

I am Karen Peluso, Executive Director of NF Inc.-New England, which is a participant in a national coalition of NF advocacy groups. I have been actively involved 

in creating awareness of NF and promoting scientific research in this area since 

1982. I am here on behalf of the 100,000 Americans who suffer from NF, including 

my daughter, as well as approximately 150 million Americans who suffer from diseases linked to NF, including some of the most common forms of cancer, congenital 

heart disease, hypertension, and learning disabilities. 

Mr. Chairman, I am requesting increased support, in the amount of $25 million, 

to continue the Army’s highly successful NF Research Program (NFRP). The program’s great success can be seen in the commencement of clinical trials only ten 

years since the discovery of the NF1 gene. Now, with NF in the expensive but critical era of clinical and translational research, scientists closely involved with the 

Army program have stated that the number of high-quality scientific applications 

justify a much larger program. 

What is Neurofibromatosis (NF)? 

NF is a genetic disorder involving the uncontrolled growth of tumors along the 

nervous system which can result in terrible disfigurement, deformity, deafness, 

blindness, brain tumors, cancer, and/or death. NF can also cause other abnormalities such as unsightly benign tumors across the entire body and bone deformities. 

In addition, approximately one-half of children with NF suffer from learning disabilities. It is the most common neurological disorder caused by a single gene. While 

not all NF patients suffer from the most severe symptoms, all NF patients and their 

families live with the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be seriously affected one day because NF is a highly variable and progressive disease. 

Approximately 100,000 Americans have NF. It appears in approximately one in 

every 3,500 births and strikes worldwide, without regard to gender, race or ethnicity. It is estimated that 50 percent of new cases result from a spontaneous mutation in an individual’s genes and 50 percent are inherited. There are two types of 

NF: NF1, which is more common, and NF2, which primarily involves acoustic 

neuromas and other tumors, causing deafness and balance problems. 

Most strikingly, research has shown that NF is closely linked to cancer, brain tumors, learning disabilities, and heart disease, potentially affecting over 150 million 

Americans in this generation alone. 

NF’s Connection to the Military 

NF research is directly linked to military purposes because it is closely linked to 

cancer, brain tumors, learning disabilities, brain tissue degeneration, nervous sys-
594

tem degeneration, deafness, and balance. Because NF manifests itself in the nervous system, this Subcommittee, in past Report language, has stated that Army-supported research on NF includes important investigations into genetic mechanisms 

governing peripheral nerve regeneration after injury from such things as missile 

wounds and chemical toxins. For the same reason, this subcommittee also stated 

that NF may be relevant to understanding Gulf War Syndrome and to gaining a 

better understanding of wound healing. Today, NF research now includes important 

investigations into genetic mechanisms which involve not just the nervous system 

but also other cancers. 

The Army’s Contribution to NF Research 

Recognizing NF’s importance to both the military and to the general population, 

Congress has given the Army’s NF Research Program strong bipartisan support. 

After the initial three-year grants were successfully completed, Congress appropriated continued funding for the Army NF Research Program on an annual basis. 

From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2003, this funding has amounted to $110.3 

million, in addition to the original $8 million appropriation. Between fiscal year 

1996 and fiscal year 2002, 299 proposals were received, of which 85 awards have 

been granted to researchers across the country and another 17 projects have been 

recommended for funding this year. 

The Army program funds innovate, groundbreaking research which would not otherwise have been pursued, and it has produced major advances in NF research, such 

as the development of advanced animal models and clinical trials. The program has 

brought new researchers into the field of NF, as can be seen by the nearly 60 percent increase in applications in the past year along. Unfortunately, despite this increase, the number of awards has remained relatively constant over the past couple 

of years. 

In order to ensure maximum efficiency, the Army collaborates closely with other 

federal agencies that are involved in NF research, such as NIH and the VA. Senior 

program staff from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute 

of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), for example, have sat on the Army’s 

NF Research Program’s Integration Panel which sets the long-term vision and funding strategies for the program. This assures the highest scientific standard for research funding while ensuring that the Army program does not overlap with other 

research activities. 

Because of the enormous advances that have been made as a result of the Army’s 

NF Research Program, research in NF has truly become one of the great success 

stories in the current revolution in molecular genetics, leading one major researcher 

to conclude that more is known about NF genetically than any other disease. Accordingly, many medical researchers believe that NF should serve as a model to 

study all diseases. 

Future Directions 

The NF research community is now ready to embark on projects that translate 

the scientific discoveries from the lab to the clinic. This translational research holds 

incredible promise for NF patients, as well as for patients who suffer from many 

of the diseases linked to NF. This research is costly and will require an increased 

commitment on the federal level. Specifically, increased investment in the following 

areas would continue to advance NF research and are included in the Army’s NF 

research goals: 

—Clinical trials 

—Development of drug and genetic therapies 

—Further development and maintenance of advanced animal models 

—Expansion of biochemical research on the functions of the NF gene and discovery of new targets for drug therapy 

—Natural History Studies and identification of modifier genes—such studies are 

already underway, and they will provide a baseline for testing potential therapies and differentiating among different phenotypes of NF 

—Development of NF Centers, tissue banks, and patient registries. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Request 

Mr. Chairman, the Army’s highly successful NF Research Program has shown 

tangible results and direct military application with broad implications for the general population as well. The program is now poised to fund translational and clinical 

research, which is the most promising yet the most expensive direction that NF research has taken. The program has succeeded in its mission to bring new researchers and new approaches to research into the field. Therefore, increased funding is 

now needed to take advantage of promising avenues of investigation, to continue to 
595

build on the successes of this program, and to fund this translational research thereby continuing the enormous return on the taxpayers’ investment. 

In recent years, the program has granted its first two clinical trial awards but 

had to decline other clinical trial applications that scored in the ‘‘Excellent’’ range 

in the peer review process, solely because of limited funds. This is why scientists 

closely involved with Army program believe that the high quality of the scientific 

applications would justify a much larger program than is currently funded. 

I am here today to respectfully request an appropriation of $25 million in your 

fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for the Army 

Neurofibromatosis Research Program. This is a $5 million increase over the current 

level of funding as a step toward capitalizing on all of the research opportunities 

now available 

Mr. Chairman, in addition to providing a clear military benefit, the DOD’s 

Neurofibromatosis Research Program also provides hope for the 100,000 Americans 

like my daughter who suffer from NF, as well as the tens of millions of Americans 

who suffer from NF’s related diseases such as cancer, learning disabilities, heart 

disease, and brain tumors. Leading researchers now believe that we are on the 

threshold of a treatment and a cure for this terrible disease. With this Subcommittee’s continued support, we will prevail. 

Thank you for your support of this program and I appreciate the opportunity to 

submit this testimony to the Subcommittee.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. PELUSO. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Is there any money anywhere in the budget to 

your knowledge for that? 

Ms. PELUSO. Pardon me? 

Senator STEVENS. Any money anywhere in the budget for that 

NF, do you know? 

Ms. PELUSO. Well, last year there was $20 million. Is there 

money in this year’s budget? I am sorry, I do not know the answer 

to that, sir. Let me ask——

Senator STEVENS. We will find out. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. PELUSO. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Morris, Robert Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. MORRIS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

FORT DES MOINES MEMORIAL PARK, INC. 

Mr. MORRIS. Good morning, Senator Stevens. As you are aware, 

Fort Des Moines is the only military installation that can boast of 

being the launching point for black commissioned officers, female 

commissioned officers, and female enlisted troops into the United 

States Army, and we are very pleased with the record of the descendants of Fort Des Moines in the Iraq War. 

Fort Des Moines has introduced a project called the National 

Education Project (NEP), which is timely since, according to the 

U.S. Census, the majority of Americans will be non-white by year 

2055, as will be our Armed Forces. The project’s mission is to educate America’s youth with an accurate portrayal of black and female contributions to military history and their impact on equality 

in the greater society. This youth education will enhance understanding of, support for, and participation in America’s armed 

forces. 

The NEP offers multiple multicultural, non-sexist academic lessons related to the military command integration that occurred at 

Fort Des Moines. The first U.S. Army officer candidate school 

opened to black Americans in 1917 and to women in 1942 as part 
596

of the First Women’s Army Corps give the national historic site a 

unique place in history. 

The target audience for the academic lessons are K through 12 

who possess a limited knowledge of non-white and female contributions to the military and to the Nation. The curriculum and documentary programs will be distributed nationwide via Internet and 

educational television at no cost to the end users. The program includes a series of evaluation measures to ensure classroom usage 

and effectiveness. 

Our National Education Project, an unprecedented educational 

initiative, is a dynamic response to the diversifying needs of our 

Nation and our Armed Forces. To this end, we request a $2.1 million appropriation to develop and implement the project in the 

long-term interest of our national defense. 

As you are aware, Senator, we have had a number of the real 

pioneers in the military through race involved in our project, including General Hoisington, the first female general, and General 

Colin Powell, who served on our board for 3 years until he became 

Secretary of State. This we feel is a very unique opportunity to do 

something that has never been done. 

As you are aware, we have been here before and our park is almost complete. We will be open next July and we are looking forward to expanding our programming nationally. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. MORRIS

As America’s Greatest Memorial to Black and Female Soldiers, Fort Des Moines 

is the only military installation to hold the distinction of launching black and 

women commissioned officers and female enlisted troops into the United States 

Army. 

Set for dedication in July 2004, our five (5) acre park includes a 20,000 sq. ft. museum, historic Chapel, reflecting pool and monument by noted sculptor Richard 

Hunt. In order to achieve sustained nation-wide outreach, Fort Des Moines has introduced a unique National Education Project (NEP) which is timely since, according to the U.S. Census, the majority of American’s will be non-white by year 2055 

as will our Armed Forces. 

The project’s mission is to educate America’s youth with an accurate portrayal of 

black and female contributions to military history and their impact on equality in 

greater society. This youth education will enhance understanding of, support for and 

participation in America’s Armed Forces. 

The NEP offers multi-cultural, non-sexist academic lessons related to the military 

command integration that occurred at Fort Des Moines. The first U.S. Army officer 

candidate schools open to black Americans in 1917 and to women in 1942 as part 

of the first Women’s Army Corps give our National Historic Site a unique place in 

history. The target audience for the academic lessons are k–12 youth who possess 

a limited knowledge of non-white and female contributions to the military and the 

nation. The curriculum and documentary programs will be distributed nation-wide 

via internet and educational television at no cost to the end users. The program includes a series of evaluation measures to insure classroom usage and effectiveness. 

Our National Education Project, an unprecedented educational initiative, is a dynamic response to the diversifying needs of our nation and our Armed Forces. To 

this end, we request a $2.1 million appropriation to develop and implement this 

great project in the long-term interest of our national defense.

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you. We will do our best. Colin 

Powell did call me about this last year. I will talk to him about it 

again. 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you very much. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much for your testimony. 
597

Next is Robert Washington, co-chairman of the Military Coalition. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WASHINGTON, SR., FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION; CO-CHAIRMAN, THE MILITARY COALITION HEALTH 

CARE COMMITTEE 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Good morning, sir. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. The Military Coalition is most grateful to the 

leadership and strong support of last year’s significant improvements in military pay, housing allowance, and other personnel programs for the Active, Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families. As much as Congress accomplished last year, very significant 

inequities and readiness challenges remain to be addressed. The 

following recommendations are made. 

The coalition strongly recommends restoration and funding of 

service end strength consistent with long-term sustainment of the 

global war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. The coalition urges 

the subcommittee to fund the administration-proposed pay raises 

and restore full pay comparability. The coalition opposes privatization of commissaries and strongly supports full funding of the benefit to sustain the current level of service for all commissary patrons. 

The coalition is asking the subcommittee to use your considerable powers of influence and persuasion with the Ways and Means 

Committee to break the logjam that has stalled military tax relief 

bill legislation sorely needed to eliminate the tax inequities and 

penalty on active duty Guard and Reserve members and their families. 

The coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate sufficient 

funds for DOD to communicate benefit information directly to 

Standard beneficiaries, develop a Standard beneficiary education 

program, assist Standard beneficiaries in finding providers who 

will accept new Tricare Standard patients, including interactive, 

online lists, and other means of communication, and to develop a 

program to enhance Tricare Standard provider recruitment; also to 

appropriate sufficient funds to institute a pilot project at several locations of varying characteristics to test the extent to which raising 

Tricare Standard rates increased the number of providers who are 

willing to accept new Standard patients. 

The coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate sufficient 

funds to make the Tricare medical program available for members 

of the National Guard and Reserve components and their families 

prior to activation on a cost-sharing basis, in order to ensure medical readiness and provide continuity of coverage to members of the 

Selected Reserve. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for the opportunity to present the coalition’s views. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you for coming again. We appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT WASHINGTON, SR. 

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of 

The Military Coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and 
598

veterans’ organizations, we are grateful to the Subcommittee for this opportunity to 

express our views concerning issues affecting the uniformed services community. 

This testimony provides the collective views of the following military and veterans’ 

organizations, which represent approximately 5.5 million current and former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their families and survivors. 

Air Force Association 

Air Force Sergeants Association 

Air Force Women Officers Associated 

AMVETS (American Veterans) 

Army Aviation Association of America 

Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 

Association of the United States Army 

Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association, U.S. Coast Guard 

Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, Inc. 

Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 

Fleet Reserve Association 

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. 

Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America 

Marine Corps League 

Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association 

Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America 

Military Officers Association of America 

Military Order of the Purple Heart 

National Guard Association of the United States 

National Military Family Association 

National Order of Battlefield Commissions 

Naval Enlisted Reserve Association 

Naval Reserve Association 

Navy League of the United States 

Non Commissioned Officers Association 

Reserve Officers Association 

Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces 

The Retired Enlisted Association 

United Armed Forces Association 

United States Army Warrant Officers Association 

United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association 

Veterans of Foreign Wars 

Veterans’ Widows International Network 

The Military Coalition, Inc., does not receive any grants or contracts from the federal government. 

PERSONNEL ISSUES

Mr. Chairman, The Military Coalition (TMC) is most grateful to the leadership 

and members of this Subcommittee for their strong support leading to last year’s 

significant improvements in military pay, housing allowances and other personnel 

programs for active, Guard and Reserve personnel and their families. But as much 

as Congress accomplished last year, very significant inequities and readiness challenges remain to be addressed. 

In testimony today, The Military Coalition offers its collective recommendations 

on what needs to be done to address these important issues and sustain long-term 

personnel readiness. 

ACTIVE FORCE ISSUES

Since the end of the Cold War, the size of the force and real defense spending 

have been cut more than a third. In fact, the defense budget today is just 3.2 percent of this Nation’s Gross National Product—less than half of the share it comprised in 1986. But national leaders also have pursued an increasingly active role 

for America’s forces in guarding the peace in a very-dangerous world. Constant and 

repeated deployments have become a way of life for today’s servicemembers, and the 

stress is taking a significant toll on our men and women in uniform and their families, as well. 

Despite the notable and commendable improvements made during the last several 

years in military compensation and health care programs, retention remains a significant challenge, especially in technical specialties. While some service retention 

statistics are up from previous years’ levels, many believe those numbers are 

skewed by post-9/11 patriotism and by Services’ stop-loss policies. That artificial re-
599

tention bubble is not sustainable for the long term under these conditions, despite 

the reluctance of some to see anything other than rosy scenarios. 

From the servicemembers’ standpoint, the increased personnel tempo necessary to 

meet continued and sustained training and operational requirements has meant 

having to work progressively longer and harder every year. ‘‘Time away from home’’ 

has become a real focal point in the retention equation. Servicemembers have endured years of longer duty days; increased family separations; difficulties in accessing affordable, quality health care; deteriorating military housing; less opportunity 

to use education benefits; and more out-of-pocket expenses with each military relocation. 

The war on terrorism has only heightened already burdensome mission requirements, and operating—and personnel—tempos continue to intensify. Members’ patriotic dedication has been the fabric that sustained this increased workload for 

now, and a temporarily depressed economy also may have deterred some losses. But 

the longer-term outlook is problematic. 

Personnel Strengths and Operations Tempo.—The Coalition has been dismayed 

and deeply disappointed at the Department of Defense’s reluctance to accept Congress efforts to increase Service end strength to meet today’s much-increased operations tempo. The Department’s response is to attack the problem by freeing up resources to realign to core war-fighting skills. While the Department’s transformation 

vision is a great theory, its practical application will take a long time—time we don’t 

have after years of extraordinary optempo that is already exhausting our downsized 

forces. 

The Coalition strongly believes that earlier force reductions went too far and that 

the size of the force should be increased, commensurate with missions assigned. The 

force was already overstrained to meet its deployment requirements before 9/11, and 

since then our forces have absorbed major contingency requirements in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. 

Deferral of meaningful action to address this problem cannot continue without 

risking serious consequences. Real relief is needed now. With no evidence of declining missions, this can only be achieved by increasing the size of the force. 

The Military Coalition strongly recommends restoration and funding of Service 

end strengths consistent with long-term sustainment of the global war on terrorism 

and fulfillment of national military strategy. The Coalition supports application of 

recruiting resources as necessary to meet this requirement. The Coalition urges the 

Subcommittee to consider all possible manpower options to ease operational stresses 

on active, Guard and Reserve personnel. 

Pay Raise Comparability.—The Military Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee’s 

leadership during the last five years in reversing the routine practice of capping 

servicemembers’ annual pay raises below the average American’s. In 

servicemembers’ eyes, all of those previous pay raise caps provided regular negative 

feedback about the relative value the Nation placed on retaining their services. 

Unfortunately, this failed practice of capping military raises to pay for budget 

shortfalls reared its head again earlier this year when the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget proposed capping 2004 and future military pay raises at 

the level of inflation. The Coalition was shocked and deeply disappointed that such 

a senior officer could ignore 25 years of experience indicating that pay caps lead inevitably to retention and readiness problems. Not only was the proposal ill timed 

as troops massed for a war with Iraq—it’s just bad, failed policy. 

The President rejected his senior budget official’s advice for five of the seven uniformed services—but, unfortunately, the Administration’s budget for fiscal year 

2004 proposes to cap the pay of NOAA and USPHS officers at 2 percent. The Military Coalition strongly objects to this disparate treatment of members in those uniformed services. The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to intercede in their behalf 

with colleagues on the appropriate oversight committees for NOAA and USPHS personnel to ensure that these commissioned officers receive the same treatment as 

their fellow comrades-in-arms. 

Pay raise comparability with private sector wage growth is a fundamental underpinning of the all-volunteer force, and it cannot be dismissed without severe consequences for national defense. 

When the pay raise comparability gap reached 13.5 percent in 1999—resulting in 

a predictable readiness crises—Congress took responsible action to change the law. 

Largely because of your efforts and the belated recognition of the problem by the 

Executive Branch, the gap has been reduced to 6.4 percent as of 2003. 

Fortunately, the President rejected his budgeteers’ advice, and has proposed an 

average 4.1 percent raise for fiscal year 2004, which would shrink the gap another 

full percentage point to 5.4 percent. Even at that rate, it would take another 5 years 

to restore full comparability. So this is no time to reinstitute pay caps. 
600

On the contrary, we urge the Subcommittee to consider that the law mandating 

increased military raises will expire in 2006, after which military raises will again 

be capped one-half percentage point per year below private sector wage growth (see 

chart below).

The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to fund the Administration-proposed raise and restore full pay comparability on the quickest possible schedule. 

Further, the Coalition strongly urges the Subcommittee to fund equal raises to PHS 

and NOAA corps officers and not create—for the first time ever—separate pay tables within the uniformed services. 

Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).—The Military Coalition supports revised 

housing standards that are more realistic and appropriate for each pay grade. As 

an example, enlisted members are not authorized to receive BAH for a 3-bedroom 

single-family detached house until achieving the rank of E–9—which represents 

only one percent of the enlisted force. TMC believes that as a minimum, this BAH 

standard should be extended to qualifying servicemembers in grades E–7 and above, 

immediately. 

The Coalition is most grateful to the Subcommittee for acting in 1999 to reduce 

out-of-pocket housing expenses for servicemembers. Responding to Congress’s leadership on this issue, the Department of Defense proposed a phased plan to reduce 

median out of pocket expenses to zero by fiscal year 2005. This aggressive action 

to better realign BAH rates with actual housing costs is having a real impact and 

providing immediate relief to many servicemembers and families who were strapped 

in meeting rising housing and utility costs. 

The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to fund adjustments in gradebased housing standards to more adequately cover members’ current out-of-pocket 

housing expenses. 

Family Readiness and Support.—The family continues to be a key consideration 

in the readiness equation for each servicemember. The maintenance of family readiness and support programs is part of the cost of performing the military mission. 

We must ensure that families have the opportunity to develop the financial and 

readiness skills needed to cope with deployment situations. It is important to meet 

the childcare needs of the military community including National Guard and Reserve members. Overall family support programs must meet the needs of National 

Guard and Reserve members being called to active duty in ever-increasing numbers. 

The Military Coalition urges funding to improve education and outreach programs 

and increase childcare availability to ensure a family readiness level and a support 

structure that meets the requirements of increased force deployments for active 

duty, National Guard and Reserve members. 
601

Commissaries.—The fiscal year 2003 budget reduced Defense Commissary Agency 

funding by $137 million and envisioned eliminating over 2,600 positions from stores 

and headquarters staff by September 30, 2003. While DeCA indicates there will be 

no loss in service to the customer, the Coalition is concerned that the size and scope 

of the reductions may negatively impact quality and service to customers, including 

additional store closings, reduced hours, longer cashier lines and reduced stock on 

store shelves. This would have a significantly adverse impact on the benefit, which 

is widely recognized as a valuable part of the servicemember’s compensation package and a cornerstone of quality of life benefits. 

The Military Coalition opposes privatization of commissaries and strongly supports full funding of the benefit to sustain the current level of service for all commissary patrons. 

Tax issues.—The Coalition understands that tax matters fall under the purview 

of a different committee. But there are unique issues affecting active duty, National 

Guard and Reserve members, and their families, and we hope that members of the 

Subcommittee will use their significant powers of persuasion to convince their colleagues to address these needed changes quickly. 

The Coalition strongly urges that every effort be made to break the logjam over 

the military tax relief bill (H.R. 1664). Considerable congressional support exists for 

the changes envisioned by this legislation, but the bill is now stalled for a number 

of reasons—none of which concern the merits of the legislation. This legislation will 

immediately benefit thousands of military homeowners who have been unfairly (and 

inadvertently) penalized with capital gains tax liabilities incurred because they were 

forced to sell their homes after extended government-directed absences away from 

their principle residences. This legislation will also provide needed tax deductions 

for unreimbursed travel and per diem expenses incurred by drilling Guard and Reserve personnel, who are asked to train more to enhance their readiness skills to 

support contingency missions. And, very significantly, the military tax relief bill 

fully tax exempts the death gratuity benefit paid to survivors of military members 

killed on active duty—which will immediately eliminate the inexplicable tax these 

survivors have to pay now. 

The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to use their considerable powers 

of influence and persuasion with the Ways and Means committee to break the logjam that has stalled the military tax relief bill—legislation sorely needed to eliminate tax inequities that penalize active duty, Guard and Reserve members, and 

their families. 

The Coalition also supports legislation that would amend the tax law to let Federal civilian retirees and active duty and retired military members pay health insurance premiums on a pre-tax basis. Many uniformed services beneficiaries pay premiums for a variety of health insurance programs, such as TRICARE supplements, 

the active duty dental plan or TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP), long-term 

care insurance, or TRICARE Prime enrollment fees. For most beneficiaries, these 

premiums and enrollment fees are not tax-deductible because their health care expenses do not exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross taxable income, as required 

by the IRS. This creates a significant inequity with private sector and some government workers, many of whom already enjoy tax exemptions for health and dental 

premiums through employer-sponsored health benefits plans. A precedent for this 

benefit was set for other Federal employees by a 2000 Presidential directive allowing federal civilian employees to pay premiums for their Federal Employees Health 

Benefits Program (FEHBP) coverage with pre-tax dollars. 

Although we recognize that this is not within the purview of the Subcommittee, 

the Coalition hopes that Subcommittee members will lend their support to this legislation and help ensure equal treatment for all military and federal beneficiaries. 

The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to support legislation to provide active duty 

and uniformed services beneficiaries a tax exemption for premiums or enrollment 

fees paid for TRICARE Prime, TRICARE Standard supplements, the active duty 

dental plan, TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan, FEHBP and Long Term Care. 

Death Gratuity.—The current death gratuity amount was last increased in 1991 

when it was raised from $3,000 to $6,000. This amount is insufficient to cover costs 

incurred by families responding to the death of an active member. 

The Military Coalition recommends funding to increase the military death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000, and making the gratuity tax-free. 

HEALTH CARE TESTIMONY

The Military Coalition (TMC) is appreciative of Congress’s exceptional efforts to 

honor health care commitments to uniformed services beneficiaries, particularly for 

active duty and Medicare-eligibles. However, much remains to be done. We wish to 
602

address certain chronic problem areas, and additional initiatives essential to providing an equitable and consistent health benefit for all categories of TRICARE 

beneficiaries, regardless of age or geography. 

While Congress has substantially eased cost burdens for Medicare-eligibles and 

for active duty families in TRICARE Prime and Prime Remote, we need to draw attention to the 3.2 million TRICARE Standard beneficiaries under the age of 65, 

many of whom face increasingly significant provider accessibility challenges. 

ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE DEFENSE HEALTH BUDGET

Once again, a top Coalition priority is to work with Congress and DOD to ensure 

full funding of the Defense Health Budget to meet readiness needs and deliver services, through both the direct care and purchased care systems, for ALL uniformed 

services beneficiaries, regardless of age, status or location. An adequately funded 

health care benefit is essential to readiness and the retention of qualified uniformed 

service personnel. 

The Subcommittee’s oversight of the defense health budget is essential to avoid 

a return to the chronic underfunding of recent years that led to execution shortfalls, 

shortchanging of the direct care system, inadequate equipment capitalization, failure to invest in infrastructure and reliance on annual emergency supplemental 

funding requests as a substitute for candid and conscientious budget planning. 

While supplemental appropriations were not required last year, we are concerned 

that the current funding level only meets the needs of the status quo and does not 

address the growing requirement to support the deployment of forces to Southwest 

Asia and Afghanistan. Addressing funding for these increased readiness requirements; TRICARE provider shortfalls and other needs will require additional funding. 

The Military Coalition strongly recommends the Subcommittee continue its 

watchfulness to ensure full funding of the Defense Health Program, to include military medical readiness, TRICARE, and the DOD peacetime health care mission. The 

Defense Health Budget must be sufficient to provide financial incentives to attract 

increased numbers of providers needed to ensure access for TRICARE beneficiaries 

in all parts of the country. 

TRICARE IMPROVEMENTS

Access to care is the number one concern expressed by our collective memberships. More and more beneficiaries report that few, if any, providers in their area 

are willing to accept new TRICARE Standard patients. Enhanced benefits for our 

seniors and decreased cost shares for active duty beneficiaries will be of little consequence to beneficiaries who cannot find a TRICARE provider. 

Network and Standard Provider Availability.—Large numbers of beneficiaries 

continue to report increased difficulty locating providers who will accept new 

TRICARE patients, even though the Department of Defense indicates that the number of TRICARE providers is at near an all-time high. 

Clearly, there is a problem with how provider participation is measured and monitored. The current participation metric is calculated as the percentage claims filed 

on an assigned basis. Nowhere does DOD or its support contractors ask or track 

whether participating or authorized providers are accepting new patients. Since participation is fluid, providers are permitted to accept or refuse TRICARE patients on 

a day-by-day basis; therefore, beneficiaries often must make multiple inquiries to locate a provider who is taking patients on that day. 

Allegedly, current TRICARE contracts require Manage Care Support Contractors 

(MCSC) to help Standard patients find providers, but this is not the actual practice. 

Further, there is no such requirement in the new TRICARE Next Generation of 

Contracts (TNEX). MCSCs are under no obligation to recruit Standard providers or 

provide up to date lists of Standard providers, leaving beneficiaries on their own to 

determine if a provider is willing to accept Standard patients. We urge the subcommittee to fund a program to increase Standard provider recruitment by educating civilian providers about the TRICARE Standard benefit. We believe this issue 

is too critical to depend upon the ‘‘chance’’ that the civilian contractors will voluntarily elect to provide this service as a ‘‘valued added product’’ in all regions. 

Simply stated, Standard beneficiaries are neglected. No effort is made to reach out 

to them, to provide education about the extent of the Standard benefit, to directly 

communicate benefits information, or provide support to locate a provider. The Coalition adamantly believes DOD has an obligation to develop an education and communication program for Standard beneficiaries. DOD should direct MCSCs to assist 

Standard beneficiaries as well as Prime beneficiaries. Options should include providing interactive on-line lists of Standard providers, with indications of which ones 
603

are currently accepting new Standard patients. When a beneficiary cannot find a 

provider, the MCSC should help them do so. 

The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate sufficient funds for 

DOD to communicate benefits information directly to Standard beneficiaries, develop a Standard beneficiary education program, assist Standard beneficiaries in 

finding providers who will accept new TRICARE Standard patients, including interactive on-line lists and other means of communication and to developed a program 

to enhance TRICARE Standard provider recruitment. 

Provider Reimbursement.—Provider groups tell us that TRICARE is the lowestpaying program they deal with, and often poses them the most administrative problems. This is a terrible combination of perceptions if you are a TRICARE Standard 

patient trying to find a doctor. 

The Coalition is concerned that the war on terrorism and the war in Southwest 

Asia are straining the capacity of the military’s direct health care system, as large 

numbers of medical corps members are deployed overseas. More and more TRICARE 

patients are turning to turn to the civilian sector for care—putting more pressure 

on civilian providers who already have absorbed significant fee cuts from TRICARE. 

Our deployed service men and women need to focus on their mission, without having to worry whether their family members back home can find a provider. Uniformed services beneficiaries their family members and survivors deserve the nation’s best health care, not the cheapest. 

In order to achieve parity and encourage participation, both Medicare and DOD 

have the ability to institute locality-based rates to account for geographical variation 

in practice costs to secure sufficient providers. DOD has statutory authority (10 

U.S.C. 1097 (b)) to raise rates for network providers up to 115 percent of TRICARE 

Maximum Allowable Charge (TMAC) in areas where adequate access to health care 

services is severely impaired. To date, DOD has resisted using its authority to raise 

reimbursement levels. 

Raising TRICARE payment rates to competitive levels with other insurance is essential to solving the Standard access problem. There are cost implications of doing 

this, and the Coalition understands the preference in both the Executive and Legislative Branches to focus on administrative issues rather than payment levels. However, providers indicate that it is a money issue. They may be willing to accept low 

payments from Medicare out of a sense of obligation to seniors, the volume of patients, and because Medicare has a reliable electronic payment system. They are not 

so willing to accept low TRICARE payments. 

Other insurance programs pay providers rates that are significantly higher than 

Standard’s. The Coalition doubts that access problems can be addressed successfully 

without raising rates. The only way to assess the merits is to institute a pilot 

project to test if raising TRICARE Standard payment rates improves access for 

beneficiaries. 

The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate sufficient funds to 

institute a pilot project at several locations of varying characteristics to test the extent to which raising TRICARE Standard rates increases the number of providers 

who are willing to accept new Standard patients. 

Healthcare for Members of the National Guard and Reserve.—Sec. 702 of the fiscal 

year 2003 NDAA authorized further Prime eligibility for certain dependents of Reserve Component Members residing in remote areas whose sponsors are ordered to 

extended active duty of at least 30 days. The Coalition is pleased that DOD recently 

announced its intent to implement Sec 702, as well as to extend the Prime benefit 

to Reserve Component dependents who reside within Military Treatment Facility 

(MTF) catchment areas. 

The Coalition is most appreciative that TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote (TPR) benefits will now be standardized for ALL Reserve Component families 

when the sponsor is called to active duty for 30 days, regardless of whether the family resides in a MTF catchment area or not. The Coalition is also pleased that DOD 

has waived for Reserve Component beneficiaries the TPR requirement that family 

members reside with their sponsor in an areas outside of MTF catchment areas. 

Health insurance coverage has an impact on Guard-Reserve (G–R) medical readiness and family morale. Progress has been made during transitional periods after 

call-ups, but more needs to be done to provide continuity of care coverage for reserve 

component members prior to activation. 

Health insurance coverage varies widely for members of the G–R: some have coverage through private employers, others through the Federal government, and still 

others have no coverage. Reserve families with employer-based health insurance 

must, in some cases, pick up the full cost of premiums during an extended activation. Although TRICARE eligibility starts at 30 days activation, many G–R families 

would prefer continued access to their own health insurance rather than being 
604

forced to find a new provider who accepts TRICARE. In other cases, disruption (and 

in some cases cancellation) of private sector coverage as a consequence of extended 

activation under TRICARE adversely affects family morale and military readiness 

and discourages some from reenlisting. 

In 2001, DOD recognized this problem and announced a policy change under 

which DOD would pay the premiums for the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) for DOD reservist—employees activated for extended periods. However, this new benefit only affects about 10 percent of the Selected Reserve. The Coalition believes this philosophy could be extended to pay health insurance premiums 

for activated G–R members who are not federal civilian employees. 

As a matter of morale, equity, and personnel readiness, the Coalition believes 

more needs to be done to assist reservists who are being called up more frequently 

in support of national security missions. They deserve options that provide their 

families continuity of care, without having to find a new doctor or navigate a new 

system each time the member is activated or deactivated. 

The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate sufficient funds to 

make the TRICARE medical program available for members of the National Guard 

and Reserve Component and their families prior to activation on a cost-sharing 

basis in order to ensure medical readiness and provide continuity of coverage to 

members of the Selected Reserve. In addition, to further ensure continuity of coverage for family members, the Coalition urges allowing activated Guard/Reserve 

members the option of having the Department of Defense pay their civilian insurance premiums during periods of activation. 

CONCLUSION

The Military Coalition reiterates its profound gratitude for the extraordinary 

progress this subcommittee has made in funding a wide range of personnel and 

health care initiatives for all uniformed services personnel and their families and 

survivors. The Coalition is eager to work with the Subcommittee in pursuit of the 

goals outlined in our testimony. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present the Coalition’s views on these 

critically important topics.

Senator STEVENS. The next witness is William Hawley, Dr. 

Hawley, of the Board of Directors of the Public Policy Committee 

for Lymphoma Research. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HAWLEY, M.D., BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE, LYMPHOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

Dr. HAWLEY. Good morning, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today on 

behalf of the Lymphoma Research Foundation and a half-million 

Americans suffering from lymphoma. The Lymphoma Research 

Foundation is the Nation’s largest lymphoma-focused voluntary 

health organization devoted exclusively to eradicating lymphoma 

and serving those touched with this disease. To date the foundation 

has funded more than $9 million in lymphoma-specific research. 

Most people do not even realize that lymphoma is a cancer, let 

alone that it is the most common blood cancer in Americans. As I 

mentioned, over half-a-million Americans suffer from lymphoma. 

This year yet another 61,000 of us will be diagnosed and 25,000 

will lose their lives to this very misunderstood disease. 

I say ‘‘us’’ because I am a survivor of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. 

Seven years ago I was the chief of cardiac surgery and department 

chairman at Integris Medical Center in Oklahoma when I was diagnosed with Flickler lymphoma, a low-grade indolent form of this 

incurable cancer. After over 30 years as a practicing surgeon, I was 

now a patient. It was a difficult adjustment, but I was determined 

to use my scientific background as a physician combined with my 

new role as a patient to help others suffering from this disease. 
605

Thanks to research, I am here today, able to stand before you 

and speak up for all my fellow patients, for those who will be diagnosed in the future, and for those who were not as fortunate and 

lost their lives in the battle with lymphoma years ago. I have taken 

leave from my medical practice to devote myself entirely to advocacy for lymphoma patients and I think I am now the busiest unpaid physician in this country. My fundamental goal is to advocate 

for both improved treatment and new options for patients. I do a 

great deal of outreach to patients with lymphoma and have found 

sharing the story of personal involvement with the disease to be 

very rewarding. 

As an advocate for my fellow patients, I am before you today to 

ask that you expand the congressionally-directed medical research 

program to include research on lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple 

myeloma. Specifically, I respectfully request that $25 million be 

provided for blood cancer research efforts at the Department of Defense. 

This subcommittee is to be commended for its leadership in funding special research programs, with a particular emphasis on cancer research. Over the past 2 years, this subcommittee funded a 

special $10 million research initiative on chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) to date. We urge you to continue this funding and expand the initiative to include all other types of blood cancer research. 

Many of you are probably familiar with the development of 

Gleevec, originally developed as a treatment for chronic 

myelogenous leukemia, now approved for the treatment of a solid 

tumor gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Thanks to the investment in 

Gleevec, we now have a possible cure for CML today. A $25 million 

investment would have the potential to enhance our understanding 

of blood cancers and contribute to the development of new treatments. 

While the causes of blood cancers remain unknown, evidence suggests that exposure to environmental carcinogens, radiation, pesticides, herbicides, viruses, and bacteria may play a role. It is 

therefore possible that any of our troops exposed to chemical or biological weapons may be at increased risk of developing lymphoma 

or other types of blood cancer. We know the link of Agent Orange 

to non-Hodgkins and Hodgkins malignant lymphoma. 

Advances in blood cancer research will also be of great benefit to 

those with other forms of cancer. Many chemotherapy agents used 

to treat solid tumors now were originally used to treat blood cancers. Lymphoma, for example, is often called the Rosetta Stone of 

cancer research because it has helped to unlock the mysteries of 

several other types of malignancy. 

The concept of cancer staging to define disease severity and target appropriate therapy began in lymphoma. The strategy of combining chemotherapy and radiation was first used in lymphoma 

and then applied to other malignancies. These are just a few of the 

great benefits that blood cancer research can bring to millions suffering from cancer throughout our Nation. 

On behalf of all the patients living with lymphoma or other blood 

cancers, the Lymphoma Research Foundation urges the subcommittee to include a blood cancer research initiative in the con-
606

gressionally-directed medical research program. As a physician, I 

can tell you that the time for investment is now and, with your 

help, research-developed new treatments and cures can be found. 

As a patient, I say, please act quickly because so many lives hang 

in the balance. 

Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Doctor. I appreciate 

your courtesy. 

Dr. HAWLEY. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HAWLEY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of the Lymphoma Research Foundation (LRF), the nation’s 

largest lymphoma-focused voluntary health organization devoted exclusively to 

funding research to cure all lymphomas and providing patients and healthcare professionals with critical information on the disease. LRF’s mission is to eradicate 

lymphoma and serve those touched by the disease. To date, LRF has funded more 

than $9 million in lymphoma research. 

This is an exciting time for new approaches to research on lymphoma and other 

blood-related cancers and we are pleased to testify today to request that you expand 

the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program to include research on 

these diseases. I am a physician and a survivor of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), 

the most commonly diagnosed hematological cancer. I have taken a leave of absence 

from my medical practice, and during this time I am dedicating myself to advocacy 

for lymphoma patients. My fundamental goal is to advocate for both improved treatments and new options for patients currently living with the disease and those who 

may be diagnosed in the future. 

This Subcommittee is to be commended for its leadership in funding several special research programs, with a particular emphasis on cancer research. We realize 

that, at the time these programs were initiated, they were a departure from the national defense programs generally funded by the subcommittee. Over time, they 

have become model research programs that complement the research efforts of the 

National Institutes of Health and that are hailed by patient advocates because they 

allow consumer input in the planning of the research portfolio. 

The Lymphoma Research Foundation believes the current medical research efforts 

of the Department of Defense (DOD) are appropriate targets for funding, as they 

contribute to the national defense in critically important ways. We think that, at 

this time in our history, it is especially important that the DOD expand its research 

portfolio to support research into the blood cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, 

and myeloma. I would like to provide some basic information about the blood cancers, as well as some compelling reasons for the expansion of the DOD research program to include blood cancer research. 

The Blood Cancers 

Each year, approximately 110,000 Americans are diagnosed with one of the blood 

cancers. More than 60,000 will die from these cancers in 2003, and 700,000 Americans are living with these cancers. Taken as a whole, the blood-related cancers are 

the 5th most common cancer, behind lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. 

There have recently been some significant advances in the treatment of the blood 

cancers. In 2001, the targeted therapy called Gleevec was approved for treatment 

of chronic myelogenous leukemia, and now this drug is approved for use in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). In 2002, a new radioimmunotherapy was approved 

for patients with refractory NHL, and a new treatment for multiple myeloma is expected to be approved this year. These treatments represent progress in the fight 

against the blood cancers, but there is much work still to be done. 

Although there are declines in the number of new cases and deaths associated 

with many forms of cancer, the trend is different for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and 

multiple myeloma. The incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has nearly doubled 

since the 1970’s, and the mortality rate from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is increasing 

at a faster rate than other cancers. One can see that, despite scientific progress, 

there is much to be done to improve blood cancer treatments. We are pleased by 

any step forward, but our goal is still a cure of the blood cancers. We acknowledge 

that this is a scientifically difficult goal, but it must remain our objective. 
607

The Link Between Blood Cancers and Military Service 

The causes of the blood cancers remain unknown. With regard to Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, immune system impairment and exposure 

to environmental carcinogens, pesticides, herbicides, viruses, and bacteria may play 

a role. The linkage between exposure to one particular herbicide—Agent Orange—

and the blood cancers has been established by the Committee to Review the Health 

Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides, a special committee of the 

Institute of Medicine (IOM). This panel was authorized by the Agent Orange Act 

of 1991 and has issued four reports on the health effects of Agent Orange. The committee has concluded that ‘‘there is sufficient evidence of an association between exposure to herbicides’’ and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and there is limited or suggestive evidence of 

an association between herbicide exposure and multiple myeloma. 

The IOM panel does not have responsibility to make recommendations about Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, but the VA has in fact responded to these reports by guaranteeing the full range of VA benefits to Vietnam veterans who have 

the diseases that have been linked to herbicide exposure, including CLL, Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 

These benefits include access to VA health care. There are now, unfortunately, a 

number of Vietnam veterans who are receiving VA health care for treatment of 

CLL, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and DOD-sponsored research on these diseases has the potential to improve the survival and the quality 

of life for these veterans. 

Potential Risks of Blood Cancers in the Future 

We all acknowledge that we live in a very complicated age, where those in the 

military are at risk of exposure to chemical and biological agents. The evidence suggests that immune system impairment and exposure to environmental carcinogens, 

pesticides, herbicides, viruses, and bacteria may play a role in the development of 

Hodgkin’s lymphoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It is therefore possible that, if 

our troops were exposed to chemical or biological weapons, they might be placed at 

increased risk of development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or 

one of the other blood cancers. 

We strongly recommend that we invest now in research to understand the potential links between pesticides, herbicides, viruses, bacteria, and the blood cancers. 

The enhanced investment now may contribute to a deeper understanding of these 

possible linkages and to the development of strategies to protect those who suffer 

such exposures. A greater commitment to the research and development of new 

blood cancer therapies is also critically important if we anticipate that there may 

be more individuals, including those in the military, who will suffer from these cancers as a result of service-connected exposure. 

The Current DOD Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Program 

In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Subcommittee funded a research program at DOD that funds research on one particular kind of leukemia, called chronic 

myelogenous leukemia, or CML. This form of leukemia has been much in the news 

because of the development of Gleevec, a drug that has been hailed as a possible 

cure for the disease. We applaud the Subcommittee for its commitment to a program 

of CML research. We would recommend that this program, which has received total 

funding of slightly less than $10 million over the last two years, be continued and 

that an initiative be launched that would fund all other types of blood cancer research. 

We believe that an investment of $25 million in a new Blood Cancer Research 

Program would have the potential to enhance our understanding of the blood cancers and their links to chemical, viral, and bacterial exposures and to contribute to 

develop of new treatments. There are several promising areas of therapeutic research on blood cancers, including research about ways to use the body’s immune 

system to fight the blood cancers, research on the development of less toxic and 

more targeted therapies than traditional chemotherapy agents, and research that 

will allow physicians to diagnose the specific type and subtype of blood cancers. 

The Impact of Blood Cancer Research on Other Cancers 

An investment in blood cancer research will be beneficial to those diagnosed with 

these cancers, including members of the military. We also believe that advances in 

blood cancer research will be of benefit to those with other forms of cancer. Treatments for blood cancers are often also used in the treatment of solid tumors. For 

example, many chemotherapy agents that are now used in the treatment of a wide 

range of solid tumors were originally used in the treatment of blood cancers. The 
608

concept of cancer staging to accurately define disease severity and target appropriate therapy began in lymphoma and is now used in all cancers. The strategy of 

combining chemotherapy with radiation therapy began in the treatment of Hodgkin’s disease and is now widely used in the treatment of many solid tumors. Many 

recently developed therapeutic interventions, like monoclonal antibodies that target 

and disable antigens on the cell surface thought to be responsible for cell proliferation began in the blood cancers but hold promise for breast, prostate, ovarian, and 

other forms of cancer. Work on vaccines for lymphoma has been in the forefront of 

vaccine research. As you can see, research on the blood cancers has had many positive benefits for cancer research overall. 

The Lymphoma Research Foundation urges the Subcommittee to consider the expansion of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program to include a 

Blood Cancer Research Initiative. 

We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you and would be 

pleased to answer your questions.

Senator STEVENS. We will now hear from Master Sergeant Retired Morgan Brown, Legislative Assistant for the Air Force Sergeants Association. Good morning, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MASTER SERGEANT MORGAN D. BROWN, (RET.), LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION 

(AFSA) 

Sergeant BROWN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the 

36,000 members of this association, I thank you for the opportunity 

to present the views of the enlisted men and women of the Air 

Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve. In my written 

testimony I provided a variety of issues, but since my time here is 

very brief I am going to restrict my comments just to the military 

survivor benefit program. 

Senator STEVENS. We do ask the staff to go over completely these 

statements and your full statements are all being placed in the 

record. 

Sergeant BROWN. Thank you, sir. 

Like our predecessor or previous veteran service organizations, 

we also strongly hope that the offset presently in place in the military survivor benefit plan is eliminated in this session of Congress. 

However, there are a couple other problems with the program. For 

instance, the DOD actuaries confirm that the 40 percent government subsidy intended by Congress has declined to a paltry 16.4 

percent. That means retirees are now paying 24 percent more than 

you intended. 

I should point out that the DOD also continues to stress the government subsidy as an enticement to get retirees to sign up for this 

coverage. Clearly, this benefit has become more beneficial and less 

costly to the Government and more costly and less beneficial to the 

retirees and survivors that this program was created to protect. 

Legislation has already been introduced to correct the offset and 

we are hopeful that you will support your colleagues in implementing this change and providing the necessary funding for this 

important survivor program. 

We are also working to have the paid-up SBP provision start as 

soon as possible. Authorized by Public Law 105–261 and set to 

begin on October 1, this provision allows retirees who have paid 

into SBP for at least 30 years and have reached 70 years of age 

to stop making payments and still have their spouses covered. As 

a practical matter, any SBP enrollee who retired on or after October 1, 1978 would enjoy the full benefit of the paid-up provision. 
609

However, members who enrolled in SBP when it first became available in 1972 will have to continue paying premiums for up to 36 

years to secure paid-up coverage if they survive that long. Acceleration of the SBP provision is needed to simply ensure some measure 

of fairness for these individuals. 

In closing, AFSA requests that the subcommittee appropriate the 

necessary funds to make these changes to the military SBP program a reality. Mr. Chairman, that is all I will cover today and I 

want to thank you for this opportunity to present what we believe 

should be among this committee’s funding priorities for fiscal year 

2004. 

Senator STEVENS. I appreciate your courtesy. Thank you very 

much. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MORGAN D. BROWN

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, on behalf of the 136,000 

members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for this opportunity to 

offer our views on the military personnel programs that affect those serving our nation. AFSA represents active duty, Guard, Reserve, retired, and veteran enlisted Air 

Force members and their families. Your continuing effort toward improving the 

quality of their lives has made a real difference for those who devote their lives to 

service, and our members are grateful. 

Although military members do not serve their nation to gain wealth, we do owe 

them a decent standard of living. This is even more important today because America’s is an all-volunteer force, and because this nation increasingly tasks military 

members and often separates them (for greater lengths of time) from their families. 

This testimony covers several issues in the areas of Military Pay and Compensation, 

Education, Heath Care, Military Shipment, Guard and Reserve, and Retiree/Survivor Programs. We simply ask this committee seriously consider providing the necessary funding for these important programs. 

MILITARY PAY AND COMPENSATION

Continue Enlisted Pay Reform.—We applaud your efforts in recent years to ensure 

that all military members get the minimum annual pay raise in accordance with 

congressional intent by formula (Employment Cost Index [ECI] plus one-half percent). AFSA supports further raises and targeting. However, we caution the committee on the perception among the force that might be created if the lowest ranking enlisted members receive below the congressional formula—so that dollars can 

be transferred to the higher ranking members. We support higher NCO pay raises, 

but believe that if a ‘‘rob Peter to pay Paul’’ approach is to be used, it should not 

be by taking pay away from the lowest ranking military members. 

Resist Efforts to Change the Military Pay Formula.—This committee was instrumental in protecting the troops by tying military pay growth to the growth of wages 

in the private sector (by focusing on the ECI). Recent Administration suggestions 

to tie future annual military pay raises to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) alarm 

military members with the prospect of significantly lower annual pay adjustments. 

AFSA urges this committee to resist Administration efforts to lower military pay 

raises by abandoning the current formula. 

Reform the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).—There is room for significant correction and improvement in the methodology used to determine BAH. Enlisted 

members most significantly feel the brunt of these problems. Currently, the only enlisted members whose BAH square-footage/dollar amounts are based on stand-alone 

dwellings are E–9s. The BAH amount for all enlisted grades below E–9 is based on 

apartments and townhouses. 

