S. HRG. 107–697

Senate Hearings

Before the Committee on Appropriations

Department of Defense

Appropriations

Fiscal Year 2003

107th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

H.R. 5010

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

Department of Defense Appropriations, 2003 (H.R. 5010)

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

78–465 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–697

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2003

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 5010

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, 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

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman

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

JACK REED, Rhode Island

TED STEVENS, Alaska

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

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director

CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Minority Deputy Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman

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

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

TED STEVENS, Alaska

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

Professional Staff

CHARLES J. HOUY

SUSAN HOGAN

TOM HAWKINS

ROBERT J. HENKE

DAVID MORRISON

LESLEY KALAN

MENDA FIFE

MAZIE R. MATTSON

STEVEN J. CORTESE (Minority)

SID ASHWORTH (Minority)

KRAIG SIRACUSE (Minority)

ALYCIA FARRELL (Minority)

Administrative Support

ELNORA HARVEY

NICOLE ROYAL (Minority)
(III)

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002

Page

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002

Department of Defense: Department of the Army ................................................ 65

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002

Department of Defense: Missile Defense Agency .................................................. 125

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2002

Department of Defense:

National Guard Bureau ................................................................................... 177

Reserves ............................................................................................................ 261

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002

Department of Defense: Department of the Navy ................................................ 309

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002

Department of Defense:

Health Affairs ................................................................................................... 379

Nurse Corps ...................................................................................................... 421

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2002

Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force .......................................... 469

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2002

Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary .................................................... 531

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2002

Department of Defense:

United States Military Academy, U.S. Army ................................................. 597

United States Naval Academy ......................................................................... 605

United States Air Force Academy ................................................................... 611

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2002

Nondepartmental witnesses .................................................................................... 631

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Hollings, Byrd, Dorgan, Feinstein, Stevens, Specter, Domenici, Shelby, Gregg, and Hutchison.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

ACCOMPANIED BY DR. DOV ZAKHEIM, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Secretary Wolfowitz, Dr. Zakheim, on behalf of

the committee I would like to welcome you as we begin our deliberations on the Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations request for fiscal year 2003. It provides for the common defense. So

states the Constitution in its preamble. This function was so important to the formation of this more perfect union our forefathers

placed this clause in the very first paragraph of our Nation’s governing document.

The function of this subcommittee is to appropriate the funding

necessary to insure that our military can provide for the common

defense. It is indeed a critically important task. Last year some

would argue we failed in that endeavor. On September 11, 2001,

our defenses broke down. Three icons of American strength, the

Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the workplaces of thousands of

American were attacked with devastating consequences. The attack

came not from a hostile nation but from a handful of terrorists

armed with jumbo jets. Their weapon, filled with irony, was one

which symbolizes American economic success and democratic freedoms. Our airlines have afforded millions of our citizens to fly unfettered for business or pleasure.

As we all know, thousands of lives were lost and had it not been

for the heroic efforts of civilians on a fourth plane, another location
2

would have also likely been attacked. Some would argue we failed

in this attack, they want to know how this happened, what went

wrong, and who was to blame, and I think these are fair questions.

It might not be fair, but it seems to me that many who are quick

to point fingers today are the same ones who would have argued

that we need to cut defense spending, that we don’t need to modernize our forces or pay our troops, many of the same ones who

wonder why some of us feel it is necessary that we pay our military

personnel a decent wage and why we work to insure that they have

adequate housing, acceptable health care and the promise of a reasonable retirement income after they have sacrificed for our country.

I know that our witnesses today and my colleagues here are not

among these naysayers. We recognize that less than 1 percent of

the American population is willing to wear the uniform of our Nation. We know that we should be grateful to them and we must

treat them accordingly. I tell you this because I already hear the

criticism of your budget request for fiscal year 2003.

These critics argue that, why should we be giving the Pentagon an increase of $48 billion when they just had a $20 billion increase

less than a year ago. They point out that at the same time as defense is increasing substantially, all other discretionary spending is

being curtailed with a minimal increase only to cover accounting

change. They want to know how homeland defense, the protection

of the waterways and airports will be safeguarded within this

small increase in domestic spending. They find the disparity between defense and non-defense troubling.

Mr. Secretary, Dr. Zakheim, I will not be a party to shortchange

defense, but I think that you have your work cut out for you. It

will be up to you to convince our colleagues that your needs are

greater than those of other Federal agencies, the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI), the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, State

Department and others. They too must strive to better protect our

Nation from another terrorist attack and meet the challenges of

this century. Your task is particularly challenging as you have requested $10

billion for unknown contingency costs. Your critics call this a slush

fund. Any light you can shed on this will help us defend this request. Mr. Secretary, Dr. Zakheim, we look forward to your testimony on these and other important issues.

But before we proceed, it is my privilege to call upon my good

friend the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, and I apologize for

being late. I was in another subcommittee meeting before that vote.

I do join in welcoming these two witnesses.

I think no administration has faced in as short a period of time

the range of national security challenges that this one has faced in

this first year and I think it is really a change, substantial change

in our society. But I think that the men and women of our armed

services owe a great deal of gratitude to the two of you for your

hard work and your sacrifice in taking these positions, and I do

thank you for your extraordinary leadership in meeting these chal-
3

lenges and I’m sure that you are now and will become even more

trusted partners of this committee and our work for defense.

We have got both a blessing and a curse right now. The additional funds that we have before us now requested by the administration will go a long way to address the things that we know exist

in our Department of Defense, but it is going to increase the second

guessing that we will hear along the line about the choices to be

made in the budget and particularly between the budget for defense and non-defense, as the chairman has indicated. We constantly face questions of why there should be such an increase in

defense.

We worked with you last year to produce legislation to respond

to the attacks of September 11 and I know under the leadership

of Senator Inouye we will continue with a sense of determination

to meet the needs that you have outlined here today to assist our

men and women in uniform both home and abroad.

I joined the chairman and others last week in going to central

Asia and I have to tell you, we have traveled around the world to

meet with our military forces now for well over 30 years and I have

never seen young people so ready and so confident and so able,

they really had a tremendous attitude, the morale was very high,

and it reflects great credit upon the job that you all are doing and

those in the command structure are doing to reassure these young

people of what their task is and what their mission is.

I look forward to your testimony and an opportunity to work with

you as the year goes ahead. Let me say, I think there are going

to be some changes within the command structure that I still do

not understand, but we will watch, we will deal with those as they

unfold. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Hollings.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am

glad to meet Dr. Zakheim. I have been an admirer of Secretary

Wolfowitz for a long long time and incidentally, I am an admirer

of Rumsfeld and was so before he became popular. Last year there

was a news story that he would be the first in the Cabinet to leave.

I am not going to get into that but since the distinguished gentleman is ‘‘clueless in the Nation’s capital,’’ I guess that is the Governors that David Broder writes about, because they come to town

and they are worried, and they find almost a hedonistic government here in Washington.

Specifically, every one of them have deep deep deficits, there are

not any surpluses. The State just over here across the river is over

$1 billion, up in New York the State there is $48 billion, and the

City of New York, Senator Stevens and I were there, and on saving

the City of New York, that is $25 billion in the hole. There are at

least a half dozen States trying to not just cut spending but increase taxes. Governor Bush down in Florida, he is holding back,

withholding on a tax cut. But he is not calling it a tax increase.

When we try to hold the line and practice fiscal responsibility, they

said oh no, that is increasing taxes, and you cannot comment on

the reality in this town. The pollsters have taken over totally, Mr.

Chairman.
4

But the point is that we just seemingly go on and on in 1999 and

incidentally, the Clinton budget, I will have to check it, but he was

very sensitive about having ducked the military, it was a point in

his campaign and in fact it is an important point down in my State

still. But the fact was, he was not going to deny the military in his

8 years as President and Commander in Chief. And while we had

in 1999 the $275 billion, in 2000 we jumped it to $295 billion, and

last year we jumped it another $11 billion to $306 billion. Both the

year before last we had a pay increase, last year we had a pay increase, and there are increases that you are now submitting. But

that is not the point.

The point is that this aura of somehow defense had gone to pot

on President Clinton’s watch, yet the two distinguished gentlemen

and ranking members say the morale is high and everybody knows

they have performed admirably in Afghanistan, so we have a

strong defense. But last year sitting in that same seat, Secretary

Rumsfeld 6 days before 9/11 attested to the fact that he was going

to have a new high tech defense, which calls for the old systems

to be phased out and the savings were going to pay for the high

tech systems. He said it was going to cost more money, but he attested to the fact that the budget you are now here to testify on,

Secretary Wolfowitz, is $347 billion. He said the budget would be

$328 billion for this fiscal year, but the one you’re testifying about

this morning it was going to be $347 billion. Of course since that

time we have added $20 billion in the supplemental and we willingly did so, we wanted to show our troops our support.

And yet we find here today, that there is $50 billion more, like

he said, in a contingency fund. The Crusader, the V–22, the F–22—

every kind of piece of equipment imaginable. And then in this

year’s submission, the Navy is not going to start constructing

enough ships and everything else, yet there is a projected $650 billion as what we are going to have to approve this year for the 10-

year budget.

So I will be questioning trying to find out how in the world can

we maintain the credibility of this subcommittee, Mr. Secretary. I

will never forget Schwartzkopf coming up here after Desert Storm,

and he did not go to the authorizing committees at all, and he did

not go, he said I am coming to this Defense Subcommittee here in

the United States Senate because you saved my Central Command.

They were about to abolish it, and we saved that. You remember

that, Senator Stevens, Mr. Chairman, and we have always had it

on the other side, Chairman Inouye. On this subcommittee, we are

the ones that are going to provide resources to our Armed Forces.

So I welcome you, but we are going to have to have some cold

hard justifications—this town is going to sober up sometime this

year. We already ended up last year without a surplus and on the

contrary, a $43 billion deficit. As you sit in that chair we are already 4 months into this fiscal year, almost 5 months, $190 billion

in the red, we have a deficit, and we know it will exceed over $350

billion by the end of the year. And so the politicians that are running for reelection in October when those figures come out, they

will say that we are running a deficit of $350 billion because of Afghanistan, but that war did not cost that much. But of course when
5

we say we are not going to pay any bills, all the Governors are having to pay their bills.

We have always paid for our wars. We have to pay our taxes, so

that when this committee votes to pay for this war, we have resources to pay the bills. But we say by the way, since we have a

war we are going to have deficits and incidentally, the war is never

going to end. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Hutchison.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. I would just like to say that I think that the

Department of Defense has done a phenomenal job since September 11. Who would have thought that this would be the mission

that you would be undertaking. We thought you were going to be

required to update the military for the next century, and you are,

but you’re also dealing with the crisis of the moment, and I certainly appreciate the increase in needs this demands and we will

work with you in every way.

I do have a couple questions which I will save for later. I do want

to mention that the Department has always funded the research

for Gulf War illness, which I think has enormous implications for

the future as well as the past. We must not only make sure that

our people are treated right from previous service but also ensure

that we find the cause so that we can treat the people who will be

subjected to possible chemical warfare in the future. I do not see

enough in this year’s budget submission for this, so I would like to

just point that out and say that I hope that you will be amenable

to continuing that research for the cures and the potential vaccines

that we will need for our servicemembers who might be exposed to

chemical warfare in the field in the future.

I thank you and I will have a few questions later.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I didn’t start out quite where Senator Hollings is in his remarks, but I must tell you, I have come to have a very great appreciation for how the Department is being run, for the leadership of

the Secretary. For you, Mr. Wolfowitz, I have had occasion as you

know through the briefings and intelligence to follow this, and I

think you are doing a very impressive job and I just want to say

that.

Now I have some real concerns about this budget and I also want

to speak to this. I think my first concern is that perhaps the force

structure changes are not always attuned to this new warfare,

which is asymmetrical, which is probably going to be with us for

a long time, where there is going to be a great deal of difficulty in

sorting out combatants from noncombatants, and where the type of

warfare may not always be the same as it is in Afghanistan where

you have the ability for the Northern Alliance to do much of the

groundwork and we just use our technology in the air with great

success.

That if this war on terrorism is going to be sustained and no one

knows really what victory actually will be, that kind of privileged
6

position is not always going to be there, and so I have a concern

as to whether our force structure is really adequate to reflect this

kind of a war concept.

I also believe that because we are in this and we are in it for

a sustained period of time, we no longer have the relative luxury

to fund systems with questionable applicability, particularly related to the missile defense systems. I am very concerned about the

continued priority the Department is placing on the development of

a national missile defense program for which I can see little applicability in the war that we are actually going to be sustaining most

likely for the next decade, I hope not, but it is very likely that that

could be the fallout. And so I am concerned that the testing, the

cost, and strategic and arms control implications of the current

missile defense plan may well detract valuable resources, time and

attention from more pressing security needs. I am willing to support a judicious testing program, because I think it is important to

do so, but I have real questions about the administration’s development and deployment plan and I hope to ask about that in my

questions.

I also have concern about the fact that the Department is asking

for the 44 F–18s, the 12 C–17s, the joint strike fighter, the F–22,

all of these planes, and I wonder frankly if they are all necessary

and what the priority is if there is a priority. I mean, I know the

joint strike fighter is not going to come on line soon enough to provide the kind of interservicing we had hoped for, but nonetheless,

these are significant new requests.

So, the bottom line is I look forward to discussing that with you

and also this $10 billion fund that is there which concerns me because I have reread the resolution we passed to authorize the action, the military action against those who were responsible for 9/

11 or connected to 9/11. I recognize the word connected may also

authorize other things, but to put in really $10 billion seems to me,

significantly reduces the Congress’s opportunity to exercise the

purse strings as we are entitled to do.

So those areas of my concern and I just want to thank you for

the very good work that you and the Secretary have done up to this

point, and I look forward to having an opportunity to ask these

questions at the appropriate time. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Domenici.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

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

say it is good to have you here, and my comments are going to be

brief.

First, I want to say things have been going our way for a change.

This was a very difficult war to fight, and frankly I am very proud

of the way it has progressed, I commend the Department, the Secretary, those who have helped him such as yourself, and obviously

the President for his leadership. There is a long way to go however.

We have also been fortunate in that the recession that we were

all worried about may have already bottomed out. Economists are

now saying this may be the shallowest recession we have had in

modern days, and already the gross domestic product is moving
7

into a positive mode from having been only 2 or 3 months in the

mildest of recessionary numbers.

Our country was faced with both a recession and a war, and

there were a lot of people who wondered how long we could continue to fund our defense and other needs and have a recession. I

think we are going to have that question answered because I think

we are going to be out of the recession. From my standpoint the

question is, do you have a need for everything that you have asked

us for and if you do, then we ought to fund it. If there are some

things we can save money on, it does not mean we ought to give

you less, because obviously there are some things that should be

funded that are not. I think it is just as important that you tell

us, tell this committee, what you think would be helpful that did

not get funded because I believe that this is the time to send the

right signals and to get started with reference to science and technology. I am somewhat concerned with whether we are doing

enough in that area, Doctor, and I would like your comments in

terms of research, science and technology.

Actually we are living in an era when about every 10 years we

completely change technology as I understand it. My questions will

be directed in that area. I thank you once again; it is a pleasure

to serve on this committee, and I hope we will be able to do you

justice and do the Defense Department justice.

My thought, if nobody else raised it, and if they did I want to

lend my voice to it, is about the $10 billion that you seek in an

emergency fund that would not be appropriated for specific programs or items. I think that is new and unique, and I don’t know

how we can do that and how it sets itself into the budget. So I believe there has to be some discussion about that $10 billion which

you want us to give you the flexibility on; I am not sure that we

can do that. But I do share the basic underpinnings of that request;

you do need flexibility in fast moving times. You might need a reserve for flexibility, but I am not sure that we know how to do that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Dorgan.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Dr. Wolfowitz, thank you very much for what

you are doing, and Secretary Rumsfeld and the administration. I

think things are going very well and the Congress and the American people appreciate that. I along with some of my colleagues was

in central Asia some weeks ago, and I could not be more proud of

the men and women who are serving our country and I know that

they recognize your leadership and the support of the Congress in

that service.

Dr. Wolfowitz, I would like to call you at some point if you will

take my telephone call to visit about a couple issues. There is no

money in this budget to buy airplanes for the Air National Guard.

We have some of the best pilots flying the oldest planes on Block

15, the F–16s, and you know, we need to do something about that.

We talked to the previous administration about it as well, and we

need to do something to reconcile that issue.

I would also like to just mention in the area of defense microelectronics, there was an ad in the Post the other day to balance our
8

procurement for weapons with information. As all of us know, the

Department of Defense has trouble keeping up with advances in

commercial electronics and information systems. New generations

of microchips are being introduced in the commercial world roughly

once every 18 months and by the time DOD deploys a system, its

electronics are often several generations behind those being marketed in the commercial world. I hope that we can talk about the

defense microelectronics activity. Senator Stevens and I have done

some work in that area and I think it is an increasingly important

area that we recognize, especially in view of what is happening in

central Asia.

But again, let me—I know you came to testify and let me allow

you to do that. Thank you for being here and I hope we can pursue

a couple of these issues to help us address them.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Shelby.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that

my entire statement be made part of the record.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection.

Senator SHELBY. And other than that, I just want to welcome

Secretary Wolfowitz to the committee and I look forward to what

he was to say. But I also want to join the chorus of the committee

in commending not only Secretary Wolfowitz, but Secretary Rumsfeld, for the leadership that you have shown over at the Pentagon.

I want to say thank you on behalf of my constituents and I think

a lot of the American people.

[The statements follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

I want to applaud President Bush and our top defense officials for sending us an

fiscal year 2003 defense budget that I think all of us should be encouraged about.

While budget restraints necessitate that the push and pull continues for control of

limited dollars to fund competing requirements such as recapitalization and transformation, I do believe that things are looking up at the Department of Defense. The

past decade has been very difficult indeed. Without congressional action to add defense funding during those years, I would hate to see where the Department would

be now.

The Bush Administration’s $379 billion request signals a firm commitment to winning the war on terrorism and to building a force that, through transformation, will

become even more dominant across the full spectrum of military operations. After

September 11, when we look both internally and abroad and assess the threats we

face, it is increasingly clear that we must pass this defense budget and continue to

work aggressively to build our defensive and offensive capabilities in future years.

The devastating attacks in New York and against the Pentagon prove that we are

vulnerable. It is sobering to realize just how vulnerable we are to the myriad of possible attacks we could suffer at the hands of terrorists. While the United States was

the target of the attack on September 11, our allies are also vulnerable to attack.

I am increasingly concerned when I look across the Atlantic and assess the military

capabilities of our allies. I see our most important partners and friends whose militaries are falling further and further behind our own in funding and technology.

I also hear increasingly harsh rhetoric focused on the Administration’s prosecution of the war on terrorism and our willingness to act unilaterally. While we are

stronger with our allies standing beside us and contributing to this war on terrorism, I do not believe that we should let the coalition dictate our interests. I look

to the Bush Administration to explore the ‘‘capabilities gap’’ that exists and continue

to work closely with our allies to promote cooperation as we move to the next phase

of the war on terrorism.

I intend to do what I can to support and help President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz to win this war as well as rebuild our armed
9

forces and shape them for the future. These efforts will continue to require a lot

from our President and military officials. President Bush has provided outstanding

leadership in these efforts and continues to communicate in very clear and precise

terms with both the American people and with those abroad who would seek to do

us harm.

An honest budgetary assessment of the threats and the risks we face if we are

not prepared is represented in the fiscal year 2003 defense request before us. We

must invest in our men and women in uniform, in robust research and development

programs, in new and technologically superior weapons, in airlift and naval assets

that enable force projection, and in recapitalization of legacy systems that will form

the bridge to our future objective forces. Each service has needs and we should work

very hard to see that as many are met as possible.

We face a delicate balancing act—near and long term threats with limited dollars

to buy what we need across the services to modernize our military. The Bush Administration has presented us with an encouraging defense request of $379 billion

that is projected to grow by $400 billion over the next five years. The war we are

waging and the changes we seek to make within our military will take time and

will be expensive, but I am confident that we will be victorious on both fronts.

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

Senator INOUYE. The subcommittee has also received statements

from Senators Kohl and Cochran, which will be inserted into the

Record.

[The statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL

In his budget request the President proposes a massive increase in defense spend- ing for a nation at war. This budget calls for $379 billion in fiscal year 2003 defense

spending—a $48 billion increase—to fund pay raises, cover rising health care costs,

procure high tech weapons, and prosecute the on-going war on terrorism.

Especially during wartime, we are reminded of how much our security depends

upon maintaining a well trained and equipped fighting force. I am encouraged by

the investment this budget makes in our soldiers, providing a significant pay raise

and boosting the Base Housing Allowance to keep the benefits of military service

competitive with the private sector.

I am aware that a significant portion of the budget increase will go to funding

the increasing costs associated with providing health care to our soldiers, retirees,

and their families. General health care inflation and the new Tricare for Life program provide significant funding challenges, but we must keep our commitment to

providing first-class health care to our military personnel.

The events of September 11th and our on-going campaign in Afghanistan demonstrate the vital importance of transforming our nation’s military to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Our experience in Afghanistan has highlighted the critical role that intelligence, special forces, and high-tech, guided munitions play in

modern combat. But if we are to make a full investment in transforming our military into a more mobile force, then we must have the leadership to make tough

choices. In reviewing this budget, I am concerned that while it makes the right investments in developing and procuring the weapons of the future, it fails to make

the necessary cuts in legacy systems.

This funding boost is the largest in two decades and the major portion of an overall budget that will return us to deficit spending. While the on-going war calls for

increased spending, the DOD must redouble current efforts to improve business

practices to get the most out of our tax dollars.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming Secretaries Paul

Wolfowitz and Dov Zakheim here today. I look forward to working with them and

our Defense leadership to sustain and improve our current capabilities while our

military transforms strategies and platforms for the 21st century.

I am pleased that this year’s budget request attempts to address some of the concerns of this Subcommittee, including fighting and winning the war on terror, maintaining morale and readiness, transforming the military for the 21st century, improving Department of Defense management operations, as well as providing a significant development and deployment program for missile defenses. However, I am
10

troubled that some areas still fall short of the mark, particularly ship construction.

I understand that the Quadrennial Defense Review calls for a minimum floor of 310

hulls to support our maritime strategy. Further, Defense and Navy leadership have

stated a requirement for 340–375 ships while the current shipbuilding rate is decreasing. I am concerned by the continued downward trend in shipbuilding and its

potential negative impact on our Nation and our Navy’s ability to maintain a credible forward presence and perform required missions. Additionally, I am concerned

with the harm that the construction rate is having on our shipbuilding industrial

base and its ability to meet future requirements.

Full commitment should be given to development of the DD(X) program and its

family of destroyer, cruiser, and littoral ship platforms. It will provide the operating

efficiencies, stealth, and power projection that will enable us to prevail in future

conflicts with less impact to our sailors and Marines.

A renewed commitment should also be given to the Marine Corps-Navy team in

the amphibious arena. Modern strategy points to maneuvering and presence in the

littorals, yet the amphibious shipbuilding program reflects only five ships through

fiscal year 2007. I look forward to your testimony.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. I will now call upon Dr.

Wolfowitz.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it’s

an honor to appear before this committee. We are in the presence

of three decorated veterans from World War II, members of that

greatest generation, and I’m in the presence of a committee that

has been in the forefront of providing the resources that have enabled our servicemen and women to accomplish what they are

doing for this Nation’s security.

RESOURCES FOR THIS HISTORIC CHALLENGE

We do indeed face enormous challenges, in some ways not as big

perhaps in terms of the scale or the resources involved, but in

terms of the stakes involved, in some ways as big as that great

challenge of World War II. We are faced as we are always faced

with in wartime with these difficult issues of priorities, and Mr.

Chairman, you referred to that in your opening remarks and I’m

sure we will in the questions, but I think we all owe an enormous

debt, an enormous vote of thanks to what our military has been

able to accomplish already so far in this campaign.

If I had come to you in June and said we needed extra money

in order to be able to base forces in Kazakhstan, not only would

you not have believed me, I’m not sure I would have believed myself. I wouldn’t have even been able to tell you that that was in

Uzbekistan. We are now performing functions today that were in

no military plan as of September 11th, and we’re doing them I

think with great effectiveness.

And I believe, although one has to realize that there is still a

very long way to go, I think it’s unquestionable that the success so

far in that campaign has done a great deal to protect Americans

here at home. Secretary Rumsfeld has said no amount of defenses

and barriers and protective activities, and no amount of hunkering

down can protect us from every possible way the terrorists can attack. Therefore, while we have to take security measures and we’re

taking them on an enormous scale, and I might say not just in the

FBI or Customs, but also billions of dollars and tens of thousands

of people in the armed services are engaged in protecting our facilities here in the United States.
11

But by taking the war to the enemy and by doing it as effectively

as our men and women have been able to do, I believe has made

a significant contribution to the fact that so far, and I can only say

so far, that they haven’t struck again. It’s not that they’re not trying. We have the evidence of Mr. Reid, who nearly killed 150 people on a civilian airliner, who is clearly part of that same network.

We have intelligence every day that says they are still planning.

So there may be some downs as well as some ups, and I think

Senator Domenici said, it’s nice that things are going our way for

a change, and they are going our way for a change. Things may not

always be going our way. We’ve got to have the same kind of staying power for this conflict that your generation had in World War

II.

I think we can say thanks that we are able to accomplish this

campaign, this war, with a defense budget that even with this very

large increase, will be less than 3.5 percent of our Gross Domestic

Product (GDP). I don’t believe there is any time in history that I’m

aware of, certainly not in the history of the 20th century, when we

ever were able to go to war with that small a defense burden. I

hope it will stay at that level, but I think we should appreciate how

much is accomplished with a relatively small piece.

As we look at priorities, it’s not to shortchange any of the other

things that other agencies have to do for our security or related activities that the State Department does to make this campaign possible, but I do believe that the priority does need to be on all of

those activities conducted by government that can help make not

only our citizens today safer but to provide a free and safe future

for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Chairman, I have a much longer statement that I would like

to submit for the record, and if you will bear with me for maybe

10 minutes, I would like to just summarize the main points in it.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection.

ACCOMPLISHING SEVERAL MISSIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. We are in fact trying to do two major tasks at

the same time. We are trying to fight a war on terrorism. We are

also trying to prepare our forces for the conflicts that might come

a decade from now or even longer, and the defense forces of any

particular year are very much the product of investments that were

made a decade or two decades before. So even as we’re fighting this

war, we need to be certain that we’re doing everything we can to

make sure that our successors 10 or 20 years from now have those

capabilities they need to protect our country in the future.

When the Cold War ended, Mr. Chairman, we began a very substantial draw down of our defense forces and our budgets, which

was appropriate to do so. We cashed a large peace dividend, lowering the level of our defense burden by half of what it was at Cold

War peak. Much of that, as I said, was an appropriate adjustment

to the great improvement in our security that resulted from victory

in the Cold War. But ultimately, that draw down went too far.

While our commitments around the world stayed the same and

even grew in some cases, our country spent much of the 1990s living off of investments made in the Cold War instead of making new

investments to address the threats of this new century. As I dis-
12

cussed with this committee last year, even before September 11, we

faced the urgent need to replenish critical accounts. After September 11, we find ourselves facing the additional challenge of accomplishing three significant missions at the same time. We can

only accomplish those three missions, fighting the war on terror,

supporting our people, and selectively modernizing the forces we

have and transforming our Armed Forces for wars of the future,

with proper investments over a sustained period.

RISING COSTS AND MUST-PAY BILLS

And we have to accomplish these missions in an environment of

rising costs, particularly rising costs for the most critical element

of the force, our people. Indeed, if one wants to understand properly why we are here for such a large increase, a $48 billion increase, I think you need to understand that the 2003 budget addresses a variety of must-pay bills, and many of them are personnel accounts. It includes a $14.1 billion increase for retiree

health care and pay raises. If we don’t pay our people properly, we

risk jeopardizing that critical element of the force.

There are other bills such as realistically pricing the systems

that we buy and realistically costing our activities, that’s another

$7.4 billion. There is $6.7 billion to cover inflation, and $19.4 billion including the contingency fund, for the war on terror. Added

together, those bills come to $47.6 billion, which is why President

Bush sent to Congress a 2003 defense budget request of $379 billion, a $48 billion increase from the 2002 budget. And if you do

that arithmetic, Mr. Chairman, you can see that the only reason

we are able to have a considerable amount of money to invest in

new programs after paying all of those bills is because we have in

fact reallocated priorities, killed programs, and made hard choices

and smart choices.

NEW DIRECTIONS FROM THE QDR

The 2003 budget request was guided by the results of last year’s

strategy review and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Out

of the intense debate that led to those reviews, we reached agreement within the Department on the urgent need for real changes

on our defense strategy.

Among the new directions set in the QDR, I’ve highlighted three

as among the most important. First, we decided to move away from

the two major theater war force sizing construct to a new approach

that instead places greater emphasis on deterrence in four critical

theaters, backed by the ability to swiftly defeat two aggressors at

the same time while preserving the option for one rather than two

major offensives to occupy an aggressor’s capital and replace the

regime.

Second, to confront a world marked by surprise and substantial

uncertainty, we concluded that we needed to shift our planning

from the threat-based model that has guided our thinking in the

past to a capabilities-based model that is more appropriate for a future that is highly uncertain.

Third, that capabilities-based approach places great emphasis on

defining where we want to go with the transformation of our forces.
13

In the testimony that follows, I’m going to address where we are

putting dollars and resources behind that transformation. As Secretary Rumsfeld has said, transformation is about more than just

dollars, it’s about more than bombs and bullets and dollars and

cents, it’s about new approaches, it’s about culture, it’s about

mindset and ways of thinking of things. And that by the way, Mr.

Chairman, has been characteristic of major military transformations in the past, where frequently we have seen two adversaries, one of whom was equally equipped with the same new

equipment, but one of which understood the implications and the

organizational doctrine, the cultural changes required to use it effectively and the other didn’t.

Indeed, that is part of the reason why the British, many think

that is why the British and French lost the Battle of France in a

mere 4 weeks to an enemy that was no stronger in equipment accounts. In just the few months of the current campaign, we have

seen a great deal of that kind of change underway.

To mention just one example, not long ago I had the opportunity

to be briefed by an Air Force F–15 pilot who had been persuaded

to forego a rated pilot’s job to instead fly an unmanned Predator

aircraft from a location far from the field of battle. For a pilot destined for the cockpit, it was a difficult choice for her, yes, it was

a woman pilot, especially given concerns among pilots that such an

assignment could stymie their careers. There is no question that

unmanned vehicles have made a significant impact in the current

campaign, and promise even greater operational impacts in the future, which is why the Air Force leadership today is working hard

to encourage other such trailblazers to become Predator pilots and

help define a new concept of operations. So at this moment, what

it means to be a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force is undergoing

a transformation.

It’s also important to note that transformation doesn’t mean

transforming the entire force overnight. It begins with leveraging

the systems we have with new technology and new thinking, and

as we begin by changing only a small percentage of the force, we

can indeed change the capability of the entire force. That is our

aim, and by giving some definition to what transformation is and

putting money behind those ideas, we believe we have already energized the defense team in dramatic ways, but we can energize a

transformation that will be ongoing and exponential and provide

the right forces to our successors a decade from now.

In the QDR and the review that defined our investment priorities

in the 2003–2007 budget, we identified six key transformational

goals, and I would like to discuss how this budget addresses those

goals. I would note that the budget as a whole requests some $53.9

billion for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E).

That’s a $5.5 billion increase over fiscal year 2002. And it requests

$71.9 billion for procurement, that’s a $7.6 billion increase over fiscal year 2002. It funds 13 new transformational programs and accelerates funding for 22 more existing programs.

Out of that total investment of some $125, $126 billion in procurement and RDT&E, the transformation programs that I am

going to discuss in those six key categories account for roughly $21

billion, or 17 percent of our investment funding, rising to 22 per-
14

cent over the course of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

Let me discuss the details of that $21 billion into the six key categories as follows:

First, our highest transformational priority and identified as

such even before September 11 is protecting our bases of operation

and homeland defense. We know that both terrorists and state supporters of terrorism are actively looking to build or buy nuclear,

chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. We also know

that a number of hostile regimes, many of them by the way who

also support terrorism, are investing heavily in ballistic missile capabilities that threaten our allies and even to threaten the homeland of the United States. To meet our objective in making homeland defense the Department’s top priority, the President’s 2003

budget funds a number of programs, including not only a $7.8 billion request for our refocused and revitalized missile defense research and testing program, but it is also important to note that

the budget invests $10.5 billion for a variety of programs directly

addressed to combating terrorism. That’s almost double, in fact

slightly more than double the amount that we were investing in

that area just 2 years ago, and approximately $3 billion more that

we are budgeting for missile defense in fiscal year 2003. That is

due in very great measure to new priorities that we have to address in the wake of September 11, needs that range from the immediate necessities of hiring guards and building jersey barriers to

the long-term necessities of training first responders and refining

our intelligence response to the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Of that $18.3 billion I just identified, we consider some $8 billion

of that to be truly transformational. And I should note that in the

totals I’m giving you for transformational programs, we are applying a pretty tight definition to what we consider transformational.

Our second transformational goal from the QDR is denying enemies sanctuary. Again, this was identified as a high priority long

before September 11. It has obviously been a major capability we

have been using in this campaign. As we root out al Qaeda and

members of the Taliban, it is readily apparent how important it is

to be able to rob our enemies of places to hide and function.

The key to that is long-range precision strike and I would emphasize that long-range precision strike is not just about heavy

bombers. It’s also done with ground forces and most importantly,

it’s done most effectively when we can link ground and air assets

together. During my last tour at the Pentagon, Mr. Chairman, during the Persian Gulf War, where we worked so hard to try to stop

the Iraqi scud attacks on Israel, we had an almost total inability

to take advantage of what we had in the air and link it with the

brave people we put in on the ground. Obviously we have come a

long way in the last 10 years in what we’ve been able to do in Afghanistan, but we need to go much further.

As we have seen in the campaign in Afghanistan, Special Forces

mounted on horseback have used modern communications to direct

strikes from 50-year-old B–52s. When Secretary Rumsfeld was

asked why he was introducing the horse cavalry back into modern

war, he said it was all part of the transformation plan, and indeed

it is. Transformation isn’t just developing new systems, it’s also
15

about using old systems in new ways with new doctrines, new

types of organization, and new operational concepts.

The fiscal year 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to help us deny sanctuary to our enemies. It includes roughly $1 billion of increased spending on unmanned aerial vehicles. It

includes another billion dollars for conversion, to start the conversion of four Trident nuclear submarines from a Cold War nuclear

mission into stealthy, high endurance conventional strike submarines.

It’s important to note as I say, that we are applying a very strict

definition to which programs we consider transformational. As an

illustration, there are many things in this budget not included in

these figures. For example in this budget request, we’re asking for

nearly $2 billion, $1.7 billion precisely, for funding to increase production of the joint direct attack munitions and other precision

guided munitions which have proven critical to making transformation work.

With just that strict definition, the fiscal year 2003 budget re- quests $3.2 billion for transformational programs to support that

objective of denying sanctuary to our adversaries, and $16.9 billion

over the FYDP, an increase of 157 percent.

The third critical category is countering the very determined efforts of those who want to keep us out of their operating areas

through what we call anti-access strategies, by attacking our ships

at sea or denying us access to bases or attacking our bases. We see

both in what our adversaries say and what they do that they recognize that if they have to go head to head with American forces,

they will lose. If they can keep us from being able to operate in

their area, it’s their only chance. We have to be able to counter

that. Overall, the fiscal year 2003 budget requests $7.4 billion for

programs to support that goal of projecting power over vast distances, and $53 billion over the FYDP, an increase of 21 percent.

Our fourth key goal is leveraging information technology, the

technology that was key to linking horse cavalry and B–52s. In

that example, less than 20 minutes from the time a Non Commissioned Officer (NCO) on horseback entered key information into his

laptop, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) launched from a B–

52 miles away were dropping on enemy positions just a few hundred meters from that NCO, who was obviously a brave man, I

would point out. Clearly a key transformation goal is to leverage

advances in information technology to seamlessly connect United

States forces to insure that they see the same precise real-time picture of the battlefield.

The fiscal year 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to leverage information technology. One technology that

we’re investing in heavily which has very large future potential is

laser communications, a promising experimental that if successful

will give wide-band satellites the ability to pass data to each other

at speeds measured in gigabits per second, as opposed to megabits

per second, a significant and dramatic improvement.

I would note, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think you had to worry

about gigabits during World War II, but it’s impressive to see what

the young men and women, for example, at Fort Lewis in Washington, what they were able to do with computers. It’s almost sec-
16

ond nature to them, and one example that we got at that same Air

Force briefing I referred to, we were told about how the people netting these information gathering networks together are operating

in chat rooms, operating six chat rooms at a time. We don’t have

to teach them the chat room product, they come into the service already knowing this remarkable capability.

The fiscal year 2003 budget requests $2.5 billion for programs to

support this objective of leveraging information technology.

Our fifth objective as information warfare takes an increasingly

significant role in modern war is to be able to protect our information networks and to attack or cripple those of our adversaries.

Many of the programs in that area are classified, it is a new area,

it’s one that I think we have to work even harder. The fiscal year

2003 budget requests $174 million for programs to support that objective, an increase of 28 percent over the FYDP.

Finally, our sixth priority for transformation is space. Space is

the ultimate high ground. The fiscal year 2003 budget requests

about $200 million to strengthen space capabilities and $1.5 billion

over the FYDP, an increase of 145 percent.

As important as transformation is, Mr. Chairman, it is even

more important to take care of our people. They are the key, not

only to the future but also to the present. The men and women who

wear our Nation’s uniform are doing us proud. Military service by

its nature asks our service members to assume risks and sacrifices

that the rest of us do not. We should not ask those who put themselves in harm’s way to forego competitive pay or quality housing.

The President’s fiscal year 2003 budget requests $94 billion for

military pay and allowances, including $1.9 billion for an acrossthe-board 4.1 percent pay raise.

It also makes major advances in lowering out of pocket housing

costs for those living in private housing so that we will be able by

2005 to eliminate all out of pocket housing costs for our men and

women in uniform.

Just a word, Mr. Chairman, about cost savings. We understand

that we have a requirement to make the best possible use of the

very substantial resources that you and your colleagues and the

American taxpayers are providing us. We have taken a realistic approach in looking at a number of programs and found areas where

we can save money. We have proposed terminating a number of

programs over the next 5 years that were not in line with the new

defense strategy or were having program difficulties, including the

DD–21, the Navy Area Missile Defense, some 18 Army Legacy programs and the Peacekeeper Missile. We also accelerated retirement

of a number of aging and expensive to maintain capabilities such

as the F–14, DD–963 destroyers, and the Vietnam-era helicopters.

We are also proceeding toward our goal of 15 percent reduction

in headquarters staffing, and the Senior Executive Council is finding additional ways and will continue to find additional ways to

manage the Department more efficiently.

The budget as I mentioned at the beginning, reflects over $9 billion in redirected funds from acquisition program changes, management improvements and other initiatives, savings that help to fund

transformation and other pressing requirements.
17

Throughout this budget, Mr. Chairman, we were required to

make some tough trade-offs. We were not able to meet our objective

of lowering average age of tactical aircraft. However, we are investing in unmanned aircraft and in the F–22 and the joint strike

fighter, which require significant up-front investments, but will not

come on line for several years. While the budget proposes faster

growth in science and technology, we have not yet met our goal of

having 3 percent of the budget in that category. And we have not

been able to fund ship building at replacement rates in 2003. Although our ships are relatively new, we’ve got to change that

course or we will eventually find ourselves with a substantially reduced force.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, a budget of $379 billion is obviously a great deal of money, but it is misleading to compare this

budget to budgets of the Cold War or to the defense budgets of

other countries. We do not face other countries’ budgets on the battlefield; we fight their forces. The budget of the Taliban would have

been a tiny fraction of that of the United States. Yet, it has been

unquestionably important that we have had the capability to deploy forces thousands of miles away rapidly and effectively to an

unexpected theater of operations to defeat that force.

Our success thus far in meeting this challenge only confirms that

ours is the best military force in the world. We must have the best

military force in the world. We can’t afford to have less than that.

The New York comptroller’s office estimated the local economic

cost of the September 11 attacks on New York City alone will add

up to about $100 billion over the next 3 years. Estimates of the cost

to the national economy from September 11 range from about $170

billion last year and estimates range as high as almost $250 billion

a year in lost productivity, sales, jobs, airline revenue, and countless other areas. The cost of human lives and the pain and suffering of so many thousands of Americans is incalculable.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The President’s budget addresses our country’s need to fight the

war on terror, to support our men and women in uniform, and to

prepare for the challenges of the 21st century. This committee has

been and continues to be an important safeguard of the long-term

interests of our great nation, and I know you understand there is

nothing more important than preserving peace and security. We

look forward to working, continuing to work with this committee to

insure that peace and security is what we can leave to generations

to come. Thank you for your patience.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL WOLFOWITZ

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: This Committee has provided our

country great bipartisan support and strong leadership, and our relationship with

the Committee and its staff has been truly outstanding from beginning to end. I appreciate the opportunity to return to this committee to testify in support of the 2003

defense budget request. Since we met last summer, a great deal has changed, of

course. I look forward to addressing some of these changes with you.

One of the greatest—and gravest—changes was brought by September 11th—a

day that changed our nation forever. September 11th has taught us once again that
18

when it comes to America’s defense, we must spend what is necessary to protect our

freedom, our security and prosperity—not just for this generation, but to preserve

peace and security for our children and our grandchildren.

Today, we are engaged in the enormous task of fighting a global war on terrorism.

As difficult as it is to think about other challenges in the middle of waging this war,

it is essential that we think beyond our current effort if we are to face the security

challenges and conflicts that are certain to arise throughout this century.

The 2003 Defense Budget request is designed to address the President’s goals in

five key areas: (1) fighting and winning the war on terror; (2) defending the American people from a range of potential threats, from securing the homeland to defending against ballistic and cruise missiles; (3) restoring morale and readiness of the

Armed Forces; (4) transforming the force; and (5) managing the Defense Department

in a more business-like manner. Many elements of the budget address more than

one of these goals. However, my remarks today will focus largely on what we are

doing to transform the force, a critical area in which we need Congress’s help.

When the Cold War ended, the United States began a very substantial draw down

of our defense forces and our budgets. We cashed a large ‘‘peace dividend,’’ lowering

the level of our defense burden by half from the Cold War peak. Much of that was

an appropriate adjustment to the great improvement in our security that resulted

from the end of the Cold War. The draw down, however, ultimately went too far.

While our commitments around the world stayed the same and even grew in some

cases, our country spent much of the 1990s living off investments made during the

Cold War, instead of making new investments to address the threats of this new

century. As I discussed with this committee last year, even before September 11th,

we faced the urgent need to replenish critical accounts. After September 11th, we

find ourselves facing the additional challenges of accomplishing three significant

missions at the same time: First, to win the global war on terrorism; second, to restore capabilities by making investments in procurement, people and modernization;

and, third, to prepare for the future by accelerating the transformation for the 21st

Century.

It will be difficult and demanding to tackle all three of these missions at once,

but we must do it—and without delay. Even as we fight the war on terror, potential

adversaries study our methods and capabilities, and they plan for how they can take

advantage of what they perceive to be our weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Now is

precisely the moment we must begin to build forces that can frustrate those plans

and provide us with the capabilities we need to win the wars of the coming decades.

We can only accomplish the Defense Department’s three missions—fighting the

war on terrorism, supporting our people and selectively modernizing the forces we

have now, and transforming our Armed Forces for the wars of the future—with

proper investments over a sustained period. And we must accomplish these missions

in an environment of rising costs, particularly for that most critical element of the

force—our people. Comparisons have been drawn between this budget request and

those of the Cold War—but, it is important to consider that we simply could not

buy the quality of people that comprise today’s force, nor could we equip and train

them properly, at Cold War prices.

The 2003 budget addresses ‘‘must pay’’ bills such as retiree health care and pay

raises ($14.1 billion)—if we don’t pay our people properly, we risk losing this critical

element of the force; and there are other bills such as realistic costing ($7.4 billion);

inflation ($6.7 billion): and the war on terrorism ($19.4 billion). Added together,

these bills come to $47.6 billion. That is why President Bush sent to Congress a

2003 defense budget request of $379 billion—a $48 billion increase from the 2002

budget, and the largest increase since the early 1980s.

NEW DEFENSE STRATEGY

The 2003 budget request was guided by the results of last year’s strategy review

and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), both of which involved an unprecedented degree of debate and discussion among the Department’s most senior leaders. Out of this intense debate, we reached agreement on the urgent need for real

changes in our defense strategy.

I might add that our conclusions have not gone unnoticed. One foreign observer

reports that the QDR contains ‘‘the most profound implications’’ of the four major

defense reviews conducted since the end of the Cold War. What is most compelling

about this analysis is that it appears in a Chinese journal. That Chinese observer

thinks the QDR’s conclusions are important as a blueprint for where we go from

here—and we think so, too.
19

My statement today addresses how the President’s budget intends to meet this

blueprint, shaped by the needs of the environment we face today and the environment we could face in the decades to come.

Among the new directions set in the QDR, the following are among the most important:

First, we decided to move away from the two Major Theater War (MTW) force

sizing construct, which called for maintaining forces capable of marching on and occupying the capitals of two adversaries and changing their regimes—at the same

time. The new approach instead places greater emphasis on deterrence in four critical theaters, backed by the ability to swiftly defeat two aggressors at the same

time, while preserving the option for one major offensive to occupy an aggressor’s

capital and replace the regime. By removing the requirement to maintain a second

occupation force, we can free up resources for various lesser contingencies that

might face us and also be able to invest for the future.

Second, to confront a world marked by surprise and substantial uncertainty, we

agreed that we needed to shift our planning from the ‘‘threat-based’’ model that has

guided our thinking in the past to a ‘‘capabilities-based’’ model for the future. We

don’t know who may threaten us or when or where. But, we do have some sense

of what they may threaten us with and how. And we also have a sense of what capabilities can provide us important new advantages.

Third, this capabilities-based approach places great emphasis on defining where

we want to go with the transformation of our forces. Transformation, as Secretary

Rumsfeld has said, ‘‘is about an awful lot more than bombs and bullets and dollars

and cents; it’s about new approaches, it’s about culture, it’s about mindset and ways

of thinking of things.’’

Even in just the few months of the current campaign, we have seen a great deal

of that kind of change underway. To mention just one example, not long ago, an

Air Force F–15 pilot had to be persuaded to forego a rated pilot’s job to fly, instead,

an unmanned Predator aircraft from a location far from the field of battle. For a

pilot destined for the cockpit, it was a difficult choice for her—especially given concerns among some pilots that such an assignment could stymie their careers. But

there is no question that unmanned vehicles have made a significant impact in the

current campaign and promise even greater operational impacts in the future—

which is why the Air Force leadership is working hard to encourage other such trailblazers to become Predator pilots and help define a new concept of operations. So,

at this moment, what it means to be a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force is undergoing a transformation.

It is also important to note that transformation cannot mean transforming the entire force overnight. It begins with leveraging the systems we have with new technology and new thinking. As we begin by changing only a small percentage of the

force we can, in fact, change the capability of the entire force.

That is our aim. And by giving some definition to what transformation is and putting money behind these ideas, we can energize the Defense team in dramatic ways,

and energize a transformation that will be ongoing and exponential.

We identified six key transformational goals that define our highest priorities for

investments in the 2003–07 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). First, to protect

the U.S. homeland and forces overseas; second, to project and sustain power in distant theaters; third, to deny enemies sanctuary, or places where they can hide and

function; fourth, to protect information networks from attack; fifth, to use information technology to link up U.S. forces so they can fight jointly; and sixth, to maintain unhindered access to space—and protect U.S. space capabilities from enemy attack.

We reached these conclusions before September 11th, but our experiences since

then have validated many of those conclusions, and reinforced the importance of

continuing to move forward in these new directions. The 2003 budget request advances each of the six transformational goals by accelerating funding for the development of the transformational programs and by funding modernization programs

that support transformation goals.

The budget requests $53.9 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)—a $5.5 billion increase over fiscal year 2002. It requests $71.9 billion

for procurement—$68.7 billion in the procurement title—a $7.6 billion increase over

fiscal year 2002—and $3.2 billion in the Defense Emergency Response Fund. It

funds 13 new transformational programs, and accelerates funding for 22 more existing programs.

All together, transformation programs account for roughly $21.1 billion, or 17 percent, of investment funding (RDT&E and procurement) in the President’s 2003

budget request—rising to 22 percent over the five year FYDP. Let me discuss the

details of the $21.1 billion in each of the six categories that follow.
20

1. Protecting Bases of Operation/Homeland Defense

It is obvious today that our first goal, protecting our bases of operation and homeland defense, is an urgent priority—especially since we know that both terrorists

and state—supporters of terrorism are actively looking to build or buy nuclear,

chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

To meet our objective of making homeland defense the Department’s top priority,

the President’s 2003 budget funds a number of programs. These include:

—$300 million to create a Biological Defense Homeland Security Support Program

to improve U.S. capabilities to detect and respond to biological attack against

the American people and our deployed forces.

—$7.8 billion for a refocused and revitalized missile defense research and testing

program that will explore a wide range of potential technologies that will be unconstrained by the ABM Treaty after June 2002, including:

—$623 million for the Patriot PAC III to protect our ground forces from cruise

missile and tactical ballistic missile attack.

—$3.5 million for the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser that can be used by

U.S. ground forces to destroy enemy rockets, cruise missiles, artillery and

mortar munitions.

—$598 million for the Airborne Laser (ABL), a speed of light ‘‘directed energy’’

weapon to attack enemy ballistic missiles in the boost-phase of flight—deterring an adversary’s use of WMD since debris would likely land on their own

territory.

—$534 million for an expanded test-bed for testing missile intercepts;

—$797 million for sea, air and space-based systems to defeat missiles during

their boost phase;

It is important to note that the budget invests $10.5 billion for combating terrorism programs, which is $5.1 billion more than we were investing in that area

just two years ago and approximately $3 billion more than we have budgeted on

missile defense in 2003. That is due, in very great measure, to new priorities we

must address in the wake of September 11th—needs that range from the immediate

necessities of hiring guards and building jersey barriers to the long-term necessities

of training first responders and refining our intelligence response to the on-going

threat of terrorism. But, our commitment to missile defense remains as strong as

ever—especially in the wake of 9/11, which is just a pale shadow of what adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction could do.

The budget invests $8 billion to support defense of the U.S. homeland and forces

abroad—$45.8 billion over the five year Future Years Defense Plan (2003–07), an

increase of 47 percent from the previous FYDP. In addition, the budget funds combat air patrols over major U.S. cities ($1.2 billion) and other requirements related

to this transformation goal.

2. Denying Enemies Sanctuary

The President’s budget funds a number of programs to ensure adversaries know

that if they attack, they will not be able to escape the reaches of the United States.

As we root out al Qaeda and members of the Taliban, it is readily apparent how

important it is to rob our enemies of places to hide and function—whether it be in

caves, in cities, or on the run.

Key to denying sanctuary is the development of new capabilities for long-range

precision strike, which is not just about heavy bombers, but about linking ground

and air assets together, including unmanned capabilities. It also includes the ability

to insert deployable ground forces into denied areas and allow them to network with

our long-range precision-strike assets.

This is something we have seen in the campaign in Afghanistan. Our Special

Forces, mounted on horseback, have used modern communications to communicate

with and direct strikes from 50-year-old B–52s. Introducing the horse cavalry back

into modern war, as Secretary Rumsfeld has said, ‘‘was all part of the transformation plan.’’ And it is. Transformation isn’t always about new systems, but

using old systems in new ways with new doctrines, new types of organization, new

operational concepts.

The President’s 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to help us

meet our objective of denying sanctuary to enemies. They include:

—$141 million to accelerate development of UAVs with new combat capabilities.

—$629 million for Global Hawk, a high-altitude unmanned vehicle that provides

reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting information. We will procure three

Air Force Global Hawks in 2003, and accelerate improvements such as electronics upgrades and improved sensors, and begin development of a maritime

version.
21

—$91 million for the Space-Based Radar, which will take a range of reconnaissance and targeting missions now performed by aircraft and move them to

space, removing the risk to lives and the need for over-flight clearance;

—$54 million for development of a small diameter bomb, a much smaller, lighter

weapon that will allow fighters and bombers to carry more ordnance and thus

provide more kills per sortie;

—$1 billion for conversion of four Trident nuclear submarines into stealthy, high

endurance SSGN Strike Submarines that can each carry over 150 Tomahawk

cruise missiles and up to 66 Special Operations Forces into denied areas;

—$30 million for advanced energetic materials and new earth penetrator weapons

to attack hardened and deeply buried targets;

—$961 million for the DD(X), which replaces the cancelled DD–21 destroyer program and could become the basis of a family of 21st Century surface combat

ships built around revolutionary stealth, propulsion, and manning technologies.

Initial construction of the first DD(X) ship is expected in fiscal year 2005.

It is important to note that we have applied a very strict definition to which programs we include in these totals as transformational. Many things that enable

transformation are not included in these figures. For example, the $1.7 billion in

this budget for funding for the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and other

precision guided munitions are, in fact, critical to making transformation work, but

are not part of the total I have mentioned here.

With that strict definition, the 2003 budget requests $3.2 billion for transformational programs to support our objective of denying sanctuary to America’s adversaries, and $16.9 billion over the five year FYDP (2003–07)—an increase of 157

percent.

3. Projecting Power in Anti-access Areas

A third critical category is countering the very determined efforts of those who

want to keep us out of their operating areas through what we call anti-access strategies, by attacking our ships at sea or denying us access to bases or attacking our

bases.

Projecting and sustaining power in anti-access environments has been a necessity

in the current campaign; circumstances forced us to operate from very great distances.

In many other cases, U.S. forces depend on vulnerable foreign bases to operate—

creating incentives for adversaries to develop ‘‘access denial’’ capabilities to keep us

out of their neighborhoods.

We must, therefore, reduce our dependence on predictable and vulnerable base

structure, by exploiting a number of technologies that include longer-range aircraft,

unmanned aerial vehicles, and stealthy platforms, as well as reducing the amount

of logistical support needed by our ground forces so we can deploy them rapidly in

an agile, flexible way.

The President’s 2003 budget includes increased funds for a number of programs

designed to help us project power in ‘‘denied’’ areas. These include:

—$630 million for an expanded, upgraded military GPS that can help U.S. forces

pinpoint their position—and the location of their targets—with unprecedented

accuracy.

—$5 million for research in support of the Future Maritime Preposition Force of

new, innovative ships that can receive flown-in personnel and off-load equipment at sea, and support rapid reinforcement of conventional combat operations. Construction of the first ship is planned for fiscal year 2007.

—$83 million for the development of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles that can

clear sea mines and operate without detection in denied areas.

—About $500 million for the Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL) Joint Strike

Fighter that does not require large-deck aircraft carriers or full-length runways

to takeoff and land.

—$812 million for 332 Interim Armored Vehicles—protected, highly mobile and lethal transport for light infantry—enough for one of the Army’s transformational

Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT). The fiscal year 2003–2007 FYDP funds

six IBCTs at about $1.5 billion each.

—$707 million for the Army’s Future Combat System—a family of advanced-technology fighting vehicles that will give future ground forces unmatched battlefield awareness and lethality.

—$88 million for new Hypervelocity Missiles that are lighter and smaller (4 feet

long and less than 50 pounds) and will give lightly armored forces the lethality

that only heavy armored forces have today.
22

The 2003 budget requests $7.4 billion for programs to support our goal of projecting power over vast distances, and $53 billion over the five year FYDP (2003–

07)—an increase of 21 percent.

4. Leveraging Information Technology

A fourth important goal is leveraging information technology. Information technology was the key to linking the horse cavalry with B–52s in my earlier example.

In less than 20 minutes from the time an NCO on horseback entered key information into his laptop, JDAMs launched from a B–52 miles away were dropping on

enemy positions—within just a few hundred meters of the NCO. Clearly, a key

transformation goal is to leverage advances in information technology to seamlessly

connect U.S. forces—in the air, at sea and on the ground so they can communicate

with each other, instantaneously share information about their location (and the location of the enemy), and all see the same, precise, real-time picture of the battlefield.

The President’s 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to leverage information technology. These include:

—$172 million to continue development of the Joint Tactical Radio System, a program to give our services a common multi-purpose radio system so they can

communicate with each other by voice and with data;

—$150 million for the ‘‘Link-16’’ Tactical Data Link, a jam-resistant, high-capacity, secure digital communications system that will link tactical commanders to

shooters in the air, on the ground, and at sea—providing near real-time data;

—$29 million for Horizontal Battlefield Digitization that will help give our forces

a common operational picture of the battlefield;

—$61 million for the Warfighter Information Network (WIN–T), the radio-electronic equivalent of the World Wide Web to provide secure networking capabilities to connect everyone from the boots on the ground to the commanders;

—$77 million for the ‘‘Land Warrior’’ and soldier modernization program to integrate the small arms carried by our soldiers with high-tech communications,

sensors and other equipment to give new lethality to the forces on the ground;

—$40 million for Deployable Joint Command and Control—a program for new

land- and sea-based joint command and control centers that can be easily relocated as tactical situations require.

One technology that we are investing in, which has very large potential implications, is laser communications, a promising, experimental technology that, if successful, would give wide-band satellites the ability to pass data to each other at

speeds measured in gigabits per second as opposed to megabits per second—a significant and dramatic improvement.

The 2003 budget requests $2.5 billion for programs to support this objective of

leveraging information technology, and $18.6 billion over the five year FYDP (2003–

07)—an increase of 125 percent.

5. Conducting Effective Information Operations

As information warfare takes an increasingly significant role in modern war, our

ability to protect our information networks and to attack and cripple those of our

adversaries will be critical.

Many of the programs supporting this objective are classified. But the President’s

2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to provide unparalleled advantages in information warfare, such as $136.5 million for the Automated Intelligence,

Surveillance and Reconnaissance System, a joint ground system that provides nextgeneration intelligence tasking, processing, exploitation and reporting capabilities.

The 2003 budget requests $174 million for programs to support this objective—

$773 million over the five-year FYDP (2003–07)—an increase of 28 percent.

6. Strengthening Space Operations

Space is the ultimate ‘‘high ground.’’ One of our top transformational goals is to

harness the United States’ advantages in space where we can see what adversaries

are doing around the world and around the clock. As we move operations to space,

we must also ensure the survivability of our space systems.

The President’s 2003 budget includes funds for a number of programs designed

to provide unmatched space capabilities and defenses. These include:

—$88 million for Space Control Systems that enhance U.S. ground based surveillance radar capabilities and, over time, move those surveillance capabilities into

space;

—$103.1 million for Directed Energy Technology to deny use of enemy electronic

equipment with no collateral damage, to provide space control, and to pinpoint

battlefield targets for destruction.
23

The 2003 budget requests about $200 million to strengthen space capabilities—

$1.5 billion over the five-year FYDP (2003–07)—an increase of 145 percent.

Of course, we cannot transform the entire military in one year, or even in a decade—nor would it be wise to try to do so. Rather, we intend to transform a percentage of the force, the leading edge of change that will, over time, lead the rest of

the force into the 21st Century. As Secretary Rumsfeld has emphasized, ‘‘transformation is not an event—it is an ongoing process.’’

PEOPLE/MILITARY PERSONNEL

While we transform for the future, we must take care of our most valuable resource: the men and women who wear our nation’s uniform. Military service by its

nature asks our service members to assume certain risks and sacrifices. But, we

should not ask those who put themselves in harm’s way to forego competitive pay

and quality housing.

The President’s 2003 budget requests $94.3 billion for military pay and allowances, including $1.9 billion for an across-the-board 4.1 percent percent pay raise.

The budget 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 costs for

those living in private housing from 11.3 percent today to 7.5 percent in 2003—putting us on track to eliminate all out of pocket housing costs for the men and women

in uniform by 2005. This represents a significant change—before 2001, out-of-pocket

costs were 18.8 percent.

We stand by our goal of reducing the replacement rate for DOD facilities from

the current and unacceptable 121 years, to a rate of 67 years (which is closer to

the commercial standard). We have dedicated some $20 billion over the 2003–07

FYDP to this end. But most of those investments have been delayed until the outyears, when BRAC is finally implemented and we will know which facilities will be

closed.

The budget also includes $10 billion for education, training, and recruiting, and

$22.8 billion to cover the most realistic cost estimates of military healthcare.

COST SAVINGS

We have taken a realistic approach in looking at a number of programs, and have

found areas where we can save some money. We have proposed terminating a number of programs over the next five years that were not in line with the new defense

strategy, or were having program difficulties. These include the DD–21, Navy Area

Missile Defense, 18 Army Legacy programs, and the Peacekeeper Missile. We also

accelerated retirement of a number of aging and expensive to maintain capabilities,

such as the F–14, DD–963 destroyers, and 1,000 Vietnam-era helicopters.

We have focused modernization efforts on programs that support transformation.

We restructured certain programs that were not meeting hurdles, such as the V–

22 Osprey, Comanche, and SBIRS programs. Regarding the V–22, the production

rate has been slowed while attention is focused on correcting the serious technical

problems identified by the blue ribbon panel and a rigorous flight test program is

to be conducted to determine whether it is safe and reliable. The restructured programs reflect cost estimates and delivery dates that should be more realistic.

We are working to generate savings and efficiency in other programs as well. For

example, today, the B–1 bomber cannot operate effectively in combat environment

where there is a serious anti-aircraft threat. So the Air Force is reducing the B–

1 bomber fleet by about one-third, and using the savings to modernize the remaining aircraft with new precision weapons, self-protection systems, and reliability upgrades that will make the B–1 suitable for future conflicts. This should add some

$1.5 billion of advanced combat capability to today’s aging B–1 fleet over the next

five years—without requiring additional dollars from the taxpayers. These are the

kinds of tradeoffs we are encouraging throughout the Department.

We are also proceeding toward our goal of a 15 percent reduction in headquarters

staffing, and the Senior Executive Council is finding additional ways to manage

DOD more efficiently.

The budget reflects over $9 billion in redirected funds from acquisition program

changes, management improvements, and other initiatives—savings that help to

fund transformation and other pressing requirements.

Currently, to fight the war on terrorism and fulfill the many emergency homeland

defense responsibilities, we have had to call up over 70,000 guard and reserves. Our

long term goal, however, is to refocus our country’s forces, tighten up on the use

of military manpower for non-military purposes and examine critically the activities
24

that the U.S. military is currently engaged in to identify those that are no longer

needed.

The Secretary of Defense and the Defense Department have made one of the highest reform priorities to put our financial house in order. This represents a significant undertaking: managing DOD might be compared to managing several Fortune

500 companies combined. We have launched an aggressive effort to modernize and

transform our financial and non-financial management systems—to include substantial standardization, robust controls, clear identification of costs, and reliable information for decision makers. Especially key is the creation of an architecture that

will integrate the more than 674 different financial and non-financial systems that

we have identified.

Congress’s decision to put off base closure for two more years means that the Department will have to continue supporting between 20–25 percent more infrastructure than needed to support the force. The decision to hold up the process another

two years will be a costly one for taxpayers. Additionally, because of the post-September 11th force protection requirements, DOD is forced to protect 25 percent more

bases than we need.

The two-year delay in base closure should not be taken as an opportunity to try

to ‘‘BRAC-proof’’ certain bases and facilities. Earmarks directing infrastructure

spending on facilities that the taxpayers of America don’t need and that eventually

could be closed would be compounding the waste that the delay in BRAC is already

causing.

TRADEOFFS

Throughout this budget process, we were required to make some tough tradeoffs.

—We were not able to meet our objective of lowering average age of tactical aircraft. However, we are investing in unmanned aircraft, and in the F–22 and

JSF, which require significant upfront investments, but will not come on line

for several years.

—While the budget proposes faster growth in Science and Technology (S&T), we

were not able to meet our goal of 3 percent of the budget.

—And we have not been able to fund shipbuilding at replacement rates in 2003—

which means we remain on a downward course that, if not unchecked, could reduce the size of the Navy to a clearly unacceptable level in the decades ahead.

To sustain the Navy at acceptable levels, the United States needs to build eight

or nine ships annually. The proposed Future Years Defense Program budgets

for procurement of 5 ships in fiscal year 2004, 7 ships in 2005, 7 ships in 2006

and 10 ships in 2007.

CONCLUSION

A budget of $379 billion represents a great deal of money. But, it is misleading

to compare this budget to budgets of the Cold War or to the defense budgets of other

countries. We do not face other countries’ budgets on the battlefield; we fight their

forces. The budget of the Taliban would have been a small fraction of that of the

United States. Yet, it has been unquestionably important that we have had the capability to deploy forces rapidly and effectively to an unexpected theater of operations. Our success thus far in meeting this challenge only confirms that ours is the

world’s best military force. We need the world’s best military force. We can’t afford

to have less than that.

The New York City comptroller’s office estimated the local economic cost of the

September 11th attacks on New York City alone will add up to about $100 billion

over the next three years. Estimates of the cost to the national economy range from

about $170 billion last year—and estimates range as high as almost $250 billion a

year in lost productivity, sales, jobs, airline revenue, and countless other areas. The

cost in human lives, and the pain and suffering of so many thousands of Americans

who lost loved ones that day, is incalculable.

The President’s budget address our country’s need to fight the war on terror, to

support our men and women in uniform and modernize the forces we have, and to

prepare for the challenges of the 21st Century. This Committee is an important

safeguard of the long-term interests of our great nation, and well understands that

there is nothing more important than preserving peace and security. We look forward to working with this Committee to ensure that peace and security is what we

can leave to generations to come.
25

STRAINS ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Because

of the constraints of time, may I request that the questioning period be limited to 10 minutes per member.

Six days ago, Senator Stevens and I had the privilege of visiting

our troops in Uzbekistan and Pakistan and Afghanistan. As the

vice chairman pointed out, we were not just impressed but amazed

at the high level of morale. However, the personnel tempo which

is now being driven by the war on terrorism and the pace of deployments, I believe is putting a significant strain on our personnel and

their families.

So my question is, are our current end strength levels adequate

to meet the U.S. military commitments at home and around the

world? And secondly, have the events of 9/11 impacted the Department’s ability to recruit and retain military personnel?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Let me answer the second part of the question

first and the answer is, we seem to be doing very well on retention

and recruitment. The willingness of Americans to come forward

and serve their country and the willingness of reservists to serve

on active duty is remarkable and heart warming.

You are, I think, correct in identifying the fact that we are pushing our forces hard. In addition to what you have mentioned we

have, and I would like to get the exact number for the record, but

well over 80,000 people now called to active duty, many of them on

homeland security missions. Indeed, during the time of the Olympics in Utah, we had more people on active duty in the State of

Utah than we had on active duty in Afghanistan.

We can’t keep calling people back to reserve duty and expect

them to stay in the reserves, that isn’t quite what they had in mind

when they joined. So we are looking very hard at what our longterm personnel requirements will be. But Secretary Rumsfeld has

been pressing people to not simply say we need extra people to do

all these extra tasks, but also to identify where perhaps there are

things that we don’t need to do, so we can reduce that strain not

by adding people but by reducing some unnecessary missions.

As you may know, we had been trying long before September 11

to get our 2,000 or so people out of the Sinai where in our view

at least, the military mission is no longer needed. For reasons I

cannot understand, we are told that politically it’s not a very good

time. That’s the kind of example of what we run into when we try

to find ways to reduce those burdens. But we would like to try to

manage, if we can, without increasing end strength, but we can’t

do that on the backs of the men and women in uniform, or even

worse, the backs of their families.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, nothing will send somebody out of

the service faster than being sent away on a deployment or an unaccompanied tour, leaving his family at home for intolerable periods of time.

[The information follows:]

ARNG USAR ANG USAFR USNR MCR USCGR TOTAL

NOBLE EAGLE ........................................... 10,826 6,103 15,966 6,082 7,859 4,047 1,566 52,449

ENDURING FREEDOM ................................ 7,232 7,680 7,562 8,189 636 117 ............ 31,416
26

ARNG USAR ANG USAFR USNR MCR USCGR TOTAL

TOTAL .......................................... 18,058 13,783 23,528 14,271 8,495 4,164 1,566 83,865

NOTE: Numbers are as of June 6, 2002.

Summary

National Guard (Air and Army):

Homeland Security (Noble Eagle) ................................................................. 26,792

Enduring Freedom .......................................................................................... 14,794

Reserves (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, & Coast Guard):

Homeland Security (Noble Eagle) ................................................................. 25,657

Enduring Freedom .......................................................................................... 16,622

Senator INOUYE. It is true that the retention and recruiting in

general will be acceptable, but I am certain you have some shortfalls in certain areas like pilots and nurses. Have you provided any

incentives to recruit or retain men and women in those categories?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Let me try to get a more detailed answer for the

record. I have been given the impression that we’re doing quite

well on the recruiting side and that we haven’t needed extra incentives. Where we are not doing so well is, we had to put stop loss

orders in for a lot of military specialties. I don’t think it’s a recruiting problem, I think it’s that we can’t train up the number of people you need fast enough to meet the needs, and that is a real issue

and one we have to address, because keeping people in the service

when they have made other plans is again, not the way we want

to treat our people if we can avoid it.

[The information follows:]

The Critical Skills Accession Bonus (CSAB), enacted into law in 2002, authorizes

the Secretary concerned to pay up to $60,000 in lump sum or installments, to new

officers who accept a commission and serve on active duty in a designated critical

skill for a specified period of time. Services are drafting proposals to use this authority in 2003 to enhance their nurse accessions.

The Department accesses sufficient numbers of pilots; our challenge is retaining

them. We continue to monitor our pilot shortage and offer the Aviation Continuation

Pay (ACP). Continued utilization of the enhanced aviation continuation pay program

resulted in a substantial increase in additional years of committed service from pilots and aviators throughout the Department enabling the Services to man aircraft

cockpits. Continued use of the ACP will enhance our ability to retain these critical

assets.

The Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB), enacted in 2001, incentivizes the retention of officers with selected critical skills. The Air Force 2003 program includes

Developmental Engineers, Scientific/Research Specialists, Acquisition Program Managers, Communication/Information Systems Officers and Civil Engineers; the Navy

proposal offers the CSRB to Surface Warfare and Submarine Support Officers. No

Service has proposed using this authority to retain nurses, but the health communities are evaluating the use of this authority to target their critical health profession skills.

Enlisted retention programs rely primarily on the Selected Reenlistment Bonus

(SRB). The SRB is intended to encourage the reenlistment of sufficient numbers of

qualified enlisted personnel in critical military specialties with high training costs

or demonstrated retention shortfalls. Services periodically review the skills eligible

for the SRB against the criteria and adjust their programs accordingly.

THE $10 BILLION CONTINGENCY REQUEST

Senator INOUYE. And now the $10 billion question. How do you

respond to the critics of this request?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. First of all, it’s absurd to call it as some do, a

slush fund. The purpose of this request is very clear. It is to continue the kind of operations we are conducting today, and basically
27

at the level we are at today. One of your colleagues earlier referred

to this as a new and unique request. It isn’t actually new or

unique. It is pretty much exactly part of what we came to the Congress for last fall; in fact, it is less. We came to you with a request

for a $10 billion fund that could be used for any purposes in the

war on terror and another $10 billion that could be used with a 15-

day notification, and another $20 billion that might be required.

You might think of this as the front end of the $20 billion request

we had, and I think it’s the only prudent way where we expect to

meet the need to continue to conduct operations, at least something

like this level.

For those who were concerned that this was some kind of writing

a blank check to some unlimited expansion of the war, this has

been shown that this isn’t going to fund anything much more than

roughly the level of activity we are at for approximately 5 months

into fiscal year 2003. We don’t know what we’re going to need in

fiscal year 2003. I suppose it’s possible that we will be able miraculously to say we don’t need to conduct military operations at that

level. It’s equally possible and maybe more likely that we will find

that in many ways our expenses and burdens are rising.

It seems to me the only prudent thing to do, especially when

thinking about allocating resources for the next fiscal year, is to assume that at least a $10 billion amount is necessary and we ought

to have that available going into the year and not have to come

with a supplemental on October 1, which is where we would be if

this money were not appropriated.

Senator INOUYE. Since I am from the Pacific, I am certain you

understand my special concern for the Navy, and I have been concerned about the ship building program because it continues to be

plagued with cost overruns and delays. In the fiscal year 2003

budget request, there is $645 million to complete prior-year ship

building programs. This is on top of the $729 million provided for

the same purpose. What is your plan to address these issues and

getting the ship building program back on track?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I am going to ask Dr. Zakheim to add some

more detail here, but you are correct in identifying the fact that we

have some problems in how ship building is going, and while we

would like to see our ship building at a higher level in this budget,

the leadership of the Navy after a lot of careful thought decided it

was a much higher priority to get the readiness accounts up to improve the operation, the care of the present force. And they do have

the advantage that, as I mentioned earlier, our current fleet is relatively new, I think the average age is about 16 years. And while

we’re not building at replacement rates, we don’t have to be quite

at replacement rates yet. Even if we were to put more money into

ship building this year, we’re not so sure we would be putting it

into the right programs, partly because of some of the problems

that you have identified.

Dov, do you want to add to that?

Dr. ZAKHEIM. Only to say that the way the Navy approached its

overall budget was to fully fund readiness, and in the past as you

know, Mr. Chairman, what has often been the case is that readiness programs were underfunded and funds migrated from procurement accounts to the readiness accounts, so that the ships that are
28

in the budget, and one could I think make a reasonable argument

that the two ballistic missile carrying submarines (SSBNs) count

as part of ship building, but those five plus two are likely to be protected in a way that previous ship building budgets have not.

We went back to restricted funding, the priority of funding 5-year

contracts, and we feel reasonably certain about this budget and

about the rest of the 5-year ship building program, where we will

have up to 10 or so ships by 2007.

OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INFLUENCE

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Just for the record, the Office of

Strategic Influence is now out of business?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. That’s correct. It was never in the business of

producing disinformation or misleading people, I would like to

make that clear. That is not our business and I think quite fundamentally, we understand as I think the whole country and the

rest of the government understands that truth is on our side in this

war and truth is one of the more important aspects, and we would

not want to do things in any way to diminish our goal to deliver

the truth by allowing people to think that we are doing something

else.

FISCAL YEAR 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

Senator INOUYE. We have been told that you may have a supplemental request submitted by the end of April, but it does not appear to be that that will be done. What is the status now?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I’m very hesitant to predict how long it takes

things sometimes to get out of the executive branch. There is an

urgency to get a supplemental request up here because we are

starting fairly soon to run out of the supplemental appropriation

that you passed last fall, and it would be unfortunate if we end up

back in the situation that we have been in so often before where

we are dipping into a future account in order to cover expenses and

the expectation that we will get reimbursed from a supplemental.

We are trying to work it as fast as we can and our colleagues at

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are working hard

with us, and we will just try to get it here as quickly as possible.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you. My time is up. Senator Stevens.

C–17 FUNDING

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Secretary Wolfowitz, we

have followed the C–17 for years. At one time all three of the other

defense committees or subcommittees had opposed the C–17 and it

still proceeded. We still have an overwhelming support for that system. As a matter of fact, the availability of that aircraft is a limiting factor on our ability to redeploy our forces today.

This budget request reduces the procurement rate by 20 percent

to 12 aircraft in 2003, but it does not decrease the overall buy. And

so my question to you is one, why did you do this? And two, what

will be the additional cost in the procurement if we follow your request?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. My understanding is that first of all, I agree

with you strongly about the importance of the C–17 and applaud
29

you and others who made sure this program survived, and we have

the benefit of it today. My understanding is that the 12 aircraft

budgeted for in 2003 will be combined with the previous multiyear

purchase to maintain the economical production rate of the plant

during fiscal year 2004, where the rate is 15, and that our followon multiyear procurement will sustain the C–17 production profile

at that rate through fiscal year 2007. So that, I am told that this

profile results in the same total costs and the same delivery schedule but to revert to a traditional multiyear at this point would require an additional $650 million in 2003 appropriations without accelerating the delivery schedule. So I think, as I understand it, it’s

a matter of trying to match up the year by year funding with the

actual production capability but not to add anything to the cost of

production.

Senator STEVENS. I would request that you give us the detail for

the record. Last year we were told the most efficient and cost effective rate of production was 15 a year, and we authorized that and

we funded it at that level. Now it’s going down to 12 and you’re

telling us that somehow or another, that that 12 next year will continue the rate of 15 this year. I have serious questions about that

and I hope you will give us some details of that analysis for the

record.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I would like to see them myself, Senator, and

will get them to you.

[The information follows:]

The C–17 Multiyear Procurement (MYP) is structured so that Boeing maintains

their most efficient and cost effective rate of production at 15 aircraft a year. While

the budget indicates that only 12 aircraft are being procured in fiscal year 2003,

the use of advance procurement funding for long-lead components, parts, and materials, and some fabrication and assembly, allows the contractor to maintain the optimum production rate and delivery of 15 aircraft per year.

MISSILE DEFENSE TEST FACILITY AND X-BAND RADAR

Senator STEVENS. Secondly, I understand that we are going forward now with what really is a test facility for a national missile

defense system. Can you tell me when you believe the test facility

will be operational?

And secondly, the X-band radar proposed out of that system for

Shemya has been delayed, and I am told that there is some concept

of placing those radars on ships at sea. It was sure my understanding, and the committee’s understanding, that the X-band

radar, Shemya would be part of the worldwide deployment of Xband radars. I have never heard of putting X-band radars on ships

at sea and I would like to know, is that correct, is that going to

be the functional addition to the national missile defense system Xband radar for the Pacific?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Fort Greeley, Senator, we started site preparation in the August, October time frame, and cleared land and started grading some roads. The Ground Base Missile Defense (GMD)

validation of operation and concept environmental assessment for

Greeley has been performed and is ready for public comment, and

upon completion of that 30-day public comment period in April, we

will be awarding contracts, the Army Corps of Engineers will be

awarding contracts for starting actual test bed construction. That

would include roads, a readiness control building, a missile assem-
30

bly building, mechanical/electrical building, electrical substation,

interceptor storage building, and several other smaller buildings.

In late June we will reach the expiration period of our 6-month

Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty withdrawal notification and at

that point we would begin excavation and construction of six missile silos. All of those facilities would be completed and in operation

as part of the ground-based missile defense field with five prototype interceptors, should be installed and checked out and ready by

September of 2004. That would give us a capability we’ve never

had before for validating construction techniques, validating the

operational concept and putting it in a representative Arctic environment.

On the X-band radar, my understanding is that the Missile Defense Agency is still looking at the best location deployment systems for X-band radars, including very definitely the possibility of

Shemya. Indeed, I think they feel that Shemya is an operational

requirement for an effective system. But they are also looking at

ships and other locations with respect to a test bed, not an operational system.

MISSILE DEFENSE SUPPORT GROUP

Senator STEVENS. Thank you for that. Could you tell me, what

is the Missile Defense Study Group? We have read about it in the

press and I have not been informed and I do not think any of us

have been. What is that? We have Missile Defense Agency and the

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) under General Ron

Kadish, and we have the statement of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition that there is now a new group, the Missile Defense Support Group. Can you tell us what that is?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. It’s part of the oversight mechanism that was

put in place when we restructured the BMDO office into the Missile Defense Agency. We tried to give General Kadish and his people more flexibility to pursue things that work and stop doing

things that don’t work, but we wanted some mechanism that would

insure a reasonable level of oversight in reviewing those decisions.

The Missile Defense Support Group is the group that performs that

function as an adjunct of the Senior Executive Council, which consists of the three service secretaries and under secretaries. So, I

would describe it as a management tool that is meant to give General Kadish a great deal of flexibility but keep a reasonable level

of oversight at the same time.

Senator STEVENS. Will that be then that the Missile Defense

Agency will be the organization that will comply with the Federal

acquisition procedures, contract awards, other functions and that

this Missile Defense Study Group is an oversight policy group? We

worry about this second level here now that might second-guess the

decisions of the Agency.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Well, the level that would have any authority to

overrule the decisions of the Agency would be the level of the service secretaries and the under secretary for acquisition and myself.

In the past arrangement, we could have those decisions second

guessed by the Defense Acquisition Board, which is a whole other

large bureaucracy. I think we have actually given him more flexibility, but there has to be some degree of oversight. But he is the
31

accountable official and my understanding is, and if it’s wrong, I’ll

get back to you for the record, but my understanding is that it is

the head of the Missile Defense Agency who has the responsibility

for complying with acquisition regulations.

Senator STEVENS. I see our distinguished chairman has arrived

and we want to give him the opportunity to ask his questions.

DOD CONSULTANTS

We tried to implement a program for reduction of our consultants

in the Department of Defense. As a matter of fact, we made a reduction in the budget itself to reflect that, coming from this subcommittee. I would like you to document how many consultants are

currently employed by and how much is actually spent for noncareer workers in that capacity by the Department. Will you please

provide for the record a statement of how many consultants and

contract workers the Department employs now, how many they

plan to employ in 2003, and how much will the Department spend

for such services in 2002 and 2003?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. We will do that, Senator.

[The information follows:]

The Department of Defense has no central repository of data on the number of

consultants and contract workers employed by the Department, how many are

planned to be employed in 2003, nor how much the Department will spend for such

services in 2002 and 2003.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, and along with Senator

Stevens, I want to recognize the chairman of the committee, Chairman Byrd.

FUNDING WAR ON TERRORISM

Senator BYRD. Thank you. I have had the pleasure and the privilege of hearing Mr. Wolfowitz recently and I am glad to have this

opportunity to ask just a few questions again, and I thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and I thank you Mr. Ranking Chairman, for inviting

me.

Doctor, instead of concentrating on completing our operations in

Afghanistan, the Pentagon seems to be looking for opportunities to

stay longer and to extend itself further into the region. This concerns me. I think that we seem to be good at developing entrance

strategies, not so good in developing exit strategies. I see that the

Pentagon is basing a $30 billion projected cost of the war on a series of assumptions regarding operations. According to the information I have received from your office you have calculated that

America’s war on terrorism will cost a total of $30 billion in fiscal

year 2002. Congress has already provided $17.4 billion, which

means that the Defense Department will need a $12.6 billion supplemental just to cover the cost of the war for 1 year. Does the Pentagon have a list of goals that it expects to accomplish, Dr.

Wolfowitz, with the $30 billion?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. The $30 billion is basically a projection and I

would emphasize, at every stage of this campaign things change,

they change rapidly. Just as we had no idea on September 10 that

we would be engaged in a conflict halfway around the world in Afghanistan, we also had no idea on October 15th that we would be

deploying forces on the ground in Afghanistan as quickly as we did,
32

we had no idea the Taliban would collapse as quickly as it did, we

had no idea that we would be putting people on the ground to pursue al Qaeda terrorists in caves as quickly as we did. Everything

here has gone in ways that have been unpredictable.

I say that by emphasizing that whatever I’m going to say about

where we will be in June or in August or in September is a prediction of the unpredictable. What we have basically done is to say

it’s a reasonable assumption that we will continue to operate at

roughly the level we’re at today. And I would emphasize, the level

we’re at today, particularly for a major conflict of this kind, is very

very low. We only have about 5,000 people on the ground in Afghanistan; that’s one one-hundreth, 1 percent of what we deployed

in the total coalition force in the Persian Gulf 10 years ago.

They are engaged in primarily, our major objective is to continue

to pursue al Qaeda terrorists, to capture them or kill them, to obtain information and intelligence about what they were doing there

and what their ties are to people elsewhere. Not so long ago, we

picked up a videotape in Kabul, I believe it was, or somewhere in

Afghanistan, that led to the arrest of terrorists in Singapore who

were planning to attack American Navy ships.

This is a global network and by what we have been able to do

in Afghanistan, I think we have significantly disrupted that network and given ourselves more intelligence to go after. At the same

time, we do not want to see Afghanistan become again in 2 or 3

or 5 years, a haven for the same group of terrorists or another

group of terrorists, and that requires some attention to maintaining the security conditions of the country after we’re finished.

But I would assure you, Senator Byrd, we have no desire to stay

one day longer than we have to, or use one soldier, sailor, airman

or Marine more than we have to. Our basic principle of long-term

security in Afghanistan is to try to train and equip the Afghans to

do as much of the job for themselves as possible, I think that is

the strategy and that’s the basis on which we have made what I

admit, again, is a guess as to what our costs will be.

AFFORDABILITY OF DEFENSE REQUEST

Senator BYRD. Well, Dr. Wolfowitz, General Franks is a good

commander, he takes his orders, as you do, from the President.

What I see here appears to be an expanding agenda. I read all of

these accounts about creating an army in Afghanistan. We went

there to hunt down the terrorists. We don’t know where Osama bin

Laden is, whether he is alive or dead, or where Mullah Omar is

hiding. We have bombed the caves of Afghanistan back into the

dark ages, which lasted 1,000 years, and we’ve killed Afghans who

are not our enemies. We killed 16 just a few days ago because we

dropped, apparently didn’t have the correct intelligence. There

have been a lot of bodies I’m sure brought out of those caves. So

we don’t have Osama bin Laden. And if we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that’s going to keep us going beyond doomsday.

How long can we afford this? How much have we spent in Afghanistan already to date?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I believe the total that we’ve spent on deployments, and I think that includes money that we spent for Operation Noble Eagle, which is the air defense of the United States,
33

is $10.3 billion through the end of January. That includes a number of immediate security measures that were taken for homeland

security force protection after September 11, which totals $3.9 billion.

Senator BYRD. So we have spent how much in Afghanistan?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Dov, do you have it broken down between Af- ghanistan and Noble Eagle? What I have is a $7.4 billion figure

which, I’m sorry, Senator, I don’t have the breakdown on it, I will

try to get it for you. The $7.4 billion figure covers our operation in

Afghanistan and our air defense requirements in the United

States, those two together. I would guess that roughly $6 billion of

that total is Afghanistan.

Senator BYRD. And the President is asking for $379 billion for defense for fiscal year 2003, which is more than $1 billion a day.

How long can we stand this kind of pressure upon our Treasury?

And the President has committed our country to build an Afghan

national army, according to what I read in the press, and to spend

hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild that country, and there

is no end in sight, no end in sight to our mission in Afghanistan.

Look at the Philippines. We are sending 660 troops there to fight

a rebel group there. Already, 10 soldiers on that mission have lost

their lives in a helicopter accident. Look at Colombia. I have yet

to see any effect of the $1 billion in U.S. aid that has been sent

to the jungle down there. The drugs that were supposed to be

eradicated are still finding their way onto our streets. But as the

Colombian government heats up its war against the rebel drug

dealers, the President is considering sending more aid, perhaps

more U.S. troops to that country. And then there is Iraq. And so

on and so on.

U.S. COMMITMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Chairman, you have been very liberal with my time. Let me

ask just one final question. I have not heard any estimates of how

much it will cost to train and equip an Afghan national army that

the President has said, the United States will assist in its creation,

but Congress has control of the purse string, if we pay attention

to Section 7 of Article 1 of the United States Constitution. We have

to begin asking some questions. No blank checks to be written. Do

we know how much it will cost, Dr. Wolfowitz, to follow through

on the administration’s promise or have we committed in essence

to giving Afghanistan a blank check? Where are we, what is it

going to cost, what is the end game here? When will we know that

we have achieved victory and that we need to get out of Afghanistan?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Senator, we are actually still in the process of

trying to assess what would be the right kind of army for Afghanistan and what it would cost. And frankly, the push in our assessments is to get people’s expectations down to be more realistic and

not to try to create some giant force that they don’t actually need.

And we strongly agree with the thrust of your comments that we

don’t want to have a long-term continuing American presence in

that country if we can help it. That is I think the main reason why

we want to see the Afghans themselves have something to do with

the security function.
34

The other side of the coin, and I’m pretty sure you would agree

with this, because I know how stalwart you have been in support

of our defense programs over many years and you know that, as

I know, that we enjoy a much saver world today because we persevered through the Cold War. I think we will enjoy a much safer

world 4 or 5 or 10 years from now, maybe sooner, but I don’t think

much sooner than that, by persevering in this war on terrorism.

But you are absolutely right, that we have to be careful about

overcommitting ourselves, we’ve got to be very careful about not

taking on other peoples jobs for them, and looking for ways to get

out of places as well as ways to get in. So it’s balancing those two

things at the same time, but I can’t tell you when we will have

won. Unfortunately, that’s something we will sort of know only

when it’s, the terrorists have stopped. We do know that they are

still out there in large numbers, and it’s not only in Afghanistan,

but we do know that what we are able to accomplish in Afghanistan even as we speak is helping us to prevent terrorist acts here

in the United States.

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

and I thank my colleagues for your patience.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Hollings.

Senator HOLLINGS. Back to the original theme, Secretary

Wolfowitz. Every response up here is to the needs of the reelection

campaign and not the needs of the country, and if there is any division, then we just move on. That old political axiom, when in

doubt, do nothing. That comment is made as a result of your comment on the Sinai. I find that you and I are going down the same

side of the street together. We have got 13 peacekeeping; now we’re

going to add 2 more in the Philippines and in Georgia. Now we are

going into the old Soviet Union, and I thought we would never get

in there, but you got us in there according to my morning paper.

I can get reelected on that down in South Carolina, we are confronting Communism once again. But the truth of the matter is

that you have to go into these places to eliminate the terrorist element. I am not worried so much about Afghanistan because I know

you are sincere about it, but there can be no sincerity to the Balkans. Ten years ago we went there for 1 year, now it’s 10 years

later. In other words, we are in a sacrificial mode around here

which doesn’t exist, but tell the Europeans they are just going to

have to take over or let them run the operation. We have to sit

here and argue with the council of foreign relations, are they going

to run the government? Why not cut back with the Balkans?

Kosovo, they are just hunkered down by themselves there, all those

troops, why not cut back the Kosovo operation?

U.S. TROOPS IN THE SINAI

It seems to me that you agree with Secretary Rumsfeld on the

Sinai, and the people around in that area are not very friendly to

us, they are not very understanding and cooperative, they do not

want us there, so why do we not get out of the Sinai?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Well, I agree with Secretary Rumsfeld. Unfortunately, the people there do want us there. That’s what we’re grappling with.

Senator HOLLINGS. You know that from the 900 that we got——
35

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Oh, our people don’t want to be there.

Senator HOLLINGS. No. The 900 people who are there are telling

you the people around them do not want us there, they are not

very friendly about our deployment there at all. Go over and talk

to them.

With respect, since my time is limited, with respect to the C–17,

it was Secretary Perry that we put him in the cockpit up in

Charleston, someone on this committee said, and I agree with Senator Stevens, let us get that procurement up at least to the 15 or

more. I visited with him and I agree with his comments about the

Reserves, they are going around the clock. In Charleston you have

the 437th regulars, a C–17 outfit, and you have the 315th reserves,

by General Black, and they are going around and around the

world. I think about 78 percent of everything going into Afghanistan is on a C–17.

And yes their morale is high, but how are they going to keep it

up in the Reserves? Like the frustration noted in the distinguished

gentleman’s question, when are we going to have victory, they want

to know, when are we going to get some relief? So you need more

regular crews and more planes in the C–17 force.

I am for the high tech, for the new defense as Secretary Rumsfeld testified to last year, and reiterated by the Commander in

Chief. I went down with him 1 month ago to The Citadel when he

announced the end of the ABM Treaty and he says yes, we are

going to take the savings from cutting legacy systems and put them

into this new highly technological defense force, and balance off

those costs. And we now are asking for three new strike fighters.

Yes, let us go with the F–22 and maybe even limit the first buy

of F–18s. Can we economize there and be realistic? I’m trying to

pare down this additional $50 billion that was not needed last September and is all of a sudden needed when we have not even spent

the additional $20 billion we added in the supplemental. Could we

do that and not hurt defense?

SPENDING OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND BRING DOWN

OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. First of all, to say that we haven’t spent the

supplemental, we are spending it at a great rate.

Senator HOLLINGS. You have spent $20 billion already?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Not yet.

Senator HOLLINGS. That is not what our budget figures show.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. We have spent $10.3 billion already

Senator HOLLINGS. About half of it.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. It’s actually, the amount we got totaled, I believe it was $17.3 billion and as of the end of January we had spent

$10.2 billion of that. We are spending at a rate that will need more

money by late spring, and as I said also, there are some costs like

healthcare bills and things like that that you simply have to pay.

On the question of these deployments, which we are trying to

bring down, we have had some success, particularly in the Balkans.

In Bosnia we had nearly 4,500 troops there in January of last year.

As of last month, we have gotten that down to 3,160, so that’s more

than 1,000 troops down in that area. And we are trying to take ad-
36

vantage of the fact that our allies have said they want to help.

They are helping by the way, substantially in Afghanistan today.

Those numbers change, but we have roughly in Afghanistan

today roughly 5,000 Americans and I believe, and I will get exact

numbers for the record, our allies have something in the neighborhood of 6,000 troops, they have more than we do by roughly 1,000,

and the combination of the peacekeeping force in Kabul and people

on the ground, as well as including Australian, Canadian, New

Zealand, British Special Forces. So we’re getting a lot of help from

people, but this is a difficult and strenuous operation, and I think

indeed what is remarkable is that we are able to do it without an

enormous increase in our defense budget, the type we were talking

for World War II or the Korean War, or even for Vietnam. We are

looking for every place that we can save some money.

[The information follows:]

U.S. personnel in Afghanistan (as of June 2, 2002) ............................................ 7,259

Allied personnel in Afghanistan (as of June 2, 2002) ......................................... 4,760

CUTTING UNNEEDED SYSTEMS

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. And we raised the question of the three new

fighters. The problem is they don’t come in at the right times. If

we had joint strike fighters available today, we could do without

the F–18, but absent the joint strike fighter, you have to do something or our Navy aircraft are just going to get terribly old. They

are already too old already, and that leads to maintenance problems or accidents and things of that kind.

Senator HOLLINGS. The Crusader, do you think we need that?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I think we need some of it, a lot fewer than the

Army had planned on. We have cut that program by almost twothirds, and they have done a lot to cut the size and weight of the

system. But I’m not one of those people who think I can bet the

farm on not needing artillery 10 years from now, and I think it’s

the best artillery system available.

Senator HOLLINGS. The V–22 has killed more men than the

enemy.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. We know that it is a troubled program. We had

a very senior level group look at it. They believe that those problems can be worked out. We will know sometime over the course

of the next year whether that optimism is justified or not. If it’s

not, we are going to have to look at it again.

Senator HOLLINGS. It is our design, Mr. Secretary, as you and I

know, we clear an area with air power, not like on the Normandy

beaches, and the Blackhawk helicopter flies our troops where we

want after we flatten the area with our air assets. It seems to me

that the V–22 is a luxury that’s not needed.

NEED FOR NEW SUBMARINES

With respect to the new Virginia class submarines, I agree on

the requisition for the regular force with respect to Tomahawks

and carrying on Seal cruise, but do we need another new one with

the subs?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I think we do, Senator, and we may at some

point figure out more fundamental changes in how to use our submarine force and then maybe we will look at different designs. But
37

I do think that if you look at 10 years from now, look at what an

adversary can do with out technology against ships on the surface

of the sea, you can only conclude that we are going to need more

subsurface capability, not less. And that means also that we have

to sustain the remarkable industrial base that builds those incredible ships.

So that’s the context in which I think one has to look at the Virginia class, not as a Cold War function we don’t need anymore, but

part of that subsurface force for the future.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Shelby.

CAPABILITIES GAP BETWEEN ALLIES AND THE UNITED STATES

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I am

glad you are with us today. Last June I asked General Ryan about

what he called the growing asymmetry of technology between the

United States and our European allies. Also last year, Lord George

Robertson said, ‘‘We have a glaring trans-Atlantic capabilities gap

and an interoperability problem between the allies.’’

The Bush administration has consistently pushed, and I have

supported them, for the modernization of our military.

Even attributing much of what is being said by our allies to political posturing and rhetoric, I’m increasingly concerned about the

capabilities gap and how this would translate to the battlefield.

One, in terms of concrete military capabilities, how big is the

current capability gap between us and our North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) allies?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. It’s very large.

Senator SHELBY. Since our allies’ current military budgets do

nothing that I know of to narrow this gap and presumably will restrict their ability to join the fight in the future, I would submit

that the prospect of having to go it alone puts even greater pressure on us to provide more funding if we hope to be able to execute

future operations and defeat future threats. Would you agree?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. If the implication is that we have to spend more

because our allies are spending less, I’m not sure I would agree

with that. I would like to see them spending more.

Senator SHELBY. We all would.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. It’s also, in fairness, I agree with the thrust of

what you’re saying and I agree with Lord Robertson’s criticism of

the inadequate defense spending levels of our allies. At the same

time, I really do want to emphasize particularly for those British

and French and Canadian, Australian troops that are risking their

lives on the ground in Afghanistan with us today, and in fact the

most recent casualty we had was an Australian. We enormously

appreciate the effort they are making. I think it would be much

better for them and for us if they were investing more in their future forces as we are doing.

Senator SHELBY. They might be willing in the future but they

might not be capable.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. There is that distinct danger. And even today

they are very very dependent on our lift and our other support capabilities to get them to the battlefield. I believe it was Senator
38

Hollings who was pointing out that now, lift is one of the most constrained resources.

Senator SHELBY. I know, Mr. Secretary, that the gap concerns

Lord Robertson pointed out in the conference, it has to concern

them in the future and their ability to project force and to be a

player around the world, doesn’t it?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I think so. And you know, I do think you have

heard some of the political posturing that’s going on over there during an election year.

Senator SHELBY. It is an election year over there.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I guess so. It always seems that there is an election somewhere every month. It is a fact that we were attacked on

September 11th and they weren’t, but I would hope for a greater

understanding on their part that they could be next, that we were

attacked by hijackers who didn’t just come from the Middle East,

some of them came from Europe, the worst of them came from

Hamburg, as a matter of fact. And I think we really are in this

thing together and on the whole we have been. The voices that get

the most attention are the noisiest ones. That’s what I keep coming

back to, what we’re seeing on the ground in Afghanistan, it’s a different picture and it’s not one you hear about enough in my opinion.

TRANSFORMATION

Senator SHELBY. To another area, transformation. Almost all the

talk about transformation revolves around technology solutions to

future tactics with the big issue of course being funding or money.

Each service is working to transform its fighting forces. This budget includes $21 billion for transformation programs, and over the

next 5 years, $136 billion is projected to go to fund transformation

efforts.

Debate has heated up, Mr. Secretary, as you well know, over the

need to buy more tactical aircraft, ships, ammunition, and to recapitalize more systems in an effort to keep our forces ready while

we build this transformation bridge to the future. I don’t hear

much about fundamental force structure transformation these

days.

When I think about the money you are asking us to spend, I

think about an article which appeared in the San Diego Union

Tribune on January 30 of this year. In it, a retired rear admiral

discussed fundamental transformation ideas and the need to take

steps to eliminate interservice duplication. The example used was

to combine the medical, logistical and intelligence groups currently

serving each military branch. In the context of the budget hearing,

I think this article asks an important question, and I would like

to know your answers. Mr. Secretary, if you were building a new

military from scratch, and I know we are not, today, would it be

structured like our military is currently structured? How do we get

to where we want to go, I guess is the real question.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. It’s an unusually important question and is as

I think you stated in asking the question, transformation is about

more than money and as Secretary Rumsfeld said repeatedly, it’s

probably the changes in the way people think that are the most important piece of it, the way they organize and the way they oper-
39

ate. That includes looking systematically at how we do things and

whether we are continuing to do things just because we have done

them for the last 10 or 20 or 30 years and we don’t need to do them

anymore. That’s the Sinai, for example, where the President of

Egypt and the Prime Minister of Israel disagree, and I think that’s

an example. We’re looking very systematically at where we want

to be combining either for efficiency or for improved combat effectiveness. We now have Army guys on the ground interacting with

long-range bomber pilots in ways that——

Senator SHELBY. And it is working too, is it not.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. It is. So we really do have to think differently,

and we do have to keep in mind this Legacy force which you referred to and we are investing in it. The real reason for the three

tactical fighters is to make sure that the Legacy force works, I

don’t really like that word, but that the main part of our force can

fight our wars for the next 10 years while we build those future

capabilities.

Now, I cannot remember how many smart comments I have read

about how if the previous budget did not cut 30,000 people out of

the Army or out of the Navy or the Air Force, I have not read it

about the Marine Corps, but at any rate, imagine where we would

be, I think now, in light of the questions the chairman was asking

about the possibility of even an increased end strength, if we had

started whacking away force structure. We took a very careful look

at force structure during the summer in the QDR and we concluded

that we could reduce the strain on the force structure by changing

our strategic concept, but given the deployment requirements that

we had, that we needed something roughly the size of what we

have today. It’s not an accident that we are the only country in the

world that can even think about mounting operations in a remote

place like Afghanistan on 3 weeks notice. We are a much safer

country today because we were able to do that and I think it’s an

investment that is worth it.

Senator SHELBY. And I thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Specter.

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Secretary, I join my colleagues in welcoming you here. How are you enjoying the job?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Enjoying it.

Senator SPECTER. We see that Iraq has dominated a good bit of

the news. When Secretary of State Colin Powell recently commented about the ‘‘axis of evil,’’ he said we do not plan to go to war

against North Korea and we did not plan to go to war against Iran,

but Iraq was conspicuously absent with a nondeclaration. By 20–

20 hindsight, I think most would agree that we made a mistake in

not proceeding against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. This is

based on the indictments which have been returned in Federal

court against bin Laden for killing Americans in Mogadishu in

1993, the embassy bombings in 1998, and the implication of the

U.S.S. Cole and his worldwide ‘‘jihad.’’ What Saddam Hussein is

doing is a real problem.

Aside from the comments which have been made by the officials,

it seems to me that it might be very useful for this subcommittee

or the Appropriations Committee sitting as a whole, or perhaps

Armed Services or Foreign Relations, to conduct hearings to try to
40

get as much on the public record as we can so that the public understands. Some things would have to be said confidentially in

closed session, but it would be useful in my view to know, as specifically as we can in public session with the balance in closed session, the threat which Saddam poses with weapons of mass destruction, the specifics of what he has done by ignoring the United

Nations, and the chances of his compliance. I see the Secretary

General is now going to meet with him. He has a track record of

backing down when things look like they are getting tough. What

is the game plan and a rough outline, again perhaps in closed session, and what happens after he is caught? It could hardly be a

surprise to Saddam Hussein to know that is something that may

happen.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON TERRORISM POLICIES AND

CONSULTATION

What is your thinking on the utility of such congressional hearings?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Senator, you raise a whole series of unquestionably key issues that people have to think through. I think you can

understand that for any of us in the executive branch, these are

decisions that can be taken only by the President, and he has made

some very clear and important statements.

Senator SPECTER. He did this only for the press. What happened

to consultation with Congress?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Well, I think there are appropriate ways to do

consultation. I think what the President laid before the Congress

and the country on January 29th is the fact that we have a problem. The problem is countries that are openly hostile toward the

United States, supporting terrorists and pursuing weapons of mass

destruction, and the implications of where that is heading is too

dangerous for us to sit back and wait for it to happen and react

afterwards.

I think you made the very correct analogy that we should have

dealt with bin Laden before September 11th. And of course you recognize as we all do, that had we done so, no doubt people would

have said we didn’t have sufficient evidence. We’re in that zone

where we can’t wait until we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Senator SPECTER. What is the congressional role on a declaration

of war or the authorization of use of force? The President came to

the Congress and formed a resolution for the use of force against

al Qaeda. Of course he knew he would get it.

In 1991, some recollections differ, but I have a pretty firm recollection that President George H.W. Bush did not want a resolution,

but he got one. It was a tough debate. It was the most important

debate that has happened in the 22 years I have been here.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. That’s correct. He did want a resolution, and

some debated that, and he made the decision to in fact ask for it.

But you are right, it was an absolute critical debate, and I think

it was very important.

Senator SPECTER. Is not the country better served for the issue

to come before the Congress if there is consideration by the President on the use of force against Iraq?
41

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. The problem is, I think in your question, you’re

sort of assuming that he has made decisions that I don’t know that

he has made yet, and I am not at all in the position to start speculating.

Senator SPECTER. There is a lot of attribution that he did make

the decision.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Well, and a lot of it is completely erroneous, so

don’t believe everything you read.

Senator SPECTER. That is why I used that word attribute, there

was no charge there.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. And I don’t make decisions about that sort of

thing.

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Secretary, you have done an outstanding

job for years and years. I know there is going to be some resolution

and when it comes, you will get it. However, I want to state one

member’s opinion, that the Congress ought to be involved and the

American people ought to be involved and there ought to be a

guideline. One way to get there—I do not know of another good

way to get there—is on the hearing law, and it seems to me imminent enough so that the Congress ought to consider the matter. As

to how we resolve it, I do not know that I raise it, but I do want

to talk to you about this latest proposal.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I would add, Senator, that there are obviously

things that are easily discussed in closed sessions that we wouldn’t

want to be sitting out here discussing while Saddam Hussein or

Mr. Khomeini or other people are listening to us, so that is one aspect of the dialogue that I think you need to keep in mind as well.

And we have had, I think I have participated by now in four or five

of them, I think very good closed sessions with the full Senate.

Senator SPECTER. I agree with you about the closed sessions. Although the sessions we have in S–407 are very helpful, they are

not really like hearings where you have 10 minutes to pursue a

question and even that is not necessarily enough. However, I commend you for your consideration, because some of us feel very

strongly that the Congress ought to get involved at an early date,

and you cannot quite wait until the President has made a decision

to use force, because then the Congress is out of it.

ARAB-ISRAELI RELATIONS

Let me ask you about the proposals for Israel to go back to pre–

1967 borders and for the Arab states—to say normalized is the

wrong word because they have never been normal—to recognize

Israel and Israel’s right to exist. Concerns which trouble me are

how do you do that and protect the Israelis who are in settlements

outside the 1967 borders. When we talk about relations, how do we

deal with Saudi Arabia, other foreign countries, or other Arab

countries in order to have a real peace?

Since Camp David, the United States has given $50 billion plus

in aid to Egypt, and there is a very cool peace. When President Mubarak has been asked about it, he says that is the best he can do,

but they do not have real trade, visitor exchanges, they do not really have a warm peace, so if the matter is to be pursued, what can

be done on those two big issues for assurances to Israel so that
42

they will be getting something in exchange for that kind of concession?

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I think ultimately the Israelis have to make the

decision about what, if anything, to do. I know when President

Sadat made his courageous visit to Israel in 1977, so in that time

in fact we have made progress. If you think back to then, it was

a time that Sadat used the word Israel when speaking to the

Israeli press, and it was the first time in history that an Arab leader had referred to Israel by its proper name. And he changed, as

I think you remember, I remember vividly, in just 24 hours,

changed the whole psychological outlook of the Israeli public,

Israeli people toward making peace with Egypt, and in fact led to

a return to the 1967 borders and a peace which for all of its coolness, has actually been sustained to this day.

But that coolness, unfortunately, is one of the things that contributes, I think, to Israeli reluctance now to take risks, and I

think it certainly would make a big difference in moving toward a

peace settlement that I think the Israelis desperately want, we certainly want to see it, I think the Palestinian people desperately

need to create that atmosphere, where people are willing to take

risks.

Senator SPECTER. I quite agree with you, it is an Israeli decision,

but the President purportedly told the Crown Prince, and I think

the United States is going to be involved.

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by posing two questions and asking for written responses, Mr. Secretary. I am pleased to see that

there is a request for $1.9 billion for the V–22 Osprey. I would appreciate a response in writing on how the Osprey is looking, what

are the tests showing. There were lots of problems on falsification

of records, but I think it’s a great plane, let us see where that

stands.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. We will get that for you, Senator.

[The information follows:]

The V–22 returned to flight test in May 2002, and as of 10 June 2002 has flown

four sorties for a total of 5.5 hours. The comprehensive inspections indicate that the

current modifications made to the hydraulics system with respect to line clearance

are effective and safe. These modifications will continue to be assessed as we complete more flight tests. Flight tests that have been conducted have exceeded all expectations in regard to aircraft performance and reliability. Test pilots report that

the aircraft is performing well.

The flight test program has been thoroughly restructured to assess the effectiveness of solutions, regarding reliability of hydraulic system components and flight

control software, overall aircraft and reliability rates and operational effectiveness.

By October of 2003 the flight test program will have gradually increased from one

to seven Marine (MV) variants actively involved in flight testing. Flight testing of

the Special Operations (CV) variant is scheduled to start in August 2002.

Senator SPECTER. The second question I would like to ask is, you

have almost $400 million for the C–130 aircraft, including $176

million for the C–130J, but there is nothing for the EC–130J,

which is used by the 193rd Special Operations Wing, which has

done extraordinary service in Kosovo and elsewhere. The wing is

desperately in need of two new planes to carry on their mission.

If you can, please give me a response to that.

Thank you very much for the good work you are doing, Mr. Secretary and Dr. Zakheim.
43

[The information follows:]

EC–130 AIRCRAFT

I am very proud of the job that has been done by our special operations Commando Solo crews in Afghanistan. Commando Solos are unique, high demand/low

density platforms and continue to be an asset for the department. Commando Solo

is also wholly comprised of volunteer air national guardsmen.

Thanks to Congressional support, the transition from the EC–130E to the EC–

130J model was made possible by additional funds in fiscal years 1997 through

2001, providing five of the planned eight C–130J aircraft and special operationsunique modifications. The Air Force Master Plan provides funding for the remaining

three C–130J for conversion to EC–130J in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. The

193rd Special Operations Wing is the only unit that flies the EC–130 and will receive all eight EC–130J aircraft. In addition, the fiscal year 2003 budget request

contains $79.4 million to mitigate special mission equipment obsolescence and degraded capability equipment issues on EC–130 aircraft.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. Senator, forgive me for the reminiscence. I remember when you visited Indonesia when I was Ambassador, and

you were there as I recall, as the junior Senator from Russell, Kansas, but you are now the senior Senator, am I right?

Senator SPECTER. That is right, I was the junior Senator from

Russell, Kansas, and Senator Dole is still the senior Senator from

Russell, Kansas.

Dr. WOLFOWITZ. I just thought it was remarkable, two Senators

from different States and both born in the same small town in

Kansas.

Senator SPECTER. It is in the water, Mr. Secretary.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, Dr. Zakheim, we thank you very

much for appearing before the subcommittee today, and we will

continue our discussions throughout this year.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Several members have requested that they be permitted to submit questions to you for your consideration, and I hope you will do

so.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. PAUL WOLFOWITZ

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE-MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department recently established the Missile Defense

Agency to take the place of the old Ballistic Missile Defense Office. We have heard

many concerns about this new agency being shielded from appropriate oversight

both in the Pentagon and by Congress. Can you give us your assurance that this

is not the case?

Answer. I can assure you that the changes to our missile defense structure, rather

than shielding the MDA from appropriate oversight, will provide for more consistent

and immediate oversight by the Department’s most senior leaders.

The Secretary of Defense redesignated the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

as the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to underscore the national priority placed on

missile defense and to provide MDA the authority and structure consistent with development of a single, integrated missile defense system. But while the Secretary

provided the MDA Director with new authorities that differ from traditional Department processes, he has taken action to ensure that the Department has direct and

focused executive oversight. The Senior Executive Council (SEC), which I chair, provides the primary oversight of the MDA. Among its other responsibilities, the SEC
44

will provide policy, planning and programming guidance to the MDA; decide whether to stop, start, slow, or accelerate their efforts; and approve transition and fielding

recommendations. In addition to the SEC, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics [USD(AT&L)], has established a Missile Defense

Support Group (MDSG) of Department experts that provides advice to him, the

MDA Director and supports SEC decision-making. While not an oversight group, the

MDSG does perform independent analyses. Both the MDA Director and the MDSG

chairman report to the USD (AT&L), providing senior Department officials real-time

involvement in MDA activities and helping reduce our decision-making cycle time.

With regard to congressional oversight, the Department will continue to provide

Congress the same documentation as we have in the past. Although there are

changes in the information we will provide, the changes will be consistent with the

changes to the missile defense structure. For example, we will submit a Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) for the BMD System RDT&E program that includes major

schedule objectives, an estimate of RDT&E funding, and major prime contractor cost

performance data. However, unit cost data for individual elements will only be included once the SEC decides to start procurement of that element. An example of

this is the PAC–3 program where the Department submitted a separate SAR this

year to support its transition to the Army. In addition to the BMD System SAR,

we continue to provide Congress our annual detailed Budget Justification materials.

These materials include detailed budget and schedule summaries for all major budget projects. Finally, the Department will continue to provide extensive briefings to

both Members of Congress and their staffs.

Question. Since the military services ultimately will be the ones who procure and

implement BMD systems, what role will they play in shaping ballistic missile defense policy and programs? Do the services have a say in ballistic missile defense

budget matters?

Answer. The Management structure of the Ballistic Missile Defense System

(BMDS) is designed to allow the MDA to focus on research, development, testing

and demonstration of BMD capabilities, while providing for the transition of proven

capabilities to system development and the transfer to the services for procurement,

operations, and support. The Services have an important role throughout the BMDS

life cycle, both in policy planning and budget development.

BMD policy is guided by a Senior Executive Council (SEC) established by the Secretary of Defense (SecDef). The SEC includes the Service Secretaries, the Under

Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) and chaired by me. The

SEC reviews and approves MDA and service planning and budgeting for the fielding

of specific capabilities, through system development and transfer to the user Service

for procurement. The Services, in concert with the Joint Staff, determine force structure requirements, and budget for procurement, operations and support within the

service TOA.

At the RDT&E project level, service liaison offices are being established within

the MDA to ensure that force integration planning and requirements are included

in the MDA-funded capability development and demonstration phase. The Director,

MDA will also have individual Service Boards of Directors with each Service Acquisition Executive to provide regular consultation and to resolve issues that cannot

be rapidly satisfied at a lower level. Potential system cost estimates must include

full provisions for Service procurement, operations, and support. Service participation in development and planning will increase during the transition phase, in order

to ensure a smooth transfer of management and system support responsibilities.

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

Question. In past years the Department has seldom been able to project its required expenditures for the Defense Health Program (DHP). The Department deserves praise for its efforts to provide realistic costs in the fiscal year 2003 budget

request for the DHP. However, the expansion of TRICARE and rising health care

costs will continue to generate stress on the military health system, which supports

8.3 million military beneficiaries. Assuming there is no supplemental in fiscal year

2003, and shortfalls in military healthcare arise, how will the Department cover

those shortfalls without jeopardizing the health care of patients?

Answer. The Department recognizes that health care is an entitlement and will

not jeopardize the health care of patients. If there is a shortfall in the budget for

military health care and there is no supplemental, the Department will have to reprogram resources internally to cover the shortfall. However, we believe that the fiscal year 2003 Defense Health Program (DHP) is adequately funded based on recent

healthcare cost experience and do not anticipate a shortfall. The pharmacy program

is budgeted at 15 percent and Managed Care Support Contracts are budgeted at 12
45

percent over fiscal year 2002 levels to account for anticipated inflation and program

growth. These are areas that have been budgeted at lower levels in the past and

contained the greatest risk for our program. As a result of these increases, a significant portion of our fiscal risk has been mitigated. The establishment of the DOD

Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund also serves to limit some of the financial risk in the DHP and the Department as a whole by providing a mandatory

funding source (independent from DHP appropriations) to pay for Medicare-eligible

care.

Question. How will the Military Treatment Facilities accommodate the expansion

of TRICARE benefits, particularly with the influx of older retirees who tend to have

unique health care needs, tend to require more patient visits per year, and tend to

require more prescription drugs?

Answer. Overall, the Military Health System will handle the expansion of

TRICARE to include 65-and-over beneficiaries by implementing the Medicare Eligible Military Retiree Health Care Fund, authorized by section 713 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. This will provide resources to fund

the out-of-pocket costs of these beneficiaries after Medicare pays, as well as to pay

for their care in Military Treatment Facilities.

Our senior beneficiaries continue to be eligible for care in military facilities, but

it is important to recognize that the capacity of military facilities did not increase

by virtue of the enactment of TRICARE for Life. We recognize that many beneficiaries want to continue to receive care at military facilities, while also taking advantage of TRICARE for Life benefits. Therefore, last year we established a new

program called ‘‘TRICARE Plus,’’ a primary care enrollment program that gives seniors (and other beneficiaries not in managed care plans) an opportunity to enroll and

be assigned to a primary care doctor at the military facility. This opportunity is limited by local capacity. When these beneficiaries need care beyond the capabilities

of the MTF, they use their civilian health care benefits, in most cases TRICARE for

Life.

Question. How does the fiscal year 2003 budget request address the problems of

recruiting and retaining medical personnel, particularly in the reserves?

Answer. The Defense Health Program portion of the budget designates an increase in funding of $8.2 million to the Armed Forces Health Professions’ Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) to increase scholarships by approximately 282. The budget

also includes an increase of $3.75 million to expand use of the Health Professions’

Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP).

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT PURCHASES

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, it is a well known fact that modernizing our tactical air forces is critical to sustaining our military superiority in the future. Yet,

in many top-of-the-line DOD aircraft procurement programs, such as the F–18 fighter and C–17 cargo aircraft, the Department’s fiscal year 2003 request cuts the number of aircraft to be bought compared to last year. What are the Department’s reasons for not increasing tactical aircraft purchase rates at the same time that your

budget is increasing by $48 billion?

Answer. We believe that the Department’s long-term tactical fighter modernization efforts are leading to a truly ‘‘transformational’’ fighter force structure. We are

moving as rapidly as feasible toward a highly survivable, capabilities-based fighter

force that meets the future needs and provides the users with an asymmetric capability advantage. The Department is trying to balance the procurement of adequate

numbers of F/A–18E/F fighter aircraft with simultaneous wise investment in the development and procurement of the next generation of more capable fighters. The Department’s fiscal year 2003 budget request demonstrates this time-phased TACAIR

modernization plan. With regard to existing fighter aircraft procurement, the budget

request continues to support the full-rate production of the F/A–18E/F aircraft. Likewise, the Department continues to aggressively pursue an increasing ramp-up of F–

22 aircraft towards full-rate production (e.g., the program is currently in low-rate

production). It should be noted that combined F/A–18E/F and F–22 procurement has

increased by 6 aircraft from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003. The Department’s

commitment to next generation fighter development is demonstrated by aggressive

efforts to complete F–22 development, and our continued increase in the Joint

Strike Fighter System Development and Demonstration program from approximately $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2002, to $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2003. The fiscal

year 2003 request also funds the follow-on multi-year procurement of 60 additional

C–17 cargo aircraft, which maintains a production delivery rate of 15 aircraft per

year until fiscal year 2008. In terms of procurement spending, a comparison of fiscal

year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 spending in the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force aircraft
46

procurement reflects the Department is spending about $2 billion more on its recapitalization efforts. In addition to the aforementioned efforts, the Department has

expanded selected transformation initiatives, such as the Unmanned Combat Air

Vehicle, that may offer the potential as a force enabler to augment manned aircraft

by enhancing our ability to hold certain military targets at risk with decreased risk

to personnel. The Department considers that the President’s Budget provides the

appropriate balance between current acquisition programs and future development

efforts to ensure needed future air warfare capabilities.

Question. Mr. Secretary, isn’t it true that, over the long term, if we don’t purchase

modern aircraft at a sufficient rate, we will have to cut our force structure? Do you

anticipate that this will occur in the near future?

Answer. When we construct our annual acquisition program plans, we try to account for the projected phase out of aging aircraft types in an effort to maintain adequate force structure into the future. Combat aircraft typically have a service life

of 20–30 years, depending upon type. Therefore, combat aircraft forces need to be

sustained with recapitalization programs that anticipate future needs well in advance. The Department reviews threat estimates and emerging operational needs in

updating force structure and modernization plans as needed. In some cases, new

operational concepts, weapons, and support systems eventually may permit some

force structure reductions. In other cases, new operational needs may call for selected increases. The DOD’s acquisition program plans factor all these considerations into our annual acquisition program request. The Department considers that

the President’s fiscal year 2003 Budget provides for procurement of the aircraft

needed to achieve required modernization and maintain sufficient force structure for

the foreseeable future.

Question. We have just returned from a trip to the war region in Central Asia

where we heard from our military commanders there that the one system they needed more of was the C–17 airlift aircraft. Have you heard these reports? What are

your thoughts about which aircraft have been the most useful in our Afghanistan

engagement?

Answer. It is true that airlift, especially the C–17, is high on the CINC’s priority

list. However, to suggest that one aircraft in particular has been the most useful

in carrying out Operation Enduring Freedom would not be appropriate. Comparisons between the contributions of the different platforms tend to obscure the fact

that different aircraft, both sea- and land-based, provide unique and complementary

capabilities. The success that we have enjoyed has been the result of the flexible

mix of aircraft systems available to support military operations.

During Operation Enduring Freedom, land-based United States and British tankers refueled carrier-based fighter-bombers, while B–1s and B–52s relied heavily on

the Navy’s electronic warfare EA–6B and strike aircraft to disable or destroy enemy

air defenses helping to assure access to targets, and helping to assist in providing

access to assure targets access. Much of the success of the Navy’s tactical aircraft

TACAIR success was the direct result of the support provided by Air Force KC–135

and United Kingdom Royal Air Force UK RAF Tanker aircraft. Pilots from all services benefited from targeting information provided by special mission aircraft such

as Joint STARS, P–3s, and Predator and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles.

U.S. Special Operation Forces and anti-Taleban Afghan observers provided eyes on

the ground. Army Apache and Marine Cobra helicopters provided close air support

to our troops fighting on the ground, as recently witnessed in Operation Anaconda.

Other aircraft, such as the AC–130 gun ships, conducted effective missions by night

and struck terror in the hearts of terrorists while hunting them down in the dark

of night. Transports such as C–17 and C–130 provided critical logistic support while

Army and Marine helicopters furnished mobility and supplies to dispersed forces on

the ground.

All of these aircraft are playing a vital role in Operation Enduring Freedom.

TANKER AIRCRAFT LEASING

Question. Mr. Secretary, last year the Congress enacted legislation allowing the

Air Force to lease up to 100 Boeing 767’s for replacing its aging air-refueling tanker

fleet. It is my understanding that no contract agreement has been reached on this

program. What is the status of this program? When do you anticipate an agreement

to proceed on this program will be reached?

Answer. Pursuant to the legislation, the Air Force intends to negotiate with Boeing for up to 100 Boeing 767 tankers. Currently, the Air Force is reviewing information provided by both Boeing and Airbus in an effort to gauge available technology

and properly bound and define the business case required by the 2002 statute. An

agreement to proceed on this program will not be reached until we have negotiated
47

a good deal for the department and I have reported to the Congressional Defense

Committees. I anticipate reporting my findings to Congress in accordance with the

legislation this summer.

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, do you agree that the Air Force’s tanker fleet is

aging and in need of replacement?

Answer. Yes, I agree the Air Force’s tanker fleet is aging and in need of replacement. The vast majority of the tanker fleet is comprised of KC–135s, which were

delivered between 1957 and 1965 and have an average fleet age of over 41 years.

The operations and sustainment costs for this aging fleet are projected to rise in

the years to come, while operational availability is expected to decline, making recapitalization crucial. While we recognize the need for replacement, any approach

to modernizing the fleet, whether by leasing aircraft, buying new aircraft, or some

other approach, will be reviewed by the Department prior to any decision being implemented to ensure the approach represents best value to the Government.

Question. Moreover, do you agree that contingency operations, such as the one we

have ongoing in Afghanistan, place a great burden on our tanker aircraft?

Answer. Yes, I agree that contingency operations, such as Operation Enduring

Freedom, place a great burden on our tanker aircraft.

Question. Do you also agree that, in the absence of adequate procurement funds,

that an operational lease program is the best way to modernize our tanker aircraft

force?

Answer. We are still considering the most efficient way to modernize our tanker

aircraft force. An operational lease program is one option under consideration, but

it is premature to state if leasing is the best approach.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department’s Ballistic Missile Defense program has

recently suffered some significant setbacks. First the Navy Area Theater missile defense program was terminated. And second, the Space Based Radar—Low program

is being dramatically restructured. The Department, to date, has provided no clear

indication of how it intends to address these issues. Can you recommend to the

Committee how we should proceed to deal with these issues?

Answer. A sea-based terminal ballistic missile defense capability is only one of the

opportunities that exist for the development of a multi-tiered land-sea-air-spacebased missile defense. Mr. Aldridge has tasked the Missile Defense Agency in close

consultation with the Navy, to address sea-based terminal ballistic missile defense

capability as part of the integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System and for the

Navy to address its extended-range anti-air warfare needs in light of cancellation

of the Navy Area Missile Defense Program.

The prior plan for SBIRS Low was based on a stressing requirement set tailored

for the difficult, sophisticated threat projected for the National Missile Defense Program. The schedule for the launch of the first generation satellite was considered

moderate to high risk. MDA expects to present, by 15 May, a restructured program

adopting an evolutionary approach to the performance of the sensor system element,

and a more realistic schedule.

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, do the problems in these two missile defense systems undermine the concept of developing a ‘‘layered’’ missile defense?

Answer. No. The actions taken by the MDA, with the concurrence of the SEC, regarding SBIRS Low and Navy Area, demonstrate the flexibility inherent in managing the BMD program as an integrated system. The program envisions a layered

defense with evolving capability objectives, based on the projected threat capabilities

and the phased deployment of system elements in blocks of demonstrated missile

defense technologies.

The MDA, with participation by the services and CINCs, is working to develop

a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) that layers defenses to intercept missile

in all phases of their flight (i.e., boost, midcourse, and terminal) against all ranges

of threats. In doing so, the MDA plans and executes work such that efforts in a particular area of the BMDS may be truncated or stopped if the results are unsatisfactory or where the development effort should be shifted to another integrated BMDS

element to permit its acceleration.

The Navy Area program suffered technical and schedule challenges, that impacted

cost. This put the Department in the position of being unable to certify to the NunnMcCurdy stipulations and resulted in the program’s cancellation. The MDA is addressing the Sea-Based Terminal element in the context of its role in fulfilling a portion of the layered BMDS. As part of the SBIRS Low restructure the element is converting to a spiral development, capability-based approach. The initial satellites will

support the BMDS Test Bed. These first satellites may have less capability and
48

therefore lower schedule and technical risk of achieving launch. Subsequent satellites will have greater capability as technology matures. This will allow for early

contingency operations and increasing capability. Lessons learned from the initial

satellite operations will feed back to later satellites, increasing their capability and

lowering their schedule and technical risks. An adjustment to the funding profile

across the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) may be required to provide the best

capability for the country.

Question. What are the arms control treaty implications of your ballistic missile

defense budget request? Is the ABM Treaty violated if the Committee approves your

program as requested?

Answer. All DOD activities, including those in the Missile Defense Agency budget,

will be conducted in compliance with U.S. arms control obligations. With respect to

the ABM Treaty of 1972, on December 13, 2001, the United States gave notice of

its withdrawal from the Treaty, effective six months from that date (June 14th). The

ABM Treaty will not be violated if the Committee approves the missile defense program as requested.

SPACE PROGRAMS

Question. Mr. Secretary, achieving dominance in space is a key to transforming

our military. Unfortunately, some of our more critical space programs—the Space

Based Radar satellites and the Advanced EHF satellite, to name a few—have experienced delays, cost overruns and other performance problems. Does the Department

have a plan to manage these programs in order to avoid additional cost overruns

and delays?

Answer. Yes. For example, the Space Based Radar is a relative new start. We

stood up a program office to manage this effort last May 2001. Although there has

been considerable discussion between the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office over how to optimally structure the program office, so far we are unaware of any other management, cost or schedule problems.

In the case of the Advanced EHF, which provides protected satellite communications for a number of high priority command and control functions, we have taken

several actions. In response to the Advanced EHF problems, caused by an attempt

to accelerate the launch schedule as a result of the loss of a Milstar EHF satellite

in 2000, we have increased the oversight of the execution of this program and are

also evaluating alternatives for meeting the operational requirements after satellite

three. Our objective is a transformational communications architecture that supports the expanding bandwidth requirements of the warfighter.

Question. Do you view the problems in these programs to be more a function of

management difficulties or technical difficulties?

Answer. At this time I am not aware of any significant management or technical

issues with Space Based Radar. Some have expressed concern about management

challenges associated with effectively integrating Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) expertise into a single program office, but these concerns are

mitigated by the assignment of Mr. Peter Teets to serve as both the Undersecretary

of the Air Force and the Director of NRO.

As described in the previous question, the Department has taken several actions

to address the Advanced EHF management issues. Additionally, the Department

has identified a new approach to technically satisfy the expanding warfighter requirement for very high bandwidth capacity and the continuing need for secure national level command and control. Instead of proceeding beyond satellite three with

the Advanced EHF, the Department is proposing two new start satellite communication programs in fiscal year 2003, as follows:

—The Advance Wideband Satellite program, for which we are asking $200 million

in fiscal year 2003, will utilize Laser communications to relay surveillance and

reconnaissance information for processing and dissemination.

—The National Strategic Satellite Communications System, for which we are asking for $10 million in fiscal year 2003 with a significant ramp up in the outyears, will provide highly protected communications for national level command

and control.

DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, earlier this month you testified before another

Senate Committee that the Defense Emergency Response Fund would run out of

funds sometime in April. What is the current status of Defense Emergency Fund

balances available to the Department, and is that still your forecast?

Answer. I continue to estimate that Defense Emergency Response Fund balances

will be fully exhausted in April. Through the end of February, $11.9 billion of the
49

$15.2 billion appropriated to DERF has been committed, obligated or pending transfer to restore funds advanced from the baseline appropriations for the cost of the

war on terrorism. However, the funds appropriated and apportioned in the last supplemental for increased OPTEMPO and the pay costs of Guard and Reserve personnel who have been mobilized are already depleted. The Military Departments

have begun to advance funding from the fourth quarter operation and maintenance

and military pay accounts to fund the high OPTEMPO and pay costs associated

with continuing the war on terrorism. However, I anticipate that the supplemental

funds that will soon be requested will be sufficient to make the operation and maintenance and military pay accounts whole again, and therefore there will be no impact of DOD readiness.

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, for how long does the Department envision maintaining the reserve mobilization at the current levels?

Answer. The global war on terrorism will be variable and dynamic and, as the

President has said, will more than likely go on for years. Thus, there are many unknown factors, including how long it will be necessary to maintain the current level

of reserve mobilization. As the global war on terrorism evolves, the Department will

continue to evaluate the use of Reserve Component personnel and ensure that they

are being employed effectively for essential requirements. Judicious use of resources

is a critical element of executing the war on terrorism over the long term and it

is important that we not exhaust the available pool of Reservists and Guardsmen

in the early phases of this operation.

Question. Are the respective armed services using current year operation and

maintenance funding to provide for increased force protection costs, or are these

being covered by Emergency Response Fund dollars?

Answer. The DOD’s baseline budget in fiscal year 2002 for force protection was

$4.5 billion for the protection of DOD personnel against acts of terrorism. After

threat conditions markedly changed, the Department sought additional funds for

force protection last autumn. An additional $1.4 billion was provided. I intend that

all additional force protection requirements in fiscal year 2002 be funding via supplemental funding. To do otherwise would threaten the ability to sustain readiness

funded in the baseline operation and maintenance accounts.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HERB KOHL

STRATEGY ON FUTURE CONFLICTS

Question. Recent articles and statements by Administration officials have indicated that we are not ready to engage in a conflict with Iraq at this time. I am not

advocating such a move, but I am surprised that the United States is not prepared.

Our previous national strategy was to be ready to fight and win two major regional

conflicts, our current strategy is to fight and win against a major regional adversary, while defending against another regional adversary in another theater. If that

is our strategy, why are we unprepared to deal with Iraq? Why do we not have

enough precision guided munitions to fight a relatively small conflict and then take

on a regional adversary? Is this a failure of the Department of Defense to accurately

plan what we need to fight these future conflicts?

Answer. The current strategy requires the United States to fight and win two

overlapping wars, and we are capable of prosecuting that strategy today. Our armed

forces have many capabilities that can be brought to bear against an adversary. The

skillful orchestration of these various capabilities in the right mix appropriate to the

threat is the objective of advance planning. In light of our increasing usage of precision munitions in recent combat we are adapting our production rates and planning

accordingly.

ELIMINATION OF COLD WAR ERA PROGRAMS

Question. I am concerned that since the Department of Defense funding is increasing by such large amounts there is no political will to eliminate Cold War era programs that are no longer relevant to future conflicts. The Secretary has talked about

making tough choices to move the military toward transformation, but this budget

doesn’t seem to make any choices. Instead of transformation over tradition we are

getting both the old systems and the new. Can you provide some examples where

the Department of Defense has decided to eliminate weapon systems or programs,

outside of missile defense, in favor of newer approaches? Where has the Department

of Defense decided to skip a generation of technology as the President proposed?

Answer. There are several examples where the Department of Defense is eliminating weapon systems and programs. Recently the Army terminated 18 of its pro-
50

grams that are not planned for the Objective Force. Eleven (11) of those programs

will be terminated in fiscal year 2003, while the remaining seven (7) will be terminated between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2007. The funding associated with

these 18 systems has been realigned to support higher Army priorities. The Army

will also eliminate several different rotor aircraft in its inventory upon fielding the

Comanche helicopter. When the Comanche is fully fielded, the Army will have only

three types of helicopters (Comanche, Black Hawk, and Chinook). By eliminating

1,000 Vietnam-era aircraft from the force, AH–1 Cobras this year and UH–1 Hueys

by fiscal year 2004, the Army will free the resources needed to support other transformation goals. The Navy cancelled the DD 21 Land Attack Destroyer program and

will satisfy those requirements through the DD(X) program which will focus efforts

on maturing transformational technologies. This move will also increase risk reduction efforts while establishing a family of ships that will include the future cruiser

(CG(X)), the future destroyer (DD(X)), and a littoral combat ship (LCS). The DD(X)

program is also an example of the Department’s efforts to skip a current generation

of weapons in favor a greater future capability.

REQUIREMENTS GENERATION PROCESS

Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Act helped establish a process to ensure the requirements of the warfighter initiate and guide the development of military weapons programs. Congress felt that identification of warfighter requirements should be

a documented process in any weapons development program. The Department of Defense has exempted the missile defense program from the Requirements Generation

Process, thereby taking the warfighter and documented warfighter requirements out

of the development process. Outside of allowing the warfighter to provide unofficial

and verbal input to the development process, what efforts will the Department take

to ensure that warfighters are allowed to document their requirements and establish performance parameters which the acquisition community must meet to ensure

the missile defense programs have adequate military utility?

Answer. Under the new management approach for Ballistic Missile Defense

(BMD), warfighter involvement in establishing the needs of the fighting forces will

be robust and ongoing. In fact, under this new approach, there will be even greater

opportunity for the warfighter to influence the development of BMD and its earliest

deployment to the fighting forces than ever before.

Developing BMD as a single program with a capability-based approach will

produce a better outcome and provide greater Service involvement. Under the new

approach, the warfighter will provide the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) with the

desired operational features and approaches to system development. The Joint Theater and Missile Defense Organization (JTAMDO) will serve as the voice for the

Commanders in Chief (CINCs) and the Military Services to lead the collaborative

effort with the CINCs and Services on operational matters. JTAMDO will also develop the operational concepts, develop the operational architecture, and assess military utility, during BMD System (BMDS) development and transition to production.

Further, MDA will work closely with JTAMDO in developing the joint command and

control architecture for the BMDS and integrating it into the applicable joint command and control architectures for air and missile defense.

Under the new approach, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Services will be included in deliberative and advisory bodies that will influence BMD development on an ongoing basis. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the

Services are included in the Missile Defense Support Group (MDSG) and the Working Group which supports the MDSG principals. Under the former process, meetings

of principals from the Services with senior officials of MDA were infrequent, normally occurring on the occasion of a milestone decision or other significant program

event. By contrast, the MDSG meets frequently, providing a unique opportunity for

the warfighter to voice concerns on BMD development.

Additionally, MDA has created a separate forum for intensive engagement with

the Services. A Joint Board of Directors between MDA and each of the Military

Services has been created. Meetings of the Board of Directors will be conducted frequently to ensure that BMD development effort is conducted with full involvement

of the Services.

Finally, the Services will be involved in the decision to transition an individual

element of the BMDS to deployment as a military capability for the fighting forces.

A recommendation from the Director, MDA, that the BMDS or a BMDS element

should be considered for transition to production would be approved by the Senior

Executive Council (SEC), which includes the Service Secretaries. Upon SEC approval, USD (AT&L) will establish necessary product teams to support a Milestone

C decision after receiving advice from the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB). Fol-
51

lowing this decision, a capability-based ORD will be produced and approved by the

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). Legacy processes of DOD acquisition

regulations, with full Service involvement, would be fully implemented at this point.

FEDERAL ACQUISITION SYSTEM

Question. The role of the federal acquisition system is to guide programs through

stages of development with reporting requirements which allow senior leaders to

evaluate system capability, performance, cost and schedule. Now that the Department has exempted the missile defense programs from the federal acquisition system, how will the Department ensure adequate review is provided in the development of missile defense programs? What reporting requirements and measures of

effectiveness will missile defense programs have to provide during their development to allow for review of their progress? How will these reporting requirements

determine if the programs are running at high cost or behind schedule? How will

the reporting requirements judge the trade off of additional development risk for additional performance or additional cost? What reporting requirements will be used

to determine if a missile defense program should be accelerated, decelerated, modified, or terminated?

Answer. On January 2nd of this year, the Secretary of Defense redesignated the

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization as the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and

changed the responsibilities and authorities of the Director. The Secretary gave the

Agency new priorities and direction, and expanded responsibilities and authority to

execute the missile defense program. The Secretary has set up a formal oversight

process for the missile defense program. The Director, MDA, will report directly to

the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics). The Senior

Executive Council, or SEC, chaired by myself, provides executive oversight of the

program. Permanent members are the Service Secretaries and the Under Secretary

(AT&L). Other Department officials will be included as needed, depending on the

subject at hand.

The SEC conducts periodic formal and informal reviews of the program. The SEC

has met six times since last summer to review the Ballistic Missile Defense program. Reviews include such topics as program plans, management approaches, test

performance, system architecture, technological alternatives, basing options, and

threat. The SEC provides guidance regarding policy, planning, and programming;

makes the decisions as to whether to stop, start, slow, or accelerate efforts; and approves recommendations on fielding elements of the system. This group demands

high standards of accountability.