Provide those stationed in Korea the same tax advantages and special pays afforded to those stationed in ‘‘hostile’’ areas.—With the challenges and austere conditions servicemembers face in Korea, the daily threat from North Korea, and the 

risks inherent in the geopolitical situation relative to the Korean peninsula, it is 

only fair to provide equitable tax and pay for these members who, in a real sense, 

are serving on the tip of the sword. We urge this committee to take action on this 

now in recognition of those stationed in Korea. 
610

Reduce the threshold of eligibility for CONUS COLA from its current level of 108 

percent of the national median.—Several large city areas (such as Washington, D.C.) 

do not receive CONUS COLA. We urge this committee to take another look at which 

municipalities receive CONUS COLA. 

Provide Guard and Reserve members equity in Career Enlisted Flier Incentive Pay 

(CEFIP).—It is unfair that members of the Guard and Reserve receive a fractioned 

CEFIP (based on a 1/30 formula for each day flying). CEFIP recognizes the extraordinary challenges and risks associated with military flight. As such, Guard and Reserve fliers should be paid on the same ‘‘whole month’’ basis as other military fliers. 

Establish a standard, minimum re-enlistment bonus for all re-enlistments.—Air 

Force enlisted members tell us that there ought to be a minimum re-enlistment 

bonus. Selective re-enlistment bonuses are paid to those with between 21 months 

and 14 years of service. Those who re-enlist after the 14-year point receive no reenlistment bonus. Remember, an enlisted member can serve as long as 30 years. 

Because we want to keep leaders in critical skills and they must lead those who 

are receiving these, sometimes lucrative, bonuses, it would help morale to provide 

some type of re-enlistment bonus to all who re-enlist. 

Pay Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (HDIP) to military firefighters.—Regardless of 

service, there is no military job inherently more hazardous than firefighters. Civilian firefighters who serve side-by-side with military firefighters already have this 

risk factored into their federal civilian wage scale. Military firefighters get no such 

additional compensation to recognize their extraordinary risk. At a cost of about $9 

million per year to cover the military firefighters (those whose AFSA, MOS, or NEC 

is primarily as a firefighter) for all services, this would be an equitable, relatively 

inexpensive addition to those entitled to receive HDIP. 

EDUCATION BENEFITS

Provide an enrollment opportunity for those who turned down the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to enroll in the Montgomery G.I. Bill.—Over 

100,000 currently serving military members (35,000 in the Air Force alone) turned 

down the VEAP program when it was offered to them. VEAP was a relatively poor, 

insufficient, poorly counseled educational program which preceded the Montgomery 

G.I. Bill (MGIB). In contrast, the MGIB is a much more realistic, more-beneficial 

program that would help these members in their transition back into civilian life 

after their time in the military. Unfortunately, many of those who turned down the 

VEAP program are now leaving service with no transitional education program. The 

CBO has set the worst-case cost for this offering at $143 million over a five-year 

period. We believe that these members, many of whom brought us through conflicts 

including the Wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, worldwide peacekeeping missions, conflicts not publically reported, and the worldwide war on terrorism deserve 

an opportunity to enroll in the MGIB. 

Increase the value of the MGIB to cover the costs of tuition, books, and fees at an 

average 4-year college or university.—Despite the extremely commendable, recent increases in the MGIB which will bring the value up to $985 per month for 36 months 

by October 1 of this year, more needs to be done. If this nation is going to have 

a program that sincerely intends to satisfy the purpose of the program, it certainly 

should mirror civilian industry by providing a comprehensive educational program 

and not an insufficient one. According to the ‘‘College Report,’’ an annual evaluative 

report published by the education ‘‘industry,’’ average monthly educational costs are 

approximately $1,400 at this time. This figure reflects the cost of books, tuition, and 

fees at the average college or university for a commuter student. Of course, that average cost will increase in the future due to inflation. We ask that you fully fund 

the already-authorized increase, but look toward further increases in the program. 

Payment for full books, tuition, and fees for a four-year degree with annual indexing 

to maintain the value of the benefit, at least, ought to be provided for those who 

make the military a career. 

Ensure that all MGIB enrollees have the same program with the same benefits.—

Due to changes and additions to the law, only some MGIB enrollees may transfer 

a portion of their benefit to family members. Similarly, only some MGIB enrollees 

may pay more into the program to increase the value of their program. We urge 

this committee to exert its influence to standardize the MGIB so that this becomes 

an equal opportunity benefit. 

Allow members to enroll in the MGIB at any time during their first enlistment.—

Regrettably, military members are given only one opportunity to enroll in the 

MGIB. That opportunity occurs very quickly during Basic Military Training when 

most would least appreciate the opportunity and can least afford it. Additionally, 

they must ‘‘pay’’ to have this educational benefit; to enroll in the MGIB they must 
611

agree to give up $100 per month for the first 12 months of their career. Many military members are surprised by this $1,200 fee and view it as an insincere military 

benefit offering because of the one-time irrevocable decision—when they are least 

prepared to take advantage of it. As long as the $1,200 payroll reduction for each 

MGIB enrollee is part of the program, we should provide young military members 

an opportunity to enroll at any time during their first enlistment. 

Provide military members and their families in-state tuition rates at federally supported state universities.—Military members are moved to stations around the world 

at the pleasure of the government. Yet, they are treated as visitors wherever they 

go. Fairness would dictate that, for the purposes of the cost of higher education, 

they be treated as residents so that they can have in-state rates at federally supported colleges and universities in the state where they are assigned. We would ask 

this committee to exert the necessary influence to require federally supported institution to consider military members assigned in their state as ‘‘residents,’’ for the 

purposes of tuition levels. 

Ensure full Impact Aid funding.—We ask this committee to closely scrutinize the 

funding levels for Impact Aid as presented in the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 

Budget Plan which has submitted levels that underfund needed Impact Aid by approximately $127 million. This is a nine percent reduction from fiscal year 2002 levels. 15 million students in 1,331 school districts nationwide benefit from this program. Funding is used for a variety of expenses, including teacher salaries, text 

books, computers, after-school programs, tutoring, advanced placement classes, and 

special enrichment programs. This money is to compensate local school districts for 

the impact of military bases in their communities. Local schools primarily are funded through property taxes. However, those who reside on a military reservation do 

not pay into the property tax base. This becomes a burden on local schools if military dependent children attend local, off-base schools. We ask this committee to ensure that sufficient Impact Aid is provided so that the children of military members 

are not put at risk, or that the military member be required to pay tuition. 

HEALTH CARE

Improve the dependant and retiree dental plans.—We often hear that the dependent dental insurance plan is a very, poor one. Additionally, retirees complain that 

the retiree dental plan is overpriced, provides inadequate coverage, and is not worth 

the investment. This is important because military retirees were led to believe they 

would have free/low cost, comprehensive, lifetime military dental care. We urge this 

committee to appropriate additional funding to improve the quality and adequacy 

of these two essential dental plans. 

Increase provider reimbursement rates to ensure quality providers in the TRICARE 

system.—Perhaps the greatest challenge this committee faces toward keeping the 

military health care system viable is retaining health care providers in the 

TRICARE networks. This challenge goes hand-in-hand with that which is faced by 

Medicare. If we do not allow doctors to charge a fair price for services performed, 

they will not want to participate in our program. If they do not participate, the program will fail. We urge this committee to consider increasing the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge to higher levels to ensure quality providers stay in the system. 

Provide for a waiver of the Medicare Part B late enrollment penalty to facilitate 

TRICARE For Life participation.—When Congress wisely created the TRICARE for 

Life (TFL) program, it significantly enhanced the quality of the lives of thousands 

upon thousands of military retirees, families, and survivors. It, in effect, eliminated 

the need for Medicare-eligible military retirees, family members, and survivors, to 

carry a Medicare supplement policy. One requirement for participation in TFL is 

that the member be enrolled in Medicare Part B. While the basic Part B enrollment 

cost is not onerous, many military retirees residing near bases declined Part B 

(some for many years). In order for these retirees, family members, and survivors 

who did not enroll in Part B when they were first eligible to participate in TFL, 

they must pay a substantial penalty in order to enroll in Part B. We urge this committee for a one-time enrollment period where those eligible for TFL who are not 

enrolled in Medicare Part B may do so without penalty. 

Upgrade the dental benefit programs for active duty, Guard, and Reserve members, 

retirees, and their families, especially in localities where inadequate facilities and/

or insufficient providers are available.—While this committee has no control over 

the number of providers in a particular locality, it can enhance the programs to promote participation. This can be done by ensuring that providers are treated fairly 

in terms of reimbursement for the care they provide and by getting military bene-
612

ficiaries to (i.e., providing travel reimbursement to) caregiver locations when dental 

care (especially specialized care) is needed. 

Make all TRICARE enrollment fees and co-payments, TRICARE For Life Medicare 

Part B payments, and military dental plan enrollment fees and premium payments 

tax exempt (pre-tax dollars).—In those cases where the military member, retiree, 

family member, or survivor has to pay co-payments for medical care, the exemption 

of the amount they must pay would be a great benefit enhancement. This would be 

particularly true for those who are older and on fixed incomes. 

Provide Guard and Reserve members and their families with a comprehensive 

TRICARE benefit.—This is critical to ensure the deployability of the member, and 

it is important that his/her family is protected when the military member is away 

from home serving his/her nation. We owe these patriots a comprehensive program. 

GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES

Provide full payment of lodging costs to a lodging facility for the duration of a mobilization order when a Guardsman or Reservist is called to active duty by section 

12301, 12302, or 12304 of Title 10.—This adjustment is needed because the payment 

of lodging per diem is not authorized for members on Temporary Duty (TDY) during 

periods of leave or a return to the Place from Which Called (or Ordered) to Active 

Duty (PLEAD). When per diem is not paid, the reservist who departs the area, however briefly, has to check out of lodging or pay lodging expenses out-of-pocket. For 

example, we are penalizing them if they want to briefly return home to address the 

concerns of the families from which they have been separated by the mobilization. 

This has an extremely negative financial impact, particularly for lower-ranking 

members. It also could have an impact on the retention of mobilized members following demobilization. Additionally, it is extremely disruptive to lodging facility contractors with the members’ constantly checking in and out of quarters; this can 

cause financial problems for the facility managers who have an expectation of continuous occupancy for a finite period of time. Of special significance to this committee, there would be no/negligible cost to implementing this suggestion since all 

mobilization expenses are budgeted and set aside for the duration of mobilization 

orders. 

Reduce the earliest retirement age (with full annuity) for Guard and Reserve members from 60 to 55.—These members are the only federal retirees who have to wait 

until age 60 to enjoy retirement benefits. These citizens who fight for our nation 

deserve to have a better retirement program. Lowering the retirement age would 

more adequately reward their service, and provide for upward mobility in the force 

(ANG and Reserve members are primarily promoted by vacancy). Keep in mind that 

reserve retirement is significantly lower than that provided to active duty members. 

Reservists accumulate points based on their service and training. They must accumulate sufficient points in a given year for it to be a ‘‘good year.’’ They must achieve 

twenty (20) ‘‘good years’’ to qualify for retirement. The amount of their retired pay 

is based on the total points they have accumulated. AFSA believes that these members ought to be able to retire upon completion of their ‘‘good years’’ requirements. 

However, considering funding limitations, the least, fair thing that should be done 

is to provide them federal retirement equity by letting them retire as soon as age 

55. We urge this committee to do so. Since DOD has conducted and contracted studies of reserve compensation in recent years, we believe there is little to be gained 

by the DOD study mandated in the fiscal year 2003 NDAA other than to delay serious consideration of the issue. We urge this committee to support the provisions in 

H.R. 742 and its pending Senate companion legislation. Introduced last year as S. 

2250 by Sen. Jon Corzine, D-NJ, his staff tells us that he will soon reintroduce the 

measure. 

Reduce out-of-pocket expenses of those who serve.—We ask this committee to restore full tax-deductibility of non-reimbursed expenses related to military training 

and service for Guard and Reserve members. The cost of military service for a 

Guardsman or Reservist should not be financial. 

Enhance Air Reserve Technician (ART) retirement eligibility.—ARTs are both military members and civil servants. These unique patriot/citizens need unique retirement criteria recognizing their singular contribution to our military’s success. We 

urge this committee to provide the funding that would allow Air Reserve Technicians eligible for an unreduced retirement at age 50 with 20 years of service, or at 

any age with 25 years of service, if involuntarily separated. 

Provide full Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to TDY Guard and Reserve members, and those activated (even if less than for 139 days).—Guardsmen and Reservists are generally removed from their civilian employment when ‘‘called up.’’ Once 

deployed, their need to protect their family does not go away. Nor does their obliga-
613

tion to make their full house payments. This committee can greatly assist these 

military members by ensuring that they can continue to provide homes for their 

families through the provision of full BAH. 

Eliminate the Commissary Privilege Card (CPC) requirement and provide full, 

year-round commissary benefits for Guard and Reserve members.—At the present 

time, members of the Guard and Reserve are limited to 24 visits per year in military commissaries. Allowing full, year-round access is a benefit long overdue. The 

CPC (a card to track commissary visits) costs millions of dollars to administer each 

year. These military members are critical members of this military nation’s team; 

it is time to treat them as such. We urge all members of Congress to provide them 

full, year-round commissary benefits. 

Expand the Soldiers and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) to fully protect Guard 

and Reserve members who are activated.—Since members of the Guard and Reserve 

are increasingly activated and sent away from their primary civilian occupation and 

their home, they must be adequately protected. Please expedite the protection of the 

rights of Guardsmen and Reservists by their full inclusion in the SSCRA. 

MILITARY SHIPMENT PROGRAMS

Improve the quality of the DOD household goods shipment program.—The Military 

Traffic Management Command developed a test program that was extremely successful. It protected the military member’s goods, held carriers more accountable, 

and had extremely high satisfaction levels among military members. With that test 

project complete and time passing without DOD implementation of an enhanced 

household goods shipment program, it is time for Congress to act. Military members 

should not be faced with having their goods destroyed, lost, or stolen without adequate safeguards and/or compensation. 

Increase the household goods weight allowance for professional books, papers, 

and/or equipment to accommodate employment support for military spouses.—Currently, only the military member is entitled to an additional shipment weight allowance for professional books, papers, and/or equipment. In recent NDAA’s DOD has 

been tasked by Congress to come up with ways to provide military spouses with 

education, training, and employment assistance. Providing spouses some consideration by giving them a shipment allowance to support their employment would be 

a good step forward. For example, a dependent spouse (of a military member who 

is being reassigned) who maintains supplies to support a job as a government-certified family in-home day care provider, should not have to sell, discard, or give 

away his/her supplies. Most likely they will perform the same job at the next assignment. Similarly, a spouse who is a message therapist, hairstylist, lawyer, etc., ought 

to be given a shipment weight allowance to make them more employable at the next 

military assignment location. This would be in keeping with the congressional mandate to help spouses in their employment efforts. 

Provide all military members being assigned to OCONUS locations the option of 

government-funded POV shipment or storage.—Currently, DOD will only store a 

POV for a member if DOD reassigns that member to a location where DOD will not 

ship the member’s POV. AFSA believes that this shipment option should be extended to all members being stationed anywhere outside of the continental United 

States (CONUS). We believe that a significant part of such storage cost would be 

offset by DOD not having to ship the vehicle. 

RETIREMENT/SURVIVORS

Allow military members who are also receiving VA disability compensation to fully 

collect their military retired pay.—AFSA believes this is the right thing to do. Every 

member of this committee is aware of the arguments on this issue, so we will not 

restate them here. 

Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) Reform (Public Law 

97–252).—The members of this association strongly urge this committee to conduct 

hearings on needed USFSPA changes, both to gather all inputs needed for appropriate corrective legislation and to guard against inadvertently exacerbating current 

inequities via well-intended, piecemeal legislative action initiated outside of this 

committee. A military member must serve 20 years to earn a lifetime retirement 

annuity. However, under the USFSPA, any and all former spouses of a military 

members have claim to a portion of the military member’s eventual retirement pay. 

Such a former spouse could have been married to the military member only for a 

relatively short period of time; yet he/she will have a lifetime annuity if the military 

member goes on to retire. Our members have clearly communicated that this anachronistic statute, specifically targeted at military members, is not needed to protect 

former spouses. Provisions in law that apply to all other U.S. citizens should apply 
614

to the former spouses of military members. In that sense, full repeal of the USFSPA 

would be the fair thing to do. 

Reduce or Eliminate the Age-62 SBP Reduction.—Before age 62, SBP survivors receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of the retiree’s SBP-covered retirement pay. 

At age 62, however, the annuity is reduced to a lower percentage, down to a floor 

of 35 percent. For many older retirees, the amount of the reduction is related to the 

amount of the survivor’s Social Security benefit that is potentially attributable to 

the retiree’s military service. For member who attained retirement eligibility after 

1985, the post-62 benefit is a flat 35 percent of covered retired pay. Although this 

age-62 reduction was part of the initial SBP statute, large number of members who 

retired in the 1970s (or who retired earlier but enrolled in the initial SBP open season) were not informed of the reduction at the time they enrolled. As such, many 

still are very bitter about what they view as the government changing the rules on 

them mid stream. Thousands of retirees signed up for the program believing that 

they were ensuring their spouses would receive 55 percent of their retired pay for 

life. They are ‘‘stunned’’ to find out that the survivor reduction attributed to the retiree’s Social Security-covered military earning applies even to widows whose Social 

Security benefit is based on their own work history. Additionally, the DOD actuary 

has confirmed that the 40-percent government subsidy for the SBP program, which 

has been cited for more than two decades as an enticement for retirees to elect SBP 

coverage, has declined to less than 17 percent! Clearly, this benefit has become more 

beneficial and less costly for the government, and more costly and less beneficial for 

the retirees and survivors the program was created to protect. We urge you to step 

in and correct some of these inequities. 

Accelerate the SBP provision so that enrollees aged 70 who have paid into the SBP 

for at least 30 years be considered ‘‘paid-up’’.—The paid-up SBP initiative enacted 

in 1998 set an implementation date of 2008. We urge this committee to change that 

implementation date to ‘‘this year.’’ As a practical matter, any SBP enrollee who retired on or after October 1, 1978, would enjoy the full benefit of the paid up provision. However, members who enrolled in SBP when it first became available in 1972 

will have to continue paying premiums for up to 36 years to secure paid-up coverage—if they survive that long. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for this opportunity to present the 

views of the Air Force enlisted community. As you work toward your appropriations 

decisions, the Air Force Sergeants Association and its 136,000 members urge you 

to ensure sufficient funding to provide for the integrity of the entire DOD. Now, 

more than ever, this funding and this nation’s commitment to the members of our 

Armed Forces should ensure, without delay, the full benefits, entitlements and medical treatment that they have so rightfully earned. On behalf of all AFSA members, 

we appreciate your efforts and, as always, are ready to support you in matters of 

mutual concern.

Senator STEVENS. Our next witness is Dr. Steve Elliot Koonin, 

Provost at CAL Tech—oh, pardon me. I missed Joyce Raezer, Director, Government Relations, National Military Family Association. 

STATEMENT OF JOYCE WESSEL RAEZER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT 

RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION 

Ms. RAEZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The National Military Family Association (NMFA) endorses the 

testimony of the Military Coalition. Our statement expands on a 

few issues of special importance to active duty military families 

and their Guard and Reserve counterparts. 

We thank this subcommittee and Congress for providing the pay 

and benefit improvements necessary to retain the quality of force 

that is protecting our homeland and waging war against terror. 

NMFA is especially appreciative for the $150 increase in monthly 

family separation pay included in the fiscal year supplemental, 

2003 supplemental appropriations. When the service member is 

away from home on military orders, the family endures both emotional and financial costs. We encourage you to continue funding 

this high level in family separation pay in fiscal year 2004 for all 
615

service members on orders away from their families. Whether a 

service member is deployed to Iraq, on a ship in the Pacific, or on 

an unaccompanied tour in Korea, to the family away is away. 

Although many headlines and news programs now feature service members coming home, we must not forget that many service 

members still are deployed in far-flung locations around the world. 

Others are working long hours at their home station to support 

their deployed colleagues. Others are just now leaving for deployments of indeterminant length. 

I visited a community in Germany just last week where almost 

all of the 950 service members in that community had only just left 

for the Gulf the week before. They need to know their families will 

have the support services they need, especially when those families 

are so far from home themselves. 

As they deal simultaneously with new deployments, continued 

long-term employments, and the return of many of the units who 

were engaged in the fighting in Iraq, military families and their 

support programs will be taxed as never before. Because family 

readiness is linked to mission readiness, the costs of ensuring family readiness prior to deployment, during deployment, and in that 

critical period following the deployment must be factored into the 

costs of the mission. Adequate funding and staffing of family support is necessary to ensure a smooth reentry into home and community for the returning service members, even as program staff 

also must continue to assist with ongoing deployment issues and 

the normal routine of military life. 

Programs provided by military chaplains, the new parent support 

program, mental health programs, and support for family readiness 

groups are essential during deployments and will be just as vital 

in easing service members’ return and reunion. Mission costs must 

also include the resources needed to help our Guard and Reserve 

members and their families adjust to the service members’ transition back to civilian life, especially when no military installation 

support services are available. 

NMFA also asks that you help to ensure that military children’s 

schools have the funding they need to provide a quality education 

in a safe environment, as well as the extra help military children 

need in dealing with the deployment of a parent to a dangerous location. DOD schools must be sufficiently funded to perform their 

mission of educating military children to the highest standards 

found in stateside civilian school districts. 

NMFA also requests that you not only continue, but increase, the 

DOD funding to supplement impact aid for civilian schools educating military children. For families with school-aged children, the 

schools are on the front line of family support during times of high 

operations tempo and deployment stress. The military has made 

significant progress in partnering with school districts to improve 

the education of military children and to support both the schools 

and children during deployments. Please help to ensure that the 

schools have the resources they need to fulfil their obligation to all 

children in their charge. 

Service members look to the Nation to understand that their 

families often drive retention decisions. The families’ quality of life 

is a readiness requirement. Quality of life is not just about pay. It 
616

is about having a safe, well-maintained place to live. It is about access to quality health care without bureaucratic complexities. It is 

about a quality education for their children. It is about meeting the 

aspirations of a spouse for a career and a couple for a secure retirement. It is respect for a job well done. 

Senator STEVENS. I must say thank you. I have got 2 minutes to 

make my vote. Thank you very much. 

Ms. RAEZER. You are welcome. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOYCE WESSEL RAEZER

Mister Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, the National 

Military Family Association (NMFA) is, as always, appreciative of the enhancements in quality of life that you have provided for uniformed service families. We 

are particularly grateful for the increase in Family Separation pay included in the 

Supplemental. We anticipate permanent authority for the increase and strongly request adequate funding for fiscal year 2004. 

NMFA endorses the provisions included in the testimony provided by The Military 

Coalition, of which we are a member. In this statement we expand on that testimony with specific emphasis on the needs of families. 

Family Readiness 

Since 9/11 active duty members and their National Guard and Reserve peers have 

engaged in numerous duty assignments from homeland security to armed conflict. 

At the same time, members have continued to serve in various far-flung areas of 

the globe. The main message is, that they are gone! Separations produce economic 

strain, psychological strain and high levels of stress in the family. The lifeline of 

the military family, the military community, is also feeling the strain. Family services are important to an installation not pressured by high Perstempo or conflictrelated deployments. They are a critical necessity when families are left behind. 

Family center personnel, military chaplains, installation mental health professions 

and Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs all provide needed assistance to families. When spouses find themselves as the sole head of the family and as the single 

parent, the services available to assist them and their children with these challenges are truly lifelines. E-mail, video teleconferencing centers, and special family 

activities ease the strains and pains of separation. But none of these services are 

without cost. Just as the deployed servicemember’s readiness is dependent on proper 

training, food, shelter, clothing and weapons systems, the readiness of the family 

is dependent on accessing needed services. Both must be adequately funded to assure a force ready to successfully carry out its assigned mission. 

NMFA applauds the Office of Military Community and Family Policy in the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for its creation of a Joint Family Support Contingency Working Group to promote better information-sharing and planning among 

OSD and the military Service headquarters family support staff, including the Reserve Components. NMFA appreciates the invitation to participate in this working 

group, an innovative concept that grew out of the successful collaboration in the operation of the Pentagon family assistance center after the attack on the Pentagon. 

The working group recognized that most military families live off-base and is encouraging new ways of helping families that are not all centered on the installation. 

NMFA has long promoted additional outreach into the civilian community by installation personnel so that family members unable to get to an installation can still 

receive needed assistance. The possibility of further incidents, which could again restrict access to installations, makes this outreach even more imperative. 

One new vehicle for communicating with family members and helping them access 

assistance when needed, wherever they are located, is being tested by the Marine 

Corps Community Services (MCCS). The new program, ‘‘MCCS One Source,’’ provides 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, telephone and online family information and 

referral, situational assistance, and links to military and community resources. 

Since February 1, this service has been available to active duty and Reserve Marines and their family members. The Army has also made this service available to 

solders and families at select installations. Employee Assistance Programs such as 

‘‘One Source,’’ provide an accessible source of information for servicemembers and 

families and, if properly coordinated with other support services, should allow Service family support professionals to devote more time and attention to supporting 

unit volunteers and to assisting families with more complex problems. 
617

A program offered by Army Chaplains, ‘‘Building Strong and Ready Families’’ is 

targeted at improving relationship skills and assisting initial-entry soldiers and 

their families with making the transition into the military culture. NMFA is very 

grateful that a clarification on the use of appropriated funds to pay the expenses 

of soldiers and their families to participate in these command-sponsored, chaplainlead training opportunities was included in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act and requests, that if permanent authority has not been granted, such clarification of the use of appropriated funds be included again in this year’s Act. 

One very necessary improvement needed in the family support arena is closer collaboration between all the various helping individuals and agencies who assist in 

the development and maintenance of strong emotional and mental health in both 

individuals and families of the military community. As was seen in the Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, domestic violence cases during the summer of 2002, not all military 

family members or servicemembers make use of the counseling and support services 

available to them. While the TRICARE mental health benefits are rich by the standards of many other plans, the program does not have a preventive care component. 

For TRICARE to pay for services, there must be a medical diagnosis, thus discouraging many family members from seeking care. Many members and their families 

also believe that seeking counseling services through military programs may harm 

their careers or that these services are only intended for families identified as having problems. The authors of the Fort Bragg Epidemiological Consultation Report 

who examined the domestic violence incidents, noted that the various agencies that 

could provide support to the service members and families do not often coordinate 

their activities. NMFA strongly believes that better coordination and communication 

among all installation ‘‘helping agencies’’ as well as with those in the civilian community is imperative to help families deal with stress and promote better mental 

health. NMFA also believes that TRICARE must cover preventive mental health 

services just as it covers medical preventive services such as well-baby checks, immunizations, PAP smears and mammograms. An emphasis on emotional health 

rather than treatment may also make beneficiaries more likely to seek appropriate 

services in a timely manner. 

A significant element of family readiness is an educational system that provides 

a quality education to military children, recognizes the needs of these ever moving 

students and responds to situations where the military parent is deployed and/or 

in an armed conflict. Since approximately 80 percent of military children attend civilian public schools, the DOD Impact Aid supplement is vital to both these children 

and the school systems that educate them. No less than the stay at home spouse, 

children are affected by the absence of a parent and experience even higher levels 

of stress when their military parent is in a war zone shown constantly on television. 

Addressing the needs of these children and their classmates is imperative to lowering the overall family stress level, and to achieving an appropriate level of family 

readiness. But it does not come without cost to the local school system. 

This Subcommittee has consistently supported the needs of the schools operated 

by the DOD Education Activity (DODEA). These schools are located on military installations in the United States and in overseas locations. The commitment of this 

Subcommittee to the education of these military children has resulted in higher test 

scores, minority student achievement, parent involvement programs and partnership activities with the military community. It is significant to note that the Commander of USAREUR states that over half of the military members assigned to 

USAREUR are deployed away from their permanent duty sites. Imagine the challenges facing a school system in a foreign country where half of the student body 

has an absent parent! Your continued commitment to and support of these schools 

is strongly requested. 

Military child care is another important element in family readiness. Sergeant 

Major of the Army Jack Tilley noted that during 2002, twenty-seven percent of enlisted soldier parents reported lost duty time due to a lack of child care. Deployments increase the need for child care. Families, where the parents were previously 

able to manage their work schedules to cover the care of their children, must now 

seek outside child care as one parent deploys. Guard and Reserve families most 

often do not live close enough to a military installation to take advantage of either 

the Child Development Center or Family Day Care homes. Since 2000, DOD has 

had the authority to increase the availability of child care and youth programs 

through partnerships with civilian agencies and other organizations. The Services 

set up pilot programs to take advantage of this authority and obtain more care for 

children off the installations; however, less than 10 percent of DOD child care is 

provided off-base. NMFA is concerned that current funding levels for the Military 

Child Development System may not be adequate to meet both the routine demands 

for child care and to meet the increased need due to deployments. We request addi-
618

tional funds to ensure the provision of the high quality child care servicemembers 

and their families need. 

Finally, the ability of a military spouse to be employed and to have career progression affects both the family’s finances and the self-sufficiency of the spouse 

when the member deploys. Studies after the Persian Gulf War showed that spouses 

who were employed handled the stressors of the deployment better than those who 

were not employed. NMFA anxiously awaits the DOD report on the status of its 

spouse employment programs requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2002 NDAA. 

While we do not expect DOD to create a jobs program for every military spouse, it 

does need to facilitate the transition of mobile military spouses into already existing 

opportunities and to target efforts where spouses are having the greatest difficulty 

accessing educational programs or employment. Sixty-three percent of military 

spouses are in the labor force. Eighty-seven percent of junior enlisted spouses (E–

1 to E–5) are in the labor force. Very obviously, the financial health of the military 

family is significantly dependent upon the employment of the spouse. Family financial health is without question a family readiness issue. 

NMFA applauds the various initiatives to meet the needs of families wherever 

they live and whenever they need them and requests adequate funding to ensure 

continuation of current programs and implementation of new ones. However, we are 

also very aware that the ‘‘bedrock’’ family support programs must not be shunted 

aside in order to fund only the new initiatives. Since there appears little chance that 

the increase in family separations will come to an end, the higher stress levels 

caused by such separations require a higher level of community support. 

National Guard and Reserve Families 

As of May 6th, 224,528 National Guard and Reserve members were on active 

duty. While many of the challenges faced by their families are similar to those of 

active component families, they must face them with a less-concentrated and mature support network and, in many cases, without prior experience with military 

life. Unlike active duty units located on one installation with families in close proximity, reserve component families are often miles from the servicemember’s unit. 

Therefore, unless they pay for their own travel expenses, families are often unable 

to attend unit pre-deployment briefings. NMFA constantly hears the frustrations 

family members experience when trying to access information and understand their 

benefits. The lack of accurate benefit information and unrelenting communication 

difficulties are common themes among Guard and Reserve families. 

DOD has developed several key initiatives that address the needs of Guard and 

Reserve families. NMFA applauds this effort, but there is still much to be done. For 

example, the OSD Reserve Affairs office maintains an excellent website. Its Family 

Readiness Toolkit and Deployment Guide provide practical information; however, 

many families report it is difficult to use. Guard and Reserve families ask for standardized materials that are appropriate to all services, so that if an Army Reserve 

family happens to live close to a Navy installation they would understand how to 

access services there. The establishment of a joint Family Readiness program would 

facilitate the understanding and sharing of information between all military family 

members. 

NMFA thanks the state family readiness coordinators and unit volunteers for 

helping to provide family members with basic information. Unfortunately, some 

units do not have adequate programs because of the lack of volunteers and paid 

family readiness coordinators, whose sole job is to support the family. Additional 

family readiness staffing and support for unit level volunteers could ensure information is forwarded to families who are unable to attend unit briefings. Guard and Reserve unit volunteers, even more than many of their active duty counterparts, are 

stressed because of the numbers of families they must assist and the demands 

placed upon them. At a minimum, NMFA requests funding for child care to enable 

these dedicated volunteers to more efficiently perform their expected tasks. Funding 

to enable families to attend pre-deployment briefings would help strengthen the ties 

between the units and the families and the families with each other and assist in 

assuring that accurate information is provided directly to the family members. 

In addition to being geographically separated from the servicemember’s unit, families are often geographically separated from each other. NMFA suggests that DOD 

also strengthen and perhaps formalize partnerships with national organizations 

such as the American Red Cross and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to enlist their assistance through their local chapters in setting up community-based support groups 

for military family members. The groups could include not only spouses and significant others of all deployed members, no matter what unit or Service the member 

is attached to, but also the parents of servicemembers. Involving local community 

leaders in setting up these support groups would address two of the most common 
619

concerns expressed by some of these isolated families: the feeling that they are the 

only families in town going through the strain of deployment, and the sentiment 

that people not associated with the military do not appreciate their sacrifices. 

Through our contact with Guard and Reserve families and family support personnel over the past year, NMFA has heard wonderful stories of individual states, 

units and families caring for and supporting each other. NMFA is aware of leadership involvement at all levels to help ease the challenges faced by servicemembers 

and families. NMFA is especially proud of the efforts of The National Committee 

for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) as an advocate for the reserve component member facing employment issues. ESGR is encouraging employers to set up their own family support programs and provides information to employers and to their employees about the legal rights of reserve component members. By providing this information in the workplace, ESGR is helping civilian communities gain a better understanding of the valuable role the Guard and Reserve 

play in the defense of our nation. 

Compensation issues continue to be of paramount concern among Guard and Reserve families. Many members have taken a significant pay cut upon activation. 

Families who initially financially prepared for a six month activation now are faced 

with the devastating monetary consequences of a one or two year loss in income. 

Some small business owners and single practice professionals are facing the loss of 

their businesses. NMFA is aware of the disaster the previous income replacement 

program created, but believes that attention must be directed to these problems or 

retention of these individuals may become extremely problematic. In addition, some 

Guard and Reserve members experienced problems with pay processing upon activation. This delay in receiving the paycheck led to overdue payments on bills, and occasional threats to foreclose on mortgages or to turn the family over to a collection 

agency. Pay and personnel systems for activated Guard and Reserve members must 

work in coordination so families do not have to deal with bill collectors. 

The cost of meeting unique family readiness needs for National Guard and Reserve families must be calculated in Guard and Reserve operational budgets and additional resources provided. DOD should partner with other organizations and explore new means of communication and support to geographically dispersed Guard 

and Reserve families. 

Health Care 

After a rocky start over several years, the TRICARE system is providing most of 

the promised benefit for most families, particularly those enrolled in Prime. 

Changes made in the Prime Remote program for active duty families and ensuring 

access to Prime and Prime Remote for the families of Guard and Reserve members, 

who have orders for 30 days or more, have gone a long way to providing a truly 

uniform benefit for all families of those on active duty. 

NMFA is also pleased to report the continuation of the partnership established 

between the DOD Office of Health Affairs, the TRICARE Management Activity 

(TMA) and the beneficiary associations. This collaboration benefits both beneficiaries and the Department. NMFA appreciates the information received in these 

meetings and the opportunity for dialogue with those responsible for managing DOD 

health care policies and programs. Through this medium, NMFA and other organizations have been able to raise areas of concern, provide feedback on the implementation of new programs and benefits and to help provide better information to beneficiaries about their health care benefit. 

However, despite these improvements, NMFA remains apprehensive about several 

issues: funding, beneficiary access to health care, the implementation of a new generation of TRICARE contracts and the ability of National Guard and Reserve families to have reasonable access to care and continuity of care. 

Funding 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes what DOD believes to be an accurate 

level of funding for the Defense Health Program. However, NMFA urges this Subcommittee to continue its efforts to ensure full funding of the entire Defense Health 

Program, to include meeting the needs for military readiness and of both the direct 

care and purchased care segments of TRICARE. NMFA is particularly pleased with 

the allocation of funds by TMA and the Services to support the new Family Centered Obstetrical Care initiative. While the increased funds for this program may 

well have been driven by the impending loss of DOD’s ability to force military family members to receive obstetrical care in Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs), it 

has nonetheless been a remarkable achievement. Many MTFs have instituted significant and substantial improvements to their obstetrical programs and more are 

constantly coming on line every day. NMFA assumes this initiative will continue to 
620

be funded in a robust manner and hopes that the spirit of Family Centered care, 

the innovations created by the program and the funding provided will move into 

other specialties within the MTFs. 

Access 

Although recent TRICARE surveys highlight improvements in beneficiary access 

to care, NMFA continues to field calls on almost a daily basis from beneficiaries 

with access issues. Servicemembers and families enrolled in Prime are promised certain standards for access to care in providing appointments, wait times at a provider’s office and geographic availability. Yet the calls we receive tell another story. 

Even servicemembers are told by the direct care system, ‘‘Call back next month, 

there are no more appointments this month.’’ Family members are routinely not informed that they can request an appointment with a provider in the civilian sector 

if access standards cannot be met in the direct care system. However, IF the member or family member mentions the words, ‘‘access standards,’’ appointments that 

fall within the guidelines magically appear. NMFA was also made aware that some 

in the direct care system were telling family members that accepting appointments 

outside of the access standards was a way for them to ‘‘support the war in Iraq’’ 

since medical personnel from the facility had been deployed. TRICARE was designed 

so that care could be provided in a timely manner within the civilian network when 

it was not available in the direct care system. There is no reason, including the deployment of medical personnel, that access standards should not always be met. 

When family members enrolled in Prime attempt to access care within the civilian 

network they utilize the Managed Care Support Contractors web pages or the Prime 

Booklet’s list of providers. However, they often feel as if they are ‘‘letting their fingers walk through the yellow pages,’’ as they hear, telephone call after telephone 

call, ‘‘The doctor is not accepting any new TRICARE Prime patients.’’ Lists of providers must show who is and who is not accepting new patients. This information 

is of prime importance to families arriving at a new duty station. To their credit 

some, but not all, of the Managed Care Support Contractors are providing this information. 

As TRICARE Prime has improved, those who have remained in TRICARE Standard often feel as if they are unwanted stepchildren. Managed Care Support Contractors are required in the current contracts to assist Standard beneficiaries in finding 

a provider who accepts TRICARE. However, most Standard beneficiaries are not 

aware of this provision, because no one is required to communicate with them. 

When new Managed Care Support contracts came on line, contractors mailed brochures to all eligible beneficiary households, but other than giving basic information 

on the various choices with the TRICARE program, the information was basically 

geared to enrollment in Prime. Contractors are required to communicate regularly 

with Prime enrollees, but not with Standard beneficiaries. In fact, most of the literature regarding Standard states that it is the same as the old CHAMPUS program. No mention is made of prior authorizations, which vary from Region to Region, or of other region specific ‘‘rules of the road.’’

In many areas Standard beneficiaries have more difficulty than Prime enrollees 

in finding providers. While Standard beneficiaries can certainly utilize Prime network providers (if they know where to find such a list), many have remained in 

Standard because there is no Prime network where they live or they have elected 

to have a broader choice of providers. Managed Care Support Contractors on the 

other hand are, understandably, more interested in establishing and maintaining 

their Prime networks. Anecdotal evidence provided to NMFA appears to indicate 

that many providers are unaware that they may remain TRICARE providers even 

if they decline to become Prime network providers. In addition, many providers also 

complain of the ‘‘new rules of the road’’ on prior authorizations and paper work, 

which were not required when they were CHAMPUS providers. Low reimbursement 

rates and claims processing continue to be cited by providers as reasons they do not 

seek to become authorized TRICARE providers. 

TRICARE Standard is an option in the TRICARE program and those who are 

forced or desire to use that option should be supported as fully as those who chose 

to enroll in Prime. Contractors must make significant efforts to recruit Standard 

providers. 

DOD and the contractors must be ever vigilant in identifying areas where sufficient numbers of providers in certain specialties refuse to accept TRICARE because 

of the reimbursement rates. DOD has the authority (and has used it in Alaska and 

recently in Idaho) to increase reimbursement rates to ensure a proper mix and number of providers. Contractors must continue their strong effort to improve claims 

processing and education of providers and their support staffs on the unique requirements of the TRICARE claims process. 
621

TNEX and other contracts 

The next round of TRICARE Contracts (TNEX) would appear to place significantly new levels of authority and responsibility on local MTF Commanders. NMFA 

is concerned that this may actually increase the differences in how a beneficiary accesses care rather than make it more uniform. Currently, Managed Care Support 

Contractors in some Regions have total responsibility for making appointments, and 

in all Regions they have the responsibility for making appointments within the civilian network. The new contracts would appear to leave this responsibility to the local 

MTF Commander, either to arrange all of the appointments or to opt into an as yet 

unknown national appointment contract. All current Managed Care Support Contractors are required to have a health information line. The new contracts leave the 

decision to have one and/or which one to have up to the local MTF Commander. 

TNEX also appears to blur lines of authority and accountability rather than 

strengthening them. Beneficiaries need a clear line of command and accountability 

for their problems with accessing care to be fixed and for their concerns about quality of care to be appropriately addressed. 

If changes are made in how beneficiaries access care from the current method, 

beneficiaries need to be educated and informed BEFORE the fact. 

Beneficiaries may not only face new ways of accessing care, but new ‘‘rules of the 

road’’ as a national contract is awarded for the retail pharmacy benefit. The implementation of the new TRICARE mail order pharmacy program contract (TMOP) was 

not without some significant problems. Fortunately, most were transitory and have 

been or are being addressed. However, a problem facing some beneficiaries could 

have been avoided with proper education and information. TMOP is now tied into 

both the retail pharmacies and the MTF pharmacies, so all pharmacy providers are 

aware of prescriptions being filled at all other venues in real time. Under the previous contractor such real time checking was not done. If a provider ordered a new 

medication for a beneficiary and wanted the medication started immediately, yet the 

beneficiary was to be on the medication for a long time, the beneficiary probably 

used both the retail and mail order pharmacy on the same or similar dates. Under 

TMOP the mail order request of the beneficiary will be denied until 75 percent of 

the retail prescription is consumed. This is not a problem with receiving the medication in a timely manner, nor is it a new DOD regulation, but it was a new wrinkle 

to beneficiaries that caused concern and could have been avoided. 

Guard and Reserve Health Care 

While the ‘‘rules of the road’’ for using TRICARE, particularly Prime, seem now 

to be well understood by most active duty and retired family members, it is another 

story for National Guard and Reserve families. Since many of these families do not 

live near an installation, most of their information comes in printed form, on the 

web or via telephone. In addition, many live in areas where providers are unaware 

of TRICARE, as there are few if any other uniformed service beneficiaries in the 

area. Lead Agents and TRICARE contractors routinely conduct TRICARE briefings 

for members of units about to mobilize; unfortunately, in most cases, families (those 

who will actually have to navigate the system) live too far away to attend. If the 

servicemember and family live in a different TRICARE Region from the one where 

the unit is located, the information provided in the unit setting may not be the same 

for the Region in which the family actually lives. Decisions to enroll in Prime, use 

Standard or remain with an employer provided plan need to be family decisions 

based on full and accurate information provided to servicemembers AND their families. 

NMFA has long believed that the approach to meeting the health care needs of 

Guard and Reserve members and their families must be flexible enough to ensure 

access to care and continuity of care. We believe S. 852, recently introduced by Senators DeWine, Daschle, Smith and Leahy, addresses most of these issues. Provisions 

included in the legislation would authorize Guard and Reserve members to enroll 

in TRICARE when not on active duty and subsidize the cost of the program at approximately the same level as the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program 

(FEHBP) is for Federal Civilians. This would allow those who currently have no insurance in civilian life to have access to an affordable program and would provide 

continuity in both program and care when the member is activated. Alternatively, 

the legislation would authorize DOD to pay the premiums of an employer provided 

private sector plan up to the level of what TRICARE would cost DOD if it were provided to the member and his/her family. This would allow those with civilian provided coverage to continue with their current plan and providers. 

Funding must be adequate to meet readiness needs, provide for both the purchased care segment of TRICARE and the direct care system to include the Family 

Centered Obstetrical Care initiative. Access standards were part of the promise 
622

DOD made to families when they enrolled in TRICARE Prime. These access standards must be met either in the MTF or the civilian network. Civilian networks must 

be robust enough to support MTFs in meeting the access standards. Recruitment 

of TRICARE Standard providers and education of Standard beneficiaries should be 

as much a part of the TRICARE program as are these endeavors for Prime providers and enrollees. The new round of contracts must provide standardized ways 

to access health care across all Regions and beneficiaries should have a clear picture 

of who can solve their access problems and quality of care concerns. Families of 

Guard and Reserve members should have flexible options for their health care coverage that address both access to care and continuity of care. In addition, accurate 

and timely information on their options and such things as transitional health care 

must be provided to the families as well as the servicemember. 

NMFA thanks this Subcommittee and Congress for your advocacy for pay and 

benefit improvements necessary to retain the quality force that now protects our 

homeland and wages war against terror. Your actions have helped to rebuild military members’ trust and to ease the crisis in recruiting and retention. We ask you 

to remember that mission readiness is tied to servicemember readiness, which is 

tied to family readiness. The stability of the military family and community and 

their support for the forces rests on the Nation’s continued focus on the entire package of quality of life components. Military members and their families look to you 

for continued support for that quality of life. Please don’t let them down.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you for your patience, Doctor. 

Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN ELLIOT KOONIN, Ph.D., PROVOST AND PROFESSOR OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF 

TECHNOLOGY; ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN 

UNIVERSITIES AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES 

Dr. KOONIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

able to testify to you today. I am Steven Koonin. I am the Provost 

and a professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of 

Technology. I am also a former member of the Defense Science 

Board, on which I served for 4 years. My remarks today are on behalf of the Association of American Universities, which represents 

60 of America’s most prominent public and private research universities. My testimony is also submitted on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Together 

these two associations include public and private universities and 

colleges in every State that perform the science and technology research funded by the DOD. 

DOD is the third largest Federal sponsor of university-based research. Nearly 350 universities and colleges conduct DOD-funded 

research and development. Universities play the largest role in 

basic defense research, receiving more than 53 percent of 6.1 funding. They also receive substantial funding for applied defense research under the 6.2 program element. 

With that background, I would like to bring to your attention two 

issues important to universities related to the fiscal year 2004 

budget proposal for defense spending. The first of these is to urge 

your support for an appropriation of $11.4 billion, or 3 percent of 

the overall fiscal year 2004 budget proposed for DOD science and 

technology programs. This request is consistent with recommendations contained in the Quadrennial Defense Report and are made 

by the Defense Science Board (DSB) as well as experts such as Mr. 

Pete Aldridge. All of these have called for a DOD S&T budget that 

reflects 3 percent of the overall DOD budget. 

Within defense S&T, the organizations I am representing also re- quest that $2.3 billion be appropriated for 6.1 research and $4.6 
623

billion be appropriated for competitive merit-based 6.2 research. 

There is growing concern that, while funding for overall defense 

S&T has been increasing in recent years, much of this growth has 

been in the 6.3 account, with much less growth in the 6.1 and 6.2 

accounts. 

In fact, if one looks closely at the trends over the past 20 years, 

6.1 funding has declined in constant dollars and has significantly 

decreased as a share of total S&T, from over 20 percent in fiscal 

year 1983 to approximately 14 percent currently. We encourage the 

committee to reverse this downward trend in investments in the 

basic ideas that are going to lead to tomorrow’s advances in defense 

technology. 

The second matter that I would like to bring to your attention 

concerns the administration’s budget proposal to transfer funding 

or to devolve certain critical joint multi-disciplinary DOD S&T programs, including the University Research Initiative, from the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense to the services. This proposed 

devolvement is a matter over which our universities have great 

concerns. Such a move could damage the unique nature and design 

of these programs and could inhibit the types of cross-service integration and coordination of S&T research that these programs have 

been specifically designed to promote. 

We are also concerned that, if moved out of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and into the services, the services could direct these funds to service-oriented needs rather than to the broader long-term research needs that cut across the services. For these 

reasons, we urge your subcommittee to consider carefully the implications of devolvement of S&T programs from the OSD. 

Let me conclude by thanking the committee, the subcommittee, 

for its ongoing support of defense S&T. We hope that you will continue the progress that has been made in the past few years in 

supporting the critical S&T programs that make such an important 

contribution to our national security. 

Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Doctor. We do support 

very strongly the university research. The other item you mentioned, though, is the Armed Services Committee. I hope you are 

taking that message to them. That is a legislative recommendation. 

Dr. KOONIN. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you for your testimony. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN ELLIOT KOONIN

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. My name is Steven Koonin, and I am the Provost and a Professor 

of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology. I am also a former 

member of the Defense Science Board (DSB) where I served for four years. 

My remarks today are submitted on behalf of the Association of American Universities (AAU), which represents 60 of America’s most prominent public and private 

research universities. This testimony is also submitted on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). These two associations include public and private universities and colleges in every state that 

perform the science and technology research that is funded by the Department of 

Defense. 

I want to specifically thank this subcommittee and you, Mr. Chairman, for the ongoing support that you have shown for science and technology research programs 

in the Department of Defense. As you know, basic and applied research are funded 
624

under program elements 6.1 and 6.2 in the Research, Development, Testing and 

Evaluation (RDT&E) section of the Department of Defense appropriation. The 

Army, Navy, Air Force and the ‘‘Defense-wide’’ account under the Office of the Secretary all receive separate appropriations for these programs. 

Why do universities care about Defense Science and Technology (S&T)? Today, 

DOD is the third largest federal sponsor of university-based research (after the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation). Nearly 350 universities and colleges conduct DOD-funded research and development. Universities play 

the largest role in basic defense research, receiving more than 53 percent of program element 6.1 funding. They also receive substantial funding for applied defense 

research provided under program element 6.2. 

With this as background, I would like to bring to your attention two issues of importance to universities related to the fiscal year 2004 budget proposal for the defense spending. These are: (1) continued growth in support for DOD Science and 

Technology (S&T) Programs, with particular emphasis on basic 6.1 and applied 6.2 

research, and (2) concerns the university community has related to the proposed 

‘‘devolvement’’ of certain S&T programs from the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) to the individual services. 

Increasing Support for Defense Basic and Applied Research 

On behalf of the AAU and NASULGC, I urge your support for an appropriation of $11.4 billion, or 3 percent of the overall fiscal year 2004 Budget proposed for the 

Department of Defense (DOD) for science and technology (S&T) programs (6.1 basic 

research, 6.2 applied research, and 6.3 advanced technology development) in the 

Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-Wide. This request is consistent with recommendations contained in the Quadrennial Defense Report and made by the Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as experts such as Pete Aldridge, Under Secretary Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, who have all called for a DOD S&T 

budget that reflects 3 percent of the overall DOD budget. 