Additionally, the Department has created a new, standing Missile Defense Support Group (MDSG), the Chairman of which reports directly to the Under Secretary

(AT&L). The MDSG provides advice both to the Under Secretary and Director,

MDA, as well as input to the SEC. It performs independent assessments, and is

supported, in turn, by a working group. The members of the MDSG are all senior

department officials, and experienced in missile defense. These changes provide

more direct and focused executive oversight and reporting than that provided under

the former approach. It will enable the Department to respond more rapidly to

emerging events. They provide for more internal accountability at a more rapid pace

than we have had in the past.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

SHIPBUILDING

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, as you know, I have been concerned about the low

rate of shipbuilding. I am not only troubled with the size of the Fleet but also about

the industrial base. I am pleased to see you have recognized that the shipbuilding

rate needs to be higher than the current rate of five ships, however, your current

projections show construction of only five to seven hulls over the next four years

while accelerating ship inactivation’s. How do you plan to ensure the Fleet is sufficiently sized to fully support a forward-deployed, combat-credible posture while

maintaining an operational tempo that supports Quality of Life and retention efforts?

Answer. The request for five ships in fiscal year 2003 and 34 ships across the

FYDP provides the best balance between the Department’s competing requirements

and available resources. While the Department recognizes that the build rate of five

ships in fiscal year 2003 and approximately 7 ships per year across the FYDP is

insufficient to sustain the current fleet size over the long term, we are making substantial investments now in programs such as CVN(X) and DD(X), as well as SSBN
52

conversions to cruise missile carrying submarines (SSGN) that represent the bridge

to the transformed Naval Forces of the future.

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I understand that Navy priorities for accelerating

procurement of additional ships, if funds were available, would first be a DDG–51

and then an LPD–17. If additional funds were available, do you support these priorities?

Answer. The Department is currently reviewing ship requirements for the future

fleet. The Navy is participating in the review, and if additional funds were available

for accelerating ship procurement, the Department would review the latest information from the ongoing review and determine the shipbuilding priorities at that time.

Both the DDG–51 and LPD–17 programs could be accelerated if additional funding

were available. However, the current budget request meets the current requirements for the Navy.

MARINE EXPEDITIONARY BRIGADE VEHICLES

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I understand that the current amphibious lift capacity for Marine Expeditionary Brigade vehicles will support only 2.1 brigades.

How do you plan to meet the current and future brigade lift requirements given that

the average age of almost half of your amphibious Fleet is over 30 years old?

Answer. Both the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine

Corps have recognized the Marine Corps’ fiscally unconstrained requirement to simultaneously lift the assault echelons of three Marine Expeditionary Brigades

(MEB AE). There are no current plans to satisfy this unconstrained requirement.

Current ship building plans require keeping amphibious ships well past their Expected Service Lives (ESLs). Many vessels with planned replacement will have to

serve approximately a decade beyond their intended life expectancy. Once the final

LPD–17 is delivered, around 2015, amphibious lift capacity will achieve 83 percent

of the 3.0 MEB AE lift required for one Major Theater War. The LPD–17 class ship

will provide greater amphibious lift capabilities as they replace four classes of older

ships, including the aging LPD–4 AUSTIN class ships that are now in service. For

comparison purposes, the vehicle capacity of an LPD–4 class ship is 11,800 square

feet and for the LPD–17 class ship it is 24,600 square feet.

The second element of the future lift capability involves the replacement of the

LHA class of amphibious assault ships. The LHA Replacement Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) is expected to be released in June 2002.

To help correct the near-term vehicle lift shortfall, the Navy created the Amphibious Lift Enhancement Plan (ALEP) which has 5 decommissioned LKAs and 4 decommissioned LSTs in Mobilization Category B. As part of a major wartime mobilization, these vessels would take approximately 180 days to return to service. While

their capabilities are not compatible with today’s operational concepts, they could

provide the additional vehicle square.

One note regarding the recent use of high speed ferries as transportation assets.:

while useful in an intratheater logistics role, they are not acceptable substitutes for

lifting elements of an Assault Echelon into a combat environment lack both the survivability and sustainment to steam with an Amphibious Task Force and deliver an

assault echelon in a hostile environment.

DD(X) PROGRAM

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, could you provide an update on how the DD(X)

program is progressing? Do you believe that down select for design will remain on

schedule for April of this year?

Answer. The Navy cancelled the DD–21 Phase III Request for Proposal (RFP) on

30 November 2001 and issued a new Phase III solicitation based on the DD(X) strategy. The award of that Phase III contract will represent the down select to one team

led by a shipbuilder which will become the design agent and technology developer

for DD(X). Both of the industry teams competing to design DD(X)—the Blue Team,

led by Bath Iron Works with Lockheed Martin Corporation as the systems integrator, and the Gold Team, led by Ingalls Shipbuilding Inc. with Raytheon Systems

Co. as the systems integrator—responded with proposals in February 2002.

The Navy is scheduled to award a best value contract in April 2002.

REDUCTIONS IN FUNDING FOR TRAINING ROCKETS

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I am concerned with the Department’s decision to

slash funding for the Hydra-70 rocket system in fiscal year 2003 by nearly 85 percent, at a time when our nation’s front line forces are deployed with these systems

in Afghanistan and other countries. This seems to be inconsistent with the direction

provided by this committee last year and this could put combat readiness at risk.
53

How does the Department plan to maintain the combat proficiency of aviators

with such dramatic reductions in the procurement of training rockets?

Answer. The Army has made a tough choice to move the military toward transformation. This is a clear example of where the Department of Defense has decided

to move forward and accept risk by reducing the amount of Hydra-70 rockets procured and move toward rocket technology that will give the war fighter a low cost

precision engagement capability far greater than he possesses today. To mitigate the

near term readiness risk, Army anticipates no change to current training strategies

for the next two years. As part of its continuing and ongoing review process, the

Army staff is reassessing rocket strategies.

RECAPITALIZATION OF AGING WAR RESERVE

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, how will the Department address the recapitalization of the 2.75-inch war reserve that is aging and less capable than the current

production configuration, and incapable of being deployed on Naval aircraft carriers

because of safety issues?

Answer. The Department is recapitalizing a limited number of unserviceable 2.75-

inch war reserve rockets, by refurbishment. The upgrades result in these items

being reclassified as Combat Useable Assets and address safety issues. As a parallel

effort, the Department is also engaged in modernizing this weapon to address the

need for increased precision capability and to satisfy insensitive munitions requirements. Items remaining in war reserve will continue to be screened for component

re-use and for use in training.

FUTURE COST INCREASES

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, how will the Department mitigate the future cost

increases to the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps users that rely on the Army as

the Single Manager for procurement of this vital weapon system?

Answer. The Department is conducting a study of the 2.75-inch rocket industrial

base which will determine cost drivers that influence rocket procurement prices. The

project manager will work closely with industry to develop and implement solutions

to minimize cost increases to the other services.

SBIRS-LOW

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, the following statements have been issued by administration officials in recent months:

The Statement of Administration Policy on the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Bill, issued on November 28th of last year, declared that ‘‘The President

is committed to the development and deployment of effective missile defenses to protect the United States, our forces, and our friends and allies as soon as possible.’’

In a letter to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee dated November

14, 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that a key element of the Administration’s national security strategy was ‘‘the intention to develop and deploy limited defenses

against ballistic missiles as soon as technologically possible.’’

In a letter to Senator Kyl dated November 27, 2001, the President’s National Security Adviser stated that SBIRS-Low ‘‘is a critical part of this Administration’s missile defense program.’’

Do these statements still reflect the views of the Administration and the Defense

Department?

If not, please explain what has changed.

Answer. SBIRS Low is a critical component of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).

Question. If all those statements still hold, the Defense Department’s actions with

respect to SBIRS-Low are puzzling. According to information provided by Defense

Department officials, both program contractors are currently on schedule and within

budget. Yet DOD has slipped the program two years in anticipation of delays that

might occur in the future, and removed substantial funding over the Future Years

Defense Plan. How does delaying a critical element of the missile defense program

because of possible future problems promote the deployment of effective missile defenses as soon as technologically possible?

Answer. The prior plan for SBIRS Low was based on a stressing requirement set

tailored for difficult, sophisticated threats. The probability of achieving the first

launch of the complex satellite on schedule was considered low. The program was

restructured to create a more realistic schedule. Part of the SBIRS restructure is

converting the program to a spiral development, capability-based approach. The initial satellites will support the BMDS Test Bed. These first satellites may have less

capability and therefore lower schedule and technical risk of achieving launch. Sub-
54

sequent satellites will have greater capability as technology matures. This will allow

early contingency operations and increasing capability thereafter. Lessons learned

from the initial satellite operations will feed back to later satellites, increasing their

capability and lowering their schedule and technical risks.

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, there is always some risk a program won’t complete its work in the time desired—schedule risk—and there’s some risk that a program won’t achieve all its technical goals—technical risk. Can you please explain

how reducing funding for SBIRS-Low by approximately $1.5 billion over the Future

Years Defense Plan reduces either of those risks? Doesn’t a funding reduction increase those risks?

Answer. The prior plan for SBIRS Low was based on a stressing requirement set

tailored for difficult, sophisticated threats. The probability of achieving the first

launch of the complex satellite on schedule was considered low. The program is

being restructured to create a more realistic schedule. Part of the SBIRS restructure

is converting the program to a spiral development, capability-based approach. The

initial satellites will support the BMDS Test Bed. These first satellites may have

less capability and therefore lower schedule and technical risk of achieving launch.

Subsequent satellites will have greater capability as and technology matures. This

will allow early contingency operations and increasing capability thereafter. Lessons

will be learned from the initial satellite operations that will feed back to later satellites, increasing their capability and lowering their schedule and technical risks.

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, there has been some suggestion that SBIRS-Low

would be unnecessary if a series of large, land-based X-band radars could be placed

at various locations around the world. Doesn’t such an approach have serious drawbacks in terms of the political difficulties of securing and maintaining basing

rights—especially in the face of possible regime changes—as well as significant challenges in protecting those bases from attack?

Answer. That is correct. A space-based sensor constellation provides the opportunity to view missiles launched anywhere on the globe, aimed at any point, reducing the dependency on foreign basing, reducing the vulnerability to direct attack

and, mitigating the geographic viewing limitations of surface-based radars. That is

precisely why the SBIRS Low capability is key to an effective, reliable sensor suite.

In addition, a balanced infrared and radar sensor suite ensures that no single countermeasure is able to negate our sensor capability. Complementary sensors based

on different methodologies (i.e., radar and infrared) create a capability that is highly

effective against a wide variety of countermeasures.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES ACT

Question. I have introduced along with Senator Durbin the Military Commission

Procedures Act, S. 1937. Have you had the chance to review the bill and do you

have any comments? Can you comment on the status of the procedures for the military commissions being prepared by DOD and do you know of any plans to conduct

such commissions in the foreseeable future?

Answer. Before Secretary Rumsfeld publicly announced the military commission

procedures on March 21, 2002, DOD gave careful consideration to all inputs provided by Congress, including S. 1937, S. 1941 (a separate draft bill sponsored by

Senator Leahy), and the views of other Senators and Congressmen. The result of

this critical deliberation is a set of procedures that we believe is fair, balanced, and

just.

A comparison of DOD’s military commission procedures with S. 1937 reveals more

commonalities than differences. Both provide that the accused is presumed innocent,

that he is not required to testify, that he may obtain witnesses and documents to

use in his own defense, that the standard of guilt is proof ‘‘beyond a reasonable

doubt,’’ and that a unanimous vote is required to impose the death penalty. Although there are some differences concerning composition, certain trial procedures,

handling of classified information, and appeals, DOD’s procedures taken as a whole

are entirely appropriate to the unique circumstances of the war against terrorism

and comply with the President’s directive to provide each accused with a full and

fair’’ trial. While we appreciate the thought and effort that went into drafting the

legislation, we do not believe any additional legislation in this area is necessary or

appropriate.

There is no timeline in place for trials. The President has not designated anyone

for trial before a military commission, and law enforcement intelligence, and military personnel continue to conduct their respective investigations.
55

MAJOR THEATER WARS

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, prior to September 11th, persistent funding shortfalls, compounded with expanding requirements and record high operational tempo,

had resulted in significant risk in executing the national military strategy of fighting two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. Now our country faces just that

scenario should we choose to escalate our activities in Iraq? Does the increase in

the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget eliminate this risk?

Answer. The fiscal year 2003 budget contributes significantly to improving the

health of the Department and its ability to execute the Nation’s defense strategy.

The fiscal year 2003 budget balances funding that contributes to near-term readiness—and our ability to fight two overlapping wars—with funding that begins

transforming our Armed Forces. I am confident of our ability to execute the strategy, and this budget will only improve our posture in that regard.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

DIRECTED ENERGY

Question. As you know, our National Laboratories, particularly those in New Mexico, as well as our military research labs, have made tremendous advances in directed energy and in particular, in laser development. Both Kirtland Air Force Base

and White Sands Missile Range in my home state have been at the forefront of

many of these breakthroughs and continue to develop these technologies for military

applications that can drastically reduce collateral damage on the battlefield.

Does the Administration envision directed energy technologies as ranking prominently in the transformation capabilities of our military forces, and do our military

labs and testing grounds currently have the resources to adequately accommodate

such an expanded mission?

Answer. Directed Energy provides the Department of Defense with unique opportunities to augment and improve its operational capabilities and tactics as we work

to transform our military forces and continue to deal with the complex national security environment currently unfolding. The Services all have implemented energy

programs and recognize that the potential for speed-of-light long-standoff-range engagements, unique damage mechanisms, greatly enhanced multi-target engagement,

and deep magazines are desirable attributes for a 21st-century arsenal. Directed energy technologies have matured to the point where it is feasible, over the next two

decades, to include systems on aircraft, space vehicles, ships, and ground vehicles.

The remaining science and technology challenges include work on power generation

and storage, power conditioning and component development, thermal management,

weapons effects, high power microwave pulse forming technology, a verity of laser

sources and beam control, and atmospheric understanding and compensation. There

are continuing engineering challenges to improve reliability and reduce the cost and

size of directed energy systems.

Current directed energy programs supported by the military include the airborne

laser acquisition program, the airborne tactical laser and area denial system Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations, technology oriented space based and

ground based laser thrusts, and the new starts in the areas of mobile tactical high

energy laser and free electron laser. Although the engineering and technology challenges for directed energy systems are formidable, we consider these programs and

related enabling technology programs to be adequately funded to meet validated

DOD mission requirements. We, of course, are continuing to review the potential of

directed energy systems and to maintain the necessary flexibility to exploit technology opportunities that may arise from current research.

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Question. One of the issues I have worked very hard on is that of addressing the

non-traditional asymmetrical threats, such as chemical, biological, nuclear, and even

cyber attacks. We now know these are a very real challenge, not only to our assets

around the world, but also to our own critical infrastructures here in the United

States. Our national laboratories in New Mexico have significant experience and

know-how in the field of computer modeling that can be applied to risk assessments

of our critical infrastructures.

Please describe how RDT&E funding is being directed in this budget to meet

these challenges, and how the notion of transformation plays into this effort.

Answer. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) RDT&E funding is being

directed to develop the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
56

(NISAC). Further, DTRA RDT&E funding continues to support the Mission Degradation Analysis (MIDAS) program. NISAC is an effort to develop architecture to

simulate and analyze the nation’s civilian infrastructures. NISAC will leverage

Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory modeling and simulation expertise. The NISAC will provide an enabling capability to help national,

state and local leaders deal with protecting the nation’s critical infrastructures. In

fiscal year 2002, the NISAC effort was funded at $20 million. The MIDAS program,

started in December 2000, is a research and development effort to develop methodologies and automated tools to enable an integrated assessment of the degradation of critical infrastructures upon selected DOD missions and functions. The

MIDAS effort was funded at $2.7 million for fiscal year 2002. While NISAC is a national-level initiative, MIDAS focuses on the DOD. MIDAS is also developing methodologies to enable the assessment of future infrastructures to integrate protection

as these future infrastructures are created. Both efforts will provide capabilities for

risk assessments: NISAC at the national level and MIDAS at the DOD level. These

two separate, but related, efforts will help the nation to understand, analyze and

protect critical infrastructures to ensure continuity of government and DOD mission

accomplishment. With this insight into the infrastructure, we will be better positioned to shape changes to our infrastructure to support increased homeland security in the face of our war on terrorism.

Question. In addition, what role do you envision for both Los Alamos and Sandia

National laboratories as we continue in the war against terrorism?

Answer. Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) and Los Alamos National Laboratory

(LANL) will play a vital role in the war against terrorism via the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center. SNL and LANL have expertise in modeling and simulation which will couple with their high performance computing capability. SNL and LANL have already completed some of the building blocks of creating models for specific pieces of our nation’s extremely complex infrastructure. The

existing capabilities and initial infrastructure modeling efforts will build upon each

other to enable a growing understanding of the operation of the nation’s infrastructure and the interdependencies among the infrastructures. SNL’s and LANL’s participation will facilitate the proper protection of the nation’s infrastructure.

MILCON

Question. It is my understanding that DOD has made the decision to postpone significant investment in military construction to align with the delay in BRAC. However, there are a number of bases throughout the country, including four in my

state, that are so unique in their missions, and so vital to our national security, that

in order to maintain their maximum level of operation, they will require capital improvements before 2005. Many of these bases already have significant milcon backlogs and further delaying milcon investments will exacerbate this problem.

This is also true for military housing on these bases. For example, the budget

does not provide for military housing projects at Kirtland Air Force Base or White

Sands Missile range. Ultimately, a lack of adequate housing reflects directly on the

retention and morale of our military servicemen and women.

Does the increase in out-year milcon funding take this growing backlog problem

into full account, and can aging workplace facilities at bases like Kirtland Air Force

Base and White Sands Missile Range be sustained in their current condition without significantly affecting operations?

Answer. Yes, our military construction and Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization budget requests take the backlog problem into full account. The Defense

Facilities Strategic Plan, published in August 2001, defines our facilities vision for

the future—healthy; productive installations and facilities that are available when

and where needed with capabilities to support current and future military requirements. The first step in this is to sustain what we own. Our fiscal year 2003 budget

request of $5.6 billion increases sustainment funding to 93 percent of the requirement, from 89 percent in last year’s budget. Full funding of sustainment throughout

the program is an appropriate investment that will avoid significant costs in the future by stabilizing facility conditions and preventing further erosion.

Also, the Department is requesting $3.3 billion for recapitilization (including both

operations and maintenance and military construction funds) to restore and modernize our facilities. Recapitilization is important not only to restore the readiness

of poor facilities, but also to maintain the relevance of all facilities to future missions of the Department. A consistent modernization program tied to expected service life best accomplishes this. The Department stands by its goal of achieving a

recapitilization rate of 67 years. We currently plan to achieve this goal by fiscal year

2007.
57

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

U.S.S. ‘‘INCHON’’

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, in December of last year, the Pentagon publicly announced that it would retire the Navy’s only mine warfare command ship, the

U.S.S. Inchon, prior to the end of the fiscal year. A letter was sent to my office, a

month later, informing me of the decision. Just last week, the Navy came by my

office to brief me on the way ahead.

The plan:

—The Inchon is retired, and with it goes 25 percent of the uniformed billets at

Naval Station Ingleside.

—The Navy will deploy, on a rotational basis, additional mine warfare equipment

on big-decked amphibious assault ships.

—$53 million has been identified in the FYDP to study replacements.

—New platforms may be procured by fiscal year 2007.

This plan raises more questions than it answers.

What impact will the retirement of the Inchon have on the Navy’s mine-warfare

capabilities?

Answer. The near-term impact on dedicated Mine Countermeasures (MCM) capabilities has been minimal. Since fire damage in October 2001, Inchon has been precluded from operational tasking. Available large-deck amphibious ships (LHA/LHD

class) have been on call to provide the MCS deck of opportunity. The optimum longterm solution is the subject of an ongoing Navy study.

Question. How suitable are large amphibious ships as substitutes?

Answer. Large amphibious ships are possible substitutes for the Inchon because

they can provide support for all three legs of the MCM triad, particularly MH–53E

mine countermeasures aircraft. The large deck amphibious ships are capable of providing full support for this type of aircraft and related MCM equipment. In addition,

large-deck amphibious ships also have a well deck—which Inchon did not—which

can support, among other things, the Marine Mammal System.

Question. What impact will this dual-hatting have on the Marine Corps ability to

execute its missions?

Answer. The Navy does not plan to deploy, on a rotational basis, additional mine

warfare equipment on big-decked amphibious assault ships. The Navy’s interim plan

for a Mine Countermeasures Command and Control Ship (MCS) is to employ a host

of shared usage, on-demand, multi-purpose ship platforms of opportunity, most preferably a big deck amphibious (L-class) ship with a ‘‘Plug and Play’’ mine warfare

package. This package will include a temporary MCS deployable team that will provide the mine countermeasures (MCM) specific command and control and mission

planning expertise that has previously been provided by the MCS. How ‘‘dual

hatting’’ will impact USMC missions will depend on the situation facing the operational commander. In some scenarios Inchon would not have been available due

to higher priority commitments, maintenance and training cycles, and excessive

transit time to the theater of operation. As was then the plan and remains for the

foreseeable future, operational commanders will task organize to utilize other MCM

options including use of alternative platforms, shore basing and operational maneuver over and around mined waters. Where the operational commander chooses to

exercise the traditional big deck amphibious ship MCS option, USMC operations

may or may not be affected, depending upon the urgency of the amphibious assault,

availability of alternative deck space on other amphibs, and difficulty of the MCM

operation. In a worst-case scenario, some combination of Marines and their equipment will be off-loaded at an appropriate support base until the mine threat is neutralized or alternative lift becomes available.

Question. Perhaps most importantly, what will become of Ingleside? What new

missions will the Navy establish at Ingleside to offset the projected loss of jobs?

Answer. Naval Station Ingleside is a viable installation that is home to the Navy’s

Center of Excellence for Mine Warfare. This base is homeport for 21 MCM and

MHC Class ships, provides facilities to Mine Warfare Training Center and is the

future home of Commander Mine Warfare Command.

There are numerous transformational initiatives and systems, which might be

suited for assignment to Naval Station Ingleside. The Navy is studying options to

replace the dedicated MCS functions that U.S.S. Inchon performed. This MCM initiative, coupled with future initiatives and requirements, should be considered for

location at Ingleside, Texas.
58

TRANSFORMATION

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, while I am encouraged that the budget submission

includes increases for transformational initiatives such as the procurement of additional unmanned aerial vehicles and extra research dollars for space-based radars,

I was surprised by the modest goal you endorsed during a public appearance last

week.

In a speech before the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, you

indicated that it would be unreasonable to expect more that 10 percent of the military to be transformed before the end of the decade. This plan raises more questions

than it answers.

Hasn’t the impressive performance of many of our systems in the current war on

terrorism encouraged you to proceed at a more ambitious pace?

Answer. The performance of our forces in the current war on terrorism has been

most impressive. In fact the current war on terrorism underscores the fact that

transformation is about much more than technology, systems, and programs—it is

about transforming how we think, how we lead, how we train, how we exercise, and

how we fight. Transforming 10 percent of the force over the course of a decade can

make a dramatic difference in the capabilities of the entire force. In one of the famous historical examples of transformation—the development and combination of

armored warfare, air warfare, and tactical radio communications by the Germans

during the period between the two World Wars—10 percent is roughly the percentage of the German army that had been transformed to effect blitzkrieg in 1939 and

1941.

Our expectations for transformation are indeed ambitious. We are examining activities that will create and anticipate the future. We expect to co-evolve concepts,

processes, organizations, and technologies to produce new sources of military power.

Our approach to transformation is grounded in the Information Age and represents

a continuous process that fosters a culture of innovation to produce dramatically improved future capabilities. Transformation is not an end-state, nor strictly a synonym for modernization. We intend to expand the boundaries of existing competencies and develop new competitive areas. During our ongoing dialog and as we

deal with the near term issues, it will be important that we also take the long view.

There is no near term destination for transformation. This is an area, for example,

that will be difficult to put on a budget cycle. But as we move forward it will be

important for us to identify those few lead elements which have the potential for

changing our current operational concepts and the way the force operates.

VACCINE PRODUCTION

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I am discouraged that the budget submission does

not include any funds for the Department to pursue an organic vaccine production

capability.

The Congress was expecting that the fiscal year 2003 submission would contain

the down payment for a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) vaccine

production facility. Site selection was supposed to be conducted this December. This

facility is needed to produce small quantities of vaccines to combat the exotic pathogens that appear on the Department’s ‘‘Validated Threat List’’—vaccines for which

there is no national demand or commercial market.

Now I understand that the Department has abdicated its responsibility, hoping

that HHS will foot the bill for the project. While I concede that the Department of

Health and Human Services may be the ideal agency to take the lead on vaccines

to be procured in quantities sufficient to inoculate the entire population, such as

Small Pox, the Pentagon’s requirements are very unique, and do not overlap with

HHS’s public health mission.

Why has the Department backed away from pursuing an in-house solution to the

unique threats that face our men and women in uniform?

Answer. DOD is not in favor of building new infrastructure unless it can be determined that industry cannot meet DOD needs for production of vaccines to protect

U.S. Service members. Whereas in the past there was limited industry interest, the

events following September 11, 2001 have indicated an industry desire to assist

DOD with its vaccine production needs. Over the past year, interagency DOD/HHS

meetings, including representation from other interested Executive Branch agencies,

have focused on vaccine acquisition for the nation and military force protection primarily focused on bioterrorism threat agents. The DOD and HHS continue to have

discussions with leaders in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry to evaluate whether industry can meet our needs and to gain their views as to how actual

or apparent barriers can be overcome so industry will readily participate in research, development and acquisition. To pursue a DOD only vaccine production fa-
59

cility at this time would be premature and could lead to duplication of infrastructure investment.

Question. What leads you to believe that HHS will be willing to pay for a facility

whose laboratory space would be dominated by the production of DOD-specific vaccines?

Answer. DOD and HHS are continuing to work together identifying requirements

for vaccines that address unique military requirements and the larger need for public health vaccines. Each Department will need to identify resources necessary to

meet their needs. If a dedicated facility is needed to meet national requirements,

we expect multiple agencies will share the cost to construct and operate such a facility.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I am particularly troubled by the Administration’s

decision to defer, potentially, hundreds of military construction projects. The publicly stated rationale—a desire not to construct new facilities at bases that may soon

be closed—is unsatisfactory. Are we to assume that the projects included in the

budget are for facilities that the Pentagon has already determined will not be

closed?

Answer. No. The Department has made no determination of which bases will or

will not be closed. The projects included in the budget reflect the Services’ priorities

for the current inventory and mission requirements within fiscal and planning guidance provided by the Secretary.

Question. How can you justify enormous MilCon increases for Germany and Korea

at the expense of domestic projects? After all, Fort Hood is home to more service

members than all of South Korea.

Answer. Our service men and women stationed overseas deserve the same quality

of life as our service men and women stationed in the United States. Moreover, the

facilities overseas are usually in much worse condition than those in the United

States. For instance, 83 percent of the Army facilities overseas are rated C3/C4,

whereas the Army rates 78 percent of their worldwide facilities as C3/C4. The Air

Force rates 82 percent of their overseas facilities as C3/C4 whereas they rate 63 percent of their worldwide facilities as C3/C4.

EXPANSION OF ROLE IN AFGHANISTAN

Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, the press has recently reported that the United

States military would soon assume the responsibility of training Afghanistan’s new

Army. Please describe exactly what that will entail?

Answer. President Bush announced on January 28 that the United States will assume responsibility for establishing and training the Afghan National Army. On 18–

23 February, Major General Charles Campbell, Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command, led an assessment team to Kabul to develop a plan for training the Afghan

National Army. The team achieved basic consensus with the Afghan Interim

Authority’s Ministry of Defense to begin a 12-week training course for the first few

multiethnic light infantry and border guard battalions as early as May 2002. The

Secretary of Defense has approved initiating this training.

U.S. Central Command will train Afghan National Army leaders and trainers concurrently with Afghan National Army battalion training. Every fourth and fifth battalion trained will be a border force battalion. U.S. Central Command trainers will

come from Special Forces units.

U.S. Central Command’s assessment team projected that United States-led training would take approximately 18 months, after which Afghan National Army trainers or contractors will be able to take over most training.

Question. What role will our coalition allies play in the training mission?

Answer. At the April 3 conference in Geneva on Afghan security issues, we welcomed international contributions to this training effort, and are speaking with

other countries to encourage their participation, under U.S. leadership, by contributing training, equipment, or cash. Furthermore, at present there are no international mechanisms for funding or paying salaries of the Afghan National Army.

The United Nations intends to develop a trust fund to manage international contributions to Afghan military expenses and salaries. The State Department has requested $20 million in its fiscal year 2002 supplemental that could be used to pay

Afghan military salaries. Representatives from the State Department and Defense

Department discussed these topics with other countries at Geneva. Based on the Geneva meeting and other discussions, we will compile countries’ offers and pass them

to the Afghan government, which will be responsible for accepting or rejecting them.
60

Question. Do you anticipate needing to provide surplus materials to equip this

new Army?

Answer. Possibly. The State Department’s supplemental request includes a request for funds to help train and equip the Afghan National Army. We expect that

State’s supplemental request will cover the bulk of the U.S. Government’s training

and equipment contribution. Meanwhile, we are examining options for providing the

Afghan National Army with equipment and materials from DOD and other countries, so that Afghan National Army training can begin as soon as possible.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. DOV ZAKHEIM

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

OTHER MISCELLANEOUS MILITARY PERSONNEL ISSUES

Question. Dr. Zakheim, last year, this Committee was concerned with excess Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves and, in particular, its impact on retention.

The fiscal year 2003 budget request increases PCS moves by $400 million. Why are

your requesting this increase and specifically how many more moves does this request support?

Answer. The PCS increase for fiscal year 2003 is $349.6 million producing 28,864

additional moves.

The fiscal year 2002 President’s Amended Budget request reflected a requirement

for 715,170 moves. When the Congress reduced funding by $180 million for the program in January 2002, the Services were compelled to reduce the number of

planned moves by 17,716, creating a bow-wave of moves in fiscal year 2003. The

fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget reflects a program of 726,318 moves, of which

433,317 are mandatory accession and separation moves, corresponding to increases

in anticipated accessions and separations. Of the program increase of 28,864 moves,

5,557 are due to increased accession and separation requirements.

There are 293,000 operational, training, rotational and unit moves budgeted in

fiscal year 2003. These moves are required to ensure overseas stationing commitments, to facilitate force rotation policies, and to maintain requisite levels of training, force readiness, quality of life, and unit integrity. Of the program increase of

23,307 operational, training, rotational and unit moves, most can be attributed to

bow-waved move requirements deferred from fiscal year 2002 due to the congressional reduction.

The Congress expressed concern that military members moved too frequently and

stated that since the PCS program funded more than 715,000 moves, 52 percent of

the force would move during the year. This analysis failed to exclude mandatory accession and separation moves. When these moves are excluded, a similar analysis

shows that only 30 percent of the force are expected to move within the year—consistent with a 3∂ year rotation cycle.

The fiscal year 2003 program of 726,318 moves is lower then the number of moves

expected in fiscal year 2001 (728,408) and represents the minimum program requirement for fiscal year 2003.

Question. Last week USA Today (‘‘E-mails detail Indiana Guard ‘ghosts’,’’ February 20, 2002) reported that National Guard units across the country are reporting

false, inflated numbers of troops to protect their funding and, in one instance, to

prevent a battalion from failing a readiness report. What steps is the Department

taking to investigate these allegations?

Answer. The Department was working closely with the U.S. General Accounting

Office (GAO) months before the series of USA Today articles appeared, to produce

a systematic and accurate comparison of Army Guard strength and pay information

for review and to initiate any needed corrective measures. These efforts are continuing. Articles in the USA Today on ‘‘ghosting’’ soldiers—delaying removal transactions to inflate State Guard or unit strength—appear to be based principally on

anecdotal information from interviews with Guardsmen and former Guardsmen. The

Department prefers to base its conclusions on actual data. The most recent data indicates a 97 percent participation rate throughout the Army National Guard with

only a 3 percent non-participation rate. This is consistent with the latest GAO information and with a current Army National Guard Non-Participation Summary Report. The National Guard’s current objective is a 98 percent participation rate.

We have also examined the potential readiness impact of non-participating soldiers. Even if up to 3 percent of Army National Guard soldiers were listed as nonparticipants, this would have limited impact on readiness reports for two reasons.

First, because P-level (personnel) threshold bands in the SORTS rating system are
61

separated by margins of about 10 percent, 3 percent (or less) over-reporting of assigned strength has little impact. More significantly, unit commanders have regulatory authority to subjectively upgrade or downgrade, if in their opinion the change

more accurately portrays the actual readiness of the unit. This has far more impact

on the overall readiness report than a 3 percent shift in assigned strength.

There are both acceptable (e.g., medical convalescence) and unacceptable (e.g., unexcused absence) reasons for non-participation. In reviewing non-participation in the

National Guard, we have found some delays in the process for establishing a pay

record for new accessions and Guard members moving from active duty back to a

drilling status, along with processing delays for members being discharged or transferred from the National Guard. To address these and any related strength accounting problems, a standing DOD working group has developed an action plan that is

now being implemented. The plan involves further evaluation and analysis of nonpay record files and reconciliation of pay and personnel records by all Reserve components. The goal is to improve the timeliness in processing personnel transactions

and the accuracy of personnel and strength accounting.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

SBIRS-LOW

Question. Dr. Zakheim, several times over the past decade, a unique requirement

for forward staging platforms supporting Special Operations and Expeditionary

Forces was demonstrated. Lacking a platform to perform this function, an Aircraft

Carrier has been taken out of the normal deployment schedule, with its jets replaced by ground forces and helicopters. Removing an Aircraft Carrier from the normal deployment schedule causes increased stress on an already strained Fleet. This

requirement for Special Operations and Expeditionary Forces carries growing significance in light of the war on terrorism. To alleviate disruption to the Carrier deployment schedule and to better meet this emergent need, have you considered the

procurement of a LHD or a modified LHD amphibious ship to meet this requirement?

Answer. We are actively considering and assessing the merit of an ‘‘LHD-plus’’ alternative (a longer and wider LHD with increased survivability) as part of the ongoing Amphibious Assault Ship Replacement (LHA(R)) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA).

The AoA is scheduled to be completed by July 2002. Additionally, we have recently

funded a Military Sealift Command study to examine short-term alternatives for an

afloat forward staging base. Both of these efforts are focused on finding better ways

to conduct these types of operations.

Question. Dr. Zakheim, are the current SBIRS-Low contractors meeting their contractual requirements? That is, are they doing the work required, in the time allotted, and for the price agreed to?

Answer. The SBIRS Low contractors are meeting their current contractual requirements, but it is important to note that this program is in the early stages of

development and this program is linked to the ground control system and SBIRS

High segments which are not meeting their requirements.

Question. If that is the case, what is the basis for public statements by the Defense Department Comptroller that the SBIRS-Low program is ‘‘not meeting hurdles?’’

Answer. It is important to understand that both SBIRS High and SBIRS Low are

a family of systems that are coupled by a common ground control system. The program is designed to be fielded in a series of increments. Increment I is the ground

station upgrade, Increment II is fielding SBIRS High and Increment III is fielding

of SBIRS Low. The technical hurdles are in Increments I and II. The Department

slipped fielding of those two increments so naturally the third increment had to slip

as well.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

Question. Please provide the number of administrative and professional contractor

personnel who are currently working along side government personnel inside the

Pentagon of other DOD office buildings within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the Service Secretaries, the Office of the Chiefs-of-Staff, and the

Joint Staff. Please provide the data by major staff within each office.
62

Answer. The Department of Defense has no central repository of data on the number of contract workers employed by the Department working along side government

personnel inside the Pentagon of other DOD office buildings within the Office of the

Secretary of Defense, the Office of the Service Secretaries, the Office of the Chiefsof-Staff, and the Joint Staff.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

GULF WAR ILLNESS

Question. Secretary Zakheim I am concerned that the proposed budget would slash Gulf War Illness research from $17.5 million to $5 million. This represents

a 71 percent reduction.

Given the recent advances in identifying the cause of this elusive illness, wouldn’t

now be the time to increase GWI research funding?

Answer. Funding for GWI related research is budgeted in the Force Health Protection (FHP) program element (PE 0601105D8Z). The core fiscal year 2002 FHP

budget was $26.4 million (before $10 million of congressional increases), while the

fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget request contains $10 million.

As part of the budget formulation process, we must make difficult choices to

achieve a balanced and affordable defense program. The fiscal year 2003 President’s

Budget Request represents a balanced program that supports research on many of

the key technologies that will be necessary for the Department’s objectives. However, we also need to ensure that the funding levels of the various components in

the Department’s total budget are balanced based on our assessment of the most

urgent requirements.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Question. Secretary Zakheim, Secretary Rumsfeld testified before the Senate

Armed Services Committee earlier this month that the Department of Defense needed to fix the chronic under-funding of its infrastructure. He further stated that we

must take care of the department’s greatest asset: the men and women in uniform.

Yet, the budget submitted actually cuts military construction by 14 percent in an

effort to not spend money at bases that may be closed by the upcoming BRAC in

2005.

How do you rationalize these positions? Do we really believe that the solution to

fixing our infrastructure and taking care of our service members is to delay much

needed military construction for three more years?

Answer. In the context of competing priorities resulting from the events of September 11th, we have developed the fiscal year 2003 Military Construction budget

to support the President’s and Secretary’s aims with a balanced program to improve

quality of life, enhance sustainment and modernization of existing facilities, and

fund critical new construction.

Although the fiscal year 2003 budget request is lower than last year’s fiscal year

2002 request, in no way does it imply an easing of our commitment to revitalize

DOD infrastructure. In fact, the $9 billion request is the second largest request in

the past six years. Additionally, the fiscal year 2003 column of the fiscal year 2002

President’s budget was only $7.4 billion. This year we raised the fiscal year 2003

level to $9 billion.

This budget also places increased emphasis on sustaining and revitalizing the current inventory of facilities by increasing funds for Sustainment, Restoration and

Modernization in the Operation and Maintenance appropriations by $500 million

from last year’s request. The fiscal year 2003 budget funds 93 percent of the Military Services’ facilities sustainment requirement. That is up from 89 percent last

year and significantly higher than in previous years, such as fiscal year 2000 when

the Department met only 78 percent of the Services’ facilities maintenance requirements.

The President’s fiscal year 2003 budget includes $4.2 billion to improve housing

for military families, putting the Department on track to eliminate substandard

housing by 2007, three years sooner than previously planned. This budget includes

$227 million more than our fiscal year 2002 request to construct new housing and

revitalize inadequate units. It also includes $195 million for housing privatization,

to take advantage of the 8:1 leverage we have obtained on our investments in contracts awarded so far. At this rate, with our $195 million investment we should be

able to obtain over $1.5 billion worth of quality privatized housing.

This budget also includes $2.9 billion to operate and maintain fiscal year 2003

family housing inventory of 250,000 government-owned units and over 29,000 lease
63

units. While the government-owned inventory declines by 25,000 units from fiscal

year 2002 level due to privatization and demolition, we did not reduce the fiscal

year 2003 budget. Instead, we reapplied the freed-up funds to reduce the backlog

of maintenance on units on hand.

The fiscal year 2003 request also includes $1.2 billion to improve housing for our

single soldiers; the $1.2 billion provides the same level of funding as in fiscal year

2002 and continues the Department’s effort to provide private living space for all

our unmarried military personnel (except those undergoing basic training).

The budget also includes $.4 billion to improve medical and dental facilities, dependent schools, childcare centers and physical fitness facilities.

SBIRS-LOW

Question. Secretary Zakheim, I am troubled by the Administration’s decision to

delay the SBIRS-Low program by two years. If the decision to delay was made because the program is not meeting its technical goals, then the budget submission

would mark the first time that this fact had been reported to the Congress. This

is a critical program, one that may benefit our national security in many areas other

than missile defense.

What can the Department, and the Congress, do to speed the deployment of this

system?

Answer. We may fully decouple SBIRS Low from SBIRS High and convert the

program to a spiral development, capability-based approach. Under this concept, the

initial satellites will support the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Test Bed.

The first satellites may have less capability and therefore lower schedule and technical risk to achieving launch. Subsequent satellites will have greater capability as

technology matures. This will allow early contingency operations and increasing capability thereafter. Lessons learned from the initial satellite operations will feed

back to later satellites, increasing their capability.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. The subcommittee will stand in recess until

March 6 when we will receive testimony on the Army’s budget request. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., Wednesday, February 27, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the

Chair.]

(65)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Dorgan, Stevens, Specter,

Domenici, and Shelby.

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 DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Secretary White, General Shinseki, on behalf of

this committee I would like to welcome you once again as we consider the fiscal year 2003 defense appropriation request of the

Army. I need not tell you that much has changed since you last appeared before this committee. For one thing, we seem to be having

extraordinary action in Afghanistan. In our Nation’s global war on

terrorism, Army soldiers have played many critical roles, securing

airfields abroad, providing security along borders and at airports

here at home, and responding to the many taskings of our Commander-in-Chief.

I would also like to note the invaluable service provided to the

Nation by the quiet professionals of the Army Special Forces. They

have undertaken some of the most difficult missions known to soldiers, identifying targets, coordinating supporting arms for the

Northern Alliance, and conducting battlefield diplomacy.

Two weeks ago Vice Chairman Stevens and I had the chance to

visit Central Asia. In Afghanistan and Uzbekhistan, we are again

reminded of the high quality and commitment of all the volunteer

forces. Our men and women in uniform were focused on the missions at hand and their morale was unbelievably excellent. This is

a tribute to their commitment and to their small unit commanders

on the ground.
66

Secretary White and General Shinseki, there is much to praise,

but there are also some questions to answer. Mobilization of the

Army Reserve and Guard has reached 24,000 soldiers. Our soldiers

are now deployed to the Philippines. They are also in the former

Soviet republics and they will soon be in Yemen. These commitments are in addition to our rotations into and out of Bosnia,

Kosovo, the Sinai, and Saudi Arabia.

How long will we continue these deployments and mobilizations?

Do we have sufficient forces to meet these requirements? What will

happen to the morale if we keep up this pace of overseas deployment?

To help meet these demands and your other requirements, the President has requested $91 billion for the Army in fiscal year

2003. This amount is $10 billion above your current budget. As you

know, this subcommittee has taken the lead in supporting your

transformation efforts. However, you must understand that such

large appropriations will be scrutinized, and as such we will have

many questions for you today.

So we look forward to hearing how this request supports the

Army’s current and future missions. But first I would like to yield

to my vice chairman, Senator Stevens.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Gentlemen, I just had the privilege of going

over some photographs that the staff took on our trip to Afghanistan. I want to tell you, joining with the chairman, the forces we

saw, as I told a group just earlier this week, know who they are,

where they are from, and what they have to do, and they are really

up. I have never seen such gung-ho guys in my life. Very, very,

very purposeful visit as far as I am concerned.

We have I think every reason to be absolutely proud of them, and

I want to congratulate you both for the leadership of the Army that

has got them where they are today. They are going to continue to

make us proud over there, I am confident of that.

I share the chairman’s statement. I really hope that we can find

some way to make sure that the Army’s transformation continues

on schedule and that you have everything you need during this period. I had problems to begin with about the Interim Combat System and the Future Combat Systems. I am sure we are all concentrating on the present combat system and making sure that it is

not overlooked as we are going through this transformation.

We want to keep up with what you are doing. The Crusader and

Comanche, they are two systems that I feel very strongly about

and I have supported. The increases this year are substantial and

I would like to make certain in our hearing today that we could be

assured of spending that money in the time frame that you have

requested it for, because I do not want it to displace other items

that would be equally advantageous to our people now and get

ahead of ourselves and tying up budget authority that is not going

to be spent in the next fiscal year, but would go on into the future

years.

I can tell you, the two of you have great support here in the Congress. You have been very wise, Mr. Secretary, in selecting Les

Brownlee to be your Under Secretary, whoever did it. We have a
67

team there with you that we all know and want to work with.

Again, I just cannot tell you how proud I was and I think we all

were to see our forces over there in Pakistan, Uzbekhistan, Afghanistan, and also in Belgium as we went over.

That is a great team you have got over there and we look forward to working with you to support it.

Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Now may I call upon the Secretary.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens, distinguished members of the committee. Good morning. General

Shinseki and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you representing the great young people that you just talked about, the

soldiers of our Army.

Mr. Chairman, we would ask your consent to make a brief opening statement and insert a joint written statement for the record.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, may I interrupt. I just noticed

my colleague here, if you do not mind. Senator Dorgan.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I will put a statement in the

record. I believe that what you and Senator Stevens have said is

what I observed as well on a trip to Central Asia, Afghanistan,

Uzbekhistan, and other countries. I have never seen such pride in

a mission; soldiers, men and women, who are in harm’s way, but

who understand that what they are doing is critically important,

not only to our country but to the world, in combatting terrorism.

That says a lot about the leadership in the Army and in all of our

services.

I am particularly interested at some point about the value of the

information you have received from Air Force assets, Global Hawk

and the Predator. My understanding is that both of those assets

have been enormously helpful to the Army. But I will not delay the

Secretary, but let me just say to the Secretary and the General

how much we appreciate their service and how much we appreciate

the service of the men and women in the U.S. Army.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY WHITE

Mr. WHITE. I would like to begin this morning by highlighting

three critical tasks that the Army must accomplish if we are to succeed in the joint service task of providing for the Nation’s defense:

First, we must help win the global war on terrorism; second, we

must transform to meet the challenges of future conflicts; and

third, we must secure the resources needed to pursue both the war

on terror and Army transformation.

Our first task is to help win the war on terrorism. Today more

than 14,000 soldiers are deployed in U.S. Central Command’s area

of responsibility supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, from

Egypt to Pakistan, from Kenya to Kazakhistan. Wherever they

serve, our soldiers are nothing short of inspirational, as you noted

in your opening remarks. They are accomplishing a complex and

dangerous mission with extraordinary courage, skill, and deter-
68

mination. Some have been injured, others have given their lives.

More will surely follow. Our Nation is forever indebted to them and

their families for their sacrifice.

As the war evolves, requirements for Army forces are growing,

from assuring regional stability in Central Asia to stability and

support operations in Afghanistan to securing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to training counterterrorism forces in the Philippines and the former Soviet republic of Georgia. At the same

time, the Army continues to deter potential adversaries in Southwest Asia, in Korea, while upholding U.S. security commitments,

as you noted, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, the Sinai, and elsewhere.

In fact, the Army has over 138,000 soldiers and 38,000 civilians

deployed or forward stationed in 120 different countries. The Army

also continues, as you also noted, its long tradition of supporting

homeland security, mobilizing over 25,000 Guard and Reserve soldiers for Title 10 or Federal service here and overseas and activating another 11,000 Guard soldiers for State-controlled homeland

security missions.

In addition to mobilizing reserves, we have also expanded our

stop-loss program to suspend the voluntary separation of over

12,000 Active and Ready Reserve soldiers. Despite the disruption,

our soldiers, their families, and employers are responding magnificently.

But these are not long-term solutions and additional wartime

manning requirements with no adjustment in our global posture to

offset end strength will further strain the force. The strain may

begin to manifest itself in future retention shortfalls, I am sure beginning in the Reserve components and extending into the active

Army.

Our second task is to transform the Army to meet the challenges

of the next conflict, as the Chief of Staff set down the marker, I

believe right here in this room, several years ago. America’s future

depends on it since transformation is at the heart of our competitive advantage as a Nation. However, transformation is a process,

not an end state. To the extent we do not transform, we are at risk.

To reduce risk, we are accelerating our transformation to the full

spectrum Objective Force. We will shortly select the lead system integrator for the Army’s family of Future Combat Systems, the foundation of the Objective Force. Let me emphasize that this is not a

business as usual approach. The lead system integrator will be

charged with achieving the milestones for fielding a threshold capability this decade by incorporating best of breed designs within the

United States and maximum competition for best value procurements.

Selection of a lead system integrator represents a bold and dramatic step forward in our journey to transform the Army. As I said,

we should be able to announce that very, very shortly.

We are presently fielding an Interim Force, six interim brigade

combat teams, to close the capabilities gap between our heavy and

light forces. The Interim Force also provides a bridge to the Objective Force through leader development and experimentation. At the

same time, we are selectively modernizing and recapitalizing key

systems in our Legacy Force, as you touched on, as a hedge against
69

near-term risk and to facilitate the fielding of the Objective Force.

This approach will both provide an enhanced readiness and provide

an affordable means to transform.

The third task is to secure the resources needed to pursue both

the war on terror and Army transformation. The fiscal year 2003

budget addresses all of our priorities. However, we continue to assume risk in our Legacy Force and longstanding shortfalls remain

in installation, sustainment, restoration, and modernization. As

good stewards, we are doing our part to free up resources for investment in higher priority programs. We have made tough tradeoffs. We have terminated 29 programs in the last 3 years, we have

restructured 12 more, reduced recapitalization from 21 to 17 systems, and accelerated the retirement of 1,000 Vietnam-era helicopters.

We are also striving to manage the Army more efficiently, starting at the top by restructuring the Army’s headquarters into a

leaner, more integrated organization. This initiative allows us to

meet the congressionally mandated 15 percent reduction in headquarters staffs and reinvest manpower saved back into the operational Army, thereby increasing our tooth-to-tail ratio.

We are also leveraging e-business concepts and technologies in

our Army knowledge management initiative. This initiative involves managing our information infrastructure more like an integrated enterprise. For example, by October we will have pared

down the network servers in our personnel system from 4,500 to

one super-server database, reducing errors and saving millions in

cost avoidance and staff hours. Even greater economies of scale will

be realized as we continue to flatten our operational structure and

eliminate unnecessary systems.

We are also achieving efficiencies through three other important

Army initiatives: centralized installation management, utilities privatization, and our residential communities initiative. In the interest of time, I will defer comment on these initiatives until our question and answer period.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Let me conclude by thanking the members of the distinguished

committee for your strong support. I look forward to working with

you to ensure our Army remains, as you say and as we all say

when we see soldiers in the field, doing a wonderful job for our

country, the best Army in the world.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED JOINT 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 on the United States Army’s readiness to provide for

our Nation’s security today and in the future. Throughout our Nation’s history, The

Army has demonstrated that it is America’s decisive ground combat force with capabilities sufficiently diverse to cover the full spectrum of operations demanded by the

Nation—anytime, anywhere. The essence of The Army remains unchanged—an

ethos of service to the Nation, the readiness to fight and win wars decisively, and

a willingness to accomplish any mission the American people ask of us.

Today, we are engaged in a global war on terrorism and defense of our homeland.

Soldiers, On Point for the Nation, are protecting and promoting American interests
70

around the globe. They are accomplishing these vital missions much as we have for

over 226 years with little fanfare or attention. The Army is able to accomplish what

is asked by relying on the strength of its Soldiers—active, National Guard, Army

Reserve—and civilians, who honorably and proudly answer the calls to duty.

The Army has no illusions about the challenges it faces. It must help win the

global war on terrorism and prepare for future wars and conflicts by effectively

using the resources you provide us to transform. With the continued support of Congress and the Administration, our Soldiers will continue to do their part to decisively win the global war on terrorism, rapidly transform themselves to fight and

win new and different kinds of conflicts, meet our obligations to allies and friends,

and maintain our readiness for the unexpected and unpredictable challenges that

may arise.

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT

The attacks of September 11 provide compelling evidence that the strategic environment remains dangerous and unpredictable. Although we may sense dangerous

trends and potential threats, there is little certainty about how these threats may

be postured against America or her interests. Uncertainty marks the global war on

terrorism, and our Soldiers continue to be involved in smaller-scale contingencies

and conflicts. Yet, the potential for large-scale conventional combat operations will

continue to lurk just beneath the surface. Victory in battle will require versatile

combat formations and agile Soldiers, who can deploy rapidly, undertake a multiplicity of missions, operate continuously over extended distances without large logistics bases, and maneuver with speed and precision to gain positional advantage. Our

Soldiers must be capable of prosecuting prompt and sustained land operations

across a spectrum of conflict resulting in decisive victory.

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) established a new strategic framework for the defense of the Nation that struck a balance between near-term readiness and our ability to transform ourselves in order to meet current and future conflicts. The report outlined a new operational concept that gives continued priority

to homeland defense, promotes deterrence through forward presence, and asks that

we have the ability to conduct both smaller-scale contingencies and large scale,

high-intensity combat operations simultaneously.

Our Soldiers can defeat enemy armies, seize and control terrain, and control populations and resources with minimal collateral casualties and damage. They can operate across the spectrum of military operations, from full-scale conventional conflict

to fighting terrorists, to setting the conditions for humanitarian assistance. This

multifaceted ground capability enables us to assure our allies and friends, dissuade

future military competition, deter threats and coercion, and, when necessary, decisively defeat any adversary.

As The Army continues to work with other departments, agencies, and organizations, emerging requirements that are not fully defined in the 2001 QDR may require additional resourcing, whether technological, logistical, or force structure. Despite ten years of downsizing, The Army has accomplished all assigned missions to

a high standard. In short, we are doing more with less, and the strain on the force

is real. Our Soldiers continue to give us more in operational readiness than we have

resourced.

While we fight and win the global war on terrorism, The Army must prepare itself

to handle demanding missions in the future strategic environment. Over two years

ago, The Army undertook transforming itself into a force that is more strategically

responsive and dominant at every point on the spectrum of military operations. We

have gained insight from previous deployments, operations, and exercises, along

with leading-edge work in Army Battle Labs, joint and Army warfighting experiments, and wargames. With this insight, The Army embarked on initiatives to assure its dominance in a new contemporary operational environment by deterring

and defeating adversaries who rely on surprise, deception, and asymmetric warfare

to achieve their objectives against conventional forces. The attacks of September 11,

2001 and our subsequent operations overseas validated The Army’s Transformation.

If anything, September 11 provided new urgency to our efforts. Thus, we are accelerating Transformation to give our commanders the most advanced capabilities they

need to ensure that we have the best led, best equipped, and best trained Soldiers

for the emerging global environment. And to mitigate risk as we transform to meet

future requirements, we will prioritize among the imperatives of meeting existing

threats, safeguarding our homeland, and winning the war against terrorism.
71

SOLDIERS—ON POINT FOR THE NATION

Globally, Soldiers offer tangible reassurance to our allies, build trust and confidence, promote regional stability, encourage democratic institutions, and deter conflict. Nothing speaks to the values of America more than Soldiers on the ground providing comfort, aid, and stability at home and abroad. The Army, as part of a joint

military team, provides a wide range of options to our leaders and commanders. As

we have seen, in today’s world we cannot win without the human dimension on the

battleground. Whether it be gathering intelligence, challenging an adversary’s ability to conceal and seek cover, or protecting innocent civilians, the American Soldier

remains the ultimate precision weapon during combat operations, particularly when

legitimate targets are interspersed among non-combatants. In the final analysis, it

is the Soldier on the ground who demonstrates the resilience of American commitment and provides the needed flexibility to decisively defeat our adversaries.

Since October 2001, Army conventional and special operations forces, as part of

the joint force, have participated in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in the Afghanistan theater of operations. The range of their capabilities has been extensive.

These highly trained Soldiers have worked with local forces to forge a powerful alliance. They have designated targets for air strikes, secured airfields, and performed

reconnaissance and security missions that facilitated the safe introduction of followon forces. Supporting the war effort, they have provided security to joint forces, critical facilities, and supply lines, and they have received and prepared both combat

and humanitarian supplies for air delivery to Afghanistan. Currently, more than

12,000 Soldiers are deployed—from Egypt to Pakistan, from Kenya to Kazakhstan.

And although hostilities in Afghanistan are shifting focus, requirements for ground

forces are growing—they are assuring regional stability in Afghanistan, directing

humanitarian assistance and relief operations, securing detainees at Guantanamo

Bay, Cuba, and deploying to the Philippines.

At home, The Army continues its long tradition of support to homeland security.

Even before September 11, 2001, The Army had 10 trained and certified Weapons

of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams ready to assist civil authorities and had

trained 28,000 civilian first responders in 105 cities. Since the attacks, we have mobilized over 25,000 Army National Guard (ARNG) and United States Army Reserve

(USAR) Soldiers for federal service here and overseas. Nearly 11,000 Soldiers are

on state-controlled duty securing airports, seaports, reservoirs, power plants, the

Nation’s capital region, and serving at ‘‘ground zero’’ in New York City alongside

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To increase protection for our citizens and reduce

vulnerability, we accelerated the safe destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal

chemical agent and munitions while combating the proliferation of chemical weapons. And continuing a commitment to civil authorities, nearly 500 Soldiers worked

Super Bowl XXXVI, and over 5,000 Soldiers are helping ensure the security of the

2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah.

But, fighting the global war on terrorism in no way diminishes the requirements

placed on The Army for support to missions and operations around the world—indeed, it expands it. While The Army remains engaged at home, it is prudently taking action for follow-on operations around the world, to include mobilizing some

2,000 ARNG Soldiers to augment our missions in the European theater. In fact, The

Army—active, ARNG, and USAR—has over 124,000 Soldiers and 38,000 civilians

stationed in 110 countries. Additionally, on any given day last year some 27,000 Soldiers were deployed to 60 countries for operations and training missions. And it is

easy to forget that our Soldiers have been on the ground conducting peacekeeping

missions in the Balkans for six years, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for eleven years,

and in the Sinai for nineteen years. Our Soldiers have been in Korea and Europe

for over 50 years, assuring their peace and stability while, at the same time, providing the Nation with a rapid deployment capability to areas near those theaters

of operations, as needed. Depending on the next move in the war on terrorism, additional manning requirements will be placed on The Army that will inevitably create

more stress on our current endstrength.

THE ARMY VISION: PEOPLE, READINESS, AND TRANSFORMATION

On October 12, 1999, The Army articulated its Vision that defined how The Army

would meet the Nation’s requirements now and into the 21st Century. The Vision

is comprised of three interdependent components—People, Readiness, and Transformation. It provides direction and structure for prioritizing resources to ensure

The Army remains the most dominant and intimidating ground force in the world

to deter those who would contemplate threatening the interests of America. Ultimately, it is about risk management, striking a balance between readiness today

and preparedness for tomorrow. It is about having overmatching capabilities while
72

simultaneously reducing our vulnerabilities in order to dominate those who would

threaten our interests—now and in the future. It is about examining where we are

now and where we need to be, and it is about achieving decisive victory—anywhere,

anytime, against any opposition. The Army’s budget request for fiscal year 2003

supports The Army Vision and the strategic guidance to transform to a full spectrum force while ensuring warfighting readiness. It reflects a balanced base program that will allow The Army to remain trained and ready throughout fiscal year

2003, while ensuring our force is protected as we fulfill our critical role in the global

war on terrorism. It mans the force—endstrength of 480,000 Active Component,

350,000 Army National Guard, and 205,000 Army Reserve Soldiers—and provides

our Soldiers with better pay and incentives.

People

People—Soldiers, civilians, retirees, veterans, and their families—are The Army.

People are central to everything we do in The Army. Institutions do not transform;

people do. Platforms and organizations do not defend our Nation; people do. Units

do not train, they do not stay ready, they do not grow and develop leadership, they

do not sacrifice, and they do not take risks on behalf of the Nation; people do. We

must adequately man our force, provide for the Well-Being of our Soldiers and their

families, and develop leaders for the future so that The Army continues to be a professionally and personally rewarding experience. Soldiers will always be the centerpiece of our formations. They are our sons and daughters. We are committed to recruiting and retaining the best people and giving them the finest tools to do their

job so that they remain the world’s best army.

Manning the Force

Current and future military operations depend on an Army with the flexibility to

respond quickly in order to rapidly meet changing operational requirements. The

Army has approached its manpower challenge in a variety of ways. In fiscal year

2000, we implemented a personnel strategy to man units at 100 percent. Starting

with divisional combat units, the program expanded in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal

year 2002 to include early deploying units. Funding in the fiscal year 2003 budget

for change-of-station moves improves our ability to man units at desired grade and

skill levels by placing Soldiers where they are needed. The Army is currently assessing its ability to fill remaining units by the end of fiscal year 2004.

The ARNG and USAR now make up more than 50 percent of The Army’s force

structure. Ongoing and expanded reserve integration initiatives—to include Full

Time Support—have increased reserve readiness and increased their ability to rapidly transition from a peacetime to a wartime posture.

A new advertising campaign in 2001—An Army of One—raised the awareness and

interest levels of potential Soldiers. The Army achieved 100 percent of its goal for

all components in recruiting and retention for the second year in a row. And to ensure that we recruit and retain sufficient quality personnel, we continue to examine

innovative recruiting and retention programs. The increases for enlistment and retention bonuses will enable The Army to sustain these recruiting and retention successes, although some shortfalls remain.

Well-Being

Our Soldiers appreciate, more than you realize, your support this past year for

pay increases of at least 5 percent and the 3.6 percent for the civilians who support

them. Targeted pay increases for highly skilled enlisted Soldiers and mid-grade officers, the online electronic Army University education program, and upgraded singlesoldier barracks and residential communities further support and aid in maintaining the Well-Being of Soldiers willing to put their lives at risk for our national interests. In turn, the attention to a Soldier’s Well-Being helps The Army recruit and

retain the best people. Our Soldiers ask little in return, but they judge their Nation’s commitment to them by how well it takes care of them and their families. It

is a commitment we must honor.

Army readiness is inextricably linked to the Well-Being of our People. Our success

depends on the whole team—Soldiers, civilians, retirees, and their families—all of

whom serve the Nation. The term Well-Being is not a synonym with ‘‘quality of life,’’

but rather an expansion of the concept that integrates and incorporates existing

quality of life initiatives and programs. Well-Being takes a multifaceted approach.

We are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to improve TRICARE

in order to provide better medical care for Soldiers, families, and retirees and to continue to close the compensation gap between Soldiers and the civilian sector, and

the budget’s increases housing allowances reduces out-of-pocket expenses for military personnel from 11.3 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 7.5 percent in fiscal year
73

2003 and puts The Army on track for eliminating average out-of-pocket costs entirely by fiscal year 2005 for those Soldiers and families living on the economy.

Leader Development

Civilian and military leaders are the linchpin of Transformation. The leaders and

Soldiers who will implement the new warfighting doctrine must be adaptive and

self-aware, capable of independent operations separated from friendly elements for

days at a time, exercising initiative within their commander’s intent to rapidly exploit opportunities as they present themselves on the battlefield. Leaders must be

intuitive and capable of rapid tactical decision-making, and all Soldiers must master

the information and weapons systems technologies in order to leverage their full potential. But new technologies and new kinds of warfare will demand a new kind of

leader. As part of our transformation process, The Army is taking a comprehensive

look at the way we develop officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers

through the Army Training and Leader Development Panels to review and assess

issues and provide recommendations on how to produce The Army’s future leaders.

We have expanded these reviews to include Army civilians in anticipation of the

need to replace the increasing number who will become retirement eligible after fiscal year 2003. The Army must have top-notch military and civilian people at all levels in order to meet the global, economic, and technological challenges of the future.

In June 2001, The Army published the most significant reshaping of Army

warfighting doctrine since 1982. Field Manual 3–0, Operations, emphasizes The

Army’s ability to apply decisive force through network-centric capabilities and shows

just how dramatically The Army must transform itself to fight both differently and

more effectively. This doctrine will assist in the development of a new force—the

Objective Force—that maximizes the technological advantages of equipment, leader

development, and evolutionary warfighting concepts. The Objective Force will demand a generation of leaders who know how to think, not what to think.

Readiness

At its most fundamental level, war is a brutal contest of wills. Winning decisively

means dominating the enemy. To be dominant, we must be not only organized,

manned, and equipped, but also fully trained. Today, The Army is ready for its assigned missions, but sustained support from the Nation, Congress, and the Administration is required to ensure that we maintain our readiness. To do so requires that

we pay attention to training, installations, force protection and readiness reporting.

The fiscal year 2003 budget request supports readiness and provides funding to

maintain our current facilities at an acceptable level. Fiscal year 2003 funding improves on fiscal year 2002 levels in terms of maintaining a stable training base to

develop quality leaders and soldiers. Resources have been aligned to ensure our

forces are trained, equipped and ready to fight. In addition, funding is provided to

enhance unit training and deployability—a positive impact on overall readiness.

Unit Training

Tough, demanding training which is supported by an infrastructure that allows

us to train, sustain, and deploy is essential to readiness. History has taught us and

we have learned that, in the end, armies fight the way they train. The Army is committed to fully executing our training strategy—the higher the quality of training,

the better the leaders and warfighters we produce. The result is an increased state

of readiness to serve our Nation. To this end, we must fully modernize training

ranges, combat training centers, and training aids, devices, simulators, and simulations to provide adequate and challenging training. The Army has funded the integration of virtual and constructive training capabilities to achieve realism and cost

effectiveness.

As we move to greater network-centric warfare capability, our forces will operate

with even greater dispersion, and maintaining sufficient maneuver areas for training these extended formations will become even more critical. Combat is a complex

mixture of people, equipment, and the training that fuses them together. Live training requires adequate land, sea, air and spectrum to even begin to realistically

recreate combat-like conditions. That space is increasingly being encroached upon,

intensifying environmental constraints and operational restrictions that will result

in unanticipated and unwarranted limitations on needed test and training activities.

Thus, The Army is implementing a sustainable program to manage the lifecycle of

training and testing ranges by integrating operational needs, land management, explosives safety, and environmental stewardship. This program will ensure the continuing viability of training ranges by addressing the multiple aspects of encroachment: endangered species and critical habitats, unexploded ordnance and munitions,

spectrum encroachment, airspace restrictions, air quality, noise, and urban growth.

As we transform to a future force with new systems, organizational structures, and
74

new doctrine to achieve full spectrum operational capability, our training enablers

and infrastructure, along with realistic and relevant training venues, must be funded to match the timelines we have established to field a highly trained Soldier—

one whose unit is poised to fight new and different kinds of conflicts while maintaining traditional warfighting skills.

The Army OPTEMPO budget is a top priority, and The Army is committed to improving its training and unit readiness. The budget supports a ground OPTEMPO

program of 800 M1 Abrams Tank miles at home station. The Flying Hour Program

is funded for an average of 14.5 required live flying hours per aircrew per month

for the Active Component, and nine live aircrew flying hours for Reserve Components. We have scheduled ten brigade rotations (nine Active Component and one

Army National Guard) through the National Training Center, ten brigade rotations

(nine Active Component and one Army National Guard) through the Joint Readiness Training Center. The Battle Command Training Program will conduct two

corps Warfighter exercises and train six division command and staff groups, an increase of one divisional staff training exercise in fiscal year 2003. Additionally, funding for training enabler support has been increased 20 percent from fiscal year 2002

levels.

Installations

Installations provide homes, family and training support, and power projection

platforms for The Army. They are the bases where Soldiers live, train, and from

which they launch on their missions. Worldwide, we have physical plants worth over

$220 billion. For too many years, The Army has under funded long-term facilities

maintenance in order to fully fund combat readiness and contingency operations;

thus, we now have first-class Soldiers living and working in third-class facilities.

Commanders currently rate two-thirds of their infrastructure condition so poor that

it significantly impacts mission accomplishment and morale. The fiscal year 2003

budget funds over 90 percent of Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization

(SRM) requirements and builds on the fiscal year 2002 funded levels, slowing the

deterioration of our aging infrastructure. But, the major investment in SRM in fiscal

year 2002 is helping to improve only the most critical conditions in our crumbling

infrastructure. Over the next five years, SRM shortfalls will continue to approximate $3 billion annually as a result of our aging facilities. Exacerbating this situation is the fact that The Army has more facility infrastructure than we need. The

cost of operating and sustaining these facilities directly competes with funding our

warfighting capability. The realignment or closure of excess facilities will free funds

for installations and bring the recapitilization rate closer to the Department of Defense’s goal of 67 years by 2010. The Army is divesting itself of mothballed facilities

and examining privatization alternatives. For example, we are capitalizing on the

success of the Residential Communities Initiatives by expanding the program to 24

projects to more efficiently and effectively manage installations. Encompassing over

63,000 family housing units, the program allows the private sector to remodel, build,

and manage housing on Army bases in order to provide the quality housing our Soldiers and their families deserve. The fiscal year 2003 budget provides the military

facilities and soldier housing needed to improve Army readiness, quality of life, and

efficiency. In fiscal year 2003, we will institute a centralized installation management organization that will improve our facilities and infrastructure through consistent funding and standards that promote the equitable delivery of base operation

services and achieve efficiencies through corporate practices and regionalization.

Force Protection

The missions and training we assign Soldiers are not without risks, and Soldiers

must be able to live, train, and work in safe, secure environments. We minimize

risks by proactively protecting our force. For example, we reevaluated force protection security programs and adjusted over $800 million in fiscal year 2003 to further

support controlled access to installations, in-transit security, counter-terrorism

training improvements, information assurance, situational awareness, crisis response, and force protection command and control. An additional $1.8 billion is required for further force protection and security program requirements generated in

the wake of the attacks on America.

Readiness Reporting

Measuring readiness requires accuracy, objectivity, and uniformity. The Army is

transforming its current readiness reporting system to achieve greater responsiveness and clarity on unit and installation status. The Strategic Readiness System

(SRS) will provide senior leaders with an accurate and complete near real time picture representative of the entire Army (operating forces, institutional forces, and infrastructure). The SRS will be a predictive management tool capable of linking costs
75

to readiness so resources can be effectively applied to near- and far-term requirements. A prototype SRS is being evaluated at selected installations, and its development will continue to ensure compliance with congressionally directed readiness reporting.

Transformation

Transformation is first and foremost about changing the way we fight in order to

win our Nation’s wars—decisively. The 21st Century strategic environment and the

implications of emerging technologies necessitate Army Transformation. The global

war on terrorism reinforces the need for a transformed Army that is more strategically responsive, deployable, lethal, agile, versatile, survivable, and sustainable than

current forces.

Technology will enable our Soldiers to see the battlefield in ways not possible before. See First enables leaders and Soldiers to gain a greater situational awareness

of themselves, their opponents, and the battle space on which they move and fight.

Superior awareness enables us to Understand First, to assess and decide on solutions to the tactical and operational problems at hand faster than our opponents—

to gain decision superiority over our opponents. Networked units are able to Act

First, to seize and retain the initiative, moving out of contact with the enemy to

attack his sources of strength or key vulnerabilities at a time and place of our choosing. The Army uses precision fires—whether delivered by joint platforms or Soldiers

firing direct fire weapons—to defeat the enemy as rapidly and decisively as possible.

Army units will be capable of transitioning seamlessly from stability operations to

combat operations and back again, given the requirements of the contingency. And

when we attack, we destroy the enemy and Finish Decisively.

The Army is taking a holistic approach to Transformation, implementing change

across its doctrine, training, leader development, organization, materiel, and soldier

systems, as well as across all of its components. Transformation will result in a different Army, not just a modernized version of the current Army. Combining the best

characteristics of our current forces, The Army will possess the lethality and speed

of the heavy force, the rapid deployment mentality and toughness of our light forces,

and the unmatched precision and close combat capabilities of our special operations

forces—adopting a common warrior culture across the entire force. Transformation

will field the best-trained, most combat effective, most lethal Soldier in the world.

True Transformation takes advantage of new approaches to operational concepts

and capabilities and blends old and new technologies and innovative organizations

that efficiently anticipate new or emerging opportunities. Transformation will provide versatile forces that have a decisive margin of advantage over potential adversaries and fulfill the Nation’s full spectrum requirements. Transformed ground

forces will dominate maneuver on the battlefield to gain positional advantage over

the enemy with overwhelming speed while enhancing the capabilities of the joint

force. This approach will contribute to the early termination of the conflict on terms

favorable to the United States and its allies. Transformation will exploit networkcentric capabilities to enable rapidly deployable and sustainable Army forces to

quickly and precisely strike fixed and mobile targets throughout the depth and

breadth of the battlefield.

Transformation consists of three interrelated elements—the Objective Force, the

Interim Force, and the Legacy Force. We will develop concepts and technologies for

the Objective Force while fielding an Interim Force to meet the near-term requirement to bridge the operational gap between our heavy and light forces. The third

element of Transformation is the modernization and recapitalization of existing platforms within our current force—the Legacy Force—to provide these platforms with

the enhanced capabilities available through the application of information technologies. Several important initiatives that should produce even greater advances in

2002 are the production, testing, and delivery of the Interim Force vehicle early this

year, and the development of mature technologies to achieve Objective Force capabilities.

Digitization concepts tested and proved with the Legacy Force are being refined

in the Interim Force and will be applied to the Objective Force. These efforts, along

with planned training and testing and joint exercises—such as the U.S. Joint Forces

Command’s ‘‘Millennium Challenge 2002’’—will enable The Army to stay ahead of

current and future adversaries by providing the Nation and its Soldiers with unmatched advanced capabilities. To achieve additional momentum, we will carefully

concentrate research and development and acquisition funding on our most critical

systems and programs.
76

The Objective Force

The end result of Transformation is a new, more effective, and more efficient

Army with a new fighting structure—the Objective Force. It will provide our Nation

with an increased range of options for crisis response, engagement, or sustained

land force operations. Instead of the linear sequential operations of the past, the Objective Force will fight in a distributed and non-contiguous manner. Objective Force

units will be highly responsive, deploy rapidly because of reduced platform weight

and smaller logistical footprints, and arrive early to a crisis to dissuade or deter conflict. These forces will be capable of vertical maneuver and defeating enemy antiaccess strategies by descending upon multiple points of entry. With superior situational awareness, Objective Force Soldiers will identify and attack critical enemy capabilities and key vulnerabilities throughout the depth of the battle space. For optimum success, we will harmonize our Transformation efforts with similar efforts by

other Services, business and industry, and our science and technology partners.

By focusing much of its spending in science and technology, The Army will create

a new family of ground systems called the Future Combat Systems (FCS). This

networked system-of-systems—a key to fielding the Objective Force—will allow leaders and Soldiers to harness the power of digitized information systems. And the FCS

will allow commanders to bring a substantial, perhaps even exponential, increase

in combat capabilities to the joint force without a large logistics footprint. Newer

technologies will be inserted into the FCS as they become ready. In November 2001,

the solicitation for the FCS Lead System Integrator (LSI) was released to industry.

In coordination with The Army and DARPA, the LSI will select the ‘‘best of breed’’

technologies, components, and sub-components through maximum competition

among the sub-contractors. The Lead System Integrator is a new solicitation and

acquisition strategy that will accelerate The Army’s Transformation and see the

FCS first unit equipped and operational by 2010. We anticipate selection of the

Lead System Integrator in March 2002. In the fiscal year 2003 budget, we invested

97 percent of our Science and Technology resources toward the design and development of the Objective Force and enabling technologies. With this funding level, The

Army will begin fielding an Objective Force—this decade.

We owe our Soldiers the best tools and equipment so they are not put at risk by

obsolete or aging combat support systems. The Comanche helicopter, the Objective

Force Warrior system, and Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) initiatives are integral components of the network-centric operations of the Objective Force. They are the infrastructure that allows Soldiers to do what they do best—fight and win our Nation’s

wars. Comanche will provide an armed aerial reconnaissance capability critical for

gathering intelligence for coordinated attacks against targets of opportunity, and the

fiscal year 2003 budget supports continued System Development and Demonstration

and Mission Equipment Package Development, component development testing, and

flight-testing. The Objective Force Warrior system will provide quantum improvements over our current soldier systems in weight, signature, information exchange

capabilities, ballistics tolerance, and chemical, biological, and environmental protection for our individual Soldiers on the battlefield.

Terrestrial systems alone will not enable full spectrum dominance. Space is a

vertical extension of the battlefield and a key enabler and force multiplier for land

force operations. Objective Force commanders will access and integrate the full spectrum of C4ISR and Information Operations capabilities, to include national agencies,

strategic and operational units, tactical organizations, and joint or multinational

forces. In short, commanders will draw upon a wide array of capabilities that enable

not just overwhelming force projection, but the ability to out-think our adversaries.

Transporting and sustaining the Objective Force will require capabilities that are

cost effective, that adhere to rapid deployment timelines, and that have a smaller

logistical footprint over longer distances without jeopardizing readiness. Materiel

readiness will be maintained at reduced costs by increasing inventory visibility,

eliminating artificial ownership barriers, and integrating automated systems.

The Interim Force

The Interim Force is a transition force that bridges the near-term capability gap

between our heavy and light forces. It will combine the best characteristics of the

current Army forces—heavy, light, and special operations forces. Organized into Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), it will leverage today’s technology with selected capabilities of the Legacy Force to serve as a link to the Objective Force. Most

importantly, the Interim Force—a combat ready force—will allow exploration of new

operational concepts relevant to the Objective Force. The Army will field at least

six of these new, more responsive brigade combat teams. These units comprise an

Interim Force that will strengthen deterrence and expand options for the field com-
77

manders. Over the past two years, we have organized two brigades at Fort Lewis,

Washington, and additional IBCTs are programmed for Alaska, Louisiana, Hawaii,

and Pennsylvania. Leaders and Soldiers of the IBCTs at Fort Lewis, along with an

Army coordination cell, have been working closely with all supporting agencies to

develop wide-ranging iterative solutions to doctrine, training, logistics, organizations, material, and soldier systems required to field the Interim Force. The first

IBCT has completed brigade and battalion level headquarters training with the

Army’s Battle Command Training Program and company level maneuver live fire

training across the spectrum of conflict. The IBCT is training extensively for restrictive and urban terrain, and the force has used special operations training techniques and procedures for the development of night and urban fighting techniques.

This brigade will attain its first incremental warfighting capability—and infantry

company—in August of this year, and its full initial operational capability in May

2003.

Training of the Interim Force is proving that the practice of combining heavy,

light, and special operations cultures results in a more adaptable and capable leader

or Soldier. The Army has learned from experimentation that technology such as

digitization allows the integration of intelligence data with tactical and operational

information and gives our leaders and Soldiers the ability to seize and retain the

initiative, build momentum quickly, and win decisively. The Army is accelerating

the development and fielding of the Interim Force and studying the viability of fielding an additional interim capability in the European area. The fiscal year 2003

budget continues funding of 303 Interim Armored Vehicles (IAV) in fiscal year 2002

and 332 in fiscal year 2003 for the third IBCT.

Legacy Force—Revitalizing The Army

Transformation applies to what we do, as well as how we do it. We are working

with the business community to accelerate change across the entire Army, promote

cooperation, share information, gain greater control over resource management, and

adopt better business practices by eliminating functions or activities that no longer

provide value. This initiative seeks to focus constrained resources on achieving excellence in areas that contribute directly to warfighting. Transformation of our business practices cannot wait, and we have started at the highest levels.

The Army is restructuring the Army Secretariat and Army Staff to create a more

unified headquarters for the conduct of enhanced policy, planning, and resource

management activities. The goal is to transform the headquarters into a streamlined, integrated staff more responsive to rapidly changing operational and institutional missions and to push more resources out to the field units. This will streamline the flow of information and speed decision-making. The unified headquarters

will seek greater integration of the reserve components into key staff positions to

better accommodate issues and concerns. To minimize turbulence in the workforce,

we will reinvest manpower savings in other Army priorities. Realignment initiatives

already underway will help us meet the congressionally mandated 15 percent reduction in headquarters staffs. With congressional support, The Army will apply these

methodologies to the entire force.

As The Army transforms, the Legacy Force—our current force—will remain ready

to provide the Nation with the warfighting capability needed to keep America strong

and free. Through selective modernization and recapitalization, the Legacy Force allows The Army to meet today’s challenges and provides the time and flexibility to

get Transformation right. Effectively managing risk without sacrificing readiness,

The Army is focusing resources on systems and units that are essential to both sustaining near-term readiness and fielding the Objective Force while taking prudent

risk with the remainder of the force. Recapitalization rebuilds or selectively upgrades existing weapons systems and tactical vehicles, while modernization develops

and procures new systems with improved warfighting capabilities. The Army has

identified 17 systems—its Prioritized Recapitalization Program—and fully funded

them in selected units. Among these systems are the AH–64 Apache, UH–60 Black

Hawk, and CH–47 Chinook helicopters; the M1 Abrams tank; the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle; and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile defense upgrade. Modernization provides the linkage to facilitate the fielding of the Interim and Objective

Forces. The Crusader self-propelled howitzer will provide combat overmatch to our

commanders until at least 2032 and serve as a technology carrier to the Objective

Force. Recent restructuring initiatives have reduced Crusader’s strategic lift requirements by 50 percent. Technology improvements have increased its range by 33

percent, increased the sustained rate of fire by a factor of 10, and utilizing robotics,

reduced crew requirements by 33 percent. The fiscal year 2003 budget supports completion of the detailed design effort, completion of critical technologies integration

and risk reduction efforts, powerpack/drive train integration of the chassis, and ini-
78

tiation of manufacturing of System Development and Demonstration prototypes.

Modernized M1A2SEP tanks and M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicles are capable of the

same situational awareness as the Interim Force, thus enabling Soldiers and leaders

to learn network-centric warfare on existing chassis. The advantage these information technologies provide our current force further enhance its warfighting capability. Army Aviation modernization efforts will reduce our helicopter inventory by

25 percent and retain only three types of helicopters in service, and the savings in

training and logistics will be used to support the recapitalization of our remaining

fleet. As part of its Legacy Force strategy, The Army terminated an additional 18

systems and restructured 12 in this budget cycle.

A COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

The Army, like the American people, remains committed to preserving freedom.

As we have for over 226 years, we will continue to win our Nation’s wars. Contrary

to the expectations of some, the post-Cold War period has not seen a reduction in

the demands placed on Soldiers on the ground. In fact, in the years since the fall

of the Soviet Union, the international security environment has underscored the importance of ongoing commitments and highlighted new requirements for The Army.

These increased demands have intensified the competition for resources and reduced

needed investments in people, systems, platforms, and research and development.

Unless redressed, risks incurred from this resources shortfall could undermine The

Army’s ability to satisfy national security requirements. At the same time, the war

on terrorism, the requirement to secure the homeland, and the need to maintain

readiness for possible near-term contingencies have validated the need for a new

kind of Army—a capabilities-based ground force that can fight and win battles

across the full spectrum of military operations. We are accelerating Army Transformation to achieve these capabilities. The Army cannot predict what other

changes the future will bring, but what will not change is the need for our Nation

to have the best trained, best led and best equipped Soldiers on the ground, deployed rapidly at precisely the right time, the right place, and with the right support structure as part of a joint military team.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, we thank you once

again for this opportunity to report to you today on the state of your Army. We look

forward to discussing these issues with you.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Posture Statement 2002 can be found on the web at

www.army.mil.]

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Shinseki.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI

General SHINSEKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens,

Senator Dorgan. We are honored once again, the Secretary and I,

to be here with you and for this opportunity to update you on the

posture of the Army and its state of readiness.

First, it is with great regret that the Secretary and I express our

deepest condolences to families who have suffered loss during this

most recent fighting in the war against terrorism.

We do have the greatest fighting force in the world. They are the

best soldiers and the best leaders. Thank you for going to visit

them and reaffirming with all of us just how great they are. Willingly and without hesitation, they continue to demonstrate their

profound and abiding devotion to this Nation.

As the Secretary has indicated, on our behalf they take risks.

They take risks for us. They go into harm’s way. They shed their

blood, prepared to give their lives if necessary, and some have in

the most recent fighting, to defend peace and freedom and our way

of life.

They will see this through to its decisive outcomes. We could not

be prouder of all of them.
79

Let me further report, Mr. Chairman, that our soldiers and our

civilians in the Army appreciate much more than I can put into

words—and this has something to do with the great morale you encounter as you and other members of this committee make your

trips—what you have done for them in this past year: enhancements in pay, enhancements in housing and health care and retirement benefits.

They continue to make incredible contributions and even more

incredible sacrifices. But they look to us to demonstrate the Nation’s appreciation and its commitment to them and their families.

It is a commitment that you have honored well, members of this

committee, and they are very grateful.

Nearly 3 years ago now, the Army took a hard, discriminating

look at itself. After examining our capabilities against the emerging

strategic environment, we decided to take some risk, to break with

our past. We committed ourselves to transforming the way we will

fight and will win the wars, the new wars of this new century. This

committee elected to underwrite that transformation, an Army

transformation, at a time when the very term was a bit unfamiliar

and uncommon.

Today when one considers the magnitude of what we have accomplished with your support, it is staggering. With this submission, this Army submission for the fiscal year 2003 budget, the

Army buys its last heavy tank—confirmation of our sustainable

momentum in our move towards the irreversibility that we seek to

achieve in our transformation.

Your investments are paying dividends. The selective recapitalization and modernization of our legacy systems maintains the acceptable readiness to fight and win today through this decade and

the years beyond as we begin transformation to things that Senator

Stevens asked us to be sensitive to. In August of this year, our first

Interim Brigade Combat Team at Fort Lewis will achieve its initial

warfighting capability. By this December, we intend to operationally test two of that brigade’s battalions and by next spring we will

evaluate the entire interim brigade for its initial operating capability.

Again, this month we anticipate selecting a lead systems integrator for the Future Combat System, that future Objective Force

that we intend to field at the end of this decade, a new solicitation

and acquisition strategy that will accelerate transformation to the

Objective Force by the year 2010. We are prepared to fight these

near-term conflicts against terrorism or any of a host of other dangers even as we set about changing ourselves to fight the wars of

the 21st century.

Army has done a lot to help itself. We have made our own tough

decisions. To fully fund transformation between fiscal year 2003

and fiscal year 2007, we have restructured or eliminated 18 Legacy

Force modernization systems. We have reduced heavy maneuver

and artillery battalions by 25 percent. We have cut aviation structure by 21 percent. We have manned our 10 Active Component divisions and two active cavalry regiments at 101 percent, something

that was not in place 21⁄2 years ago. Since October of the year 2000,

the strength of other early deploying units has grown from 92 to
80

99 percent, and by the end of this year, we expect that those formations will be fully manned at 100 percent.

The ‘‘Army of One’’ advertising campaign that drew a lot of discussion when it first was revealed has been a resounding success

as far as the Army is concerned. In 2001 we achieved our recruiting targets for the second year in a row and we will exceed our recruiting targets again this year, and I can make that statement

today looking forward to September of this year. We have also exceeded our retention goals.

We have been changing our stance as an Army and this President’s budget builds on the momentum we have attained over the

last 21⁄2 years. But we need to do more and we need to move faster.

The attacks of September 11 validated the vision the Army declared 21⁄2 years ago and the ensuing war against terrorism has

underscored the need to accelerate transformation to better prepare

our soldiers for the uncertain challenges of the 21st century.

All of our troops are performing superbly—Active, Guard, Reserve, and from all of the services. In Afghanistan Army special operators enabled the anti-Taliban forces to compel the enemy to

mass so that significant capabilities of our air-delivered munitions

could be brought to bear. These successes are not accidental and

they are never won easily. Victories in battles like Mazar-e Sharif,

Herat, and Kanduz and Bagram and now in the Shahikot region,

as well as the successful operations on Objectives Rhino and Gekko

and in the region of Tora Bora, represent 10 years of painstaking

work on the part of the Army, hard work, superior training, real

world experiences in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Colombia,

Philippines, and, yes, Pakistan and Uzbekhistan, just to name a

few.

Mr. Chairman, our investments have borne fruit in a conflict

that was difficult to predict 6 months ago. Our new century is

marked by uncertainty. Recognizing and preparing for uncertainty

is what the Army vision is all about. In this new century, strategic

success demands strategic responsiveness, seeing the world with an

unblinking eye, a lethal, agile, survivable, versatile, and sustainable force, and the infrastructure and lift capabilities to deliver

that force anywhere in the world quickly so that it can win decisively.

That force is the Army’s Objective Force, and the continued

strong support of this Congress and the administration, with that

support, you will see that Objective Force fielded this decade.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing us to be here and

I look forward to your questions.

RECOGNITION OF U.S. TROOPS

Senator INOUYE. This morning all of us have used the word ‘‘morale’’ and General Shinseki has indicated that it is important that

we demonstrate an appreciation for the services rendered by these

men and women and to recognize their contributions.

In that line, may I ask a few questions. Let me not tie directly

to readiness or to weapons systems. I have yet to see a ribbon—

in all wars, if you went to Korea there was a Korea ribbon, or a

Vietnam ribbon. I have not seen one for this conflict, nor have I

heard of any unit receiving a unit citation. I see enough on the
81

Cable News Network (CNN) and other news media suggesting the

heroics of our men. Somehow they are not recognized.

I just received a report that in all the time we have been there

two Silver Stars and nine Bronze Stars with V’s have been issued

and about 10 Purple Hearts. I think it is very important that due

recognition be made, not just by word but by awards and decorations. Similarly, I think these awards and decorations would have

a salutary impact, not on the Government Issue’s (GI’s), but among

the people, their parents, their brothers and sisters. They want to

know that their loved ones are involved and doing their gung-ho

work.

So are we doing anything like this, General?

General SHINSEKI. I have offered to the Secretary a recommendation, for example, that beyond the individual awards, which is

within the service’s responsibility to recognize individual performance, the awards you spoke about, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars—you

are correct there is not a campaign medal and I think, appropriately so, that discussion will be undertaken.

Within the Army, I have offered to the Secretary a recommendation that, because of the combat that is going on in Afghanistan,

that the units who serve there—as you know, in the Army we have

the tradition, you wear your unit patch on your left shoulder, but

if you go to war with that unit you move that unit’s designation

and you wear it on the right shoulder sleeve as demonstration that

you fought in combat with that organization.

That recommendation is before the Secretary for him to consider

and I expect that that will be approved. But, appropriately, a campaign ribbon for this operation is something we will consider.

STATUS OF INTERIM BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS (IBCT)

Senator INOUYE. General Shinseki, your plans call for six Interim

Brigade Combat Teams with the armored vehicles, interim armored vehicles (IAV’s). Can you give us a status report of that?

General SHINSEKI. Yes, sir. We have set aside funding for six brigades, as you indicated, the two initial at Fort Lewis, one in Alaska, one in Hawaii, one at Fort Polk, and then one with the very

important effort with the National Guard, the 56th Brigade out of

Pennsylvania. The way these were organized was a look at a strategic environment that described a movement from Eurocentric

issues and a movement towards challenges in the Pacific Basin.

So if you look at how we organized the allocation of those six brigades, four of them are focused on the Pacific, and yet they are located adjacent to strategic deployment airfields where they can be

picked up and moved in a variety of directions. As I am reminded

from time to time, sitting in Alaska, that brigade is actually closer

to Saudi Arabia than it is sitting at Fort Bragg. So the locations

were key.

As sometimes happens when we set about changing a direction

and creating new requirements, as we have in these brigades, we

do very well at the training and the operation and maintenance

(O&M) pieces and it takes us a little while to knit together the rest

of the programs that would allow us to ensure that when these brigades begin to stand up at these designated locations that we have

prepared the way in the vast array of other requirements, to in-
82

clude ranges, maneuver areas, environmental studies. All of that

effort now is underway.

The funding for that has not been fully marked and we are working on that now to bring those aspects in, which will include some

discussion of military construction (MILCON). When the budget

was submitted, these locations were not clearly identified. So there

is some work left to be done, some issues to be addressed.

We have been asked to look at perhaps a brigade of this type in

Europe and I would offer to you that this brigade, an IBCT in Europe, we have equal contributions. It would be very responsive and

have the kind of lethality that light infantry does not have today.

That issue is one of affordability and we continue to study that,

and there are some requirements for us to provide an Army position on that.

Senator INOUYE. General Shinseki, I have many other questions,

but this is the last for this round. We have had World War I with

a certain type of fighting and World War II. Then it changed in

Vietnam. Now we have a very different type of war. Will your

transformation to the Objective and Interim Forces enhance your

ability to fight this new type of war?

IBCT CAPABILITIES

General SHINSEKI. Mr. Chairman, if we had the Interim Brigade

Combat Team today it would be the first unit of choice going into

a place like Afghanistan. It would provide the mobile, tactical mobility, the protection of light infantry, the modern weapons platform, assault guns, all of which would have been very helpful here.

But when it arrives, it will meet, in the interim, this requirement. This requirement is driven by the fact that, as we are structured today, the Army has tremendous capabilities in two fists: the

great light infantry we have, the best special operators, the best in

our Ranger forces, and light infantry; and then tremendous heavy

forces, the great heavy formations that are organized around the

M–1 battle tank.

The challenge for our Army is that you can get in very quickly

with your light forces and then you have to wait for the heavies

to arrive. This gap in operational capability is a long wait. The Future Combat System is intended to correct that situation. In other

words, we will be able to get in there very quickly with future combat platforms that will fight like the light infantry forces do

today—rapid, deployable, on positions faster than the adversary

can react—but it will also have the attributes of our heavy forces,

which is lethality and survivability. These characteristics now are

sort of separated into the different communities we have in the

force: great deployment, rapid deployment in our light forces, but

they lack the staying power that the heavy forces have. Heavy

forces, on the other hand, tremendous lethality, survivability; it

lacks the deployability.

We intend with the Future Combat System to solve these problems.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Stevens.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.
83

Let me apologize for this pile of paper up here. We just received

an onslaught of mail from September, October, November, December, and I am trying to sort the wheat from the chaff here, but it

is not too easy to do.

I would start off by echoing our chairman’s comments, gentlemen. I do believe that the concept of unit citations as well as subunit citations in view of the type of operations going on over in the

Afghanistan area are very much warranted. I do believe, unfortunately, we are too prone lately to consider awarding medals to

those who unfortunately have lost their lives, and I understand

that. But there are just a lot of people over there doing a lot of extremely, extremely brave things and I think that they need to be

recognized and the people at home need to know that we have recognized what they are doing.

Too often, they would not even know about it if we did not call

their attention to it, because we all know most of the people who

have been in combat really do not talk much about it. My friend

here, we have never really had a conversation about the day that

he ended up in the hospital and yet we have been together for over

32 years. So it is just one of those things.

You learn about it when you read the citation. It is up to you

guys to see that those citations get out there and get out there in

a meaningful fashion. We had some conversations like this with

your commanders in Afghanistan.

Mr. WHITE. We will do that. We will support that.

Senator STEVENS. That is a good point. Thank you.

General, how long will you proceed now with this recapitalization

of the Legacy Force and achieve the transformation to the Objective Force? How long will it take you to do that?

FIELDING THE OBJECTIVE FORCE

General SHINSEKI. Well, Senator, the intent is to field this Objective Force before the end of the decade, so the year is 2010. But

that begins the process of transformation, and as we are able to

field the Objective Force we will take today’s Legacy Force and

begin to reorganize and re-equip them with objective capabilities

and that will go on for some time.

Senator STEVENS. The Legacy Force is what we are going to be

fighting this current war against global terrorism, am I correct?

General SHINSEKI. That is correct. That is correct, and we will

keep that force ready and maintained for the next 10 years plus.

Even as we continue to transform, we will have to keep that force

ready to fight.

Senator STEVENS. But the force that is over there now is the Interim Force, right?

General SHINSEKI. The force that is over there now is the Legacy

Force. It is today’s force.

Senator STEVENS. It is the Legacy Force.

General SHINSEKI. It is. The Interim Force, the Interim Brigade

Combat Teams, will begin to be fielded the end of this year. As

they arrive, you will find them on these operations. If we had them

now, they would be in Afghanistan. We just could not get there fast

enough, Senator.
84

But the capabilities are real and we need them in the interim

even as we are building this future combat capability by the year

2010.

ARMY HELICOPTERS

Senator STEVENS. Shifting gears now to helicopters, we are all

unfortunately familiar with the stories that are coming in about

the loss of helicopters. Our budget before us now asks for $912 million for the Comanche. That is a significant increase. There does

not seem to be much to replace the Blackhawks or the other helicopters that have been and are being lost now.

Is there a problem about immediate replacement or assets that

will be needed before we can get the Comanches delivered?

General SHINSEKI. Senator, any time we encounter combat damages we do have to replace those aircraft. Yes, those requirements

get stated and we fix them through your help.

Senator STEVENS. Will we see those numbers for the supplemental?

General SHINSEKI. You will.

Senator STEVENS. Are you seeking money in the supplemental for

that?

General SHINSEKI. Absolutely.

Senator STEVENS. Okay.

General SHINSEKI. Absolutely, for the combat damages. For the

Comanche, it is a major Army program and I would say, looking

at the fighting that is going on in places like Afghanistan today

and the fact that you have got attack helicopters that are flying at

very low altitudes right into the teeth of strafing fire and dealing

with providing fires to the troops on the ground, we very much

need Comanche.

Senator STEVENS. Well, we are very supportive of Comanche as

far as I am concerned.

RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL CALL-UP

I do not want you to misunderstand this question, but this week

alone there have been three other Senators who have come to me

and asked me if I have heard any comments from my people at

home about the number of the National Guard people who have

been called up and the impact on local businesses. I told them, yes,

when I was home I did. I did not hear anyone say, Stevens, you

have got to get these guys back, but they have asked, how long is

it going to take and is this really necessary to have these guys

called up for so long.

They took it with ease when we were reacting to the events of

9/11 and I know we are trying to prevent, God forbid, another such

event from taking place by having these people on duty. But what

is the status and review of how long we can keep these people? You

have a 90-day requirement, do you not? Can they be kept more

than 90 days on active duty on a crisis recall?

General SHINSEKI. Well, actually we have a 179 day.

Senator STEVENS. 179?

General SHINSEKI. That is correct, Senator, for overseas deployments. Statewide, we have even looked at a year-long deployment,

which is tremendous pressure. But this is driven by what the Sec-
85

retary and I have testified to before and I have for the last 2 years,

and that is an Army that is smaller than the mission profile it is

asked to perform.

Senator STEVENS. I understand that. But when you see someone

who really is a junior executive in a local business out there watching people walk through the gates to get on an airplane, that sort

of strains it a little bit, I think. I think they have joined the National Guard and are participating in those activities in order to be

available if they are needed to go overseas.

Mr. WHITE. I agree with that. The airport security was an emergency measure following 9/11. We have agreed on a plan with the

Department of Transportation (DOT), which is standing up the

Federal Aviation Security Administration, to pull the Guard out of

the airports over the next 90-day period. That will take some of the

pressure off the Guard deployment for non-traditional types of

things that the Guard is doing.

Senator STEVENS. Do you have a time frame for that?

Mr. WHITE. We should be done with that by the end of May. That

will be a changeout between the new Federal agency, security people and the guardsmen in the airports.

Senator STEVENS. We can tell our people that the need for the

call-up of the National Guard for duty such as that in the home

Guard concept will be reviewed by May?

Mr. WHITE. That piece of it should be shut down by May and the

troops will be redeployed.

SPECIAL FORCES TEAMS EQUIPMENT

Senator STEVENS. General Shinseki, as Senator Inouye mentioned, I believe, we met with an 18-man Special Forces team that

had been operating in Afghanistan for 4 months. As a matter of

fact, I was told I believe that they were out there in one stint 21⁄2

months on one patrol. A superb job, a superb job.

But we wondered about the equipment and their capabilities and

whether those teams were designed to stay out that long. It seems

like an awful long time for them to be out there. As a matter of

fact, none of them spoke the local language, but they had been extremely successful in organizing and putting together Afghan units

to conduct the battles.

I wonder, has anyone analyzed really the extent of their equipment and what they need and what they had?

General SHINSEKI. Senator, I tell you, we look at this all the

time. We never quite anticipate the environment sometimes we end

up with. The biggest challenge for light forces is weight. There are

lots of things we can give them, but they essentially are foot-mobile

and cannot carry it all in. So we give them what they need and

then the challenge for us is how to creatively keep them sustained

in terms of resupply, because just merely getting in there to give

them resupply tips their hand if they are in a strategic reconnaissance role.

So that is a little bit challenging. But we manage to do that with

Special Operations platforms that can get in there in the dark of

night and with no lights, run at high speed, and do a delivery.

But the quality here, the important quality here, is not just the

equipment. It is the quality of the youngster. When you think
86

about, in small groups these young Americans—and they are mostly Army special operators, but there are other services with them

as well—going into a part of the world where the leadership that

was trying to oppose the Taliban could not get their act together.

They just could not even work together.

As you indicate, these youngsters went in there without firsthand knowledge of the language. Some of them spoke Russian so

that they could—in that part of the world it is not uncommon to

find a Russian speaker. So, communicating through a third language, were able to get them to put their forces together just

enough to create a threat, that the Taliban had to then mass and

they had to come out of the cities and the villages, move their

equipment from being parked next to mosques and come out and

confront this anti-Taliban force.

When they did, our youngsters also had the skills to be able to

bring in munitions coming off the B–52’s and B–2’s. We never envisioned them going into battle on horseback or having on their hips

the international maritime satellite (MRSAT) communications device as being the method by which they were able to link this fight

together. The creativity of that youngster is what brought all this

together.

Yes, we do continue to look at the kinds of tools we give them.

But when they are riding 14 hours on horseback to get to the fight,

most of us who have ever been on a horse, 14 hours is a long time,

and you have got to do a lot of back management just to be able

to stay upright. Well, these are tough kids and they dealt with that

situation. I do not know what an Afghani saddle is like, but I know

it is not like one of our westerns.

Senator STEVENS. We met with those guys and they gave us

some pictures of that, and they are very proud and very capable.

They reminded me of a conversation we had long ago with Colin

Powell when he told us that he had been dropped with a team into

Cambodia. I do not know if he has ever told you about it.

General SHINSEKI. No.

Senator STEVENS. Well, his point to us was that they had 18

days food and they were supposed to get a resupply, and on that

18th day when you start eating the last of the food, that is when

you know what it means to trust your Government. I hope we understand that, too.

I have other questions, but again I want to tell you, that bunch

is something else over there. I just wish more people could see it.

I saw that movie the other night, ‘‘We Were Soldiers.’’ A hell of

a movie. We took some of the people who were ‘‘Band of Brothers’’

survivors and brought them here and had a chance for Members

of Congress to meet them. If you have got some of those survivors

from that unit, we would like some time to arrange a little reception up here for them.

General SHINSEKI. Sir, that would be wonderful.

Mr. WHITE. Great idea.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Shelby.
87

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have

a number of questions. It will probably take me a few rounds, Mr.

Chairman.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) AND SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION AND

DEVELOPMENT (SDD)

While the Research, Development and Engineering Centers

(RDEC) and labs have performed S&T 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 functions, the

Program Executive Officer/Program Manager (PEO/PM) has taken

mature technology from industry, RDEC’s, and other resources to

execute the SDD phase. However, the program executive office

(PEO) project manager reorganizations, as briefed to you, Mr. Secretary, October 4, 2001, includes the following guidance: ‘‘A director

for S&T’’—that is a GS–16—‘‘will be established in each PEO. This

individual will be responsible for S&T objectives, transitioning programs from the RDEC’s and advanced technology demonstrations,

advance concept technology demonstrations. Management oversight

of funding allocated for S&T activities will be the responsibility of

each director for science and technology and elsewhere. Selected

S&T funding, 6.3, will flow through the director for S&T in each

PEO.’’

I am concerned that this part of your organization plan represents a dangerous precedent and blurs the lines between S&T

and SDD. Putting S&T funds under PEO/PM program manager

oversight would invite, I believe, the use of these funds to supplement the chronic shortfalls invariably experienced by development

programs.

I do not believe the Department of Defense (DOD) is spending

enough on the research and development (R&D) programs, remaining below the 3 percent funding target. With such a reorganization,

I cannot see how fundamental Army S&T capabilities will not suffer even more.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) best practices report points

out the importance of demonstrating high technology readiness levels prior to initiation of SDD. We all support your efforts to transform the Army, but huge technology hurdles remain and I want to

see the Army focus on supporting an environment to close the technology maturity gap that exists.

The GAO report stated key to this environment was making a

science and technology organization, rather than the program or

product development manager, responsible for maturing the technology to a high technology readiness level (TRL). I agree with the

GAO. I believe that the Army’s organic labs and RDEC’s are the

right places to conduct fundamental S&T research and development. The movement of 6.3 R&D funding away from the Army

RDEC’s would not only marginalize them, but I believe hurt their

ability to function.

Several questions now. What is the status of this reorganization

plan, Mr. Secretary? If it is proceeding, why are the history and the

GAO wrong, and explain to me why you believe, if you do, that

S&T funds would be better managed and spent by PEO’s rather

than RDEC’s? Do you plan to request additional 6.1 and 6.2 funding to ensure that RDEC’s have the funds necessary to mature

technology to the higher TRL’s? What regulations are in place to
88

ensure that 6.3 funds will be used for S&T purposes and not to

supplement SDD shortfalls?

I know I have covered a mouthful.

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask Senator Shelby to yield just for a

moment, because I have to be at a 10:45 event.

Senator SHELBY. Yield for what?

Senator DORGAN. Just yield to make a point.

Senator SHELBY. Oh, I yield my time.

Senator DORGAN. I had wanted to ask questions about the Predator and Global Hawk with respect to intel and the use of that by

the Army. I especially wanted to ask a series of questions about the

high mobility trailers, which I have some difficulty about what is

going to be happening there with the Army. I think what I will do

is defer, perhaps submit questions to you, and call you, General

and Secretary, on the issue of the high mobility trailers.

Also, in this morning’s newspaper there is a reference, I believe

it is the Los Angeles Times, talking about the snow-covered mountains and elevations of 11,000 feet where combat is occurring:

‘‘Most U.S. troops are using cold weather gear first designed in the

1950’s rather than new high-tech materials,’’ and so on. If you

might respond to that as well to see if there is any way for us to

be helpful there. I do not know the veracity of this particular account.

Because I have to leave, I thank you for allowing me to make

those points, and I will be in touch with you about the high mobility trailers. Just simply, you are in the process, I believe, of a $250

million add on high mobility trailers, perhaps to be produced by

those that produced previous trailers at 50 percent over cost and

trailers that did not work and trailers that had to be warehoused.

I will have some great difficulty with that. I hope that we can

produce these new trailers through bids that are submitted by companies that I think can do a better job.

But I thank you, Senator Shelby.

[The information follows:]

COLD WEATHER GEAR

United States Army forces serving in Afghanistan and adjacent areas are not

using cold weather clothing first designed in the 1950s. In fiscal year 1989, the

Army began fielding the extended cold weather clothing system (ECWCS) to all

high-priority units. ECWCS is a state-of-the-art, cold weather clothing ensemble

that capitalizes on the technological advances of industry in the area of synthetic

fibers and films, particularly polypropylene and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).

ECWCS is a layered system that may be adjusted to individual metabolism and prevailing weather conditions. The ECWCS system consists of polypropylene underwear, polyester fiberpile shirt and overalls, balaclava hood, parka and trousers

made with a three-layer nylon and PTFE laminate, intermediate cold weather

gloves and boots. Initial fielding of ECWCS was completed to all designated units

in fiscal year 1993.

In fiscal year 1996, ECWCS underwent an improved design change called genera- tion II ECWCS. The Army procured $7 million of the generation II version and fielded them to Korea as part of the low rate initial production effort. Ultimately, the

Army decided not to procure the generation II ECWCS since initial fielding and

sustainment costs of the system were prohibitive and the improvements provided no

real operational benefit to the Army.

In second quarter of fiscal year 2000, as the result of an $8 million Congressional

plus up, the Army began limited fielding of a new ECWCS black fleece shirt and

overalls developed in fiscal year 1999. These new items reduce the polyester bulk

by 40 percent and serve as an insulating layer for the system. The ECWCS overalls

were only fielded to units in Alaska because they are intended for use in tempera-
89

tures ranging from ¥25 to ¥60 degrees Fahrenheit. The black fleece shirt and overalls became available through the supply system in the fourth quarter of fiscal year

2001 and will be phased in as stocks of the older, bulkier fiberpile version are depleted.

HIGH MOBILITY TRAILER PROCUREMENT

The Army is not spending $250 million in this fiscal year on the high mobility

trailer. This year’s efforts have been to field the trailers produced in previous years.

None of these resources have gone to the prime vendor. In fiscal year 2004, the

Army plans to execute a competitive re-buy procurement of the high mobility trailer

that will alleviate the previous concerns. The Army has an acquisition objective of

25,112 trailers.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. I did not know it was your time.

You can have it all.

Mr. Secretary.

Mr. WHITE. To go back to your question, sir.

Senator SHELBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITE. We have done a number of things on the acquisition

side over the past 9 months, one of which is to bring all the PEO’s

under the control of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, the acquisition executive of the Army.

The second thing we did was attempt to better line up the tech

base with the PEO structure so that we get a better cross-walking

of technologies out of the tech base into the PEO structure. This

is tremendously important with the Future Combat Systems. About

95 percent, I think, of all the S&T money that we have today is

focused on bringing to fruition the Future Combat Systems. That

is why we made that alignment.

I absolutely agree with you that a strong and vital technology

base is critical to the Army as we go forward. We are not quite

at——

Senator SHELBY. We should fund that base, should we not?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, we need to.

We are not quite at 3 percent, either. In some services—the overall DOD objective is 3 percent and some services are closer than

others. We, being a labor intensive service, it is more difficult for

us to make it than others. I think we are at 1.7 percent, 1.8 percent, something like that. But I am absolutely committed to a

strong S&T base and committed to focus that base in a way that

it produces things that we can transition into systems development

going forward.

The reorganization that you discussed is an attempt to better

focus that effort, but not penalize the RDEC’s that you referred to.

CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Secretary, I want to shift into another area.

That is the chemical demilitarization program that has been going

on, among other places, in Anniston, Alabama, area. I would like

to hear your thoughts on the current status of these programs and

what your plans are to make sure that the program does not receive the same distinction next year. That is, it was labeled by, the

chemical stockpile emergency preparedness program (CSEPP) was

labeled ‘‘ineffective’’ in President Bush’s budget submission.

You know we have been working together on this, too, and with

Secretary Aldridge.
90

Mr. WHITE. Right.

Senator SHELBY. What are the Army’s—well, go ahead and answer that part. What are you going to do to make sure that you

do not get that same label again, in effect?

Mr. WHITE. Well, we have changed the leadership of the program. Assistant Secretary Fiori, who I believe has discussed this

with you and Senator Sessions in particular for the Anniston situation, has put together a new program that accelerates this whole

process. I am confident as we work all the details of that we will

not only significantly reduce the risk that the existing stockpile

represents, but the economics of it will be much better as we go forward. We are in the initial phases of that and we are having success.

The specific situation at Anniston, of course, really has to do

with sorting out the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) relationship with the State of Alabama. We on the Army

side have given the money to FEMA to support the impact that

this will have on the State and FEMA has to work out with the

State the details of transferring our money to the State. I am hopeful that can be done shortly because we need to get on with destroying this material.

Senator SHELBY. But destroying it safely.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Senator SHELBY. See, my concern and Senator Sessions and anybody else, I hope, is making sure that those chemicals are destroyed in a safe manner, because anybody, anybody living in that

area, has to have concern and they do. We will continue to get into

that.

But what are the Army’s plans, Mr. Secretary, for disposing of

the secondary waste stream at each destruction facility?

Mr. WHITE. The secondary waste stream will be a hazardous material, as opposed to a chemical weapon material, chemical grade

weapon material, and a hazardous material can be disposed of

through normal commercial sources. We will make those arrangements and see that that happens.

Senator SHELBY. You are familiar, I am sure, Mr. Secretary, with

the software problem there. I hope you are. One of the pressing

safety items in the Calhoun County-Anniston area has been an upgrade of the emergency management information system (EMIS)

software system. This upgrade would allow the local emergency

management agency (EMA) to quickly and accurately warn the

thousands of people who live within a short distance of the stockpile in the event of an accident, which we hope never happens.

Despite the existence of EMIS, the Army accepted an unsolicited

bid in 1993 from Pacific Northwest National Labs (PNNL) to develop a second emergency software system for the CSEPP known

as the Federal emergency management information system

(FEMIS), F-E-M-I-S. Forty million dollars and 9 years later, General Doesburg, the stockpile commander, said the Army will not

use FEMIS because of test failures. The Calhoun County Emergency Management Agency agrees with the Army and is using

EMIS, E-M-I-S.

Funding to upgrade EMIS has been requested so that the Army

and Calhoun County will have the best possible software system
91

operating their emergency operation center’s (EOC’s). Last October,

Under Secretary of Defense Pete Aldridge got involved, as you

know, in the program and he has agreed to the software upgrade.

This software funding problem has existed for years and is part

of our concern about safety. It seems to be a huge conflict of interest there, that one of the people who is responsible for the issue

in the Army had close ties to Pacific Northwest National Labs, the

developer of the FEMIS software. In fact, as an Army colonel he

was involved in the original unsolicited bid process. He then went

to work for PNNL as the FEMA sales person after retiring from

the Army and now works for Dr. Fiori. I think it is very discouraging to see these things happen.

But the bottom line on Anniston, as you well know, is safety. We

know we have got to dispose of these chemicals because they are

sitting there and time is ticking. But we have to do it, and we have

got to touch every little point to make sure that it is safety, because the people are deeply concerned, should be deeply concerned.

If I lived there, heck, I would, and you would be, too.

Mr. WHITE. I absolutely agree.

Senator SHELBY. You know where we are coming from.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Senator SHELBY. Okay. I believe my time is up. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Leahy.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens.

I want to welcome the Secretary and of course General Shinseki

back to the subcommittee. You have done a great deal in preparing

our men and women in Afghanistan and actually further afield. I

compliment you on that. I suspect that neither one of you have

nights where you get a full night’s sleep as the reports come in.

I have some questions related to land mines, which I will raise

at another point, along the lines, General, of some of the questions

you and I have discussed in our private meetings.

RESERVE COMPONENT AUGMENTATION

Mr. Secretary, I want to talk to you about a situation on our

northern border. The Vermont National Guard, among other

Guards, are being sent to the border to help the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) agents and Customs inspectors. We

have also put a lot of money in the budget to increase the number

of INS agents and Customs inspectors. We have asked the Attorney

General when that might happen. We had a vague answer the

other day in the hearing, but I suspect a more specific one will

come.

In the meantime, the Guard is helping out. They are needed. Our

Federal agents along the northern border are greatly overtaxed. We

have a question of suspected terrorists, bombs, and damaging materials coming in.

Now, these highly trained men and women are going to be prevented from carrying side arms for protection. That is like sending

another Vermonter, John LeClair, onto the ice without his hockey

stick. It does not seem to make a great deal of sense. If we are

going to ask them to do this, if we are going to ask them to be on

the border in this position, why are they not carrying side arms?
92

Mr. WHITE. Why are they not carrying side arms?

Senator LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. Sir, the border augmentation that is a 179-day commitment that is just beginning, just for background it will be a

Title 10 activation of the Guard. We will detail the guardsmen to

the control of the Border Patrol, INS, and Customs, the three agencies that they will be committed to.

It was the view of the Border Patrol, Customs, and INS that the

nature of the duties of the guardsmen as they patrol the border

would not require them to be armed.

Senator LEAHY. Well then, why do we need them there?

Mr. WHITE. Because these are people——

Senator LEAHY. Are they not going to be doing some of the same

things that the INS and Customs agents would be doing who would

be armed?

Mr. WHITE. In some cases, yes.

Senator LEAHY. Well then, if the INS and Customs agents, if we

feel that there is enough of a threat they have to be armed, why

are not our guardsmen armed?

Mr. WHITE. Well, the feeling of those agencies was because they

would always be in the presence of an armed agent that they themselves would not necessarily have to be armed.

Senator LEAHY. That would be a lot of fun if I was out there saying that I am there because normally we might send four Customs

agents, for example, because of whatever the threat might be, but

now because the Customs agents are spread so thin we are going

to send three unarmed guardsmen and one armed Customs agent,

but now we will still have that same force of four, but only one will

be armed.

We have a very good border with Canada.

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Senator LEAHY. They are our largest trading partner. I live an

hour’s drive from the Canadian border. We go back and forth all

the time. The vast majority of people going back and forth across

there are very law-abiding. But as you know, without going into

classified items in this open hearing, as you know this has also

been an attractive border to would-be terrorists.

For the life of me, I cannot—my point is this. If you have got

somebody who is fulfilling a role in an office, for example, where

people are not armed, that is one thing. If you are telling them

they have got to go out there and do the same thing that it is necessary to have an armed person, why are they not armed?

Mr. WHITE. Well, for that portion of the people that fall in the

category that you describe, we have reopened the discussion on the

arming versus unarming.

Senator LEAHY. I wish you would, because we have them armed

standing by the screening devices.

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Senator LEAHY. Probably a good idea because it seems half the

time the screening devices do not work, although I have done my

best to help the economy of this country, at least whatever company it is that makes fingernail clippers, by having to buy one

every time I go through. But at least we have got the Nation safe

from 61-year-old U.S. Senators carrying fingernail clippers.
93

Mr. WHITE. That piece of it is being reconsidered.

Senator LEAHY. Well, thank you. Would you keep us posted or

have your staff keep me posted on this.

Mr. WHITE. Certainly.

Senator LEAHY. I have other questions, but I will submit them

for the record, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

[The information follows:]

UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, DC, March 1, 2002.

The Honorable DONALD H. RUMSFELD,

Secretary of Defense, 1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SECRETARY RUMSFELD: We understand that members of the National Guard

called to active duty to support the INS and the Customs Service at the Northern

Border in law enforcement field positions will not be permitted to carry sidearms.

We think it is a mistake not to provide adequate protection to highly trained people

conducting a national mission. It defies logic that active duty personnel working in

direct support of armed federal agents will be prohibited from carrying weapons

themselves, especially as they will be in battle dress uniforms which will presumably make them obvious targets.

That National Guard forces providing security at airports, the Olympics, and even

here at the nation’s Capitol are armed makes one wonder exactly how the circumstances on the border are so different to warrant such an extraordinary decision. Our only explanation is that it is the result of the Defense Department’s puzzling unwillingness to call up forces under Title 32 and provide the Guard with

maximum flexibility to support other federal agencies. Several Senators raised several concerns about the shaping of the Guard border mission in a February letter.

We are enclosing another copy for your review. We hope you will address this situation quickly.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY,

Co-Chair, National Guard Caucus.

KIT BOND,

Co-Chair, National Guard Caucus.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, DC, December 12, 2001.

The Honorable TOM RIDGE,

Director, Office of Homeland Security, The White House, Washington, DC.

DEAR TOM: Recently, the Justice Department announced its request that troops

from the National Guard supplement agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service along the porous 4,000-mile northern border. We understand that the

Department of Defense is considering calling up these troops on a federal, Title 10

status. As representatives of two border states, we would like the administration to

reconsider the idea and call up the forces under Title 32 instead.

Title 32 would allow more flexibility to accomplish this critical mission. Unlike

forces called up under Title 10, Title 32 forces are not subject to posse comitatus

restrictions. They can assist local and federal law enforcement organizations with

its full range of activities, including arrests. Also in contrast to Title 10, Title 32

forces can continue to train for other missions. As the National Guard remains the

nation’s primary military reserve, this status allows our nation’s adjutants general

the ability to cycle forces through training and remain ready for other contingencies.

Title 32 also ensures that members of the Guard called up stay generally within

their home state. Our nation’s governors will remain in control, while Guard forces

serving in their home state can bring unparalleled familiarity with the problems

and challenges facing their communities. That understanding raises the comfort

level of the country’s citizens who might otherwise be concerned to hear that active

duty troops from far away are serving in their community.

There are certainly occasions where members of the National Guard should be

called up under a Title 10 status. But in this case, it seems apparent that Title 32

is the more sensible approach. We would appreciate your considering this question

and responding as soon as possible with your views. We are impressed with your
94

contributions in the months immediately after the awful, events of September 11,

and we look forward to continuing our work together.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY,

United States Senator.

PATTY MURRAY,

United States Senator.

JAMES JEFFORDS,

United States Senator.

MARIA CANTWELL,

United States Senator.

CRUSADER AND COMANCHE

Senator INOUYE. If I may ask this final question of both of you.

The problems of the Crusader and Comanche programs have become standard fare for critics of the United States Army. Almost

every day there is some article in the paper. For example, the Crusader artillery gun has been criticized as being a cold war weapon

by some, unfit for rapid battlefield combat and too heavy to transport. Some have said that the Comanche helicopter has been in development for nearly two decades and the program has been criticized for poor contractor performance, cost overruns, repeated

restructurings, the latest coming at the end of last year.

Now we have before us a budget request of about $0.4 billion for

research and development on these two systems, which is about 20

percent of your total R&D budget. Obviously, you consider these

two programs to be very, very important. I would like to give you

an opportunity to respond to these critics, if I may.

Mr. WHITE. Let me begin and then the Chief of Staff, I am sure,

will also add his views.

I view Crusader to be absolutely vital to the Army going forward.

The Army that General Shinseki and I grew up in was always

outgunned by its adversaries. The biggest mismatch that we ever

had with the Soviets was the field artillery side. We have not fielded a new artillery cannon on a brand new chassis in this country

since the early 1960’s. That was the 109 system, which is now in

its sixth major modification.

The weight of the Crusader was a concern at 60 tons. We have

put it on a slim-fast diet. It will come in at 40 tons or less. It has

tremendous range, rate of fire, and tactical mobility equivalent to

the Abrams. In fact, it will have a common engine with the

Abrams. And it is C–17 transportable. You can get two of them or

one of them and an ammo resupply vehicle in a C–17.

If we had it in Afghanistan today combined with the Q–37

counterbattery radar, we would not have to worry about the mortars that have been causing casualties in the 10th Mountain and

the 101st on that battlefield. It will be a tremendous counterfire capability. So I am four-square behind Crusader.

Comanche in its 20 years, as you point out, has suffered from

every known disease to a development program, from migrating requirements to less than stellar contractor support to uneven funding. Our commitment, the Chief’s and I, is to get the program focused on producing a block one, an armed replacement for Kiowa,

which is what we must have. Kiowa has been in the fleet since

Vietnam. Second, rearrange the contractors into a more efficient
95

operation. We have done that. Third, fund the program and get it

fielded, and we intend to do just exactly that.

We are going through a Defense Acquisition Board review of Comanche. That will be done in May. But this is a transformational

system and we must get this thing fielded.

Senator INOUYE. Chief?

General SHINSEKI. I would just add, Mr. Chairman, the descriptions of Crusader being a cold war relic has primarily to do with

weight. What is also true about cold war artillery was it could not

move very fast, it did not keep up with our maneuver forces, with

our M–1’s and our Bradleys. So the speed with which we attacked

was always driven by the speed at which our artillery pieces could

keep up, which was not very good, as we discovered in Desert

Storm.

What is also true about cold war artillery was it did not have a

very good rate of fire, it was not very accurate, and it did not outrange our adversaries.

So we set about fixing that for all of the years in the cold war

we lived, outgunned by our adversary. There is some truth to the

fact that Crusader came in heavier than we wanted or had envisioned. But as the Secretary says, we have taken some aggressive

action here to drive it back down to about 40 tons.

Would we like it to be lighter than that? Obviously. But there is

a point in engineering by which, if you are firing long-range heavy

artillery, the weight of the platform for purposes of stability and

digging in trails and giving this a stable platform, you just cannot

overcome the mechanics.

What is not true about Crusader being a cold war relic is that

we have downsized the number of people it takes to fight that system, down to a handful of soldiers, 7 to 10 down to 6. So there has

been a tremendous reduction. We automatically load this. This

outshoots now all known adversaries. It is a fleet platform that

keeps up with the tanks and the Bradleys that we have in the offensive formations. It will shoot at a rate of fire that outshoots our

adversaries, so that it can put 10 rounds in the area, move before

the return fire from enemy artillery comes in.

All of the good things that we have designed in the Crusader are

not cold war. These are breakthroughs in fires that we, the Secretary and I, have lived with. In all the briefings that we ever gave

as young commanders that talked about how we were going to fight

our formations, we could never solve the fires piece. We now have.

One thing about Crusader that we are all wrestling with is the

weight of that platform. But the Crusader is selected to go into our

III Corps, the heavy counter-attack corps, which goes by boat anyway. So the majority of these platforms will be transported by boat.

Having slimmed it down from 55 to 60 tons to 40 has accomplished this. We can put a Crusader on a C–5 or a C–17 and we

can ship that gun where we need it. Because of its capabilities, two

to three Crusaders will outfire a battery of guns. Four Crusaders

in Kosovo would have put steel on every inch of that province, and

that is the capability we have needed for years and, frankly, that

technology is what we need to continue to develop so that in years

ahead as we go to Objective Force capability we can transition this

into to robotic systems that we are looking at.
96

Crusader is as close to robotics right now as we in the Army

have been in a long time. You have three soldiers sitting separate

from the gun that can dial up and fire the gun and automatically

load it. Whether it is 3 feet or 300 feet, same principles. We need

to field the Crusader to leverage that capability.

I support the Secretary’s comments on Comanche. We need to

field Comanche. We need to solve the problems that we have discovered here. With his decisions and bringing the two partners, the

producing companies, into a relationship, I am confident that Comanche will solve the problems we have encountered to this point.

We need to get on with it.

If Afghanistan is any demonstration of what armed reconnaissance and close air support with heliborne platforms will require,

we need to go to Comanche.

Senator INOUYE. Your Crusader, as you say, can keep up with

the Bradley?

General SHINSEKI. It can, yes, sir.

Mr. WHITE. Crusader will have a common engine with M–1. The

new Abrams engine will be the same one as in the Crusader.

Senator INOUYE. Well, I am hoping and praying with you, because I think that this is the new weapons system we need for the

new wars. As you pointed out, if we had the Crusader there at this

moment many of the problems we seem to face may have been

avoided.

AFGHANISTAN UPDATE

My very last question: Can you give us an update as to what is

happening in Afghanistan right now?

General SHINSEKI. Sir, I will do the best I can. I have just returned this morning from Europe and I know there has been a lot

of coverage in the press, so I am not sure exactly what you have

been provided.

But I think you know that for some time there has been evidence

that there has been a group of folks moving in and around the

area. We have frankly been trying to pin them down. We finally

have, and in doing so we have put large conventional forces in.

This is why you see the 101st and the 10th Mountain involved in

sealing off this area, along with other U.S. Special Operations formations, as well as allies.

Having sealed that area off where this force is not able to bleed

its way out of a piece of terrain, they are now fixed in this

Shahikot Valley and we have begun the process of eliminating

them. Pretty good sized numbers. Exactly, numbers vary from report to report, frankly because they do not all show themselves at

once. They have perfected the technique of firing on us with mortars and small arms fires, rocket propelled grenade’s (RPG’s), and

then ducking back into holes that have been prepared for decades

that go underground. Then we will bring fires on their position,

and as soon as the fire is lifted they come back up. They are pretty

savvy about how to do that.

So as we occupy positions—I think there are seven or eight positions that we were to occupy. We got into the first six and then ran

into their locations, and we have been now for 4 days in the thick
97

of it. They are taking casualties in large numbers, but there are

sufficient left that there is a good tough fight going on.

There are stories of heroism that will come out eventually, but

tremendous youngsters that have done the tough fighting. Ultimately, after you have delivered all the fires you can, if they are

determined to resist then you are just going to have to get in the

holes with them and root them out. This has been true for every

combat operation this Army has been in for as far back as any of

us can read the history.

This will be resolved. We will get it done. The tremendous youngsters that you saw on your visits are the youngsters that are performing these tough missions and we are mighty proud of them.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator Stevens.

Senator STEVENS. You are right. We saw them. We saw them

loading up and had a good idea where they were going. As a matter

of fact, they are great.

MILCON FOR IBCTS

I have one question and then a short statement. I asked you a

little bit about the brigades. We are looking now at MILCON and

for the Interim Brigade Combat Teams I am disturbed to see that

under the Army’s current proposed MILCON time line the initial

operating capability (IOC) for the brigade team is not reflected in

the request for MILCON. There is an unfunded requirement not

only for Alaska, but for Hawaii. At each location I was told there is a $200 million to $700 million

training and maintenance facility requirement for readiness, training, and deployment, and that is not in the line. If it is not in the

line, you are not going to meet your IOC of 2005. Would you take

a look at that, please?

General SHINSEKI. I will, Senator. I alluded to this a little earlier. When we stood up these brigades and identified where they

were going, we could put training dollars and operations and maintenance dollars against the unit, but we have been playing a bit

of catch-up because the budget submit went in and we could not

tie all the pieces together. Most of that had to do with installation

support, MILCON activities. So that is why you see them arrayed

as they are.

Senator STEVENS. Well, the Alaska one is supposed to begin to

convert in 2003, but there is not money in the budget for them to

start that in terms of MILCON.

General SHINSEKI. I believe 2004 is when we actually will stand

that up. But there is a requirement, you are absolutely right, to

begin that work even today, this year and next year.

PROTECTING SOLDIERS

Senator STEVENS. This last comment—I know Senator Domenici

is here and others. I hope you do not misunderstand this, but I remember hearing here when we were talking about systems and a

suggestion came from this side of the table to upgrade the Patriot

from an anti-air to an anti-missile system. I am disturbed to hear

today that we do not have right now an answer to those mortars.

I would urge you to look at some systems.
98

It is harsh to say, but six Predators cost less than one Comanche

and they are available now. They can be bought by the end of the

year. I would hope you look at the systems you need. I know that

is Air Force, but those guys ought to be out there protecting their

people in Afghanistan right now, unmanned aerial vehicles, and

now they are capable of lethal response. I would hope that you

would look at that, because it bothers me to think, after seeing the

things we have seen lately in’’ Blackhawk Down’’ and’’ We Were

Soldiers,’’ that we might be sending people out there without the

ultimate in protection that they need.

So if you need it you should ask us. We would like to work with

you. We like to see you be adaptable to the systems that are available now that can get over there quickly.

General SHINSEKI. We will. There was not the attempt to say

that we are not having Predators available to the forces there.

Having used it myself, I know the great capability there and I am

sure that the commanders on the ground have access to it.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Shelby.

TECHNOLOGY MATURITY

Senator SHELBY. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

General Shinseki, I just want to make a few statements, then

ask you a question. Regarding the technology maturity gap that I

mentioned earlier with the Secretary, I want to illustrate my concerns and ask some questions using the Netfires system as an example. The Future Combat Systems (FCS) concept is not viable

without a precision standoff lethal capability against stationary

and moving armor, as well as other targets, because no protection

system has been developed to my knowledge that will allow an 18-

ton FCS vehicle to survive a direct fire engagement with any main

battle tank.

Netfires is the FCS precision standoff lethal capability under development at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA). Netfires is an extremely complex and ambitious system

of systems. It consists of two missiles: a precision attack missile

and a loitering attack missile. They operate in a complex

multimode, multi-link radio frequency (RF) network. Each missile

is a node able to communicate with other missiles, relay aircraft,

ground stations, forward observers, and vehicles.

The loitering attack missiles (LAMs) have LADAR seekers, the

precision attack missiles (PAMs) have imaging infrared seekers.

LAMS can find targets for PAMs and loiter for up to an hour and

attack targets themselves. In addition, Netfires operates autonomously—no man in the loop. This means the system must rely on

automatic target acquisition and recognition.

In concept, Netfires meets FCS requirements and would be a

great capability on the battlefield, except the RF network which

would be embedded in and part of the FCS command and control

network faces significant technical hurdles in the areas of operating bands and required frequency bandwidths. RF data links of

the type required are inherently vulnerable to RF jamming. Making them more jam-resistant increases the complexity of antennas
99

and processors and problems with integrating them with the missile structure and aerodynamic configuration.

This takes time and money and there is no guarantee of success.

Netfires operates autonomously, as I said, and must rely on automatic target acquisition and recognition. But in spite of years of

work, no acceptably reliable automatic target acquisition/automatic

target recognition (ATA–ATR) technology is available. While significant progress has been made, particularly in the L-A-D-A-R,

LADAR, technology, there is significant risk that an acceptable

level of performance is still many years away.

Netfires I understand intends the rely on the global positioning

system to achieve the high navigational accuracy to bring the missiles in very close to the target location for better ATR reliability

and to compensate for the low resolution.

Netfires has been rated as high risk for demonstrating even a

minimal capability without the network capability to meet the May

3rd deadline for entry into SDD. I believe this example that I have

been trying to relate here is instructive and deserves our serious

consideration and yours. Given the status of the technologies, how

can the Netfires system hope to meet its May 3rd milestone for

entry into the SDD?

General SHINSEKI. May 2003 entry.

Senator SHELBY. Yes, that is right.

General SHINSEKI. I think, Senator, you have given us a good

summary and also described the challenges.

Senator SHELBY. It is not much of a summary.

General SHINSEKI. It is what we wrestle with. Some have described technology like good wine: It takes time.

Senator SHELBY. It takes time.

General SHINSEKI. Some of this will not be ready in May 2003,

and what we, the Secretary and I, have to lay out is a decision

process that says that this will never deliver what we want, stop

funding it, and do not put another dollar at it, or this is not

ready——

Senator SHELBY. Or show where it will.

General SHINSEKI. Absolutely. Or there is potential here and it

is worthy of continued investment at some level, either at a very

low level or at a modestly aggressive level. We are in fact putting

in place these decision processes that have scientists and engineers, all the experts available to us. We have also looked beyond—

you were talking about our RDEC’s and our own labs, which have

been tremendous performers in the past.

Senator SHELBY. It has brought you to where we are today, has

it not?

General SHINSEKI. That is correct.

Senator SHELBY. R&D. The Secretary alluded to that earlier.

General SHINSEKI. That is correct.

But over time we have also migrated some of our capabilities

that used to be resident in the labs and they are out there in industry.

Senator SHELBY. That is where it goes.

General SHINSEKI. What we have to be smart enough to do is to

be able to vacuum all that information, see what is going on out

in industry. We have pretty good indications from industry that
100

they are willing to partner with us. Of course, it involves dollars.

But there is international industry as well that have some S&T

ventures that we are not aware of and we continue to try to find

out what is out there.

But for us it is about getting the technologies we need, having

a mechanism that says this will be ready, and invest in it.

Senator SHELBY. Making smart decisions based on what you see.

General SHINSEKI. That is correct.

Mr. WHITE. That is one of the reasons we are going to a lead systems integrator (LSI). It recognizes the complexity of piecing together components of technology with the relative maturation

schedule, which is precisely why we are going to bring an LSI on

probably tomorrow.

SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND

Senator SHELBY. General, in another area in a sense, but similar,

is the Army considering dissolving the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC)? If so, what is the impact to the

civil servant, military, since you are the Chief of Staff, contractor

work forces, in my area Redstone Arsenal, in other locations where

SMDC activities exist, such as Colorado Springs, White Sands Missile Range, Kwajalein, and so forth?

General SHINSEKI. You asked are we thinking about evolving?

Senator SHELBY. Yes, sir, dissolving, and if you are——

General SHINSEKI. Dissolving? No. I misunderstood you.

Senator SHELBY. Dissolving.

General SHINSEKI. I thought you asked evolving.

Senator SHELBY. No, dissolve.

General SHINSEKI. As far as I am concerned, the Army has a role

in space.

Senator SHELBY. Absolutely. We have defended that a long time.

General SHINSEKI. Yes, that is correct. And SMDC is our organization that——

Senator SHELBY. Is your key component there, is it not?

General SHINSEKI. Absolutely. We do have an Army space program. It is hard to define what clearly today, what that role in the

future is going to be, but 2 years ago we had a hard time defining

what Army transformation was going to be as well. Just as important as transformation is to this Army in its ground responsibilities

that is tied to this terrestrial globe, we do have a role for the Army

in space, and SMDC will keep us in that discussion.

Senator SHELBY. You and the Secretary plan to defend that role,

do you not?

General SHINSEKI. We do.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, we do.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Domenici.

PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY-3 TESTING

Senator DOMENICI. I do not have very many questions, Mr.

Chairman, so I will move with dispatch. I just did not want to fail

to come by and greet the Secretary and see you, General. Perhaps
101

after we finish here I could talk with you about Walter Reed and

what they have done to be helpful to this Senator.

Could I ask, Mr. Secretary: The Army recently tested the Patriot

Advanced Capability (PAC–3) air defense missile at White Sands,

and it missed its cruise missile target. What is the Army’s plans

for future testing of PAC–3 at White Sands Missile Range?

Mr. WHITE. We are going to continue to test it. We have had

many successful engagements with PAC–3. PAC–3, of course, has

been sent back to us for management from the Ballistic Missile Defense Agency at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level.

It has had many successful engagements. That particular one was

not. The preliminary conclusion is because of some faulty settings

and not any fundamental difficulty with the missile itself. So we

are very bullish on the PAC–3 capability.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you know when it would be deployed?

Mr. WHITE. I would have to get you that for the record.

Senator DOMENICI. Would you, please.

[The information follows:]

PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY 3 (PAC–3) DEPLOYMENT

The initial Patriot PAC–3 deployment occurred in September 2001. This fielding

was to the Air Defense School at Fort Bliss, Texas, and provided equipment for

troop training. This year we are fielding PAC–3 to the Patriot battalion in Korea.

Starting in fiscal year 2003 we will field PAC–3 at the rate of one battalion per

year. This fielding schedule synchronizes with the ongoing Patriot recapitalization

program which will provide the Patriot battalion with system equipment which will

have been refurbished to zero miles and zero hours condition. The end result is a

like-new Patriot battalion that is fully PAC–3 capable.

General SHINSEKI. There are four tests, of which this first test

was test one. The next test goes on March 21 and the deployment

decisions will be driven by how these tests turn out.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

I have long been a proponent, along with a number of Senators

of directed energy and the weapons systems that are evolving

around that. Just last month I visited a joint technology office that

will serve the tri-services in their efforts to exploit directed energy

applications. That is going to be in my home city of Albuquerque

as I understand it. This technology can play a vital role in making

both our interim forces and our long-range objective forces more lethal while simultaneously reducing the risk of collateral damage,

which I imagine you worry about every day as you look at Afghanistan.

Could you please update us on the status of the negotiations with

Israel with reference to the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)

System.

General SHINSEKI. May I provide that for the record, Senator?

Senator DOMENICI. Indeed.

[The information follows:]

TACTICAL HIGH ENERGY LASER NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL

I fully agree with your assessment that directed energy weapons have a vital role

in the Transformation to the Objective Force. The unprecedented success of the cooperative U.S. Army/Israeli Ministry of Defense Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)
102

advanced concept technology demonstration program was crucial in our assessment

of this leap-ahead technology.

The Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) program will serve as a pathfinder to this advanced weapon capability. The MTHEL program will place the first

U.S. high-energy laser weapon prototype in the hands of U.S. Army warfighters.

The warfighters will use the prototype to develop the tactics, doctrine, and other

warfighting elements necessary to integrate this new capability into the Objective

Force.

The MTHEL program will provide Israel an increased capability to protect its

population, infrastructure, and forces from attack by terrorists or conventional

forces. This capability is important at this time of heightened tension in the Middle

East and may play an important role in U.S. peace initiatives for the region.

The U.S. Army is engaged in informal discussions with the Israeli Ministry of Defense concerning collaborative development of the MTHEL weapon system prototype. The purpose of informal discussions is to lay the foundation for future formal

negotiations and to identify areas to be given emphasis during those negotiations.

The informal discussions have identified many areas of mutual interest and general agreement in principle. There are a few remaining areas that both parties continue to discuss. The current informal discussions will form the basis for successful

negotiations that will enable the U.S. Army to collaborate with the Israeli Ministry

of Defense in the development of the MTHEL weapon system prototype.

The U.S. Army framework for the discussion is to insure U.S. national security

interests are protected and to insure compliance with U.S. laws and policies. The

U.S. Army is committed to resolve any issue that may arise in the current informal

discussions or future formal negotiations and to resolve such issues in the context

of this basic framework.

General SHINSEKI. I am not as current on the negotiations with

Israel. But as you know, we do have a very active THEL program,

high energy laser program, and it is part of the dimension in technology that we are looking at for future combat capability.

Senator DOMENICI. My last question has to do with how you intend to pursue directed energy, so let me ask, how will the Army

synchronize the development of directed energy weapons with your

Future Combat System concept? I assume it would surely, at least

at this stage, be a part of that.

Mr. WHITE. It is.

Senator DOMENICI. Who wants to do that?

General SHINSEKI. I would tell you that we are looking at a

broad range of technologies and all I can tell you at this point is

that high energy lasers and other systems are part of that look.

Senator DOMENICI. What I am concerned about, and that is why

I asked how are you going to go about synchronizing the development of the directed energy weapons as you put together your Future Combat Systems, is because some things may be ahead of others. Nevertheless, directed energy weaponry is surely gaining and

getting close to a point where it ought to be considered as part of,

clearly as part of the Future Combat System. I just wondered how

you were doing that. Is my assumption correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, it is correct in that we view it as a part of the

long-term solution here. The question obviously will be what is its

state of maturity when we get ready to field the first block or will

we pick it up in a subsequent block as we expand the Objective

Force capability.

Senator DOMENICI. I thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Specter.
103

ADEQUACY OF FUNDING

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Armed Forces have distinguished themselves in the military

operations in Afghanistan, and this is really great to see. There has

been very substantial funding for the Department of Defense in the

period that I have been here and, under the principle that you get

what you pay for, we have been very pleased with your success.

Are you adequately funded up to the present time to continue to

carry on an aggressive war in Afghanistan, General?

General SHINSEKI. Well, sir, I will tell you that this is a good

budget and it allows us to address some long-term issues that were

in need of attention.

Senator SPECTER. Before you get to this budget, I am concerned

about the existing budget. Do you have sufficient funds in your existing budget to carry on the aggressive war in Afghanistan?

General SHINSEKI. Well, we spend about $360 million each

month to address the war, the global war that we are currently

conducting. That burn rate, if you will, probably carries into about

April. But beyond that, early April, the Army will have to pull

fourth quarter training money forward and begin to spend it on financing this war on terrorism, in anticipation that there will be a

supplemental that will help pay that so that we can then return

moneys to fourth quarter training.

To answer your specific questions, we are good for this month

and then I run into a cash deficit problem and I have got to start

flowing money from the fourth quarter.

Senator SPECTER. You may prefer to answer this in closed session or in a private conversation, but what is your strength and

what are your resources, if the war against al-Qaeda moves into

other quarters—the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia, or perhaps other

places? Do you have adequate resources in your Special Operations

to carry on that kind of a worldwide campaign that the President

has talked about?

General SHINSEKI. Not in the budget as we see it. We would have

to be supplemented to address these unanticipated requirements.

Senator SPECTER. With an increase in the budget of some $46.1

billion for next year, bringing the total budget to $396.8 billion, is

there sufficient funding there to carry on the aggressive war

against al-Qaeda, wherever it may lead?

Mr. WHITE. I think the intent in structuring that budget—and

Secretary Rumsfeld has testified to this and so has the Deputy Secretary—was that at $379 billion, I think is the total defense budget, that there are funds of about $10 billion in there that would assume that we would continue this war at least at its current level

through 2003, and that is what the $10 billion was there to address, so as to make it more unlikely that a supplemental will be

required in 2003 as it obviously will be required in fairly short

order here in 2002.

Senator SPECTER. Are you suggesting that you cannot anticipate

the adequacy of this budget depending upon how many fronts you

are fighting and that you may need a supplemental beyond this

budget for fiscal year 2003?
104

Mr. WHITE. No. I think that the intent was to structure the

budget to deal with the foreseeable level of effort that is our best

estimate and the budget was sized accordingly. Consequently, there

is a need for a supplemental this year. The intent was to organize

the budget so that it would be far less likely next year.

Senator SPECTER. The President has talked about the ‘‘axis of

evil’’ and Secretary of State Powell made a statement that we are

not about to go to war against Iran and that we are not about to

go to war against North Korea. The noteworthy absence was Iraq.

Do we have sufficient resources, General—and you may prefer to

answer this not in a public session—in the Army Special Operations to carry on a military operation against Iraq at the same

time we are fighting al-Qaeda in the various places now under attack?

General SHINSEKI. Senator, I think any more detailed discussion

would be best privately. But I would go back to what I indicated

here just a few minutes ago. In terms of paying for the increased

operations that we have right now, I am paying about, the Army

is, paying about $365 million a month for these increased operations. At the rate at which we understand there is an inventory

of funds available, that runs out in April and the Army would then

have to be able to pay internally to keep whatever operations

going, whether it is the current operations against al-Qaeda or any

expansion.

So there would be a requirement for additional funding.

Senator SPECTER. You had started to say earlier, General, before

I came back to my original question, that this budget would enable

you to do some things you had wanted to do and planned to do.

What are they?

Senator LEAHY. Well, I think, as I have indicated, this budget,

there is a $10 billion increase in the 2003 budget. About $3.3 billion of that $10 billion goes toward health care programs. These

are programs we have not been able to pay much attention to.

Really, while it comes to the Army, it flows through the Army and

goes the Defense Health Services. About $2 billion, $1.9 billion of that $10 billion, goes to compensation, which covers pay and allowances that together the services and this Congress has found a way to take care of our youngsters. About $1 billion of that goes to pricing, fact of life adjustments and pricing. But about $3 billion of that $10 billion goes into

programmatics, such as recapitalization of our Legacy Force that

we have today, trucks, and about $900 million into a variety of

other small programs that, when brought together, come out to

about $1 billion.

So there are things that we have addressed in this budget that

we have not been able to do in the past. After years of lack of attention, we will not fix it in a single budget, but this is a good move

in the right direction.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, General.

MILITARY HERITAGE INSTITUTE

Mr. Secretary, the U.S. Military Heritage Institute at the Carlisle Barracks has been waiting for the Army to award a contract

to begin construction of the first building. The funding has been set
105

forth in the initial proposals and we have appropriated $500,000 in

the fiscal year 2002 MILCON appropriation bill for the next phase.

They had scheduled the groundbreaking for November. They are

still standing around in Carlisle waiting to do the spade work.

When do you anticipate awarding a contract for the project?

Mr. WHITE. Well, I will check for the record, but my commitment

when you and I talked about this before was that we were going

to keep this on schedule and that is my intent. I was just up there

last month. I will check into it, but it will happen.

Senator SPECTER. Okay. Please let me know.

Mr. WHITE. I will do that.

Senator SPECTER. I would appreciate it. My phone rings off the

hook on that red line from Carlisle.

Mr. WHITE. If I can get you to agree to show up, I will be there

as well.

[The information follows:]

MILITARY HERITAGE INSTITUTE

Because the project’s requests for proposal were over the program amount, the

Corps of Engineers and Department of the Army had to obtain approval for additional funds and authority to award the contract. Department of the Army is working this proposal to resolve the funding issue, and we anticipate contract approval

soon.

Senator SPECTER. Okay. One final question about a State interest. The Paladin howitzer, which is manufactured in my State obviously, has been endorsed for acquisition by the Army National

Guard. This may not be on the top of your agenda, but if you could

take a look at that and give me a response in writing I would appreciate it.

Mr. WHITE. I will do that.

[The information follows:]

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD PALADIN ACQUISITION

There are three Army National Guard (ARNG) unit groupings that are Paladin

claimants—the Enhanced Brigades, Corps Artillery, and National Guard Divisions.

Paladins have been provided, either by procurement or cascading from restructured

active Army force units, for all Army National Guard Enhanced Brigades and Corps

Artillery units. The Army National Guard Divisions are not equipped with Paladins.

In November 2001, the ARNG requested that the Army provide Paladins to three

selected National Guard divisions—the 40th Mechanized Division (California

ARNG), 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized) (Pennsylvania ARNG), and the 49th

Armored Division (Texas ARNG).

The ARNG requested that the Department of the Army support the Congressional

initiative for the procurement of 54 Paladins in fiscal year 2003. The Paladins were

assigned as requested, and 54 Paladins for the ARNG were placed on the Army’s

fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirements list.

When successfully completed, the program will provide Paladins for the three

ARNG divisions. Any future assignment of Paladin howitzers to additional ARNG

divisions will occur as a result of the cascade generated by the future fielding of

the Crusader self-propelled howitzer.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions to submit in writing if I may. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, General Shinseki, I thank you

very much for your appearance and your testimony this morning.

We look forward to working with you in the days ahead.
106

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. THOMAS E. WHITE

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

HOMELAND DEFENSE

Question. Secretary White, after September 11th you were named the Department’s Executive Agent for homeland defense. What can you tell us about this role

and will this be a permanent mission for the Secretary of the Army?

Answer. The Secretary of Defense appointed me the interim DOD Executive Agent

for Homeland Security on October 1, 2001. Along with this appointment came the

responsibility to accomplish three major objectives: unification of homeland security

efforts within the Department and development of the plan to stand up an organization within the Office of the Secretary of Defense which will serve as the Department’s focal point for homeland security policy, planning, and resource allocation;

develop operational solutions for the future; and enhance Departmental cooperation

with Governor Ridge’s Office of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies in

regards to homeland security issues.

The Secretary of Defense will direct the Deputy Secretary of Defense to lead a

transition effort to establish a staff, at the appropriate level within the Office of the

Secretary of Defense that, when established, will assume homeland defense and civil

support responsibilities. The leader of that organization will then assume the responsibilities as Executive Agent for Homeland Security. Initial operating capability

for that organization is projected for some time this summer.

MILITARY PERSONNEL END STRENGTH

Question. The demanding personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) driven by the war on

terrorism and the increased pace of deployments since the end of the Cold War has

put a significant strain on the force and its families. According to your testimony,

there are currently more than 124,000 soldiers and 38,000 civilians from the Army

Active, Guard, and Reserve stationed in 110 countries around the world. In order

to maintain the force, to date has the Army been meeting its accession requirements

in fiscal year 2002?

Answer. The Army has met its accession requirements in all three components.

For the Active Component, the year-to-date accession requirement through the end

of February was 29,350 with 29,904 achieved. The Army Reserve requirement was

17,008 with 17,194 achieved. The Army National Guard requirement was 25,132

with 27,150 achieved.

Question. In addition to bonuses given to personnel with specialized skills in areas

where the Army is experiencing shortfalls, is the Army considering targeting pay

raises for personnel with critical skills, such as nurses, maintenance personnel, and

pilots?

Answer. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation did take into consideration the issue of pay banding for specific skills, but suggested more study was

necessary.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AIRCRAFT

Question. Secretary White, the Committee has been informed that the Army National Guard’s entire fleet of OH–58 and Huey helicopters is slated for deactivation

over the next several months. What is your plan for fielding the additional Black

Hawk helicopters that will be required by the Army National Guard to replace these

assets? How great a shortfall does this create, with only 12 Black Hawks included

in your fiscal year 2003 request?

Answer. The National Guard will have more than 270 UH–1s at the end of fiscal

year 2002, 103 UH–1s by the end of fiscal year 2003, and none by the end of fiscal

year 2004.

At the end of fiscal year 2001, the National Guard had 520 UH–60s, with a scheduled end strength in UH–60s of 686. The Guard will receive between 103 and 141

by the end of fiscal year 2003. The difference in the fiscal year 2003 numbers is

attributed to the UH–60s retained by the 101st Air Assault Division, which prior

to Operation Enduring Freedom were scheduled to cascade in fiscal year 2002. The

Guard will receive the balance of 25 through fiscal year 2009.
107

The replacement aircraft for OH–58 A and C model aircraft in divisional cavalry

squadrons will be AH–64s. By the end of fiscal year 2004, eight AH–64s will replace

the 16 OH–58s in each squadron.

The OH–58s in the Reconnaissance and Aerial Interdiction Detachments (RAIDs)

are operated by the National Guard, funded with counter-drug dollars, and sustained from the Army parts stocks. Once the Army’s OH–58 parts stocks have been

exhausted, operating costs of the RAID OH–58s will increase, perhaps triple, as procurement of spare parts transitions from the Army’s OH–58 supply system to commercial parts vendors. The transition to commercial parts vendors will require either a significant increase in counter-drug funding to continue operating the RAIDs

at current operations tempo, or a reduction in the hours flown. We have notified

the Department of Defense of this concern.

Question. Has any consideration been given to leasing helicopters to help mitigate

the Guard’s aircraft shortfalls?

Answer. Yes, leasing has been considered as an option, but the plan to provide

the National Guard with up to 141 aircraft by the end of fiscal year 2003 made leasing unnecessary. A study conducted in June 2001 showed that leasing 30 UH–60s

over five years would cost the Army $445 million, while purchasing the same number would cost $388 million.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

COMPOSITE MATERIALS

Question. Secretary White, as you seek to develop systems that are lighter, yet

equal or greater in strength and requiring less maintenance than current conventional systems, what role do you view composite materials playing in the Army’s

Transformation?

Answer. Composite materials will play an important role in Army Transformation.

Army laboratories are conducting basic research in the areas of advanced polymer

composites and structures to create materials for Army-unique applications that are

lighter and more affordable, yet provide improved strength, reliability, durability,

and are environmentally friendly. These composite materials will be used to reduce

the weight of the Future Combat Systems while maintaining structural strength, integrity, and system survivability. The resulting systems will be significantly lighter,

more deployable, more sustainable, and more cost effective than current systems.

The promise of polymer composites is based on their ability to withstand high-impact forces, leading to increased system survivability.

Composites will play a major role in the transformation of our aviation systems.

We have invested heavily in structures science and technology over the last 25

years. Our initial investments paved the way for Comanche aircraft to be the

Army’s first all composite aircraft. The airframe on the #1 and #2 prototypes is more

than 20 percent lighter than an equivalent metal airframe. A recently completed

Army Science and Technology Objective (STO) has demonstrated the ability to further reduce weight by an additional 15 percent as well as reducing manufacturing

labor costs by 25 percent. This technology has transitioned to the Comanche program and will save weight on aircraft #3 and each subsequent aircraft. A new Army

STO is starting this year and is expected to make further strides in weight and affordability while also focusing on the issues of survivability and repair.

In the ground combat vehicle community, a major advance in ballistic hull and

turret structures was successfully demonstrated in the late 1990s. Called the Composite Armored Vehicle Advanced Technology Demonstrator, the technology demonstrated a 35 percent reduction in weight over the traditional metal armor solution. For this reason, the technology has been adopted for incorporation in the Crusader howitzer and resupply vehicle turret and upper hull structures and will replace major structures traditionally made from aluminum.

Composites in the ground vehicle community likewise apply to the wheeled vehicle fleet—a commodity which today remains largely metals-based. Initiatives are underway to extend the Army’s technology and experience from the combat world to

the wheeled vehicle support fleet of trucks and trailers to achieve the benefits of

weight reduction and enhanced durability. For future new trucks and trailers, the

Future Tactical Truck Systems and 21st Century Truck are two examples of programs which will exploit the use of composites and pave the way for even broader

applications of composites.

Beyond vehicles, the opportunity for composites in Transformation is great. Support systems ranging from combat bridging to shipping and storage containers, even
108

simple items like vehicle tow bars all derive significant weight savings from composites and support deployability goals for the future force.

In the long term, I expect to see composite material technologies transition to

most of our Objective Force systems through block improvements or major model

upgrades.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE EXPERTISE

Question. Secretary White, in September 2000, I chaired a hearing in the Government Affairs subcommittee where witnesses described serious deficiencies in foreign

language expertise among federal employees who work in the U.S. national security

area. A recent GAO study, publicly released yesterday, identifies a 44 percent shortfall in Army translators and interpreters in six languages considered critical. The

report also highlights significant shortages of cryptologic linguists and human intelligence collectors in a number of critical languages. Obviously, the war on terrorism

presents a growing challenge in this arena, not only for the Army but also for other

agencies that contribute to our national security.

Do you see an urgent need to increase organic, advanced language skills? If so,

how does the Army plan to meet this shortfall?

Answer. Yes. The global war on terrorism has again demonstrated that even

though the Army is prepared to meet anticipated challenges, we must have a strategy to quickly augment its linguist force to fill unanticipated requirements. As detailed in the Army Language Master Plan, the Army’s strategy, currently being applied to the war on terrorism, is to rely on its existing linguist force in both the

Active and Reserve Components, soldiers in non-linguist specialties who have the

requisite language skills, and contract linguists. In addition, the Army has soldiers

training in languages specifically to fill requirements for the war. Generally, the advanced language skills the Army requires comes from soldiers pulled from other specialties and contract linguists hired for their native or near-native level proficiency.

Question. Secretary White, has the Army taken advantage of the language expertise in the DOD’s National Security Education Program by hiring scholars or fellows

from this program?

Answer. The Army hired three individuals who have completed the National Security Education Program (NSEP), and the National Defense University hired five

more. The vast majority of the Army’s linguist requirements are for enlisted soldiers

who begin their career as privates first class if they have a college degree upon enlistment. Individuals who have completed the NSEP are more suited for civilian positions that require a foreign language skill. The most recent information indicates

that worldwide, only 330 Army civilians use foreign language skills in their jobs.

Question. Secretary White, is the Army reaching out and utilizing language training resources in the academic sector and in the nation’s ethnic communities?

Answer. Yes. The Army routinely has soldiers attending college language classes,

primarily for foreign language maintenance and enhancement. Few, if any, soldiers

are sent to college language courses for language acquisition, as it is generally believed to require four years of college language training to achieve the proficiency

provided by the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) in

24 to 63 weeks. Language instructors are hired from both the academic sector and

ethnic communities for initial acquisition training at DLIFLC and maintenance and

enhancement training. Also, as noted in the recent General Accounting Office report, the Army has an aggressive program in place to recruit within ethnic enclaves.

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) has soldier-linguists assigned

whose primary responsibility is increasing the number of skilled linguists enlisting

in the Army. They accomplish this through education of recruiting and Military Entrance Processing Station personnel, development of relationships at colleges and

universities that have foreign language programs, and establishment of rapport

within ethnic enclaves. These efforts will be greatly expanded beginning in October

2002 as USAREC has documented a requirement for nearly 800 additional foreign

language-capable soldiers to serve as recruiters.

HYDRA-70 ROCKET SYSTEM

Question. Secretary White, I am concerned with the decision to slash funding for

the Hydra-70 rocket system in fiscal year 2003 by nearly 84 percent, at a time when

our nation’s front-line forces are deployed with these systems in Afghanistan and

other countries. This seems to be inconsistent with the direction provided by this

committee last year and could put combat readiness at risk. How does the Department plan to maintain the combat proficiency of aviators with such dramatic reductions in the procurement of training rockets?
109

Answer. The Army has been asked to make tough choices to move the military

toward Transformation. This is a clear example of where the Department has decided to move forward and accept risk by reducing the amount of Hydra-70 rockets

procured and move toward rocket technology that will give the warfighter a lowcost, precision engagement capability that he does not possess today. The Army anticipates no change to current training strategies for the next two years. However,

we are reassessing rocket strategies as part of a continuing and ongoing review

process. This strategy is tied closely to the fielding of the Advanced Precision Kill

Weapon System (APKWS).

Question. Secretary White, I understand that the rocket system which will replace

the Hydra-70 will not be ready for fielding until after fiscal year 2006. How will the

Army address the recapitalization of the 2.75-inch war reserve that is aging and less

capable than the current production configuration?

Answer. The Army will not fund the recapitalization of the 2.75-inch war reserve.

Question. Secretary White, I understand that the Army is the single manager for

procurement of this vital munition for all the Services. Based on your decision to

cut procurement of the Hydra-70 rocket for the Army, how will you mitigate future

cost increases to the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps who have increased procurement of this vital weapon system?

Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget sets the stage for the Army’s

transition from the Hydra-70 program to the APKWS. When developing the transition plan, the Army attempted to address the needs of our sister Services. We understand that there will be a short-term decrease in Army requirements for Hydra70 rockets to provide funds for research and development of the APKWS. In making

this decision, however, we recognized that there are Foreign Military Sale purchases

of Hydra-70, as well as Air Force and Navy requirements that will be filled. During

the transition, the Army will remain engaged with the current industrial base in

the production of both the Hydra-70 rocket and the APKWS because many of the

components are the same for both systems.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

SENIOR DOD PROPONENT

Question. I understand the senior proponent at DOD for Chemical and Biological

matters is an Army colonel. The Army is the Executive Agent for all DOD in this

area. I am gravely concerned that this is an insufficient rank to break through the

bureaucracy in the Pentagon to ensure our CBRNE resource requirements are sufficiently represented. I don’t think the Department realizes that if our forces are unprepared for the next terrorist attack, be it at home or abroad there is going to be

an uproar if it is established that we knew about the CBRNE threat but did not

respond sufficiently to counter it. Is assigning the rank of colonel to the senior DOD

Chemical/Biological proponent an indication of the priority that DOD is giving to

chemical/biological/nuclear and radiological activities?

Answer. Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar, a deputy assistant to the Secretary of Defense, is the senior proponent in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for

chemical/biological matters. The senior military at OSD is an Army colonel who

serves as Dr. Johnson-Winegar’s deputy.

Because of the priority the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear

(CBRN) program has come under since September 11, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council recently approved standing up an interim CBRN Joint Requirements

Office on the Joint Staff to develop the proposed organization charter and strategic

campaign plan.

CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM COORDINATION

Question. Our current state of readiness in the chemical/biological/radiological and

nuclear area is of great concern to the nation. In your opening testimony for the

record you stated that the Army had ‘‘trained and certified Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams ready to assist civil authorities and had trained

28,000 civilian first responders in 105 cities.’’ However, the GAO report on Combating Terrorism, dated 20 September 2001, indicates that the National Guard

Teams continue to experience problems. According to the DOD Inspector General,

the Army’s process for certifying the teams lacked rigor and would not provide

meaningful assurance of their readiness. As a result the program schedule has

slipped.

I know we’ve got turf battles going on within the federal agencies and that our

coordinating efforts need to be improved. It is essential the Department of Defense,
110

and more specifically our military related homeland security efforts be coordinated

with federal agencies and local and state civil authorities. Additionally, officials with

the two agencies responsible for managing the federal response to a terrorist incident—the FBI and FEMA—continue to be skeptical about the role of the National

Guard teams. Who do they report to? When are they deployed? And are they capable

of effectively performing the mission in coordination with the other federal, state,

and local agencies. Are you certain that the level of support and coordination between the Guard and the Army is sufficient to address the concerns revealed by this

GAO report?

Answer. Weapons of Mass Destruction—Civil Support Teams (CST) are organized

under Title 32 and, until ordered to Title 10 federalized status, fall under the dayto-day command and control of the respective governor (through the Adjutant General). If called to duty in a federal, Title 10 status, CSTs report through the chain

of command established for deploying military response forces under the respective

unified command. In both instances, the CST’s primary source of tactical directives

is taken from the on-scene incident commander—typically a first responder from the

affected area who has primary responsibility for the overall response and preliminary recovery operations at a suspected or actual incident scene.

There are three circumstances under which CSTs will deploy. The first circumstance is immediate response. Circumstances which in the view of the commander are so obviously urgent that immediate action is required to protect life/

limb/property and in which there is insufficient time to seek authorization from

higher authorities. All commanders have the obligation to take decisive action in response to an obvious circumstance, while simultaneously informing their chain of

command of the situation and requesting guidance or authority.

The second circumstance is governor directed. The governor orders a CST to respond to incidents within their respective state or in response to a request for support from another state.

The third circumstance is Presidentially directed. The President, in response to

a governor request, or unilaterally, orders the CST to a federal status to respond

to a specified incident.

Since September 11, operationally certified CSTs have reported deployments 204

times. These responses range from full team deployments—such as extended operations in support of efforts in New York City to various suspected bio-terrorism

events when required in less than full unit strength. None of these reported responses have been immediate response or Presidentially directed; rather, all have

been the results of requests initiated by incident commanders through state emergency response systems. Of note, 22 of these deployments were undertaken in response to requests from states that do not have CSTs, whose CSTs were not yet certified, or in direct support of an operationally engaged CSTs.

In every case, once approved/directed by the governor, CSTs responses have been

timely and have been identified as valuable to the first responder community. The

capabilities currently embedded within the CSTs support the mission to ‘‘assess, assist, and advise’’ the incident commander. CSTs are designed to operate in an ambiguous tactical environment—a scene that will by virtue of the very nature be chaotic, ultimately involving response elements from many agencies and levels. However, following response doctrine, federal assets will not be called upon until local

and state resources are exhausted. Following this logic, CSTs will legitimately be

engaged before the first federal response element arrives, but as a state asset. This

has been the case in every operational deployment to date the CSTs have responded

to. However, if a broad federal response was directed (either at the request of the

governor or direction the President), procedures are in place to employ CSTs in direct support of the lead federal agency. As with any new capability, we will continue

to refine both operating parameters, equipment, and training sets to ensure these

teams remain both cutting edge and vital to the first responder community.

The level of support and coordination between the Army and the National Guard

on matters pertaining to the CST program is excellent. As an integrating force, the

CST program has been effective, providing both a means and motive for further integration of the Active and Reserve Components. As a consequential benefit of the

growth in the CST program, this factor reinforces the broader goals of the Army.

Much has occurred since the GAO report you refer to was produced. First, and perhaps most significant, the Army leadership focused on this program, and as a result,

an accelerated effort to train, equip, and evaluate an additional 17 CSTs resulted

in certification in accordance with public law. This achievement represents an enormous accomplishment and was only gained through full partnership and cooperation

across the range of the Army, as well as full support of the industry partners who

support the Army’s acquisition program. No shortcuts were taken. The compression

of a nine-month process into essentially three months resulted from superior effort
111

by all the contributing commands, agencies, and companies, not to mention the superb efforts of the states and their soldiers and airmen.

In addition, the Army is currently conducting a Force Management Analysis Review (FORMAL) focused on the CST program. The FORMAL process directs and requires responsible staff and Major Command activities to participate and support

issue identification and resolution. I anticipate that the FORMAL process will further integrate and institutionalize the CST program within the Army.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS

Question. I have followed, and my staff has recently been briefed, on the ongoing

Army plans for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) and the transformation to the

Objective Force. I have great faith in the Army’s ability to maintain the integrity

and readiness of the Legacy Force while simultaneously transitioning to the Objective Force. I noted your comments today regarding the importance of FCS in integrating the highly complex technologies and systems that will make up the 21st

Century Army, and I applaud your commitment to this critical process. What is the

level of funding for the FCS during the 2003 budget year and for the program years

following this fiscal year? How will these funds allow the Army to meet the complexities of the challenge at hand? What is the time frame for the FCS program?

Answer. Funding for the FCS in the fiscal year 2003 budget year is $303.8 million

and totals $5,292.8 million for the fiscal years 2004–2007. Funding for the FCS

comes from both the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA).

To meet the complexities of the challenge, the Army has partnered with DARPA

for development of the concepts for the FCS. Our combined funding provides for the

work on force concepts, requirements derivation, technology maturation, system integration, design engineering, and risk reduction leading to a first unit equipped in

2008 and an initial operational capability of a brigade-sized unit of action in 2010.

Question. Given that the FCS program is a joint Army-DARPA effort, could you

elaborate on the role and funding level of each agency? In other words, could you

elaborate on how much funding each agency will contribute and to which agencies,

installations, or contractors will these funds be distributed?

Answer. DARPA is responsible for execution of the Lead Systems Integrator

Agreement through the Defense Acquisition Board for Milestone B, including technical, procurement, and security. The Army provides the overall technical support

for the DARPA FCS technology program until transition to an Army acquisition program. The funding associated with the collaborative demonstration portion of the

program is cost shared 55 percent/45 percent by the Army and DARPA over the

course of the Memorandum of Agreement, which extends through fiscal year 2005.

In the fiscal year 2003 budget, the Army provides $72 million and DARPA provides

$74 million towards enabling technologies. In addition, the Army provides $50 million and DARPA provides $48 million toward the FCS integrated system of systems

design. Each agency will provide $122 million towards a combined total of $244 million in fiscal year 2003.

The Lead Systems Integrator team of Boeing and Science Applications International Corporation have several sub-contractors to include Strategic Perspectives,

Inc.; Navigator Development Group, Inc.; Command Systems, Inc.; Parametric Technology Corporation; RedZone Robotics, Inc.; Krauss-Maffei Wegmann; and Cougaar

Software, Inc. In addition, study contracts will be awarded to a number of industry

partners in the areas of command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, sensors, reconnaissance, combat, and supportability systems by the end of

May 2002.

The DARPA program office is using the services of Booz Allen Hamilton, IIT Research Institute, Camber Corporation, Systems Planning Corporation, Schafer Corporation, Institute for Defense Analysis, Mitre Corporation, Systems Engineering

Institute, CeBASE, and Commerce Basix.

Other governmental agencies and universities involved in the FCS effort include

the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Requirements Analysis

Centers, the TRADOC Objective Force Mounted Maneuver Battlelab, the Communications-Electronics Command, the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, the

Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, the Sandia Labs, the Applied Physics

Lab, the USMC Marine Expeditionary Force Fighting Vehicle Analysis, the United

States Military Academy, and the University of Texas.
112

Question. General Shinseki, my staff was briefed that Fort Knox has been designated as the Unit of Action Center for FCS within TRADOC. Can you elaborate

on the role that Fort Knox will play in FCS and the Army’s transformation to the

Objective Force? What roles will the Army Staff and TRADOC have in the FCS developmental effort?

Answer. The TRADOC commander has chartered the U.S. Army Armor Center

and School at Fort Knox as the Objective Force Maneuver Unit of Action Proponent.

They will lead the development and documentation of requirement products that

TRADOC must deliver to support the Milestone B decision for the FCS in April

2003. The proponent will ensure all aspects of force development to include doctrine,

training, leader development, organization, materiel, and soldier are addressed in

the Army Transformation. The Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab at Fort Knox

will work in concert with the Lead Systems Integrator, Future Combat Systems program manager, and the Army Staff to field the first unit of action by the end of

this decade.

INCREASED OPERATIONS TEMPO

Question. Given the increased operational tempo and deployment of Army aircraft,

specifically Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, how does the Army propose to

maintain sufficient readiness and safety levels as it transitions larger numbers of

airframes from the Active to the Reserve Components? Specifically, units such as

the 101st Airborne have faced increased deployment, combat damage to airframes,

fewer aircraft, and increased flying time per airframe. How does the Army plan for

such units to balance maintenance and safety needs for these aircraft while keeping

up with frequent deployment and operations tempo (OPTEMPO) training schedules?

Answer. The Army will move aircraft from the Active Component to the Reserve

Components during the Aviation Transformation Plan, Interim Force. Although the

numbers of aircraft in active units will be reduced, the number of mechanics will

not, which should enable these units to maintain required readiness and safety levels. The Army will also increase the number of line pilots from a ratio of one crew

per aircraft to 1.5 crews per aircraft in divisional AH–64 attack battalions and the

101st UH–60 air assault battalions to provide for increased operational capabilities.

We have delayed the Transformation of the 101st Air Assault Division due to

their deployment status in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. We were able

to mitigate the loss of a CH–47D with an operational readiness float (ORF) aircraft;

however, this will not be an option in the near future because aviation transformation will distribute existing ORFs to fill unit authorizations. The Army will

accept some risk in our operational aircraft fleet until we implement the Objective

Force with the addition of the RAH–66 Comanche aircraft into the Army inventory.

In order to sustain readiness of our aircraft, the Army is aggressively working to

fund our spares requirement. We have identified an unfinanced aviation spare part

requirement that we are working internally within the Army and the Department

of Defense. Support to our essential Army aircraft continues to be one of our primary goals.

CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION

Question. The President’s budget request ranks the chemical disposal program as

‘‘ineffective.’’ Given the numerous delays, inconsistencies, and other problems that

have plagued the Army’s efforts to dismantle and dispose of chemical agents at

stockpiles across the country, as well as the clear threat that these agents pose to

the citizens who live near them, what steps has the Army taken to increase the

oversight and accountability of the chemical demilitarization program?

Answer. The Army has consolidated the management of the Chemical Demilitarization Program under the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and

Environment). The Assistant Secretary has extensive experience in managing environmentally sensitive and complex government facilities and programs. The revised

milestones and associated costs approved by the Defense Acquisition Executive in

September 2001 are incorporated into a new set of program requirements by which

the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Army will monitor schedule, cost, and

performance of the program.

The Army has accelerated the neutralization process for disposal of mustard bulk

agent at Aberdeen, Maryland, by as much as 11⁄2 years. The Army is evaluating a

similar effort to accelerate disposal of the bulk VX nerve agent stockpile at Newport,

Indiana, and will continue to evaluate options at other sites. This approach will save

time and money. The Army will continuously review options for potential cost savings and utilization of resources, while ensuring the safety of the public, workers,

and environment.
113

Since the inception of the program, the Chemical Demilitarization program has

had oversight from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National

Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Science, and the U.S. Army

Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. In evaluation of the Alternative Technologies and Approaches Program, the Army Materiel Systems Analysis

Activity has provided oversight in the area of testing, test planning, and operations

planning.

All major systems contracts awarded have implemented Earned Value Management System (EVMS) reporting requirements. EVMS provides the Army with insight into contractor performance versus the cost and schedule negotiated at contract award. With this insight, the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization

(PMCD) can hold the systems contractor accountable for any indicators of negative

performance before the situation becomes serious and can initiate corrective action.

The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment) recently retained consultants who will provide advice on all elements of the program. They will

participate in an advisory capacity in program reviews that evaluate and ensure

that operations will be performed in a safe and environmentally compliant manner.

Question. According to reports done by the Army, the Pentagon, and National

Academy of Sciences, this risk could be eliminated much quicker and more safely

if the weapons were disassembled and the agents neutralized. Why isn’t the Army

initiating this approach instead of continuing to proceed down the incineration path

that has led us into this $24 billion boondoggle that is now predicted to be 20 plus

years behind its original completion schedule?

Answer. The Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program has beaten every destruction

treaty milestone to date. The program has incinerated over 1.4 million chemical

weapons and over 16,000,000 pounds of chemical agent safely and without harming

the public, workers, or the environment. The NRC has in numerous reports indicated that continued storage is the greatest risk to the public. Use of facilities that

are already built and preparing for operations such as at Anniston, Alabama, and

Umatilla, Oregon, provide the shortest path to eliminating that risk. However,

where thorough investigation and testing have shown that an alternative technology

can be as safe and effective, use of that technology is being pursued. As examples,

the program manager is using alternative technologies for some activities of the

non-stockpile product, and is employing the use of alternative technologies at the

Aberdeen, Maryland, and Newport, Indiana, sites that contain bulk agent only. The

Army is also evaluating a similar process at other sites containing both munitions

and bulk agent.

Studies and evaluations prepared by the Army and National Academy of Sciences,

as well as other agencies, are all conducted with the goal of finding safer and more

effective approaches for the disposal of chemical weapons. The PMCD uses the technology best suited for the disposal of munitions and agents at the respective locations. The PMCD is also working with the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program, where neutralization followed by biotreatment is being considered

for disposal of the stockpile at Pueblo, Colorado. Public safety and the reduction of

risk by elimination of the stockpile are the primary concerns of the chemical disposal program.

HOMELAND SECURITY

Question. Nearly six months since the Office of Homeland Security was created,

there still seems to be considerable uncertainty about how to accurately define

‘‘Homeland Security.’’ Could you please discuss the Army’s role in Homeland Security? What role, if any, will Army training facilities play in efforts to train ‘‘first responders’’ to terrorist attacks? Will facilities such as Fort Knox’s Mounted Urban

Combat Training (MUCT) facility play such a role in the Army’s Homeland Security

efforts?

Answer. A secure homeland is a national priority and the nation depends on Army

contributions for homeland security—a mission we have been conducting for over

226 years. The Army’s homeland security roles and missions have changed over the

years and will continue to change to support U.S. strategy. Since September 11, the

Army has been providing more than 17,000 soldiers, in state active duty, Title 10,

and Title 32 status in support of increased homeland security requirements. In addition to providing increased security at our own facilities, homeland security missions

have included providing quick reaction forces, increased security to key infrastructure sites, increased security at over 400 airports across the country, and soldiers

to augment Department of Justice and Department of Treasury border security missions. The Army also recently augmented security at national security special events

such as the Super Bowl, World Economic Conference, and the Winter Olympics.
114

Currently, Army homeland security responsibilities include two components: homeland defense and support to civil authorities. Although not a result of the attacks

of September 11, the Army continues to support Joint Task Force-6, a multi-Service

organization that provides operational, training, and intelligence support to domestic law enforcement agencies’ counter-drug efforts in the United States. The Army

supports computer network defense operations. In terms of future developments, the

Army plays a significant role in the development of the Ballistic Missile Defense

System, specifically in the development and testing of the Ground-Based Interceptor

and radar as well as Terminal Phase systems.

The Army’s non-negotiable contract with the American people is to fight and win

our nation’s wars. The Army prepares for these traditional defense functions by

maintaining a combat focus with trained and ready units to meet warfighting requirements.

In addition to warfighting, one of the Army’s core competencies is supporting civil

authorities. The bulk of homeland security responsibilities reside with various civil

authorities—local, state, and federal. The Army, including both the Active and Reserve Components, is uniquely capable of supporting civil authorities in a full range

of domestic contingencies—a mission the Army supports throughout any given year

in response to hurricanes, forest fires, and other crises. Much of what the Army has

done in securing the homeland over the past six months has involved supporting

civil authorities whose own capabilities have been exhausted or overwhelmed. For

example, the Army provided specialized capabilities to support other federal agencies at disaster sites, and the Army is providing soldiers to augment several federal

agencies in accomplishing border security missions. As the capabilities of civil authorities increase, or security requirements are met through other means, the Army

can reduce its commitments. In the future, the Army may play a role in training

civil authorities to improve their capabilities, such as those of first responders. In

doing this, in addition to improving the homeland security, there may be a reduced

demand for military capabilities in the future.

Army training facilities, specifically Army live-fire ranges, are the cornerstone of

Army training. Army ranges are built and modernized according to Army operational and doctrinal needs. Once constructed, however, a wide variety of federal,

state, and local entities find our ranges to be extremely beneficial and schedule to

use them. Range managers are committed to accommodating all reasonable range

use requests.

The Army has recently constructed a number of world-class training facilities that

can provide extraordinary training opportunities for current non-DOD users as well

as future homeland security focused training. The Fort Knox Mounted Urban Combat Training (MUCT) facility as well as other facilities designed for Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) is an outstanding facility for emerging homeland security training requirements. These facilities offer flexible, interactive, instrumented, and video-captured training in full-scale mock cities.

MOUT/MUCT facilities currently operate at Fort Knox, Fort Polk, Fort Drum,

Fort Campbell, and Fort Bragg. Two more MOUT facilities are being built at Fort

Lewis and Fort Wainwright in the next three years. The current Army range modernization plan includes additional MOUT/MUCT construction and upgrades in the

next ten years. The Army’s continuous development of realistic, flexible, adaptable

training facilities will certainly benefit emerging homeland security training needs.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

GULF WAR ILLNESS (GWI) RESEARCH

Question. Secretary White, I am concerned that the proposed budget would slash

Gulf War Illness research from $17.5 million to $5 million. This represents a 71 percent reduction.

Given the recent advances in identifying the cause of this elusive illness, wouldn’t

now be the time to increase GWI research funding?

Answer. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2003 requests an increase from $5

million to $10 million. This increase in funding is necessary to address newly identified post-deployment health issues and continue to expand on findings from the currently funded Gulf War Illnesses research program.

ARMY FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEDICAL RESEARCH BUDGET

Question. Secretary White, while I am encouraged by the overall level of Army

spending in the budget request, I am deeply troubled by the proposed cut in Army
115

medical research programs. In the two largest accounts—Medical Technology and

Medical Advanced Technology—the request represents a 16 percent cut.

Upon what are you justifying this cut?

Answer. The reduction in funding is best explained in two parts. The first part

relates to the cessation of funding for research into militarily relevant, emerging infectious diseases in developing countries that was initiated through two program

budget decisions (PBDs) issued to fund this research in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal

year 2002. The Army did not request these funds through its budget process; nevertheless, they were applied to address infectious diseases of military importance. The

cessation of funding in this case is not perceived to be a cut since these funds were

not part of our core military infectious disease research program.

The second part of the reduction results from transfer of the oversight and management of HIV research and development to the National Institutes of Health

(NIH). This action was directed by PBD 203C that also rescinded funding for this

defense program.

The Army is in discussion with the NIH and is in the process of drafting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to continue this important military research under

their fiscal oversight. The military research, development, test, and evaluation program focuses on the non-clade B strains of HIV, which are not high priority strains

for NIH but present a threat to our deployed forces. We expect minimal impact to

the current program if the NIH agrees to continue it as planned.

Additionally, we have a variety of vaccine research programs based in other countries with longstanding MOUs that permit specific research programs. HIV vaccine

research, currently underway in Thailand, must be continued. Our MOU with Thailand allows for the conduct of clinical trials required by the Food and Drug Administration. After almost a decade of research in that country, a Phase 3 clinical trial

for a promising HIV vaccine is scheduled to start this fiscal year. In order to begin

a clinical trial, funding must be committed to vaccinate participants, monitor their

health, and provide follow-up care as needed. Initial discussions with NIH have confirmed support for these ongoing clinical trials.

FORT BLISS—WATER

Question. The fiscal year 2002 Military Construction and Defense Appropriations

Bills contained $2.8 million for studies and planning and design activities related

to a new desalinization plant for Fort Bliss. It is my understanding that the Army

has not yet executed any of those funds. As the dwindling supply of potable water

at one of the Army’s premier installations is well known, I am puzzled as to why

the Army would drag its feet on this issue.

Why have those funds not yet been obligated?

Answer. The Fiscal Year 2002 Military Construction Act provided $1.8 million in

planning and design funds to support design of the facility. However, the design

cannot be started until required pre-design studies are conducted. Title 10 of the

United States Code requires that all pre-design activities, to include studies, be

funded with Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA) dollars.

The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act provided $1 million in OMA

funds for a Fort Bliss desalinization plant study and $1 million for a Fort Bliss

water system pre-design study. This bill was not signed into law until January 11,

2002, and funding guidance is just now being provided to the field. In preparation

of receiving the funds, the Fort Bliss Department of Public Works has made ready

a Request For Proposal to have a contractor perform studies needed in conjunction

with the disposal of the brine by-product of the desalination process through the use

of brine injection wells. The Army will spend $1.8 million to perform the injection

well tests to determine the optimal location for these wells and to support permitting of brine down-hole injection process. The City of El Paso Water Utility group

will perform studies to locate the production wells that would be required to support

this desalination plant.

We expect the OMA funding to be available to the installation in the late March

timeframe. The brine injection well studies are currently estimated to take between

12 and 18 months to complete.

FORT BLISS—CAPACITY

Question. Secretary White, as you are well aware, large land areas for maneuver

training are at a premium in the United States and, because of this scarcity, their

use needs to be maximized. I’m sure you are also aware that the Fort Bliss/White

Sands training area is the largest in the United States, yet there are no major maneuver forces permanently stationed at Fort Bliss. Do you see the movement of a
116

division, or perhaps one of the Army’s new Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs),

to Fort Bliss to take advantage of this unmatched maneuver space?

Answer. Fort Bliss is home to a robust array of U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery

units, schools, and related activities. The Air Defense Artillery Center and School

trains Army air defenders and Army leaders with a host of courses and facilities.

Major units include the 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command, four air defense brigade headquarters and headquarters batteries, seven Patriot battalions,

and seven maintenance companies. Several of these units were relocated to Fort

Bliss after 1995 to maximize Army usage of the range spaces there. Air defense missile firing requires a great amount of range space to safely train under realistic engagement conditions and distances, and Fort Bliss is well suited for this mission.

Both Active and Reserve Component units and personnel conduct extensive training exercises, mobilization activities, and support missions at Fort Bliss. Additionally, the Army staffs, equips, and jointly operates other U.S. government elements

at Fort Bliss such as Joint Task Force-6, Operation Alliance, and the El Paso Intelligence Center.

Fort Bliss, like all other installations, is being considered for future stationing options for different units. Each installation has its advantages and disadvantages in

terms of maneuver and range availability, power projection capacity, and installation support capacity. Fort Bliss is currently undergoing some important upgrade

projects regarding the fielding of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense System,

and the installation will continue to meet the important needs of soldiers, civilian

employees, and families.

U.S. ARMY SOUTH RELOCATION

Question. Secretary White, I understand that the Army is in the process of sending evaluation teams to five or six bases to determine their suitability to serve as

the new home to U.S. Army South (USARSO). Will the criteria these installations

be evaluated on include: Proximity to an international airport with direct flights to

Central and South America? Abundant spousal employment opportunities? Existing

infrastructure capable of absorbing USARSO, without the need for new construction?

Answer. The Army is not currently evaluating any locations for a future home for

USARSO. The Army is, however, studying the necessity of moving USARSO and a

decision is expected soon. If a decision is made to move USARSO, criteria will be

developed and utilized in the process of reviewing possible relocation sites and in

making a final selection.

FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES

Question. Mr. Secretary, General Tommy Franks has recently testified on the

need to maintain the Army’s Combat Systems and Combat Systems Support base.

He described several systems that he deemed were ‘‘of particular interest to the

Command.’’ One program he mentioned is the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

(FMTV).

I am told that there is an urgent requirement for $22.4 million for Low-Velocity

Air-Drop (LVAD) version of the FMTV truck for a new Special Operations Support

Battalion. As it takes eight or nine months to field these vehicles, should the Congress expect to see a request for these vehicles in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental?

Answer. The Army has identified a new unfunded requirement (UFR) for conversion of the 528th Special Operations Support Battalion from its current standard

cargo truck configuration to the LVAD configuration in response to evolving mission

requirements. The Army had previously identified, funded, and filled 100 percent

of its known LVAD requirement as part of the first five-year multiyear FMTV production contract with Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. Since the known requirement had been filled, there was no provision in subsequent contracts for production

of additional LVAD models. The $22.4 million UFR includes the cost of special ordering 81 new LVAD vehicles plus engineering, fielding, and training support. This

requirement was addressed in the initial draft of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental

request, but was not included in the final prioritized list. It will be submitted for

further consideration at the next available opportunity.

ARMY CONTRACTING OFFICERS

Question. Mr. Secretary, it has come to my attention that the Army is once again

moving forward with the consolidation of its contracting offices. Before embarking

on this path, had the Army studied the effect the consolidation will have on small

and minority-owned businesses?
117

Answer. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy & Procurement) and

the Director of the Army Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Office have

worked together diligently to study the potential ramifications that may arise as a

result of our consolidation efforts. One of our key goals is to identify new opportunities for small businesses to provide their goods and services to the Army. Our new

organizational structure will allow the management team to better analyze data in

areas such as credit card transactions to better focus our buying patterns to benefit

the small business community. Likewise, it will be easier for the new management

team to identify and set aside small business opportunities, all or in part, in many

of our larger contracts as a result of our more effective acquisition planning processes. Additionally, we have reinforced these ideas in our concept and implementation plans and have clearly identified the need for establishing, monitoring, and

achieving small and minority-owned business goals. The plans also identify specific

duty positions within the new organizations for full-time small business program

personnel who will be key players in ensuring the success of the program and

achievement of our jointly established goals.

Question. Mr. Secretary, has the Army determined if this decision will lead to

more ‘‘bundling’’ of contracts?

Answer. It is not our intent to increase the number of requirements that will be

bundled. Instead, we anticipate that requirements for supplies or services, which are

traditionally performed by one or more small business concerns under separate

smaller contracts, will be maintained at the local installation level. If an increase

in bundling does occur, our new organizational structure and management team are

chartered to increase the opportunities for small businesses by better planning for

the acquisition of these newly bundled requirements. In addition, by consolidating

our larger contracts at the regional level, we anticipate that significant cost efficiencies can be achieved and that the utilization of small businesses will increase

via set asides, multiple awards, subcontracting, etc. as these larger contracts are actually executed across the entire Army.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

HOMELAND DEFENSE

Question. General Shinseki, the Army has been integral to protecting our homeland since September 11th, how do you envision the Army adapting to this growing

mission?

Answer. In addition to providing security for the homeland, the Army is also

meeting strategic requirements around the world, fighting a global war on terrorism, and continuing to pursue its Transformation objectives. The Army is preparing for the future through Transformation. Transforming the institution in bold

and fundamental ways will posture the Army for its 21st Century duties. The events

of September 11 only add urgency to our efforts to pursue Transformation objectives.

A secure homeland is a national priority and the Nation depends on Army contributions for homeland security—a mission we have been conducting for over 226

years. The Army’s homeland security roles and missions have changed over the

years and will continue to change to support U.S. strategy. Since September 11, the

Army has been providing more than 17,000 soldiers, in state active duty, Title 10,

and Title 32 status in support of increased homeland security requirements. The

missions have included providing quick reaction forces, increased security to key infrastructure sites, increased security at over 400 airports across the country, and

soldiers to augment Department of Justice and Department of Treasury border security missions. The Army has also recently augmented security at national security

special events such as the Super Bowl, World Economic Conference, and the Winter

Olympics. This commitment, in addition to ongoing strategic requirements, puts a

strain on Army force structure and resources. Currently, Army homeland security

responsibilities include two components—homeland defense and support to civil authorities.

The Army’s non-negotiable contract with the American people is to fight and win

our Nation’s wars. The Army prepares for these traditional defense functions by

maintaining a combat focus with trained and ready units to meet warfighting requirements.

In addition to warfighting, one of the Army’s core competencies is supporting civil

authorities. The bulk of homeland security responsibilities reside with various civil
118

authorities—local, state, and federal. The Army, including both the Active and Reserve Components, is uniquely capable of supporting civil authorities in a full range

of domestic contingencies—a mission the Army supports throughout any given year

in response to hurricanes, forest fires, and other crises. Much of what the Army has

done in securing the homeland over the past six months has involved supporting

civil authorities whose own capabilities have been exhausted or overwhelmed, such

as providing specialized capabilities to support other federal agencies at disaster

sites and providing soldiers to augment federal agencies in accomplishing border security missions. As the capabilities of civil authorities increase, or security requirements are met through other means, the Army can reduce its commitments. The

capabilities required to support civil authorities are resident in existing Army structure.

Although not a result of the attacks of September 11, the Army continues to support Joint Task Force-6, a multi-Service organization that provides operational,

training, and intelligence support to domestic law enforcement agencies’ counterdrug efforts in the United States. The Army also supports computer network defense operations. In terms of future developments, the Army plays a significant role

in the development of the ballistic missile defense system. The Army participates

in the development and testing of the ground-based interceptor and radar as well

as terminal phase systems.

Future requirements for homeland security are being addressed by emerging National and Department of Defense homeland security policy and guidance. As homeland security roles and missions are formalized, the Army will continue to assess

its capabilities to ensure it can meet all its responsibilities within the overall defense strategy at an acceptable level of risk.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

REMOTE ACOUSTIC HEMOSTASIS TECHNOLOGY

Question. General Shinseki, hemorrhage has been identified as the major controllable cause of battlefield death. I am sure you agree that given the means, this is

an area that we would like to see improvement. I understand that the Army Medical Research and Material Command is very interested in recent developments in

Remote Acoustic Hemostasis (ultrasound) technology, given their promise to not

only locate internal bleeding but also immediately cauterize visible or internal

bleeding while the soldier is on the battlefield. This helps preserve life for followon medical attention.

Do you have plans to incorporate these types of advancements into medical treatment variants of the Army’s Future Combat Systems?

Answer. New methods for hemostasis are among the many identified needs in our

combat casualty care mission area. Remote acoustic hemostatic technology, packaged with imaging and telemedicine links, is one potential technology insertion for

the medical treatment variant of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS). The

program manager for the medical treatment variant for the FCS, once identified,

would certainly include consideration of remote acoustic hemostasis as part of the

medical mission package. Active consideration will be dependent on the technology

reaching a level of maturation that assures Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

approval for military applications and with critical design decisions for block upgrades to the FCS.

Question. General Shinseki, if it were available, would you be interested in fielding this technology in support of current operations?

Answer. Until the technology can be matured to the point it has received an FDA

approval certifying that the device is safe, effective, and suitable for use in a field

or mobile environment, the Army would be unable to employ it in support of current

operations.

ADVANCED ARMY RAPID EMPLACED BRIDGE

Question. General Shinseki, Mississippi State University and Seemans Corporation of Gulfport, are working with the Army to develop the ‘‘Advanced Army Rapidly

Emplaced Bridge,’’ which is being made using composite material and technology.

I understand that this composite combat bridge is 15 meters long and supports over

190 tons. I find it remarkable that even after failure it is still able to support a M–

1 tank that weighs approximately 70 tons. This bridge is also transportable by C–

130 aircraft and requires minimal manpower and equipment support. Considering

limitations of bridges in your current inventory, it seems that this composite bridging system holds great promise to support your Transformation efforts.
119

Can you provide an assessment of the need for lightweight, assault and support

bridging in the near and long-term?

Answer. As long as we have forces on the ground that must have the freedom of

movement in the battle space to ensure dominate maneuver, there will be a requirement for both wet and dry gap bridging to support our combat and support forces.

Currently, we have no wet or dry gap crossing capability for the Objective Force.

We do envision the Objective Force having great mobility—this mobility will be dependent on intelligence and an embedded mobility capability. The Interim Force gap

crossing capability is limited to a 13-meter bridge—the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge

System. This aluminum bridge is military load class 30 and is transported on a

palletized load system truck.

As we transition to the Objective Force, the bridging of the future will need to

be compatible with these forces. They will have to be light enough to be carried and

launched by the new vehicle as well as be deployable, transportable, and mobile to

move with these forces in stride. A goal for the gap crossing capability of the future

is to leave the system in place rather than the leapfrogging the assault bridging forward and replace it with cheaper support bridging. Doing this will potentially have

a noticeable positive impact on movement by reducing time, task, and manpower requirements to support mobility operations. The technical challenge is to get the system cost down to make this goal economically feasible while providing bridging systems that can support not only the light combat forces, but also the follow-on support forces. Our objective is to utilize advances such as the promising new materials

that you referred to as well as investigate new launch techniques and transporting

techniques.

Question. General Shinseki, could you provide an assessment of the Advanced

Army Rapidly Emplaced Bridge?

Answer. By the Advanced Army Rapidly Emplaced Bridge, I presume you are referring to our 13 meter Composite Army Bridge (CAB). The CAB was a cooperative

effort between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Army,

the academic community, and Seemans Composite to provide a technical demonstrator of a graphite composite bridge to examine benefits provided by advanced materials such as these. The single-piece, 13-meter bridge has been subjected to structural strength testing as well as live vehicle crossing using both the Abrams and

the Heavy Equipment Transport loaded with an Abrams. It passed these tests wonderfully. It will soon enter durability testing to determine how the system will survive a full life of crossings. A follow-on effort that is also with Seemans Composites

is focused on developing the joints needed to allow connections required to fabricate

longer bridges that can be packaged and launched by future forces. In other words,

to go from the single piece construction of the CAB to connecting multiple sections

together to get a longer gap crossing capability which can be sized to meet the gap

need. These connections, in conjunction with the launching techniques, are the key

technical barriers to realizing the bridging of the future. This work is also progressing well.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL TRAINING

Question. Under Public Law 103–160 all Chemical and Biological training of the

Department of Defense is required to be conducted at the U.S. Army Chemical

School, which is located at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. As stated in the most recent (2002) Army Posture Statement ‘‘Tough, demanding training which is supported by an infrastructure that allows us to train, sustain, and deploy is essential

to readiness. History has taught us and we have learned that in the end, armies

fight the way they train.’’ I understand that the number one unfunded priority for

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is an fiscal year 2003 Military Construction (MILCON) request for a responder training facility for Weapons of Mass

Destruction (WMD) at Fort Leonard Wood. I also understand that there is pressure

to reduce the current projected funding level from $15 million to $10 million which

will ensure that this facility is insufficient to meet our emerging training needs before it starts! Already, Fort Leonard Wood trains responders for all four branches

of the Armed Services to include the Coast Guard and its apparent that our future

training requirements will only increase. Frankly, I think it is critical that we begin

to ramp up our training resources in the critical area of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high energy immediately. Our adversaries are not waiting to

develop ever more lethal weapons. What assurances can you give us that this WMD

responder facility is indeed going to be funded and at a level that will meet the
120

growing demand for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosives

(CBRNE) training?

Answer. Through Public Law 103–160, Section 1703, Congress established a Joint

Service Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP). The mission of the Joint

CBDP is to provide world-class chemical and biological defense capabilities to allow

our military forces to survive and sustain their missions in environments contaminated with chemical or biological warfare agents.

With respect to this WMD training at Fort Leonard Wood, the current cost estimates depict a MILCON funding requirement for $13.5 million plus an additional

equipment procurement requirement of $963,000 for a project total of $14.463 million. The project is currently ranked as TRADOC’s number one unfunded requirement (UFR) for fiscal year 2005. As a new project, this requirement will compete

for resources during the Army’s fiscal year 2004–2009 Program Objective Memorandum build. We recognize the importance of homeland security as seen by the priority ranking from TRADOC for this fiscal year 2005 MILCON. We believe the need

to establish a joint center of excellence for joint doctrine and training for WMD response is key to the Army’s support of the nation’s homeland defense and places

this project in best position for resourcing.

AH–64A AND AH–64D (LONGBOW) APACHE HELICOPTERS

Question. I understand the Army has decided not to upgrade 203 Apache AH–64A

helicopters and I’m further told that the cost of maintaining a dual fleet of 64A’s

and 64D’s is projected to be $1.4 billion over the life cycle of the AH–64A fleet. The

AH–64A is a much better aircraft than the Cobra that it replaces, but I’m concerned

about the long-range ability of units that field the 64A to be an effective force multiplier. Pilots trained in the 64A cannot fly the upgraded D model without going

through a lengthy transition course. The Guard will be the recipient of these 64A’s,

and I’m wondering what the long-term plan is for these aircraft that will not be

compatible with their 64D counterparts? Furthermore, parts priorities for Guard

units fielding the AH–64A will most certainly be at the bottom of the totem pole.

Answer. The Army began implementation of the Aviation Transformation Plan in

January 2002. This plan provides the strategy and guidance necessary to transform

Army aviation from a Legacy to an Interim Force. The initial transformation plan

changes from the current structure to the Interim Force and includes all components of Army aviation. The plan divested the Army of the Legacy attack platform

AH–1 Cobra reducing the number of attack helicopter types from three to two in

the interim structure. Constrained by funding, priorities were established based

upon modernization, Transformation, and recapitalization plans.

The Army Aviation Transformation Plan cascades the most capable AH–64A models to the six National Guard attack battalions and division cavalry squadrons. To

reduce operation and sustainment costs, the oldest AH–64As are converted to the

Longbows. This will establish a 10-year half-life on the Apache fleet by 2010. Modernizing the National Guard divisions with the AH–64A enhances the Army’s war

fighting capability. Many of the National Guard units have aviators rated to fly the

Apache A model. As with any advanced airframe, a transition course will be required for aviators not rated in the Apache. These training requirements were studied in depth. The National Guard will be the only Army component with the AH–

64A at completion of the Aviation Transformation Plan. For this reason, the National Guard will conduct all AH–64A aviator training at the Western Army Aviation Training Site in Arizona by the end of fiscal year 2004.

In accordance with approved plans, the Comanche will start displacing Apaches

by 2015. While the fielding schedule for Comanche is not finalized, there may be

National Guard units that will convert from AH–64A units directly to Comanche

units.

The AH–64A is a very lethal airframe to which no other attack helicopter, short

of the AH–64D and the future Comanche can compare. Fielding the National Guard

with the AH–64A provides the Army with the best attack helicopter capability affordable. As evident in Operations Enduring Freedom and Desert Storm, the AH–

64A is a highly effective force multiplier. The National Guard will have three AH–

64D Longbow battalions and the Army Reserve will have two Longbow battalions.

The combined capability of the Reserve Component attack battalions with AH–64A

and D model Apaches provides a wide variety of combat capabilities to any war

fighting commander in chief.

Comparing the AH–64A to the AH–64D, the AH–64A will have approximately 20

percent unique airframe components of which the National Guard units will be the

sole customer and the top priority. The remaining parts requirements will be

resourced based on current operational priorities. The National Guard will continue
121

to contribute to these operational deployments and when deployed, receive higher

priority regardless of A or D model configuration.

Question. Can we seriously expect to deploy AH–64A models in a combat theater

once the Army has a full contingent of upgraded AH–64D models?

Answer. Yes. The AH–64D is more capable than the AH–64A and offers digital

connectivity, which the AH–64A cannot. The Apache Longbow may be the preferred

airframe; however, as evident by current operations, the AH–64A will continue to

offer the ground commander a combat multiplier. Once the Longbow fielding is complete, there will continue to be deployments where the AH–64A would meet operational requirements, as in Kosovo today. The AH–64A Apaches in the National

Guard divisions provide the Army with a force multiplier capable of meeting many

of the operational requirements in the future.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS (FCS) LEAD SYSTEMS INTEGRATOR (LSI)

Question. General Shinseki, Defense News reports this week that eight of the ten

vehicles projected to compose the Interim Combat Brigade Teams are too heavy to

be carried by a C–130. Yet the ability to be carried by a C–130 is an essential characteristic. I thought one of the reasons the Army selected an off-the-shelf vehicle,

a known quantity, was to avoid such problems.

This does not bode well for the aggressive development schedule you have laid out

for the Future Combat Systems (FCS), which will form the backbone of the post2010 Army. What steps are you taking to ensure that the FCS development program will yield a truly transformational system, while avoiding similar problems?

Answer. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) representing

the user community defined the required transformational characteristics for the

FCS design. These characteristics are stated in the form of requirements in the

statement of required capabilities (SORC). The capabilities will further be refined

in the FCS operational requirements document (ORD) that will be used for the actual design and testing of the system. FCS will be tested to the ORD requirements

before production.

The Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) was required to comply with the SORC in

their concept proposal for FCS. The Army, partnered with the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency (DARPA), selected the Boeing-SAIC team as the LSI to

assist the Army in building FCS by the end of this decade. The LSI provides the

integrating function of this complex system-of-systems approach to field an FCSequipped Objective Force. TRADOC and the LSI will collaborate to ensure FCS fulfills the user requirements and the Army’s Transformation goals.

Question. How will the employment of a Lead Systems Integrator (LSI), similar

in concept to the one employed for National Missile Defense, aid in the management

of a program that is critical to both the Army and our national security?

Answer. FCS is a complex group of systems, roughly equivalent to the ‘‘Big Five’’

systems the Army developed and fielded in the post-Vietnam era. However, as a system of systems, the key sub-systems of FCS must be integrated and fielded simultaneously within a complex architecture. While challenging, this is a transformational

approach to new systems fielding. The FCS LSI serves as the integrator for FCS

within all the systems’ components and within the Objective Force systems’ architecture. Our approach differs from that of the National Missile Defense in that the

partners of the LSI were competed rather than mandated. By making a broad industry announcement and requiring that the system capabilities within the FCS use

an open systems architecture between the sub-systems, our LSI approach maximizes

competition and maintains the flexibility to integrate additional capabilities within

the FCS as they mature. The Army’s LSI approach enables evolutionary, spiral development acquisition to achieve threshold capabilities for FCS this decade while offering significant improvements as technology matures to ensure full spectrum

dominance throughout the life of the system.

INTERIM BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM (IBCT)

Question. General Shinseki, Defense News reports this week that eight of the ten

vehicles projected to compose the IBCTs are too heavy to be carried by a C–130.

It is my understanding that the ability to be carried by a C–130 is a must-have

characteristic.

Has this requirement changed, and if not, what steps is the Army taking to ensure that these vehicles are ready to fight as soon as they roll off a C–130?
122

Answer. The Army is confident that the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) will meet

its transportability requirements. C–130 transportability is one of the IAV’s four key

performance parameters. The IBCT project manager and the Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency (MTMCTEA) have worked

together throughout the IAV program to establish requirements and address IAV

design considerations that affect its transportability. The MTMCTEA also analyzed

IAV proposals during source selection.

Vehicle weight is only one transportability consideration. Operational mission,

range and payload, axle loading, and exterior dimensions also bear on vehicle design. Weather, altitude, and airfield surface conditions may also impact operations.

In total, 38,000 pounds is the allowable weight to fly 1,000 miles under normal operating conditions.

All ten IAV configurations will fit inside a C–130 aircraft, with waivers for

loadmaster safety aisles. The Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) underwent a successful

transportability demonstration at Selfridge Air National Guard Base on January 31,

2002. The ICV met day and night objectives for loadmaster movement within the

aircraft, loading, tie-down requirements, evacuation, and offload access of the

loadmaster and vehicle crew. ICV air transportability certification will continue

with ramp axle load distribution verification and developmental testing beginning

in April 2002. Each configuration will undergo a similar exercise.

The Fire Support Vehicle and the Medical Evacuation Vehicle meet the total vehicle weight and the axle weight requirements in their fully loaded configurations.

Seven of the remaining eight configurations meet weight requirements through

cross loading of stowage items. For example, the empty weight of the ICV is 34,313

pounds. The combat loaded vehicle weight, including the two-man crew, but not including the nine-man infantry squad, is 37,508 pounds. We are working to ensure

combat capability upon arrival by reviewing vehicle hardware for weight reduction

opportunities. We continue to review and prioritize removable vehicle equipment

and stowage items.

The C–130 can transport all of the IAV configurations. The Mobile Gun System

(MGS), currently under development, requires re-engineering to minimize off-loading of equipment. An aggressive weight reduction program is underway and should

be complete before the fiscal year 2005 full-rate production decision. Worth noting

is that the IAV’s high degree of commonality will promote the application of MGS

changes to other ongoing IAV production, increasing the effective combat load of all

configurations.

LEAD SYSTEMS INTEGRATOR

Question. General Shinseki, I understand the LSI contract is being solicited by

DARPA. Does the accountability for this contract also reside with DARPA?

Answer. The Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) retains the

authority for this agreement through the remainder of the concepts and technology

development phase of acquisition, currently scheduled to end in the third quarter

of fiscal year 2003. Early in the program we saw several advantages in partnering

with DARPA. Among these are the ability to leverage DARPA’s culture of pursuing

paradigm shifting innovations, the use of other transactions as a contracting mechanism to speed acquisition, and the ability to directly leverage DARPA’s resources by

obtaining their commitment to share in the cost of technology development. All of

this is happening today. Aside form periodic program reviews with the Army leadership, we have also ensured coupling to the Army Vision by making key personnel

assignments. The DARPA Objective Force program manager is an Army colonel and

the Army has also assigned a brigadier general as the Future Combat Systems program manager to prepare for the transition of the Army and DARPA technology into

the Army’s acquisition program at Milestone B in 2003.

FCS AND LSI

Question. How will the LSI ensure that the FCS will stay relevant over time as

technology evolves at an ever-increasing rate?

Answer. By using an open systems architecture, an innovative approach to software insertion at the point of maturity, and a deliberate block approach to hardware

upgrades, the Army and DARPA have contracted for the LSI to incorporate technologies into FCS designs based upon technology maturity, capabilities needs, and

affordability criteria required for FCS. The Army will program funding for succeeding software and hardware upgrades to ensure FCS maintains technical performance dominance specified in the operational requirements document.
123

ARMY/MARINE CORPS COOPERATION ON THE FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM (FCS)

Question. General Shinseki, the fiscal year 2003 request includes significant funding for R&D activities associated with the Future Combat Systems (FCS). The FCS

will form the backbone of the post-2010 Army, the so-called ‘‘Objective Force.’’ It is

my understanding that the Marine Corps is planning to field a similar force with

similar capabilities, just a few years after the Army. Would you please describe

what collaborative activities the Army and Marine Corps are engaging in to prevent

duplicative development programs?

Answer. During the concepts and technology development phase of acquisition,

the Army has engaged the Marine Corps requirements community to discuss opportunities for collaborative programs at the system level of the FCS. Although the Marine Expeditionary Family of Fighting Vehicles does not have the same deployability

requirements as the FCS, the Marine Corps is considering the value of FCS subsystems as potential derivative programs to enhance Marine Corps warfighting capabilities in areas such as lethality.

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS)

Question. General Shinseki, I note that the request includes $46 million for UAV

research and development (R&D). What capabilities do current systems lack that

you feel must be developed if UAVs are to fulfill their anticipated role in the Objective Force?

Answer. Fiscal year 2003 R&D funding completes development of the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle system (Shadow 200), begins selection of an extended range

air vehicle compatible with Shadow 200 ground control equipment to meet Army division and corps level requirements, and improves Shadow 200 target location error.

Funding is also provided for development of advanced electro-optical/infrared and

synthetic aperture radar/moving target indicator payloads to give the extended

range air vehicle an all-weather sensing capability.

The Army envisions a family of UAVs directly supporting commanders at all echelons and across multiple battlefield operating systems. Shadow 200 will satisfy the

threshold requirements of the Objective Force brigade-level commanders. However,

the Shadow 200 system cannot satisfy the requirements at battalion and below and

division and above for several reasons. Shadow 200 is too large to support battalion

and below where the requirement is for a system that is man-packable, operates at

a range of at least 12 kilometers, requires minimal training to fly, and can be

launched from a constrained space. Small UAVs and micro air vehicles are being

evaluated to satisfy these missions as well as operations in an urban environment.

Shadow 200 lacks the range, endurance, and payload capacity required for an extended range/multi-purpose air vehicle to support division and corps level operations. The missions and roles envisioned for the extended range/multi-purpose UAV

(long range reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition; communications

relay; armed attack; aviation manned—unmanned teaming; cargo lift; MEDEVAC;

signals intelligence; minefield detection; chemical, biological, and radiological detection and survey; etc.) require greater dwell times, greater range, and larger payload

capacity. Additionally, greater range requirements mandate a non-line of sight solution.

DIGITIZATION

Question. General Shinseki, what is the status of the digitization’ of the III Corps

at Fort Hood?

Answer. The Army is currently digitizing the divisions of III Corps at Fort Hood.

Two-thirds of the 4th Infantry Division have been completed with the remaining elements at Fort Carson scheduled for fiscal year 2005. First Cavalry Division modernization is underway with completion scheduled in fiscal year 2003. The remaining corps units, at Fort Hood and elsewhere, are being digitized and will continue

as the combat elements are digitized.

WHEELED VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

Question. General Shinseki, the Army is busy developing the Army of the future—

one that will feature predominantly wheeled vehicles. However, your service has yet

to identify a wheeled vehicle depot to maintain this new fleet.

Will you consider the merits of naming Red River Army Depot a ‘‘Center for Industrial and Technical Excellence’’ for wheeled vehicle maintenance?

Answer. Yes, the Army will consider this. However, final determination of repair

location for each type of equipment will occur only after conducting the appropriate

analysis to include best operational and cost value.
124

HYDRA-70

Question. General, the budget submission cuts funding for the Hydra-70 rockets

from $136.7 million in fiscal year 2002 to $22.4 million in fiscal year 2003. This represents an 84 percent cut in this program and consequently reduces the amount of

rockets for an aircrew to fire in training and qualification by an equal amount, down

to just 26 rockets per crew per year. The fact that this system is used by all services

and is the primary aerial-fired area suppression system for the services makes this

cut even more significant.

What is the Army’s plan to bridge the gap between this system and the precisionguided 2.75-inch rocket that will not be fielded until fiscal year 2007?

Answer. The Army has been asked to make tough choices to move the military

toward Transformation. This is a clear example of where we have decided to move

forward and accept risk by reducing the amount of Hydra-70 rockets procured and

move toward rocket technology that will give the warfighter a low-cost, precision engagement capability that he does not possess today. As part of a continuing and ongoing review process, the Army is reassessing rocket strategies and will carefully

manage the remaining Hydra-70 training round inventory. This strategy is tied

closely to the fielding of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System.

Question. How does the Army plan to maintain an acceptable level of competence

by its aircrews in the employment of these rockets?

Answer. To ensure that our aviators are prepared for combat, the Army anticipates no change to current training strategies for the next two years.

FORT BLISS ATSA RELOCATION

Question. General it has come to my attention that some in the Army are considering moving the ATEC Threat Support Activity (ATSA) from Fort Bliss to either

White Sands Missile Range or Dugway Proving Grounds.

What is the impetus to this initiative?

Answer. The impetus of studying the possible move of the Army Test and Evaluation Command’s (ATEC) Threat Support Activity (ATSA) was to determine if efficiencies and operational synergy could be gained. ATEC has an ongoing study to review possible realignment of assets, which includes a possible relocation of all or

part of the ATSA; however, feasibility and appropriateness of such an action has

yet to been determined.

Question. At what point did you plan to notify the Congress that such a move was

being considered?

Answer. If the ATEC study concludes that relocating ATSA is both feasible and

appropriate to gain efficiencies and operational synergy, ATEC will initiate a stationing study as required by Army regulation. Included in this process are procedures for notifying Congress of any relocation efforts.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. We will stand in recess until March 13. At that

time we will receive testimony from the Air Force. Thank you very

much.

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., Wednesday, March 6, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
(125)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:18 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Feinstein, Stevens, Cochran, Domenici,

and Shelby.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH, DIRECTOR

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Good morning. Today, we are pleased to welcome Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish, Director of the Missile

Defense Agency. The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the

Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) fiscal year 2003 funding recommendations for ballistic missile defense programs.

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. It has been

reported that the United States could face an intercontinental ballistic missile threat from North Korea, Iran, and possibly Iraq by

2015. As the anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) continue to proliferate,

some estimate that these countries could have over 1,000 Scud-type

missiles within a decade.

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, in all phases of flight. It also calls

for this missile shield to cover the territories and deployed forces

of the United States, our allies, and our friends.

This is an expensive program. The DOD fiscal year 2003 funding

plan proposes that more than $46 billion be allocated to missile defense over the period of 2002 to 2007. In fact, the Congressional
126

Budget Office and others have estimated that funding for missile

defense could approach $200 billion when all is said and done.

This is also a complex program. Recently, the program has witnessed a string of successful tests, and for that, I commend you,

General Kadish. There are still many technological and management hurdles to overcome, but 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. Yet, given the risks and costs of this program, not to

mention the tradeoffs that must be made between funding missile

defense and other worthwhile military programs, we must be ever

vigilant in our oversight.

So today’s hearing provides the committee an important opportunity to understand the priorities and challenges of our missile defense program. So General, we welcome you, and we welcome your

testimony.

But before we begin, let me turn to my co-chairman, Senator Stevens, for any opening remarks.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I

join you in welcoming General Kadish before our committee. He

has been a trusted partner in this endeavor of ours to secure a reliable missile defense system. I want the General to know, those of

us from our generation, who have lived through too many wars, are

hopeful that before we depart this Earth, we will have a reliable

defense system for the future of the United States. Now, since we

had last convened—I am not predicting our leaving, by the way,

but it is not that far away.

Since we last convened to review these programs, several elements of the missile defense architecture have significantly

changed, and we welcome your comments and views, General

Kadish, on these program realignments. More importantly, the

ground-based mid-course segment of the program, previously

known as the National Missile Defense Program, has, as its chairman said, enjoyed notable success, and we really congratulate you

and your people.

You and your predecessor, General Lyles, made it clear that testing success must be a norm, rather than a random event, and these

successes enjoyed in the recent testings validate the determination

which you, and the Department, and Congress have worked to

prove on the hit-to-kill concept.

As a result of those successful tests, the Department awarded

contracts yesterday to commence the installation of the advanced

testbed facility at Fort Greeley, in my home State. I look forward

to hearing from you today about those plans, and the timetable to

establish the initial testbed capability.

While the weapons side of the program involving Patriot, Theater

High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and the ground-based interceptors have proceeded well, we face a more daunting challenge on

the sensor side of the missile defense equation. We need your help

today to try and understand the focus of the Space-Based Infrared

System (SBIRS) High and SBIRS Low programs, I am sure my
127

friend from Mississippi is going to go into that, and the path of recovery on both, if that is to be our course.

General Kadish, you have been a frequent visitor to my State.

You have earned the trust and respect of Alaskans, who will be

partners in the construction, deployment, and operation of the missile defense facilities in Alaska. We will welcome you back any

time. As a matter of fact, I will get you a permanent resident fishing license, if you would like. I am not sure our boss would like it,

but we want you back whenever you can come back.

I appreciate your openness and candor on all these matters. You

have really been a direct and open senior officer, and we have massive respect for your capabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator Cochran.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Welcome to the hearing, General Kadish. We appreciate the good

work you have been doing in this office. You had taken over, I

guess, almost 3 years ago, under a difficult situation, with constraints from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and interpretations of

that treaty, negotiations for demarcation agreements, and the like,

that constrained what you could do in terms of testing and development programs.

We also had difficulties getting funding for many of the things

that go into the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Office that we

were recommending, but you have brought us through this difficult

phase of development to a point where we are now seeing almost

routinely successful tests of various missile defense technologies

and systems. For that, I think we need to recognize the great success that has been achieved, and to congratulate you and all those

others, both within and outside of Government, who are responsible for the great success.

So I think we can look forward to a future where, as Senator Stevens suggests is important for us to achieve, we will be safe and

secure from ballistic missile attack, and our troops and friends in

the field and around the world will have a means of protecting

themselves from theater-missiles or other missile attacks.

So we want you to know that we appreciate your efforts. And I

for one, I am going to commit to you that we will continue to work

in cooperation with the administration to achieve the goals that

have been set by the President, and that is to get a defensive system into the field as soon as possible. I think that is very important, not only theater systems, but a long-term ballistic missile defense system as well. So you have our commitment to do our best

to help ensure that we have the funds to achieve that goal.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Shelby.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. First,

I ask that my statement be made a part of the record in its entirety.
128

I just want to tell you, General Kadish, I think you have done

a heck of a job under difficult circumstances, because the technology is evolving. You have shown that, and that you have had

notable success, and I believe you will have more in the future. I

think your tests, you will make them tougher, and tougher, and

tougher, and I am here just to support you, and commend you for

what you do.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Welcome General Kadish. I look forward to your remarks here today. In your testimony you clearly relay the fact that serious technology issues exist. I believe greater emphasis on technology development and maturation is absolutely necessary.

Hurdles exist that must be overcome. I am one member of this committee, but I

want to help you achieve your goals.

Only through a focused and investment-driven strategy to improving the technology currently available will MDA be able to pursue testing that is realistic and

field systems that will work as designed day in and day out.

Every effort must be made to tighten the error ellipse our current systems

produce. ‘‘Goal-tending’’ should not be an option. The C-band beacon must go. Focal

plane array technology must improve. I haven’t talked to any experts who believe

that technology and hardware limitations can be overcome by software improvements.

The threat is real, evolving and growing as you pointed out in your testimony

General, and we must make the investments necessary to protect our fighting

forces, our allies abroad and our own homeland from those who will attack our citizens and vital interests in the future. We have indeed come a long way, and I believe we must go all the way on missile defense.

I support your overall fiscal year 2003 request because I believe it provides the

necessary funding to improve technology and to continue robust testing regimes that

will give MDA and our nation the best chance for success in the future. I do have

some specific questions for you later.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Now, if I may call upon Lieutenant General

Ronald T. Kadish.

General KADISH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the comments from everyone on a very difficult road ahead. I do

have some prepared remarks that I would ask to be entered into

the record, and I would just like to summarize what I have in those

remarks.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection, your full statement is made

part of the record.

General KADISH. As you have already pointed out, we have made

really significant progress in the program, since I last testified to

this committee especially, and we spent the past year testing very

key technologies, and their integration into a larger system, and restructuring our program to better address the challenges we face,

especially in a post-ABM Treaty environment.

Our budget and the basic objective of our program is to develop

missile defense that is effective in protecting our country, our deployed forces, our allies, and friends from all ranges of ballistic

missiles. We have asked for a total of $6.7 billion for fiscal year

2003. That is slightly less than what we asked for last year.

The budget we have submitted, however, for fiscal year 2003 is

very substantial, but it continues in the same range as last year

to provide for a stability to the program. In so doing, it supports
129

our program priorities for development, and our extensive test

schedule.

Now, let me talk about our testing progress, and give you a report card on our tests. As I said, we have made good progress, not

only in our flight testing, but in our ground testing as well. Over

the past 12 months, in hit-to-kill intercept tests against ballistic

missile targets, we have a three-for-three record with our groundbased mid-course defense system against long-range missiles. The

full record there now stands at four out of six. We are one-for-one

with our Sea-based Midcourse system, a major step forward for us.

For the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC–3) over the past

year, we are only one for two. We did miss once; yet, overall for

PAC–3, the record is six-for-seven against ballistic missile targets.

So we have made good progress.

That is not to say, however, that we have not had our failures—

we have had some—or that we still do not have a long way to go.

But as I pointed out, we are now at a testing crossroads in our program, with much success already building, and when success comes

in increasingly more complex testing, as in PAC–3, for instance, we

know we are on the right track.

I predict that the pace and the complexity of our testing is also

picking up. We have 13 more flight tests scheduled for the remainder of this fiscal year, of all types, together with 10 ground tests

that are significant, and 14 system-wide tests and exercises.

Now, let me explain some of the changes we have made to our

program. I want to address some key aspects very briefly, and then

I will be happy to discuss these in more detail in response to your

questions.

First, why did we make the changes that we made? I think there

are two main reasons. First, we are still facing an unprecedented

technological challenge in bringing missile defense into effective

use. Second, in order to do that, we need to speed up our acquisition processes and decision making, and ensure their relevancy in

meeting this technological challenge.

The decision cycle time for the traditional major acquisitions program is too long for our purposes. Both the threat and the technology can change during the often lengthy time between setting

a requirement and fielding a system.

The process changes we are making will let us adjust quickly to

changes in both the threat and the technology, and hopefully shorten the time needed to field this capability; yet, the changes we are

making affect only the development on portions of our program, not

those dealing with service procurement and production, which we

will continue to follow the more normal, traditional acquisition procedures when we offer them for production.

I would like to emphasize that some have said we are doing away

with requirements with these changes. We are not doing away with

requirements, as we need them. We are doing away with the way

we derive and define them, and use them in the process. Since we

cannot know with confidence what the specific threat will be over

time, we will try to evaluate and anticipate the capabilities of an

adversary, and those that they might have in a given time frame,

by setting the range of our requirements more broadly than in the
130

past, and this can reduce the element of the surprise against our

systems.

Additionally, because the pace of technological change is so rapid,

we have users and developers sitting down together under our

leadership for a whole period of the development time to draw up

what the requirements should be, and strike the right balance between what is needed and what is possible. I think that is important enough to repeat. We need to strike the right balance between

what is needed and what is possible.

The traditional system takes longer, because these players work

sequentially, where requirements follow the development, and not

simultaneously and in close concert that we are proposing with our

processes. This approach allows for the early development of an effective capability, I believe, and one that can be enhanced over

time, and nominally in a 2-year time period, or what we call blocks.

This is still a disciplined, documented process that we intend to

follow for developing ground-breaking systems, and one that we

have used, for instance, in very successful programs in our country’s history in, for example, the Polaris C-launch Ballistic Missile,

and the SR–71 Reconnaissance Aircraft.

Now, our management approach has also been adjusted to support this reduction in cycle time. As the Director, I have been given

more authority, and we have flattened our organization of the Missile Defense Agency to make it more responsive. I continue to report, however, directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and I am subject to consistent,

frequent, and focused oversight.

The Department Senior Executive Council, or what we call the

SEC, maintains executive oversight of the program. I have already

met with them almost once a month, on average, since last August.

It is the council’s responsibility to decide major issues in the program, as well as whether to move elements into production, and

make recommendations to the Secretary on fielding of elements of

the system once they are ready.

The SEC’s decision and mine are supported by a Missile Defense

Support Group that was created, that also reports to the Under

Secretary. This support group and its subordinate working groups

combine the interests and efforts of 13 different offices and agencies within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). By providing their assessment and advice simultaneously, we hope we can

greatly reduce decision cycle times on this program.

Now, our relationships with industry are very complex in this endeavor, but not unprecedented. The Government will rightly retain

the responsibility for delivering this system, but a much closer relationship is necessary between Government and industry, because

the cutting-edge expertise of what is possible will be done through

the industry expertise and arrangements. Hence, we are bringing

together what we are calling a National Team across all our contractors, and focusing whatever best and brightest talent we could

find on this very difficult problem, from Government, academia, industry, and other places as well.

Mr. Chairman, over the past years I have said we have made

some very significant strides in our development program, as some

of our major test events have shown; yet, we also have some very
131

significant challenges ahead of us, both in defining and resolving

the right technical issues, and in managing this unprecedented program, so we can ensure our missile defenses will become as effective as soon as possible, and will remain so over time.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Our budget request is focused toward this goal. It provides the

resources for continued program progress, and some stability, and

with your continued and very valuable support, and that of the

American people, I have every confidence we will be successful.

Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General Kadish.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH

Good morning. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to present the Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2003 Missile Defense Program and budget.

The Department of Defense is developing effective missile defenses for the territories and deployed forces of the United States, allies, and friends. Ballistic missiles

already pose a threat to the United States and to U.S. interests, forces, allies and

friends. The missiles possessed by potential adversaries are growing in range, reliability, and accuracy. The proliferation of ballistic missile technologies, materials,

and expertise can also occur in unexpected ways, enabling potential adversaries to

accelerate missile development or quickly acquire new capabilities. Missiles carrying

nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons could inflict damage that far surpasses

what we experienced last September 11. The events of that day underscored the vulnerability of our homeland, even to assault from distant regions.

Defensive capabilities to counter this threat cannot be deployed overnight. We

also recognize that the threat is continually changing. So we are taking an approach

to build missile defenses that will allow us to put capabilities ‘‘in play’’ as soon as

practicable to provide the best defenses possible against the projected threat, based

on technological progress and success in testing. After nearly a decade of steady developmental progress, we are deploying the first Patriot Advanced Capability 3, or

PAC–3, missiles to give our forces protection against short-range threats. In the

coming years we plan to introduce new capabilities to defeat medium- and even

longer-range ballistic missiles.

Over the past year, we have made considerable progress in demonstrating key

missile defense technologies and integration concepts. This past January we took a

significant step forward and broke new ground with the successful midcourse intercept of a medium-range ballistic missile target using a sea-based interceptor. Following successful intercepts of long-range targets in July and December of last year,

and in March of this year, we gained further confidence in our Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) design and capability. And with the Airborne Laser, or ABL,

we are making steady progress in the development of directed energy technologies

by achieving record power levels in the last two tests and successfully completing

the final lasing test for Laser Module-1.

Some of our tests showed we need more work to achieve our design objectives.

The third test late last year of the boost vehicle under development for the GMD

element failed to launch as planned. Because a faster ground-based interceptor will

increase significantly our engagement envelope, we are focusing intently to resolve

the associated development problems. Recently, PAC–3 began a series of operational

tests. In mid-February, PAC–3 teamed up with PAC–2 in a multiple simultaneous

engagement test to intercept three air-breathing targets, but intercepted just one.

And although a second PAC–3 missile failed to fire in a test last month, we did destroy both the missile and air-breather targets. Despite some setbacks, we continue

to make remarkable strides, Mr. Chairman, and we grow increasingly confident in

our ability to deliver effective missile defense capabilities over the next few years.

Yet we should all recognize that there remains a long road ahead.

Approach to Missile Defense

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will develop incrementally a Ballistic Missile

Defense (BMD) System that layers defenses to intercept ballistic missiles of all
132

1On January 2, 2002, the Secretary of Defense established the Missile Defense Agency to

manage the development of effective missile defenses.

ranges in all phases of flight-boost, midcourse, and terminal.1 These increments will

be transferred to the Services for production and deployment as soon as practicable.

We are working with the warfighters, the CINCs, and the Services throughout this

process.

Based on the results of last year’s rigorous missile defense review, the Department has moved away from an independently managed, element-centric approach

and established a single program to develop an integrated BMD System. The BMD

System will consist of elements configured into layered defenses to provide autonomous and mutual support, including multiple engagement opportunities, along a

threat missile’s flight path. The Missile Defense Program supports numerous risk

reduction activities, including flight tests, ground simulations, and hardware-in-theloop demonstrations.

Engineering complexities and operational realities associated with missile defense

require operational and system integration as well as an ability to operate elements

autonomously. Therefore, a key tenet of the missile defense program is robust, realistic testing within the BMD System Test Bed. This Test Bed is an integrated set

of components that are widely dispersed among operationally realistic locations primarily throughout the Pacific and continental United States. While its specific components have independent utility, the Test Bed is designed to support development

of missile defense elements and demonstrate an integrated, layered missile defense

system. We will use the Test Bed over the next few years to validate the midcourse,

boost, and terminal elements, including supporting sensors, and the necessary BM/

C2 and communications components. This Test Bed was most recently used to test

the Standard Missile-3 interceptor for Sea-based Midcourse Defense (SMD) and in

fiscal year 2002 it will host additional GMD and SMD intercept flight tests and a

major System Integration Test.

The BMD System Test Bed includes prototypes and surrogates of the System elements as well as supporting test infrastructure to provide trajectory, sensing, interception, and BM/C2 and communication scenarios that resemble conditions under

which the System might be expected to operate. It will enable testing against faster,

longer-range target missiles than we are using today, and it will allow us to test

using different geometric, operational, and element configurations.

As they become available, we could use prototypes and test assets to provide early

capability, if so directed. A decision to employ test assets would depend upon the

success of testing, the appropriate positioning of Test Bed components, the availability of test interceptors and other assets, and the international security environment. Our test infrastructure, in other words, will have an inherent, though rudimentary, operational capability.

Our program is now entering a new phase, moving from technology development

to system engineering, and we face a very significant challenge of integrating many

diverse elements into one system. We employ thousands of individuals throughout

the United States. We also are collaborating extensively with all of the Military Departments and the Joint Staff as we investigate different basing modes and deal

with associated operational and planning challenges. Our approach to managing resources is clearly an important element of our approach to missile defense. This

committee’s support for the President’s ‘‘Freedom to Manage’’ initiative will reduce

statutory requirements that can restrict management flexibility, allowing us to more

efficiently and effectively execute the Missile Defense program.

Acquisition Strategy

The BMD System is highly complex, so we are using an acquisition approach that

capitalizes on advances in missile defense technology and continually adjusts to

changes in external factors (e.g., threat, policy, and priorities) as appropriate. We

are following an aggressive research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E)

acquisition strategy that allows us to respond to changes in the threat, manages

changes in System technologies, and ensures progress in development and testing.

The BMD System architecture will take shape based on periodic decisions and assessments within the MDA and the Department’s Senior Executive Council. Annual

assessments will include evaluations of element test performance, system architecture, technological and basing alternatives, and the threat. The initial goal is to provide limited protection against long-range threats for the United States and potentially our allies within the 2004–2008 timeframe, while delivering more advanced

capabilities against shorter-range threats.

The traditional requirements process has not worked well for missile defense. Missile defense is a cutting-edge development effort and an area where we have very
133

little operational experience. The requirements definition process typically leverages

operational experience to set system specifications many years before actual deployment, a process that can lead to a less than optimum deployed capability that does

not take advantage of the most advanced technologies.

Let me illustrate what I mean. The B–52 bomber that first flew in 1952 is hardly

the same aircraft that dropped bombs over Afghanistan in the war against terrorism. The original B–52 design, which gave us an early intercontinental bombardment capability, was enhanced over time through hardware and software improvements to meet evolving operational challenges. It may look the same, but today’s

B–52 is a very different aircraft.

Similarly, we enhanced over many years the Patriot batteries we saw in the 1991

Gulf War. Although its capability to defend small areas was improved during Desert

Shield, performance against Iraqi Scuds was not impressive. As a result, the Department initiated a follow-on enhancement program and replaced the original missile with a completely new interceptor.

These examples illustrate that in today’s dynamic security environment, a requirement written in a system’s development phase can quickly become irrelevant

or a one-way street that leads developers into a technological cul-de-sac. Five years

ago, nobody could have written a requirement for today’s Internet and gotten it exactly right.

We, therefore, have modified our acquisition approach. In line with the Secretary’s

decision to cancel the current Operational Requirements Documents (ORDs) related

to missile defense, we are using the ORDs as reference documents, but not as the

final measures of development progress. Instead of developing a system in response

to a clearly defined threat from a known adversary, we are looking at missile capabilities that any adversary could have in a given timeframe. We also continually assess missile defense technology options and availability. Using a capability-based

approach to ensure that a militarily useful BMD System can be deployed as soon

as practicable, we are setting initial capability standards and engaging the CINCs,

Services, and industry. This acquisition approach supports the effective engineering

and integration of the BMD System and ensures a transition of effective, threat-relevant system capabilities to the Services for production, deployment, and operations.

While we are moving away from some of the rigidities associated with the traditional acquisition process, we are not abandoning discipline in development. Capability-based acquisition requires continual assessment of technical and operational

alternatives at the element and BMD System levels. We will build what we can

technologically, and improve it as rapidly as possible. Configuration management

and risk management will continue to guide the engineering processes.

In a capability-based approach that pursues parallel development paths, a risk

management program is essential. To execute BMDS level risk management, we are

identifying risk issues and an analytical basis for modifications and enhancements.

This disciplined risk management process supports the annual review and assessment of the BMD System and accommodates significant user participation at the

appropriate times during development.

The missile defense acquisition strategy engineers and tests the system using a

two-year capability ‘‘Block’’ approach, with the initial introduction of elements into

the expanded Test Bed starting as early as fiscal year 2004. The initial BMD System capability (Block 2004) will evolve as technologies mature and are demonstrated

satisfactorily in the BMD System Test Bed. This capability will be increased incrementally in future Blocks through the introduction of new sensor and weapon components, and by augmenting or upgrading existing capabilities.

Each BMD System Block is comprised of selected element configurations integrated into the overall System BM/C2. There will be annual decision points at which

time assessments will be made on the basis of: effectiveness and synergy within the

system; technical risk; deployment schedule; cost; and threat. This assessment of

progress will determine whether a given developmental activity will be accelerated,

modified, or terminated. Implementing changes expeditiously and prudently maximize value from our investments and allow more rapid program adjustments based

on threat projections and technological progress.

Each subsequent Block will build on and be integrated into the capabilities provided by predecessor Blocks that make up the BMD System. This evolutionary strategy allows us to put the high performance technologies ‘‘in play’’ sooner than would

otherwise be possible. Once they have been demonstrated, elements or their components will be available for emergency use, if directed, or for transfer to the Military

Departments for production as part of a standard acquisition program.
134

Program Description

Our approach to developing missile defenses builds on the technological, engineering, and integration progress we have made to date. We are currently pursuing parallel development efforts in order to reduce risk in the individual RDT&E efforts

and aggressively demonstrating technologies for integration on land, sea, air, and

space-based elements. When a capability is sufficiently validated, that element or

component will be ready for a decision regarding transition to production.

We are also exploring new concepts and experiments for the development of advanced sensor suites and kinetic and directed energy kill mechanisms for potential

sea, ground, air, and space deployment. In line with our disciplined walk-before-yourun, learn-as-you-go approach to testing, we are incorporating more realistic scenarios and countermeasures into the missile defense development test program. The

Test Bed will be expanded to accommodate this aggressive and robust testing approach.

FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET ALLOCATION BY WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

[TY dollars in million]

WBS

Fiscal year—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1.0—BMDS ................................................................................. 846 1,101 1,252 1,200 1,182 1,219

2.0—Terminal Defense Segment ............................................... 2,026 1,128 927 1,078 1,149 1,499

3.0—Midcourse Defense Segment ............................................. 3,762 3,193 3,074 3,016 2,969 2,596

4.0—Boost Defense Segment .................................................... 600 797 1,390 1,400 1,591 2,275

5.0—Sensor Segment ................................................................ 335 373 489 1,146 900 1,008

6.0—Technology ......................................................................... 139 122 155 130 143 147

MDA Total ...................................................................... 7,709 6,714 7,287 7,970 7,934 8,743

The Missile Defense Program allocates resources required for the BMD System,

including the integration of individual elements into a single, synergistic system to

defend the territories and deployed forces of the United States, allies, and friends.

The BMD System segment comprises System Engineering and Integration (SE&I),

BM/C2, Communications, Targets and Countermeasures, Test and Evaluation,

Producibility and Manufacturing Technology, and Program Operations (which includes Management Headquarters and Pentagon Reservation). Funding in this segment provides resources to define, select, test, integrate, and demonstrate the elements in the Terminal Defense, Midcourse Defense, Boost Defense, and Sensor segments. The tasks included in this segment are those that will benefit the entire

BMD System, not just a particular element or program. This segment also includes

management efforts to ensure architectural consistency and integration of missile

defense elements within the overarching missile defense mission.

The President’s Budget requests $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2003 for RDT&E in the

BMD Segment, an increase of $255 million over the fiscal year 2002 enacted funding

level. RDT&E and military construction funding in this segment across the fiscal

year 2003–07 FYDP is about $6.0 billion.
135

As the central engineering component within MDA, the Systems Engineering and

Integration activity provides the overall system engineering development and integration of the BMD System. SE&I activities will define and manage the layered

BMD System collaboratively by providing detailed systems engineering and integration across the entire spectrum of System capabilities. Capability-based acquisition

requires continual assessment of technical and operational alternatives at the component, element, and system levels. The systems engineering process involves setting BMD System Technical Objectives and Goals; addressing existing, emerging,

and postulated adversary capabilities; assessing and determining System design and

element contributions; synthesizing System Blocks; introducing new technologies

and operational concepts; conducting System risk analyses; and considering impacts

of potential foreign contributions to BMD System capabilities.

The BM/C2 activity will develop and integrate the BM/C2 and communications

functions for the BMD System. To provide maximum flexibility to the war fighter,

this activity includes the development of specifications needed to ensure Terminal

Defense, Midcourse Defense, Boost Defense, and Sensor segments are properly integrated and interoperable with external systems, to include those of allies. Communications funding consolidates and refines BMD system-wide communication links

to allow components of the BMD System to exchange data and to permit command

and control orders to be transmitted to weapons and sensors.

The Targets and Countermeasures program provides capability-based ballistic

missile targets, countermeasures, and other payloads to support system-testing as

well as element testing across the segments. Standard interfaces are being defined

between payloads and boosters, so that we can introduce different targets into BMD

System flight test scenarios with greater efficiency. Beginning in fiscal year 2002,

we are establishing an inventory of target modules (boosters, reentry-vehicles, countermeasures, and instrumentation) to shorten the build-cycle and support more frequent flight tests.

The Test and Evaluation program includes the test and evaluation infrastructure,

tools for program-wide use, and execution of system-level testing. Individual BMD

System elements will conduct risk reduction, developmental, and operational testing. System level tests go beyond these, testing synergy, interoperability, BM/C2 and

communication links across the elements. Also resourced are those tests conducted

for the purpose of making critical measurements required across the missile defense

regime, for example, measurements of adversary missile characteristics such as

plume signatures, lethality measurements, and characterization of potential countermeasures. Such data collection becomes an important input to the design and development of effective defenses.
136

Supporting robust, realistic testing requires a significant investment in the development and maintenance of the requisite test infrastructure, analytical tools, and

computational capabilities. Because this supports both the System and all of its elements, it is resourced centrally at the System level. The BMD System test infrastructure includes a number of critical, specialized ground test facilities, test range

facilities, launch capabilities, and instrumentation, such as several airborne sensor

platforms and other mobile capabilities unique to missile defense testing. Core models and simulations, both for engineering and integration purposes, are also developed, validated, and maintained. These range from detailed phenomenology and

lethality codes used by all the System elements to large-scale wargaming simulations required for BM/C2 and operational concept of operations development. A number of computational facilities, data libraries, and simulation facilities are also

resourced at the System level.

Terminal Defense Segment (TDS)

The Terminal Defense Segment involves development and upgrades of missile defense capabilities that engage short- to medium-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their trajectory. The missile or warhead enters the terminal phase

when it reenters the atmosphere. This is a short phase, lasting less than a minute.

Elements in this defense segment include Theater High Altitude Area Defense

(THAAD), PATRIOT Advanced Capability Level 3 (PAC–3), Medium Extended Air

Defense System (MEADS), and a sea-based terminal concept definition element

(successor to the Navy Area activities). Additionally, other elements funded by the

MDA are the Israeli Arrow Deployability Program, which includes the Israeli Test

Bed (ITB), Arrow System Improvement Program, and studies via the Israeli Systems Architecture and Integration effort.

The MDA budget allocation for TDS activities in fiscal year 2003 is $1.1 billion,

which includes funds for RDT&E and military construction. The MDA budget includes about $5.8 billion in fiscal year 2003–2007 for the terminal defense segment.

These figures reflect a decision by the Department to transfer to the Army all funding for PAC–3 and MEADS from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007.

The Congress returned PAC–3 and MEADS to MDA for fiscal year 2002 pending

the fulfillment of congressionally mandated requirements. Upon satisfaction of all

congressional directives, we will transfer the PAC–3 to the Army.

TDS Elements

THAAD is designed to defend against short- to medium-range ballistic missiles at

endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes, which can make effective countermeasures

against THAAD difficult to employ. It also allows multiple intercept opportunities,
137

and can significantly mitigate the effects of weapons of mass destruction. THAAD

will protect forward-deployed U.S. and allied armed forces, broadly dispersed assets,

and population centers against missile attacks.

In fiscal year 2003, we will complete missile and launcher designs and initiate

manufacturing of missile ground test units, continue fabrication of the first and second radars, and continue to fabricate and test the BM/C2 hardware and software.

We will support robust ground-testing and flight-hardware testing in preparation for

missile flights in fiscal year 2004 at the White Sands Missile Range. The element

development phase will refine and mature the THAAD design to ensure component

and element performance, producibility, and supportability. There are five major

THAAD components: missiles, launchers, radars, BM/C2, and THAAD-specific support equipment.

PAC–3 provides terminal missile defense capability to protect U.S. forward-deployed forces, allies, and friends. PAC–3 can counter enemy short-range ballistic

missiles, anti-radiation missiles, and aircraft employing advanced countermeasures

and a low radar cross-section. PAC–3 successfully completed development testing

last year, during which there were three intercepts of ballistic missiles, two cruise

missile intercepts, and four multiple simultaneous engagements of ballistic and

cruise missiles. The start of PAC–3 operational testing in February 2002 shows that

we still have work to do. In fiscal year 2003, we will execute activity to develop,

integrate, and test evolutionary block upgrades. Plans include transitioning PAC–

3 to full rate production to build up PAC–3 missile inventory and field additional

PAC–3 capabilities.

The Department decided in December 2001 to cancel the Navy Area program after

a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Nonetheless, the need for timely development and deployment of a sea-based terminal ballistic missile defense capability remains. We have

initiated the sea-based terminal study directed by the Department, which we expect

to conclude this spring.

MEADS is a cooperative effort between the United States, Germany, and Italy.

MEADS will provide robust, 360-degree protection for maneuver forces and other

critical forward-deployed assets against short- and medium-range missiles and airbreathing threats, such as cruise missiles and aircraft. In fiscal year 2001, the trilateral MEADS activity embarked on a three-year Risk Reduction Effort. In fiscal

year 2003, MEADS will continue design and development activities for key system

components, which includes efforts to integrate the PAC–3 missile with MEADS.

The Arrow Weapon System (AWS), developed jointly by the United States and

Israel, provides Israel a capability to defend against short- to medium-range ballistic

missiles. The Arrow Deployability Program allows for Israel’s acquisition of a third

Arrow battery and Arrow’s interoperability with U.S. systems. The Arrow System

Improvement Program will include both technical cooperation to improve the performance of the AWS and a cooperative test and evaluation program to validate the

improved AWS performance. We will support additional flight-testing and supply of

components for additional missiles to be built in Israel. Continued U.S. cooperation

with Israel will provide insight to Israeli technologies, which may be used to enhance U.S. ballistic missile defenses.

Midcourse Defense Segment (MDS)

Midcourse Defense Segment elements engage threat ballistic missiles in the exoatmosphere after booster burnout and before the warhead re-enters the earth’s atmosphere. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense and Sea-Based Midcourse Defense

elements of the MDS are the successors to the National Missile Defense and Navy

Theater Wide programs, respectively. The Sea-based Midcourse activity includes a

cooperative missile technology development effort with Japan. Our budget for this

segment in fiscal year 2003 (RDT&E and military construction) is almost $3.2 billion, or $570 million less than the funding enacted for fiscal year 2002. MDS funding is about $14.8 billion across the FYDP.
138

MDS Elements

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) will engage threat missiles primarily during the descent phase of midcourse flight. Our GMD development activity

has three main objectives: (1) demonstrate Hit-to-Kill; (2) develop and demonstrate

an integrated system capable of countering known and expected long-range threats;

and (3) develop infrastructure and assets for the initial GMD components of the

BMD System Test Bed to conduct realistic tests using operationally representative

hardware and software and produce reliable data for GMD and BMD System development.

During fiscal year 2002, the GMD element will build upon recent successful intercept tests by further demonstrating hit-to-kill and discrimination capabilities using

increasingly complex and realistic test-scenarios. Development of the 2004 BMD

System Test Bed continues with an upgraded COBRA DANE radar in Alaska as a

temporary surrogate for Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWRs); an accelerated

version of the In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) and Battle

Management, Command, Control and Communications (BMC3) capability; five ‘‘common’’ silos with sparing; Command Launch Equipment (CLE); and software upgrades.

In fiscal year 2003 five Ground-Based Interceptors using a precursor of the objective booster and an operationally representative kill vehicle will be developed for installation and testing in fiscal year 2004. MDA will continue to develop the objective

booster and continue with the complementary EKV activity. This objective may

allow for a common EKV for Ground and Sea-based Midcourse Defenses. BM/C2 and

communications incremental prototypes will be integrated and demonstrated at

multiple locations and assessed with user participation. The Prototype Manufacturing Rate Facility will continue in fiscal year 2003 to support a wide range of interceptor needs for the increased rate of flight tests. Research and development efforts for Block 2004 and subsequent Blocks will support the development of the initial GMD parts of the Block 2004 BMD System Test Bed. This facility will also support continued development and testing of more-capable interceptors, sensors, and

targets.

Sea-based Midcourse Defense will develop a ship-based capability to intercept

threat missiles early in the ascent phase of midcourse flight. SMD continues to build

upon the existing Aegis Weapons System and Aegis Light-weight Exo-Atmospheric

Projectile (LEAP) Intercept (ALI) activities while pursuing alternative kinetic warhead technologies.

In January 2002, we conducted the first of many flight tests for the Standard Missile 3 (SM–3) in order to demonstrate kill vehicle guidance, navigation, and control

against a live ballistic missile target. The SM–3 launched from the U.S.S. LAKE

ERIE, which was positioned in the BMD System Test Bed more than 500 kilometers

away from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, and successfully collided with its tar-
139

get missile in space using infrared sensors. This was the first intercept for the hitto-kill SMD element.

Funding in fiscal year 2003 continues for concept definition, risk reduction and

testing to further the development of a capability to defeat medium- to intermediate-range threats. The SMD project has three primary objectives in fiscal year

2003: (1) continue testing and complete ALI Flight Demonstration Project; (2) design

and develop a contingency ship-based ascent and midcourse ballistic missile intercept capability based on ALI and associated technologies; and (3) continue an effort

initiated in fiscal year 2002 to provide a ship-based missile defense system designed

to provide an ascent midcourse phase ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ technology in the fiscal year 2008–

2010 timeframe.

The United States and Japan, under a 1999 Memorandum of Understanding, are

conducting a cooperative systems engineering project to design advanced missile

components for possible integration into the SMD element. This project leverages

the established and demonstrated industrial and engineering strengths of Japan

and allows a significant degree of cost sharing.

Boost Defense Segment (BDS)

The Boost Defense Segment addresses both Directed Energy and Kinetic Energy

(KE) boost phase intercept (BPI) missile defense capabilities to create a defense

layer near the hostile missile’s launch point. To engage ballistic missiles in this

phase, quick reaction times, high confidence decision-making, and multiple engagement capabilities are desired. The development of high-power lasers and faster interceptor capabilities are required to engineer kinetic and directed energy capabilities to provide options for multiple shot opportunities and basing modes in different

geographic environments. MDA RDT&E funding in the Boost Defense Segment is

$797 million in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $197 million over fiscal year 2002

enacted funding, and is approximately $7.5 billion from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal

year 2007.

The BDS employs multiple development paths. Information derived from this approach will help evaluate the most promising BPI projects to provide a basis for an

architecture decision between. The BDS will demonstrate the Airborne Laser (ABL)

for the Block 2004 Test Bed. It will define and evolve space-based and sea-based

kinetic energy BPI concepts. Also, we will evaluate space-based laser technologies.

At the appropriate time, based on mature system concepts and technologies, we will

initiate a focused demonstration of this concept in the Test Bed.

BDS Elements

ABL will acquire, track, and kill ballistic missiles in their boost phase of flight.

Management and funding responsibility for ABL has officially transferred from the

Air Force to the Missile Defense Agency. ABL integrates three major subsystems

(Laser; Beam Control; and Battle Management, Command, Control, Communica-
140

tions, Computers and Intelligence (BM/C4I)) into a modified commercial Boeing 747–

400F aircraft. ABL-specific ground support equipment also will be developed.

Building on successful sub-system testing and the modification of aircraft structures, in fiscal year 2003 we will commence major subsystem integration and testing

activities. The ABL Block 2004 phase culminates in a lethality demonstration (missile shoot-down) against boosting ballistic missile threat-representative targets and

delivers one aircraft for integration and testing. If directed, this aircraft could also

provide an emergency defensive capability. We plan to develop a second test aircraft, which will further develop this new technology.

The Kinetic Energy Boost defense activity reduces the technical and programmatic risks of fielding a boost phase intercept capability. The KE Boost strategy is to define and assess militarily useful boost phase concepts, invest in focused

risk reduction activities, and execute critical experiments. We will tap the brightest

minds in the public and private sectors to define the most effective approach to killing ballistic missiles as they boost. We identified several lucrative technology candidates for immediate investment, including fast burn and flexible axial propulsion

technologies, agile kill vehicles, early detection and track sensors, quick-reaction

BM/C2, and affordable weapons platforms. We will assess these component technologies through rigorous ground and flight tests.

We will evaluate prototype component and element configurations under realistic

operational conditions. We will experiment using emerging component technologies

and test infrastructure to resolve tough technical challenges, such as predicting the

point of intercept and finding the missile tank in the presence of hot exhaust. When

possible, we will exploit targets of opportunity by tracking space launch vehicles and

test missions launched out of Vandenberg Air Force Base. The test data we collect

from our risk reduction work and critical experiments will help guide decisions concerning focused demonstrations in fiscal year 2005.

We are evaluating options for continuing Space-Based Laser (SBL) activity. The

SBL project involves technology development and risk reduction activities in the key

areas of laser output, beam control, and beam director design to demonstrate feasibility of boost phase intercept by a high-energy laser in space. These efforts leverage

work started under previous SBL-funded technology development programs.

Sensor Segment

Sensors developed in this segment will have multi-mission capabilities intended

to enhance detection of and provide critical tracking information about ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. The fiscal year 2003 budget request for RDT&E in this

segment is $373 million, which represents an increase of $38 million over fiscal year

2002 funding. The MDA budget provides $3.9 billion for the sensor segment during

fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007.
141

The Space Based Infrared System-Low (SBIRS Low) element will incorporate new

technologies to enhance detection; improve reporting on ballistic missile launches regardless of range or launch point; and provide critical mid-course tracking and discrimination data for the BMDS. When SBIRS Low is integrated with other spacebased infrared, interceptor, and surface-based radar sensors, the BMD System will

have a capability to counter a broad array of midcourse countermeasures. Moreover,

SBIRS Low will not carry many of the risks associated with forward deployed

ground-based sensors, which can be vulnerable to attack and for which foreign basing rights must be negotiated.

Per direction in the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Appropriations Conference

Report, plans for Satellite Sensor Technology, including SBIRS Low, will be provided to congressional defense committees by May 15, 2002. The restructured SBIRS

Low activity will support numerous risk reduction activities, including technology

maturation, ground simulations, and hardware-in-the-loop demonstrations. Based on

cost, schedule, capability, and threat assessments, decisions will be made regarding

production of a demonstrated SBIRS Low capability.

The international component of the Sensor Segment is the Russian-American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) project. We are cooperating with the Russian Federation in the area of early warning missile defense technologies. RAMOS is an innovative U.S.-Russian space-based remote sensor research and development initiative

that engages Russian early warning satellite developers in the joint definition and

execution of aircraft and space experiments.

The Russians continue to review the agreement to execute the RAMOS project

presented last July by the United States. Assuming agreement is reached this summer, in fiscal year 2003 we will complete detailed designs of the satellites and sensor payloads, begin fabrication and assembly of U.S. sensors and ground support

equipment, and continue sensor software and modeling and simulation development.

Launches of the first and second RAMOS satellites are projected to occur in fiscal

year 2006.

Technology

The Technology effort will develop components, subsystems and new concepts

based on high-risk, high-payoff approaches. The primary focus of this effort is the
142

development of sensors and weapons for future improved missile defense platforms.

Investments maintain a balance between providing block upgrades to current acquisition programs and developing the enabling technologies for radically new concepts.

Our budget for the Technology segment in fiscal year 2003 is $122 million

(RDT&E), a reduction of $18 million from fiscal year 2002 enacted level. Funding

from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007 is projected to be about $697 million.

To enable the BMD System to pace the threat, the Advanced Technology Development (ATD) effort is focused in four primary areas: (1) Terminal Missile Defense,

(2) Midcourse Counter-Countermeasures, (3) Boost Phase Intercept, and (4) Global

Defense. In addition to these tasks, investments are made in a strong technology

base to move beyond the state-of-the-art in radars, infrared sensors, lasers, optics,

propulsion, wide band gap materials, photonic devices, and other innovative concepts. The ATD office also works with the Systems Engineer and other segments

to ensure seamless transition of proven advanced technology products into the BMD

System.

Summary

The BMD System will counter the full spectrum of ballistic missile threats, capitalize on existing technologies and capabilities, and foster innovation. It will incrementally incorporate capabilities needed to detect, track, intercept, and destroy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight using kinetic and directed energy kill mechanisms and various deployment approaches. We have implemented a disciplined and

flexible acquisition strategy to provide a timely, capable system. This approach protects against uncertainty by ensuring that the United States will have the ability

to defend itself, its deployed forces, allies, and friends from a ballistic missile attack

should the need arise.

I believe the approach I have outlined here toward developing and deploying missile defenses can meet the growing threat and provide for the earliest possible fielding of effective defensive capabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.

THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator INOUYE. General, several years ago, the focus of our missile defense program was protecting our forces in theater. Since

then, we have refocused our attention on national missile defense,

and justifiably so, given the threat to our Nation, but I am concerned that with the exception of the Patriot program, there are no
143

funds for procuring any other theater missile defense system in

DOD’s Future Years Defense Plan. Are you concerned about this

situation? If so, what can we do to address it?

General KADISH. Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where we

are on the verge of developing those very systems that you discussed against shorter-range missiles for our deployed forces. The

reason why no procurement funds are allocated at this point in

time is because they are not ready for production.

I am not concerned so much about not having procurement funds

as I am about making sure that those programs progress as rapidly

as possible so that we can procure them. I believe in the next 2 to

3 years those programs will be in a position to add significant

amounts of production money to buy those systems.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE (THAAD)

Senator INOUYE. Where is THAAD at this time?

General KADISH. THAAD is going through a redesign effort, and

we are 2 years away from its first test, but it is making very good

progress in our ground testing leading up to our first test program

activities in early 2004, I believe. So in that particular case, if we

do the right testing on the ground that we have programmed—

which is, by the way, very expensive—I believe that our testing

program will have a high degree of success to begin with, and we

will be able to move rapidly to procure those systems.

Senator INOUYE. What is the status of airborne laser (ABL)?

General KADISH. The airborne laser program is making remarkable progress; however, we had to look very realistically at the

schedule very recently, and we are projecting a first attempt at

shoot-down with the airborne laser in the 2004 time frame, in the

fall of 2004 calendar year, at this point in time.

We have done a number of significant ground tests in the airborne laser that have shown us that we should have confidence,

once we get over the integration phase of airborne laser, of actually

integrating the laser capability into the aircraft. We would have a

potential for a high degree of success in those tests.

We do have a delay, however, in those tests, and we are going

to have to deal with that, but I see nothing that is fatally flawed

in the approach at this point in time on airborne laser.

PATRIOT PAC–3

Senator INOUYE. What is the status of the PACs?

General KADISH. I am sorry?

Senator INOUYE. Are we ready to deploy some of them?

General KADISH. Patriot 3s?

Senator INOUYE. Yes.

General KADISH. Yes. As a matter of fact, we are in very early

limited procurement of the Patriot 3s. The last time I looked at the

numbers, I think we had over 20 missiles already in deployment

status, potentially, and we are building those every month. So we

are in the very early stages, but we do have an initial capability

for Patriot 3.

Senator INOUYE. Do you know if this year our Nation will formally withdraw from the ABM Treaty? Can you describe for the

committee what withholding withdrawing from the ABM Treaty
144

means in practical terms for your program? That is, what key testing programs can now move forward, what construction and development programs can now be undertaken?

General KADISH. The withdrawal from the Treaty is having a big

effect on the program, as we look at what we can do without the

Treaty constraints more in detail in the past few months. I think

there are basically two emerging elements of the treaty that will

be very apparent to us over the next 6 to 8 months.

The first area that has developed, and I think that it is significant, is that we are looking very differently at our sensor capability, in light of the Treaty withdrawal, on our ability to look at

radar capability, and other sensors that might have been prohibited by the Treaty for use in our overall system effectiveness. Of

course, one of the rules for missile defense using sensors is: The

closer your sensors are to the launching missile, the better off we

are in the system’s effectiveness.

So this is a very important element, and one good example of

that is the promise that using Aegis-class radars from our Aegis

destroyers and cruisers might give us more effective use of our

ground-based interceptors, and that was prohibited, for instance,

by the Treaty in the past. So that is the first, most visible and most

important area that we are feeling the effects of from the withdrawal of the Treaty.

I think the second area that, of course, will be obvious, is that

when we decide that we have enough technical and programmatic

effectiveness, the administration and the Congress could decide to

actually deploy the system without constraints to the Treaty. I

would expect over the coming years that that one effect will be obviously very important to us.

So those are just two examples of what is happening in regard

to the Treaty effects on the program that I deal with every day.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator Stevens.

Senator STEVENS. Pardon me for going in and out, Mr. Chairman. There are other matters here on the floor.

CAPABILITY-BASED ACQUISITION

General, I want to make sure if—that I understand this concept

about spiral development capabilities-based acquisition. It is my

understanding from my staff that the approach involves a great degree of flexibility compared to prior procedures, and that the Missile Defense Agency wants to reward successful efforts and discontinue the unsuccessful ones to build a missile defense architecture based on elements that have been proven to work and to move

on when possible. Is that a correct summary?

General KADISH. That is a correct top-level summary, Senator.

There is a little bit more to this capability-based approach than

meets the eye, and it gets very technical in the way we do acquisitions traditionally in the Department.

Senator STEVENS. Will this be less expensive in the long run, in

terms of acquisition, than the older method?

General KADISH. In my view—and this is an opinion at this

point—it will be. There is a reason for that. What we tend to do

in the Department with very mature technologies, for instance, we
145

have been building airplanes—I think, next year, in 2003, it will

be 100 years that we have been building airplanes in this country,

and we have a very stylized and very good requirement system

that has moved the state of the art of mature technologies, like aircraft development, very well, and it has given us the greatest air

force in the world.

What we are dealing with here is a situation where the technology is uncertain. We have been after ballistic missile defense for

25 years, in earnest, probably, and 40 years, and 50 years has been

the maturity of the ballistic missile itself.

So we are not advancing a mature state of the art. In the requirements space process, we would spend generally the time and

money required to meet a specific requirement that we knew and

specified very well. In the case for an airplane, for instance, it

might be how far it goes with a specific payload, and we can do

that in a very orderly process, and we have many examples of that

in the programs that are before the Congress today.

In the case of missile defense, there is a little bit more give-andtake that is required in an unprecedented technology. Rather than

setting a goal and not knowing whether you can meet it technically, and spend any amount of time and money required to meet

that, we believe we can take it off in chunks, and do what is possible, and match that versus what is needed. In the end, I believe

that that process will be a lot less expensive than if we went with

the traditional requirements-based approach.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I do not want to be impertinent, but it

sounds like you are saying that if we set the goal for a supersonic

jet, and all three would have failed, we would have never had the

airplane, but on the other hand, what was needed in 2003 was not

an integrated, mature system. I am not sure how these parts fit together, if we abandon part of them along the line. Tell me, how do

you fit the parts together if you abandon one?

General KADISH. Well, it is not a question of abandoning. It is

trying to set the goal such that they are achievable within a time

frame for a specific cost. For instance, on a missile defense system,

we would want to have a certain level of effectiveness in the missile defense level, and it could be set very high to push the state

of the art, but in our case, the state of the art is what it is.

TECHNOLOGY AND INTEGRATION

Senator STEVENS. Maybe I was misled, and I guess—I think I

can say this: At one of the briefings I asked a question, that is not

on the record, at a classified briefing, and I asked the question,

‘‘What is the problem here?’’ And the answer was that the problem

is integration of the system, not developing technology. Are we saying we do have technology problems now?

General KADISH. Well, I included integration in the technology

basket, and that might be part of the problem with

understanding——

Senator STEVENS. I do not want to take too much time. Let me

get a little provincial here, and ask you about the Greeley Testbed.

Can you tell us what the schedule is, status of construction, et

cetera? What do we see, and is there enough money in the budget

to proceed this year, as indicated?
146

General KADISH. I believe there is enough money in the budget

to execute the program to build that testbed. We are on schedule.

I think we are a little less than 900 days away from our target date

of September of 2004 for that capability to be in place, and to use

it for ground and integration testing. So I believe it is in pretty

good shape. We are getting ready to issue more contracts to——

Senator STEVENS. How many interceptors will be in the first

phase?

General KADISH. For the testbed, it is five interceptors at this

point, and possibly a spare, depending on what the further analysis

tells us.

NUCLEAR TIPPED INTERCEPTORS

Senator STEVENS. There has been speculation in the press, both

in Alaska and nationally, that the Office of the Secretary of Defense is exploring nuclear tip missile interceptors, and that would

replace the interceptors that are currently in the plan. We have not

appropriated any funds, nor have we authorized any nuclear interceptors. Are there any being considered in terms of this testbed?

General KADISH. No, Senator. We have no part of our program

that involves nuclear-tipped interceptors; however, people do think

about those types of things across a broad range when you are

dealing with missile defense.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I hope whoever thought about it in the

Secretary of Defense’s office is soon in a think tank.

General KADISH. Well, the Defense Science Board indicated——

Senator STEVENS. That has alarmed my people to no end, just

absolutely no end, and I do not see any reason for it at all, and

I would fire the guy. I am serious. We should not have people

thinking out loud on the job, and speculating as to the future possibilities, when we are dealing with the reality of trying to get a missile defense system. It really—well, I cannot say that. It aggravates

me. It is obvious. It makes me mad.

ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS

Could I ask you one last question? And that is, you are looking

at a block development, a 2-year program for this. Are we going to

be able to use annual appropriations on a 2-year block program?

General KADISH. Yes, Senator, I believe so. We are looking at

what we can do in a 2-year time frame from a developmental

standpoint, and the appropriations would fall just like they traditionally have all the time.

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

Thank you, General. I mean no offense, except against that guy

who has caused us so many night calls since it has been——

General KADISH. I have gotten a few of those calls myself.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, I am sure you have. It is just—I do not

know. The press seems to report speculation a lot faster than they

do fact.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General KADISH. But I would like to make it clear, our primary

technology right now, that we are having success with, is hit-tokill, which is pure collision, kinetic energy, that destructs a mechanism.
147

Senator STEVENS. And no nuclear involvement at all?

General KADISH. None, whatsoever.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Cochran.

AIRBORNE LASER (ABL)

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

General Kadish, let me ask you about the likelihood of being able

to keep the schedule on the airborne laser. I understand that you

have a goal for a successful intercept using the airborne laser by

2004.

General KADISH. That is correct.

Senator COCHRAN. What is the likelihood, do you think, that you

will be able to meet that schedule?

General KADISH. Well, we took a real hard look at the schedule

in the fall of this past year, and that is where we set our expectation in the fall of 2004, which is basically 1 year difference from

what we originally thought we could do, and the reason for that

was that, although there was no one item that was causing our

schedule problems to be—that you could point to as a significant

flaw, there were a lot of things that were being delayed, because

of the complexity of that particular revolutionary technology.

So 2004 was set at about a 80 to 90 percent confidence in the

schedule, to give us a point in time where we think that that kind

of likelihood would produce the shootdown.

Now, as with anything of this nature, that is our best estimate.

We believe, with some confidence, that we can make it plus or

minus a couple of months in that area, and we have to work hard

to make it happen. So that is our status right now, but I think over

the next 6 to 8 months, more data will come available to us, and

we will have to take another look at it in the fall time frame.

Senator COCHRAN. The budget forecast for the airborne laser in- cludes about $30 million to begin procurement of a second airborne

laser 747 aircraft, which I am told is being purchased from the

commercial production line, rather than as a military purchase.

Could you explain why you are taking this approach, and what the

consequences would be if procurement of the aircraft does not begin

this year?

General KADISH. Well, the idea of adding the second aircraft has

a couple of aspects associated with it that are pretty, I think, important to the program. The aircraft we are building today is a

demonstration aircraft, and we have learned an awful lot about

how to build the inside of that 747 with the laser. I just told you

about our confidence in actually making that happen. What the

second aircraft would give us, because of the lead times involved,

is an ability to put a better design approach and capitalize on what

we have learned into a second aircraft, to further the development

of the airborne laser concept. So we would actually have an air

frame—a commercial airliner, off the line, ready for our use in a

few years to actually move this program along more rapidly than

if we did not have that aircraft.

So I look at it as an ability to take what we have learned off the

demonstration aircraft, the first aircraft, start the process of building a better airborne laser with the second aircraft, and then be in
148

a position, time-wise, not to have to start that process 2 or 3 years

later, if we got delayed. So it is basically an enhancement to the

overall development, and in my view, a risk reduction effort. Since

it is a commercial aircraft, the risk is not as high as if we militarized or bought something different than a 747.

SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) LOW

Senator COCHRAN. Senator Stevens mentioned the SBIRS Low

program, the sensors that would be an important element in a ballistic missile capability. In your prepared testimony, you mention

that SBIRS Low would not be subject to some of the risk associated

with ground-based radars. You have to have a system, either a

ground-based system—am I right—or something in space in order

for a ballistic missile system to work. Is that an essential element

of the system, or the program?

General KADISH. Both radars and space-based sensors are important elements of our thinking about an effective system. If I might

take a minute to explain why that is important, I think it would

help.

Radars, what we call X-band radars, in particular, are very accurate long-range radars. They suffer from the fact, however, that

they have to be located in the right position to do their job. So they

are very expensive, and when they are in place, they do a good job,

but you have to put them somewhere. One of the rules of missile

defense, as I alluded to earlier, was the closer they are to the

launch point, the better off we are in terms of their effectiveness.

So although they are a very important component, they do have

their disadvantages.

Now, when you go to space with a sensor—it is very difficult to

put radars in space, so we look at infrared sensors, in this case.

You can get global coverage and solve that geography problem with

the space-based approach. Those two sensors working in concert

also complicate the adversaries’ ability to fool any one of them. So

that is why these are complementary and potentially important.

Now, from an affordability standpoint, the argument has been,

and I think will continue to be, whether both of those are affordable in this sense. I do not think that we have enough information

that is compelling enough, at least to us right now, that says we

ought to choose between radars and space-based sensors. At this

point, we need to know a little bit more about the space-based sensors by putting them on orbit, experimenting with them, and then

deciding whether or not, either technically or for affordability reasons, we ought to make those trades. So that is why we want to

carry both of these efforts together at this point.

Senator COCHRAN. It was disturbing to me last year that we saw

some changes in the budget on SBIRS Low. We provided some language in conference with the House that gave the administration

some latitude to make a decision along the lines that you are suggesting would be appropriate. Does this budget contain sufficient

funding to help achieve that goal, or will we have to add additional

funds to move this program along so that we can actually have a

sensor developed and placed in space, so we can test it and see how

it works?
149

General KADISH. At this point, I think, from a 2003 and a 2002

perspective, we might have to add some more money. We just provided the committee a report, I believe, in the last couple of days,

of what our plans are to restructure SBIRS Low, and then as a

part of that report, I believe we indicated that we will put forth a

reprogramming in fiscal year 2002, and adjust the program in the

out-years to accommodate this new restructure.

So we will probably have to look at adding some money in the

2002 time frame, with a reprogramming action, to lower the risk

in this program, to the degree that we feel comfortable with. Those

numbers and that effort will be a separate action coming to the

committee.

ARROW

Senator COCHRAN. Okay. Last year, Congress appropriated $40

million to set up a co-production capability in the United States for

the Arrow missile. You have requested another $5 million this

year. How important is it to the Arrow program to have this coproduction capacity in the United States?

General KADISH. Well, we believe it was very beneficial to the

Arrow program to have that capability to co-produce Arrow in the

United States, as basically a very straightforward reason, in my

view.

We have worked with the Israelis to buy—I believe the number

is 200 Arrow missiles and three batteries, and the current arrangement is for Israel to make about two missiles per month in the

process. That very low rate of production limits their ability to populate those batteries in a time frame that we would like. So this

co-production effort with the United States allows us to do more

production per unit time, and, therefore, fill out those batteries

sooner than would ordinarily be done.

Senator COCHRAN. I recall from a visit to Israel that there were

some simulations and some tests that were being managed in concert with our capabilities in Huntsville, Alabama. Do you think

that this program provides some benefits for us in terms of understanding technologies, and contributes to our development of ballistic missile capabilities?

General KADISH. I believe it does, and it has. There are some

things we learned from the Arrow program that have been very

useful to us, and I expect that that will continue.

Senator COCHRAN. We talk about sharing information and some

of the benefits of the ballistic missile program with other allies as

well. We have talked about Russia; we have talked about Japan.

ALLIED COOPERATION

There is a specific program, the Medium Extended Air Defense

Systems (MEADS) program, that involved, I think, Germany and

Italy at one point, and the funding has not been forthcoming at levels that were earlier anticipated. But my question is: Is the collaboration with allies in these specific instances that I have mentioned—is it beneficial, or have we done enough of it at this point

to really know whether we have benefits that we can derive from

working closely with trusted allies on these issues?
150

General KADISH. I think it is very beneficial to continue to work

with our allies on missile defense technology. It is a difficult road

to go down in this area because of the restrictions that tend to be

put on the high technology that we have now for export controls,

and other reasons, but I believe that one of the chief stumbling

blocks, in my view, at least, is that the ABM Treaty specifically

prohibited us from engaging our allies against—especially against

long-range missile defense technologies. With our withdrawal from

the Treaty, that window opens for us, so that we could look even

broader among our allies for help in even specific technologies that

might be useful to us, as well as share ours with them.

So I believe that there will be a more intense look at allied cooperation in our program as we go forward in the coming weeks,

months, and years.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Shelby.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SMALL BUSINESS

General Kadish, referring to the Missile Defense National Team,

I want to discuss your funding plans briefly, and the role of small

business. I believe it is critical to ensure that the expertise and capabilities that reside in our small business technical base that supports the Major Defense Agency (MDA) remains strong and viable.

In supporting the Missile Defense National Team (MDNT), I

hope a situation does not arise that would require you to migrate

funds away from equivocal programs and offices like the GroundBased Midcourse Program Office. Such funding issues might have

a far-reaching impact on systems engineering and technical assistance contractors who contribute to the success of our missile defense and space programs.

Concern exists, especially in the smaller contract families, that

migrating funds to support MDNT might lead to a migration of talent away from small business. With these concerns in mind, can

you discuss how you plan to fund the Missile Defense National

Team during the remainder of 2002, and beyond?

General KADISH. Well, Senator, I might just state up front that

the small business community is extremely important to us across

a broad range of efforts within missile defense.

Senator SHELBY. So much of the talent lies there, does it not?

General KADISH. Well, an awful lot of talent lies there, and some

of our problems are making sure we get at it, both for short-term

and long-term needs. Although not directly related to the systems

engineering activity, we have a very active broad-range small business program and an innovative research program that I think we

are going to spend at least $130 million on this year.

Now, with regard to the elements, specifically ground-based, the

source of the funds for the National Team idea, I think we have

accommodated without effect to the rest of the program, because of

the——

Senator SHELBY. Without migrating the funds?

General KADISH. Without migrating funds. Now, there are always puts and takes, and daily decisions that many thousands of
151

people make, so I am not sure I can say categorically that something did not get moved around for whatever reason; however, that

is not our intent.

But I want to make clear that the National Team idea is very

circumscribed in its function, in that it does—it helps us do the engineering required for a multi-faceted, ground-based, sea-based,

multi-service type of system that we could have a potential to integrate. So I do not see this to be a very large operation in the future. If it does, I think it probably got out of control. So somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 million to $130 million

a year is what I have been looking at for the specific systems engineering activity, and that is accommodated within our budget activities.

One of the characteristics that, unfortunately, we are trying to

find out how to deal with with small business is: The nature of the

National Team is to get individuals from companies into this engineering environment, and we want the best. And to get into that

environment, they have to sign very stringent conflict of interest

clauses, which prohibit them from being used in any competition

or any other future work that we might put out to the larger industry.

So that represents a very high opportunity cost to each one of the

companies. Do they put their best people in that environment or

not? That has been a struggle for all the companies, not just the

small business, and we are working our way through that, but

there is no intent to exclude them. Quite the contrary. We need the

best, and we go wherever we can to find them. If they can meet

the requirements, then they are in.

PATRIOT PAC–3

Senator SHELBY. On the Patriot, the PAC–3, would you discuss

the status of the conditions being met, that is, especially the issue

of full funding for PAC–3?

General KADISH. The full funding for procurement?

Senator SHELBY. Yes. In other words, your 2003 budget request

again supports moving the PAC–3 program to the Army. Are you—

you are very familiar with all of this. And what is the issue—where

are we on the issue of full funding?

General KADISH. Well, this tennis match we have between

whether it is in our budget or the Army’s budget really gets confusing sometimes even to me, but where we are with Patriot (PAC–

3) is that we have money in the budget, whether it is in our budget

or the Army’s budget, depending on where the transfer was made,

for, I believe, 1,100 missiles. I will have to get you the exact number.

Senator SHELBY. It is 1,159 missiles, but the Army requirement

is at least 2,200 missiles.

General KADISH. Those are inventory objectives——

Senator SHELBY. Okay.

General KADISH [continuing]. Of the Army. The way these programs work, the Department and the Congress either fund the inventory objective or they do not, so it is a stake in the ground.

Now, we are in discussions with Mr. Aldridge and the Army

about who is going to make and how we are going to make the full
152

rate production decision on PAC—on Patriot 3, and I think in that

process, and in the 2004 budget process, particularly, adjustments

will be made to the total inventory. So I think that process is under

control, but is not fully vetted yet in terms of what the number is

really going to be.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE (THADD)

Senator SHELBY. And I have run—well, I have a minute or so.

I will go to the THAAD program. I understand it is doing a lot better.

General KADISH. Well——

Senator SHELBY. I would like your comments on it.

General KADISH. All the indicators—we restructured that program, and I have been criticized for being way too conservative in

putting in a lot of ground testing in the process, but I think that

is the right thing to do. What we are seeing in THAAD right now

is the coming to fruition of those plans that we have made to ensure that when we get the flight tests, we have every chance of

being successful and move rapidly to various flight tests.

What is key to that is the ground testing of the piece parts, and

then into larger assemblies, and into the final assembly, and that

takes time. It takes time, and it takes money.

So we are spending that capital now, the time and money, and

we are asking you for, I think, $950 million next year for this, and

to be patient with us in actually getting through this early, very

critical design phase.

Senator SHELBY. Are you fairly confident that we are now on the

right track?

General KADISH. I believe we are. We are 22 percent done in the

program, and we are ahead of costs, and ahead of schedule, but

that does not mean much to me now. I want to wait until we are

85 percent done, and be ahead of costs and ahead of schedule, but

all the trends are in the right direction.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Domenici.

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

MISSILE DEFENSE SPENDING

It is nice to see you again, General. From the information that

I have put together, the Missile Defense Agency, since 1985, has

spent $73.5 billion in research and development, and on various

forms of missile defense. Critics will point out that after this

spending, there remains no deployed missile defense system in the

United States or overseas. How do we answer that question?

General KADISH. Well, I think there are two answers in the way

I try to discuss that issue. The first is that that level of spending,

in an unprecedented endeavor called missile defense, has gotten us

to the point where we are today, and that point is that we are at

a program and technological crossroads where I believe that we are

increasingly confident that hit-to-kill can work, and that the next

step is to make it work reliably enough to make it effective, and

we are on the verge of doing that.
153

So to the degree that the country has spent the treasury in this

regard, we, I think, have done very well getting to the point we are

at now. We can argue about whether we should have gotten there

earlier, based on some of our management activities, but on balance, that investment is starting to pay off.

In regard to a deployed missile defense capability, we declared—

it was a small step, but a large one at the same time. We declared

Patriot 3 capable with 16 missiles back in September, and we are

building that inventory now. So from a hit-to-kill perspective, we

do have our first field capability, as small as it is, but we now set

that bar as a milestone to our journey to an effective missile defense.

Senator DOMENICI. General, the data from the MDA shows that

the annual appropriations of all forms of missile defense almost

doubled from the end of President Clinton’s administration through

the Bush administration.

What measures have been taken to ensure that the controls over

this increase funding request will remain intact and adequate?

Does part of the increase under President Bush result from the

budget request being more fully funded, in terms of being able to

accomplish declared goals for various programs or not?

General KADISH. I think the controls that we have on the spending of the money are as tight as they have been all along. In fact,

we are paying an awful lot of attention to that, and our statistics

on obligation rates and expenditure rates are meeting all the targets that we set for them.

I do think, in regard to your last question, that increase represents more of a full funding of our efforts, as opposed to an increase in our activity, in the short term. Now, we will change that

over time, as we look at boost phase and things of that nature, but

our strategy really has been to make sure that we can fund what

we are doing today, and move as rapidly as we can with the program.

Senator DOMENICI. I have another round. When I come back, I

will ask them.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Feinstein.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

would like to ask that my statement be placed in the record, if I

might.

Senator INOUYE. So ordered.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you General Kadish for joining us today.

I am pleased to be here today as well, as I have many questions regarding missile

defense. When Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz testified before this committee on March

27th of this year, I voiced some of those questions in the broader context of our overall national defense strategy.