Within defense S&T, the AAU and NASULGC request that $2.3 billion be appropriated for 6.1 basic research and $4.6 billion be appropriated for competitive merit 

based 6.2 applied research. There is growing concern that while funding for overall 

Defense S&T has been increasing in recent years, much of this growth has been in 

the 6.3 account with much less growth in 6.1 basic research and 6.2 applied research. In fact, if one looks closely at the trends, over the last 20 years funding for 

6.1 basic research has declined in constant dollars and has significantly decreased 

as a share of total S&T (from over 20 percent in fiscal year 1983 to approximately 

14 percent in fiscal year 2003 (See Attachments #1 and #2). We encourage the Committee to reverse this downward trend in investments in the basic ideas that are 

going to lead to tomorrow’s advances in defense technology. 

I need not tell the members of this subcommittee that successful U.S. national 

defense policy is critically dependent on technological superiority. New dangers, 

such as high technology terrorism, information warfare, and the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction, now face the military and require new and more sophisticated technologies. The knowledge required to generate these technologies is 

dependent upon the long-term, high-risk, defense oriented fundamental research 

that is conducted at U.S. universities. 

Through their research, university-based scientists and engineers are helping to 

prepare the U.S. military to be ready for the new threats it faces in the 21st century, including nuclear, chemical, biological, and other asymmetric threats such as 

terrorism and cyber attacks. Past university-based basic and applied research discoveries that have made major contributions to the nation’s military and defense efforts include inertial navigation, radar, the global positioning system (GPS), precision guidance, advanced materials, and reduced radar cross-section technology. 

Indeed, the DOD’s past investments in basic and applied research helped the U.S. 

military to rewrite the rules of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, with new technologies 

such as advanced laser-guided and precision weapons, the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle that circles and watches for enemy activity, and the Rapid Multilingual 

Support Device that helps to issue instructions and orders in targeted languages. 

These investments were also critical in the development of the thermobaric bomb 

that was rushed into use against al Queda and Taliban forces holed up in Afghanistan’s mountains and caves. Because of the past investments made in basic and applied research, this weapon could be developed and successfully deployed in only 67 

days. 

In addition to supporting new technologies, DOD’s investment in basic and applied research also plays a critical role in advancing knowledge and in supporting 

and training a cadre of defense oriented scientists and engineers that work not only 

at our universities, but also in industry and the DOD’s own national laboratories. 
625

DOD research also provides students with hands-on research training experiences, 

ensuring that we will have a long lasting supply of highly qualified scientists and 

engineers to go on to work in academia, industry, and federal laboratories in the 

future. 

Finally, DOD sponsored university research is concentrated in fields where advances are most likely to contribute to national defense. DOD accounts for 70 percent of federal funding for university electrical engineering, 40 percent of computer 

sciences funding, 41 percent of metallurgy/materials engineering funding, and 29 

percent of ocean sciences funding. DOD also sponsors fellowships and provides a significant amount of support for graduate students in critical defense fields such as 

computer science and aerospace and electrical engineering (See Attachment#3 for an 

illustration of the amount of research support that DOD provides to key engineering 

sub-disciplines). 

Concerns Regarding the Proposed Devolvement of DOD S&T Programs 

The second matter that I would like to bring to your attention concerns the Administration’s budget proposal to transfer funding, or ‘‘devolve,’’ certain critical, 

joint, and multidisciplinary DOD S&T Programs—including the University Research 

Initiative (URI)—from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the services. 

The proposed devolvement of S&T programs is a matter over which our universities have great concerns. Specifically, such a move could damage the unique nature and design of these programs and could inhibit the types of cross-service integration and coordination of S&T research that these programs have been specifically 

designed to promote. We are also concerned that if moved out of OSD, and into the 

services, that the services could direct these funds to service-oriented needs rather 

than to the broader, long-term research needs that cut across the services. For these 

reasons, we urge your subcommittee to consider the implications of devolvement of 

S&T programs for the OSD. 

The advantage that these S&T programs have enjoyed by being housed within the 

OSD is that they have been insolated from the short-term strategic demands that 

so often drive spending within the individual services. As a result, they have able 

to maintain their focus on the long-term S&T needs of the entire DOD. Moreover, 

because the services have competed with each other for funding from OSD for programs such as the URI, it has been ensured that the service most capable of meeting the DOD’s long-term S&T needs was, in fact, awarded the funding. 

Programs such as the URI, from which researchers at Cal Tech and many public 

and private academic institutions have received funding, were specifically designed 

to support the development of new knowledge and to build a critical mass of experts 

to address long-term defense research needs that transcend the specific and immediate interests of the individual services. 

As a result, URI has been able to successfully support exciting new advances in 

critical strategic research to the DOD in areas such as nanoscience, smart materials 

and structures, information technology, human centered systems, synthetic materials and processes, and compact power systems. Over the past five years, funding 

provided by the URI program has supported 859 graduate fellowships, 1,131 instrumentation projects, and 166 new awards to research teams from institutions located 

in most every state in the nation. 

The university community believes that these programs, and the goals for which 

they were established, have been well served by being housed within OSD. To ensure that these programs meet their stated objectives and best ensure that they continue to provide the knowledge required to properly equip, train and protect the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of the future, we ask that the subcommittee take 

a serious look at the implication of devolving these programs to the services. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me again thank the subcommittee for its ongoing support of Defense S&T. We hope that you will continue the progress that has been made in the 

past few years in support for the critical S&T programs which make such an important contribution to our national security. 

Thank you again for permitting me to testify today.
626

[ATTACHMENT 1]

[ATTACHMENT 2]
627

[ATTACHMENT 3]

Senator STEVENS. George Dahlman, Vice President for Public 

Policy of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, please. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DAHLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY, THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY 

Mr. DAHLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to 

testify before you on behalf of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. During its 53-year history, the society has been dedicated to 

finding a cure for the blood cancers, the leukemias, lymphomas, 

and multiple myeloma. A great deal of progress has been made in 

the treatment of blood cancers and over the last 2 decades there 

have been impressive strides in the treatment and particularly in 

lymphoma and in childhood leukemia. 

But despite these advances, they pose a continuing risk to Americans. In 2003 more than 100,000 will be diagnosed with a bloodrelated cancer. Almost 700,000 Americans are currently living with 

a blood cancer and some 60,000 this year will die from them. Taken 

together, the blood cancers are fifth among cancers in incidence 

and second in mortality. 

Why are these diseases important to the Department of Defense? 

They are important for a couple of reasons. First, research on 

blood-related cancers has special relevance to the Armed Forces because these are the cancers that appear among individuals with 

chemical and nuclear exposure. Higher incidences of leukemia have 

long been substantiated in extreme nuclear incidents in both military and civilian populations and recent studies have proven that 
628

individuals exposed to chemical agents like Agent Orange in the 

Vietnam War cause an increased risk of lymphoid malignancies. 

As a matter of fact, a recent report by the Institute of Medicine 

found that Agent Orange is also connected to chronic lymphocytic 

leukemia, CLL, and the VA is now covering veterans with that disease. So the Vietnam era defoliant itself is credited with causing 

lymphomas, chronic myelogenous leukemia, as well as CLL. 

Consequently, in the current environment DOD medical research 

needs to focus on the broader area of blood cancer research as it 

affects our military and domestic preparedness. Soldiers in the 

field, the domestic first response personnel, and the civilian population all face blood cancer risks from chemical or nuclear exposures. And as our Nation is contemplating the threat of biological, 

chemical, or nuclear terrorism, we need to better understand and 

prepare for the malignancies that would inevitably result from 

these events. 

Secondly, research into blood cancers, as has been mentioned by 

colleagues, has traditionally pioneered treatments in other cancers. 

Chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants are two striking examples of treatments that were first developed in the blood cancers 

and now are applied to other malignancies. Their relevance and the 

opportunity was recognized over the last 2 years when Congress 

appropriated $9.25 million for a program of chronic myelogenous 

leukemia through the congressionally-directed medical research 

program. 

Since that program was launched, 11 proposals have been recommended for funding and the quality of the proposals has been 

rated very high and that there is more room for additional research 

with more funding. Unfortunately, $9.25 million does not go very far in medical research and, recognizing that, a bipartisan group of Members of 

Congress have requested that the program funding be increased to 

$25 million and that the program be expanded to all the blood cancers, the leukemias, the lymphomas, and myelomas, and that it 

provide the research community with the flexibility to build on this 

pioneering field. 

DOD research on the other forms of blood-related cancer addresses the importance of preparing for civilian and military exposure 

to the weapons being developed by hostile nations and to aid in the 

research for more effective treatment for all who suffer from these 

diseases. 

I would like to conclude by saying that the Leukemia and 

Lymphoma Society, along with our partners the Lymphoma Research Foundation and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, strongly endorses and enthusiastically supports and respectfully urges the committee to include funding of $25 million in the 

fiscal year 2004 defense appropriations bill. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much. I am sure you 

know we try our best on those diseases that you mentioned, and 

we will again do our best. 

Mr. DAHLMAN. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]
629

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE DAHLMAN

Introduction 

I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee today and testify on behalf of 

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS). 

During its 53-year history, the Society has been dedicated to finding a cure for 

the blood cancers—leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma. The Society has the distinction of being both the largest private organization dedicated to blood-related cancers 

and the nation’s second largest private cancer organization. 

Our central contribution to the search for a cure is providing a significant amount 

of the funding for basic and translational research in the blood cancers. In 2003, 

we will provide almost $40 million in research grants. In addition to our role funding research, we provide a wide range of services to individuals with the blood cancers, their caregivers, families, and friends through our 60 chapters across the country. Finally, we advocate responsible public policies that will advance our mission 

of finding a cure for the blood cancers. 

We are pleased to report that impressive progress is being made in the treatment 

of many blood cancers. Over the last two decades, there have been steady and impressive strides in the treatment of the most common form of childhood leukemia, 

and the survival rate for that form of leukemia has improved dramatically. 

And two years ago, a new therapy was approved for chronic myelogenous leukemia, a form of leukemia for which there were previously limited treatment options, all with serious side-effects. Let me say that more clearly, if three years ago 

your doctor told you that you had CML, you would have been informed that there 

were limited treatment options and that you should get your affairs in order. Today, 

those same patients have access to this new therapy, called Gleevec, which is a socalled targeted therapy that corrects the molecular defect that causes the disease, 

and does so with few side effects. 

The LLS funded the early research on Gleevec, as it has contributed to research 

on a number of new therapies. We are pleased that we played a role in the development of this life-saving therapy, but we realize that our mission is far from complete. Many forms of leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma present daunting treatment 

challenges. There is much work still to be done, and we believe the research partnership between the public and private sectors—as represented in many of the Pentagon research programs—is an integral part of that effort and should be strengthened. 

The Grant Programs of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society 

The grant programs of the Society are in three broad categories: Career Development Grants, Translational Research Grants for early-stage support for clinical research, and Specialized Centers of Research. In our Career Development program, 

we fund Scholars, Special Fellows, and Fellows who are pursuing careers in basic 

or clinical research. In our Translational Research Program, we focus on supporting 

investigators whose objective is to translate basic research discoveries into new 

therapies. 

The work of Dr. Brian Druker, an oncologist at Oregon Health Sciences University and the chief investigator on Gleevec, was supported by a translational research 

grant from the Society. Dr. Druker is certainly a star among those supported by the 

LLS, but our support in this field is broad and deep. Through the Career Development and Translational Research Programs, we are currently supporting more than 

400 investigators in 33 States and ten foreign countries. 

Our new Specialized Centers of Research grant program (SCOR) is intended to 

bring together research teams focused on the discovery of innovative approaches to 

benefit patients or those at risk of developing leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma. 

The awards will go to those groups that can demonstrate that their close interaction 

will create research synergy and accelerate our search for new therapies, prevention, or cures. 

Impact of Hematological Cancers 

Despite enhancements in treating blood cancers, there are still significant research opportunities and challenges. Hematological, or blood-related, cancers pose a 

serious health risk to all Americans. These cancers are actually a large number of 

diseases of varied causes and molecular make-up, and with different treatments, 

that strike men and women of all ages. In 2003, more than 100,000 Americans will 

be diagnosed with a form of blood-related cancer and over 60,000 will die from these 

cancers. For some, treatment may lead to long-term remission and cure; for others 

these are chronic diseases that will require treatments on several occasions; and for 
630

others treatment options are extremely limited. For many, recurring disease will be 

a continual threat to a productive and secure life. 

A few focused points to put this in perspective: 

—Taken together, the hematological cancers are fifth among cancers in incidence 

and second in mortality. 

—Almost 700,000 Americans are living with a hematological malignancy in 2003. 

—More than 60,000 people will die from hematological cancers in 2003, compared 

to 40,000 from breast cancer, 30,200 from prostate cancer, and 56,000 from 

colorectal cancer. 

—Blood-related cancers still represent serious treatment challenges. The improved 

survival for those diagnosed with all types of hematological cancers has been 

uneven. The five-year survival rates are:

Percent 

Hodgkin’s disease .............................................................................................................................................. 83

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma .................................................................................................................................. 53

Leukemias (total) ............................................................................................................................................... 45

Multiple Myeloma ............................................................................................................................................... 29

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia ............................................................................................................................ 14

—Individuals who have been treated for leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma may 

suffer serious adverse events of treatment, including second malignancies, 

organ dysfunction (cardiac, pulmonary, and endocrine), neuropsychological and 

psychosocial aspects, and quality of life. 

Trends 

Since the early 1970s, incidence rates for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) have 

nearly doubled. 

For the period from 1973 to 1998, the death rate for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma increased by 45 percent, and the death rate for multiple myeloma increased by more 

than 32 percent. These increases occurred during a time period when death rates 

for most other cancers are dropping. 

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma rank second and fifth, respectively, in terms of increased cancer mortality since 1973. 

Recent statistics indicate both increasing incidence and earlier age of onset for 

multiple myeloma. 

Multiple myeloma is one of the top ten leading causes of cancer death among African Americans. 

Despite the significant decline in the leukemia death rate for children in the 

United States, leukemia is still one of the two most common diseases that cause 

death in children in the United States. 

Lymphoma is the third most common childhood cancer. 

Causes of Hematological Cancers 

The causes of hematological cancers are varied, and our understanding of the etiology of leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma is limited. Chemicals in pesticides and 

herbicides, as well as viruses such as HIV and EBV, play a role in some 

hematological cancers, but for most cases, no cause is identified. Researchers have 

recently published a study reporting that the viral footprint for simian virus 40 

(SV40) was found in the tumors of 43 percent of NHL patients. These research findings may open avenues for investigation of the detection, prevention, and treatment 

of NHL. There is a pressing need for more investigation of the role of infectious 

agents or environmental toxins in the initiation or progression of these diseases. 

Importance To The Department of Defense 

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society believes this type of medical research is particularly important to the Department of Defense for a number of reasons. 

First, research on blood-related cancers has significant relevance to the armed 

forces, as the incidence of these cancers is substantially higher among individuals 

with chemical and nuclear exposure. Higher incidences of leukemia have long been 

substantiated in extreme nuclear incidents in both military and civilian populations, 

and recent studies have proven that individual exposure to chemical agents, such 

as Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, cause an increased risk of contracting lymphoid malignancies. In addition, bone marrow transplants were first explored as a 

means of treating radiation-exposed combatants and civilians following World War 

II. 

The connection of blood cancers to military exposures was further illustrated in 

a recent report by the Institute of Medicine, finding that Agent Orange exposure 
631

is connected to cases of chronic lymphocitic leukemia (CLL). Immediately after the 

determination, the Veterans Administration announced that it will cover the medical expenses of veterans with CLL. The Vietnam-era defoliant is now credited with 

causing lymphomas, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) as well as CLL. 

Consequently, in the current environment DOD medical research needs to also 

focus on the broader area of blood cancer research as it affects our military and domestic preparedness. Soldiers in the field, domestic first-response personnel, and the 

civilian population all face blood cancer risks from chemical or nuclear exposures, 

such as a ‘‘dirty bomb.’’ Higher incidences of leukemia have long been substantiated 

in extreme nuclear incidents in both military and civilian populations. As our nation 

is contemplating the threat of biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism, we need better understanding of, and preparation for, the hematological malignancies that 

would inevitably result from such events. 

Secondly, additional funding would expedite the cure for other cancers. Research 

in the blood cancers has traditionally pioneered treatments in other malignancies. 

This research frequently represents the leading edge in cancer treatments that are 

later applied to other forms of cancer. Chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants 

are two striking examples of treatments first developed in the blood cancers. 

From a medical research perspective, it is a particularly promising time to build 

a DOD research effort focused on blood-related cancers. That relevance and opportunity were recognized over the last two years when Congress appropriated a total 

of $9.25 million to begin initial research into chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) 

through the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). As 

members of the Subcommittee know, a noteworthy and admirable distinction of the 

CDMRP is its cooperative and collaborative process that incorporates the experience 

and expertise of a broad range of patients, researchers and physicians in the field. 

Since the CML program was launched, eleven proposals were recommended for 

funding. The review panel found the overall quality of the proposals was high and 

quality research from this CMLRP would benefit from additional funding. Additionally, innovative projects that have a high probability of finding new targets for the 

development of future therapies and new medicines to treat CML were recommended for funding. Unfortunately, $9.25 million does not go very far in medical research. Recognizing 

that fact and the opportunity this research represents, bipartisan members of Congress have requested that the program be modestly increased to $25 million and be 

expanded to include all the blood cancers—the leukemias, lymphomas and myeloma. 

This would provide the research community with the flexibility to build on the pioneering tradition that has characterized this field. 

DOD research on the other forms of blood-related cancer addresses the importance 

of preparing for civilian and military exposure to the weapons being developed by 

several hostile nations and to aid in the march to more effective treatment for all 

who suffer from these diseases. This request clearly has merit for inclusion in the 

fiscal year 2004 legislation. 

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society strongly endorses and enthusiastically supports this effort and respectfully urges the Committee to include this funding in the 

fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations bill. 

We believe that building on the foundation Congress initiated over the last two 

years would both significantly strengthen the CDMRP and accelerate the development of cancer treatments. As history has demonstrated, expanding its focus into 

areas that demonstrate great promise; namely the blood-related cancers of leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma, would substantially aid the overall cancer research 

effort and yield great dividends.

Senator STEVENS. Joan Goldberg, National Coalition for 

Osteoporosis and Bone Diseases. Good morning. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN GOLDBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 

SOCIETY FOR BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH; ON BEHALF OF 

THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR OSTEOPOROSIS AND RELATED 

BONE DISEASES 

Ms. GOLDBERG. Good morning. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am representing 

the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, also the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases, which 

includes the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Pagett Foundation, and Osteogenesis Imperfecta, as well as my own society. To-
632

gether we represent over 44 million Americans who have bone diseases or are at risk for them, along with more than 5,000 scientists 

dedicated to improving the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and 

understanding of bone diseases and disorders. 

Bone health, as you know, is integral to overall health. Our 

bones support our muscles, protect our vital organs, and store the 

calcium that is essential for bone density or mass, end strength. 

What makes bones healthy? It is a complex interaction involving 

many nutritional, hormonal, behavioral, genetic, and environmental factors—what we eat and drink, the type and duration of 

our exercise, our family history. These are some of the pieces of the 

puzzle that fit together when we address bone health. 

Bone health is a critical component to consider when evaluating 

military readiness and performance. Why is bone health so critical 

to our military? Stress fractures occur in up to 15 percent of military recruits. Stress fractures are most common in legs and feet, 

but they also occur in the ribs and upper extremities. For healing 

to occur, recruits need to rest for approximately 3 months. Not only 

do these fractures delay military readiness and performance, but 

they represent a high cost, over $10 million a year. 

Our recent engagement in Iraq highlights some additional considerations when it comes to bone health. For example, soldiers 

routinely carried packs that weighed 70 to 90 pounds over rough 

terrain for miles on end in often a harsh climate. For many, a fracture could spell an exit from the combat theater as quickly as a 

shrapnel injury. 

It is vitally important to understand how to prevent stress fractures in recruits and in combat to reduce suffering, minimize the 

time it takes to ready soldiers for combat, and to prevent fractures 

in training situations and in combat, to reduce the significant costs 

associated with the fractures. 

The DOD has learned a great deal from research to improve soldiers’ bone health, but there is much more to be learned. Recent 

research has examined the effects of impact forces such as running 

and gait pattern on bone formation and strength. We have also 

looked at the effect of specific nutritional regimens and the effects 

of weight management behaviors. Ongoing research is helping us 

to address the role and the effect of non-steroidal inflammatory 

medication such as ibuprofen on bone health and performance, the 

role of nutrition on bone quality, the role of electrical fields to 

speed bone repair, the role of new diagnostic tools. 

But additional topics are also critical to our understanding and 

to recruits’ military health. They include novel approaches, such as 

the possible use of low frequencies to build high-quality bone, the 

exploration of how different types of physical training affect bone 

at the cellular level, and investigations aimed at identifying the 

best training and nutritional regimens in terms of exercise type 

and duration, intensity, and nutrient amounts of vitamin D, of protein, etcetera, to optimize fitness, bone health, and prevent injury. 

Mr. Chairman, stress fractures compromise the health, military 

readiness, and performance of our recruits and our troops. A 

strong, well-trained military proved to be crucial on Iraq and will 

continue to be a vital component of our future. 
633

We thank you for maintaining the 2003 funding for the bone 

health and military readiness program. We also know there are 

many worthy projects in need of funding, especially in the Army’s 

bone health and military medical readiness program. Without additional support, not only are these in jeopardy, but so are our future 

results that will save money, prevent additional fractures, and further healing. We respectfully request that you consider a $10 million appropriation for fiscal year 2004 to help maintain an aggressive and 

sustained bone research program. Thank you for your commitment 

to the military’s health and safety and thank you for your attention 

and consideration. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Again, we will do our 

best. That is an area of great interest to the committee. Thank you. 

Ms. GOLDBERG. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN GOLDBERG

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this testimony is submitted by 

Joan Goldberg, Executive Director of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), representing the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related 

Bone Diseases, which includes the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Paget 

Foundation for Paget’s Disease of Bone and Related Disorders, the Osteogenesis 

Imperfecta Foundation, and the ASBMR. 

Together we represent over 44 million Americans who have bone diseases or are 

at risk for them, along with the more than 5,000 scientists dedicated to improving 

the diagnosis, treatment and understanding of bone diseases and disorders. 

Bone health is integral to overall health. Our bones support our muscles, protect 

vital organs, and store the calcium essential for bone density or mass, and strength. 

What makes bones healthy? It’s a complex interaction involving many nutritional, 

hormonal, behavioral, genetic and environmental factors. What we eat and drink, 

the type and duration of our exercise, our family history—these are some of the 

pieces of the puzzle that fit together when addressing bone health. 

Bone health is a critical component to consider when evaluating military readiness and performance. Why is bone health so critical to our military? Stress fractures occur in up to 15 percent of military recruits. Stress fractures are most common in the legs and feet, but also occur in the ribs and upper extremities. For healing to occur, recruits often need to stop running or marching for weeks. Not only 

do these fractures delay military readiness and performance, but they represent a 

cost of over $10 million per year. Our recent engagement in Iraq highlights some 

additional considerations when it comes to bone health. For example, soldiers routinely carried packs that weighed 70–90 pounds over rough terrain for miles on end 

in a harsh climate. For many, a fracture often spelled an exit from the combat theater as quickly as a shrapnel injury. 

It is vitally important to understand how to prevent stress fractures in recruits 

and in combat to reduce suffering, minimize the time it takes to ready soldiers for 

combat, prevent fractures in training situations and in combat, and reduce the significant costs associated with these fractures. 

The DOD has learned a great deal from research to improve soldiers’ bone health, 

but there is more to be learned. Recent research has investigated: the effects of impact forces, such as running, on bone formation; the effect of specific nutritional 

regimens on bone health; and the effects of weight management behaviors on bone 

health. 

Ongoing research will help address: the role of and effect of non-steroidal inflammatory medications on bone health and performance; the role of remodeling and nutrition on bone quality; the role of electrical fields to speed bone repair; and the role 

of new diagnostic tools. 

Additional topics critical to our understanding and our recruits’ military health 

include: novel approaches, such as the possible use of low frequencies to build high 

quality bone; explorations of how different types of physical training affect bone at 

a cellular level; and investigations aimed at identifying the best training and nutritional regimen in terms of exercise duration and intensity, and nutrient amounts, 

to optimize fitness levels and bone health and to prevent injury. 
634

Mr. Chairman, stress fractures compromise the health, military readiness and 

performance of our recruits and troops. A strong and well-trained military proved 

to be crucial in Iraq and will continue to be a vital component of our country’s future. We thank you for maintaining 2003 funding for the Bone Health and Military 

Medical Readiness Program of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command located in Fort Detrick, Maryland. We know there are many worthy projects 

in need of funding, especially in the Army’s Bone Health and Military Medical Readiness Program. Without additional support not only are these in jeopardy—and future results that will save money, prevent additional fractures, and further healing—but we risk losing researchers who are dedicated to bone health and these 

projects in particular. We respectfully request that you consider an appropriation of $10 million to maintain an aggressive and sustained DOD bone research program in fiscal year 2004. 

Thank you for your commitment to the U.S. military’s health and safety.

Senator STEVENS. Our next witness is Retired Major General 

Paul Weaver, for Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Good 

morning, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PAUL A. WEAVER, JR., USAF (RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF THE JUVENILE DIABETES FOUNDATION 

INTERNATIONAL 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

CATHY LEE WEAVER 

JULIA WEAVER

General WEAVER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

That is number eight, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. You do not need to testify if you bring her. 

Go ahead. 

General WEAVER. Sir, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) International in support of $10 

million in funding for the Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring 

(TMM), better known as the Julia Weaver Fund Initiative. As you 

know, I have had the privilege of appearing before this subcommittee numerous times in the past in my capacity as the Director of the Air National Guard. But I am before you today as a civilian who retired after 35 years of military service, to thank you for 

the funding you have provided for the TMM, Julia Weaver Fund 

Initiative, and to respectfully request your continued support. 

I also want to thank Senator Inouye for bestowing the title of 

‘‘the Julia Weaver Fund’’ to the TMM program in honor of my 4-

year-old daughter, who is here with my wife Cathy Lee and myself. 

One month after my retirement from military service, sir, my wife 

and I took our 21⁄2-year-old daughter then, Julia, to the emergency 

room at Mary Washington Hospital in Fredericksburg, Virginia, a 

day that truly changed our lives. Prior to that day, we had been 

told that Julia had the flu. 

Her condition continued to worsen. On New Year’s Day morning, 

we noticed a severe degradation of her overall health. She had lost 

10 pounds in one week and was losing mental awareness of her 

surroundings. We proceeded to the emergency room at Mary Washington Hospital, where we were told after her blood was tested that 

she had diabetic ketoacidosis. Simply put, she had juvenile diabetes. 

The attending physician stated that her condition was grave and 

that he was not sure that she was going to make it. Julia, whom 

we call our ‘‘Precious,’’ was transported by helicopter ambulance to 
635

the pediatric intensive care unit at Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center. As the chopper lifted off, I could never explain the feeling 

in our hearts that we may never see our little girl alive again. 

She was in intensive care for approximately 2 days and then 

moved to a regular ward after her condition became stable. The 

great medical staff of Walter Reed saved her life, and for that my 

wife and I will be eternally grateful. 

My daughter’s daily regimen with juvenile diabetes consists of 

having her finger pricked six to eight times a day and receiving 

two to four shots a day. I made a commitment to God that if I could 

ever do anything to help cure diabetes I certainly would do it. So 

I am here, sir, before you today to help my daughter and the many 

other children and adults with diabetes who endure four to six finger pricks a day and try to regulate and maintain their blood glucose levels. 

Anyone who has a loved one with the disease or has the disease 

him or herself knows the difficulties of controlling ever-fluctuating 

glucose levels within insulin and diet. With our current technology, 

it is extremely difficult to maintain tight control of glucose levels 

over long periods of time and devastating complications such as 

blindness, kidney failure, amputation, heart disease, and nerve 

damage are often the inevitable result of a lifetime with this disease. 

Largely as a result of these complications, diabetes costs our economy in excess of $132 billion per year and its financial impact 

is so severe that one out of every four Medicare dollars is spent on 

individuals with this disease. 

Technologies that would noninvasively monitor diabetics’ metabolism, coupled with an ability to provide information remotely or 

wirelessly, would allow individuals with the disease to monitor 

their blood sugar levels accurately, constantly, and noninvasively, 

which would ultimately improve the control of fluctuations in their 

blood glucose levels and potentially reduce the severe debilitating 

complications. 

Sir, in this way this technology could offer a significant and immediate quality of life of 17 million Americans who suffer from this 

disease and relieve much of the economic burden of this disease on 

our Nation. 

More broadly, sir, however, the development of wireless, remote, 

noninvasive technologies that could measure the state of metabolism in an individual would have a significant application in protecting the men and women of our Armed Forces. The subcommittee is undoubtedly aware of the risks that our men and 

women of the Armed Forces face while in harm’s way, but may not 

be aware of the risks just due to everyday medical problems. Technologies for metabolic monitoring could potentially determine 

health status and accurately communicate this information. This 

technology could be used to track key personnel in remote areas 

and monitor their metabolic changes to determine and prevent distress due to stress or illness. 

Furthermore, it would provide an ability to respond quickly in 

the field by providing technology able to deliver antidotes and drug 

treatments that may be required by sick or injured personnel, as 

well as nutritional supplements. 
636

The Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring, the Julia Weaver 

Fund, sir, is helping to develop better technologies that will benefit 

those with diabetes while at the same time benefiting the men and 

women of our Armed Forces. The program was established in 2001 

by Congress, JDRF, the Department of Defense, National Institutes 

of Health, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA). 

Mr. Chairman, JDRF and I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for your generous funding for this program, which has allowed us to prosper to a truly unique and successful initiative. Sir, I respectfully ask that you continue your support for this initiative by providing $10 million in fiscal year 2004. 

Sir, I understand that this subcommittee is faced with difficult 

choices and limited resources. But think about the return that you 

are getting on this investment in medical research. Seventeen million people in this country have it; $132 billion per year. 

Senator STEVENS. General, I have got to stop you. I understand 

and we have supported you and we will continue to try to support 

you. We appreciate very much your testimony. 

General WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PAUL A. WEAVER, JR. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today on behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation 

International and in support of $10 million in funding for the Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring/Julia Weaver Fund (TMM/JWF) Initiative. 

As you know, I have had the privilege of appearing before this Subcommittee numerous times in the past in my capacity as the Director of the Air National Guard. 

But I am before you today as a civilian, who retired after 35 years of military service, to thank you for the funding you have provided for the TMM/Julia Weaver Fund 

Initiative and to respectfully request your continued support. I also want to thank 

Senator Inouye for bestowing the title ‘‘Julia Weaver Fund’’ to the TMM program 

in honor of my four year old daughter who is here with my wife Cathylee and me 

today. 

One month after my retirement from military service, my wife and I took our two 

and a half year old daughter Julia to the emergency room at Mary Washington Hospital in Fredericksburg, Virginia, a day that truly changed our lives. Prior to that 

day, we had been told Julia had had the flu. Her condition continued to worsen. 

On New Years Day morning, we noticed a severe degradation with her overall 

health. She lost 10 pounds in one week and was losing mental awareness of her surroundings. We proceeded to the emergency room at Mary Washington Hospital 

where we were told, after her blood was tested, that she had diabetic ketoacidosis—

simply put she developed juvenile diabetes. The attending physician stated that her 

condition was grave and that he was not sure she was going to make it. Julia, whom 

we call ‘‘The Precious’’, was transported by helicopter ambulance to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As the chopper lifted off, 

I could never explain the feeling in our hearts that we may never see our little girl 

alive again. 

She was in the Intensive Care Ward for approximately two days and then moved 

to a regular ward after her condition became stable. The great medical staff at Walter Reed saved her life and for that, my wife and I will be eternally grateful. My 

daughter’s daily regimen with juvenile diabetes consists of having her finger pricked 

6–8 times a day and receiving 2–4 shots a day. I made a commitment to God that 

if I could ever do anything to help find a cure for diabetes, I would do it. 

So I am here before you today to help my daughter and the many other children 

and adults with diabetes who must endure four to six finger pricks a day to try to 

regulate and maintain their blood glucose levels. Anyone who has a loved one with 

this disease, or has the disease him or herself, knows the difficulties of controlling 

ever-fluctuating glucose levels with insulin and diet. With our current technology, 

it is extremely difficult to maintain tight control of glucose levels over long periods 

of time and devastating complications, such as blindness, kidney failure, amputa-
637

tion, heart disease, and nerve damage, are often the inevitable result of a lifetime 

with this disease. Largely as a result of these complications, diabetes costs our economy in excess of $132 billion per year, and its financial impact is so severe that one 

out of four Medicare dollars is spent on individuals with the disease. 

Technologies that would non-invasively monitor diabetes metabolism, coupled 

with an ability to provide information remotely (or wirelessly), would allow individuals with the disease to monitor their blood sugar levels accurately, constantly, and 

non-invasively, which could ultimately improve the control of fluctuations in their 

blood glucose levels and potentially reduce the severity of debilitating complications. 

In this way, this technology could offer a significant and immediate improvement 

in the quality of life of 17 million Americans who suffer from this disease and relieve much of the economic burden of this disease on our nation. 

More broadly, however, the development of wireless, remote, non-invasive technologies that could measure the state of metabolism in an individual would have 

a significant application in protecting the men and women of the armed forces. The 

Subcommittee is undoubtedly aware of the risks that our men and women of the 

armed forces face while in harm’s way, but may not be aware of their risk due to 

everyday medical problems. Technologies for metabolic monitoring could potentially 

determine health status and accurately communicate this information. This technology could be used to track key personnel in remote areas and monitor their metabolic changes to determine and prevent distress due to stress or illness. Furthermore, it would provide an ability to respond quickly in the field by also providing 

technology able to deliver antidotes and drug treatments that may be required by 

sick or injured personnel, as well as nutritional supplements. 

The Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring/Julia Weaver Fund Initiative is helping 

to develop better technologies that will benefit those with diabetes, while at the 

same time benefiting the men and women of the armed forces. This program was 

established in 2001 by the direction and with the support of Congress and close involvement of JDRF and several agencies including the Department of Defense 

(DOD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NASA. Now in its third year, 

the program has high-level recognition in the metabolic monitoring community as 

a program that will foster innovation. 

Just to demonstrate how this program has grown over the past three years, in 

fiscal year 2001 the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command 

(USAMRMC), which manages this initiative, received 16 applications and supported 

5 novel metabolic monitoring research projects and a highly successful workshop. In 

fiscal year 2002, the program received $2.5 million in appropriations and was expanded to include academic, industry, civilian and defense researchers. As a result, 

48 applications were received and following a highly competitive review, an additional 12 novel metabolic monitoring research projects received seed grants for one 

year. These grants should allow researchers to generate enough data to be well 

placed to seek funding from other established research sources. The USAMRMC is 

currently accepting applications for the $4.3 million in fiscal year 2003 funding as 

provided by this Subcommittee. 

JDRF and I thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee for your 

generous funding for this program, which has allowed it to prosper into a truly 

unique and successful initiative. The attached research summaries demonstrate the 

high level of innovation that has been pursued with these funds. I respectfully ask 

that you continue your strong support for this initiative by providing $10 million 

in fiscal year 2004. This funding would allow the USAMRMC to capitalize on the 

opportunities provided by the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 funding. In addition, it will 

enable the USAMRMC to expand this initiative in order to support more of the 

high-quality research, in particular to support promising military-academia-industry 

partnerships and continue to stimulate communication between these groups. 

I understand that this Subcommittee is faced with difficult choices and limited resources, but think about the return that you are getting on the investment in this 

medical research. Diabetes currently affects about 17 million people and cost this 

country $132 billion per year. One out of every four Medicare dollars is spent on 

caring for people with diabetes. Continued and substantial funding for the Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring/Julia Weaver Fund Initiative could help to ultimately save the United States billions of dollars in health care costs, improve the 

quality of life for those with diabetes, and better protect the lives of our men and 

women in the armed forces in the field. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. You give my family 

and I great hope that the daily burden of diabetes will some day be eased as a result of the innovation arising from the TMM/Julia Weaver Fund Initiative. 
638

FISCAL YEAR 2001 RESEARCH SUMMARIES

Interstitial Metabolic Monitoring During Hemorrhagic Shock is a plan to assess 

variations in interstitial concentrations of potassium, lactate, pyruvate, glucose, calcium, and magnesium with the progression of hemorrhagic shock. A method of 

microdialysis in an animal model is used to provide continuous monitoring of tissue 

composition in skeletal muscle and liver. Parameters are compared to their corresponding serum concentrations and to hemodynamic parameters, cardiac contractility, tissue levels of Na∂, K∂, ATPase and vascular smooth muscle membrane potentials. The effects of fluid resuscitation in both early and late stages of shock are 

being examined to evaluate the hypothesis that decompensation results from potassium-mediated vasodilation and/or loss of cardiac contractility. 

Non-Intrusive Method of Measuring Internal Metabolic Processes is developing a 

mathematical model describing the non-intrusive transfer and collection of cortisol 

from cutaneous capillaries, a membrane based microvolume cortisol assay, and a 

prototype sampling system to enable transfer of sample to the detection membrane. 

After developing this system they will evaluate the performance of the prototype 

sample collection/sample detection system. 

The Warfighter’s Stress Response: Telemetric and Noninvasive Assessment proposes to provide evidence for a noninvasive, objective assessment of operational performance under highly stressful training situations by developing baseline psychological and biological profiles that predict superior performance under highly stressful training situations. To accomplish this, the investigators plan to develop and further refine models that characterize stress-induced psychological and biological responses that are associated with superior performance under highly stressful training situations and to develop and further refine a telemetric device for the measurement of Heart Rate Variability. 

Integration and Optimization of Advanced, Non-invasive, Ambulatory Monitoring 

Technologies for Operational Metabolic Monitoring is developing a wireless monitoring platform that can accept information from a variety of physiologic, environmental, and appropriate external sensors that can be coupled to mathematical models that permit feedback to the individual on the status of their physiological status. 

Measurement of IGF–I During Military Operational Stress via a Filter Paper Spot 

Assay is studying the Insulin-like Growth Factor–I (IGF–I) to test the hypothesis 

that the filter paper blood spot method will be an inexpensive and field-expedient 

method for monitoring the metabolic and health status of soldiers during field and 

combat situations. The aim of this study is to determine whether the filter paper 

blood spot collected in a field environment can accurately measure IGF–1 and IGF–

I binding protein-3 (IGFBP–3) and subsequent changes during stressful training. 

FISCAL YEAR 2002 RESEARCH SUMMARIES

Metabolic Rate Monitoring and Energy Expenditure Prediction Using a Novel 

Actigraphy Method, (Principle Investigator, Daniel S. Moran) has proposed to develop a new, simple, non-invasive method based on actigraphy data for monitoring 

metabolic rate and predicting energy expenditure. 

Portable Physical Activity Monitors for Measuring Energy Metabolism in ROTC 

Cadets, (Principle Investigator, Kong Y. Chen) has proposed to develop and validate 

non-invasive, portable techniques for monitoring detailed physical activity, to accurately predict EE, and to determine specific PT-related energy costs and physiological responses in ROTC cadets for short and long-term periods. 

Skin Bioengineering: Non-invasive, Transdermal Monitoring, (Principle Investigator, Richard H. Guy) has proposed to develop and optimize a novel, non-invasive, 

iontophoretic approach for metabolic monitoring via the skin. 

Fluorescent Polymer Implant for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Feedback, 

(Principle Investigator, Ralph Ballerstadt) has proposed develop and characterize a 

minimally invasive near-infrared fluorescent polymer sensor designed for 

transdermal glucose monitoring in interstitial fluid in dermal and subdermal skin 

tissue. The sensor is designed to be implanted by injection just beneath the superficial layers of the skin. Simple and inexpensive instrumentation can be used to interrogate the fluorescent properties of the sensor that will vary in response to local 

glucose concentrations. The concept of the proposed implant device is one of most 

promising technologies currently pursued in glucose-sensor research. 

Towards Miniturized, Wireless-Integrated, and Implantable Glucose Sensors, 

(Principle Investigator, Diane J. Burgess) has proposed to develop autonomous sensory devices, using low-power CMOS microelectronics architecture interfaced with 

an inductively coupled power supply and with logic and communication functions, 

thus allowing for total implantation. Integrate a glucose oxidase-based electro-
639

chemical sensor with the above microelectronic device and further equip it with recently developed coatings geared to improve sensor stability. 

Implantable Multi-Sensor Array for Metabolic Monitoring, (Principle Investigator, 

David A. Gough) has proposed to develop a disc version of the multi-sensor array 

and demonstrate its feasibility as a tissue implant in hamster and pig models with 

signals conveyed by wire, and to develop preliminary signal processing and data 

management strategies. 

Improved Metabolic Monitoring and Hyperspectral Methods for Wound Characterization, (Principle Investigator, Stuart Harshbarger) has proposed to provide new 

tools and methods for monitoring metabolic activity in the region of a wound, and 

to improve the ability to predict the healing response of the wound to external stimuli such as dietary intake and patient metabolic activity. 

Evaluation and Refinement of a System and a Method for the Use of 

Hyperspectral Imaging for Metabolic Monitoring, (Principle Investigator, James 

Mansfield) has proposed to refine a prototype HSIMM system and to characterize 

its ability to quantify local changes in cutaneous hemoglobin saturation during a variety of types of metabolic stress. The relationship of these changes to several factors influencing cutaneous physiology will also be determined. 

Non-Invasive Monitoring of Insulin-like Growth Factor-I During Differential Physical Training Programs in Warfighters, (Principle Investigator, Bradley C. Nindl) 

has proposed to non-invasively monitor insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF–I) during 

physical training in Warfighters by employing a novel, patented method of sampling 

interstitial fluid (ISF) via a non-invasive, continuous vacuum pressure via 

micropores in the stratum corneum. 

A Minimally-Invasive Dual-Analyte Miniturized Continuous Sensor for Glucose 

and Lactate, (Principle Investigator, W. Kenneth Ward) has proposed to develop a 

miniature (300 μm) wire sensor for continuous and simultaneous amperometric 

monitoring of interstitial glucose and lactate. 

A Hydrogel-Based, Implantable, Micromachined Transponder for Wireless Glucose 

Measurement, (Principle Investigator, Babak Ziaie) has proposed to develop a 

hydrogel-based, implantable, micromachined transponder for wireless glucose measurement. 

Senator STEVENS. The next witness is General, Major General 

Retired Robert McIntosh, Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT McINTOSH, USAFR (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

General MCINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the members of 

the Reserve Officers Association——

Senator STEVENS. Thank you for bringing her in here, General. 

General WEAVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. We all like to see your daughter. Thank you. 

Yes, go ahead. 

General MCINTOSH. On behalf of the members of the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) from each of the uniformed services, I 

thank you for your generous support in the past and for the opportunity to present the association’s views and concerns relating to 

the Reserve components in the National Defense Appropriations 

Act for fiscal year 2004. 

While the transformation process proposed by the Department of 

Defense is visionary and bold, ROA is concerned about a number 

of its provisions. We believe that there are appropriations implications that have not been directly addressed in the appropriations 

process, that there is a lack of specificity regarding operating authority, and that there is a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to some 

problems that are raised on these difficult and complex budgeting 

issues. 

In the interest of time, I will only cover two of our concerns. The 

first is the address of the integrity of Reserve component appro-
640

priations. The fiscal year 2004 defense budget request was predicated in part upon a major change in the way the services’ active 

duty and Reserve component appropriations are structured. Assuming congressional acquiescence, the Department combined the personnel appropriations into a single appropriation for each service. 

This was ostensibly done to enhance funding efficiencies in management. 

Unfortunately, it also undermines the Reserve chiefs’ authority 

as their component’s funding directors and impairs their accountability for preparing their components for mobilization. It also, in 

our view, seriously compromises and diminishes the Congress’ constitutionally mandated responsibility to provide oversight to the 

Armed Forces. It is not in our view a good idea. 

In the recent DOD transformation proposal, the Department has 

requested authority to call reservists to active duty for training for 

up to 90 days in preparation for mobilization. This training would 

take place before issuance of mobilization orders and thus would be 

in addition to, not a part of, congressionally-mandated limitations 

on activation authorities. 

Family and employer support could suffer. ROA believes that any 

such training, particularly of significant length, should be a part of 

the mobilization process and start the clock for tour length and associated benefits. The question of when this training begins is also 

significant. If it begins before the mobilization process, it is a Reserve cost, which could jeopardize other essential training. After 

mobilization, it is an active duty cost that could deter gaining commanders from including the Reserve component assets in war 

plans. The 90-day activation for training proposal as written is in 

our view not a good idea. 

In conclusion, our Reserve forces have consistently demonstrated 

their worth as combat multipliers and as a critical link to the civilian community. They are the litmus test and enabler of the Nation’s resolve. With your continued support, they will continue to 

perform in a superb manner as essential elements of the total 

force. 

We thank you, Senator. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT A. MCINTOSH

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the members of 

the Reserve Officers Association from each of the uniformed services, I thank you 

for the opportunity to present the association’s views and concerns relating to the 

Reserve components and the National Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 

2004. 

To say that this is an extraordinary year, a year like no other in recent history 

has become a truism that belies the harsh reality of September 11th and its aftermath in Afghanistan and now Iraq. So much has changed so obviously in our outlook, our way of living, and our approach to doing the nation’s business that it is 

requires no further enumeration. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1991, the Congress stated that ‘‘the overall reduction in the threat and the likelihood of continued fiscal 

constraints require the United States to increase the use of the Reserve components 

of the Armed Forces. The Department of Defense should shift a greater share of 

force structure and budgetary resources to the Reserve components of the Armed 

Forces. Expanding the Reserve components is the most effective way to retain quality personnel as the force structure of the Active components is reduced . . . The 

United States should recommit itself to the concept of the citizen-soldier as a corner-
641

stone of national defense policy for the future.’’ One can argue about the reduction 

of the threat, but the increased use of the Reserve components is clearly upon us. 

Greater Reliance on Reserve Components 

The 50 years of reliance on a large, Cold War, standing military have ended. Confronted with sizeable defense budget reductions, changes in the threat, and new 

missions, America’s military answer for the future must be a return to the traditional reliance on its Minutemen—the members of the Reserve components. Can 

America’s Reservists fulfill their commitment to the Total Force—can they meet the 

challenge? 

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm proved that the Reserve components 

were ready and able. During the Gulf War, more than 265,000 Reservists were 

called to active duty. Of the total mobilized, 32 percent were from the National 

Guard and 67 percent from ‘‘the Reserve.’’ More than 106,000 Reservists were deployed to Southwest Asia. About 20 percent of the forces in the theater were members of the Reserve components. 

In Bosnia and Kosovo, more than 48,000 Reservists have again demonstrated 

their readiness and their capability to respond to their nation’s call. For the past 

several years, the Reserve components have provided approximately 12.5 million 

support days to the Active components annually. That equates to some 35,000 support-years annually, the equivalent of two Army divisions. Thus far, Operation Iraqi 

Freedom has seen nearly 230,000 Reservists called to active duty. The demobilization has already begun for many; but many Reservists will continue to serve on active duty in the theater of operations and here in the United States and overseas. 

A strong, viable Reserve force is an inseparable part of America’s military, a costeffective augmentation to the Active force and the marrow of the mobilization base. 

Ultimately, mobilizing Reserve forces is the litmus test and the enabler of public 

support and national will. The early and extensive involvement of the Guard and 

Reserve in the Gulf War was instrumental in achieving the strong public support 

of the military and our national objectives. However transformation plays out, our 

Reserve forces will continue to have a major role. 

Reserve Components’ Cost-Effectiveness 

ROA has long maintained that a proper mix of Active and Reserve forces can provide the nation with the most cost-effective defense for a given expenditure of federal funds. Reservists provide 55 percent of the Total Force, but cost only 8.0 percent of the fiscal year 2004 DOD budget. They require only 23 percent of activeduty personnel costs, even when factoring in the cost of needed full-time support 

personnel. We need only consider the comparable yearly personnel (only) costs for 

100,000 Active and Reserve personnel to see the savings. Over a 4-year period, 

100,000 Reservists cost $3 billion less than 100,000 Active duty personnel. If the significant savings in Reserve unit operations and maintenance costs are included, billions more can be saved in the same period. ROA is not suggesting that DOD should 

transfer all missions to the Reserve, but the savings Reservists can provide must 

be considered in transformation-driven force-mix decisions. It is incumbent upon 

DOD to ensure that the services recognize these savings by seriously investigating 

every mission area and transferring as much structure as possible to their Reserve 

components. 

Transformation Concerns 

While the transformation process proposed by the Department of Defense is visionary and bold, ROA is concerned about a number of its provisions. We believe 

that there are appropriations implications that have not been directly addressed in 

the appropriations process; that there is a lack of specificity regarding operating authority; and that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to some problems that raises 

more difficulties than it resolves. Here we will mention only three: —Integrity of Reserve Component Appropriations.—The fiscal year 2004 defense 

budget request was predicated in part upon a major change in the way the services’ active duty and Reserve component appropriations are structured. Assuming congressional acquiescence, the department combined the personnel appropriations into a single appropriation for each service. This was ostensibly done 

to enhance funding efficiency and management. Unfortunately it also undermines the Reserve chiefs’ authority as their components’ funding directors, and 

impairs their accountability for preparing their components for mobilization. It 

also, in our view, seriously compromises and diminishes the Congress’s constitutionally mandated responsibility to provide oversight to the Armed Forces. It is 

not a good idea. 