Today’s discussion affords us the opportunity to delve deeper into the details of

the program, and as we all know, the devil is in the details.

We are currently fighting an asymmetrical global war on terrorism that requires

a shift in our strategic thinking. This war has forced us to confront the old cold war

mentality that is so prevalent in defense circles, and instead embrace change in

force structure and procurement.

Unfortunately, it appears that our current missile defense program may in many

ways represent the old way of doing business.
154

I am concerned that the testing, cost and strategic arms control implications of

the Administration’s current missile defense plans may detract valuable resources

from more pressing security needs, such as the war on terrorism.

The price tag associated with this year’s Research, Development, Testing and

Evaluation program for missile defense has produced considerable sticker shock for

many of us on this committee.

I, for one, am far from convinced that we have achieved the technical maturity

required to field an effective missile defense system. Systems such as SBIR’s Low

(Space Based Infrared) are, by some estimates, more than a decade away from being

operationally deployable. Additionally, our testing criteria frequently fails to accurately replicate real world intercept scenarios, including countermeasures. There

also remains much debate over the warhead options available, in particular the validity of the ‘‘hit to kill’’ approach being proposed.

Perhaps of greatest concern to me is the misdirection of funds for an expensive,

‘‘feel-good’’ system that does not adequately address the potential threats we face.

Do we, for example, face a greater threat from an incoming ballistic missile, or

from a ‘‘dirty’’ radiological bomb that was smuggled into a U.S. port in a shipping

container?

Or for that matter, what are we doing to defend against the possible threat of

a homicide bomber in downtown Washington, DC or San Francisco?

In a time of limited budgetary resources we have an obligation to use the taxpayers funds wisely.

I look forward to discussing these important issues with you so that I may get

a better understanding of your proposed funding and implementation plan.

Thank you.

NUCLEAR TIPPED INTERCEPTORS

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would like to continue along the lines that

Senator Stevens did, who indicated his strong opposition to any nuclear tipping of these missiles. I have before me the April 11th article in The Washington Post, General, which rather clearly states

that the Secretary of Defense has opened the door to the possible

use of nuclear-tipped interceptors in a national missile defense system, and that the chairman of the Defense Science Board has received encouragement from Secretary Rumsfeld to begin exploring

the idea as part of an upcoming study of alternative approaches to

intercepting enemy missiles.

I want to concur with Senator Stevens. I want to say that I find

that just absolutely inexplicable, how we would even explore the

use of nuclear-tipped interceptors, with what they might do with

radiological fallout to people, and to countries. If that is the case,

I think that that really makes this whole national missile defense

system just a reprehensible effort.

COSTS

We are spending $7.5 billion this year on research that still nobody knows is really workable on a consistent basis. So I really

want the record to reflect what I believe would be the American reaction to this as well, as just being unconscionable, and really one

not to be countenanced at virtually any cost.

Secretary Rumsfeld also announced in January a reorganization

of our missile defense efforts, creating the agency that you head,

and the current 2002 defense authorization bill, including several

new reporting requirements that were applied to the ballistic missile defense organizations, and various other organizations, such as

the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. It has some oversight or review of the missile defense program.

My question to you, General Kadish, is when do you expect to

finish the report to Congress on cost, schedule, testing, and per-
155

formance goals for ballistic missile defense programs required in

Section 232 of the 2002 defense bill, which was due on February

1 of this year?

General KADISH. Senator, we are trying very hard to meet all the

reporting requirements levied on us last year, and to do it in a way

that makes sense. If I remember right, that particular report, we

believe we satisfied with the actual submission of the budget.

Now, I think there was some discussion with the documentation

that we actually submitted to the Congress that supported our

budget activity. If that is not sufficient, I will have to go back and

look at it, but that is my recollection at this point.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Would you mind then resubmitting that portion of that submission to us, which answers the provisions of Section 232, in your opinion?

General KADISH. To the best of our ability, yes, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would appreciate that. Thank you very

much.

RADAR

In earlier years, General, we were told that the X-band radar on

Shemya was critical to the effectiveness of the program. Now, your

R–2 documents show that you plan initial development of a test Xband radar, but it is unclear if it will be at Shemya Island or not.

Where will this be located? If it is not at Shemya, how will this

affect the contingency capability you plan to deploy at Fort Greeley? And is it not correct that even with an upgraded Cobra Dane

radar on Shemya Island, the contingency capability will be severely

limited in its discrimination capabilities?

General KADISH. Let me take the last part of your question first,

if you do not mind. A contingency capability is basically that; that

is, it is a lot less than what we would like to have in any of the

systems, should we find it useful to declare that capability. Certainly, some more testing needs to go.

It will have, in my view, some inherent countermeasure capability, but it will not be what we would have postulated with the

previous National Missile Defense (NMD)-type program, with the

big X-band radar at Shemya, if that is certainly the case. But that

does not mean it does not have capability to offer a very, very basic

defense. So in a more classified forum——

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you are saying it would not limit its discrimination capabilities.

General KADISH. It would limit the discrimination capability, but

the capabilities it would have would be sufficient for what we expected it to do, which would be a lot less than what we had with

the NMD architecture that we previously talked about.

So if we decide through testing and our evaluation of the system

that that testbed has the capability to be used, this will all come

out and be very well understood by the decision makers.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. What about its location at the—of

the X–Band Radar (XBR) at Shemya?

General KADISH. We have, today, a prototype X-band radar at

Kwajalin Island. It is there for a lot of reasons, but it is not the

ideal place for our test program to have that X-band radar.
156

So two things have been happening. The first is, the idea of having the radar at Shemya, against an operational mission in the Pacific, it was an ideal location, just because if you look on a map

where Shemya is in Alaska, it is the closest U.S. territory to North

Korea, for instance. So that was a very good location from an operations standpoint.

We would like, but no decision has been made, to move to a deployment activity that would include that type of radar, so it is not

there in our budget. What is there is an idea that we want to build

another X-band radar for our test program, and we have not decided where that radar should be just yet, whether it would be better in the Hawaiian Island area, whether it would be useful at

Shemya for test purposes, or someplace else, to include a mobile Xband radar on some sort of a sea-based platform. We are in the

process of trying to decide what to do about that, and we have not

made the final decisions on it yet.

There are advantages to each one of those locations for different

reasons.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So Shemya may be in the picture. May I ask

this question? If it is not Shemya, how is this going to affect the

contingency capability you plan to deploy at Fort Greeley?

General KADISH. The contingency capability that might reside at

Fort Greeley would be a lot less than if we had an X-band radar

in that part of the world.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can you quantify that for us——

General KADISH. Well, let me put——

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. In terms of dollars, or any way

you can in an unclassified setting, to quantify it?

General KADISH. What X-band radars and sensors give us of that

nature is the ability to watch a threat warhead very precisely, and

measure things in very minute ways. Let me give you an example.

If we had an X-band radar that we might use for the THAAD

program here in Washington, we can see the rotation of a golf ball

over Seattle in our data. So it is a very useful thing to have. To

get the kind of distances we need up in the missile defense architectures against long-range missiles, these have to be very powerful

radars. If you do not have them, then you are relying only on the

sensors that are less precise than an X-band radar, which is the

kill vehicle—the infrared sensors on the kill vehicle itself, and

some early warning radars that are less accurate in the process,

like the Cobra Dane radar that we might have at Shemya today.

So the idea of an X-band radar addition would be very, very precise

information to guide that interceptor better than would ordinarily

be done.

However, even with those X-band radars not as part of the architecture, there is, we believe, a good capability inherent in the kill

vehicle and our early-warning radars to provide us a missile defense capability should testing prove it to be effective. I do not

know how to say it any better than that. It is not what we want,

but it is useful.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you are saying that the expenditure for

Fort Greeley would remain the same——

General KADISH. It would remain the same.

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. Even if it was not at Shemya?
157

General KADISH. The expenditure for Fort Greeley would remain

the same. If we wanted to add a radar, it would be an increment

of hundreds of millions of dollars above what we are requesting

right now to do Shemya. I think the X-band radar——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Other than using Kwajalin.

General KADISH. Other than using Kwajalin, which is out of position for operational uses.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So we could anticipate that there is going to

be an additional amount.

General KADISH. I think that as we look at deploying more effective missile defenses beyond the testbed, where we would prove the

integration of this system to ourselves, in my view, it would be

more resources required to do that. Yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I guess my time is up. I did

have a couple more questions. May I submit them, please?

Senator INOUYE. Without objection.

MDA SPENDING DATA

General Kadish, to date, the committee has not received any

spending data from your agency for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

Will you assure the committee that prior to our markup of the fiscal year 2003 bill that we will receive spending data from your

agency?

General KADISH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will guarantee it as soon

as we can.

NAVY AREA DEFENSE

Senator INOUYE. I appreciate that. General, as you may recall,

during deliberations of the 2002 defense bill, the Pentagon notified

the committee that it would cancel the Navy area-wide theater missile defense program. This decade-old program was designed to

launch intercept missiles from ships to shoot down incoming warheads, but after having spent about $2.4 billion, and then with expectations that the program might exceed estimates by more than

30 percent, the Pentagon said, ‘‘That is it.’’ However, we have been

advised that such a system still exists.

Earlier this year, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific

Command testified to Congress that terminating the area-wide program was a blow to their plans of deploying ballistic missile defense as quickly to the Pacific theater. The Navy area program was

our only ballistic missile defense system that used the explosive

warhead found on—to destroy a target versus a more technically

complex hit-to-kill technology found on the other BMD systems.

Some argue that using explosive warheads would be more effective

against, again, certain threats, such as Scuds, and less costly.

What do you think is the future of this program? Is it completely

dead?

General KADISH. Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of going

through a very intense look at what we need to do in light of the

Navy area program cancellation right now. I would like to talk to

you more about that in probably 3 or 4 weeks when we get the

final decisions made there, but I would like to say this about the

approach we are taking: We realize that the Navy area program

had a very specific and very valuable contribution to missile de-
158

fense, especially because it is mobile, and a forced-entry requirement exists.

The problem we were having was that we were trying to integrate an infrared sensor with a radar sensor, and even though the

blast fragmentation part of this might add value to it in certain circumstances, we could not make it work without spending a lot

more time and money on it. At the same time, we were advancing

our understanding of the hit-to-kill process.

So what we are doing right now is: We are taking a very comprehensive look at all of our systems, and what we can do to solve

the Navy area void that was created from an operational perspective. We are not ready to tell you what those answers are, because

we have not made the final decision, but they look very promising

in our ability to cover the threats that Navy area was supposed to

cover, and hopefully can do it in a time frame that is not too far

out of line with where we were going with Navy area to begin with.

So if you would indulge me, I would like to wait maybe until the

end of May to report to the committee on exactly what we can do

there, and if we can do it earlier, we will.

Senator INOUYE. General, because of the sensitive nature of the

next question on countermeasures, I will be submitting them for

your consideration.

General KADISH. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Cochran?

Senator COCHRAN. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Feinstein.

THREAT

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have one other question. Just one quick

statement: Being a Californian, and being very concerned as a

member of the intelligence committee about the possibility of a

dirty bomb coming in in a cargo container, and in spending time

in Hong Kong last week with the chief executive and the port people to see how feasible it really is to push our borders to create a

system internationally of search, certify, and sealing these containers, that, to me, seems the threat we face. And this seems such

an unrealistic area, I just cannot point out to you the point/counterpoint of the world we live in, and the world you live in now.

I just have to believe that the terrorist wars that we are in are

not going to end anytime soon—in other words, for the next decade—and the improbability of a missile coming at us from a rogue

nation that cannot be met with a reprisal that would certainly be

so strong, and is so strong that it is an effective deterrent to such

an attack, whereas we have no deterrent to protecting our borders

from what is a very real threat, it kind of boggles my mind. I know

this is not your problem, and I appreciate the work you are doing.

COST CONTROL

Let me ask this last question. The 2003 budget has a lot of

money for missile defense, and what I would like is your assurance

that the program will stay on budget. For example, critics claim

the cost estimate of the airborne laser testing subset is projected

to increase from $10 billion to $23 billion. I would like to know
159

from you whether you believe that is true or false, and whether

this program will stay on budget.

General KADISH. Well, Senator, we are doing everything we can

to make sure that our programs execute the way we plan them, but

we are in a technology area, especially when you talk about something as revolutionary as an airborne laser capability, never been

done before, certainly from an airplane.

I am not sure I can guarantee you that we will not miss our estimates on what it takes to do these types of things, but what I can

tell you is that everything that we are trying to do is—we are going

to manage as best we can to ensure we bring that capability in for

as little dollars as possible, and we are working every day to do

that.

Sometimes we are going to fail, but I do not know really what

the ultimate cost of that capability is going to be right now, because we are at some of the critical phases of the program. But

right now, the costs are under control, to the best of our ability.

The indicators look like we are going to slip the schedule to the

2004 time frame, but even with that, we have a pretty clear idea

of what needs to be done, and what dollars are required to make

it happen.

If we do not meet those goals, we will be back here next year telling you why, but we are doing our best.

THREAT

Senator FEINSTEIN. Of course, it will not do anything for our

problem with containers, 6 million a year which come into this

country, and less than 1 percent searched. You do not have to answer that. It is just——

General KADISH. On a personal note——

Senator FEINSTEIN. I do not mean to be difficult for you, but it

is just—I mean the real world that I see out there, and the world

that this meets, are just so different, it is unbelievable.

General KADISH. Well, Senator, if I could offer to you, we have

some views of the threat that I would be more than happy to share

with you in a classified forum that may give you a different perspective.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would like that very much, if you would,

please. I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I might just say to the distinguished

Senator from California, I did not visit any foreign countries recently to get information, but I would say to you, reference to such

a threat as containers coming into America, and the enormous

quantity and numbers, et cetera, as one of the new threats we have

to confront, I would urge that you or your staff have one or more

of the national laboratories brief you on the kind of technology that

is in the process of being developed just for that kind of thing.

Now, nobody had pushed them heretofore, because this was just

a natural offshoot of some research. Now, obviously, somebody

cares. We have so much potential out there in these fields, but we

did not care about it. There were other things with higher priority,

like the one you just brought to our attention here, but I think you
160

will find in the sciences that there is tremendous breakthroughs on

how they are going to do that, and tell you pretty well how long

it will be before these things are fully developed, et cetera. I think

it would be very helpful, and I thank you for listening.

SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE AVAILABILITY

General, let me ask you: You are involved in leading a program

that probably develops as much American science and technology

as any other program we have. We pride ourselves with the space

program, it is a science-based program, but they are doing—95 percent of what they are doing is the same thing being repeated, with

some improvements, and a few new research prospects. But we are

asking you all to do something very, very different. And I wonder

if your program is suffering from, maybe I would call it brain

drain, or maybe I would say there is not sufficient talent out there

to appropriately bid these projects, and do the work in the fastest

time frame.

I am of the opinion that almost everything the United States is

doing that requires a lot of scientists, a lot of physicists, a lot of

engineers, we are running behind, because we just do not have

enough. Your program is going to require a cadre of the most esoteric applications of physics, and dynamics, and other things. What

is your assessment in that regard?

General KADISH. Well, Senator, we get many tens of thousands

of people working on the program right now, and they are doing

a wonderful job for us, and they are very talented individuals. But

as we look down the road to what we need to do, and where we

need support from the country at large, I worry about it a lot, getting the types of talent we need to sustain that effort, and to make

it better.

The National Team idea of trying to focus talent, going out to the

national laboratories as much as we can, hiring folks that would

not ordinarily be in Government to come into Government, to help

us with this problem, is a challenge that we are trying to face up

to right now.

In fact, if you read closely the letter that authorizes the Missile

Defense Agency, signed by the Secretary in January, one of the key

statements in that letter that I pay a lot of attention to is, is to

try to get the best and the brightest to sustain the effort, and we

are setting in process whatever we can think of to do that.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, General, I would suggest to you—and,

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, if we can—that we permit you to

use whatever you can of your program to excite young brainpower.

We are not getting enough young people enthused about physics,

and chemistry, and engineering, so if different agencies are trying

to excite them, it would seem to me that without an awful lot of

money being required, you could do some of your programs in ways

that some post-docs, maybe double or triple the number of postdocs you have on these programs, because that is the way to get

young talent hooked, and I use that word in its better sense, not

just a pejorative sense, to get them interested.

I would ask, if you are not too busy, if you might assign that to

someone from the standpoint of working with the universities and

laboratories on either post-docs, or guys who are still getting their
161

doctorate, and have as many of them as you can, men, women, and

minorities, get into this observation mode, with a bit of the excitement that comes from this. Obviously, there is a lot of excitement.

General KADISH. Yes, Senator. In fact, that is a pretty good idea

that we probably need to add to our toolbox here, and look at a little bit longer range than we might look for right now. In fact, let

me get back to you on that, and tell me what you—tell you what

we are going to do about it.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

I have three other questions that I will submit for the record, Mr.

Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection, so ordered.

[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 RONALD T. KADISH

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

OVERCOMING COUNTERMEASURES

Question. General Kadish, many argue that the most difficult technical challenge

facing our missile defense program is developing methods to overcome enemy countermeasures. How do you respond to critics who claim we are building a very complex, expensive missile defense system that can be foiled by inexpensive countermeasures such as simple balloon decoys or chaff?

Answer. The Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) addresses the countermeasure challenge two ways—by a layered defense and by evaluating the threat target in many different and complementary ways. The BMDS will provide a capability

to engage ballistic missile threats in all phases of flight. This includes opportunities

to engage threats in their boost phase before they deploy the midcourse type of

countermeasures mentioned in the question. The BMDS will employ sensors with

multiple phenomenologies from which several discrimination features can be generated. Thus the countermeasures mentioned make identification of the warhead

more challenging, but not impossible.

Question. General, this situation appears somewhat similar to the ‘‘arms race’’

mentality of the Cold War: we counter their weapons, they counter our countermeasures and so on. Is there any way to avoid such a ‘‘race?’’

Answer. The question of avoiding an arms race is one the Department has had

to deal with in all mission areas. Countermeasures are part of the natural evolution

of any military capability. Most weapon systems we have today are susceptible to

countermeasures. All weapon systems will be scrutinized by potential adversaries

and probed for weaknesses. In addition, the ‘‘action-reaction’’ cycle is not a new phenomenon, nor is it limited to the development of weapon systems. It also occurs in

operational strategy and tactics. We can, however, slow this cycle by applying appropriate security measures to our development efforts. To the extent we can limit an

adversary’s understanding of our defensive capabilities, we can restrict their ability

to develop countermeasures.

Question. Will future tests of our missile defense system feature more complex decoys and other countermeasures?

Answer. Yes. Our testing gets progressively more challenging. The BMDS will be

tested against the threat capabilities of potential adversaries as described in the Adversary Capabilities Document. Tests will be designed to employ realistic scenarios

and countermeasures. As projected threats become more complex, we will conduct

tests with increasingly more stressing decoys and countermeasures.

Question. General, press reports indicate the Department is considering using nuclear-tipped interceptors as part of our missile defense system. Do you have any

thoughts on this matter?

Answer. MDA is not designing, developing, or testing nuclear-tipped interceptors.

It is Administration policy that we develop our missile defense program using nonnuclear ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ technologies. Our recent flight test history shows that we have
162

proven that ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ is a viable approach. Our current challenge is to show that

our missile defense elements work reliably in increasingly complex environments.

Our Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Bed is intended to demonstrate just that.

THE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE

Question. General Kadish, you have said that managing such a complex program

as missile defense is every bit as challenging as some technology issues we face. To

help meet that challenge, the Department established a new Missile Defense Agency, though this has come with some controversy. General, what are the key management challenges you face and how will the creation of this new agency help you

manage the missile defense program?

Answer. The primary management challenge I face is moving the program from

element-centric to system-centric focus, integrating the formerly independent development efforts into a single system and facilitating the transitions during the acquisition cycle. This emphasizes the importance of communicating our vision to agencies external to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA): the Services, OSD, the Joint

Staff, and the Congress. We are attacking this management challenge using a combination of new and more traditional acquisition, oversight, and coordination processes. When the Secretary of Defense renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization the Missile Defense Agency, he did so in order to underscore the national priority placed on missile defense, and the need to provide the authority and structure

consistent with development of a single, integrated missile defense system. In order

to meet the uniquely complex and unprecedented challenges of developing the Ballistic Missile Defense System, the Secretary will look to the Senior Executive Council (SEC), chaired by the Deputy Secretary along with the Service Secretaries and

the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, for policy and programming guidance. In addition, the Under Secretary has created the Missile Defense Support Group and an associated Working Group for independent analysis

and advice to the SEC and the MDA Director. These groups will help in developing

a shared understanding of the BMDS and its progress. Through their advice and

guidance, they will also help me manage the missile defense program. In order to

communicate our vision to Congress and to help you understand our activities, we

will submit the BMDS RDT&E Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), reports to Congress, our detailed annual Budget Justification documentation, frequent briefings

and information to fulfill Sec. 232 (c) and (d) of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

Question. Concerns have been raised about the MDA’s new acquisition process restricting internal DOD and Congressional oversight. General, can you assure the

Committee that Congress will have complete, unfettered oversight of the missile defense program, as it does for any other acquisition program?

Answer. Yes. Internally, the Department has structured the program to better

manage a very complex set of challenges, and provide for more focused oversight of

MDA. MDA is reviewing all statutory and regulatory requirements in DOD 5000

and assessing how best to meet these requirements. Externally, our accountability

will be just as transparent as in the past. There is no reduction in Congressional

oversight. MDA continues to be subject to the federal acquisition system but is tailoring the traditional acquisition process to: (1) incorporate lessons-learned, (2) better align with best commercial practices, and (3) manage risk more prudently. Congress will continue to receive reports and have oversight of the single BMDS Major

Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) through the BMDS RDT&E System Acquisition Report, budget submissions, reports to Congress, and hearings. The reports will

cover the entire BMDS program of development. Once force structure and production decisions have been made, the relevant procurement information will be available through normal Service channels.

Question. What is the status of the ‘‘national industry team’’ and how will this

team support your efforts to manage the program? Do you anticipate that the members will continue to participate fully once missile defense systems go into production?

Answer. Although the Missile Defense National Team (MDNT) is in its initial

build-up phase, the majority of the team is in place and working. The MDNT is comprised of Government, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers

(FFRDC), System Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contractors, and an

industry team comprised of major defense contractors that are experienced in the

development, integration and production of defense systems. The MDNT industry

team members are currently assessing the existing capabilities of the missile defense elements so the MDNT can design and assess an integrated system. If changes

are necessary, the MDNT industry team will, in collaboration with the rest of the
163

MDNT members, propose modifications to existing elements and/or new program efforts to the Government. (The Government is the determination authority for any

approved programs/modifications and maintains Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) over the BMD System.) The recommendations will be vetted using

a Configuration Control Process chaired by the Government. As changes and new

programs are approved, MDA will provide program direction to the element program

managers. The MDNT, including the MDNT industry components, will continue to

function after the elements go into production. As these elements deliver capabilities, the MDNT will assess those contributions to system performance. In addition,

the MDNT will be continuing to design improvements to the system as threats

change and technologies evolve.

ABM TREATY

Question. General, are there any tests or programs funded in your fiscal year 2003

request that would cause a violation of the ABM Treaty, were we to remain a party

to the treaty?

Answer. Treaty compliance determinations depend on the specifics of the activities

to be undertaken and on the interpretation of the particular treaty provisions applicable to those activities. Since it is not necessary to determine whether MDA activities after June 13, 2002 comply with the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the

Department of Defense is not undertaking the lengthy analysis required to answer

such hypothetical questions. The expiration of the ABM Treaty will provide needed

flexibility and eliminate impediments for all areas of our BMD program. For example:

—Testing of ABM components (to support the development of a Ballistic Missile

Defense System to defeat long-range or ‘‘strategic’’ ballistic missiles) will no

longer be limited to designated ABM test ranges (the United States presently

has two: Reagan Test Site and the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico).

This will allow our agency to test missile defense elements and components

wherever that testing makes the most sense.

—The numerical limitations on ABM components (i.e., missiles, launchers, and radars) set forth in the ABM Treaty, such as no more than 15 ABM test launchers

at ABM test ranges, will no longer constrain our program and activities. This

eliminates the need to divert resources to dismantling ABM components, such

as ABM test launchers, before new ones can be constructed in order to remain

under the treaty’s artificial ceiling.

—Testing and deployment of missile defense components can be done in any basing mode (i.e., sea-based, space-based, air-based, and mobile land-based), all of

which are currently prohibited by the ABM Treaty. This will allow greater flexibility in both the testing and the deployment of our missile defense systems.

The result should be greater protection for the United States, forward deployed

forces, and our allies.

—The concurrent testing of ABM and non-ABM components will no longer be prohibited. This will allow the testing, and ultimately the deployment, of our missile defense systems in ways in which they will be working together with other

missile defense and non-missile defense components (e.g., radars) to maximize

missile defense effectiveness and thus provide greater protection.

The limitations of the ABM Treaty on transferring ABM technology to other nations will expire with the Treaty. This will greatly enhance our ability to engage

in cooperative programs with other nations to develop, produce, and operate a more

capable BMD System.

Question. General, you testified to Congress last year that the Airborne Laser

shoot down test in 2004 would be the first to ‘‘bump up’’ against the ABM Treaty.

Since that test has been delayed to 2005, what is now the first test or activity that

would have violated the Treaty?

Answer. MDA plans for Integrated Flight Test (IFT)-7 (which occurred in December 2001) to use an Aegis radar at the Reagan Test Site to track the interceptor

and to use the Multiple Object Tracking Radar (MOTR) radar at Vandenberg Air

Force Base to track the target were cancelled by the Secretary of Defense after he

determined they would violate the ABM Treaty. Plans to use an Aegis radar and

the MOTR radar in the same manner in IFT–8 (which occurred in March 2002)

were similarly cancelled by the Under Secretary of Defense after he determined,

consistent with the prior decision of the Secretary, that they would also violate the

ABM Treaty. MDA also planned to use an Aegis radar in both IFT–7 and –8 to view

the strategic ballistic missile target as it was being launched from Vandenberg Air

Force Base. These plans raised complicated questions of treaty compliance that

could not readily be resolved. Given the complexity of the compliance issues in-
164

volved, the Under Secretary of Defense directed MDA to cancel plans to use the

Aegis radar in this manner since, even if approved, some could nevertheless argue

that it was a violation of the ABM Treaty. The next flight test in the series, IFT–

9, will be conducted no earlier than July 2002, after the expiration of the ABM Treaty. We plan to use an Aegis radar in IFT–9 to view the strategic ballistic missile

target as it is being launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in order to help us

determine whether Aegis can provide early warning of missile attacks and guide interceptor missiles to their targets. After assessing the outcome of that test, we will

consider ways to more fully integrate it into our Ground-Based Midcourse Defense

tests. The Aegis data from IFT–9 is also needed to develop targeting software for

the entire missile defense system and to improve the operational realism of our testing. As in IFT–7 and –8, questions about whether this type of Aegis participation

in MDA integrated flight tests would be consistent with the ABM Treaty were never

resolved within the Defense Department. The MOTR is no longer needed for IFT–

9 due to high confidence of similar data being available from other sensors, sensors

that participated successfully in IFTs 7 and 8.

It should also be noted that MDA will begin interceptor silo construction in Alaska in late June 2002. Questions about whether these and other portions of the Alaska Test Bed were consistent with the ABM Treaty were never resolved within the

Defense Department.

MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM EXECUTION

Question. General Kadish, missile defense programs received significant funding

increases last year, including programs such as the Airborne Laser and the Theater

High Altitude Area Defense missile. Are you satisfied that these and other programs

under your control are meeting their spending targets for fiscal year 2002?

Answer. I am fully confident that these and other MDA Program Elements will

meet their spending targets. Attached is a forecast that shows our plan to obligate

close to 90 percent of the funds available to MDA in fiscal year 2002.

Program Element Approp

Amount

Program

Amount

Released by

OSD

Actual Obligations

Forecast End

1st Year Obligations

THAAD .......................................................................... 872.481 846.901 846.901 642.265 823.317

NAVY AREA ................................................................... 100.000 96.184 96.184 57.856 97.700

BOOST SEGMENT .......................................................... 608.863 587.824 587.824 364.484 567.847

MIDCOURSE SEGMENT ................................................. 3,820.534 3,675.994 3,475.994 1,725.920 3,444.897

SENSORS SEGMENT ..................................................... 340.600 319.610 319.610 230.451 301.804

PRMRF .......................................................................... 6.571 6.571 6.571 4.100 6.571

BMD SYSTEM ............................................................... 819.084 793.062 793.062 327.145 743.354

PAC–3 (RDT&E) ........................................................... 129.100 131.415 131.415 46.343 112.455

BMD TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 141.090 140.799 140.799 31.543 115.652

MGMT HQ—BMDO ....................................................... 27.758 25.673 25.673 2.917 25.673

TERMINAL SEGMENT .................................................... 203.344 193.308 193.308 38.502 178.106

SMALL BUSINESS (SBIR) .............................................. .................... 145.102 145.102 7.000 129.141

PAC–3 (Proc) ............................................................... 736.574 731.455 671.455 377.361 241.380

MILCON ........................................................................ 8.299 8.169 8.169 1.250 6.355

UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION ........................................ (39.000) .................. .................. .................. ..................

TOTAL .............................................................. 7,775.298 7,702.067 7,442.067 3,857.137 6,794.252

Notes: (1) Obligation and Expenditure data as of 31 March 2002. (2) Program Amount equals Appropriation Amount less Congressional re- ductions to include SBIR.

CONTROVERSIAL PROGRAMS: NAVY AREA-WIDE DEFENSE

Question. General, based on a recommendation from the Pentagon, the Congress

last year eliminated funding for the Navy Area Wide program. Everyone agrees that

there still exists the need for a Navy theater missile defense. What is your plan to

replace the Navy Area Wide program?

Answer. When the Navy Area program was cancelled, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), USD (AT&L), tasked the Missile Defense Agency, in close consultation with the Navy, to address sea-based terminal

ballistic missile defense capability as part of the integrated Ballistic Missile Defense

System (BMDS). We have completed an in-depth review of potential options for development and fielding of a sea-based ballistic missile defense capability and will

provide you with details of the new effort once USD (AT&L) has approved them.

Question. General Kadish, we have heard that the Navy Area Wide program was

particularly important for meeting the threat in the Pacific. How do you respond?
165

Answer. I fully agree that sea-based ballistic missile defense provides an important and needed capability for the Pacific. Of particular note, a sea-based capability

will provide ballistic missile defense in circumstances where deployment of landbased defenses may not be possible, such as underdeveloped theaters of operation

and forced early entry operations.

Question. When do you expect we can field a theater missile defense system in

the Pacific, other than in Korea?

Answer. The Sea-based Midcourse Defense (SMD) element of the Ballistic Missile

Defense System (BMDS) could provide a capability for the Pacific Theater with a

limited production off-ramp decision in fiscal year 2004 with a sea-based option by

late fiscal year 2006. However, with additional funding, an emergency capability

could be available as early as fiscal year 2004.

Question. Some argue that the ‘‘explosive warhead’’ technology found on the Navy

Area Wide missile is better against some threats than the ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ vehicles found

on our other missile defense weapons. Do you agree?

Answer. The lethality community assessed the merits and demerits of both blastfragmentation warheads and hit-to-kill technology earlier this year. Blast-fragmentation warheads have advantages in engagements where the target is maneuvering (e.g. maneuvering air breathers like cruise missiles). However, the current

state of blast-fragmentation technology renders it impractical for exoatmospheric engagements of longer-range threats. In addition, the energy imparted to the target

in the high-speed collisions resulting from intercepts of medium- and long-range ballistic missiles is several orders of magnitude larger for direct body-to-body hits compared to fragments hitting the threat. Hit-to-kill is an environmentally ‘‘clean’’ kill,

better against Weapons of Mass Destruction, technologically proven, has lots of energy without a warhead or nuclear effects.

CONTROVERSIAL PROGRAMS: SBIRS-LOW SATELLITE

Question. General Kadish, the Defense Department is in the midst of radically restructuring the Space-Based Infra-Red Satellite system. What is the status of this

effort and can we expect a complete report on the program prior to our mark up

of the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations bill?

Answer. The Department has restructured the SBIRS Low effort as an element

of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. MDA will develop SBIRS Low using a capability-based acquisition approach and spiral development processes. Existing contracts are being modified and a new contract with TRW is being definitized for the

development work. This restructure is described in a report delivered to the Congressional defense committees on 15 April 2002.

Question. General, your budget requests about $294 million for the SBIRS-Low

program in fiscal year 2003. Given the possibility that there may be radical changes

to the program, how do you know that this figure is correct?

Answer. The restructure of the SBIRS Low activity is already underway. A letter

contract was awarded to TRW to begin work and will be fully definitized later this

fiscal year. For fiscal year 2003, we will pursue parallel development work on Block

2006 satellites supporting the Test Bed and development work on Block 2008 satellites incorporating next-generation sensors and other components. The $294 million budget request in fiscal year 2003 adequately funds the restructured program.

We will address out-year funding adjustments to support the restructured program

as part of our fiscal year 2004–2009 planning process.

Question. Some argue that a land-based radar system can replace the Space-based

system. Do you agree?

Answer. No. An effective BMDS capability will eventually require the appropriate

mix of both land-based radar and space-based infrared sensors. Although a landbased radar system could provide an initial capability against near-term adversary

capabilities along limited projected threat delivery corridors, MDA believes that

SBIRS Low must proceed on the current development path to provide a credible capability against projected countermeasures for four reasons. First, although a large

number of land-based X-band radar systems placed at strategic locations around the

world could provide much of the sensor capability that a BMDS needs, radar effectiveness is limited against some projected adversary countermeasures. Second, an

all-radar strategy using forward-deployed land-based radars relies on foreign basing

in specific regions. The uncertainty in the U.S. ability to secure host nation agreements in the specific regions required is a very significant issue. Third, land-based

radar is inherently limited to above-the-horizon sensing. Fourth, as adversary capabilities proliferate, threat delivery corridors increase to the point that a space-based

system, that can track attacks from any point on the globe, becomes an essential

element in the BMDS sensor mix. A BMDS with both land-based radar and SBIRS
166

Low would provide the integrated sensor performance that an effective BMDS

needs. Land-based radar and SBIRS Low’s infrared technology are complementary

and the combination is expected to be highly effective against countermeasures.

Question. How would the costs of a land-based radar system compare to a spacebased system? Is a land-based system feasible from an international political perspective?

Answer. The most desirable mix of sensors is dependent on their integrated performance, cost, risk, and national need. MDA is currently evaluating integrated sensor performance, including some sensors that have previously not been considered

due to ABM Treaty limitations. Therefore, the relative cost of land-based radar and

a space-based infrared system is not known at this time.

Although the possibility of a land-based defense for allies has not been formally

discussed, there is no reason at this time to rule out such a system from an international political perspective.

CONTROVERSIAL PROGRAMS: THE THAAD MISSILE

Question. General Kadish, last year’s Defense Appropriations Conference Report

directed that no funding for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile program be used ‘‘to accelerate THAAD pre-production or deployment unless the

Secretary of Defense certifies to [Congress] that threats to our national security or

military forces warrant otherwise.’’ Is there funding in your fiscal year 2003 THAAD

budget request for pre-production of extra missiles, radars, or other items not essential for the test program?

Answer. There is $40 million in fiscal year 2003 associated with the THAAD element acquiring 10 additional test configuration missiles for the BMDS Test Bed.

These test missiles will include telemetry/safety instrumentation and were originally planned to be acquired later in the baseline program. Fiscal year 2003 funding

is needed to meet a delivery schedule in fiscal year 2006 versus fiscal year 2008,

as defined in the current baseline. There is no fiscal year 2003 funding non-missile

components that are not essential to the currently planned Block 04 flight test program. (Note: the decision to acquire those additional assets would occur in fiscal

year 2004).

Question. General Kadish, your budget request includes the purchase of 10 additional THAAD missiles beyond the amount needed for the testing program. Why is

the purchase of these missiles necessary?

Answer. The 10 test-configuration missiles will support BMDS Test Bed risk reduction initiatives such as supplementing the minimal missile spares for early qualification testing, additional controlled flight tests, and earlier availability of production representative spares. Acquiring these missiles will give the program flexibility

to build on successful flight tests or repeat flight tests in which anomalies occur.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM HARKIN

NUCLEAR INTERCEPTORS

Question. According to recent press reports, the administration is investigating

the option of using nuclear interceptors for mid-course missile defense. What would

be the health effects of a nuclear explosion at likely intercept points?

Answer. MDA is not designing, developing, or producing nuclear-tipped interceptors.

Question. What would be the radioactive fallout over what area?

Answer. Since no part of MDA’s program involves nuclear interceptors, I cannot

answer this question.

Question. What would be the effects on the ground and on satellites of an electromagnetic pulse, the blast, and other phenomena due to the explosion?

Answer. Since no part of MDA’s program involves nuclear interceptors, I cannot

answer this question.

Question. Could a nuclear missile defense system allow a nation with ICBM’s to

cause a nuclear explosion without using a nuclear warhead of their own?

Answer. Yes, a non-nuclear threat intercepted by a nuclear-tipped interceptor

would likely result in a high-altitude nuclear detonation. However, no part of MDA’s

program involves nuclear interceptors.

Question. Would a nuclear interceptor require development of a new nuclear

weapon?

Answer. No part of MDA’s program involves nuclear-tipped interceptors.

Question. How could a nuclear interceptor be tested?
167

Answer. Since MDA’s program does not involve nuclear interceptors, we have not

explored testing of nuclear interceptors.

Question. Would the tests violate the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? Would they violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?

Answer. Unless the tests involved actual nuclear detonations, they would not violate either the Limited Test Ban Treaty or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

FORT GREELY AND EARLY CAPABILITY

Question. The administration has proposed building missile defense sites in Alaska not only for testing but also for a limited emergency defense capability by 2004.

What types of interceptors do you plan to deploy at Fort Greely? Will those interceptors have been tested as part of the Integrated Flight Test program by 2004? Will

operational testing for the interceptors have begun by 2004?

Answer. The Boeing Company, the prime contractor for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element, selected Orbital Sciences Corporation and Lockheed

Martin Missiles and Space as its subcontractors to develop candidate boosters for

consideration in the BMDS Test Bed. Lockheed Martin will build and integrate an

upgraded and modified version of the existing Boeing Ground-Based Interceptor

(GBI) boost vehicle design. Orbital will build and integrate a second source booster

vehicle using existing or slightly modified versions of existing Orbital boost vehicles.

MDA will test versions of the boosters in two non-intercept booster vehicle tests beginning in February 2003. MDA plans to test these vehicles against targets in IFT–

14 and IFT–15, planned for 1Q and 2Q fiscal year 2004, respectively. No booster

test launches are currently planned at Fort Greely.

The Secretary of Defense’s January 2, 2002 memorandum states that MDA is responsible for Developmental Test and Evaluation. When a decision is made to transition an element’s block configuration to a Service for procurement and operation,

an Operational Test Agent will be assigned, and Operational Test and Evaluation

will be conducted at the end of the transition phase of acquisition.

Question. Will X-band radar or SBIRS-Low be in place by 2004 that can track

missile trajectories from North Korea to the United States?

Answer. Neither an XBR nor SBIRS Low satellites will be in place by 2004. MDA

is refining the requirements for a test XBR at this time, and will begin environmental analysis of the proposal as soon as it is sufficiently defined. MDA plans to

initiate development of the Test XBR in fiscal year 2003 and proposes that the Test

XBR be interoperable with the Extended Test Range (ETR) Test Bed as soon as possible. Both the Test XBR and the ETR test bed are independently useful and would

each help the development of missile defense. The first SBIRS Low satellites are

planned to be launched in the 2006/2007 timeframe, providing limited coverage on

such trajectories.

Question. What reason will we have for any confidence that in 2004 we could defend against even one missile with simple countermeasures?

Answer. With treaty restrictions lifted, the opportunity exists to bring in additional sensors to enhance tracking, discrimination, and identification of reentry vehicles. Technology initiatives, like the ‘‘Critical Measurements Program,’’ provide

data to refine radar discrimination algorithms aiding identification of the reentry

vehicle among debris and intentional countermeasures.

Question. What is the budget for fiscal year 2003 and for future years for missile

defense work at Fort Greely?

Answer. Fort Greely Estimate: Fiscal year 2003—$209.453; fiscal year 2004—

$136.725.

Notes: 1. Fiscal year 2003-fiscal year 2004 funding is based on estimates in fiscal

year 2003 Budget Estimate Submission (Feb 02) R–3 Exhibits and 1391s. MDA had

not definitized the contract with Boeing at the time of the fiscal year 2003 Budget

Estimate Submission.

2. As stated in the R–3 Exhibit: ‘‘The funding specific breakouts within the Prime

Contractor/Boeing section of the R–3 are an estimate. At the time of the fiscal year

2003 Budget Estimate Submission, the contract was not definitized for the restructured Ground-based Midcourse Defense capability-based acquisition strategy. In addition, even when definitized, the Prime Contractor has the responsibility to balance

resources across the GMD program and allocate funding according to program

progress. This may require the Prime Contractor to reallocate funding, which would

change the components’ estimates, provided in this R–3 document.’’

Question. Are there any legal restrictions against flight tests at Fort Greely? If

so, please explain. Are you actively seeking the legal right to conduct flight test

launches from Fort Greely?
168

Answer. MDA will analyze any major federal action that may significantly affect

the human environment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). We will also comply with Department of Defense safety requirements. In

addition, we will also comply with any applicable Alaskan statutes and regulations.

At present, we are still determining the feasibility and value of conducting a limited

number of Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) flight tests from Fort Greely. If we determine that such tests would be feasible and of value, we will initiate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to NEPA. We will not make any decision

on whether to conduct flight tests from Fort Greely until an EIS is completed and

evaluated. Nevertheless, the GMD test facilities at Fort Greely will assist in the development of an effective GMD regardless of whether flight tests are ever conducted

from Fort Greely.

Question. I understand the January 2, 2002 memo outlining the creation of the

Missile Defense Agency says it is a DOD priority to ‘‘use prototype tests assets to

provide early capability.’’ The memo also exempts missile defense from traditional

testing requirements. Section 232(f) of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization

bill requires a plan for demonstrating each critical missile defense technology ‘‘before that technology enters into operational service’’ and requires the Director of

Operational Test and Evaluation to ‘‘monitor the development of [this] plan . . .’’

Do you plan to demonstrate each critical technology before entering any early contingency capability into operational service, and will the testing be monitored by the

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation?

Answer. As prototypes and test assets become available, they could provide early

contingency capability. A decision to deploy test assets to provide early contingency

capability would depend upon the success of testing as well as other factors. MDA

will conduct development testing. This testing characterizes the technical capability

and military utility of the technologies, technical integration and progress toward

making recommendations for transition and procurement of a missile defense element or system.

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) will monitor testing. The

Director, OT&E will annually review and report on the adequacy and sufficiency of

the MDA test program during the preceding fiscal year. The Director, OT&E, is on

the Missile Defense Support Group (MDSG) and will advise USD (AT&L) and the

Director, MDA throughout the development and transition phases.

Question. What restrictions are in place to ensure that the Pentagon does not continue spiral development of ‘‘test assets’’ indefinitely, avoiding the ‘‘transition’’ phase

described in the January 2 memo and thus the requirement to produce Operational

Requirements Documents?

Answer. The missile defense program is subject to extensive, periodic departmental and congressional oversight. MDA will continue to provide detailed budget

justification materials, an annual BMDS RDT&E Selected Acquisition Report (SAR),

reports to Congress, and recurring congressional briefings. In addition, MDA is subject to independent review from agencies such as GAO. The Department will also

conduct detailed and frequent reviews of the program. It is not our intent to systematically develop operational assets from RDT&E. This does not mean that test assets could not be used in an emergency, nor does it mean that we would not develop

the test infrastructure that could later be used as part of the operational infrastructure. Our program plans include transitioning militarily useful developed capability

to the Services for production, which would be governed by an ORD. The Secretary

specifically charged the Senior Executive Council (SEC), chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to oversee MDA as it transitions programs to the Services for procurement. MDA reports to the SEC at least annually, and these reviews verify that

MDA transitions effective capabilities to the Services for procurement and terminates systems that do not deliver the anticipated performance.

ORGANIZATION AND OVERSIGHT

Question. What independent operational or developmental testing is now planned

for missile defense technologies? When in the developmental process will the independent testing occur? Who will conduct it?

Answer. When the Senior Executive Council (SEC) decides that a block configuration of an element of the BMDS is ready to enter the Transition phase, an Operational Test Agent will be designated. Focused operational testing will be conducted

prior to the end of the transition phase.

Question. Who will certify that a missile defense technology is ready for production?

Answer. When an element of a BMDS block capability has adequately demonstrated sufficient technological maturity, MDA and JTAMDO will jointly assess
169

its military utility. Upon a recommendation from the Director, MDA, that the

BMDS or a BMDS element should be considered for transition to production, and

after approval by the Senior Executive Council, USD(AT&L) will establish necessary

product teams to support a production decision by the DAB. USD(AT&L), as the Defense Acquisition Executive, would sign any resulting Acquisition Decision Memorandum for an element’s production.

Question. Please explain in detail how a ‘‘capability-based’’ requirements process

and a capability-based ORD would work. How would these requirements relate to

actual and significant threats?

Answer. In the classic CJCSI 3170 ORD generation process, the user lists desired

system performance characteristics that are heavily based upon current estimates

of the threat and assumptions about the state of technological maturity. Once written, the ORD then undergoes a lengthy validation, review and approval process. The

ORD is rarely changed, and changes can take several years to implement. A key

weakness of this approach is its heavy reliance upon very precise threat and technology estimates. While both the intelligence community and industry offer their

‘‘best-guess’’ at the time, projections in these two critical areas are noted for high

rates of change due to their dynamic environments. The current system does not

accommodate this change well. ORD-based acquisition is well designed for procurements involving well-known technologies, proven systems, sizable production runs,

established operational experience, and single-Service acquisition. None of that yet

exists for missile defense. For example, a weakness is that classic ORDs tend to be

single element (e.g., satellite, aircraft, ship, missile, or weapon) focused. This can

downplay recognition that an element might be a component of an overall larger

system with mutually supporting elements, and result in artificially high performance thresholds being set. In the ‘‘capability-based’’ requirements process the user,

tester, and developer work together, rather than sequentially, to develop the right

balance between what is needed and what is possible. Once a military useful capability has been demonstrated and validated, it is captured in a capability-based

ORD that then guides procurement and production. The capability-based ORD is

simply a specialized version of the existing CJCSI 3701.1B formatted document. In

lieu of system performance estimates however, operational performance characterizations are used. In keeping with the capability-based approach, the threat is described in terms of technological capability, rather than addressing threat systems

of specific adversaries. This will prevent designing missile defenses to ‘‘point solutions’’ that could prove not to match actual threats. Other facets of the standard

ORD that speak to the suitability and supportability of the system remain unchanged. Further, as the system element transitions to a Service, the capabilitybased ORD will be brought through the traditional Joint Requirements Oversight

Council process.

The capability-based approach defers commitment to procurement until a capability is actually demonstrated. It allows trade-offs to be made during development,

and it can adjust to changes in the threat and to advances in technology during the

period of development. It accelerates the process to field a BMD capability by deferring areas that can be improved over time to later builds. Moreover, by recognizing

elements are part of an overarching BMDS, it expands the capability trade space

across the entire system. The result provides sufficient flexibility to balance effectiveness against cost, and gives greater overall responsiveness to address changes

in the threat as they occur.

Question. Both the Pentagon and the Congress have been well served by the independent assessments of the panels headed by Gen. Larry Welch. Will the MDA continue to get unclassified assessments from the Welch panel and/or from similar panels?

Answer. The MDA leadership values General Welch’s insight and objectivity. We

are currently making use of his expertise and advice by including him on our Red,

White and Blue countermeasures/counter-countermeasures evaluation process. We

plan to continue to do so in the future.

The newly-formed Missile Defense Support Group and Working Group, as well as

others such as the Defense Science Board, RAND Corporation, National Academies

of Science and Engineering, and JASONs will serve as independent assessment panels for MDA.

Question. If so, will those assessments, or unclassified versions of classified assessments, be made public, as they sometimes were in the past?

Answer. To the extent possible, consistent with security considerations, we intend

to make the results of these assessments (or an unclassified version of them) public

on a case-by-case basis.

Question. What is the current status and funding of the Red, Blue, and White

teams created to increase the robustness of the countermeasures element of the mis-
170

sile defense testing program, and how are they being integrated into the MDA’s missile defense development program?

Answer. Fiscal year 2002 funding for the Countermeasures/Counter-counter- measures (CM/CCM) program is $18.62 million. Funding for fiscal year 2003 is $30

million. The CM/CCM program now features two separate adversary teams, Red

and Black, to identify potential countermeasures. The Red Team, limited to open

source information on the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), provides an

‘‘outsider’s’’ view of the BMDS and its potential susceptibilities. The Black Team,

with full access to all technical information on the BMDS, provides an ‘‘insider’’ aspect. The White Team approved the first adversary countermeasure on January 31,

2002. The Blue Team is currently assessing the performance of the BMDS against

this countermeasure and developing potential solutions to mitigate risks.

The CM/CCM program transitions Blue Team solutions with significant potential

to improve the performance of the BMDS against countermeasures to a development

and test program to demonstrate capability improvements. Solutions that successfully demonstrate the potential to improve our capabilities against countermeasures

may then be programmed for integration into BMDS block upgrades.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

NUCLEAR WARHEADS

Question. Recent media reports indicate we may be once again considering the use

of nuclear-tipped warheads as part of a national missile defense system. Many feel

this new initiative indicates there are problems with the ‘‘hit to kill’’ approach (no

dedicated warhead, rather a kinetic impact). Additionally, a nuclear detonation at

any of the three flight trajectories (boost, mid-course or terminal) will have grave

consequences in terms of EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) interference with satellites,

as well as nuclear fall-out over populated areas. Given the negative strategic, political and health ramifications of such a proposal, should we be considering it as an

option?

Answer. MDA is not designing, developing, or producing nuclear-tipped interceptors. In fact, one of the benefits of a layered missile defense system is the potential

to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost phase, so that the scenario described could

be avoided altogether. Matters related to your question are under the cognizance of

DTRA.

COSTS

Question. The 2003 defense budget request contains a significant amount of

money for missile defense. Given the high costs that have already been projected

for strictly RDT&E (Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation), can you assure us the program will stay on budget? For example, critics claim the cost estimate of Airborne Laser (ABL) testing, a subset of missile defense, is projected to

increase from $10 billion to $23 billion.

(Source—Phil Coyle, former DOD head of testing and evaluation).

Answer. We are doing everything we can to make sure that our program activities

are executed the way we plan them. However, there are a number of uncertainties

in the missile defense technology development area, especially in the area of airborne laser development. This is a revolutionary, unprecedented development activity involving cutting-edge technologies. Precise estimates of costs and schedule projections for this type of development activity are not realistic.

MDA is committed to manage as best it can to ensure the development of an Airborne Laser capability in a fiscally responsible manner. Currently, costs are under

control.

TESTS

Question. General Kadish, in prior statements you indicated you would conduct

monthly testing in order to either prove or disprove the technologies required for

a missile defense system. While the rate of testing appears to have increased, the

quality of the tests continues to be a source of contention. Can you confirm that we

have in fact embarked on an aggressive testing schedule that will adequately address the real world intercept and decoy scenarios a missile defense system may

face? 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. I can confirm that we are on an aggressive testing schedule. As an illustration, in the last 10 months we conducted 14 flight tests. In the next 5 months,

we plan to conduct 12 more flight tests. Our aggressive test philosophy is based on
171

adding complexity such as countermeasures in a step-by-step fashion over time. This

approach allows us to make timely assessments of the most critical design risk

areas. It is a walk-before-you-run, learn-as-you-go development approach with testing in more realistic operational scenarios occurring later in the test cycle. Testing

activities are stepping up the pace and provide critical information that reduces developmental risk and improves our confidence that a capability under development

is progressing as intended. While our tests show increasingly capable systems, the

timeline to deploying parts or all of the BMD System is dependent upon the needs

of the nation. As prototypes and test assets become available, they could provide

early capability. As in all defense systems, the military utility of a proven capability

will be a major factor in deciding whether and when it is deployed. Our concept calls

for the Secretary, with input from the Senior Executive Council, and based on recommendation by the Director, MDA, and the Military Services, to decide whether

to use RDT&E assets for a contingency or emergency deployment. For other than

an contingency or emergency deployment (i.e., to transition an element to procurement and operations), the Director, MDA, would recommend that the element

should be considered for transition, and after approval by the Senior Executive

Council, USD(AT&L) would establish necessary product teams to support a production decision by the DAB. USD(AT&L), as the Defense Acquisition Executive, would

sign any resulting Acquisition Decision Memorandum for an element’s production.

GENERAL/BUDGET OVERSIGHT

Question. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced in January a re-organization

of our missile defense efforts, creating the Missile Defense Agency, which you head.

The current fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization bill included several new reporting requirements that were applied to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

and various organizations, such as the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation

(DOT&E), that have some oversight or review responsibilities for our missile defense

program. When do you expect to finish the report to Congress on cost, schedule,

testing and performance goals for ballistic missile defense programs required under

Section 232 of the fiscal year 2002 defense bill, which was due on February 1 of

this year?

Answer. We believe we have satisfied that requirement with the details provided

in our annual budget submission, delivered to Congress earlier this year. The fiscal

year 2003 budget estimate provides information on long-term program goals. Specifically, the estimate provides funding requirements for the next six years, by year.

It also provides schedule, including hardware and software deliveries, to the extent

known, and planned decision points and test events for all program activities at

least through completion of the planned testing and evaluation of the prototype.

TEST BED/X-BAND RADAR

Question. In earlier years, we were told that the X-band radar on Shemya Island

was critical to the effectiveness of the national missile defense. Now your R–2 documents show that you plan ‘‘initial development of a Test X-Band Radar (XBR),’’ but

it is unclear if that will be at Shemya Island or not. Where will the Test XBR be

located? If it is not at Shemya Island, how will this affect the ‘‘contingency capability’’ you plan to deploy at Fort Greely? And is it not correct that, even with an

upgraded COBRA DANE radar on Shemya Island, the ‘‘contingency capability’’ will

be severely limited in its discrimination capabilities?

Answer. The revised GMD program concentrates on development of the initial

GMD parts of the BMDS Test Bed by the end of fiscal year 2004 rather than on

deployment of a specific system. As we examine the overall BMDS and potential architectures for the expanded RDT&E program, MDA has not determined the optimal location for an XBR. It would be premature to commit to any specific site as

part of the BMDS Test Bed if it were not going to be part of an operational system.

As such, the decision on the XBR at Shemya can be postponed.

The critical functions to be performed by an XBR are to detect, acquire, track, and

discriminate. Other radars and surrogates will be included in the Test Bed—such

as the COBRA DANE, the Navy’s AEGIS, the XBR–P at RTS, and the FPQ–14

Radar in Hawaii—and contribute to the performance of these functions to a greater

or lesser degree. Discrimination is the function done most effectively by the XBR,

but even this function can be performed in part by the EKVs on-board sensors and

computer. Even in a system that includes an XBR, the final discrimination and target selection will be performed by the EKV. Any contingency capability will provide

a militarily useful capability that we do not now possess against the threat expected

at that time.
172

OVERSIGHT AND TEST BED

Question. All of this work to construct the test bed is being done under RDT&E,

rather than under Military Construction. You are, you say, now using a ‘‘spiral development’’ process, where you will use block upgrades to gradually improve existing

capabilities. Also, following Secretary Rumsfeld’s January announcement, you are

exempt from several oversight requirements, such as producing Operational Requirements Documents, or ORDs, until you enter the transition phase after a decision has been made to procure the system. Given the ‘‘Block’’ nature of your approach, and your intent to have the capability to field other test systems beyond the

interceptors at Fort Greely with ‘‘contingency capabilities,’’ at what point in the

process does the ‘‘Block’’ upgrades shift from RDT&E to Military Construction budgets, from exemption from ORDs to requirements for them? Is there anything to stop

you from, under the RDT&E budget and spiral development, adding five more ‘‘test’’

interceptors every two years, until you have fielded 20 or 40 or 100 interceptors,

without ever entering the transition phase, without ever using Military Construction funds, and without ever being required to produce an ORD?

Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Authorization Act authorized the Missile Defense

Agency to use RDT&E funds for construction projects to establish and operate the

Missile Defense System Test Bed. The authority was capped at $500 million. This

cap would not allow the Missile Defense Agency to periodically add RDT&E funded

‘‘test’’ interceptors or other testing infrastructure without Congressional action to

extend the authority to use RDT&E funds for construction of a multi-element Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Bed. The missile defense program is subject to

extensive, periodic departmental and congressional oversight. We will continue to

provide detailed budget justification materials, an annual BMDS RDT&E Selected

Acquisition Report (SAR), reports to Congress, and recurring congressional briefings. In addition, we are subject to independent review from agencies such as GAO.

The Department will also conduct detailed and frequent reviews of the program.

While test assets could be used in an emergency, our program plans include

transitioning militarily useful developed capability to production, which would be

governed by an ORD.

Furthermore, while the Test Bed could provide a limited contingency capability,

it could not meet the requirements for missile defense as envisioned by the National

Missile Defense Act of 1999. Formal procurement and operation require a capabilitybased ORD. The ORD will be developed in the transition phase and be based on

capability definitions determined in coordination with the Services. The capabilitybased ORD will be brought through the traditional Joint Requirements Oversight

Council (JROC) process prior to the Procurement and Operations phase.

MIDCOURSE BUDGET

Question. Although it is somewhat difficult to track because of the switch away

from individual system budgets to more broad Terminal, Midcourse, and Boost

phase budgets, it seems that after a very large increase in the budget in fiscal year

2002 for the Midcourse Defense Segment, that budget is now being reduced fairly

dramatically, from $3.76 billion to $3.19 billion. What is the reason for such a drop

in funding? Are you having trouble actually spending all of the substantial increases

in funding that you got this year? That overall budget, however, also shows an enormous increase by 2005 in the budget for the Sea-based Midcourse Defense, from

$426 million in fiscal year 2003 to $742 million on 2005. What is the justification

for that increase?

Answer. MDA has requested funding necessary to carry out the described tasks

in both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. The higher spending in fiscal year

2002 is due in part to the ramp up of the BMDS Test Bed development and construction. MDA is not having trouble spending the funding that was authorized and

appropriated. In fact, we expect to obligate over 90 percent of these funds by the

end of fiscal year 2002. The increase in funding for the Sea-based Midcourse Defense (SMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System between fiscal year

2003 and fiscal year 2005 can be attributed to the fact that SMD Block 2008/2010

will be engaged in concept definition work in fiscal year 2003/2004, with the actual

engineering of the SMD Block 2008/2010 beginning in earnest in fiscal year 2005.

This is in addition to the ongoing development of the Aegis LEAP Intercept 2004

Test Bed.
173

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

AIRBORNE LASER

Question. General, it has come to my attention that since MDA took over the ABL

program from the Air Force, testing for knocking down an in-flight ballistic missile

has been pushed back by one year to 2004.

Would you please comment on what lead to this schedule change in ABL testing,

and would you outline what the modified testing program will look like?

Answer. The ABL program was restructured to meet MDA’s management strategy

of lower risk and higher schedule confidence for all Ballistic Missile Defense System

(BMDS) elements. The schedule for the original ABL acquisition strategy focused on

one test aircraft, the PDRR aircraft, now called Block 2004 ABL. The strategy was

to immediately transition to an Engineering and Manufacturing Development aircraft followed by a production decision. This was an aggressive schedule, relying

upon the ability to make a production decision with only a limited amount of actual

flight test data from one aircraft. The strategy also called for rapid prototyping to

enhance capability between the PDRR and the EMD/production representative systems.

The new MDA ABL strategy seeks more actual flight test data and technology

maturity through the development of a more advanced prototype. This spiral strategy will reduce concurrency, provide increased duration for testing, and extend manufacturing durations for unique high energy laser and optical components.

Question. Also, it is my understanding that MDA plans to apply the principles of

spiral development to ABL. Could you give us a sense of how this will impact the

overall schedule of the program, and how will it help get ABL into operation sooner?

Answer. Spiral development is an iterative process where the user, tester, and developer continually interact, providing ongoing feedback to help develop the best capability within a block increment. This process facilitates more timely capability

trades and reduces decision cycle time. This process can accelerate ABL to operational status sooner than the previously used requirements-based approach since

the warfighter can accept the system at a given point during development, once a

militarily useful capability has been demonstrated, rather than forcing the expenditure of extra time and funds to reach inflexible, predetermined requirements.

Question. Two final questions on ABL—first, are you proceeding with lethality

tests at Kirtland Air Force base? Secondly, could you tell me about the changes

MDA has proposed to the ABL Environmental Impact Statement? I understand that

MDA held public hearings on this issue just this week in Albuquerque and I am

curious to know if you received any feedback on those hearings.

Answer. Yes, we are proceeding with lethality tests at Kirtland Air Force Base

as planned.

MDA is preparing a supplement to the 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to cover specific proposed test activities and locations identified since

the FEIS. These activities include ground tests of the tracking and beacon illuminator lasers, and the surrogate high energy laser over a 12–15 km distance at

Edwards AFB. They also include flight tests of the lasers using airborne target

boards at White Sands Missile Range.

In general, there was little public concern raised at the public scoping meetings

held as part of the Supplemental EIS environmental review process. A total of four

public scoping meetings were held: two in California (Lancaster, CA on April 1, and

Lompoc, CA on April 3) and two in New Mexico (Albuquerque on April 15 and Las

Cruces on April 17). No one provided comments for the record at the public meetings in New Mexico. Five people provided comments at the California meetings. Two

spoke in favor of the proposed action, and three people indicated concerns about potential impacts.

WSMR TESTING

Question. As you know General, White Sands Missile Range hosts testing for both

the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC–3). Could you talk about what you have learned from the data you

collected following the PAC–3 testing in February? I understand that it missed its

cruise missile target, have you determined why? Is this a serious setback for your

plans to proceed with full-rate production of PAC–3?

Answer. The mission conducted in February was a partial success, as the majority

of objectives were met or partially met. The principal focus of the test was to assess

PAC–3 performance in a simultaneous engagement against multiple air-breathing

threats. The most stressing of the three engagements was the successful intercept

with a PAC–2 missile of an attacking aircraft employing a weave maneuver and
174

electronic countermeasures. Another PAC–2 engaged, but failed to intercept the

subscale airbreathing threat (ABT) due to a radar transmitter fault just prior to

warhead fuzing. The fault interrupted the terminal guidance processing, and prevented uplinking the fuze-enable command to the interceptor. The system went into

auto-recovery (within one second) in time to support the successful PAC–2 engagement of the aircraft. The PAC–3 engaged, but failed to intercept the cruise missile,

due to the Fire Solution Computer incorrectly calculating the Predicted Intercept

Point. This led to inaccurate missile cueing. We have determined that the missile

performed nominally, however without an accurate cue the target remained outside

the field of view of the missile seeker. The Army Lower Tier Project Office and the

prime contractors have reviewed the OT–3 data and have charted a course for both

near-term and long-term improvements to the PAC–3 Missile Software and Ground

System Software. Operational testing of PAC–3 is continuing and we remain on

track to conduct a production decision review of the PAC–3 element this fall.

Question. With respect to THAAD, when will you resume testing and what factors

will determine this? Is full-rate production still on target for 2008?

Answer. THAAD Flight Testing will resume at WSMR in the 4th quarter of fiscal

year 2004. Prior to flight testing, THAAD is undergoing rigorous ground testing over

the next two years to ensure the highest probability of success in developmental and

operational flight testing with production representative missiles and radars. To

vastly improve quality, reliability, and producibility, every component of the THAAD

missile, radar, BM/C2 and launcher was redesigned over the past two years, and

will culminate in a Critical Design Review in early fiscal year 2004. Additionally,

engineering level testing (wind tunnel, shock, vibration, thermal, and other environmental and hardware-in-the-loop testing) is occurring over the next two years to

verify designs as they are being completed. I am confident that should the Department decide to field THAAD in its current configuration as part of our BMDS block

construct, we will be able to enter the production phase by 2008, if not earlier.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

SBIR

Question. On January 29, 2002, Senator Kerry and I sent a letter to Secretary

Rumsfeld concerning a provision in the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act

(H.R. 3338/Public Law 107–117) that exempted the Department of Defense’s ballistic missile defense programs from full participation in the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program. On March 1, 2002, I received an interim response.

I have yet to receive a final response from the Department. When will this response

be forthcoming and does the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) intend to honor its full

contribution to the SBIR program in lieu of the exemption contained in Public Law

107–117?

Answer. The OSD Comptroller’s Office has advised us that the final reply, dated

April 17, 2002, has been forwarded to you and Senator Kerry. MDA intends to fully

participate in the SBIR program in fiscal year 2002 and the Department’s response

reflects this commitment.

Question. As the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process is underway, will MDA

assure that the agency will not seek any reduction, legislatively or otherwise, in its

SBIR obligations for fiscal year 2003? Will MDA also notify me immediately if MDA

becomes aware of any proposed or pending legislative provision that would limit

MDA’s SBIR obligation for fiscal year 2003?

Answer. MDA is not seeking any reduction to its SBIR requirement for fiscal year

2003. However, the OSD Comptroller has initiated a legislative proposal to clarify

the fiscal year 2002 language, should a similar provision appear in the fiscal year

2003 legislation, to ensure that any SBIR limitation for MDA can only be interpreted as a floor, not a cap, thus leaving fully available the flexibility for the Department to increase the MDA’s SBIR participation to the full amount required by

the SBIR Act.

Question. At the National Defense Industrial Association in April 2001, Mr. Richard Sokol of MDA made a speech on your behalf citing successes that the Ballistic

Missile Defense Organization (the predecessor to MDA) has had with the SBIR and

the Small Business Tech Transer (STTR) Program. What is MDA doing to strengthen these programs and how is MDA assisting the development and commercialization of technologies and products developed through these programs?

Answer. MDA considers the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program

a valuable resource. MDA considers SBIR a significant opportunity to reach out to

the Small Business Community for products that will support our mission, and sup-
175

ports the dual-use nature of the SBIR as being advantageous to MDA and the nation. The MDA program roadmap will be employed to identify the opportunities

where SBIR can be made a partner. To strengthen the program, an MDA SBIR

Steering Group, under the direction of Rear Admiral Paige, has been empowered to

lead this process, while an MDA SBIR Working Group has been established to provide coordination for SBIR topics, evaluations, and execution. MDA conducts an extensive outreach program, participating in conferences and trade shows around the

country to specifically encourage Small Business participation in the MDA SBIR

Program.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

AIRBORNE LASER (ABL)

Question. General, the President’s budget submission reflects a restructuring of

the ABL program. Are you confident that the Boeing-led contractor team will be

able to follow this more realistic plan?

Answer. MDA conducted an extensive program assessment for the ABL element

and restructured the program to reduce risk and increase schedule confidence. We

are confident that the current schedule can be maintained, provided no unforeseen

technical challenges arise. We will continue to evaluate the program to ensure satisfactory progress.

Question. ABL appears to be a system that holds great promise for destroying

missiles in the boost phase. With its impending entry into service—and realizing

that some facilities will have to be constructed to adequately house this new system—when will the site selection be made for the ‘‘bed down’’ location for this system and when will the criteria for this selection be identified?

Answer. I deferred this question to the Air Force, as they are the responsible

agency. They have provided the following information. Determining the criteria for

selection of the ABL ‘‘bed down’’ location is an ongoing process and the responsibility of the Air Force’s gaining command, Air Combat Command. The process will

optimize aircraft, mission, and operations requirements to identify usually 2 to 3 potential locations. This process is underway for ABL but not complete. The notional

timeline for ‘‘bedding down’’ the ABL contains several significant events: conducting

a site survey of candidate locations-approximately 1 year, completing environmental

requirements such as an impact statement—approximately 2 years, and constructing facilities—approximately 2–3 years. Site selection will come after the completion of the environmental impact statement process. However, the timing of

events is determined by working back from the ‘‘bed down’’ date. The attached chart

was provided by Air Force.
176

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. General Kadish, on behalf of the committee, I

thank you very much for your testimony this morning.

This subcommittee will stand in recess until April 24, 2002,

when we will receive testimony regarding the Department’s Guard

and Reserve programs.

So thank you very much, General.

General KADISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 11:41 p.m., Wednesday, April 17, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 24.]
(177)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:12 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Kohl, Stevens, Cochran, and

Domenici.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RUSSELL C. DAVIS, USAFR–

NG, CHIEF

ACCOMPANIED BY:

LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ, USAR–NG, DIRECTOR,

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID BRUBAKER, USAFR–NG, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Ladies and gentlemen, first, my apologies for

being late. As you know, I am very, very seldom late, but we did

have an emergency.

Today the subcommittee will receive testimony from General

Davis, General Schultz, and General Brubaker of the National

Guard. They will be followed by a panel from the Reserves consisting of Admiral Totushek, General McCarthy, General Sherrard,

and General Plewes.

Gentlemen, our active component commanders are fond of stating that the country cannot go to war without the contributions of

the Guard and Reserve. We have seen the evidence since September 11th. Guard and Reserve forces have fulfilled missions that

have grown somewhat familiar over the last 10 years. The contributions of the Guard and Reserve forces in the area of airlift,

aerial refueling, civil affairs, security forces and medical support

reflect the design of our military force structure.

Perhaps less typical since September 11th is the mobilization of

the Guard and Reserve forces to conduct antiterrorism, force protection and other missions to augment or replace active units that

are currently deployed. This aspect of mobilization reflects prepara-
178

tions for the continuance and perhaps expansion of the global war

on terrorism.

The Department of Defense is currently weighing how best to

draw down Guard and Reserve mobilization to a level of 80,000

personnel from the authorized level of 101,000 and still sustain the

support necessary for active duty forces. This morning we look forward to hearing from our witnesses concerning the management of

this draw-down, and the involvement of the Guard and Reserve in

Operation Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom.

Also of concern to the committee are the longstanding issues of

fielding of Guard and Reserve equipment and manpower funding.

Today our witnesses will tell you how the fiscal year 2003 budget

meets those needs.

I was prepared to call upon Senator Stevens at this point, but

he is at a very important leadership meeting at this moment, but

I will call on Senator Cochran.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am

very pleased to join you in welcoming our distinguished panel of

witnesses today, the Chiefs of the National Guard and Reserve

Forces of the United States. We appreciate very much your dedicated service in support of our national security interests. We know

that all of you have been participating in leading the mobilization

of large number of forces, 81,000 I think is the current number, in

support of deployments around the world where our forces are

needed now to help protect the interests of the United States, and

we appreciate your dedicated service and your leadership very

much. We look forward to your testimony and talking with you

about the budget request that has been submitted for continued

support of our National Guard and Reserve forces.

Senator INOUYE. Well, shall we begin our hearing with General

Davis.

General DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran, distinguished members of the committee. It’s a real

pleasure for us to be back here today and an honor to talk to you

about the National Guard.

Today the National Guard is deployed all over the world, as you

both alluded to in your statement, and it is very key that we understand where we can play and how we can play as guardsmen

in support of our national security interests both at home as well

as overseas. Being unique as the Guard is with both a Federal mission and a State mission, it has been a challenge since September

11, to say the least.

We are very busy at the State level. The State active duty personnel are being involved in providing force protection and security. We are equally as aggressively involved with those same kinds

of issues in our Federal status, out at Fort McNair. The augmentation to the soldiers at Fort McNair have been some of our national

guardsmen, as they have been all over the country.

Because we are deployed in multiple statuses, it’s sometimes confusing to people about how the Guard operates, but with the outstanding leadership of the adjutants general and the Governors in

the States, they make it work. At the same time, we are able to
179

respond to national requirements and have soldiers deployed in

northern Washington, southern Washington, in Kosovo as well as

in Bosnia. As a matter of fact, we have had the second opportunity

to have command of the Task Force Eagle in Tuslik.

So as we deploy around the world, we want to make sure we are

doing a number of things for our soldiers and airmen, and taking

care of them is one of our top priorities, making sure they have the

things that they need.

Our priorities in the National Guard start with national security

here at home, homeland security. That has been our mission since

1636 and we continue to do it today, defense of the homeland. We

are very busy in that mission.

During an earlier part of the year and last night I had the opportunity to be with Senator Stevens at an outstanding dinner that

was held for Olympians. We had 4,000 people on the ground at Salt

Lake City during the Olympics to assure that it came off without

a glitch, and it did, in part because of what the Guard did, because

they were just part of a major team and effort by the State, at the

Federal level, and throughout the whole military establishment.

So we are very aggressively involved in homeland security, combat air patrols which have been recently reduced, and the National

Guard has been a large part of that, as well as other missions, securing facilities all over this country. So our number one mission

is homeland security. We want to make sure we do that.

Having said that, though, it is important that we have full-time

manning of the Guard to ensure that we can take care of those

men and women who are deployed. Increasing the folks deployed

to 50,000, Army and Air guardsmen being involved, we need to

take care of their families at home, we need to take care of their

records, their pay records and all those things at home. We need

the full-time manning to do that, to maintain the equipment so it

is ready to deploy, to make sure that we have the right training

preparation for our soldiers and airmen. Full-time manning remains one of our highest priorities.

Next is modernization and recapitalization of equipment, and you

talked to that, sir, in your comments, Mr. Chairman. You talked

about making certain that we had equipment that’s there, that’s

prepared to go, we have the right spares, and we have the right

depots to support. We are replacing some of our older equipment

with newer equipment, and it has to be compatible, consistent and

interoperable with the active component equipment.

And last but certainly not least, a major issue for us in quality

of life is the facilities in which our young people work. We don’t

want them to come into facilities that they are not proud of, because that’s where they spend much of their time during a drill

weekend. They are able to accomplish their missions if we have the

right kinds of facilities and equipment that goes in them to perform

the mission. We need to secure at an even greater level weapons

as an example, so we do that, and we work that pretty hard.

So these are our top priorities, these four priorities, homeland security, full-time manning, modernization and recapitalization of

equipment, and our quality of life issues in terms of our infrastructure and facilities.
180

Thank you for the opportunity to come before your committee,

and we have asked to join us today and it has been a little relief

for us, but I did ask, if you don’t mind, sir, I would like to introduce a couple of special guests we have with us today.

Command Sergeant Major Frank Lever, who is the senior enlisted advisor for the Army National Guard, a South Carolina

guardsman, and as soon as he opens his mouth, you will have a

little sense of who he is and where he is from, an outstanding individual who is the Command Sergeant Major for the State of South

Carolina National Guard.

Senator INOUYE. Welcome.

General DAVIS. Command Chief Valerie Benton, who is our senior enlisted advisor of the Air National Guard. She came to us from

the great State of Wisconsin where she had previously been on tour

a number of years on active duty.

The two of them have been out doing great work for the Guard,

great work for our soldiers and airmen. They have been out to most

of the airports throughout the country to look at the missions they

are doing. They have gone out with the soldiers in other missions,

with the airmen in other missions, as well as overseas. So we are

really pleased to have them on board.

It is very key for recruiting and retention, an issue we will talk

to a little later on today, that we have these two folks as well as

a large number of their peers at the State level talking to our soldiers and airmen. Many issues come up as a result of the high op

tempo and the level of deployment that we have now, so it is very

important for us to get the feedback on how those soldiers are

doing and what kinds of issues they are involved in. Many family

issues come up during that time, many spousal issues come up, so

that has been a major issue for us, so we are glad to have them

on board and we thank them for joining us here today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I stand by to answer

any questions you may have.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, General Davis. Now may I call on

General Schultz.

General SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran, and members of this committee. We begin by saying thanks.

Command Sergeant Major Frank Lever and I have the honor of

serving as part of the leadership team for the Army National

Guard. What sets us apart, Mr. Chairman, is our members, soldiers, we are 350,000, and their families.

And today as we talk to you about a different pace across the

Army Guard, our employers as well are part of this team serving

our Nation. What’s special about them all, they are volunteers.

Today, Mr. Chairman, I am saying to you that the Army Guard

will meet its end strength. Today we are over just a little bit in

our prior service and our non-prior service enlistments, which is

good news really. Our retention is higher than originally planned,

which is good news really. But I want to note, I watch end strength

very carefully and it’s possible for us today in the Army Guard to

overdrive our strength to the point that we wouldn’t have enough

money to pay for the membership. And so I very carefully watch

how many soldiers we have in the States as we roll off the national

figures, are members of the Army National Guard, so I will not
181

overdrive the end strength. But I just want you to know, we will

meet our end strength with quality soldiers from across this Nation.

Now the Chief has already mentioned our priority for full-time

manning, and I want the members of this committee to know with

your support last year, and as you consider what full-time manning

means to the Army National Guard and our readiness, as you consider the number that would be distributed to States, last year’s

growth in military technicians and active Guard and Reserve members went to the States and territories, and the District of Columbia. We kept none of those members on Title X tours, they went

to the field as they promised last year they would.

Mr. Chairman, you know well the pace of activity in the Army

today and the Guard today and we have tremendous depth in our

organizations. We are not hurting in terms of the activity or tempo

of things, but I want you to know, the pace is up a bit. Last year

we trained in 89 countries.

It has been my intent to scrub all the work load across all the

States and territories so that everyone shares a part of the mission.

And as we talk about training or deployment or missions, it’s our

sense that we have the capacity in this team properly managed,

and properly scheduled, to satisfy the needs of our Nation.

As we talk about the mobilization cap in the Army today, we’re

capped at 26,000 members in the Guard and Reserve. The Guard

has just slightly over half of that 26,000. We are planning missions

for more than that, as you are aware, so we have the potential to

go beyond the 26,000, but today we’re staying within the mobilization limits driven of course by circumstances that are beyond our

reach inside the Army or the Guard.

Mr. Chairman, some years ago you recall we talked about integration in the Army and some would argue today that unit integration has gone to a level that many never expected. As the 29th Division’s Virginia-based headquarters comes back home from Bosnia,

members of the 155, Senator Cochran being from Mississippi, they

were also a part of that rotation, with outstanding duty to the person, and the employers and their families supported that rotation.

I have not had one complaint from an employer so far in our rotational schedule which is now increased, but we’re alert to longterm implications of deployments that run 6 months, 12 months

and perhaps even beyond, very sensitive to that. And I just say

that as long as we plan years in advance, tell the employers, tell

the families, tell our members what’s expected, it’s my anticipation

that we will be able to maintain the strength across the Army

Guard and maintain mission capacity as well.

As I talk with you about mobilization since September 11, I just

want to reinforce one point, and that is integration in our Army is

really important. That means equipment must be compatible, for

example aircraft, trucks, and communications systems. On very

short notice our members are called to active duty these days, and

so the point you raised at the opening is something that resounds

across our formation to be sure.

Mr. Chairman, the Guard and Reserve appropriations, this committee has helped us with that requirement in the past and I want

you all to know that as we talk about the support of your com-
182

mittee, those items of equipment go to the field, they go to the

units and they change the readiness of our units. Last year, for example, we bought trailers for trucks, we had the authorization

through the normal process budget activity to buy the tractors, so

we took the appropriation from this committee and applied it to the

trailers, which is really the complete system when you think about

total requirement.

My final point, Mr. Chairman, there is a story that the Army

Guard is reluctant to change and I just want to say, we are converting today from combat arms duty, 21,900 soldiers, to new duties, to support related jobs. And we can take all of those kinds of

new skills and apply them to homeland security missions and we

could also deploy them around the world as the Army requires.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our soldiers, I say thanks.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General Schultz. General

Brubaker.

General BRUBAKER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the 108,000 citizen airmen of the Air National

Guard, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Because of your past support the Air National Guard is trained and

equipped to instantly respond to America’s call to arms. For the

past 7 months we have been engaged in continuous operations

fighting side by side with our total force partners in a war on three

fronts. The volunteer spirit of our Air National guardsmen and

women guarantees we will continue to fight for as long as it takes.

The first aircraft scrambled in the skies above our Nation’s Capital on September 11th were Air National Guard F–16s returning

from a training mission. Within hours, 18 tanker wings were generated, 34 fighter units were ready, and 179 missions were flown

on the first day. As of today we have logged over 100,000 hours and

over 30,000 sorties. In addition, thousands of combat support personnel across every major functional area have leaned forward to

serve around the world and at home.

The Air National Guard currently provides more than 25,000

men and women to operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom,

and the Aerospace Expeditionary Force. Today those members include over 6,000 volunteers, 17,000 mobilized men and women, a

sustained 1,300 Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) participants

as well as over 18,000 full-time technicians and 11,000 Active

Guard/Reserve Program (AGR) personnel who support our day-today operations. The Air National Guard makes this remarkable

contribution to our Nation’s defense in large part because of this

committee’s exceptional support, especially in providing funds for

our National Guard and Reserve equipment account. This assistance is absolutely essential in order to provide us with the modern

equipment and transformational capability that we seek, and quite

frankly, our readiness levels depend on it.

LIGHTNING II TARGETING PODS

Procurement of 24 additional Lightning II targeting pods remain

our number one priority. This capability will greatly enhance our

ability to support combat taskings. In addition, increased

antiterrorism, force protection requirements are also necessary to

reduce the threat to our units and satisfy Air Force taskings.
183

KC–135

When congressional authorization released up to 100 wide body

tankers in the fiscal year 2002 budget, we now have the additional

possibility of replacing our aging E models with both flow-down

KC–135–Rs from the active duty fleet, as well as new tankers for

selected Air National Guard units.

C–17

In regards to the C–17, we are progressing with the conversion

at Jackson, Mississippi. We continue to work towards a fiscal year

2004 bed down, but manpower and some equipment shortages still

remain significant. We support the Air Force’s C–17 multiyear procurement which should enable more units to be assigned to the Air

National Guard. In that same light, we believe that our Air National Guard fighter units are ideally suited to fly both the F–22

and joint strike fighter.

Experience has shown that given the opportunity, the Air National Guard can do any mission. It is imperative that we be included up front in future unit equipped bed down plans in order

for the total force to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

QUALITY OF LIFE

Two of our quality of life priorities, family readiness and support

and the child care alternatives pilot test program are not funded.

We are placing untold pressures on the families of our Air National

Guard members as they serve their country selflessly. Today nearly

50,000 Air National Guard member families are in immediate need

of dedicated full-time family readiness and support services.

HOMELAND SECURITY

On a final note, we are a capabilities based force that is ready

to answer our Nation’s call at home or anywhere around the world.

As we continue to identify and redefine roles and missions in regard to homeland defense, we must remember that our homeland

security capabilities derive from our warfighting capability. The Air

National Guard is certainly prepared to play a significant role in

this vitally important area but we must also be allowed to use our

combat proven capabilities to continue to support other major wars

and contingencies throughout the world.

PREPARED STATEMENT

With your continued support, the Air National Guard will remain

an indelible part of American military character as a powerful expeditionary force, domestic guardian and caring neighbor, protecting the United States of America at home and abroad.

Thank you once again for all you do for the Air National Guard.

[The statement follows:]
184

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RUSSELL C. DAVIS, LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ, AND BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID BRUBAKER

NATIONAL GUARD POSTURE STATEMENT—FISCAL YEAR 2003

PROTECTING AMERICA AT HOME AND ABROAD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

‘‘America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and

an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.’’——(President Harry S. Truman—January 8, 1947)

The job of safeguarding our national security is fulfilled through the courage and

determination of our diverse and capable Armed Forces. The National Guard, an integral component of our Armed Forces, is committed to supporting our national security strategy at home and abroad.

Our goal in this year’s Posture Statement is to highlight the unique and critical

capabilities of the Army and Air National Guard. This Executive Summary is intended to give you a clear and concise overview of our top legislative priorities for

fiscal year 2003. As we accomplish the business of the National Guard in 2002, you

will see that our vision encompasses the future protection of this country. The attached compact disc provides as a more detailed reference tool for use throughout

the year.

I hope you will invest the time to read this summary. In return, we will illuminate the most important issues facing the men and women of your National

Guard as they strive to meet the challenge of protecting America’s interests at home

and abroad.

Full-Time Manning

The National Guard remains an organization of predominately part-time citizensoldiers and airmen. However, about 17.5 percent of our total Army and Air National Guard structure is manned full-time. This professional cadre of military technicians and full-time military personnel provides the core of experience and stability

necessary to maintain our facilities and equipment, train our personnel, and administer the daily operations of our force.

At one time, these personnel were sufficient to meet the demands of the National

Guard’s missions during the Cold War. Since the Gulf War, the Total Force Policy

of our national military strategy has accelerated National Guard integration with

the active component services in performing daily missions at an increasing pace.

Correspondingly, the demands placed upon the National Guard have grown, stressing the ability of our full-time forces to support these missions. The additional capability required to fulfill our traditional role in Homeland Security further exacerbates the problem of keeping pace.

Providing enough full-time personnel to maintain our operational momentum is

our most pressing need in the evolving new threat environment. It is also the

lynchpin to readiness. Our full-time cadre is the bridge to rapid surge capability and

the transformation from peacetime to wartime posture. Army National Guard fulltime support authorizations presently fulfill only 57 percent of the total validated

requirement. This places at risk the National Guard’s ability to provide adequate

physical security, an initial response capability, and a community presence for an

anti-terrorist/force protection capability.

Homeland Security

America’s history, heritage and community ties have always given the National

Guard cause to execute our constitutional mission ‘‘To provide for calling forth the

militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions’’

(Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 15). The unfolding events since September 11th have given

new urgency to that enduring language.

Our dual status as a state resource that can be accessed for federal roles makes

the National Guard a cost-effective and uniquely flexible instrument of national defense. This is how we protect America at home and abroad. The military discipline,

training and equipment provided by the United States Congress is used frequently

in virtually every state and district to respond to civil emergencies. Responding to

a Homeland Security incident is comparable in many ways to responding to any

other disaster. It requires many of the same disciplined and trained personnel and

command and control resources we already employ in our wartime role.

Strengthening the security of the American homeland will be a joint operational

endeavor requiring unprecedented integration between all appropriate state and federal, civil and military capabilities. The National Guard brings to this effort a
185

unique level of experience and expertise in these areas. Its dual state-federal mission has provided it with an unmatched level of domestic civil-military operational

experience. In addition, the National Guard Bureau’s long-standing position as the

nexus between state and federal military organizations makes it a natural base

upon which to build the stronger federal-state integration that will be required for

the future.

As we prepare the nation for wartime, we must refine the National Guard’s role

with more clarity in respect to its relationship with the Department of Defense. The

National Guard is best situated to coordinate the efforts of local, state, and federal

agencies so as to provide the nation with the best possible disaster response capabilities.

Modernization/Recapitalization

Our National Guard, like every modern military force, is dependent on state-ofthe-art equipment. In the past, our equipment has been ‘‘cascaded’’ down from the

active component services as they modernized. Consequently, the National Guard

typically operates and maintains the oldest equipment in an already aging fleet. The

stability of our workforce gives us an edge when maintaining this aging equipment;

however, no matter how skilled the mechanic, aging equipment and a lack of spare

parts can and does result in lost readiness. It becomes less cost-effective to maintain

equipment that has aged to the point where there is no longer any appreciable return on investment. For this reason, it is important to modernize and/or recapitalize

our existing capability as the best option to ensure we remain interoperable with

other U.S. Armed Forces.

As we engage in integrated operations with our active component counterparts,

interoperable equipment becomes even more critical. Because the Total Force is

interdependent, our success in supporting the mission is complicated by the fact we

often have disparate equipment. When the active component transforms to achieve

more modern capabilities, it will be doubly hard for the National Guard to keep

pace. As a result, we recommend the Total Force be viewed as a total transformational force in order to retain interoperability and to maintain full-spectrum

capability.

America can no longer afford to wait a generation for modern equipment to ‘‘cascade’’ down to the National Guard if it wants to maintain the Total Force as an integrated structure. When our military modernizes to improve its capabilities, we must

include the National Guard as a full partner. When new threats create new technologies and new responses, integration demands inclusion of the National Guard.

Infrastructure/facilities

Like people and equipment, infrastructure is critical to the readiness of the National Guard. Providing an efficient work environment is a key ‘‘quality of life’’

issue. Aging facilities and outdated utilities are a drain on resources, absorbing disproportionate maintenance costs and degrading the efficiency of the workplace.

The National Guard has more than 3,000 facilities in 2,700 communities in every

state, territory and the District of Columbia. Our sites lack the extensive infrastructure (dormitories, hospitals, schools etc.) typical of active component posts and

bases; they rely upon the community for this support. As a result, our facilities tend

to be highly visible and are a shared community resource. Unfortunately, many of

them are rated among the lowest in terms of quality and readiness status.

To merely maintain them in their present condition is a significant challenge in

the neighborhood of $350 million per year. To recapitalize and upgrade the readiness of all ARNG facilities would require a 341-year cycle at present levels of support. The current Department of Defense standard for recapitalization is 67 years.

At the 67-year rate, the ARNG requires approximately $1.5 billion from fiscal year

2003 to fiscal year 2007.

New and urgent missions such as the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support

Teams levy additional requirements for new construction to counteract threats to

Homeland Security. Nevertheless, the Advanced Division Redesign Study, the Interim Brigade Combat Team concept, and other organizational constructs are

transitioning the National Guard from a Cold War force to the lighter leaner force

the future requires with new correspondingly tailored facilities in which to train.

Summary

We have sketched our top concerns as we continue to achieve our goal to ‘‘Protect

America at Home and Abroad.’’ The goal itself is a reflection of our constitutional

duty to provide for the ‘‘common defense’’. Our priorities mirror the means to execute that obligation. We hope that you will use the attached compact disc to view

a much more detailed discussion of these priorities as they relate to the Army and
186

Air National Guard respectively. You will also find a comprehensive description of

the significant programs and mission-areas of the National Guard.

RUSSELL C. DAVIS,

Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force Chief, National Guard.

PROTECTING AMERICA

To ‘‘provide for the common defense’’—of the nation, the National Guard Bureau

provides the leadership and resources required to set the standard for the world’s

premier reserve force, the National Guard of the United States. Our destiny is to

respond to current and future worldwide commitments of the National Security

Strategy with community-based, dedicated citizen-soldiers and airmen; well trained,

organized, and supported with state of the art technology and equipment.

This vision provides the framework for the premier reserve force in the world.

Providing for the ‘‘common defense’’ requires local, national, and global deployments

of military personnel and equipment. When our national interests are threatened,

the involvement of citizen-soldiers and airmen ensures the full commitment of our

nation.

Following independence, the authors of the United States Constitution empowered

Congress to ‘‘provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.’’ However,

recognizing the militia’s state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment

of officers and training of the militia to the states. Throughout the 19th century the

size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops

during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the

National Guard as a Reserve force for the United States Army. National Guard

aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National

Guard, the nation’s newest Reserve Component in 1947.

Our dual constitutional role means our duties do not end at the federal level but

extend to the states as well. Under state law, the National Guard provides protection of life, property and preserves peace, order and public safety. These missions

are accomplished through emergency relief support during natural disasters such as

floods, earthquakes and forest fires; search and rescue operations; support to civil

defense authorities; maintenance of vital public services, and counterdrug operations.

Since the founding of the National Guard militias, we have embraced the fundamental and enduring goals of maintaining the sovereignty, political freedom, and

independence of the United States, with its values, institutions, and territory intact;

protecting the lives and personal safety of Americans, both at home and abroad; and

promoting the well-being and prosperity of the nation and its people.

National Guard in our Communities

We are first and foremost an institution of people-soldiers, airmen, civilians, families and employees. The National Guard is the military face of the nation representing a familiar presence in many communities throughout America. Our greatest strength emanates from the diversity of our force—diversity of education, political affiliations, vocations, social and economic status, race, color, creed and age.

More Americans connect their vision of the military with the local National Guard

that they see routinely, than any other service. Guardsmen and women are our

neighbors, friends, co-workers and relatives. The professionalism, dedication and

trust, of the nation in our military, starts with the local Army National Guard armory and the Air National Guard unit. People from all walks of life fill the ranks

of the National Guard and, as such, provide a direct connection to more than 2,700

local communities across the nation where Guard facilities are located. We share a

common conviction and purpose built upon a bedrock set of values: integrity, loyalty,

selflessness, compassion, family, dedication, service, and patriotism.

State and Federal Calls to Service

This community connection brings a unique perspective to the culture of the National Guard making it the logical choice for national priorities like executing Homeland Security, countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), supporting

counterdrug activities, and defending against cyber-terrorism. The Army and Air

National Guard embrace their Constitutional dual-role as both a federal and state

force. A role that, because of recent events, is increasing at all levels.

National Guardsmen are under the command of the state governors unless the

President specifically orders them into federal service. Whether they are serving in

a state or federal status, members of the National Guard bring critical skills and

resources to bear during both local and national emergencies. When a crisis occurs
187

that overwhelms the capabilities of local authorities, the Army National Guard and

Air National Guard respond to assist as needed. In fiscal year 2001, local governments requested emergency support 365 times to assist victims of disasters such as

hurricanes, floods, fires, droughts, ice storms, tornadoes, and terrorist attacks. In response, the Army National Guard and Air National Guard provided 382,000 mandays in a State Active Duty status to reduce the suffering of affected civilian populations by providing requested and required support (e.g. security, power, heat,

water, transportation, food, shelter and emergency engineering support).

September 11, 2001 was a typical day for the National Guard. There were 12,400

National Guardsmen assigned in federal and state missions at home and abroad.

Over 450 were in State Active Duty status fighting forest fires, protecting our communities from natural disasters, such as floods and storms, providing drinking

water or electrical power, and other domestic missions. Nearly 12,000 soldiers and

airmen were deployed in support of Commanders in Chief or Service requirements

world-wide in a variety of combat and combat support missions, Bosnia/Kosovo,

Southern and Northern Watch in Southwest Asia, and the enduring air sovereignty

mission of Air National Guard and 1st Air Force air defense units.

Within minutes, Air National Guard fighter units were leveraging critical combat

skills and equipment while performing combat air patrol missions, including Presidential aircraft escort, over the nation’s skies. In New York, National Guard soldiers

and airmen responded immediately. In all more than 3,000 National Guardsmen

supported efforts at the World Trade Center site. Eighteen Air National Guard refueling wings, multiple strategic and tactical airlift units (C–5, C–141 and C–130),

along with Army National Guard aircraft, provided necessary lift support to the

combat air patrols, consequence management activities and Enduring Freedom response requirements. National Guard units provided rescue support, civil engineers,

communications and power generation capability, air traffic control, medical teams,

chaplains and other service support operations, i.e., food and shelter service, public

affairs and command and control entities.

Since that tragic day, an additional 19,500 soldiers and airmen have been calledup to react to the emergencies resulting from the attacks and the continuing war

against terrorism. Thousands of other National Guard members have also responded by volunteering each day for duty. The National Guard’s unique Civil Support Teams have responded to more than 200 suspected chemical/biological incidents

in which they put their cutting edge training and technology to precisely the use

Congress envisioned. In addition, Active Component military installations were provided National Guard soldiers for additional force protection and critical asset protection.

Finally, the National Guard responded to the President’s request to provide airport security to more than 400 airports across the nation. Today, the National

Guard is not only performing these missions, but also deploying combat and support

units in operations to defeat terrorism around the world. Only two months after the

attack on America, the National Guard deployed 5,209 personnel on State Active

Duty and more than 40,000 soldiers and airmen worldwide. This has translated into

a three-fold increase in our operational tempo since the September 11th attacks.

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

Under Title 10 of the United States Code, the National Guard Bureau is the channel of communications between the military departments and the National Guard

throughout the 54 states and territories of the United States.

The Chief, National Guard Bureau serves as the senior uniformed National Guard

officer responsible for formulating, developing and coordinating all policies, programs and plans affecting more than half a million Army and Air National Guard

personnel. Appointed by the President, the general serves as the principal adviser

to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Secretary and Chief of Staff

of the Air Force on all National Guard issues.

The National Guard Bureau leadership also works closely with the Joint Chiefs

of Staff. Members of the National Guard serve full-time on the Joint Staff to facilitate coordination on substantive issues pertaining to the National Guard. The National Guard Bureau works in a collective manner throughout the Department of

Defense to create a seamless Total Force.

For the National Guard to function effectively, NGB maintains strong ties with

all state and federal activities. Maintaining our basic freedoms and providing critical life saving support at all levels requires a National Guard that is trained,

equipped and ready. It also requires the administration, coordination and leadership

of a National Guard Bureau that is directly connected to all the people it serves.
188

This diagram illustrates the interconnectedness and complexity of our organization. A complete listing of State Adjutants General can be found in the Appendix.

A LEGACY IN HOMELAND SECURITY

The National Guard is proud of the legacy of Homeland Security handed down

by past generations of Citizen Soldiers and Airmen. From the first militia in 1636,

to the Air National Guard sitting runway alert in the 1950s, to the Army National

Guard’s Nike missile defense batteries during the Cold War, to the missions we

serve today, Homeland Security continues to be part of the heart of your National

Guard.

Defending our Home

On September 11, 2001, thousands of Americans perished in the Pentagon, the

World Trade Center and aboard four hijacked airlines.

This act has brought home the realities of terrorism. This vicious attack has also

brought to light a fundamental circumstance of our situation. That circumstance

was best expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, ‘‘We cannot and

will not know precisely where and when America’s interests will be threatened,

when America will come under attack, or when Americans might die as the result

of aggression. We can be clear about trends, but uncertain about events. We can

identify threats, but cannot know when or where America or its friends will be attacked. We should try mightily to avoid surprise, but we must also learn to expect

it. We must constantly strive to get better intelligence, but we must also remember

that there will always be gaps in our intelligence. Adapting to surprise—adapting

quickly and decisively—must therefore be a condition of planning.’’

The National Guard has time-honored experience responding effectively to surprises ranging from wildfires, flashfloods, and tornadoes to riots and other emergencies. This was well demonstrated on September 11. We moved quickly to stand

shoulder-to-shoulder with the civil responders, and remain a vital component of the

recovery process. The machinery of accessibility is working just as it was designed,

and the National Guard is able to promptly and flexibly meet the levy of both the

President and the governors in responding to the needs of the nation and the individual states. Our dual status is proving to be a particularly useful feature of our

organization, permitting National Guardsmen to be a federal military resource

under Title 10 of the USC, or a state-controlled law-enforcement and consequence

management tool under Title 32 of the USC or applicable state laws for State Active

Duty. Consequently, there are a number of things that functioned smoothly as currently designed.

Large numbers of military personnel and equipment were brought rapidly to bear

on the mission. Even after the on-site civilian Incident Command structure was lost

in the collapse of the World Trade Center, the New York National Guard was able

to effectively receive and fill requests for support from the New York Fire Department ‘‘second team’’ once they were up and running.

National Guard forces were employed across state lines. New Jersey National

Guard readily joined in support of the recovery efforts.

Due to the unique institution of the New York Naval Militia, the governor of New

York was able to gain access to Navy and Marine Corps Reserve assets inside his

state as they were needed. The governor was able to successfully integrate requested federal forces into the response. Although specific to New York, this concept

may provide a model for integrating the participation of other Reserve Components

into a governor’s response in other states.

We are proud to have been the ‘‘bench’’ for the brave firefighters, emergency medical technicians and law enforcement officials at the scene of the disasters. We provided medical personnel to care for the injured, military police to assist local law

enforcement officials, key asset protection, transportation, communications, logistics,

and a myriad of other support functions. We are making our resources available as

needed, to restore order, stability, and safety to our fellow citizens.

When required to do so, National Guard troops were brought rapidly into federal

status. Maryland Army National Guard military police units were very quickly

brought on duty and dispatched to provide security at the Pentagon within 24 hours

of the attack. Air National Guard fighters were on the scene within minutes. Indeed, our immediate execution of the President’s airport security mission, while remaining under the control of the state governors, demonstrated the special speed

and flexibility of the National Guard even under Title 32.

On September 27th, President Bush asked the governors to call up over 7,000 National Guardsmen to supplement security at the nation’s 420 commercial airports

for up to six months. The first National Guardsmen were on duty the very next day.

Their purpose is not only to stop terrorists but also to restore the faith and con-
189

fidence of the public in commercial air travel until more permanent arrangements

can be made. On November 9th, President Bush authorized an additional 25 percent

manning added for the holiday period until January 6, 2002. Our commercial airline

industry is a key link in the national economy and vital to our nation’s interests.

The President has invited America to ‘‘Get on board, do your business around the

country.’’

As of November 26, 2001, over 48,000 National Guardsmen from 54 states, territories, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had been called to federal

service in support of Operations ‘‘Noble Eagle’’ and ‘‘Enduring Freedom’’. We are responding as we are designed—‘‘dual-missioned.’’

We are ready and prepared to ‘‘call out more of the National Guard’’ to ensure

that the business of this country can continue to function without fear or interruption. There are challenges facing the National Guard as it implements and evolves

its Homeland Security role. None are insurmountable. The mission of the National

Guard, like all other military organizations, is driven by the roles and capabilities

needed to meet the threat; and the resources that must be allocated to sustain needed capabilities. With support, the National Guard will meet the challenge to be

ready for all aspects of the important Homeland Security mission.

Preventive Defense

Preventive Defense is one of the National Guard’s federal roles that also contributes to homeland security. We are uniquely positioned to promote democratic practices abroad and find ourselves in frequent demand for overseas cooperative defense

programs through the State Partnership Program.

The State Partnership Program

The purpose of the State Partnership program is to build long-standing institutional affiliations and people-to-people relationships with nations currently establishing democratic military organizations. By using National Guardsmen in their

dual roles as citizen-soldiers, the partner nations’ military leaders encounter highly

trained and cost-effective members of the United States Armed Forces. Guardsmen

serve as role models in making a compelling case for ideals of democracy, professionalism, and deference to civilian authority. They also demonstrate the necessity

and economy of Reserve Components with the ability to react immediately to civil

and military emergencies.

Much of the National Guard’s success in promoting democracy abroad is the result

of the State Partnership Program. To date, 32 states, two territories and the District

of Columbia have joined as Partners or Associate Partners in extending the hand

of friendship from grassroots America to 33 countries that would emulate our ways

and institutions. Foreign military personnel and political leaders visit our country

to observe how the National Guard operates within the state and federal framework. National Guard members reciprocate by visiting the partner country and providing detailed information on civil-military topics like search and rescue, medical

support, disaster response, military law, and family programs. Importantly, these

are more than just military-to military contacts. By involving governors, mayors and

their staffs, state legislators, and the families and friends of our National Guard

members in building these bridges of friendship, we promote political ‘‘buy-in’’ on

national security strategy at the local level.

Sharpening the military skills of our National Guard members while demonstrating their ability and willingness to enhance the quality of life for hemispheric

neighbors is just one benefit of this timely and innovative engagement. We are firmly committed to sustaining this effort which has our Guardsmen helping to shape

emerging democracies, and preparing for and improving readiness by engaging in

international events and activities, and responding as our national security needs

require.

As part of the National Guard’s State Partnership Program, National Guard personnel participate in various command-sponsored activities. The National Guard

participates in programs such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Partnership for Peace program, European Command’s Joint Contact Team Program, U.S.

Southern Command’s Traditional Commanders in Chief Activities Program, and

similar activities sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff

and the State Department.

National Guard personnel, and the militia system under which they operate, are

models for the role of a military in a democratic society. They provide an influential

example of how a military force can be effective while demonstrating military subordination to civil authorities and illustrate how a military force of the people remains

committed to the people. The wealth of civilian skills our National Guard members

take overseas—and the diversity of non-military professions they represent—are
190

also important, giving our men and women a versatility and credibility as goodwill

ambassadors that no other American military arm can match.

Future of the National Guard in Homeland Security

Virtually every policy expert in Washington seems to agree that the National

Guard is a central military institution for the security of the homeland. This is a

sentiment echoed in the Hart-Rudman report, by former generals, and respected authorities all across the spectrum. We agree. To arrive at that end state, however,

it is not necessary to turn the National Guard inside out.

Various commentators have said that the National Guard should be reoriented,

reorganized, retrained and re-equipped. In truth, the National Guard needs to be

empowered for success on both the home front and the warfront—precisely where

it has always been oriented. Initiatives such as the Army National Guard Division

Redesign Study (ADRS) are underway to help resolve these questions.

Dual Mission Orientation

The enduring value of the National Guard has always been its orientation on both

protecting the lives and property of Americans here at home and on going to war

to support American interests globally.

The National Guard has participated with distinction in every major armed conflict of this nation and this mission should never be diminished. The special utility

for the nation is that in addition to being a critical war-fighting asset, the National

Guard is also a crucial source of local and state emergency response support. Both

are critically important to the nation. Keeping both missions together is critical to

the future strength of the National Guard. The resources, personnel, equipment,

and training provided to accomplish the war-fighting role are in most cases the

same resources that are needed and allow the National Guard to accomplish the

local and state support role.

One specific example of this ‘‘dual-missioned’’ capability is found in the combat

capability of our F–16’s flying over America. Since day one, these units rely heavily

on Precision Targeting Pods for visual identification while at the same time using

this critical equipment in their Aerospace Expeditionary Force Air Superiority role

in Operation Southern and Northern Watch overseas.

The National Guard is willing to take on a greater role in performing the Homeland Security mission, however it is more important than ever that it maintain its

Total Force combat and combat support mission capability. All enemies of the

United States take note when the National Guard is deployed in combat because

the enemy identifies the National Guard as the grass roots support of the local people in that conflict. The National Guard constitutes the local community and the

state government support of any war effort that our country engages in.

The capacity of the National Guard Bureau to effectively maintain awareness,

conduct coordination and provide guidance and resources to the National Guard

must be strong to meet the needs of Homeland Security. The new National Guard

Bureau Office of Homeland Security is one step in that direction and was an important asset in the nearly overnight execution of the airport security mission. As the

National Guard’s part in the security of the homeland solidifies, the National Guard

Bureau’s demonstrated capability and many years of successful experience in effectively coordinating across 54 states and territories will be put to good use.

Assessing National Guard Roles In Homeland Security

As a force consisting of both Army and Air Force assets the National Guard Bureau has a wide variety of capabilities that are available to support the many facets

of Homeland Security. The seven mission areas that have been identified within the

Homeland Security area are: (1) Combating Terrorism; (2) Military Assistance to Civilian Authorities; (3) Responding To Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and

high-yield Explosives Incidents; (4) Missile Defense; (5) Critical Infrastructure Protection; (6) Information Operations; and (7) Protecting the Nation’s Sovereignty.

The National Guard, with its community-based state-organized structure, is

uniquely qualified and situated to provide a timely response. With a military focused force and established command, control and communications, National Guard

structure addresses these mission areas as the front line for the Department of Defense in Homeland Security.

Combating Terrorism

The National Guard is the primary provider of immediate military resources, including units and personnel at the local and state level in the combating of terrorism. Again, because they are deployed in the state and have an immediate command, control and communications capability they can respond quickly to support

local and state authorities. Within the state, the Adjutant General and the state Na-
191

tional Guard possess the local knowledge of the terrain, the assets, the

vulnerabilities and the local and state agencies. This expertise is a powerful tool in

combating terrorism and, as such, it may be in the best interest of the nation to

use this expertise when the application of federal military assets is required. The

National Guard can assist in the mission of combating terrorism by providing a coordinated and mutual supporting approach. This approach provides appropriate assistance at the local/state levels and, as required, at the national level. It reinforces

the primary mission of the National Guard to provide combat ready forces for the

United States Army and Air Force.

While the National Guard can and does provide force protection and other mission

support, much of the National Guard’s capability for combating terrorism lies in the

realm of consequence management. There are a number of capabilities within the

National Guard that could be brought to bear on the terrorist threat before an attack occurs. Specifically, because of its unique capability to provide military support

to law enforcement agencies, the National Guard is also well positioned to play an

important role in the detection and prevention of terrorist attacks. In much the

same way that today’s National Guard assets are so effectively employed in the war

on drugs, they could similarly be employed in the war on terrorism. Special military

equipment and skills have fought drugs with surveillance, aviation support, inspections and information analysis. In another example, Mobile Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems, which typically are employed in the search for drugs, were recently employed to enhance border security. The National Guard is prepared to

move beyond consequence management to more broadly leverage our assets for employment in other phases of the war on terrorism. As an example, the 193rd Special

Operations Group from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is currently deployed in both the

war on drugs as well as the War on Terrorism—providing high-demand psychological operations capability.

Military Assistance to Civilian Authorities (MACA)

Daily the National Guard is on the front line providing federally trained and

equipped forces for the states and local communities in this critical area. Activities

included in this mission are law enforcement support, assistance during civil disturbances, counterdrug support, and combating terrorism. The National Guard is a

unique military force because it can act on missions outside the framework of posse

comitatus. This applies as long as they are under the control of the state.

In the subset of military support to civilian authorities, the National Guard is renowned for providing assistance in disaster-related civil emergencies. The immediately responsive manpower, equipment, and command, control and communications are always the governor’s first call when local, state or regional capabilities

need additional support. The ability of National Guard forces to operate across state

lines was perfectly demonstrated when the state of West Virginia fought floods

using National Guard assets from five states under provisions of the Emergency

Management Assistance Compact. The National Guard works closely with the local

and state emergency managers and their national Federal Emergency Management

Agency network responding to natural disasters (forest fires, floods and storms) and

other actions where consequence management is necessary.

Consequence Management

In the past three years, the National Guard, with the help of Congress, the Department of Defense, and the Army, has established a new capability to support

local, state and federal authorities in dealing with the consequences of a chemical,

biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive terrorist event. Thirty-two Weapons of

Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (CST) have been established. Our newly certified Civil Support Teams provided Weapons of Mass Destruction support in their

operational debut during the September terrorist attacks.

The 32 CSTs will provide state and local authorities specialized expertise and

technical assistance to the incident commander to: (1) Assess the situation; determine the type of weapon used and the likely consequences; (2) advise the incident

commander on potential courses of action; and (3) 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. However, the National Guard Bureau

provides national operational procedures and operational coordination to facilitate

the employment of these teams to provide depth and backup capability to states currently without a full-time CST. After some difficult starts these teams have very

rapidly progressed through a team effort by Department of Defense, U.S. Army and

the National Guard Bureau to reassure the states that these teams have achieved

the highest state of readiness.
192

Missile Defense

Missile Defense (MD) is expected to be a major mission for the Department of Defense. As currently planned, the Department of the Army has the overall responsibility for the ground-based, mid-course element of the proposed missile defense system. The Army National Guard would provide personnel to man significant portions

of the ground-based element.

The current plan is for the Army National Guard to be the force provider for the

U.S. Army Ground Based Midcourse Segment of MD, not the proposed MD Test

Bed. Approximately 300 Active Guard and Reserve personnel will support missile

defense in various states, including Alaska and Colorado. If a decision to employ a

missile defense system is made, the Army National Guard will provide the operational force.

Critical Infrastructure Protection

In the mission area of Critical Infrastructure Protection the National Guard has

the capability to expeditiously provide personnel and units throughout the entire nation and its territories. This may be required in an environment where much of our

military force, to include the National Guard, has already been deployed overseas

while terrorist activities may require significantly increased vigilance at home.

Because of the dual state and federal status of the National Guard, and the fact

23 of the Adjutants General are also the head of their State Emergency Management Agency, a good deal of focus and expertise on infrastructure protection already

exists in the National Guard and could be a strong basis upon which to build future,

broader capability.

Information Operations

The National Guard has units and capabilities assigned in both the Army and Air

National Guard in this mission area. The Army National Guard units are assigned

to the 54 states and territories, plus three additional teams work under the guidance of the Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity, a part of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. The National Guard has a Joint Web Risk Assessment Cell that scans defense web networks to determine risk and provide assessments for follow-on action. In addition to the capabilities of the combat information operation units, the National Guard also has Vulnerability Assessment Teams

and Field Support teams that provide enhanced protection.

The Air National Guard is currently expanding its role in information operations

with the establishment of a new ‘‘assurance’’ unit in Washington State and a new

unit in Maryland in partnership with the National Security Agency.

Protecting the Nation’s Sovereignty

From its inception, the National Guard has been involved in protecting the sovereignty of the nation. Today portions of that mission are carried out by the Air National Guard in performance of the air defense mission conducted through First Air

Force and other units. First Air Force, an Active-Duty Numbered Air Force operated

extensively by members of the National Guard, coordinates with units operating

throughout the continental United States. While a land attack is not considered a

significant threat, the National Guard plays a key part in the plans for the land

defense of the United States. Additionally, the National Guard (Army and Air) is

an integral part of the ongoing counterdrug efforts wherever they are conducted.

The National Guard is also assisting port and border control authorities to safeguard our nation’s borders.

National Guard Counterdrug Program

Continuing our mission of defending America from the flow of illegal drugs, approximately 3,500 soldiers and airmen with skills in foreign languages, intelligence

analysis, map-making, communications, engineering, diving, marijuana eradication,

transportation, logistics, cargo inspection, and surface and air reconnaissance were

involved in counterdrug operations in fiscal year 2001. Illegal drug profits are often

used to finance the work of terrorists. Consequently our fight against illegal drug

use is a fight for our children’s future and homeland security.

The National Guard recognizes that the nation’s illicit drug crisis is not exclusively a problem of demand or supply, but stems from both. Because drug abuse continues to threaten the health of our citizens as well as our national security, each

National Guardsman knows that our neighborhoods and schools are battlefields

where the struggle is waged one precious life at a time.

In an effort to reduce drug demand, the National Guard’s State Demand Reduction Programs are a leading edge ‘‘force multiplier’’ focused on assisting schools, parents, and anti-drug community-based organizations. Serving as drug-free role models, soldiers and airmen provide a positive influence to young Americans who in-
193

creasingly face drugs, crime, and violence in our nation’s school systems. As a partner of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the National Guard serves

as a powerful catalyst for state and community-based mentoring programs, parenting groups, speaker bureaus, Adopt-A-School, Red Ribbon, and Parents’ Resource

Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) projects.

Our personnel continuously participate and support a number of proven drug demand reduction programs nationwide that focus on community coalition building,

substance abuse education, youth mentoring, anti-drug message broadcasting and

distribution, leadership development within vulnerable groups, and the promotion

of high standards of citizenship.

In the effort to reduce drug supply within the continental United States, the National Guard supports various federal, state and local law enforcement agencies,

task forces, and community-based prevention organizations. Law enforcement agencies greatly depend on the National Guard for specialized military equipment and

highly trained soldiers and airmen, without which many interdiction operations

would cease. They perform duties such as posting watch on our nation’s borders,

preparing and interpreting intelligence materials, detecting and eradicating marijuana, performing non-intrusive inspections at U.S. ports of entry, and translating

court-ordered wire tap tapes into English for use in federal prosecutions of drugrelated crimes.

In our federal role, we support our Commander-in-Chief by detecting and monitoring attempts to smuggle narcotics into the United States. Members of the National Guard fly on the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and the

Patrol Orion aircraft to identify suspected and known drug smuggling aircraft in the

Caribbean and South America. Parallel to this mission, National Guard members

on federal active duty orders collect and report near-real-time narco-trafficking intelligence, provide radar surveillance support to the U.S. Customs Service Air Marine Interdiction Coordination Center and the Joint Southern Surveillance Reconnaissance Operations Center. In addition, the National Guard provides mechanical

and logistical support to the U.S. Air Force Counter drug Radar Surveillance and

Control sites in Colombia and Peru.

The National Guard has established goals and strategies to guide our efforts as

we provide support to Law Enforcement Agencies. The first goal is to increase the

cost effectiveness of our program. This goal will be accomplished by increasing support to Law Enforcement Agencies via specialized technology, specialized military

skills, and counterdrug training. The second goal of the National Guard counterdrug

Program is to support drug reduction efforts within our communities by increasing

the level of support to High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, state and local task

forces, and local community coalitions. The third goal is to enhance the quality of

our workforce by increasing the amount of training for counterdrug personnel, and

conducting annual reviews of existing regulations and policies.

The National Guard will continue to provide valuable support to various federal,

state and local law enforcement agencies, task forces, and community-based prevention organizations so that drug use will continue to decrease.

Summary

The National Guard has tremendous quick response capability to support the

local, state and federal agencies in accomplishing the Homeland Security mission.

The National Guard Bureau, through the Adjutants General, is the primary line of

communications between the several states and territories and the Department of

Defense on military matters. It has been performing this role at the local, state and

federal level since its inception nearly 365 years ago. With the necessary resources,

the National Guard will continue to protect and defend our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic.

ON GUARD FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

As we continue to advance the role of the National Guard in the 21st Century,

there are numerous concerns over shortages and authorization levels in critical

areas such as modernization of major weapon systems and adequately compensating

our personnel. Funding must increase in order to meet new and expanding requirements.

The National Guard must recruit, train, and retain people with the broad skills

and good judgment needed to address the dynamic challenges of the 21st century.

Having the right combination of imaginative, highly motivated military and civilian

personnel at all levels is the essential prerequisite for achieving success. Advanced

technology and new operational concepts cannot be fully exploited unless we have

highly qualified and motivated enlisted personnel and officers who not only can operate these highly technical systems, but also can lead effectively in the highly com-
194

plex military environment of today. That environment needs the commitment of not

only citizen-soldiers, but of every American.

Citizen involvement in national defense is critical to the longevity and health of

democratic government. It is a reinforcing thread in the fabric of democracy itself.

How the leadership defines our national security interest, in the end, is validated

through the support of the people. Our rich heritage of being involved in national

defense is rapidly taking on new dimensions. As we transform our organization, we

must ensure that we recognize, respect, and protect our citizens’ ‘‘commitment to

serve.’’ Only by preserving this commitment can we attract the needed personnel

to our ranks and retain them in service throughout a productive career.

We entrust a tremendous responsibility in our young men and women and are

committed to ensure that such trust is not taken for granted. Today’s National

Guard must provide good quality of life programs and training on state of the art

equipment to ensure we recruit, deploy and retain the quality force our country deserves.

Full-time Support

National Guard full-time support functions are diverse and cover a wide range of

unit-level activities that include administration, training, logistics, recruiting, and

retention. Our full-time force contributes to our success in fulfilling our role in the

National Military Strategy. National Guard full-time Active Guard and Reserve

(AGR) members and military technicians are uniformed soldiers and airmen who

serve as links between state and local communities and provide different workplace

roles to support the nation’s defense posture. Full-time support personnel are essential to the interoperability of the National Guard and active component and act as

readiness multipliers during periods of increased demands and limited resources.

The Army and Air National Guard have both recently submitted increased full-time

support requirements.

Full-time support personnel are also critical to the National Guard’s ability to perform its federal and state roles. They are the single, most important element to our

readiness capability providing stability and corporate knowledge at every level of

command.

The number of National Guard full-time technicians and Active Guard Reserves

must increase in order to meet new and expanding requirements.

Maintaining a Military of Dedicated Professionals

The challenges faced by the National Guard in attracting and retaining National

Guard members differs in several respects from that of the Active Component Services. For example, we are often constrained by where an individual lives and works.

Unlike Active Component members, who are accustomed to frequent moves during

a military career, the men and women of the National Guard have civilian commitments and responsibilities, in addition to their military duties, that tie them to the

local area. Hence, we must target our efforts in the areas and regions where vacancies exist.

Our current economic climate has caused us to be more aggressive in our approach to recruit and retain quality members to support mission requirements. Our

recruiting successes are a direct result of additional resources and initiatives, and

heavy involvement by Adjutants General, commanders and the members themselves.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Reserve Affairs lists the following as reasons that Service members leave or consider leaving the National

Guard and Reserves: civilian job and family conflicts, pay problems, lack of recognition, limited advancement or promotion opportunities, and work not challenging.

The National Guard must provide a challenging, caring environment with upward

mobility to retain our members. We must also look to not only retain the Service

member, but also retain his or her family.

Members of the National Guard expect to continue their civilian career even after

agreeing to join. Thus, their military responsibilities may take a secondary role, behind their primary profession and means of support.

The National Guard has implemented a number of programs in an effort to retain

our personnel. We’ve added more recruiters, conducted a national advertising campaign, and expanded education incentives. Additionally, we have implemented Aviation Continuation Pay and special salary rates for aviators, as well as authorized

special pay and enlistment bonuses for critical specialties. Continued support for our

most effective recruiting incentives, including enlistment bonuses, the Army College

Fund, Aircrew Incentive Pay, and the Loan Repayment Program, will help us continue to meet future manpower requirements.
195

National Guard Family Program

National Guard families are as crucial to the success of a soldier or airman as

readiness is to a mission. The support of families help citizen soldiers and airmen

perform at their optimum level whether in the field, in the sky or at their civilian

jobs. In an effort to increase the awareness that family programs provide critical

support to the families of our deployed troops, the National Guard declared 2000

the Year of the Family. To assist families in this challenging journey, state Family

Program coordinators, community managers, full-time Family Readiness and Support employees, and volunteers give guidance and information on how to cope with

the demands of their loved ones in the military.

State Family Program coordinators and volunteers work together to promote family member volunteerism, family readiness groups and networks, quality of life

issues, and to facilitate family readiness training throughout the National Guard.

During periods of increased Guard activity, such as deployments and state emergencies, Family Assistance Centers are set up to support the immediate and post

deployment needs of families. The Air National Guard has recently identified the

need for and begun hiring dedicated family readiness and support personnel at the

wing level.

Though every family is different, there is one constant. All are concerned for the

safety of their family member serving in unknown parts of the world and here at

home. The act of terrorism on the United States has placed National Guard men

and women in positions of increased high alert to protect this nation. Personal and

Family Readiness Guides are available for both Army and Air National Guard members and their families. This guide gives the families various checklists and tools

to help them plan. The Guard and Reserve Family Readiness Programs Toolkit,

which is a comprehensive set of resources, is also a product available to families.

A key component to keeping National Guard families ready is to make sure the

lines of communication are open with their National Guard members. Advances in

technology have made this an easier task than the days of simply writing letters.

Today, National Guard members can email their families on an almost daily basis

depending upon their mission. Others may also have the opportunity for video-conferencing, thus being able to see their loved ones face-to-face. This technique of communication affords comfort to the family as well as the National Guard member,

helping retain a highly trained and experienced force.

It is important to remember the total National Guard family. A Guard Family

Youth Symposium was held in 2001 that gave National Guard teens and youth the

opportunity to come together as a unique group. The group gathered for five days

in Washington, D.C. to discuss issues that were important to them as children of

National Guard members. The group returned to their states with new energy,

ready to reach out to other teens coping with the deployments of parents and life

as a youth in the National Guard family.

Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)

To foster positive employer-National Guard partnerships, the National Committee

for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) was chartered by Presidential proclamation in 1972 under the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It is the

sole agency within the Department of Defense directed to ‘‘promote public and private understanding of the National Guard and Reserve in order to gain employer

and community support to ensure the availability and readiness of National Guard

and Reserve forces.’’ The ESGR is comprised of a community-based volunteer network of over 4,500 members, who serve on 54 committees (in every state, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), implementing employer support programs within their local communities. The volunteers implement

a variety of programs and services for both Reserve Component members and their

employers. They provide information on employment rights and responsibilities related to the performance of military duty, offer informal employment conflict mediation, and conduct employer recognition and public affairs events that promote understanding of the vital role of the National Guard and Reserve.

Today, in terms of both manpower and force capability, the Reserve Components

comprise nearly half of the Total Force. As a result, employers are being asked to

sustain a much greater level of employee absence and related consequences. We

have long recognized that without the dedicated patriots who employ the men and

women of the National Guard, our militia could not perform at the magnificent level

we see today. In fact, 2001 was the National Guard’s Year of the Employer. Our

soldiers and airmen sacrifice when they answer the call to duty, and in a parallel

manner, so do their civilian employers.

ESGR recognizes certain difficulties for employers stem from military duty that

is aggravated by the increased operational tempo. These difficulties could be mini-
196

mized by modification of Department of Defense employment processes. Such adjustment would reaffirm a partnership of mutual respect and open communication between military and civilian employers. These adjustments might include such items

as improving management of the duration of military service and making military

recall procedures more responsive to employer needs.

Sustaining employer goodwill and support is essential to ensuring the availability

and readiness of the Reserve forces. This partnership for the military is not just a

mutual benefit—its a necessity.

We will continue to partner with the National Committee for Employer Support

of the Guard and Reserve to ensure our employers remain satisfied with our

‘‘shared’’ people and their dedicated commitment to continued military service. At

the same time, we have an opportunity to increase the visibility of the military in

the communities to help the Total Force bridge the growing civil-military gap. In

our effort to educate America’s employers, we educate a large community of leaders

on the mission and values of military service.

It is because of the exceptional people in our units that we continue to overcome

these challenges. It is the commitment of our people that is the heart and soul of

the National Guard. While we’ve put more on our members’ plates, we’ve done it

smart and with attention to bonuses, grade relief, grade enhancements, and employer and family support.

Equal Opportunity and the ‘‘Year of Diversity’’

The Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) has concluded that the longstanding Equal Opportunity efforts of the National Guard should be augmented by

an increased focus on diversity. The National Guard has designated year 2002 the

‘‘Year of Diversity.’’

The National Guard Bureau’s Equal Opportunity Division (NGB-EO) is a Joint

Staff office comprised of both military and civilian personnel. The NGB-EO vision

is: ‘‘To create and sustain an environment in the National Guard that values inclusiveness and professionalism; to offer all personnel an equal opportunity for success;

to enable the National Guard to meet its federal and state mission by taking full

advantage of the demographic realities of the Twenty-First century.’’

The CNGB and the Army and Air National Guard Directors have all launched diversity initiatives designed to strengthen the norms of inclusiveness that are essential to keeping our National Guard an effective, highly diverse, mission-ready organization. These initiatives include targeted training programs and curriculum designed to promote these inclusive norms.

Diversity goals are both right and smart. The Year of Diversity is an opportunity

to plan and take action to position the National Guard for future growth, as well

as a time to celebrate gains through diversity.

National Guard Youth Programs

Consistent with its role in local communities and state mission, the National

Guard operates two youth programs, ChalleNGe and Starbase. These programs

make use of the National Guard’s strengths in organization, planning, execution,

self-discipline and leadership, leveraging its existing infrastructure in the states, so

there is great value added with a minimum of additional resources.

ChalleNGe is a congressionally mandated program for youth between 16 and 18

years of age who are not in trouble with the law and are drug free, unemployed,

and have dropped out of high school. The program consists of a five-month residential phase with a one-year post-residential mentoring phase. Its goal is to significantly improve the life skills and employment potential of these youth through military-based training.

Starbase is a nonresidential program for students in grades K–12, which targets

‘‘at risk’’ students, and provides instruction specifically designed to meet a state’s

math and science objectives. The program provides the students with real-world applications of math and science through experiential learning, simulations, and experiments in aviation and space-related fields.

THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD DIRECTOR’S OVERVIEW

During fiscal year 2001, our nation suffered one of the most horrific acts of war

on American soil. To those whose sacrifices and selfless service purchased for us the

privileges of freedom, democracy, and unmatched opportunity, we pay tribute and

express a deep sense of gratitude. The events of September 11 clearly demonstrated

that when called, the Army National Guard (ARNG) is there to respond at home

and abroad.

Two hours after the attacks, Army National Guard soldiers began arriving at the

site of the World Trade Center in New York City, providing site security and engi-
197

neering support to clear away the rubble. That same evening, military police of the

Maryland Army National Guard arrived at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., to

provide security around the crash site. Soon after, we sent soldiers to our nation’s

airports to take back the skies from terrorists, restoring American citizens’ peace

of mind.

ARNG soldiers represent their communities as college students, teachers, police

officers, lawyers, firefighters, doctors, moms, dads, sons and daughters. These everyday people are what makes the Army National Guard so special.

Our units have capabilities unrealized by the American people. Even with the unexpected events of September 11 and its subsequent requirements, we are barely

scratching the surface of what the Army National Guard can do. Our soldiers are

deployed throughout the world in support of Operation Noble Eagle and Enduring

Freedom, in addition to the normal ongoing training missions, exercises and peacekeeping operations. These are all in support of our National Military Strategy and

represent a small percentage of the more than 350,000 ARNG soldiers.

These missions mean soldiers are absent from their families. The families’ willingness to endure these hardships to support their soldiers is critical to the effectiveness of the force. The sacrifices these ARNG families endure should not go unnoticed by our nation.

Another crucial element of our success is the employer. In recognition of this, the

National Guard celebrated 2001 as the ‘‘Year of the Employer’’. The missions our

citizen-soldiers perform are important to national security and world stability. However, when these missions take soldiers out of their workplace, especially for extended periods of time, employers can and often do experience hardship. It is a tremendous sacrifice that employers make and that sacrifice is recognized.

The National Guard Bureau has declared 2002 as our ‘‘Year of Diversity’’. I plan

to leverage demographic shifts in order to capitalize on the diverse talents of the

American people. The ARNG will recruit, train, retain, qualify and advance a force

that reflects America, acknowledging the contributions of all its members to enhance our service to community, state and nation.

The fiscal year 2003 Posture Statement provides you with an update on what the

ARNG has been doing, the progress we are making and how we will help meet the

needs of the country as defined in our National Military Strategy. Some of the major

issues addressed are equipment modernization, operational tempo, readiness, fulltime manning and resourcing.

Additionally, we outline the many challenges we face as an organization. We particularly focus on our ability to balance requirements placed upon us by our states

and nation while still maintaining the support of families and employers versus our

ability to sustain acceptable readiness. The strides made by the ARNG in 2001 are

evidenced by the performance of our units.

Our foundation is first-rate individual soldiers, molded into teams. These soldiers

and teams are what make the ARNG a very special organization indeed.

The nation relies on the ARNG now more than ever to accomplish an increasing

number of vital missions. We owe it to our soldiers to provide them with the best

equipment, best training and a dedicated full-time support staff. As the Director of

the Army National Guard, I will ensure that our soldiers are adequately resourced

as a premiere fighting force, ready to defend our national interests. Our ability to

be ready when called upon by the American people is, and will always be, our top

priority and our bottom line.

ROGER C. SCHULTZ,

Lieutenant General, GS Director, Army National Guard.

THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD TODAY

America’s goals are to promote peace, sustain freedom, and encourage prosperity.

Our world role provides a basis for a network of friendships and alliances with other

countries to flourish. History shows repeatedly that the prosperity of America is

linked to the prosperity of others. America’s involvement in the world also contributes directly to global peace and freedom. The Army National Guard provides an

essential service to achieve these goals, as it helps assure friends and allies of an

unwavering U.S. commitment to freedom now and in the future.

The Army National Guard in Stability and Support Operations

The Army National Guard deployed over 21,000 trained and ready personnel in

more than 85 countries in support of regional war fighting Commanders in Chief

(CINCs). These deployments include sending soldiers to peacekeeping operations in

the Balkans, Southwest Asia, Operation Joint Forge (Bosnia), Operation Joint
198

Guardian (Kosovo) and Operation Desert Spring (Kuwait/Saudi Arabia). This represents an increase in deployments of more than 8 percent over fiscal year 2000.

Reliance upon the Army National Guard continues to increase for fiscal year 2002,

during which over 24,000 Army National Guard soldiers will be deployed worldwide

in more than 89 countries and participate in more than 75 Chairman, Joint Chiefs

of Staff and CINC sponsored events. This represents an increase in deployments of

more than 12 percent over fiscal year 2001 and 20 percent over the two years prior

(2000/2001).

U.S. Joint Forces Command Exercises (JFCOM)

Prior to fiscal year 2001, the Army National Guard did not participate in Joint

Forces Command Exercises (JFCOM). Beginning in fiscal year 2001 nearly 900 service members participated in JFCOM exercises such as Joint Task Force Exercise

and Unified Endeavor. Army National Guard division and brigade headquarters

participated in both multi-service (category 2) and Joint Force (category 3) exercises.

These exercises improve skills in joint interoperability areas and prepare units to

participate in higher echelon exercises.

U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)—Central and South America

As the lead command in the New Horizons Nicaragua, Engineering exercise in fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard will deploy more than 3,200 personnel in

support of the SOUTHCOM Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) exercise program. The Army National Guard provided extensive support to Active Component

(AC) forces in SOUTHCOM through the Overseas Deployment for Training (ODT)

program this past fiscal year.

In fiscal year 2001, Army National Guard aviation aircrews and support personnel

from Alaska and Iowa provided general support for New Horizons. The Army National Guard aviators completed a multitude of missions in the Central American

countries of Honduras, Guatemala and Paraguay during fiscal year 2001. During fiscal year 2001, the Army National Guard deployed nearly 3,500 soldiers to support

Central America through Medical Readiness Training Exercises (MEDRETE), unit

exchanges and joint-combined exercises such as NUEVOS HORIZONTES,

TRADEWINDS and FUERZAS ALIADAS.

U.S. European Command (EUCOM)

In fiscal year 2002, more than 11,000 Army National Guard soldiers will participate in more than a dozen exercises in addition to supporting annual infantry and

engineer Opposing Force (OPFOR) rotations in the Combat Maneuver Training Center-Europe in Germany. The Army National Guard will also provide direct and general support maintenance units to perform readiness enhancing annual training periods at the Equipment Maintenance Center-Europe.

Additionally, the Army National Guard will provide Combat Service (CS) and

Combat Service Support (CSS) functions across the spectrum to include aviation

maintenance, military police, signal, medical, Judge Advocate General (JAG), chaplain, finance, public affairs and engineer facility support. Total Army National

Guard support to Europe during fiscal year 2001 exceeded 13,000 soldiers.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)—Middle East

The Army National Guard support to CENTCOM through the ODT program increased to nearly 900 service members in fiscal year 2001. This number will grow

to more than 1,000 in fiscal year 2002. This support primarily consists of military

intelligence, military police, Special Forces and communication efforts in support of

Active Component (AC) exercises, e.g. INTRINSIC ACTION, LUCKY SENTINEL,

NATURAL FIRE, IRON COBRA and BRIGHT STAR.

U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM)—Asia

Bilateral and multinational training exercises require Army National Guard participation in the Pacific Theater. During fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard

will deploy more than 3,200 soldiers to participate in three major Joint Chiefs of

Staff exercises in Korea and Japan. Also linguists, engineers, aviation, maintenance,

and public affairs will provide support to CINC Pacific (CINCPAC) and CINC Korea

(CINCK) in non-exercise events. In fiscal year 2001, more than 2,600 Army National

Guard personnel participated in these exercises.

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)

The Department of Defense has a number of Special Operations Forces to include

Navy Seals and USAF Special Operations Wings. The majority of The Army’s Special Operations capability resides in the Army National Guard. As key players in

the National Military Strategy, the 19th and 20th Special Forces Groups (located
199

in 15 states) will provide more than 800 personnel in support of AC Special Forces

missions during fiscal year 2002 as a result of operational deployments throughout

the world.

Both 19th and 20th Special Forces (SF) Groups supported CJCS Exercises and

Joint Combined Exercise Training (JCET) in several Theaters with a total of 1,411

soldiers deploying on 28 missions to 18 countries. In the Pacific Theater, the Army

National Guard Special Forces provided 510 soldiers to support PACOM Exercises

and JCETs. These exercises included FOAL EAGLE, ULCHI FOCUS LENS, and

COBRA GOLD. Of the 384 soldiers deployed to PACOM, 254 participated in CJCS

Exercises and JCETs in Korea. In the U.S. Southern Command, the Army National

Guard Special Forces supported TRADE WINDS and CABANAS CJCS Exercises as

well as conducting JCETs with 506 soldiers in Honduras, Jamaica, Argentina, Antigua, and Trinidad.

Major Exercises in the Continental United States (CONUS)

Army National Guard units throughout the country trained as part of the combined arms team in several major CONUS exercises. More than 17,700 soldiers from

158 units trained on mission essential tasks through participation in exercises such

as ROVING SANDS, GOLDEN COYOTE, ROLLING THUNDER, GRECIAN

FIREBOLT, PURPLE DRAGON, ROAD RUNNER, PHANTOM SABER and GLOBAL PATRIOT.

Operation Joint Forge (OJF)

Soldiers from the Colorado and Wyoming Army National Guard’s 1022nd Air Ambulance Company deployed to Bosnia to provide aerial medical evacuation support

for Stabilization Forces 9 (SFOR 9). The 1022nd AA provided four UH–60

Blackhawk helicopters, aircrews and support personnel during this Presidential Select Reserve Call-up deployment in support of peace keeping efforts in the region

Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)

Army National Guard aviation continues to a play vital role in our Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA) missions. Army National Guard aviation assisted

in extinguishing numerous forest fires during fiscal year 2001. Army National

Guard aviation assisted local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in countering the trade and cultivation of illicit drugs within the borders of the United

States.

Army National Guard aviation crews and assets were some of the first to respond

during the tragic events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Army National Guard Aviation was on a high state of

alert immediately following these events.

In New York, the Army National Guard provided 23 utility aircraft to assist in

the recovery efforts near the site of the World Trade Center. Another mission was

to provide transportation for the deployment of rapid response teams to virtually

anywhere in the country, as requested.

The Pennsylvania Army National Guard had 33 aircraft standing by on a 15-

minute response time from various airfields around the state. Their capabilities included mass casualty evacuation and fire fighting.

The Air Ambulance Company from the District of Columbia National Guard was

on site to support the 24 hours per day recovery operation at the Pentagon. Within

hours of the attack, five aircraft and multiple crews deployed to the site to provide

support. The crews were rotated every 12 hours on the grounds of the Pentagon to

ensure aircrew endurance and aircraft availability.

The Army National Guard will continue to provide vital aviation support to

Homeland Security efforts.

Operation Desert Spring (ODS)

The Army National Guard continues to provide aviation support to Operation

Desert Spring in Kuwait. Aviation Task Force 211, consisting of aviation crews from

the Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana Army National Guard, deployed in August 2001.

Army National Guard AH–64 Apaches and UH–60 Blackhawks provide essential

aviation support and force protection to the Operation Desert Spring mission in

Southwest Asia.

Military Intelligence Operations

In fiscal year 2001, Army National Guard Military Intelligence (MI) soldiers and

units performed approximately 96,769 man-days of support. Operations ranged from

language support in Mongolia to tactical intelligence support in the Balkans operations.
200

Army National Guard MI soldiers and units supported all the Regional Commanders in Chief (CINCs) and their Major Subordinate Commands both inside and

outside the continental United States. Army National Guard MI soldiers participated in joint exercises in Japan and acted as watch officers in Korea and for Joint

Task Force Bravo in South America.

The Army National Guard MI role in Balkans operations continues to grow.

Teams and individuals augment active Army MI Battalions while the National

Guard continues to stand-up tactical MI units to provide organic support to deploying National Guard Divisions. Army National Guard MI elements continue to provide essential MI mission and language augmentation to all Department of Defense

elements, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Justice.

Information Operations Operational Support

The Army National Guard continues to develop full spectrum Information Operations (IO) teams to support the broad range of Army missions. The Army National

Guard IO Field Support Teams (FST’s) provide tactical IO planning capabilities to

the Army’s divisions and corps. These FST personnel deployed in support of Army

exercises, joint missions, and contingency operations.

The Army National Guard, in partnership with the Combined Arms Center (CAC)

at Fort Leavenworth, KS and Norwich University in Vermont is a key player in the

development of Information Operations Training for the Army. Both network security technical training and Tactical IO Planning Courses are provided through the

Vermont Training Battalion. Recently, the Army’s first Functional Area 30 Qualification Course was developed in conjunction with the Army National Guard.

THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE

The War on Terrorism has focused the Department of Defense on the role of the

military in Homeland Security. The Army National Guard is uniquely positioned to

provide immediate support to domestic first responders in times of crisis. In the

aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Army National Guard soldiers

provided a variety of supporting roles including site security, medical support and

nuclear, biological and chemical site testing.

The Army National Guard also provided more than 7,000 soldiers to augment airport security in more than 400 airports. Additionally, the Army National Guard was

called upon to provide critical infrastructure protection to ammunition and chemical

storage depots as well as augmenting security for numerous electrical, nuclear and

transportation assets nationwide.

To continue the critical work of our country a number of needs must be looked

at. The Army National Guard has defined 11 key organizational goals that are critical to focus our support of the nation’s defense. These goals are:

Manning.—Develop and execute an Army-wide integrated human resource system

to acquire, distribute, manage, compensate, retain and transition people, enabling

the Army National Guard to provide combat ready units.

Organizing.—Provide the maximum possible number of missioned Army National

Guard units based on the Total Army Analysis (TAA) process, with required support

as part of The Army’s total force structure required to achieve directed capabilities.

Equipping.—Obtain and distribute mission capable equipment to optimize Army

National Guard unit readiness, modernization and force relevance.

Readiness.—Ensure all Army National Guard units are resourced to attain and

sustain readiness levels needed to meet Commanders in Chief (CINC) mission requirements and deployment timelines.

Sustaining.—Provide appropriate and efficient support for personnel, equipment

and operations to accomplish all Army National Guard missions.

Training.—Produce ready units to meet the National Military Strategy. This requires the development of strategies and the planning, acquisition, distribution and

execution of resources to train individual, leader and collective tasks in the live, virtual and constructive environments.

Quality Installations.—Provide state-of-the-art, environmentally sound, community-based power projection platforms that integrate all functions required to sustain and enhance unit readiness and community support.

Missioning.—100 percent of all Army National Guard force structure federally

missioned—all Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) units and

Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) structure included within Time Phase

Force Deployment Data (TPFDD) or supporting the Commander in Chief War plans.

Quality of Life.—Provide an environment and culture that promotes equal opportunity for all, fosters environmental stewardship and provides for the safety, health

and fitness of the force, families and communities.
201

Knowledge Infrastructure.—Develop the infrastructure necessary to capture and

create information and knowledge, store it in an organized manner, improve it, clarify it and make it accessible in a usable format.

Resourcing.—Secure resources for all statutory and critical requirements. Achieve

parity by Force Package across all components to provide trained and deployable

forces for The Army and CINCs.

The future years will present a variety of challenges for the Army National

Guard. As we continue transitioning to the full spectrum force of choice, critical

shortfalls in equipment modernization, real property maintenance and military construction must be addressed. The Army National Guard will continue taking a more

active role as the traditional defender of our nation, at home and abroad.

MANNING THE FORCE

Army National Guard Full-Time Support

To meet the challenge of the future years, the Chief, National Guard Bureau recognizes that additional Full-time Support authorizations are the number one priority for the Army National Guard. The National Guard does not currently have the

full-time authorizations or the funding to adequately support readiness requirements for organization, administration, instruction, recruiting and training, maintenance of supplies, equipment and aircraft and other daily support functions. FullTime Support levels directly impact readiness and are required to efficiently and effectively transition from peacetime to wartime posture. Full-Time Support personnel

are critical links to the interoperability of the Army’s components. Additional FullTime Support personnel are the most serious funding challenge faced by the Army

National Guard.

Recruiting and Retention

Operational demands on the Armed Forces have taken a toll on active military

personnel. Since the end of the Cold War, the Armed Forces experienced a reduction

of total personnel while our security strategy has increased the demands placed on

the reserve forces.

To meet the increasing mission requirements on the Army National Guard, we

must not only attract but also retain our soldiers. In an effort to diversify the force,

the Army National Guard has developed several new programs to reach previously

under-represented populations in our communities. One such program is an Army

National Guard-sponsored youth program that provides a life skills curriculum for

financially disadvantaged youth. The second program is a series of Army National

Guard-sponsored diversity career fairs. The third program is an English as a second

language course taught in Army National Guard readiness centers

The Army National Guard’s fiscal year 2003 end strength objectives include

achieving a selected reserve strength of 350,000—36,579 commissioned and warrant

officers and 313,421 enlisted personnel. To attain this goal, enlisted gains are programmed at 60,504 with officer gains at 3,627. Enlisted losses are projected not to

exceed 62,333.

Enlisted Personnel Recruiting and Retention

Enlisted personnel recruiting and retention were continuing success stories for the

Army National Guard during fiscal year 2001. Enlisted accessions for the year exceeded the program objective of 60,252 by totaling 61,956 or 102.8 percent of the

goal. Non-prior service accessions at 33,091 were 109.8 percent of the objective while

prior service accessions at 28,865 represented 95.8 percent of the objective. These

statistics reflect an accession mix of 53.4 percent non-prior service enlistments and

46.6 percent prior service enlistments. The overall Army National Guard loss rate

through the end of fiscal year 2001 was 19 percent versus an overall objective of

18 percent.

Educational Assistance

Educational assistance continues to be an effective tool in improving recruiting

and retention efforts in the Army National Guard. Increasing a soldier’s educational

standing not only benefits soldiers in their civilian lives but also helps the Army

National Guard improve its quality and readiness objectives. During fiscal year

2001, $9.1 million in tuition assistance was provided to 42,063 soldiers. In fiscal

year 2002, the Army National Guard expects to provide $11.3 million in tuition assistance to more than 30,000 soldiers and has increased the semester hour rate to

match the rate offered by the other military Services.
202

Officer Accessions and Retention

The total officer strength at the end of fiscal year 2001 was 36,579. Officer end

strength was 821 short of the programmed objective. The Army National Guard continues to have a higher than expected loss rate among Army National Guard officers. Some of this is attributed to resignation from the Army National Guard due

to family pressures, Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) and better income opportunities offered in the civilian sector.

The shortage of company grade officers in the Army National Guard, particularly

at the rank of captain, results in a large number of lieutenants and warrant officers

occupying captain positions. Our company-grade shortfall in units creates a detrimental effect on Unit Status Reporting, and thus in our overall readiness posture,

unit morale and unit climate.

The Army National Guard continues to employ a number of measures to combat

the critical shortfall in company grade and warrant officers. Measures targeted for

execution include developing a robust advertising campaign; creating an officer/warrant officer recruiting and retention course; changing the coding for officer losses to

ascertain reasons and identify patterns associated with junior officer attrition; capitalizing on alternate commissioning sources for increased accessioning into the

Army National Guard; and identifying and resourcing programs to assist in the acquisition of new officers. These initiatives will contribute to the Army National

Guard’s ability to effectively man the force with quality officers and warrant officers.

Warrant Officer Personnel Management

The Army National Guard continues to address significant challenges in warrant

officer accession and personnel management. Of significant concern is the critical

shortage of technical service warrant officers and the impact this has on unit readiness. Currently the assigned warrant officer strength is 81 percent fill of the authorized strength. Technical warrant officer strength is down to 71 percent, while aviation warrant officer strength has fallen slightly below requirements to 95 percent.

In an attempt to address the declining strength within the technical warrant officer specialties, the Army National Guard is currently pursuing alternatives to mitigate the shortfall in our warrant officer strength.

Medical Readiness

Identified in the Medical Readiness Campaign Plan, the Army National Guard

Medical Strategic Goals for fiscal year 2003 are to support deployment of healthy

soldiers, support deployment of the medical units, and facilitate family care. To

achieve these goals, the mission of the Army National Guard Medical Team is to

promote medical readiness of the Army National Guard, assuring that forces are

ready and deployable for federal, state and community missions.

The plan includes six focus areas. (1) Health Services Access/Policy; (2) Health

Care Operations; (3) Medical Personnel Management; (4) Medical Force Modernization; (5) Quality Management; and (6) Preventive Medicine.

These initiatives allow the Army National Guard to accurately provide medical information for the partial mobilization, and State Active Duty calls to assist soldiers

with the best possible health care coverage. Health care operations paved the way

in tracking medical readiness data through the Medical Protection Occupational

System (MEDPROS), allowing unit commanders and state headquarters to monitor

the medical readiness of their soldiers.

Medical Personnel Management evaluates the critical Military Occupational Skills

(MOS) that the Army National Guard needs to acquire or retain. The Army is

transitioning many of the enlisted medical MOSs to the Health Care Specialist,

known as the 91W. Proactive planning in Medical Force Modernization has placed

the Army National Guard as the leader in the number of individuals currently

trained as a 91W. Quality Management and medical standards for physical profiles

is a high priority in attaining medical deployability for our soldiers. Preventive Medicine is a key force multiplier.

ORGANIZING THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD FOR SUCCESS

We have long recognized that transformation of the U.S. military is essential to

meet the new strategic era and the internal and external challenges facing America.

Today the Army National Guard works tirelessly to ensure that we are properly organized, trained, equipped, and postured to provide for the effective defense of the

United States. The current array of ARNG forces provide the governors with a wide

range of capabilities to deal with Homeland Security issues. These capabilities will

be enhanced in the near future as additional Chemical and Military Police structure

is activated.
203

Integrated Division concept

The Army National Guard Division Redesign Study included a proposal to form

two integrated Active Component/Army National Guard divisions. Each integrated

division consists of an Active Component headquarters and three Army National

Guard enhanced Separate Brigades (eSBs). On December 2, 1997, the Secretary of

the Army approved establishing a mechanized division headquarters at Fort Riley,

Kansas with a forward element at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and an infantry division headquarters at Fort Carson, Colorado. The 24th Infantry Division (-) and the

7th Infantry Division (-) formally activated on October 16, 1999.

The division headquarters are non-deployable and tailored to provide training and

readiness oversight and evaluation of assigned eSBs. The eSBs selected for the 24th

Infantry Division (-) are the 30th Mechanized Infantry Brigade (North Carolina), the

48th Mechanized Infantry Brigade (Georgia), and the 218th Mechanized Infantry

Brigade (South Carolina). The eSBs that comprise the 7th ID (-) are the 39th Infantry Brigade (Arkansas), the 41st Infantry Brigade (Oregon), and the 45th Infantry

Brigade (Oklahoma).

Teaming and Partnering of Active Component and Army National Guard units

Teaming is a program that pairs selected Active Component and Army National

Guard units for mutual support of operational requirements. Teamed units participate in mutually supporting operational training events that enhance readiness and

complement each unit’s individual strengths.

Currently, teaming is limited to divisional units. The teamed divisions under III

Corps are 1st Cavalry Division with 49th Armored Division (Texas), 38th ID (Indiana) with Fort Carson, Colorado and 34th ID (Minnesota) with 4th ID. Under XVIII

Corps are 3rd ID and 28th ID (Pennsylvania), 10th Mountain Division and 29th ID

(Virginia), and the 101st Air Assault Division with the 42nd ID (New York). Under

V Corps is the 35th ID (Kansas) with Fort Riley, Kansas. Under I Corps is the 2nd

ID with the 40th ID (California).

EQUIPPING THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

For National Guard forces to operate and fight alongside their Active Component

counterparts as a seamless force, they must be equipped with either the same equipment as the Active force or highly compatible equipment.

The Army National Guard is dealing with the reality of aging and obsolete equipment. Equipping issues are becoming more significant as our units are preparing

for deployments that require modernized equipment in the area of operation.

Units are training on some equipment that is a substitute for the more modernized equipment. For example, units are training with VRC–12 series radios for missions in which SINCGARS radios are the standard. There is a major shortfall in

Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) equipment to include reconnaissance and

decontamination systems. We must ensure that our soldiers have the highest level

of force protection by fielding them with modernized systems.

Providing the Army National Guard with modernized equipment and associated

training packages to operate equipment is essential to maintaining the capabilities

of the Army National Guard. The Army National Guard equipment on-hand readiness posture improved in the last year, but equipment interoperability with the Active Component remains years away. Current programs are slowly modernizing, but

the resources needed to meet requirements are not keeping pace. A significant consequence is equipment on hand continues to age at a faster rate than can be offset

by modernization—increasing maintenance and operational costs. Although the

Army National Guard continues to receive new and cascaded vehicles to maintain

its fleet, the inventory still contains old equipment that cannot perform to mission

requirement standards.

Artillery

The modernization of field artillery units to M109A6 Paladin, Multiple Launch

Rocket Systems (MLRS) and Highly Mobile Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) are

significant initiatives. By the end of fiscal year 2001, the Army National Guard had

fielded 18 M109A6 Paladin battalions. Thirteen Army National Guard divisional

battalions still require Paladin to modernize. Due to a funding shortfall from fiscal

year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, the MLRS conversion program will be delayed.

Army National Guard MLRS is programmed to complete conversion in fiscal year

2005. The fielding of Highly Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) to the

Army National Guard is tentatively scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005. The Advanced Field Artillery Data System fielding began in fiscal year 2001 and completes

Army National Guard Field Artillery digital communication modernization in fiscal

year 2009.
204

Bradley Fighting Vehicle

The Army is now fielding the M2/3A3 version of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle

(BFV). The desired end-state for the Guard to achieve interoperability with the active digitized force is the M2/3A2ODS version. The Army National Guard currently

has the first production models consisting of the M2/3A0, M2/3A2, and some M2/

3AODS.

Congress appropriated $165 million in fiscal years 1998–1999 to procure

M2A2ODS and M3A2ODS Bradley Fighting Vehicles for the 218th enhanced Separate Brigade (eSB), South Carolina Army National Guard. This begins to address

the need to provide the eSBs with upgraded BFVs, and the further cascade M2A2’s

into Army National Guard divisions. Follow on fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001

Congressional appropriations were provided to complete the fielding of the 30th eSB

(North Carolina Army National Guard) and the 48th eSB (Georgia Army National

Guard) in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003.

The overall Bradley force will still have eight battalion sets unfunded to complete

the heavy eSBs and the Armored Cavalry Regiment. The other seven heavy eSBs

are currently equipped with M2A2/M3A2 and M2A0/M3A0 systems and M1A1

Abrams tanks. Initiatives are under way to upgrade the remaining armor from

M1A1 tanks to M1A1HA.

Air Defense

Two Army National Guard Avenger Battalions were fielded complete sets of the

Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control System (FAADC2I) and Sentinel

Radar. The remaining seven corps Avenger battalions will be fielded with the

FAADC2I and Sentinel Radar from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007.

Currently, there is no funding to support fieldings to the Army National Guard

eSB Batteries or Divisional Battalion. However, the 263rd Army Air and Missile Defense Command (AAMDC) will field the remainder of its Air and Missile Defense

Command and Control System (AMDCCS) equipment in fiscal year 2002, as a result

of the decision made by Congress to accelerate fielding by five years.

Digitization

The Army Battle Command System (ABCS) is the Army’s architecture for the

overall integration of the digital command and control system found at all echelons

from theater level to the weapons platform. Army National Guard units assigned

to the III Corps will receive the required ABCS applications by fiscal year 2004.

However, to make the ABCS applications interoperable and functional, units will require a digital pipeline. The Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS)

is the network backbone that supports ABCS applications until the Joint Tactical

Radio System (JTRS) is fielded to the Army National Guard. The current Future

Years Defense Plan (FYDP) does not have resources for these requirements.

Communications

One of the top Army National Guard equipping priorities is to replace obsolete

Vietnam era VRC–12 series radios with SINCGARS, an essential element to Army

interoperability. The fielding plan has a window from June 2000 through June 2004

for all 15 eSBs, eight National Guard Divisions, and all other support units. Currently all 15 eSBs have SINCGARS radios. The 29th Division (Virginia) has completed SINCGARS fielding as the first of the eight Guard divisions. Two more divisions will finish early in 2002. In addition, the echelons above division field artillery

brigades and Air Defense units that support early deploying forces, are receiving

SINCGARS SIP/ASIP radios. However, if not fully funded, the Army National

Guard may have to wait until the Joint Tactical Radio System fielding starts in fiscal year 2007 for the cascade of older SINCGARS from the AC to fully purge the

VRC–12 series radios from the Army National Guard.

Javelin

The Javelin is the new infantry anti-armor weapon system that is critical for a

self-defense capability for light forces and mechanized infantry. The current budget

addresses 100 percent of the Army National Guard Javelin requirements for the

eSBs and Special Forces Groups. However, fielding to the Army National Guard

eSBs and SF Groups will not be scheduled to begin until the third quarter of fiscal

year 2004, with completion expected during the first quarter of fiscal year 2006.

Fielding for the Army National Guard divisions, separate infantry battalions and

corps engineer battalions is planned to continue through the fourth quarter of fiscal

year 2008. However, this is dependent on the availability of systems. Once the initial quantities run out, the fielding of Javelin to those remaining Army National

Guard units stops.
205

Small arms

The ARNG received 2,105 MK–19 Grenade Machine Guns (GMG) in fiscal year

1999, 2,030 in fiscal year 2000 and 308 in fiscal year 2001. We are scheduled to

receive 1,092 MK–19s during fiscal year 2002 and 700 during fiscal year 2003. This

will complete the fielding to the enhanced brigades and divisions.

The Army National Guard started receiving the M240B Medium Machine Gun

during the third quarter of fiscal year 2000. Fielding of the eSB follows beginning

in the second quarter of fiscal year 2001 and ends in the second quarter of fiscal

year 2002. Remaining Army National Guard units will receive the M240B beginning

in the third quarter of fiscal year 2002.

The M4 Carbine fielding to Army National Guard eSBs began in the third quarter

of fiscal year 2000 and continues through the third quarter of fiscal year 2002. This

leaves an unfunded requirement of 39,541 M4s for Army National Guard units.

The Army National Guard is scheduled to receive 31,546 M249 Squad Automatic

Weapons (SAWs) by the third quarter of fiscal year 2003. This will fill 84 percent

of requirements. The Army National Guard will begin fielding 3,168 M16A4 rifles

in the first quarter of fiscal year 2003 and complete with a final fielding of 23,849

in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006.

Night Vision Goggles (NVG)

The Army National Guard is short Night Vision Goggles for both air and ground

units. The current inventory represents only 33 percent of the Army National Guard

requirement for NVGs. This shortage adversely impacts a unit’s ability to train for

and conduct night operations. The older PVS–5 NVGs, used as substitutes for the

PVS–7Bs NVGs, are inadequate and limit the unit’s ability to maneuver under the

cover of darkness with the same agility as PVS–7B equipped units.

The AN/PVS–14 Monocular fielding was completed in November 2000. Fielding of

the AN/PVS–7D began in the third quarter of fiscal year 2000 to the eSBs, and will

continue through the end of fiscal year 2002. Fielding to Guard divisions will begin

after 2002.

Protective Masks

Fielding of new and cascaded M40 Protective Masks, M42 Protective Masks, and

M41 Protective Mask Test Sets has been completed. Additionally, the M42 is being

upgraded to the M42A2.

Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)

Fielding to modernize the current 2-ton and 5-ton fleets will not be completed

until fiscal year 2024. Each time funding for this program is decreased, the fielding

timelines are extended for Army National Guard units. Units continue to use cascaded vehicles coming from the AC that in many cases increase the technology gap

rather than close it. Since the Army decision to field the FMTV, the Army National

Guard has received less than 1 percent of the required 5-ton vehicles and less than

2 percent of the required 2-ton vehicles of the new series. The remaining 97 percent

are the older models.

The Army National Guard completed the fielding of 168 FMTVs to field artillery,

transportation and quartermaster units in fiscal year 1999. The second phase of

fielding to the Army National Guard is scheduled to start in fiscal year 2001 and

conclude in fiscal year 2003. The third phase will begin after fiscal year 2003 and

continue through fiscal year 2008. The Army National Guard will receive an additional 2,030 FMTVs for fielding to First Digitized Corps Army National Guard units.

Other Procurement Army (OPA1) is the source of funding for the second phase of

FMTV fielding.

The Army National Guard is programmed to receive 1,034 M1078 Light Medium

Tactical Vehicles (LMTVs) to modernize high priority units. The Army National

Guard received the initial fielding of 380 LMTVs during the fourth quarter of fiscal

year 2001.

Generators

The Army National Guard has less than 60 percent of its required tactical power

generation equipment and equipment on-hand is more than 20 years old. The majority of this shortfall lies in the smaller 3 KW and 5 KW models.

Current fielding of the newer models of the tactical quiet generator (TQG) addresses Force Package 2 unit fieldings of 3 KW generators. The 5–60 KW TQG fielding through fiscal year 2007 will finish Force Package 3. Fielding of Force Package

4 units will start in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. The Army National Guard

needs to upgrade and improve its aging inventory of generators and accelerate the

fielding of TQG to more units within the Army National Guard.
206

AH–1 ‘‘COBRA’’ and UH–1 ‘‘HUEY’’ Retirements

Aviation modernization remains among one of the highest priorities for the Army

National Guard. It has become critical because of the Army’s expedited retirement

programs for the Vietnam-era AH–1 and UH–1 helicopters. Even after receiving cascading aircraft from the AC and delivery of previously funded aircraft, the Army

National Guard will still be short more than 200 UH–60 Blackhawks.

All AH–1s were retired at the end of fiscal year 2001; however, the modernized

AH–64s and RAH–66s to replace them are not available. To overcome this shortfall

and to provide a means to maintain minimum readiness in the units affected, the

Army has approved the use of OH–58A/C scout aircraft as a ‘‘bridge’’ over the modernization gap. These units will have minimal combat capability during this period.

The following units are affected: six Divisional Attack Battalions, Air Troops in

eight Divisional Cavalry Squadrons, and two Attack Companies in the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment’s Air Squadron. Additional AH–64A replacement aircraft

are expected to begin cascading from the active Army in fiscal year 2002, but the

RAH–66s for the ACR and Divisional Cavalry units will not be available prior to

2011.

All UH–1s must retire by the end of fiscal year 2004. The Army National Guard

has already begun to reduce the on-hand inventory. This accelerated retirement

schedule, combined with the continued grounding of many of the UH–1s due to the

mast replacements, will present a substantial challenge to the Army National Guard

for both unit and aircrew readiness. Currently, from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal

year 2007, the Army National Guard will retire more than 700 UH–1s, while scheduled to receive less than 170 UH–60 replacements during the same period. To address this problem, the Army and the Army National Guard have identified a critical need to increase the rate of UH–60 procurements from the current schedule of

10 per year to about 30 per year. However, these increases are currently unfunded.

UH–60 Air Ambulance ‘‘BlackHawk’’

Development of modernized versions of the Army’s MEDEVAC Air Ambulance

helicopters has been a National Guard development priority for more than seven

years. Currently, eleven of the Army National Guard’s fifteen Air Ambulance companies have been modernized. The Army National Guard also has one Air Ambulance Detachment with four UH–60Q Blackhawks. Only four of the companies are

resourced at 100 percent (15 UH–60s). The remaining four companies are equipped

with UH–1 Iroquois, which will be retired from service by fiscal year 2004. This reflects an overall shortfall of approximately 82 UH–60s.

An Army National Guard initiative for testing several variant prototype aero-medical platforms, using Tennessee Army National Guard aircraft, has resulted in Army

approval of UH–60Q and HH–60L Air Ambulance designs for future requirements.

There is now a formal Army program to eventually convert or procure these advanced UH–60Q and HH–60L designs for all Army and Army National Guard Air

Ambulance units.

CH–47D Cargo Helicopters

The Cargo Helicopter CH–47D is programmed for modification to the ‘‘F’’ model.

This improvement includes upgraded engines, drive train, and avionics. The Army

program to upgrade current cargo helicopters to a fully modernized CH–47F configuration remains under funded. This will result in about two-thirds of the Army National Guard cargo fleet being modernized CH–47Fs, while the remaining one-third

of the Army National Guard structure, plus Army training and float aircraft, remain

as unmodified CH–47Ds. Because the Future Transport Rotorcraft (FTR) is now unlikely to be available for an extended period, the Army National Guard remains

hopeful that the CH–47F program will eventually be extended to a full procurement

objective of 431, in order to convert all Army CH–47Ds to the CH–47F configuration.

Summary

The Army National Guard remains an integral part of the Army’s force structure.

It has the majority of the artillery force and CS/CSS infrastructure. The enhanced

separate brigades have reached, or are soon programmed to reach, the same modernization level as their Active Component counterparts. The Army National Guard

has a traditional role in Homeland Security and overseas theater engagement missions, and supporting disaster relief. Despite the efforts of a number of programs,

a significant lag will remain for several years in replacing the Army National

Guard’s overage tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, upgrading its tactical communication

systems, and filling other equipment shortages that are most useful in Homeland

Security and overseas mission support. Current programmed procurement through
207

fiscal year 2007 will not fill the existing shortages nor replace current obsolete

equipment.

RESOURCES TO READINESS

The resourcing goal of the Army National Guard is to secure adequate funding,

enabling the organization to meet all statutory and critical funding requirements.

The Army National Guard readiness goal is to provide trained and deployable forces

for The Army and Commanders in Chief (CINCs), thus the phrase ‘‘resources to

readiness.’’ Our intent is to improve our readiness through funding parity within

each Force package for all Army Components.

Resourcing Priorities

By prioritizing limited resources, our ‘‘First to Deploy’’ forces receive the highest

funding in order to have the capability to meet the CINC’s requirements. This

resourcing strategy ensures our early deploying units have the funds, people and

equipment necessary to meet the Defense Planning Guidance deployment criteria,

and greatly enhances overall readiness. Lower priority units, such as our eight combat divisions, are funded to meet baseline readiness goals at the individual, crew

and squad levels of training.

Prioritization of resources, in terms of personnel assessment, equipment procurement, maintenance, training, and full-time support personnel support are the factors that determine readiness and capability across our force. The relatively new

Army National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (CSTs)

sustain appropriate levels of readiness to meet mission requirements. The number

of units within the CST community will continue to increase based on National Defense requirements. Other high priority/early deploying units recently experienced

a temporary decline of 3.9 percent in readiness due to structure additions. Focused

resource management will cause these units to achieve readiness goals. Our enhanced Separate Brigades (eSBs) experienced an increase of 4.9 percent in readiness

over the past 12 months. The eight divisions decreased 3.6 percent due primarily

to personnel training shortfalls.

While adequate OPTEMPO funding is crucial to the continued readiness of our

force, it is impossible to underestimate the impact of full-time manning shortages

on the overall readiness of the ARNG. Military Technicians are integral to improved

equipment readiness; Active Guard and Reserve soldiers in units are key to training

and unit management. Full-time manning is our highest priority for improved Army

National Guard readiness.

Budget Appropriations

Three appropriations apply directly to the Army National Guard: National Guard

Personnel, Army (NGPA), Operations and Maintenance, Army National Guard

(OMNG), and Military Construction, Army National Guard (MCNG). The Army National Guard is also funded by individual states for state-related functions. These

three appropriations fund specific requirements as defined in congressional appropriation language, but should not be confused with the total costs of operations.

Some support costs, including most equipment acquisition, are provided through

other appropriations. The fiscal year 2002 appropriated funds for the Army National

Guard is $8.2 billion, which represents approximately 10.1 percent of the Army’s

$81.1 billion budget.

The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget seeks to fund the steadily increasing pace

and variety of operations. These rapidly occurring events include tremendous strides

in Active Component Army—Army National Guard integration, ongoing support to

peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans, and the recent expanding role in Homeland Security.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD RESOURCES

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year—

2002 2003 (PB)

Personnel ................................................................................................................................................. 4,044 5,131

Operations/Maintenance ......................................................................................................................... 3,734 4,137

Military Construction ............................................................................................................................... 401 102
208

Contingency Operations

The Army National Guard is a stakeholder in The Army’s transformation. We continue to be called upon to provide an increasing number of soldiers and units each

year to support the Army’s role in Contingency Operations (CONOPS). Army National Guard soldiers are supporting Contingency Operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and

Southwest Asia. Funds for these operations were transferred to the Army from the

Overseas Contingency Operation Transfer Fund (OCTOF) during the fiscal year

2003 Program Decision Cycle.

The OCOTF funds were transferred to the Army in fiscal year 2002 and distributed in the out-years. The Bosnia, Kosovo and Southwest operations missions have

been ongoing for a few years and are considered stabilized. Consequently, the Office

of the Secretary of Defense directed the OCOTF funds be transferred to the Services’ appropriations. ARNG support for these operations has provided a team effort

for The Army in support of national defense. Deploying ARNG soldiers are conducting pre-mobilization training during Annual Training and Inactive Duty. Additional training days (incremental costs) for these deployments were funded from the

OCOTF in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The ARNG is scheduled to continue to support these missions and will work closely with The Army to ensure that incremental

costs are reprogrammed to train, equip and deploy these soldiers as an Army of

One.

The ARNG will command the Task Force in Bosnia for the Stabilization Force 12

though 15 planned rotations. The projected deployment force structure figures are

still being debated based on the ARNG and Active Component mix.

While deployed, Army National Guard soldiers are mobilized in a federal status

and paid from the active duty military pay accounts. Incremental military pay funding is required for the additional soldiers that must round out State Headquarters,

State Area Commands (STARCs) and units in an Active Duty Special Work (ADSW)

status to support the unit deployment. The majority of states deploying are manned

full-time—between 40 to 60 percent—to support normal state training. Incremental

OCOTF National Guard Pay and Allowances (NGPA) funding received in fiscal year

2000 and fiscal year 2001 is listed below.

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund (OCOTF)

Millions

National Guard Pay and Allowances (NGPA): Fiscal year 2000 .............................................................................................. $14

Fiscal year 2001 .............................................................................................. 56.1

Fiscal year 2002 .............................................................................................. 1 60

1 Estimate based on known missions, which must be programmed and funded by the Army.

SUSTAINING THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Sustainment programs directly support readiness and training and continue to be

Defense and Army priorities. Adequate resourcing—both funding and full-time manning—is key to quality training and to both near-term and long-term readiness.

Enablers such as the redistribution of major end items (Class VII), logistics support

of the training strategy, depot maintenance, Command Logistics Review Team

(CLRT) assistance visits, fielding of vital logistics automation systems, Single Stock

Fund (SSF), and clothing initiatives form the backbone for continued sustainment

support for fiscal year 2002. Sustainment overall is adequately resourced in fiscal

year 2002 and the logistics community has set goals to effectively use these resources to sustain existing logistical operations while planning for future challenges.

Redistribution of Major End Items

The Army National Guard equipment on-hand readiness posture improved this

past year, but complete equipment commonality with the Active Component is years

away. The Army National Guard boosts equipment readiness by redistributing assets throughout the states. New fieldings, displaced equipment and repair programs

are vital to Army National Guard modernization. Even with these programs, there

remains a modernization gap between the active Army and the Army National

Guard. Service life extension programs will be critical necessities for the Army National Guard as the Army moves toward the Objective Force.

Logistics Support of the Training Strategy

The Army National Guard logistics community is a critical player in maintaining

the training strategy by ensuring equipment readiness. Equipment readiness is supported with Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) funding. The Army National Guard

goal is to resource all combat units at the platoon level and other units to the level
209

organized. The fiscal year 2002 funding provides for platoon training (176 miles) of

enhanced separate brigades and individual/crew/squad (ICS—100 miles) of Army

National Guard divisions. OPTEMPO provides the resources for soldier training

support, repair parts, fuel, and organizational clothing and individual equipment—

all of which are critical elements of the Army National Guard training plan.

OPTEMPO funding must keep pace with the increasing requirements of maintaining the legacy equipment that continues to reside in the Army National Guard.

These older systems drive up operating costs as they move beyond the end of their

programmed life. The Army National Guard has established the Advanced Turbine

Engine Army Maintenance (ATEAM) program that overhauls AGT 1500 tank engines to approved depot level standards. This program will continue to produce tank

engines in fiscal year 2003 to support Army National Guard CTC rotations and reduce maintenance downtime for the M1 Abrams tank fleet.

Depot Maintenance

The depot maintenance program continues to be an integral part of Army National Guard sustainment. Equipment qualifying for depot repair increases by 24

percent during fiscal year 2003 and is attributable primarily to an increase in Army

National Guard aviation modernization programs and rebuild of the Army National

Guard’s aged tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. The fiscal year 2003 program will allow

the Army National Guard to execute depot maintenance on the following key programs by quantity: six M88A1 tank recovery vehicles, 24 AVLB Combat Bridging

Systems through the Anniston Army Depot, 56 HEMTT Series of Vehicles, nine

M198 155 mm Towed Howitzers, and one M102 105 mm Towed Howitzers.

The Army National Guard’s five Readiness Sustainment Maintenance Sites

(RSMS) will continue to be leveraged to repair trucks, trailers, and electronic equipment. Four of the sites specialize in refurbishing HMMWVs, five-ton cargo trucks,

tractors, wreckers, HEMTTs, 10-ton tractors, trailers that are pulled by a fifth

wheel, and bulldozers. The fifth site repairs night vision devices and generators.

The RSMS sites are located in Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, Maine, and Oregon.

All five sites performed work for the Army National Guard before being selected as

an RSMS.

Single Stock Fund (SSF) Initiative

The Army National Guard is participating in the Single Stock Fund (SSF) initiative. This is a Department of the Army business process engineering change to improve and streamline the Army’s logistics and financial processes for primarily Class

IX repair parts. The implementation of SSF has progressed through Milestones 1

and 2. Milestone 3, which will capitalize the unit authorized stockage list (ASL) into

the Army Working Capital Fund, is scheduled for completion in June 2003.

Implementing SSF, will be a major cultural and operational change for the Army

National Guard. It will generate numerous procedural and systemic changes. Some

of the Army National Guard processes currently under revision to accomplish SSF

transition include fielding a software program to support control of direct funding

at unit level and credit management assistance to support increased unit buying

power. The Army National Guard directorate staff continues to work closely with

Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, other Major Area Commands,

and the states to facilitate a smooth transition to SSF.

Soldier Support

The ARNG continues to struggle to provide adequate protective clothing to our

soldiers in all modes of operations. Many National Guard soldiers have been activated since September 11 and are standing duty in places not imagined in the recent past. Soldiers are guarding places such as bridges, nuclear power plants, and

other sensitive assets in the United States. They are also protecting our borders

through enhanced security at checkpoints. Soldiers serving in lower priority units

who have not been fielded with cold weather clothing perform much of this duty.

Since much of the duty is performed in inclement zones, such equipment has become

essential. Much has been accomplished to meet the challenge, but far more remains

to be done.

Army National Guard Safety Program

The foundation of the Army National Guard’s Safety Program can be found in the

four pillars of safety—leadership, discipline, standards and risk management.

Risk Management

Every day, the Army National Guard responds to the nation’s needs. Applying

solid risk management principles is critical to protecting our soldiers as they accomplish their missions. All Army National Guard personnel must be trained in the risk
210

management process and use it as a primary tool in all mission planning. Formalized in Army doctrine, integrated in the safety program, risk management is the

principal accident prevention process.

Safety Training

Effective training is key to the prevention of accidents and injuries. In fiscal year

2001, the Army National Guard provided more than 500 interactive Explosive Safety training packets (CD–ROMs) to state safety offices. Safety training videos for

Hazard Communication, Fall Protection, and Blood-borne Pathogens are available

to Army National Guard units through their respective State Safety and Occupational Health Offices. The use of distance learning and automated technology formats are being analyzed and proposed as viable training to support requirements

at the local level.

Ground Accidents

The Army National Guard experienced 20 Class A, and four Class B ground accidents in fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of three Class A accidents and a decrease of one Class B accident compared to fiscal year 2000. These accidents resulted in the deaths of 18 Army National Guard soldiers and two civilians. Fourteen

deaths occurred in Privately Owned Vehicle accidents, and two in Army Motor Vehicle accidents. Four deaths resulted from personal injuries. Excessive speed, fatigue,

failure to wear seatbelts and failure to follow procedures all contributed to these accidents in some manner. The Army National Guard will continue to promote education, awareness and countermeasures to combat future accidents.

Aviation Safety

Aviation accident prevention is the priority in the Army National Guard Aviation

and Safety Division. Every aviation maintenance action and operational program

pivots on safe flying. Army National Guard Aviation Safety provides proactive advisement by applying knowledge from lessons learned, tracking trends, providing

training, and most importantly by visiting units, facilities and operations. Combining these methods with proven Risk Management Processes provides for a successful countermeasure program.

Each commander and unit safety personnel have been given a standardized assessment tool called the Aviation Support Activity Accident Prevention Survey

(ASAAPS). The ASAAPS is a survey tool that can help prevent accidents and the

repeating accidents that others in the military and the private sector have experienced.

TRAINING THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

The Army National Guard’s fully integrated strategy for training individuals,

leaders and units in live, virtual and constructive environments ensures we are prepared to meet wartime deployment readiness requirements and Homeland Security

missions.

Training Sites and Centers

Combat Training Centers

The Army National Guard participates in all of the Army’s Combat Training Centers (CTC); the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California; the Joint

Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Fort Polk, Louisiana; the Combat Maneuver

Training Center (CMTC), Hohenfels, Germany; and the Battle Command Training

Program (BCTP), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The Brigade Command and Battle

Staff Training (BCBST) Program is a subset of BCTP.

The Army CTC Program is divided into live simulation (NTC, JRTC, and CMTC)

and constructive simulation (BCTP and BCBST). The Army National Guard CTC

Program involves the scheduling of Army National Guard units to conduct training

at the CTCs in the following capacities: Blue (Friendly) Force (BLUFOR) rotational

units, Opposing Forces (OPFOR) augmentation units, and other types of support

based on the needs of the CTCs.

National Training Center (NTC)

The OPFOR at the NTC has changed over the years to reflect the opposition U.S.

Forces may encounter when forward deployed. Opposing forces may be encountered

throughout the entire area of operations of the NTC. This includes the Aerial Port

of Debarkation (APOD) at Southern California Logistics Airport, the railhead at

Yermo, Fort Irwin Military City and any area between. Units encounter Civilians

on the Battlefield (COB), media role players, and organized OPFOR up to regi-
211

mental sized. A high level of rigor is achieved at the NTC through the capabilities

of the OPFOR and provides U.S. forces with the toughest training available.

The 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) provides soldiers and equipment for

the NTC OPFOR. Army National Guard units from Arizona, Nevada and Montana

are assigned to the regiment to augment these active duty soldiers. The Army National Guard combat arms units that conduct OPFOR augmentation rotations at

NTC benefit from the high OPTEMPO of the 11th ACR and receive excellent forceon-force training during the rotation.

Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC)

The Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) located at Fort Polk, Louisiana,

hosts light infantry and special operations forces from all components of the armed

forces. The Army National Guard receives one brigade size rotation each year. These

rotations are all allocated to the seven light infantry enhanced Separate Brigades

(eSBs). The 45th eSB (Oklahoma) is scheduled to attend in fiscal year 2002 and the

53rd eSB (Florida) is scheduled to participate in fiscal year 2003. The Army National Guard receives and allocates two rotations annually. These rotations are allocated to the eSBs based on the unit’s relative calendar proximity to scheduled JRTC

rotations. Training opportunities exist for Combat Arms and Combat Service and

Support units to augment BLUFOR and OPFOR units.

Army National Guard soldiers from New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, South

Dakota, Texas and Alabama combined to form Aviation Task Force Liberty Bell.

These Army National Guard aircrews, support personnel and Air Traffic Service

personnel completed the Army National Guard fiscal year 2001 rotation at the Joint

Readiness Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, Louisiana. The Task Force deployed

with 26 helicopters, including UH–60s and CH–47s, plus ground support equipment.

Battle Command Training Program (BCTP)

The BCTP is the Army’s capstone Combat Training Center. It provides command

and battle staff training for brigade, division and corps commanders, their staffs,

major subordinate commanders and staffs, and supporting special operating forces.

All National Guard brigades and divisions will participate in BCTP or BCBST rotations both as stand-alone exercises and in support of Active Component divisions

and Corps.

During fiscal year 2001 the Army National Guard executed three stand alone

BCTPs, 12 BCBSTs and supported eight Active Component exercises with Field Artillery, Combat Support and Combat Service Support brigades, battalions and companies.

During fiscal year 2002, 14 Army National Guard brigades will conduct BCBST

rotations. Two Army National Guard divisions will conduct BCTP rotations, ten

Field Artillery brigades and many CSS units will also participate in Active Component, BCTP rotations.

National Guard Professional Education Center

The LaVern E. Weber National Guard Professional Education Center (PEC) is the

power projection platform for training the National Guard’s full-time support force.

Lieutenant General LaVern E. Weber’s vision was to create a facility to train the

full-time support force of the National Guard. To accomplish that vision, PEC is

home to 5 separate training centers, which include the Human Resource and Readiness Training Center, the Quality Training Center, the Logistics Training Center,

the Strength Maintenance Training Center, and the Marksmanship Training Center.

During fiscal year 2001, these 5 training centers trained nearly 8,000 personnel

through residence courses, distributed learning, and mobile training teams. The Professional Education Center will establish an Information Technology Training Center in fiscal year 2002 to keep pace with the ever changing and increasing technological needs of the National Guard.

Distributed Learning

Making training locally available generates more training opportunities. It reduces the time a soldier is away from his home station, eliminates excess travel

time and per diem costs, and is accomplished in less time. However, traditional resident training will remain the appropriate method for many types of training, including initial entry, initial OES/NCOES leadership and equipment-intensive training.

The goal of Distributed Learning (DL) in the Army National Guard is to improve

readiness by providing local access to training and education—anytime, anywhere.

Supporting this goal, the Distributed Training Technologies Project (DTTP) was

formed to meet three missions: (1) Improve readiness, (2) Improve command, control
212

and communications, and (3) Explore the concept of shared use; making the classrooms available on a space available—reimbursable basis.

The strategy to achieve these missions is based on developing and synchronizing

five essential components: hardware (network and classrooms), courseware, staff

and faculty training, support services, and business operations.

Courseware

To meet the Army and ARNG’s Military Occupational Skill Qualification (MOSQ)

needs, the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is redesigning 525

MOSQ courses over a 12-year period ending in fiscal year 2010. The ARNG Professional Education Center is redesigning 70 ARNG functional courses and National

Guard unique courseware to improve individual sustainment and collective task

training.

Hardware (Network and Classrooms)

Critical to the success of Distributed Learning is GUARDNET XXI, a robust and

dynamic telecommunication infrastructure that combines voice, video, and data requirements. GUARDNET XXI connects the National Guard Bureau with the state

and territorial State Area Commands (STARCs). Using this infrastructure, the National Guard Distributive Training Technology Project (DTTP) expands training access through the installation of DL-capable classrooms at Army National Guard

training sites, armories, and surrounding communities. To date, 291 classrooms of

a planned 481 have been installed nationwide.

Business Operations

Because many DL classroom facilities, and in particular, the DTTP classrooms,

are designed for multi-use operations, the overall management and administration

of the venues is particularly important.

Guidance is being provided to the state’s senior leadership to assist them in fostering teaming relationships with other public/private/state/federal agencies aimed

at leveraging resources, information, and strategic partnerships. DTTP’s shared use

initiative promises significant collaboration between government and non-governmental organizations, and uses financial, contractual, marketing, and consultative

support resources. Appropriate business practices associated with classroom use by

non-military organizations and individuals will become standard across the DTTP

system.

The Army School System (TASS) Transition

The Army School System (TASS) is a multi-component organization of TRADOC,

the Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve schools organized to deliver

Military Occupation Skills Qualification (MOSQ) Reclassification, Noncommissioned

Officer Education System, Officer Education System, and functional courses.

TRADOC, Army National Guard, and USAR have separate areas of responsibility

for specific TASS missions. However, the Army National Guard contributes facilities, equipment, and instructors to support courses conducted by the other components under Cross Component Resource (CCR) memorandums of agreement.

The future success of TASS will depend heavily upon the implementation of DL

products, refinement and development of new innovative programs of instruction,

and a multi-component schoolhouse that supports the TRADOC Transformation.

Army National Guard and USAR instructional, training development and budget

management staffs are combining efforts to build a future TRADOC that delivers

seamless training to standard for institutional training to the Army.

Funding of New AND Displaced Equipment Training in Fiscal Year 2001

A total of $7.656 million was funded and distributed to the Army National Guard

to support new and displaced equipment. These funds supported a total of 27 system

fieldings for six major Combat Systems, six major Combat Support/Service Support

Systems and 15 other systems.

In fiscal year 2002, validated new equipment training and displaced equipment

training funding requirements totaled $10.8 million. However, only $2.1 million of

$8.4 million in critical requirements are funded, leaving a $6.3 million Unfunded

Requirement (UFR) as validated by the Department of the Army.

The UFR will adversely affect preparation for the First Digitized Corps (FDC) exercise and the ability of the Army National Guard to demonstrate digitization capability. Without adequate funding for required new equipment training and displaced

equipment training, many states will not be able to receive critical equipment.
213

Army National Guard Distributed Battle Simulation Program

The Army National Guard has a congressional mandate to expand the use of simulations, simulators and advanced training technologies in order to increase training

opportunities for members and units and establish a program to minimize post-mobilization training time required for combat units. The challenges for the Army National Guard are to develop mechanisms and processes that efficiently and effectively integrate and synchronize individual and collective training requirements;

provide infrastructure and expertise to plan and execute home station training; provide methodologies to incorporate Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS) into live, virtual, and constructive training environments; and contribute to improved readiness.

To satisfy these requirements and address readiness and training gaps, the Army

National Guard has developed the Distributed Battle Simulation Program (DBSP).

The DBSP mirrors the Active Component Battle Simulation program for conditions

of Army National Guard training environments by providing training infrastructure

and TADSS integration. The Army National Guard intent is to continue the internally funded managed growth of the program in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year

2003 and to work to gain additional Army resources in the out years.

Army National Guard Aviation Training Sites (AATS)

The Army National Guard’s 4 Aviation Training Sites are designated as national

training assets for the Army. The Eastern Army National Guard Aviation Training

Site (EAATS) is located at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. The Western Army

National Guard Aviation Training Site (WAATS) is located at Silver Bell Army Heliport in Marana, Arizona. The High Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) is located in Gypsum, Colorado. Both the EAATS and WAATS are regional simulation

sites, offering simulation support to the Army in UH–1H, UH–60, CH–47D, and

AH–64 helicopters.

Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer

The Army National Guard has developed an Aviation Reconfigurable Manned

Simulator (ARMS) as a cost-effective solution to enhance flying safety and readiness. This system was developed with the mutual cooperation and support of the

U.S. Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC) and the Army’s Simulation, Training and

Instrumentation Command (STRICOM). It can be quickly reconfigured to each of

the rotary wing airframes flown in the Army. The device is a collective training simulator that provides for a 360-degree virtual environment, a helmet mounted display

system, accurate cockpit housing, realistic controls and essential panels, and tactileinteractive cockpit panels. Each ARMS provides training in individual and crew

tasks, and focuses on collective, combined arms and joint service operations.

Accelerated Officer Candidate School (OCS) Program

The Army National Guard initiated a very successful accelerated Officer Candidate School (OCS) Program in 1996. This accelerated program cuts 11 months off

the traditional OCS course duration—eight weeks full-time versus 13 months parttime. This is particularly beneficial to states experiencing large company-grade officer vacancies.

The NGB has been programming about 80 students per year for the last five

years. The class size increased to 200 students in fiscal year 2001 due to forecasted

training requirements submitted by the states, and has been increased to 400 students per year for fiscal year 2002 and beyond.

The shortage of company grade officers continues to be a challenge across The

Army. In an attempt to decrease company grade officer losses, the Army National

Guard submitted proposed legislation to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA M&RA) under the Unified Legislation and

Budgeting (ULB) process in April 2000 that will offer a student loan repayment program incentive for company grade officers. The Army National Guard is also exploring the feasibility of submitting legislation to offer bonuses for company grade officers that agree to extend their service commitment.

The Army National Guard supports the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel’s

(DCSPER’s) initiative for 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 DCSPER’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.
214

Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Training

The Army National Guard Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Program enters

its third year. At least five soldiers from every battalion in the ARNG received

training in AT/FP measures.

The ARNG Directorate provided training on how to write and formalize state level

AT/FP plans and has been able to validate requirements in the Program Objective

Memorandum (POM). Additionally, the ARNG has been instrumental in the rewrite

of Army Regulation 525–13, the Army’s AT/FP guide.

The ARNG has coordinated with the Department of the Army in identifying installations that require separate AT/FP plans and are developing a timeline for providing assistance to the states and installations.

QUALITY INSTALLATIONS

The Army National Guard is unmistakably a community-based organization that

has more the 3,000 Army National Guard Readiness Centers in some 2,700 communities within the 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. We also

give federal support to the operations and maintenance of over 27,000 training,

aviation and logistical facilities throughout the nation. The citizens of each community are the same guardsmen that protect us. With the quality of many of our facilities rated C–4, (mission performance is significantly impaired), it makes the Army

National Guard’s mission in global security, emergency response and giving local

support to the communities more of a challenge each year.

Facilities Overview and management

The current projection for fiscal year 2003 in Real Property Maintenance funding,

just to sustain our facilities, will be in the neighborhood of $350 million. Military

construction (MILCON) funding is estimated to only recapitalize National Guard facilities on a 341-year cycle. This is far short of the Army’s 67-year goal. The Army

National Guard’s cost to improve all of its existing facilities to C–1 is $9 billion.

The Army National Guard’s budget request was $59 million for military construction in fiscal year 2001. Congress appropriated $285 million, which increased our

construction program in fiscal year 2001 from 28 to 50 projects. These funds included construction in support of the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support

Teams; 14 projects for Phase I of the Army National Division Redesign Study

(ADRS); and 32 other projects in support of the Army Facility Strategy.

The Army National Guard Military Construction budget request for fiscal year

2003 outlines $100.7 million for 11 major construction projects, planning and design,

and unspecified minor construction. The required increase in the budget request is

due to the support of the Army National Guard Division Redesign Study.

Although the Army National Guard received a proportional share of Army’s military construction dollars, the Army National Guard still has an unfinanced requirement of $580 million for fiscal year 2003. If our unfinanced requirements were equal

to our budget request, we would be able to fund over 50 additional construction

projects.

As part of the post-Cold War strategy of making the service ‘‘light’’ enough to

move thousands of troops anywhere in the world in a matter of days, the Chief of

Staff of the Army directed that the Army reorganize a medium force between the

existing ‘‘light divisions, and ‘‘heavy’’ division. Called the Interim Brigade Combat

Team (IBCT), it is programmed as an Army National Guard Brigade currently

scheduled for stationing in Pennsylvania. About $100 million of military construction is currently programmed to support the reorganization of the Pennsylvania

Army National Guard.

The IBCT is an example of how we are working with the Army to reshape the

way we do business. The Army National Guard continues to work toward revamping

facilities to meet the needs of evolving missions such as Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Teams, the Army National Guard Division Redesign and the Interim Brigade Combat Team. Additionally, we are actively engaged in providing

anti-terrorism force protection for all of our citizen soldiers. To fully implement all

of these changes the Army National Guard’s construction focus in fiscal year 2003

will be adapting and building facilities to meet these new requirements.

The Real Property Development Plan (RPDP)

The Real Property Development Plan (RPDP) Initiative gives the Department of

the Army a more accurate view of the quality and quantity of facilities the Army

National Guard needs to successfully complete its missions.
215

A Planning Resource for Infrastructure Development Evaluation (PRIDE)

PRIDE, a data base management tool, has been implemented by all 50 states and

three territories. This tool provides the states and the NGB with excellent data

management and analysis for decision support in the infrastructure community.

Installations Status Report—Infrastructure (ISR I) Program

Installations Status Report (Infrastructure) Program (ISR I) provides conditions

and costs associated with the Army National Guard infrastructure. It gives the

Army National Guard concrete justification to explain current funding levels for

sustainment, repair, maintenance requirements, predict future major construction

funding requirements and provides Congress information to justify increasing appropriations.

In fiscal year 2001, the results of the Installation Status Report measured a new military construction requirement of $10.8 billion for the Army National Guard. In

addition, a $9 billion repair backlog resulting from years of under-funding was also

substantiated. Facilities sustainment for fiscal year 2001 was funded at about

$224.4 million. ISR shows that the true requirement is $810 million, which means

facilities continue to deteriorate and the repair backlog continues to increase.

Significant Real Estate Acquisitions

The constrained MILCON environment also makes it imperative that the Army

National Guard use all resources available to seek out, plan for, and design facilities

with our future missions in mind.

Barbers Point, Hawaii

The Army acquired a portion of the former Navy Barbers Point, Hawaii. This has

proved a tremendous factor in resolving shortfalls in the stationing of units and

equipment in the Hawaii Army National Guard. This 150-acre acquisition allows the

Hawaii Army National Guard to consolidate four dislocated 29th Infantry Brigade

units and a maintenance operation. The new location will reduce soldier travel time

and provide facilities to conduct mission essential operations.

Ravenna, Ohio

Acquisition of a portion of the former Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant by the

Ohio Army National Guard has greatly resolved shortfalls in maneuver training

area to battalion level. This 16,164-acre acquisition will facilitate Armor, Mechanized Infantry and Engineer unit training

Minden, Louisiana

The Louisiana Army National Guard’s acquisition of a portion of the former Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant has greatly resolved shortfalls in training area

availability. This 12,896-acre acquisition will facilitate Transportation, Dismounted

Infantry and Engineer unit training.

Twin Cities, Minnesota

An acquisition that will facilitate Mechanized Infantry Battalion, Signal Corps

and Military Police unit training, is the purchase of 1,245-acres of the former Twin

Cities Army Ammunition Plant. The Minnesota Army National Guard’s move has

greatly resolved shortfalls in training area and travel time to existing training

areas.

The Army National Guard Environmental Program

The Army National Guard Environmental Program is a critical support piece of

our Quality Installations. Supporting the readiness of Army National Guard soldiers

and units, the program obtains and provides resources, guidance and policies that

emphasize responsible stewardship of the land and facilities to the states and territories who then assure compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws.

This is accomplished by promoting the Army’s environmental goals in compliance,

conservation and restoration efforts nationwide.

Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) Environmental Program

The Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) provides MILCON funding for energy and renewable energy projects greater than $500,000, which can show

significant energy savings. The Army National Guard awarded its first ECIP project

at the Arkansas Army National Guard headquarters in Little Rock for $790,000 in

energy upgrades. Two additional ECIP projects—a wind turbine project at Camp

Williams, Utah, and energy improvements at Gowen Field, Idaho—are waiting funding.

The Army National Guard Energy Working Group has been selected as a team

winner in the 2001—23d Annual Secretary of the Army Energy and Water Manage-
216

ment Awards and as a team winner in the 2001 Federal Energy and Water Management Awards.

Compliance

The Army National Guard continues to improve guidance and policy on a myriad

of complex regulatory challenges to ensure compliance in an efficient, consistent and

cost-effective manner. We are committed to meeting the Department of Army goal

of having no new enforcement actions. It is likely, however, that the Army National

Guard will continue to receive enforcement actions due to the aging infrastructure

combined with inadequate Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization funding.

In fiscal year 2001 the Army National Guard developed a strategy to support the

use of mobility refueling vehicles. The Army National Guard supports a large fleet

of these vehicles, which are used to transport bulk amounts of oil on public highways. These vehicles must abide by federal regulations determined by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Department of Transportation. This strategy provides guidance to the states and territories on a Fuel Management Plan,

which stresses safe environmental practices. With proper implementation, this

strategy has the potential to reduce our regulatory oversight and save more than

$100 million in cost avoidance to construct permanent secondary containment structures.

The Army National Guard has continued with the transition of environmental responsibilities at sites closed by the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.

The Army National Guard has been involved in ensuring that properties are in compliance with environmental regulations and that the Army National Guard is not

responsible for managing funding for the clean-up of the previous owners’/operators’

actions.

One concern is the uncertainty surrounding the regulatory framework for range

compliance and increasing awareness of potential contamination or releases associated with range activities. An increased compliance requirement could affect current

environmental budgets and have a significant negative impact on mission readiness

if ranges cannot be operated due to environmental constraints.

Conservation

The Army National Guard Conservation objectives include improving the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes for various Army National Guard stationing and training support activities. Specific areas that the Army National Guard

will address are the Fort Indiantown Gap Environmental Impact Statement, enhanced AH–64 training at the Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site

and the programmatic environmental documentation of transformation equipment

fielding. The Army National Guard will also formalize agreements to address the

more than 5,000 Army National Guard buildings that will reach the 50-year-old

mark in the next three years and potentially be eligible for historic structure designation.

In fiscal year 2001 the Army National Guard completed 90 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRPs) for training sites across the nation. Each INRP

meets a statutory requirement, SIKES Act 1997, and provides benchmark and goals

to sustain training on Army National Guard properties while being stewards of the

environment.

Restoration

The National Guard Bureau (NGB) is tasked to execute the Army’s Installation

Restoration Program (IRP) for federally owned Army National Guard facilities. In

addition, state owned facilities are encouraged to evaluate their facilities for past

environmental contamination. The restoration program is also responsible for the

inventory and data collection for all closed and transferred military ranges within

the Army National Guard.

During fiscal year 2001, the Army National Guard completed 18 Preliminary Assessments; another 30 are currently ongoing. Twelve Army National Guard Site Inspections were completed and seven additional inspections have been initiated. Investigations continue at three BRAC sites: Fort Chaffee (Arkansas), Fort

Indiantown Gap (Pennsylvania) and Fort Pickett, (Virginia).

The Army National Guard Restoration Program is actively working at several locations to investigate and determine remediation requirements at contaminated

sites. These locations include: Camp Crowder (Missouri), Camp Navajo (Arizona),

Camp Roberts (California), the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (California), Safford Range (Arizona), Rehoboth NIKE Site (Massachusetts), and Farmingdale (New York). The Army National Guard achieved several successes this year

with environmental actions. One is the Massachusetts Military Reservation, where

the EPA accepted two decision documents for no further action at clean up sites.
217

The Restoration program further supported coordination efforts with the Navy

Base Closure Office at Barber’s Point in Hawaii and with Army Materiel Command

for the Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Ohio to help with land transfers to the

Hawaii and Ohio Army National Guard.

NGB is concerned about funding for investigation and remediation at state owned

ranges that have been closed and transferred. The Army has placed this part of the

range program under the Environmental Restoration, Army account, which precludes the use of the funding at non-federally owned facilities.

MISSIONING THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Over the past 20 months, Headquarters, Department of the Army, the Army National Guard (ARNG), and Forces Command used a deliberate planning process to

mission ARNG combat structure. ARNG missions are derived from a variety of requirement documents in the Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS). Through the

Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP), CINC Integrated Priority List (IPL), Functional Plans, CINC Theater Security Cooperation Plans (TSCP), and other cyclic

JSPS products, all Army requirements are identified.

The Army is transforming itself to remain the dominant land force in the 21st

Century while continuing to meet CINC requirements in support of the National

Military Strategy (NMS) and the National Security Strategy (NSS). The ARNG is

an essential component of the Army’s ability to satisfy these requirements. The

ARNG missioning effort was included in the Army’s submission to the JSCP 1998,

change 1, which was signed by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff in July 2001.

Included in the apportionment tables in this document are six of the eight ARNG

divisions. The two remaining divisions perform a force generation mission not reflected in the JSCP. Additionally, the 15 enhanced Separate Brigades (eSBs) and

the two Special Forces Groups have been apportioned in the JSCP.

Of the six ARNG Divisions, four are apportioned to CINCs of Major Combat Operations (MCO), formally called Major Theater of War (MTW). Two more divisions are

apportioned to CINCs that are non-MTW, for regional contingency planning. These

six divisions and the 15 enhanced Separate Brigades (eSBs) have single theater

focus based on their apportionment. This focus allows for streamlining the training

development process. The divisions and eSBs receive Mission Planning Guidance

(MPG) from their higher wartime headquarters, develop their Mission Essential

Task List (METL) and submit it to their higher wartime headquarters for approval.

The next step in the process is for the CINCs to designate ARNG combat units

for specific missions in their war plans based on the new defense strategy and its

planning requirements. Work continues between the CINC’s Staff, the Joint Staff

and the Army on this effort. Over the next 12 months CINC planning staffs will

build their war plans. The Army will work closely with the CINCs to ensure Reserve

Component capabilities are appropriately integrated in these plans.

The next effort is to apportion the divisions in the upcoming JSCP 2002. The

eight divisions will be missioned to support MCO, regional CINC requirements, and

the Generating Force. The JSCP will reflect the MCO and regional CINC apportionment. To provide a Generating Force, two divisions would be given this mission and

document this in the Army Mobilization and Operations Planning and Execution

System (AMOPES). All divisions still have the on-call missions to reinforce Europe,

rotate for Small Scale Contingencies (SSCs) in Bosnia, Kosovo, Southwest Asia, etc.

Another step in the ongoing process is apportioning forces in accordance with the

different requirements for the new defense strategy, particularly in the mission area

of Homeland Security.

Corps Packaging

At the 122nd National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) convention in September 2000, the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) announced some of

the results of the Army’s deliberate planning process related to ARNG division

missioning. The CSA announced the alignment of the eight ARNG divisions with the

four Army corps. 40th Infantry Division (ID) (California) is aligned with I Corps at

Fort Lewis, Washington. 34th ID (Minnesota), 38th ID (Indiana), and 49th Armored

Division (Texas) are aligned with III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. 28th ID (Pennsylvania), 29th ID (Virginia), and 42nd ID (New York) are aligned with XVIII Corps

at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 35th ID (Kansas) is aligned with V Corps in Heidelberg, Germany.

By assuming the mission orientation of the aligned corps, corps packaging enhances the training readiness of the ARNG combat formations. The ARNG divisions

achieve greater training and geographic theater focus. The association and teaming

benefits with counterpart active divisions is an important element of the alignment.

Corps Packaging does not however replace the higher wartime headquarters in the
218

Mission Essential Task List (METL) approval process. The divisions receive Mission

Planning Guidance (MPG) from their higher wartime headquarters, develop their

METL, and submit their METL to their higher wartime headquarters for approval.

Corps Packaging is used in the absence of a higher wartime headquarters. Under

Corps Packaging, eSBs are also aligned under one of the Active Component Corps,

providing it with the same benefits as the ARNG divisions. The figure below provides Corps Packaging in its entirety.

THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE

Our nation is in a unique period in history where there is a great deal of change

and opportunity. The Department of Defense is moving to take advantage of these

changes and capitalize on the opportunities as they are presented. The Department

of Defense knows that it must transform its business processes and infrastructure

to enhance capabilities and free up resources to support war fighting and the transformation of military capabilities. To accomplish this, the Department of Defense’s

Quadrennial Defense Review Report states, ‘‘organizational structure will be

streamlined and flattened to take advantage of the opportunities that the rapid flow

of data and information present.’’

At the nucleus of this effort for Department of Defense is the opportunity to exploit knowledge management. The Army National Guard readily embraces the opportunities associated with knowledge management by building a robust knowledge

infrastructure (KI). Our KI supports all missions to include the National Guard’s

traditional mission of Homeland Security.

For the Army National Guard to meet the needs of this century, we are using the

technologies that facilitate our connection to all concerned activities. Embracing the

central role of information technology through knowledge infrastructure efforts, the

Army National Guard is fully committed to taking advantage of opportunities provided by information age concepts and technologies.

The Army National Guard has devoted considerable effort in the past two years

to increase high-speed Internet access. Recently, the Army National Guard significantly increased the available bandwidth, or allowable data flow, to the non-classified internet protocol router network (NIPRNET). Three of the seven Army National

Guard Network (GuardNet) centralized distribution points or hub sites now have

more than triple the amount of previously allowable data flow. The remaining four

hub sites will be connected to the NIPRNET by March 30, 2002, thus resulting in

improved Internet access.

High-speed information access will make significant contributions to such areas

as Distributed Learning (DL), electronic publications and forms, training simulation

and World Wide Web technology applications. In addition, the ARNG is in the process of coordinating the installation of a dedicated secret internet protocol router network (SIPRNET) connection at each of the 54 STARCs in order to enhance the

ARNG’s classified communications capabilities.

The ARNG leadership is committed to sustaining the KI that exists in the ARNG

today. The ARNG, using data collection via the Headquarters, Department of the

Army information technology metrics submission process, will focus scarce information technology resources to areas that are critical to both mission accomplishment

and knowledge management.

Security

Last year, Army National Guard embarked upon a four-phased approach to firewall implementation. Phase I involved purchasing and physically deploying two firewalls for each state. The second phase was to fully configure the firewalls at

GuardNet’s Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) connection and Phase III

involved configuring the state’s connection to GuardNet, also called the ‘‘front door’’

firewall. Both phases II and III are complete.

The final phase of this deployment is configuring the state’s connections to external networks, also called the ‘‘back door’’. By the end of fiscal year 2002, the Army

National Guard commits to accomplishing this final phase of extending the

GuardNet perimeter to those back doors and meeting DISA security standards for

all connections to GuardNet.

Video Services

The Video Operations Center continues to improve the technology of the Army

National Guard’s video teleconferencing (VTC) systems. When time and distance are

roadblocks to communication and productivity, video conferencing is an excellent

tool for bringing people together with a visual message.

The Army National Guard decentralized video teleconferencing to the state level

in January 2001 by installing equipment that will allow states to have local control
219

over their video teleconferencing. Video teleconferencing is currently centralized at

the national level in Arlington, Virginia. States must work through the Video Operations Center at the Army National Guard Readiness Center to plan and conduct

their local events. One other significant upgrade to the Army National Guard’s

knowledge infrastructure includes the addition of a Storage Area Network Solution,

which provides a robust, flexible and scalable option for back up and continuity of

operations. Constant mirroring of data provides a means to rapidly regain full capability in the event of a major system failure.

Today, there are over 330 VTC centers throughout 50 states and three territories

that aid in facilitating a wide range of state and national missions including training and family support. There are 257 Army National Guard distributed learning

centers to facilitate training soldiers, educating university students, and supporting

government/civilian business conferences.

The Army National Guard plans to establish clear, reliable video teleconference

on desktop computers and secure VTC to all states and territories by October 1,

2002. Costs for these projects are expected to run at about $4 million for the secure

VTC and $500,000 for the desktop VTC. Army National Guard leaders are committed to providing soldiers and employees with the state-of-the-art information

technology (IT). The future of IT is here and the Army National Guard continues

to be a leader in establishing the cutting edge of IT. The goal is to position

GuardNet as the premier network security model for the Army, which is being considered as the network to support the Homeland Security mission.

Logistics Automation Systems

Army National Guard Logistics Automation and Logistics Standard Army Management Information Systems (STAMIS) are essential to force sustainment and

readiness. These systems provide requisition financial data, equipment readiness reporting, OPTEMPO mile execution, asset visibility, resource stewardship, property

accountability, centralized clothing records, and maintenance execution information.

Fiscal year 2002 will mark a very busy year in Army National Guard logistics systems, building on the successes of fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2001 the Army

National Guard successfully consolidated 54 Army National Guard Corps/Theater

Automated Data Processing Service Center (CTASC) sites to 4 regional sites and

successfully completed systems acceptance testing of the Integrated Materiel Automations Program (IMAP).

The Program Manager STAMIS and the Army National Guard will begin fielding

Global Combat Service Support-Army/Tactical System (GCSS–A/T) to the 50 states

and 4 territories in fiscal year 2002. This will be a landmark fielding. The Army

National Guard will field a new Army STAMIS at the same time as the Active Component, bringing forth the vision of ‘‘An Army of One.’’

This fielding of GCSS–A/T includes the Integrated Logistics Analysis Program

and Property Book Module (SPR). The Integrated Logistics Analysis Program brings

a very powerful analysis tool to the Army National Guard. Additionally, the Army

National Guard is changing the way it is doing business in the management of Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment with the implementation of the

Central Issue Facilities.

Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS)

The Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS) infrastructure fielding was

completed ahead of schedule, providing a wide area network that links National

Guard and Reserve units in all 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The latest software increment added force authorization and modernization,

training, human resources functionality, and introduced mobilization planning. Increments 6, 7, and 8 will be fielded by fiscal year 2003 when the project transitions

to Post Deployment Life Cycle Support.

Personnel Information Transformation

The Army National Guard’s (ARNG) active participation in the joint service initiative Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS), the Army

initiative Integrated Total Army Personnel Data Base (ITAPDB), the Personnel

Electronic Record Management System (PERMS), and the disaster recovery and

Continuous Ongoing Operations Plans (COOP) development ensures seamless operation of personnel actions affecting ARNG soldiers.

The development of ITAPDB, a cross-component personnel database, will be used

by the ARNG, the Active Army and the Army Reserve to migrate like-type and

cleansed data to DIMHRS. This migration strategy ensures the transference of quality data into DIMHRS, enabling the Army to deploy a joint-service personnel/pay

module consisting of integrated data and functionality.
220

Additionally, efforts are underway to capture current detailed metadata information at the Department of the Army level that will link to a metadata repository

at the Department of Defense (DOD). These repositories will provide the Services

comprehensive and detailed information of all legacy data definitions, architecture,

application processes, site capabilities and locations. This information will be required when developing disaster recovery plans and establishing joint-service COOP

sites, as well as serving as historical documentation.

Several near-term objectives will be accomplished by leveraging recent IT initiatives. Army Knowledge Online (AKO) provides a secure portal to access electronically stored images of soldier personnel records. With funding of the state-level

PERMS project and state-level processing of ARNG enlisted records, every soldier

in the Army will be able to view his or her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)

online via their secure AKO account.

AR-PERSCOM, PERSCOM, EREC, and NGB (officers only) will provide OMPF

online this fiscal year. Activation of other applications is within easy reach; Army

Selection Board System (ASBS), field to file, and eFile. These PERMS-based initiatives give the components the ability to electronically transmit individual documents

and entire OMPFs via secure internet from the soldier in the field to higher headquarters and DA levels.

SUMMARY

The morning of September 11, 2001 changed every American’s world. For those

who lost loved ones we can only imagine the pain and sorrow. While the Army National Guard cannot alter the course of history, we can continue to help heal those

who are suffering and ensure we are prepared to respond to the changing demands

of our world.

The Army National Guard continues to provide mission ready units to the governors and to the President to fight our nation’s wars. Our dual status has proven

to be an enduring principle as we find Guardsmen on duty here at home as well

as overseas in Kosovo, Afghanistan and other locations. We must guard against further attacks at home, while we prepare for a campaign abroad.

That is precisely the role of today’s Army National Guard. For almost 365 years,

the citizen-soldiers of the Army National Guard have been the solid shield that has

defended America at home, and the sword of power that America has wielded overseas in support of all her wars. Today is no different.

THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD DIRECTOR’S OVERVIEW

This is a critical time in our nation’s history—a time of war. This is also a time

when we must transcend trivial differences and diversified positions to prosecute

and prevail against a vicious, irrational and unprincipled enemy.

This is a time when we must focus all our leadership, energy, character and resources to bring and sustain the best-trained and equipped Air National Guard

(ANG) men and women to America’s defense at home and effective operations

abroad.

This is a time when we all must stand together—united, prepared, persistent and

undeniably patriotic—as ‘‘one Nation under God, indivisible’’—at all costs, under

any conditions.

It was September 11th that marked time for these and all subsequent generations

of Americans. On 11 September 2001, the world stood still—but not the Air National

Guard—nor our brothers and sisters in the Army National Guard and the countless

thousands of other citizens who immediately responded to deter an unseen enemy

from further assaults and destruction. As the events of September 11th unfolded,

the Air National Guard, through years of preparation, training and commitment

launched to our nation’s emergency and desperate call for help. These Air Guard

men and women brought with them the character and core values of generations

of citizen soldiers and airmen. The volunteer spirit that answered the emergency

bell to fire the first ‘‘shots heard around the world’’ on Lexington Commons in April

1775—rapidly responded to the ‘‘shock heard round the world’’ on 11 September during the brutal attacks in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. While life

changed forever on that tragic day, our Air National Guard volunteerism remains

steadfast and reliable—even after nearly 5 months in 24/7 operations.

The patriotic Air Guard spirit was seen in the cockpits of fighter, tanker and airlift crews within hours of the attacks—operated by both full-time and traditional

guard men and women. The Air Guard spirit was seen out the cockpit and passenger windows of Air Force One as the 147th Fighter Wing rejoined to provide critical protection and escort our Commander-in-Chief.
221

That same undaunting spirit is flying and fighting in distant lands; operating in

dangerous, deplorable conditions; following the enemy deep into their own territory

to stop the reigns of terrorism at its very core—guarding America from abroad in

Operation Enduring Freedom. For those critics who have held the position that Air

National Guard forces aren’t available or responsive enough, they need only talk to

the 193rd Special Operations Group from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. These men and

women who operate a High Demand Low Density weapon system, deployed just

days after the attack to operations in these regions where they remain today—fighting the information and psychological war over enemy airspace.

In addition, our Air Guard tankers are the critical enablers of the tactical fighter

and bomber sorties that have forced the Taliban and its supporters to retreat from

major strongholds in Afghanistan. The air war over Afghanistan is directly impacted

by the efforts of our dedicated Air Refueling units.

We will see greater participation of our Air Guard fighters in operations that take

the fight against terrorism to places far from our shores—while protecting our

homeland as part of a combined Total Force response.

On 11 September, prior to the attacks, the Air National Guard was already committed dramatically to critical and ongoing Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) operations in Operation Northern Watch, Southern Watch, the Balkans, and continuing to fight the war on drugs. The Air National Guard was already fighting fires

raging in our states and supporting National Science Foundation missions in subarctic conditions. We had already contributed extensively to increasing requirements—all with meager 1984 endstrength numbers. We will continue these contributions—‘‘Always ready—Always there.’’

On 11 September, the Air National Guard—became dual-missioned—fighting a

war on three fronts. With growing mobilization authority, the Air National Guard

provides more than 25,000 men and women to Operation Noble Eagle, Enduring

Freedom and AEF. Today those numbers include nearly 10,000 volunteers, 10,000

mobilized men and women, and sustained 1,300 AEF participants—many under partial mobilization and volunteerism.

In Desert Storm we activated nearly 16,000 proud Air Guard men and women.

In Bosnia, our contribution was close to 8,000 and Kosovo—4,000. We have—in 5

short months—already nearly doubled our Desert Storm peak and tripled or better

the other remaining major conflicts or wars of the last decade alone. The nature and

timing of this war puts the Air National Guard in a very unique and positive leadership position. We will leverage and exercise this position. It is our destiny. It is our

heritage. We have become a leader in this new world—during a decidedly new

American experience.

Today, our nation contemplates fundamental changes or shifts in the way we continue to ‘‘ensure domestic tranquility’’ and ‘‘provide for the common defense.’’ The

hand we’ve been dealt for our future security environment cries out for greater involvement of our Air National Guard units. This new security environment demands

a strong focus on Homeland Security issues, expeditionary operations and increased

reliance on the citizen-warrior to support a dramatically downsized active component and a world characterized by multiple small-scale contingencies, transnational

threats, terrorism, and humanitarian operations.

The Air National Guard is represented in all 54 states and territories by 88 Flying Wings and 579 Mission Support Units, with over 108,000 proud and skilled people—68 percent of whom are Traditional National Guard members—flying nearly

1,200 aircraft. We are significantly represented in nearly all Air Force mission areas

contributing over 34 percent of the Air Force operational mission for as little as 7.2

percent of the ‘‘blue’’ budget and 1.8 percent of the Department of Defense budget.

Over the last decade, the Air National Guard has significantly changed in both

relevance and accessibility. Since 1990, the Air National Guard contributions to sustained Total Force operations have increased 1,000 percent with over 85 percent of

all activity in support of CINC or service requirements. We are no longer a ‘‘force

in reserve’’, but are around the world partnering with our Active and Reserve components as the finest example of Total Force integration. Air National Guard support to all United States Air Force operations over the last decade has increased

from 24 to 34 percent of the Total Force aircraft employed. Contingency support has

dramatically increased from 8 percent in 1993 to nearly 22 percent today. Prior to

September 11th, the number of Active Duty days per ANG member (above the 39-

day obligation) had increased on the average by 12 more—all based on the volunteerism of our dedicated citizen airmen. Today, that number of days has grown

as our men and women clamor to respond to our nation’s call to the war on terrorism.

During this year’s critical call by our nation, the Air National Guard became increasingly important and forever relevant. We have all felt the sting of these events,
222

and none of us should ever forget the lesson. We must be properly resourced. We

must be modernized. We must be appropriately trained. We must continue to be

ready while we always retain our citizen airman heritage.

DAVID A. BRUBAKER,

Brigadier General, Deputy Director, Air National Guard.

THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD TODAY

The Expeditionary Aerospace Force Given the demand for aerospace forces over

the past 10 years, the Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) was designed as a—

flexible force structure to ensure that on-call, rotational forces can effectively meet

both our steady state and ‘‘pop-up’’ commitments, while giving our people more predictability and stability in their deployment schedules.

The EAF includes both deployable and non-deployable war fighting and support

forces. The associated 10 Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEF) are deployable

packages of aerospace power. The Air National Guard was critical to the concept

from the beginning.

In Cycle One of the AEF, the Air National Guard deployed 25,000 of its people—

nearly 24 percent—almost 2,500 per AEF. We contributed almost 20 percent of the

Total Force aviation package and 7 percent of the Expeditionary Combat Support

or ECS requirements. The Air National Guard contributed 46 percent of the C–130

intra-theatre lift and 35 percent of the KC–135 steady state air refueling AEF requirement. Of the Air Guard’s 37 combat-coded fighter units, all six A–10 units, all

six F–15 units, all four F–16 Block 40 units, the one F–16 Block 50 unit, and 17

of 21 general purpose F–16 units were aligned during Cycle 1 rotations.

Air National Guard contributions to the Total Force have been even more robust

in EAF Cycle 2—especially with the advent of the War on Terrorism—when every

combat-coded Air National Guard fighter unit was aligned to participate, including

eight Air Guard Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) equipped units. In Cycle 2, a

total of 22 ANG F–15 and F–16 units were prepared and scheduled to fly the air

superiority mission until the events of September 11th. In addition, during Cycle

2, as a result of the War on Terrorism, the Air National Guard will fill many Active

Duty shortfalls. The events of 11 September have, for the short term, adjusted the

AEF rotations and the ANG contributions in both numbers and duration. We expect

to return to the AEF construct during AEF 3 or 4 this year.

The Air National Guard conducts AEF rotations using a unique ‘‘rainbow’’ concept

that moves people through rotations while leaving aircraft and equipment in place.

This effort reduces the TEMPO strains on citizen airmen, their families and employers while streamlining the logistics requirements.

In Cycle 1 of the AEF, Air National Guard contributions across all operational

mission requirements ensured a significant reduction in Active Duty TEMPO. For

example, with a four-fold increased contribution of Air National Guard Precision

Guided Munitions capability, the Air National Guard decreased the Active Duty

TEMPO by 18 percent. With an Air National Guard contribution increase in eight

of nine mission areas, the Active Duty TEMPO was reduced in seven of nine areas.

The only area where both Active and the Air Guard experienced an increase in

TEMPO was intra-theatre lift.

The Air National Guard is busy. Our people are volunteering above Desert Storm

peak levels with nearly 75 percent of our total workdays supporting Commanders

in Chief (CINC) and service requirements around the world. Our men and women

are proud of their contributions. We support ‘‘real world’’ missions that reduce the

TEMPO requirements on our active component by at least 10–15 percent in almost

every major mission area. Since September 11th, 2001, the Air National Guard has

become even more critical to the execution of the full spectrum of Air Force missions. Tulsa’s 138th Fighter Wing has been deployed to fly missions over Iraq five

times since 1996. The 138th’s most recent mission was in the Summer of 2001.

South Carolina’s 169th Fighter Wing is currently deployed in support of Operation

Enduring Freedom.

With the fielding of the Air National Guard’s number one Combat Air Force modernization priority—Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) capability with the

LITENING II Targeting Pods and Situational Data Link (SADL) capabilities—the

ANG was able to provide 100 percent of the strike and air superiority fighters in

AEF 9. We are more relevant to the fight than ever before in our history. Our transformational systems and processes to find and acquire effective capability proved invaluable in Post September 11th Combat Air Patrols as well as combat operations

in Afghanistan.

Additionally, our KC–135 fleet is tasked for the sole support of Airborne Warning

and Control System (AWACS) aircraft at NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen. This en-
223

tails an annual 850 flying hours and offloading over 6 million pounds of fuel during

a 44-week year. Air National Guard units deploy two aircraft with sufficient flight,

maintenance, and support personnel and equipment to sustain these operations.

The bottom line is that in 30 months—or two complete cycles of the AEF—nearly

half the Air National Guard knows first hand what it means to be an Expeditionary

Aerospace Force concurrent with our role as guardians of our sovereign airspace.

These same warriors will take this experience and knowledge back to their communities, families, employers and local and state political leaders. They will help the

Air Force and the nation immeasurably in building understanding and support for

a strong and ready Aerospace Force. The Air National Guard is picking up more

and more regular Air Force missions.

The War on Terrorism

Homeland Security entails the protection and defense of our territory, population,

institutions, and infrastructure from external attacks and intrusions. Rapidly advancing technological capabilities will give large and small nation states the ability

to threaten or directly attack the United States with asymmetric means such as

weapons of mass destruction, cyber weapons and terrorism. Traditional means of defense often fail against these unconventional threats. Homeland Security will require us to engage, support and cooperate with all levels of government and the private sector in new and innovative ways.

On the 11th of September 2001 the Air National Guard proved its capability to

be dual-missioned, protecting America on three fronts. At 0830 on September 11,

2001, the Air National Guard was actively serving abroad with over 4,000 people

already deployed during the first two weeks of September in support of CINC or

service requirements. We had 1,204 people deployed on an AEF—representing 59

different Wings across six different weapon systems for a total of 158 aircraft. At

0845, with the launch of two Air National Guard units, the Air National Guard became dual-missioned. Within minutes of the Hijack notification, two Air National

Guard F–15/F–16 units launched from alert status, one Air National Guard F–16

unit launched from a training sortie.

The Air National Guard contribution did not stop there. Within minutes, intense

coordination occurred between the Air National Guard, the Active Component Air

Force and the Federal Aviation Administration. The 1st Air Force Operations Center staff increased from 38 to 153 personnel. The Air National Guard Crisis Action

Team acted as a coordinating force at Andrews Air Force Base.

At the urgent request of the National Command Authority, the first aircraft

scrambled in the skies above the National Capitol were Air National Guard F–16

Block 30s returning from an AEF training mission. Within hours, 18 Air National

Guard Tanker Wings, were generated; 34 Fighter Wings were ready with 15 already

flying, and 179 missions were flown in the first day. The Air National Guard is still

there side-by-side with the Active Duty Air Force, Air Force Reserve, Marines, Navy

Reserve and others.

We continued to be a vital asset as Air National Guard units transported critical

federal emergency personnel, civil support teams, blood, human organs, chaplains,

communication equipment, civil engineers, and medical teams. Seventy aero-medical

crews were alerted some responded to New York, the District of Columbia and

Pennsylvania. Still other Air National Guard personnel were sent to operate air

traffic control towers, provide heavy equipment or work in more than 88 command

and control centers across the United States of America.

By the end of November 2001, Air National Guard Fighters on all three fronts

logged nearly 16,000 flying hours in almost 4,500 sorties with a daily average of 84

hours a day. Our tankers flew over 5,000 hours in almost 1,000 sorties for an average of 75 hours a day. Almost 25,000 Air Guard warriors met this ‘‘dual-mission’’

tasking—nearly double our Desert Storm Contributions and six times our Kosovo

commitment. At first, Air National Guard fighters covered nearly 90 percent of the

Operation Noble Eagle tasking, but this is expected to normalize to 50–60 percent

with the addition of increases in Active Duty Air Force participation along with

other service support. Twenty-four hour Combat Air Patrols and Alerts stress Air

National Guard fighters, personnel and training requirements. As such, we need to

examine alternative sharing relationships with others equally capable of filling this

role.

In addition to our Noble Eagle participation, Air National Guard EC–130s provide

the nation’s Commando Solo support in Operation Enduring Freedom. Other critical

Air National Guard forces are currently employed in these operations against the

war on Terrorism. Over 4,200 of our 5,300 Security Forces were mobilized with an

additional 800 on Military Personnel Appropriation days. All four Air National
224

Guard intelligence Squadrons were mobilized early along with Ground Theater Air

Control Systems and Air Operations Groups.

In practical terms this has proven that the Air National Guard is an essential element of the Total Force charged with protecting and defending America at home in

addition to their primary role in forward deployed combat and combat support operations.

THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE

These unprecedented contributions by your Air National Guard all have occurred

at a time when we have reduced our endstrength numbers to 1984 levels. Over the

last two years we’ve taken some major steps to ‘‘fix’’ ourselves and build an organization that meets the demands of that period’s strategic environment and the growing expeditionary requirements. That was, however, before September 11, 2001. We

will need to re-examine our structure again—this time to see if we have enough for

all the taskings we are expected to fulfill. We have already seen a growing requirement of nearly 7,350 full-time and endstrength increases to sustain Force Protection

and Homeland Security requirements.

Interestingly, we were better positioned for our response on September 11th because of our Quadrennial Defense Review deliberations last winter and spring. Our

objectives then proved accurate in September. Air National Guard Homeland Security capability is derived from our wartime taskings, training, skills and equipment.

Combine this with our position and experience within the local communities to provide the ‘‘dual-missioned’’ role that brings a powerful weapon in America’s arsenal.

The Air Guard leadership also recognized the critical link between our State Adjutants General in the effectiveness of militarily support to civil authorities. However

we need to be mindful that all additional responsibilities in this area of Homeland

Security need to be accompanied by appropriate additional resources as we retain—

and always must—our federal war fighting role.

Space, Intelligence and Information Operations

The Air National Guard mission in Space and Information Warfare mission areas

is growing. Air National Guard Space Squadrons currently operate or support critical elements of the nation’s Integrated Threat Warning/Attack Assessment mission,

satellite operations, and command and control structure. A fledgling Information

Warfare capability is taking shape as new initiatives in cyber warfare are being developed and will take advantage of Air National Guard capability in over 20 states.

Four Air National Guard Intelligence Squadrons currently provide essential Signals

and Imagery intelligence capability to Major Commands and our war fighting

CINCS.

As the Air National modernizes to support current mission requirements, the environment for training must keep pace. The increased use of Precision Guided and

Stand Off weapons will drive changes in the airspace and range requirements to

properly and safely train. The greater emphasis and capability for night operations

and use of Night Vision Goggles, for example, will create a need to fly in special

use airspace with ‘‘light’s out’’ creating unique challenges for operating in the National Airspace System. The potential contentiousness and length of time it can take

to establish new, or modification to existing airspace makes it essential to identify

requirements as early as possible. For example, the Colorado Airspace Initiative

came to a successful conclusion only after seven years of development and negotiations. The Air National Guard remains committed to provide the training environment necessary to maintain the readiness of our force; and to balance those needs

against public concerns through the process that seeks continued public involvement.

Recruiting and Retention

During fiscal year 2001, the Air National Guard was faced with many of the same

recruiting challenges that have confronted all the other service components over the

last few years—a robust economy and a low unemployment rate. For the period of

fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2000, the ANG met or exceeded its recruiting

goal two out of four years—especially in fiscal year 2000, where increased and wellplaced recruiting assets helped the ANG exceed its goal by 3.5 percent. Due to highly effective new bonus, grade, and incentive initiatives, the ANG experienced outstanding retention success in fiscal year 2001. As a result, the ANG had to adjust

our recruiting efforts in July 2001 in order to stay within allowable tolerances of

top-line end-strength.

Our programmed end strength for fiscal year 2001 was 108,022. In July 2001, our

assigned strength was approximately 108,419—already 100.3 percent of our end

strength. The Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention Team had exceeded all
225

expectations in just 10 months of fiscal year 2001. This success was achieved despite

the fact that the ANG’s fiscal year 2001 end strength objective was increased over

1,300 new positions from fiscal year 2000. The Air National Guard finished fiscal

year 2001 at 108,486 assigned strength attaining 100.4 percent end strength. Starting in fiscal year 2002, the Air National Guard’s programmed end strength has continued its growth reaching 108,400. As of 31 October 2001, the Air National Guard

has attained 109,121 assigned members.

To continue to remain competitive in today’s recruiting environment—especially

due to extensive ANG requirements and contributions to the war on terrorism, the

Recruiting staff has taken steps to project funds in fiscal year 2004 for two new initiatives: 100 new recruiter authorizations for use as Air National Guard In-Service

Recruiters (ISRs) and Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) Liaisons, and

an increase of $13.7 million to the Air National Guard advertising budget in order

to continue our National Target Campaign.

For fiscal year 2001, the Air National Guard had the best retention rate among

all components, all services. Our Retention Rate since fiscal year 1997 has averaged

89.4 percent. At the conclusion of fiscal year 2001, the Air National Guard’s retention rate stood at 91.3 percent, retaining more than 1,900 members over the same

period last year.

We have placed recruiting and retention emphasis on Air Force specialties where

shortages exist, such as aircraft maintenance career fields, by offering enlistment

and reenlistment bonuses, Student Loan Repayment Program, and the Montgomery

GI Bill Kicker Program. As a result, in many of our critical maintenance Air Force

Safety Centers, we have seen real strength growth from 2–6 percent over the last

two fiscal years. These incentives have contributed greatly toward enticing and retaining the right talent for the right job.

With regard to airmen career assistance services, the Air National Guard has a

long established retention program which centers around our Retention Office Managers (ROM). Retention Office Managers are assigned to each Air National Guard

wing and are responsible to the wing commanders for providing usable information

concerning the health of their organization and deal with any and all retention

issues and concerns. Through the Air National Guard Career Motivation Program,

ROMs ensure all airmen are provided annual career interviews conducted by the

members’ supervisors and unit commanders. We have found this opens the communication channels and provides a platform to address issues or problems that, if left

unattended, could result in the loss of valuable members.

Quality of Life Improvements

During the past year the Air National Guard continued to see an increase in Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) take rates. Currently 450 out of 483 eligible Active

Guard Reserve pilots have signed up for the bonus. That equates to a 93 percent

take rate. Aviator Continuation Pay has accomplished its goal by retaining qualified

instructor pilots to train and sustain our combat force. Our greatest challenge will

be pursuing legislation to eliminate the 1/30th rule as it applies to Aviation Career

Incentive Pay (ACIP) and Career Enlisted Flight Incentive Pay (CEFIP). This initiative, which effects over 13,343 officers and enlisted crew members in the National

Guard and Reserve, is aimed at providing an incentive to our traditional aviators

who do not qualify for the ACP for Active Guard Reserves and the Special Salary

Rate for Technicians. Additionally our number one priority is to increase our traditional pilot force, which has maintained a steady state of 90 percent. We are also

implementing recruiting procedures to expediently identify eligible prior-service

military pilots that may be interested in a career with the Air National Guard.

The past year has also seen a sustained unprecedented reliance on the Air National Guard since Operation Desert Shield/Storm (i.e. Expeditionary Aerospace

Force, Homeland Security, Counterdrug, and Community Missions). The President

and Congress both recognize that the requirements of Air National Guard membership in the new world order far exceed those during Cold War. As such, many new

incentives and quality of life program enhancements have become law in a comprehensive effort to maintain the best retention in the face of the increased individual burden borne by our members.

Each of these enhancements represents a significant accomplishment in making

Air National Guard membership more attractive, one of our biggest priorities. Our

first priority is the recent increase in the maximum coverage under the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program to $250,000. On the heels of that improvement, SGLI was expanded to include families. The SGLI and Family SGLI programs provide our members a single comprehensive source of affordable life insurance.
226

The recent creation of the Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan (UNISERV

TSP), is another equally impressive example of far reaching quality of life initiatives. Under this program, all members of the Uniformed Services, to include Air

National Guard members, are now eligible to supplement their retirement by participating in this program using pre-tax dollars, providing yet another incentive to

continue to serve. The Personnel Policy Staff had the opportunity to represent the

Air National Guard in the implementation of the program. We worked closely with

our counterparts in Headquarters, United States Air Force and the Air Force Reserve Command to ensure a Total Force implementation occurred.

The Career Status Bonus was also implemented allowing those entering the service after 31 July 1986, eligible for the least generous military retirement, to now

have a chance to convert their retirement (Active, Guard and Reserve only) to the

High Three retirement plan, or remain in their current plan by accepting a $30,000

lump sum payment.

Lastly, the TRICARE For Life legislation is an important enhancement that encourages our members to serve to retirement. By doing so, retired members who become eligible for Medicare at 65 are also eligible to have TRICARE as a supplement

to Medicare, saving them significant amounts of money in their retired years. Recent improvements for TRICARE of mobilized Guard members will reduce the burdens on their families.

This era of dramatic improvements directly translates to increased retention, further enhancing our ability to fulfill our federal and state missions while also participating in programs that add value to America. Building upon these successes, the

National Guard Bureau welcomes recent congressional interest to extend TRICARE

eligibility to Traditional National Guard members.

The Year of Diversity—2002

Our Human Resources Enhancement programs, in particular our Diversity effort

has increased mission readiness in the Air National Guard by focusing on workforce

diversity and assuring fair and equitable participation for all. In view of demographic changes in our heterogeneous society, we have embraced diversity as a mission readiness, bottom-line business issue. Since our traditional sources for recruitment will not satisfy our needs for ensuring the diversity of thought, numbers of

recruits, and a balanced workforce, we are recruiting, retaining and promoting men

and women from every heritage, racial, and ethnic group.

Despite a 7.8 percent reduction in force between 1989 and 2001, the Air National

Guard has continued to become more diverse, and during the same period of time

there has been a consistent growth in the recruitment and retention of women. The

Air National Guard diversity strategy is built on a foundation of leadership commitment to create an environment that fosters diversity. The focus of planning is on

establishing organizational structures, education and training, and establishing

measures of success. Leadership’s continuous emphasis on Equal Opportunity and

diversity ideals and issues is necessary to maintain momentum and ensure training

and program implementation. In addition, declines in prior service accessions require increased emphasis on training and mentoring programs. The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) recommended the Air National Guard Diversity Initiative as the ‘‘Benchmark for all the Services and Reserve

Components.’’

Our division’s future initiatives in the areas of career development include the implementation of an Air National Guard formal mentoring process and the development of automated tools to track progress towards increasing opportunities for

women and minorities. In the area of education and training we plan to develop and

execute an innovative Prejudice Paradigm and Gender Relations training modules.

Also, as part of our minority recruiting and retention efforts, we will sponsor an initiative to evaluate the retention rates of women in the Air National Guard to determine factors contributing to the attrition rate.

Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)

The success of the nation’s defense is dependent on the availability of highly

trained members of the ‘‘Total Force’’. The Air National Guard’s mission in conjunction with Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve is to obtain employer and

community backing to ensure the availability and readiness of Air National Guard

forces.

We’ve made participation for today’s employers easier by our Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) predictability and stability. We’ve ensured a dedicated rotator

to get our men and women to and from an AEF location. We’ve identified employer

support in our Strategic Plan. We’ve taken the lead to establish a Reserve Component Airline Symposium where we meet with the nation’s airline industry’s chief pi-
227

lots. We established several goals in our ‘‘Year of the Employer 2001’’ efforts—including an employer database that not only captures vital information on our Traditional National Guard employers to improve communication, but also the added advantage of capturing critical ‘‘civilian’’ skills that can be leveraged for military experience. These are but a few of the initiatives taking hold as we focus on the ‘‘silent

partner’’ behind all of our men and women.

Family Readiness and Support

The Air National Guard has identified the importance of family readiness. As a

major partner in the Total Force Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) deployments,

the Air National Guard contributes 25,000 men and women towards the Total Force

requirement every 15 months. Since 11 September, the Air National Guard has

nearly doubled this sustained contribution in support of Operations Noble Eagle and

Enduring Freedom—concurrently with sustained AEF rotations. This means today,

nearly 50,000 Air National Guard member families are in immediate need of dedicated full-time family readiness and support services—specifically information referral support and improved communications and education capabilities. Until this

year, Air National Guard Wing/Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC) family

readiness and support was run entirely by volunteers on a mere average annual

budget of $3,000–$4,000.

The Air National Guard has developed a program solution in fiscal year 2001 to

fund a full-time contracted family readiness program at each Wing and CRTC.

While funding for fiscal year 2002 has been added in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations, there is no sustained funding. Properly funded and

resourced, the Air National Guard family readiness program will significantly enhance mission capabilities by reducing pressures on Air National Guard personnel

and their families as well as improve their quality of life.

The Air National Guard has also identified a need for childcare alternatives. With

increasing demands from Air National Guard Commanders and family members,

the Air National Guard formed a Childcare Integrated Process Team (IPT) to study

innovative childcare options for the National Guard to include drill-weekend

childcare access. Quality, affordable and accessible childcare for Guard and Reserve

members is an important ‘‘quality of life’’ issue, especially for single and dual-working spouses, just as it is for our active duty counterparts. The Air National Guard

has proposed a pilot program in fourteen locations nationwide to provide a low-cost,

simple approach to providing quality, childcare access to National Guard and Reserve members. At completion, an assessment of the pilot program will be reviewed

and any necessary guidance with projected costs will be validated. Our Active Duty

Child Development Centers (CDC) have recently opened their doors for National

Guard and Reserve childcare use on a space available basis at each of their sites.

However, with only 14 of 88 Air National Guard Wings on an Active Duty Base

where many of the CDC’s are already operating at capacity, this will probably provide limited opportunity for many.

Personnel Management

Our innovative personnel management programs, in support of the enlisted men

and women of the Air National Guard were a total success during the last year. Due

to recently implemented initiatives, we were able to promote 78 members to the

grade of Chief Master Sergeant and 62 to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant

through the Temporary Floating Chiefs (T-Float) and Exceptional Performance Promotion (EPP) programs. Without these special promotion programs these individuals would not have been able to achieve these deserving promotions. Additional,

we have processed well over 1,000 waivers, which covered such areas as enlistment,

overgrade/excess assignments, and military classification actions. The approval of

these waivers aided immeasurably in the Air National Guard meeting its end

strength for fiscal year 2001. The Enlisted Grades Program was another success for

fiscal year 2001. This program has added additional 88 Senior Master Sergeant authorizations to the Military Personnel Flights, which has provided enlisted career

progression within the personnel career field.

In fiscal year 2001, the Air Force deployed a modernized Military Personnel Data

System. This total Air Force system [Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)] is

more technologically advanced, however there is still work to be done to bring the

system to where all the Air Force components want it to be. Functionality that was

put on hold during the six years of development needs to be added, and some processes need to be streamlined. The conversion of the system from client-server to

web-based is pending, and the expansion of the member self-servicing ‘‘module’’ is

on the high priority list.
228

The Virtual Military Personnel Flight is the member self-servicing ‘‘module’’ of the

MilPDS and is available to service members from their homes, deployed locations,

or everyday places of business. Deployed in January 2000, it gave members on-line

access to review their personal information; duty history and awards and decorations information; get retirement credit summaries; do their own proof of service letters; as well as, access ‘‘fact sheets’’ on many personnel programs. When it is complete, members will be able to update selected personnel data on themselves, start

numerous paper processes systematically, and find ‘‘fact sheet’’ information on just

about any personnel program in existence.

The training portion of the MilPDS, named Oracle Training Application (OTA),

falls short of the Air National Guard’s required/desired business practice. In an effort to make the Air National Guard training request process easier and available

to a larger body of people, the Air National Guard has a development effort underway to provide this functionality outside the currently used OTA. The Training &

Education Application Management System (TEAMS) is expected to deploy in February 2002. It will be web-based and initially have a manual interface with the

OTA, but the end goal is to incorporate the TEAMS functionality into OTA and

eventually retire TEAMS.

The Department of Defense has a goal to deploy integrated personnel and pay systems that will support all the Services and their components. Previous and on-going

efforts laboriously moved us toward that goal, but the program is gaining momentum. Expectations are to start development at the end of fiscal year 2002 and deploy

service-by-service with the Air Force being last in April 2006. This system, Defense

Integrated Military Human Resources System, will replace MilPDS and portions of

our Air National Guard-owned pay/orders/workday systems. This system will also

include member self service, chartered with ease of use, it will help make some high

visibility problems smoother; i.e., common reporting across services, cross servicing

of members, status changes, and total military history availability.

Distributed Learning

The Air National Guard has firmly established Advanced Distributed Learning

(ADL) as a primary training vehicle for our members. The Air National Guard also

uplinks training from our three studios in Knoxville (Tennessee), Panama City

(Florida) and Andrews Air Force Base (Maryland). As a forerunner in this dynamic

medium, the satellite-based Air National Guard Warrior Network has (since 1995)

transported training and information to our members at 203 downlink sites at our

bases throughout the nation. In addition to training delivery and production, these

studios also serve as full communicative links to the states and territories in times

of national and local contingencies. From the Andrews’ studio, we provided timely

updates to the field in support of Noble Eagle. From the Training and Education

Center in Knoxville, Tennessee we transported critical information for the F–16

community concerning their new wheel and brake assembly. This training saved

over $120,000 in costs associated with travel of a mobile team. We also continue to

enjoy good working relations with the Federal Judiciary Training Network,

uplinking training to all their federal courts.

Many state Guard units are developing cooperative agreements with local industry and academia to share development of ADL products and reinforce community

relations. Project Alert (one such agreement) completed the conversion of twenty-one

modules of training to CD–ROM and Web-based training for the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida and for the Army

National Guard during the past calendar year.

We continue to work with the Department of Defense and all federal training

communities in developing and delivering expedient learning pieces. The net result

of these actions is helping to increase unit and member readiness. The challenge

is funding for the future. The Air National Guard needs to be positioned to compensate learners, to assist with computer acquisition (or accessibility), Internet access, and to pay for conversion of courses into a deliverable format.

EQUIPPING THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD

For the world’s most effective, engaged, and employed reserve component, our Air

National Guard capability in the future hinges on effective weapon system modernization and recapitalization—along side our Active Component. We need to ensure that our people are armed with the best and safest equipment our active component operates. Of the seven major weapon systems the Air Force operates, the Air

National Guard has—on average—the oldest systems in every one—except the C–

130. Our readiness continues to be strained due in large part to aging aircraft, lack

of spare parts, and increasing workloads associated with both.
229

Our Air National Guard modernization efforts and roadmaps continue to push the

envelope for all airframes. We are still focused on our Combat Quadrangle and AEF

support with priorities given to precision strike, information dominance and

battlespace awareness through Data Link/combat Identification, 24-hour operations

and enhanced survivability. Our ‘‘medium look’’—extended to 2010—focuses on

structural integrity and engines and keeping our airframes lethal. Our ‘‘long look’’—

out to 2015—projects the future missions and their impact on an expected decreasing force structure with a focus on seamless forces and capabilities across the Total

Force and our Air National Guard preparations for this future.

F–16 Fighting Falcon

To stay current and relevant in our Combat Quadrangle, we continue to press in

all four areas—especially our Targeting Pods. We have a plan to have the entire

Air National Guard F–16 community armed with this precision strike capability by

fiscal year 2006. After 11 September, as we saw the benefit of these Pods for Visual

Identification, we recognized a critical need to push these schedules up significantly.

Support and funding have enabled us to make some major in-roads this year and

set the foundation for continued improvements.

Our F–16, pre-block 40 fleet, becomes more interoperable and lethal everyday,

now possessing full front line combat capability. However, we still need to tell that

capability story better. We continually find others who don’t understand our enhanced capabilities. They assume our F–16 pre-block 40’s are only ‘‘near Precision

Guided Munitions (PGM)’’ capable and as a result, they inaccurately place limitations on their use. These assumptions are quite simply dead wrong. Continued support is vital to our efforts to continue this critical program and remain a fully relevant Total Force partner. Our Block 25/30/32 jets are capable of employing Precision Guided Munitions by means of a self-designated laser-targeting pod. Our last

group of pods started delivery in March 2001 continuing through the February 2002

time frame. Combined with prior purchases, this will give us a total of 64 pods in

our fleet. We still need 96 more pods to fill our one-for-one requirement.

We are hopeful this year’s funding will allow us to put a significant dent in this

outstanding requirement. Until then, with ‘‘rainbow’’ sharing of existing pods, the

Air Guard will have nearly all our pilots, weapons loaders, and maintenance crews

fully trained to deliver—full, not near—PGM capability. In other words, Air National Guard Block 25/30/32 F–16’s will have the same capability as the Air Force

F–16 workhorse—the Block 40/42.

When we add a new capability—the Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System or

TARS these F–16’s will become increasingly viable as both a weapons delivery system as well as an information exploitation platform.

TARS will return the manned tactical reconnaissance mission to the Air Force.

In keeping with the modern battlefield’s need for a responsive kill-chain, TARS improves the Air Force’s ability to find, identify, and engage mobile/relocatable targets.

Our current capability includes two electro-optical sensors for day, under the

weather reconnaissance. We are working closely with our industry partners on an

improvement package to add synthetic aperture radar (SAR), a data link, and the

high bandwidth necessary to make this system an all-weather, day or night sensor.

We demonstrated the ability to gather and relay critical information through the

data link to the Air Operations Center (AOC). The result will be bombs on target

within single digit minutes.

All of our Block 25/30/32 jets are wired for the Global Positioning System (GPS)

giving us precise navigation and target acquisition capability. At the same time our

Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) is completely installed on our F–16’s giving

us 24-hour combat capability. Combined with installation of the Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) we have significantly improved our F–16 Fleet. To meet our

Combat identification requirements we need to give our Block 25/30/32 aircraft an

ability to identify both allies and adversaries. A procurement of an Advanced Identification Friend or Foe system will go a long way to enhancing the F–16’s combat

identification capability. We now need full support for ‘‘Falcon Star’’—a structure

modification program that significantly extends the service life of this airplane and

critical now more than ever since the events of September 11th.

With a focus on Precision Guided Munitions capability, combined with Falcon Star

engine and structure modifications and TARS, the Air National Guard F–16 block

25/30/32 community will provide the bridge to the next generation of power-projection precision combat systems.

KC–135 Stratotankers

But our fighters don’t get to the fight or get home safely without the efforts of

our stalwart Tanker fleet. Increasingly, our Air Guard modernization focus has
230

shifted to necessary improvements in our KC–135 fleet. With congressional authorization to lease up to 100 wide body tankers in the fiscal year 2002 budget, we now

have the additional possibility of replacing our aging E-models with either flow

down KC–135Rs from the active duty fleet or new tankers for selected units.

Bottom line—we need to continue the modernization of our tanker fleet. Replacing

the E-models with either active duty R-models or KC-X wide body tankers is the

best solution. However, if the KC-X version does not work out, then it is critical we

upgrade from the aging and operationally unsuitable E-models as soon as possible.

We have a consolidated plan in place that includes the purchase of 100 R-conversion

kits at a rate of 16 per year. This would fix two full squadrons a year over the next

six years at a cost of $352 million per.

With the Pacer Crag upgrade complete this summer and the Global Air Traffic

Management (GATM) kits buy beginning, we are well on our way to serious improvements in our Air Guard tanker assets.

With our anticipated addition of Situation Awareness Data Link (SADL), the Air

National Guard once again leads the way for issues that directly affect future expeditionary operations. With nearly half the entire air-refueling mission, the Air National Guard must not let tanker modernization issues be ignored.

C–130 Hercules

Another concern that has surfaced in light of changing strategy requirements is

whether or not we truly have 100 too many C–130’s in service. Homeland Security

and increasing Quick Reaction Forces requirements may alter force structure with

a 3-front war (AEF, Noble Eagle, and Enduring Freedom).

With increasing reliance on our Tactical Airlift workhorse, the C–130, we are still

pushing to fully fund the cockpit armor requirements necessary to operate in hostile

conditions. This armor upgrade, mandated by United States Central Command, will

make significant improvements in the survivability of our fleet while supporting

AEF taskings. We need defensive countermeasures systems and battlespace situational awareness capabilities that allow us to operate in hostile conditions and to

counter the prolific infrared threats.

We continue our work to bring the full complement of C–130J aircraft to Air National Guard units in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and California.

In addition, our Air National Guard unit in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is converting from their EC–130Es to the EC–130Js cross-decking the special mission

equipment that makes this one-of-a-kind psychological warfare mission possible.

Even as this modernization program continues, Air National Guard Commando Solo

aircraft and crews are conducting operations over Afghanistan. By converting to the

EC–130Js, we will be progressing in this ‘‘revolutionary’’ program working with all

stakeholders to iron out the bugs that come with any new weapon systems. We continue to complete our C–130J conversions as aircraft are fielded. This program will

modify the C–130 fleet through 2013 making it viable well into this century.

Our biggest Total Force issue remains the C–130 Avionics Modernization Program

(AMP) development. With the award of the AMP contract to Boeing, the Air National Guard is fully supporting the System Program Office. The Air National Guard

is providing the first aircraft, a C–130H2, to the Air Force Flight Test Center and

Boeing for AMP flight-testing.

The Mobility Requirement Study, Homeland Security transportation needs, and

the Army Transformation all point to increasing reliance on this highly reliable mobility asset.

C–5 Galaxy

The Air National Guard will take all the C–5B’s Galaxies that the Active Component Air Force wants to give us, and we’ll get them and keep them in top shape.

The C–5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) is the first of a two-phased comprehensive modernization for the C–5. This program redesigns the architecture of

the avionics system, installs All-Weather Flight Control System (AWFCS), Traffic

Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) and makes the C–5 Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) compliant.

The AWFCS replaces low reliability Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) in the automatic

flight control system and replaces aging mechanical instruments in the engine and

flight systems. A GATM capability, which encompasses communications, navigation,

and surveillance (CNS) requirements, will be concurrently incorporated into the aircraft to maintain worldwide airspace access well into the 21st Century.

The Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program is the second of the twophased modernization of the C–5 that improves reliability, maintainability and

availability. This effort centers on replacing TF39 engines with more reliable, commercial off the shelf turbofan engine. This program also upgrades numerous other
231

systems including: flight controls, electronics, hydraulics, landing gear, fuel system,

airframe, fire suppression system, and pressurization/air conditioning system.

It’s critical to the national lift requirements that the C–5 systems are modernized

under the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program and used to fill the

near 55 million ton mile per day lift requirements for a moderate-risk capability to

support the National Military Strategy.

C–17 Transport

As we contemplate an increase of C–5 Galaxies, the Air National Guard also

needs more C–17’s. With the current focus on strategic airlift shortfalls, many hope

for an increase in C–17 fleet-wide numbers. As a result, we support additional C–

17’s for both the Air Force and the Air National Guard to adequately meet the full

range of strategic lift requirements.

The Air National Guard is striving to move the C–17 conversion forward at Jackson, Mississippi—replacing aging and retiring C–141s. We are laying the groundwork for the necessary infrastructure and support requirements, however we harbor

serious concerns regarding the associated funding. We continue to work for the bed

down in fiscal year 2004.

Not only do we need to continue the conversion efforts in Jackson, the Air National Guard advocates far more C–17’s in the Air Guard with Active Associate attached units to facilitate the crew ratio requirements to keep this airplane fully utilized.

Congress and the United States Air Force are reviewing the Alaska and Hawaii

C–17 stationing options, as well as studying other ‘‘hubs’’ among the mid-western

states.

F–15 Eagle/F–22 Raptor

The U.S. House of Representatives defense appropriations subcommittee on May 11 endorsed spending almost $4 billion in 2001 for continued development of the F–

22 Raptor. The $3.96 billion allotment would pay for ten initial production planes

and advance funding on 16 more of the next-generation air superiority fighters.

The F–22 Raptor, developed at Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson

Air Force Base, Ohio, is the replacement for the F–15 Eagle air-superiority fighter

and will become operational early in this century. It combines stealth design with

the supersonic, highly maneuverable, dual-engine, and long-range requirements of

an air-to-air fighter. It also will have an inherent air-to-ground capability, if needed.

The F–22’s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that

will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next three decades.

Even once the F–22 becomes operational, F–15s will remain a critical warfighter.

Air National Guard F–15s led the Air Superiority role in AEF 9 in Southwest Asia

while continuing their air sovereignty alert requirements at home. This valuable

weapon system struggles to remain viable versus ever more capable threats. The

$26.4 million added for the Bolt-On-Launcher (BOL) for advanced infrared countermeasures and the $17.5 million added to complete installation of the Fighter Data

Link (FDL) ensures the National Guard F–15s are able to face the threats being

faced during their AEF rotations.

Future critical F–15 upgrades include the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System,

Advanced Identification Friend or Foe system upgrade to enhance combat identification, Airborne Video Recording System to capture crucial Fighter Data Link information for quality mission debriefing employment training, engine upgrade for sustainability issues, and Tactical Electronic Warfare System upgrade to survive current and future emerging threats.

We are still concerned with the long-term reliability and sustainability issues associated with this aging aircraft. In order to maintain our ability to provide a reliable combat ready force, the ANG F–15’s will need to upgrade its current engines.

With $40 million in engine funding already secured, we must stay engaged to continue this critical modernization strategy. With the changing demands of today, we

need to study the future of this community and consider the implications of Air

Force F–22 Raptor purchases.

Our current plan is to realize the benefits of Air Force F–15 flow-downs. The current Air Force F–22 program anticipates the Air National Guard in only an associate role. We feel that in order to meet the challenges of tomorrow, the Total Force

F–22 program must expand in the future to include an Air National Guard presence

in a unit equipped role.

HH–60G Pave Hawk Helicopter

The primary mission of the HH–60G Pave Hawk helicopter is to conduct day or

night operations into hostile environments to recover downed aircrew or other isolated personnel during war. Because of its versatility, the HH–60G is also tasked
232

to perform military operations other than war. These tasks include civil search and

rescue, emergency aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC), disaster relief, international aid, counterdrug activities and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) space shuttle support.

The Pave Hawk is a highly modified version of the Army Black Hawk helicopter

which features an upgraded communications and navigation suite that includes an

integrated inertial navigation/global positioning/Doppler navigation systems, satellite communications, secure voice, and Have Quick communications.

The Air National Guard has 18 HH–60Gs at units in New York, California and

Alaska. All aircraft now have 701c engines, Forward Looking Infrared Radar

(FLIR), and operating 7.62 mm self-protection weapons.

The self-protection system has AAR–47 Missile Warning System and ALE–47

Counter Measures Dispenser System to protect against Infrared Surface to Air Missiles. Three Air National Guard HH–60s have been modified. Five more are scheduled in fiscal year 2002. The Air National Guard is at the forefront of fielding Situation Awareness Data Link on the HH–60. The Situation Awareness Data Link will

integrate the HH–60 into the Combat Search and Rescue Task Force with F–16s

and A/OA–10s. The program is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2002 and will outfit

all ANG. Other requirements are not funded but are validated. Funding can be executed immediately for near-term capability.

A–10 Thunderbolt II

The A/OA–10 Thunderbolt II is the first Air Force aircraft specially designed for

close air support of ground forces. They are simple, effective and survivable twinengine jet aircraft that can be used against all ground targets, including tanks and

other armored vehicles.

Basically the A–10 has a three-part requirements ‘‘triad.’’ First, the focus over the

last year for our A–10’s has been to ensure precision engagement capability that includes SADL, Targeting Pod integration, DC power, digital stores management system, and a 1760 bus. These modifications will modernize the A–10 cockpit and allow

the aircraft to drop precision munitions. Secondly, the ‘‘Hog-Up’’ is a funded Air

Force Material Command initiative that is fully funded and will primarily replace

wing spars. Lastly, current engines lack sufficient thrust in the medium altitude regime. With new engines the A–10 will be able to perform all missions with better

survivability. The Air National Guard will complete writing the operational requirements for the new engine in 2002. An engine competition will occur after those requirements are approved.

With all three programs, the A–10 will be able to increase its service life from

the projected 2014 to 2028. However, in some circles, the A–10 is still perceived as

a ‘‘cash cow’’ and reprogramming could jeopardize our initiatives to upgrade these

systems. We are looking at more commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) engine solutions

to save money and still improve the capabilities of this first-called, most-used ‘‘hog.’’

Eventually the Joint Strike Fighter will replace the A–10.

Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN)

The ingenuity of Air National Guard transformation initiatives has made positive,

mission impacting strides for our total force. Recently, our unit in Tulsa, Oklahoma

conceptualized, assisted in the development and testing, and fielded a down-sized

Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod test station.

The previous legacy test station used in the Air Force, LANTIRN Mobile Support

Shelter (LMSS), is currently considered too large to be moved effectively to support

contingencies due to the airlift it consumes. The new downsized test station fielded

by the Air National Guard gives the Air Force an optimum deployment LANTIRN

support capability that is otherwise not available.

Supporting Congress

The 201st Airlift Squadron, District of Columbia Air National Guard, provides

worldwide air transportation for Congressional Members/Delegations (CODEL), the

Executive Branch, Department of Defense officials, high-ranking U.S. and foreign

dignitaries, and Headquarters U.S. Air Force inspection team travel.

The 201st currently uses three C–22B aircraft to meet team travel and CODEL

missions. The C–22Bs are 1964 model Boeing 727–100 aircraft, which are scheduled

for retirement due to age and upgrade costs. The first aircraft has already retired

and the remaining two are scheduled for retirement in November of 2002 and 2003.

Congress recognized the need for replacement aircraft and provided funding in the

fiscal year 2001 budget to purchase the first C–40. The identification of ‘‘C–40’’ is

the military designation for Boeing 737s. In the fiscal year 2002 budget Congress

authorized the lease of four additional 737s. Negotiations are in process with the
233

Air Force to determine the disposition of those aircraft. The unit has an existing

requirement for four medium-capacity aircraft, and depending on the disposition of

the leased aircraft, funding may be required to purchase additional aircraft to meet

the unit’s requirement.

Summary

This is where our Air National Guard Force is headed. This is where we need to

go with them. The readiness levels of the Air National Guard depend on modern

equipment availability. Adequate funding levels for Air Guard equipment are becoming increasingly critical.

We are being called on to perform a greater share of day-to-day missions, as well

as to relieve the high operational tempo for active duty forces. We can no longer

wait until new weapon systems are totally fielded in the active component first.

Compatible equipment is essential to reduced logistics costs and to enable Active,

Guard and Reserve units to train and fight together.

Our Air Guard warriors—the men and women who patrol the skies of Northern

and Southern Iraq as part of the Aerospace Expeditionary Forces or AEFs, and flying critical Combat Air Patrols (CAP) sorties over our American cities deserve comparable equipment for committed and sustained contributions.

THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD INFRASTRUCTURE

Air National Guard Civil Enginnering

Air National Guard infrastructure provides the Department of Defense enhanced

operational capacity with its presence at 180 locations throughout the country. In

fiscal year 2001, the Air National Guard executed 96 percent of the Military Construction program that was available for execution; 100 percent of its Environmental program, 97 percent of its Real Property Service program; and 108 percent

of its Real Property Maintenance program. The challenges in fiscal year 2003 will

be extensively connected to the War on Terrorism—as seen by the recently identified facilities requirements for Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection and iterim alert beddown. Funding will also be necessary to meet equipment shortfalls for both the EOD

and Fire Vehicles Program.

While over 25 major USAF facilities and bases in the Continental United States

were closed during the 1990s, the number of Air National Guard facilities remained

relatively constant—recognized for their efficiencies and operations only focus. As a

result, in many U.S. communities today, a National Guard member and the local

National Guard base, installation, facility or office they serve at is the only connection for many Americans to the U.S. military. Maintaining this connection to local

communities is more important now than any other time in America’s history in

light of the terror attacks of September 2001 and as the percentage of Americans

who have served or have a family member who served in the military continues to

shrink.

Due to the nature of Air National Guard installations, Air National Guard members are more visible in the community than their active duty counterparts. Air National Guard installations do not have the extensive support facilities typically

present on active bases such as dormitories, golf courses, family housing, hospitals,

child-care facilities, schools, youth centers, commissaries or main exchanges. Instead, Air National Guard personnel rely on the community for this support. The

corollary gain is that the community interacts with and sees men and women in

uniform regularly. This connection is a key underpinning of the public’s understanding concerning the gravity of the use of military force: it’s not just a force from

a remote and disconnected location but someone they see and may know on a daily

basis.

Another advantage of Air National Guard installations in the community is the

ability to attract and leverage the capability of aviation, information technology (IT),

space, engineering and other technical (and non-technical) personnel who are employed by these industries in their civilian career. They learn and develop skills in

the civilian world and apply these skills to Department of Defense requirements.

And as part-time employees, they do it at a fraction of the cost of their active duty

counterparts. Additionally, installation presence in the community allows the Air

National Guard to attract and retain prior-service personnel. This is particularly important for the Air Force—a service that spends more resources and time training

its enlisted and officer corps than the other services. Rather than completely losing

highly trained and skilled professionals to the private sector, the number and range

of Air National Guard facilities across the country provides both full-time and parttime opportunities for those who want to return home but continue to serve. Addi-
234

tionally, Air National Guard community presence also provides an opportunity to recruit personnel to active duty.

Air National Guard infrastructure offers strategic advantages by being geographically distributed throughout the country. For example, when Pease AFB, New

Hampshire closed in 1991, the Air National Guard took over some of the facilities

and now operates in partnership with the local community. Pease International

Tradeport (Air National Guard Station) is important. Along with other Air National

Guard bases such as Bangor International Airport (Maine), and Otis Air National

Guard Base (Massachusetts), Pease has not only provided continued Air Force presence in the Northeast United States, but also provides the staging point for the

Northeast Tanker Task Force operation to help shuttle Air Force aircraft and forces

across the Atlantic.

Air National Guard infrastructure co-located on civilian airports saves considerably on overhead because the airport or the Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for many of the support costs such as maintaining runways and operating

the control tower. Additionally, there is no military housing on Air National Guard

bases and minimal community support facilities requiring construction or maintenance. The typical Air National Guard installation, with only 350,000 square feet

of facility space on 150 acres of leased property with a shared runway, provides the

American taxpayer with a very efficient basing structure. Furthermore, a contract

and state employee workforce supervised and monitored by a small (7–10 person)

federal workforce executes most facility operations and maintenance. This ‘‘business

plan’’ of a small footprint operated by a largely contract and state workforce frees

up limited resources for other priorities. Furthermore, innovative organizational

concepts, such as ‘‘active-associate’’ units allow for additional leveraging of Air National Guard infrastructure.

Because of its ties to the state, the National Guard has a unique tradition of support to U.S. communities during environmental and man-made disasters and crises.

As the attacks on New York and Washington have shown, Air National Guard support of Homeland Security missions and responses will increase. Homeland Security

includes combat air patrol; aircraft on alert; National Missile Defense; border security; counterdrug operations; chemical biological, radiological and nuclear response;

environmental security; and information security. The Department of Defense and

Air Force play emergency response roles in these missions, but the Air National

Guard geographic presence across the nation can enhance response times and serve

as staging or operating locations for impacted or at-risk communities. The Air National Guard community presence also provides day-to-day working relationships

with first responders, with state authorities and with local communities prior to any

potential attacks.

The Air National Guard Civil Engineer and Services force structure offers ideal

skills for application to emergency Homeland Security mission requirements. Disaster preparedness, fire protection, engineering planning, construction craftsmen,

and force bed down capability is embedded at each flying wing. Additionally, a few

units possess limited explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) capability. These skills can

be leveraged with local community and state emergency response capabilities to provide expanded options to state and federal command structures.

Shortly after the 11 September attacks, Air National Guard Civil Engineer units

responded to numerous requests to support the requirements of the two major operations being conducted inside and outside the continental United States. Considerable assets have been provided in the readiness career field, along with power production, EOD, and fire protection services. To date thousands of individuals have

been called to serve, with much more providing support through volunteer status.

Service squadrons have been tasked to support home station alert missions being

conducted for Operation Noble Eagle, to include billeting services, and food service

requirements. All of these accomplishments are being conducted without any negative impact on steady state Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) commitments, and

day-to-day operations of our home installations.

To support on-going Combat Air Patrol (CAP) and alert requirements, the Air National Guard has identified (and constructed) critical alert bed down needs at an interim cost of $21.3 million. Another $4.8 million of interim facility requirements remains unfunded. Correspondingly, necessary operations and maintenance AT/FP installation upgrades have been identified at a cost of $104.9 million.

Additionally, the Air National Guard is well positioned to accept missions transferred from the active duty. Not only do Air National Guard installations attract

personnel separating from active duty with specific weapons system skills, Air National Guard installations have proven they can manage change by economically

bedding down numerous missions as they are transferred from the Air Force.
235

Air National Guard Environmental Program

Supporting Air National Guard infrastructure and operations is the Air National

Guard environmental program consisting of four pillars: environmental compliance,

pollution prevention, conservation resources, and environmental restoration. The environmental compliance program ensures we comply with applicable federal, state,

and local regulations and standards, including Department of Defense and Air Force

environmental policies. The pollution prevention program allows us to reduce or

eliminate undesirable impacts on human health and the environment by enacting

change in the processes, practices, or products we use to conduct our mission. The

conservation resources program ensures we protect natural and cultural resources.

The environmental restoration program is designed to protect human health and the

environment from past contamination and achieve closeout of its cleanup sites. A

true success, the Air National Guard as completed its third year with zero Environmental Notifications of Violation (NOV).

Air National Guard Military Construction

Future challenges include sustaining, restoring and modernizing the facility plant.

Defense facilities are durable capital assets, which if properly built and sustained,

have life cycles ranging to 50 years and beyond. However, in the absence of proper

sustainment, these facilities perform poorly and decay prematurely, and without

modernization, they become obsolete. If properly sustained, we could expect an average total life expectancy of 67 years—however with current funding, the Air National Guard will not be able to sustain the facilities and will recapitalize them on

a 122—not 67-year cycle. Past under-funding has led to the present situation where

Air National Guard installations report C–3 (significant deficiencies preventing

some mission performance) or C–4 (major deficiencies precluding satisfactory mission accomplishment) for almost all facility classes defined by the Installation Readiness Report.

Many of the C–3 and C–4 ratings can only be solved through replacement of antiquated facilities. The current backlog of MILCON requirements is $2.2 billion and

growing. Annual funding from Air Force is generally in the range of $50–$60 million

which means it would take over 36 years to buy out just the requirements on the

books today. In addition to these current mission requirements, there are urgent

funding requirements to bed down new missions such as new weapons systems (C–

17) and convert existing missions to new roles (F–16 to KC–135 conversions). The

pending MILCON bill for these new mission requirements is in excess of $525 million and has the potential to grow even larger as a result of the Homeland Security

missions in the post September 11 environment. Congressional help with this backlog of current mission and new mission requirements has been invaluable. Nearly

70 percent of the funding received by the Air National Guard in the last 10 years

has come through Congressional inserts. Without these inserts, the Air National

Guard would not be able to support our flying missions.

Recent decisions to increase the fiscal year 2003 budget for Air National Guard

installations represent a commitment to do better, but the cumulative deterioration

occurred over the past decade, so it is not reasonable to expect a one-year budget

increase to fix the problem.

With the recent attacks on the homeland, Air National Guard installations are

now recognized not only as platforms from which to generate force structure for

overseas missions, but also as bases needed to protect the homeland. To successfully

fulfill these rolls, upgrades are needed for the new Homeland Security missions as

well as to reduce terrorist risk to the installations. New facilities to support alert

aircraft as well as antiterrorist/force protection related construction requirements

are needed for this new role. The Air National Guard has identified antiterrorist

requirements such as upgrading/replacing perimeter fencing, relocating entry gates,

constructing security walls, and replacing security forces facilities.

Knowledge Network

The Air National Guard provides a secure network environment that meets the

information weapon systems needs of the its citizen airmen. We play a dual role of

providing both network development and network operation. We design and implement the Air National Guard network infrastructure that complies with all Air

Force and Department of Defense standards. We provide unit communication commanders and their personnel with quality and timely information to exercise control

over their respective networks and mission systems.

First, we design a secure, interoperable network that is capable of meeting the

application system needs of the Air National Guard. Second, we protect and monitor

the network and then respond to network attacks to ensure the availability of network systems.
236

Our first and foremost priority is to ensure the integrity and availability of the

network to our Air National Guard customers. Additionally, we ensure that our network is compliant with Department of Defense standards and interoperable. Further, we assist our base network control centers in securing, monitoring, and troubleshooting their local networks.

In the near future, we expect to evolve our network into a more robust, secure,

and interoperable environment. We will work hand-in-hand with the Air Force in

developing a virtual private network (VPN) that provides encrypted, thus secure, information flow across the enterprise. We also seek to partner with the Army National Guard to develop crosscutting network architectures that reduce redundancy,

enhance capabilities and provide cost savings.

TRAINING THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD

In the last year, the Air National Guard filled more than just ‘‘positions.’’ We

brought skills, experience and training to the theater that exponentially increased

Air Force AEF war fighting capability.

In AEF 9, Air National Guard pilots averaged over 2,000 hours flying the F–16

versus 100 for their young active duty counterparts. Ninety-seven percent of our Air

Guard pilots have more than 500 hours experience in their jets compared to thirtyfive percent of their Active Duty counterparts.

As the Aerospace mission becomes more sophisticated, our Air National Guard experience and maturity provides more solutions to a growing total force problem especially for our 5 and 7 level requirements. Air Force leadership recognizes the talent we have and the capabilities we bring. We get the opportunity to teach and

shape future Air Force leaders on the value of the citizen airman and the unique

requirements of our predominantly traditional force.

Major General Dave Deptula, former Commander at Incirlik, said it best: ‘‘Fortynine percent of the units that participated in Operation Northern Watch were

Guard or Reserve, and you couldn’t tell the difference between the Guard or Reserve

fighter pilot on his first day in theater, and the active duty fighter pilot in his 90th

day there.’’

We can train others well because we are trained well ourselves. Its new mission

areas like Tyndall’s Associate Unit where the Florida Air National Guard trains the

Total Force pilot to fly the F–15. Using a mix of 18 Traditional National Guard and

16 full-time instructor pilots, we provide what Colonel Charlie Campbell, the Squadron Commander, called a ‘‘stabilized, highly proficient instructor cadre with great

continuity and leadership.’’ His perspective was backed by the former 325th Fighter

Wing Commander, Brigadier General Buchanan, who stated, ‘‘Our partnership with

the National Guard is a good way to strike a balance that allows us to take advantage of the Air National Guard’s resident F–15 experience while trying to bridge our

current pilot gap.’’

Training Requirements

The Trained Personnel Requirement (TPR) is the process by which 3 and 7 level

Formal Training requirements are forecasted and received by the Air Force and its

components. This process is the validation factor for hiring and training of instructors and the obtainment of classrooms and equipment. In turn, it also determines

the ability to increase training allocations in the out years. The Air National Guard

Personnel Force Development Division revamped the entire Air National Guard’s

formal TPR program two years ago while working in tandem with the Active Component, Future Force and the Readiness Team. This rejuvenated effort resulted in

garnering 1,756 additional training allocations in fiscal year 2002 and 2,100 additional seats in fiscal year 2003. A byproduct of this renewed emphasis, over previous

years, was an increased utilization rate from 66 percent in fiscal year 1999 to 84

percent in 2001. This exceeded the Air National Guard goal by 4 percent, as set by

the Air Force. Additionally, in just two short years the Formal Training Branch has

increased Air National Guard Formal Training allocations by 48 percent through

this enhanced TPR process, thereby fast-forwarding our get well process by a full

18 months. This Herculean effort resulted in a total of 11,813 training authorizations for fiscal year 2003.

Training Slots

The Air National Guard received 186 undergraduate pilot training slots in fiscal

year 2001, up 13 from the previous year. The projected pilot shortage for most of

the next decade makes it imperative to increase the pipeline flow to help sustain

the National Guard’s combat readiness—especially as we assimilate more non-prior

service individuals as a function of our overall recruiting effort.
237

Training Bases

We continue to pursue efforts to establish follow-on training bases for the KC–

135E and C–130 pilots to offset training capacity shortfalls. Additional Air National

Guard F–16 pilot training units are being established at Kelly AFB, Texas, and

Springfield, Ohio. The recently converted F–15 school at Kingsley Field, Oregon is

still expanding student production. The Air Control Squadron in Phoenix, Arizona

is converting to a schoolhouse unit to train National Guard and Active Duty personnel.

Air Traffic Control

From 14 control towers and 11 air traffic control radar facilities around the country, our air traffic control personnel controlled over 1 million aircraft, placing the

Air National Guard as the third busiest of the nine Major Commands in the Air

Force and ensuring our ability to train and remain combat ready to perform this

function during any contingency.

Ancillary Training

Ancillary training requirements have been competing with our capability to prepare for and deliver our combat mission. We canvassed our units to identify the

pressure points and just released a new requirement list that significantly reduces

the numbers considered absolutely essential to our Expeditionary Aerospace Force

culture. This has resulted in a reduction from 530 previous requirements to 69 current ones—of which 53 apply to the Air National Guard. This gives our men and

women more effective time to focus on mission and weapon system specific training.

THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD SAFETY PROGRAM

Your Air National Guard warriors are doing the jobs they’ve trained a lifetime

to do, and they are doing them with great attention to safety. Command emphasis

and leadership has made the difference. Over the last decade, the Air National

Guard has become the model for safety. We are starting the new millennium on a

very positive note for flight, ground, and weapons safety programs. The following

is a short list of this and past year’s successes:

—As an organization we, sustained or improved both Flight and Ground Safety

during an increase in operations.

—Fiscal year 1998 was the first year there were only 3 Class A Flight mishaps.

It was also the lowest Class A Flight mishap rate in Air National Guard history. The Air National Guard Aircraft Maintenance Team was winner of the Air

Force Association (AFA) 1998 Major General Earl T. Ricks Memorial Trophy.

Strict compliance with safety and technical directives equals zero mishaps. The

Air National Guard had the lowest flight mishap rate due to maintenance practices in Air Force History: 0.83 percent for fiscal year 1998, best performance

in combat aviation history.

—Fiscal year 2000 was the second year the Air National Guard only had 3 Class

A Flight mishaps. It was the second lowest rate ever in Air National Guard history and the second year with a mishap rate below one.

—A full 68 percent reduction in flight mishaps over the last 4 years. Fiscal year

2001 was our best flying safety year ever in the Air National Guard at 0.59 percent and no fatalities due to aircraft accidents.

Despite our increased operational and personnel TEMPO and the first and second

cycle of the Expeditionary Air Force, we have accomplished another outstanding

safety year.

Summary

The Air National Guard is one of the most relevant, ready, responsive, and accessible reserve component assets in the Department of Defense today that operate on

7.1 percent of the Air Force budget.

We in the Air National Guard are proud to serve this great nation as citizen-airmen. Building the strongest possible Air National Guard to meet the needs of the

National Command Authority, CINCs and our Air Force partners is our most important objective. Our people, readiness modernization programs and infrastructure

supported through congressional actions are necessary to achieve this vital objective.

Since the end of the Cold War, Air National Guard forces have been increasingly

deployed in support of the full range of operations. We’ve proven ourselves accessible, capable and relevant over the last decade culminating in the responsiveness

on September 11, 2001. We have consistently proven our capability to train and deliver full spectrum air and space power across a wide requirement. We were ready

to fight and win our nation’s wars. We were always there to support ongoing contingency operations. We are fighting a war on terrorism. We continue to shape the en-
238

vironment through state-to-state partnerships and exercises. We will always and respond in a moment’s notice as we did on 11 September, to domestic emergencies and

Homeland Security. The Air National Guard continues to expand how we see our

future missions and ourselves.

We count on the support of the Citizens of the United States of America to continue meeting our mission requirements. We are confident that the men and women

of the Air National Guard will meet the challenges set before us. We will remain

an indelible part of American military character as an expeditionary force, domestic

guardian and caring neighbor.

CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU CLOSING THOUGHTS

As you can see from this posture statement, the citizen-soldiers and airmen of the

National Guard provide the nation with a tremendous asset. They form units

trained and ready to conduct or support combat operations. At the same time, their

dedication, military skills and equipment are available to governors for the protection of the lives and property of our citizens on our own soil. We are America’s

hometown military presence and are committed to the welfare and freedom of our

communities.

The National Guard’s unique dual status gives America’s leaders a spectrum of

options with which to provide for the security of our nation. Hopefully, this publication has been helpful to you in better understanding some of the complex ways in

which that occurs.

If, however, you have any further questions about the National Guard, who we

are, how we operate or what we can do, I hope that you will feel free to raise them

with those of us at the National Guard Bureau.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General. Before proceeding with my questions, I would like to note that General Davis

has served this Nation in the military for over 43 years and I gather that this may very well be your last time you will be testifying

here. If that is so, on behalf of the committee and for that matter

on behalf of the United States Senate, I thank you very much for

the service you have rendered to our Nation, for your leadership,

your courage and valor. We will always treasure them, sir.

General DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. General Davis, the supplemental bill that we

have before us calls for the mobilization of 8,000 Reserve and National Guard, which would require the services to demobilize about

21,000. How do you plan to reach these levels when you have all

these new assignments that you have been provided?

General DAVIS. Sir, what we have done initially is look again at

the units that have been alerted for mobilization and this hundredplus thousand includes soldiers and airmen at least in the Guard

and other services who have been alerted, and they have scrubbed

that again and decreased some of that so we have not alerted them.

We have also followed through in both the Army Guard and the

Air Guard to scrub all the people who are on active duty in a mobilized status to see if some of them are being utilized as well as they

need to be or could be and if we really have a requirement for 80

people and maybe we have 100 mobilized to make sure that we can

take care of folks when we have difficulty during winter months because of people having colds and are not able to report to duty. So

we are scrubbing those numbers to try to get them down. We will

do that with some difficulty but I think we will be able to achieve

the objectives.

If we have continued requirements, though, it’s going to be very

difficult for us to do that. What we have tried to do and thus far

been able to accomplish is make sure that if we demobilize somebody, we are demobilizing him because we no longer require their
239

services, giving them ample opportunity and notification they will

be demobilized. We have to be sensitive to the fact that many of

them will be returning to their jobs. They have to give notification

to the jobs before they return, and certainly we want to make certain as they reintegrate with their families, particularly those who

have been deployed away from home, we want to make sure we

give them adequate notification and preparation time for both the

member as well as his or her family.

Senator INOUYE. In other words, demobilization will take some

time.

General DAVIS. Yes, sir, it will take some time. Initially, we have

taken some of the units that were alerted for mobilization and

withdrawn the notification, and looking at and working with the

active component, both Army and Air, to see if we can utilize any

different capacity or a different way the active component soldiers

or airman can fulfill some of these requirements, sir.

DOMESTIC AIR COMBAT PATROLS

Senator INOUYE. The Air National Guard has been tasked with

domestic air combat patrols and I guess that has also been called

upon for demobilization. What sort of air combat patrols are you

carrying out in this war?