—Term Limits.—The Department of Defense very recently requested sweeping 

changes in the way it manages its workforce. No doubt much of what was re-
642

quested needs doing, but we are asked to take a great deal on faith, and at least 

some of the changes requested appear to us to be flawed. One proposal would 

eliminate the congressionally established term limits for specific key officials in 

the department’s leadership. ROA is concerned that eliminating such defined 

tour lengths (minimum and maximum) will have a very negative impact on the 

ability of Reserve component senior leaders to speak their minds freely and to 

contribute meaningfully during the policy-making process. In other words, the 

proposal to eliminate congressionally mandated tour lengths for the Reserve 

component chiefs would have a chilling effect on their ability to represent the 

needs of the people they command—the Reserve forces. The removal of minimum tour lengths would open the door for early dismissal or retirement when 

what was expressed by Reserve component leaders was not necessarily the desired department solution. The proposal to eliminate mandated tour lengths for 

Reserve component chiefs is not a good idea. 

—Skill Training.—In the same proposal, the department has requested authority 

to call reservists to active duty for training for up to 90 days in preparation for 

mobilization. This training would take place before issuance of mobilization orders, and thus would be in addition to, not a part of, congressionally mandated 

limitations on activation authorities. Family and employer support could suffer. 

ROA believes that any such training, particularly of significant length, should 

be a part of the mobilization process and start the clock for tour length and associated benefits. The question of when this training begins is also significant. 

If it begins before the mobilization process, it is a Reserve cost, which could 

jeopardize other essential training; after mobilization, it is an active duty cost 

that could deter gaining commanders from including Reserve component assets 

in their war plans. The 90-day activation for training proposal, as written, is 

not a good idea. 

I will now address service-specific issues. 

ARMY RESERVE

We thank the Congress for its support of the Army and its approval of the Army’s 

Reserve component fiscal year 2003 budget request. These funds will significantly 

improve the quality of life and training capabilities of the Army Reserve and the 

Army National Guard as they meet the challenges of the 21st century. While the 

Army is undergoing a major transformation it is also engaged in the Global War 

on Terrorism and in a major ground conflict in Iraq. While current operations receive the major share of resources and attention we must also fund the legacy force, 

modernization and fielding of equipment, the education and training of today’s and 

tomorrow’s leaders, family support programs to support the spouses and families left 

behind, the evolving needs of homeland defense, and needed maintenance and repair and recapitalization of the facility infrastructure. 

For fiscal year 2004 the expected Army’s total obligation authority (TOA) for its 

Active, Guard, and Reserve components is $93.9 billion, an increase of $3 billion 

over fiscal year 2003 but still only 24 percent of the total $379.9 billion defense 

budget. The fiscal year 2004 budget request, as have previous budgets, critically 

underfunds the Army Reserve personnel, operation and maintenance, equipment 

procurement, and military construction accounts. These resourcing shortfalls will 

adversely affect readiness and training and ultimately the quality of life, the morale, and the retention of these highly motivated and patriotic citizen-soldiers. 

The Army Reserve’s projected share of the Army budget request in the fiscal year 

2004 DOD budget request is $5.3 billion or 5.8 percent of the entire $94 billion 

Army request—a tremendous force structure and readiness bargain for the investment. Separated into the Reserve Personnel, Army (RPA) and the Operation and 

Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) accounts, the request is for approximately 

$3.62 billion RPA and $1.9 billion OMAR. With the large number of Army Reservists mobilized and receiving pay from the active duty pay accounts, initial projections suggest that the fiscal year 2004 RPA account, with a few exceptions, will adequately fund the majority of the RPA accounts. However the OMAR, MILCON, and 

equipment accounts still require considerable plus-ups to fully fund known requirements—requirements that were identified during the development of the president’s 

budget, but because of insufficient funding fell below the line and were not 

resourced. 

Critical/executable funding shortfalls identified in the RPA and OMAR areas 

alone are expected to exceed $248 million. Not included in this $248 million shortfall 

is the Army Reserve’s estimate that it will require $1 billion to modernize and 

transform its aging equipment inventory. Also not included in the overall shortfall 
643

of funding is the estimated $1 billion backlog in required Army Reserve military 

construction. 

Reserve Personnel, Army (RPA) 

The fiscal year 2004 requested end strength for the Army Reserve is 205,000. Reliance on the Guard and Reserve for involvement in real world operations and domestic contingencies increased considerably during the last decade and significantly 

in response to the events of September 11 at the World Trade Center and at the 

Pentagon. The Army Reserve is a full partner in the Army’s real world operations, 

the war against terrorism, and the ongoing war in Iraq. Adequate RPA funding to 

support the training of the Reserve to enable it to support the Army and our national military strategy remains critical. The most visible funding shortfall for RPA 

in the fiscal year 2004 $3.62 billion RPA budget request is funding for professional 

development training. 

Professional Development Education.—Funding for this program provides formal 

professional education programs of varying lengths which qualify Reservists for promotion and train them to meet the challenges of leadership and the ever evolving 

modernization and Army transformation. Without the required funding Army Reservists will not be educationally qualified for promotion and possibly be denied continuation in the Army. The fiscal year 2004 $108.7 million program has been funded 

at $72.4 million leaving an executable/critical shortfall $36.3 million 

Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) 

The fiscal year 2004 DOD budget request for the Army Reserve Operations and 

Maintenance (OMAR) account is $1.9 billion. We believe there is at least a $212.6 

million executable/critical OMAR shortfall in the fiscal year 2004 budget request 

that will force the Army Reserve to compensate by further reducing equipment and 

facility maintenance, and supply purchases. 

Currently the expected OMAR appropriation is experiencing serious resourcing 

shortfalls in force protection and anti-terrorism, environmental programs, secure 

communications, network service, BASOPS, depot maintenance, and family support 

programs. Some critical shortfalls are shown below:

[In millions of dollars] 

Force Protection/Anti-Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................ 36.5

Environmental Programs .................................................................................................................................................. 22.8

Secure Communications ................................................................................................................................................... 23.9

Network Service/Data Center ........................................................................................................................................... 9.0

BASOPS to 95 percent ..................................................................................................................................................... 93.8

Depot Maintenance .......................................................................................................................................................... 22.7

Family Support Programs ................................................................................................................................................. 3.9

Total .................................................................................................................................................................... 212.6

Secure Communications 

There are insufficient resources to fund Army Reserve secure communications 

needed to secure DOD’s integrated world-wide common-user network for exchanging 

secure and non-secure data, voice and video information. The Army Reserve $49.4 

million program is underfunded by $23.9 million or 48 percent of its validated requirement. The $49.4 million program has been funded at $25.5 million (52 percent) 

leaving an executable/critical shortfall of $23.9 million. 

Army Reserve Base Operations (BASOPS) 

BASOPS programs provide essential services at Army Reserve controlled installations (including two of the Army’s power projection platforms) and USAR regional 

support commands. Services include the operation of utilities; real estate leases; municipal services, to include pest control, refuse handling operations, snow and ice removal, public works management, master planning, fire and emergency services, 

real property exchanges; information management; logistics services, including 

maintenance of material transportation, supply, laundry and dry cleaning and food 

services. 

This shortfall could adversely affect physical security, logistical support and the 

Army Reserve’s ability to make payments for leases and utilities. The Army’s goal 

is to fund the program at the 95 percent level. The $340.3 million program has been 

funded at $229.5 million (68 percent) leaving an executable/critical shortfall of $93.8 

million at the 95 percent funding level. 
644

Army Reserve Fiscal Year 2004 Depot Maintenance 

The Army has insufficient TOA to fully resource all depot level maintenance required to meet wartime readiness levels. The lack of funding will exacerbate the 

degradation of aging equipment and negatively affect USAR unit readiness, specifically the tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, and hinder the USAR’s ability to provide 

combat support/combat service support (CS/CSS) to Active Army combat forces. Failure to fund this requirement delays the deployment of forces from CONUS to the 

theater of operation as well as limits the Army Reserve’s’ ability to respond to civil 

authorities in support of homeland security. The $77.7 million program has been 

funded at $55.0 million (71 percent) leaving an executable/critical shortfall of $22.7 

million. 

OMAR Summary 

ROA urges the Congress to add $212 million to support these neglected and critically underfunded Army Reserve OMAR programs. 

National Guard and Reserve Equipment Request (USAR) 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense in its February 2002 ‘‘National Guard and 

Reserve Equipment Report for fiscal year 2003’’, states that the Army Reserve has 

93 percent of its Equipment Readiness Code A (ERC A) equipment items on-hand 

for all of its units. Currently the Army Reserve is short $1.75 billion of mission essential equipment and a large portion of the equipment is nearing, or already past, 

its Economical Useful Life (EUL). Realistically, the equipment on hand (EOH) includes substituted equipment—some that is not compatible with newer equipment 

in the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve equipment inventory 

and may not perform as required. Substituted equipment continues to cause equipment compatibility problems that degrade Army Reserve readiness and its ability 

to support its CS and CSS mission. 

The greatest source of relief to Army National Guard and Army Reserve equipment shortfalls is the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation 

(NGREA) that funds equipment requirements identified by the services but not 

resourced due to funding shortfalls in the FYDP. Since 1981 the Army Reserve has 

received, through the oversight of Congress, over $1.5 billion in equipment through 

the NGREA. Without the appropriation the Army Reserve would still be struggling 

to reach 50 percent EOH. The NGREA works, and works well. 

ROA urges the Congress to continue the NG&REA and to fund a minimum $200 

million of the Army Reserve’s $866 million fiscal year 2004 Equipment Modernization Requirement. 

AIR FORCE RESERVE

In the past three decades, Air Force Reserve members have seen the lines blur 

between their being a part time force and a full time force as they have increased 

their mission areas and proven that their knowledge, experience, and diversity are 

important contributors to our nation’s security. The Air Force Reserve has built a 

force that can reshape itself into quick responders or peace maintainers. 

The Air Force Reserve is the fourth largest major command in the Air Force and 

provides 20 percent of the Air Force capability for only 3.25 percent of the total Air 

Force budget. These remarkable numbers are possible in part to the command leading the way in leveraging the costs of forces by partnering with active duty in associate units, in which reservists share flying and maintenance responsibilities by 

augmenting active duty forces without additional physical structure. 

The mobilizations for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle 

have shown us that many of the problems, which occurred during Desert Shield/

Desert Storm, were not peculiar to that effort because they are reoccurring. The increased utilization of Reservists underscores the need to reduce policy differences 

between active and reserve, reduce the reservist out-of-pocket costs and maintain 

their readiness. 

From 1953 to 1990 the Air Force Reserve contributed forces to 11 contingency and 

real world operations during that 38-year period compared to over 50 operations in 

11 years from 1991 to now. 

The ROA urges the Congress of the United States to appropriate funds for the 

following:
645

MISSION SUPPORT 

[Dollars in millions] 

Requirement Cost Description 

AFR BMT Increases ............................. $10.0 Adds 275 BMT and 3-level technical training quotas due to projected increase in non-prior service recruits. Current accession quotas do not 

sustain force requirements—brings BMT total to 2,434 annual accessions across FYDP. 

AFR Recruit Advertising ...................... 4.3 Past and current AFRC advertising budget has not kept pace with increases in marketing costs or with other services. 

AFR BMT Increase (Long Haul) ........... 0.8 Adds 1,566 BMT and 3-level tech training quotas doe to projected increases in non-prior recruits. Current accession quotas do not sustain 

force requirements—brings BMT total to 4,000 annual accessions 

across FYDP. 

AFR Security Forces Manpower ........... 14.5 Provides Long Haul growth of 588 total authorized (548 enl. AGRs, 38 civilian, 2 off. AGRs); plus 576 A/B MoBags, weapons, LMRs, vehicles 

and other FP equip. 12 of the AGRs require no equipment. 

According to Lieutenant General James E. Sherrard, Chief of Air Force Reserve, 

‘‘The first bombs fell from Reserve aircraft on 7 October, day one of Operation Enduring Freedom. Of the 75,000 members in the command, 13,000 were activated 

with an additional 20,000 positions filled through volunteerism.’’ As part of this, approximately 4,500 reservists continue to serve in a second year of mobilization. Now 

as our country faces the challenges of Iraq, the Air Force Reserve has contributed 

13,000 members as of 20 March 2003. 

The ROA urges the Congress of the United States to appropriate funds for the 

following:

MODERNIZATION 

Aircraft Location Description 

C–5 ............................... Wright-Patterson AFB OH ..........

Lackland AFB TX 

Westover AFB MA 

Dover AFB DE 

Travis AFB CA 

Modernize C–5s for Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) and 

Reliability Enhancement Re-engining Program (RERP) to increase operational ability and reduce maintenance costs. 

C–17 ............................. March ARB, CA ......................... Replace C–141s being phased-out of service by fiscal year 

2006. 

WC–130J ....................... Keesler AFB, MS ........................ Complete upgrade of aircraft for the ‘‘Hurricane Hunters’’ mission and continue as a Reserve mission. 

C–40 ............................. Scott AFB, IL ............................. Replace C–9s being phased out of service by fiscal year 2006. 

In 2002, the Air Force Reserve Command simultaneously met their mission requirements in Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) rotations, global exercises, ongoing operations and readiness training. While balancing these demands, specialty 

missions for weather, aerial spray and firefighting were also completed. 

The ROA urges the Congress of the United States to appropriate funds for the 

following:

EQUIPMENT 

[Dollars in millions] 

Requirement Cost Description 

C–130J Radar ....................................................... $50.0 Upgrade will correct display inconsistencies range, minimize 

startup attenuation errors, and add capability to increase 

range distance for identification of hazards for 10 aircraft. 

C–17 Aircrew Training System ............................. 20.0 Procures aircrew training system for March ARB. 

F–16 LITENING II AT Upgrade Modification ......... 16.2 LITENING II is a multi-sensor pod providing a precision strike 

capability. 

F–16 LITENING II AT POD Procurement ................ 14.4 Additional targeting pods are needed for the Air Force Reserve 

to support ONE, OEF, local training, pod replacement and future contingencies. 
646

EQUIPMENT—Continued

[Dollars in millions] 

Requirement Cost Description 

F–16 Color Display ............................................... 16.0 Hi-definition color multifunction displays will enable the F–16 

to display more precise, informative pictures improving interpretation, situational awareness, and increasing visual acuity for target recognition with electro-optical weapons and 

targeting systems. 

A–10 Targeting Pods ............................................ 48.0 Additional targeting pods are needed for the AFRC to support 

ONE, OEF, local training and future contingencies. 

NAVAL RESERVE

The Naval Reserve has mobilized over 17,500 Selected Naval Reservists in direct 

support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and, most recently, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The majority of these Naval Reservists have been recalled individually based on specific skills. They include significant numbers of law enforcement officers and augmentees to combatant commands. Entire units of the naval 

coastal warfare commands were activated. Medical, supply, mobile construction 

force, intelligence and other specialties have been heavily tasked. Naval Reserve pilots are maintaining the flow of personnel and materiel to the theater of operations. 

Funding for fiscal year 2003 enabled the Naval Reserve to resource peacetime contributory support, bonuses, a substantial pay raise, real property maintenance, base 

operating support, and recruiting advertising/support. It is clearly evident that Congress has given full recognition to the significant and well-recognized compensating 

leverage offered by today’s Naval Reserve, which represents 19 percent of the Navy, 

yet expends only 3 percent of the budget. 

Although funding levels appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and proposed for fiscal 

year 2004 sufficiently provide for the operation, maintenance, and training of the 

Naval Reserve, continued Naval Reserve force structure reductions represent a disturbing trend. Whether structural reductions are accomplished in a good-faith effort 

toward transformation or simply to provide a financial offset for a higher priority 

active program, the net effect is a reduction in the capability of the Naval Reserve 

to provide both peacetime contributory support and a war time surge capability. 

Structural reductions in the fiscal year 2004 budget include the decommissioning 

of VFA–203, all eight NMCB augment units, one naval construction force support 

unit and one of four Naval Reserve fleet hospitals. Additionally, the Navy budget 

for fiscal year 2005 calls for the decommissioning of VAW–78, as part of the elimination of much of CAG–20, and the conversion of 3 of 7 VP squadrons to augment 

units. The Navy has indicated that it intends to deconstruct the entire Reserve helicopter wing in fiscal year 2005, to include decommissioning the only two currently 

mobilized combat search air rescue (CSAR) squadrons, HCS–4 and HCS–5, in the 

entire Navy. 

ROA strongly urges the Congress to hold the line against these major structural 

reductions. As a policy, it appears that the Navy is embarking on the complete 

deconstruction of the Naval Reserve force structure. ROA requests that the Congress hold hearings with the objective of discovering the Navy’s strategy, goals and 

anticipated benefits of this deconstruction. Moreover, ROA strongly urges the Congress to provide full funding as described below for the hardware procurement and 

modernization required to maintain the Naval Reserve as a viable and cost-effective 

force multiplier. 

Equipment Modernization 

Over the past years, much of the progress made in improving the readiness and 

capability of Naval Reserve units has been the direct result of congressional action. 

Specifically, the willingness of the Congress to designate new equipment for the 

Naval Reserve in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation 

(NGREA) and to earmark funding for the Naval Reserve in the traditional procurement appropriations was instrumental in maintain equipment currency and operational readiness. In fiscal year 2004, the Navy included additional funding in its 

budget request to support Naval Reserve equipment modernization. Specifically, 

funding for one C–40A aircraft, C–130T aircraft upgrades naval coastal warfare 

boats and equipment upgrades and Naval Construction Force equipment procurement was included in the budget submission to Congress. Although a major step in 

the right direction, additional funding is urgently required to support Naval Reserve 
647

equipment modernization unfunded requirements that exceed $350 million in fiscal 

year 2004 alone. 

As the number one equipment funding priority of the Naval Reserve, the Boeing 

C–40A transport aircraft, which is replacing the Naval Reserve’s 27 C–9B and DC–

9 aircraft, is of vital importance to operational commanders, because the Naval Reserve provides 100 percent of the Navy’s organic lift capability in support of Naval 

Component and Fleet Commanders logistics requirements. The average age of Naval 

Reserve C–9 aircraft is nearly 30 years. Aircraft obsolescence is being reached because of deficiencies in the avionics suite, power plant, and the overall aging of the 

airframe. In addition, existing C–9 engines do not meet current international environmental and noise abatement requirements that eventually could result in the exclusion of C–9 aircraft from airspace in specific regions of the world. Finally, the 

cost of maintaining the C–9 fleet increases annually as the aircraft get older. The 

Navy has contracted for seven C–40A’s and six have been delivered. The balance 

of the Naval Reserve’s requirement is for an additional 20 C–40s. 

Equipment modernization is a critical priority for the Naval Reserve. ROA strongly urges the Congress to provide $330 million to support the vital and continuing 

Naval Reserve unfunded equipment needs in fiscal year 2004. 

Marine Corps Reserve 

With over 20,000 Marine Corps Reservists mobilized for Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle, over 50 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve have been recalled under the partial mobilization declared by the President. 

As we write, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force is streaming toward Baghdad, with 

approximately 15,000 Marine Corps Reservists in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) and in the battle. Marine Corps Reservists are integrated at every level 

of joint operations, force structure and forward support, in theater and in the 

United States. Marine Corps Reservists are in every theater of the war on terrorism. In Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, they continue guarding Al Qaeda detainees and 

in Afghanistan securing the heartland of the Taliban. Every Marine, whether Active 

or Reserve, is first and foremost a Marine and a rifleman. 

ROA urges the Congress to maintain Selected Marine Corps Reserve end-strength 

at 39,600 (including 2,261 Active Reservists). 

Funding Shortfalls 

The request to support the Marine Corps Reserve appears to be underfunded in 

the Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps 

Reserve (O&MMCR), Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps (RPMC) and Procurement, 

Marine Corps (PMC) appropriations. Maintaining the necessary funding to pay, educate, and train our Marine Reservists, and to enable the units of the Marine Forces 

Reserve to conduct appropriate training and operations with current fleet compatible equipment is the vital first step to combat readiness and sustainability. 

Additional O&MMCR funds are needed for initial issue of equipment, replenishment and replacement of equipment, exercise support, and organizational and depot 

maintenance. Only by equally equipping and maintaining both the Active and Reserve forces will Total Force integration be truly seamless. Foremost is the maintenance of aging equipment. The Marine Corps Reserve armored vehicles’ age, coupled 

with increased use, contribute to this requirement. The Initial Issue Program also 

continues to be a top priority. This program provides Reserve Marines with the 

same modern field clothing and personal equipment issued to their Regular Marine 

counterparts: improved load bearing equipment, all purpose environmental clothing 

systems (APECS)/3rd generation Gortex, small arms protective inserts, outer tactical vests, light weight helmets, modular general purpose tent systems, modular 

command post systems, and lightweight maintenance enclosures. Modern equipment 

continues to be critical to the readiness and capability of the Marine Corps Reserve. 

Although the Marine Corps attempts to implement fully the single acquisition objective philosophy throughout the Marine Corps Total Force (Active and Reserve), 

there are some unfilled Reserve equipment requirements that have not been met because of funding shortfalls. 

To achieve the readiness necessary to quickly mobilize and augment the Active 

Marine Forces in time of national emergency, Marine Forces Reserve units must be 

equipped in the same manner as their Active force counterparts. The top modernization requirement of Marine Corps Reserve continues to be Engineering Change Proposal 583 (ECP–583), which will make its F/A–18A aircraft compatible with the F/

A 18 Cs utilized by the Active force. As part of a complete modernization to achieve 

complete Force interoperability and support compatibility, this initiative will upgrade the aircraft to state of the art avionics and weapons systems. A safe and consistent fielding of the V–22 Osprey tilt rotor flight system is critical to the future 
648

readiness of Marine Corps aviation. Reserve CH–46Es will not be replaced for at 

least another 10 years at the current planned production rate. Further, until the 

V–22 is fielded to the Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve will not be able to take 

full advantage of the skills of V–22-trained Marines who separate from the Active 

forces. The increasing cost of CH–46E maintenance and this potential loss of V–22 

expertise can be avoided by earlier fielding of the V–22 across the Total Force. As 

current operations in Iraq highlight, the CH–53 helicopter night vision system is 

critical to success. This system provides an improved night and adverse weather capability for this helicopter, a mainstay of forward deployed combat operations. It 

provides aircrews and embarked ground force commanders video displays with infrared imagery overlaid with flight information and navigational data. 

With network-centric warfare, it is vital that Marine Corps Reserve units and individual Reservists be able to communicate securely and robustly. Two major shortfalls are in the area of radio communications: the PRC 117 multi-band radio for 

counterintelligence HUMINT Equipment Program (CIHEP) and the PRC 148 

handheld radio. The full purchase of the PRC 148 will enable the consolidation of 

a half a dozen radio systems into one Marine Corps-wide system.

AVIATION EQUIPMENT FUNDED THROUGH AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT NAVY APPROPRIATION 

[Dollars in millions] 

Item Cost Number 

Req. 

MARINE CORPS RESERVE FISCAL YEAR 2004 UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT NEEDS

F/A–18A ECP–583 (16 USMCR aircraft) .................................................................................................... $69.0 36

CH–53E Helicopter Night Vision System (HNVS) ‘‘B’’ Kits ........................................................................ 45.0 ..............

MARINE CORPS RESERVE FISCAL YEAR 2004 UNFUNDED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

REQUIREMENTS

Initial Equipment Issue (Reserves) ............................................................................................................ 13.5 ..............

Depot Level Maintenance Program ............................................................................................................. 7.5 ..............

FISCAL YEAR 20O4 RESERVE PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS (PMC)

PRC 117 Multi Band Radio for Counterintelligence HUMINT Equipment Program (CIHEP) ...................... 2.1 59

PRC 148 Handheld Radio ........................................................................................................................... 4.0 527

FISCAL YEAR 2004 RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS (RPMC)

Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW) for Marine for Life Program—funds 125 Reserve Marines ........... 9.1 125

ROA recommends that the Congress appropriate $150.2 million for these critical 

unfunded Marine Corps Reserve priorities. 

COAST GUARD

We are aware that this committee is not responsible for the direct funding of the 

Coast Guard or the Coast Guard Reserve. Nevertheless, a fully funded Coast Guard 

is vital to ensuring the security and safety needs of America through the performance of its traditional core missions and its increased homeland security posture. 

Similarly, funding for the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy 

remains constrained. The Coast Guard transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003. Therefore, it 

is vital to be farsighted as we cross into the 21st century to ensure a continued robust sea power. 

Homeland Security 

The Coast Guard’s homeland security efforts prior to September 11th were directed toward executing and enhancing maritime safety and security, environmental 

protection, and homeland defense in addition to other normal peacetime missions. 

Through the NAVGUARD Board and other mechanisms, the Coast Guard worked 

closely with the Department of the Navy to address domestic force protection for 

naval assets. Jointly, they were also preparing for the future by developing a methodology to conduct initial domestic Port Vulnerability Assessments to identify critical infrastructure and high-risk activities in our ports and to target their limited 

resources against the greatest threats. In addition, the Coast Guard promoted the 

concept of Maritime Domain Awareness in cooperation with members of the National Security Council. They were also planning for the establishment of domestic 

active-duty Maritime Safety and Security Teams that will possess specialized law 
649

enforcement and force protection capabilities to meet emerging port security requirements in normal and heightened threat conditions. 

Deepwater Capability 

Beginning in 2002, the Coast Guard has undertaken the Integrated Deepwater 

System Program in order to recapitalize its aging and technologically obsolete cutters and aircraft over the next twenty years. The Deepwater Program will provide 

the Coast Guard with the capabilities it needs to operate effectively and efficiently 

in the coming decades. From the Coast Guard’s perspective, ‘‘deepwater’’ refers to 

any operation that requires an extended on-scene presence or long transit to the operating area. They can be conducted in port, near the coast or offshore. 

The Coast Guard’s current fleet has high personnel and maintenance costs. Some 

ships have been in service for more than 50 years. The continued protection of the 

public, at a lower cost, requires further investment to enable the Coast Guard to 

design more capable and less labor-intensive ships and aircraft. Without the necessary investment, operations and maintenance costs will continue to increase rapidly and performance will continue to erode. Adequate investment in the Deepwater 

Program will sustain the Coast Guard’s capability for providing services critical to 

America’s public safety, environmental protection, and national security for the next 

40 years—through the replacement of assets that are at, or fast approaching, the 

end of their service lives. 

The Integrated Deepwater System Program will also strengthen the Coast 

Guard’s already close relationship with the Navy. The Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter, as well as other major cutters acquired through the Deepwater program, 

will be readily available to support critical Department of Defense operations such 

as maritime surveillance and interception, convoy escort, search and rescue, and enforcement of maritime sanctions. Such options allow Navy ‘‘high end’’ ships to be 

more effectively employed in higher threat/combat operations. 

The Reserve Officers Association urges the Congress to fully support the Coast 

Guard’s Integrated Deepwater System Program, its new start authority, and the 

Navy’s acquisition of assets for the Deepwater program. In addition, the ROA 

strongly urges the Congress to examine the desirability and feasibility of accelerating the Deepwater Program in order to achieve the desired acquisition objectives 

within ten years instead of the current estimated completion period of twenty years. 

The Coast Guard Reserve The events of 11 September and their aftermath have affected the Coast Guard Reserve more, perhaps, than the other Reserve components. 

The Coast Guard Reserve was the first Reserve component mobilized. On the afternoon of 11 September, the Secretary of Transportation exercised his unique domestic recall authority and authorized the largest recall of Coast Guard Reservists in 

history. By week’s end, over 1100 reservists were on duty throughout the nation 

helping to ensure the security of the nation’s seaports and waterways. Eventually 

nearly one third of the entire Selected Reserve (SELRES) was mobilized, proportionally far more than any other Reserve Component. Without its Reserve, the Coast 

Guard could not have surged so rapidly to increase the physical security of our vital 

ports and waterways. 

Coast Guard Selected Reserve End Strength 

ROA strongly urges congressional approval to increase the authorized and appropriated end strengths of the Active and Reserve Coast Guard. Specifically, the Coast 

Guard Reserve should be increased from 9,000 to 10,000 in fiscal year 2004. 

Coast Guard Reserve Funding 

It is estimated that the administration has requested $115 million for the support 

of reserve training and support for fiscal year 2004. With the consolidation of the 

Operating Expenses (OE) and the Reserve Training (RT) appropriation accounts, 

visibility is lost on the amount of support provided to the Coast Guard Reserve. 

Given the present procedures for reimbursement for operating expenses and direct 

payments by the Coast Guard Reserve, this is the minimum needed to fund a training program and to increase the force from 9,000 to 10,000. Given the events of September 11th and the national priority on homeland defense, we need a strong and 

vibrant Coast Guard Reserve, perhaps more than ever before. Providing the adequate funding will help ensure qualified and experienced members are available and 

prepared for the next surge requirement. 

As noted above, ROA objects to the loss of visibility of the amount of support provided to the Coast Guard Reserve. ROA believes that the Congress, in its capacity 

of providing constitutional oversight of the execution of the Budget of the United 

States, must have the ability to sufficiently review the documented Coast Guard Reserve program. 
650

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Reserve Officers Association’s 

views on these important subjects. Your support for the men and women in uniform, 

both Active and Reserve is sincerely appreciated. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Senator BURNS [presiding]. General McIntosh, did you—in your 

testimony did you give us any—how would you solve this problem 

of the 90-day callup training period? 

General MCINTOSH. I think if in law it was tied to starting the 

mobilization clock, in other words if it was under a partial mobilization contingency that was the reason they had to be called for 

training, then the 2-year, maximum of 2 years for recall under partial mobilization, that clock should start the day they show up for 

training. And we believe that the 90 days should tie to the use of 

those forces in an actual contingency or conflict. 

Senator BURNS. Okay, thank you very much. We will make note 

of that and we thank you for your testimony. Sorry you have to be 

handed off through this. This is a terrible way to run a hearing, 

I will tell you. We thank you. 

Now we will call Rodney Lester, CRNA with the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. In other words, you put people to 

sleep. 

STATEMENT OF RODNEY C. LESTER, CRNA, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS 

Dr. LESTER. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURNS. You would run out of work up here because we 

do it naturally. 

Thank you for coming today. 

Dr. LESTER. Senator Burns, good morning and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. We appreciate it. My name is Rodney 

Lester. I am a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) and 

President of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists 

(AANA). In addition, I recently retired from the Army after 5 years 

of active duty and 24 years as a reservist. 

The AANA represents more than 30,000 CRNAs, including the 

516 who are on active duty. Currently there are more than 360 

CRNAs deployed in the Middle East providing anesthesia care. 

That includes both active and reserve components. 

To ensure modernization military medical readiness, we must 

have anesthesia providers that can work independently and be deployed at a moment’s notice. For this reason, the AANA is concerned over the recently proposed rule to include anesthesiologist’s 

assistants (AAs) as authorized providers under the Tricare program. Before the rule was published, there should have been full 

congressional review of the AA’s safety record, cost effectiveness, 

and limited scope of practice. 

AAs are trained to assist the anesthesiologist in providing anesthesia care and cannot act independently. Immediate and independent action is required when providing anesthesia. AAs are not 

recognized anesthesia providers in any branch of the military and 

do not practice in all 50 States. There are only five States that 

have separate licensure for AAs. If most of the country does not 

recognize the AA practice, why should Tricare have AAs providing 

anesthesia care to our military and their dependents? 
651

Since the introduction of AAs to the health care system 30 years 

ago, there are two schools in the country and only about 700 AAs 

practicing. This is in contrast to nurses, who have been providing 

anesthesia care since prior to the Civil War. Today we have 85 

nurse anesthesia schools, with over 30,000 CRNAs practicing. AAs 

will not lower the anesthesia provider vacancy rate within the 

DOD. 

AANA urges members of the subcommittee and the full committee to contact the DOD to urge their reconsideration of the AA 

proposal. 

Incentives for recruitment and retention of CRNAs in the military are essential to make sure that the armed services can meet 

their medical manpower needs. We would like to thank this committee for funding the critical skills retention bonus, CSRB, for fiscal year 2003. Sixty-six percent of the 516 active duty CRNAs enjoy 

this benefit. 

In addition, we would like to thank this committee for its continued support in funding the incentive special pay (ISP) for CRNAs 

in the military. As you know, there continues to be a considerable 

gap between civilian and military pay, which was addressed in the 

fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act with an ISP increase 

authorized from $15,000 to $50,000. The AANA is requesting that 

this committee fund that increase in the ISP at $50,000 for all 

services, enabling them to recruit and retain CRNAs. 

In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment and retention of CRNAs in the military service is of critical concern in maintaining the military’s ability to meet its wartime and medical mobilization needs. The funding of the CSRB and an increase in ISP 

will assist in meeting these challenges. Also, we believe that the inclusion of AAs in the Tricare system would not improve military 

medical readiness of any of the services and therefore should not 

be approved. 

I thank the committee members for their consideration of these 

issues and would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RODNEY C. LESTER

The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) is the professional association representing over 28,000 certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) in 

the United States, including 516 active duty CRNAs in the military services. The 

AANA appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony regarding CRNAs in the 

military. We would also like to thank this committee for the help it has given us 

in assisting the Department of Defense (DOD) and each of the services to recruit 

and retain CRNAs. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NURSE ANESTHETISTS

The practice of anesthesia is a recognized specialty within both the nursing and 

medical professions. Both CRNAs and anesthesiologists administer anesthesia for 

all types of surgical procedures, from the simplest to the most complex, either as 

single providers or in a ‘‘care team setting.’’ Patient outcome data has consistently 

shown that there is no significant difference in outcomes between the two providers. 

CRNAs and anesthesiologists are both educated to use the same anesthesia procedures in the provision of anesthesia and related services. 

In the administration of anesthesia, CRNAs perform the same functions as anesthesiologists and work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including 

hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, 

health maintenance organizations, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, ophthalmologists, and plastic surgeons. One of the differences between CRNAs and anesthe-
652

siologists is that prior to anesthesia education, anesthesiologists receive medical 

education while CRNAs receive a nursing education. However, the anesthesia part 

of the education is similar for both providers, and both professionals are educated 

to perform the same clinical anesthesia services. 

Today CRNAs administer approximately 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They are masters prepared and meet the most 

stringent continuing education and recertification standards in the field, helping 

make anesthesia 50 times safer now than 20 years ago according to the Institute 

of Medicine’s 1999 Report, ‘‘To Err is Human.’’

NURSE ANESTHETISTS IN THE MILITARY

Nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia providers in combat areas 

in every war in which the United States has been engaged since World War I. Military nurse anesthetists have been honored and decorated by the United States and 

foreign governments for outstanding achievements, resulting from their dedication 

and commitment to duty and competence in managing seriously wounded casualties. 

In World War II, there were 17 nurse anesthetists to every one anesthesiologist. In 

Vietnam, the ratio of CRNAs to physician anesthetists was approximately 3:1. Two 

nurse anesthetists were killed in Vietnam and their names have been engraved on 

the Vietnam Memorial Wall. During the Panama strike, only CRNAs were sent with 

the fighting forces. Nurse anesthetists served with honor during Desert Shield, 

Desert Storm, and ‘‘Operation Enduring Freedom.’’ Military CRNAs provide critical 

anesthesia support to humanitarian missions around the globe in such places as 

Bosnia and Somalia. Currently, there are approximately 364 nurse anesthetists deployed in the Middle East for the military mission for ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’’ 

and ‘‘Operation Enduring Freedom.’’

Data gathered from the U.S. Armed Forces anesthesia communities’ reveal that 

CRNAs have often been the sole anesthesia providers at certain facilities, both at 

home and while forward deployed. For decades CRNAs have staffed ships, isolated 

U.S. Bases, and forward surgical teams without physician anesthesia support. The 

U.S. Army Joint Special Operations Command Medical Team and all Army Forward 

Surgical Teams are staffed solely by CRNAs. Military CRNAs have a long proud history of providing independent support and quality anesthesia care to military men 

and women, their families and to people from many nations who have found themselves in harms way. 

When President George W. Bush initiated ‘‘Operation Enduring Freedom,’’ CRNAs 

were immediately deployed. With the new special operations environment new 

training was needed to prepare our CRNAs to ensure military medical mobilization 

and readiness. Brigadier General Barbara C. Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General, 

Air Force Nursing Services, testified before this Senate Committee on May 8, 2003, 

to provide an account of CRNAs on the job overseas. She stated, ‘‘Lt. Col Beisser, 

a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) leading a Mobile Forward Surgical 

Team (MFST), recently commended the seamless interoperability he witnessed during treatment of trauma victims in Special Forces mass casualty incident.’’

In the most recent mission, ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom,’’ CRNAs were deployed on 

both ships and ground. For example, Lt. Col. Steven Hendrix, CRNA was in the 

Delta Force, U.S. special operations forces that rescued Private Jessica Lynch. 

This committee must ensure that we retain and recruit CRNAs for now and in 

the future for the ever-changing military operation deployments overseas. 

INCLUSION OF AAS UNDER THE DOD HEALTH SYSTEM

The U.S. Department of Defense has proposed authorizing anesthesiologist assistants (AAs) as providers of anesthesia care under the TRICARE health plan for military personnel and dependents, in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register 

April 3 (68 FR 16247, 4/3/2003). In addition, the Director of Anesthesia Services of 

the Veterans Affairs (VA) Department is apparently in the process of adding AAs 

as a new anesthesia provider as well. There has been no congressional review about 

adding these new providers, and no assessment of their safety record or cost-effectiveness. 

—There are only two AA schools in the entire country (Ohio and Georgia) since 

AA introduction to the healthcare system over 30 years ago; 

—AAs are not required to have any healthcare training or experience before they 

enter AA training. This differs from Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists 

(CRNAs) who must have a bachelor’s degree, be a registered nurse and have 

at least one year of acute care training prior to beginning the program; 

—AAs have a very limited scope of practice, as they are required by law to administer anesthesia only under the close supervision of an anesthesiologist. Since 
653

AAs must work under the close supervision of an anesthesiologist, they cannot 

act independently and quickly in an emergency situation. Immediate and independent action is required when providing anesthesia, especially for those patients in the TRICARE and VA systems. AAs cannot be deployed in military situations without anesthesiologists; by contrast, CRNAs are predominantly the 

anesthesia provider in military situations & need not be anesthesiologist supervised. 

—Only five states provide separate licensure for AAs (Alabama, Georgia, New 

Mexico, Ohio, and South Carolina). Some anesthesiologists in these states actually have opposed AA recognition. If most of the country does not specifically 

recognize their practice, why would TRICARE and the VA allow AAs to administer anesthesia to our nation’s veterans and military families? 

—The scope of training for AAs is severely limited. For example, the Emory program in Georgia does not provide clinical instruction in the administration of 

regional anesthesia. The AA curriculum is characterized by training that allows 

them to ‘‘assist’’ the anesthesiologist in technical functions. By contrast, nurse 

anesthetists are capable of high-level independent function and receive instruction in the administration of all types of anesthesia including general and regional anesthesia, conscious sedation, and monitored anesthesia care. The ability to make independent judgments and provide multiple anesthetic techniques 

are critical to meeting an array of patient and surgical needs. 

—The use of AAs is bad healthcare policy. This attempt to introduce AAs into federal programs sets the stage for anesthesiologists to control the entire anesthesia market since they will have substantial control of AA practice, including 

education, accreditation, certification, practice, payment, and employment. This 

degree of control is intended to eliminate any chance of competition in the anesthesia market and to allow only anesthesiologists to bill for anesthesia services, 

even if provided by a technical assistant. 

—The AA certification examination process emphasizes employability over thorough testing: The National Commission for Certification of Anesthesiologist Assistants (NCCAA) allows AA students to take the AA certification examination 

up to 180 days before graduation. Scores can be released immediately after the 

NCCAA has received documentation of the student’s graduation. Given that an 

AA student can take the exam six months before he or she graduates (i.e., after 

only 18 months of being in an AA program), the rigors of the exam appear questionable. How can an AA (with no required healthcare training prior to entering 

an AA program) be tested when six months remain in an AA’s education? Nurse 

anesthetists are not eligible to take their certification exam until they have 

graduated from their nurse anesthesia program.

COMPARE ANESTHESIOLOGISTS, CRNAS, AND ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS 

Issue Anesthesiologists CRNAs AAs 

Educated in all aspects of anesthesia? ................................................. Yes Yes No 

Authorized to practice in all 50 states? ................................................. Yes Yes No 

Serves in U.S. military settings? ............................................................. Yes Yes No 

May practice without anesthesiologist supervision? ............................... N/A Yes No 

Mandatory prior healthcare experience before anesthesia training? ...... Yes Yes No 

Recertified every 2 years? ....................................................................... No Yes Yes 

AAs may not be the solution to address anesthesia vacancies in these programs 

since they need to practice under the direct supervision of an anesthesiologist. Including AAs under TRICARE would indeed add to the current anesthesia provider 

problem within the military, because there is a current shortage of anesthesiologists 

in the military to supervise the AAs, to say nothing of the additional cost. 

AANA urges this subcommittee and full committee members to contact the DOD 

to urge their reconsideration of this DOD proposal. 

CRNA RETENTION AND RECRUITING HOW THIS COMMITTEE CAN HELP DOD

In all of the Services, maintaining adequate numbers of active duty CRNAs is of 

utmost concern. For several years, the number of CRNAs serving in active duty has 

consistently fallen short of the number authorized by DOD as needed providers. 

This is further complicated by the shortage of CRNAs in the nation. A letter dated 

March 14, 2002 from the Asst. Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, William 

Winkenwerder, Jr., MD, to the former AANA President, Debbie A. Chambers, 
654

CRNA, MHSA, stated that, ‘‘The Nurse Anesthetist specialty has been identified by 

the Department as a critical wartime shortage for the last several years.’’

Recruitment of nurse anesthetists for the military becomes increasingly difficult 

when the civilian sector faces such critical shortages, too. Currently, the number of 

nurse anesthetist vacancies increased 250 percent from 1998–2001, according to 

CRNA managers’ surveys. Health professions staffing firms report CRNA recruitment rising by up to ten-fold from 1997–2000, making nurse anesthesia the second 

most recruited health professional specialty. In addition, this is compounded by the 

impact of baby boomers retiring. As the number of Medicare-eligible Americans 

climbs, it compounds the number of surgical procedures requiring anesthetics. Indeed, among those retiring Americans are CRNAs themselves. 

In addition, the AANA cited a decline in anesthesiology resident positions, as well 

as an increase in office-based surgery and surgery in places other than hospitals as 

driving the increased need for CRNAs. Additionally, with managed care continuing 

to pursue cost-cutting measures, coverage plans are recognizing CRNAs for providing high-quality anesthesia care with reduced expense to patients and insurance 

companies. The cost-efficiency of CRNAs helps keep escalating medical costs down. 

This Committee can greatly assist in the effort to attract and maintain essential 

numbers of nurse anesthetists in the military by their support of increasing special 

pays. 

Critical Skills Retention Bonus 

Last year on May 8, 2002, Brigadier General Barbara C. Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force Nursing Services, testified before this Senate Committee requesting the expansion of the critical skills retention bonus, authorized in the fiscal 

year 2001 Defense Authorization Act, to health professionals with critical skills. 

Brigadier General Brannon stated:

‘‘Currently, the Secretary of Defense is evaluating whether health professions will 

be designated as a critical skill. In anticipation, the TriService Health Professions 

Special Pay Working Group is evaluating future funding, and we have identified our 

critical nursing specialties. These specialties include obstetrical nurses, mental 

health, medical-surgical, neonatal intensive care, CRNAs and Women’s Health 

Nurse Practitioners.’’

In the fall of 2002, CRNAs were designated as health professions with critical 

skills in the military, and were given a $10,000 critical skills retention bonus 

(CSRB) to stay in the military for an additional year after their service obligation. 

Brigadier General Brannon thanked this committee for their help in granting a 

CSRB to CRNAs in her recent testimony to this committee on April 30, 2003:

‘‘The TriService Health Professions Special Pay Working Group Identified Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists as critically manned and therefore eligible for 

the retention bonus. The program was enthusiastically welcomed with 66 percent 

of the eligible CRNAs applying for a CSRB in exchange for a one year service commitment.’’

The AANA also thanks this committee for their hard work. The CSRB for fiscal 

year 2003 was funded by this committee, and is assisting each of the service 

branches to both retain and recruit CRNAs. We hope you will continue to fund the 

CSRB for fiscal year 2004. 

The AANA thanks the committee for funding the Critical Skills Retention Bonus 

(CSRB) for fiscal year 2003 to ensure the retention of CRNAs in the military services. We hope you will support continued funding for CSRB for fiscal year 2004. 

The Incentive Special Pay for Nurses 

According to a March 1994 study requested by the Health Policy Directorate of 

Health Affairs and conducted by DOD, a large pay gap existed between annual civilian and military pay in 1992. This study concluded, ‘‘this earnings gap is a major 

reason why the military has difficulty retaining CRNAs.’’ In order to address this 

pay gap, in the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization bill Congress authorized the 

implementation of an increase in the annual Incentive Special Pay (ISP) for nurse 

anesthetists from $6,000 to $15,000 for those CRNAs no longer under service obligation to pay back their anesthesia education. Those CRNAs who remain obligated receive the $6,000 ISP. 

Both the House and Senate passed the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act 

Conference report, H.Rept. 107–772, which included an ISP increase to $50,000. The 

report included an increase in ISP for nurse anesthetists from $15,000 to $50,000. 

There had been no change in funding level for the ISP since the increase was instituted in fiscal year 1995, while it is certain that civilian pay has continued to rise 
655

during this time. The AANA is requesting that this committee fund the new increase for the ISP at $50,000 for all the branches of the armed services to retain 

and recruit CRNAs now and into the future. 

There still continues to be high demand and low supply of CRNAs in the health 

care community leading to higher incomes widening the gap in pay for CRNAs in 

the civilian sector compared to the military. The fiscal year 2002 AANA Membership 

survey measured income in the civilian sector by practice setting. The median income in a hospital setting is $110,200, MDA group $100,534, and self-employed 

CRNA $130,000 (includes Owner/Partner of a CRNA Group). These median salaries 

include call pay, overtime pay, and bonus pay. These salaries are still higher than 

the median salary of $74,000 across all military service branches. 

In civilian practice, all additional skills, experience, duties and responsibilities, 

and hours of work are compensated for monetarily. Additionally, training (tuition 

and continuing education), health care, retirement, recruitment and retention bonuses, and other benefits often equal or exceed those offered in the military. 

Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, and Commander of the Naval Medical Education and Training Command testified before this 

Senate Committee at the April 30, 2003 hearing:

‘‘The increase of the maximum allowable compensation amount for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist Incentive Special Pay (CRNA ISP) and the Nurse Accession Bonus (NAB) in the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act will 

further enhance our competitive edge in the nursing market.’’

Salaries in the civilian sector will continue to create incentives for CRNAs to separate from the military, especially at the lower grades without a competitive incentive from the military to retain CRNAs. Therefore, it is vitally important that the 

Incentive Special Pay (ISP) be increased to $50,000 to ensure the retention of 

CRNAs in the military 

AANA thanks this Committee for its support of the annual ISP for nurse anesthetists. AANA strongly recommends the continuation and an increase in the annual funding for ISP from $15,000 to $50,000 for fiscal year 2004, which recognizes 

the special skills and advanced education that CRNAs bring to the DOD health care 

system. 

Board Certification Pay for Nurses 

Included in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill was language authorizing the implementation of a board certification pay for certain non-MD health care 

professionals, including advanced practice nurses. AANA is highly supportive of 

board certification pay for all advanced practice nurses. The establishment of this 

type of pay for nurses recognizes that there are levels of excellence in the profession 

of nursing that should be recognized, just as in the medical profession. In addition, 

this pay may assist in closing the earnings gap, which may help with retention of 

CRNAs. 

While many CRNAs have received board certification pay, there are many that 

remain ineligible. Since certification to practice, as a CRNA does not require a specific master’s degree, many nurse anesthetists have chosen to diversify their education by pursuing an advanced degree in other related fields. But CRNAs with 

master’s degrees in education, administration, or management are not eligible for 

board certification pay since their graduate degree is not in a clinical specialty. 

Many CRNAs who have non-clinical master’s degrees either chose or were guided 

by their respective services to pursue a degree other than in a clinical specialty. 

Many feel that diversity in education equates to a stronger, more viable profession. 

CRNAs do utilize education and management principles in their everyday practice 

and these skills are vital to performance of their duties. To deny a bonus to these 

individuals is unfair, and will certainly affect their morale as they work side-by-side 

with their less-experienced colleagues, who will collect a bonus for which they are 

not eligible. In addition, in the future this bonus will act as a financial disincentive 

for nurse anesthetists to diversify and broaden their horizons. 

AANA encourages DOD and the respective services to reexamine the issue of 

awarding board certification pay only to CRNAs who have clinical master’s degrees. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment and retention of CRNAs 

in the Services is of critical concern. The efforts detailed above will assist the Services in maintaining the military’s ability to meet its wartime and medical mobilization through the funding of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus and an increase in 

ISP. Also, we believe that the inclusion of Anesthesiologists Assistants (AAs) in the 

TRICARE system would impair the military medical readiness capability of the 
656

services, and should not be approved. In addition we commend and thank this committee for their continued support for CRNAs in the military.

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much, Dr. Lester. Would you tell 

me, just real briefly, the difference in training between a CRNA 

and an AA? 

Dr. LESTER. A CRNA is based—first, to be a CRNA you have to 

be a registered nurse first and to have critical care experience. 

Senator BURNS. AA does not? 

Dr. LESTER. No, sir. They have to have a bachelor’s degree and 

may be required to have some basic science courses, but there is 

no requirement in any of their programs, their two programs, that 

they have any medical background at all prior to entering the AA 

training program. 

Senator BURNS. Do you know if my State of Montana is one of 

those States that you mentioned, one of the five? 

Dr. LESTER. I do not believe so. 

Senator BURNS. No? 

Dr. LESTER. I do not believe so. 