General DAVIS. I’ll hand that one to General Brubaker.

General BRUBAKER. We are continuing our air combat patrols

over the United States. We are downgrading to a lesser amount of

those patrols. That has freed up folks that can be demobilized and

we’re doing what we call strip alerts now at several sites.

Senator INOUYE. Will that be enough to carry out the mission?

General BRUBAKER. Yes, sir, it will.

General DAVIS. Sir, we’ve done much of that with volunteers, and

in the early part it was done all with volunteers, people who were

able to come out and fly for 2 or 3 days and then go back to their

regular jobs. Many of the folks like myself would do it on the weekends and evenings, so we stood the 24-hour alerts and 24-hour

combat air patrols, and we were able to do it with volunteers. At

some point we had to mobilize some of the folks to do it. As we decrease that, we think we can sustain much of it now with volunteers or people doing their regular duty. It is not as heavy a requirement as we had had in the past, I think.

Senator INOUYE. As we note the number of troops in the Balkans

and also in Afghanistan, some of us have been concerned that the

forces are being overused, overtaxed. Is that a real concern?

General DAVIS. As General Schultz said and I will defer to him

shortly, we pay a lot of attention to that, sir. We look at home soldiers in each State, how many soldiers in each skill are being

tasked for the missions in Afghanistan and in Bosnia, and much

of that is Army Guard, the bulk of that is Army Guard, sir. As we

look at that, we don’t see any real strains.

Now we do have some issues in some of our high-demand lowdensity MOSs, as well as the FACs and the rescue business in the

Air Guard. As we look at those, we see some potential there for it,

and so we’re looking to see what we can do to accommodate it.

General SCHULTZ. Senator, one example is, Bosnia’s Stabilization

Force mission, we discussed the 29th Division perhaps staying in
240

country longer than the originally planned 6 months and we said

no. We have an obligation to the members, to the soldiers and their

employers that once the mission was over, they would return rather than just extending in theater. And so I think as long as we use

a rotational policy that has a sense of discipline to it, we’re going

to be okay, which means sharing or balancing the work load literally across all the units, and I think that’s the way to work

through this question.

Senator INOUYE. Soon after September 11th when we began our

war on terrorism, employers throughout the land were very helpful

and cooperative. Is this support still standing, is it staying?

General DAVIS. Yes, sir, we think it is. As we talk to our members, and we’re going to continue to do surveying of them to assure

ourselves where we are. The National Committee for the Guard

and Reserve has a new very energetic leader and he has come on

board and moved out very rapidly. So we are doing a large number

of events with employers.

An example of the kinds of things we were doing before the 29th

Division deployed overseas, they had an employer support event in

Maryland, one in Virginia, one up in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that is where the soldiers who were part of that deployment were. Down in Mississippi where they had the 155th

Army Brigade, we had some events down there to let employers

know what the soldiers are doing, or what the airmen are doing in

the case of the Air Guard. So we have been very aggressive.

A number of us in the senior leadership have been involved in

those signing ceremonies. I was out at Xerox Document Center

here about 2 months ago at one of those events, and we’ve had our

folks all over the Nation. We are concerned about it, but I think

people understand today that this threat is still there, so we are

trying to continue to educate employers about that, and we aren’t

aware of any major issues we have. We have an individual issue

here and there and we work those pretty aggressively, but we are

not aware of any major issues we have.

On a long time continuum, next 2 years or so, given the fact that

it’s a long protracted effort certainly to fight the terrorists, we

could see some lessening of support. At this point we don’t feel we

are, and we have talked to the folks at the National Committee

level as well as the individual State committees, and we’re not seeing any lessening of it, sir.

ARMORED BRIGADE

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. General

Davis, we appreciate very much your mentioning of the good work,

and General Schultz too, that the armored brigade from Mississippi

has done in Bosnia, with the contribution you’re making to maintain stability in that region of the world.

It’s interesting for me to note, gentlemen, I went down to look

at the training that was underway there in preparation for that

mission, and this was really a lot different from what those soldiers

normally do. In an armored brigade, you think of tanks and activities in the field, gunnery and the like, but they had recreated a village and a post where they would actually be living in Bosnia, so
241

they could get used to the environment and get accustomed to the

challenges they would face in that environment.

To what extent do you think that might detract, if it does at all,

from the regular responsibilities or the normal responsibilities that

a unit like that would have, a combat unit being assigned a mission of stabilizing a region and inspecting trucks and personnel on

the streets and that kind of thing?

General DAVIS. Sir, one of the things we pride ourselves is being

part of the full spectrum military. We can go from one end, the

high end acting aggressively, fighting, pursuing an enemy, to the

other end doing such things as humanitarian, so we do that full

spectrum.

In the case of the 155th, that mission is what we call a dismounted mission. They normally would be in tanks and in Bradleys as an armored unit would be. This is what we call a dismounted mission, they are not in those vehicles. So it’s more of a

mission that they can train to with special training. Prior to deploying, though, I would say that they did go back following this

mission rehearsal exercise down at Fort Polk, they do go back

home and they do go back and fire at the highest level, maneuver

levels with their tanks and with their Bradleys. So they are fully

qualified.

And these folks as it develops while they were in Bosnia, had an

opportunity to go out and exercise some of the equipment that was

in Bosnia, to actually go out and fire the equipment, and some of

it hadn’t been fired in over 1 year, as well as get their skills back

up to speed.

One of the difficulties with peacekeeping, peacemaking missions,

is that very quickly it can turn into a wartime situation. All we

need is an attack, and that can happen, so they have to transition

very rapidly. So they have got to keep those skills up.

During their off-duty time when they are not on duty in the rotation schedule they had where they would be on duty for a period

and then they would be in a training day, and on those training

days they went back to train on these same skills.

I would like to have General Schultz comment on it, because it

has been one of those things which we were concerned about, how

their skills would deteriorate. It will deteriorate, but I would suggest given the training methodologies we have, it will deteriorate

at a much slower rate because of the kind of training.

General SCHULTZ. Senator Cochran, as you know, the 155th

Armor Brigade is a first rate outfit. They have been to the National

Training Center. The skills we apply in Bosnia are slightly different but they are not all lost in terms of the leadership requirements. Lots of skills will transfer and result in high payoff tasks

from the day-to-day mission in Bosnia to the likes of a mission for

the 155th to deploy somewhere else in a combat arms setting.

I would also say that if we think about that brigade just in this

example, we expect that they would deploy a little later, should

they be called on short notice to bring the brigade’s full set of

equipment to another theater. And so we change the plans in terms

of our expectations just slightly so that we factor in, we know

they’re in Bosnia but they will deploy perhaps to another mission

on a little later schedule than we had originally planned.
242

So we manage that from a national level about which brigades

are in a rotation like Bosnia and which ones are expected to deploy

very early for their combat mission.

Senator COCHRAN. I’m not sure the extent to which the National

Guard is involved in this and so I’m asking this to just get information, but I know on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and in Alabama and

Florida, we have had a combat identification evaluation exercise

underway and various bases, even civilian airports are being used

by military forces not only from the United States but observers

from the United Kingdom are involved, defense industry people are

there, and what they’re doing is testing and evaluating new technologies and combat information and identification systems and

procedures. The joint forces command has actually been responsible

for this exercise. It ends tomorrow and I was wondering whether

National Guard units were involved or if you were in any way involved in that activity.

General BRUBAKER. Sir, I have heard of the exercise and the

evaluations going on. I believe our First Air Force and NORAD

folks are involved, but beyond that I do not know. I am happy to

report back.

C–17

Senator COCHRAN. The Reserve forces and the National Guard in

particular are going to be undertaking more and more responsibilities for airlift. Can you talk about the C–17s, which are going to

be based, I think the first Guard unit to have them will be in Jackson, Mississippi, and we are very proud of that and we are trying

to be sure everything is done that needs to be done to get ready

so that the timetable of 2004 that you mentioned can be met.

To your knowledge, is the budget request that’s before the committee in this submission sufficient in regard to the infrastructure

needs, the manpower needs, and the flying hour expenses that will

be required in order to carry out the mission of accepting and keeping these airplanes flying and people up to speed so they may contribute as expected?

General BRUBAKER. Sir, we’re working with the Air Force, we

feel like more manpower and more flying hours is needed, and we

are engaged with the Air Force to try to increase the funding to

do that.

C–17 BASING IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

Senator COCHRAN. I notice that you mentioned in your statement, I wrote down that you said that with respect to the C–17

basing in Jackson, Mississippi, that manpower and equipment

shortages remain significant. I hope you can tell us if not right

now, maybe for the record some specific needs that you see that

ought to be met in this funding cycle in order to deal with those

manpower and equipment shortages.

General BRUBAKER. Yes, sir, I would be happy to detail those for

you.

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

[The information follows:]
243

C–17 BASING IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

Plans and preparations for the conversion of the 172nd Airlift Wing’s (AW) assigned aircraft from 8 C–141s to 6 C–17s continue to progress. With aircraft deliveries projected for fiscal year 2004, key facility construction, infrastructure upgrades, and equipment purchases have been accomplished to date. However, both

near- and long-term funding shortfalls remain to be resolved.

Two equipment requirements could not be funded in the fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget: maintenance training device support equipment ($1.28 million) and

composite shop equipment ($250,000). Procuring these long-lead items in fiscal year

2003 is necessary to ensure equipment availability for 172nd AW personnel to train

with and to properly maintain the new C–17 aircraft.

A larger funding issue involves manpower and flying hours in fiscal year 2004 and

beyond. The funds programmed for the 172nd AW’s C–17 mission are not much different than the currently authorized 1,175 military personnel (of whom 288 are fulltime) and approximately 2,900 annual flying hours. These numbers do not reflect

how the Air Force is operating the C–17. Active duty C–17s are programmed at approximately 1,400 annual hours per aircraft (vice the 480 hours per Air National

Guard aircraft). In addition, the C–17 maintenance concept involves frequent home

station inspections that require more manpower and 24-hour operations.

In order for the 172nd AW to meet the Air Force utilization rate for the C–17,

additional manpower and approximately 9,000 annual flying hours would be required. The resulting annual bill for the 6 C–17 aircraft is estimated to be $64 million. Air Force, Air Mobility Command, and Air National Guard officials are working

to alleviate the shortfall, but the prospects are limited. In the absence of additional

Air Force funding or manpower to support the 172nd AW flying at the Active Air

Force utilization rate, the newly procured C–17 aircraft will not reach their full airlift potential nor will the 172nd AW be able to effectively contribute to worldwide

airlift requirements that are increasing.

One point to clarify, the 6 aircraft to be delivered to the 172nd AW in fiscal year

2004 are part of the original 120-aircraft buy. Should procurement of 180 C–17s be

realized, the Air Force plans to base a total of 8 aircraft at Jackson.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Dorgan.

Senator DORGAN. I regret I was delayed for your testimony, but

I have reviewed your testimony and let me thank you for your service and thank you for the service of the men and women who serve

under you.

AIR NATIONAL GUARD IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA

I would like to ask a question of General Davis and General Brubaker about the issue of planes available for the Air National

Guard. You’re well familiar with what I’m going to ask you about,

I’m sure. The Air Guard in Fargo, the Happy Hooligans, as you

know, are one of the best in the world. They have won three William Tell events, two Hughes awards, they have flown more hours

air cover in this country since 9/11. They are I think the best pilots, by having demonstrated that in three William Tell awards and

they fly the oldest airplanes. We have been working with the Air

Force for some time on the airplane issue, and we’re about out of

time on the current F–16s. We’re scheduled to get some old Block

25s that I understand won’t be maintained past the next several

years, so it’s a real problem that we have been working on. Can

you tell me where we are on that issue?

General DAVIS. First off, we agree with you, the Happy Hooligans have done a great job and we are all very proud of their track

record over the years. I date back to the mid-60s with my relationship with the 119th. As we are transitioning to the F–22 and to the

joint strike fighter in the longer term, we’re looking at which aircraft will be available and right now it looks as if some of the aircraft will be available when we start cascading or moving down-
244

stream with the F–22 coming on board and there will be some additional aircraft available. Right now, we just don’t have the right

mix of aircraft available for the National Guard.

F–15

We have looked at the Air Force, we are working very closely

with them in providing more F–15s to the National Guard in the

air defense mission as they become available. This would be contingent upon the rate at which we bring on board the F–22, sir, which

is the replacement aircraft for the F–15 in the air superiority mission.

Senator INOUYE. May I interrupt? There is a vote going on.

Senator DORGAN. Are we moving the F–15s at this point, do you

know?

General DAVIS. We have moved some of our earlier A models

which had not been modified, but I think now we are on hold, as

best I am aware at this point.

General BRUBAKER. We have moved some A models, as General

Davis points out. There will be some more movement and I would

just like to say that we’re going to examine opportunities to get

some of those that are retiring and possibly transition some of the

units sooner than what is currently planned. I think you will find

we will be very aggressive about it, but I’m anxious to work with

you on that.

GUARD AND RESERVE MODERNIZATION

Senator DORGAN. I think that every year this Committee has to

add money for the Guard and Reserve modernization and operation, and we are happy to do that. I think as perhaps my colleagues have said, we get more bang for the buck in investment in

the Guard and Reserve than anything else we do, in my judgment,

and I am immensely proud, as are all Americans, of what the men

and women in uniform have done for this country for many, many

decades, but especially proud since 9/11. I have been around the

country and seen the men and women at these bases with their

eyes filled with pride for what they are doing to serve our country

in the cause of freedom, and we thank you and ask you to thank

them for us. Thank you very much.

General DAVIS. We thank the committee for the outstanding job

that you all have done in allowing us to have additional funding

to keep some of those older weapon systems up to speed. We have

been able to maintain a large number of them with some capabilities which exceed the capabilities of the newer aircraft that they’re

flying in the active component, so thank you to your committee for

that kind of support over the years. It has not been just 1 or 2

years, and certainly the IIF systems and all that were recently

placed on our F–15s in the Air Guard and the pods we have, precision guided munitions, which have allowed us to remain in the

fight and participate very actively alongside our active component

as well as our Reserve partners in the military operations that we

undertake so often. I wanted to make certain to thank you for that

kind of support. It’s that and the kind of support we get in the

Army Guard which allow us to be up front full-time players in this

business. Thank you very much, Senator.
245

Senator STEVENS [presiding]. Senator Kohl.

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I will be brief. I

have a single question I would like to ask you, Mr. Davis.

CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM

We have learned that when it comes to reacting against terrorism, time is of the essence, and everybody feels, every State

feels that we cannot wait. One area that I’m very concerned about

is the State of Wisconsin’s lack of a National Guard Civil Support

Team. Thirty-two States across the country have civil support

teams, including our neighboring States of Illinois, Minnesota and

Michigan. I believe that Wisconsin, like these other many States

including our neighboring States, deserves to have and needs to

have a fully equipped team integrated into the State’s emergency

response system.

So my question of you, General, is when will Wisconsin get a National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team?

General DAVIS. Well, as you stated very amply, sir, we have 32

teams throughout the Nation and those teams, the initial 10 were

done based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) regions and then an additional 17, and then 5 additional

teams were just announced this past fall. Those teams and their

locations and basing are designed to provide coverage for folks here

in America, in the United States. At the current time the Department of Defense feels that those teams are adequate, 32 teams are

adequate in terms of their ability to cover the population base here

in the United States and provide the kinds of services they provide

which are basically assessment, and they will help go out and find

out what the problem is and then assist the folks in augmenting

and bringing in additional help.

At this point, sir, as far as my knowledge is, they don’t plan to

have any additional teams. Those teams will be in place and as we

speak now we have some 26 of them certified, 26 of the 27 teams

certified, and the other 5 teams are in the process of moving along.

So I don’t think I’m able to answer your question specifically, sir,

in terms of when, because the current plan by the Department of

Defense is to have 32 teams. It is not a call we make. We staff the

teams, we train the teams and we implement the program, but

those selection sites and all are made at the Department of Defense

level and as far as I am aware, there will be no more teams. I realize there is a bill introduced——

Senator KOHL. Clearly it’s a disappointment for me to hear that

from a State that doesn’t have a team, so I would like the opportunity to perhaps follow up with you on that.

General DAVIS. We will be happy to, sir.

Senator KOHL. I thank you.

Senator STEVENS. General Davis, the department provided us little information about the tragic accident that ended in the death

of four Canadians in Afghanistan. Could you give us any more information about that?

General DAVIS. No, sir, I don’t think I’m able to. One of the

things we have done with that, as we do with other accidents, Senator Stevens, is we do a full-blown investigation. This one is additionally complex, I guess, in the sense that the Canadians are con-
246

cerned about it and they also are doing their own independent investigation, so I wouldn’t be able to comment beyond that, sir. I

think it’s premature to second-guess a lot of what went on beyond

what’s already been stated.

We are approaching this as we do with any tragic accident. We

certainly feel very badly and want to express our sympathy to the

Canadians for their loss and those who lost their lives, as well as

those who were very seriously injured, but our process is to have

a team appointed to investigate, as you are aware, and to await

their results. If we try to comment on it, we would be doing it at

best anecdotally, sir, so I think it is probably best that we wait

until that investigation is done. I would hope that somewhere in

the investigation process that the Department will be able to come

back and provide you members of Congress with some additional

information, sir.

Senator STEVENS. We will be very interested because of the fact

that it was a National Guard F–16 as I understand it, and the people have raised some questions where it’s concerned.

General Schultz, General Brubaker, we have a significant number of people now that have been mobilized and I am interested to

know with this level of mobilization what is happening in terms of

retention, recruiting, readiness and family problems. Can you give

us a breakdown?

Let me start with you, General Schultz. What effects is it having

on the Army Guard?

General SCHULTZ. As of today, Senator, we’re exceeding our

strength objectives, so in terms of both the enlistments and the retention our figures are up slightly from even those that we planned

for. We deal, of course, with families on a volunteer basis, and

while certainly across the country we’re dealing with some family

issues and some employer issues, but to date we have clearly had

the support of everyone on the missions that we have been asked

to be part of, which is a good news story.

Long term, what I’m seeing, it’s probably a little early to anticipate that we have figured out all of the second and third order

kinds of permutations here of sustained missions like we currently

have. We are sending soldiers on duty just for the period that

they’re required and then return from a mobilization status to their

normal traditional Guard status. And as long as we discipline that

process, I think we will be all right.

MOBILIZATION

Senator STEVENS. We are having some questions from the private sector in terms of how long it’s going to be. There is a time

limit on this mobilization, isn’t there?

General SCHULTZ. In the case of the partial mobilization, we

have authority up to 2 years to call our members, and current Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) policy is we will call them

for 12 months. And what we’re saying is that even 12 months isn’t

long for certain missions, and then we ought to have something

less than 12 months, and so some are 180 days, and we are even

considering rotations shorter than that. But today we have a 6-

month and a 12-month rotational policy in the Army.

Senator STEVENS. What’s your situation, General Brubaker?
247

General BRUBAKER. Sir, I would echo General Schultz’s comments. We’re proud to serve, we have a lot of patriotism from our

folks out there, they are happy to serve and be there, but when

they are not being used, we need to get them home, and I think

that’s the primary issue.

Senator STEVENS. My staff tells me that the net result of these mobilizations will be that you have a shortfall of $1.3 billion, assuming that the current level of manning is maintained. Are we

prepared for that, or have you requested money to fund that shortfall and should we expect this to come down over the balance of

this year or will it affect fiscal year 2003?

General DAVIS. Yes, sir. We had a discussion about this a bit earlier. One of the things we’re doing in looking at some of the units

we’ve alerted for mobilization, not actually calling them up, and

looking at reexamining the possibility of using active components

of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines for those missions. And I

think that we will continue to scrub all of the people we have on

duty, and as General Brubaker and General Schultz said, when

they have completed the mission that they are called for, release

them and let them go home. If you need them in 5 months or 6

months, you can always call them back during that 2-year period,

but if they are not actively performing the mission on a given day

or the next couple weeks or so, we ought to really look at and consider that. So we are scrubbing all our folks who are on duty, and

working with the Air Force and the Army to make sure that if we

don’t need them and are not going to use them for a while, then

let them go back home.

Senator STEVENS. General, we have to stand in recess. They tell

me I have just a few minutes to make the vote. Pardon us.

Senator INOUYE [presiding]. I have been told that Senator

Domenici has a few questions to ask. In the meantime, I want to

ask some about health care. I have been told that some of the personnel are having problems with that. Is that so?

General DAVIS. Yes, sir, they are, particularly in remote areas,

rural areas primarily. There are a number of healthcare providers

who don’t accept TRICARE, they won’t participate in the program

because of some of the historical things, not getting sufficient funding for it, paper work, and taking too long to recover their funding,

so we have had some problems in that area.

One of the things the Department of Defense has done, though,

as part of the mobilization, they have waived the $300 per family,

they have also allowed up to 15 percent above the normal funding

or reimbursement that’s allowed for a given medical procedure or

a given hospital visitation or doctor’s visitation.

So we have experienced some problems in that area, sir. They

are being very aggressively looked at as we speak, and we have

had significant improvement in that from where we were immediately following September 11, but there are some problems that

still remain in that area, sir.

Senator INOUYE. General, the Guard has faced considerable challenges in defining and coordinating this homeland defense and civil

support missions. Since 9/11 and the subsequent creation of the Office of the Director of Homeland Security, has the Guard’s role in

civil support matters become more defined?
248

General DAVIS. Yes, sir, it is better defined and we are working

very aggressively with that office. General Fred Reese, the vice

chief, has had the rose pinned on him for that. These meetings continue with them. We have worked very closely with the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) and now with the Transportation

Security Agency as we work our way through a lot of those issues.

The standing up of the Northern Command, we have a cell of

people who work that issue on a daily basis, and we have people

who are meeting with them as they develop their manning documents and all. One of the difficulties in that arena is we don’t have

manning, additional manning for that command as we staff the

command. I have asked both directors to scrub their documents

and see if we can come up with some personnel for that and as

General Schultz said, the additional AGRs and technicians for both

the Army and Air have to be put at the unit level to improve readiness. That was our commitment to you all here that that was what

we would do, and that is what we have done.

But as we get more involved in the homeland security mission,

be it the national missile defense and we have a portion of the

ground piece there, or some of these other missions, we don’t have

full-time manning for that, so we will probably have to come visit

with staff and work our way through that.

But it is becoming better defined. We still have a long ways to

go in that arena, sir. Historical things we have done in terms support to first responders, we’re still doing an awful lot of that, still

working with it and still doing some training. So it is much better

defined than it was, but we still have a long ways to go, sir. And

that to me, I think from my perspective, would be if something

were to evolve over the next few years, I don’t think we will be able

to say that this is what it is and this is how it works. I think we

will have a good handle on it, probably an 85 to 90 percent solution, but the rest of that is going to come in an evolving fashion.

MISSIONS

Senator INOUYE. My final question is a repeat. Are you really

confident that the Guard and Reserves will be able to carry out

their missions with 80,000?

General DAVIS. Yes, sir. If we can’t carry them out with 80,000

then the missions will go somewhere else. If we need more than

80,000, then the system I think will respond to that. It has historically. As you are aware, we have authorization to go up to 1 million

personnel as far as partial mobilization, and I think the decisions

will be made as appropriate there.

Right now we are being asked to do a number of missions, as an

example some of the security missions, and one of the concerns we

have is the op tempo of the active component also, not just the National Guard. So it is really a total Army solution or total Air Force

solution, so we are concerned about how busy they are and how

much activity they have as well as how much activity the Guard

and the Reserve have.

And we may end up—as we have looked and reexamined the

threat, at the force protection levels that are required, we have decreased those force protection levels significantly in my opinion,

and as a result of that we don’t require as many people to perform
249

those missions. Should there be another incident or an event, then

that could change things dramatically, sir, and at that point we

may well need more than 80,000.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, General, and may I now recognize

Senator Domenici.

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

thank you for holding this meeting, which is very apropos to what’s

going on in the world.

Generals, let me just open by saying that personally I wish I had

a lot more time. We do have too many assignments and very seldom will anybody hit the issue that surrounds you all and that is,

how are you going to change permanently because of the terror in

the world? I would assume that we are going to be making, you are

in your respective institutions going to be making some short-term

changes which you have already made, but I would assume that

somehow or another you are going to be part of a longer term

change, which has the potential for changing very little in assigning you similar missions to what you have now, or changing a great

deal and having very different missions than you have right now.

Would either of you or all of you care to address that reality and

just talk about it for a minute or 2?

General DAVIS. I think we will do some changing. I’m not really

sure what direction it will take. There is a thought process among

some folks that we should take the National Guard and give them

the homeland security mission and be done with it. Many of us do

not share that view, because we feel it’s the Nation’s job, not just

the National Guard’s. It’s the Army’s job, not just the National

Guard component of the Army, and the same thing with the Air

Force and the other services.

One of the difficulties we see when you give a mission which is

just a plain domestic mission here, most of our soldiers as we talk

to them, and mine is anecdotal as I go around in Bosnia as well

as out in the several States and all, and talk to soldiers and airmen, they all joined the Guard but they want to be part of the Air

Force, they want to be part of the Army. If part of the Army is to

deploy, they want to deploy. They want to go do the missions in

the Sinai, and go do those other missions. In many of those missions our young people are standing in line and ready to go as General Brubaker said, and General Schultz said.

So there’s one thought process that they would give all of that

to the Guard. I don’t share that because I think it is the Nation’s

business and I think the nature of what we’re doing has changed

significantly and we are going to need to have the whole Nation

participate in this, not just the military.

Senator DOMENICI. But you’re going to have an assignment within that, General, you’re going to be doing something within that

American situation that you have just described, you will have a

role.

General DAVIS. Absolutely we will have a role.

Senator DOMENICI. Let me put it another way. Is your role going

to be primarily to match up with the military that are full-time

military and their plans, is your principal job going to be to be adjunct to backing your three respective nodes, or are there going to

be some different jobs than that?
250

General DAVIS. We may have some different jobs. As General

Schultz talked to a little earlier——

Senator DOMENICI. I’m sorry if I missed it.

General DAVIS. No problem, sir. We are converting some units

out there in our force structure as we try to redesign, but as we

convert those, we can convert those to whatever it is that we need

for specialized units. We think the bulk of the folks in both the

Army Guard and Air Guard ought to be dedicated to what we call

a dual mission, a mission to augment the active component and go

overseas and do whatever we do as part of the active Army or part

of the Air Force, as well as do missions back home.

We do that now in civil disturbance. Young people were out here

on the streets earlier this year and were not required this time, but

from the National Guard in D.C., they came and did that mission.

There are also those same young people that are deployed overseas

to do missions alongside the active component. We feel that the

Guard can best be utilized by doing both of those missions, because

our young people will join the Guard and we think they will stay

in the Guard for a long-term career if we can give them those kinds

of options. If we tell them they are going to go to do just strictly

domestic missions and stay here, they will do that I think for a

while, but long-term sustainment I don’t think will be very rewarding.

General SCHULTZ. If I could, Senator, just do a brief recap from

the Army Guard perspective. Today we are increasing military police units, chemical units, engineer units, aviation units in the

Army Guard. We’re looking—every State today has computer emergency response teams as an example, information operations

teams. Just a few years ago they didn’t even exist. We find tremendous skills across our formation in our units. Now, soldiers are

coming to us with acquired skills perhaps in many respects, but we

have a tremendous capacity in the Guard today to answer some of

the information operations kind of departments, network defense

and so on.

We are also looking at making some of our units lighter. Tanks

and Bradleys will be less, perhaps wheeled vehicles will be more

in some of our units. And as I talk with you about major change

across the Army Guard, I am doing this in concert with the support

of our adjutants general.

Senator DOMENICI. I know we are going to run out of time, I am

and I have two or three more, but Brigadier General, did you want

to comment?

General BRUBAKER. No, sir, I couldn’t add more than what General Davis said.

FIRST RESPONDER

Senator DOMENICI. I have four New Mexico questions and I will

submit them and you can answer them in due course, and I just

want to ask two last questions.

Right now in the United States, about 120 cities, most of them

would be identified as major cities but there are some medium

sized ones, have gone through the first responder preparation. Are

you aware of first responder preparation? It’s sponsored and paid

for by the Federal Government. Are you part of the first responder
251

team in any of these cities as they sat down over the last 21⁄2

years? Are you there for a disaster that might be somebody polluting the city water, which would cause kind of a riotous situation

in that town, and you have some of your people in that State?

Could you share that with us?

General DAVIS. Yes, sir, the National Guard has been involved

in those, the adjutants general, the commanders of the Guard, they

have been involved in those as well as their emergency preparedness folks in the National Guard, they have been involved in many

of the exercises, most of the exercises. They have gone through an

iteration where they look at the Guard being called up to participate and do serve at specific tasks, be it isolating a given area

where there is contamination and that kind of thing, or providing

emergency services in conjunction with the local first responders.

So we have been working with first responders in that regard.

Early on we did some training, and the decision was made to

transfer that over to Justice, so the essence of some of that is between Justice and FEMA, they have conducted those, but yes, sir,

we have been involved in those in the several States.

Senator DOMENICI. The military actually ran the first wave of

first responder, and something happened to move it to Justice, I

guess they changed the appropriation.

I want to say to the chairman and co-chairman on the record.

One of the largest expenditures of money that comes out of a nondefense subcommittee has to do with first responder preparation in

America and it might be as much as $650 million, which goes to

these cities when they prepare a game plan for an emergency. That

takes into consideration the hospitals, the doctors in the community, the police and the firemen. And they put it together in such

a way that if they had a problem, this is how we would respond.

I think it’s very important that we inquire of the Defense Department how they see their mission with reference to first responder

activities, because you already have a first responder being put together, you don’t need to reinvent it, unless somebody challenges

it as being inappropriate for that particular problem. And I think

it would probably be important that wherever National Guard and

Army can be part of it, just from the manpower and the helping

with the kinds of things that are going to occur in these cities, it

would be a rather good use and rather important, but I just give

that to you.

Generals, let me say, on the 23rd day of April, the USA Today

had an article that said, ‘‘the United States is all over the map on

homeland defense.’’ It describes a very uneven and sometimes inadequate response in different States to the problem of homeland security. Some States have no budget resources, some have no staffing, some have no expertise, and some have none of these. Does the

National Guard and the infrastructure in each State provide an essential resource to lead the response of each State to provide homeland security, and why is the National Guard not being tasked

with this mission in various States? At least we should be advised

if you are not going to, because some States are not doing anything, they have no resources to become part of this.

Wrap-up question. Does the National Guard infrastructure in

most States possess the human and material resources to lead that
252

effort and then, does the $4.1 billion that the Secretary of Defense

requested in 2002 emergency supplemental that we’re going to be

considering soon, does it adequately fund the National Guard’s mobilization and homeland security requirements? So I’m finished.

You can probably take a couple minutes.

General DAVIS. Where homeland security resides in a given State

is that State’s decision, sir; we don’t participate in that. We have

a very small office we’ve taken out of hide, I made a comment a

bit earlier, that the additional full-time manning that we have gotten in the past 4 to 5 years, we have placed that, with the commitment to the committee, placed that at the unit level to improve and

increase readiness.

As we stand up our homeland security operation at the National

Guard bureau, we will need some additional full-time manning for

that, we do not have it at this present date and don’t have the

funding for that. So as the States decide where homeland security

resides, and many of them have given it to the National Guard, to

the adjutant general to deal with, but many others have not. They

have put it in emergency management, which does not reside, in

those States where it does not reside with the adjutant general.

So that’s, there is no consistency in how we are approaching this

and that had been part of the problem. At the national level we

don’t have adequate resources to do that, to do the planning or to

issue to them for the planning.

Senator DOMENICI. And there is none of that money in the $4.1

billion?

General DAVIS. As far as I know, there is none in there, no, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Senator Stevens.

EQUIPMENT SHORTAGES

Senator STEVENS. Generals, we got this report of, I think it was

your report on equipment shortages for the Guard and Reserve. We

were told that the Army Guard and the Army Reserve were in the

worst position, shortfalls exceeding 20 percent, with the balance

around 10.8 percent. With these mobilizations we have been talking about, how are we handling that? It almost seems to us like

there is some units that are just totally left behind, they are short

of equipment, they will never be mobilized if they are short of

equipment. How are we treating this from a point of view of fairness in allocating the shortfalls? Has it been a factor in terms of

your operation since 9/11, these shortfalls?

General SCHULTZ. Senator Stevens, it has, and to give you an example, radio gear that our units are currently not in receipt of, and

so during the mobilization process, we bring those units up to

speed on the latest radio equipment that they may use in theater,

as one example.

So as I talked in the opening about compatibility of equipment,

what we have are dated legacy force kind of equipment, older

trucks, older generation systems. So during the mobilization process, if there is a major compatibility problem, then we bring them

up to speed. It has been an issue, without a doubt.

Senator STEVENS. Are there some units that are just allocated

shortages so they will never be called up?
253

General SCHULTZ. Not on our part at all, not intentional for sure.

Of course we have some very, very dated vehicles, and we keep

track of those systems, but that doesn’t mean they won’t deploy; it

just means that they would operate with equipment that has many

hours, many miles, and so forth.

Senator STEVENS. When you’re that far behind in money, where do you get the money if you’re $1.3 billion behind already?

General SCHULTZ. We take what we have, Senator, and place

those units on active duty. That’s how the process works.

Senator STEVENS. How about you, General Brubaker?

General BRUBAKER. Sir, I believe our equipment shortfalls, although substantial, don’t keep us from deploying any of our folks.

General DAVIS. We do some cross-matching as well.

Senator STEVENS. But if you look at the regular units, they go

over there with the latest equipment. You can’t disperse your people into places that are utilizing the latest equipment unless they

too get it. How do you get it?

General DAVIS. In some instances we deploy, as an example at

Prince Sultan, a lot of the equipment is already in place, vehicles

and that kind of thing, so we essentially fall in on the equipment.

Sometimes it’s necessary for us to do some additional training after

we get our folks in country, cross-trained on the equipment, and

vehicles are an example. Sometimes we haven’t operated those vehicles and they are a bit complex, so we will spend a day or so

training on that, hopefully before we deploy, but if not, after we deploy and get in place, so we can operate.

Senator STEVENS. I didn’t understand that. I understood that

when units deploy, they took their equipment with them. General,

your units take their planes with them, don’t they?

General BRUBAKER. Yes, sir, we do, but we share equipment

among our units, but our aircraft are kept and maintained well

enough to deploy.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I’m a little worried about that report

about shortfalls, and I don’t know how we play catch-up with shortfalls when we have all these additional demands, and we are going

to have to get some basic briefings on how the money that we have

been asked for now, if the money we have been asked for now can’t

catch up the units that were on the shortfalls then we are not expanding out to the kind of full mobilization that we were led to believe you are going to do. And we’re not going into the full-time

manning that are your targets.

I don’t really have a feeling for how you are handling the shortfalls and the full-time manning at the same time, it’s the same

money. Are you going to be able to do both, General Davis?

General DAVIS. Well, sir, it’s going to be very difficult. One of the

things we do when we deploy, opening new bases for example, we

take equipment and we take it from all units, active, Guard and

Reserve units, and we put it on the ground just to sustain the rotation of aircraft in and out of country. When we do that, yes, this

is going to create some shortfalls, because there is not much spare

equipment that we have. As a result of that, there will be shortfalls. As we get ready to deploy a unit, we will take equipment

from other units, other Guard units typically and sometimes from

active units, to give to them so they can go and have all the equip-
254

ment they need, primarily ground support equipment for aircraft,

loaders and that kind of thing.

We try to leave a lot of that in country. As an example, we have

a number of our security forces units in the Air Guard who have

been called up. A lot of their night vision gear and a lot of their

other high tech equipment is being left in place as they rotate back

to the States, so they’re going to have shortfalls there. It’s a combination of those kinds of things, sir, that give us the shortfall. At

some point we need to reconcile the books and get adequate equipment for that, but we have equipment to operate at home and

there are some shortfalls there, so when we deploy we make them

shorter, so I agree with your concern about the situation, and we

can get back with you on that.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I’m sorry the schedule caused me to be late.

General Davis, as I’m sure was expressed already by the chairman, I want to thank you for your service. You have been not only

an excellent Chief of the Guard bureau, but you have developed

into a good friend, and we wish you the best and hopefully we will

see more of you along the way, but thank you very much. And I

thank all of you for what you are doing for our Guard.

Senator INOUYE. 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 LIEUTENANT GENERAL RUSSELL C. DAVIS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

COUNTER DRUG OPERATIONS

Question. The New Mexico National Guard Counterdrug Support Taskforce makes

a critical contribution to the narcotics interdiction effort along our border. It also

works throughout the community to help ‘‘high risk’’ students through its Drug Demand Reduction Program. Local, state, and federal law enforcement officials have

all testified to the positive and direct impact that the Task Force has had on their

counterdrug efforts. Despite these proven results, I am concerned about the fluctuations that have occurred in the Counterdrug budget over the past few years.

As you may know, the New Mexico Counterdrug Taskforce is responsible for seizing millions of dollars in illegal narcotics and arresting hundreds involved in this

illicit trade.

Given the increased homeland security demands being placed on the Guard, can

New Mexicans expect the Taskforce to sustain or even improve these lofty statistics,

and help keep drugs out of their communities?

Answer. Many of the homeland security missions proposed for the Guard have significant overlap with the Guard’s well-established counterdrug program. These

areas of overlap include arrival-zone denial operations (of unwanted cargo and individuals), aerial and ground reconnaissance and observation (primarily of border

areas but also of urban or rural areas of interest), and case support/intelligence

analysis. By virtue of its well-established working relationship with key law enforcement and first-responders at the local, state and federal level, the Guard’s

counterdrug program may be viewed as a model for proposed homeland security operations.

Increased homeland security demands will definitely not diminish the Guard’s

ability to assist law enforcement and community organizations to keep our citizens

drug-free. In fact, the fundamental similarities shared by both counterdrug and

homeland security requirements merit a closer look on how to better synchronize

efforts between both missions to derive maximum value.
255

Question. How will the operations tempo of the Taskforce be affected by the additional homeland security operations of the Guard? Does the current budget allow

you to maintain a strong counterdrug operation?

Answer. Budget fluctuations make it difficult for the New Mexico National Guard

Counterdrug Support Taskforce (and similar task forces in all other states and territories) to sustain or improve support to law enforcement agencies and community

based organizations working to disrupt the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. These

budget fluctuations not only prohibit sustained and much-needed military support

to civilian authorities, but also break faith with Guard members who are hired and

dismissed in short order due to these funding swings.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics (DASD–CN) is

the responsible agency for DOD Counternarcotics funding and policy oversight for

the National Guard’s Counterdrug efforts. DASD–CN’s annual President’s Budget

(PB) submissions for National Guard Governor’s State Plans for domestic support

have been flat to negative in real dollar terms for the past several years. Although

Congress added $36–$50 million annually in the appropriation process, the program

lost over 1,200 personnel between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002 based on

recent military pay and allowance increases outpacing annual congressional adjustments. The fiscal year 2002 Governor’s State Plans program is currently budgeted

at $197.2 million including congressional and DOD adjustments. The DASD–CN fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget request was submitted at $162.3 million. To remain within budget an additional 335 soldiers and airmen must be terminated by

October 1, 2002, for a total of over 1,535 personnel released from duty since September 30, 1999.

The level of support the National Guard can provide is limited by three primary

factors: (1) The number of available and qualified soldiers and airmen; (2) The number of agencies each state determines it can effectively support; and (3) Available

authorization and funding. A recent survey of state Counterdrug Coordinators found

that approximately 4,850 personnel would be required to support current law enforcement and community-based organization requests for assistance. The fiscal

year 2003 President’s Budget request will support 2,265 personnel. Currently, 32

U.S.C., Sec. 112 that authorizes National Guard CD operations, caps the number

of Governor’s State Plans participating personnel at 4,000.

150TH FIGHTER WING

Question. The 150th Fighter Wing of the New Mexico Air National Guard at

Kirtland Air Force Base plays a critical support role for the joint services in Defense

System Evaluation (DSE). Because of its increased operations tempo due to the war

in Afghanistan, the Air Force has taken away the Block-40 version F–16s from the

150th and replaced them with Block-30s. I am concerned about how this might impact the future of the important DSE mission of the 150th Fighter Wing.

It is very important that the joint services have a highly dependable testing asset

for their aircraft. The Air National Guard has long provided this critical service.

Will the National Guard be able to keep up its testing mission in the future after

the F–16? How can we ensure this mission continues?

Answer. The 150th Fighter Wing’s DSE program plays a valuable role in developmental testing of various air defense systems operating from the air, ground, and

sea. A primary role of the air defense systems is to defend against fighter aircraft.

Therefore, a major portion of the test regime at Kirtland is to validate performance

against fighters which the 150 FW does extremely well. The characteristics of the

F–16 Block 30 are virtually identical to the F–16 Block 40. The conversion will have

no noticeable impact on the current DSE mission.

Today, and more so in the future, air defense systems need to be capable against

a variety of threat platforms: short/medium/long-range missiles, cruise missiles,

fighters, bombers, unmanned air vehicles, in stealth and non-stealth configurations.

As the 150 FW aircraft mission evolves from F–16 Block 40 to F–16 Block 30 and

on to the next generation fighter aircraft, like the F–35 (JSF), the DSE mission will

be able to leverage that platform for its test support mission. The 150 FW will continue to be a viable Total Force partner in the air expeditionary force and will be

able to provide the test support as required.

Question. How can we ensure that as the Air Force moves to the F–22 and the

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), that the Air National Guard will be able to provide the

critical testing that will be needed?

Answer. The 150th Fighter Wing’s DSE program plays a valuable role in developmental testing of various air defense systems operating from the air, ground, and

sea. A primary role of the air defense systems is to defend against fighter aircraft.

Therefore, a major portion of the test regime at Kirtland is to validate performance
256

against fighters which the 150 FW does extremely well. The characteristics of the

F–16 Block 30 are virtually identical to the F–16 Block 40. The conversion will have

no noticeable impact on the current DSE mission.

Today, and more so in the future, air defense systems need to be capable against

a variety of threat platforms: short/medium/long-range missiles, cruise missiles,

fighters, bombers, unmanned air vehicles, in stealth and non-stealth configurations.

As the 150 FW aircraft mission evolves from F–16 Block 40 to F–16 Block 30 and

on to the next generation fighter aircraft, like the F–35 (JSF), the DSE mission will

be able to leverage that platform for its test support mission. The 150 FW will continue to be a viable Total Force partner in the air expeditionary force and will be

able to provide the test support as required.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

NORTHERN COMMAND

Question. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation of a new

Northern Command charged with caring for direct defense of the United States, a

decision that he called ‘‘the most significant reform of our nation’s military command structure’’ since World War II. Such a claim creates expectations in the public

and amongst the military itself that the United States is indeed better protected

against the threat of terrorism, and that ‘‘transformation’’ is afoot. Has the Department of Defense indicated what the role of the National Guard and Reserve will be

in this new Command? Were you involved in the decision making process that led

to this command?

Answer. The Department of Defense has given some limited indications what role

the National Guard will fulfill at this time. The stand up of NORTHCOM is an ongoing issue and one that has yet to have SECDEF approval to include the National

Guard role within the new command.

The National Guard through the National Guard Bureau Homeland Security Office (NGB-HS) detailed a handful of guardsmen to provide input for the Implementation Planning Team. Having said this the National Guard Bureau and National

Guard is not in the decision making process; we provide technical advice as two of

the seven reserve components.

NGB-HS has endeavored to articulate the role of the National Guard and to ensure that the NORTHCOM planning team understands that this is a primary mission accomplished by the National Guard.

CBRN

Question. In a recent GAO report (dated September 2001) it was reported that

specialized National Guard teams, known as Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil

Support Teams, have been developed to assist state and local authorities in responding to a terrorist incident involving weapons of mass destruction. However, there

are numerous problems with readiness and deployability. According to the DOD Inspector General the Army’s process for certification lacks rigor; the program schedule has slipped; and there are no plans to arrange for dedicated aircraft to get the

teams in position. Can you tell us what has happened since this GAO report was

released? Are our troops adequately equipped to respond to Chemical, Biological,

Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) attacks at home and abroad?

Answer. The problems cited in the GAO report, which was principally based on

the earlier DOD Inspector General report, were being aggressively worked at the

time of the report and have been largely resolved.

A rigorous formal certification process involving analysis of readiness factors by

U.S. Army Forces Command, the National Guard Bureau (NGB), the Army Secretariat and Army Staff (HQDA), and reviewed by several staff elements of the Office

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was used to certify the 27 WMD–CST authorized

in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. The first CST was certified by the Secretary

of Defense in July 2001, and the last in April 2002. These teams have been extremely busy and effective in responding in U.S.C. Title 32 status since the terrorist

attacks of September 11, 2001. As of today, teams have performed more than 400

missions in support of requests from state and local authorities. An additional 5

teams, authorized in fiscal year 2001, have begun their initial individual and unit

training and are expected to be certified by the end of calendar year 2002.

By law, the WMD–CSTs may only operate in the United States, its territories and

possessions, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. They are adequately

equipped to respond to CBRN attacks. Not all certified WMD–CSTs have Mobile Analytical Laboratory System (MALS) yet due to an ongoing reassessment of the acqui-
257

sition strategy. In the interim, these teams have been equipped and trained in a

technique referred to as the Dismounted Analytical Process (DAP). As technology in

the area is rapidly changing, numerous improvements to WMD–CST equipment are

being investigated and/or procured.

Concerning the airlift deployability issue, it is still true that no aircraft are ‘‘dedicated’’ to support the WMD–CST mission. A number of WMD–CST response actions

in U.S.C. Title 32 status, which ordinarily would not meet requirements for operational lift with U.S.C. Title 10 assets, have been supported with airlift when that

was necessary, but some issues in this area are still being worked. NGB, HQDA,

the Joint Staff and U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) are defining a

process and priority system to address the problem.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

COUNTERDRUG OPERATIONS

Question. The New Mexico National Guard Counterdrug Support Taskforce makes

a critical contribution to the narcotics interdiction effort along our border. It also

works throughout the community to help ‘‘high risk’’ students through its Drug Demand Reduction Program. Local, state, and federal law enforcement officials have

all testified to the positive and direct impact that the Taskforce has had on their

counterdrug efforts. Despite these proven results, I am concerned about the fluctuations that have occurred in the Counterdrug budget over the past few years.

As you may know, the New Mexico Counterdrug Taskforce is responsible for seizing millions of dollars in illegal narcotics and arresting hundreds involved in this

illicit trade.

In a recent GAO report (dated September 2001) it was reported that specialized

National Guard teams, known as Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support

Teams, have been developed to assist state and local authorities in responding to

a terrorist incident involving weapons of mass destruction. However, there are numerous problems with readiness and deployability. According to the DOD Inspector

General the Army’s process for certification lacks rigor; the program schedule has

slipped; and there are no plans to arrange for dedicated aircraft to get the teams

in position. Can you tell us what has happened since this GAO report was released?

Are our troops adequately equipped to respond to Chemical, Biological, Radiological,

and Nuclear (CBRN) attacks at home and abroad?

Answer. Many of the homeland security missions proposed for the Guard have significant overlap with the Guard’s well-established counterdrug program. These

areas of overlap include arrival-zone denial operations (of unwanted cargo and individuals), aerial and ground reconnaissance and observation (primarily of border

areas but also of urban or rural areas of interest), and case support/intelligence

analysis. By virtue of its well-established working relationship with key law enforcement and first-responders at the local, state and federal level, the Guard’s

counterdrug program may be viewed as a model for proposed homeland security operations.

Increased homeland security demands will definitely not diminish the Guard’s

ability to assist law enforcement and community organizations to keep our citizens

drug-free. In fact, the fundamental similarities shared by both counterdrug and

homeland security requirements merit a closer look on how to better synchronize

efforts between both missions to derive maximum value.

Question. How will the operations tempo of the Taskforce be affected by the additional homeland security operations of the Guard? Does the current budget allow

you to maintain a strong counterdrug operation?

Answer. Budget fluctuations make it difficult for the New Mexico National Guard

Counterdrug Support Taskforce (and similar task forces in all other states and territories) to sustain or improve support to law enforcement agencies and community

based organizations working to disrupt the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. These

budget fluctuations not only prohibit sustained and much-needed military support

to civilian authorities, but also break faith with Guard members who are hired and

dismissed in short order due to these funding swings.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics (DASD-CN) is the

responsible agency for DOD Counternarcotics funding and policy oversight for the

National Guard’s Counterdrug efforts. DASD-CN’s annual President’s Budget (PB)

submissions for National Guard Governor’s State Plans for domestic support have

been flat to negative in real dollar terms for the past several years. Although Con-
258

gress added $36–$50 million annually in the appropriation process, the program lost

over 1,200 personnel between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002 based on recent

military pay and allowance increases outpacing annual congressional adjustments.

The fiscal year 2002 Governor’s State Plans program is currently budgeted at $197.2

million including congressional and DOD adjustments. The DASD-CN fiscal year

2003 President’s Budget request was submitted at $162.3 million. To remain within

budget an additional 335 soldiers and airmen must be terminated by October 1,

2002, for a total of over 1,535 personnel released from duty since September 30,

1999.

The level of support the National Guard can provide is limited by three primary

factors: (1) The number of available and qualified soldiers and airmen; (2) The number of agencies each state determines it can effectively support; and (3) Available

authorization and funding. A recent survey of state Counterdrug Coordinators found

that approximately 4,850 personnel would be required to support current law enforcement and community-based organization requests for assistance. The fiscal

year 2003 President’s Budget request will support 2,265 personnel. Currently, 32

U.S.C., Sec. 112 that authorizes National Guard CD operations, caps the number

of Governor’s State Plans participating personnel at 4,000.

ARNG PATRIOT BATTALION

Question. The 150th Fighter Wing of the New Mexico Air National Guard at

Kirtland Air Force Base plays a critical support role for the joint services in Defense

System Evaluation (DSE). Because of its increased operations tempo due to the war

in Afghanistan, the Air Force has taken away the Block-40 version F–16s from the

150th and replaced them with Block-30s. I am concerned about how this might impact the future of the important DSE mission of the 150th Fighter Wing.

One of the issues that I have long been concerned about is underfunding for the

New Mexico Army National Guard Patriot Battalion.

Can you give me an update on the readiness of the battalion?

Answer. The New Mexico ARNG Patriot battalion is in an unready status and has

been for the past seven years.

ARNG Patriot battalions are required to have 15 launchers. The New Mexico battalion is authorized only five launchers and has only three ‘‘on-hand.’’ This adversely

impacts unit readiness as soldiers must have the necessary equipment to train to

standard. There is no Army plan to field this unit with additional launchers above

the five authorized. They are scheduled to receive two launchers that are currently

on loan to Greece in 2004.

There is a shortage of assigned and qualified personnel. The battalion is authorized 413 soldiers and is currently at 46 percent strength with 32 percent of soldiers

trained and qualified.

Question. Will the battalion be able to conduct its wartime mission and does it

have the necessary repair parts to bring all of its necessary equipment to a working

status?

Answer. The New Mexico ARNG Patriot battalion in not able to conduct its its

wartime mission under its current structure. The battalion was organized as a nondoctrinal battalion and is not structured to deploy with its equipment. Consequently, the unit has insufficient equipment ‘‘on-hand’’ to conduct its wartime mission. This also makes collective training at the unit level difficult. New Mexico will

continue to report an unready status until additional resources are provided.

New Mexico does not have the required repair parts and appropriate funding to

keep their equipment in a working status. Presently, there is a $14 million

unfinanced requirement for technical repair parts that allows for plug-and-play

diagnostics of the launchers.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

MISCONDUCT

Question. On December 21, 2001 USA TODAY documented that misconduct often

goes unpunished under deficient state-by-state Guard disciplinary codes: Rosters are

padded with ‘‘phantom’’ soldiers. Within individual National Guard units, as many

as 20 percent of soldiers reported on the rolls are no longer with the service, meaning that if Guard units were called up, they might not be fit for duty. Is this true?

Is the National Guard ready to put combat ready divisions into a major armed conflict?

Answer. This is not true. The USA TODAY article misrepresented strength reporting and accounting in the the Army National Guard. The widespread, system-
259

atic inflation of unit strengths by unit commanders for the purpose of misleading

federal authorities is not evident from either the General Accounting Office (GAO)

analysis of recent trends, inspector general reports over the last five years, or our

own internal review and oversight.

In any large organization there are efficiencies to be garnered and we have taken

the appropriate steps to ensure diligent oversight in this area. We have an internal

reporting process to ensure that soldiers who are not participating, i.e. soldiers not

getting paid, are systematically identified and action is taken to bring them back

as a drilling member or separate them. Currently, this population represents less

than three percent of the authorized endstrength of the ARNG. Inversely, this

means that 97 percent of our soldiers are participating in some capacity.

Question. Additionally, serious misconduct by top officials is an issue. Guard generals have committed serious offenses at twice the rate of regular Army and Air

Force generals during the past five years. In recent years, serious allegations have

been confirmed against nine states’ top officers as well as the general who oversees

the Guard. These range from drunkenness and sexual misconduct to filing false paperwork and misusing government planes. How do you explain this?

Answer. The percentage of Army National Guard (ARNG) general officers (GO)

who have allegations substantiated against them is virtually the same as it is for

Active Component GOs for the most recent 2 years. During the past 3 years, less

than 10 percent of the allegations against ARNG GOs were substantiated. Regarding the instances that have been reported recently in the newspapers, we have

found the author’s information on specific misconduct cases is factual, but outdated.

Therefore, his conclusions are not relevant to our present situation. In the cases

cited, every individual was held accountable. The federal recognition and confirmation process is similar to the selection and confirmation process used for active duty

officers. While the State Governor has the option to retain an Adjutant General

(AG) who is not federally recognized, none of the currently serving AGs are in a

non-federally recognized status for misconduct. Given the current procedures that

are in place, I am confident it is in a Governor’s best interest to sustain the quality

of AG’s now serving.

(261)

RESERVES

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS J. PLEWES, USAR,

CHIEF OF ARMY RESERVE

ACCOMPANIED BY:

VICE ADMIRAL JOHN TOTUSHEK, USNR, CHIEF OF NAVAL RESERVE

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES E. SHERRARD, USAFR, CHIEF OF

AIR FORCE RESERVE

LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. McCARTHY, USMCR, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE

Senator INOUYE. Our second panel will consist of Lieutenant

General Plewes of the Army Reserve, Vice Admiral Totushek of the

Naval Reserve, Lieutenant General McCarthy of the Marine Corps

Reserve, and Lieutenant General Sherrard of the Air Force Reserve. I would like to welcome all of you and look forward to your

statements. Welcome, gentlemen.

The chair now recognizes Lieutenant General Plewes, for the

Army.

General PLEWES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and a good morning to you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in behalf of the citizen soldiers of the Army Reserve who are successfully serving around the world in the ongoing

war against terrorism thanks to your commitment to our men and

women.

I would like to express our gratitude to you for your continuing

support of our commitment to readiness. Our readiness was a direct factor in our ability to respond as quickly and ably as we did

to the call to duty immediately after September 11 and with additional unit call-ups just days after the terrorist attacks. This commitment to readiness enabled us to cut down our mobilization preparation for our 470 activated units to a time frame of about 24 to

48 hours, as compared to about 20 days for Desert Storm.

Success in the Army Reserve on the war on terrorism continues

to be possible because of that focus on readiness, a focus that you

have enabled us to have. The 15,000 citizen soldiers that are currently mobilized were trained and ready when the call came.

The Army Reserve is playing a vital role in the war on terrorism

and will continue to do so for as long as necessary for wherever it

will take us. Our readiness levels remain high and these levels remain high with a continued focus on full-time support personnel,

the full-time reservists and civilians whose mission it is to support

our troop program units when attending drills. Thanks you this

year for adding 298 full-time soldiers and 250 military technicians.

Our challenge for the future is to continue hopefully to add to that

number.

We mentioned equipment modernization and recapitalization and

shortfalls earlier. This certainly remains a priority for the Army
262

Reserve. Filling the two Blackhawk units that we have established

with Blackhawks and expanding into the Pacific where we have a

clear requirement for Blackhawks is a priority. Adding to our biological detection systems for homeland security missions, Family of

Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTVs) and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWH) that carry our troops to the battlefield, and as already mentioned, radios, so that we can talk to

our counterparts in the Guard and Active components.

In the past you have recognized the need for equity in equipment, and we are grateful for that support. Our core capabilities,

combat support and combat service support, are equipment dependent, and this emphasis on equipment allows us to focus our role in

the Army’s transformation as being part of the Army worldwide.

We willingly accept and face the challenges now confronting us

as they will present themselves in the future and the key to our

success continues to be a high state of readiness, which is directly

affected by everything we do. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and I look forward to answering any questions you

may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS J. PLEWES

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, members of this subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to

testify on behalf of the nearly 360,000 men and women serving in Army Reserve

units and as individual mobilization assets—all soldiers of The Army.

As I appear before you today, there are Army Reserve citizen-soldiers on duty, on

all fronts of the global war against terrorism—defending our homeland and our fellow citizens, supporting the battle against the terrorists wherever they may hide,

and bringing assistance to those who have long suffered from their oppression. We

have been in this war since it was brought upon our Nation. We will be there when

we finish it—an indispensable and strategically responsive force, an essential component of The Army.

Before I continue, I wish to convey my sincere appreciation to this subcommittee

for its sustained, consistent, and strong support of citizen-soldiers. By asking me to

discuss the challenges we face, you clearly demonstrate your concern for our Reserve

forces and how well they can fulfill the missions assigned to them.

The opportunity to testify before this subcommittee comes at a time when the

challenges we faced before September 11 have increased in number and complexity.

Not only must we wage and win this war but we must concurrently transform our

Army while we wage war. Yes, the challenges that The Army faces are great. Do

we shy from them? Never. To back away is not something done by American soldiers. The men and women of the Army Reserve exemplify this spirit, the spirit of

Hometown U.S.A. That unstoppable spirit can be found throughout the Army Reserve today.

When last I addressed this subcommittee, I discussed with you how the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard and the Active Army were full and equal partners

in the fully focused American Force that is the most responsive ground combat force

in the world. I told you that wherever the Army has gone, so, too, has gone the

Army Reserve, and that wherever the Army is today, so are we. I also told you that

the U.S. Army today cannot perform its missions or meet its mission goals without

the Army Reserve, that we were being utilized more frequently than ever before as

an indispensable Army partner—one increasingly committed to our national defense

in several important ways.

The events of September 11, now seven and a half months ago, have dramatically

proved all that I said last year.

As unimaginable horror came to our country, Americans rose to the occasion.

Among the great heroes of that day were many Army Reservists. They displayed

the highest qualities of courage and selflessness, whether that meant rushing into

the Twin Towers, helping injured comrades out of the burning Pentagon or orga-
263

nizing rescue and recovery activities regardless of personal safety concerns. Some

lost their lives in the performance of their duty.

While flames and smoke still rose from the Pentagon and the World Trade Center,

thousands began to come forward. They had not been called up yet. They just knew

their country needed them: they did not wait to be asked to serve.

Behind these citizen-soldiers came thousands more Army Reserve men and

women under the partial mobilization ordered by President Bush on September 14.

They responded with remarkable speed, faster than previous planning had envisioned. And as General Tommy Franks, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command, said of them, ‘‘they came trained and ready to do the work.’’

Yes, Army Reservists have been on the frontlines of this war since it began. We

continue to be decisively engaged in the global war against terrorism, every place

that the war is being waged.

Seven and a half months after the attacks, there are some 474 Army Reserve

units and about 15,000 Army Reserve soldiers on duty, doing what needs to be done.

They are accomplishing our core competency missions, as well as other assignments.

They are part of the more than 81,000 members of the nation’s combined reserve

components on duty today, critically engaged in defending the homeland. All of

them put aside their own lives and concerns for the good of the nation. No acts of

terror could ever deter patriots like these. As Winston Churchill said of Reservists,

they truly are ‘‘twice the citizen,’’ prepared to serve and defend at personal sacrifice

for themselves, their families, their employers and their communities for the good

of the Nation. Their spirit and resolve remains undaunted.

The bulk of those called up are in support of Operation Noble Eagle, helping with

the recovery from the attacks or engaged in the defense of our homeland. The missions being performed include: force protection and security at installations and facilities, intelligence and investigation support, training and training validation,

headquarters augmentation, garrison support and legal support, communications,

postal and personnel support, engineer support, historical documentation, logistics

and transportation operations.

The Army Reserve also has units and soldiers in support of Operation Enduring

Freedom, the operation taking the war to the terrorists and bringing assistance to

the long-oppressed people of Afghanistan. These mobilized forces include public affairs, military intelligence, civil affairs, medical and other combat support and combat service support specialties. We also continue to fill headquarters and agencylevel requests for Individual Ready Reserve and Individual Mobilization Augmentee

soldiers to support current operations.

The men and women on duty today and those who may be called forward tomorrow understand the task that lies before them, how difficult it is and how long the

struggle ahead may be.

Along with their own abilities and dedication, the citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve went into this fight from a position of strength. Recurring deployments since

the Gulf War have given our units a great deal of experience in being able to mobilize quickly and effectively. A decade earlier, we learned the importance of family

support and employer support programs. These programs were in place when this

new conflict began and have been an absolutely essential part of our activities

today. Because of our integral involvement in Army Transformation, we have become accustomed to innovative thinking and this has facilitated our finding solutions to ever-changing situations.

It has been often said that everything changed on September 11, but much remains the same. What was important for an Army Reserve in transformation is also

important for an Army Reserve in transformation while at war. The transformation

we were undergoing before September 11 was to prepare for the sort of uncertainty

and evolving world that we now have.

Our priorities before the attacks remain our priorities today: sustaining and improving our already high level of readiness; obtaining more full-time support, which

is essential for readiness; improving our infrastructure so that our outstanding soldiers work and train in the modern facilities they deserve; acquiring modern equipment so that we can not only support Army Transformation but also support the

Army warfight; and building on successes in recruiting and retention to ensure we

have the force necessary to do what our nation requires of us.

I like to use the five R’s when I discuss our priorities: Recruiting, Retention,

Readiness, Relevance and Resources. Because of all that the men and women of the

Army Reserve have accomplished in the last decade and certainly as of result of all

we have done for the Army and the Nation since September 11, I believe there is

now a sixth R: Respect. Today’s Army Reserve and today’s Army Reservists have

gained the respect of both those they serve alongside and those they serve. Respect
264

is hard to earn and can be easy to lose. The citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve

have no intention of losing what they worked on so long and so well to earn.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Recruiting and retention is an area of highest importance to the Army Reserve.

The Army Reserve is a major participant in supporting and training a 21st century

Army. This requires the best soldiers America can provide. In this regard, we are

most appreciative of the help this subcommittee has provided us. We certainly

would be remiss if we did not thank this subcommittee for the attention you have

paid to our recruiting needs in recent legislation. With your help we were, for the

first time in several years, able to meet our recruiting mission in fiscal year 2000.

We met our mission before the end of fiscal year 2001, before September 11. We

are going to make mission again in fiscal year 2002.

Although 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, expanding the 90 day rotation

policy to cover all but full mobilization, allowing for innovative readiness training

and the funding of continuing educational opportunities will help make this success

story complete.

The Army Reserve, in partnership with the United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC), recently conducted a thorough review of Army Reserve recruiting.

This review has helped us forge a stronger relationship with the Recruiting Command and has streamlined our processes to support the symbiotic relationship between recruiting and retention. To that end, we are taking the following measures:

—We are seeking to ensure that all Army Reserve soldiers are involved in recruiting and retention activities—we all are a part of the Army’s recruiting efforts.

—We are removing mission distracters allowing the Recruiting 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, troop unit members, and soldiers in the Individual Ready Reserve. Career counselors talk to Army Reservists about joining the Active Guard

Reserve (AGR) program, training to become warrant or commissioned officers,

and sharing other opportunities available in our troop units.

—Our retention program seeks to reduce attrition, thereby improving readiness

and reducing recruiting missions.

—And we are jointly working with the Recruiting Command to ensure AGR personnel assigned to that command are given leadership and professional growth

opportunities.

We recently initiated the first of these activities by transferring responsibility for

the prior service mission from the Recruiting Command to the Army Reserve. This

transition is a three-phased process that culminates in fiscal year 2003. Tenets of

this transfer include: establishment of career crosswalk opportunities between recruiters and retention transition NCOs; localized recruiting, retention and transition

support at Army Reserve units and increased commander awareness and involvement in recruiting and retention efforts.

We expect to reduce attrition and improve recruiting efforts by reducing no-shows

to initial active duty training, highlighting all Army Reserve personnel lifecycle opportunities and improving delivery of recruiting promises. In Phase I of the prior

service mission transition, we transferred 61 recruiters from USAREC and assigned

them to Army Reserve Centers within the southeastern United States and Puerto

Rico. The assignment of new Retention NCOs will allow the Army Reserve to: lower

its attrition significantly, ensure prior service soldiers are provided opportunities in

our units, and assist our commanders in delivering recruiting promises. Phase II,

which began October 1, 2001, increased the total Army Reserve Retention and Transition Division (RTD) mission to 10,000 prior service transfers. We continue extensive collaboration with USAREC to ensure a smooth transition of these responsibilities.

To support these efforts, the Army Reserve uses non-prior service and prior service enlistment bonuses, the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Kicker and the Student

Loan Repayment Program in combinations to attract soldiers to fill critical MOS

and priority unit shortages. Program funding must be sufficient to attract and retain both prior and non-prior service soldiers. 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.

Our new 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 re-
265

taining quality soldiers. Retention management was a 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 2001 was 28.8

percent.

The Army Reserve is also experiencing a 4,200 company grade officer shortfall.

The active Army has a shortfall of these junior leaders, too. Retention goals focused

commanders and first line leaders on junior officers, as well. Our retention program

seeks to reduce attrition, thereby improving readiness and reducing recruiting missions.

The Army Reserve will successfully accomplish its 41,700 recruiting mission for

fiscal year 2002 while achieving the Department of the Army and Department of

Defense quality marks. Next year our enlisted recruiting mission will stabilize at

about 42,000 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 end of the defense

drawdown we have seen a corresponding decrease in the available prior service market as reflected in the IRR. This has meant greater training costs, due to the increased reliance on the non-prior service market, and an overall loss of the knowledge and experience that comes when NCO leadership fails to transition to the

Army Reserve. Consequently, the Army Reserve’s future ability to recruit and retain

quality soldiers will be critically dependent on maintaining competitive compensation and benefits.

Additionally, the 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. Special attention needs to be

placed on the recruiting budget, especially for advertising, to meet our requirements

in the next several years. 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 remains essential if we are to be

successful.

READINESS

Our readiness on September 10, 2001—the highest measured readiness in Army

Reserve history—enabled us to respond in the decisive and rapid manner that we

did on September 11 and in the days, weeks and months that followed.

The Army Reserve’s readiness posture continues to improve. As of January 2002,

74 percent of our units meet deployment standards, a 6 percent increase over the

previous two years. It is imperative that we preserve our readiness, personnel and

equipment to continue to meet our operational requirements.

Our Force Support Package (FSP) units, those which are scheduled for early mobilization, average 85 percent deployable readiness. With your assistance, the Army

Reserve continues to achieve a high number of units rated as deployable, despite

having the lowest level of full-time support of any reserve component. Today’s readiness levels are a testimony to the Army Reserve’s ability to adapt and succeed in

our assigned mission Limited resources require the Army Reserve to manage risks

in an attempt to achieve the proper balance between current and future readiness.

In the past, the Army worked to protect near-term readiness at the cost of modernization and infrastructure. During the past couple of years, Army Transformation sought to leverage the benefits obtained through science and technology,

recapitalization, and similar investment opportunities.
266

In regards to medical and dental readiness, the picture for the Army Reserve continues to improve. The Federal Strategic Health Alliance (FEDS–HEAL) program is

filling in the gaps and allowing commanders to provide mandated medical and dental readiness services. The provider network continues to grow. A robust dental network of more than 15,000 was recently added to the provider panel and a further

expansion with academic dental clinics (dental schools, hygienist schools) is pending.

During Calendar Year 2001, more than 18,100 requests for services were submitted,

most during the last quarter. Most were for physical examinations and other services (dental and immunizations). More than 1,100 were for dental screening and

treatment. In January 2002, over 4,000 requests were submitted.

The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review supports maintaining force structure while

balancing competing requirements such as modernization, recapitalization, and operations and maintenance. Equipment readiness demands the right kinds of equipment, fully operational, properly maintained, mission capable, in the hands of the

forces that will employ them. Commensurate with equipment readiness considerations is the Army Reserve’s personnel readiness goal of improving Duty Military

Occupational Skill Qualification (DMOSQ). The Army Chief of Staff set a goal for

the Reserve Components to achieve and sustain an 85 percent DMOSQ and Professional Development Education (PDE) qualification level by fiscal year 2005. Recent

increases in funding have raised both DMOSQ and PDE qualification rates by several percentage points. The Army Reserve is projecting that DMOSQ rates will

climb to 85 percent by fiscal year 2005 and NCOES qualification rates will achieve

85 percent by fiscal year 2004 due to programmed increases to our funding level.

We also continue to aggressively manage and monitor soldiers attending DMOSQ

to achieve this goal. Your continued support of our mutual goal to have a trained

and ready force remains essential to our success.

RELEVANCE

The relevance of the Army Reserve is unquestioned today. The capabilities that

we possess are in great demand.

For example, we have about 120 Military Police units of various sizes and types,

from Criminal Investigation Division detachments to Internment and Resettlement

Brigades. We have now called up about half of these units. They are on duty now:

serving in the Balkans, engaged in Homeland Defense missions and conducting operations in other parts of the world. There are more than 200 Army Reserve Military Police soldiers on duty at Camp X-Ray in Cuba or otherwise participating in

the detainee operation. Those MP units not yet employed are leaning forward. Those

units know how critical their capabilities are and expect they, too, will be called up.

Our other commitments did not cease when the war on terrorism began. We have

nearly 800 Reserve soldiers supporting contingency operations in Operations Joint

Forge and Joint Guardian (Bosnia and Kosovo) in the European Theater. Since

1995, more than 17,000 Army Reservists have participated in our operations in Bosnia and Kosovo or in support operations in neighboring countries.

In the last five years, we have had more than 27,400 Army Reservists supporting

operations worldwide. Overall, in fiscal year 2001, the Army Reserve conducted

more than 100,000 soldier deployments to 64 countries operationally and for exercises. We provided a total of 3.7 million man days in the United States and abroad.

Our deployments abroad ranged from Central America and Southwest Asia to places

like East Timor and now Afghanistan and Cuba.

Furthermore, the Army Reserve did this at the same time that it achieved its

highest readiness status in history. Much of this achievement was the direct result

of your support to improve our full-time manning and provide the funding required

for our operating tempo and training requirements.

Worldwide deployments are nothing new for the soldiers of the Army Reserve. The

Army’s reliance on the Army Reserve’s capabilities, especially in such areas as civil

affairs, medical, engineering, logistics, transportation, military police, postal, public

affairs and psychological operations, will ensure that wherever the Army deploys,

so, too will the Army Reserve.

When not working alongside their active Army, Army National Guard and sister

services, Army Reserve soldiers honed their always-in-demand skills on exercises.

Two examples of these were the annual TRANSLOTS exercise in June 2001 and

ROVING SANDS 2001. In the first exercise, more than 2,200 soldiers from 27 units

used landing craft to unload equipment and truck supplies to the ‘‘front lines.’’ More

than half of the units for TRANSLOTS came from the Army Reserve, to include the

executive agent for the exercise, the 143rd Transportation Command from Orlando,

Fla. More than 2,600 Army Reservists from 51 units were significantly involved in

the joint theater air and missile defense exercise, ROVING SANDS.
267

The Army Reserve provides contributory support to the Army on a daily basis.

This support reduces operational costs, increases efficiency and provides excellent

production-based training opportunities. Our soldiers benefit from this contributory

support by performing challenging, time-sensitive missions. Soldiers do not like

make-work missions. They want to do something meaningful something which has

a benefit and a purpose, something which offers a challenge. We have moved from

a training model of ‘‘train, then do’’ to ‘‘train and do.’’ Army Reserve soldiers rise

to that challenge constantly.

Army Reserve Materiel Management Commands conduct year-round resupply operations for active Army units in Southwest Asia and the National Training Center

in California. Army Reserve intelligence centers at Fort Gillem, GA, and Fort Sheridan, IL, provide strategic analysis for the Army on a full-time basis. This seamless

support of real-world missions clearly demonstrates how effectively Army Reserve

units integrate into the Army.

Contributory support helps the Army focus its active forces on their primary

warfighting tasks. Another way is in the Army Reserve’s core competency of training, enabling the Army to return soldiers to combat divisions. Army Reserve soldiers

are fully integrated into every aspect of training, providing quality training to soldiers and units from all components.

Army Reserve Institutional Training Divisions provide skill, leadership, and professional development training. They also provide basic combat and one station unit

training at Army Training Centers. Army Reserve Training Support Divisions provide collective lanes and simulation training to units of all three Army components.

The Army Reserve Readiness Training Center (ARRTC) at Fort McCoy, WI, which

provides a myriad of training support to all components of The Army, is developing

a well-earned reputation as a center of training innovation. Army Reserve, as well

as Army National Guard and Active Component soldiers, can now graduate from a

Military Occupational Skill (MOS) or a functional course by taking an interactive,

distance-learning course, developed and taught by ARRTC.

The ARRTC has successfully piloted one distance-learning or DL course in the

summer of 2000 which was broadcast to 12 locations, qualifying Army Reserve and

Army National Guard soldiers in their MOS. I envision that in an age of evolving

technology, we will soon have connectivity to all of our locations, thus enhancing the

interoperability between active and reserve component units worldwide by reinforcing the premise that as we train together, we fight together, all as part of one

Army team.

Your continued interest and support of the Army National Guard Distributed

Learning project and its expansion to include the Army Reserve will greatly enhance the individual and collective training readiness of The Army.

The Army Reserve is well placed to benefit The Army in finding innovative ways

to do business because of the civilian acquired skills of our soldiers. Our soldiers,

many of whom are corporate and community leaders, bring their civilian acquired

skills, talents and experience with them. This has been true from the beginning of

the Army Reserve: the very first Reservists were civilian doctors who could be called

up in time of emergency.

Civilian technological advances are taking place at a dramatic pace. Army Reserve

soldiers who take part in these advances in their civilian jobs are ideally placed to

bring them into the Army for its benefit.

To better capitalize on the ‘‘citizen’’ part of ‘‘citizen-soldier’’, the Army Reserve is

collecting information on the civilian skills of its soldiers, skills acquired outside the

Army and thus perhaps unknown to it.

Army Reservists can now input those skills into the Civilian Acquired Skills Database (CASDB) at the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR–PERSCOM). By going

to an AR–PERSCOM website, soldiers can enter those skills they obtained from civilian training or work experience. Soldiers who volunteer to register their civilian

acquired skills are afforded the opportunity to serve in duties outside of their traditional branch or MOS. CASDB gives commanders at all levels the means to identify

those soldiers with specific skills to meet special needs. Those skills and talents can

then be used to benefit the Army Reserve, The Army and the nation.

Using our skills in the information area is one part of our strategy for assisting

The Army to become a more strategically deployable and responsive force. By

leveraging advanced communications and information technology, we can conduct

split-based support operations. Army Reserve units can operate from home station

to accomplish missions in forward locations utilizing this technology, thus reducing

lift requirements. We are evolving our support organizations to build a reach-back

capability for logistics, intelligence, and training support, thereby reducing the deployed logistical footprint.
268

We will also reduce lift requirements by strategically stationing Army Reserve

equipment and forces, capitalizing on our forward-stationed Reserve units and soldiers, such as the 7th Army Reserve Command in Europe and the 9th Regional Support Command in the Pacific.

Since Army Reserve power projection units have key roles in moving the Army

overseas and receiving deployed units once they arrive, it is vital we get our own

equipment—that not already strategically positioned—overseas quickly.

The Strategic Storage Site (SSS) is such an initiative to better facilitate deployment response times. The program is designed to place select Army Reserve combat

support/combat service support equipment into strategically located controlled humidity storage facilities within the continental United States and outside the continental United States. This program improves responsiveness and materiel readiness, and extends the life of the legacy equipment at reduced cost. About 37 percent

of a typical Army Reserve unit’s equipment that is not required for peacetime training can be positioned in strategic storage to be available for contingencies. The initial Strategic Storage Site is a 150,000 square foot facility at Gulfport, MS, which

was resourced in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. The Army Reserve is appreciative of this congressional support and is examining another six locations strategically located to support the Reserve units. Sites inside the continental United

States will be established near large metropolitan areas with consideration to location and types of equipment, such as engineer, medical, signal and transportation,

needed to support homeland defense and disaster relief.

Consequence Management

Our presence throughout America and our commitment to America, combined

with the civilian-acquired skills of our soldiers and the capabilities of our units, are

all key factors that enhance our abilities to manage the consequences of a domestic

terrorist event. We have been preparing and training ourselves, our Army National

Guard partners and other federal, state and local agencies to effectively respond to

this mission long before September 11.

For example, four months before the terrorist attacks on America, Army Reserve

units were key participants in two major back-to-back Weapons of Mass Destruction

(WMD) response training exercises, Operation Dangerous Wind 2001 and Consequence Island 2001. The first exercise was held May 7–17 at the Regional Training Site—Medical at Fort Gordon, GA. Following immediately was Consequence Island 2001, held May 18–26 at the Euripedes Rubio Army Reserve Center in San

Juan, Puerto Rico.

These exercises allowed federal, state and local agencies to hone the coordination

and other skills necessary to respond to a WMD-related emergency. Although the

Army Reserve is not a ‘‘first responder’’ in the case of a WMD incident or natural

disaster, we know that our Combat Support and Combat Service Support capabilities are the very capabilities that are much in demand by both civil authorities and

by The Army. A listing of the units that participated in these two exercises gives

an indication of some—but not all—of the capabilities we have to provide: 883rd

Medical Company (Combat Stress), Roslindale, MA, 1982nd Medical Detachment

(Surgical), Niagara Falls, NY, 1883rd Medical Team (Infectious Disease), Chamblee,

GA, 427th Medical Logistics Battalion, Forest Park, GA, 369th Combat Support

Hospital, Puerto Nuevo, PR, 407th Medical Company (Ground Ambulance), Fort Buchanan, PR, 597th Quartermaster Company (Field Services), Bayamon, PR, 346th

Transportation Battalion, Ceiba, PR, and the 311th Quartermaster Company (Mortuary Affairs), Aquadilla, PR.

The 311th Quartermaster Company that trained for a domestic terrorist event

during Exercise Consequence Island 2001 in May was the same company that I discussed earlier, the one that deployed to the Pentagon as part of Operation Noble

Eagle in September.

The Army Reserve is ideally placed for civil support. Our units are stationed in

Hometown, U.S.A., with our soldiers located in 1,200 Army Reserve Centers in

towns and cities all across America, putting the Army’s footprint in every part of

our country. They are part of America’s communities because those communities are

their communities. Our soldiers are the local doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, police officers, Little League coaches and soccer moms and dads, who enable the Army

Reserve to respond with a multi-faceted capability. We provide key emergency preparedness leaders. Army Reserve Civil Affairs units contain 97 percent of the

Army’s expertise to rebuild shattered infrastructure—social, civil and physical. Military Police units can shelter up to 56,000 displaced persons.

The Army Reserve, ready to respond to a chemical incident, contains 63 percent

of the Army’s chemical capability. Today, the Army Reserve has the largest chemical

decontamination capability within DOD. The Army Reserve is currently training
269

100 out of a total of 127 decontamination platoons and 9 of the 15 reconnaissance

platoons called for in Defense Reform Initiative Directive 25. One of the Army’s two

Biological Integrated Detection System (BIDS) companies is in the Army Reserve.

That unit, the 310th BIDS Company, has already been activated for participation

in Operation Enduring Freedom. The requirement for increased biological detection

capabilities has resulted in the proposal to create additional Army Reserve BIDS

companies, which will stand up over the next several years. One of these, the 375th

BIDS Company, is a high demand/low density unit that requires state-of-the-art

BIDS equipment. This unit, which officially activates in September 2003, will be in

strong demand for both defending the homeland and protecting U.S. forces against

biological attacks in combat theaters.

Residing within the Army Reserve are 68 percent of the Army’s medical assets.

Our medical professionals are working closely in DOD and among the interagency

community to leverage our capabilities in Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Consequence Management. The Army Reserve contains 50 percent of resourced Mortuary Affairs units, as well as Aviation, Logistics, Engineer and Signal units, which

are essential capabilities for WMD Consequence Management. The Army Reserve

stands ready to support WMD Consequence Management operations in combat, in

the homeland or overseas in support of our coalition partners.

The challenge of defending America’s Homeland continues to grow. Although the

Army Reserve is not a ‘‘first responder’’ organization, it is ready to provide assistance to support and sustain those organizations that do respond first. The Civil

Support mission requires capabilities resident in the Army Reserve.

Civil Support and WMD operations are combat support and combat service support intensive. Army Reserve core capabilities enable the Army to provide rapid support that complements the Federal response that sustains local responders.

As a community-based force, the Army Reserve is—by definition—America’s people. We are a reflection of the values and traditions embodied in our culture. Those

values and traditions are what make the Army Reserve, the National Guard and

the Army strong, able to meet the Nation’s missions. The men and women of the

Army Reserve, all of whom volunteered to be ‘‘twice the citizen’’, have taken on the

sacrifices to serve the Nation. In their hands is the future of the Army Reserve.

Information Operations

Information Operations (IO) ensures that our leaders have the information they

need, when they need it, in a form they can use to win the fight and protect America’s vital interests. We use IO to defend our own information and information systems while disrupting those of the enemy.

These are not new concepts. The Army has long understood the importance of controlling the decision cycle. Units with IO capabilities that intercept or interrupt

communications, that collect and analyze information about the battlefield and that

influence the attitudes and will of the opposition, are a legacy in the Army Reserve

structure. The Army Reserve provides a wide variety of experts who accomplish missions, such as Civil Affairs, Psychological Operations, Public Affairs, Military Intelligence and Signal. The Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA), the National

Ground Intelligence Center and the Joint Reserve Intelligence Program now are utilizing Army Reserve units, facilities and personnel to conduct Information Operations.

The Army Reserve is also building additional capability to reinforce Army information and LIWA operations. The Army Reserve Land Information Warfare Enhancement Center directly expands the scope and sophistication of LIWA information capabilities. When complete, one fourth of LIWA manpower will be Army Reserve soldiers. The Defense Information Systems Agency has created a 22-member

Joint Web Risk Assessment Cell. This cell will monitor and evaluate Department

of Defense web sites to ensure no one compromises national security by revealing

sensitive defense information. Five members of this cell, whose civilian skills are

particularly suited to this hard skill requirement, are Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentees of the Army Reserve.

Further, the Army Reserve is actively carving out its niche in this evolving area

of cyber warfare by creating the Reserve Information Operations Structure. This organization was activated on October 16, 2001, to provide contributory support to the

Army’s Computer Network Defense and information assurance efforts. Army Reserve Information Operation Centers (IOCs) identify and respond to viruses and intruders in Army computer networks. Currently, Army Reserve IOCs are located in

the National Capital Region, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, and Texas,

and satellite units can be found in over a dozen large cities. Information Operations

support The Army’s portion of the Defense Information Infrastructure to ensure the

availability, integrity and confidentiality of information systems.
270

Counter Drug Operations

The Army Reserve provides intelligence, linguistic, transportation, maintenance,

and engineer support to drug law enforcement agencies and unified commandersin-chief in an ongoing program in effect since 1989. The Army Reserve supports

local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in operations designed to reduce

the flow of illegal drugs both within and outside of American borders. Feedback

from High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area directors was overwhelmingly positive.

The Army Reserve also participates with the Drug Demand Reduction Program to

help reduce the demand for illegal drugs and alcohol abuse through education and

through deterrence by randomly testing our soldiers on a regular basis. We received

a program funding increase to raise our testing level to more closely match the Active Component testing level. The increased funding also allows the retention of

those civilians most critical to program administration.

RESOURCING

The Army Reserve greatly appreciates your support in providing resources to enhance our readiness and relevance; however, we still face several challenges. At the

outset, I would like to emphasize that many of our resourcing challenges are a consequence of our being victims of our own achievement. Successfully executed operations lead to additional operations, thus increasing operating tempo and personnel

tempo costs. This places stress on personnel, equipment and facilities with bills that

ultimately must be paid. Both people and equipment wear out faster under frequent

use. For example, units deployed in Somalia took 10 months to restore their equipment to predeployment levels. Multiple, concurrent and sequential commitments

erode warfighting readiness.

Full-Time Support

An increase in Full-Time Support (FTS)—Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) and Military Technicians (MILTECHs)—is essential to improve Army Reserve readiness.

Given the competition for resources, one of the greatest challenges facing the Army

Reserve today is obtaining the FTS authorizations and funding to support over

2,300 Army Reserve units in day-to-day operations. FTS levels directly impact the

readiness of Army Reserve units by providing the additional training, command and

control, technical, functional, and military expertise required to transition from a

peacetime to a wartime posture. The FTS staff performs all the day-to-day support

functions for the unit. When FTS levels drop, this affects readiness levels.

The Army has identified critical thresholds for FTS, based on the minimum essential levels to prepare and maintain units to meet deployment standards identified

in Defense Plans. The fiscal year 2002 transformation of The Army’s go to war

structure included eliminating approximately 234 Title XI Active Army authorizations from Army Reserve units. As a coordinated ‘‘Army’’ decision, the Army Reserve

AGR end strength was increased by 182 in fiscal year 2003 to accommodate the loss

of Title XI soldiers. The revised ramp end strength is 16,265. The goal is to restore

the loss of Active Army end strength from Army Reserve units with AGRs while

continuing to work towards improving the overall unit readiness with increased fulltime support.

Current resource levels have allowed us to reduce past FTS shortfalls by almost

a thousand, both AGRs and MILTECHs. The Army Reserve utilized the 300 additional AGRs authorized in fiscal year 2002 to restore Title XI soldiers that remained

unfunded.

Recruiting and Retention Bonus Programs and Increased Army Reserve Advertising

Recruiting resources pay dividends beyond the year of execution. For example,

Army Reserve advertising in fiscal year 2002 influences potential recruits making

enlistment decisions in fiscal year 2003–2005. Thus, we must look at recruiting resources over time and not limit consideration to the current or next fiscal year.

Resourcing the Army Reserve sufficiently to achieve its average recruiting workload over the next several years enables the Army Reserve to achieve its end

strength. A steady, even flow of resources ensures a better recruiting environment.

Media advertising costs continue to increase. Television is the most effective at

targeting desired Army audiences because it dramatically illustrates the Army experience through sight, sound, and motion. Successfully meeting the recruiting mission, which we did in fiscal years 2000 and 2001, following several years of failure,

comes from many complex and rapidly changing factors. The recruiting advertising

program, however, is one of the few factors that we can control.
271

SUMMARY

As we approach the eight-month mark since September 11, the men and women

of the Army Reserve are serving proudly and performing their duties in the manner

expected, professionally and skillfully. They are fully backed by their families, by

their employers, by their comrades at home and by a united nation. They have leaders who understand their needs and who are working to meet those needs and to

prepare for the future.

The citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve, confronted with attacks to Americans

on American soil for the first time in our lives, have answered the nation’s call and

are adding a new chapter to our 94-year history of service. It is a great chapter but

it is not yet completed. It may take a long time to finish but we know the part we

have in it.

Our part was clearly stated by the Commander-in-Chief when he signed the proclamation for National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week 2001 on

November 9:

‘‘We’re fighting a war on many fronts. It’s a diplomatic war, it’s a financial war.

The military is performing brilliantly in Afghanistan. And we could not win the war

without the help of the Guard and the Reservists.’’

The citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve are proud of their country and of the role

they play in its defense and in winning the war forced upon us. As our citizen-soldiers have always done, they have come forward, without hesitation, at a moment

of crisis and danger to our country. Although today’s Army Reservist is more ready,

better trained, more adaptable and more relevant than ever before, we readily admit

that we cannot surpass the love of country and willingness to sacrifice of all those

who have served before us. Those great American citizen-soldiers passed to those

who serve today a tremendous responsibility—to uphold their legacy of defending

this nation, its citizens and its freedoms, no matter what it costs. We proudly and

confidently accept that responsibility.

We are grateful to the Congress and the Nation for supporting the Army Reserve

and our most valuable resource, our soldiers—the sons and daughters of America.

United we stand—united we will win.

Thank you.

ON TARGET, ONLINE—STRATEGIC FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR THE NAVAL RESERVE

FOREWORD

NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION

THE ASSOCIATION VOICE OF THE NAVAL RESERVE

The Naval Reserve is responding to a recall of Reservists unprecedented since the

Korean War. These Naval Reservists are supporting the mission needs of our Navy

and joint operations around the globe. It has often been said by the Naval Leadership that the Navy cannot perform its mission without the Naval Reserve. In addition to personnel readiness, a critical part of this support involves units that operate

equipment and systems that are compatible and operationally relevant.

If Reserve forces in general, and the Naval Reserve in particular, are to be immediately effective and totally integrated with the operating forces, they must have

first-line, compatible, and modern equipment. They must be trained on and have

utilized these systems and equipment ‘‘prior to the fight.’’ It is well recognized that

equipping Reserve forces with older, noncompatible equipment and systems results

in increased training, logistics and supply costs. In the end, this does not support

optimal readiness, utilization, or war-fighting capability of either the Active Duty

Fleet or Reserve forces.

There has been an alarming trend over the past few years of significantly decreasing funds in the Defense budgets and in the Navy’s budget in particular. As a result, the availability of dollars for Naval Reserve equipment and systems has faded.

This trend must be reversed if the Department of Defense and the Navy are serious

about keeping a front-line, well-equipped, fully-integrated and compatible Naval Reserve Force to defend our nation.

Appropriately ‘‘equipping the Naval Reserve’’ is at the top of the priority list for

the Naval Reserve Association. As a result, we are proud to present this publication

that outlines the most pressing equipment and system needs of the Naval Reserve.

This publication will be distributed to every member of Congress in the hopes that

they will consider this data and address these needs in upcoming and future Defense budgets.
272

Forwarded by the 23,000-plus members of the Naval Reserve

Association residing in all 50 States and territories of the

United States.

The Naval Reserve Association—The Premier Professional Organization for Naval

Reserve Officers, Committed to Supporting a Strong Navy and National Defense,

While Providing Outstanding Service to Its Members.

OVERVIEW

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS,

Washington, DC.

Naval Reserve Association,

1619 King Street,

Alexandria, VA 22314.

Our primary mission—before and after September 11—has been to support the

Navy and Marine Corps team throughout the full range of operations, from peace

to war. At this time, it is war. Fortunately, the Naval Reserve is well trained, ready

and dedicated to achieving the nation’s objectives. But many of our Naval Reservists

are trying to do their jobs with aging, inadequate equipment.

During the early months of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, we

have mobilized more than 10,000 skilled Reservists and deployed Naval Reserve

personnel and equipment around the world. Yet, as we progress with these mobilizations and deployments, crucial operational and communication issues persist.

For instance, our aircraft and our information technology tools fall far short of our

nation’s capabilities and requirements. Naval Reserve aviators are providing almost

100 percent of the Navy’s intra-theater logistics support—but are doing so with C–

9 aircraft that are more than 30 years old, require expensive maintenance and no

longer meet international noise abatement requirements. New C–40A Clippers are

gradually replacing them, but the pace of procurement is glacial. Rebuilding the logistics aircraft fleet is my number one unfunded priority.

The Naval Reserve Force that has long focused on interoperability with the Fleet

and carrying out active duty missions now finds itself battling with outdated systems. It is time to remedy budget shortfalls, upgrade essential hardware and aged

facilities, and strengthen our lines of communication. Thus, this booklet describes

our specific unfunded priorities in aircraft, information technology and military construction.

Committing to these improvements will improve our compatibility with the active

duty Fleet, reduce long-term costs and most importantly, contribute to the safety,

well-being and readiness of our most valuable assets—our Sailors.

JOHN B. TOTUSHEK,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Naval Reserve, Chief of Naval Reserve.

SUPPORTING THE FLEET FROM THE AIR AND SEA: MEETING STRATEGIC FUNDING

PRIORITIES

From Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX, Naval Reserve Fleet

Logistics Support Squadron 59 is flying four of the newest class of logistics aircraft

in the Navy’s Fleet: the C–40A Clipper. These include the two newest Clippers,

named ‘‘Spirit of the Pentagon’’ and ‘‘Spirit of New York City,’’ which are ferrying

Sailors and equipment to the Fleet worldwide in support of the War on Terror.

The C–40A Clippers, introduced to the Naval Reserve in April 2001, fly higher,

faster, farther, and can carry a greater load than the aging C–9 Skytrain, long the

airlift workhorse of the Navy. As the military version of the Boeing 737, the Clipper

can be configured to fly either 121 passengers or eight pallets of cargo totaling

80,000 pounds. In its ‘‘combi’’ role, the Clipper can be configured to accommodate

up to three cargo pallets plus 70 passengers on its main deck. The pilots and crewmembers of VR–59 give the Clipper an enthusiastic thumbs up, citing the aircraft’s

lower maintenance requirements, greater fuel efficiency, longer ‘‘legs,’’ and outstanding versatility.

C–40A Aircraft Procurement Leads Naval Air Reserve Equipment Priority

The introduction of the C–40A into the U.S. Naval Reserve—and its continued

production—is vital to the nation’s military readiness. Our seven Naval Air Reserve

squadrons provide 100 percent of worldwide, in-theater medium and heavy airlift

for the Fleet. The Navy could not meet its global operational commitments without

the Naval Reserve’s airlift capabilities.
273

Without the C–40A, the Navy could soon lose its ability to conduct airlift operations in European and Western Pacific airspace due to noise abatement requirements now being phased in. The aging fleet of C–9 Skytrains, nearly a quarter of

which are more than 30 years old, does not meet these requirements. Engine and

avionics upgrades not only would be costly but also would degrade the C–9’s performance to an unacceptable level. Clearly, the answer is to replace the C–9’s with

C–40A’s as quickly as possible. The Naval Reserve has taken delivery of its first

four C–40A’s and currently has contracts for two more. As a side note, the Naval

Aviation Museum in Pensacola, FL, in February 2002 accepted delivery of a recently

retired Naval Reserve C–9 as a ‘‘relic’’ with more than 54,000 airframe hours—the

highest-time aircraft in the museum.

To maintain the pace of C–40A acquisition, the Naval Reserve needs an additional

$186 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003 for three additional Naval Reserve C–

40A’s and associated support equipment. Eventually, the entire fleet of C–9’s must

be replaced.

Maritime Patrol Aircraft Need Upgrades for Modernization

Seven Naval Reserve maritime patrol squadrons make up almost 40 percent of

the Navy’s maritime patrol fleet and conduct surveillance, counterdrug, anti-surface

warfare, and anti-submarine warfare operations. Reserve patrol squadrons provide

three aircraft and crews deployed overseas at all times to support the deployment

requirements of the Navy. The Naval Reserve’s P–3C Orion aircraft need a number

of upgrades to achieve parity with their active duty counterparts.

Half of the Naval Reserve’s P–3’s still use an acoustical processing system first

developed more than 30 years ago, which degrades the patrol aircraft’s anti-submarine warfare performance and capabilities. Transitioning from antiquated analog

technology to digital processing technology is essential for these aircraft to perform

successfully their missions. Lockheed-Martin’s Block Modification Upgrade Program

(BMUP) will replace these obsolete avionics components. In fiscal year 1997, Congress authorized funding for eight BMUP’s for Naval Reserve P–3’s. An additional

$33 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 for three more BMUP’s.

The Aircraft Improvement Program (AIP), an off-the-shelf upgrade developed by

Lockheed Martin, is needed to enhance the P–3’s ability to retrieve and/or to send

information via satellite, ground station, or surface ship. The program, also, enhances the P–3’s ability to classify properly targets at long range and improves the

aircraft’s weapons delivery capabilities. Funding has been authorized for only two

of the 42 upgrades needed by the Naval Reserve, and $28 million is needed to purchase two more upgrade kits in fiscal year 2003.

Strike Fighter Upgrades to Provide Fleet Compatibility

Three of four Naval Reserve F/A–18A Hornet squadrons provide strike fighter

support to the Fleet. The Navy’s only tactical air platform originally designed for

multiple missions, the F/A–18 conducts carrier-based strikes, provides close air support, and carries out air combat operations. In addition to providing fleet air defense

and force projection, the Hornet is, also, capable of deploying sea mines. The Naval

Reserve’s fourth Hornet squadron provides adversary training to the Fleet, simulating enemy aircraft tactics and giving Navy aircrews the kind of real-world training that simulators can’t provide.

The three strike fighter squadrons need to be retrofitted with Boeing’s Engineering Change Proposal 560R1, a software and hardware upgrade kit that will give the

F/A–18A precision-guided munitions capability. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, about

nine percent of the weapons used were precision guided; by early 2002, in Operation

Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the figure was up to 60 percent.

Without this upgrade, which affects the mission computers, radar, armament controls, system wiring and control stick, Naval Reserve F/A–18’s are not compatible

with the rest of the Navy’s carrier-based strike fighters. Though current funding has

supported the purchase of kits for two F/A–18 squadrons, an additional $36.6 million in funding is needed in fiscal year 2003 to upgrade the third squadron.

C–130T Avionics Modernization to Standardize Aircraft

The C–130T provides the Navy with the capability to move heavy or oversize

cargo in support of forward-deployed forces around the world. A typical equipment

loadout could include aircraft engines, helicopter rotor blades, large ship repair

parts, missiles, or personnel. The Naval Reserve’s current inventory of 18 aircraft

operates from New Orleans, LA; Point Mugu, CA; Washington, DC; and Brunswick,

ME. One aircraft is now forward-deployed to Bahrain in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
274

The navigation, communications, and flight equipment on these aircraft are based

on 1970’s technology. In addition to being obsolete in today’s digital environment,

the gear is expensive and labor intensive to maintain.

The Avionics Modernization Program will upgrade and standardize the cockpit

configurations for the C–130T’s. It will replace 17 separate obsolete avionics systems

on each aircraft and will satisfy international flight requirements for operating in

global airspace. Boeing has been awarded a multibillion dollar contract to upgrade

nearly 500 U.S. Air Force C–130’s, and the Naval Reserve could piggyback on this

contract to acquire the improved components at reduced cost should funding be appropriated. The estimated procurement cost to begin the upgrade process is $1.9

million, with a total of $100 million needed to modify all 18 aircraft.

Adversary Aircraft Provide Real-World Training, but Require Upgrades

The Naval Reserve provides nearly 100 percent of the Navy’s adversary training.

In addition to utilizing the F/A–18A Hornet for adversary training, the Naval Reserve, also, employs the F–5 Tiger to simulate potential enemy aircraft. The F–5

simulates older threat fighters such as the MiG-21 Fishbed, which is flown by the

air forces of dozens of Third World countries. The F/A–18A simulates newer threat

fighters such as the MiG-29 Fulcrum and the Su-27 Flanker, used by most of the

former Soviet-bloc nations and such nations as Iran, Iraq, and China. To improve

the adversary training provided by the F–5’s, its 25-year-old avionics package needs

to be replaced with Northrop Grumman’s APG–66 Radar. Not only will these upgrades more accurately simulate potential enemy aircraft, but also the new radar

will enhance safety. Avionics upgrades for 12 F–5’s will cost $47 million in fiscal

year 2003, and an additional $3.73 million is needed to install the APG–66 Radar

on three aircraft.

Another necessary avionics upgrade for the F–5 is the installation of an integrated Global Positioning System (GPS) in each aircraft. Congress has mandated

that this upgrade—a navigation safety issue—be installed by 2005, but no funding

has been put in place for these aircraft. Procurement of GPS for the F–5 will cost

$8.1 million.

SH–60B Helicopter Upgrades Needed

Versatile SH–60B Seahawk helicopters are designed for anti-submarine and antisurface unit warfare. While the Naval Reserve’s helicopters are among the oldest

in the Fleet, three newer versions of the SH–60B were accepted in fiscal year 2001,

and three more will be added to the Naval Reserve in fiscal year 2002. A new Reserve helicopter squadron (HSL–60) stood up in Mayport, FL, in April 2001. While

this is good news, even these ‘‘new’’ helicopters are relatively old and need upgrades

to provide the best support to the Fleet.

Specifically, the Naval Reserve requires four Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR)

kits. These kits will increase night detection capabilities by five-to-eight times and

will improve the ability to detect, monitor, and track targets covertly at night and

in low visibility. Naval Reserve aviators will be better able to target suspected drug

traffickers operating small, fast boats that are otherwise extremely difficult to detect

with conventional radar, as well as performing Fleet-critical anti-surface warfare

missions. No funding has been authorized to cover the $5.6 million procurement. A

total of $7 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 to purchase and install the four

FLIR kits.

Littoral Surveillance System

The Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) began in 1997 as a Naval Reserve initiative to provide improved surveillance information to battlefield commanders in real

or near-real time. Information (in the form of imagery, signal intelligence, electronic

intelligence, and human intelligence) is presented in a single, comprehensive, coordinated display. This capability emerged from the existing Mobile Inshore Undersea

Warfare mission of providing similar information as part of coastal surveillance operations.

Later in 2002, LSS will begin its initial operational training in coastal areas

throughout the world. The system uses the latest computerized technology to gather,

refine, and process information from a wide variety of sources in the air, on the surface, and under the surface of coastal waters. It can communicate with many existing command and control systems used by the Department of Defense and can be

adapted to those developed in the future. The system deploys on a series of highly

mobile, heavy-duty HUMVEE’s.

LSS is today’s information system for tomorrow’s battlefield. To maintain the pace

of development of the Littoral Surveillance System for full deployment, the Naval

Reserve needs additional funding of $30 million in fiscal year 2003.
275

Naval Coastal Warfare

Naval Coastal Warfare Reserve units responded to several crises during 2001. Immediately following the terrorist attack on the guided missile destroyer Cole, units

mobilized and began to provide force protection in the Arabian Gulf. Following the

attacks on Sept. 11, these units shifted into high gear.

Today, 17 Reserve units are deployed around the globe and at home, providing

vital antiterrorism and force-protection capabilities. The demand for these units is

high. Since September, a $132 million equipment procurement and upgrade package

was submitted for these units as part of the President’s Defense Emergency Response Fund. Ultimately, $46 million was appropriated. To complete readiness upgrades and to buy needed equipment, $86 million is required in fiscal year 2003 to

bring these units to a readiness level appropriate for their current missions.

Summary

The delivery of the first four C–40A Clippers to the Naval Reserve is a tremendous success story, but it is only the first step in modernizing the Naval Reserve’s

air and surface assets. Every day, the men and women of the Naval Reserve are

supporting the Fleet by providing antiterrorism and force protection, logistics support, strike fighter support, adversary training, maritime patrol, search and rescue,

and counter-narcotics operations. By investing in much-needed upgrades, the Naval

Reserve can achieve equivalence with their Active Duty counterparts, while providing support in a safe, efficient manner for many years to come.

UPGRADING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND SYSTEMS

In autumn 2001, Naval Air Facility Washington became the first Navy command

to roll out the long anticipated Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI), marking the

trend away from numerous isolated networks to a single Navy network. The immediate beneficiaries were more than 1,400 drilling Naval Reservists and the personnel of five squadrons, more than 2,000 people using more than 600 computers.

These Reservists are now doing their work using high-performance computers on

a high-speed network that has much-improved security. Any unresolved issues are

immediately addressed through a centralized help center and network operations

center located in Norfolk, VA.

A tenant on Andrews Air Force Base, Naval Air Facility Washington includes both

active Navy and Naval Reserve commands. In preparing to implement NMCI, the

Naval Air Facility had to work with 45 separate computer systems, eliminating duplication while taking a strategic approach to upgrading hardware and software. As

such, the test facility represents a microcosm of the issues faced in overhauling the

Navy and Naval Reserve’s aging and disparate IT infrastructure.

The Navy is using the lessons learned by the Reservists and their Active Duty

counterparts at the Air Facility to implement NMCI across the rest of the Navy.

In addition, other federal organizations are studying the results closely, as Congress

has indicated its desire that all federal agencies develop similar agency-wide

intranets.

Requirements of the Fleet Driving IT Upgrades

Providing support to the Active Duty Fleet is one of the driving forces behind the

push for IT upgrades in the Naval Reserve. The Navy-Marine Corps Intranet will

replace the Navy’s numerous shore-based networks and equip the Department of the

Navy with access, interoperability, and security for the Navy’s information and communications by providing voice, video, and data services to Navy and Marine Corps

personnel. The five-year contract for NMCI was awarded in October 2000 to a consortium of companies led by Electronic Data Systems, Inc.

To fully utilize NMCI, Naval Reserve facilities must upgrade both antiquated software and hardware. The Reserve must obtain the equipment, storage capacity, and

bandwidth necessary to allow quick and easy access to information. Existing or ‘‘legacy’’ systems will have to be abandoned or significantly upgraded.

The Navy’s goal is to move Navy processes to the Web. Therefore, Naval Reservists must have the ability to take advantage of a Web-based Navy. Naval Reserve

IT infrastructure must provide better access to all drilling Reservists and their fulltime support counterparts in a secure, user-friendly atmosphere.

Among other IT initiatives is the introduction of the Common Access Card, a

‘‘smart card’’ that is replacing the military ID card. It not only will serve as an identification card but also will enable access to computer networks and systems. Furthermore, it will serve as an access key to buildings and controlled spaces. In the

future, each card could contain access to the card holder’s service record, including

medical records.
276

All service members, Active and Reserve, will receive such a card; and the Naval

Reserve must have the necessary software and hardware in place to utilize it.

IT Efforts Hampered by Older Technology

So rapid are the advances in Information Technology that what is cutting edge

today can become obsolete in a matter of months. Imagine the challenges of using

the current Naval Reserve IT infrastructure and systems, most of which are based

on 1980’s technology.

Just months ago, the Naval Reserve was working toward a goal of achieving parity with the Active Duty Fleet on IT issues. Today, the Naval Reserve must, also,

respond to emerging Navy-wide IT initiatives. Add to that the Navy’s planned warfare strategy, based heavily on the inter-operability of information technology; and

the upgrading of the Reserve’s IT infrastructure becomes even more critical. Additional funding for IT remains one of the Naval Reserve’s top priorities.

Successful Naval Reserve Initiatives

Despite IT funding shortfalls, the Naval Reserve has implemented several initiatives. The Naval Reserve Skills Online program, launched in the fall of 2000, allows

drilling Reservists to enter their military skills and experience and pertinent civilian skills into a database that is accessible by Fleet Reserve Liaison Officers. By

providing a searchable database to the Fleet, Reservists meeting certain criteria can

be located and contacted quickly to provide support. This system was adapted from

an off-the-shelf program originally developed for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. It is,

also, used by the Air Force Reserve, the Army Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve.

Another success story is the building and expanding of the Naval Reserve Network. Created to support data transmission, e-mail and Internet access, the Naval

Reserve Network initially connected only a few Naval Reserve sites. It has expanded

to a total of 174 sites, 83 of which are Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Centers.

In a unique partnership with the Marine Forces Reserve, the Naval Reserve was

able to take advantage of economies of scale on both system router equipment and

data lines. Connectivity and performance have improved dramatically each year. In

addition, the system is compatible with Active Duty systems; and it is now being

integrated into the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet.

The Naval Reserve is continuing to develop the New Order Writing System, which

is expected to streamline the cumbersome procedures for requesting and delivering

orders and travel arrangements. The single Web-based system will replace four

other systems and is expected to cut significantly the current 60 days wait-time for

orders.

The Naval Reserve is currently working with such companies as EDS, Worldcom,

Raytheon, Microsoft, Cisco, Compaq, Novell, UNISYS, Dell, Lockheed Martin, and

Oracle to bring Reserve Force IT capabilities into the 21st century using a combination of off-the-shelf and specially designed solutions.

The Cost of Doing Business

Upgrading Naval Reserve IT infrastructure is necessary to provide efficient, costeffective support to the Fleet in the 21st century. Not only will upgrades allow the

Naval Reserve to interface rapidly with the Fleet, but also they will streamline operations while improving quality of life for Reserve Sailors by making them more productive and by reducing the amount of system downtime.

IT upgrades will, also, benefit in long-term savings through efficiency and fewer

maintenance requirements. Unfortunately, additional funding is needed right now

just to sustain current capabilities—$6.1 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 to operate the current antiquated systems at their minimum level and current capacity.

An additional $15.7 million is required to update existing systems to allow them to

perform new and enhanced capabilities.

The Navy and Naval Reserve are in ongoing negotiations to determine appropriate funding levels for NMCI. However, $2.0 million is required in fiscal year 2003

for network infrastructure not associated with NMCI services. Two much-needed

initiatives—one to provide classified access to selected Reserve centers around the

country prior to NMCI implementation and the other to allow Reservists to access

common Naval Reserve applications on any computer—are driving this requirement.

Additionally, $1.5 million is needed to establish and maintain a Continuity of Operations/Disaster Recovery Plan for mission critical systems. Lastly, an additional

$.6 million is needed to create Naval Reserve-specific applications that can be

accessed on the Web.
277

Summary

With Naval Reservists among the first to test the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet,

the Department of the Navy has underscored the importance of equipping the Reserve component with the best in IT infrastructure. The Naval Reserve has proceeded with several IT initiatives in an effort to overcome the difficulties incurred

by operating systems based on 20-year-old technology. With the Naval Reserve

Skills Online program and the New Order Writing System, the Naval Reserve is

giving its personnel the tools they need to work more efficiently while providing improved support to the Fleet.

Naval Reserve leadership is working hard to meet IT mandates set by the Active

Duty Navy; but it is hampered by older platforms and systems, as well as a critical

shortfall in funding. The Naval Reserve needs additional funding right now just to

maintain its current IT infrastructure, and will need even more in the future to enhance and modernize existing systems.

The challenge—whether we are called upon to operate in peacetime, on one warfighting front, or several skirmishes—is to provide the Navy with the right Reservist

at the right time with the right equipment every time. The only way to assure that

we can do so is by upgrading and integrating into our Force today’s sophisticated

technological tools.

RESERVE FACILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE: IMPROVING QUALITY OF SERVICE AND

QUALITY OF LIFE

A flight of U.S. Naval Reserve F/A–18 Hornets roared overhead, and the U.S.

Navy Band New Orleans thumped out a martial tune as Naval Reserve Center Meridian, MS, was dedicated in July 2000. Among those in attendance were retired

Congressman G.V. ‘‘Sonny’’ Montgomery, for whom the building is named, and retired Rear Admiral Thomas F. Hall, former Commander, Naval Reserve Force.

The new Reserve Center replaced a decades-old, dilapidated facility in Jackson,

MS. By co-locating onboard Naval Air Station Meridian, the new facility not only

saves considerable operating costs, but also provides its Sailors with enhanced quality of life and quality of work.

Even greater cost savings and improved amenities will be realized by another facility currently under construction, the Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center in Orlando, FL. This facility, which will serve Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve,

Army Reserve, and Army National Guard units, is the first of its kind. A similar

facility is planned for Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base New Orleans.

Additional Funding for Real Property Maintenance Necessary to Ease Critical Backlog

The Naval Reserve owns and maintains 1,224 structures covering 6,800 acres

throughout all 50 states. The average age of these facilities is 33 years, and their

general readiness condition is useable but degraded. Naval Reserve facilities include

office buildings, hangars, runways and ramp areas, fuel and equipment storage

areas, maintenance and training buildings, utilities and power generation.

The Naval Reserve has worked hard to manage its resources wisely, reducing infrastructure and cutting costs while trying to maintain current facilities to provide

Reservists with the quality of service, quality of life, and the quality of workplace

that they deserve and need to support fully the Active Duty Fleet.

Consistent underfunding of the Naval Reserve Sustainment, Restoration, and

Modernization Account has resulted in a critical backlog of maintenance and repair.

Additional funding planned for fiscal year 2003 will reduce the amount of backlogged work to $54 million by the end of fiscal year 2007.

Demolition of Old Facilities

Budget constraints present a constant challenge to the Naval Reserve. As it attempts to maintain the proper size and composition of the infrastructure needed to

administer and train personnel properly, the Naval Reserve needs to maintain and

operate equipment in a safe environment while providing day-to-day support to the

Fleet.

Since before the personnel drawdown began in the early 1990’s, the Naval Reserve has been working to reduce its infrastructure and to utilize facilities more efficiently and effectively. For example, the number of Reserve Centers has been reduced by 50 percent since fiscal year 1975; and the 40 percent decrease in Naval

Reserve personnel during the 1990’s was matched by a 30 percent drawdown of Reserve Center inventory.

The demolition of excess facilities—such as outdated buildings, water towers and

piers—is one means of reducing the facilities maintenance impact. In fiscal year

1999, the Navy created a Naval Reserve Demolition Program with initial funding
278

of $1 million per year for five years. Because this has proven to be an inadequate

funding level, an additional $3.98 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 for planned

Reserve Force demolition projects.

Building to Meet the Needs of Today’s Sailors

The bulk of the Naval Reserve’s Military Construction budget goes to operations

and training facilities. Additional funding is necessary for infrastructure improvements. By reconfiguring existing facilities and building new ones, the Naval Reserve

is working to meet the changing needs of today’s Sailors.

Many older Naval Reserve facilities have classroom configurations that no longer

reflect training methods employed today. Manning standards have changed, as have

the ways in which Sailors work and receive training. Most of the Naval Reserve

Centers were built prior to age of the personal computer. The original builders of

Reserve Centers had no notion of workstations or the requirements for Local Area

Networks. These inappropriate building designs not only reduce the efficiency of the

personnel working in them but also degrade the Sailors’ quality of life and work.

In addition, Antiterrorism Force Protection (AT/FP) measures require modifications and upgrades to our stand-alone Reserve Centers. All of our facilities must become AT/FP compliant.

The Naval Reserve has numerous expansion and reconfiguration plans in place,

from building additions to Reserve Centers to modifying hangars and other facilities. A total of $51.6 million is reflected in the fiscal year 2003 budget for these six

projects.

Joint Service Facilities: the Way of the Future

Through outsourcing, privatization, and regionalization, the Naval Reserve is

working to minimize infrastructure costs where it can. The Naval Reserve fully supports the Joint-Use Reserve facilities concept as outlined in Department of Defense

directives. The Joint Service Reserve Component Facility Board reviews all Naval

Reserve facilities requirements annually for joint use, and the opportunity for consolidation with nearby activities is considered in the design of any new facilities.

As mentioned earlier, the Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center in Orlando, FL, now

under construction, and the planned Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center in New Orleans, bring economies of scale and significant cost savings to the Reserve Components. The wisdom of the Joint Reserve Base concept has been proven at Naval Air

Station/Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA; Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base

Fort Worth, TX; and Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, PA.

While $7 million for Phase I funding of the new Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center in New Orleans was provided by Congress in fiscal year 2001, and $10 million

for Phase II in fiscal year 2002, an additional $9 million is needed for the completion of Phase III of the project in fiscal year 2003.

Summary

The Naval Reserve has embraced Joint Reserve facilities as the way of the future

to ensure cost-effective infrastructure that will contribute to an improved quality of

life and work for Reserve Sailors. A direct benefit will be an improved quality of

service to the Fleet. In addition, the Naval Reserve is actively working to reduce

infrastructure and to cut costs through demolition of excess facilities, reconfiguring

current facilities, and construction of new facilities to meet today’s standards. Additional funding is critical to the Naval Reserve’s success in these areas.

Summary: Unfunded Requirements Air and Sea Naval Reserve—Fiscal Year 2003

(In millions)

C–40A Acquisition (3 aircraft) .............................................................................. $186.0

P–3C Orion Upgrades ............................................................................................ 61.0

Upgrade F/A–18 ..................................................................................................... 36.6

C–130T Avionics Upgrades ................................................................................... 1.9

F–5 Avionics and Radar Upgrades ....................................................................... 58.8

SH–60B Helicopter FLIR kits ............................................................................... 7.0

Littoral Surveillance System ................................................................................ 30.0

Naval Coastal Warfare .......................................................................................... 86.0

Total Air & Sea Programs .......................................................................... 467.3
279

Summary: Unfunded Requirements Naval Reserve Information Technology—Fiscal

Year 2003

(In millions)

IT Budget Shortfalls fiscal year 2003 .................................................................. $6.1

Update Existing Systems ...................................................................................... 15.7

Network Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 2.0

IT Force Protection/Continuity of Operations ..................................................... 1.5

Naval Reserve Specific Applications .................................................................... 0.6

Total IT Unfunded Requirements .............................................................. 25.9

Summary: Unfunded Requirements Reserve Facilities & Infrastructure—Fiscal Year

2003

(In millions)

Demolition .............................................................................................................. $4.0

Joint Armed Forces Reserve Training Centers ................................................... 9.0

Total Reserve Facilities & Infrastructure ................................................. 13.0

The Corporations listed below have partnered with the Naval Reserve Association

in mutually supporting Naval Reservists, their families, and our military for a

strong national defense. They provide first-line equipment and services to all of the

military components. We are indebted to them and are honored to work with them

as highly valued members of the Corporate/Association/Military TEAM.

Lockheed Martin

The Boeing Company

Gulfstream Aerospace

Northrop Grumman Corporation

Kaman Aerospace Corporation

DRS Technologies

BAE Systems

Northrop Grumman Avondale

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

USAA

Raytheon Systems Company

Seabury & Smith, Inc.

MBNA America

CES, a California Corporation

Rosen Associates Management Corp.

Aquilasm Group of Funds

First Virginia Bank

Science & Engineering Associates, Inc.

Military.com

CACI International Inc

First USA Bank, N.A.

SES, Inc.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

We will now call on Vice Admiral Totushek.

Admiral TOTUSHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

opportunity to appear before the committee this morning. I would

like to take this opportunity to once again thank the committee for

the strong voice of support you have given to the Reserve and

Guard components by the numerous initiatives that you have supported in the last year.

I have submitted my statement for the record and I intend to

just summarize it in my oral statement.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection, the full statement is made

part of the record.

Admiral TOTUSHEK. Thank you. I would just like to summarize

a couple points quickly, if I may.

Since the attacks on the Pentagon and New York City, we at the

height of our recall reached 10,000 naval reservists and this time

we recalled them mostly individually and primarily in the areas of

security and force protection. We also recalled people for intelligence, Seabee and other missions, but primarily we recalled people to provide force protection for our naval forces around the

world.

As none of us sitting around this table this morning are going

to be able to predict how long this crisis is going to go on, we have

taken a look at and are currently demobilizing naval reservists so
280

that we can answer sustainment issues as we go forward with the

war on terrorism.

Homeland security of course is going to be one of our important

future missions and we are looking right now at the role that the

Naval Reserve will be able to take in that regard. In order for the

Naval Reserve to continue to provide the kind of support that it

has in the past and during this war on terrorism, we have critical

equipment needs, as do some of my brethren who are sitting at the

table.

In our case it comes down to the C–40s to replace our aging C–

9 force, which supports our Navy AFLOAT Component Commanders around the world. We need additional boats for our Navy

coastal warfare units. Our P–3s and C–130s need updating in order

to keep them compatible with the active Navy force. We also have

issues where our F–18s and our helicopter force need upgrading so

that we are compatible, but we’re not asking for new equipment

there.

We have already mentioned the Guard and Reserve component

analysis which showed that we are moving to a position of being

about $15 billion short in equipment across the Reserve components. The Naval Reserve is about $2 billion of that backlog.

I believe you have received a copy of a publication done by the

Naval Reserve Association. It’s called On Target On Line, and gives

the Naval Reserve strategic funding priorities. I won’t go into all

that but we need this type of equipment to be able to continue the

fight the way we have been taking it to the enemy.

MANPOWER

I would just like to say one quick thing about my highest priority, and that is our manpower in the Naval Reserve force. While

we will meet our end strength goal this year, we are having a difficult time with recruiting. We are largely and have been in the

past a veteran force. In other words, about 75 percent of all the

people we bring into the Naval Reserve force are veterans. Since

the war on terrorism started, those people who have made the decision to leave active duty, and they are way down at these times

because of the success the Navy has had in retaining people, but

those people that are leaving have made up their mind to not be

part of our war on terrorism and want to get on with other parts

of their civilian life. We don’t see a large number of them coming

into the Naval Reserve right now. So we’re down to about a 50 percent veteran recruiting staff right now.

We could use some more advertising to help us get people that

have not been in the Reserve before, or have not been in the Navy

before they come on active duty, and we could use some additional

support for our recruiters out there.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that it has been my pleasure

to command this wonderful force of citizen sailors who have been

out there supporting our country, especially since September 11th.

Our mission has remained the same. We are the major support for

the Navy-Marine Corps team in times of peace and war, and of

course right now that’s war. It has been a pleasure for me to lead

this force. I look forward to your questions.

[The statement follows:]
281

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN TOTUSHEK

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Naval

Reserve and our role in Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. There are

really two distinct aspects of Naval Reserve support of the war effort: the first deals

with the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Even before the mobilization, more

than 230 Naval Reservists began immediately assisting in any way they could.

Within hours following the attacks on the Pentagon and on New York, Naval Reservists responded:

—Chaplains were on duty in Washington administering to the needs of Pentagon

personnel and their families;

—Naval Reserve F/A–18s were flying combat air patrol missions in Texas;

—A Reserve helicopter squadron training in northern Virginia was providing

Medevac support at the Pentagon;

—Naval Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers began working with civilian

authorities in rescue and relief efforts;

—A Naval Reserve augment unit began round-the-clock support for the New York

City Port Authority;

—Reservists—from intelligence specialists to law enforcement and physical security personnel and more—began showing up to provide support to their gaining

commands in Washington;

—and phone lines lit up in New Orleans and Washington with Reservists volunteering for recall to active duty.

The second aspect is the mobilization itself. The numbers change daily, but we’ve

recalled approximately 10,600 personnel. The majority of these Naval Reservists

have been recalled individually based on specific skills; primarily law enforcement,

security and as cohesive units of the Naval Coastal Warfare command. Other skills

reflected in the mobilization include medical, supply, intelligence and other specialties. There is a Naval Reserve C–130 based in Bahrain that last month moved approximately one million pounds of mission critical equipment. We are providing an

additional logistics aircraft to support personnel and equipment movement throughout the fleet, and our newest Naval Reserve C–40A logistics aircraft are ferrying

men and equipment to the Gulf with great reliability.

I found it interesting that one of the frequent comments heard in the immediate

aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on our country was that the Navy and the Naval

Reserve—and the armed forces in general—would have to change the way we do

business.

The attacks left the impression in some circles that our military was not prepared

for what had happened, that we were not equipped to deal with new realities and

that a fundamental rethinking of our training and our mission was in order.

I believed then, as I do now, they were wrong. And our response since the moment

of the attack has been proving them wrong. The fact is that our Sailors—and the

Marines, airmen, and soldiers in our sister services—are well trained to respond to

a terrorist crisis at home, to track down enemies of freedom abroad—and well suited

to carry out their roles in Homeland Defense.

While none of us knows how long we will need to tap into this reservoir of talent,

it is heartening that—once again, as in Desert Storm—many Naval Reservists

stepped up and volunteered for recall in the early days of the crisis.

As a nation, before Sept. 11, we already knew that we lived in a troubled world.

Now we know how dangerous the enemy in that world can be. And we know how

vulnerable an open society such as ours can be to those who seek to do us harm.

The Price of Liberty

The patriot John Philpot Curran said in 1790, ‘‘The condition upon which God

hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.’’ This passage provides as much relevant guidance for us today as it did then.

The question is this: what can the Naval Reserve do in support of eternal vigilance?

Two things are certain: we are ready—ready to live in freedom, ready to pay the

price for freedom and we are capable.

Every day, the Naval Reserve maintains facilities in every state. Every day, we

support operations and exercises on a global basis. As you read this statement,

Naval Reservists are deployed in support of operations in the Arabian Gulf, in Bosnia/Kosovo, in the Caribbean and South America, in Korea, throughout Europe, and

afloat on every ocean.

Today’s Naval Reserve Force consists of 34 air squadrons, including a carrier air

wing, a maritime patrol wing, a helicopter wing and a fleet logistics support wing.

We operate 26 ships, including 9 frigates, 10 mine hunter coastal patrol ships, five
282

mine countermeasures ships, one mine control ship and a tank landing ship. Further strength lies in additional fleet support units. Among the most notable of these

are 2 Naval Coastal Warfare Group staffs, 22 Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare

units, 14 Inshore Boat units and 9 Harbor Defense Command units; 12 construction

battalions, 12 cargo handling battalions, four fleet hospitals, and many other units.

The force that we deploy is highly educated. Nearly 11 percent of our enlisted

members have college degrees, and more than 97 percent have a high school diploma. Within the Reserve Force officer ranks, nearly 35 percent have master’s degrees, and more than nine percent have a doctorate.

The state of the Naval Reserve is strong, and our fundamentals remain unchanged. Let’s take a look from three perspectives:

—Alignment of the Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) top priorities and the Commander, Naval Reserve Force’s (CNRF) top priorities.

—Our progress and achievements over the past year, and how our ships, aircraft

and people are being employed.

—Our goals for the future. Congressional support of these initiatives and upgrades will keep our Naval Reserve Force strong and integrated into the active

Force.

Goals

Our first—and most immediate—goal is to assist the CNO in his providing a capable and effective Naval force and to help in prosecuting and winning the war on terrorism. Our supporting goals complement this primary one and align with the

CNO’s following priorities:

Manpower and personnel.—Just as the active Navy competes for people, the Naval

Reserve makes every effort to attract and retain the best, and to reduce first-term

attrition. The Reserve Force focuses on retaining our best people, recruiting to fill

future needs, and sustaining end strength. Through a combination of leadership

training, financial and educational incentives and career decision surveys, we watch

closely and encourage the career paths of our talented Reservists. We continue to

support health care protection for mobilized reservists and families. Similarly, our

recruiting efforts have been strengthened this year with the addition of new recruiters, a new advertising campaign, new incentives to recruit the best candidates, and

by the ability to recruit in the 21–25 year old non-prior service market. Our main

recruiting concern at this time is that the sense of renewed patriotism following the

attack upon our homeland did not translate into hikes in enlistment contracts. The

major change Naval Reserve recruiting has experienced since September 11, 2001

is the decrease in Navy Veteran (NAVET) recruiting from about 80 percent of

SELRES accessions having been Navy veterans to around 55 percent. We believe

that this is due to the desire of many sailors to remain on active duty to support

our nation’s war on terrorism. Reserve recruiting is closely monitoring this trend.

Coupled with the efforts outlined above and the renewed thrust into the non-prior

service market, reserve recruiting is combating the downward trend in NAVET affiliations. Naval Reserve recruiting is currently well ahead on officer recruiting.

Current Readiness.—The active force has benefited from additional funding for

training and maintenance and continually reviews the balance between requirements and resources. On the Reserve side, we’re using Just-In-Time Training to

support homeland defense requirements. Specifically, the Naval Reserve has established the Law Enforcement Specialist Course in response to force protection mobilization requirements. Personnel who have been mobilized are being sent to the twoweek course in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and Fort Worth, Texas. Graduates will

receive a certificate and Joint Qualifications Booklet to bring back to their gaining

command. When the booklet is completed, they will earn the Navy Enlisted Qualification for Enlisted Law Enforcement Specialist. Training is also taking place

through the new Navy Learning Network, as well as in non-traditional settings such

as the Senior Enlisted Academy and Navy Apprentice Schools.

Future Readiness.—The Navy makes continuous investments for the near-, mid-

, and long-term. These include investments in training, technology and new equipment. The Naval Reserve strives to upgrade its equipment, with acquisitions such

as the new C–40A aircraft, F/A–18 and P–3 upgrades, and building a new Information Technology structure.

Alignment and Fleet Support.—The CNO has set as a priority the unification of

systems, processes and organizations, which increases support to the Fleet. The role

of the Naval Reserve is fleet support, and we are aligning our systems, processes

and organizations to serve our primary customer: the active force.
283

2001 Achievements

Our current mobilization has gone much smoother than in Operation Desert

Storm, due to changes put into effect in the 1990s, and the extremely hard work

put in by our Reserve and active duty personnel. With that said, the mobilization

alone doesn’t reflect the whole story of success in the past year.

—Naval Reservists supported Fleet operations and exercises throughout the year.

Naval Surface Reservists provided over 15,000 man-days of direct support to

Fleet exercises in Bahrain, Germany, Korea, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Istanbul,

Thailand and Puerto Rico.

—Naval Reserve Force frigates continued to make the same six-month length deployments as the their active Navy counterparts, focusing on counter-narcotics

interdiction and exercises such as UNITAS, BALTOPS, and CARAT. Naval Reserve Force Frigates were on station in either the Caribbean or Eastern Pacific

supporting drug interdiction operations for 356 days during calendar year 2001.

The U.S.S. STEPHEN W. GROVES proved to be one of the Navy’s most productive counterdrug units. During her deployment, GROVES interdicted three gofast boats, interrupted one significant smuggling event, detained 10 suspects,

and recovered 3,600 pounds of cocaine.

—VAQ–209 continued to support tactical electronic warfare deploying to Saudi

Arabia for six weeks as part of Operation Southern Watch.

—Naval Reserve P–3 and E–2 squadrons provided year-round patrols supporting

Counter-Drug detection and monitoring operations in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

—Naval Coastal Warfare Reserve (NCW) Units were in high demand during 2001.

Before 9/11 units deployed to the Arabian Gulf and Vieques, PR in vital AT/

FP missions. Units also participated in exercises Bright Star, Northern Edge,

Natural Fire, and CARAT. Subsequent to the homeland attacks, 17 full units

within the NCW organization mobilized and deployed both at home and overseas. The demand for this robust capability by warfighting CINCs is so great;

NCW will expand to include units both in the Active and Reserve component.

The Reserve NCW organization will provide valuable training and operational

expertise as the Active and Reserve component emerge as important segment

of Homeland Security.

—Naval Reserve Strike Fighter and Adversary squadrons provided 100 percent of

Fleet adversary training (more than 9,000 hours in 2001).

—More than 30 Naval Reserve divers participated in an historic expedition to

raise the Civil War Ironclad Monitor from 240 feet off the coast of Cape Hatteras, N.C.

—Reserve Carrier Air Wing 20 (CAG–20) embarked three squadrons and staff on

U.S.S. NIMITZ for a 54-day circumnavigation of South America during a coastto-coast homeport change.

—In fiscal year 2001, our logistics aircraft flew more than 4,450 missions, transporting 172,220 personnel and 14 million pounds of cargo in direct support of

Navy fleet operations worldwide. Presently, there is a Naval Reserve C–130

transport flying out of Bahrain supporting the war effort in Afghanistan, as well

as several C–9, C–20 and C–40 flights per week in direct support of deployed

forces in theatre.

—We took delivery of our first four C–40A Clippers: the last two were named

‘‘Spirit of New York City’’ and ‘‘Spirit of the Pentagon.’’

—We began to roll out the long-anticipated Navy-Marine Corps Intranet, which

over a five-year period will equip the Navy with access, interoperability and security for the Navy’s information and communications by providing voice, video

and data services to Navy and Marine Corps personnel. The Navy’s first site

was our own Naval Air Facility Washington.

The Future

With a mobilization underway—and mindful of President Bush’s caution that the

war on terrorism could last for years—the near-term future of the Naval Reserve

will be focused on continuing to sustain the Navy’s warfighting capabilities. Given

the uncertainty of how the war might develop, the challenge for the Naval Reserve

will be to remain flexible in adapting existing capabilities—both function and structure—to meet evolving and previously unanticipated requirements.

Yet, the Navy’s requirements for Reservists to support the war are in addition to

its need for Reservists to conduct ‘‘normal’’ peacetime operations, including exercises, training, watch standing and administrative duties.

While the Navy’s demand for Naval Reserve longer-term capabilities are not clear,

there are some implied and important Reserve roles. Homeland Security will create

demand for capabilities to guard the nation’s borders, and the Reserve Components
284

are being considered for this major role. Further, a recently published Quadrennial

Defense Review indicated that future forces would be shaped to meet an expanded

list of threats, and that the Department of Defense would transform itself simultaneously. These have the potential of adding to Navy’s challenges at a time when

it is fighting the war and otherwise maintaining a forward presence worldwide. The

Naval Reserve will undoubtedly play a part.

In addition, to continue supporting the Fleet, our long-range plans include upgrading our aircraft, implementing information technology improvements, and maintaining our real estate holdings.

—Aircraft upgrades.—The introduction of the C–40A Clipper into the Naval Reserve is maintaining our worldwide intra-theater logistics lift support for the

Fleet. Without these aircraft, the Reserve could not conduct its essential airlift

operations in foreign airspace. The C–40As are slowly replacing the fleet of aged

C–9s. Four C–40A’s have been delivered to the Naval Reserve and two additional C–40A’s will be delivered by the end of this year. The C–40A delivery begins the process of increasing safety, improving compatibility and meeting environmental requirements. Our goal is to replace all 27 of our aged Navy C–9 aircraft and 2 Marine Corps Reserve C–9 aircraft at a rate of three per year.

My aging, but well maintained, P–3 aircraft assets are in need of modernization upgrades in the form of Block Modification Upgrade Program (BMUP) and

Aircraft Improvement Program (AIP) kits. These kits provide new mission computers and acoustic sensors to achieve a common P–3C configuration with our

fleet counterparts.

In addition, two of our four F/A–18 Hornet aircraft squadrons will benefit

from the purchase of 28 upgrade kits that will improve radar systems, armament controls, weapons station wiring and cockpit indicators. We are pursuing

funding to purchase 12 additional ECP–560 kits to outfit our third F/A–18

squadron.

—Navy and Marine Corps Intranet.—The NMCI is an opportunity for the Reserve

Force to show the way in integrating the best in Information Technology. We

are replacing disparate 20-year old systems with a unified system accessible by

fleet commanders and Reserve units alike.

—Real estate maintenance and management.—With the Naval Reserve as a landlord for 1,224 structures (average age of 33 years) on 6,800 acres in all 50

states, and Puerto Rico, maintenance and efficient management are issues of

continued concern.

Summary

Our primary mission—before and after Sept. 11—has been to support the Navy/

Marine Corps Team throughout the full range of operations, from peace to war. At

this time, it is war. Fortunately, we are a well-trained force dedicated to enduring

freedoms. In the words of Edmund Burke, ‘‘The only thing necessary for the triumph

of evil is for good men to do nothing.’’ I am very fortunate to have good men—and

women—in my Force, and we are truly fighting the good fight and meeting the

threats posed to us, as we must. As the War on Terrorism unveils we will all be

called to serve. The Naval Reserve is ready to answer the call.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Admiral. General

Sherrard.

General SHERRARD. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, indeed, it is

my pleasure also to represent the 74,000 plus men and women of

the Air Force Reserve in telling you a little bit about our accomplishments of last year. Thanks to the great support of this committee we were able to achieve more than 105 percent of our recruiting goal and achieve an end strength of almost 101 percent.

And our retention numbers I’m very proud to tell you for last year

were 89 percent overall, with a high of 92 percent in the officer,

and our career enlisted maintaining 91 percent.

With the tragic events of September 11th, the whole world

changed, as we all know, and I’m very proud to say as my colleagues have already expressed before, and my friends in the Marines will express after me, the men and women of our Reserve

forces along with all our fellow active members stepped forward,

and were so very proud to know that they stood there ready to do
285

the duties that they had in fact agreed to do many many years ago,

and were able to do that.

In doing that I will tell you that today we have more than 12,800

Air Force Reserve members activated, more than 2,300 of them in

the Area of Responsibility (AOR). We currently have demobilized

98 individuals, that is all we have demobilized, sir, and we continue to have between 2,400 to 2,600 on average volunteers working today supporting Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, as well as other requirements that the Air Force has that we

are so very proud to say that as full team partners and players,

we are allowed to do those missions.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

I would also tell you that we have some concerns and challenges,

and as was just mentioned by Admiral Totushek, recruiting and retention remains number one, because people are our number one

issue. And as we go through the recruiting and retention, the fact

that stop loss has been implemented, there are fewer active duty

members that are separating, our recruiting efforts are truly very

large this year. Thanks to the support the committee has given us

in the past with the additional 50 recruiters, I am confident we will

be successful. We are currently over 100 percent, actually at 102

percent of our end strength, but that again, realizing that stop loss

certainly helps with your recruiting and retention efforts, we will

have to continue to make certain that when stop loss in fact starts

to ease that we will have to work very hard to maintain our numbers.

CURRENT BONUS SYSTEMS

In doing so, I would tell you that one of our key goals is to maintain those members of experience that we have. All of our current

bonus systems stop with the bonus period at the 20-year point. I

personally believe that it is very very important that we retain

those members from the 20-year point to their high year tenure if

they are enlisted, or to their mandatory separation date on the officer side. It is critical. This experience base is what America has

made an investment in each one of us, and we must retain these

talents.

Likewise, I would tell you of the great concerns of what impact

stop loss will have in the future is still unknown. The small numbers that have been released to date are such that it is very difficult to make any assessment as to losses we may have in the future as we come off of that and start our demobilization process

when the requirements no longer exist.

The other key point I want to make, and this is a thanks, but

that is a concern also, we say thanks to the employers for their

great support but it’s also a concern in our sustainment of that

high level of interest that the employers have taken in our members and the support they have provided.

EMPLOYER SUPPORT

We continue to need, just as my colleagues have expressed before

me, full-time support. As we have gone through the changes that
286

September 11th has created in our force, we have found that we,

in fact, do need more full-time support, particularly at our host locations, to do the things that we’re being asked to do.

MODERNIZATION

We will need to continue to modernize our force so that we’re relevant and able to do the things that the active force expects us to

do, and that our weapon systems are compatible and can deliver

the precision munitions that, in fact, are necessary for us to carry

out the very, very challenging tasks that face us.

I thank you and the committee for your continuing support and

I stand ready, sir, to answer any questions that you may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES E. SHERRARD III

Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee,

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. Thank you for your continuing support, which has helped your Air Force Reserve address vital recruiting,

retention, transformation/modernization, and infrastructure needs. Your passage of

last year’s pay and quality of life initiatives were especially important as your actions sent an unmistakable message to our citizen airmen that their efforts are truly

appreciated.

I am pleased to tell you that the Air Force Reserve continues to be a force of

choice for the Air Force and the war fighting Commanders in Chiefs (CINCs), whenever an immediate and effective response is required to meet the challenges of today’s world.

The Air Force has enjoyed over 30 years of unparalleled Total Force integration

success. Today, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) members are performing in almost every mission area within our Air Force including the war on terrorism, and

we plan to seek involvement in all future mission areas, as they evolve. Key to our

successes, to date, is the fact that AFRC is a very dynamic organization in a rapidly

changing environment, and we are finding new and advanced ways to seamlessly

link all our forces in both peace and war.