Senator BURNS. The reason I ask you the question is that this 

has come up in conversation. I have a daughter that is a medical 

doctor. She is a family physician, but she used to deliver babies 

until the insurance became prohibitive and so she decided to drop 

that part of her practice. And this kind of came up in a conversation. 

So I appreciate your testimony today and thank you for coming 

forward. 

We would like to call Dr. John Sommerer, Chief Technology Officer for the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins University, Coalition for National Security Research. Dr. Sommerer, thank you for 

coming this morning. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN SOMMERER, Ph.D., CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, APPLIED PHYSICS LAB, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY; ON 

BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY RESEARCH 

Dr. SOMMERER. Thank you, Senator. My name is John Sommerer 

and I am the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. I am here today on behalf of 

the Coalition for National Security Research, a broadly based group 

of over 50 scientific, engineering, mathematical, behavioral societies, universities, and industrial associations committed to a 

stronger defense science and technology base. 

First, I would like to thank this committee for your strong support of defense science and technology. Without the appropriated 

funding levels for the past few years, we would not be working on 

some very important national security technology today. 

This year we have concerns in three areas of the S&T budget 

that your committee should consider. First, its overall investment 

level. The budget request is $600 million less than last year’s appropriations. Various studies and recommendations suggest that to 

remain competitive DOD should invest about 3 percent of its budget every year in science and technology, or about $11.4 billion total. 

That proposition has been repeatedly endorsed by the administration. 
657

In order to continue important research already in progress, about $11 billion will be required, which would move closer to the 

administration’s goal of 3 percent. We urge your support in achieving this goal within the next several years. 

Second, we want to express some concern with DOD’s plan to 

transfer the S&T programs presently under Office of Secretary of 

Defense management to the individual services. The purpose of 

such a move appears to be to remove OSD staff from the day-today program management of individual programs and allow a better focus on long-term planning and oversight, and we agree with 

such management efficiencies. But our concern is what happens to 

the science and technology products that need a broader management perspective than that provided by the individual services. 

We urge caution to ensure that these programs will continue to 

address the fundamental cross-cutting technologies originally intended and we would suggest that OSD retain oversight of the University Research Initiative and other critical research initiatives 

until management plans are in place to ensure that critical work 

remains on track. 

Finally, in the area of basic research, let me urge that DOD’s 6.1 

basic research program be provided stable funding over many 

years. I cannot derive a specific number for you, but we do know 

that it must be gradually increased each year as the national needs 

for technology change. We also know that lack of stability in this 

account significantly impedes the progress of research as well as 

the transition of that research to practical application. 

In closing, Senator Burns, let me cite some of the Applied Physics Laboratory’s (APL) science and technology work that is making 

a difference in national security. We saw during Operation Iraqi 

Freedom the tremendous military advantages offered by precision 

guided weapons. As it turns out, the road to that capability started 

in the very office where I work every day. One of my predecessors, 

Dr. Frank McClure, invented satellite navigation there in 1958. 

Notwithstanding the genius of his vision, it took many years of 

research in areas as diverse as computing, electronics, atomic 

clocks, and space physics to come to fruition. Satellite navigation 

now makes it possible for our military forces to reliably hit a target 

whose coordinates are known day or night, in any weather. 

Today the Applied Physics Laboratory continues to advance the 

concept of precision engagement, but the challenge now focuses on 

rapidly identifying the targets, locating them, and engaging them 

before they can move. In one project we are developing the capability for groups of uninhabited air vehicles to operate in a coordinated way to locate, confirm, and relay coordinates, all without operator intervention. 

Another S&T program is developing the propulsion technology to 

enable next-generation strike weapons to reach targets in minutes 

after launch rather than the hours now taken by our most advanced cruise missiles. 

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Department of Defense science and technology program. It would be a pleasure to 

welcome you, other members of the committee, and your staff to 

APL to see first-hand some of the exciting research being done with 

the support of DOD and this subcommittee. 
658

I would be happy to answer any questions, sir. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN SOMMERER

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am here to testify today on behalf of the Coalition for National Security Research, a broadly based 

group of scientific, engineering, mathematical and behavioral societies, universities 

and industrial associations committed to a stronger defense science and technology 

base. 

There are three issues of primary importance in looking at the defense Science 

and Technology (S&T) budget this year: overall investment levels, appropriate balance among the accounts, and the department’s proposal to devolve—or transfer—

programs currently under the Office of the Secretary (OSD) to the services. 

On funding, we urge the subcommittee to approve robust and stable funding for 

Department of Defense (DOD) basic (6.1), applied (6.2) and advanced technology development (6.3) elements in fiscal year 2004. Specifically, CNSR joins many other 

organizations in urging the subcommittee to increase the S&T program to $11.4 billion in fiscal year 2004, or 3 percent of the overall departmental budget, as recommended by the Defense Science Board, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the 

House and Senate Armed Services Committees and numerous departmental officials. These programs are the foundation of the Department’s Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) activity. They feed our procurement needs, enhance our readiness and modernization efforts, provide technologies to protect our 

forces, and contribute to the most technologically advanced, best trained, lethal, 

fighting force in the world. As we have seen in numerous recent news reports, investments made in innovative research over the last 30 years have yielded impressive and flexible technological results and tools to address the current challenges we 

face. I want to express deep appreciation for the Committee’s past support and for 

the fiscal year 2003 funding approved for these programs. 

With consideration of the fiscal year 2004 budget, it is important to recognize the 

critical role DOD S&T plays in ensuring the future national security of the United 

States and the safety and effectiveness of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. 

Simultaneously, these defense science programs contribute to the research enterprise of the country and to the education of tomorrow’s scientists, engineers and policy makers. The Department provides a critical investment in several disciplines—

including engineering, physical, math, computer and behavioral sciences—vital to 

our future national security. 

As you are aware, previous investments in defense science and technology have 

led to breakthrough developments in areas such as thermobaric bombs, distributed 

networking, advanced materials, global navigation, precision guidance, and stealth 

technology that have equipped America’s men and women in uniform with the finest 

technologies in the world. 

As we have seen in recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, research in remotely-operated mini-robots, unmanned air, land and sea vehicles, remote medicine, 

chemical and mechanical sensors, large scale battlefield simulations and advanced 

data memory systems protect the warfighters of the future by removing them from 

harm’s way, providing on-site emergency medical care, identifying dangerous environments, improving training and speeding data availability and usability. 

The support of this subcommittee is critical to ensuring that we maintain a viable 

S&T base to meet our future security needs on land, in the air, and at sea. 

A second issue related to funding, I would like to mention deals specifically with 

support for the department’s most basic and innovative research programs. Diversion of funds from 6.1 accounts to meet shortages in other accounts undermines the 

long-term goal of defense transformation and future capabilities development. As 

our nation’s leaders address future challenges and the transformation of our national defense, long-term 6.1 projects must again become a centerpiece of the department’s S&T program and must remain focused on real frontiers of discovery. 

The final issue on which I want to touch briefly concerns the department’s plans 

to transfer about $500 million in S&T programs from the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) to the services. CNSR supports the Department of Defense’s goal of 

moving resources from the ‘‘bureaucracy to the battlefield’’ and plans by OSD to 

focus activities on long term strategic planning. Nevertheless, we are concerned that 

some proposals for implementation of this worthy goal will negatively impact transformation efforts, the long term technological superiority of the United States military, and the science and engineering workforce on which it relies. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress for the department would transfer—or devolve—a group of critical, joint, multidisciplinary programs from OSD to 
659

the services. Given the results of previous, similar reorganization proposals, we believe such a move could damage the unique nature and design of these programs 

and would inherently inhibit cross-service integration and coordination, while placing additional burdens on the services and offering very little benefit toward stated 

goals. 

CNSR is confident that an increased focus on long-term strategic needs of the 

armed services would highlight the important role S&T programs, like the University Research Initiative, play in training the needed scientific and engineering workforce required by this nation, and in assuring that the latest technology is always 

available to meet changing threats and evolving challenges. Given the long-term nature of basic research, any damage to the programs, though it may not be easily 

spotted in the near term, will result in the loss of the U.S. technology lead and will 

require an even greater corrective investment in the future. 

In order to continue moving toward stated overall investment goals for S&T and 

to carry out strategic decisions most effectively, OSD—as the most appropriate entity to facilitate jointness—will need controlling authority over basic research programs and budgets. OSD should retain current oversight and management of the 

University Research Initiative and other critical research initiatives until management plans are detailed and tested. 

I have provided some additional information below to highlight some examples of 

the results of DOD S&T investments, which have both national security and domestic applications. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

The Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington, Seattle, has developed under U.S. Navy sponsorship, a high resolution, imaging sonar for underwater mine detection and identification in poor visibility waters such as those commonly encountered in ports and harbors. The unique sonar, based on acoustic technology that mimics the optical lens and retina of the human eye, produces a picturelike image. One version of the sonar is designed to be the eyes’ of the unmanned, 

autonomous, underwater vehicles being developed for mine clearance and special operations. A hand-held version enables a diver to easily and accurately distinguish 

between mines and false targets such as mine-like debris, and to identify specific 

mine types in zero-visibility water. It is intended to assist Special Forces and Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams and has been used in Bahrain. 

In response to the need to deter and counter the use of biological and chemical 

weapons of mass destruction, the Applied Physics Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins 

University is working under DARPA sponsorship to develop and test new technologies that will protect both military and civilian populations. Advanced Time-ofFlight Mass Spectrometer instruments are being tested to rapidly detect a broad 

range of biological pathogens and chemical warfare agents. Background Environmental Characterization and Biosurviellance networks are being tested to measure 

anomalous behavior that could signal the terrorist use of biological and chemical 

warfare agents. These developments will give us the capability to deal with today’s 

threat spectrum and future emerging threats. 

The University of South Carolina, through its DEPSCoR supported Industrial 

Mathematics Institute (IMI), has developed algorithms and software that enable the 

rapid display, querying and registration of Digital Terrain Maps. This software is 

of potential value in mission planning, autonomous and semi-autonomous navigation, rapid targeting and post battlefield assessment. 

A DOD-funded researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, using a pair 

of Plexiglas wings he called ‘‘Robofly,’’ for the first time provided a comprehensive 

explanation of how insects fly. The research could lead to the development of tiny 

flying devices that could be dispatched in swarms to spy on enemy forces. 

Improved energy efficiency throughout the Defense Department and its mission 

activities—testing, training, operations, facilities—has the potential to save the federal government, and in turn the taxpayer, millions per year. Fuel cells are among 

the most promising sources of clean energy needed for numerous civil and military 

devices. The development of efficient electrocatalysts is essential to the improvement of fuel cell performances. Researchers at the University of South Carolina, 

supported by DOD S&T funding, are applying theoretical and computational methods to the understanding of electrocatalysis, focusing on the electron reduction of oxygen on platinum electrodes. 

No one foresaw the enormous range of applications and whole industries that 

have evolved from the Defense-sponsored discovery of lasers. The basic concepts 

leading to the development of the laser were discovered in a microwave research 

program at Columbia University funded by the three Services. Lasers were combined with transistors and the billion-dollar fiber optic industry resulted. Fiber optic 

communications, compact disk players, laser printers, procedures to reattach eye 
660

retinas and new cancer surgeries all exist because of these breakthroughs, the result of Defense Basic Research. 

In response to threats due to inadequate or outdated mission terrain mapping 

tools, the Georgia Institute of Technology developed Falcon View, a laptop-mapping 

software. Designed for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Special Operations Command and 

the U.S. Navy, Falcon View integrates aeronautical charts, satellite images and 

other data to provide detailed, up-to-date data imagery to flight crews conducting 

mission planning using relatively simple laptop computers. The system is credited 

with reducing typical mission planning time from seven hours or more down to 

twenty minutes. 

DARPA and ONR-sponsored researchers at Duke University Medical Center and 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have tested a neural system in animals 

that utilizes implanted electrodes to assist brain signals in controlling robotics. Scientists transmitted the brain signals over the Internet, remotely controlling a robot 

arm 600 miles away. The recording and analysis system could form the basis for 

a brain-machine interface that would allow paralyzed patients to control the movement of prosthetic limbs. The finding also supports new thinking about how the 

brain encodes information, by spreading it across large populations of neurons and 

by rapidly adapting to new circumstances. 

In the late 1960’s, DOD-initiated research to explore linking computers in different geographical locations to improve communication between their users. The research produced the world’s first packet-switched network, the ARPANET, which 

connected major universities. As a result, more and more people gained access to 

more powerful computers. Innovation in network design and improved research 

spawned a new breed of information scientists who expanded the network to every 

corner of the country and the world. Electronic mail, which was considered earlier 

to be of minor interest to users, has become the most used service of computer networks. Through ARPANET, Defense Basic Research made it possible to launch the 

National Information Infrastructure.

Senator BURNS. Dr. Sommerer, you hit on an area that I worked 

very hard on over on the Commerce Committee, which is R&D and 

the work that we have done especially in science and technology. 

I have made many speeches and there has been one invention in 

the last 50 years that has completely been the bridge to everything 

that we have ever done electronically since. I do not think there are 

very many people in the world that understand how big the invention of the transistor was to electronics and everything that we do 

now, especially with the smart equipment that we are using now. 

That could never have been done had that invention never happened. 

The ramifications it has had in the last—well, I guess it will be 

50 years. 

Dr. SOMMERER. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURNS. Gosh, that was—I remember when it happened. 

I am getting pretty damned old here. 

But the ramifications that that has had have been enormous. So 

your end of this world is a very important one to us and we appreciate your testimony today and we thank you for coming. 

Dr. SOMMERER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BURNS. You bet. 

We now call Captain Robert C. Hurd, Headquarters Liaison to 

Congress, the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. Thank you for 

coming, Captain. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT C. HURD, USN (RETIRED), HEADQUARTERS LIASION TO CONGRESS, UNITED STATES NAVAL SEA 

CADET CORPS 

Captain HURD. Well, thank you for having me, sir. The Naval 

Sea Cadet Corps is a congressionally-chartered youth development 

and education program sponsored by the Navy League, supported 
661

by the Navy and Coast Guard, with over 10,000 cadets, run by 

2,000 adult volunteers. Our goals are development of young men 

and women ages 11 through 17 by promoting interest and skill in 

seamanship and aviation, instilling a sense of patriotism, courage, 

self-reliance, confidence, and those qualities which mold strong 

moral character and self-discipline in a drug-free and a gang-free 

environment. 

Cadets attend boot camp and in the following summers they 

train on board Navy and Coast Guard ships or, in specific areas of 

advanced disciplines, ashore. They drill one weekend a month and 

they take Navy correspondence courses, the basis for accelerated 

promotion of a cadet who decides to enlist in the Navy or the Coast 

Guard. 

There are now 466 ex-Sea Cadets attending the U.S. Naval Academy. Annually between 400 and 600 ex-cadets enlist in the services, pre-screened, highly motivated, and well prepared. Prior Sea 

Cadet experience has been proven to be an excellent indicator of a 

potentially high career success rate. Navy annual accession recruiting costs average over $11,000 per person, which, applied to the 

number of Sea Cadet accessions, represents a significant financial 

benefit to the Navy. 

Whether or not they choose a service career, all Sea Cadets carry 

forth learned values of good citizenship, leadership, and moral 

courage that will ultimately benefit themselves and our country. 

The major difference between this and all the other federallychartered military youth programs is that Sea Cadets pay for all 

their own expenses, including their uniforms, their travel, insurance, and training costs, which can run $400 to $500 a year. We 

are also particularly sensitive to the fact that no young person be 

denied access to the program because of his or her social or economic background. Federally funded at only half of the $2 million requested to fill 

the unfunded Navy budget requirement for the past 3 years, all of 

these funds are used to help offset cadets’ out of pocket costs and 

to conduct background checks for the adult volunteers. With the 

Federal funding received, training participation has increased by 

over 30 percent, 37 percent. However, for a variety of reasons the 

current level of funding can no longer sustain this program. They 

include inflation, all-time high cadet enrollment, base closures, reduced base access due to the terrorism alerts, reduced afloat training opportunities due to the Iraq War, and nonavailability of previously provided space A transportation, on-base open bay berthing, and transportation. 

It is therefore considered to be a matter of extreme importance 

to us that the full requested $2 million be authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2004 and we respectfully request your consideration and support to this end. Unfortunately, time precludes 

my sharing stories with you about, such as the State of Washington recently honoring an 11-year-old Sea Cadet for singlehandedly putting out a major restaurant fire, or for the Ohio unit fulfilling a World War II veteran’s dying wish to be buried in uniform, 

which the cadets purchased and then followed through by providing 

military graveside honors for the family, or the post-9/11 story of 

the Sea Cadets volunteering to be buried in the rubble of Ground 
662

Zero so that the body-sniffing dogs could maintain their proficiency 

by seeking them out. 

These and many more stories like them are the stories that you 

do not read about in the press, and we really think our kids are 

worthy of all the support we can give them. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today, sir. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT C. HURD

REQUEST

Funded in fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002 and again in fiscal year 2003, continued Congressional appropriation in the Navy Recruiting Budget (Operations and 

Maintenance Navy—Title II, Budget Activity 3) is essential to expand the Naval Sea 

Cadet Corps into more communities. Unlike all other federally chartered military 

youth groups, the Sea Cadets themselves pay almost all program costs, including 

uniforms, training costs, insurance and transportation to/from training. Funding to 

offset Cadet out-of-pocket training costs at a level commensurate with that received 

by other federally chartered military related youth programs, as well as adult volunteer training costs, is needed to increase program access by America’s youth, regardless of economic or social background, and develop the fine citizens our country 

needs and deserves. 

Request fiscal year 2004 authorization and appropriation of the full requested 

amount of $2 million for the Naval Sea Cadet Corps. 

BACKGROUND

At the request of the Department of the Navy, the Navy League of the United 

States established the Naval Sea Cadet Corps in 1958 to ‘‘create a favorable image 

of the Navy on the part of American youth.’’ On September 10, 1962, the U.S. Congress federally chartered the Naval Sea Cadet Corps under Public Law 87–655 as 

a non-profit civilian youth training organization for young people, ages 13 through 

17. A National Board of Directors, whose Chairman serves as the National Vice 

President of the Navy League for Youth Programs, establishes NSCC policy and 

management guidance for operation and administration. A full-time Executive Director and small staff in Arlington, Virginia administer NSCC’s day-to-day operations. These professionals work with volunteer regional directors, unit commanding 

officers, and local sponsors. They also collaborate with Navy League councils and 

other civic, or patriotic organizations, and with local school systems. 

In close cooperation with, and the support of, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast 

Guard, the Sea Cadet Corps allows youth to sample military life without obligation 

to join the Armed Forces. Cadets and adult leaders are authorized to wear the Navy 

uniform, appropriately modified with a distinctive Sea Cadet insignia. 

There are currently over 338 Sea Cadet units with a program total of 11,577 participants (2,107 adult Officers and Instructors and 9,470 Cadets (about 33 percent 

female). This is an all time high enrollment for the program. 

NSCC OBJECTIVES

Develop an interest and skill in seamanship and seagoing subjects. 

Develop an appreciation for our Navy’s history, customs, traditions and its significant role in national defense. 

Develop positive qualities of patriotism, courage, self-reliance, confidence, pride in 

our nation and other attributes, which contribute to development of strong moral 

character, good citizenship traits and a drug-free, gang-free lifestyle. 

Present the advantages and prestige of a military career. 

Under the Cadet Corps’ umbrella is the Navy League Cadet Corps (NLCC), a 

youth program for children ages 11 through 13. While it is not part of the federal 

charter provided by Congress, the Navy League of the United States sponsors 

NLCC. 

NLCC was established ‘‘. . . to give young people mental, moral, and physical 

training through the medium of naval and other instruction, with the objective of 

developing principles of patriotism and good citizenship, instilling in them a sense 

of duty, discipline, self-respect, self-confidence, and a respect for others.’’
663

BENEFITS

Naval Sea Cadets experience a unique opportunity for personal growth, development of self-esteem and self-confidence. Their participation in a variety of activities 

within a safe, alcohol-free, drug-free, and gang-free environment provides a positive 

alternative to other less favorable temptations. The Cadet Corps introduces young 

people to nautical skills, to maritime services and to a military life style. The program provides the young Cadet the opportunity to experience self-reliance early on, 

while introducing this Cadet to military life without any obligation to join a branch 

of the armed forces. The young Cadet realizes the commitment required and routinely excels within the Navy and Coast Guard environments. 

Naval Sea Cadets receive first-hand knowledge of what life in the Navy or Coast 

Guard is like. This realization ensures the likelihood of success should they opt for 

a career in military service. For example, limited travel abroad and in Canada may 

be available, as well as the opportunity to train onboard Navy and Coast Guard 

ships, craft and aircraft. These young people may also participate in shore activities 

ranging from training as a student at a Navy hospital to learning the fundamentals 

of aviation maintenance at a Naval Air Station. 

The opportunity to compete for college scholarships is particularly significant. 

Since 1975, 141 Cadets have received financial assistance in continuing their education in a chosen career field at college. 

ACTIVITIES

Naval Sea Cadets pursue a variety of activities including classroom, practical and 

hands-on training as well as field trips, orientation visits to military installations, 

and cruises on Navy and Coast Guard ships and small craft. They also participate 

in a variety of community and civic events. 

The majority of Sea Cadet training and activities occurs year round at a local 

training or ‘‘drill’’ site. Often, this may be a military installation or base, a reserve 

center, a local school, civic hall, or sponsor-provided building. During the summer, 

activities move from the local training site and involve recruit training (boot camp), 

‘‘advanced’’ training of choice, and a variety of other training opportunities (depending on the Cadet’s previous experience and desires). 

SENIOR LEADERSHIP

Volunteer Naval Sea Cadet Corps officers and instructors furnish senior leadership for the program. They willingly contribute their time and effort to serve America’s youth. The Cadet Corps programs succeed because of their dedicated, active 

participation and commitment to the principles upon which the Corps was founded. 

Cadet Corps officers are appointed from the civilian sector or from active, reserve 

or retired military status. All are required to take orientation, intermediate and advanced Officer Professional Development courses to increase their management and 

youth leadership skills. Appointment as an officer in the Sea Cadet Corps does not, 

in itself, confer any official military rank. However, a Navy-style uniform, bearing 

NSCC insignia, is authorized and worn. Cadet Corps officers receive no pay or allowances. Yet, they do derive some benefits, such as limited use of military facilities 

and space available air travel in conjunction with carrying out training duty orders. 

DRUG-FREE AND GANG-FREE ENVIRONMENT

One of the most important benefits of the Sea Cadet program is that it provides 

participating youth a peer structure and environment that places maximum emphasis on a drug and gang free environment. Supporting this effort is a close liaison 

with the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The 

DEA offers the services of all DEA Demand Reduction Coordinators to provide individual unit training, as well as their being an integral part of our boot camp training program. 

Among a variety of awards and ribbons that Cadets can work toward is the Drug 

Reduction Service Ribbon, awarded to those who display outstanding skills in he 

areas of leadership, perseverance and courage. Requirements include intensive antidrug program training and giving anti-drug presentations to interested community 

groups. 

TRAINING

Local Training Local training, held at the unit’s drill site, includes a variety of 

activities supervised by qualified Sea Cadet Corps officers and instructors, as well 

as Navy and Coast Guard instructors. 
664

Cadets receive classroom instruction in basic military requirements, seamanship, 

water safety, core personal values, social amenities, drug/alcohol abuse, cultural relations, Navy history, customs and traditions and other nautical skills. Training 

may be held aboard ships, small boats or aircraft, depending upon the availability 

of a platform. Cadets also learn about civilian and military career opportunities during special career counseling sessions such as fire fighting and law enforcement. 

Special presentations by military and civilian officials are part of the local training as are educational tours, briefings and attendance at special events. Participation in parades, social work and other civic activities are encouraged as part of the 

whole-person-training concept. 

During the Cadets’ first several months, they receive basic indoctrination to the 

Sea Cadet program at their local training site in preparation for summer recruit 

training. 

The Navy League Cadet Corps training program teaches younger Cadets the virtues of personal neat-ness, loyalty, obedience, courtesy, dependability and a sense 

of responsibility for shipmates. In accordance with a Navy-oriented syllabus, this 

education prepares them for the higher level of training they will receive as Naval 

Sea Cadets. 

SUMMER TRAINING

First-year Sea Cadets attend a two-week recruit training period at the Navy’s Recruit Training Command or at a regional recruit training site. Instructed by Navy 

or NSCC Recruit Division Commanders, Cadets receive a condensed version of the 

basic training which Navy enlistees receive. Recruit training occurs at a number of 

regional sites to handle the overflow from the Recruit Training Command, Great 

Lakes and to reduce travel costs to the Cadet as well as the adult volunteer staff. 

A Cadet who successfully completes recruit training is eligible for advanced training in various fields of choice. Cadets can experience the excitement of ‘‘hands-on’’ 

practical training aboard Navy and Coast Guard vessels, ranging from tugboats and 

cutters to the largest nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Female Cadets may also 

train aboard any ship that has females assigned as part of the ship’s company. 

Qualified Cadets choose from such Sea Cadet advanced training as basic/advanced 

airman, SEAL training, amphibious operations, leadership, submarine orientation 

and training in occupational specialties, including health care, music, master-atarms and construction. 

The Cadet Corp programs excel in quality and diversity of training offered, with 

more than 7,250 training orders carried out for the 2002 summer training program. 

Cadets faced a myriad of challenging training opportunities designed to instill leadership and develop self-reliance, enabling them to become familiar with the full 

spectrum of Navy and Coast Guard career fields. 

The positive results of federal funding for both 2001 and 2002, were that for each 

summer the NSCC has experienced increased recruit training attendance of about 

1,500 cadets per summer over those years in which federal funding was not available. 

While recruit training acquaints cadets with Navy life and Navy style discipline, 

advanced training focuses on military and general career fields and opportunities, 

and also affords the cadets many entertaining, drug free, disciplined yet fun activities over the summer. The popularity of the training continues to grow not with just 

overall numbers but also as evidenced with over 500 cadets performing multiple two 

week training sessions during the summer of 2002. 

Advanced training highlights for 2002

With federal funding available in 2002, the NSCC’s focus was continuing and/or 

expanding many of the initiatives started in 2001 with a few new advanced training 

opportunities added. 

They included: 

—Continued keeping Cadet costs for summer training at a reduced price of only 

the deposit ($25 or $50, same as 2001) plus transportation. 

—Accommodated 9/11 required adjustments through training relocations and/or 

alternate arrangements to maintain cadet training opportunity and quotas at 

above 2001 levels. 

—Maintained expanded recruit training and advanced training opportunity with 

a grand total of over 7,500 orders issued, a record high. 

—Expanded adult professional development participation. 

—Increased total cadet participation in summer and winter training evolutions to 

over 6,000 cadets. 

—Added two classes in legal (JAG) training. 
665

—Expanded SEAL Orientation under the sponsorship of the UDT–SEAL Association and Museum Association with the sponsorship of the Okeechobee County, 

Florida Sheriff’s Department. Maintained SEAL Orientation training at NAB, 

Little Creek, VA. 

—Maintained East and West Coast sailing training at NAS, Pensacola, and NAB, 

Coronado, with expanded classes at each. 

—Nearly doubled class size for seamanship training at the State University of 

New York Maritime Academy at Fort Schuyler, and for the second summer in 

a row maintained seamanship training aboard USNS merchant ships, 

homeported on the West Coast. 

—Continued 2001 initiative for Honor Guard training in Texas. 

—Maintained expanded YP training on the Great Lakes at participation levels 

above 2001. 

—Placed 4 cadets onboard USCG Barque Eagle for two, three week underway orientation cruises. 

—Maintained placement of cadets aboard USCG stations, cutters, and tenders for 

what many consider among the best of the training opportunities offered in the 

NSCC. 

—Once again filled all quotas for the popular, merit based, International Exchange program, with 72 cadet participants and 20 escorts for 2002. 

—Kept all quotas filled to all the NSCC Petty Officer Leadership Academies, 

(POLA) graduating over 270 cadets at 10 training sites. 

—Maintained SCUBA training opportunities with two classes in 2002. 

—Increased MAA and police science from 4 classes to 5. 

—Maintained placement of cadets onboard USN ships under local orders as operating schedules and opportunity permitted. 

—As was the case in 2001 and all prior years, once again enjoyed particularly outstanding support from members of the United States Naval Reserve, whose help 

and leadership remains essential for summer training. 

INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE

NSCC operates an international exchange program with Naval Sea Cadet units 

in Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Each summer, outstanding 

Cadets are selected to serve as young ambassadors and train with their global counterparts. The NSCC continued in 2002 its’ redesigned, highly competitive, merit 

based, and very low cost to the cadet, International Exchange Program and placed 

cadets in Australia, Korea, Hong Kong, United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, and 

Bermuda to train with fellow cadets in these host nations. The NSCC and Canada 

maintained their traditional exchanges in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and 

the NSCC hosted visiting cadets in Norfolk for two weeks of U.S. Navy style training. 

NAVY LEAGUE CADET TRAINING

In 2002, over 1,185 Navy League Cadets and escorts attended orientation training 

at 15 different sites. This diversity in location made training accessible and reasonably available to each Cadet who wished to attend. Over 373 League Cadets and 

escorts attended advanced training at several sites. The advanced program was developed in recognition of the need to provide follow-on training for this younger age 

group to sustain their interest and to better prepare them for the challenges of 

Naval Sea Cadet Corps training. Navy League Cadets who attend recruit orientation training are exceptionally well prepared for Sea Cadet ‘‘boot camp.’’ The number of NLCC Cadets who participated in summer training was a third higher than 

normal. Again, this was directly attributable to the federal funding received. 

TRAINING GRANTS

Through contributions from Douglas and Christine Peterson, the Donner Foundation, and the federal funds, every Cadet who desired to attend summer training had 

that opportunity. Approximately 1500 more Cadet orders were written than in previous years. This milestone is a direct result of funds received for NSCC/NLCC to 

participate in the Corps’ summer training. 

SCHOLARSHIPS

The Naval Sea Cadet Corps Scholarship program was established to provide financial assistance to deserving Cadets who wished to further their education at the 

college level. Established in 1975, the scholarship program consists of a family of 
666

funds: the NSCC Scholarship Fund; the Navy League Stockholm Scholarship; the 

San Diego Gas & Electric Fund; grants from the Lewis A. Kingsley Foundation; and 

the NSCC ‘‘named scholarship’’ program, designed to recognize an individual, corporation, organization or foundation. Under this latter program two new funds have 

been established to commence scholarships. The estate of June Howell has forwarded funds to establish a scholarship in the name of her parents—Harry and 

Rose Howell. Also, from the estate of Robert C. Hutton, an aviation orientation 

scholarship has been established. Since the inception of the scholarship program, 

149 scholarships have been awarded to 141 Cadets (includes some renewals) totaling over $160,000. 

SERVICE ACCESSIONS

The Naval Sea Cadet Corps was formed at the request of the Department of the 

Navy as a means to ‘‘enhance the Navy image in the minds of American youth.’’ 

To accomplish this, ongoing presentations illustrate to Naval Sea Cadets the advantages and benefits of careers in the armed services, and in particular, the sea services. 

While there is no service obligation associated with the Naval Sea Cadet Corps 

program, many Sea Cadets choose to enlist or enroll in Officer training programs 

in all the Services. 

Annually, the NSCC conducts a survey to determine the approximate number of 

Cadets making this career decision. This survey is conducted during the annual inspections of the units. The reported Cadet accessions to the services are only those 

that are known to the unit at that time. There are many accessions that occur in 

the 2–3 year timeframe after Cadets leave their units, which go unreported. For example, for the year 2000, with about 83 percent of the units reporting, the survey 

indicates that 510 known Cadets entered the armed forces during the reporting year 

ending 31 December 2000. Of these, 30 ex-Sea Cadets were reported to have received appointments to the U.S. Naval Academy. Further liaison with the USNA indicates that in fact, there are currently 466 Midshipmen with Sea Cadet backgrounds—almost 10 percent of the entire Brigade. Navy accession recruiting costs 

have averaged over $11,000 per person, officer or enlisted, which applied to the 

number of Sea Cadet accessions represents a significant financial benefit to the 

Navy. Equally important is the expectation that once a more accurate measurement 

methodology can be found, is, that since Sea Cadets enter the Armed Forces as disciplined, well trained and motivated individuals, their retention, graduation and 

first term enlistment completion rates are perhaps the highest among any other 

entry group. USNA officials are currently studying graduation rates for past years 

for ex-Sea Cadets as a group as compared to the entire Brigade. Their preliminary 

opinion is that these percents will be among the highest. It is further expected that 

this factor will be an excellent indicator of the following, not only for the USNA, 

but for all officer and enlisted programs the Sea Cadets may enter: 

—Extremely high motivation of ex-Cadets to enter the Service. 

—Excellent background provided by the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet experience in preparing and motivating Cadets to enter the Service. 

—Prior U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps experience is an excellent pre-screening opportunity for young men and women to evaluate their interest in pursuing a 

military career. This factor could potentially save considerable tax-payer dollars 

expended on individuals who apply for, then resign after entering the Academy 

if they decide at some point they do not have the interest or motivation. 

—U.S. Naval Sea Cadet experience prior to entering the Service is an excellent 

indicator of a potentially high success rate. 

Data similar to the above has been requested from the United States Coast Guard 

Academy and the United States Merchant Marine Academy. 

Whether or not they choose a service career, all Sea Cadets carry forth learned 

values of good citizenship, leadership and moral courage that will benefit themselves and our country. 

Program Finances 

Sea Cadets pay for all expenses, including travel to/from training, uniforms, insurance and training costs. Out-of-pocket costs can reach $400–$500 each year. Assistance is made available so that no young person is denied access to the program, 

regardless of social or economic background. 

Federally funded at the $1,000,000 level (of the $2,000,000 requested) in fiscal 

years 2001, 2002, and 2003, all of these fund were used to offset individual Cadet’s 

individual costs for summer training, conduct of background checks for adult volunteers and for reducing future enrollment costs for Cadets. In addition to the federal 

fund received ($1 million), NSCC receives under $700,000 per year from other 
667

sources, which includes around $226,000 in enrollment fees from Cadets and adult 

volunteers. For a variety of reasons, this current level of funding can no longer sustain this program: 

—All time high in number of enrolled Sea Cadets (and growing). 

—General inflation of all costs. 

—Some bases denying planned access to Sea Cadets for training due to increased 

terrorism threat level alerts and the associated tightening of security measures—requiring Cadets to utilize alternative, and often more costly training alternatives 

—Reduced availability of afloat training opportunities due to the Navy’s high level 

of operations related to the Iraq war. 

—Reduced training site opportunities due to base closures. 

—Non-availability of open bay berthing opportunities for Cadets due to their 

elimination as a result of enlisted habitability upgrades to individual/double 

berthing spaces. 

—Lack of available ‘‘Space Available’’ transportation for group movements. 

—Lack of on-base transportation, as the navy no longer ‘‘owns’’ busses now controlled by the GSA. 

Because of these factors, Cadet out-of-pocket costs have skyrocketed to the point where the requested $2,000,000 alone is insufficient to handle cost increases, not to 

mention the impact if, as in past years, only $1,000,000 is approved and appropriated. 

It is therefore considered a matter of urgency that the full amount of the requested $2,000,000 be authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2004.

Senator BURNS. Thank you. Thank you, Captain Hurd. Not only 

are the kids good kids, but they have got a great advocate, too. 

Captain HURD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you for coming today. 

Captain HURD. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. We now call Dennis Achgill, Director of Public 

Affairs, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I may have to 

run here. Does anybody know where Stevens is? 

Thank you for coming today, by the way, and I apologize for the 

conditions under which you have to testify. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS ACHGILL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS 

Mr. ACHGILL. Thank you very much. I appear before you today 

as a representative of a committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) International, concerned with Federal 

funding of research and development. ASME International has 

125,000 members, including 20,000 students. 

Mechanical engineers are a major part of the Nation’s technology 

base, a base that is essential for the Nation’s defense. The DOD’s 

science and technology program contains elements incorporating 

significant mechanical engineering research. DOD has been the 

dominant source of Federal research funding, 70 percent and 66 

percent respectively, for the electrical and mechanical engineering 

disciplines. Therefore, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to present our views on the importance of 

the S&T accounts. 

In accordance with the recommendations of the Defense Science 

Board, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the President’s Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry, and based 

on the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Department of Defense, we urge the members of this subcommittee to provide 3 percent of the total DOD budget, or $11.4 billion, for the Department’s core science and technology programs for fiscal year 

2004. 
668

During the past decade funding for the defense S&T programs 

has been below this threshold and essentially flat in constant dollars. As a result, the job market for engineers in the defense sector 

has shrunk, leaving little incentive for young engineers to seek defense-related career opportunities. The defense industry has thus 

had great difficulty in attracting and retaining the best of the best 

engineering and scientific talents of this Nation. 

In addition, universities are having difficulty attracting postgraduate students who rely on S&T funding for their support. Doctoral engineering enrollments are at a 10-year low. Students from 

overseas who study in the United States are increasingly returning 

to their home countries for more attractive opportunities. 

Continued unabated, the repercussions of a stagnant defense investment in research will inevitably extend to the commercial sector as well. Without question, America’s civil aviation industry has 

benefited greatly from technological advances in defense. The situation facing the United States could be a technologically deficient 

military together with a subpar civil aviation industry. Obviously, 

neither scenario is in the best interests of the Nation. 

The valuable contributions of our engineers and scientists have 

been a constant and powerful force over the past century. These 

contributions could not have been made without the vision and 

support of Members of Congress like yourselves who promote the 

continued strengthening of this Nation’s investment in the DOD 

science and technology programs. Your continued support in 

strengthening defense-related engineering sciences is essential for 

meeting the future needs of the country. 

Therefore, we urge the members of this subcommittee to continue 

to provide a robust and stable investment in the science and technology programs of the Department of Defense to ensure our national security and protect our homeland while educating the future defense science and engineering workforce. It will take a great 

deal of continued attention to Defense R&D to ensure that the best 

engineering and scientific minds are once again willing to apply 

their talents to meeting the future defense needs of the Nation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to offer our views. I will be 

pleased to respond to any questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS ACHGILL

The Department of Defense (DOD) Task Force of the ASME Inter-Council Committee on Federal Research and Development (ICCFRD) of the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME International) is pleased to provide the following comments on the fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Department of Defense. 

FINDINGS

The Department of Defense (DOD) Basic Research (category 6.1), Applied Research (category 6.2) and Advanced Technical Development (category 6.3) accounts 

provide the fundamental building blocks for Defense Science and Technology (S&T) 

programs. 

The President’s proposed fiscal year 2004 budget request for the DOD S&T Program is $9.93 billion, 7.8 percent lower than the fiscal year 2003 appropriated levels. Basic Research and Applied Research are down $109 million (7.7 percent) and 

$618 million (14.4 percent), respectively. Advanced Technology Development has increased $186 million (3.7 percent), mostly because of increases to classified programs. Individually, the Army and Navy are experiencing cuts of 27 percent and 

21 percent after accounting for programs devolved from the Office of the Secretary 
669

of Defense (OSD). The Air Force budget is up 3.5 percent, but mostly due to increases to a classified 6.3 program. 

In the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD set an S&T funding goal of 3 percent of the department’s Total Obligational Authority (TOA) as part of its transformation objectives. For the last two years, that goal has been achieved only after 

Congress added more than $1 billion to the President’s request in each of those 

years. The 3 percent goal was recently reaffirmed by the Principal Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and three senior officers representing the three services at a March 31st hearing before the Senate 

Armed Services, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. This reaffirmation is in contradiction to a barely greater than inflation growth in fiscal year 2004 

President’s budget Request (PBR) over the fiscal year 2003 PBR and a Future Years 

Defense Plan that shows a gradual decline in the percent of TOA budgeted to S&T. 

Defense agencies have historically been the largest source of federal funding for 

engineering research in our industry, as well as at the nation’s universities. The 

universities are significant collaborators with industry and are the source for young 

engineering talent for the defense sector, both public and private. Federal funding 

for defense basic and applied research has also provided the majority of financial 

support for graduate level education in defense related fields. DOD has been the 

dominant source of federal funding, 70 percent and 66 percent respectively, for the 

electrical and mechanical engineering disciplines. DOD also funds more than 40 percent of academic research in the aerospace and materials engineering fields. After 

a decade of defense S&T funding cuts but steady population growth, it should be 

no surprise that doctoral engineering enrollments are at a ten year low. Foreign students who were once counted on to remain in the United States after graduation 

are increasingly returning to their home countries for more attractive opportunities. 

As a result of an overall decline in engineering enrollments for much of the past 

decade, federal defense laboratories and the defense industry have had great difficulty in attracting and retaining the best-of-the-best engineering and scientific talents of this nation. This problem has only become more critical with the increased 

focus on security and the concomitant need to employ citizens in sensitive technology areas. 

Nearly a decade of funding declines accompanied by dramatic budget instability 

and a pattern in which advanced technology demonstration programs, designed to 

accelerate the insertion of research efforts, were stretched out, delayed and cancelled, resulted in a waste of valuable resources, and has been a deterrent to attracting a generation of highly skilled, highly motivated engineers and scientists, 

the folks who transform ideas into reality. The decline in support has led to the loss 

of irreplaceable research facilities and infrastructure to reduce federal and corporate 

overhead costs. In the academic institutions, many aerospace and other defense related programs of study were discontinued, thereby weakening the important contributions that these universities make to the U.S. defense technology base. As research and development budgets were reduced, the job market for engineers in the 

defense sector shrunk, leaving little incentive for young engineers to seek defenserelated career opportunities. The recent budget increases by the administration and 

the Congress for DOD S&T must be sustained to reverse these alarming trends. 

The Department of Defense and defense industry now have a workforce whose average age is increasing at an alarming rate and will continue to do so until our intellectual resources are replenished. Just as our country’s recent and prolonged economic expansion was largely the outcome of technological advances that were created by the world’s premier group of talent—U.S. technologists—so has our recent 

and prolonged success in military engagements been the outcome of technological 

advances made by this national treasure. A February 2003 report by the Presidents 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) stated, ‘‘Federal support for 

science and engineering students enhances economic growth.’’ Strengthening defense-related engineering sciences is essential for meeting the future needs of the 

DOD and our economy. 

The President’s Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry has documented the workforce and funding issues above and recommended in 

its November 2002 Final Report ‘‘that DOD’s annual science and technology (6.1–

6.3) funding must be sufficient and stable to create and demonstrate the innovative 

technologies needed to address future national security threats. An amount no less 

than three percent of DOD Total Obligational Authority, ‘‘fenced’’ from budget cuts, 

would be sufficient.’’

In 1998, the Defense Science Board recommended that the department’s science 

and technology budget be about 3.5 percent of the total budget. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review stated that, ‘‘A robust research and development effort is imperative to achieving the Department’s transformation objectives. DOD must main-
670

tain a strong science and technology (S&T) program that supports evolving military 

needs and ensures technological superiority over potential adversaries.’’ The review 

further called ‘‘for a significant increase in funding for S&T programs to a level of 

three percent of DOD spending per year.’’ Unfortunately, the current year budget 

takes a step back from the progress made last year and the out-year budget projections of the department project a declining percentage of TOA devoted to S&T. 

S&T budgets within the services have also typically experienced great fluctuations, as the services have struggled to maintain long-term, stable funding for basic 

research. Given the long-term nature of basic research, any damage to the programs, though it may not be easily spotted in the near term, will result in the loss 

of the U.S. technology lead and will require an even greater corrective investment 

in the future. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress for the department would transfer—or devolve—a group of critical, joint, multidisciplinary programs from the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the services. In order to continue moving toward stated overall investment goals for S&T and to carry out strategic decisions 

most effectively, the OSD—as the most appropriate entity to facilitate jointness—

will need controlling authority over basic research programs and budgets. OSD 

should retain current oversight and management of critical research initiatives until 

management plans are detailed and tested. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Task Force supports the findings and recommendations of the Quadrennial 

Defense Review and the Defense Science Board Task Force to provide 3 percent of 

the total Defense Department Budget, or $11 billion for the DOD basic (6.1), applied 

(6.2) and advanced technology development (6.3) accounts, which make up the S&T 

program. 

DOD S&T programs provide critical investments in scientific disciplines vital to 

ensuring future security—including engineering, mathematics, and physical, computer, and behavioral sciences. We strongly concur with the recommendations made 

in the February 2003 report by the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology for a balanced portfolio of physical and life sciences achieved by a 

healthy increase to engineering and physical science budgets such as DOD’s for fiscal year 2004, and beyond. Supporting DOD S&T will ensure that the best engineering and scientific minds are once again available and willing to apply their talents 

to meet the future defense needs of this nation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views.

Senator STEVENS [presiding]. We do not have any questions, Mr. 

Director, but I am sure that you know we work very hard to support engineering and research, particularly the nanoresearch area. 

I appreciate the briefing that the people involved in the Mechanical 

Engineers’ Society gave us on nanoengineering and technology and 

the nanotechnology concepts. 

We appreciate your testimony. We will do our best to see to it 

we increase that funding. 

Mr. ACHGILL. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. 

Fran Visco—pardon me. First is Chris Hudgins, the Public Policy 

Associate, National Prostate Cancer Coalition. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS HUDGINS, PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL PROSTATE CANCER COALITION 

Mr. HUDGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee: I would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to share my remarks here today. My name is 

Chris Hudgins and I am part of the public policy team at the National Prostate Cancer Coalition. 

Since its inception in 1996, the National Prostate Cancer Coalition has been dedicated to eradicating a disease which will afflict 

over 220,000 men this year and claim nearly 29,000 lives. You may 
671

be surprised to see someone who is only 25 years old here today 

talking about what once was thought to be an old man’s disease. 

Senator STEVENS. Be careful now. I had it. 

Mr. HUDGINS. Well, that is why it was once thought, sir. 

Unfortunately, I know all too well the story of prostate cancer 

and its effect on America’s families. In 2000 my grandfather was 

diagnosed with prostate cancer. This was quite shocking to me because I had always thought of him as a strong and powerful man. 

He had served his country as a marine during World War II and 

during the occupation of Japan. He returned home and began a career in academics and eventually rose to the level of president, first 

at Meredith College in Raleigh, North Carolina, and later at the 

University of Richmond in Virginia. Then he was crippled by a silent killer. 

Thanks to the availability of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 

blood test and the digital rectal exam, both of which are recommended by the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, my grandfather was able to catch the disease in its early stages when it was 

the most treatable. After having a radical prostatectomy, my 

grandfather fully recovered and has returned to his post as chancellor of the University of Richmond. 

Now the focus turns to the other men in my family. As you may 

be aware, a person with one close family member with prostate 

cancer is twice as likely to develop the disease. My father, much 

like the majority of the baby boom generation, is now in his early 

fifties. I say this because he, along with 22 million men, in the next 

10 years will be in the target age group for increased risk of prostate cancer. 

Since my grandfather’s diagnosis, I have encouraged him to keep 

a close eye on his PSA level. This is not only because I love him, 

but because if he is diagnosed then my and my brother’s risk of the 

disease will increase fivefold. 

As our Nation welcomes home the soldiers who fought so bravely 

in Iraq, I cannot help but think of my grandfather returning home 

from Japan in 1947. I believe our Nation has a responsibility to 

protect America’s soldiers on the battlefield and long after the 

fighting has ended. Veterans like my grandfather and the approximately 2.2 million men currently serving in active or reserve duty 

must know that their government is doing everything it can to protect them from prostate cancer. 

Therefore, to effectively fight prostate cancer the National Prostate Cancer Coalition requests that you allocate at least $100 million in fiscal year 2004 for the prostate cancer research program 

conducted by the Department of Defense’s congressionally-directed 

medical research program. Since its inception in 1998, the prostate 

cancer research program has been the most efficient Federally-directed prostate cancer research program because it builds sound accountability mechanisms into its fundamental operation. The program is also focused on non-duplication of effort, fostering the 

science of projects that are unique and are not receiving funding 

from other sources. 

The prostate cancer research program has engaged survivors of 

prostate cancer into its accountability practices from its outset. 

This consumer input helps drive the program to become more am-
672

bitious and creative in seeking out new areas of research because 

it maintains its focus on what is important to survivors, advocates, 

and researchers. 

The prostate cancer research program offers awards such as the 

idea development and new investigator grants that seek innovative 

and revolutionary studies that deviate from previous research. The 

goal is to stimulate venture research projects that reward sometimes speculative but promising ideas that can lead to huge returns 

on investments. Other grant awards focus on researching the disproportionate impact of prostate cancer on African American men. 

While the prostate cancer research program’s award mechanisms 

continue to stimulate exciting new research, the program is unable 

to fund its clinical trials awards appropriately. At least $100 million is needed to allow the program to resume sound clinical trials, 

which are paramount in translating research from the lab into new 

patients for treatments. 

On behalf of our community of advocates, families, researchers, 

physicians, and others touched by the disease, I would like to 

thank you and the committee once again for your time and leadership. Together we can eliminate prostate cancer as a threat to 

grandfathers, fathers, brothers, and families like mine. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS HUDGINS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to share my remarks. My name is Chris Hudgins, and 

am part of the public policy team at the National Prostate Cancer Coalition (NPCC). 

Since its inception in 1996, NPCC has been dedicated to eradicating prostate cancer 

through awareness, outreach, and advocacy. 

You may be surprised to see someone who is only 25 years old talking about what 

was once thought to be an ‘‘old man’s disease.’’ Unfortunately, I know all to well 

the story of prostate cancer and its effects on America’s families. I was introduced 

to the disease a few years before I began my employment with the NPCC. In 2000, 

my grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer. This was quite shocking to me 

because I had always thought of him as a strong and powerful man. He had served 

his country as a Marine during World War II and during the occupation of Japan. 

He returned home and studied at five different institutions. After serving in administrative capacities throughout the southeast for various colleges, universities and 

the Tennessee Department of Education, he rose to level of President, first at Meredith College in Raleigh, NC and later at the University of Richmond. Then, he was 

crippled by a silent killer. 

As you can imagine, this was a particularly stressful time for me and my family. 