In the Air Force Reserve, our priorities are People, Readiness, and Transformation/Modernization and it is toward these key areas that our attention is focused to assure that our members are provided the full spectrum of training opportunities which ensure they achieve and enhance their war-fighting skills and capabilities. We put people first, emphasize readiness, and continue to seek balanced,

time-phased transformation/modernization and infrastructure programs.

People are our most important asset. In an effort to retain our best and brightest,

we must continue to reward our people through compensation and promotion and

ensure they know their efforts are appreciated. We need to look after their families

while they are deployed and reach out to their employers with our thanks for their

support. We must ensure that there is open dialogue among the troops and from

the troops through their appropriate chain of command to me to insure we’re meeting their needs while fulfilling the needs of our Air Force in the best manner possible. More than ever, we need to continue to partner with you to ensure we maintain the strongest air force in the world.

Today’s Air Force is a fantastic 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 side-by-side. You can’t tell us apart and that’s the

way it should be. The bottom line is that when the Air Force goes to war, enforces

a peace agreement, or undertakes prolonged humanitarian missions anywhere in

the world, the Air Force Reserve will be there. During my comments today, I will

discuss the status of many of our Air Force Reserve programs.

HIGHLIGHTS OF 2001

Until September 11th, fiscal year 2001 had been shaping up to be one of our most

productive ever. Our key goals had been to achieve our authorized manning levels,

continue to improve retention of our talented members, meet the extensive Reserve

commitments to the Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) and execute our Flying

Hour Program as authorized in the fiscal year 2001 Defense Budget. The hard work

of the men and women of the Air Force Reserve assured we attained our goals and,
287

even more, met the many additional challenges presented following the September

attacks.

We exceeded our fiscal year 2001 end strength authorization; achieving a final

manning percentage of 100.6 percent of our authorized end strength. This was possible only through outstanding efforts of our recruiters, who accessed 105 percent

of our recruiting goal, and with the superb assistance of our assigned personnel who

help tell our story of the true value of service to country. Likewise, we exceeded our

command retention goals for officers, first-term airman, second-term airman and career airman by achieving retention rates of 92.1 percent, 81.7 percent, 79.6 percent

and 91.4 percent respectively. The overall command retention rate of 89.3 percent

is the result of great teamwork by members, first sergeants, supervisors and commanders who led us to this exceptional achievement.

We are also very proud of our Air Expeditionary Force contributions in 2001. We

have met virtually 100 percent of both aviation and combat support commitments,

deploying 14,000∂ personnel in volunteer status in the current 15-month AEF cycle

(1 Dec 2000–28 Feb 2002). The challenge for 2002 will be to meet ongoing AEF commitments, with volunteers, while striving to support the additional demands required to support Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, from a Reserve

force which has had much of its operations and combat support mobilized for homeland defense and the war on terrorism.

Through the dedicated efforts of our operators and maintainers, along with assistance from our support personnel, AFRC flew 99.5 percent of the Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) funded portion of our flying hour program. Due to the lack of

available cargo and passengers, we, like our fellow active duty and ANG partners,

were unable to fly the full Transportation Working Capital Fund (TWCF) commitment. However, overall, this was our best year of flying hour execution within the

past five years.

Air Force Reserve Command personnel participated in several key operational exercises in which combat training events were accomplished by our members, while

critical command and control processes were tested and evaluated to determine

overall readiness of our military forces. Pacific Warrior was a medical exercise conducted in Hawaii in which AFRC was the lead Air Force agent. Deployment and

redeployment consisted of 72 missions, 1,030 passengers and 445 short tons of

equipment and supplies. Ground and aeromedical patient care and evacuation was

conducted utilizing all deployable specialties assigned within the Air Force Medical

Service. More than 1,000 patients were treated and 533 patients were evacuated by

aeromedical missions. Over 400 patients were moved via C–130 aircraft in the tactical phase and 130 patients were moved in the strategic phase. Additionally, units

performed a pre-F3 (form, fit and function) on proposed new manpower packages to

validate proposed innovations in aeromedical support.

Exercise Consequence Island was a large Veterans Administration and Federal

Emergency Management Agency-sponsored exercise in Puerto Rico to evaluate

United States response capabilities to a Weapons of Mass Destruction attack. A big

emphasis was on post attack health care delivery and aeromedical evacuation.

AFRC provided the majority of airlift and aeromedical evacuation capabilities. The

long hours and changing dynamics of the exercise proved to be very realistic, and

the hard work, dedication, and problem solving abilities demonstrated by our Reserve forces made the exercise a big success.

Another operation with heavy AFRC involvement this past year was Operation

Palmetto Ghost, which is the resupply mission for Army counter-drug operations in

the Caribbean. Each quarter, this requirement calls for a significant number of strategic and tactical airlift sorties, as well as a Tactical Airlift Control Element

(TALCE) for command and control on the ground. Though this mission is not assigned specifically to the Air Force Reserve, we stepped up to provide the majority

of the airlift support with C–5s, C–17s, C–141s, and C–130s, and provided 100 percent of the TALCE support.

The past year saw the Reserve enhance their continued role in training pilots for

all Air Force components. As the Air Force determined a requirement to increase

the production of fighter pilots, it became evident that our training capability needed to increase as well. To meet that demand, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force directed the Air Force Reserve to convert a combat flying unit to a training flying

unit. The 944th Fighter Wing at Luke AFB, Arizona now trains active duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command pilots in all phases of the F–16 formal training program. This program utilizes its unit-equipped aircraft and instructor pilots assigned to the 302d Fighter Squadron and the instructor pilots assigned

to the 301st Fighter Squadron, the Air Forces’ only associate F–16 training organization. This associate squadron is an integral part of the overall Air Force training
288

capability. Through its use of highly experienced instructor pilots, it is truly the

benchmark upon which all future operational training needs will be measured.

The Air Force Reserve Associate SUPT (Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training) Instructor Pilot Program is managed by the 340th Flying Training Group at

Randolph AFB, Texas. They provide administrative control for Reserve flying training squadrons at six Air Force bases; Laughlin, Randolph, and Sheppard in Texas,

Columbus AFB, Mississippi, Moody AFB, Georgia, and Vance AFB, Oklahoma. The

units are associate in nature and belong to the host active duty flying training wing

for operational control. They provide programmed flying training support for all

phases of SUPT. Overall, the AETC/AFRC Associate Instructor Pilot Program provides 16 percent of all Air Force SUPT training capability.

September 11, 2001 changed life in the United States forever, and its impact on

Air Force Reserve operations will also be felt for a long time to come. Perhaps more

so than any other potential scenario for military operations, it highlighted the huge

importance and unique missions of the Air Force Reserve.

Air Force Reserve aeromedical evacuation (AE) aircrews were among the first to

respond and provided almost half of the immediate AE response that was provided.

Tragically, we found there was little need for their service. The larger need was in

mortuary affairs support, of which the Air Force Reserve provides more than 75 percent of our Air Force’s capability. 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 air refueling tankers immediately began pulling airborne and

ground alert to provide combat air patrol support over major U.S. cities. They were

quickly joined by our Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircrews and

our C–130 aircrews under the direction of NORAD in support of Operation Noble

Eagle.

The response of our Reservists in this time of crisis has been simply overwhelming. Over 12,400 Air Force Reservists have been mobilized, and thousands

more continue to provide daily support as volunteers.

More than three thousand of those mobilized are Individual Mobilization

Augmentees (IMAs), providing critical support to the Unified Commands,

MAJCOMs, and various defense agencies supporting Homeland Security efforts. Required support functions span the entire breadth of Reserve capabilities—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, and medical. Never

have I been so proud to be part of the outstanding group of patriots who make up

the Air Force Reserve Command.

Equally important to the Air Force Reserve Command’s ability to meet the requirements being levied on us is family and employer support. Their sacrifices and

support make it possible for our members to carry out their duties in such a spectacular manner.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

As previously highlighted, significant progress has been made in Air Force Reserve recruiting and retention. However, my principal concern today remains attracting and retaining high quality people.

Recruiting

In fiscal year 2001, the AFRC exceeded its recruiting goal for the first time in

five years. Also, we surpassed our fiscal year 2001 end strength by achieving a final

manning percentage of 100.6 percent of our authorized end strength. This was possible only through outstanding efforts of our recruiters, who accessed 105 percent

of our recruiting goal, and with the superb assistance of our assigned personnel who

help tell our story of the true value of service to country. Several initiatives contributed to Reserve recruiting success. In fiscal year 2001, Air Force Reserve Command

(AFRC) with great Congressional support increased recruiter authorizations by 50,

instituted a new call center, redesigned the web site, launched a ‘‘Prior Service

Other’’ advertising campaign, and re-energized the ‘‘Get One Program’’ in which current Air Force Reserve members give recruiters referrals. Air Force Reserve recruiting leads all other services in monthly accessions with 3.55 per recruiter.

While fiscal year 2001 was an outstanding year for Reserve recruiting, fiscal year

2002 is shaping up to be a very demanding year. After September 11th, ‘‘Stop Loss’’

was initiated for all service members. Historically, reserve recruiting directly accesses 25 percent of eligible members (i.e. no break in service) separating from ac-
289

tive duty which accounts for a total of 30 percent of annual AFRC accessions. Recruiting will have to make up that part of the goal, more than 3,000, from other

sources including ‘‘non-prior’’ and ‘‘prior service other’’ (i.e. Air Force separatees

with a break in service or accessions from other services) applicants until stop loss

is lifted. Once lifted, we expect there will be challenges in filling many vacated positions.

One of the biggest challenges for recruiters this year is Basic Military Training

(BMT) quotas. With recruiting services increased emphasis on enlisting non-prior

service applicants, BMT allocations have not kept pace. This problem is projected

to worsen this year as a result of stop-loss since more non-prior applicants will have

to be accessed to offset the decrease in members separating from active duty. We

are working diligently to increase our number of BMT allocations and explore solutions to address BMT shortfalls.

A new recruiting initiative we are currently implementing focuses on bringing

back retired military members. We are actively encouraging retired members to continue serving their country by returning to active service in the Air Force Reserve.

By accessing retired military members, the Air Force Reserve and Total Force

benefit by gaining personnel with proven experience, training, and leadership talents. Moreover, we save valuable training dollars and benefit from the specialty

skills, experience and knowledge these individuals already possess. Once returned,

members earn additional pay, retirement points, years of service, and promotion opportunity serving active reserve duty. Accessed members may continue serving as

long as eligible under High-Year Tenure (HYT) guidelines, Mandatory Separation

Date (MSD), or until age 60. This scenario presents a ‘‘win-win’’ situation for the

member and the Air Force and allows valued service members the ability to continue serving while providing a vast amount of technical and mentoring experience

to our USAFR. We are processing our first applicants and have discovered a couple

of obstacles to effective implementation along the way.

Retention

The Air Force Reserve exceeded Command retention goals for first term airman,

second term airman and career airman during fiscal year 2001. Again, it was the

team effort of the members, first sergeants, supervisors and commanders that led

us to this exceptional achievement.

At the end of CY 2001, Air Force Reserve Command was paying enlistment/reenlistment bonuses in 67 percent of its traditional reserve enlisted specialty codes and

50 percent of the enlisted individual mobilization augmentee specialty codes.

The Air Force Reserve is currently exploring the possibility of expanding bonus

authorities for air reserve technicians and certain career fields for active Guard and

Reserve members. These initiatives are designed to enhance both recruiting and retention of key, experienced Reserve component assets who are vital to our ability

to continue to meet the Air Force taskings needed to support the war fighting

CINCs. Additionally, special duty pay initiatives are also being studied for later implementation for senior enlisted positions such as command chief master sergeants

and unit first sergeants.

Quality of Life Initiatives

To provide increased financial benefit to its members, the USAFR began enrollment of its members in the congressionally authorized Uniformed Services Thrift

Savings Plan in October 2001. This program allows members to augment their retirement income through ‘‘401(k)’’ type investment accounts.

To better provide insurance benefits for members, we began implementation of the

family coverage Service Member’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program. This program allows the spouse and children of a service member to be covered for specified

SGLI insurance coverage amounts. The enhanced coverage program allows service

members and their families to take advantage of a comprehensive insurance package that might not be otherwise available to them.

In summary, the matter of recruiting and retention is an issue of major concern

to me, and we are taking positive steps to address ongoing recruiting and retention

challenges as I lead the Air Force Reserve in this new millenium.

READINESS AND TRANSFORMATION/MODERNIZATION

Readiness

As full participants in the Total Air Force, our readiness remains fair overall. At

present, the Air Force as a whole is in the process of addressing a significant decline

in readiness levels due to sustained OPTEMPO, cumulative effect of chronic underfunding, declining skill-level manning and aging equipment. It will take several

years of significant investment to restore readiness through substantial and sus-
290

tained recapitalization of people, equipment, infrastructure, and ‘‘info’’-structure.

Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom will also require a reconstitution period to regain pre-attack readiness levels. Reserve units have comparable equipment

in quantities proportional to their active duty counterparts and participate in dayto-day operations, exercises, and training. Reserve units train to active duty standards and receive regular inspections from their gaining major commands.

Our 70 assigned F–16s, using the information being provided through the

LITENING II targeting pod combined with Global Positioning System (GPS) software enhancements, provide a remarkable precision munitions delivery capability.

This outstanding capability, combined with the information being provided through

the Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL), give our pilots a capability that is acknowledged as one of the weapon systems of choice for combat missions. We have

seen in operations in Southwest Asia, both in Iraq and most recently in Afghanistan, how this capability in the hands of our experienced pilots provides combatant

commanders the ability to conduct attacks against ‘‘time-critical targets’’ in conjunction with the Predator. The F–16 pilot can put a laser mark on the target for confirmation by the Predator controller. So now, the Predator and its controller are operating as a Forward Air Controller from a remote location.

Our B–52 aircrews were among the first to deploy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Their efforts have been superb and clearly demonstrated the value of

this weapon system in today’s arsenal of capabilities. While the B–52 was first built

50 years ago, it shows, on a daily basis, it has a ‘‘mean bite’’ and remains the enemy’s ‘‘worst nightmare’’.

Transformation/Modernization

As AFRC continues to work within the Active Component structure, transformation/modernization is key to our ability to provide like capability for deployed

operations and homeland defense. This is true across our airlift/special mission

areas, as well as with our bomber, fighter, and aerial refueling aircraft.

As AFRC moves into the future and we analyze our interoperability with the Active Component (AC), a key issue is our ability to work within the AC structure

while providing like capability. AFRC has 127 C–130s including the E, H, J and the

N/P models. Air Mobility Command, as the lead command for C–130 modernization,

has published a ‘‘Road Map’’ detailing the fleet modernization schedule. Near term

modernization specifics for the AFRC C–130 fleet are additional removable cockpit

armor sets for deploying aircraft, traffic alert and collision avoidance systems, autopilot replacements and night vision compatible aircraft lighting systems. Specifically

for the HC–130, we have equipped nine HC–130’s with the APN–241 navigation

ground map radar to improve aircrew survivability and weapon system reliability.

Also in the combat search and rescue area we are beginning the upgrade of the forward-looking infrared for the HH–60G helicopter fleet.

AFRC equipment is compatible to support all applicable Air Force missions. One

exceptional highlight is the 10 WC–130H aircraft at Keesler Air Force Base, MS

soon to be replaced by 10 WC–130J models. These aircraft and crews are specially

trained and equipped to penetrate severe storms while collecting and transmitting

data to a special ground station. The extensive meteorological data necessary to

track and forecast the movement of these severe storms requires a dedicated aircraft

with special equipment and crew.

There are 52 O/A–10 aircraft assigned to the Air Force Reserve inventory. Plans

call for upgrading all A–10 aircraft with the revamped precision engagement program that will incorporate Situational Awareness Data Link, targeting pods, and

smart weapons capability. This precision engagement modification, with its major

upgrade in communications, is a key stepping stone that will be key to keeping the

current ground attack fighters (F–16, F–15E and A–10) compatible with the next

generation of information intensive ground attack system, the Joint Strike Fighter.

AFRC’s 70 KC–135E/R aircraft provide about 13 percent of the Air Force’s KC–

135 aerial refueling capability. In an effort to increase reliability and sustainability,

the Air Force began a KC–135 engine retrofit in 1996. There are 16 AFRC KC–135E

aircraft requiring upgrades to the KC–135R configuration.

In addition, transformation/modernization of the avionics and navigation systems

on all Air Force KC–135 continues, including those in the AFRC inventory. Called

Pacer CRAG (compass, radar and global positioning system), the project provides for

a major overhaul of the KC–135 cockpit to improve the reliability and maintainability of the aircraft’s compass and radar systems.

The project also meets the congressionally mandated requirement to install the

global positioning system in all Defense Department aircraft. As an added safety

measure for formation flying, a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) will be in-
291

stalled. TCAS will give pilots the ability to actively monitor other aircraft and will

provide advance warning of possible mid-air collisions.

In 2002 we will continue to work closely with Air Mobility Command to finalize

the Air Staff led Mobility Tiger Team beddown plan for the C–17 aircraft and establish viable, long-term replacement missions for our C–141 locations. Currently our

C–141s are scheduled to leave the inventory starting in fiscal year 2004. AMC is

working hard to insure Reserve mobility experience is preserved and follow-on missions for these units are a top Air Force priority. A great deal of work remains to

be done and senior leaders at Air Force Reserve Command are engaged at every

level. Already funding has been secured to ensure our C–141 manpower is retained;

operation and maintenance dollars will follow once replacement missions are finalized in the 2004 program.

NEW MISSIONS

In the 21st Century, the U.S. Air Force anticipates deriving its strength from the

flexibility and diversity of its integrated Active Duty, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard more than ever before. Optimum use of Air Force component resources

is critical in providing the complete potential of American aerospace power. Future

campaigns will include new ways to optimize the active, Reserve, and Guard components to make the best use of our resources and people and to build on a foundation

of high standards and strong cooperation among the components.

September 11th attacks have brought homeland security to the forefront with the

publication of Executive Order 13228 establishing the Office of Homeland Security.

Total Force components are being called upon to counter a new class of foreign and

domestic terrorist threats with both defensive and offensive actions. Air Force Reserve Command has begun the process of identifying and coordinating the extent

of its role and participation in Homeland Defense. Among foreseeable needs relating

to this vital mission are augmentation of existing security forces, firefighters, and

home station operational support personnel, both full-time and traditional reserve.

Both AFRC and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) see space as a growing mission area in which AFRC can help support the Department of Defense and national

requirements. To that end we will maintain our work with AFSPC in the determination of long-range plans in space operations and support. We currently provide over

eight percent of total Air Force Space Capability and have the capacity to contribute

even more within this growing mission.

Our 310th Space Group at Schriever AFB, Colorado provides direct war fighter

support to 14th Air Force at Vandenberg AFB, California. In addition, many AFRC

squadrons and units have been established within AFSPC to provide full mission

support, including satellite operators that provide support for Global Positioning

System and Defense Support Program surge requirements.

The 6th Satellite Operations Squadron, the only unit-equipped space squadron in

AFRC, operates the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program in support of both the

Commerce Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Full- and part-time operational augmentation to the Space-Based Infrared Radar

System at Buckley AFB, Colorado, the Satellite Operations Center at Vandenberg

AFB, California, and the 17th Test Squadron at the Space Warfare Center at

Schriever AFB, Colorado, round out our current involvement in the space mission

area. As we develop our synergistic relationship with AFSPC, we continue to look

at additional mission area projects for potential implementation.

AFRC has one existing Air Operations Center (AOC) supporting organization—the

701st Combat Operations Squadron, March ARB, California. This unit represents

approximately 33 percent of the current AOC units, with active component units in

Korea and Germany, and Air National Guard units in Missouri and New York.

Plans for at least three additional AOC units are projected for this year and beyond,

with one additional tasking for an AFRC organization. All command and control

units will provide equipment and/or manning support for an eventual 19 AOC units

for aerospace command and control operations worldwide. Eventual crew and equipment standardization will promote effective aerospace command and control in the

United States and abroad.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Air Force Reserve supports the Air Force mission to defend the United States

through control and exploitation of air and space by providing global reach and global power. As we have repeatedly witnessed, the Air Force Reserve Command plays

an integral role in the day-to-day Air Force mission and is not a force held in reserve for possible war or contingency operations.
292

The events of September 11th clearly changed our normal manner of business as

we continue to fulfill the needs of our Nation, maintain our increased vigilance, and

prepare for the unexpected. As we are presented with new and challenging missions,

I remain confident in the tremendous capabilities of Reservists to measure up to the

task.

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.

Based on the actions of Reservists over the past year and especially since September 11th, I’m sure the challenge will be met by the outstanding men and women

assigned to Air Force Reserve Command. It is these hardworking, professional and

patriotic individuals who are the heart and soul of the command. Our accomplishments during this past year are the accomplishments of everyday Americans who

are proud to serve.

In summary, Air Force Reserve Command is committed to meeting our people,

readiness and transformation/modernization challenges, to remain a fully integrated

partner with the Air Force. Reservists with the support of their families and civilian

employers enable AFRC to be fully combat capable and meet its worldwide commitments.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your committee once again for your assistance

in making us part of the worlds best Air Force, the USAF. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with the committee today to share my views with you and I look forward to answering any questions you might have for me.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General Sherrard. We

just had another vote, so that’s why Senator Stevens has left. General McCarthy.

General MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the

committee. It is a great honor for me to appear and to report to

you on the status of your Marine Corps Reserve. I challenged the

Marine Corps Reserve when I assumed command last June to be

ready, willing and able, and I believe that they have amply met

and demonstrated that level of capability.

We have gone through since September 11th a very measured

call-up of reserves from the Marine Corps Reserve. We have called

about 4,400 at our height, we are somewhere in the neighborhood

of 4,300 plus now. The Commandant, as we say, scrubbed us with

a wire brush in terms of scrutinizing the requirements so we did

not call up anybody who was extra or excess, and I believe we met

that challenge.

We are now going to demobilize about 500 of those marines over

the next couple of months and I am working with my fellow force

commanders to make sure that we do that in the most responsible

way so that we don’t negatively impact either individual marines

who have made a commitment to us by coming on active duty, or

their employers, who have made the sacrifice of supporting them.

The focus of our call-up has been on combat units. We have

called infantry battalions, heavy lift helicopter squadrons, and a

number of individuals, but primarily units, and those units have

filled a variety of missions, continue to do so, and again, proven

their worth as part of the total force of the Marine Corps.

We do have some equipment issues which I have outlined in my

written statement and again, they involve modernizing primarily

our equipment, but I would tell you that with some very, very

small shortfalls, if we had to go to war today with the equipment

we have, your Marine Corps Reserve would achieve its goals and

would meet its mission. But we do that in large part because of the

past support we received from this committee, and I guarantee you
293

that any future support that the committee sees fit to provide, we

will put to the absolute highest and best use.

I look forward to being able or at least trying to respond to any

questions that you or the committee may have. Thank you, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. MCCARTHY

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens 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

The Marine Corps Reserve continues to make an extraordinary contribution at

home and abroad, most evident now during this time of crisis. Today we have

172,600 Marines in the Active Component and another 39,558 in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR). This force can be expanded by drawing from the 60,000

Marines who serve in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). As an integral part of

our Total Force, Reserve Marines augment and reinforce the Active Component by

performing a variety of missions in wartime and in peacetime.

The Marine Corps Reserve today is a daily use force, not just dedicated solely to

supporting a Major Theater War effort. Our contribution to Total Force requirements, measured in terms of work-days, has doubled from an average of 150,000

work-days per year, to well over 300,000 in recent years. This fiscal year, the Marine Corps Reserve is assuming the Marine portion of the United American States

(UNITAS) deployment around South America, a major OPTEMPO relief effort. The

goal is to assign the UNITAS deployment to the Reserve every other year. We are

using the Reserve for manpower augmentation to Active and Reserve staffs, units,

and exercise forces by providing short-term and full-time personnel to plan and perform training, administration, maintenance and logistical support not otherwise

available through existing manpower levels or traditional Reserve participation

(drills and annual training). These additional personnel are also of absolute necessity in maintaining our ability to plan and participate in OPTEMPO relief operations, Joint and Combined Exercises, and essential combat, combat support, and

combat service support training. To meet Total Force training and support requirements, sufficient funding in Special Training and ADSW–AC is critical.

Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom

The mobilization of our Reserves for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has

been a very deliberate and prudent process. The Commandant of the Marine Corps,

General Jones, has stressed the need to scrutinize and validate every request for

Reserve support. The priority mission for the Reserve is to augment and reinforce

the operating forces; therefore, the Marine Corps must remain judicious in committing its Reserves to ‘‘other’’ missions. The relatively low number of mobilized Marines reflects this prudent approach.

The partial mobilization authorized by President Bush gave the Marine Corps full

access to the IRR. This pool of trained and experienced Reserves has always been

particularly important to the Marine Corps to fill critical individual augmentation

requirements. In order to avoid disrupting the lives of our IRR members and their

families, our goal has been to activate those Marines most ready and willing to

serve. Our Reserve Career Management Team added a database link to their wellestablished website for individual reserves to identify themselves and their skills

and their availability for activation. The database has been used to assess individuals with specific skills and fill validated requirements.

At the end of March, 4,400 Marine Reserve personnel were activated in support

of the Global War on Terrorism. The missions assigned to our Reserves in the

GWOT are a clear reflection that Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES) possesses

capabilities across the full spectrum of military operations.

—A detachment from Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 234 is forward

deployed providing support for operations in theater.

—Two provisional security platoons have relieved two Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons of the security mission at U.S. Naval Base, Guanta-
294

namo Bay, Cuba. This mission has become even more critical since the arrival

of Joint Task Force (JTF) 160 and the detainees.

—Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron (HMH) 772 is preparing to deploy its CH–

53’s and personnel with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

—2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines serves as a ready reaction force in support of

Homeland Security.

—2nd Battalion, 25th Marines serves as an integral part of 2nd Marine Division.

—Civil affairs and intelligence detachments are augmenting I and II Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) staffs, along with detachments from our MEF Augmentation Command Elements.

Our close partnership with the U.S. Navy has been evident in the mobilization

process. When two platoons from Company B, 1st Battalion, 23rd Marines were mobilized in early November, their Navy Reserve Program Nine corpsmen were mobilized on the same timeline and deployed with the Marines to Guantanamo Bay. This

success from one of our first unit activations has carried over to subsequent activations and is directly attributable to the close coordination of our Marines and their

Navy counterparts. Also, for the first time we have activated the Medical Augmentation Program, which provides active duty Navy personnel to support certain SMCR

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 Marine Forces Reserve.

MARINES AND THEIR FAMILIES

Our future success relies firmly on the Marine Corps’ most valuable asset—our

Marines and their families. From provisional security platoons manning the fence

line at the U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, to a reaction force ready to respond

to terrorist attacks on American soil, the men and women of your Marine Corps Reserve are ready, willing and able to answer the call to duty.

Recruiting and Retention

We need your continued support to attract and retain quality men and women in

the Marine Corps Reserve. While we experienced a surge in prior service recruiting

after Sept. 11, finding the right people to serve as Marines remains a challenging

endeavor. This year our prior service recruiters were integrated with Marine Corps

Recruiting Command (which has always had our non-prior service recruiting mission) to provide more synergy in our overall recruiting effort. Our mission is to find

those potential 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.

During the past fiscal year we achieved 102 percent of our recruiting goals for

both prior service and non-prior service Marines. It was not easy! Our retention

rates for Reserve enlisted Marines who stay beyond their initial obligation are also

improving. We do, however, still have some work to do in keeping non-prior service

Reserve Marines in a satisfactory participation status for the full length of their obligated drilling commitment. The incentives provided by Congress, such as the

Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) and the MGIB Kicker (Kicker) educational benefits,

enlistment bonuses, medical and dental benefits, and commissary and exchange

shopping privileges, have helped us to attract and to retain capable, motivated, and

dedicated Marines, which has contributed to the stability of our Force.

The MGIB and the Kicker, which provide up to $600.00 per month for college, are

our most popular incentives. But, they compete with more lucrative educational enticements offered by the National Guard. I appreciate the additional MGIB funding

the Congress provided in fiscal year 2001. It expanded our ability to offer the Kicker

to more Marines in critical billets and it helped to level the field of competition between the Guard and the Reserve Component.

Many of our Reserve Marines serve initially in the Active Component, which contributes significantly to our total force concept. We staff transitional recruiting stations at Marine Corps bases and stations to begin the prior service recruiting process before Marines leave active duty. Congressional support for increased educational benefits and reenlistment and affiliation bonuses in fiscal year 2001 helped

us attract these Marines to join and to stay in our units. During that year, not only

did we exceed our enlisted accession goal, but unit attrition decreased by two percentage points to 27.1 percent, well within our target range.
295

Maintaining overall SMCR end-strength at 39,558 (including 2,261 Active Reserves) will ensure the Marine Corps Reserve’s capability to provide OPTEMPO and

PERSTEMPO relief to Active Marine Forces, maintain sufficient full-time support

at our small unit sites, and retain critical aviation and ground equipment maintenance capabilities. The current Marine Forces Reserve force structure also reflects

a small tooth-to-tail ratio with a minimal number of active duty personnel in support of a majority of deployable warfighters.

Our Career Management Team (CMT) continues to expand its efforts to support

‘‘Career Reservists’’—those Marine officers and enlisted who have completed their

initial obligation and who remain affiliated. The CMT staff provides record reviews

and counseling, offers career guidance, and communicates promotion information to

assist and guide Reserve Marines in making the best possible career decisions. Via

the CMT Website, Marines can access CMT services as well as find and apply for

open Reserve billets and ADSW opportunities using the Reserve Duty On-Line

(RDOL) database. RDOL replaces the Reserve Career Management Support System

and allows units to advertise billet vacancies and ADSW opportunities and provides

units with online visibility of Marines who are actively seeking Reserve career options. RDOL will also be the linchpin in our effort to leverage the civilian job skills

of our Marines. We want to stratify the IRR to tap into skills not associated with

traditional Marine Corps military occupational specialties but needed for special assignments. The RDOL will include the capability to capture and maintain data on

civilian job skills, as well as allowing Reserve Marines to identify their periods of

availability.

Our benchmark for achieving our goals is simple—‘‘One Corps, One Standard’’ for

all Marines, Active and Reserve. The Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS),

our single integrated personnel and pay system, encompasses the records of all Marines in a single logical database. To meet the unique requirements of the Reserve,

we are constructing MCTFS compatible automated systems to reduce costs and provide better service to our Marines. An example is the Reserve Order Writing System

(ROWS), fielded just last month, which integrates our orders request and writing

systems and facilitates reconciliation of funding obligations, thereby expediting orders and travel processing for our Reserves coming on active duty. We actively participate in development of the Total Force Administration initiatives, a Marine

Corps program to update and further automate our Manpower Management System.

The U.S. Navy continues to directly support MARFORRES personnel readiness by

providing over 2,700 medical, dental, religious, and naval gunfire support staff. I enthusiastically support the Navy plan to fund a full 15-day annual training for these

sailors in fiscal year 2002 and out. Our joint training is essential to the successful

accomplishment of our training and operational mission.

Quality of Life

Our Commandant has made it clear that combat readiness and personal and family readiness are inseparable. We are aggressively working to strengthen the readiness of our Marines and families by enhancing their quality of life (QOL).

One of our top concerns is the provision of an affordable health care benefit for

Reserve Marines as they transition to and from periods of active duty, which we believe is necessary to support the increased use of the Reserve. Switching into and

out of TRICARE clearly adds to the burdens the families bear when the Reserve

member is called away.

Our many MARFORRES Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS) programs

and services are designed and being developed 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. One area of which I am particularly proud is our

Marine Corps Family Team Building program. During the past three years we have

made a considerable commitment and investment in building, training, and supporting family readiness teams—comprised of Marines and volunteers—at sites and

units across the Force. In short, these teams are vital to our family readiness efforts

prior to, during, and after a deployment or mobilization. Our other MCCS programs

include chaplain delivered retreats; physical fitness and healthy lifestyle programs;

children, youth, and teen support; and continuing education programs just to name

a few. Much work remains to extend MCCS programs and services to our unique

Force, but even today MCCS is positively impacting our mobilization readiness.

The most sacred honor we can provide veterans is that of a military funeral. The

active duty staff members and Reserve Marines at our 185 manned sites performed

approximately 5,750 funerals in 2001 and we project to support approximately 7,000

funerals this year. The authorization and funding to bring Reserve Marines on active duty to perform funeral honors has particularly assisted us at sites like Bridge-
296

ton, MO, where we perform several funerals each week. We appreciate Congress exempting these Marines from counting against active duty end strength. Furthermore, as a result of the increase in funeral honors, we have realized increased operations and maintenance costs associated with vehicle maintenance and fuel for

transportation of funeral honors duties and for the cleaning and maintenance of

dress uniforms. Continued support for military funeral honors funding, in our Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance accounts, is critical to ensuring mission success in this most worthwhile endeavor.

The Marine For Life Program is being developed to achieve the Commandant’s vision of ‘‘improving assistance for our almost 27,000 Marines each year who honorably leave active service and return to civilian life, while reemphasizing the value

of an honorable discharge.’’ The Marine For Life Program will enhance current assistance by providing valuable sponsorship to these Marines as they transition to

civilian life. 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. The program will foster a mutually supportive life-long relationship between the Marine, the Corps, and the public that we

serve, thereby strengthening our ethos of ‘‘Once A Marine, Always A Marine.’’ The

Marine For Life program has entered the formal acquisition process and initial operational capability with at least 50 Hometown Links across America will be achieved

by this summer.

CURRENT READINESS

The general state of readiness in the Marine Corps Reserve today, I am happy

to report, 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 (O&M) 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.

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 our ‘‘youngest’’ platform is the

UC–35 at 4 years, followed by the AH–1W Cobra at 9 years, CH–53E at 14 years,

KC–130T at 16 years, F/A–18A at 18 years, and F–5 at 29 years. Our oldest platform and ones which have exceeded programmed service life include the UH–1N at

31 years (20-year service life) and the CH–46E at 35 years (20-year service life with

‘‘SR&M’’ extension to 30 years). Maintaining these aging legacy platforms requires

increased financial and manpower investment with each passing year due to parts

obsolescence, higher rates of equipment failure, etc. 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, is a growing concern. The

average age of our LVS fleet is 15 years, LAV’s are at 16 years, ROWPU at 17

years, HMMWVA1 at 17 years, 5-ton trucks at 20 years, M–198 at 19 years, and

AAV at 29 years. ROWPU has exceeded its programmed service life and our 5-ton

trucks are at the end of their service life. Maintaining these aging legacy platforms

requires increasing financial and manpower investments for the reasons cited earlier.

In addition to equipment aging, O&M expenses are also being driven upwards by

increasing equipment utilization rates brought about by greater integration and

support to the Active Component, both in peacetime and more recently in support

of the GWOT. Obtaining increased O&M funding is only part of the solution; we are

also pursuing various measures internally to mitigate these trends focusing on better business practices. One example is transferring unit non-essential equipment to

central storage locations for preservation and maintenance.

One of our most immediate readiness challenges is providing adequate NBC protective equipment for our individual Reserve Marines. MARFORRES maintains

NBC protective equipment in quantities sufficient to outfit the Force. Recently, however, a serviceability review resulted in a significant portion of the inventory being

ruled unserviceable. The events of Sept. 11 and subsequent have justifiably elevated

the importance of addressing this deficiency. The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget does not include sufficient funding for this requirement; however, the Commandant has formally recognized this as a deficiency.

We are thankful for and remain confident the additional funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 2002 will ensure the continuing readiness of the Marine Corps
297

Reserve, and we seek your continued enthusiastic support in this President’s Budget.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Investment in infrastructure has been a bill-payer for near-term readiness for

most of the last decade. Maintaining and modernizing our training center infrastructure has become extremely challenging. MARFORRES units are located at 185

sites in 47 states, plus 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

35 percent are over 50 years old. Our costs for facilities operations and maintenance

have increased 20 percent in less than three years. Rising infrastructure costs,

largely beyond our control, challenge our finite resources. The present Military Construction, Naval Reserve (MCNR) backlog is $205 million. Our fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget submission for Military Construction,

Naval Reserve, $12.1 million, is slightly higher than the fiscal year 2002 enacted

level. The fiscal year 2003 request addresses our most pressing requirements—$6

million for a new Reserve Training Center in Savannah, GA; $2 million for a tank

maintenance facility in Syracuse, NY; and $4.1 million for a vehicle maintenance

facility in Waco, TX. The overall condition of Marine Corps Reserve facilities continues to demand a sustained, combined effort of innovative facilities management,

a proactive exploration of and participation in Joint Facility projects, and a welltargeted use of the construction program.

After Sept. 11, we accelerated our Vulnerability Assessment program, completing a two-year effort in six months. This assessment identified $33.6 million in projects

over the next three to four years to resolve anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP)

deficiencies at the 42 sites that we own or otherwise have responsibility for site

maintenance. We will strive to fund these AT/FP requirements in the future.

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

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, with existing legacy systems scrutinized using a business

and risk management approach.

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 ECP–583

Our top modernization priority remains unchanged from fiscal year 2002: upgrading our fleet of 48 F/A–18A Hornet aircraft with Engineering Change Proposal

(ECP)–583. This Marine Corps Total Force program encompasses 76 aircraft, including 28 Active Component aircraft. This ECP converts early lot, non-precision, day

fighter/attack aircraft into F/A–18C Lot 17 equivalent aircraft capable of employing

the newest generation of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance, including JDAM,

JSOW, SLAM-ER, AIM 9X, capable of operating day or night. The ECP replaces the

APG–65 radar with the APG–73, adds GPS to the navigation suite, replaces radios

with ARC–210 and digital communication system (DCS), installs new mission computers and many other components.

The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff stated in recent testimony ‘‘we need to find

ways to modernize and integrate legacy systems where it makes sense.’’ This initiative clearly makes good sense from a business perspective. For the relatively low

cost investment of $4.3 million per aircraft, the combatant commanders will have

access to an additional 76 relevant war-fighting assets. Secondly, with numerous F/

A–18C aircraft nearing service life limits, upgrading these aircraft helps to mitigate

the DON’s TACAIR downward inventory situation. Third, it is supportive of a goal

outlined by the Secretary of Defense in recent testimony—to move our military

forces from unguided munitions to combat formations armed with precision-guided

capabilities.

Congress has funded 52 aircraft ECP–583 upgrades through fiscal year 2002 with

24 remaining unfunded (2 AC/22 RC). The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget funds

$11.7 million. We seek to accelerate program completion and request your support.
298

CH–53E Helicopter Night Vision System

Our second modernization priority also remains unchanged from fiscal year 2002:

upgrading our fleet of 21 CH–53E helicopters with Helicopter Night Vision Systems

(HNVS). This Marine Corps Total Force program encompasses 153 aircraft, including 132 Active Component aircraft. The primary component of the HNVS is the AN/

AAQ–29 Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR). HNVS ‘‘expands the envelope’’ by providing improved night and all-weather capability. The importance of having a robust

and capable heavy lift capability has been on display in Afghanistan where the

Corps’ CH–53E’s transported 15th and 26th MEU(SOC) Marines and supplies hundreds of miles inland to austere operating sites. Our expeditionary nature will lead

us to equally challenging environments in the future. To operate effectively and

within safe margins mandates our CH–53E’s be equipped with HNVS. Congress has

funded 72 HNVS through fiscal year 2002 with 81 remaining unfunded (70 AC/11

RC). The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget funds $1.2 million (2 HNVS). We seek

to accelerate program completion and request your support.

Initial Issue Equipment

On the ground side, next to NBC protective equipment, 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 modular lightweight load-bearing equipment (MOLLE). Every unit assigned to MARFORRES may be called upon, as indeed some of our units already

have been, to support the GWOT. Equipment shortfalls could lead to delays in deploying mobilized Marines. The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget provides $9.6

million which funds part of the deficiency.

Transformation

As directed by QDR–01, we are participating in the comprehensive review of Reserve forces. In the process we will look at possible new missions and organizations

for our Reserve force to better integrate with the Active Component in support of

the National Military Strategy. We conducted a similar internal review in 2001 at

the direction of our Commandant. Regardless of what changes may result, we know

that certain challenges will remain.

CONCLUSION

The Marine Corps Reserve is ready, willing and able to answer our Nation’s call

to duty in the Global War on Terrorism, as has been so well demonstrated by the

mobilization and integration of Reserves into the Active Component. However, our

readiness has come at the expense of investment in our infrastructure and modernization. Congress’ consistent and steadfast support 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 INOUYE. Gentlemen, I assure you that all your prepared

statements will be made part of the record and your exhibits will

be placed on our file.

Before proceeding, I would like to note that the Chief of the

Army Reserve, Lieutenant General Plewes, this may be your last

appearance, after having served for 35 years. On behalf of the Senate, I thank you very very much for the service you have rendered

to all of us. We appreciate it very much.

PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT

General PLEWES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. At the time of 9/11 the level of support in the

private sector was exceedingly high. Has that level of support continued, can you tell me?

General PLEWES. Let me just start off by saying yes, it has not

only been high, but it’s remarkably much higher than we saw for

example during Desert Storm. I think in large part, people do understand that this is a war on terrorism that’s very close to home.
299

We have over 200 employers both in the private sector and Government sector who are doing things that they did not do before,

such as making up the difference in pay for our reservists who

have been called up. That’s much larger than anything we have

seen before. So, there is a ground swell of strength.

The question that was discussed with the previous panel I think

is a valid one, and that is, as this goes on can we sustain that

level? I think for some time you can if we do this wisely and we

make it known that the call-ups are of a definite duration, and perhaps get into the business of giving them further advance notification of call-ups. We have done things very easily so far, and I think

we can retain that level of support.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral.

Admiral TOTUSHEK. My evidence is that we have ongoing support

from our employers, the same kinds of evidence that General

Plewes talked about. I think the issues are to continue to communicate with them, to make sure they understand that we are going

to need a level of support from the Reserve for some time, and then

the key is to get people back just as soon as we don’t need them

any longer.

Senator INOUYE. General Sherrard.

General SHERRARD. Yes, sir, I echo those comments. Sir, I would

tell you also, equally important to note is the number of State and

local municipalities who, in fact, have taken steps during this particular activation to provide support to their members.

But I also would like to go back to something the first panel said

too. We will need to be very careful as we start the demobilization

process, to do it in a time phased fashion that protects the members as well as not jeopardizing the great support that those employers have given to us to date. That will take some very careful

planning on our part and we are postured to do that today and it

really requires close close communication and that will be the key

to success.

Senator INOUYE. General McCarthy.

General MCCARTHY. Senator, I would like to join in all of those

remarks and my experience is the same.

I just point out that in the Marine Corps Reserve, about 40 percent of our enlisted marines are college students, and one of the

things that we are seeing this time that we didn’t see in 1990 as

much is great support by educational institutions in supporting the

young men and women who have to leave school because they are

mobilized. That has really been gratifying and we have expressed

our thanks to a lot of institutions who have supported our students

in that way. We talk about employers, sometimes we forget about

educational institutions.

RECRUITING

Senator INOUYE. I think it’s becoming very apparent that this

war on terrorism, that it will be a bit longer than some have anticipated, and I note that two of you have indicated you’re having

problems on recruiting. What can this committee do to alleviate

that problem?

Admiral TOTUSHEK. I think one of the big things we need to do

as a Nation is to continue a robust advertising campaign for all the
300

military. It seems that our country, and actually I think 9/11

brought us into a sense of reality about what it is going to take to

protect our country in the future, but I think we need to continue

with a robust advertising campaign, and I frankly don’t think we

are quite at the levels we need to be.

Senator INOUYE. Will the campaign for the regular help the reserves too?

Admiral TOTUSHEK. Yes, sir. I think that the message needs to

be that we need people both full-time and part-time, and that message needs to be gotten across all the components.

Senator INOUYE. Anybody else?

General SHERRARD. Yes, sir. Sir, I would tell you that that is

very important, but also I think we need to make certain that we

look for advertising capability that supports our independent components, because of where we are localized and that is one of the

key points for the Air Force Reserve in particular, is that you’re recruiting for a local area, and while you may try to have a nationwide campaign, the fact that the members do not have that much

flexibility to travel to and from.

And the other I would tell you is that, which the committee was

so gracious in the recent past to give us some additional recruiters,

it’s key that we retain those and work very hard to keep that force

going. The smaller size of the active force, the smaller size of the

members of the active force that can separate, certainly will impact

on the numbers of prior service members, which as Admiral

Totushek mentioned earlier, we both really rely on that ability and

that number of members to come into our force. It’s going to be important that we have the advertising capacity to reach out and

touch all those areas.

General PLEWES. Sir, if I could just add there, the Army National

Guard is having great success this year in our recruiting and in

our retention and we are in fact at this moment over strength. And

we have asked our recruiters if you will, to slow down our recruiting and turn their attention to helping the active service build its

delayed entry program.

So we don’t have that problem this year, I’m not quite sure about

the future, but we clearly need to have the underpinning of a

strong basis of advertising and it needs to be conducted on a team

basis.

HEALTH CARE

Senator INOUYE. Do we have any health problems with the men

and women who have been mobilized? I notice you have indicated

that there are companies in the private sector that make up difference in pay for some. Do some provide health care coverage?

What about the rest of them?

General PLEWES. My assessment is that the health issues, at

least in the Army Reserve, is much better than it was 10 years ago,

and that’s the only basis of experience I have. During Desert Storm

we lost somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of soldiers because

of family problems, and now it’s down to about 9.9 percent, so it’s

much better off. We are particularly doing a better job of educating

our soldiers.
301

I think that there is more things that we can do still. We still

have a huge problem in the dental area. We don’t have good dental

care programs, and where there’s insurance available, it’s not a

strong program, I don’t believe. So we need additional help in the

dental area. We still have too many soldiers who show up with

dental problems.

Admiral TOTUSHEK. We’re finding that as far as health care is

concerned, that the people that are the most disadvantaged by the

current program are those people that are remote and the ones

that are on active duty. So as we mobilize people from areas where

you don’t have a large TRICARE community, educating basically

the healthcare providers in that area about TRICARE, a lot of

them just don’t want to bother with bureaucracy, it’s one of the

most difficult ones for the provider to be able to make its claim

through, they basically push back on us. So that’s the biggest problem I see concerning health care.

General SHERRARD. Sir, if I might, one of the concerns that we

have seen in our activation are in fact the period that we’re asking

the members to be activated, which then drives them to a particular type of medical care that their families are being provided.

And I will share, as John just mentioned, those that live in remote

areas have experienced some difficulty in finding some of the proper care.

We have had a very small number of cases, and I mean literally

one or two where we have had some fairly catastrophic health

problems with one of the family members of an airman that was

activated. We have been working with the current system to provide that protection and I will tell you that the employers, again,

have been very very supportive and they have sustained that medical support for that member so that we did not put that family in

harm’s way or that particular individual in harm’s way and jeopardize their health.

General MCCARTHY. I would just add, Senator, the support of

employers has really been good but as we brought more people into

the TRICARE system from home communities where the member,

the Marine may be off to Camp Lejeune where the coverage is

great but his family is still in Columbus, Ohio, and I’m not picking

on Columbus except that I’m from there, but you know, someplace

where TRICARE is not a big provider, we have seen more and

more issues raised.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

And those are the kind of things we saw before mobilization with

our inspector instructor staffs, the active duty members who support a reserve unit. Now we’re seeing it increasing somewhat with

reserve families who are being brought into the TRICARE system.

So we really do have some work to do, but the Office of the Secretary of Defense in their mobilization policy really did some good

things with regard to TRICARE. I applaud their efforts and I agree

with the first panel, I think people are working hard on this, but

we have a ways to go.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]
302

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS J. PLEWES

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

BIOLOGICAL DETECTION CAPABILITIES

Question. I am very interested in the Army Reserve’s biological detection capabilities given America’s ongoing War on Terrorism and the current world situation. I

understand the Army Reserve will activate a biological detection unit in Missouri

during 2003. For the record, please explain the Army Reserve’s current and planned

future biological detection capabilities, suggest how the activation of the Missouri

biological detection unit will impact current capabilities for supporting homeland security and global missions, indicate whether or not the unit’s biological detection

equipment will be fully funded in fiscal year 2003, and recommend how this Subcommittee might best assist the Army Reserve with its biological mission?

Answer. Currently the Army Reserve Biological detection capability has one Biological Detection System (BIDS), the 310th BIDS Company, located at Fort McClellan, Alabama. This unit consists of 186 personnel and has 35 biological detectors

in the BIDS Non-Developmental Item Configuration and has the capability of detecting 4 Biological agents in 45 minutes.

Future Army Reserve plans call for a total of 11 biological detection companies.

Seven of the companies will be comprised of Army Reservists and the other four will

be multi component companies that will include Army Reserve and Active Component soldiers. The remaining units will be activated between fiscal year 2003 and

fiscal year 2009. All of the units are programmed to be equipped with the Joint Biological Point Detection System (JBPDS) that is capable of identifying 10 agents in

15 minutes.

The first unit to be fielded with the JBPDS will be the 375th BIDS Company, in

St. Louis, Missouri. This unit will participate in Homeland Security (HLS), small

scale contingencies, and major combat operations. It will cost approximately $42

million to activate this company. The JBPDS BIDS program is only partially funded; there is a $28 million shortfall requirement to fully equip this unit to maximize

its readiness. The activation of this unit will set the standard for all future Active

and Reserve bio detection units.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

STRATEGIC STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT FOR ARMY RESERVE

Question. I understand that the Army Reserve conducted a detailed analysis of

its equipment maintenance and storage program and that they are presently implementing key elements of the program. Can you explain the results of the study, the

concept for strategic storage of equipment, and the technology that it employs to

mitigate the threat of moisture-induced corrosion?

Answer. The Army Reserve completed an extensive study that examined issues

critical to sustaining and maintaining its $5.7 billion of equipment. The purpose of

this study was to look at where Army Reserve logistics is and to gain a better understanding of how to move the Army’s largest combat support element into the future. The findings of this study, which looked specifically at the 77th Regional Support Command in New York and New Jersey, provided scientific recommendations

on how the Army Reserve can implement better business practices, outsource some

logistics services while leveraging our core competencies, redesign and modernize

Equipment Concentration Sites and Area Maintenance Support Activities, leverage

automation technology, and establish Strategic Storage Sites.

Controlled Humidity Protection (CHP) technology was one of the key elements in

the redesign of our Equipment Concentration Sites and the establishment of Strategic Storage Sites. CHP technology in equipment storage facilities not only has the

potential for greatly reducing the cost to maintain the equipment, but it can also

improve our ability to be a strategically responsive and ready force.

We believe that this concept of strategic storage which is essential to achieve strategic responsiveness is oriented towards supporting Army Transformation. A complex methodology to identify equipment assets required for unit training readiness

and those assets only needed to support wartime authorizations has been implemented. This will involve placing only wartime assets into CHP facilities that are

strategically located near major seaports and metropolitan areas. This concept allows units to maintain their training readiness while reducing the ‘‘fort to port’’ time

for roughly 37 percent (or $2.5 billion) of Army Reserve equipment, thus greatly improving strategic responsiveness.
303

Question. Most importantly, has the General Accounting Office or any other government audit agency looked at the return on investment from such a program?

Answer. The General Accounting Office looked at the use of Controlled Humidity

Protection (CHP) and determined that CHP shelters normally pay for themselves,

using the principle of ‘‘cost-avoidance’’, within the first year, and Army units can

receive as much as a 9:1 return on investment.

INCREASE OF FULL-TIME SUPPORT OF ARMY GUARD AND RESERVE

Question. I recall that the Army validated the need to increase Full-time Support

(Active Guard/Reserve plus Military Technicians) to improve Army Reserve unit

readiness and established ramps to climb to the ‘‘high-risk’’ threshold of these requirements. What is the annual requirement to support this increase?

Answer. First, let me say that the Army Reserve appreciates the support that

they received from Congress last year with Full-time Support (FTS). The Active

Guard/Reserve (AGR) ramp is projected to last until fiscal year 2011 when it is expected to reach through the ‘‘high risk’’ threshold of 16,263 endstrength. The current

AGR endstrength is 13,406 which is 2,675 below the Army’s validated requirement.

The Army Reserve has an $11.4 million shortfall for the fiscal year 2003 portion of

the ramp and a $28.9 million shortfall to pay for the 13,588 soldiers requested. The

annual funding requirement for 300 AGRs is: $11.4 million for fiscal year 2003,

$13.5 million for fiscal year 2004, $14.2 million for fiscal year 2005, $14.6 million

for fiscal year 2006, $15.1 million for fiscal year 2007, $15.7 million for fiscal year

2008, and $16.2 million for fiscal year 2009.

The fiscal year 2002 Army Reserve Military Technicians (Miltechs) endstrength

is 7,344 which is 1,646 below the Army’s validated requirement of 8,990 Miltechs.

To alleviate this shortfall, the Army established a nine-year ramp to achieve the

‘‘high-risk’’ full-time manning (FTM) levels by fiscal year 2009. Congress recognized

the severity of this shortfall and responded in December 2001, by allocating an increase of 250 Miltechs for fiscal year 2002 in the fiscal year 2002 National Defense

Authorization Act, but only authorized funding for this increase in fiscal year 2003

and fiscal year 2004. The annual funding requirement for 250 Miltechs is: $8.0 million for fiscal year 2003, $8.0 million for fiscal year 2004, $8.1 million for fiscal year

2005, $8.3 million for fiscal year 2006, $8.6 million for fiscal year 2007, $8.9 million

for fiscal year 2008 and $5.4 million for fiscal year 2009.

Question. How long are the ramps projected to last and what portion has the

Army funded?

Answer. The Army Reserve ramp is projected to last until fiscal year 2011 for the

Active Guard/Reserve soldiers (AGRs) and fiscal year 2009 for the Military Technicians (Miltech). The Army intends to fully resource the ramp in fiscal year 2004–

09 during this programming cycle. Congress has resourced the fiscal year 2001–02

Ramp by adding 598 AGRs and adding 900 Miltechs. Fiscal year 2003 is currently

pending Congressional mark. The endstrength goal is 16,263 AGRs and 8,990

Miltechs.

EQUIPMENT STATUS OF ARMY RESERVE

Question. I am well aware of the relevance of the Army Reserve and the truism

that the Army cannot perform its mission without the Army Reserve. The very

structure of the Army demands that the Army Reserve remain constantly ready to

support the active forces across the entire spectrum of operations. What equipment

shortfalls are severely hampering the Army Reserve’s ability to accomplish this

mandate?

Answer. I would like to thank the Committee for helping to address our equipment shortfalls. The Army Reserve is ready to serve in the ongoing war on terrorism

thanks to your commitment to fund equipment requirements. As you know, the

Army Reserve’s core competencies, combat support (CS) and combat service support

(CSS) are equipment dependent. This emphasis on equipment focuses on our role

in the Army’s Transformation and the Army’s war fight. While we have many items

of required equipment that enable us to do our mission, our effectiveness is dependant on our ability to achieve our modernization goals.

Key CS/CSS systems are critical to the Army Reserve’s ability to meet the full

range of missions. Shortages of distribution platforms such as tactical vehicles and

materiel handling equipment impede rapid force projection. The Family of Medium

Tactical Vehicles (FMTV), Rough Terrain Cargo Handlers (RTCH), High MobilityMultipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), 22.5 Ton Semi-Trailer, Heavy Expanded

Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTT), Palletized Load Systems (PLS), All-Terrain Lifting Army Systems (ATLAS), All-Terrain Cranes (ATEC), and Theater Support Vessels (TSV) are systems that are critical to maneuver sustainment.
304

Shortfalls in logistics automation Standard Army Management Information Systems (STAMIS) such as the Global Combat Support System (GCSS)-Army, the

Transportation Coordinator Automated Information for Movements System Two

(TCAIMS II), and Movement Tracking System (MTS) degrade efficient logistic support and prevent total asset visibility. Major shortages also exist in petroleum and

water distribution systems and communications equipment such as the High Frequency Radio. In systems that provide maneuver support to our combat forces, the

Army Reserve’s capability is degraded by shortages of Biological Integrated Detection Systems (BIDS), Deployable Medical Systems (DEPMEDS), Tactical Fire Fighting Trucks (TFFT), tactical bridging, night vision devices and force protection vehicles such as Up-Armored HMMWV’s. The fielding of these new distribution platforms and logistics automation systems coupled with the recapitalization of existing

legacy systems allows the Army Reserve to meet the deployment vision outlined by

the CSA.

Question. What is being done to address these shortfalls?

Answer. The Office of the Chief, Army Reserve works closely with Headquarters,

Department of the Army to ensure that equipment requirements for the Army Reserve are recognized and incorporated into planned procurements. New procurement

for many Army Reserve shortfalls is identified in the P–1R, an exhibit to the President’s Budget. This Army procurement plan must be monitored closely to ensure

proper execution. The greatest risk facing the Army Reserve in support of the National Military Strategy is the potential deferment of key combat support (CS) and

combat service support (CSS) procurement programs identified in the P–1R over the

Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

Due to limited resources, equipping and modernizing of the Army Reserve remains a challenge. In the last ten years, the Army Reserve has averaged less than

6 percent of the annual Service Procurement (P–1R) Projection. Additionally, the

balance of dollars expended favors funding major combat weapon systems, thus promoting an acquisition philosophy that severely affects the capability of the Army Reserve to fulfill its wartime mission. At the same time the Army Reserve provides

31 percent of the CS and 45 percent of the CSS assets at echelons above corps to

support the warfight. The Army Reserve requires a steady state funding rate commensurate with projected requirements to curtail the erosion of readiness and to ensure interoperability.

Currently, the Army Reserve is short $2.1 billion of mission essential equipment

with a large portion of the on-hand equipment well past the Economic Useful Life

(EUL). This figure only depicts current shortfalls; it does not modernize the Army

Reserve. For example, to move to the objective requirement for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) our Force Packages 1 and 2 units require additional funding of $66 million with the total for all Force Packages at $431.4 million.

The logistics modernization strategy must focus on developing and procuring systems that provide the key capabilities for soldier and weapon systems they will support, i.e., increased mobility, survivability, and agility. Significant reductions in the

logistics footprint will not be attained unless key CS and CSS enablers are procured

in sufficient quantity to support the plan.

FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES

Question. General Tommy Franks has recently testified on the need to maintain

the Army’s combat systems and combat systems support base. He described several

systems that he deemed were ‘‘of particular interest to the Command.’’ One program

he mentioned is the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). I am told that the

Army Reserve has only 287 two and a half ton FMTVs on hand against a requirement of more than 13,000 new trucks and that there is an urgent requirement for

$151 million for all versions of FMTV Trucks for the Guard and Reserve. What is

the specific requirement for these vehicles?

Answer. The current Army Reserve requirement for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) is 13,148. Currently there are 291 vehicles in the Army Reserve inventory, leaving a shortfall of 12,857. The 13,148 total includes multiple

variants of both the Light Medium Tactical Vehicle (LMTV) requirement of 4,433

and the Medium Tactical Vehicle (MTV) requirement of 8,715. The projected fielding

of the FMTV between now and fiscal year 2009 includes 4,616 vehicles, leaving a

projected shortfall of 8,532.

The FMTV consists of a common truck chassis that adapts to several configurations. The vehicle is available in a both a van and cargo version and offers a 2.5T

and 5T payload capacity. The FMTV supports Army Transformation replacing overaged, maintenance intensive, World War II era designs with modern, state-of-the-
305

art technology that is fully interoperable with Active Component equipment. The

FMTV performs line haul, local haul, mobility, supply and other Combat Support

and Combat Service Support (CS/CSS) missions. FMTV can operate worldwide on

primary and secondary roads and trails in support of all Army operations.

Question. If Congress can find the money to fund this requirement, what will the

Guard and Reserve be able to do that they cannot do now?

Answer. The Active Guard/Reserve represents over 80 percent of the Army’s total

transportation force structure. The Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV), a

critical equipment component for Army Transformation, allows the Army Reserve to

more effectively meet mission requirements by offering reduced Operational and

Sustainment costs, full interoperability with Active Component equipment, a reduced logistics footprint, and increased deployability. Although the FMTV’s payload

capacity is the same as existing equipment, onboard diagnostics, ultra-reliable and

common parts, and increased off-road capability provide units with nearly 100 percent mission availability rates, making the vehicle more effective than existing

equipment.

Additional funding for the procurement of Medium Tactical vehicles directly enhances unit readiness by increasing interoperability and capability of Army Reserve

units to support overall mission requirements. The average age of our current LightMedium Tactical Vehicle fleet is approximately 28 years or 13 years past its Economical Useful Life (EUL). Many of our trucks are approaching 40 years old. Without funding, the Army Reserve will continue to operate aging equipment resulting

in increased maintenance costs and reduced mission capability/deployability. As

such, the FMTV is critical in mitigating serious readiness issues.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO VICE ADMIRAL JOHN TOTUSHEK

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

Question. The recently released ‘‘National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report

for Fiscal Year 2003’’ projects Reserve Component equipment shortages of over $15

billion next year. With the country relying heavily on its RC’s to fight the War on

Terrorism, we could be sending our NG and RC members into combat without the

best tools to maximize safety and success.

VADM Totushek, I have been briefed that the ‘‘National Guard and Reserve

Equipment Report for Fiscal Year 2003’’ projects a Reserve Component shortfall of

over $15 billion next year, with over $2 billion in the Naval Reserve. This deeply

concerns me because of the degree in which we’re relying on our NG and Reserve

Components in the war. If we send forces into war with older, less-modern equipment we could be putting them into danger needlessly. VADM Totushek, please give

us your top three examples of unfunded equipment and explain any adverse effects

on the war effort that they might create if left unfunded?

Answer. If additional funding were to become available for Naval Reserve equipment modernization, our top three priorities would be:

(1) C–40A Procurement.—Replacement of twenty-seven aging C–9B and DC–9 aircraft with the C–40A aircraft (Boeing 737–700). Without funding for the C–40A, the

Naval Reserve will be forced to operate the aging and less capable C–9B/DC–9

transport aircraft (average age of over 28 years) and eventually will be excluded

from air space as Global Air Traffic Management/Communication, Navigation and

Surveillance requirements and noise reduction mandates are instituted around the

world. To date, six aircraft have been funded.

(2) P–3 BMUP/AIP Modifications.—Upgrade of the Reserve P–3C aircraft with

the Block Modification Upgrade Program (BMUP) and/or Aircraft Improvement Program (AIP) would make the Reserve P–3 force common with the active P–3 force.

BMUP is common with the P–3C Update III configuration, and this commonality

has capability, training and logistics benefits. Without AIP installed, the Naval Reserve’s P–3C aircraft are less relevant and less capable in comparison to active component aircraft and therefore are less demanded by the warfighter. Thirteen BMUP

aircraft are required to achieve an all Update III Reserve force. Further, some of

the Reserve Update III aircraft need conversion to AIP, including funding for the

non-recurring engineering required to convert a BMUP aircraft to the AIP configuration. To date, the Naval Reserve has twenty-nine Update III configured aircraft,

of which eight are BMUP aircraft and two are AIP capable.

(3) Naval Coastal Warfare Equipment.—Procurement of small boats and other

table of allowance equipment and supplies to support the forty-five units of the

Naval Coastal Warfare force. Many NCW units are currently deployed throughout

the world in support of the war effort. These units provide coastal surveillance and
306

force protection support to bases and other Navy operating areas around the world.

Without additional funding, the readiness of these units will be reduced and future

sustainment jeopardized.

Question. Starting in fiscal year 1997, the Congress made a conscious attempt to

reduce miscellaneous National Guard and Reserve Equipment (NGRE) allocations

with the intent to force the services to start funding Reserve equipment requirements from their own budgets. The Navy budget has consistently fallen short of this

goal and, as a result, the Naval Reserve has a $2.1 billion equipment shortfall in

fiscal year 2003.

VADM Totushek, starting in the fiscal year 1997 Defense Appropriations Bill, the

Congress directed the services to start funding Reserve Component equipment requirements from their own service budgets. How has the Navy funded your equipment requirements? Were your requirements better addressed through the miscellaneous NGRE Account than through the current service budget process?

Answer. As the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA)

has been reduced from $200 million in fiscal year 1997 to just $10 million in fiscal

year 2002, the Navy, because of higher priority Active component requirements, has

been unable to correspondingly increase its Reserve Component’s procurement funding accounts to offset for the NGREA decrease. The result is that with the dramatic

reductions in NGREA, the Naval Reserve has less funding to support its many

equipment modernization and recapitalization requirements.

[In millions of dollars]

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

NGREA ..................................................................................................... 199.7 78.7 60.0 19.9 5.0 9.9

P–1R ....................................................................................................... 11.7 32.0 34.0 105.9 17.1 21.9

Question. The Naval Reserve moved a Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare (MIUW)

Unit from Kansas City to Whiteman Air Force Base last year. This MIUW is in the

process of becoming the first unit to receive the Littoral Surveillance capability to

receive, process, and display, in real-time, data received from national, theater, and

tactical sensors to interface with naval command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence and weapons control systems. It can be deployed onboard

a ship or deployed to a remote location to support operations plans or crisis response.

VADM Totushek, I understand that the first Littoral Surveillance System is to

be located at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. What is its current status? How

do you envision the system being used to support the War on Terrorism?

Answer. Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare (MIUW) Unit 114 moved from Kansas

City to Whiteman Air Force Base last year. The Littoral Surveillance System (LSS)

equipment for the unit is currently awaiting a modification at the Northrup Grumman facility in Baltimore and should be completed during fiscal year 2003. The LSS

unit will be shipped in the Summer of 2003 after the new secure facility for MIUW

114 is completed.

Question. Does it have any role in homeland defense/security?

Answer. The Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) may play a role in the war on

terrorism and also support homeland defense/security. LSS is a Navy program developed to provide a robust end-to-end capability to receive, process, and display, in

real-time, data received from national, theater, and tactical sensors. It also has the

capability to interface with naval command, control, communications, computers,

and intelligence and weapons control systems. It may be deployed onboard a ship

or deployed to a remote location to support operations plans or crisis response. As

a land based, portable version of the Naval Fires Network, it is likely to play a

prominent role in future operations, including the war on terrorism and homeland

defense/security.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

C–40 AIRCRAFT FOR NAVY RESERVES

Question. VADM Totushek, as you are well aware, the cargo carrying capacity of

the much relied upon Navy Reserve aircraft is becoming more and more limited because of the aging of the C–9 fleet. To address this concern, the Navy has begun

to procure new C–40 aircraft to eventually replace these aging airframes. In fact,

these C–40s are being heavily relied upon to support the ongoing operations overseas because the C–9 has severe structural and avionics limitations to conduct these
307

overseas operations. I know that VR–59 at NAS JRB Fort Worth received the first

three of these C–40 aircraft for the Naval Reserve. However, VR–59 has a requirement for four aircraft. When can the squadron expect to receive its fourth aircraft?

Answer. The squadron did in fact receive a fourth aircraft last year. That aircraft

was later transferred to VR–58, in Jacksonville, FL to stand up a second C–40

squadron to better serve the needs of the Navy. It is not yet known when VR–59

will ultimately receive its fourth and final C–40 aircraft as the Naval Reserve Basing Plan calls for the remaining five C–9 squadrons to transition to C–40 aircraft

(3 per squadron) first.

Question. Since the Navy Reserve has only procured six C–40s to replace the 27

C–9s in its inventory, what is the plan to acquire additional C–40s?

Answer. Four additional C–40A aircraft are presently programmed for the Naval

Reserve in the FYDP (three in fiscal year 2006 and one in fiscal year 2007). Twentyone additional C–40s are required to modernize the Naval Reserve Logistics (VR)

Force. Navy recognizes this requirement and is doing its best to fund additional aircraft in light of competing demands.

FA–18A AIRCRAFT IN NAVY RESERVE

Question. Vice Admiral Totushek, Fighter Attack Squadron 201, based at NAS

JRB Fort Worth, is one of three Naval Reserve squadrons requiring an avionics upgrade to be able to deliver precision-guided munitions. Without this upgrade, this

squadron will not be compatible with the rest of the Navy’s carrier based fighters

and hence will not be fully capable of performing its strike, close air support, and

air combat missions. What is the status of the program and when are your squadrons scheduled to receive this upgrade?

Answer. VFA 201, 203, and 204 are the Naval Reserve F/A–18A Hornet squadrons

that provide strike fighter support to the Fleet. The squadrons conduct carrier-based

strikes, provide close air support, and carry out air combat operations. Engineering

Change Proposal (ECP) 560 consists primarily of avionics and hardware upgrades,

which allow the F/A–18A to process and utilize the updated versions of the F/A–

18C software and accessories. After modification, the resulting F/A–18A∂ aircraft

have the same warfighting capabilities as Lot 16 (pre-Radar Upgrade) F/A–18C aircraft, which are seven years newer. This ECP enables the F/A–18A∂ aircraft to employ all current and future planned air-launched weapons. Further, this ECP enhances operational and logistics commonality between the F/A–18A and C aircraft,

reducing the logistics tail and solving many current obsolescence issues. Finally, to

the operational commander it becomes a single point solution.

Under the current funding profile Fighter/Attack Squadron 203 (Atlanta) will

complete the ECP–560 modification in July 2002 and Fighter/Attack Squadron 204

(New Orleans) is scheduled to be complete in August 2003. At the present time, the

ECP–560 upgrade for Fighter/Attack Squadron 201 (Fort Worth) remains unfunded.

Question. If a squadron does not receive this Boeing Engineering Proposal 560 upgrade, what missions will these aircraft be capable of performing and what on missions will they be realistically employed?

Answer. Because of their limited warfighting capabilities, the operational CINCs

chose not to use F/A–18A aircraft in Operation Allied Force. F/A–18A’s saw limited

combat operations during Operation Enduring Freedom. That is because without the

ECP–560 upgrade, the aircraft is unable to perform the full range of mission requirements specified by the operational CINCs.

Without ECP–560 upgrades, F/A–18A aircraft are unable to drop precision weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Stand-Off Weapon

(JSOW), or launch the AIM–120 AMRAAM missile. In addition, unmodified aircraft

would lack the HAVEQUICK radio that employs frequency hopping or anti-jamming

technology. Having this capability is critical to operating in the combat zone.

The bottom line is that without the ECP–560 upgrade and as ‘‘legacy’’ weapons

are phased out, the F/A–18A will no longer be operationally relevant nor an employable asset for the CINCS.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. General Plewes, we wish you a very

happy and productive future. Gentlemen, we thank you very much

for the testimony, and we will stand in recess until we meet on

May 1 at 10 a.m. to receive testimony concerning the fiscal year

2003 budget request of the Department of the Navy.
308

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., Wednesday, April 24, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 1.]
(309)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Stevens, Cochran, and Hutchison.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND, SECRETARY OF THE

NAVY

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. The committee is pleased to welcome the Secretary of Navy, the Honorable Gordon England; the Chief of Naval

Operations, Admiral Vernon Clark; and the Commandant of the

Marine Corps, General James Jones. Thank you for being here this

morning.

When we met in this forum last year, it was under very much

different circumstances. It was your first appearance before us, Mr.

Secretary, and at that time we were anxiously awaiting Secretary

Rumsfeld’s strategic review and the President’s budget request.

Much has changed in 1 year, perhaps not in the way the Department of Defense (DOD) is conducting its business, but certainly in

the world we live in. The attacks of September 11th changed the

world as we know it, and have brought new challenges to our military forces.

I wish at this time to commend the men and women of the Navy

and Marine Corps for their selfless service in the war on terrorism

across the globe. They are the backbone of the military and our

most valuable resource.

For many years, I have expressed my concerns about readiness.

It seems this year, however, by making some tough choices, you

have begun to address these chronic shortfalls, and I wish to applaud this effort and look forward to hearing more about it.

I am concerned, however, about your ability to meet the Navy

and Marine Corps’ long-term modernization requirements with the

resources requested. While the Department of Defense’s overall
310

procurement budget increases by 10 percent, the Navy’s increases

by only 3 percent. This is the smallest increase of all the services.

Two of your most critical modernization programs are suffering

from instability. The first is Navy shipbuilding. Your critics have

been particularly vocal this year, decrying the critical lack of shipbuilding dollars. As the shipbuilding budget shrinks by 15 percent

in 2003, they argue that budget is short-sighted, putting the Navy’s

future dominance and the Nation at risk. We recognize, however,

Mr. Secretary, that accelerating shipbuilding programs before they

are ready can lead to cost increases that put these programs at

risk.

The second program, arguably one of the most vital to the Marine Corps modernization, is the V–22 Osprey. I understand that

important decisions have been made about restarting the test program, and I hope, General Jones, you will be able to provide us

with some insight into this matter.

Time and again this committee has demonstrated its commitment to our naval forces, and once again, we face great challenges

as we attempt to strike an appropriate balance between the needs

of today and the investments of tomorrow. So, I look forward to

hearing your remarks today and working with each of you to ensure that we maintain the finest naval forces in the world.

Before we proceed, may I turn to the co-chairman of this committee, Senator Stevens.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming all

three witnesses and commending them and people under their command for their marvelous job they are doing and have done since

September 11th.

Let me start off with just a personal comment. There was an

item in the U.S. News and World Report that I would use my position on this committee to somehow or other retaliate against the

two Senators from Maine because they did not support our State’s

position on drilling on the Arctic coastal plain. That is totally untrue, unfair, and unfounded.

But in any event, I wanted to assure you, as members of the Department of Defense, I would never try to use my position here to

harm anyone, let alone the Department of Defense. Anyone who

knows my relationship to your Department would know that’s just

totally untrue and I regret that it was published.

I do want to tell you I think, Mr. Secretary, you’ve got a real winner in your new Assistant Secretary. Our loss is your gain. So, I

hope that Mr. Young is doing a fine job for you.

Admiral Clark, we have witnessed the extraordinary circumstance in this air campaign over Afghanistan, in that much of

the air operations on that landlocked country was projected from

your carriers. I do not think many people understand the significance of that. The campaign validated once again the importance

and the dramatic power of mobile sea-based platforms, and the success of the campaign reflects the value of the training and engagement overseas.

In the past 90 days, Senator Inouye and I have taken delegations

to Central Asia, the Far East. On both trips, we came back very
311

impressed with the performance of our forces and particularly

those under the command of you two as a General and Admiral.

The work of our overseas Commander In Chiefs (CINCs), particularly that of General Joe Ralston and General Franks and then Admiral Denny Blair there in the Pacific, made possible, I think, this

overwhelming success in Afghanistan.

On that basis, I have just led into what I want to raise with you

in the opening statement here again, the significance of maintaining the integrity and organization of the naval and marine forces

dedicated to the Pacific. Maintaining the role of the third fleet and

the marine force in the Pacific sends a vital signal I think to our

partners and friends in the Pacific region. Senator Inouye and I

have maintained a constant pattern of trips through the Asian region to assure our friends in that area that the United States intends to maintain a very vital defense presence in the Pacific in

order to assure peace in our region. I know that you understand

and heard of our views before, but in all matters on defense, there

is no disagreement between the chairman and me on the importance of this issue of the continued defense force in the Pacific. No

matter where we went, from China to Indonesia to the Philippines,

they all say the same thing. We are maintaining the peace in the

Pacific and without our really robust presence, that would deteriorate very rapidly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you, sir.

Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Welcome to the committee. Our panel of witnesses is an impressive array of talent and professional leadership in our Navy and

Marine Corps, and we appreciate very much the great work that

you are doing to help protect the national security interests of the

United States.

Mr. Chairman, I think something that we need to recognize right

away when we point out that while we must be prudent in the appropriations process, the clear and present need for more ships cannot be ignored. And I am hopeful that we can find a way in this

committee and the authorization committee as well to move out at

a more rapid pace in the authorization and funding of more ships

for the Navy and Marine Corps team.

I know that the recent announcement of the DD–X program and

the selection of Northrop-Grumman and Raytheon, the team that

will lead that effort, has to be encouraging to shipbuilders. We are

very pleased in our State of Mississippi that Northrop-Grumman is

going to be a part of that team, and talking to the leaders at that

facility, I know that this is an important step in dealing with the

industrial base challenge that we have as well. We need to be sure

that we maintain the capacity to build first-class ships, ships that

are second to none, and that’s what I think the DD–X program intends to do, to create a framework for a new family of ships to ensure that our sailors and Marine Corps personnel are able to carry

out their missions in the future as well as continue in the present.

So, I look forward to discussing these and other issues with the

panel today. We thank you very much for your cooperation with

our committee.
312

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary.

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY ENGLAND

Secretary ENGLAND. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and

Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran, it is a pleasure to be here. I

thank you for the great relationship we have with your committee.

We genuinely appreciate your help and your friendship and your

support of our naval services. And thanks for the opportunity to be

here today.

Before I make my comments, I do have a request of this committee. It is a simple, yet potentially powerful request, and I know

the President would support this recommendation to you. I would

recommend that the defense appropriations bill be the first appropriations bill passed by the second session of this 107th Congress.

This action would frankly send a very strong signal to our men and

women in uniform. It would send a strong signal to our fellow citizens. It would send a strong signal to our friends and allies, and

equally important, it would send a very strong signal to our foes.

So, I would appreciate your consideration of that request, and I

thank you for that consideration. I think this simple action would

be a very powerful message around the world, and so I make that

recommendation to you today.

First, let me comment that I have with me, of course, Admiral

Clark and General Jones. I want to comment that over the last

years we have become a very close team, a very close leadership

team for our naval services, and we work that way as a very close

team. I am pleased to report to you that all issues of importance

to our naval forces we jointly discuss and arrive at decisions. So,

this is indeed a true leadership team, and I can tell you I am absolutely pleased and privileged to serve with both of these magnificent officers.

As you commented, the naval services are, indeed, performing

magnificently for the people of America. The decisive advantage of

combat power at sea has been clearly demonstrated in our war

against terrorism and, as you commented, even for deep inland targets. In my judgment, this will be a crucial element of our naval

forces as we move into the future, taking the fight to the enemy

and sustaining that effort over time was and will continue to be

critical to our national security.

I do, however, have to also comment to you that this is not the

naval services acting alone. We are part of this integrated team, a

joint effort, and we are very proud of how seamlessly we work with

all the other services, including the Coast Guard in terms of homeland defense.

By the way, much of this is made possible by prior actions of this

committee making this equipment and this interface available to

us, and I thank you for those prior appropriations.

Now, regarding the President’s proposed budget for fiscal year

2003, I can first tell you without hesitation that the budget accurately reflects the priorities that were set by this naval leadership

team before you today. The three of us agreed that we must keep

faith with our people by providing them the pay and benefits they

so richly deserve and must also ensure that our forces remain

trained and ready to carry out our war on terrorism.
313

So, to this end, we did, Mr. Chairman, prioritize our spending on

critical readiness elements such as adequate flying hours and

steaming days, spare parts, preventative maintenance and replenishing our stockpiles of precision weapons. That was our first priority.

These were difficult choices to make, but I believe we indeed

made the right choices for fiscal year 2003. We cannot fix every

problem in 1 year, so we did prioritize our funding.

Now, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the Commandant,

and I also agree that efficiency in our business practices is more

important than ever before. Mr. Chairman, you commented about

conducting DOD business. I will tell you we are conducting our

business differently in the Department of the Navy. We are striving for efficiency and effectiveness, and we do this every day and

it is showing up in terms of how we are now funding our programs.

So, business practices are very important and I can tell you this

leadership team is absolutely dedicated to that objective.

I will tell you that this year I believe we have built a foundation

as we go forward for the Navy. Most of our programs now—in fact,

all of our programs—we have fully funded our programs. We still

have some prior year shipbuilding bills to pay, which is very important to us, but we have addressed the fundamental programs now

to go forward and to build our great Navy.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, I look forward to discussions with this committee during the

question and answer period. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a few comments.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GORDON R. ENGLAND

NAVY-MARINE CORPS: THE POWER OF TEAMWORK

INTRODUCTION

The Navy/Marine Corps Team continues to provide extraordinary service and

value to our country. Our contributions in the ‘‘War Against Terrorism’’ have been

significant and important in the overall success of U.S. military forces. Naval Forces

have demonstrated the reach of their lethal power deep into the enemy heartland.

Operating beyond the traditional littoral, we have destroyed the enemy in areas

that they previously considered sanctuaries.

Our forces have been effective and Congressional support has been essential. In

fiscal year 2002 the Congress supported the President’s amended budget for the

Navy and Marine Corps. In fiscal year 2003, we are again requesting your support

of the President’s Budget to continue the Navy and Marine Corps improvement in

areas previously under-funded, sustain our force, and continue the transformation

in the way we fight.

The following sections of this statement describe the dramatic improvement the

fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget will provide for the Department of the Navy.

Significant accomplishments of Naval Forces in the past year, and some of the detail

of our plans for the future supported by this budget request are also described.

In assessing our request, it is important to note that our focus is on sustaining

and further developing the effective and lethal Naval Forces that are part of a

broader networked Joint warfighting architecture. Numbers are important, but as

Naval Forces are already so well illustrating, warfighting capabilities go beyond

mere numbers. It used to require multiple aircraft to strike a single target. Now

a single aircraft can strike multiple targets. Networked systems and sensors may

be more important today than the sheer number of weapons and platforms. Our

focus is on warfighting capability and sustaining an effective and properly resourced

force. The Navy and Marine Corps are going to continue to work with the other
314

military services to determine the best path to transformation and the best aggregate warfighting capabilities for our country.

FISCAL YEAR 2003—A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

The fiscal year 2003 budget request, building on improvements in the Fiscal Year

2002 Department of Defense Authorization Act, represents a dramatic improvement

for the Department of the Navy. Although the Department of the Navy still had to

make difficult priority decisions, the final request represents the best mix possible

among competing priorities. In this budget request, the highest priority items are

pay and benefit improvements for our most valuable resource; namely, people and

providing them the necessary spares, tools and munitions to carry out the nation’s

requirements. The following is the listing of the priority funding in fiscal year 2003

for the Department of the Navy:

—Personnel salary and benefits are improved approximately $4.1 billion in

MILPERS accounts. This represents improvements in salary, health care, housing allowance and increased sea pay both in amount and number of military

personnel covered. In this budget, civilian health care is also on an accrual

basis and that administratively adds $750 million to this budget in Operation

and Maintenance and working capital accounts that was not accounted for in

prior years.

—Operation and Maintenance and working capital accounts are increased by $3.4

billion. This increases funds for steaming and flying hours, including spares and

depot/contractor repair of major systems. This funding does not, however, include any cost directly associated with Enduring Freedom.

—Munition accounts are increased $973 million which is allocated predominately

to tactical land attack Tomahawk cruise missiles and precision ordnance delivered from Navy and Marine Corps ships and aircraft.

—The airplane account is increased by $323 million. Although the number of attack airplanes remains the same as in fiscal year 2002, the total number of airplanes declines due to the mix of airplanes being procured in fiscal year 2003.

—The RDT&E accounts increased by $1.1 billion reflecting the need to continuously invest in the future and to incorporate new technologies into our naval

services.

—The total number of ships in fiscal year 2003 is 7, consisting of 5 new construction ships and 2 conversions. The conversions consist of modifying 2 ballistic

missile submarines into 2 modern cruise missile platforms that provide a transformational capability to the Navy and the Nation. Prior year shipbuilding is

funded in the amount of $645 million. Additionally, pricing for new construction

ships has been increased by $400 million as a management approach to help

avoid future cost growth.

Our objective in fiscal year 2003 to fund more robustly all of our operational accounts across the Department of the Navy to assure that our men and women in

uniform have all the necessary resources to provide forward presence and to support

the President’s call for action in support of the ‘‘War Against Terrorism.’’ This necessitated some difficult choices and continues to leave the naval services with a smaller number of new construction ships than desired and an airplane force that continues to age beyond the age of our surface ships. In addition, the Department of

the Navy is disinvesting in older systems that no longer provide combat capability

commensurate with their cost.
315

LEADING THE WAY: NAVY-MARINE CORPS OPERATIONS IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON

TERRORISM

SEA-BASED FORCES IN A POST-9/11 WORLD

The ‘‘War Against Terrorism’’ illustrates the value of Naval Forces and the

importance of Sea Basing.

Naval Forces

Provide global continuous presence

Have no need to obtain base access

Quickly put potent ground forces ashore in a crisis area

Quickly strike enemy targets throughout much of the world

Operate and sustain from secure sea bases

Enable U.S. and allied forces to get into the fight

Remain on-station indefinitely

Influence events ashore from the sea

Extend U.S. power and influence deep into areas that enemies might consider secure

On September 11, 2001, U.S.S. Enterprise and her battlegroup were returning

from a successful deployment to the Arabian Gulf. By next morning, Enterprise was

within reach of Afghanistan, ready to launch and sustain precision strikes against

enemies hundreds of miles from the sea.

Enterprise was not alone. In Australia, the Sailors and Marines of the Peleliu Amphibious Ready Group/15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable)

cut short their port visit and sailed for the Arabian Sea. U.S.S. Carl Vinson steamed

at high speed to join Enterprise on station while surface combatants and submarines

prepared Tomahawk missiles for long-range strikes, established maritime situational awareness, and prepared for interdiction operations. U.S.S. Kitty Hawk prepared to leave her homeport in Japan, to serve as an innovative special operations

support platform. Off the east and west coasts of the United States, U.S.S. George

Washington and U.S.S. John C. Stennis took station along with more than a dozen

cruisers and destroyers, guarding the air and sea approaches to our shores. Shortly

thereafter, the hospital ship USNS Comfort joined USNS Denebola in New York

City to support firefighters and recovery workers. Marine Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) teams deployed to support local authorities in New York and Washington, D.C. Naval Intelligence, in conjunction with Coast Guard Intelligence, immediately began monitoring civilian ships approaching the United States and assessing the potential terrorist uses of the seas around the world.

When the nation called, the Navy-Marine Corps team responded—with speed and

agility, and with lethal, combat-credible and sustainable forces. On September 11th,

as on every other day of the year, sovereign Naval Forces were on watch ‘‘around

the clock, around the globe’’.

In 2001 as in the past, the Navy-Marine Corps Team operated extensively representing U.S. interests throughout the world. In the Pacific, forward-deployed

Naval Forces based in Japan, the West Coast and Hawaii continued to assure our

allies in the region, deterring threats and coercion. The Navy-Marine Corps team

also supported United Nations Transition Assistance East Timor (UNTAET) humanitarian assistance efforts.

In the Mediterranean, Navy ships operated with friends and allies in over 85 exercises. Marines in Sixth Fleet MEUs provided presence ashore in Kosovo and

served as the Joint Task Force Commander’s ready reserve. In South America, Marine elements participated in riverine and small unit training. The annual UNITAS

deployment promoted regional security cooperation and interoperability with regional Naval Forces.

In Southwest Asia, we maintained continuous carrier presence throughout the

year, conducting combat operations in support of Operation Southern Watch over

Iraq. Surface combatants continued Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO), supporting U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq for the tenth straight year. Marines

from the 15th and 22nd MEUs trained and exercised with friends and allies

throughout Southwest Asia.
316

These familiar ‘‘peacetime’’ operations demonstrate two enduring characteristics of

the Navy-Marine Corps team that have been essential in launching the war on terrorism:

—The ability to provide assured, sea-based access to the battlefield unfettered by

the need to negotiate base access.

—The ability to project power from the sea to influence events ashore—tailored,

flexible, relevant power that is critical to the Joint Force Commander’s ability

to fight and win.

When combat operations began in October, these characteristics made the NavyMarine Corps team leading-edge elements in the joint campaign. Against a dispersed, entrenched enemy in a landlocked nation, hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean, strikes from the sea were in the vanguard. Carrier-based Navy and Marine aircraft provided the preponderance of combat sorties over Afghanistan while

Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from ships and submarines struck communications

and air defense sites. In the days that followed, the Navy and Marine Corps worked

seamlessly with the other services to sustain carrier strikes deeper inland than ever

before. Carrier aviators flew, on average 6-hour missions over Afghanistan, covering

distances equal to missions launched from the Gulf of Mexico to Chicago and back.

Maritime patrol aircraft flew over Afghanistan to provide unique reconnaissance

and surveillance capabilities in direct real time support of Special Operations Forces

(SOF) and Marine units on the ground. U.S.S. Kitty Hawk excelled as an interim

afloat forward staging base (AFSB) for SOF. Ships and submarines supported by

Naval Intelligence established maritime situational awareness over a huge area,

and began the most extensive Maritime Interdiction Operation (MIO) ever to interdict terrorist leaders and material.

Against a landlocked nation, hundreds of miles from sea***

—70 percent of combat sorties were flown by naval air.

—Tomahawks from submarines and ships key in taking down air defense

and command nodes.

—Navy P–3’s provided critical surveillance and reconnaissance over Afghanistan.

—Sea based Marines—using organic airlift—moved 400 miles, deep into Afghanistan.

Marines established the first conventional ground force presence in Afghanistan.

Elements of two MEUs and a Marine Expeditionary Brigade Command Element

moved from their ships using organic Marine and Navy lift to create a tailored Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) ashore. Light, agile and self-sustained, Marines established security in a hostile environment and assured access for followon forces. Navy Seabees improved runways, enhanced conditions at forward operating bases far inland, and established detainee camps.

Submarines provided tactical and persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). Sea based aircraft, ships, and submarines brought down enemy defenses from a distance. Carrier strike aircraft, in conjunction with Air Force bombers and tankers and guided by SOF on the ground, destroyed the enemy’s ability

to fight. Having assured access and sustainment from the sea; Marines, Navy

SEALs, Seabees, and Army SOF worked with local allies to free Afghanistan from

the Taliban regime and al-Qaeda terrorist network.

In Operation Enduring Freedom and the global ‘‘War Against Terrorism’’, on station Naval Forces were first to respond, first to fight, first to secure U.S. interests.

These operations exemplify the decisiveness, responsiveness, agility and sustainability that are key to Naval Services.

Operations in the ‘‘War Against Terrorism’’ make clear important lessons as we

move to transform the nation’s military force and capabilities. Transformation is not

just about revolutionary new hardware and technologies. Quantum improvements in

warfighting effectiveness also come by coupling evolutionary improvement in existing systems to new ways of thinking—innovative operational concepts, doctrine, tactics and intelligence—and through new ways of using them together. Here are some

examples of this potent combination, and the dramatic improvement in capabilities

over just the past decade:

—Unprecedented long-range precision strikes from carrier aviation, effectively

supported by Air Force tankers. In Desert Storm our strikes were less than 200

miles on average; in Afghanistan they were often 600 miles or more inland.
317

—Seamless command and control across a joint task force engaged in global operations.

—Seabased Marine operations, arriving and staying light, with the ‘‘rear area’’

largely aboard ships.

—Expeditionary flight operations were conducted from Kandahar, over 400 nm inland. These operations included helicopters and VSTOL fixed-wing aircraft,

making the AV–8B the first U.S. tactical strike aircraft to conduct operations

from a base in Afghanistan.

—Direct real time intelligence and reconnaissance operational support of Ground

Special Operations Forces by P–3 maritime patrol aircraft.

—Continued refinement of Tomahawk as a timely tactical weapon. In Desert

Storm, it took about 3 days to program a new mission into a Tomahawk missile.

In Afghanistan, some missions were programmed in less than half an hour.

—Marriage of precision munitions with real-time targeting to make aircraft precision ‘‘airborne artillery’’. Precision munitions became the most commonly used

ordnance. Ninety-three percent of the ordnance expended by the Naval Forces

in Afghanistan was precision munitions.

—Long-term surveillance and real-time targeting from unmanned aerial vehicles

(UAVs).

—Inherent flexibility, as an aircraft carrier’s traditional mission was changed on

short notice to become an afloat forward staging base for joint Special Operations Forces (U.S.S. Kitty Hawk).

—Integrated use of attack submarines in a networked force.

—Versatile surface ship combat operations, from Tomahawk launch and projecting air defense projection overland with the Aegis system; to escort duty,

maritime interdiction, littoral interception operations, and search and rescue.

—Perhaps the most remarkable change is that Naval Forces from the sea are operating in the Eurasian heartland well beyond the littorals, striking an enemy

in what he considered sanctuary.

Around the World, Around the Clock

Even as the world moves on through these turbulent times, it is clear that the

global commons—the oceans—will continue to matter greatly to the United States

of America: as a pathway for transport and commerce; a source of oil, minerals,

foodstuffs, and water; a rich venue for research and exploration; a road to our allies

and friends as the leader of a global maritime coalition; an extensive though not

infallible zone of defense; and—above all—an arena from which to operate as we

seek to dissuade, deter, and, if required, fight and defeat our enemies. The power

of the Navy/Marine Corps Team in defending our country is inestimable!
318

SAILORS AND MARINES: INVESTING IN THE HEART OF THE TEAM

Key to our force, and the heart of the team are our Sailors, Marines, and civilian

workforce. These are our most valuable resource. Our Navy and Marine Corps need
319

talented young Americans who want to serve their nation and make a difference.

In return for their service, we offer them rich opportunities for leadership, growth,

and achievement.

Sailors.—We continue to make solid progress in recruiting the right people, reducing attrition, increasing reenlistments, and manning the Fleet. Navy recruiting

goals were met in 1999, 2000, and 2001. As a result, a greater number of initial

service school seats are filled, providing better trained Sailors to the Fleet, and

Fleet manning continues to improve.

Sailors are staying Navy in record numbers. First term retention is now at 57 percent. The Navy continues to make progress in combating attrition of first-term enlistees with 8.5 percent fewer first-term attrites in fiscal year 2001 than the previous year. Opportunities for advancement have improved. Our battle groups are

being fully manned earlier in the inter-deployment training cycle, deploying with

the best manning levels in years. We have begun filling increased manpower requirements in areas such as Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP).

Improving officer retention remains critical to our efforts to achieve a steady-state

force structure. Strong leadership at all levels and increased personnel funding have

produced recruiting and retention advances. The Navy will continue to invest in

Quality of Service and build a 21st century personnel system.

The Navy wants to give Sailors greater choice in their assignment process. The

Navy has taken a number of initiatives to make the process more Sailor-centered,

including a Sailor Advocacy Program that has expanded outreach to Sailors by their

personnel managers. We also want to be able to shape careers and the force—in

skills and paygrade—to meet future as well as current requirements. For these reasons, the Navy supports several initiatives in this year’s budget cycle. A gradual increase in our enlisted top six-paygrade mix (E4 through E9) to reflect the skills requirements of increasingly complex ships and aircraft, and legislative initiatives

such as enhanced career pay and distribution incentive pay to help compensate for

the arduous nature of an expeditionary Service.

Marines.—The Marine Corps has either met or exceeded its accession goals since

June 1995. During 2001, aggressive recruiting has allowed the Marine Corps Recruiting Command to exceed its quotas again. As a result, the Marine Delayed

Entry Pool (DEP), the recruiting reservoir, is in excellent shape. For the third consecutive year, the Marine Corps experienced lower post-boot camp first-term attrition.

Marine Corps retention was very encouraging in fiscal year 2001. More first term

Marines re-enlisted than at any other time in the history of the Marine Corps, easily reaching our goal to re-enlist 26 percent. The Marine Corps also achieved a better military occupational speciality mix than in previous years. This strengthens the

future of our enlisted career force and provides commanders with the most qualified

Marine by rank and experience. Highly successful retention programs such as the

Selective Re-enlistment Bonus (SRB) are addressing shortages in specialty areas.

Officer retention has improved substantially with a 15 year low of 8.3 percent attrition during fiscal year 2001. Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) has assisted in improving officer retention.

For the past decade, the Marine Corps has continued to aggressively examine its

force structure. This is necessary to ensure proper staffing of our operating forces

and the efficient and effective use of Marines and Civilian Marines in combination

with business reform initiatives for our supporting establishment functions. To date,

mainly as a result of business reform initiatives such as out sourcing and privatization, we have made substantial progress to increase manning in the operational

forces with approximately 2,500 Marines identified to shift from the supporting establishment to operating forces billets. As we complete our A–76 studies and continue the implementation of Activity Based Costing/Activity Based Management in

our supporting establishment process, we expect some additional Marines may be

shifted to the operating forces. However the new security environment has increased

our operating forces needs. We have responded with the permanent activation of the

4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) (Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection), consisting of 2,400 Marines out of our total end-strength of 175,000 active duty Marines

in order to assure we access, train and retain a new, robust tier one anti-terrorism/

force protection force capability. The immediacy of the 4th MEB requirement resulted in initial manning using highly trained Marines from previously existing but

already under staffed operating force units. Marines from the 4th MEB were quickly

deployed in 2001 and are deployed today to provide this new capability for joint

force missions in the European Command and Central Command Areas of Operation. The nature of the change in our national security environment, both overseas

and here at home, requires we sustain this increase in Marine Corps end-strength.
320

Quality of Service.—The Navy and Marine Corps continue to believe that both

quality of life and quality of the work environment are important factors in retaining Sailors, Marines, and their families. This includes compensation, medical care,

family housing, retail and commissary services; recreation programs, community

and family services; training and education; as well as elements of the work environment such as tools, supplies, and facilities. Congress has supported many improvements in these areas.

Professional development and training is one of our key focus areas. The Navy

has launched Task Force EXCEL (Excellence through Commitment to Education

and Learning) an initiative to create a ‘‘Revolution in Training’’, leveraging distance

learning technologies, an improved information exchange network, and a career-long

training continuum to fully realize the learning potential of our professional force.

The Navy College Program and the Marine Corps Lifelong Learning Program directly support career-long emphasis on the professional development needs of our

Sailors and Marines. Continuous learning, including an increased reliance on advanced distance learning systems such as the Marine Corps’ Satellite Education

Network (MCSEN) and the MarineNet Distance Learning Program, is needed to

keep our Sailors and Marines on the cutting edge. The Navy-Marine Corps team

owes those who promise to serve the best possible training throughout their Naval

Service experience so they can succeed and prosper in their professional and personal lives.

Force health protection is an integral part of readiness and is one of Navy Medicine’s primary missions. Navy Medicine has implemented a comprehensive organizational strategy to prepare for, protect against, and respond to threats or attacks.

The medical establishment is coordinating with sister Services, the Veterans Administration, Federal agencies, and civilian healthcare support contracts through

TRICARE to combine our efforts for increased efficiencies. Programs are in place to

ensure the health of Sailors and Marines; protect them from possible hazards when

they go in harm’s way; restore the sick and injured, and care for their families at

home.

Reserves.—Some 89,000 Navy Reservists and 39,558 Marine Corps Reservists

serve today. The effective integration of reserve elements with active components is

indispensable to military readiness and personnel tempo in the ‘‘War Against Terrorism.’’ We have recalled over 10,000 Navy and Marine Corps Reservists as of December 2001. The Marine Corps Selected Reserve contributes approximately 25 percent of the force structure and 20 percent of the trained manpower of the total Marine Corps force. The Navy Reserve constitutes 19 percent of the Navy’s total force,

providing all our inter-theater airlift and inshore undersea warfare capability.

The Naval Reserve came within two percent of its authorized end strength in

2001 and is adding recruiters in fiscal year 2002 to help meet goals. The Marine

Corps Reserve continues to meet its authorized end-strength, although the challenge

to recruit company grade officers for service with Selected Marine Corps Reserve

(SMCR) units is increasing. A Reserve Recruiting and Retention Task Force meets

quarterly to develop and implement ways to meet the ‘‘right Marine in the right

place’’ standard.

Civilian Workforce.—The Department of the Navy employs about 182,000 U.S. citizen civilian workers and nearly 3,500 foreign national employees. This is about

149,000 fewer civilians than were employed in 1989, a reduction of 45 percent. Now

the Department of the Navy faces an employment challenge shared across the Federal Government: shaping the workforce to ensure that we have the right people,

with the right skills, in the right jobs to help us meet the challenges of the future.

In an age of rapid technological change, attracting the best available talent is essential. We are building on the successes of Navy and Marine Corps commands to identify and expand the use of best recruitment practices to attract high quality individuals at entry and mid-career levels. At the same time, we are examining and using

other innovative workforce shaping strategies to ensure that we have a civilian

workforce able to take its place as an integral part of the total force.

CURRENT READINESS: OPERATING THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

The success to date of the Navy and Marine Corps in the war against terrorism

attests to progress made in current readiness. Sailors and Marines were ready and

had the tools they needed on 11 September. We have worked hard to redress the

shortfalls in training, maintenance, spare parts, ordnance, and fuel that have burdened our operating forces in the recent past. The fiscal year 2002 budget was the

best readiness budget in a decade. The fiscal year 2003 Budget will continue to ensure that readiness meets mission requirements.
321

SAME SHIP, NEW CAPABILITIES

DDG–51 (1991): DDG–95 (keel laying July 2002):

SPY–1D ...................................................................... SPY–1D(V) littoral radar upgrade

5’’ gun ....................................................................... New 5’’ gun upgrade for Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM)

Standard (SM–2), Harpoon, Tomahawk missiles ..... SM–2, BLK IIIA, IIIB, IV

PHALANX close in weapons system .......................... Quad pack Sea Sparrow missile (2003)

SLQ–32(V)2 Electronic Support Measures

SLQ–32(V)2 Electronic Support Measures (ESM) ..... Link 16, Tactical Data Information Exchange System

(TADIXS) B networks

Link 4A, 11, 14 ......................................................... Flight deck, hangar, two LAMPS Mk III helos

Flight deck, no helicopter ......................................... Fiber Optic Data Multiplexing System

Self Contained Breathing Apparatus

Redundant Independent Mechanical Start System/Full

Authority Digital Control

COTS Zonal Electrical Distribution System

COTS improvements to radars, and sonars

Battle Force Tactical Trainer

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)

NULKA, Electronic Decoy

Joint Tactical Information Distribution System

Combat Direction Finding BLK I

Remote Mine Hunting System

IT–21 Integrated Ship Networks System

The ships and aircraft joining the Fleet and Marine forces are the best in the

world. In 2001, the Navy launched the next aircraft carrier, Ronald Reagan (CVN

76), commissioned our newest amphibious ship, U.S.S. Iwo Jima (LHD 7) and continued to take delivery of sophisticated Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, and F/A–18 E/F Super Hornets. While current DDGs and F/A–18s may look

from the outside much like earlier models, by design they bring significant increases

in capability as the classes evolve.

Ship and Aircraft Build Rates and Modernization.—Given current practices and

the age of our systems, there is a steady-state requirement to procure 180–210 aircraft and 8–10 ships each year to sustain current force levels over the long term.

However, we are also at a juncture of transitioning to new systems such as F/A–

18E/F, LPD–17, DD(X), E–2C RMP, and others. We are investing in connectivity

and interoperability to leverage our existing assets while we lay the foundation for

future modernization.

The Navy has 5 new ships and 2 major conversions requested in the fiscal year

2003 budget, and substantial additional shipyard/conversion work: 2 DDG’s ($2.4

billion) including Advanced Procurement for a third ($74 million); 1 Virginia Class

Submarine ($2.2 billion); 1 LPD–17 ($604 million); 1 T-AKE ($389 million); Incremental LHD–8 Funding ($253 million); 2 SSGN Refuelings and Conversions ($1.0

billion); 1 SSN Refueling ($360 million); and DD(X) ($961 million).

Although we plan to procure additional ships in the out years, fiscal year 2003

is not the best time to further accelerate ship procurement quantities. There is substantial work in many of the nation’s shipyards for SSGN conversions, SSN engineering refueling overhauls, and new construction already underway. For example,

there are 36 new ships already authorized and under construction.

The Navy could use additional DDG’s, and they are the most appropriate candidate for additional procurement. The Navy would also like to move as quickly as

possible to the DD(X) hull in order to reduce operating costs and improve capability

and survivability. While the Virginia design is nearing completion, there was no

prior year advance procurement funding available to support building a second Virginia Class submarine in fiscal year 2003. Delivery of U.S.S. Virginia in 2004 will

allow the class design and ship testing to complete before beginning the increased

production of two Virginias per year later in the FYDP. We are not ready for rate

acceleration this year. The LPD–17 design is still not complete. Four ships are already funded with advance procurement for another 2 ships. Although we need to

replace our older amphibious force ships, LPD–17 is not yet ready for rate acceleration. Design work is just starting on the T-AKE lead ship and 3 T-AKE’s are already

appropriated. Across the FYDP the Navy will fund 11 Cruiser conversions. Cruiser

conversion offers an affordable way to add fleet capability and ultimately we plan

to convert 27 Cruisers.
322

We are keenly aware of the critical need to address ship and aircraft recapitalization and plan to do so in future years budget submissions. Some shipbuilding programs have been delayed due to developmental challenges and we would expect to

have more flexibility to recapitalize our ship accounts in the future. The challenge

of recapitalization today is exacerbated by the immediate and compelling need to

rapidly make whole and sustain the current Navy and Marine Corps ability to fight

today’s wars, which this budget addresses in great part. We had to make some very

difficult choices, however, we are making the right choices within available dollars.

At the present time, given the age of Navy aircraft, the Navy would place a higher

priority on increasing aircraft procurement rates over ships.

SAME NAME, DIFFERENT PLANE

The original 1978 F/A–18A: The F/A–18E and F delivered today:

17,700 pounds of static thrust per engine

Speed >1.7 Mach

Sidewinder, Sparrow, Harpoon, General Purpose

Bombs

M61A1 cannon

22,000 pounds of static thrust per engine

Speed >1.8 Mach

JDAM, AMRAAM, Maverick capable

New radar upgrades (AN/APG–73)

New radio suite

Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)

Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System

(SINCGARS), Link 16 networks

Greater payload flexibility

Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) (2005)

Improved displays, night vision

Upgrades to Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod (2003)

Upgraded mission computer

AN/AYQ–9 stores management system

Improved range, endurance

Improved maneuvering limits

Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (2006)

Prior topline constraints, coupled with increased operational requirements over

the last decade, forced the Marine Corps to defer investment in equipment modernization. As a result of this ‘‘procurement pause’’, many Marine Corps weapons,

vehicles, and support systems are approaching or have exceeded block obsolescence.

The fiscal year 2003 budget allows the Marine Corps to begin to make more appropriate levels of investment in ground equipment modernization and transformational programs such as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV),

LW155, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), and Common Aviation

Command and Control System (CAC2S). Sustainment of this increased level of investment is absolutely critical to the continued success of the Navy-Marine Corps

team.

Readiness challenges.—We have made major strides in improving current readiness with the strong Congressional support in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental

and fiscal year 2002 budget. But challenges remain. Our task is to sustain readiness

funding while focusing clearly on three challenges in current readiness:

—The aging of assets—particularly aircraft and amphibious ships—due to inadequate replacement levels.

—The demands of the ‘‘War Against Terrorism.’’

—The maintenance of shore infrastructure.

The Aging Fleet.—The aging of ships and aircraft may be one of the main factors

contributing to increased readiness costs. Naval aviation poses the most profound

challenge. Our aviation force now contains the oldest mix of type/model/series aircraft in naval history, yet it is these same aircraft that are routinely employed in

combat overseas. For the first time, our average aircraft age exceeds the average

age of combatant ships, contributing to a corresponding increase in the cost of operations and maintenance.

The average age of our ships is 16 years which is near optimum for ships with

a service life of 30 years. However some ships, particularly older aircraft carriers

and our amphibious force ships, are reaching the end of their service lives, often

requiring unprogrammed repairs, necessitating unplanned funds for urgent maintenance. In part because of these costs, we moved to retire some ships, such as some

Spruance-class destroyers, before the end of their service life. Further, capable ships
323

reaching service mid-life, like the oldest of our Aegis cruisers, require modernization

to remain operationally viable.

Global tasking and the ‘‘War Against Terrorism’’ continue to stress our aviation

force readiness. As a result, the F/A–18 has been flown well in excess of planned

utilization rates. More than 300 aircraft will require service life extensions earlier

than planned or budgeted. Similar situations apply to F–14s, EA–6Bs, P–3Cs, SH–

60s, and virtually every other aircraft in the fleet. The majority of Marine Corps

airframes are over 25 years old. In developing the fiscal year 2002 budget, the Department moved nearly $6.5 billion from other Navy programs to the current readiness portion of the Navy baseline

program for fiscal year 2002–2007, shoring up the Flying Hour Program, Ship Depot

Maintenance, Ship Operations, and Sustainment, Recapitalization, and Modernization (SRM) accounts. The fiscal year 2002 defense budget made substantial investments to bring readiness accounts to required levels. We sustain this focus in fiscal

year 2003 with an additional increase of $3.4 billion in Operation and Maintenance

and working capital accounts.

Selected readiness issues in the ‘‘War Against Terrorism’’.—Recent combat experiences underline the importance of certain assets and capabilities in high demand

but short supply. While the EA–6B Prowler, the EP–3E Aries II electronic warfare

aircraft and P–3C Orion Anti-Surface Warfare Improvement Program (AIP) aircraft

offer theater commanders extraordinary capabilities, higher than planned usage

rates results in adverse effects on service life, maintenance costs, and aircrew

tempo.

Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) have become the preferred munition of modern

warfare. Unanticipated high usage rates during the war in Afghanistan, coupled

with years of under investment in ordnance, have caused serious shortfalls. This is

a critical path item that we are addressing to sustain our effort in the ‘‘War Against

Terrorism’’ and we increased munitions accounts in fiscal year 2003 by $973 million

allotted predominately to Tactical Tomahawk missiles and precision guided munitions delivered from the air.

Current operations reinforce the need for sustainable access to training and testing ranges. We are dedicated to finding ways to enhance readiness through creative

technologies. While an increasing amount of training and testing can be done using

computer simulations and other information technologies, live practice on actual

ranges will in some cases remain essential at the right time and place in the training cycle. Maintaining access to ranges requires a comprehensive approach that balances legitimate community and environmental concerns with the need for realistic

training and testing.

Shore Infrastructure.—Real property maintenance and military construction accounts suffered in past years to maintain forward-deployed forces. Department of

Navy’s shore infrastructure’s recapitalization cycle recently exceeded 130 years, our

deferred sustainment is $573 million and our Sustainment Restoration and Modernization (SRM) funding has been significantly below the private industry average.

In fiscal year 2003 the Department is making significant increases in (USN $221

million, USMC $81.6 million) SRM. With this effort, our recapitalization rate will

be driven down to 83 years by the end of the FYDP, and the lowest readiness (C3/

C4) areas are projected to be eliminated by 2013.

The Marine Corps made significant progress in ensuring that its 15 major bases

and stations maintain solid training facilities while providing an improving Quality

of Service for Marines and their families. The MILCON program replaces or improves over 950 homes and provides new Bachelor Enlisted Quarters for over 1,000

Marines and their families. The program also addresses facility deficiencies providing maintenance and training facilities. While Marine Corps military construction is below the level necessary to sustain the DOD goal of a 67-year replacement

cycle, the Marine Corps has made great strides in sustaining their facilities.

For most of the last decade, real property maintenance, military construction and

family housing were bill payers for near-term readiness. Recent top line increases

have allowed the Department to make progress in these important areas however,

there is still a great deal of room for improvement. In the area of facility

sustainment, the Marine Corps will achieve the goal of C2 readiness ratings in all

facility-type areas by 2010; however, currently 57 percent of Marine Corps infrastructure is at the lowest state of readiness (C3/C4). While the DOD goal for plant

replacement is 67 years, the Marine Corps recapitalization rate for fiscal year 2003

is 125 years.

There is good news in the area of bachelor and family housing. The Marine Corps

level of investment in bachelor housing has increased from $84 million in fiscal year

2002, to an average of $243 million per year across the FYDP. This increase in investment, coupled with the Marine Corps decision to build barracks in accordance
324

with a waiver-approved 2x0 room standard, allow the Marine Corps to achieve our

goal to eliminate inadequate barracks by 2010. The Marine Corps 2001 family housing master plan identified close to 17,700 inadequate family housing units with the

majority of those units requiring significant revitalization or replacement. Increases

in Basic Allowance for Housing, combined with traditional military construction

projects and public-private ventures will allow the Marine Corps to eliminate inadequate family housing by fiscal year 2005.

FUTURE READINESS: TRANSFORMING THE FORCE

The Navy and Marine Corps transformation vision is fundamentally about balanced capabilities rather than specific ships, airplanes, weapons systems or other

technologies. The concepts of Network Centric Warfare (NCW) and Seabasing will

fundamentally transform Joint warfighting. NCW will be part of every system and

operation in the future and will tremendously extend the capabilities of individual

platforms or systems by expanding the knowledge base, sensor and weapon reach,

and ability to quickly react. Seabased operations will capitalize on NCW and the

maneuver space afforded by the sea. Seabasing provides a full naval force package,

integrated across the amphibious task force, carrier battlegroup, force, and combat

logistic force. Sustained at sea, seabased forces will provide the Joint Force Commander with persistence in the battlespace and the capability to rapidly project

power and influence well inland without the encumbrance of vulnerable fixed bases.

As the overarching architecture unifying the forces and systems within an area of

operations and reaching back to other forces ashore, NCW and seabasing will be the

central tenant of Navy and Marine Corps experiments and program developments.

Navy and Marine Corps priorities for transformation are centered on capabilities

that support Naval Operational Concepts: assuring and sustaining access; projecting

power from forward-deployed combat credible forces; deterring aggression; and sustaining logistics from sea-based forces while minimizing our footprint ashore. Transformation activities will be focused on Information Technology (IT) through networks, sensors and information processing. Future capability requirements are determined through the Battleforce Capabilities Assessment and Planning Process developing strong links between technology developers, requirements offices, and concept development and experimentation organizations.

Forces to Support Operations in a Changed World

The ‘‘War Against Terrorism’’ and the emerging world ahead requires a transformational vision of emerging requirements. We envision the need for forces that

are more dispersed and provide simultaneous application of sea control, strike, forcible entry, SOF, sea based missile defense, dispersed logistics, strategic deterrence,

and Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO). These forces will swiftly defeat any adversary’s military and political objectives, in anti-access area denial or other asymmetric environments.

Evolutionary and transformational improvements in platforms, concepts and technology now in the Fleet provide more combat capability per unit than ever before.

Yet there remains a ‘‘quality in quantity (of platforms)’’ as global readiness, presence and mission needs change. A balanced force would reflect in part the following

considerations: —Surface ships.—We will need to distribute surface ship combat power to face

global terrorist network threats, take advantage of our network capabilities,

and undertake demanding tasks around the globe. Emergent missions may

translate to a new demand for additional surface combatants—some of which

may be new concept ships focused on littoral warfare and others on Theater

Missile Defense capabilities.

—Amphibious capability.—Although the Marine Corps forcible entry amphibious

lift requirements remain 3.0 Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault echelon equivalents, the fiscal year 2003 budget and FYDP funds 2.5 MEB of lift

which is in accordance with the QDR.

—Submarines.—The submarine force structure is the minimum identified by JCS

and other studies. Real world taskings stress this number.

—Support/Sustainment Requirements.—Global demands implied by new operational concepts may require additional logistics/replenishment assets.

Transforming to the ‘‘Force-netted’’ Fleet.—FORCEnet is the architecture and

building blocks that integrate sensors, networks, decision aids, weapons, warriors

and supporting systems into a highly adaptive, human-centric, comprehensive system. DD(X), CVN(X), SSGN, Virginia-class SSNs, San Antonio-class LPD, and Multi

Mission Aircraft (MMA) are examples of platforms netted for the future.

Warfighting effectiveness will be achieved through transformational technologies,

innovative operational concepts through experimentation, and a focused procure-
325

ment program, to realize major increases in our Naval Force’s combat performance

and achieve battlespace dominance.

While FORCEnet provides the overarching architectures, critical subset applications are already being procured—in particular, Cooperative Engagement Capability

(CEC) and Naval Fires Network (NFN). CEC enables real time exchange of fire control quality data between battle force units, enabling all to have the identical picture, and to conduct cooperative engagements.

Ultimately, with a common integration of networks, sensors, weapons, and platforms—networked warfighters can achieve battlespace dominance through knowledge superiority and cyberspace exploitation. Today’s Fleet already has much of tomorrow’s capabilities and we are pressing ahead to advance these groundbreaking

capabilities.

Key Acquisition Programs: The Transformational Bridge.—In addition to the highly capable systems now entering the Fleet, we are making substantial investments

in programs that are the bridge to the transformed Naval Forces of the future. Programs include the DD(X) family of ships, CVN(X), Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Virginia-class SSN, MV–22 Osprey and San Antonio-class LPD. The Navy will also convert four Ohio-class SSBNs into cruise missile carrying submarines (SSGNs) with

special operations capabilities, as well as begin to procure a replacement for the

aging P–3 series reconnaissance aircraft, such as the MMA. These programs are integrated with other ongoing transformation efforts to move toward the netted potential of Network Centric Warfare. For example, the Joint Tactical Radio system

(JTRS) revolutionizes wireless communications; CEC successfully completed

OPEVAL in May 2001; IT–21 is in 182 of our ships; Link 16 is in the Fleet, and

Navy-Marine Corps Intranet is integrating the information backbone of the Naval

Service.

CONCEPTS KEY TO TRANSFORMATION

Experimentation—to realize revolutionary and incremental change

New Manning Concepts—for ships and squadrons

Technological innovation—speeding the pace of development and insertion

Expanded use of unmanned vehicles—above, on, and below the ocean

Sea based forces

All-Electric Warship design—could revolutionize the platform from ship design to sensor performance to tactics

These platforms are coupled with ‘‘process’’ transformation, such as improved

business practices and spiral development, which will enable short notice innovation

and technology insertion on subsequent units in a class. Thus the programs we are

launching—DD(X), Virginia-class SSN, CVN(X), and others—are important not only

for the capabilities they will bring initially, but also as the bridge to even more revolutionary capabilities downstream.

The DD(X) Family of Ships. DD(X), along with CG(X), and the Littoral Combat

Ship (LCS), will introduce complementary technologies for 21st century warfighting

success. Designed from the keel up to be part of a netted force, these three new

members of the Navy’s surface combatant fleet will provide precision and volume

fires, theater air defense and focused mission capabilities supporting littoral access.

The DD(X) program will provide a baseline for spiral development of technology and

engineering to support a range of future ships, such as CG(X) and LCS, to meet

maritime requirements well into the 21st century. Some of the most transformational technologies include the Integrated Power System, Multi-Function and

Volume Search Radars, Advanced Gun System, and a Total Ship Computing Environment. These technologies will enable the fleet to operate more efficiently because

of reduced life cycle costs resulting from fuel and manpower savings.

Future Aircraft Carrier (CVNX). The future carrier force, our centerpiece of global

access, will incorporate the best of our transformation technologies. Each CVNX will

provide 50 years of service life with growth margin to accommodate advanced equipment and systems that permit flexible response options to wide-ranging roles and

missions. With a new more efficient nuclear propulsion plant, open systems architecture, state of the art C4I and greatly expanded electrical capacity, these ships

will host a future air wing (including UCAV/UAV) capable of generating sorties required to strike 1,000∂ aimpoints per day. CVNX will remain a premier national

asset for forward presence, mobility/crisis response, and sustained force projection.

Amphibious Warfare. The building blocks of our future expeditionary capabilities—the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), MV–22 Osprey aircraft,
326

JSF, and a new generation of modern ground equipment—allow us to operate from

farther over the horizon and deeper into the littorals. High Speed Vessels (HSV) and

new lighterage will be key components of the Seabasing concept. The new AAAV

will have triple the water transit speeds of older Amphibious Assault Vehicles. MV–

22 will ultimately increase expeditionary airlift capacity by a factor of three while

quadrupling range. This will increase joint lethality while using greater standoff

range to reduce risk to the force. The JSF will provide a joint aircraft that avoids

unnecessary duplication, yet provides leap-ahead technology in an interoperable system.

The Marine Corps assault echelon amphibious lift requirement remains at 3.0

MEBs. It shapes the future amphibious force with the number and type of ships required for a flexible warfighting capability. The planned force will form ARGs reconfigured or tailored to smaller sized independent elements during ‘‘split-ARG/

MEU(SOC)’’ operations. The San Antonio-class LPD 17 is designed to be a principal

ARG platform, supporting a range of expeditionary capabilities discussed above.

Virginia Class Attack Submarine. The first of a new class of attack submarine,

Virginia (SSN–774), is being built today. Building a ship as quiet as the current

Seawolf class, this program has received awards for cost reduction and efficiency,

but with a 30 percent lower total ownership cost and modular design allowing for

spiral acquisition and insertion of future technologies.

Combat Logistics. This force is well on its way to completing its own transformation from six ship classes down to three classes of modern, highly capable,

multiple missioned platforms. The newly awarded Lewis & Clark-class Dry Cargo/

Ammunition ships (T-AKE), the first of a twelve ship class, will eventually replace

the aging T-AFS and T-AE platforms, providing increased capacity and combat load

flexibility.

Assets. Prepositioning supports all four services. The current MPS program combines the capacity and flexibility of prepositioned sealift with the speed of strategic

airlift. We continue to pursue both our Maritime Prepositioned Force Enhancement

(MPF(E)) and Maritime Prepositioned Force Future (MPF(F)) programs, enhancing

Navy Fleet Hospital, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion and expeditionary airfield

capabilities. The long-term prepositioning program, MPF(F), will provide a more robust capability for rapid delivery and sustainment of Marine forces ashore. It will

be more expeditionary and contribute significantly towards integration of the

seabase in order to project naval combat power from the sea in support of joint operations.

Helicopters. All Navy helicopter missions are being consolidated into the MH–60R

and MH–60S platforms. These platforms will have a common cockpit and common

airframe, with equipment tailored to particular missions enabling a decrease in the

number of maintenance personnel required.

Technology and Experimentation

Investing in Technology.—Transformation requires substantial investment in S&T

to swiftly and effectively leverage emerging opportunities. In fiscal year 2003 we increased the investment in RDT&E accounts by $1.1 billion. Enhanced capability will

be achieved via prioritized investments focusing on networks, sensors, weapons and

platforms. Continued investment in S&T is essential in this time of extraordinarily

rapid technological change and to ensure technologically superior naval capabilities

will be available when required. The Navy’s Warfare Centers and Navy Systems

Commands, along with leading researchers in the Naval Research Laboratory and

the Naval Postgraduate School, as well as the nation’s universities and industry,

continue to forward fresh and innovative ideas for investigation and development.

These will include:

—Integrated Power Systems (IPS).—Electric propulsion, envisioned for future surface and submarine platforms, will enable integrated powering of all propulsion,

combat systems, and ship services, thus enhancing warship capability.

—Unmanned Vehicles and Distributed Sensors.—Naval UAVs will provide the

battlegroup and MAGTF commanders with essential near-real time imagery

and data required to support ISR requirements independent of, or in concert

with, the use of manned aircraft or limited Joint Theater or National Assets.

Furthermore, $76 million for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles begins to provide

similar capabilities in the underwater environment.

—Intelligence.—Navy and Marine forces will enhance their organic intelligence capabilities by accessing and leveraging National, Theater, Service, and coalition

intelligence assets and support through a comprehensive ISR network. Emerging threats and strategic environments demand broadened intelligence capabilities to support forces engaged in combat against asymmetric threats, inter-
327

national terrorism, military operations other than war, operations in urban environments and IO.

Space.—The Navy and Marine Corps will continue to pursue the maximum use

of space to enhance our operational capabilities. We look to leverage existing systems and rapidly adapt emerging technology.

Ballistic Missile Defense.—A viable theater and area sea based ballistic missile defense system is important to assure the safety of U.S. forces and the flow of U.S.

forces through foreign ports and air fields when required. Sea based missile defense

can also allow us to assist allies and friends deterring coercion and threats. We

must solve the technical issues to field an effective system.

KEY INVESTMENTS FOR NETTED WARFARE SUCCESS

FORCEnet—the overarching structure for Network Centric Warfare systems,

including

—Naval Fires Network (NFN)

—Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)

—Expeditionary Sensor Grid (ESG)

—Expeditionary C5 Grid (EC5G)

—Common geotemporal reference of networked knowledge (4D-Cube)

Information Technology for the 21st Century (IT21)

Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI)

SSGN

Organic Mine Countermeasures (OMCM)

Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF(F))

E–2C Radar Modernization Program (RMP)

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs)

Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs)

Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar

E–2C Radar Modernization Program (RMP)

Link-16 network

Multifunction Information Distribution System (MIDS) data link

Distributed Common Ground Station

Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)

Lightweight Mobile Satellite Terminals

Unit Operations Center

Mobile User Objective System

Joint/Fleet Experimentation.—The path to transformation will involve a robust

program of experimentation and concept development with new capabilities and

operational prototypes while pursuing S&T efforts. We have ongoing initiatives to

translate concepts such as the Navy’s Network Centric Warfare (NCW) and the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare (EMW) into reality. This summer’s

Millennium Challenge 2002 exercise will include experiments by each Service, coordinated together by Joint Forces Command.

Fleet Battle Experiments (FBEs).—NWDC and the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) develop and refine future warfare ideas, tactics and doctrine in areas such as knowledge superiority and access, time critical strike, organic

mine countermeasures, autonomous operations, littoral anti-submarine warfare,

platform and war fighter protection, missile defense, enhanced modeling and simulation developments and expeditionary logistics. Navy FBEs and Marine Corps Advanced Warfighting Experiments test these new doctrines and ideas in the field, assess the utility of new technologies, explore new operational capabilities and organizational arrangements, and feed the empirical results back to the development commands. Both Services are collaborating to ensure that Navy and Marine Corps future development and transformation is completely compatible and complementary.

Leveraging Organizational Capital

Organizational Alignment.—Alignment means having all our organizations acting

coherently to achieve our overall objectives. To extract the maximum advantage

from our resources and provide a high rate of return on our investments, we need

to know our core requirements and state them accurately. Our continued success

also requires organizational speed and agility to capitalize on new opportunities.

To this end the Navy took significant steps to align its organizations more effectively. The Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) was created to inte-
328

grate policies and requirements for manning, equipping, and training all fleet units.

Reorganized directorates tied closely to the fleet now lead the warfare requirements

generation (N7) process while the resources and assessment group (N8) validates

and prioritizes those requirements in the programming and budgeting process. The

Navy has also established advocate organizations for Fleet and ashore readiness

(N4), to ensure that readiness issues have a higher profile in the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) process. The Navy has closely examined

organizational alignment options for enhancing delivery of IT, IO and space capabilities to the Fleet. The Department intends to consolidate and align existing space,

IT and IO commands to provide this management structure in direct support of our

Fleets.

Better Business Practices.—Key to achieving transformation is changing the Department’s business practices, finding efficiencies, and moving bureaucracy dollars

to the battlefield. To buy greater numbers of ships and aircraft a balance needs to

be struck between the competing demands of current readiness, procurement, innovation, and experimentation. Better business practices are essential for freeing up

resources for enhanced procurement and transformation. All Navy leaders, uniformed and civilian, are now thinking in terms of maximum productivity, minimum

overhead, and measurable output. Every dollar the taxpayers entrust to us for the

Nation’s defense needs to be spent wisely.

Navy processes and organizations that equip, maintain, train and otherwise support operational forces are beginning to transform in concert with the 21st century

Naval Force. These processes and organizations will be agile, responsive and cost

effective. They provide for rapid identification, testing and introduction of new technologies to stay ahead of the threat, streamline development cycle times, optimize

Human System Integration, and provide customer support second to none. Our future readiness and force structure will introduce new systems using spiral acquisition programs and better business practices that allow for introducing innovative

and transformational technology improvements into successive units of similar

classes. By implementing these practices we will be able to shift more dollars into

combat capability.

The Marine Corps has taken major steps to improve its business practices

through the comprehensive implementation of Activity Based Costing and Management (ABC/M) methods at all of its installations. These efforts for achieve efficiencies and enable increased productivity at lower costs. These steps enable more

rapid transformation of Marine Corps warfighting enhancements.

We are also working to replace other business processes and to revise the current

Program Planning Budget System (PPBS). Efficient organizations are clearly more

effective, and we need to work continuously to improve processes throughout the

naval services. Prosecuting the war is our first priority, but our area of responsibility includes the business of war and overseeing the vast infrastructure that supports warfighting. We cannot fully prosecute the latter without fully improving the

former.

SUMMARY

At the dawn of the 21st century, the Navy and Marine Corps are uniquely positioned and configured to respond to the challenges the Nation faces. Steeped in a

tradition of operating deployed, Naval Expeditionary Forces assure access, swiftly

responding to threats to U.S. interests often in areas where access may be restricted, withheld, or denied. Naval Forces fight and win; they are capable of initiating and sustaining nearly unlimited combat operations on the sea, land, and in

the air without the burden or liability of a logistics tail or host nation support. Once

again in Operation Enduring Freedom and ‘‘War Against Terror’’, on station Naval

Forces were first to respond, first to fight, and first to secure U.S. interests.

Naval Forces are continually transforming. We are building on a winning team,

leveraging both current and transformational capabilities. The ability to transform

is at the heart of America’s competitive advantage.

We are the finest Naval Force in the world. While we face the challenges of recruiting and retaining the best people, maintaining adequate force structure, recapitalizing an aging infrastructure, and fighting both symmetrical and asymmetrical

threats, we are clear of purpose, focused on the future, and confident in our capabilities. By successfully meeting the challenges outlined above, we remain ready to assure allies and friends, deter potential adversaries, and defeat enemies while providing our nation the most flexible instrument of military capability.

The fiscal year 2003 President’s budget request continues to build on the improvements funded in fiscal year 2002. With continued strong Congressional support we
329

will continue this year, and in coming years, the transformation and recapitalization

of our Nation’s already potent Naval Forces.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral Clark.

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

Admiral CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,

Senator Stevens and other distinguished members of the committee. With your approval, we submitted a formal and a written

statement. I have a few brief comments, if that could be made part

of the record, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Your full statement is made part of the record.

Admiral CLARK. It is a pleasure to be here. I look forward to

these hearings because we get to tell our story and have frank discussions about the priorities for our Navy and the naval service.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to align myself with the Secretary’s

comments regarding the appropriation bill this year. We so appreciate the chance to be here and talk about the priorities and areas

where concerns exist. But the early action by this committee, I assure you, would be an incredible signal for the men and women

serving on the point. So, I would like to align myself with the Secretary’s comments.

I also wanted to align myself with your comments, Mr. Chairman. As you were speaking, I was running down my notes, and I

wrote my comments yesterday on the airplane coming back to

Washington. And I started out by saying a lot has happened since

I was here last year. A lot has occurred since last June when we

appeared before you. Certainly 9/11 and all of these events have

led us into a period where the leadership is speaking to and about

the first war of the 21st century.

Senator Stevens, aligning myself with your comments, I believe

it is absolutely true that events since last September have driven

home in a very powerful way why we have a Navy, why it is important for the Nation to invest in our Navy.

Certainly the events of 9/11 changed our lives. I was in the Pentagon that day, and we lost 42 members of the Navy family inside

the Pentagon. Many people know about that part of it. They are

not aware that we also lost 10 members of the Navy family in airplanes that were flying that day that went into the buildings in

New York and in the Pentagon. It has changed our life.

Since last year, the U.S.S. Cole is no longer in the repair yard.

Widely reported, she is back in the fleet.

I just wanted to report to you this morning that the men and

women serving in the Navy are responding with pride and dedication and they make me very proud, and I know that you are proud

of them too. We appreciate your visits to them. Sometimes we are

inclined to use words like these are first-ever kinds of events. I

would say that with regard to the service of our people today, they

absolutely are following in the example of those that have gone before them. And I am telling members of the greatest—Tom

Brokaw’s definition of the greatest generation—I am telling all of

them they would be extraordinarily proud of their successors. Our

young men and women are performing superbly in large part because of the assistance and the support from this committee.
330

This budget is in my view the best readiness budget that I have

ever seen since I have been in the military. This budget follows the

priorities, as the Secretary has said, that we have laid out. I am

convinced that these priorities were correct, that they are correct.

I believe that it is correct, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that we are

taking care of the Navy that the taxpayers of this Nation already

bought and paid for.

I believe that the readiness budget that we are acting under in

fiscal year 2002 and the one that has been requested in fiscal year

2003 will create the foundation in the days ahead that will enable

us to continue the kind of performance that we are seeing in Afghanistan. The details of that conflict and our actions over there

are well known. I appreciate your comments about them. I will not

say more about them this morning unless we want to talk about

them in response to questions.

But since 9/11, the Navy—and I am careful to make sure that

people understand that we do not do this alone. We do it, first of

all, the Navy-Marine Corps team and part of the joint team. I believe, though, that the Navy actions have been central to the Nation’s ability, our military’s ability, to protect the interest of freedom around the world. So, we are proud to be part of this NavyMarine Corps team and proud to be appearing here before you

today.

The President said we were going to keep the enemy on the run,

and it is my conviction and I know that it is the conviction of General Jones that to do that, you need the components of the naval

service, that we have got to be out and about, and we are today

and we are ready to do that tomorrow.

This budget has involved difficult and tough choices. It does not

cover all of the modernization requirements that we have. I would

prefer that it did. I would like it to be different than it is. But I

want to be held accountable for the priorities that were established

in the recommendations that I made to the Secretary of the Navy

and the Secretary of Defense. Hold me accountable for those priorities. They are where I believe they ought to be. I believe that the

focus of this budget is correct, that we pursue the global war on

terrorism, we pursue the necessary and vital changes that were required for people and to support our people and to ensure that the

current readiness needs were met.

In our building, transformation is a buzzword. I guess we all talk

about transformation today, and sometimes in the past the terms

were different. But I just want to say that we are working new

operational concepts. But for us the future is about the ability to

sustain credible combat power in the far corners of the Earth. I believe that it is absolutely necessary that we remain able to take the

sovereignty of the United States of America where we need to take

it without a permission slip from some other country and that we

are able, Senator Stevens, to conduct the kind of operations that

you referred to, certainly unprecedented in our time to conduct operations that are routinely 7 to 100 to 1,000 miles from the ship.

I want to say that the Navy has received most of the press about

those kind of operations. I want to say that the Marine Corps F–

18s have been flying alongside of us off of those carriers, and we

are proud that they are on our team.
331

So, the future is about being able to sustain that kind of combat

power.

This budget moves us to the future. There are key programs involved before you, key aviation programs and key and vital programs in ships, shipbuilding. Certainly DD–X, the Down-select announced this week, is vital to our future, and I believe that DD–

X will, in fact, define the nature of the United States Navy and its

ships for the next 30 to 40 years. That is my conviction.

In the end, we are here today to decide and to discuss how much

Navy our Nation needs to be out and about to deal with the challenges that we face today.

There are words that are well known to us from our past, and

they go like this: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On the

Internet today and on billboards around the country, there is a sign

going up that shows naval forces at work. And the words are modified a little bit from those that we know so well. They say this: life,

liberty, and the pursuit of all who will threaten it. That is who we

are and what we are about. That is what our young men and

women are about today. They are a proud lot and I know that this

committee is proud of them because your actions have enabled

them. We so appreciate your support. And I want to say to this

committee that I am privileged to serve with an awesome generation of young Americans, and I am privileged to serve our Nation

at a time like this.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I thank you again for the opportunity to be here and look forward to your questions, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity

to appear before you. Your support of America’s Navy has been vital to accomplishing our missions around the world—including swift and effective response to

the attacks of 11 September 2001—and I thank you.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

The Global War on Terrorism is America’s first war of the 21st century. Violent

horizons lie before us, harboring profound challenges including the threat of

cyberwar, weapons of mass destruction, continued international terrorism, and the

havoc accompanying failed states. Importantly, such threats do not replace the specter of state-on-state conflict. They add to the danger and uncertainty, providing new

sparks to already combustible situations.

This terrorist-filled world is more dangerous in many ways than that which existed when we faced the global strike and sea denial capabilities of the Soviet

Union. We no longer counter a peer adversary that maintains order within its geopolitical orbit. Rather, the international landscape today is comprised of multiple actors whose interests form a complex pattern of interwoven and explosive tensions.

Potential adversaries today include other states, informal alliances of states, and

terrorist elements that range from state-sponsored to state-opposed. Such terrorists

may be local actors or integrated into global federations dedicated to the export of

killing. Catalysts motivating potential enemies include religious fervor, political ideology, aspirations of regional dominance, dedication to fomenting domestic revolutions and, conversely, efforts at sustaining domestic order by deflecting internal tensions outward.

Little is certain in this new world beyond the fact that such tensions can be expected to lead to repeated crises, quite often with minimal warning or predictability

regarding size, location, or intensity. It can also be presumed that given America’s

peerless military power, strikes against our nation, people, or interests will be deliv-
332

ered in an asymmetric manner, such as the attacks that took place last September

in New York and Washington, or the previous October in Yemen against U.S.S.

COLE.

NAVY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Forward deployed naval forces will continue to be a vital part of America’s defense

as we move into the 21st century; a time during which the range of threats will

in all likelihood grow in volatility and unpredictability. Thus America’s Navy must

remain prepared to conduct combat operations anytime, anywhere with maximum

effectiveness and minimum risk.

Yet accomplishing our missions has become steadily more challenging. Our Navy’s

force structure declined 41 percent since 1991, from 538 to 315 ships, while the

Global War on Terrorism has increased the call for forward-deployed naval forces.

The introduction of a new class of smaller combatant—the Littoral Combat Ship

(LCS)—will help ease the strain and could lead to a war-sustaining fleet of approximately 375 ships.

The current pace of operations is very high. Approximately half of the fleet is at

sea every day. Nearly one-third of the fleet is deployed forward around the world

while the remainder is operating off our coasts, conducting training or homeland defense missions with the United States Coast Guard.

In view of this taxing requirement, we are exploring innovative methods of increasing the presence and striking power of naval forces. One construct is to complement Amphibious Ready Groups with surface combatants and submarines, producing Expeditionary Strike Groups equipped to destroy terrorist elements wherever

they may be found.

We are also experimenting with flexible manning techniques to produce greater

efficiencies in conducting prolonged on-station missions, such as guarding international straits or other locations of exceptional strategic value.

At home, fleet commanders are taking measures to minimize the loss of readiness

that traditionally occurs between deployments. Historically, deployed readiness has

been achieved at the expense of the non-deployed segment of our force structure.

That is no longer acceptable and, thanks to Congressional support, we have made

significant progress over the past several years in correcting long-standing shortfalls

in spare parts, munitions, and training.

Fiscal year 2003’s budget submission continues that trend, adding $2.7 billion to

manpower accounts, $2.8 billion to operations and maintenance accounts, over $1

billion to research and development, and over a half billion dollars to procurement.

We have also programmed $2.6 billion to buy munitions and $1.3 billion for homeland defense.

Navy transformational concepts

Sustaining warfighting effectiveness in this uncertain strategic environment will

require continued global presence by sovereign naval forces that are prepared to

counter whatever capabilities the enemy may bring to bear. Quantity has a quality

all its own in this regard, and our Navy will remain on-station around the world,

prepared to fight and win.

The dynamic and unpredictable nature of potential enemies demands that we continually develop new and more effective capabilities to prevent crises and—should

deterrence fail—project offensive and defensive power ashore. The 21st century

Navy must be strategically and operationally agile, technologically and organizationally innovative, networked at every level, highly joint, and effectively integrated

with allies.