While, at the time of my grandfather’s diagnosis, I had heard of the disease I was 

not aware of how prevalent prostate cancer had become among men. I now know 

that prostate cancer will affect about 220,000 men and their families this year, and 

28,900 men will lose their battle with the disease. It’s unfathomable to think that 

so many people will be subjected to the anguish my family has experienced. 

Thanks to the availability of the prostate specific antigen (PSA) and the digital 

rectal exam (DRE), both of which are recommended by NPCC, my grandfather was 

able to catch the disease early when it is the most treatable. After having a radical 

prostatectomy, my grandfather fully recovered and has returned to riding his Harley-Davidson around the University of Richmond campus. Now the focus turns to 

the other men in my family. 

As you may be aware, a person with one close family member with prostate cancer is twice as likely to develop the disease. My father, much like the majority of 

the baby-boom generation, is now in his early fifties. I say this because he, along 

with about 22 million men in the next ten years, is in the target age group for increased risk of prostate cancer. Since my grandfather’s diagnosis, I have encouraged 

my father to keep a close eye on his PSA. This is not only because I love him but 
673

also because if he is diagnosed then my and my brother’s risk of the disease increases five fold. 

While my grandfather—and my family—benefited from early detection, others are 

not so lucky. In the past few years, I have had the advantage of learning about the 

risks of prostate cancer and how early detection can save lives, but the truth is I 

am in the minority. We must focus on those individuals who do not have the benefit 

of this knowledge. We must also continue important research in prostate cancer to 

develop new treatments until a cure is found. That’s why, Mr. Chairman, we all 

need your help. 

As the nation prepares to bring home the soldiers that fought so bravely in Iraq, 

I can’t help but think of my grandfather returning home from Japan in 1947. I believe our nation has a responsibility to protect America’s soldiers on the battlefield 

and long after the fighting has ended. Men like my grandfather, veterans exposed 

to defoliants, who may bear a disproportionate risk of prostate cancer, and those 

who are about to return from the Middle East, must know that their government 

is doing everything they can to protect them from prostate cancer. As President 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated at the dedication of the National Institutes of 

Health in 1940, ‘‘we cannot be a strong nation unless we are a healthy nation.’’

While I cannot predict the impact of prostate cancer among our men in uniform, 

I can offer some estimates. We know that about 85 percent of individuals serving 

in active or reserve duty are men, approximately 2.2 million. If one applies the average risk to this group, over 350,000 men will be diagnosed with the disease in their 

lifetimes. That’s more than the number of American servicemen lost in both World 

Wars. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimates that there will be nearly 25 

million veterans living in the United States by September 2003. Of these, 94 percent 

will be male, 81 percent will be age 45 or older and 17 percent will be minorities. 

The Veterans Health Administration also estimates that nearly 50,000 new cancer 

cases are diagnosed in VA patients each year—the second leading killer of veterans. 

It’s easy to see the impact prostate cancer could have on America’s servicemen. To effectively fight prostate cancer, NPCC requests that you allocate at least $100 

million in fiscal year 2004 for the Prostate Cancer Research Program (PCRP) conducted by the Department of Defense through the extramural Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). The PCRP is a model program, and it 

offers ‘‘awards to fill gaps in ongoing research and complement initiatives sponsored 

by other agencies.’’ The program has received $85 million in funding in fiscal year 

2002 and fiscal year 2003, but without at least $100 million, PCRP cannot appropriately conduct clinical trials research in which cutting-edge treatments can be offered to patients who need them most. 

Since its inception in fiscal year 1997, the PCRP has been the most efficient federally directed prostate cancer research program because it builds sound accountability mechanisms into its fundamental operation. Its research is dedicated to increase evidence-based medicine, and it subjects itself to regular reviews of this effort. The program is also focused on non-duplication of effort, fostering the science 

of projects that are unique and are not receiving funding from other sources. The 

PCRP has engaged survivors of prostate cancer into its accountability practices from 

its outset. Several of NPCC’s friends and colleagues have the honor of sitting on the 

Prostate Cancer Integration Panel, joining other consumers and a diverse group of 

scientists in the oversight of the CDMRP program and its projects. This consumer 

input helps drive the program to become more ambitious and creative in seeking 

new areas of research, because it maintains its focus on what is important to survivors, advocates and researchers. 

The CDMRP prostate cancer program is clear-cut in its mission, process, goals 

and results; it is easy to see where—and how efficiently—every dollar the PCRP receives is spent. Among the research resources funded by the federal government, the 

CDMRP is the only program to offer organ site-specific research grants. Each grant 

awarded through the PCRP is 100 percent dedicated to prostate cancer. The impact 

on solving the problem of prostate cancer is not subjected to the complex—and too 

often fuzzy—calculations of organ site relevance that other agencies weigh when 

considering research opportunities. 

As stated in its annual report, the PCRP has ‘‘challenged the scientific community 

to design innovative prostate cancer research that would foster new directions, address neglected issues and bring new investigators into the field.’’ Cornerstones of 

the program’s research efforts are the ‘‘Idea Development’’ and ‘‘New Investigator’’ 

grants. Both of these awards seek innovative and revolutionary studies that deviate 

from previous research. Their goal is to stimulate ‘‘venture research’’ projects that 

reward sometimes speculative but promising ideas that can lead to huge returns on 

investments. 
674

The PCRP also offers grants to explore why certain populations suffer higher disease incidence. Grants such as the ‘‘Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(HBCU) Collaborative Partnership’’ and the ‘‘Health Disparity Training’’ awards 

focus on researching the disproportionate impact of prostate cancer on AfricanAmerican men and encouraging HBCU scientists to enter the prostate cancer research field. 

In fiscal year 2003, the PCRP has added several new awards. Perhaps the most 

exciting new grant is the ‘‘Exploration-Hypothesis Development Award’’ which allows researchers to explore ‘‘innovative, untested, potentially groundbreaking concepts in prostate cancer.’’ Unlike similar grants awarded by the PCRP to new and 

innovative research ideas, the award is centered on new approaches without requiring any preliminary data. Such awards contrast other agencies’ grant processes that 

tend to favor research in which ‘‘proof-of-principle’’ has already been established. 

The program is also offering the ‘‘Physician Research Training Award’’ which is designed to draw new scientists into the field and train them for a career in prostate 

cancer research. Also awarded for the first time in fiscal year 2003 are the prostate 

cancer consortium awards. These large awards, which can be up to $10 million, are 

focused on bringing together leading researchers and clinicians to concentrate on 

specific areas of prostate cancer research to accelerate advances in the field. 

Unfortunately, the PCRP is not always able to make awards to worthwhile 

projects. In fiscal year 2002, the program received nearly 700 proposals but was only 

able to recommend 150 for funding compared to the over 300 for breast cancer research. Despite funding fewer than 25 percent of proposals received over the last 

five years, the program is still producing exceptional results. Data from more than 

450 research projects have been published in scientific journals, and over 25 projects 

have received a patent or licensing. 

As I mentioned, funding for the PCRP must return to its fiscal year 2001 level 

of $100 million to allow the program to conduct needed clinical research appropriately. While many advancements are being made, we must capitalize on discoveries by translating them and testing them on patients. Clinical trials research conducted through the CDMRP breast cancer program has already produced a revolutionary new drug called Herceptin, which impacts a specific pathway in the growth 

of cancer cells. Studies have already shown that Herceptin, when used correctly, increases survivorship of breast cancer patients by one-third. Once prostate cancer research is afforded the same opportunity, who knows what kinds of new treatments 

may become available to men. 

Dr. William G. Nelson, a prominent prostate cancer research professor at Johns 

Hopkins University School of Medicine once stated, ‘‘It’s nice to be able to cure rats 

and mice, but curing humans is what we’re all about—you can’t do that without 

clinical trials.’’ We believe Dr. Nelson’s statement speaks for itself. That’s why funding must increase to at least $100 million in fiscal year 2004. 

Mr. Chairman, we also ask that you provide at least $10 million in funding for 

the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) and Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) program called the Center for Prostate Disease Research (CPDR). 

The CPDR is the intramural prostate cancer research program at DOD. Among 

other achievements, the CPDR has helped determine the effectiveness of the prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening exam. A recent CPDR study found a significant 

increase in five-year survival rates of those diagnosed with the disease and a decreased chance of losing life to the disease, both attributed to the implementation 

of PSA screening. NPCC supports early detection through screening and believes 

that the PSA test along with the DRE saves lives. 

On behalf of our community of advocates—families, researchers, physicians, and 

others touched by the disease, I would like to thank you and the Committee once 

again for your time and leadership. The investments we make today can greatly reduce medical costs and save lives tomorrow. Together, we can eliminate prostate 

cancer as a threat to grandfathers, fathers, brothers, and families like mine.

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much. It may interest 

you to know my grandfather, my father, and my oldest brother all 

died of prostate cancer, and I have had it, and you have a point. 

But there is a limit to what we can do to increase Federal funding 

for this research. You should do more to raise money in the private 

sector. 

Mr. HUDGINS. All right. Thank you for your leadership in the 

past, Mr. Chairman. 
675

Senator STEVENS. They really have—there should be—I think I 

may put a matching funds requirement on the money in this year’s 

prostate cancer research and say that it can only be made available 

if it is matched by private funds. 

Mr. HUDGINS. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. 

Fran Visco, please. 

STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO, J.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BREAST 

CANCER COALITION 

Ms. VISCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Fran Visco, a 16-

year breast cancer survivor and the president of the National 

Breast Cancer Coalition. As you know, the coalition is an organization of more than 600 organizations from around the country and 

over 70,000 individuals, all dedicated to eradicating breast cancer 

through action and advocacy. I am here on their behalf to thank 

you and the committee for its leadership in the breast cancer research program. 

Since 1992 this program has set the standard for biomedical research in this country and in other countries. It has created new 

models of research. It has created new mechanisms to attract scientific ideas, innovative, cutting edge ideas from around the world. 

It is a model that has been copied, not just by other programs within the DOD and the National Cancer Institute, but also other countries. It has created new collaborations and partnerships for the 

military with the leaders in the scientific community around the 

world, and the Army itself has copied the program and used what 

is happening in this program in many of its other areas of endeavor. 

This year the program itself submitted its annual report September 30, 2002, and it is their report on all of the congressionallydirected medical research programs. We have also submitted testimony on behalf of the coalition, and 65 of your colleagues in the 

Senate have written to you and to Mr. Inouye asking for continuation of the program. 

All of those materials lay out the reason why this program must 

continue. It is not duplicative. It fills gaps. It is creating new relationships for the Army and it is creating hope and real progress for 

women and their families. 

So I am here to urge you to continue this program and again to 

thank you for the incredible leadership that you have shown, and 

I am available to answer any questions you have. I wanted to point 

out another thing of this program that truly is a model, and that 

is the meeting that is called the Era of Hope. Every 2 years the 

breast cancer research program conducts a meeting where everyone 

who has been funded by the program must report on their research 

to the American public. This is probably the only time that the taxpayers learn what is happening, specifically and directly what is 

happening with their tax dollars. It again is a wonderful model 

that is being replicated elsewhere. 

So for all of these reasons, we urge you to continue this program 

and thank you for your support to date. 

[The statement follows:]
676

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Defense for your exceptional leadership in the effort to increase and improve breast 

cancer research. You and your Committee have shown great determination and 

leadership in searching for the answers by funding the Department of Defense 

(DOD) Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP) at a level that has 

brought us closer to eradicating this disease. 

I am Fran Visco, a breast cancer survivor, a wife and mother, a lawyer, and President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. On behalf of NBCC, and the more 

than 3 million women living with breast cancer, I would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

The DOD BCRP’s decade of progress in the fight against breast cancer has been 

made possible by this Committee’s investment in breast cancer research. To continue this unprecedented progress, we ask that you support a $175 million appropriation for fiscal year 2004. The program was cut back from $175 million to $150 

million two years ago as part of an across-the-board cut in Congressionally directed 

health programs. However, there continues to be excellent science that goes unfunded which is why we believe that the BRCP should be appropriated $175 million 

for fiscal year 2004. 

As you know, the National Breast Cancer Coalition is a grassroots advocacy organization made up of more than 600 organizations and tens of thousands of individuals and has been working since 1991 toward the eradication of this disease through 

advocacy and action. NBCC supports increased funding for breast cancer research, 

increased access to quality health care for all women, and increased influence of 

breast cancer activists at every table where decisions regarding breast cancer are 

made. 

OVERVIEW OF THE DOD BREAST CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM

In the span of only ten years, the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research 

Program has established itself as model medical research program, respected 

throughout the cancer community for its innovative and accountable approach. The 

groundbreaking research performed through the program has the potential to benefit not just breast cancer, but all cancers, as well as other diseases. Biomedical research is being transformed by the BCRP’s success. 

This program is both innovative, and incredibly streamlined. It continues to be 

overseen by a group of distinguished scientists and activists, as recommended by the 

Institute of Medicine (IOM). Because there is no bureaucracy, the program is able 

to quickly respond to what is currently happening in the scientific community. It 

is able to fill gaps, with little fuss. It is responsive, not just to the scientific community, but also to the public. 

Since its inception, this program has matured from an isolated research program 

to a broad-reaching influential voice forging new and innovative directions for breast 

cancer research and science. The flexibility of the program has allowed the Army 

to administer this groundbreaking research effort with unparalleled efficiency and 

skill. 

In addition, an inherent part of this program has been the inclusion of consumer 

advocates at every level, which has created an unprecedented working relationship 

between advocates and scientists, and ultimately led to new avenues of research in 

breast cancer. Since 1992, more than 600 breast cancer survivors have served on 

the BCRP review panels. Their vital role in the success of the BCRP has led to consumer inclusion in other biomedical research programs at DOD. In addition, this 

program now serves as an international model. 

It is important to note that the DOD Integration Panel that designs this program 

has a plan of how best to spend the funds appropriated. This plan is based on the 

state of the science—both what scientists know now and the gaps in our knowledge—as well as the needs of the public. This plan coincides with our philosophy 

that we do not want to restrict scientific freedom, creativity and innovation. While 

we carefully allocate these resources, we do not want to predetermine the specific 

research areas to be addressed. 

UNIQUE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Developments in the past few years have begun to offer breast cancer researchers 

fascinating insights into the biology of breast cancer and have brought into sharp 

focus the areas of research that hold promise and will build on the knowledge and 

investment we have made. The Innovative Developmental and Exploratory Awards 

(IDEA) grants of the DOD program have been critical in the effort to respond to 
677

new discoveries and to encourage and support innovative, risk-taking research. The 

IDEA grants have been instrumental in the development of promising breast cancer 

research. These grants have allowed scientists to explore beyond the realm of traditional research and have unleashed incredible new ideas and concepts. IDEA grants 

are uniquely designed to dramatically advance our knowledge in areas that offer the 

greatest potential. 

IDEA grants are precisely the type of grants that rarely receive funding through 

more traditional programs such as the National Institutes of Health, and academic 

research programs. Therefore, they complement, and do not duplicate, other federal 

funding programs. This is true of other DOD award mechanisms as well. 

For example, the Innovator awards are structured to recognize talented individuals, rather than projects, from any field of study by providing funding and freedom 

to pursue creative, potentially breakthrough research that could ultimately accelerate the eradication of breast cancer. In the area of training, the DOD BCRP has 

launched innovative programs such as Physician-Scientist Training Awards, which 

are intended to support the training of new breast cancer clinical research physicians. 

Also, Historically Black Colleges and Minority Universities/Minority Institutions 

Physicians’ Training Awards (‘‘Minority Institution’’ awards) are intended to provide 

assistance at an institutional level. The major goal of this award is to support collaboration between multiple investigators at an applicant Minority Institution and 

a collaborating institution with established investment in breast cancer research, for 

the purpose of creating an environment that would foster breast cancer research, 

and in which Minority Institute faculty would receive training toward establishing 

successful breast cancer research careers. 

These are just a few examples of innovative approaches at the DOD BCRP that 

are filling gaps in breast cancer research. It is vital that these grants are able to 

continue to support the growing interest in breast cancer research—$175 million for 

peer-reviewed research will help sustain the program’s momentum. 

The DOD BCRP also focuses on moving research from the bench to the bedside. 

A major feature of the awards offered by the BCRP is that they are designed to fill 

niches that are not offered by other agencies. The BCRP considers translational research to be the application of well-founded laboratory or other pre-clinical insight 

into a clinical trial. To enhance this critical area of research, several research opportunities have been offered. Clinical Translational Research Awards, for investigatorinitiated projects that involve a clinical trial within the lifetime of the award, make 

up the majority of the BCRP’s translational research portfolio. The BCRP expanded 

its emphasis on translational research by offering 5 different types of awards that 

support work at the critical juncture between laboratory research and bedside applications. 

SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS

The BCRP research portfolio is comprised of many different types of projects, including support for innovative ideas, infrastructure building to facilitate clinical 

trials, and training breast cancer researchers. 

One of the most promising outcomes of research funded by the BCRP was the development of Herceptin, a drug that prolongs the lives of women with a particularly 

aggressive type of advanced breast cancer. This drug could not have been developed 

without first researching and understanding the gene known as HER2-neu, which 

is involved in the progression of some breast cancers. Researchers found that overexpression of HER–2/neu in breast cancer cells results in very aggressive biologic 

behavior. Most importantly, the same researchers demonstrated that an antibody directed against HER2-neu could slow the growth of the cancer cells that over-expressed the gene. This research led to the development of the drug Herceptin. This 

research was made possible in part by a DOD BCRP-funded infrastructure grant. 

Other researchers funded by the BCRP are currently working to identify similar 

kinds of genes that are involved in the initiation and progression of cancer. They 

hope to develop new drugs like Herceptin that can fight the growth of breast cancer 

cells. 

Several studies funded by the BCRP will examine the role of estrogen and estrogen signaling in breast cancer. For example, one study examined the effects of the 

two main pathways that produce estrogen. Estrogen is often processed by one of two 

pathways; one yields biologically active substances while the other does not. It has 

been suggested that women who process estrogen via the biologically active pathway 

may be at a higher risk of breast cancer. It is anticipated that work from this funding effort will yield insights into the effects of estrogen processing on breast cancer 

risk in women with and without family histories of breast cancer. 
678

One DOD IDEA award success has supported the development of new technology 

that may be used to identify changes in DNA. This technology uses a dye to label 

DNA adducts, compounds that are important because they may play a role in initiating breast cancer. Early results from this technique are promising and may eventually result in a new marker/method to screen breast cancer specimens. 

Another DOD BCRP IDEA award has generated a new vaccine targeted against 

ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a malignant, non-invasive lesion that can develop 

into an invasive breast cancer. The vaccine is being tested on mice that develop 

spontaneous mammary tumors that over express the HER–2/neu protein. Mice 

treated with the vaccine show a markedly decreased rate of tumor development 

when compared to that generated for the prevention of tumor formation in women 

at risk for the development of HER–2/neu expressing tumors. 

Investigators funded by the DOD have developed a novel imaging technique that 

combines two-dimensional and novel three-dimensional digital mammographic images for analysis of breast calcifications. Compared to conventional film screen 

mammography, this technique has greater resolution. Ultimately, this technique 

may help reduce the number of unnecessary breast biopsies. 

Despite the enormous successes and advancements in breast cancer research 

made through funding from the DOD BCRP, we still do not know what causes 

breast cancer, how to prevent it, or how to cure it. It is critical that innovative research through this unique program continues so that we can move forward toward 

eradicating this disease. 

FEDERAL MONEY WELL SPENT

The DOD BCRP is as efficient as it is innovative. In fact, 90 percent of funds go 

directly to research grants. The flexibility of the program allows the Army to administer it in such a way as to maximize its limited resources. The program is able to 

quickly respond to current scientific advances, and is able to fill gaps by focusing 

on research that is traditionally under-funded. It is also responsive, not just to the 

scientific community, but also to the public. This is evidenced by the inclusion of 

consumer advocates at both the peer and programmatic review levels. The consumer 

perspective helps the scientists understand how the research will affect the community, and allows for funding decisions based on the concerns and needs of patients 

and the medical community. 

Since 1992, the BCRP has been responsible for managing $1.2 billion in appropriations, which has resulted in 2,837 awards for fiscal year 1992–2000. The areas 

of focus of the DOD BCRP span a spectrum and include basic, clinical, behavioral, 

environmental sciences, and alternative therapy studies, to name a few. The BCRP 

benefits women and their families by maximizing resources; the program offers 

awards that fill existing gaps in breast cancer research. Scientific achievements that 

are the direct result of the DOD BCRP are undoubtedly moving us closer to eradicating breast cancer. 

The outcomes of the BCRP-funded research can be gauged, in part, by the number 

of publications, abstracts/presentations, and patents/licensures reported by awardees, to date. There have been 2300 publications in scientific journals, 1800 abstracts 

and 30 patents/licensure applications. 

The federal government can truly be proud of its investment in the DOD BCRP. 

POSITIVE FEEDBACK ON THE DOD BCRP

The National Breast Cancer Coalition has been the driving force behind this program for many years. The success of the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has been illustrated by two unique assessments of the program. The 

Institute of Medicine (IOM), which originally recommended the structure for the 

program, independently re-examined the program in a report published in 1997. 

Their findings overwhelmingly encourage the continuation of the program and offer 

guidance for program implementation improvements. 

The 1997 IOM review of the DOD Peer-Review Breast Cancer Research Program 

commended the program and stated that, ‘‘the program fills a unique niche among 

public and private funding sources for cancer research. It is not duplicative of other 

programs and is a promising vehicle for forging new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in the nation’s fight against breast cancer.’’ The IOM report recommends 

continuing the program and establishes a solid direction for the next phase of the 

program. It is imperative that Congress recognizes the independent evaluations of 

the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, as well as reiterates its own commitment to the Program by appropriating the funding needed to ensure its success. The 

IOM report has laid the groundwork for effective and efficient implementation of the 
679

next phase of this vital research program, now all that it needs is the appropriate 

funding. 

The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program not only provides a 

funding mechanism for high-risk, high-return research, but also reports the results 

of this research to the American people at a biennial public meeting called the ‘‘Era 

of Hope.’’ The 1997 meeting was the first time a federally funded program reported 

back to the public in detail not only on the funds used, but also on the research 

undertaken, the knowledge gained from that research and future directions to be 

pursued. The transparency of the BCRP allows scientists, consumers and the American public to see the exceptional progress made in breast cancer research. 

At the 2002 Era of Hope meeting, all BCRP award recipients from fiscal years 

1998–2000 were invited to report their research findings and many awardees from 

previous years were asked to present advancements in their research. Scientists reported important advances in the study of cancer development at the molecular and 

cellular level. Researchers presented the results of research that elucidates several 

genes and proteins responsible for the spread of breast cancer to other parts of the 

body, and, more importantly, reveals possible ways to stop this growth. The meeting, which marked the 10th Anniversary of the program, also featured grant recipients who are working towards more effective and less toxic treatments for breast 

cancer that ‘‘target’’ the unique characteristics of cancer cells and have a limited effect on normal cells. 

The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has attracted scientists with new ideas and has continued to facilitate new thinking in breast cancer 

research and research in general. Research that has been funded through the DOD 

BCRP is available to the public. Individuals can go to the Department of Defense 

website and look at the abstracts for each proposal. 

COMMITMENT OF THE NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION

The National Breast Cancer Coalition is strongly committed to the DOD program 

in every aspect, as we truly believe it is one of our best chances at finding cures 

and preventions for breast cancer. The Coalition and its members are dedicated to 

working with you to ensure the continuation of funding for this program at a level 

that allows this research to forge ahead. 

In May of 1997, our members presented a petition with over 2.6 million signatures to the Congressional leaders on the steps of the Capitol. The petition called 

on the President and the U.S. Congress to spend $2.6 billion on breast cancer research between 1997 and the year 2000. Funding for the DOD Peer-Reviewed 

Breast Cancer Research Program was an essential component of reaching the $2.6 

billion goal that so many women and families worked to gain. 

Once again, NBCC is bringing its message to Congress. Just last week, many of 

the women and family members who supported the campaign to gain the 2.6 million 

signatures came to NBCC’s Annual Advocacy Training Conference here in Washington, D.C. More than 600 breast cancer activists from across the country joined 

us in continuing to mobilize behind the efforts to eradicate breast cancer. The overwhelming interest in, and dedication to eradicate this disease continues to be evident as people are not only signing petitions, but are willing to come to Washington, 

D.C. from across the country to deliver their message about our commitment. 

Since the very beginning of this program, in 1993, Congress has stood in support 

of this important investment in the fight against breast cancer. In the years since 

then, Mr. Chairman, you and this entire Committee have been leaders in the effort 

to continue this innovative investment in breast cancer research. 

NBCC asks you, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to recognize the importance of what you have initiated. What you have done is set in motion an innovative and highly efficient approach to fighting the breast cancer epidemic. What you 

must do now is continue to support this effort by funding research that will help 

us win this very real and devastating war against a cruel enemy. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony and for giving hope to 

the 2.6 million women living with breast cancer.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. I think we started this research 11 

years ago. 

Ms. VISCO. Yes. 

Senator STEVENS. Twelve years ago. And every year we have put 

the money up for this research and prostate cancer research in increasing amounts. But I have not seen a similar response from the 

private sector. While we are going to continue to support research 
680

for prostate cancer and breast cancer, I am going to urge Congress 

to start requiring matching funds at least of some amount to come 

forward from the private sector. 

We cannot continue to increase the amount of money that comes 

out of the defense bill for this research when the more money we 

put up the less you get from the private sector. I think that trend 

has to stop and we have to see a strong response from the private 

sector for us to continue our support for these research—particularly when it is requested from this subcommittee for money from 

the defense account. 

Now, we have many women in the armed services now and they 

deserve to have the military proceeding to deal with one of their 

major concerns, which is breast cancer. We will continue, but I do 

think that the research that we are doing with defense dollars, it 

benefits the whole society, but the society ought to respond more 

to the demands for this research money as it has in the past. 

Ms. VISCO. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy, the National 

Breast Cancer Coalition would be happy, to work with your staff 

to give you information on what is being done now in the community outside of the government, so we can work from there. We 

would be happy to work with you in that regard. 

Senator STEVENS. I would like to see that. I would like to see to 

it that the organizations that are asking for taxpayers’ money are 

reaching out and trying to raise non-taxpayers’ money to continue 

this research. 

Ms. VISCO. Yes, sir. We will give you that information. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Martin B. Foil, member of the Board of Directors, National Brain Injury Research and Treatment and Training Foundation. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR., MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL BRAIN INJURY RESEARCH, TREATMENT 

AND TRAINING FOUNDATION 

Mr. FOIL. Thank you, Senator Stevens, Mr. Chairman. It is good 

to be back. We appreciate everything that you and your folks here 

on the committee have been doing. 

My name is Martin Foil. I am the father of a man with a severe 

brain injury. I am happy to be here on behalf of the wonderful men 

and women in our armed services. Really, I know we are all proud 

of what they did and their valiant performance in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. 

I am privileged to come here today to request $5 million in funding for the Defense Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP), which 

provides treatment and services to thousands of military people injured annually. As you know, the DVHIP is a component of the 

military health system, providing direct care at treatment facilities 

in veterans hospitals throughout the Nation. While there is a research component, it provides mainly state-of-the-art medical care 

and rehabilitation to our personnel who sustain concussions and 

more severe brain injury. Our goal is to get them back to work as 

soon as possible. 

Since the war on terrorism began, DVHIP has treated some 40 

troops injured in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and 

Iraqi Freedom. On two occasions, President Bush has visited a few 
681

1 NBIRTT is a non-profit national foundation dedicated to the support of clinical research, 

treatment and training. 2 VNC provides brain injury rehabilitation to military retirees, veterans and civilians through 

an innovative and cost effective day treatment program. 3 I receive no compensation from this program. Rather, I have raised and contributed millions 

of dollars to support brain injury research, treatment, training and services. 

of these soldiers who were being treated at our lead site at Walter 

Reed. My written testimony includes examples of military personnel who have recently received care under the full spectrum of 

the DVHIP program from acute care to rehabilitation to community 

reentry and, more importantly, return to work. 

Some highlights of the program include collaborating with leading researchers on battlefield biomarkers for mild brain injury and 

injury recovery. The goal here is to see if they need to be taken 

back from the front line or if they are going to be well in a few 

hours or a few days. Working with the U.S. Army Aeromedical 

Laboratory at Fort Rucker, we are working and implementing 

phase two of the paratrooper’s helmet study at Fort Bragg, a very 

interesting study. We have also been asked to assist in evaluation 

of potential concussions as a result of blast injuries, particularly 

those from land mines. 

I respectfully request your support for the $5 million from the 

DOD appropriations bill under health affairs operations and maintenance for fiscal year 2004. This funding request is supported by 

Senators Reed, Kennedy, Hagel, Allen, Rockefeller, and Boxer, and 

the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. 

Indeed, we are all grateful for your support over the years. We 

hope you again support our efforts to provide the best care for our 

brave men and women in uniform. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR. 

Dear Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense: My name is Martin B. Foil, Jr. and I am the father 

of Philip Foil, a young man with a severe brain injury. I serve as a volunteer on 

the Board of Directors of the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment and Training Foundation (NBIRTT) 1 and Virginia NeuroCare in Charlottesville, Virginia 

(VNC).2 Professionally, I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Tuscarora 

Yarns in Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina.3

On behalf of the thousands of military personnel that receive brain injury treatment and services annually, I respectfully request that $5 million be added to the 

Department of Defense (DOD) Health Affairs budget for fiscal year 2004 under Operation and Maintenance for the Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program 

(DVHIP). 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony regarding this important program which is a collaborative effort among DOD, Department of Veterans Affairs 

(DVA), the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine 

and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). 

The Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP) 

Established in 1992, the DVHIP is a component of the military health care system 

that integrates clinical care and clinical follow-up, with applied research, treatment 

and training. The program was created after the Gulf War to address the need for 

an overall systemic program for providing brain injury specific care and rehabilitation within DOD and DVA. The DVHIP seeks to ensure that all military personnel 

and veterans with brain injury receive brain injury-specific evaluation, treatment 

and follow-up. Over time, the research conducted by the DVHIP has come to define 

optimal care for military personnel and veterans with brain injuries. A multi-center 
682

4Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, 

Tampa, FL; Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA; Minneapolis Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, 

CA; Virginia Neurocare, Inc., Charlottesville, VA; Hunter McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical 

Center, Richmond, VA; Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, TX. 

clinical care and clinical research program, the program’s motto is ‘‘working for a 

cure.’’

The DVHIP has been proactive since its inception, developing numerous innovative programs that enable patients to have a variety of treatment options at each 

site. Clinical care and research is currently undertaken at seven DOD and DVA 

sites and one civilian treatment site,4 allowing single and multi-center trials to be 

conducted informing future clinical care and treatment strategies. In addition to 

providing treatment, rehabilitation and case management at each of the 8 primary 

DVHIP traumatic brain injury (TBI) centers, the DVHIP includes a regional network of additional secondary veterans hospitals capable of providing TBI rehabilitation, and linked to the primary lead centers for training, referrals and consultation. 

This is coordinated by a dedicated central DVA TBI coordinator and includes an active TBI case manager training program. 

The DVHIP is a model program of efficient and effective collaboration between 

DOD and DVA. 

DVHIP Stands Ready to Treat Troops and Veterans Sustaining Brain Injuries 

Head injury is a leading combat concern in modern warfare. Neurotrauma (traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries) accounts for almost 25 percent of combat casualties. In addition, secondary brain injuries—resulting from stroke, cerebral ischemia, seizures, ionizing radiation, low blood pressure due to loss of blood volume, 

nerve agents, cyanide, toxic concentrations of oxygen, neurotoxicity due to central 

nervous system (CNS) malaria or treatment with antimalaria agents, and other 

CNS traumas, have a significant impact on the health and readiness of military personnel. Many of the currently feared terrorist threats would involve secondary brain 

injuries, particularly those involving chemical or biological neurological insults. 

The DVHIP sites have provided clinical care for over 40 casualties from the War 

on Terrorism to date. Thorough evaluation, referral for appropriate clinical supports, 

prompt discharge to home or military unit, and focus on returning service members 

to active duty have been the primary goals of the clinical care provided to these war 

fighters. Additional service members have been identified who were promptly discharged back to their units. These individuals will be actively followed to ensure 

that they receive specialized clinical care and follow-up as needed. 

The DVHIP is prepared to provide a full continuum of care for military personnel 

injured during any and all future hostilities. 

Examples of Military Personnel Injured, Treated and Returning to Work 

The following are examples of injured active duty military personnel who recently 

received care provided by the DVHIP: 

—On April 11, 2003, President Bush visited soldiers being treated at Walter Reed 

Army Medical Center (WRAMC) who were injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom. At least 2 patients were under the care of DVHIP staff. 

—On January 16, 2003, President Bush visited WRAMC and saw five soldiers 

who had been injured during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, one 

of whom sustained a brain injury along with a fractured skull and other broken 

bones. The Washington Post reported on the President’s visit and noted that 

some 200 troops have been injured in Afghanistan. The soldier with the brain 

injury was treated by DVHIP staff. 

—Another soldier treated at WRAMC was featured on the front page of WRAMC’s 

publication Stripe, on January 17, 2003. A photo showed First Sgt. Colin Robert 

Rich, A Company, 1st Battalion 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, receiving 

a visit from Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White. Sgt. Rich had been shot 

in the head on December 28, 2002 while serving in Afghanistan. Stripe reported 

that Sgt. Rich explained to the Secretary that the round went through his 

Kevlar helmet, ‘‘which decelerated it enough that it didn’t blow my head up. It 

ricocheted and it did shatter the skull.’’ Rich added, ‘‘ ‘Love your Kevlar’, sir, 

that’s my motto.’’ Rich received initial acute care at a hospital in Germany within 15 hours of being shot and arrived at WRAMC on January 4 where he was 

cared for by DVHIP staff before being discharged home on January 16, 2002. 

—In June of 2002, a 32 year old female Air Force Tech Sgt. customer service and 

unit deployment manager fell asleep while driving and rear-ended a stationary 

18-wheeler at highway speed. She sustained a severe brain injury and remained 
683

5 Her symptoms included mild dizziness, headaches, continued diminished rapid toe and finger 

movements on the right, abnormal gait but walking unassisted, difficulties with fluency, naming, reading and word-finding difficulties. Greatest cognitive impairments continued in the areas 

of memory and problem solving—modified independent level of function in bathing and dressing 

due to wearing a brace for the vertebral fracture. Independent in all other area of basic selfcare. 6 Improved speech, persistent mild facial numbness, mild disequilibrium without vertigo, 

walking independently, continued weakness in verbal memory but effective use of compensatory 

techniques; able to care for 4 year-old and 10-month old children at home. 

in a coma for 7 days at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, Texas. She 

was transferred to the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System for inpatient rehabilitation by the DVHIP on July 11, 2002. Her admission evaluation 

revealed multiple neurological, physical and cognitive symptoms.5 By August 

13, 2002 she was discharged with improved neurological, physical and cognitive 

abilities and returned home to San Antonio with her husband and two young 

children. She received outpatient therapy at Warm Springs Rehabilitation Hospital in San Antonio through the end of the year. On November 20, 2002 she 

was evaluated by the medical board at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) 

and showed mild residual symptoms.6 The board recommended trial of duty, initially half days with close supervision. She was evaluated six months post injury by DVHIP staff at WHMC on February 5, 2003 and underwent a driving 

re-evaluation on February 7, with full driving privileges recommended. She 

began her trial of duty on February 11, 2003 and anticipates going to the NCO 

academy if her recovery continues as anticipated. 

—Sgt. MF, a 39 year old Army Recruiter was involved in a motorcycle accident 

in July 2002, resulting in a traumatic brain injury. His initial evaluations 

showed a very serious brain injury to the right and left sides of the brain with 

a sub-dural hematoma and massive swelling. He underwent major surgery to 

remove part of the bleed and resulting damage to the right side of the brain. 

He received his acute care in Louisville, Kentucky, and was subsequently transferred to McGuire Veterans Hospital in Richmond, Virginia, for post-acute rehabilitation and then to Virginia NeuroCare (VNC) in October 2002 for community 

re-entry rehabilitation. He was discharged to the Medical Holding Company 

Unit at his Army station of origin on March 8, 2003. MF stated that he was 

very satisfied with his care throughout his entire recovery and rehabilitation. 

He stated that the DVHIP staff at the Richmond VA and Virginia NeuroCare 

took a one-on-one interest in him and he was pleased with his rehabilitation 

experience. 

At VNC, Sgt. MF was particularly appreciative of the opportunity to live independently in a transitional apartment. He reported that the therapy program was 

good, and he appreciated the fact that the program was tailored to individual needs. 

His volunteer placement at the local Army Recruiting Station during the final phase 

of his rehabilitation at VNC was a positive experience that led him to believe he 

would get his life back. 

These are just a few examples of what DVHIP does for hundreds of military personnel each year—from being ready to care for injured troops in the acute care setting to neuro-rehabilitation involving the entire patient to full community integration. 

DVHIP Support for Families after Brain Injury 

Every military commander and soldier knows the importance of taking care of 

their families so that they may focus on performing their critical duties. This is especially important in times of conflict, as demonstrated during Operation Iraqi Freedom. When soldiers sustain brain injuries in conflict, taking care of families is even 

more important. This is because the impact of brain injury on the family is particularly traumatic, in that not only life and death are at stake, but there are also significant disruptions to family systems for months or years thereafter as the rehabilitation and recovery process ensues. 

On May 3, 2003, Deputy Commander Lt. General Doug Brown of Special Operations had the opportunity to observe first hand the support services provided to 

families of our soldiers and veterans when he was visiting a soldier undergoing rehabilitation at Tampa VAMC for a brain injury from shrapnel sustained during Operation Iraqi Freedom. General Brown participated in the program’s family support 

group and listened to the stories of the families and survivors. General Brown expressed his appreciation for the treatment and services offered and the importance 

and usefulness of the family support group. 

Support groups have been provided by the DVHIP since the program’s inception 

in 1992. Family support groups provide a great deal of support, education, and in-
684

formation to families. The family support program at the Tampa VA also holds biannual reunions in which former patients and families come from around the country. 

Educating Care Providers 

On April 30, and May 1, 2003, DVHIP and the WRAMC Department of Psychology, Neuropsychology Postdoctoral Fellowship held the first joint sponsored 

brain injury conference, entitled ‘‘Innovative Concepts In Traumatic Brain Injury: 

Neurobiological and Neurobehavioral Aspects.’’ The presenters, David A. Hovda, 

Ph.D. from UCLA and Jeffrey T. Barth, Ph.D. from UVA are both internationally 

recognized scientists-practitioners in the area of brain injury. The conference targeted both experienced health-care professionals and postgraduate trainees and residents the areas of neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, psychiatry, and physical medicine and rehabilitation, as well as other professionals with an interest in 

learning about the neurobiological and neurobehavioral aspects of traumatic brain 

injury. With this audience in mind the conference presented a balance of both an 

overview of the basics of the biomechanical aspects of TBI as well as cutting edge 

research. The two-day conference was attended by over 70 professionals and trainees from the DOD and VA throughout the National Capital Area and a story on the 

conference appeared in the May 2, 2003 edition of Stripe. 

Education of corpsmen and other military medical providers on concussion care 

continues to be one of the primary objectives at the DVHIP at Camp Pendleton. Additionally, standardized educational programs are being developed this year by the 

DVHIP educational core in order to reach a greater number of medical providers. 

DVHIP plans to make these educational materials available on its website to enhance this outreach and provide information to providers in austere locations where 

travel for on-site training would not be possible. 

Additional DVHIP Accomplishments and Ongoing Research Initiatives 

Provided successful rehabilitation and return to work and community re-entry for 

active duty military personnel and veterans. 

Established the War on Terrorism Brain Injury Registry to identify individuals 

with brain injury and examine clinically relevant issues in the management of brain 

injury sustained in theatre. 

Ongoing studies are being conducted with Army paratroopers and cadets and U.S. 

Marines at Fort Bragg, West Point, and Camp Pendleton. These studies are investigating brief evaluation instruments for use on the battlefield to determine which 

injured service members require immediate treatment and which can return to 

duty. The goal of these studies is to preserve our nation’s fighting strength while 

conserving medical resources for those injured and requiring treatment. 

Completed enrolling patients in a research protocol on functional rehabilitation 

versus cognitive rehabilitation for severe brain injury. 

A randomized controlled study of sertraline for post concussive syndrome is being 

carried out in all DVHIP military and VA sites. 

Started new randomized controlled trial of valproate for brain injury related agitation at James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, Tampa, Florida. 

A new DVHIP website is currently under construction. The website will provide 

information to individuals with brain injury, their families and caregivers, as well 

as to clinicians, researchers and the general public. 

Fiscal year 2004 Goals 

Expand clinical capacity to meet the need to care for an increasing number of injured military personnel and veterans. 

Improve rehabilitation and treatment program for active duty service members 

with mild cognitive impairment following possible chemical or biological exposure. 

Establish a multi-center trial to provide the first evidence on the effectiveness of 

cognitive rehabilitation and stimulant medication early in recovery from severe 

brain injury. 

Conduct the study of enhanced protection from parachute injury by field testing 

approved novel helmet configurations at Fort Bragg. 

Develop return to duty guidelines through analysis of data collected in the West 

Point sports concussion study and the Fort Bragg concussion study. 

Examine biomarkers in mild brain injury and injury recovery in collaboration 

with Ron Hayes, Ph.D. at the Evelyn F. and William L. McKnight Brain Institute 

at the University of Florida. 

Examine the utility of mobile transcranial Doppler ultrasonography to identify 

cerebral blood flow alterations in mild brain injury and recovery patterns. 
685

Report to the U.S. Army the findings from the War on Terrorism Brain Injury 

Registry regarding incidence of closed head injury and the impact of early wound 

closure in penetrating brain injury. 

Extend outcomes research through the evaluation of long-term work and duty status in DVHIP rehabilitation trial participants. 

Disseminate evidence based guidelines on pharmacological management of 

neurobehavioral consequences of brain injury. 

Expand the DVHIP Registry to include patients from additional DVA and DOD 

medical facilities. Broaden the spectrum of care for military personnel and veterans 

who have sustained brain injuries by using the DVHIP Registry to identify individuals in need of additional treatment and support. 

Expand the content and services of the DVBIC website. Future website applications will include enhanced educational materials and the capability to make referrals and gain access to care. 

Conclusion 

As a part of the military health program, the DVHIP is in a unique position to 

help prevent, treat, and provide education regarding brain injury and to lead efforts 

to better the lives of active duty and retired military personnel affected by brain 

injury. The DVHIP stands ready to assist in the care of troops injured in any and 

all potential hostilities. 

I respectfully urge your support for $5 million for the DVHIP in the fiscal year 

2004 Defense Appropriations bill in the DOD Health Affairs budget under Operation 

and Maintenance to continue this important program.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much for appearing again. We 

appreciate your concern. 

Mr. FOIL. Always a pleasure to be here, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. We will do our best. 

Next, Captain Marshall Hanson, U.S. Naval Reserve, Acting 

Chair of Associations for America’s Defense. Good morning, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON, USNR (RETIRED), ACTING CHAIR, ASSOCIATIONS FOR AMERICA’S DEFENSE 

Captain HANSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. The Associations for America’s Defense (A4AD) thanks you for the opportunity 

to testify today. 

A4AD first met in March of 2002 because it felt that certain defense issues were not being addressed in the MSO community. At 

the initial meeting were Enlisted Association of the National Guard 

of the United States (EANGUS), Marine Corps Reserve Officer’s 

Association (MCROA), Naval Reserve Association (NRA), Naval Enlisted Reserve Association (NERA), National Association of Uniformed Services (NAUS), The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA), 

Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), and the Center for Strategic Policy. Military Order of World Wars (MOWW), the Navy League, and 

ROA have since joined. Collectively we represent over 2.5 million 

members. 

A4AD looks at national defense, equipment, force structure, 

funding, and policy issues. We are submitting what we feel are the 

top equipment requirements for the active and Reserve Armed 

Forces in our written statement. 

In the President’s budget, DOD has made clear its intent to consolidate all pay and operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts 

into one appropriation per service. A4AD strongly opposes the proposed consolidation. While we support seeking efficiencies, we view 

the proposed business consolidation as ill-conceived and as an attempt to reduce congressional oversight. 

Further, the Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 

2003 recommends amending Title 10 to allow the Secretary of De-
686

fense (SECDEF) to transfer 21⁄2 percent of appropriated funds for 

military functions. A4AD is opposed to this degree of authority. 

Two-and-a-half percent is too high a sum of money and allows a 

high risk that items authorized by Congress could be stripped of 

funding to support a DOD project viewed as underfunded. 

We further disagree with an increase of the $10 million limit to 

$20 million to allow reprogramming of acquisition funds. 

The United States is still at war, as evidenced by this week’s 

bombing in Riyadh. While Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld claims 

that there are no plans for reduction, subtle pressures are to be 

found encouraging personnel cuts. Defense planners within each 

service see the writing on the wall with money being moved by 

DOD from personnel to research and weapons systems and they 

are going to preemptively recommend select personnel cuts to save 

portions of their programs starting in fiscal year 2005 and 2006. 

It should be remembered that it is a mixture of legacy forces and 

21st century technology that has brought a swift victory against 

Saddam. The presence of troops on the ground is enabling us to 

capture members of the Iraqi regime. While the vision of joystick 

warfare, with operators removed from the battle site, is a subject 

of magazine articles, it is the blood and sweat of our young men 

and women who capture and win the battlefield. 

The Senate authorization has agreed to the President’s fiscal 

year 2004 numbers. The House has included increases. A4AD supports full funding for end strengths proposed by the House. We also 

solicit your input and backing for maintaining or increasing end 

strengths in future budgets. 

A core of military and veterans associations are now looking beyond just personnel matters to the broader issues of national defense. As a group, we will continue to meet in the future and we 

hope to provide your committee with our inputs. 

Thank you for your ongoing support for the Nation, the armed 

services, and the fine young men and women who defend our country. I stand by for questions. 

Senator STEVENS. I do not have any questions. Thank you very 

much for presenting your statement. We appreciate your comments 

and will do our very best to follow through on them. We appreciate 

your concern. 

Captain HANSON. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON

INTRODUCTION

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, The Associations 

for America’s Defense (A4AD) are very grateful for the invitation to testify before 

you about our views and suggestions concerning current and future issues facing the 

defense appropriations. 

Founded in 2002, the Association for America’s Defense is a recently formed adhoc 

group of Military and Veteran Associations that have concerns about National Security issues that are not normally addressed by The Military Coalition, and the National Military Veterans Alliance. The participants are members from each. Among 

the issues that are addressed are equipment, end strength, force structure, and defense policy. Collectively, we represent about 2.5 million members. 

—Enlisted National Guard Association of the United States 

—Marine Corps Reserve Association 

—Military Order of World Wars 
687

—National Association for Uniformed Services 

—Naval Enlisted Reserve Association 

—Naval Reserve Association 

—Navy League of the United States 

—Reserve Officers Association 

—The Retired Enlisted Association 

—Veterans of Foreign Wars 

Collectively, the preceding organizations have over two and a half million members who are serving our nation, or who have done so in the past. The number of 

supporters expands to beyond five million when you include family members and 

friends of the military. 

A4AD, also, cooperatively works with other associations, who provide input while 

not including their association name to the membership roster. 

CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING DEFENSE

The Associations for America’s Defense would like to thank this Committee for 

the stewardship that it has demonstrated on issues of Defense. Its pro-defense and 

non-partisan leadership sets the example. 

In keeping with this, A4AD would like to submit what its membership feel are 

the top equipment requirements for the Armed Forces. Over the last six months, 

A4AD has compiled this list to provide the committee with a consolidated listing 

which does not favor a particular service and is a compilation from numerous 

sources. Both Active and Reserve requirements are provided for the major four of 

the uniformed services. The services are not listed in priority order. 

Top Equipment Requirements: 

Air Force Active: 

F/A–22’s 

Tanker Modernization 

Space-Based Infrared System SBIRS 

Air Force Reserve: 

C–17’s (replaces aging C–141) 

F–16 Upgrades; sensor, targeting pods, displays 

A–10 Targeting Pods 

C–40’s Medivac (replaces aging C–9A) 

Air Guard: 

C–17’s 

KC–135 Re-engine 

Litening II targeting pods 

Army Active: 

Recapitalize The M1A1 & M2 force 

AH–64 and CH–47 Aviation Upgrades 

Objective Force Future Combat Systems 

Army Reserve: 

Light Medium Tactical Vehicles (LMTV) 

Medium Tactical Vehicles (MTV) 

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 

IHFR Radio 

Army Guard: 

UH–60 Black Hawks 

AH–64 Apaches 

Active Marine Corps: 

JSF Joint Strike Fighter 

V–22 Osprey Program 

AAAV Program 

Reserve Marine Corps (and Active): 

F/A–18 ECP–583 Upgrade 

CH–53E HNVS ‘‘B’’ Kits (Forward Looking Infrared) 

Initial Issue equipment 

Active Navy: 

Littoral Combat Ship 
688

F/A–18 E/F Procurement 

DD(X) 

Naval Reserve: 

C–40A’s Airlift Aircraft (replace aging C–9B) 

LITTORAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, LSS 

F/A–18 ECP–560 Upgrades 

Language delaying decommissioning of Navy’s Coastal Patrol Craft (PCs) and 

Aviation Squadrons 

Equipment requirements on the above equipment list were purposely broken out 

by Active and Reserve requirements. 

Maintaining the Reserve Equipment List 

Issue.—The Active Duty leadership has fallen short of fulfilling the Congressional 

mandate of responsibility for funding Reserve as well as Active Duty equipment 

through budgetary planning. The active solution seems to be suggesting that Reserve equipment should be returned to the Active Duty. This would be a mistake. 

Position.—The overwhelming majority of Reserve and Guard members join the RC 

to have hands-on experience with equipment. The training and personnel readiness 

of Guard and Reserve members depends on constant hands-on equipment exposure. 

Historical records show that Guard and Reserve units maintain hardware and 

equipment at or higher than average material readiness and often have better training readiness. 

In Operation Iraqi Freedom, Reserve and Guard units have proven their readiness. Current and future war fighting requirements will need these highly qualified 

units when the Combatant Commanders require fully ready units. The personnel 

readiness, retention, and training of Reserve and Guard members will depend on 

them having Reserve equipment that they can utilize, maintain, train on, and deploy with when called upon. 

Depending on Active Component hardware has never been successful for many 

functional reasons. History shows that this can only be accomplished through Reserve and Guard equipment, since the training cycles of Active Components are 

rarely, if ever, synchronized with the training or exercise times of Guard and Reserve units. The A4AD recommends strengthening the appropriations for Reserve 

and Guard equipment in order to maintain highly qualified trained Reserve and 

Guard personnel. 

We ask this committee to provide appropriations against unfunded equipment requirements. To appropriate funds to Reserve equipment would help emphasize to 

the Active Duty that it is exploring dead-ends by suggesting the transfer of Reserve 

equipment away from the Reservists. 

Not Combining Active and Reserve Appropriations: 

Issue.—The fiscal year 2004 Defense budget request makes it clear that OSD intends to consolidate all pay and O&M accounts into one appropriation per service. 

These consolidations would require various legislative changes before they could become law. The rationale for the consolidations is to provide greater flexibility for the 

Active chiefs to move monies from the Reserve and Guard pay accounts to fund Active component pay and O&M shortfalls. Managing fewer appropriations would also 

make managing pay and O&M easier. 

Position.—The Associations for America’s Defense strongly opposes the proposed 

consolidation of all Guard, Reserve and Active pay into one service pay appropriation. We similarly oppose the proposed consolidation of all Guard, Reserve and Active operations and maintenance accounts into one service O&M appropriation. 

While we support seeking efficiencies wherever possible, we view the proposed 

‘‘business’’ consolidation as ill conceived, misrepresented as inefficient, and as an attempt to reduce Congressional oversight. We oppose it for a variety of other reasons, 

as well. 

Under current law, the Reserve chiefs are the directors for their respective Reserve pay and O&M appropriations. Public Law 90–168, as amended by the fiscal 

year 1997 NDAA, vested in the Reserve chiefs full management and control of their 

respective Reserve financial resources. Consolidating Reserve and Active pay into 

one appropriation would divest the Reserve chiefs of this authority and preclude 

their executing the programs and responsibilities, and maintaining the readiness 

mandated by Congress. 

Much of the Guard and Reserve annual training occurs during the fourth quarter 

of a fiscal year, the same time frame when the Active components are most likely 

to run short of funds and may desire to use Reserve pay and O&M to fund their 

own shortfalls. Allowing the Active components the ‘‘flexibility’’ to use Reserve funds 

whenever they need to pay Active component bills means that somewhere a Reserve 
689

soldier or sailor will not be paid, a Reserve unit will not be trained for mobilization, 

or Reservist will not receive the specialized training needed for promotion, and ultimately retention. The Active Component will have flexible funding at the cost of Reserve Readiness. 

Opposition to: Proposed Revision to authorization on Appropriations Funding 

Issue.—The Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003 recommends 

under Title IV, Subtitle A, Section 411, that Section 2214 of title 10 be amended 

to ‘‘enhance General Transfer Authority and allow authority to SECDEF to permit 

the transfer of 2.5 percent of the total appropriations or funds appropriated to the 

Department of Defense for that fiscal year of working capital funds of DOD for military functions (except MILCON); increasing to five percent in times of war or emergency. 

Position.—A4AD is opposed to this degree of authority. Two and a half percent of $400 billion is $10 billion. This is the same amount that the Bush Administration 

asked for in funding, without detailing utilization, which Congress turned down. 

This is too high a sum of money, and permits a high risk that items authorized by 

Congress could be stripped of funding to support a DOD project viewed as under 

funded. 

Issue.—The Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003 recommends 

under Title IV, Subtitle A, Section 412, that Section 2214 of title 10 be amended 

to permit the transfer of funds to correct specific acquisition. 

Position.—This requested change from a $10 million to a new $20 million limit 

of reprogramming of funds provides too much ‘‘flexibility’’ to the Secretary of Defense, reducing Congressional oversight. 

Maintaining or Increasing End Strength 

Issues.—The United States is at War. While Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has 

publicly opposed increases, and claims there are no plans for reduction, subtle pressures are to be found encouraging personnel cuts. It has been reported that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld throttled down on the troop presence in Iraq, even 

though the commanders in the field wanted more. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, Air Force General Richard Myers, is already on record saying that, ‘‘leaner 

forces contributed to tactical surprise, success in Iraq.’’ The Presidential budget suggested an 1,100 person cut in the Navy and a 1,900 (2.2 percent) person cut in the 

Naval Reserve, as a start. DoN planners are suggesting another 11 percent cut in 

the Naval Reserve for fiscal year 2005. 

Position.—It should be remembered that it is a mixture of legacy forces and 21st 

century technology is what brought us swift victory against Saddam’s regime. The 

presence of troops on the ground is enabling us to capture members of the Iraqi regime. While the vision of a ‘‘joy stick’’ warfare, with operators removed from the battle site, is the subject of magazine articles; it is the blood and sweat of our young 

men and women who capture and win the battleground. We are decades away from 

bucolic warfare. 

A4AD has continuing concerns about the mismatch between reducing active duty 

and reserve force strengths and the increasing mission requirements. While retention remains at record highs, and military members seem ready and willing to make 

personal sacrifices on behalf of their country in the War on Terrorism, this luxury 

of manpower will not last. The Navy, the first service to suffer manpower cuts, set 

record deployment lengths during Iraqi Freedom. The President/DOD should not be 

even implying cuts while the U.S.A. is at war. 

A4AD believes the Administration and Congress must make it a high priority to 

maintain if not increase end strengths of already overworked military forces, even 

though DOD seems to want to work these forces even harder. End strengths need 

to be closely examined by both the House and Senate as a first step in addressing 

this situation. 

Full funding for proposed end strengths is sought by A4AD. We also solicit your 

input and support for maintaining or increasing end strength in future debates. 

The 4 percent solution 

Issue.—Despite increases in the Defense budget, demands will be outstripping the 

availability of dollars. As money begins to be reprogrammed into Research and Development, the active duty programs will be stressed by perceived shortfalls. Resulting covetous possession will distort long term planning as planners seek to preserve 

favorite programs, surrendering the vulnerable and obsolete as a means to maintain 

the ‘‘strong’’. Such acquisitiveness will stifle innovation, and eradicate retention. 

Position.—A4AD urges the President of the United States and members of Congress to continue to increase defense spending to a minimum of 4 percent of Gross 

Domestic Product. The Armed Forces are an instrument of National Security and 
690

Defense, and are in affect an insurance policy to this Country; as demonstrated by 

events since 9–11–2001. Americans should be willing to invest as much into defense 

as we do into the personal insurance policies. 

CONCLUSION

A core of military and veteran associations are looking beyond personnel issues 

to the broader issues of National Defense. As a group, we will continue to meet in 

the future, and hope to provide your committee with our inputs. 

Thank you for your ongoing support of the Nation, the Armed Services, and the 

fine young men and women who defend our country.

Senator STEVENS. Steven Garrett, the Deputy Legislative Director of the Retired Enlisted Association. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. GARRETT, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GARRETT. On behalf of The Retired Enlisted Association 

(TREA), I would like to thank the committee for allowing us to testify today. TREA is an association that focuses its attention on the 

issues related to senior active duty personnel and especially military retirees. I will focus my testimony on these concerns. 

Understanding the differences between the duties of the appropriators and the authorizers, I will do my best to stay within the 

boundaries of this committee’s jurisdiction. In short, I will emphasize the need for funding currently authorized programs, areas 

TREA would like the committee to keep in mind, and finally a few 

extraneous issues. 

As I am sure you are aware, the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes the combat-related special compensation provision, and TREA would like to emphasize that this measure is a welcome step in the right direction and we anticipate continued progress. In the meantime, we ask for the proper appropriation to fund this new entitlement. 

The basic allowance for housing was also authorized an increase. 

Here again, we request that it receive the necessary funding from 

this committee. 

Thirdly, TREA would like to join Congress and the rest of the 

country in its appreciation for the sacrifices of the Guard and the 

Reserve and ask that these vital components be fully funded so 

that they will be ready to act as quickly as we call on them. 

A couple of issues to keep in mind. It is with great emphasis that 

TREA encourages the members of this committee to stay current 

with issues, issues of concurrent receipt, survivor benefit plan, and 

health care, with regard to further base realignment and closures, 

or BRAC. These closures have significant impact on the beneficiaries using Tricare that needs to be taken into consideration if 

Congress deems BRAC necessary. We are working these issues 

with the authorizing committee and it is our goal that they will be 

authorized and brought before your committee in the near future. 

Before closing, I would like to mention a quick concern. TREA is 

cautious of the DOD request the assume more control of its spending. It concerns us that this authority may come at the expense of 

personnel and retirement issues. We urge this committee to scrutinize this proposal with this thought in mind. 

In addition to the above statements, I ask that you look carefully 

at the written statements of the Military Coalition and the National Military Veterans Alliance. These groups represent veterans 
691

and retiree communities in a very positive manner, and as an active member of both organizations TREA requests that you give 

them close attention. 

Again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present our 

issues and concerns and we look forward to working with you to 

improve the quality of life for veterans, retirees, and their families. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. GARRETT

On behalf of The Retired Enlisted Association I would like to thank the committee 

for allowing me to testify today. The Retired Enlisted Association is an association 

whose members are enlisted military retirees and their families. 

HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY BENEFICIARIES

Today, there are approximately 8.2 million beneficiaries in the military health 

care program. Military retirees and their dependents make up nearly one half of 

that number, and over 500,000 retirees have lost or will lose their access to military 

health care as a result of the closure of approximately 40 percent of military treatment facilities. Access to affordable health care, regardless of age, status or location, 

has represented a major concern among military retirees. 

The creation of TRICARE for Life and a TRICARE Senior Pharmacy benefit in 

Public Law 106–398 was an historic triumph for Congress and those 1.3 million 

Medicare-eligible military retirees and dependents. While TRICARE for Life came 

with its own funding stream in fiscal year 2002, authorization must be budgeted to 

provide for the program for fiscal year 2004. The Retired Enlisted Association recommends that you continue to improve this important program by providing the 

necessary funding. The Retired Enlisted Association also applauds your work last 

year in eliminating TRICARE co-payments for active duty family members. We also 

salute the Department of Defense for reducing active duty time for Reservists to 30 

days for their families to be eligible for TRICARE. 

Although Congress enacted legislation to restore TRICARE to Medicare-eligible 

beneficiaries as a wraparound to Medicare (TRICARE for Life) and to improve 

TRICARE for active duty families, further improvements are still needed, especially 

for retired beneficiaries under age 65. TRICARE must be a consistent, reliable and 

equitable health care benefit for all uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless of 

age or geography. 

The fiscal year 2001 NDAA eliminated copays for active duty family members enrolled in Prime, and enacted TRICARE For Life (TFL) and TRICARE Senior Pharmacy (TSRx) for Medicare-eligibles. With TFL implementation complete Congress 

and DOD must turn their attention to improving serious shortcomings in healthcare 

benefits for TRICARE beneficiaries under the age of 65. 

—Low reimbursement rates are causing providers to refuse any TRICARE patients or reduce the number of TRICARE patients they will treat, limiting beneficiary access and choice. Solution: Increase statutory (Medicare) payment rates; 

require use of existing authority to raise TRICARE rates where necessary to ensure sufficient numbers of participating providers. 

—TRICARE is cumbersome to use and causes administrative hassles for providers 

and beneficiaries attempting to obtain authorization, expedite claim repayment, 

or move between regions. Solution: Improve TRICARE Prime enrollment procedures, portability, and beneficiary education. Decrease administrative burdens, 

eliminate non-availability statement requirements, streamline claims processing 

requirements with greater reliance on electronic claims technology, and eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements. Require TRICARE contractors to assist beneficiaries in finding TRICARE Standard providers. 

—Institute ‘‘benefits plus benefits’’ reimbursement methodology. TFL pays beneficiary expenses not covered by Medicare (‘‘benefits plus benefits’’). For 

TRICARE Standard beneficiaries with other health insurance (OHI), TRICARE 

seldom pays expenses not covered by other insurance (‘‘benefits less benefits’’). 

Solution: Restore TRICARE reimbursement policy to pay up to what TRICARE 

would have paid had there been no OHI coverage (as was the policy before 

1993). 

Since the commencement of the first class of graduates of the Uniformed Services 

University of Health Sciences (USUHS) in 1980, over 3,200 physicians continue to 

pursue careers as physicians in the Army, Navy, Air Force and the U.S. Public 

Health Service each year. The USUHS education process emphasizes primary care 
692

medicine and also provides special training in military medicine and combat stress 

courses not found in civilian medical school curricula. USUHS graduates have also 

proven themselves willing to accept operational overseas assignments often viewed 

as less than desirable by civilian medical school graduates. 

Both the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Appropriations Act and the National 

Defense Authorization Act prohibit the closure of USUHS. The Defense Authorization Act also provided a five year prohibition on reducing the staffing levels of 

USUHS below the levels established as of October 1, 1993. The Retired Enlisted Association urges the Congress to resist any efforts to circumvent the law to downscale 

or close the USUHS. The Retired Enlisted Association is convinced that the USUHS 

is an economical source of career medical leaders who serve this nation during peace 

and war and provide military health care consistency and stability. The Retired Enlisted Association urges the Congress to retain and fully fund USUHS as a continued source of career military physicians for the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. 

Public Health Service. The Retired Enlisted Association also supports the construction of an Academic Center to accommodate the USUHS Graduate School of Nursing. 

OTHER MILITARY RETIREE ISSUES

The Retired Enlisted Association believes strongly that quality-of-life issues for retired military members and families also are important to sustaining military readiness over the long term. If the Government allows retired members’ quality-of-life 

to erode over time, or if the retirement promises that convinced them to serve are 

not kept, the retention rate in the current active-duty force will undoubtedly be affected. The old adage that you enlist a recruit, but you reenlist a family is truer 

today than ever as more career-oriented servicemembers are married or have dependents. 

Accordingly, The Retired Enlisted Association believes Congress and the Administration must place high priority on ensuring that these long-standing commitments 

are honored: 

—VA Compensation Offset to Military Retired Pay (Retired Pay Restoration).—

Under current law, a military retiree with compensable VA disabilities cannot 

receive full military retirement pay and VA disability compensation. The military retiree’s retirement pay is offset (dollar-for-dollar) by the amount of VA disability compensation awarded. We would like to thank the committee for providing funding for the authorized special compensation programs; however, The 

Retired Enlisted Association supports restoration of retired pay (concurrent receipt) for all disabled military retirees. The purposes of these two compensation 

systems are fundamentally different. Longevity retirement pay is designed primarily as a force management tool to attract large numbers of high quality 

members to serve for at least 20 years. A veteran’s disability compensation is 

paid for an injury or disease incurred or aggravated during military service. 

Monetary benefits are related to the residual effects of the injury or disease or 

for the physical or mental pain and suffering and subsequently reduced employment and earnings potential. The Retired Enlisted Association also urges that 

disabled retired Reservists’ and those retired under the early retirement authority be eligible for the authorized Special Compensation programs. What better 

time to authorize and fund concurrent receipt than during this period of War? 

—Social Security Offsets to the Survivors’ Benefits Plan (SBP).—The Retired Enlisted Association supports amending Public Law 99–145 to eliminate the provision that calls for the automatic offset at age 62 of the military SBP with Social 

Security benefits for military survivors. Military retirees pay into both SBP and 

Social Security, and their survivors pay income taxes on both. The Retired Enlisted Association believes that military survivors should be entitled to receipt 

of full Social Security benefits which they have earned in their own right. It 

is also strongly recommended that any SBP premium increases be assessed on 

the effective date, or subsequent to, increases in cost of living adjustments and 

certainly not before the increase in SBP as has been done previously. In order 

to see some increases in SBP benefits, The Retired Enlisted Association would 

support a gradual improvement of survivor benefits from 35 percent to 55 percent over the next five-year period. The Retired Enlisted Association also supports initiatives to make the military survivors’ benefits plan more attractive. 

Currently, about 75 percent of officers and 55 percent of enlisted personnel are 

enrolled in the Plan. 

—Reducing the Retired Reservist age from 60 to 55.—The Retired Enlisted Association believes that retirement pay should be paid sooner as many of these retirees will not live to their 60th birthday. Similarly, these retirees and their de-
693

pendents should be eligible for TRICARE health care and other military privileges when they turn 55. —Military Retired Pay COLAs.—Servicemembers, current and future, need the 

leadership of this Subcommittee to ensure Congress remains sensitive to longstanding contracts made with generations of career military personnel. A major 

difficulty is the tendency of some to portray all so-called ‘‘entitlement’’ programs, including military retirement, as a gratuitous gift from the taxpayer. In 

truth, military retired pay is earned deferred compensation for accepting the 

unique demands and sacrifices of decades of military service. The military retirement system is among the most important military career incentives. The 

Retired Enlisted Association urgently recommends that the Subcommittee oppose any changes to the military retirement system, whether prospective or retroactive, that would undermine readiness or violate contracts made with military retirees. —The SBP Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Offset for 

Survivors.—Under current law, the surviving spouse of a retired military member who dies from a service connected disability and was also enrolled in SBP, 

the surviving spouse’s SBP benefits are offset by the amount of DIC (currently 

$948 per month). A pro-rated share of SBP premiums is refunded to the widow 

upon the member’s death in a lump sum, but with no interest. The Retired Enlisted Association believes that SBP and DIC payments, like military retirement 

pay and disability compensation, are paid for different reasons. SBP is elected 

and purchased by the retiree based on his/her military career and is intended 

to provide a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a survivor whose sponsor’s death was caused directly by 

his or her uniformed service. In principle, this is a government payment for indemnity or damages for causing the premature loss of life of the member, to 

the extent a price can be set on human life. These payments should be additive 

to any military or federal civilian SBP annuity purchased by the retiree. There 

are approximately 31,000 military widows/widowers affected by the offset under 

current law. Congress should repeal this unfair law that penalizes these military survivors. —Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA).—The Retired Enlisted Association urges Congressional support for amending language to Public 

Law 97–252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act. This law 

continues to unfairly penalize active-duty armed forces members and military 

retirees. USFSPA has created an even larger class of victims than the former 

spouses it was designed to assist, namely remarried active-duty service members or military retirees and their new family. The Retired Enlisted Association 

believes this law should be rescinded in its entirety, but as an absolute minimum, the provision for a lifetime annuity to former spouses should be terminated upon their remarriage. This is consistent with most divorce decrees. 

Based on this current provision, monthly provisions for life are being granted 

to former spouses regardless of marital status, need, or child custodial arrangements. The time has come to cease lifetime annuities to former military 

spouses, should they remarry. Judicial determinations of appropriate support 

should be determined on a case-by-case basis and not be viewed as an ‘‘entitlement’’ by former spouses as exists under current law. The Retired Enlisted Association urges hearings on the USFSPA. 

A CONCERN

TREA is cautious of the DOD request to assume more control of its spending. It 

concerns us that this authority may come at the expense of personnel and retirement issues. We urge Congress to scrutinize this latest proposal. 

CONCLUSION

In addition to the above statements I ask that you all look carefully at the written 

statements of The Military Coalition and The National Military Veterans Alliance. 

These groups represent veterans and retirees communities in a very positive manner, and as an active member of both organizations, TREA requests that you give 

each close attention. Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present 

our issues and concerns, and we look forward to working with you to improve the 

quality of life for veterans and retirees and their families.

Senator BURNS [presiding]. Mr. Garrett, thank you for your testimony. We are playing tag up here again. 

Mr. GARRETT. Sure, sure. 
694

Senator BURNS. I want to just say thank you. We enlisted your 

help a little bit with regard to people that had taken early retirement and some miscommunications as far as the benefits they receive and how they receive those, and we got some great information from your organization. Now we are pursuing making some 

changes in that so that people are ensured they get their benefits 

whenever they took early retirement. 

And we thank you for your testimony today. 

Mr. GARRETT. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. 

Now we call Joseph Barnes, National Executive Secretary of the 

Fleet Reserve Association. Thank you for coming today, sir, and let 

us apologize for the conditions in which you have to offer your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BARNES. Not a problem, Senator. Thank you very much. The 

Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) appreciates the opportunity to 

present its views on the 2004 defense budget. The association 

thanks the distinguished subcommittee for its leadership, support, 

and strong commitment to important quality of life programs benefiting service members, their families, and military retirees. 

My statement today addresses several priority issues. FRA recommends continued progress towards closing the military pay gap 

by 2006 and beyond by funding higher than civilian level pay increases. The Senate Armed Services Committee endorsed at least 

a 3.7 percent pay increase for all uniformed services personnel and 

FRA requests the appropriations necessary to implement this increase on January 1, 2004. 

FRA strongly recommends full funding for the Defense health 

program and adequate appropriations to revitalize the Tricare 

Standard program. The association also believes Tricare should be 

available for reservists and their families on a cost-sharing basis. 

Bob Washington, FRA’s Director of Legislative Programs, earlier 

addressed other health care concerns on behalf of the association 

and the Military Coalition. 

FRA supports benchmarking the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) 

education benefits to the cost of an average 4-year college education. Noteworthy is the fact that a significant percentage of Navy 

enlisted personnel have no education benefits and they should be 

afforded an opportunity to enroll when reenlisting. 

The military survivor benefit plan provides an annuity to surviving spouses equal to 55 percent of covered retired pay. This 

amount is reduced to 35 percent when the beneficiary begins receiving social security. FRA believes that the program should be 

funded at the intended 40 percent level rather than at the current 

level, which is less than 17 percent. 

Additional issues addressed in our statement include: continuing 

support for an increase in end strengths to ease both operational 

and personnel tempos; funding for spouse employment opportunities, which are integral to the well-being and retention of service 

members; and supplemental impact aid funding for school districts 

with large numbers of military-sponsored students. 
695

1 Attributed to the military’s top enlisted members before a House panel Mar 5. 2003 as reported by Navy Times, Mar 17, 2003. 

FRA strongly supports funding to maintain the commissary benefit at the current level and restates its continued opposition to privatization. The benefit is an integral part of the total compensation 

package. In addition, limitations on access for Guard and Reserve 

personnel should be lifted due to the increased reliance on these 

service members. 

Finally, FRA advocates retention of the full final month’s retired 

pay by the retiree’s surviving spouse and the extension of the dislocation allowance to retiring service members. If authorized, the 

association asks for your support for these proposals, which have 

also been endorsed by the entire Military Coalition. Thank you 

again, Senator, and I stand ready to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: The Fleet 

Reserve Association (FRA) is grateful for the opportunity to address the panel on 

military personnel programs. First, however, the Association extends sincere gratitude to the Subcommittee for its outstanding efforts these past four years in enhancing life in the military for the Nation’s service members and their families. The result has been nearly miraculous. Recruiting and retention is at its highest since the 

advent of the all-volunteer force. The ‘‘magic’’ spun by this subcommittee has enriched quality of life for the men and women who serve or will serve or have retired 

from the Armed Forces of the United States. 

With 135,000 members strong, FRA presents a well-deserved salute to the Subcommittee for, among others, providing ‘‘targeted’’ pay increases for NCOs and Petty 

Officers in the grades of E5 thru E9 and funding the Tricare for Life health care 

program for military retirees 65 years of age or older. The Subcommittee’s commitment to service members, their families, and retired military veterans is unmatched. 

Thanks for doing a superb job. 

FISCAL YEAR 2004 DEFENSE BUDGET

FRA is acutely aware of the estimated deficits facing the United States in 2004 

and succeeding years. Defense build-up is critical to this country that now plays a 

major role in keeping the United States, as well as other world nations, free from 

intrusion by an enemy or enemies. The cost of doing business defense-wise leaves 

little for societal and environmental programs. 

FRA supports a strong defense, first and ever more. However, it is a people-oriented organization whose mission is to provide loyalty, protection, and service to its 

members. To serve its members effectively, the Association has a duty to apprise 

Congress of the resolutions adopted by them in convention. 

For fiscal year 2004, FRA is seeking support from the Subcommittee for the issues 

and programs addressed in this statement. For the past 12 months the Association, 

as in almost 76 of its 79 years, renewed its commitment to serve as the premier 

‘‘watchdog’’ organization for its members as well as the enlisted men and women 

serving in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. From that group, as well as 

other sources dedicated to enhancing quality of life for the Nation’s Sea Services 

personnel, FRA offers the below recommendations for consideration and, hopefully, 

the Subcommittee’s endorsement. 

QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS

The following recommendations are divided into six (6) major categories. They are: 

Pay and Allowances, health care, education, retirement, military construction, and 

other issues. 

Overworked U.S. troops will accept the strain of current deployments—for a 

while—as long as they believe their families are cared for back home.1
696

Pay and allowances 

Compensation 

Recommendation.—That Congress holds fast to its commitment of closing the military pay gap by 2006 through the utilization of higher-than-civilian-pay increases 

to military basic pay and not permit military pay to again fall behind that of the 

civilian community. To accomplish the task Congress needs to react before 2006 in 

repealing the law authorizing the capping of annual military pay increases below 

that of civilian wages. Additionally, to continue its promise to erase the disparity 

in housing allowances that cause service members to pay higher out-of-pocket costs 

to reside in the civilian community. 

Pay and allowances continue as the top retention choice of military personnel 

since the beginning of the all-volunteer force. This is substantiated once again in 

a recent survey conducted by FRA on its web site. More service members are married than ever before in the history of the Nation’s military. Societal and economical 

customs demand higher incomes for military personnel, the same as for their civilian brothers and sisters. Congress in its wisdom has adopted higher pays for all uniformed members and ‘‘targeted pays’’ for both mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers to meet that demand in the military. Further, Congress has committed itself to closing the pay gap between military and civilian pay levels. 

For fiscal year 2004, the basic pay increase is currently locked in law at 3.7 percent, 0.05 percent higher than the latest ECI figure [37 USC, 1009(c)]. BHA (Basic 

Housing Allowance), also locked in law, is in for an increase in fiscal year 2004 of 

four (4) percent. However, the Administration’s budget calls for a mix of basic pay 

increases beginning at 2 percent for personnel in the grade of E1 to a high of 61⁄4

percent for those in grade E9. With the exception of pay grades E1 and O1, all other 

grades are set to receive at least a 3.7 percent increase. FRA is delighted with the 

Department of Defense for piggybacking on the Association’s 1999 Pay Study and 

again recommending ‘‘targeted’’ increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned and petty officers (NCOs/POs). 

FRA supports the Administration’s recommendations on pay and housing allowance increases and urges the Subcommittee to appropriate the necessary funds to 

affect the authorized increases. However, if Congress believes a higher increase 

should go to E1s and O1s, the Association suggests no reduction in the design to 

target pay increases for NCOs and POs who, until recently, have been slighted since 

the advent of the AVF. 

FRA also urges Congress not to buy the Administration’s suggestion to change the 

current Employers Cost Index (ECI) to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a measure to determine future military pay increases. One may recall that it was only a 

few years ago when the then incumbent Administration urged Congress to adopt the 

ECI. DOD noted at the time that the ECI was a much superior indicator in matching civilian wages to military pay. In the event the Administration’s suggestion prevails, the Association requests that no funds be appropriated to support the administration of such a change. 

Pay Raise for USPHS and NOAA Personnel 

Recommendation.—FRA urges the funding of comparable basic pay raises in 2004 

for Public Health Service (PHS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commissioned Officers. 

Both agencies are an integral part of the seven uniformed services and should receive the same consideration as for other commissioned officers in the Armed 

Forces. FRA is particularly concerned for officers in the PHS who provide health 

care to members of the U.S. Coast Guard, identical to the care provided by officers 

of the Armed Services Medical Corps to members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps 

and Air Force. 

Reserve Compensation 

Recommendation.—Support the restoration of tax deductions for expenses expended by reservists in performing military training. 

With the United States resolve to maintain worldwide peace, the role of the reservist is more important than ever. Due to extensive mobilization of the reserves, 

some individuals/units more than once and for undesignated periods of time, it behooves Congress to improve benefits for reserves so that their numbers will meet 

that which the military services need to support the active forces. One of the benefits would be to allow reservists to deduct non-reimbursable expenses associated 

with performing monthly drills. It is the Association’s fervent hope the Senate will 

act on the bill as soon as possible. 
697

Dislocation Allowance 

Recommendation.—Amend 37 USC, § 407, to authorize the payment of dislocation 

allowances to members of the armed forces retiring or transferring to an inactive 

duty status such as the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Reserve who perform a ‘‘final 

change of station’’ move. 

Moving households on government orders can be costly. Throughout a military career, service members endure a number of permanent changes of station (PCS). 

Often each move requires additional expenses for relocating to a new area far removed from the service members’ current location. 

Dislocation allowances are authorized for military-ordered moves. To aid service 

members in defraying these additional costs, Congress in 1955 adopted the payment 

of a special allowance-termed ‘‘dislocation allowance’’—to recognize that duty station 

changes and resultant household relocations reflect personnel management decisions of the armed forces and are not subject to the control of individual members. 

Odd as it may appear, service members preparing to retire from the Armed Services are not eligible for dislocation allowances, yet many are subject to the same additional expenses they experienced when effecting a permanent change of station 

during the 20 or more years of active duty spent earning the honor to retire. In either case, moving on orders to another duty station or to retire are both reflective 

of a management decision. 

FRA recommends appropriating the necessary funds to affect payments of this allowance. 

Health Care 

Tricare 

Recommendation.—FRA strongly recommends continuation of full funding for the 

Defense Health Program, to include military medical readiness, TRICARE, and the 

DOD peacetime health care mission. Additionally, FRA urges the distinguished Subcommittee to provide appropriations to revitalize the Tricare Standard Program and 

make the Tricare program available for reservists and families on a cost-sharing 

basis. 

Funds need to be appropriated for the Defense Health Budget to meet readiness 

needs and deliver services through both the direct care and purchased-care systems 

for all uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless of age, status and location. Congressional oversight of the Defense Health Budget is essential to avoid a return to 

the chronic under-funding of past years that led to shortfalls, shortchanging of the 

direct care system, and reliance on annual emergency supplemental funding requests. Even though supplemental appropriations for health care were not needed 

last year, FRA is concerned that the current funding level only meets the needs to 

maintain the status quo. Addressing Tricare shortfalls will require additional funding. 

Access to care is of major concern to the FRA membership. Beneficiaries report 

that some health providers in their areas are not willing to accept new Tricare 

Standard patients. The Association believes further distinction must be made between Tricare Standard and Prime in evaluating the Tricare program. Our members 

report increased problems and dissatisfaction with the Standard benefit. 

There are a number of persistent problems with Tricare Standard, a new name 

for an old program once known as CHAMPUS. First, many beneficiaries have difficulty in locating Health Providers who’ll accept Tricare Standard. The paperwork 

is extensive and the payments are insufficient. In a FRA survey administered in 

early February 2003, 15 of 55 service members (27 percent) attending a military 

course of instruction complained of the difficulty in obtaining health care providers 

for their family members. (The remaining 40 were enrolled in Tricare Prime.) 

Reservists are rightfully concerned with continuity of health care for their families 

when called to active duty. Until recently, there was no single coverage for reservists and no coverage for some. Now, reservists called to active duty in excess of 30 

days may enroll their families in Tricare Prime and have access to either Military 

Treatment Facilities (MTF) or civilian providers. To maintain permanence of health 

care, many reservists and families would just as soon keep their current health care 

coverage. To improve readiness in the reserves, increase morale, and ease concern 

for families when reservists are mobilized, Congress should direct and fund DOD 

to implement a program whereby the reservists’ current health insurance premiums 

are paid by Tricare. 
698

Education 

MGIB 

Recommendation.—FRA continues to support increased benefits for participation 

in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and to authorize certain service members the 

opportunity to enroll or reenroll in the MGIB. 

FRA advocates the creation of a benchmark for the MGIB so that its benefits will 

keep pace with the cost of an average four year college education. Even with the 

forthcoming October 1 increases in basic rates, a MGIB student looking forward to 

completing the 2003–2004 academic year will have to pay out-of-pocket about onethird the cost of a four year course of education in a public college or university. 

If married, the shortfall in benefits will place a heavier financial burden on the student. 

The Reserve MGIB has failed to maintain a creditable rate of benefits with those 

authorized in Title 38, Chapter 30. Other than cost-of-living increases, only two improvements in benefits have been legislated since 1985. In that year MGIB rates 

were established at 47 percent of active duty benefits. This October 1, the rate will 

fall to 27 percent of the Chapter 30 benefits. In support of Guard and Reserve personnel, being mobilized in increasing numbers, FRA seeks the support of Congress 

is enhancing the MGIB rates for those who choose to participate in the program. 

Approximately 40 percent of the Navy’s enlisted force has no educational benefits. 

It seems ironic that an individual enlisting in the military services is eligible to enroll in the MGIB while another seeking to reenlist does not have the opportunity. 

Allowing service-members to enroll in the MGIB upon reenlisting in the Armed 

Forces should be the norm. 

Retirement 

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) 

Recommendation.—To adopt and fund Senate Bill, S. 451, to amend the Survivor 

Benefit Plan (SBP) [10 USC, 1451(a)] to authorize the repeal of the post-62 annuity 

over a period of 5 years [35 percent to 40 percent in October 2004, to 45 percent 

in October 2005, to 50 percent in October 2006] and to 55 percent in October 2007. 

Further to change the date 2008 to 2004 [10 USC, 1452(l)] at which time the retiree, 

attaining the age of 70 years who has paid 30 years of SBP premiums, will be fully 

insured for the covered amount without further payments to the Plan. 

The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides an annuity to surviving spouses equal 

to 55 percent of the deceased member’s covered military retirement pay with a reduction to 35 percent when the surviving spouse attains the age of 62. SBP also 

offers annuities to spouses and children, children only, former spouses, former 

spouses and children, and insurable interests. 

Two-thirds of the total military retired community is in the enlisted grades, most 

are earning retirement pay in the E6 and E7 pay grades. At the time of their retirement, few are financially able to afford SBP coverage at the full amount of their 

retirement pay. On retirement, the typical service member may lose nearly 70 percent of the income received while on active duty. As a result, they opt for the basic 

amount that provides a miniscule annuity for a surviving spouse. 

The Plan is perplexing adding to the confusion of what constitutes a ‘‘social security offset’’ when the Social Security Administration (SSA) has nothing to do with 

computing the SBP annuity? And the question: Why is there a sharp annuity loss 

suffered at age 62 for some and not for others? Why isn’t Congress adhering to its 

original intent to cover 40 percent of the costs of the program? Why, if the SBP is 

patterned after the Federal Employees’ plans, is FERS subsidized at 33 percent and 

48 percent for CSRS? Additionally, FERS annuitants receive 50 percent of the employees’ retired pay and CSRS annuitants 55 percent with no reduction in the annuity at age 62. 

Mr. Chairman. Let’s fix the program before our retired service members are paying 100 percent for participating in a program that was adopted to replace a previous plan where the participants were required to carry 100 percent of the costs. 

Authorize Surviving Spouses a Full Month’s Payment of Retired Pay for Month in 

Which Retirees Die 

Recommendation.—In consideration of service to the Nation and the trauma surrounding the death of a retired service member, the surviving spouse would be entitled to receive and retain the final retired pay check/deposit covering any month in 

which the member was alive for any 24-hour period. 

Current regulations require survivors of deceased military retirees to return any 

retirement payments received for the month in which the retiree dies. Upon the demise of a retired service member entitled to retired pay, the surviving spouse or 
699

beneficiary is to notify the Defense Department of the death. The Department’s financial arm then stops payment on the retirement check or electronic deposit and 

subsequently recalculates the payment to cover the actual days in the month the 

retiree was alive. In other cases where the death is not reported in a timely manner, 

any payments made for the days the retiree was not alive will be recouped. 

Retirement and its related activities are most agonizing if not an arduous experience for many military retirees and families transitioning to an unfamiliar civilianlifestyle. For the average retiree, and most likely the one who is enlisted, will suddenly discover finances will be a principal concern. On leaving active duty, the retiree’s income will drop 60-to-70 percent of what was earned while in uniform. The 

enlisted retiree, unlike his or her active duty counterpart, will receive no death gratuity and, in the case of many of the older enlisted retirees, would not have had 

the financial resources to purchase adequate insurance to provide a financial cushion for their surviving spouses. 

Death is a most traumatic experience for survivors. It is a most painful time when 

the surviving spouse must accept the task of arranging for the deceased members’ 

funeral services. The additional cost involved constitutes a major output of scarce 

family dollars only amplified by the loss of retirement income when needed the 

most. A final month’s retirement payment will go far in helping to soothe the strain 

on the survivor’s financial obligations. 

To aid in reducing the cost of the proposal, survivor benefit payments may be forfeited for the month in which the retiree dies and the survivor receives the retiree’s 

final month’s check. In the event the retiree’s final month’s retirement check is less 

than the SBP annuity, the survivor would receive the one most favorable. 

Military Construction 

Housing 

Recommendation.—To make every effort to eliminate substandard family and 

bachelor housing, now referred to as inadequate by DOD, and expedite the construction of new housing to accommodate the Nation’s service members and families. 

Also, to provide enhanced child care programs to relieve the tension of spouses or 

working spouses with children whose service member husbands or wives are deployed. 

In a recent appearance before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, the Armed Services four top enlisted chiefs voiced concern for the 

quality and availability of housing and child care. Both are ever-most in the minds 

of service members deployed or serving outside the United States without their families. 

Although there is a threat of base closures in the immediate future, apparently 

the larger military installations, such as Norfolk Naval Bases, Camp Pendleton, etc., 

are not at risk. There is no reason not to authorize and appropriate additional funding for both housing and child care. 

Both the Navy and Marine Corps have unfunded housing priorities. For example, 

the Navy has reduced its fiscal year 2004 Family Housing request by 17 percent 

and the Corps needs $165 million of which $63 million is for family housing. This 

raises the question of whether the Navy and Marine Corps will meet their 2007 target of ridding both services of ‘‘inadequate’’ housing. Congress is encouraged to 

purge the Navy and Marine Corps of ‘‘substandard housing’’ (the name it was before 

DOD changed it to ‘‘inadequate’’) by authorizing and appropriating additional funding to accomplish the task. 

At the same time FRA seeks increased funds for family housing it cannot ignore 

the need for bachelor quarters. The Association endorses the requests of the Navy’s 

and Marine Corps’ top enlisted chiefs in their statements of February 26, 2003 before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction. (Available 

upon request to FRA at 703–683–1400 or fra@fra.org.) 

Facilities 

Recommendation.—To provide for additional funding to accommodate the construction and modernization of installation facilities at Naval and Marine Corps 

bases, to include physical fitness and MWR centers. 

The value of having adequate facilities cannot be over-stated. The backlog of 

maintenance to many of the work-stations and other buildings continues to grow 

along side the need to replace those structures that are beyond repair. It’s shameful 

as well as wasteful to require our service members to labor in dilapidated buildings 

on weapons systems and other equipment costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. 

Again, the Navy and Marine Corps have priorities that should be funded so more 

secure, cleaner, and healthier work places are available for Sailors and Marines enabling them to perform at their best. 
700

Additionally, community support facilities require congressional attention. Physical fitness centers are much in demand. Not only are they places to relieve tension 

but to build body strength and improve health, both important to maintaining physical readiness. 

Other Issues 

End Strengths 

Recommendation.—FRA believes this honorable Subcommittee is aware of the 

need for greater strength authorizations and funding to ease both operational and 

personnel tempos imposed upon a force not sufficient in numbers to sustain the current demands for manning operational commitments. Although Congress, under the 

provisions of the fiscal year 2003 NDAA, did allow and fund a small increase in the 

active component strength of the Marine Corps, it only authorized increases for the 

Navy, if needed, but without funding. FRA recommends Congress give greater credence to its instincts and authorize appropriations for additional manpower. 

Since 1995, when it was obvious the downsizing of strengths in the Armed Forces 

was causing increased operational and personnel tempos, FRA has annually requested increases in military manpower. It will do so again this session of Congress. 

In an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee last year, the 

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, avowed the Armed Forces will defeat terrorism ‘‘no 

matter how long it takes or where it takes us.’’ On January 31, 2003, The Washington Times reported Defense Secretary Rumsfeld as alerting his commanders 

‘‘that troops will deploy for longer periods because of the war on terrorism and potential conflict with Iraq.’’ Missing from both statements was the promise to succeed 

only if the Forces had adequate manpower to accomplish the mission. 

Previously, a Navy Times editorial of December 12, 2001, warned not to overextend the military: ‘‘Time and again, America’s armed forces have shown they’ll do 

what it takes to serve their country. But history offers a warning: Work them too 

hard, keep them away from home too long, overlook their welfare and eventually 

they will walk.’’ Additionally, The Washington Times of January 31, 2003, noted 

that a retired Navy Admiral commenting on high military deployment rates stated, 

. . . ‘‘the chances of keeping a marriage together for 20 years at the current op 

tempo is approaching zero.’’

These warnings are not to be ignored. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to resolve 

the question of how the Department of Defense (DOD) can justify no need of increased manpower when the strength of the Forces has been reduced by one-third 

while the optemp has accelerated dramatically. Operational levels involving uniformed members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard 

have escalated significantly over the past decade to a point where the United States 

does not have adequate numbers of military personnel to fully accommodate the 

many commitments ordered by the Department of Defense and area commanders. 

Early in 2002, it was reported the Army had told the Pentagon it needs 20,000 

to 40,000 additional troops in fiscal year 2003, the Air Force 8,000 to 10,000, and 

the Navy and Marine Corps an additional 3,000 each. However, the Secretary of Defense was not favorable to an increase in manpower. Congress, in its decision, authorized an increase but because of a shortage of funds provided no money to pay 

the additional manpower. 

There are numerous defense officials, both civilian and military, complaining uniformed personnel are doing more with less, over deployed, overworked, and 

stretched too thin. However, our service members are serving magnificently, but the 

question is: For how long and if they have to face a determined foe? Operation Iraqi 

Freedom is no guideline to justify further reductions in military manpower. 

Spousal Employment 

Recommendation.——The Association urges Congress to continue its support of 

the military’s effort to affect a viable spousal employment program and to authorize 

sufficient funds to assure the program’s success. 

Today’s all-volunteer environment requires the services to consider the whole family. It is no longer adequate to focus only on the morale and financial well-being 

of the member. Now, his or her family must be considered, too. One of the major 

considerations is spousal employment which could be a stepping-stone to retention 

of the service member—a key participant in the defense of this Nation. 

In recent years, the Armed Forces have become concerned with the plight of military spouses who lose employment when accompanying their service member husbands or wives to new duty locations. Studies have concluded that many military 

families suffer significant financial setbacks. Some losses are substantial. Worse, 

yet, is the lack of equal or even minimal employment opportunities at the new duty 

locations. 
701

The services are continuing to test new programs to assist spouses in finding full 

or temporary employment to include counseling and training. Other initiatives will 

help spouses find ‘‘portable’’ employment in companies with customer-service jobs 

that can be done at remote locations. FRA salutes these efforts and encourages the 

military departments to continue the march. 

Impact Aid to School Districts with Concentrations of Military Sponsored Students 

Recommendation.—To continue to provide funds to school districts heavily impacted with military personnel-sponsored children. 

The President’s Budget request contains a provision to reduce funds earmarked 

for distribution to school districts heavily impacted with children of military personnel (and civilian employees hired by the service department concerned). The reduction is to be the amount that would be appropriated for children, known as B 

students, whose parents reside in the civilian community and not on the military 

installation. 

FRA cannot urge this Subcommittee in any stronger terms to support full funding 

of impact aid. Previous attempts by former Administrations to terminate these payments have met with failure and rightfully so. Impacted schools could not operate 

efficiently nor provide adequate tutoring to service members’ children with less 

money. Many of these schools either closed their doors to these children or threatened to do so if funds were cut. 

At this time in history FRA believes it to be utterly foolish if the Nation forgets 

the damage the President’s request, if adopted, will do to our service members’ morale. There are 240,000 school children, whose uniformed service parents live off of 

military installations, depending on receiving a quality education from local educational facilities. It will not happen unless the funds are provided. 

Commissaries 

Recommendation.—To oppose privatization of commissaries and strongly support 

full appropriations to fund the current level of service for all commissary patrons. 

Additionally, to authorize unrestricted access to commissaries to Reservists. 

The fiscal year 2003 budget reduced Defense Commissary Agency funding by $137 

million and envisioned eliminating over 2,600 positions from stores and headquarters staff by September 30, 2003. While surveys indicate there has been no significant loss in service to the customer, FRA cautions that further initiatives be 

evaluated with regard to potential negative impacts on quality and service to customers, including additional store closings, reduced hours, longer cashier lines and 

reduced stock on store shelves. The benefit is widely recognized as a valuable part 

of the service member’s compensation package and a cornerstone of quality of life 

benefits. As in the past, FRA opposes any effort to privatize commissaries and 

strongly supports full funding of the benefit in fiscal year 2004 and beyond. 

As in previous years, FRA once again seeks full access to commissaries for selected reservists. The process involved in issuing (annually), checking, and accounting for the current cards required of the reservist to shop in the commissary is costly and unnecessary. Reservists are part of the Total Force. They should receive the 

same consideration as their active duty comrades-in-arms. 

CONCLUSION

FRA is grateful for the opportunity to present its goals for fiscal year 2004. If 

there are questions or the need for further information, I will be pleased to respond.

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Barnes. We appreciate your testimony. 

We are looking into some of these health care issues that you are 

looking into and of course right now, you know, we have got budget 

problems and we are trying to cover too many bases with too few 

dollars. It is just like I asked—I met a lady on the street in Billings 

the other day and I asked her about her husband and she said, 

well, he retired. And I said, well, that is pretty great. And she says, 

it is not worth a darn; it is half as much money and twice as much 

husband. She said, that is a bad equation. So thank you very much 

for your testimony. We appreciate that very much. 

Mr. BARNES. Thank you, Senator. 
702

Senator BURNS. We now call Dr. James A. Fabunmi. I am sorry 

about that. I just killed that name, I know. I just slaughtered it. 

The president of the Science and Technology Workforce for America’s Security. We appreciate you, and how do you pronounce your 

last name, sir? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. FABUNMI, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DEFENSE CORPORATION 

Dr. FABUNMI. ‘‘FAH-bune-mee.’’ And I might say that you did the 

best that I hear every day, so do not feel apologetic. That is fine. 

Senator BURNS. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate your 

patience and your goodwill. 

Dr. FABUNMI. Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Chairman and members 

of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to present this testimony before you today. I appreciate the opportunity to present you 

some new ideas on how to broaden the base of production of science 

and technology workforce for America’s security. 

I represent the American Heritage Defense Corporation, a nonprofit corporation registered in the District of Columbia for the specific purpose of developing and implementing programs that enhance the quality and quantity of American citizens trained in the 

fields of science and technology. As the committee knows, these are 

challenging times in the history of our great Nation. There are serious threats from abroad to our national defense, economic, and 

homeland security. Yet American technological prowess, which has 

helped ensure our military and economic security during the past 

50 years, is in serious jeopardy because of the increasing shortages 

of American-educated scientists and engineers, who are the bedrock 

of our technological enterprise. 

The committee may be aware of recent reports by the Council on 

Competitiveness, the National Science Board, and others that pinpoint some critical factors that correlate highly and positively with 

economic and military strength. They include: the size of the labor 

force dedicated to research and development and other technically 

oriented work; the amount of investment directed at research and 

development; the resources devoted to higher education; and the 

degree to which national policy encourages investment, innovation 

and commercialization. 

The committee may also be aware that there are innovative 

economies of other countries that have made great strides in developing high-value products and services. These innovative economies 

are ramping their capacities to educate, train, and deploy scientific 

and engineering talent. Their pool of scientists and engineers is increasing briskly. The quality of patents by foreign investors—inventors is strong. Global access to capital is growing. 

On the other hand, the source of the innovative capacity of our 

Nation is thinning. A quarter of the current science and engineering workforce, whose research and innovation produced the American technological superiority of the past decades, is more than 50 

years old and will retire by the end of this decade. 

The Department of Defense has historically been the largest 

source of Federal funding for engineering, research, and development in this country. Universities are significant collaborators with 

industry and are the source for young science and technology talent 
703

for the defense sector, both public and private. In particular, Federal funding for defense basic and applied research and development has provided the majority of financial support for graduate 

education in the physical sciences and engineering. 

The American Heritage Defense Corporation believes that it is in 

our national defense and homeland security interest to significantly 

increase our national investment in science and engineering workforce education. Indeed, on April 10, 2002, the Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering, the Honorable Ronald M. Sega, said, 

and I quote: ‘‘The quality of our science and technological workforce 

and the management of the laboratory infrastructure in which they 

work are very important factors in the overall research and engineering equation.’’ They are critical elements in our transformation. Our science and technological workforce has been 

downsized considerably in the past 12 years. This has left us with 

a very knowledgeable workforce, but one that is also reaching retirement age. We are at a critical point that requires a focused effort to bring stability to the workforce that will attract and retain 

talent. 

There are four key components to the development of a top-grade 

science and technology workforce. These are: knowledge of the 

basic disciplines of math and science; discovery of new knowledge 

in mathematics and science; applications of mathematics and 

science to new and future engineering systems; and the practice 

and design and production of useful and marketable products and 

services. 

The first component, as well as some degree of the second component, is available at most accredited institutions across the country 

and could be strengthened through various educational and basic 

research programs sponsored by the National Science Foundation 

and the Department of Defense. The third and fourth components 

by and large are found only at institutions that have developed and 

maintained longstanding relationships with government and industrial laboratories, but clearly laboratories evolved in the development of systems for the Department of Defense. 

The American Heritage Defense Corporation believes that the 

broadening of access to these four components by students at institutions across the country is a significant and necessary step to address the current shortage of American science and technological 

workforce. The American Heritage Defense Corporation has proposed the Science and Technology Workforce for America’s Security 

program to offer specific approaches to broadening the base of production of a high-quality scientific and technological workforce. 

These approaches leverage on the internship opportunities available to students at government and industrial laboratories to create a structured integration of the two missing components into the 

education of American citizens enrolled in science and engineering 

programs throughout the country. 

It is recommended that the committee appropriate funds which 

would enable the Department of Defense to provide a grant of $3.5 

million in fiscal year 2004 to the American Heritage Defense Corporation and an amount of $5 million each in fiscal year 2005 and 

fiscal year 2005 also to the American Heritage Defense Corporation, for a 3-year demonstration program to assist the Director of 
704

Defense Research and Engineering in implementing the proposed 

Science and Technology Workforce for America’s Security program. 

The requested amounts are estimated to provide seed funds for 

organizing and promoting the program and to support 30 students 

in the first year and 50 students in each of the subsequent 2 years 

of the 3-year effort. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you 

and I will be very happy to respond to any of your questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES A. FABUNMI

Honorable Chairman and Members of the Committee, good afternoon and thank 

you for allowing me the privilege of appearing before you today. I appreciate the 

opportunity to present testimony before you in support of efforts to broaden the base 

of production of top grade Science and Technology Workforce for American Security 

(STWAS). I appear before you as the President of the American Heritage Defense 

Corporation (AHDC), a non profit Corporation registered in the District of Columbia 

for the specific purpose of developing and implementing programs that enhance the 

quality and quantity of American citizens, trained in the fields of Science and Technology. 

SUMMARY

As the Committee knows, these are challenging times in the history of our great 

nation. There are serious threats from abroad to our national defense, economic and 

homeland security. Yet, American technological prowess, which has helped ensure 

our military and economic security during the past 50 years, is in serious jeopardy 

because of the increasing shortages of American educated scientists and engineers 

who are the bedrock of our technological enterprise. The committee may be aware 

of recent reports by the Council on Competitiveness, the National Science Board, 

and others that pinpoint some critical factors that correlate highly and positively 

with economic and military strengths. They include the size of the labor force dedicated to research and development and other technically oriented work; the amount 

of investment directed at research and development; the resources devoted to higher 

education; and the degree to which national policy encourages investment in innovation and commercialization. 

The committee may also be aware that there are innovative economies of other 

countries that have made great strides in developing high-value products and services. These innovative economies are ramping their capacities to educate, train, and 

deploy scientific and engineering talent. Their pool of scientists and engineers is increasingly briskly; the quality of patents by foreign inventors is strong, and global 

access to capital is growing. On the other hand, the source of the innovative capacity 

of our nation is thinning. A quarter of the current science and engineering workforce, whose research and innovation produced the American technological superiority of the past decades, is more than 50 years old and will retire by the end of 

this decade. The Department of Defense has historically been the largest source of 

federal funding for engineering research and development in this country. Universities are significant collaborators with industry and are the source for young 

science and technology talent for the defense sector, both public and private. In particular, federal funding for defense basic and applied research and development has 

provided the majority of the financial support for graduate education in the physical 

sciences and engineering. 

The AHDC believes that it is in our national defense and homeland security interests to significantly increase our national investment in science and engineering 

workforce education. Indeed, on April 10, 2002, the Director of the Defense Research 

and Engineering (DDRE), the Honorable Ronald M. Sega, said and I quote: ‘‘the 

quality of our Science and Technology (S&T) workforce and the management of the 

laboratory infrastructure in which they work are very important factors in the overall research and engineering equation. They are critical elements in our transformation. Our S&T workforce has been downsized considerably in the last twelve 

years. This has left us with a very knowledgeable workforce, but one that is also 

reaching retirement age. We are at a critical point that requires a focused effort to 

bring stability to the workforce that will attract and retain talent.’’

There are four key components to the development of top grade S&T Workforce. 

These are: (1) Knowledge of the basic disciplines of Mathematics and Science; (2) 

Discovery of new knowledge in Mathematics and Science; (3) Applications of Mathe-
705

matics and Science to new and future engineering systems; and (4) Practice of design and production of useful and marketable products and services. The first component as well as some degree of the second component is available at most accredited Institutions across the country and could be strengthened through various educational and basic research programs funded by the National Science Foundation 

and the Department of Defense. The third and fourth components by and large are 

found only at Institutions that have developed and maintained long-standing relationships with government and industrial laboratories, particularly laboratories involved in development of systems for the Department of Defense. The AHDC believes that the broadening of access to these four components by students at Institutions all across the country is a significant and necessary step to address the current shortage of American S&T workforce. 

The AHDC has proposed the STWAS program to offer specific approaches to 

broadening the base of production of high quality scientific and technological workforce. These approaches leverage on the internship opportunities available to students at government and industrial laboratories, to create a structured integration 

of the two missing components into the education of American citizens enrolled in 

science and engineering programs throughout the country. It is recommended that 

the Committee appropriate funds, which will enable the Department of Defense to 

provide a grant of $3.5 million in fiscal year 2004 to the American Heritage Defense 

Corporation (AHDC), and amounts of $5 million each in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal 

year 2006, also to the American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC) for a 3-year 

demonstration program to assist the Director, Defense Research and Engineering 

(DDR&E) in implementing the proposed STWAS program. The requested amounts 

are estimated to provide seed funds for organizing and promoting the program and 

to support 30 students in the first year, and 50 students in each of the subsequent 

two years of the three-year a pilot effort. 

SHORTAGE OF AMERICAN S&T WORKFORCE

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Aerospace Engineering degrees granted to United States citizens dropped by half from 1991 to 2000. 54 percent of United 

States Aerospace workers over the age 45 will leave the field during the next six 

years while 6 million Aerospace jobs vital to the United States Economy and National Security will open up with no Americans being trained to fill them. The Electronics Engineering Times reports that in 2000, the United States imported 90,000 

engineers and computer scientists, while graduating 65,000 engineers and 15,000 

computer scientists. Indeed, on April 10, 2002, the Director of the Defense Research 

and Engineering (DDRE), the Honorable Ronald M. Sega, said and I quote: ‘‘the 

quality of our Science and Technology (S&T) workforce and the management of the 

laboratory infrastructure in which they work are very important factors in the overall research and engineering equation. They are critical elements in our transformation. Our S&T workforce has been downsized considerably in the last twelve 

years. This has left us with a very knowledgeable workforce, but one that is also 

reaching retirement age. We are at a critical point that requires a focused effort to 

bring stability to the workforce that will attract and retain talent.’’

In a discussion of whether or not there is a shortage of S&T Workforce, it is important to clarify what the real issues are. While an unemployed scientist or engineer may wonder what is meant by ‘‘shortage’’, it is apparent that such a scientist 

or engineer is unlikely to be a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There are different grades of S&T Workforce, and it is safe to assume that 

when Industry or Government Agencies go out to recruit S&T Workforce, they are 

most likely seeking top grade S&T Workforce, and not just anyone with a college 

degree in science or engineering. Every time the debate comes up regarding the 

need for the Federal government to increase investments in the development of S&T 

workforce, there will always be opposing viewpoints that point to unemployed S&T 

professionals as if to indicate that there is instead a surplus in this particular labor 

category. The reality though is that a college degree in science or engineering does 

not automatically imply that one has acquired the competence to contribute productively to industry or government workforce. I want to clarify at this point that the 

issue of concern is the base of production of top grade S&T workforce. 

COMPONENTS OF TOP GRADE S&T EDUCATION

There are four key components to the development of top grade S&T Workforce. 

These are: (1) Knowledge of the basic disciplines of Mathematics and Science; (2) 

Discovery of new knowledge in Mathematics and Science; (3) Applications of Mathematics and Science to new and future engineering systems; and (4) Practice of design, production and maintenance of useful and marketable products and services. 
706

The first component as well as some degree of the second component is available 

at most accredited Institutions across the country and could be strengthened 

through various educational and basic research programs funded by the National 

Science Foundation and the Department of Defense. The third and fourth components by and large are found only at Institutions that have developed and maintained long-standing relationships with government and industrial laboratories, particularly laboratories involved in development of systems for the Department of Defense. In his book ‘‘Rescuing Prometheus’’, the technology historian Thomas P. 

Hughes stated that institutions that currently produce top tier aerospace professionals evolved from the 1960’s era risk reduction projects in support of Air Defense, 

Ballistic Missile Offense and Space Exploration programs. These institutions have 

developed and maintained long-standing relationships with government and industrial research and development laboratories. In 1998 for example, according to a Department of Defense report, out of $1.9 Billion invested by DOD in Engineering Development funding, $763.9 Million or 40 percent went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and its affiliated laboratories. It is therefore no surprise 

that the probability of producing a top grade S&T workforce from MIT is significantly higher than that of most other institutions. Unfortunately, there is a limit 

to the number of students that can attend MIT at any given point in time. 

PROPOSED STWAS PROGRAM

Having identified the four key components needed to enhance the quality of S&T 

Workforce preparation, and recognizing that it is not practical to replicate MIT on 

every campus in the country, the American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC) 

has come up with an alternative approach to achieving the same ends in a manner 

that is measurable, and cost effective. These approaches leverage on the internship 

opportunities available to students at government and industrial laboratories, and 

will create a structured integration of the third and fourth components (see preceding section) into the education of American citizens enrolled in science and engineering programs throughout the country. 

At the present time, internship opportunities that are offered to S&T graduate 

(and in some instances undergraduate) students are treated as little more than extracurricular programs for the students during their summer and/or winter breaks. 

These programs are not particularly coordinated with the degree requirements of 

the students, and nobody is particularly accountable for the impact of these programs on the quality of preparation of the participating students. Most significantly, 

these programs do not necessarily evolve into on-going relationships between the 

faculty at the Institutions and the S&T personnel at the government and/or industry laboratories. 

The STWAS program aims to: (1) leverage national defense and homeland security research and development efforts for the training of future generations of American S&T workforce; (2) immerse American students in environments where the 

most exciting systems are being developed, prototyped and demonstrated; (3) focus 

the best and brightest American students on America’s security needs; and (4) create a mechanism for the initiation, development and maintenance of relationships 

between Academia, Industry and Government Laboratories, centered around the 

educational needs of American S&T students. 

The basic concept of STWAS is that internship opportunities for American S&T 

students at government and/or industry laboratories and centers should be coordinated with their degree programs, and facilities should be established at or near 

their campuses to enable them to continue the work that they have started during 

their on-site visits to the laboratories and centers. It requires a dedicated organization such as the AHDC to catalyze this process and take over the responsibility of 

putting in place the necessary human and material infrastructure for implementing 

such a program. The AHDC will: (1) recruit and obtain necessary clearances for participating students; (2) provide full support (tuition, fees, salary) to the students; (3) 

collaborate with Universities to establish on or near campus facilities for telecommuting with government and industry laboratories and centers; and (4) organize an 

alliance between Academia, Industry and Government to promote and expand the 

STWAS program into a nationwide activity. 

THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DEFENSE ALLIANCE

The strategy for corporate development of AHDC hinges on the formation of the 

American Heritage Defense Alliance (AHDA) with participation from governmental, 

industrial, academic and philanthropic organizations. These organizations will be 

stakeholders and will assist in accomplishing the mission of AHDA to create, fund 

and operate Engineering Centers for expediting national defense and homeland se-
707

curity and to accelerate the production of higher quality American engineers in sufficient quantities for the defense and advancement of the United States of America. 

AHDC shall have the following classes of members: (1) Alliance Members: One representative from each of the organizations participating in AHDA provided such organization is in good standing as determined by the Alliance Committee of AHDC; 

(2) Ex-Officio Members: The Chair of AHDC; the President; the Treasurer; the Secretary and other officers of AHDC that are from time to time recommended for 

membership by the Executive Committee, provided such other officers shall be approved for ex-officio membership by the simple majority of the members of AHDC; 

(3) Professional Members: No more than three members in office at any one time, 

who are experts in matters of National Defense and Homeland Security of the 

United States of America and workings of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. Nominations for membership in this class shall be from the Alliance 

Committee and subject to approval by a simple majority of the members of AHDC; 

(4) Life Members: The Principal Founder of AHDC and others elected by the members of AHDC, provided that the number of such life members shall never be greater than twenty-five at any one time. 

RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS

It is recommended that the Committee appropriate funds, which will enable the 

Department of Defense to provide a grant of $3.5 million in fiscal year 2004 to the 

American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC), and amounts of $5 million each 

in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, also to the American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC) for a 3-year demonstration program to assist the Director, Defense 

Research and Engineering (DDR&E) in implementing the proposed STWAS program. The requested amounts are estimated to provide seed funds for organizing 

and promoting the program and to support 30 students in the first year, and 50 students in each of the subsequent two years of the three-year a pilot effort. 

Honorable Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the privilege 

of addressing you and representing the AHDC. If you have further questions, I 

would be happy to entertain them. If I cannot address them at this hearing, I will 

have your questions researched further and respond directly to you at a later date.

Senator BURNS. Well, thank you very much and your entire 

statement will be made part of the record and it will be read and 

perused, I know, many times. I appreciate your coming today and 

your recommendations will be well taken, I think, because that is 

an area where we continue to have a lot of support here in the 

Congress. 

So thank you very much for coming today. 

Dr. FABUNMI. Thank you, sir. 

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENT

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Subsequent to the hearing, the subcommittee 

has received a statement from the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance which will be inserted in the record at this point.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OVARIAN CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE

On behalf of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, I would like to take this opportunity to share some remarks on the unique value and effectiveness of the DOD 

Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP). As Congress is charged with the important task of allocating defense funding to meet the growing needs of our military 

to adequately protect American lives from unknown threats here and abroad—it is 

worth noting the critical role the DOD plays, through medical research, in protecting Americans from other serious and under-recognized threats like ovarian cancer. 

As you may know, ovarian cancer is the deadliest of gynecologic cancers, because 

the vast majority of cases are not detected until advanced stage, when survival is 

only about 25 percent. However, when detected early, ovarian cancer survival improves to 90 percent. This toll is harsh on the 25,400 women and their families who 

each year receive a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. A growing number are women in 

the military and dependents of military families—whose service to our country is 

compromised when they must battle this terrible cancer too! 
708

In order to adequately improve women’s chances of surviving this devastating disease, the Alliance is requesting an appropriation of $15 million, specifically earmarked for the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP) in fiscal year 2004. 

Because the OCRP suffered several cutbacks over the past two years, and because 

this program is so modest to begin with, the designation of $15 million is critical 

to the continued health and success of the life-saving research supported by this initiative. 

The DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program, like the breast and prostate cancer 

programs in the DOD budget, augments the important funds spent on cancer research by the National Cancer Institute. As in the funds spent at NCI, the DOD 

cancer research proposals must be peer-reviewed and meet standards of scientific 

excellence. 

There are however, several unique aspects of the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research 

Program. The DOD ovarian program promotes ‘‘innovative’’ approaches to research 

that will lead to a better understanding and control of the disease. The program encourages projects and idea awards that propose new ways of examining prevention, 

early detection and treatment and bring new investigators into ovarian cancer research. Proposals that address the needs of minority, elderly, low-income, rural and 

other underserved women are highly encouraged. And finally, since their inception 

nearly ten years ago, the DOD programs have actively involved consumers on all 

Scientific Peer Review and Integration (Program Design) panels. Consistent with 

DOD’s support of consumer involvement, two Alliance leaders serve on the Integration Panel and based on our recommendations, over a dozen ovarian cancer advocates serve on the Scientific Review Panel. At NCI, a formal program designed to 

involve consumers in decision-making was recently established, and is drawing on 

the successful experience of the DOD programs. 

For the past 6 years, the DOD OCRP has been dedicated to supporting research 

that will improve the outcome for women with ovarian cancer. Its successes to date 

are impressive. There have been 69 publications in scientific journals, 119 abstract 

at professional meetings and over 20 new investigators recruited into the field. 

A distinguishing feature of the DOD OCRP has been program project grants. Several multi-year ovarian cancer project grants were awarded to cancer centers in 

Pittsburgh, Minnesota and Indiana. As result of these program project grants, these 

cancer centers have greatly enhanced their ovarian cancer research capabilities—

and have already begun to develop some breakthrough findings in the areas of prevention and early detection. Two cancer centers, Fred Hutchinson in Seattle and 

Fox Chase in Philadelphia, funded by the DOD OCRP, went on to win major grants 

from NCI through the SPORE program (Specialized Program of Research Excellence). Particularly with the Hutchinson, the DOD grant enhanced their capacity to 

compete successfully for important NCI funding. Through this program, researchers 

have identified several new biomarkers that are promising as markers for early detection. They have also identified an agent in oral contraceptives that help protects 

against ovarian cancer—and that could result in an urgently needed way of preventing ovarian cancer. The only caveat is—if the program continues to receive reduced funding from the DOD, these researchers will not be able to continue their 

important work. 

With a strong track record and a growing core of investigators who are contributing vital knowledge that could improve prevention, early detection, and ultimately 

survival from ovarian cancer, the DOD OCRP is making a difference in women’s 

lives. 

On behalf of the entire ovarian cancer advocacy community—patients, family 

members, caregivers, clinicians and researchers—we thank you for your leadership 

and support of the Ovarian Cancer Research Program. We very much hope we can 

continue to count on you to provide $15 million for this program, so that the life 

saving research it supports will continue. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVARIAN CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM

Over the last six years, Congress has appropriated funds for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP). Modeled after the very 

successful breast cancer research program first included in the DOD budget in 1992, 

the OCRP is a component of the DOD Congressionally Directed Medical Research 

Program (CDMRP). Currently funded at $10 million, the annual appropriation 

reached as high as $12 million in 2000 and 2001. Each year, the DOD OCRP funding is considered for renewal by Congress or the program terminates 

Overall, the OCRP has received a total of $71.7 million, which has supported 62 

awards—out of 575 proposals submitted. Because the program has received $37 million worth of proposals ranked excellent or outstanding that have NOT been funded, 
709

ovarian cancer advocates and Congressional leaders are requesting a funding increase—to $15 million for fiscal year 2004. 

With ovarian cancer research neglected and underfunded for too long, restoring 

recent cuts in Department of Defense’s Ovarian Cancer Research Program is critically important. This program strengthens the federal government’s commitment to 

ovarian cancer research and supports innovative and novel approaches that offer 

promise of better understanding the cause and prevention of ovarian cancer. 

THE DOD OCRP HAS AN OUTSTANDING RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENTS

69 publications in scientific journals. 

119 abstracts/presentations at professional meetings. 

Over 20 new investigators recruited into ovarian cancer research. 

2 patent applications filed. 

The commitment to a serious, sustained ovarian cancer research effort by several 

new institutions that prior to their DOD grant, did little in ovarian cancer. With 

the award of multi-year project grants, the University of Pittsburgh, University of 

Minnesota, Indiana University, University of South Florida, the Medical University 

of South Carolina and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle have dramatically 

increased the ovarian cancer research infrastructure and the capacity for breakthrough findings that will improve women’s survival from this deadliest of women’s 

cancers. Two cancer centers—Fred Hutchinson in Seattle and Fox Chase in Philadelphia—

funded by the OCRP went on to win major grants from NCI through the SPORE 

program (Specialized Program of Research Excellence). Particularly with the Hutchinson, the DOD grant enhanced their capacity to compete successfully for important 

NCI funding. 

A top ovarian cancer researcher from Duke University identified the hormone progestin as a key agent in oral contraceptives’ activity in reducing the risk of ovarian 

cancer. This finding has significant implications for preventing ovarian cancer. 

Several new bio-markers have been identified that have the potential to improve 

early detection. 

Three new agents that inhibit tumor growth, spreading and new blood vessel formation (angiogenesis) have been discovered—a development that could result in new 

and more effective treatments. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM

The DOD ovarian cancer research program augments the important funds spent 

on cancer research by the NCI. As with the funds spent at NCI, the DOD cancer 

research proposals must be peer-reviewed and meet standards of scientific excellence. 

There are however, important differences between the NCI and DOD cancer research programs. In considering the DOD research programs, Congress each year 

‘‘earmarks’’ or designates a specific dollar figure for each cancer. By contrast, at NCI 

funding levels for particular cancers are not specified, and Congress does not play 

a role in determining allocations by cancer. In another important area of difference, 

the DOD program promotes ‘‘innovative’’ approaches to cancer research. And finally, 

since their inception ten years ago, the DOD programs have actively involved consumers on all scientific peer review and Integration (Program Design) panels—a 

process that has only recently been implemented at NCI. 

A unique feature of the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program is that it promotes innovative research that will lead to a better understanding and control of 

ovarian cancer. The program also encourages projects and idea awards that propose 

new ways of examining prevention, early detection and treatment, and also bring 

new investigators into ovarian cancer research. Proposals that address the needs of 

minority, elderly, low-income, rural and other under-represented populations are 

strongly encouraged. Overall, the DOD OCRP is fostering the development of a sustained commitment to ovarian cancer. 

All proposals are evaluated in a two-tiered review system. At the first level, a 

multi-disciplinary panel rates each proposal on the basis of scientific merit. Final 

decisions are made by an Integration Panel, based not only on scientific merit, but 

also on the programmatic goal of innovative ideas. Consistent with DOD’s support 

of consumer involvement, four Ovarian Cancer National Alliance leaders have 

served on the Integration Panel, and over a dozen Alliance-nominated advocates on 

Scientific Review Panels. 

The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance is a consumer-led umbrella organization 

uniting ovarian cancer survivors, women’s health activists and health care professionals in a coordinated effort to focus national attention on ovarian cancer. The Al-
710

liance is working at the national level to increase public and professional understanding of ovarian cancer and to advocate for increased research for more effective 

diagnostics, treatments and a cure.

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator BURNS. This concludes the hearing of the subcommittee, 

the scheduled hearings on the fiscal year 2004 budget request. The 

subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. 

By the way, the record will remain open and I will let the chairman close that because no subordinate will ever close the chairman’s record. 

This meeting stands recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Thursday, May 15, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(i)

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Achgill, Dennis, Director of Public Affairs, American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers .............................................................................................................. 667 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 668

Barnes, Joseph L., National Executive Secretary, Fleet Reserve Association .... 694 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 695

Bester, Brigadier General William T., Chief, Army Nurse Corps, Medical 

Programs, Department of Defense ...................................................................... 282 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 285 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 359

Blum, Lieutenant General H. Steven, Army National Guard, Chief, National 

Guard Bureau, National Guard, Department of Defense ................................. 369 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 373 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 418

Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri, Questions Submitted by .......................................................................................................... 418, 473

Brannon, Brigadier General Barbara, Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force 

Nursing Services and Commander of Malcolm Grow Medical Center, Medical Programs, Department of Defense ............................................................... 298 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 301 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 364

Brown, Master Sergeant Morgan D., (Ret.), Legislative Assistant, Air Force 

Sergeants Association (AFSA) ............................................................................. 608 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 609

Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator From Montana: 

Opening Statement of ...................................................................................... 551 

Prepared Statements of ............................................................................... 371, 488 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 70

Butler, Benjamin H., Deputy Director of Legislation, National Association 

for Uniformed Services ........................................................................................ 564 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 565

Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 538 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 489

Christie, Thomas P., Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Missile Defense Agency ......................................................................................................... 195 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 219 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 238

Clark, Admiral Vernon E., USN, Chief of Naval Operations, Department 

of the Navy, Department of Defense .................................................................. 123 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 140 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 193 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 137

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi: 

Questions Submitted by............................................... 56, 61, 118, 193, 469, 534 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 124

Cowan, Vice Admiral Michael L., Surgeon General of the Navy, Medical 

Programs, Department of Defense ...................................................................... 247 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 249 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 309
Page

ii

Dahlman, George, Vice President, Public Policy, The Leukemia & Lymphoma 

Society ................................................................................................................... 627 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 629

Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 57, 64, 315, 334, 351

Dorgan, Senator Byron L., Statements of ............................................................... 5, 70

Duggan, Dennis M., Deputy Director, National Security, Foreign Relations 

Commission, The American Legion .................................................................... 569 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 571

Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 544

Fabunmi, James A., Ph.D., President, The American Heritage Defense Corporation ................................................................................................................. 702 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 704

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California: 

Questions Submitted by............................................................. 236, 238, 343, 545 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 490

Foil, Martin B., Jr., Member of the Board of Directors, National Brain Injury 

Research, Treatment and Training Foundation ................................................ 680 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 681

Garrett, Steven L., Deputy Legislative Director, The Retired Enlisted Association ........................................................................................................................ 690

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 691

Goldberg, Joan, Executive Director, American Society for Bone and Mineral 

Research; on behalf of the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related 

Bone Diseases ....................................................................................................... 631 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 633

Hagee, General Michael W., USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense ................................................. 123 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 158 

Question Submitted to ..................................................................................... 194 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 157

Hanson, Captain Marshall, USNR (Retired), Acting Chair, Associations for 

America’s Defense ................................................................................................ 685 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 686

Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted 

by......................................................................................................................... 64, 421

Hawley, William, M.D., Board of Directors, Public Policy Committee, 

Lymphoma Research Foundation ....................................................................... 604 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 606

Helmly, Lieutenant General James R., Chief, Army Reserve, Reserves, Department of Defense ............................................................................................. 425 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 427 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 469

Hoffman, Stephen, M.D., Chief Executive Officer, Sanaria, Inc.; on behalf 

of the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene ............................ 587 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 589

Holleman, Deirdre Parke, Esq., Co-Director, National Military and Veterans 

Association, and National Legislative Director, The Retired Enlisted Association .................................................................................................................... 559 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 560

Hollings, Senator Ernest F., U.S. Senator From South Carolina: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 472 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 489

Hudgins, Chris, Public Policy Associate, National Prostate Cancer Coalition ... 670 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 672

Hurd, Captain Robert C., USN (Retired), Headquarters Liasion to Congress, 

United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps ............................................................... 660 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 662

Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas: 

Questions Submitted by....... 115, 190, 194, 238, 420, 470, 474, 478, 481, 537 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 47
Page

iii

Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii: 

Opening Statements of ................................................................................ 123, 241 

Prepared Statements of ................................................................. 4, 225, 370, 488 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 58, 

116, 119, 319, 336, 354, 360, 363, 366, 423, 538 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 4

James, Lieutenant General Daniel, III, Director, Air National Guard, National Guard, Department of Defense ................................................................ 369 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 373

Johnson, Hansford T., Acting Secretary of the Navy, Department of the Navy, 

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 123 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 126 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 190 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 124

Jumper, General John P., Air Force, Chief of Staff, Department of the Air 

Force, Department of Defense ............................................................................. 69 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 79 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 118

Kadish, Lieutenant General Ronald T., USAF, Director, Missile Defense 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 195 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 198 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 236

Koonin, Steven Elliot, Ph.D., Provost and Professor of Theoretical Physics, 

California Institute of Technology; on behalf of the Association of American 

Universities and the National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges ...................................................................................................... 622 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 623

Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 3 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 539 

Statements of.................................................................................................... 3, 490

Lescavage, Rear Admiral Nancy J., Nurse Corps, United States Navy, Director, Navy Nurse Corps, Medical Programs, Department of Defense ............... 290 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 294 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 362

Lester, Rodney C., CRNA, Ph.D., President, American Association of Nurse 

Anesthetists .......................................................................................................... 650 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 651

McCarthy, Lieutenant General Dennis M., Chief, Marine Forces Reserve, 

Reserves, Department of Defense ....................................................................... 425 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 441 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 478

McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................... 317

McIntosh, Major General Robert, USAFR (Retired), Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association of the United States ................................................. 639 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 640

Morris, Robert V., Chief Executive Officer, Fort Des Moines Memorial Park, 

Inc .......................................................................................................................... 595 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 596

Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, Prepared Statement of ................................. 707

Pace, General Peter, U.S. Army, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Office 

of the Secretary, Department of Defense ........................................................... 487

Peake, Lieutenant General James B., Surgeon General, United States Army, 

Medical Programs, Department of Defense ....................................................... 241 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 243 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 328

Peluso, Karen, Executive Director, Neurofibromatosis, Inc., New England ....... 592 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 593

Puzon, Captain Ike, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired), Director of Legislation, 

The Naval Reserve Association ........................................................................... 551 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 553
Page

iv

Raezer, Joyce Wessel, Director, Government Relations, National Military 

Family Association ............................................................................................... 614 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 616

Roche, Hon. James G., Secretary of the Air Force, Department of the Air 

Force, Department of Defense ............................................................................. 69 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 79 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 115

Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald, Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 487 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 490 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 495

Schultz, Lieutenant General Roger C., Director, Army National Guard, National Guard, Department of Defense ................................................................ 369 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 373 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 422

Sellman, Wayne S., Ph.D., Vice President and Director for Public Policy 

Issues, The Human Resources Research Organization; on behalf of the 

American Psychological Association ................................................................... 579 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 580

Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama: 

Questions Submitted by...................................................................... 318, 335, 353 

Statements of.................................................................................................... 4, 489

Sherrard, Lieutenant General James E., III, Chief, Air Force Reserve, Reserves, Department of Defense ........................................................................... 425 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 449 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 481

Shinseki, General Eric K., Chief of Staff, United States Army, Department 

of the Army, Department of Defense .................................................................. 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 8 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 55 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 30

Sommerer, John, Ph.D., Chief Technology Officer, Applied Physics Lab, Johns 

Hopkins University; on behalf of the Coalition for National Security Research .................................................................................................................... 656 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 658

Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania: 

Opening Statement of ...................................................................................... 1 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................. 62, 422

Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska: 

Opening Statements of ................................................................ 69, 195, 369, 487 

Prepared Statements of ................................................................................... 2, 171 

Questions Submitted by............................. 55, 60, 309, 328, 344, 359, 362, 364

Taylor, Lieutenant General Dr. George Peach, Jr., Air Force Surgeon General, 

Medical Programs, Department of Defense ....................................................... 262 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 264 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 344

Totushek, Vice Admiral John B., Chief, Naval Reserve, Reserves, Department 

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 425 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 435 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 473 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 434

Visco, Fran, J.D., President, National Breast Cancer Coalition .......................... 675 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 676

Washington, Robert, Sr., Fleet Reserve Association; Co-Chairman, The Military Coalition Health Care Committee .............................................................. 597

Washington, Robert, Sr., Prepared Statement of .................................................. 597

Weaver, Cathy Lee .................................................................................................. 634

Weaver, Julia ........................................................................................................... 634

Weaver, Major General Paul A., Jr., USAF (Retired), on behalf of the Juvenile 

Diabetes Foundation International .................................................................... 634 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 636

West, Rear Admiral Richard D., U.S. Navy (Retired), President, Consortium 

for Oceanographic Research and Education ...................................................... 583 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 585
Page

v

White, Hon. Thomas E., Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army, 

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 8 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 60 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 5

Zakheim, Dov, Ph.D., Comptroller, Office of the Secretary, Department of 

Defense .................................................................................................................. 487

(vii)

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEFENSE AGENCIES

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

Page 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 236

Aggressive Testing Schedule ................................................................................... 236

Airborne Laser (ABL)................................................................................. 225, 227, 228

Availability of a Mature Effective BMDS .............................................................. 236

Boost Vehicle Testing .............................................................................................. 228

Booster Enhancements for Aegis ............................................................................ 237

Evolutionary Capability-Base Acquisition Approach ............................................ 196

Field Capability ....................................................................................................... 198

Ground Based Mid-Course Defense ....................................................................... 224

Kodiak Targets Schedule ........................................................................................ 233

Laser Funding .......................................................................................................... 227

MDA: 

National Team .................................................................................................. 224 

Test Schedule .................................................................................................... 236 

Testbed: 

Fort Greely ................................................................................................. 227 

Kodiak ........................................................................................................ 233

Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) ................................................ 232

Miniature Kill Vehicle (MKV) ................................................................................ 223

Missile Defense: 

Countermeasures .............................................................................................. 235 

Program ............................................................................................................. 196 

Testbed .............................................................................................................. 222

Navy Integrating, AEGIS ........................................................................................ 227

No Aegis Boost Phase Capability in Block 04 ....................................................... 237

Operational: 

Testbed .............................................................................................................. 197 

Testing ............................................................................................................... 216

Patriot: 

Friendly Fire Incidents .................................................................................... 229 

System Performance ......................................................................................... 221 

Testing/Performance ......................................................................................... 229

Sea Based X-Band Radar.................................................................................... 230, 231

Space Tracking Surveillance System (STSS) ........................................................ 235

Strategic Missile Defense Command ...................................................................... 223

Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) ....................................................... 234

U.S. Navy Integration in Missile Defense ............................................................. 222

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

A–10 and F–15 Aircraft ........................................................................................... 73

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 115

Afghanistan .............................................................................................................. 73

Aging Aircraft .......................................................................................................... 74

Air: 

Expeditionary Force ......................................................................................... 118 

National Guard ................................................................................................. 113 

Power ................................................................................................................. 71 
Page

viii

Air—Continued

University .......................................................................................................... 108

Air Force: 

Academy.......................................................................................................... 78, 101 

Investigation .............................................................................................. 98 

Institute of Technology ..................................................................................... 105 

Investment Budget ........................................................................................... 117

B–1 ............................................................................................................................ 73

B–52 Bombers .......................................................................................................... 112

Basic Military Training and Technical Training School ...................................... 115

C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 73 

Aircraft .............................................................................................................. 109

C–17................................................................................................................. 77, 97, 108

Combat Pay .............................................................................................................. 115

CV–22 ....................................................................................................................... 107

Electronic Warfare ................................................................................................... 114

Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) ................................................................... 120

F/A–22 ...................................................................................................................... 75, 77 

Raptor ................................................................................................................ 117

Force Protection ....................................................................................................... 116

Global Hawk ............................................................................................................. 109

Guard and Reserve Financial Problems ................................................................ 100

Homeland Defense ................................................................................................... 72

Iraq ........................................................................................................................... 73 

War News Coverage ......................................................................................... 112

Iraqi Aircraft ............................................................................................................ 100

KC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 77

Lackland Air Force Base ......................................................................................... 78

Manpower ................................................................................................................. 74

Medical Evacuation Mission ................................................................................... 103

Melrose Bombing Range .......................................................................................... 106

Mission Capable Rates ............................................................................................ 76

Next Horizon ............................................................................................................ 96

Operation Iraqi Freedom ......................................................................................... 71

Operation Noble Eagle ............................................................................................ 77

Personnel Transformation ....................................................................................... 99

Predator .................................................................................................................... 106

B ......................................................................................................................... 111 

Hellfire System ................................................................................................. 107

Promotions ................................................................................................................ 104

Range and Readiness Preservation Initiative ....................................................... 116

Readiness .................................................................................................................. 75

Reserves .................................................................................................................... 99

Russian SU–37 ......................................................................................................... 74

767: 

Lease .................................................................................................................. 114 

Tanker Lease .................................................................................................... 96

Southwest Asia ........................................................................................................ 78

Space Programs ....................................................................................................... 119

Supplemental Appropriations ................................................................................. 76

Tanker Fleet ........................................................................................................ 117, 119

Transformation ........................................................................................................ 72

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Pilots ............................................................................ 110

What We Do ............................................................................................................. 81

Where We’re Going .................................................................................................. 87

Who We Are ............................................................................................................. 85

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

A Commitment to the Future ................................................................................. 30

Active Component (AC)/Reserve Component (RC) Mix ........................................ 45

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 55

Advanced Army Rapid Emplaced Bridge ............................................................... 57

Aging Helicopter Inventory ..................................................................................... 38

Army: 

Heritage and Education Center ...................................................................... 63 

Well-Being ......................................................................................................... 13

Aviation: 

Modernization ................................................................................................... 53 
Page

ix

Aviation—Continued

Training ............................................................................................................. 50

Civilian Component ................................................................................................. 12

Domestic and Foreign Bases ................................................................................... 48

End Strength ............................................................................................................ 34

FCS: 

Fielding Schedule ............................................................................................. 55 

Objective Force Role ......................................................................................... 55 

Vehicles ............................................................................................................. 62

Fifth and Sixth Stryker Brigades ........................................................................... 32

Force Protection ....................................................................................................... 53

Fresh Troops... Old Choppers .......................................................................... 38

Future Requirements Costs .................................................................................... 43

Global War on Terrorism ........................................................................................ 33

Ground Services Industrial Enterprise (GSIE) Plan ............................................ 66

High Mobility Trailers and Waste .......................................................................... 66

Industrial Base ........................................................................................................ 60

Institutional Army ................................................................................................... 27

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant ............................................................................... 64

Land Mines .............................................................................................................. 42

Leader Development—Training Soldiers and Civilians, and Growing Leaders .......................................................................................................................... 14

Legacy Force Modernization ................................................................................... 55

Logistics Transformation ........................................................................................ 51

Oil Cleaning/Filtering Systems .............................................................................. 61

Operational Army .................................................................................................... 21

Operations in Iraq ................................................................................................... 54

People—Our Most Valuable Resource .................................................................... 11

Readiness—Winning Our Nation’s Wars ............................................................... 15

Realizing The Army Vision—People, Readiness, and Transformation ................ 11

Reconstituting Deployed Forces ............................................................................. 56

Recruiting ................................................................................................................. 35

Reserve Component: 

Full-time Support (FTS) ................................................................................... 12 

Pay Consolidation ............................................................................................. 57 

Recruiting .......................................................................................................... 49

Rock Island Arsenal ................................................................................................ 65

Soldier: 

Deployment ....................................................................................................... 35 

Equipment ......................................................................................................... 41

Space and Missile Defense Command .................................................................... 36

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) ............................................................... 46

Status of Forces ....................................................................................................... 53

Strategic Environment—The Requirement to Transform .................................... 10

Supplemental Appropriation ................................................................................... 33

The Army: 

At War and Transforming ............................................................................... 8 

Serving Today, Balancing Risk, Managing Transformation ......................... 10

Training: 

Centers .............................................................................................................. 48 

Ranges ............................................................................................................... 58

U.S. Military Labors to Keep Aging Helicopters Airworthy; Hazards of Desert 

Landings ............................................................................................................... 38

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ..................................................................................... 61

White Sands: 

HELSTF ............................................................................................................ 58 

MTHEL .............................................................................................................. 57 

Third Wave Outsourcing Plan ......................................................................... 64

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 190

Building on Success ................................................................................................. 159

Context for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request: Succeeding in a Time 

of Great Consequence .......................................................................................... 126

Deployment Days ..................................................................................................... 176

Family Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay ................................... 184

Fiscal Year 2004 Budget: Building From a Solid Foundation ............................. 127
Page

x

Fleet Size .................................................................................................................. 179

Harrier ...................................................................................................................... 179

Homeporting ............................................................................................................. 181

HSV Plans ................................................................................................................ 193

Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance ................................... 175

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) ....................................................................................... 189 

(F–35) Program Progress ................................................................................. 191

Lightweight 155 Howitzer Program ....................................................................... 184

Littoral Combat Ship—Hull Form ......................................................................... 194

Long-term HSV Plans ............................................................................................. 193

Marine Corps Retention .......................................................................................... 178

Mine Warfare Funding and Capability .................................................................. 191

Missile Defense ........................................................................................................ 182

Naval Forces—Southern Command ....................................................................... 190

Naval Power 21: A Transformational Vision for the 21st Century ..................... 134

Navy: 

Programs in New Mexico ................................................................................. 187 

Reserve .............................................................................................................. 178 

Retention ........................................................................................................... 177

Navy-Marine Corps Team: National Seapower—Around the World, Around 

the Clock ............................................................................................................... 126

Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................. 171

Our Main Effort—Excellence in Warfighting ........................................................ 165

Patrol Coastal Craft ................................................................................................ 182

Prior Year Shipbuilding Costs ................................................................................ 173

Retiring Ships and Aircraft .................................................................................... 177

Sea Basing ................................................................................................................ 172

Shipbuilding ............................................................................................................. 179

T–45 Cockpit 21 ....................................................................................................... 193

Taking Care of Our Own ......................................................................................... 162

The Way Ahead: Positioning Today’s Navy and Marine Corps for Tomorrow’s 

Challenges ............................................................................................................ 137

UAV Program ........................................................................................................... 183

V–22 Program...................................................................................................... 172, 191

MEDICAL PROGRAMS

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 308

Air Medical Evacuation ........................................................................................... 300

Best Health Care Business Practices ..................................................................... 297

Combat Treatment in Iraq and Afghanistan ........................................... 312, 331, 347

Critical Care Air Transport Teams ........................................................................ 298

Deployment of Medical Personnel.................................................... 309, 328, 331, 344

Doctorate Program in Nursing.................................................................. 361, 363, 367

DOD/VA Healthcare Resource Sharing ................................................................. 351

E-Health Technology ............................................................................................... 259

Establishment of the Naval Medical Education and Training Command .......... 256

Expeditionary Medical Support Units ................................................................... 262

Family Centered Care ............................................................................................. 256

Force Health Protection (FHP)......................................................... 250, 326, 341, 358

Health Benefit .......................................................................................................... 296

Hospital Services Reduction ................................................................................... 307

Improvement of Equipment for Combat Casualty Care ....................................... 332

Increased Medical Costs .......................................................................................... 274

Jesse Spiri Military Medical Coverage Act .............................................. 315, 334, 352

Medical: 

Budget Shortfall ............................................................................................... 274 

Combat Technologies ........................................................................................ 279 

Research ............................................................................................................ 260 

Treatment Facilities................................................. 319, 336, 354, 361, 363, 367

Mental Health .......................................................................................................... 281

Military Family Access to Dental Care Act ............................................. 316, 335, 353

Mobilized Reservists in Medical Specialties .......................................................... 309

Monitoring the Health of Guard and Reserve Personnel........................ 311, 329, 345

Navy Medicine/DVA Resource Sharing .................................................................. 258

Number of Reservists: 

Not in Dental Class 1 or 2 ............................................................................... 311 

With Medical Problems .................................................................................... 311
Page

xi

Nurse Corps Grade Structure ................................................................................. 299

Nurse Shortage ........................................................................................................ 306

Nursing Research ....................................................................................... 361, 364, 367

Operation Enduring Freedom ................................................................................. 263

Optimization ............................................................................................... 327, 343, 358

Our People ................................................................................................................ 253

Patient Privacy (TRICARE).............................................................. 318, 335, 343, 353

People ........................................................................................................................ 295

Percentage of Male Nurses ..................................................................................... 308

Personnel Readiness ................................................................................................ 252

Population Health Programs .................................................................................. 299

Readiness .................................................................................................................. 294 

Contingency Operations ................................................................................... 250

Recruiting ................................................................................................................. 300 

And Retention......................................... 264, 277, 314, 333, 350, 360, 363, 366

Recruitment and Retention ....................................................................... 359, 362, 364

Remaining Medical and Dental Requirements ..................................................... 311

Repercussions for Unfit Unit Members ................................................................. 312

Research on Composite Tissue Transplantation ................................................... 317

Retention and Recruitment ....................................................................... 320, 339, 356

Specialized Training ................................................................................................ 307

Student Loan Repayment ....................................................................................... 278

T-Nex—Next Generation of TRICARE Contracts.................................... 312, 332, 348

TRICARE .................................................................................................................. 264

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences ........................................ 255

War’s Effect on the Nurse Corps Plan...................................................... 360, 362, 365

NATIONAL GUARD

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 417

Aging Aircraft .......................................................................................................... 407

Army National Guard 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team ................................ 422

Border Patrol ............................................................................................................ 411

C–17 Fleet at Jackson Air National Guard Facility ............................................. 411

C–23 Sherpa Cargo Aircraft ................................................................................... 423

C–27J Spartan Tactical Aircraft ............................................................................ 424

Call-ups of Guard Forces ........................................................................................ 415

Chain of Command .................................................................................................. 420

Communications ...................................................................................................... 406

Counterdrug Schools ........................................................................................... 421, 422

Demobilization ......................................................................................................... 406

Employer Support .................................................................................................... 410 

Of the Guard and Reserve ............................................................................... 421

Force Protection ....................................................................................................... 399

Future Fixed Wing Aviation Requirements .......................................................... 423

Improved Efficiencies at NGB ................................................................................ 419

Improved WMD Response Capability .................................................................... 418

Limits on Deployment ............................................................................................. 402

Merging Guard and Reserve Accounts ................................................................... 401

National Guard and Reserve Equipment .............................................................. 415

Operation Enduring Freedom ................................................................................. 401

Operation Iraqi Freedom ......................................................................................... 401

Operation Noble Eagle ............................................................................................ 401

Overuse of Guard and Reserve ............................................................................... 416

Reducing Size of Guard and Reserve ..................................................................... 413

Retention .................................................................................................................. 408

Seamless Environment ............................................................................................ 418

Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act ............................................................................... 421

Transformation Programs ....................................................................................... 420

TRICARE Health Care Coverage ........................................................................... 420

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 534

Applying Lessons Learned ...................................................................................... 491

Assignment to Ambassador Bremer ....................................................................... 530

Baghdad Anarchy Spurs Call For Help; Iraqis, U.S. Officials Want More 

Troops .................................................................................................................... 512
Page

xii

Balancing Risk..................................................................................................... 493, 498

Callup on Reserve Component Personnel .............................................................. 528

Careful Targeting in Iraq ........................................................................................ 524

Commitments of Peacekeeping Forces ................................................................... 516

Defense Transformation Act ................................................................................... 501

Deployment of National Guard ............................................................................... 538

DOD-NASA Partnership ......................................................................................... 510

F–22 .......................................................................................................................... 547

Force Levels in Iraq Theater .................................................................................. 529

Forces Levels in Baghdad Area .............................................................................. 515

High Alert Status Nuclear Weapons ...................................................................... 545

Improving Intelligence ............................................................................................ 510

Improving Management .......................................................................................... 494

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) ................................................................... 542

Iraq ........................................................................................................................... 539

Looting in Iraq and Protecting Sites ...................................................................... 533

LPD–17 ..................................................................................................................... 506

Management Plans .................................................................................................. 539

Missile Defense.................................................................................................... 518, 541

Mr. Jay Garner ........................................................................................................ 516

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ............................................. 535

932nd Airlift Wing ................................................................................................... 544

Nuclear Capabilities in Iraq ................................................................................... 532

Passage of Defense Transformation Act ................................................................ 504

Perchlorate ............................................................................................................... 548

Performance of Army Patriot PAC–3 System ........................................................ 518

Rebuilding Iraq ........................................................................................................ 509

Results ...................................................................................................................... 500

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator...................................................................... 525, 546

Ship Leasing and Defining Requirements ............................................................. 519

Situation in Iraq ...................................................................................................... 514

Soliciting Information on Weapons of Mass Destruction ..................................... 528

Stryker Brigades ...................................................................................................... 505

Sufficient Funding for Fiscal Year 2003 ................................................................ 504

Testing ...................................................................................................................... 547

The Hurricane Hunters ........................................................................................... 534

Total Force Policy and TRICARE for Reservists ................................................... 520

Training Ranges and Facilities ............................................................................... 507

Transforming to Meet Changing Threats .............................................................. 492

U.S. Commitment and Command Arrangements ................................................. 523

U.S. Hints at Boost in Forces Amid Iraqi Troubles .............................................. 531

UAVs ......................................................................................................................... 535

Unmanned Vehicles ................................................................................................. 511

Utility of Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Class Weapons ............................... 546

Visiting Troops in the Field and Tanker Leasing ................................................. 502

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq ............................................................... 521, 539

RESERVES

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 469

AEF CY02—In Review ............................................................................................ 452

Army Reserve Transformation ............................................................................... 469

Army Reserve’s Role in Rebuilding of Iraq ............................................................ 470

Attrition .................................................................................................................... 458

Current Readiness ................................................................................................... 444

Demobilization ......................................................................................................... 448

Developing our Airmen ........................................................................................... 449

Equipment: 

Readiness .......................................................................................................... 483 

Shortfalls ........................................................................................................... 472

F/A–18 Aircraft Upgrades ....................................................................................... 467

Future Vector ........................................................................................................... 456

Highlights of 2002 ................................................................................................... 449

Hurricane Hunters .................................................................................................. 466

Impact of Mobilization on Budget Request ............................................................ 475

Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 445

Integrating Operations ............................................................................................ 452

Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 478 
Page

xiii

Lessons Learned—Continued

From Most Recent Mobilization ...................................................................... 471

Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) ................................................................... 465, 474

Marines and Their Families ................................................................................... 442

Mobilization .............................................................................................................. 447 

Of Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request .............................................................. 470

Modernization .......................................................................................................... 448 

And Sustainment Critical Shortfalls .............................................................. 472 

And Transformation ......................................................................................... 445

Naval Coastal Warfare Units Role in Homeland Security ................................... 466

Naval Reserve: 

Equipment List ................................................................................................. 474 

Retirement Data ............................................................................................... 463

Operation Iraqi Freedom ......................................................................................... 481 

Mobilization ...................................................................................................... 478

Quality of Life Initiatives ........................................................................................ 451

Readiness .................................................................................................................. 448

Recapitalization of the Naval Reserve ................................................................... 473

Reconstitution of Army Reserve Forces ................................................................. 470

Recruiting ................................................................................................................. 450 

And Retention ................................................................................................... 428

Redesign of the Naval Reserve ............................................................................... 473

Reserve: 

Employer Support ............................................................................................. 476 

Equipment Shortfalls ....................................................................................... 480 

Health Care .................................................................................................. 474, 476 

Mobilization Lessons Learned ......................................................................... 475

Reservists ................................................................................................................. 483

Retention.............................................................................................................. 450, 464

Retirement ................................................................................................................ 460 

Policy ................................................................................................................. 457

Support for Employers of Reservists ...................................................................... 480

Supporting Employers of Reservists ...................................................................... 471

Technology to the Warfighter ................................................................................. 453

The Big Picture ........................................................................................................ 451

Transformation ........................................................................................................ 478 

Programs ........................................................................................................... 481 

In Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request ....................................................... 470

TRICARE: 

Benefits Extension ............................................................................................ 480 

Health Care Coverage.................................................................................. 471, 482

Your Marine Corps Reserve Today ........................................................................ 441

Æ