Three core operational concepts are key to achieving Navy transformation: the application of precise and persistent global striking power, the ability to assure access

to the littorals and project defense overland, and the capability to conduct sustained

operations from sea bases.

Precise and persistent global striking power is the offensive element of the 21st

century Navy. Its effectiveness is derived from network-centric operations in which

platforms and sensors are fully integrated to form seamless warfighting knowledge.

Situational awareness generated from this network provides rich understanding of

the adversary that enables the tailored application of power, allowing our forces to

sustain the initiative, disrupt enemy timelines, and deliver operational success.

Concurrently, the ability to assure access to the littorals and project defense overland provides battlefield dominance, assuring allies and deterring adversaries. Such

battlefield dominance exploits expeditionary sensor grids that sweep from seabed to

space, cueing coordinated air, surface and subsurface combatants to neutralize

enemy threats. This element of naval power relies upon control of the seas, allowing
333

us to guard the flow of trade while identifying, tracking, and intercepting threats

long before they reach our shores.

Finally, leveraging the mobility and security of ships on the vast oceans in the

form of sea basing assures the effective projection of sovereign American power. At

the operational level of war, sea basing serves as a secure foundation from which

to project expeditionary warfare, while minimizing the requirement to stage vulnerable forces and supplies ashore.

Achieving Navy transformation will include both new procurement and aggressive

modernization. Nearly 60 percent of the ships in the Navy today will be in the fleet

in 2020. Thus a significant portion of Navy’s transformation will occur within existing hulls, placing an emphasis on new systems and capabilities that can be inserted

through modernization. These upgraded platforms will complement new ships and

aircraft joining our fleet.

Examples of exciting new technologies that will accelerate our transformation toward a fully networked Navy include the DD(X) destroyer and its related family of

ships, Joint Strike Fighter, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Unmanned Underwater Vehicles, Tactical Tomahawk, Advanced Gun System, Theater Ballistic Missile system,

Cooperative Engagement Capability, Navy-Marine Corps Intranet, and SSGN strike

submarine, among others. These systems, in turn, will be employed in innovative

ways via concepts validated in the Fleet Battle Experiment series coordinated by

the Navy Warfare Development Command in Newport, Rhode Island.

As it progresses, the process of Navy transformation will yield a dispersed and

networked fleet that enhances deterrence, assures access, conducts precision strikes,

gathers real-time intelligence, exercises joint command and control, and leverages

the priceless advantage of sea control. In short, it will be a fleet that serves as the

leading edge of America’s defense—around the world, around the clock.

NAVY READINESS AND PROCUREMENT

As promised in previous testimony, Navy’s budget funds manpower and current

readiness first and fullest because those accounts are key to mission accomplishment around the world. Our operational success in Afghanistan is a direct reflection

of these investment priorities, as supported by Congress.

To sustain the size of the current fleet, we would need to buy an average of 180–

210 aircraft and nine ships a year. We are currently procuring significantly less

than that. The fiscal year 2003 budget will, if approved as submitted, provide just

five ships and 83 naval aircraft.

Harvesting efficiencies within our Navy is key to increasing procurement and we

will focus a major effort toward that goal over the next two years. Failure to free

such resources would have a profoundly negative effect on the fleet.

Naval aviation, in particular, would suffer as that community faces the greatest

near-term challenges. Our current aviation force contains the oldest mix of type/

model/series aircraft in naval history. Yet these aircraft are being tasked to unprecedented levels in on-going conflict. The F/A–18 force, for example, has been flown

well in excess of planned utilization rates and more than 300 F/A–18 aircraft will

require service life extensions earlier than planned. The best way to address such

problems is to introduce new aircraft into the fleet as soon as possible.

While our surface and subsurface combatant fleet is, on average, fairly young, the

rate of ship recapitalization bears watching. The following chart illustrates the dramatic decline in authorized ships since 1980.
334

The impact of the current low procurement rate goes beyond force levels. It adversely affects the stability of our defense industrial base, and we are paying a premium in program cost due to the small number of units being built.

On a more positive note, maintenance and modernization efforts are progressing

well due to solid increases in current readiness funding over the past several years.

The PB–03 budget requests the following additional dollars over fiscal year 2002’s

budget: $804 million for ship operations and maintenance, $119 million for flying

operations and maintenance, $276 million for combat and weapons support, and

$310 million for base support.

Additionally, the ships and aircraft being developed are superb and will serve us

well as the core capability of our force in the coming decades. DD(X), CVN(X), JSF,

FA–18E/F, LPD–17 and the VIRGINIA-class SSN present impressive technological

leaps in warfighting capability, innovation, and reliability. Program specifics include:

DD(X)/CG(X)/LCS.—Maritime dominance in the 21st century requires a naval

force capable of projecting power and defeating anti-access threats. To accomplish

these missions, the future surface naval combatant force will consist of four elements: DD(X) advanced multi-mission destroyers that provide precision strike and

volume fires; CG(X) advanced cruisers to achieve sustained air superiority against

airborne threats and ballistic missiles; agile Littoral Combat Ships to defeat enemy

defenses such as mines, small boats, and submarines; and today’s AEGIS fleet kept

current through the insertion of developing technologies. Cutting-edge systems integral to this family of ships include the Advanced Gun System, Multi-Function

Radar/Volume Search Radar, Integrated Power System electric drive, and revolutionary hull forms.

CVN(X).—The fiscal year 2003 budget provides RDT&E and advance procurement

for the first CVN(X). CVN(X) will replace U.S.S. ENTERPRISE in fiscal year 2014

when that ship is in her 53rd year of commissioned service. Design objectives for

the CVN(X) class include a significant reduction of total ownership costs during the

carrier’s 50-year expected service life, reduced manning, and incorporation of a flexible infrastructure that will allow the insertion of new capabilities as they evolve.

JSF.—The Joint Strike Fighter contract was signed in 2001. It will provide an

aircraft with unprecedented stealth and range to the fleet as part of a family of triservice, next-generation strike aircraft with an emphasis on commonality and technological superiority at an affordable price. The fiscal year 2003 budget supports

procurement of the initial variant in fiscal year 2006.

F/A–18E/F.—The F/A–18E/F will replace older F/A–18s and all F–14s. There is

extensive commonality of weapons systems, avionics, and software between F/A–18
335

variants, and the infrastructure supporting the Super Hornet builds upon existing

organizations.

LPD–17.—Although we have experienced design and production difficulties with

the lead ship, we remain fully committed to this key program. LPD–17 supports

vital littoral warfighting requirements and promises relief from the escalating costs

of our aging amphibious ships. The LPD–17 class will replace four older classes of

ships and serve as a central element of future Amphibious Ready Groups/Expeditionary Strike Groups. We need to accelerate development of these ships as rapidly

as design and production facilities will allow.

VIRGINIA-class submarine (SSN–774).—This class will replace LOS ANGELES- class (SSN–688) attack submarines as they leave the fleet. SSN–774s are designed

for multi-mission littoral operations, as well as traditional open-ocean anti-submarine and anti-surface missions. They will also incorporate new technologies as

they become available, ensuring future effectiveness. The fiscal year 2003 budget

procures one submarine per year and continues RDT&E. This pace of procurement

will have to be increased beyond the current FYDP to maintain the required attack

submarine force level over the long term.

SAILORS: OUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET

Winning the Global War on Terrorism is our primary goal, and Navy’s fiscal year

2003 budget prioritizes manpower and current readiness above future readiness and

infrastructure needs for that reason. As noted earlier, fiscal year 2003’s budget submission adds $2.7 billion to manpower accounts over fiscal year 2002 levels and an

additional $2.8 billion in operations and maintenance funding.

Thanks to the unequivocal support of Congress—including increases to base pay

and bonuses, retirement reforms, and better medical benefits—Sailors are staying

Navy in record numbers. In 2001, we retained 58 percent of all eligible Sailors at

the end of their first enlistment, 67 percent of Sailors with 6–10 years of Service,

and 83 percent of Sailors with 10–14 years of Service. Additionally, 1,512 more Sailors were advanced in 2001 than the year before.

ENLISTED REENLISTMENT RATES (AS OF 28 FEB 02)

Oct–Feb Zone A (<6

years)

Zone B (6∂ to

10 years)

Zone C (10∂ to

14 years)

Fiscal year:

2000 (percent) .................................................................................. 49.7 62.8 81.8

2001 (percent) .................................................................................. 58.8 67.6 83.5

2002 (percent) .................................................................................. 64.4 75.5 86.2

2001–2002 Comparison (points) ...................................................... ∂5.6 ∂7.9 ∂2.7

The Navy also met our overall recruiting goals in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and

2001, and this year we are well ahead of the record-setting pace of fiscal year 2001.

Thanks to these successes, battle groups are deploying better manned than ever before.

We are winning the battle for people, but important challenges remain. Officer retention in most line communities is below required levels and recruiting shortfalls

exist in officer specialty areas and critical enlisted ratings.

We are also dedicated to continuing the fight against attrition. The annual attrition rate for first-term Sailors has been reduced from over 14 percent to 10 percent

since 1998, retaining thousands of young men and women for service. Yet we can—

and will—do better. Concerned, involved leadership is central to minimizing attrition without compromising standards. To make this happen, I have directed Navy

leaders to take every measure to ensure our people succeed and prosper.

Key to achieving that goal is cultivating a command climate throughout the Navy

that offers plentiful opportunities, encourages participation, and is conducive to personal and professional growth. We are striving to minimize the increased wartime

operational tempo of the fleet via careful planning and innovative training. This is

the first time in modern history that the Services have faced a prolonged conflict

with an all-volunteer force, and we must protect the integrity of our fleet.

Two initiatives have been launched during the past year to help us fully utilize

our Sailors’ potential:

Task Force EXCEL (Excellence through our Commitment to Education and Learning) is making impressive progress in developing processes, policies, and structures

to fully realize the capabilities of every Sailor. Seventeen ratings are currently

under review to find ways to expand professional learning, earn certifications that

are recognized by the civilian community, and enhance personal growth. The goal
336

is to provide a comprehensive development plan for every Sailor based upon education that takes place in the classroom and on the internet, as part of a culture

of continual learning.

Project SAIL (Sailor Advocacy through Interactive Leadership) is a new program

that will have a major impact on how the Navy assigns our personnel. Using a team

detailing process that includes Sailor advocates, enhanced internet connectivity, and

billet incentivization, Project SAIL will strengthen efforts to find the best set of orders for every one of our Sailors, leading to assignments that are both professionally

rewarding and personally fulfilling.

The shared focus of these initiatives is an appreciation that combat success in the

21st century will rely heavily on knowledge management derived from a highly educated and motivated volunteer force; a force that is empowered in their career decisions and encouraged to contribute to a climate of warfighting excellence.

CONCLUSION: A COMMITMENT TO VICTORY

Our national leaders have repeatedly told the American people that the war

against terrorism will be neither easy nor short. In addition to targeting international terrorist networks, the President has singled out states sponsoring terrorism for military action should they threaten international peace.

This struggle promises to be global in scope and simultaneous in execution. It will

require the full might of America’s armed forces. In pursuing victory, the United

States Navy—forward deployed, highly capable, and poised for action—will play a

leading role.

I thank the subcommittee for your continued strong support of our Navy and our

Sailors. Working together, I am confident that we will win the Global War on Terrorism, leading to a more stable and peaceful world.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Admiral Clark.

General Jones.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES L. JONES, COMMANDANT, U.S. MARINE CORPS

General JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege of

making a very few remarks in a preliminary fashion prior to answering your questions. I would like to just make three quick

points.

The first one is that I would like to reemphasize a point that the

Secretary made a few minutes ago about the partnership in the

leadership of the Department. It is something that I am very proud

of, very proud to be a part of, and it is real and tangible. And I

think this partnership is being felt throughout not only the Navy

and the Marine Corps, but the civilian sector of our Navy Department.

Operationally, I would tell you that the Navy and the Marine

Corps team is stronger than ever before. I value my partnership

with the CNO. There is not a day that goes by that we do not check

our notes and make sure that the partnership and the team is

strong, and we are going to do even more things in the year ahead

to celebrate that contribution that we make to the joint effort, but

also the power of teamwork that comes from a close association between two very natural allies and very, very longtime friends.

The Marine Corps is moving along on a transformation axis that

supports that, the joint warfight. I would just like to comment on

four characteristics of that transformation because for me the

transformation is more than just leap-ahead technologies. That is

certainly one of them. Tilt rotor technology, the dramatic advances

that we are making in our communications and intelligence gathering fields, the power of reach-back technology, which allows us to

reduce the exposure of our sailors and marines on the ground and

at sea. All of those things are very exciting.
337

There is also an institutional transformation with major manpower reforms. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

committee that certainly one of the most transformational things

that has happened to the armed forces of the United States in the

last 50 years has been the all-volunteer force. We are still learning

to deal with this very capable force. To the Marine Corps, this

means a lot of manpower reforms that focus on our recruiting and

retention. We have said it many times, but we recruit marines; we

retain families.

Operational transformation. We saw just a hint of how far we

have come in a short period of time with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade with two Marine Expeditionary Units in Afghanistan. The headquarters for that brigade, Mr. Chairman, had fewer

than 60 people. Ten years ago it would have been 350 people or 400

people. That is the power of the kind of transformation that we are

talking about.

It has been reported in the press and it is fair to say that the

Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation integration is going to be

something that the future is going to meet and satisfy. We are very

excited about the power and the potential of that integration. It is

not necessarily new. The Marine Corps provides four squadrons of

F–18s regularly to deploy on our big-deck carriers, in addition to

its own Harriers on the amphibs. We will propose to more fully integrate the carrier airwings with marine aviation. That is good for

the Navy, it is good for the Marine Corps, and it is good for the

Nation.

And finally, the last area for transformation in the Marine Corps

is acquisition and business reforms. An example of that would be

the tremendous transformation we are seeing on our bases and stations with regard to public/private ventures to refurbish and remodernize our housing. We are talking about tens of thousands of

houses that potentially could be built in the very near future at

very little expense to the taxpayer using these creative business relationships that we have been able to fashion with our partners in

industry.

With regard to the fiscal year 2003 budget, I align myself completely with the Secretary and the CNO. This budget continues to

enable our emergence from the years of failure to recapitalize. For

the Marine Corps, it adds $1.3 billion to our military personnel account, a half a billion dollars to procurement and research and development, and another half a million to Operations and Maintenance (O&M). It does reduce our MILCON account by $98 million

from our fiscal year 2002 level, but it is still better than fiscal year

2001 by about 24 percent. So, the trend lines are good. And we are

up 20 percent in terms of our funds allowed for family housing,

which enables this transformation that I spoke about briefly.

As you know, it also provides for a targeted pay raise, career sea

pay, and it reduces the out-of-pocket expense for housing from 11.3

percent to 7.5 percent, and we will achieve zero percent within the

next 2 years.

In this budget, we will see 25 percent real program growth over

the fiscal year 2001 baseline for the operational forces, and 11 percent real program growth over the fiscal year 2001 baseline for our

bases and stations. And that is extraordinarily good news.
338

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, this budget sustains our modernization and transformation

programs. It enables me to sit before you this morning and tell you

that it is a great time to be a United States Marine, and we cannot

thank you enough, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

for the assistance that you have given us in enabling this dramatic

turnaround.

I would be happy to respond to any of your questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES L. JONES

Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, distinguished members of the Committee; it

is my pleasure to report to you on the state of your Marine Corps. On behalf of all

Marines and their families, I want to thank the Committee for your continued support. Your commitment to increasing the warfighting and crisis response capabilities

of our Nation’s armed forces and to improving the quality of life of our men and

women in uniform is central to the strength of your Marine Corps. As a result, your

Corps was ready when called upon on September 11, 2001. We thank you for your

effort in ensuring that Marines and their families were poised to respond to the Nation’s call in the manner Americans expect of their Corps.

The direction of the Corps is confident, clear, and unambiguous. The Corps understands its role as a force in readiness but also realizes that the world is changing.

For 226 years, Marines have always been innovators in order to be ready for the

next war. To assure success, we continually strive to be capable of rapidly adapting

to new circumstances inasmuch as we recognize that the future is unpredictable.

The President’s fiscal year 2003 Budget enables the Navy-Marine Corps Team to

fight today’s war on terrorism and transform itself to be ready for future challenges.

This budget funds our 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade anti-terrorism efforts, includes pay raises and new combat uniforms for our Marines and provides increased

health care for our retirees. It also allows us to harness the new capabilities found

in tilt-rotor technology and Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing aircraft. We have

increased funding for our operating forces in day-to-day operations, training, equipment maintenance, and force protection. Additionally, our bases and stations are

sustained by the President’s budget, which improves such critical areas as family

housing and bachelor quarters. Furthermore, this budget’s investments in ground

equipment, ammunition and research and development will help us recover from

prior year shortfalls.

Marines have a vision for the future, and we are moving forward with the modernization and transformational efforts needed to make this vision a reality. We

fully understand that our vision cannot be achieved independently of our sister

Services. Each of us has our own critical role to play in providing for our collective

security. 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, nor more necessary for our country. In fact, the essence of our combined

power is our teamwork.

Americans have relied upon the Navy and Marine Corps Team to protect and promote the interests of the nation since our creation by the Continental Congress in

1775. After helping to win American independence, Naval Services acted time and

again to ensure our freedom and set in motion the ascendancy of our Nation as a

global power under the banner of democracy and its potential. During the darkest

hours of our history, the Navy and Marine Corps Team has remained the most useful and most frequently used expression of our Nation’s interests in forward presence and crisis response. Those of us who are privileged to serve in the Naval Services today have inherited a legacy that we are dedicated to preserving. Together we

will continue to flourish, due to steadfast appreciation of our heritage and a commitment to a tradition of continuous innovation and change.

Teamwork is the bond that forever joins our Services and is the key to our enduring success. We have progressed from wooden ships of sail, with embarked Marines,

to modern networked Naval expeditionary strike forces that are forward deployed

and full spectrum capable. We are a combined-arms force capable of ensuring America’s access, including sustainable forcible entry operations to distant inland areas

and austere locations. Always moving forward, we are incorporating advanced technologies to increase our capabilities to include exploiting the tremendous potential
339

of sea control and power projection. Our innovation is not limited to equipment and

weapons systems but is also reflected in the development of new operational concepts and organizational evolution. When crises emerge, the Nation can depend on

the Navy and Marine Corps Team.

Today, I will describe the Marine Corps’ relevance to the current security environment as well as our future role as America’s sea-based, expeditionary, combinedarms force. I will also address the Marine Corps’ role as the Nation’s mediumweight expeditionary force, bridging the gap between America’s Special Operations

Forces and the Army’s critical land war-winning capability. The preponderance of

this statement will focus on the Marine Corps’ transformation plans and our vision

for the 21st Century.

THE MARINE CORPS’ RELEVANCE: POWER PROJECTION FROM THE SEA-BASE

For the United States to provide its citizens with security and prosperity at home

and abroad it must continue to lead the effort in maintaining international stability.

One only need consider the events of September 11th, and the fact that 30 percent

of the United States Gross Domestic Product is directly related to global trade, to

realize that America’s well-being is inextricably linked to the international order.

America must continue to establish and lead efforts to maintain stability around the

world. This challenge requires the integrated application of all elements of national

power—economic, political, diplomatic, cultural, intellectual, technological, and military. Working in concert with the other components of national power, our armed

forces perform a vital role in establishing and maintaining conditions that directly

affect global stability and America’s security and prosperity. History shows that our

men and women in uniform play a pivotal role in our Nation’s international credibility. It is not an exaggeration to claim that our Nation’s most important gift to

world order is found in the service of our young men and women in uniform. Before

anything good happens in the world, they are there establishing the framework for

peace and stability.

Inasmuch as global stability is intrinsically tied to America’s relationship with

other nations in the world community, the United States benefits significantly from

military to military relationships around the globe. However, as nations continue to

raise issues of sovereignty, especially during a crisis, we must find new ways to conduct our Nation’s necessary engagements and have the means to respond to crisis

without being excessively restricted by geo-political issues. In the 21st Century, we

are likely to see a change in the number and type of large, quasi-permanent American bases around the world as defined by the post-Cold War era. We must begin

to develop alternatives to ensure that we are able to maintain our peacetime presence and our crisis response capabilities. 21st Century basing initiatives are issues

that will have to be addressed in the near future.

We cannot deter aggression, nor defeat future adversaries, solely with military capabilities based at home. Regional engagement requires presence, and there is no

such thing as truly effective ‘‘virtual presence.’’ The inherent mobility and flexibility

of Naval forces in providing off-shore basing options is an effective counter to increasing limitations to access and basing rights. America’s stabilizing influence overseas is contingent upon our ability to deploy, employ, and sustain persistent military forces from the sea. Indeed, the Navy-Marine Corps Team’s sea-based power

projection capabilities are a cornerstone of our military’s contribution to our enduring security and that of our allies.

Sea-based capabilities provided by the Navy-Marine Corps Team are an important

means for America to cultivate its relationship with the world, providing the advantage, both in peacetime and in crisis response operations, of being able to control

the size of our ‘‘footprint’’ ashore. Sea-basing also provides the operational advantages of force protection, operational maneuver space, and the sanctity of sovereign

platforms from which we can engage adversaries.

The Navy-Marine Corps Team’s sea-based capabilities have been re-validated over

the past several months. In Afghanistan, sea-based Naval forces provided a significant portion of tactical air sorties and the initial deployment of major, sustained

ground force presence, reaching over 600 miles inland. [See Figure 1]

Operation Enduring Freedom has also proven the value of the Navy-Marine Corps

Team as an important element of a Joint Force.
340

[FIGURE 1]

Important contributions were made through Marine integration with Special Operations Forces, the Army, and the Air Force in the areas of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capabilities to long-range strike and close air support capabilities. The Marine Corps has demonstrated that the Marine brigade—a flexible,

medium-weight, combined arms, expeditionary force—is not only responsive, but

also a full and effective partner in Joint and Coalition operations.

THE MARINE CORPS’ ROLE: A SCALABLE, SUSTAINABLE, FORCIBLE ENTRY FORCE

The Marine Corps provides our Nation and its Joint Force Commanders the full

scope of military capabilities required to respond to the broad spectrum of threats

and potential missions that confront America’s armed forces today and in the future.

For six percent of the Department of Defense’s budget, the Marine Corps provides

twenty percent of our Nation’s ground combat maneuver battalions, tactical fixedwing aircraft squadrons, and attack helicopter squadrons, as well as one-third of its

active duty combat service support.

If there is a lesson to be learned from ongoing operations in Afghanistan, it is that

there is tremendous power and capability in the diversity of our armed forces today.

Joint Force Commanders must have the fullest possible range of options and capabilities available in order to apply the desired effects, both lethal and non-lethal, in

any given scenario. Indeed, the flexibility and robustness of America’s armed forces

is a product of the varied and unique capabilities each Service contributes to our

Nation. Accordingly, our capabilities need to be complementary, not duplicative, if

we are to provide the diverse and versatile capabilities needed to confront the uncertain threats of the future. Together, our Joint force forms a mosaic of integrated capabilities to defeat the myriad threats and challenges we may face today and tomorrow. Enhancing these capabilities across the force is in the national interest.

Marine Air-Ground Task Forces have proven their utility in meeting challenges

and exploiting opportunities. The versatility of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade is

emblematic of the scalability of our Marine Air-Ground Task Forces. In size and capability, these brigades are midway between our ‘‘light’’ Marine Expeditionary Units

and our ‘‘heavy’’ Marine Expeditionary Forces. Furthermore, our Marine Expeditionary Brigades can either deploy on amphibious shipping or be airlifted into a theater of operations to link up with equipment and supplies aboard Maritime

Prepositioning Ships.

While the global war on terrorism has demonstrated the current capabilities of

the Navy-Marine Corps Team, our continuous transformation and modernization
341

promise even greater future capabilities for the Marine Corps. Transformation is an

ongoing process, however, not an end-state. It spans decades of innovation and experimentation. It is also not limited to technology, but includes change in our organizational structure, operational concepts, and business practices.

The Marine Corps has always been at the forefront of transformation and innovation. Throughout our history, the Marine Corps has changed and evolved—from ship

security, to naval constabulary, to light infantry, to an amphibious assault force, to

an air-ground expeditionary team. In the past, our development of close air support,

amphibious warfare, vertical envelopment, Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing

technology, and maritime prepositioning have benefited our Joint warfighting capability. Today, the Marine Corps remains true to its warrior culture and continues

in a tradition of change. Drawing on our history of transformation, the Marine

Corps is moving forward with new concepts, innovation, and exciting experimentation. Our focus is on the creation of new capabilities, which will yield the operational advantages we seek to have in dealing with future conflicts.

THE MARINE CORPS’ TRANSFORMATION: CONCEPTS, TECHNOLOGIES, AND

ORGANIZATIONS

Although many think of transformation primarily in terms of weapons systems,

true transformation results from a synthesis of new technologies with strategic vision, revolutionary operational concepts, and agile, adaptive organizations. Clearly,

we must harness the potential military benefits of rapid advances in technology.

The V–22 Osprey is but one example of the potential of proven transformational

technology. The path to transformation involves a robust program of experimentation with new concepts, capabilities and operational prototypes while actively pursuing forward-looking science and technology efforts. As we experiment and introduce new capabilities, we will rapidly mainstream the changes into our ready forces.

[See Figure 2]

[FIGURE 2]

Transformation of Operational Concepts and Better Business Practices

Technological innovation plays a paradoxical role in military transformation. With

each problem it solves, technological innovation tends to introduce new challenges

and opportunities. Operational concepts can offset these tensions by finding the

means to capitalize on technological strengths and also guard against creating new

weaknesses. In light of heightened fiscal awareness and the need to be effective

with our resources, we must reform our business practices to maximize available re-
342

sources and develop more expedient means of fielding programs and equipment.

With this in mind, the Marine Corps is committed to transforming its operational

concepts and business practices.

The ongoing process of conceptual change is embodied in the recent publication

of our overarching concept, Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare. It is the foundation

for the way the Marine Corps will conduct operations in the 21st Century. Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare is the union of our core competencies, maneuver warfare

philosophy, expeditionary heritage, and the concepts by which we organize, deploy,

and employ forces. It emphasizes the unique and proven capabilities the Marine

Corps provides Joint Force Commanders and the synergy created when leveraged

with the complementary capabilities of other Services and agencies. These capabilities translate into power projection designed to promote global security and reassure

our allies and friends, while deterring and defeating adversaries and potential foes.

Central to our conceptual transformation is the potential power represented in a

future integrated sea-base. At-sea arrival and assembly, selective off-load, and atsea reconstitution capabilities stand to revolutionize the way Naval forces project

power and influence around the globe. Our evolving logistics concepts promise indefinite sustainment of Marine forces, both afloat and ashore. As well, Marine forces

afloat typically rely upon the Command, Control, Communications, and Computer

(C4) capabilities aboard amphibious shipping to provide critical reach-back

connectivity to deployed elements of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force, and communications with Joint and multinational forces. These afloat C4 capabilities are

crucial to the success of sea-basing and to achieving the full potential of Naval

power projection.

The Marine Corps’ sea-basing strategy is yet another illustration of continued

transformation in operational concepts. Recognizing the increasing limitations on future basing potential of American forces overseas and the simultaneous need for the

United States to maintain a forward presence, the Navy and the Marine Corps are

developing a forward presence strategy as an extension and augmentation of our

concept of sea-basing. Sea-basing is the formation of Joint assets at sea to project

and sustain combat power ashore, while reducing or eliminating our landward logistics footprint during combat operations. The sea-based presence strategy boosts forward engagement during peacetime by increasing the number of countries that we

may visit without being permanently stationed at large fixed-bases in host nations.

Marines can deploy from country to country and advance diplomatic and informational efforts through military-to-military relations, small unit training, liaison exchanges, and exercises. III Marine Expeditionary Force’s annual Cooperation Afloat

Readiness and Training in the Asia-Pacific region is an illustration of this concept.

In addition to codifying overarching conceptual innovations, the Marine Corps is

adjusting its tactics, techniques, and procedures to better support conceptual

change. Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron-1 is adapting tactics, techniques, and procedures for the employment of aviation operations in urban terrain—

a vital, yet challenging environment today and in the future. Advancements have

been made in target selection and tracking, weapon selection and employment,

friendly unit position identification, command and control, and staff planning. Likewise, the Marine Corps is actively engaged in the development of the underlying

concepts of Network Centric Warfare for Naval expeditionary forces. We are exploiting state-of-the-art information and networking technology to improve situational

awareness and to integrate widely dispersed sensors, forces, and weapons. Network

Centric Warfare will allow commanders to achieve mission objectives rapidly and

decisively by concentrating the combined fire and maneuver of Naval forces afloat

and ashore at decisive locations and times. Similarly, the Marine Corps led Joint

Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate is forging the way for the development of non-lethal technologies, as well as the tactics, techniques, and procedures for effectively

employing their effects. Congressional funding of the Non-Lethal Technology Innovation Center at the University of New Hampshire will continue to provide further

stimulus for the experimentation and formulation of doctrine that guides the tactical use of these new weapons.

Just as it is transforming its doctrine, the Marine Corps is also transforming its

business practices. Our readiness is a reflection of balancing the demands of current

requirements around the globe with the imperative to invest and be prepared for

the future. This balance can—over the long haul—be achieved only if resources are

reallocated from overhead and support activities to our fighting forces. To accomplish this reallocation of resources, we are adopting better business practices to

achieve greater cost-effectiveness. There are several different avenues that the Marine Corps is taking to make this happen. We are streamlining organizations to

eliminate redundancy and maximize integration. We are also reducing excess support structures to free resources and focus on core competencies.
343

To transform our business practices, the Marine Corps must increasingly rely on

business intelligence and associated technologies promoting access to information.

We consider information to be a strategic asset, and by assuring access to information, we will improve the operational agility of the Marine Corps. Our efforts to promote enterprise management of information technology confirm our need for a common infrastructure that includes a shared data environment, realignment and consolidation of many of our information systems, and the search for cost-effective

strategies.

Commercialization, privatization, and out-sourcing are among the methods the

Marine Corps has used to reduce costs, but ultimately it is competition between

public and private sources that has led to increased savings. The Marine Corps has

initiated competition between government sources and private sector commercial

sources for a broad number of activities, best seen in the Marine Corps’ application

of such competition vis-a-vis its bases and stations. To operate our 15 major installations—essentially providing the range of support services typical of a municipality—a labor force of approximately 20,000 Marines and 14,000 civilians are employed. One of the processes we have used in these competitions to save money is

Activity-Based Costing and Management. This process provided our installation

commanders information that enabled them to save over $30 million last year by

analytically measuring the costs of particular work and evaluating the performance

of that work.

Another example of turning to the private sector and using competition to bring

down costs is the success of our new camouflage utility uniform. The uniform was

created, tested, produced, and fielded by the Marine Corps—with the use of a new

digital camouflage design technique—through a single source vendor, yielding a

product that is superior in quality, comfort, and cost to that in existence today. We

are extremely pleased with this innovative uniform that not only costs less in the

long run, but is a product improvement benefiting our Marines. All of this was

achieved within a one year period.

Just as the Marine Corps’ new utility uniform is an example of both tactical and

business innovation, so too the transformation of operational concepts and business

practices are seen together in our Integrated Logistics Capability. The Integrated

Logistics Capability is redefining and realigning our supply and maintenance process by providing our logisticians with greater awareness of equipment status, increasing their capacity to more rapidly and effectively respond to logistical requirements on the battlefield. The simple objective of our Integrated Logistics Capability

is to avoid weighing down the warfighters with the requirement to haul, protect,

and administer massive amounts of supply material. The foundation of this concept

and business practice is a revolutionary change in military methodology: shifting

from massive inventories to small inventories. With the use of new technologies and

practices, proven in the private sector, the Corps will, in essence, create a ‘‘new

order’’ for its logistics enterprise and undertake the revolutionary changes necessary

to ensure that it continues to be the premier fighting force in the world. Second

Force Service Support Group at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, is currently testing

many of these new processes in a year long ‘‘proof of concept’’ to validate the direction in which we are heading. These efforts will allow Marine logisticians to support

the battlefield of the 21st Century with a smaller logistical footprint in a more costeffective manner.

Transformation and Modernization Through Harnessing Technologies

With the foundation of requirements drawn from its new concepts, the Marine

Corps is transforming its weapons systems and assets throughout the five elements

of our Marine Air-Ground Task Forces—our ground, aviation, logistics, and command elements, as well as our supporting establishment. The following examples

are but a few of our transformational and modernization efforts. Many of our investments involve modernization of existing capabilities vital to effectively and efficiently fulfill our core competencies. A more comprehensive description of the Marine Corps’ entire acquisition program can be found in the Marine Corps’ Concepts

& Issues: Forging the Future Marine Corps.

Amphibious Shipping for Sea-basing

We are a maritime nation and we must capitalize on this part of our national

character to ensure that we are ready for the challenges that are over the horizon.

The requirement for our amphibious shipping remains the linchpin of the Corps’

ability to influence the international security landscape, project power, and protect

the Nation’s interests during peacetime and crises. While it has long been recognized that we require an amphibious ship force structure capable of simultaneously

lifting the assault echelons of three Marine Expeditionary Brigades, today’s amphib-
344

ious lift can support only two-thirds of this requirement in certain aspects of the

lift footprint. I strongly recommend that we commit to redress this shortfall as a

matter of urgent priority.

We are grateful for your support in replacing four classes of older ships with the

new LPD–17 San Antonio amphibious ship class. Delivery of these 12 ships to the

fleet is currently planned to be complete in 2015. However, we remain concerned

about further schedule slippage in the LPD–17 program. Such delays compromise

our ability to fulfill our global forward presence responsibilities and must be avoided. Similarly, we are concerned with replacing the LHA–1 Tarawa class ships. Considering the extended time-frame for ship design, construction, and delivery, we

need to ensure now that we are ready to replace the Tarawa class when they reach

the end of their 35 year service life starting in 2011. [See Figure 3]

[FIGURE 3]

The leases of our current fleet of Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) will expire

in fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010, and fiscal year 2011. The development of advanced Mmaritime Prepositioning capabilities, High Speed Vessel platforms, and

new lighterage vessels, will significantly increase the strength and flexibility of our

sea-based expeditionary operations. The marriage of a modern amphibious fleet with

modern Maritime Prepositioning Shipping capable of hosting at-sea arrival and assembly of forces will minimize the requirement for access to secure ports and airfields, and give our Nation an unmatched asymmetrical advantage in projecting

power.

Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

The V–22 Osprey remains the Corps’ number one aviation acquisition priority. Recent actions in Central Asia have only reinforced the immediate need for this truly

transformational capability. [See Figure 4]
345

[FIGURE 4]

Tilt-rotor technology holds the promise to revolutionize aviation—we should not

be afraid to embrace this promise. Both the Department of Defense’s Panel to Review the V–22 Program and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s

Tiltrotor Aeromechanics Phenomena Assessment Panel concluded that tilt-rotor

technology is sound and that mishaps have been the result of engineering deficiencies that can be solved. The V–22 will radically increase the Marine Corps and

Special Operations Command’s operational reach and tactical flexibility. The Osprey’s superior range, speed, and payload will give Marines and Special Operations

Forces the ability to accomplish combat missions and other operations from distances previously unattainable, with response times far faster than possible with

other airframes. The battlespace of the future will demand capabilities that provide

rapid and effective maneuver. Through the use of the V–22’s increased speed and

range, we not only improve our ability to influence the tempo of operations, but we

provide our forces with greater survivability. These capabilities are the foundation

for how we have planned to transform our operational concepts and intend to reorganize our force structure.

We are aware of the challenges associated with the Osprey but are pleased that

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has announced that a new comprehensive flight test program for the V–22 will start this

Spring. This flight test effort will be ‘‘event-driven,’’ as opposed to being ‘‘time-driven.’’ Both the Secretary of the Navy and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics will periodically review flight test results to assess

progress.

Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing Aircraft

In late October 2001, the contract was awarded for the Joint Strike Fighter, signaling a new era in naval aviation. The advantages of a stealthy strike fighter capable of taking off from an expeditionary base on land or at sea, fly in supersonic

cruise, accomplish its mission with advanced sensors and weapons, then return to

its expeditionary site are dramatic. This aircraft will transform the very foundations

of tactical air power. It will provide the reliability, survivability, and lethality that

our forces will need in the years ahead. Moreover, the Short Take-Off and Vertical

Landing Joint Strike Fighter variant provides operational access to more than three

to five times the number of airfields available around the world that are currently

capable of supporting our so-called ‘‘legacy’’ aircraft. The Short Take-Off and

Vertical Landing Joint Strike Fighter can also operate from both conventional car-
346

riers and amphibious assault ship decks, effectively doubling the number of shipborne platforms available for operations. As these highly capable aircraft move from

sea-based platforms to expeditionary airfields, they can effectively decrease response

time for missions by 75 percent and increase time-on-station by 50 percent. These

capabilities represent a significant increase in strategic agility, operational reach,

and tactical flexibility over conventional aircraft.

Fire Support Systems

Of critical interest to our Marine Air-Ground Task Forces is the status of our fire

support systems on land, at sea, and in the air. We currently have an acute shortage of fire support. It is vital for us to move ahead with existing programs to provide our Marines with this important warfighting enhancement. Indeed, the funding, testing, and development of our systems are vital. The Lightweight 155 Howitzer is needed to replace our aging ‘‘legacy’’ field artillery weapons. The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, moreover, promises to be rapidly deployable and will

be a key part of our expeditionary operations, firing both precision and area munitions under all weather conditions, as well as extending our ground-based fire support umbrella to 60 kilometers. In addition to these fire support systems, we need

the Ground Weapon Locating Radar to protect our forces against our adversaries’

counter-battery fires. We should also continue to invest in Naval Surface Fire Support. Remedying the fire support shortfall we have lived with for much of the last

two decades is crucial.

Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles

The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle program remains the Corps’ highest

ground acquisition priority and promises to allow high-speed surface maneuver from

ship-to-shore as well as on land. This vehicle will be able to deploy to objectives

from over the visual horizon, 25 miles and beyond, and will allow our ships to remain beyond the range of many threat weapons and surveillance systems. It will

help off-set an enemy’s anti-access strategies and bolster expeditionary operations

from the sea. Furthermore, the Bushmaster II 30 mm cannon will give the vehicle

a lethal direct fire capability. The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle will be a

decisive expeditionary warfare tool for operations in littoral areas world-wide.

High Speed Vessel

High-speed, intra-theater sealift, catamaran vessels provide phenomenal increases

in speed and tactical flexibility for our Navy-Marine Corps Team. Building on operational use of the Royal Australian Navy’s HMS Jervis Bay, our Joint Venture High

Speed Vessel promises to reap new developments that will lead to new capabilities.

Additionally, leasing the 331-foot commercial catamaran Austal West Pac Express,

III Marine Expeditionary Force has demonstrated the viability of such vessels, using

it to transport Marines and their equipment to training exercises through out

Asia—lifting 950 Marines and 550 tons of materiel per trip, the equivalent of 14

to 17 military cargo aircraft. The Navy-Marine Corps Team’s current requirement

is for a craft that can transport 400 tons of cargo, travel 1,200 miles without refueling, and achieve a speed greater than 40 knots. We are confident in the High Speed

Vessels capacity to deliver these capabilities and transform our intra-theater mobility.

Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have already seen extensive action in the war against

terrorism and their use is expanding. This technology’s potential, combined with its

ability to conduct dangerous missions without the risk of personnel casualties, make

this a truly transformational asset. The Navy and Marine Corps’ Vertical Take-Off

and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Engineering Development Model program is

designed to test and evaluate various sensor packages and the Tactical Control System architecture for use in future Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. In the interim, Marine Corps Pioneer systems will be upgraded to perform Unmanned Aerial

Vehicle functions (Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition). Presently,

Marine Corps Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are preparing to deploy to Central Command’s area of responsibility.

Aerial Refueling

Replacement of our aging KC–130 Hercules fleet with KC–130J aircraft is necessary to ensure the viability and deployability of Marine Corps Tactical Aircraft

Refueling and Assault Support well into the 21st Century. The KC–130J’s performance features include increased cruising airspeed, night vision compatible interior

and exterior lighting, enhanced rapid ground refueling capability, digital avionics,

and powerful propulsion systems. These strengths promise lower life-cycle expenses
347

and eliminate the need for costly KC–130F/R Service Life Extension Programs. In

sum, the KC–130J gives us the aerial refueling capability required to meet our current and future tactical aerial refueling demands.

Maritime Prepositioning Shipping Support Facility

Supporting the Marine Corps’ Maritime Prepositioning Shipping, the Blount Island facility in Jacksonville, Florida, is truly a national asset that must be secured

for long-term use. Its peacetime mission to support the Maritime Prepositioning

Force has been of exceptional value to the Corps, but its wartime capability of supporting massive logistics sustainment from the Continental United States gives it

strategic significance. The purchase of Blount Island is planned for fiscal year 2004,

when our current lease of the facility will expire.

Command and Control

Command and Control technologies being introduced into Marine operating Forces

are key to making Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare a reality. Marine forces once

ashore will utilize the Lightweight Multi-band Satellite Terminal, Tactical Data

Network, and High Frequency Automatic Link Establishment Radios to link widely

dispersed forces into the Network Centric environment. These technologies will result in capabilities that will greatly increase the operational agility of your Marine

Corps.

Transformation of Organizational Structure

The transformation of our weapons systems and equipment as well as our operational concepts and business practices is a difficult task. Transforming how we organize ourselves is even more difficult. Nonetheless, building on its institutional legacy of adapting to match the threats and missions of a given time, the Marine Corps

is reorganizing its structure. Furthermore, at the core of transforming our organization, is the optimizing of our greatest asset, our Marines.

One of our leading examples of transformational reorganization is the 4th Marine

Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorism). The 4th MEB (AT) combined our Marine

Security Guards stationed at America’s embassies around the world, Fleet Anti-Terrorist Security Teams, and Chemical Biological Incident Response Force with an organic aviation component, combat service support element, and specialized anti-terrorism infantry battalion, as well as a command element with dedicated planners,

coordinators, and liaison officers for anti-terrorism operations. The 4th MEB (AT)

has had an immediate impact, deploying to our re-opened embassy in Kabul, as well

as supporting anthrax decontamination at the Capitol and security at the Olympics

and the State-of-the-Union address. In the near future, all deployable units will deploy with an anti-terrorism capability.

In addition to standing up the 4th MEB (AT), we are looking at other organizational transformation initiatives. We are looking at additional ways to optimize our

forces by realigning outdated structures to reflect new realities. Now is the time to

consider how to best organize our forces to meet the needs of this transformational

era.

Similar self-examination has led to successful change in our supporting establishment. Three illustrations of this are Marine Corps Combat Development Command,

the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity in Quantico, Virginia, and Materiel Command in Albany, Georgia. By reorganizing the Marine Corps Combat Development

Command we have redefined its role in supporting Marine Operating Forces and the

Service Headquarters. It has emerged as the Corps’ home for long-range thinking

and has taken on the role of coordinating requirements with the Navy as well as

facilitating the Marine Corps’ relationship with Joint Forces Command. The Marine

Corps Intelligence Activity, likewise, has been highly successful in validating our intelligence reach-back concept. Exploiting both new command relationships and

connectivity, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity is providing timely, accurate intelligence to our globally deployed tactical forces. Similarly, by establishing Materiel

Command we have created a unity of effort and streamlined processes for the Marine Corps’ acquisition and logistics support functions and ground weapons/equipment life cycle management processes. Material Command transformation initiatives for materiel readiness improvements and increased visibility of total ownership

costs will achieve significant future cost avoidance and savings. This allows the Installations and Logistics Department at Headquarters Marine Corps to more effectively concentrate on policy decisions and support to the operating forces and the

regional combatant commanders. In each of these reorganizations, optimizing efforts

of the men and women who serve our Corps has been our primary intent.
348

Our People

Our highest priority remains unchanged: Marines, their families and our civilian

workforce. 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. Both Marine Expeditionary Force Augmentation Command Elements, two infantry battalions, two heavy helicopter squadrons, two aerial refueler transport detachments, as well as other units have been

mobilized to support Operation Enduring Freedom. Called to duty, over 3,000 Marine Reservists are providing seamless support from operational tempo relief at

Guantanamo Bay to augmentation at Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune.

Because our people are our number one priority, safety in the Marine Corps is

a critical concern. While it is essential to maintaining our readiness, it is also a vital

element of the quality of life that we provide our Marines and their families. I am

pleased to report that 2001 was a banner year for safety in the Marine Corps. The

Aviation community set a record, posting the lowest Class A mishap rate in the

Corps’ history. Through education, vigilance, and command involvement we reduced

privately owned vehicle fatalities 39 percent last year. And overall, we had our second lowest mishap fatality rate in 14 years. These are all very positive signs in our

quest to safeguard our most precious assets, our Marines.

One factor contributing to our safety challenge is that we are a young force. The

average age of our Marines is 24, roughly six to eight years younger than the average age of the members of the other services. This is part of the culture of the Corps

as our unique force structure shows 68 percent of our Marines being on their first

enlistment at any one time. The nature of our force structure requires us to annually recruit 41,000 men and women into our enlisted ranks. To fill this tremendous

demand, our recruiters work tirelessly and have consistently met our accession goals

in quality and quantity for over six and a half years. The performance of our recruiters has been superb.

Retention is just as important as recruiting. We are proud that we are meeting

our retention goals across nearly all military occupational specialties. Intangibles—

such as the desire to serve the Nation, to belong to a cohesive organization, and to

experience leadership responsibilities through service in the Corps—are a large part

of the reason we can retain the remarkable men and women who choose to stay on

active duty. Concrete evidence of this phenomenon is seen in our deployed units,

which continually record the highest reenlistment rates in the Corps. The Selective

Reenlistment Bonus Program has been an additional, powerful tool to meet our retention goals. Increases for the Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program, as well as

the targeted pay raise initiative, will go a long way toward meeting our retention

goals and helping take care of our Marines and their families.

While we recruit Marines, generally, we retain families. The effectiveness of our

Marines is dependent, in large measure, on the support they receive from their

loved ones. Our families are therefore vital to our readiness. Increased pay, as well

as improved housing and health care, directly influence our families’ quality of life

and, in turn, enhances the readiness of our units. Your support of our families’ quality of life has greatly contributed to our retention success. We are extremely thankful for the enactment of much-needed improvements to the TRICARE system for our

active duty personnel and for our retired veterans. Thank you, as well, for continuing to support increases in the Basic Allowance for Housing that help our Marines meet the rising costs of rent and utilities within the limits of their housing

allowances.

This Committee has provided considerable support to our Marines and their families and the Marine Corps has also improved services to our families in hopes of

further enhancing their quality of life. We have established Marine Corps Community Services aboard our installations to better provide for both our Marine families

as well as our single Marines, who constitute nearly 60 percent of our total active

force. We have also sought to recognize and support our Marines and families with

special needs and I am proud to say that both the Marine Corps’ Exceptional Family

Member Program and the Military Committee for Persons with Disabilities were the

recipients of the 2001 S. Robert Cohen Annual Achievement Award for their commitment to facilitating and coordinating support and services to families with special needs.

Similarly, seeking to be more responsive to our Marines and to enhance their career opportunities, we have undertaken a number of manpower reforms to better

manage the force. Through the personal involvement of commanders, career plan-
349

ners, and leaders throughout the chain of command, we have been able to meet our

retention goals, stabilize our force, and reduce the burden on our recruiters. We are

investing considerable resources to successfully recruit, develop, and retain the civilians who work alongside our Marines. Our strategic plan in this regard is to develop

civilian career programs that integrate and advance technical and leadership competencies.

We are also investing in our Marines by improving how we train and educate

them. We believe the old adage, ‘‘you fight the way you train.’’ Because of this, our

training exercises are becoming increasingly Joint and combined to provide our Marines with the experience that they will need when they are called upon to respond

to crises that require them to work alongside our sister services and partners from

other nations. Our ability to effectively operate in both joint and coalition environments was clearly evident in the experiences of the Marines of Task Force 58 in

Afghanistan. However, we are increasingly finding that the training and mission effectiveness of our Marines is degraded by the many forms of encroachment on our

bases and stations. We need your continued support to ensure that the growing complexity and expense of encroachment issues do not curtail our efforts to conduct

meaningful training. Encroachment issues will continue to be a 21st Century problem.

Experience, in tandem with education, is the best foundation for dealing with both

difficulty and fortuity. Accordingly, we are not solely focused on training our Marines, but on educating them as well. We have expanded our non-resident education

programs to ensure that greater numbers of Marines have the opportunity to better

themselves. We are also adjusting our policies to better accommodate family realities—such as spouses with careers or children with exceptional needs—when selecting officers to attend various schools that require a change in duty station. We have

instituted a ‘‘National Fellows program’’ for competitively selected junior officers

and staff non-commissioned officers to experience the corporate world, think tanks,

non-governmental organizations, and the workings of Congress. The experiences

they receive will broaden perspectives and provide valuable insights that will

strengthen our capacity to innovate and adapt in the years to come.

The Marine Corps’ commitment to training and education, as well as our commitment to our ‘‘warrior culture,’’ is reinforced in our recently instituted martial arts

program. We have developed a discipline unique to the Corps and we are in the

process of training every Marine in its martial skills. This program promotes both

physical prowess and mental discipline. Successive levels of achievement are rewarded with different colored belts reflecting a combination of demonstrated character, judgment, and physical skill. This training will benefit Marines in the complex missions we face; especially in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations

where physical stamina and mental discipline are vital to success. At its heart, our

martial arts training is fundamentally focused on mentoring our young men and

women and helping them to understand that the keys to mission accomplishment

are often a matter of combining intelligence, strength, and self-control to influence

circumstances, rather than simply resorting to the application of deadly force. The

warrior ethos we instill in our Marines, transforms them into intelligent and disciplined warriors, and mirrors the Marine Corps’ own transformation in equipment,

doctrine, and structure.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the Marine Corps’ transformation is a synthesis of new operational

concepts and better business practices, leap-ahead technologies, and realigned organizations. This transformation promises to exponentially increase the Corps’ seabased capabilities as America’s medium-weight expeditionary force in the years

ahead. Our capabilities, combined with those of our sister Services, form an integrated array that provides America with the diversity and versatility she needs to

confront different threats and environments and accomplish disparate missions. In

close partnership with the Navy, we are proud of what our Corps contributes as

America’s forward engagement and expeditionary combined-arms force. We are

grateful to you for your leadership and for the unwavering support you provide to

your Corps of Marines.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General Jones.

Before we proceed, Senator Hutchison, would you care to make

an opening statement?
350

Senator HUTCHISON. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to say

that I really appreciate very much your being here and I think you

are doing a superior job, all of you.

Senator INOUYE. Before proceeding, Mr. Secretary, may I assure

you—and I believe I speak for all members of the committee—that

your recommendation and suggestion will be considered very, very

seriously. We have done it in the past and we feel certain that we

can do it again.

Secretary ENGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Your recommendation will be considered, sir.

Secretary ENGLAND. Thank you very much, sir.

SHIPBUILDING

Senator INOUYE. I believe all of us here are concerned about

shipbuilding. Can you give us your picture as to what we can foresee today and in the future on shipbuilding?

Secretary ENGLAND. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the fiscal year 2003 budget, we have five new ships and we

have two very large conversions of our SSBNs to SSGNs, so ballistic missile submarines to conventional land attack submarines.

Those two conversions will cost approximately $1 billion and they

are new ships to us. They will be new ships, and they do increase

our number of ships in the force because otherwise they would

have been retired. So, that is a commitment of $1 billion we put

into those modifications rather than a new ship, but it gives us significant capability.

Also this year we added to our current shipbuilding accounts

$400 million. We added the $400 million because, as you know, in

prior years we had large prior-year bills. In fact, in the budget this

year we have put in, I believe, $645 million for prior-year shipbuilding accounts. So, we have $645 million to pay off prior-year

shipbuilding bills, and in addition, then to try to eliminate that

problem in the future, one of the steps we took was to add $400

million to our current programs to fully fund those programs. But

that $400 million and the $645 million for prior-year shipbuilding,

that is another $1 billion. So, there is another ship we did not build

or put into the budget because we wanted to cure this problem

going forward and we had prior-year bills.

Now, at the same time, as the Senator mentioned, and as the

CNO commented, we let the contract for DD–X. That is a vitally

important program for the Navy. And as you commented, Mr.

Chairman, it is not the number of ships we build it is the capability that we provide for our naval forces, and it is very important

for us to move forward into the new ships for the future for the

next 30 or 40 years. So, DD–X is a foundation program for us.

Now, as we go forward, across our Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) planning, we increase the number of ships. Now, in

the past, that was also the plan, but it never materialized, but I

am confident that this time it will materialize because we have

‘‘filled all the other buckets.’’ That is, we have fully funded our

readiness. We have fully funded our spares. We have fully funded

our accounts, so in the future, we should be able to count on that

money being available; that is, we should not have to take money
351

out of shipbuilding to pay other bills because this year we have

fully funded all those other accounts.

So, in my view, this is a foundation year for the Navy. Fund the

Navy we have today, do it fully, start the new programs. And we

are also looking at other types of ships as we go forward because

technology is making other types of ships available to us, and we

have studies underway in terms of other initiatives we can take.

So, I can assure you that shipbuilding is very important to this

leadership team, and we understand the need to build more ships,

but we also understand the need to build the foundation and to

build the right ships as we go forward.

So, that was our rationale. That is how we spent our money this

year, Mr. Chairman, and I will tell you I am convinced that we

made the right decisions for the future of our great Navy.

SECURITY POSTURE

Senator INOUYE. We are most pleased that the U.S.S. Cole will

be placed back on the inventory of active ships. Are we going back

into Yemen? If so, are you satisfied that the fleet and the men are

prepared?

Secretary ENGLAND. I will let the CNO answer that directly, but

I can tell you that we will in every case, no matter where we put

our ships, wherever we port them, wherever we visit, security is

our number one priority. So, everywhere in the world, we make

sure we have security people on shore, on ship, and security around

our ships. So, in every case that is our number one priority. I will

let the CNO specifically address Yemen, sir.

Admiral CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can report to you,

because I discussed this with my component commander in the region within the last 2 weeks, they have sent teams over to analyze

the security posture in Aden. The decision to put a ship into Yemen

would be made by the theater commander, General Franks. But it

clearly would be made with the recommendation of his Navy component commander, and as I indicated we have discussed these

issues.

There has been no decision nor recommendation to my knowledge—no recommendation to my knowledge, certainly no decision—

to move back into the utilization of Yemen as a refueling port. I

will say that for the record I want it to be clear that the security

posture—and this reinforces the Secretary of the Navy’s

(SECNAV’s) comments—used throughout the world has been

beefed up in every port of call that we make and rightly so in the

environment that we are living in. So, a decision to utilize that port

facility will be based upon the assessment of the threat and the assessment of the security structure that is able to be put in place.

In order to go into any foreign port, you have to have the cooperation of the host nation, and so those evaluations and assessments

to date have not led to a recommendation or a decision to continue

or to return to the utilization of that port.

One thing that has changed a great deal—and I am not going to

say too much in an open forum about how we do this. I do not want

any potential enemy to have a leg up or to know the details of what

we are doing. It is a matter of open record—part of the budget—

that we have committed significant funds to improve our security
352

posture and the ability to provide mobile security forces for our

ships around the world. So, that is where we stand today, sir.

AAAV PROGRAM

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much.

General, the Afghanistan war has affirmed your expeditionary

requirement for a high-speed ship-to-shore vehicle. However, the

program slated to fulfill this requirement, the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), has faced a few challenges I have

been told. What is the present status of that program?

General JONES. Sir, the AAAV program is actually in my opinion

a very, very successful program. We voluntarily recommended a

slip to fix a few things, but all of a minor nature. It was 2 years

ago an award-winning program. It won the Packard Award. The

Secretary is very, very familiar with this program. It is transformational, and from the Marine Corps’ standpoint, the biggest

transformation is the speed in which it will transport sailors and

marines from ship to shore and also its onboard weapons system

will be superior to anything we have seen in a long time. I am very

optimistic that the program will arrive on schedule and that the

technical problems have been overcome.

We have to be careful though, with how rapidly we acquire the

AAAV because it is an expensive program, but over time it will significantly overhaul one of the important legs of your Marine Corps’

expeditionary capability.

Senator INOUYE. Well, I am pleased to know that it is on track.

We have been receiving word that you had problems.

General JONES. This was voluntarily done because it was prudent. We have had such great success with the service life extension program of our Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the vehicle

that we will retire. By replacing the suspension system with the

Bradley system and replacing the engine in the AAV, we have

achieved phenomenal success, extending that vehicle’s service life

so we can take the time that we need to make sure that when the

AAAV comes on line, it is perfect.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Stevens.

NORTHERN EDGE EXERCISE

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Admiral, first let me congratulate you for the Northern Edge exercise. I have had good reports coming out of that. I assume you

have too. It was again a very successful exercise. As I said, I do

not know if you have had any reports back from Northern Edge.

Would you care to comment on that?

Admiral CLARK. Yes, sir, I sure would. I have heard reports back.

This is an operation with the Abraham Lincoln battle group, as a

matter of fact, and it is part of a joint task force exercise that is

being conducted off the waters of Alaska with the Air Force, and

there are some Army units also involved. This is a final certification exercise for our Navy units, and the reports I am receiving

are that the exercise is going very, very well.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. I think that the joint

operation of the Army and the two operations of the Air Force and
353

Navy air really give us a significant exercise at this time of year

in particular.

General Jones, we are about ready to have a next phase in the

V–22. How soon are you going to let me fly it?

General JONES. Sir, the good news is that the V–22 has been approved for a return-to-flight status. The Secretary and I attended

the briefing to Secretary Aldridge, and it was a very proud moment

I think in the Pentagon to be able to sit there and see all the good

work that has been done in the past couple of years to make the

engineering fixes to the V–22 that needed to be done. We are very

grateful for the teamwork and the support that outside agencies

like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

and the independent panel performed for us and very satisfied, as

the Secretary alluded to, with the industrial response.

The return to flight of the MV–22 is currently planned for late

May, and the CV–22s return to flight will be scheduled for July of

this year. We would be happy to have the distinguished Senator fly

just as soon as we get a couple of test flights done just to make

sure everything is just the way we want it and we get everything

just right.

Senator STEVENS. Where is it testing? Down in South Carolina?

General JONES. At Patuxent River, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Patuxent.

General JONES. Yes, sir, so very close by.

Senator STEVENS. Well, that is good.

General JONES. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I shall pursue you.

General JONES. I will eagerly await that pursuit, sir.

Senator STEVENS. This represents the major change in technology in the last half a century, and if you validate it, I think it

is going to change the course of aviation not only in this country

but in the world because it is a new concept and it gives us the

advantage of helicopter lift and medium distance as far as fixed

wing is concerned. It should change the investments we have to

make in airfields. It should change the way we deploy commuter

aircraft in the future. It is very important, I think, to the future

of aviation that we prove that that is a very successful new technology.

General JONES. Sir, the Secretary and I recently visited the

plants where they are producing the aircraft and the changes that

they have made to it, and they have completely redesigned and reengineered the nacelles. The Secretary is much more knowledgeable in this than I am, but even an infantry officer understands the

tremendous changes that have been made and the spirit in which

we have done this, the teamwork and partnership with industry.

The Naval Air Systems Command (NNAVAIR) has been very helpful to us. All in all, it has been a lot of hard work, but I think, Senator, you are absolutely correct that this is transformational not

only militarily but also to our commercial industry.

Senator STEVENS. Well, we thank you for all you are doing to

make it succeed.

General JONES. Thank you, sir.
354

EA–6B PROGRAM

Senator STEVENS. Admiral Clark, can you tell us what this analysis of alternatives for the EA–6B is, and what do you really want

to do with that? Should we look, by the way, for a modified version

of the F/A–18 in the near term?

Admiral CLARK. The analysis was concluded this year and it is

under review right now. But fundamentally, Senator, there are a

half a dozen options that we could proceed with to replace the EA–

6B.

I believe that there is an increased sense of urgency to move

down this path for this reason. Since we commenced the analysis

of alternatives, the demand on this airframe is as high as it is for

anything that we fly in the United States military. Of course, you

are aware, I know, that both the Air Force and the Navy fly this

aircraft.

What is going on right now is the review. In fact, I met with the

Chief of Staff of the Air Force this week to discuss this issue and

the road ahead and to figure out with the Air Force and the Marine

Corps, who also flies this platform, what the right answer is for us.

The acquisition executive will make the decision. I will make a recommendation. I believe that a variant of the F–18 will be a strong

contender to——

Senator STEVENS. I do not think we want to talk about the long

range, but on an interim basis.

Admiral CLARK. On an interim basis, I cannot answer the question if it will be interim or long-term or if it will be a large-bodied

aircraft. Frankly, these are the issues that have to be resolved.

But I will tell you this, that this is the way I see it, that we will

need this kind of capability from aircraft carriers, and that would

lead me to believe that we would seek to get an approach that

would be economically feasible and, of course, everywhere we can

get to fewer variants of aircraft, we are trying to do that. It is a

more efficient and efficient way for us to field the Air Force.

So, it is under review, and I expect that we will be moving toward decisions in the near term. But it is a decision that involves

three services and not just us.

PRECISION MUNITIONS

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Secretary and Admiral, we have been having some reports that the current reserve of precision guided missiles is fairly low. Are you concerned over this low inventory?

Should we be doing anything in the supplemental to give you a

chance to catch up? Are the people who are in training getting sufficient training in the use of these ordnance systems if the reserve

is so low?

Secretary ENGLAND. Senator, we did use more precision munitions than we thought in Afghanistan, considerably more because

up until Afghanistan—in Desert Storm about 20 percent of our munitions were precision. In Afghanistan it was about 80 percent.

That caught us a little bit by surprise, frankly, in terms of our

build rates for precision munitions.

However, we do have money in the supplemental for precision

munitions. We also in our fiscal year 2003 budget this year added
355

$1 billion for precision munitions. I do not want to talk numbers

because of the classified nature of the numbers, but we are now

building those munitions at a very high rate. And I believe the

three of us are comfortable that we have now funded those programs and we are now basically at maximum rate for those munitions. So, they are coming on line very rapidly. That is no longer

a concern, but we do need the funding, obviously, in the supplemental and in the fiscal year 2003 budget. That expenditure actually goes up in the out-years on our precision munitions.

Senator STEVENS. Do those two bills, the supplemental and the

fiscal year 2003 bill, meet your needs, Admiral?

Admiral CLARK. Yes. I believe it provides the correct way ahead.

I would like to say that part of this is brought about by a change

in direction. I will tell you that the Navy changed its approach and

its inventory objective over the course of the last 2 years to become

a more precision force. That is the answer for the future, not just

so that we can see the cross hairs and report it on television and,

you know, we enjoy looking at it that way. The reason is because

one precision round is equal to numerous general purpose rounds.

So, we opened up a line this last year to start improving the delivery of these systems.

I believe that the action taken in the budget and the supplemental puts us on the right path. Again, I would say to you that

this is a discussion that is taking place with the Chief of Staff of

the Air Force, as well as the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

And this budget fundamentally commits another $1 billion to precision munitions, and it is the right answer and it is where we ought

to be.

PHILIPPINES

Senator STEVENS. Gentlemen, the chairman and I and the staff

have just returned from a trip to the Pacific, including a visit in

the Philippines where we went to the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Bataan March, and we were made aware of the feelings of the Philippine community concerning the fact that in the

past Philippine citizens were permitted to attend Annapolis or

West Point. This Nation has a unique relationship to us, particularly to our generation, and after withdrawal of Subic, I guess that

privilege was canceled.

I would like to urge you to look into that matter and reconsider

it. We do not want an answer now. But there were very few, but

very meaningful members of their Filipino community attended our

academies. The former President, Fidel Ramos, was a graduate of

West Point. There were a series that were graduates of Annapolis

that continued their roles in the Philippine military, and it is something that I think would be very significant to renew that relationship. But again, I do not want your answer. I just would wish you

would take that suggestion back, and I think it would be made by

both of us. I think I am speaking for both of us.

Secretary ENGLAND. We will get back to you on that subject, Senator.

Senator STEVENS. Let me just make a short statement, Mr.

Chairman, and that is after these two trips we have taken, I am

convinced that our military in this war against global terrorism is
356

going into a wholly new role, and that is to deal with the support

factor in many nations of the world to assist them to rid themselves of terrorism. We saw a great example of that in the Philippines and our people are doing an excellent job. They are not in

the forefront. They are in the background advising, training, introducing people to new technologies and new systems.

But it does mean that we have got to project that in what you

are talking about now too. I want to see new aircraft carriers, Admiral, but I also would like to make sure that we are integrating

into those all of the systems of the Navy, the use of these Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and the use of small squads

trained, be they marines or others, to immediately assist in areas

where we are called upon to dispatch assistance to help put down

the people who are trying to really destroy the governments of our

allies abroad.

There is no question about it. Their targets are our allies. I cannot think of one single nation that is threatened today that is not

threatened because they are our friends. Under the circumstances,

I think it brings about a need for a great change in the planning

of use of our forces to prevent crises rather than to go in after a

regional war has broken out.

So, I would commend to you thinking about that, and I think we

ought to have some chance to sit down and talk to you and the

Chairman and the Joint Chiefs and see what we might do to fund

some special program to develop an inter-service unit or units that

would respond to these needs.

General Worcester in the Philippines has what I consider to be

sort of a prototype of that operation, and he is extremely successful. If you have not had a briefing of some of the things he did

there in the Philippines, you should get it because he demonstrated

to us he was really ahead of the curve, ahead of all of our thinking

on this matter. A very brilliant young general.

But I commend to you the concept that we should fund some special inter-service units. I do not think they would be Marines or

Army or Navy or Air Force. They need them all when we send advisors into these countries.

Lastly I hope we can restore International Military Education

and Training (IMET) this year. Everywhere we went, IMET was an

issue in the Pacific, and it is unfortunate that we have lost IMET

in so many instances. So, I hope that will be done.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do not know if you all

would want to comment. I am not trying to cut you off, but I do

not seek comments. General.

General JONES. Sir, I would like to underscore just some of the

points you made because they are fundamental to who we are and

what we are going to be 20 and 30 years from now. We learned

that lesson after World War II and we did very well for a long

time, and then we took our eye off the ball and we made it very

difficult for some of these countries to take advantage of some of

the things we can offer. To me it is a short-term view if we put

too many roadblocks in, in terms of access to our schools, not just

the academy but the professional schools that each of the services

have like command and staff college and our top level schools.
357

In my travels, I meet a lot of senior military officials, and invariably they come up and they find a way to tell me that they graduated from the National War College or they graduated from the

Naval Academy or they are wearing Army jump wings or they have

been to Air Force schools. This really ties the community together.

I have made a study this year of how many marine corps there

are and riverine forces there are in the world. There are about 37

of them. Half of them are in South America. This year in July we

put out an invitation to host the leadership of each country that

claims to have a riverine force, to include the Russians and the Vietnamese. And they have accepted, and they are going to come to

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina for a week. We have 25 countries

that have agreed to send their senior leader, their commandant or

equivalent to have, for the first time, a reunion of expeditionary

forces, forces that are naval infantry. To me, this is a very powerful

community that can develop. I know the other services have similar programs, but it is the first time for naval infantry.

These associations and our outreach to them have an exponential

benefit. It is not measured in the number of people that we put

into it, but the quality of the training, the quality of the education

we are able to provide, and the lifelong associations pay off in so

many ways years down the road that it is well worth the investment.

Senator STEVENS. I am taking too much of your time, Senator

Cochran, but I have made a suggestion that we consider opening

up platoon-level training opportunities for military forces that

would be engaged in riot suppression. One of the problems that led

to the suspension of IMET for the Philippines was such an endeavor in East Timor, and it led, as we all know, to really sad circumstances. But those people had not been trained to deal with a

riot or a rebellion of that type, and the result was disaster. We

should be extending the training not only to the senior officers but

to some of the key people that are involved in the overall concept

of riot suppression.

General JONES. One of the things these gentlemen are most interested in is exactly that question, and they have asked us if we

would introduce them to the nonlethal weapons technologies that

we have been perfecting. The guidance from the Congress was that

the Marine Corps would take the lead in the joint program, and we

have done that now for several years. So, we will be providing demonstrations to probably over 30 nations who will come and study

these techniques.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. It is nice to have you

all back again. Will we see you all next year? Will you all be back

next year?

General JONES. God willing, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Lately, with time passing so fast, there have

been so many people stepping out and we get replacements that we

did not expect.

Admiral CLARK. I expect to be here next year, Senator.

General JONES. In the Pentagon, we take it a day at a time, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Cochran.
358

DD–X PROGRAM

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Secretary, I made some comments about the DD–X program

in my opening statement. I wonder if you could give the committee

the benefit of your expectations for this program.

Secretary ENGLAND. Well, as I commented, Senator, this is the

foundation program for the Navy as we go forward. There are really potentially three different ships in this umbrella program. The

first one is DD–X, which is the fire support ship, but with very

unique features, which is one of the reasons Northrop-Grumman

won that competition. But it is also a cruiser missile defense ship,

and also potentially the technology would go into our littoral combatant ships and we are looking at that right now.

Senator COCHRAN. Specifically, could you tell us, for the civilians

in the audience, what littoral ships are?

Secretary ENGLAND. Well, these are ships that we are looking at.

We are studying this class of ships. So, this would be a class of

ships that would operate very close to the shore and would be used

for a variety of missions. So, it could be anti-submarine. It could

be ship-to-shore support. It could be special forces putting our marines ashore, so a wide variety of likely high-speed vessels smaller

than most of the ships we have now, but very high-speed, very

agile. The requirements are being worked in terms of exactly what

that would be, but conceptually it would be a smaller ship much

faster, very agile, and be able to handle a wide range of missions.

And it would be larger numbers than what we have in our other

ships today. So, we would be looking at larger numbers of those

ships.

We are looking now in terms of how we would initiate and fund

this program because this is a very high priority for the CNO, for

our naval forces, and our Commandant. So, we are now, as part of

the fiscal year 2004 budget discussions, trying to come to grips

with how we would initiate this program quickly and also very

quickly bring it on line.

When I said this was a year of foundation building for our Navy

as we go forward, this is one of the ships we are looking at in

terms of our new Navy, along with the DD–X that was just awarded yesterday and a derivative of that for our missile defense ship,

which would be a cruiser type ship, hopefully using the same sort

of hull form.

So, this is a very important program for our Navy as we go forward. Numbers are important. Everyone counts our ships every

year, but what is important to our Navy is the capability that we

actually put afloat, and it is important that we move into the new

technologies and into these new programs and then accelerate

those programs as rapidly as we can.

Senator COCHRAN. Admiral Clark, as you know, the shipbuilding

rates have the potential to drop the number of ships in our fleet

well below the current goal of 310 ships. In your statement, you indicated the current low procurement rate ‘‘adversely affects stability of defense industrial base, and we are paying a premium in

program costs due to the small number of units being built.’’
359

My question is, if funding were available for shipbuilding for

more ships, how could it be spent most effectively in the near term

in your opinion?

Admiral CLARK. Senator, in my previous visit before this committee and again today, I want to be a champion for an improved

partnership with industry, and I believe that you do that by solidifying the investment streams and leveling the investment streams.

The Secretary has laid out the importance of DD–X and LCS, the

littoral combatant ship, and the follow-on cruiser that is going to

be a ship that we are going to have to have as we face the threats

of the future.

And I would just like to say, with regard to LCS, I view the

asymmetries that are out there in the world today—an enemy will

try to exploit the asymmetries that we have. And we need a ship

that can deal with those near-land asymmetries, and that is, as the

Secretary described, near-land anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, and the ability to deal with the surface threat that will exist

in the near-land area.

I think the way we deal with this—and frankly, this is what the

Secretary and I are attempting to do—is to redirect resources to

ensure that we meet what I believe is the requirement for us to

have the Navy of the future. I have talked about numbers, but notionally. What I have talked about more importantly is that we

need a level investment in the shipbuilding arena to deal with industrial base issues. We did a war game with the shipyards. They

have indicated that if we could level and get on a level investment

stream, that they could produce between 10 and 20 percent more

effectively. But to do that, we have to have a mechanism that allows us to have level investments.

You know, when we buy a carrier, we spike the Shipbuilding and

Conversion, Navy (SCN) account. My view is we need to be investing $12 billion a year in new construction in the shipbuilding business. That is what we need to support the Navy that we need in

the future. So, what we can do in the short term to get to that is

to find the resources to make a commitment to that and that will

make us a better partner.

Now, having said that, there are areas that if we had more resources, we would have been pushing different investments. But we

established the priorities that we laid out in this budget and we

had to take care of the current readiness challenges first or we

would not be able to execute the missions and the tasks that we

are taking on today in Afghanistan.

Now, that leads you to several ships, and I submitted an unfunded list up here, DDGs on that list. I would like to have an LPD

as soon as possible because Jim Jones needs that for his Marine

Corps to replace ships that are currently 36, 37, 38 years old that

need to be replaced. We need to get to two submarines a year as

soon as we can, but we did not have the resources to do it in this

budget.

FIRE SUPPORT

Senator COCHRAN. General Jones, in your statement, you said

this, ‘‘we have an acute shortage of fire support.’’ My question is,
360

if we choose to address this problem in this committee this year,

what specific programs should we consider funding?

General JONES. We do have a shortage of fire support from both

our sea platforms and also our internal Marine Corps assets. How

we got there is a matter of record. Years ago, the Marine Corps terminated its reliance on heavy artillery. We went to the M–198

which has been a good field artillery weapon but not a very good

expeditionarily-deployable weapon. It is time to replace it and the

lightweight 155 is now on the doorstep in the final stages of its development and ready for production.

This program has had its share of ups and downs but all development programs have this, problems associated with technology. We

have identified the problems. We fixed them and we are on the

verge this year of bringing this program home to where we can significantly make up for a portion of the significant shortfall that we

experience in fire support systems on land. We also are going to do

it on land by bringing on a new mortar, and the combination of

those two, plus our organic air power, will fix that problem for us.

Admiral Clark and I have talked about the shortfall at sea, and

we are optimistic that, although it is still a ways off, with this new

class of ships and the potential for precision weapons coming from

the sea over extremely long ranges, that the expeditionary forces

of the future will have that sea-based and land-based fire support

that they will critically need in the years ahead that we do not

have right now.

LPD–17 AMPHIBIOUS SHIP

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.

Admiral Clark, the Gulf Coast shipyards at Northrop-Grumman

has, Pascagoula, Gulfport, New Orleans, are now cooperatively engaged in the LPD–17 amphibious ship production. Could you give

us your view of the program’s progress and could you also comment

on the proposed LPD–17 and DDG–51 swap between NorthropGrumman Ship Systems and General Dynamics?

Admiral CLARK. Let me start with the swap and just say that the

acquisition executive has been working on a program. It has been

reported in the press. In fact, there is another report in the press

this morning about the swap. And this is an effort to work out arrangements within industry to posture cooperating shipyards so

that they can again get themselves in the best posture to most effectively and efficiently produce product. I am a supporter of that.

If that can be arranged, I think that would be good for the Navy

and has the appearance of being good for the shipbuilders. That is

something that, again, is being worked by the acquisition executive, and perhaps the Secretary would like to comment on that.

With regard to LPD–17 itself, I have said several times and I

would reiterate again today—I alluded to it just a moment ago—

we need LPD–17. In January, I was in the Indian Ocean visiting

our sailors. I had the chance to see 20,000 of our sailors operating

over there off of Afghanistan. I was on a ship that was built in the’

60s. That ship is too old. The ship is older than most of the people

serving on it, and it is full of marines. And that ship needs to be

replaced.
361

There were issues about LPD–17 and the maturity of the program and its readiness to proceed 1 year ago, but I am happy to

report that progress is being made and I am hopeful that we are

going to see a great improvement in the delivery of LPD–17 in the

future—in the near future. We need that ship. We need it to be

able to accomplish the mission in the global war on terrorism that

I was talking about in my opening statement.

If we are going to take the fight to the enemy—and General

Jones and I both believe that this is a requirement for our Nation—the requirement to get a permission slip to go someplace is

a problem. What we bring to the task is that we can take marines

and we can have the kind of combat reach and demonstrate the

kind of flexibility in combat operations that we have seen in Afghanistan with the United States Marine Corps. To do that in the

future, we need LPD–17 and we need it as rapidly as we can deliver it.

Senator COCHRAN. General Jones, can you give us your impression or view of the importance of LPD–17 and these types of amphibious ships?

General JONES. Yes, sir, I can. It is a personal view. My son is

a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps stationed at Camp Pendleton. In July of this year, he will deploy with the 11th Marine

Expeditionary Unit. One of the ships that he will be on will be the

U.S.S. Denver. Captain Jones, me, in 1975 was the Commanding

Officer (CO) of troops aboard the U.S.S. Denver, and it was old

then.

So, I have shown him where my stateroom was, and he is trying

to maneuver so he can get those spacious quarters for himself and

five other lieutenants that will be crammed in there.

But it is time to get on with this because the sea-basing aspects

of what the Nation is going to be able to do in the future in response to the threats that are facing us today and will face us in

the future all have maritime solutions to them. Admiral Clark referenced this earlier in his remarks, and I would like to underscore

that the sea-basing of American forces is an answer to the sovereignty issues that will face us again and again when it comes

time where we want to do things in our national interest or in the

interest of our allies. A single country can deny the United States

basing, overflight rights, operational employment for many, many

months and impair us from achieving our objectives. Not so on the

seas.

So, those investments in the sea-based platforms—and I am talking about not only the ships that we have that must be modernized

because I think they will continue to be the core of our naval capability, but also very, very progressive, new ideas like the high-speed

vessel that the Marine Corps is currently leasing in Okinawa. We

anticipate avoiding $10 million in fiscal year 2002 transportation

costs by not having to use strategic airlift to haul marines from

Okinawa to mainland Japan or Okinawa to Guam or Okinawa to

the Philippines with this very, very high-speed capable ship. It is

a commercial ship right now and we have leased it for 3 years, but

it is showing tremendous dividends on how we can, from a sea

base, project our forces so they can arrive and be immediately em-
362

ployable, sustainable, and persistent in the pursuit of our national

objectives.

So, I am very, very much in favor of the directions that our Secretary and our CNO have advocated and the priorities in which

they are stating them.

SEABEES

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.

Admiral Clark, one of the units that we have based in Mississippi, the Seabees of the Atlantic fleet, are in Gulfport, Mississippi, and they have been deployed to Afghanistan. They provided services in Kandahar and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, also

because of the housing there of al Qaeda detainees or whatever

they are. The whole point of this is that there is a lot of stress on

the availability of people and equipment and the like. Does this

budget provide funding requests to ensure that the Seabees can

continue to perform their mission and they can get where they are

going and get back safe and sound?

Admiral CLARK. It does, Senator. Thank you for the question.

I just completed a major review of the Seabee structure about 45

days ago. Frankly, I was looking at what the posture needed to be

in the future. A lot of people are unaware, but the Seabee rotations

in the past have been 7 months out and 7 months back, the heaviest rotation schedule that any of our people operate under. I

changed that to improve it this past year. That necessitated

changes in our basic structure and the support facilities that are

going to be required for them in their home base.

My review points out and what I was able to discover is that we

need all the engineers that we have. A lot of people are unaware

of how many Navy, part of the naval team, people were operating

in Afghanistan. At one point we had over 1,500 people on the

ground, including our Seabees. And they always get called.

What is not in the budget is the out-years and that has to be

fixed in fiscal year 2004 and we intend to do that.

Senator COCHRAN. General Jones, your experience with the Seabees I know is obvious. Do you have any comments about the question that I asked of Admiral Clark?

General JONES. Only to reinforce the tremendous need for that

kind of unit. My first real experience with the Seabees was in

northern Iraq in 1991 where we were tasked with bringing half a

million Kurdish refugees out of the Turkish mountains. Without

the Seabees, it would have been an impossible humanitarian task.

So, I applaud their work.

They are definitely one of the most employed units that we have,

and I think Admiral Clark and I have talked with the Secretary

about really looking at the total number of engineer units we have

in the Navy and the Marine Corps, making sure that we use them

well and we do not overuse them because they are really ridden

hard and put up wet most of the time.

DDG PROGRAM

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Secretary, my final comment and question. I apologize for taking more than my share of the time here.
363

The swap that I mentioned between Northrop-Grumman and

General Dynamics, the DDG program. What is your reaction to

that? Do you have any comments you would like to make on it?

Secretary ENGLAND. First of all, it is important. It is something

that we would like to do. It is not essential. We do believe it is a

win-win for all the parties involved, and to be successful, it is going

to have to be a win-win for all the parties.

It is important because it does reduce the risk of the LPD–17

program. Northrop-Grumman has done a very good job of a program that was in trouble and they have been coming along. Now

we are actually building the ship. So, they have done a good job

bringing it along. But the current plan is that the second ship we

would build at Bath, so we would start the learning curve all over

again. That obviously introduces risk into the program.

So, by doing the swap, we end up stabilizing the base at both

yards, which is obviously desirable. Again, as the CNO commented

earlier, it would be good for the industrial base to stabilize that at

each yard. It would give the Navy some efficiencies also. So, in our

judgment, this is in the best interest of all three parties, but we

need to negotiate to a solution.

As Senator Stevens said, we are fortunate. We are blessed. We

have a great Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Mr. John Young, who

has been working this problem for the Navy. I believe that that

will come to a satisfactory conclusion, but it still has to be negotiated. In negotiations, anything can happen, but we are hopeful

that will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions on the Landing

Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), and their usefulness, the 155 Howitzer

that General Jones mentioned, and the composites that are being

explored for use in our Navy, a shipbuilding issue, to Admiral

Clark for the record. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary, Senator Hutchison had to leave, as you note, and

she had several questions she would like to submit. All of us have

questions.

Secretary ENGLAND. Absolutely.

PERSONNEL RETENTION AND RECRUITING

Senator INOUYE. But may I, before closing congratulate you on

your first term retention record, 64 percent. I think it is the first

time the Navy has done that. But my concern is how are you doing

with the critical skills like pilots and maintenance personnel and

nurses and such.

Admiral CLARK. We have always had a challenge in retaining

people. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for highlighting this. Can

I give you an updated number?

Senator INOUYE. Please.

Admiral CLARK. The number for the month of March, first term

retention, was 71 percent.

Senator INOUYE. Good heavens.

Admiral CLARK. Never in our history have we had this kind of

retention. We have cut the recruiting goals this year. The Secretary

just approved the second reduction this year. The first reduction
364

was over 4,000 that we reduced and we just reduced another 1,500.

I anticipate we are going to have to do it again.

In pilots in the recruiting side, we have already recruited everybody for 2002, and we are over 80 percent in 2003. We do need to

improve our retention in pilots. It is improving, and it has been improving over the course of the last year. I want to make sure that

I highlight that those numbers are also reflective of the record we

set in the year ending last September. So, these figures have improved since 9/11, but we had already established the best performance we had ever seen for the year that concluded in September.

So, we are improving in our retention in pilots, but we can even

do better there. We have not achieved the level of success across

the board on the pilots and the officer programs that we have on

the enlisted side, but we are doing dramatically better.

Senator INOUYE. Well, once again, congratulations.

Admiral CLARK. Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. If I may add to Senator Stevens’ report on our

trip to Asia. I came back with certain conclusions. Number one, terrorism is alive and doing well, and that not all terrorists have

beards and turbans. When one considers the potential in Indonesia,

there are more Muslims there than all of Arabia combined.

Secondly, I think that we should recall that not too long ago the

Singaporean government uncovered a plot to destroy the American

Embassy there, and they had in place, in stock 100 tons of explosives. And when one considers the Oklahoma bombing involved just

3 tons, you can imagine what 100 tons would have done.

I cannot say enough about the force we have in the Philippines

assisting the Filipinos. I hope that we will not think of terrorism

as just out in Arabia. It is all over the world, and I am happy that

our troops are there to provide the security that we need.

One final thought about Singapore. I think Singapore demonstrates the desire of Asia to have our presence there. They just

constructed the Changi Naval Base to our specifications. In fact, I

looked at it with some nostalgia because they will be able to accommodate the largest carrier there, and I do not think Pearl Harbor

can do the same thing. In fact, the Changi Naval Base, in order

to accommodate our interests, built a baseball field, and it should

be noted that they do not play baseball in Singapore. It was just

built for American forces. So, it just demonstrates the desire that

the people of Asia have for our presence there, and I hope we will

keep that in mind.

With that, any more questions?

Senator STEVENS. I have two comments, Mr. Chairman. Senior

Minister Lee, as a matter of fact, is in town from Singapore, and

he I think demonstrates the type of friendships available in that

part of the world.

General, the Seabees and some of your people have worked on

a small road in Metlakatla, an Indian reservation in our State, and

I think that type of training brings home to a lot of people how

qualified they really are. And I want to thank you for that.

Admiral Clark, your comment about retention. Have you still got

the stop loss policy on as part of that? Because they cannot leave.

Admiral CLARK. No. The policy was an Office of the Secretary of

Defense (OSD) policy, but I believe we had the smallest number of
365

all the services that we had held and we have reduced that to a

very, very small number today. It is reviewed on a 30-day basis to

make sure that we are not keeping anybody. I can get you the

number. It is a very, very small number.

Senator STEVENS. I think it is marvelous and it demonstrates

really the commitment of this new generation. As the Secretary

said, they are extremely committed. Everywhere we went, I cannot

tell you how much we were impressed with those young men and

women and how on the alert they really were.

Admiral CLARK. The Secretary says the number is 170, an extremely small number.

Thank you for your comments on our people. I like to tell folks

you can tell how it is going. You look for the twinkle in their eye.

They are extremely proud of what they are doing, and when you

go out there and see them and talk to them, I know that you were

able to witness that. They so appreciate it when they get a chance

to meet with senior officials from our Government and from the

Congress.

I would like to pass along that one of the things that has happened over the course of the last couple of years here is that there

are a lot of variables that have caused us to have this kind of success. But this gets back to the signals from the Congress. The actions taken, the increases in the budget that is existing in fiscal

year 2002 and the projections in fiscal year 2003—our people are

watching these indicators all the time, and they are evaluating

these measures taken as a strong support of the people of the

United States and the United States Congress. And it means a

great deal to them.

Secretary ENGLAND. Let me make one comment.

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Secretary, I have got to comment about

that because when we were overseas, if we got mail once or twice

a month, we were lucky. These kids are in touch by Internet with

their sweethearts and boyfriends and mothers and fathers and

classmates every day. They are as well informed as any Americans

I know, the ones we saw right out in the field with the ships. It

is a new world for them. They know what they are doing, but they

are also keeping up with the homeland in a way that no deployed

forces have ever had the opportunity to do. So, I commend you not

only for your people but for the way you are providing them with

a means of access and connection to maintain their connections

with their families at home.

Secretary ENGLAND. One comment on retention, if I could. I

would be derelict if I did not comment on this. While it is true, the

pay, the benefits, and all that that the Congress provided is very

important to our people, I will tell you what is also equally important, and that is the respect they have for the leadership, and that

is the two gentlemen sitting here at this table. I mean, their leadership goes a long way to these retention numbers, and we should

not overlook that. We have magnificent people. The strength of our

military for 226 years has been our people. Our technology is important, but it is our people that make the difference. The leadership that we have, in my judgment, is a crucial difference, and that

is part of the reason we have continuing high retention in the Marine Corps and an increase during Admiral Clark’s reign here. I
366

will tell you a lot of the credit goes right here to the gentlemen at

this table next to me.

Senator STEVENS. If I can continue to interrupt.

Senator INOUYE. Please.

Senator STEVENS. I hope we can see more reports of people being

recognized for what they have done. One of the things we did note

when we came back—the chairman noted it in his comments when

he came back—was the lack of recognition of distinguished and

outstanding service and courage on the part of some of these people. There were very few medals that we found that had actually

been issued.

Now, I know sometimes we wait until they come home. But it

means a great deal not only to the people who are there to know

that their colleagues have been recognized for real acts of true heroism, but also it means a lot to people at home to know that you

know what they are doing.

I hope you are moving in, as the Air Force and the Army both

are, to try to recognize people on a timely basis. You do not have

to wait until they get home now. Their people see it on the Internet

the minute they get them.

Secretary ENGLAND. We agree.

Admiral CLARK. May I just comment on that? The Secretary is

now being modest. We have taken action to delegate the authority

to make those kind of awards in the Operation Enduring Freedom

so they do not have to wait until they get home. The commanders

have been given the authority to take action on the scene.

Senator INOUYE. Great.

Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you for your generous allocation of time.

Senator STEVENS. We envy you. That is the trouble. We keep you

around because we envy you. We wish we were having the experiences you are having now.

Senator INOUYE. I just want to make an observation before we

adjourn. I have been on this committee for over 30 years, and if

it were not for Senator Cochran, the LPD–17 would be ancient history. And if it were not for Senator Stevens, the Osprey would not

be flying. So, I hope that the generations that will be using the

LPD–17 and the Osprey would remember that these two fellows

did it. I can tell you, if it were not for their persistence, you would

not have it. That is for certain.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

With that, once again, I thank you, Secretary England, Admiral

Clark, General Jones.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]
367

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GORDON R. ENGLAND

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

U.S.S. ‘‘INCHON’’

Question. Last year the Air Force announced that it would suddenly and prematurely retire a large portion of its B–1 fleet. Several communities were faced with

the immediate loss of hundreds of jobs. Commendably, the Air Force stepped up to

the plate and made those communities whole by shuffling aircraft and missions

around. After creating a similar scenario, by announcing the sudden retirement of

the U.S.S. Inchon, the Navy has done little to make Naval Station Ingleside whole.

As things stand today, south Texas will lose nearly 700 sailors and their families.

What is the Navy doing to keep the base operational pending a new mine warfare

ship?

Answer. Naval Station Ingleside has been identified as the future home of Commander Mine Warfare Command. It presently serves as the home for the Navy’s

Center of Excellence for Mine Warfare. In that capacity, there are numerous transformational initiatives and systems, which might be suited for assignment to Naval

Station Ingleside. The Navy remains committed to development of a dedicated MCS

platform to replace U.S.S. Inchon. This MCM initiative, coupled with future initiatives and requirements, should be considered for location at Ingleside, Texas.

Question. The head of Naval Mine Warfare Command, Admiral Ryan, informed

my staff last month that the Navy was looking within its fiscal year 2002 budget

with the hopes of identifying $15 million needed to lease a catamaran. This innovative vessel would be used as an experimental, interim mine-warfare command and

control ship. It is my understanding that the Navy is having difficulty identifying

those funds. What is the status of this initiative?

Answer. The Navy is considering the potential lease of a commercial derivative

ship to support various transformational efforts and experimentation with respect

to a future variant of a Mine Warfare Command and Control ship (MCS). The existing Mine Warfare Command & Control ship, U.S.S. Inchon (MCS 12), is scheduled

to decommission in June 2002.

The leased ship may be able to play a significant role in the validation of future

organic mine warfare systems, and mainstreaming mine warfare. This leased vessel

will also allow the Navy to gather significant data and experience with a new hull

form for other ship designs and conduct additional naval experimentation.

If this commercial derivative ship lease is pursued, the estimated lease cost is

about $10 million/yr, plus $6 million/yr operating cost and $5 million/yr manpower

cost. In the first year, about $10 million of non-recurring startup costs are also required. The Navy is looking to start this commercial derivative ship leasing effort

in fiscal year 2003. However, there is a $28 million shortfall in the fiscal year 2003

budget. No fiscal year 2002 funds are required for this effort.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)

Question. I have read, with great concern, a number of reports that the Navy is

contemplating a 30 percent reduction of JSF procurement. JSF is a tri-service program involving the Air Force. Have you determined what affect a 30 percent reduction in Navy and Marine Corps procurement would have on the Air Force’s estimated costs?

Answer. In response to Defense Planning Guidance the Department of the Navy

has been hard at work on a study to analyze efficiencies and effectiveness of integration of Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation. While a final decision to reduce

the number of Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) procured has not been made, it is among

the options the Department is considering. The JSF will be a more reliable aircraft

than the aircraft it will replace, and when coupled with precision munitions, will

be a more effective weapons system. These increases, in reliability and effectiveness,

may enable the Department of the Navy to reduce the overall number of JSFs it

requires.

Impacts to the U.S. Air Force and other potential buyers are also being examined

in the study and will be an important part of any decision. It would be inappropriate to comment further until that review is complete.

Question. Navy sources are quoted as saying that any cuts will not take effect

until after 2012. Does it make sense to cut a program as it is entering its most economical production period? Wouldn’t such a move dramatically escalate the per-unit

cost by forcing the Navy to amortize the cost of developing JSF over fewer airframes?
368

Answer. In response to Defense Planning Guidance the Department of the Navy

has been hard at work on a study to analyze efficiencies and effectiveness of integration of Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation. Impacts to future buys are

being looked at in the study and will be an important part of any decision. It would

be inappropriate to comment further until that review is complete.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Question. I am particularly troubled by the Administration’s decision to defer, potentially, hundreds of military construction projects. The publicly stated rationale—

a desire not to construct new facilities at bases that may soon be closed—is unsatisfactory. Are we to assume that the projects included in the budget are for facilities

that the Pentagon has already determined will not be closed?

Answer. No, the fiscal year 2003 military construction request seeks to improve

the living and working conditions for our Sailors, Marines and their families in the

immediate future. The analysis of the force structure requirements, resulting infrastructure requirement, and Base Realignment and Closure 2005 recommendations

is just now beginning.

Question. I am very concerned about the aging infrastructure of our military

posts. What is the shortfall of your Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization

(SRM) account for the Navy? Does the proposed supplemental budget from DOD address those shortfalls adequately?

Answer. The Department of Defense goal is to fund Sustainment Restoration and

Modernization to reach a recapitialization rate of 67 years by fiscal year 2010. The

Department of the Navy (DON) will achieve this goal by the end of the FYDP. The

DOD fiscal year 2002 supplemental budget request did not include additional DON

funds to accelerate achievement of the 67 year recapitalization rate.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

SHIPBUILDING REQUEST

Question. Admiral Clark, many of the reviews emerging from the Department of

Defense last year differed in the number of ships necessary to fulfill Navy requirements. Recommended numbers ranged from 310 to 370 vessels. Have you determined the actual number of ships required?

Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) assumed a Navy force structure

of about 310 ships. However, since that report, the Navy is developing a new concept of how we should operate to meet the demands of the post-9/11 environment

that requires about 375 ships.

The proposed concept of operations employs new formations known as Expeditionary Strike Groups, nominally consisting of three amphibious ships and three

surface combatants. The additional ships consist primarily of the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a member of our surface warfare family of ships and additional combat logistics ships to support the larger and more dispersed force.

We project that we will need the same number of carriers, cruisers, destroyers,

and support ships as in our force today. The number of submarines and expeditionary warfare ships is under study.

NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE

Question. Admiral Clark, you have described network-centric warfare as a pillar

of the Navy’s plan for future war fighting. It aims to link together ships, aircraft,

and installations so that they may share information across platforms. As you continue to ‘‘network’’ these countless systems, what is being done to prevent outsiders

from gaining access to the precious information that will be shared among these

platforms?

Answer. Our Information Assurance (IA) program provides a comprehensive defense-in-depth strategy comprised of multiple layers of security mechanisms operated by trained system administrators, operators and Information System Security

Managers (ISSM). This strategy includes:

Firewalls

Located at Network Operating Centers (NOCs) to screen and protect all information traversing the network

Standardized firewall configuration and operating policy
369

Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)

Improved access control to network

Encryption of data as it transits the net

Provides authentication and ensures information integrity

Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS)

IDS installed at all NOCs

Installing IDS software at the desktop

On-Line Vulnerability Assessment

Determines the computer security status of all deploying Battle Groups

Confirms equipment and software correctly configured

Provides systems administration training

Full spectrum ‘‘Red Team’’ operations to test and certify equipment and personnel

Information Assurance Vulnerability Advisories (IAVA)

Expedites awareness and correction of network vulnerabilities

Education and Training

School House Training

—Information System Administrator Course—trained technicians to administer

information systems

—Network Security Vulnerability Technician—trained technicians to secure information systems

—Advanced Network Analyst—trained technicians to manage information systems

—Information System Security Manager—trained technical managers to oversee

information systems

Other training

—‘‘Fly Away’’ training teams to provide underway refresher training

—CD–ROM based course on Operational Systems Security and user training

Another challenge is our reliance on commercial products which we do not control

from a design sense, but can only influence. National Security Telecommunications

and Information Systems Security Policy 11 (NSTISSP–11) requires all Commercial

Information Assurance products procured by Department of Defense to be evaluated

through the National Information Assurance Partnership Program. Influence with

the commercial sector in meeting this requirement will greatly contribute to the

strength of products available and the security posture of the Naval networks.

MILITARY PERSONNEL FISCAL YEAR 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL

Question. Admiral Clark, what is the Navy’s plans to review Reserve Component

mobilizations, and, where appropriate, reduce the levels of personnel called up to

Active Duty to meet the funding levels in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental?

Answer. Navy has demobilized to 9,400 Reservists, as of April 30, and is demobilizing to no more than 7,800 Reservists by June 30, in order to meet funding levels

in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental. In doing so, we have retained the priorities

of direct support to the warfighter, anti-terrorism/force protection, and intelligence.

Question. Do you anticipate any funding shortfalls in the personnel accounts due

to mobilization?

Answer. An additional $171 million is required to fully fund pay and allowances

and per diem costs for mobilized reservists.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Question. Mississippi has made significant advances in composite technology applications in support of our warfighters. Our industry and research institutions provide cutting-edge components for space, air, marine and ground systems. One of our

pioneer firms, Seemann Composites, is currently competing for development of an

Advanced Composite Sail to be installed on Virginia Class submarines. Could you

give us your views on the role of composites in naval warfighting systems?

Answer. The U.S. Navy has been investigating potential applications and developing the technology associated with transitioning composite materials and structures to surface ships and submarines for many years. Composite structures offer

the potential to significantly reduce weight, life cycle costs and acquisition costs

while also providing increased survivability due to improved electromagnetic signatures and resistance to weapons effects. The Office of Naval Research along with

the U.S. shipbuilding industry has spearheaded this effort and the transition of

composites technology to the fleet is occurring now. There are a number of examples
370

of composites applications. A composite mast structure has been installed on the

U.S.S. Radford for the past five years. This successful proof-of-concept helped support the incorporation of dual composite masts for the currently under-construction

LPD 17 class ships. A composite helicopter hangar is being considered for demonstration on the DDG 51 FLT IIA. Most design work and testing has been successfully completed; long-term fatigue and some fire testing remain. Once all design and

testing is successfully completed, and if sufficient funding is provided, a shipboard

demonstration may be conducted. Also, an advanced sail program is investigating

composite applications for the Virginia class submarine. Most significantly, DD(X)

will possess a stealthy composite deckhouse with planar arrays and multi-spectral

signature reduction.

Question. Could you give us an update on the progress of the Advanced Composite

Sail program?

Answer. The Navy plans to install an Advanced Sail, in lieu of the current standard steel sail, on the Virginia class submarines starting with the fiscal year 2006-

authorized hull (hull 8). In March 2000, the Navy determined the Advanced Sail

needed to be constructed of composite material to maximize weight margin available

for future payloads. As a result, the Composite Advanced Sail program was initiated

within the advanced submarine system development budget (PE 603561N) to reduce

risk by (a) selecting a single composite vendor early in the development process, (b)

validating design criteria and requirements for thick section marine composites and

(c) advancing the state of the art in design of thick-section marine composites.

The Composite Advanced Sail program has narrowed the field of potential vendors

to two: Goodrich Engineered Polymer Products in Jacksonville, Florida and

Seemann Composites, Inc., in Gulfport, Mississippi. Each of the vendors was tasked

to build a large fabrication demonstration item to prove their ability to accurately

produce large, doubly curved, complex composite structures. These items have been

delivered and are being evaluated to support selection of a final vendor by October

2002.

The first draft of the Design Criteria and Requirements document has been issued

based on initial results of small component testing. This document identifies the design loads, production test methods, modeling methodologies and analysis methods

needed to design and build the Virginia Class Advanced Sail. Also, the state of the

art in composites is being advanced by characterizing a wide range of commercial

off-the-shelf materials in a statistically robust manner.

In parallel, the internal sail systems arrangement has been approved as part of

the new design SSN R&D effort. A final hydrodynamic shape has been selected and

small-model hydrodynamic testing and evaluation is underway.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

Question. The F/A–18E/F Super Hornet is the Navy’s next generation strike fighter and will provide naval aviation with an affordable multi-role aircraft for decades

to come. Fiscal year 2003 will be the fourth year of a five-year Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) for 222 aircraft. The current fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget requests 44 aircraft which is 4 short of the 48 planned for in the Multi-Year Procurement. This shortfall comes after a cut of 3 aircraft in fiscal year 2001. How do we

leverage the savings and economies of scale of a Multi-Year Procurement if we keep

cutting the purchase of the aircraft?

Answer. The F/A–18E/F multi-year procurement contract provided the Navy with

7.4 percent savings when compared with single year contracts for 222 aircraft. Although actual multi-year savings increase and decrease with quantity variation, the

7.4 percent savings rate remains the same. Savings are calculated based on a comparison between single and multi-year procurements of equal quantity (i.e. 222 aircraft procured for 5 years at once or 222 procured in single year increments). If the

quantity is decreased/increased, it is changed for both single and multi-year cases.

Regardless of quantity variation, the Navy’s commitment to multi-year procurement

will always generate savings and economies of scale over single year procurements.

Question. Can’t we get some discipline in the acquisition process to free up funds

for recapitalization? Why can’t we limit ourselves to one new system in each functional area? Why so many IT systems? Can we divest from Navy Marine Corps

Internet (NMCI) since it hasn’t delivered? What programs could we get rid of in

order to free up funding for readiness accounts?

Answer. There are several processes and controls that are used within the acquisition lifecycle process that enable us to identify additional funds for recapitalization,

or reinvestment into legacy systems.
371

First, the acquisition process itself has a rigorous set of milestone program reviews which every program must pass through to ensure that required analysis and

planning have been completed and that appropriate management controls are in

place.

Second, a number of initiatives are underway to reduce Operating and Support

(O&S) costs during the program life cycle. Some of the more visible initiatives are

as follows:

—Reduction of Total Ownership Cost (R-TOC).—This initiative, established under

Section 816 of the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act, requires the Services to designate R-TOC pilot programs. These programs were

given a stretch goal of reducing O&S cost by 20 percent by fiscal year 2005

based on an fiscal year 1997 baseline. Through aggressive management actions

and innovative approaches, the Department of the Navy (DON) pilot programs

project a cost avoidance of over $712 million in O&S cost by fiscal year 2005

compared to a base amount of $5,652 million. The successful process they used

was to establish baseline costs, identify cost drivers within the baseline, develop

cost reduction initiatives, and develop metrics to measure progress toward stated goals. Besides the initial cost avoidance made available by the pilot programs

for recapitalization, the lessons learned are available for use on other programs.

These pilot programs were able to test various cost reduction strategies before

applying these techniques Service-wide.

—Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV).—Similar to commercial Target Costing, CAIV has served as one of the Department’s key methodologies for reducing

total ownership cost of weapons systems over the past six years. It is applied

during concept and development phases, when there is the greatest leverage

over life cycle costs, and it sets aggressive but achievable cost targets for all

phases. It uses rigorous trade-offs with continuous user involvement to arrive

at an acceptable balance of cost, performance, and schedule, thus enabling the

production of an affordable system which meets the warfighter’s needs. When

properly applied, CAIV is a disciplined acquisition management process that

will reduce the life cycle cost of systems, thereby freeing up funds for recapitalization. All defense programs must have a plan in place to implement CAIV by

the end of fiscal year 2002.

—Performance Based Logistics (PBL).—The objective of PBL is to better integrate

logistics and acquisition to reduce the demand for logistics and make the logistics support system more effective and efficient. Numerous contracts have been

awarded to provide logistic support for weapons systems that have enhanced

performance, reduced logistic support, and lowered costs. A direct result of PBL

will be reduced O&S costs, improved performance for the warfighter, and freed

up funds for recapitalization. PBL is the preferred product support strategy for

DON programs. PBL will be implemented on all new programs and all fielded

Acquisition Category I & II programs once the Business Case Analysis indicates

it provides the best value to the warfighter.

—Business Initiatives Council (BIC).—The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) along with the Business Initiatives Council, is

soliciting and reviewing proposals for additional initiatives to reduce the cost

of current operations to create further opportunities for additional investment

in modernization of our forces. By aggressively working to reduce the out year

support costs, the Navy and Marine Corps are creating the conditions for shifting these savings from the support line to force recapitalization and modernization.

The quantity, scope and timing of requirements which are identified for new systems to satisfy make it unrealistic to be limited to just a single new system. The

nature of the acquisition and requirements processes does not allow for the development of a system to be constantly revised as each new need is identified. Once a

system plan reaches the designated milestone point, further modifications are costly

and greatly retard the process.

The current process is greatly decreasing the number of redundant systems, and

encouraging new systems to include as many related areas of effect as possible. As

a result of our recent alignment initiatives, the Warfare Integration and Assessment

Division, N70, is serving as a horizontally aligned reviewer of all warfare programs

and proposals within N7. N70 purposely inserts itself into the plans of the requirements sponsors and acts as the impartial observer to identify redundancies and encourage, and at times require, separate warfare sponsors to work together on programs, both to reduce the number of personnel and funding needed for a finished

product, as well as ensuring that the Navy gets a system which will be robust, effective and meet warfighting requirements.
372

The number of Information Technology (IT) systems began to increase in the early

1980s as a result of the microcomputer revolution. Microcomputers provided powerful yet inexpensive alternatives to the centralized mainframe culture, which supported relatively few systems. Decentralized Department of the Navy (DON) management encouraged eager and innovative users to take advantage of this capability,

providing commanders the opportunity to rapidly develop and deploy automated solutions to manually-performed operational tasks. The result was a vast and disparate array of specialized IT systems and applications supporting the full spectrum

of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) specialized warfare and mission support

areas. Our transformation imperative is reversing this trend as initiatives such as

Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI), Information Technology for the 21st Century

(IT21), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), and Internet and World Wide Web

technologies (Task Force Web, Extensible Markup Language (XML)) are now enabling the Department to streamline business processes and rationalize current IT

systems into a smaller cross-functional portfolio.

The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) effort is well underway and has shown

much progress since the contract was signed in October 2000. To date, the NMCI

Information Strike Force (ISF) has assumed responsibility for 48,000 seats and has

transitioned or ‘‘cutover’’ over 4,000 seats. Approximately 63,000 seats have been

placed on order with approval for an additional 100,000 expected soon.

Significantly, it was through the NMCI contract that the Navy was able to cut

post-September 11 information technology reconstitution time by more than half.

If the Government decides to divest itself of the contract and cancels its requirements for all services in program years, the contractor will be paid a cancellation

charge not over the ceiling specified below as applicable at the time of cancellation.

[Dollars in millions]

Fiscal year

Cancellation

Charge

Last Notification Date

2002 .............................................................................................................................. $85.4 1 October 2001.

2003 .............................................................................................................................. 251.4 1 October 2002.

2004 .............................................................................................................................. 536.9 1 October 2003.

2005 .............................................................................................................................. 549.1 1 October 2004.

Claims could include:

—Reasonable nonrecurring costs that would normally be amortized;

—Non-depreciated costs of facilities acquired or established for the conduct of

work;

—Cost incurred for the assembly, training and transportation to the job site of

a specialized work force; and

—Cost not amortized because the cancellation precluded benefits to contractor or

subcontractor learning.

We have added significant funding to Navy readiness accounts over the last two

budgeting cycles. While we had to make some tough choices as we developed the

recently submitted budget, based on Navy’s performance to date in the Global War

on Terrorism, I am convinced that we have readiness funding about right and we

are now watching to see the result of our increased funding before adding additional

money to these accounts.

Our priority is to continue to sustain the gains we’ve made in the readiness accounts as we recapitalize our Navy.

BUDGET SHORTFALLS

Question. With significant budget shortfalls over the last 10 years, what impact

has there been on modernization and recapitalization? Is the force the size it needs

to be, and is it as modern as it needs to be? What is the impact on near term readiness—and does PB03 budget submission properly balance the need to modernize

with current readiness?

Answer. Over the past decade, budget shortfalls have had a significant effect on

Navy modernization and recapitalization programs. The 1997 Quadrennial Defense

Review (QDR) attempted to balance the force structure needs of the present with

the challenges of the future. Although the QDR did not specify a total inventory,

it did specify a minimum of 12 Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups and 12 Amphibious

Readiness Groups. These force structure reduced our battle force inventory from approximately 370 ships, to 310.

In order to maintain this inventory a recapitalization rate of 8 to 10 ships per

year is required. The actual recapitalization rate experienced the last 10 years is
373

an average 5 to 6 ships per year. In the long run this level of investment will deplete the inventory to about 240 ships.

We are constantly reassessing our force structure and the requirements to modernize the force. Conflicts, such as Kosovo and the ongoing global war on terrorism,

only intensify that process. We have already put considerable resources into addressing the issues to ensure overall numbers of ships, aircraft, submarines, munitions and personnel are sufficient to meet our strategic and operational commitments around the world. The Department remains committed to continuing full support of major transformational programs, like the Joint Strike Fighter, CVN(X),

SSGN conversion, and DD(X), while continuing efforts to advance new technologies

for weapon systems that create the ‘‘Navy after next’’ for the new millennium.

The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) assumed a Navy force structure of

about 310 ships. However, since that report we have developed a new vision of how

the Navy should operate to meet the demands of the post-9/11 environment, that

requires about 375 ships.

The new concept of operations will change the way we deploy our surface ships

to maximize our capability and reach. Developing capability improvements brought

to the force by programs such as cooperative engagement capability (CEC), electronic warfare aircraft (E–2C) radar modernization program (RMP) and net-centric

warfare (NCW) will reduce the required number of surface combatants assigned to

individual Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs), allowing surface combatants to be assigned to Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), designating them as Expeditionary

Strike Groups (ESGs). These new formations nominally will consist of three amphibious ships and three surface combatants. Additionally, the Navy is looking at independently deploying missile defense Surface Action Groups (SAGs) and strike SAGs.

By reallocating surface combatants, we will empower our Amphibious Ready Groups

with more capability across a greater range of conflicts, thereby increasing our ability to respond with combat credible force in more places simultaneously. Our most

potent strike force remains the Aircraft Carrier Battle Group, but for many situations an Expeditionary Strike Group will provide the appropriate level of combat

power.

We intend to increase the reach of our net-centric warfighting capability by developing and fielding the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a small, high-speed ship. Each

LCS will have a focused mission capability—(countermine, anti-submarine warfare

and anti-swarming boats in near land areas) that could be plugged into each platform depending on the needs of a given theater. Our plan is to build this ship in

sufficient numbers to maintain a quantity of LCSs forward deployed in major theaters to augment the Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups, the Expeditionary Strike

Groups and the Surface Action Groups. The Navy is currently working on the development of the operational requirements document for the LCS.

The fiscal year 2003 budget, guided by the defense strategy outlined in the latest

Quadrennial Defense Review continues to build a force that is relevant to threats

associated with the War on Terrorism, and fulfill our future worldwide security commitments. The fiscal year 2003 budget request offers substantial improvements in

combat capability, enriches the quality of life for our people, incorporates technological innovations more quickly and improves business practices, all of which help

to manage and mitigate risk during these uncertain times. The fiscal year 2003

budget request adequately addresses our near term risk through investment in people and readiness, while our transformation and recapitalization efforts in the budget address emerging threats in the future. Our preparation for the future will enable

Naval forces to concurrently project power abroad, and at the same time provide security to the homeland.

Question. What are your concerns for near-term readiness? Who set the requirement for near-term readiness, and who validates it? Is the requirement being met?

If there are shortfalls, are they being represented in your budget submission for PB

03?

Answer. My concerns for near-term readiness revolve around our ability to meet

the near-term readiness goals I established including expected Status of Resources

and Training System (SORTS) goals for naval units as they approach deployment

dates. The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Fleet Readiness and Logistics) validates our readiness goals. In the past, we have understated the requirement and

then underfunded the understated requirement. Through a concerted fleet and

OPNAV effort, we have identified what I believe to be the correct requirement.

While we had to make some tough choices as we developed the recently submitted

budget, I am convinced that recent additions in readiness funding have been correct.

We are now watching to see the result of our increased funding before adding additional money to these accounts.
374

Question. What is the ‘‘right size’’ for the fleet? What is your rationale for determining the needed force structure? What logistic support is needed to support the

force structure you envision? Is your current logistic force adequate to meet that

need?

Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) assumed a Navy force structure

of about 310 ships. However, since that report we have developed a new vision of

how the Navy should operate to meet the demands of the post-9/11 environment,

that requires about 375 ships. The new concept of operations will change the way

we deploy our surface ships to maximize our capability and reach. Developing capability improvements brought to the force by programs such as cooperative engagement capability (CEC), electronic warfare aircraft (E–2C) radar modernization program (RMP) and net-centric warfare (NCW) will reduce the required number of surface combatants assigned to individual Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs), allowing surface combatants to be assigned to Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), designating them as Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs). The ESGs will retain the traditional combined arms assault capabilities provided by the Marine Expeditionary

Unit (MEU), and will be complemented by the strike and sea control capabilities

provided by Aegis surface combatants in the near term, and DD(X) in the outyears.

These new formations nominally will consist of three amphibious ships and three

surface combatants. Additionally, the Navy is looking at independently deploying

missile defense Surface Action Groups (SAGs) and strike SAGs. By reallocating surface combatants, we will empower our Amphibious Ready Groups with more capability across a greater range of conflicts, thereby increasing our ability to respond

with combat credible force in more places simultaneously. Our most potent strike

force remains the Aircraft Carrier Strike Group, but for many situations an Expeditionary Strike Group will provide the appropriate level of combat power.

We intend to increase the reach of our net-centric warfighting capability by developing and fielding the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a small, high-speed ship. Each

LCS will have a focused mission capability—(countermine, anti-submarine warfare

and anti-swarming boats in near land areas) that could be plugged into each platform depending on the needs of a given theater. Our plan is to build this ship in

sufficient numbers to maintain a quantity of LCSs forward deployed in major theaters to augment the Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups, the Expeditionary Strike

Groups and the Surface Action Groups. The Navy is currently working on the development of the operational requirements document for the LCS.

This concept of operations (CONOPS) envisions that these newly defined

groupings of ships may be more widely dispersed for operations against terrorism

and for normal peacetime missions. This may mean that our current combat logistics force is too small to adequately cover the needs of our Global CONOPS. We are

still studying the exact number and type of logistics replenishment ships as well as

alternative logistical CONOPS that we will need. We will continue to need about

the same number of carriers, submarines, expeditionary warfare ships, cruisers, destroyers, and support ships as in our force today.

Question. What is the ‘‘next step’’ for fleet realignment?

Answer. The next step for fleet alignment is currently being studied by Commander, Fleet Forces Command (CFFC). The expected completion date is September

2002.

This alignment study is considering the roles of the CFFC and the Fleet Type

Commanders (the Commanders of the Air, Surface and Submarine Forces) as they

evolve from the October 1, 2001 posture into one of several alternative futures. The

goal is to integrate policies and coordinate requirements so that we most effectively

man, train and equip the warfighting forces. The new alignment will take into consideration the revised Unified Command Plan.

Question. What do you envision as a future alternative to the Vieques training

area in Puerto Rico? What future requirements do you have to provide equivalent

training for deploying forces?

Answer. We expect the Center for Naval Analysis study on the future of Navy

training to provide insight into the best alternatives for quality Navy training as

a whole. After we have an opportunity to receive and evaluate the study, we will

be shaping the way ahead for the 21st century. In the interim we are addressing

the shortfall in training capability, capacity, and flexibility within the Atlantic Fleet

area by improving our training infrastructure at multiple sites.
375

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

T–45 TRAINING AIRCRAFT

Question. Given the importance of training Naval aviators in aircraft equipped

with all glass, digital cockpits, why has the Navy been so slow to equip a second,

undergraduate pilot training facility with adequate aircraft?

Answer. Naval Aviation is a key component of the Navy’s capability to support

our Nation’s strategy and goals. Inherent to maintaining a strong Naval Aviation

structure is the development of new Naval Aviators. The T–45 is a critical element

to that process. Navy is more than adequately meeting pilot training requirements

and the development of new Naval Aviators with the current configurations of T–

45 aircraft. The retrofit of the T–45A to the T–45C glass cockpit is a focal point for

the Navy’s ongoing budget reviews and funding prioritization.

Question. If the start of the T–45A to C cockpit upgrade program could be brought

forward a year, would this be of benefit to the Navy?

Answer. In light of competing priorities for resources, the President’s budget represents the best balance of resources to requirements. However, if additional funds

were provided, acceleration of the T–45A to C cockpit retrofit would provide upgraded capabilities to the existing T–45A aircraft.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GENERAL JAMES L. JONES

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Question. General Jones, what is the Marine Corps’ plan to review Reserve Component mobilizations, and, where appropriate, reduce the levels of personnel called

up to Active Duty to meet the funding levels in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental?

Do you anticipate any funding shortfalls in the personnel accounts due to mobilization?

Answer. The Marine Corps has reviewed operational requirements based on the

current situation and identified personnel reductions equaling 11.6 percent of activated Reservists. These personnel will be demobilized by June 30, 2002. The Marine

Corps is committed to supporting Joint and CINC staffing needs during this activation and is actively engaged in identifying future needs, and an attendant plan to

support these needs for the long term Global War on Terrorism.

The Marine Corps Reserve component mobilization requirement is adequately

supported by the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Question. I understand that the U.S.S. Bataan Amphibious Ready Group LCACs

that just returned from Afghanistan delivered record amounts of cargo from ship to

shore. This effort highlights the need and value of LCAC and its Service Life Extension Program. Can you give us your assessment of how the LCACs are performing

in support of the War on Terrorism?

Answer. The LCAC, an essential platform in projecting decisive military power

ashore, performed superbly while deployed with the U.S.S. Bataan Amphibious

Ready Group supporting OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. LCAC 89 was

equipped with the improved Deep Skirt, just one portion of the equipment upgrades

provided through the LCAC Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). This single upgrade provided significant LCAC performance improvements, enabling the craft to

run through various sea states, load conditions, beach gradients, and landing zone

configurations. Use of the Deep Skirt allowed for quicker ship-to-shore movement

of equipment by one to two hours and allowed operations to continue under adverse

weather and sea state conditions that would have placed a non-Deep Skirt configured LCAC at risk.

The LCAC is currently undergoing a SLEP initiated in fiscal year 2001 to ensure

the viability of the LCAC into the future. LCAC SLEP encompasses the following:

—Replacing obsolete electronics with a new command module, introducing open

architecture to facilitate low cost, commercial off-the-shelf insertion as technology continues to evolve.

—Replacing the buoyancy box that will solve corrosion problems while incorporating hull improvements.

—Incorporating enhanced engines that will provide additional power, capable of

lifting all required Marine Corps loads, in hotter climates and higher sea states.
376

—Replacing current skirt design with Deep Skirts that will increase craft performance under all operational conditions.

To support the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) of the next 20 years, the

LCAC must be able to operate with heavier loads, at faster speeds and greater distances, under adverse conditions, and with higher reliability. For these reasons, the

LCAC SLEP is critical to projecting combat power ashore from over-the-horizon.

Question. Do you feel that the installation of Deep Skirts, which increase LCAC

performance and decreases maintenance, would enhance your deployed forces capabilities?

Answer. The Deep Skirt greatly increased LCAC performance under all operating

conditions, significantly enhancing the LCAC’s capability and improving the overall

capability of our deployed forces. The Deep Skirt will replace the current skirt as

the craft undergo the LCAC Service Life Extension Program.

LCAC 89 deployed with the U.S.S. Bataan Amphibious Ready Group during OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, was equipped with the improved Deep Skirt.

This single upgrade provided significant performance improvements, enabling the

craft to operate in various sea states, load conditions, beach gradients, and landing

zone configurations. Use of the Deep Skirt demonstrated quicker ship-to-shore

movement of equipment by one to two hours and allowed operations to continue in

adverse weather and sea state conditions that would have placed a non-Deep Skirtconfigured LCAC at risk.

The Deep Skirt required less maintenance than the standard skirt currently in

use. No repairs were required during 150 hours of operation by LCAC 89 outfitted

with the Deep Skirt. The Deep Skirt’s improved performance and decreased maintenance requirements have passed engineering tests and most importantly, have met

the Fleet’s requirements during OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.

Question. In your statement, you state that the Lightweight 155 mm Howitzer is

‘‘needed to replace our aging ‘legacy’ field artillery systems’’. I understand that the

Lightweight 155 mm Howitzer will make a major impact on improving your outdated artillery capability. Can you provide the Committee with an update on the

program?

Answer. The LW 155 mm Howitzer program has made tremendous progress over

the past year. All eight of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)

weapons have been delivered, all the required safety testing has been successfully

completed, and the program is on track to support a low rate production decision

later this year. During the battery training for the upcoming Operational Assessment (OA), more than a thousand rounds were fired over a 31⁄2 day period and numerous emplacements, displacements, and movements were conducted. Timelines

for the key operational requirements were routinely met and the exercise was completed with no significant problems or mechanical failures of the howitzers.

The prime contractor has its U.S. supply team in place and is producing two pilot

production weapons prior to the start of the Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP)

phase. The first of these pilot production weapons is undergoing integration and assembly in Hattiesburg, MS and will be delivered in August 2002 for testing prior

to the planned October 2002 production decision. The Marine Corps fully supports

the need to replace its heavy and aging M198 artillery systems with the LW 155 mm

Howitzer, as does the Chief of Staff of the Army, who sees the LW 155 mm Howitzer

system as a key component of the Army’s Interim Brigade Combat Team.

Question. How does the new howitzer compare to your existing legacy systems in

terms of survivability, lethality, and mobility?

Answer. The Lightweight (LW) 155 mm Howitzer is much more survivable, lethal,

and mobile than the M198 Howitzer legacy system it is replacing. A cost and operational effectiveness analysis showed the LW 155 mm Howitzer had approximately

25 percent more combat vehicle kills, a five-fold increase in its counter fire exchange

ratio and a 70 percent increase in howitzer survivability. Because of its lighter

weight (6,000 lbs. less than the M198) and independent suspension, the LW 155

provides a 35 percent improvement over the M198 in percentage of terrain traversed. The LW 155 is the only towed howitzer to have successfully traversed the

demanding Rock Ledge Course at Yuma Proving Grounds, which is representative

of the type of terrain found in places like Afghanistan.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

Question. General Jones, I understand the Marine Corps is pursuing participation

in the Air Force’s proposed multi-year procurement contract for the KC–130J tanker

aircraft. How important is the KC–130J to Marine Corps operations, and what are

the benefits of participation in the multi-year?
377

Answer. The KC–130J is a force multiplier and immensely important to the

United States Marine Corps. The KC–130 provides the only organic capability to refuel fixed-wing and vertical lift (helicopters, MV–22) aircraft in flight. The KC–130

also provides the Marine Corps the capability to rapidly insert and sustain combat

forces and the ability to refuel ground and aviation assets at remote, austere landing zones, enabling power projection and decisive combat operations at increased

ranges. Marine KC–130s make up almost half of the DOD tanker inventory capable

of refueling rotary wing assets. Its combat performance during Operation Enduring

Freedom is a testament to its unparalleled utility to the Marine Corps and DOD.

Benefits of the Multiyear Procurement (MYP) are quantified in the form of sub- stantial cost savings for the USAF ($420 million/13.6 percent) and the USMC

($235.2 million/12.6 percent). This MYP makes it possible for the USAF and USMC

to acquire aircraft at an economical production rate and within the fiscal constraints

of the Department’s Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP).

This MYP will purchase 64 aircraft (40 USAF CC–130Js, 24 USMC KC–130Js)

over the period fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2008. The USAF and USMC will

take delivery of these 64 aircraft during calendar years 2005–2008, at a combined

rate of 12, 16, 18, and 18 aircraft per year (respectively). The total cost of this MYP

is estimated to be $4.29 billion (USAF: $2.66 billion, USMC: $1.63 billion).

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Question. Two important Marine Corps programs have been receiving a great deal

of press lately: the V–22 and the H–1 Upgrade programs. Would you give us an update on the status of the H–1 program? Would you give us an update on the status

of the V–22 program?

Answer. In response to the H–1 Program Nun-McCurdy breach, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certified the H–1 Program as of critical value to the Marine Corps and justified its further development.

On May 2, 2002, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics approved the restructure plan for the H–1 Upgrade Program. The revised Acquisition Program Baseline will correct existing cost and schedule deficiencies in the

program. All five EMD aircraft are now in flight test status and will be located at

Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) Patuxent River by the end

of May 2002. The flight profiles for envelope expansion have been determined and

the Bell, NAVAIR Test Team has begun flying envelope expansion events.

The V–22 has had multiple separate investigations and engineering, software, and

design reviews. The results of the investigations and reviews have been addressed

by the V–22 Program Office (PMA–275) using a systems engineering approach

which has lead to a comprehensive ‘‘event driven’’ test schedule. The Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics, Mr. Aldridge, approved

the acquisition strategy and acquisition program baseline which reflected the restructured program on May 6, 2002. Developmental test flights are projected to

begin in May 2002. We expect to begin operational flights in fiscal year 2004.

Attached is the executive summary of the report to Congress on the status of the

V–22 Program in response to Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2002.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002, the Defense Department submits this report on the status of the V–22

Program. The report organizes the response into four general areas: Aircraft flight

control system (software and hydraulics); recommendations of the Panel to Review

the V–22 Program (April 2001); recommendations of the NASA Tiltrotor

Aeromechanical Phenomena Independent Assessment Panel (November 2001); and

status of waivers to the Joint Operational Requirements Document (ref: Operational

Evaluation Phase I, 1999).

Responding to the recommendations of the two CY 2000 mishap investigations,

as well as several internal and external reviews conducted over the past year, the

Department has reduced production and defined a new plan that is ‘‘event driven’’

as opposed to ‘‘schedule driven.’’ Key to the plan is completion of ongoing laboratory

flight control system tests and software upgrades, verification of all flight crew procedures, and a comprehensive developmental flight test program that will thoroughly assess the aeromechanical issues and reliability issues raised. The developmental testing will be followed by operational flight tests that will demonstrate the

improved capabilities and suitability of the aircraft, and address the tactics, techniques and procedure issues raised by the various reviews and the original flight
378

test program. The plan also establishes a high-level readiness review preceding each

step. Finally, the plan calls for a series of aircraft block upgrades with the highest

priority software and safety improvements going into the developmental test aircraft

in time for first flight. Important reliability and maintainability modifications are

included in a Block A upgrade which will be the configuration for the first operational aircraft. Further aircraft capability, maintainability and availability enhancements are in Block B and subsequent.

To assess the flight control system, the program conducted a substantial series

of nominal and degraded mode tests in the integrated avionics and flight control

software test facilities, including pilot-in-the-loop simulation to evaluate and validate all related crew emergency procedures. The program has updated the flight

control computer software to correct deficiencies including those that were factors

in the December 2000 mishap. Further, the program has modified the flight control

hydraulics system to correct mission reliability problems in preparation for return

to flight. Of the seventy-one ‘‘specific’’ Blue Ribbon Panel and seventeen ‘‘high priority’’ NASA recommendations, only eight are germane to resumption of developmental test flights. Of that number, all are complete as recommended. Of the remaining recommendations, all but four are either complete, or included in the test

plan, the aircraft block upgrades or the logistics support plans. The four recommendations that are not accepted are listed below and discussed in detail in the

report: Replacement of the planned aircraft ground maintenance trainers with simulators; adoption by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation organization of

standard risk categories; replacement of the Unified Numbering System by the

Work Unit Code system for logistics; and provision of development funding reserves

for the Program Manager.

Of the twenty-two requirements-related waivers granted to the program for the

Phase I Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) in 1999, all but four are no longer valid,

having been removed by changes to the requirements or subsequent improvements

to the aircraft. The four issues are: (1) provision of an interim (vs. production representative) hoist; (2) a basic equivalent (vs. fully equivalent) Ground Collision

Avoidance Warning System; (3) lack of a defensive weapon system; and (4) lack of

anti-ice capability. None of these issues is planned to be resolved before the start

of OPEVAL Phase II tentatively scheduled for fiscal year 2005. The Services are reviewing the option of delaying these requirements consistent with program plans.

In summary, the V–22 program reviews have been comprehensive, the organizational, technical and programmatic issues are adequately addressed and the plan

represents a rational approach to return to flight testing and program recovery.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. Our subcommittee will stand in recess until

Wednesday, May 8, and at that time we will hear from the defense

medical programs. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., Wednesday, May 1, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 8.]
(379)

DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002

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. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Specter.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

HEALTH AFFAIRS

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM WINKENWERDER, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS

ACCOMPANIED BY:

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES B. PEAKE, MC, USA, SURGEON GENERAL OF THE ARMY AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY

MEDICAL COMMAND

VICE ADMIRAL MICHAEL L. COWAN, MC, USN, SURGEON GENERAL

OF THE NAVY AND CHIEF, BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY

LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL K. CARLTON, JR., USAF, SURGEON

GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. I would like to welcome all of you to our hearing

this morning to review the Department of Defense medical programs including the defense health program. When we put our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in harm’s way, the medical medics are deployed and are part of the fight. So we thank them for

their very important work.

In light of that, I would like to commend the department’s medical services for their response to our country’s crisis on September

11th and their ongoing service in support of the war efforts against

terrorism. From the moment of attack, the medics’ role has been

diverse and profound, providing services ranging from care to injured to identification of remains, to testing of thousands of anthrax specimens, and for their recognition of supporting the war

around the world, we applaud their efforts, serving jointly to meet

the medical needs of our warfighters in this conflict.

I would also like to congratulate the department for submitting

for the second consecutive year a budget request for the defense

health program that takes into account realistic cost estimates.
380

With this budget the committee will not expect to see a supplemental request in fiscal year 2003 for this program. Senator Stevens and I, and all the members of this subcommittee put great

value in military medicine. We look forward to a frank and open

discussion this morning with our panels on the fiscal year 2003

budget request and in particular, the status of the TRICARE for

Life benefit, which began this year.

Furthermore, we understand that recruitment and retention of

medics, both officer and enlisted, is increasingly a challenge for all

the services. I would like to hear from you on your efforts to address this growing problem.

Joining us this morning we have the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Dr. William Winkenwerder, and we welcome you, sir, for your first appearance before the subcommittee.

Your credentials are quite impressive and we look forward to hearing from you. From the Army, Surgeon General James Peake. Welcome back again. From the Navy, we have Admiral Michael Cowan.

We also welcome you to your first hearing with us. Your career is

quite distinguished and we look forward to working closely with

you throughout your assignment. And finally, Air Force Surgeon

General Paul Carlton. I am informed that this is probably your last

appearance before the subcommittee since you will retire this fall,

and I thank you for your service to the Air Force, the country, and

your assistance to this committee. Thank you for a successful and

distinguished career, sir.

Before we start, may I call upon my co-chairman for any opening

remarks. Senator Stevens.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. I join the chairman in

welcoming the Secretary to this subcommittee in his first appearance here. Mr. Secretary, you will find this subcommittee has been

consistently more supportive, more responsive and sympathetic to

the needs of military medical programs than any other committee

at any time. But because of that support, I think you will also find

that we are diligent and relentless in our monitoring the success

or effectiveness of programs that you and your surgeons general

administer.

In my experience, there are few elements of military life that

contribute more to quality of life, retention and satisfaction of military personnel and their families than medical care. And as concerned as our subcommittee is, there is growing concern about the

rate of growth of military medical costs. No item in the department’s budget grew by a greater percentage this year than the

medical programs. Controlling that rate of growth while maintaining access to quality care will likely be, and I believe it is your

greatest challenge.

We welcome the opportunity to join you in trying to solve these

problems, but welcome you also for your hearing and your presentation of your plans.

Unfortunately as I told you, I am being called to another meeting

in just a few minutes, but Mr. Chairman, I will return if it’s possible and as quickly as possible. I look forward to your testimony,
381

Generals, and I will read it, and I regret missing any of it. Thank

you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Senator Stevens, as you

know, is going on an important mission of peace, and I hope you

succeed.

So, may I first call upon the Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Health Affairs, the Honorable William Winkenwerder.

Dr. WINKENWERDER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and other

members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. As you have requested, I will

provide a brief verbal statement and then submit my written comments for the record.

Senator INOUYE. The full statement is made part of the record,

sir.

Dr. WINKENWERDER. First I wanted to say, I certainly welcome

your support and the support this committee has provided over the

past years, but also welcome your monitoring. I think that’s part

of your responsibility and we welcome that. You are also, I think,

very unmarked in identifying the issue of medical costs and rising

medical costs is a real significant challenge for us and I hope to be

able to elaborate further on some of our strategies for dealing with

that issue during this hearing.

At the outset I want to take just a moment to acknowledge the

heroic and exemplary contributions our military healthcare professionals are making around the world today. Our military medics

are engaged in a number of diverse and challenging activities in

support of the war on terrorism both here and abroad.

In Afghanistan and elsewhere, the United States and coalition

medical professionals provide lifesaving care to our troops and allies in a very austere battlefield situation. In the United States,

our healthcare professionals work closely with other Federal agencies and the Office of Homeland Security in shaping our capabilities to respond to biological and chemical warfare threats here at

home. And of course we continue to provide the finest medical care

every day throughout the world for our active duty personnel, their

families, and our retirees and their families.

Everything we do within the military health system is designed

to support our warfighters, from preventive medicine activities to

complex multispecialty care requirements for our most severely ill

or injured patients. This support system includes the design and

operation of TRICARE. TRICARE was designed to improve continuity, quality and access to care we provide our beneficiaries in

both military hospitals and the clinics, and the $7 billion in care

we purchase through the private sector every year.

This effort has been very successful. Virtually every indicator of

success has moved in the right direction in the past few years, including increasing beneficiary satisfaction, increased perception of

quality of care, more timely access, and increased use of preventive

services.

Cost growth has remained within or less than the overall increases in healthcare costs seen in the private sector without increasing out of pocket costs for beneficiaries, and that is an accomplishment. As you know, the private sector trends are in double

digit figures now.
382

And we have implemented a new set of healthcare benefits, particularly TRICARE for Life, which includes a prescription drug

benefit for our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, the first such benefit

for seniors in America, and it’s working very well.

We’re proud of these successes and yet, there is still room for improvement. As we move forward, we are building upon both the

successes and the lessons learned from the past 7 years of

TRICARE. Over the years, we have added many new requirements

on the existing contracts. Often, our requirements were prescriptive, maybe too prescriptive, added costs, and did not provide the

proper incentives for either optimal system performance or contractor innovation.

The next generation of TRICARE contracts will provide these incentives, adopt the best practices employed in the private sector,

and invite greater competition from the health care marketplace.

Financial incentives are a powerful tool to enhance contractor performance. In the next set of contracts, I plan to retain financial

risk-sharing elements and fee-based rewards that recognize various

elements of outstanding performance, including customer satisfaction and provider satisfaction.

Finally, I will insure that our new contracts enhance quality and

continuity of care for our beneficiaries while minimizing any disruption in beneficiary services. Our actions will continue to improve the healthcare delivery system for our patients, improve the

predictability of our healthcare budgets, and establish the military

health system as one of the preeminent health systems in this

country.

I believe that’s a realistic goal for us to shoot for. We have the

opportunity to be a model for the rest of the nation, and I am committed to seeing this happen. I want to assure the committee that

I will continue to consult with you regularly as we proceed in the

development of our TRICARE contracting strategy.

The President’s budget request for defense health care for fiscal

year 2003 is based on realistic cost estimates for providing

healthcare benefits to DOD eligible populations and improving

medical readiness. It includes appropriate growth assumptions for

both pharmacy and private sector health costs to reflect our recent

experience, which as I alluded to earlier, mirrors the private marketplace.

As we strive to raise the performance of our health system, we

also are reaching out to other Federal agencies to improve collaboration and coordination. In particular, we are working more closely

with the Department of Veterans Affairs, (VA) and with several

agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

All of those other agencies are important to the way we do business

and contribute to our success.

We recognize that each service member actually begins his or her

life as a veteran of military service on their first day of active duty.

Through the Department of Defense (DOD’s) collaboration with VA,

which has a strong historical foundation, much has been accomplished, but there is much more to do—greater VA participation in

TRICARE networks is a goal for us, simplified billing procedures
383

for shared services, increased cooperation on our capital asset and

construction plans, greater joint activity in the area of pharmacy

and pharmacy benefit management, and Information Technology

(IT) improvements that will permit appropriate sharing of electronic records. The focus of these efforts will be to identify those

opportunities that are congruent with our respective missions at

DOD and VA, and those opportunities that will benefit both the

beneficiary and the U.S. taxpayer.

Just recently we had a meeting of senior people, including the

Deputy Secretary of VA, McKay, Under Secretary Chu, myself and

others, and we signed some agreements that we believe are very

important that relate to a common billing agreement among both

departments and also a long-term IT strategic plan. We are at this

time passing along the records of approximately 3.6 million veterans over the last 10 years so that those clinical records will now

be available for the VA, so it will enhance the easy availability of

clinical records. And there is much more to come.

Protecting the health of the deployed military is a paramount

concern to the Department. To insure proper and continued attention to this issue, I recently established and am just announcing

more publicly here today the Deployment Health Support Directorate under the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense reporting

to me for force health protection and medical readiness. This office

is charged with understanding how the Department of Defense can

best support the health and medical needs of our warfighter both

before, during and after military deployments.

This office will serve as a conduit through which commanders

and service members can contribute to deployment health policies

and practices, and build a bridge from experiences of the past to

battlefields of the future.

Finally, to elevate the performance of our health system, we

must continue to retain and recruit the best qualified medical professionals and provide a clinically rewarding medical practice environment. We have initiated several efforts to better understand the

reasons that service members have for staying or leaving, and what

factors would convince one to remain in the military health system.

We are evaluating approaches to insure that we attract and retain

the best people, including improvements in the ways in which we

administer pay and share personnel resources across the three

Services, and I am prepared to talk about the steps that we are

asking the Congress to take today.

PREPARED STATEMENT

As the military health system continues to meet its many missions and challenges, I am certain we will emerge even stronger.

I thank you for this opportunity to appear on behalf of the military

health system, the 8.3 million people we represent, the extraordinary men and women who make it the vibrant, innovative and

high quality system that it is. I look forward to answering your

questions. Thank you, sir.

[The statement follows:]
384

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WINKENWERDER, JR.

Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the

Military Health System.

The terrorist attacks of September 11th and the bioterrorist incidents that followed in October have awakened us all to a very real threat of terrorism. Since September 11th, we have re-examined the primary responsibilities of the Military

Health System, refined our priorities and mapped a course that we must pursue in

order to protect the health of our men and women in uniform. Our vision is to establish the Military Health System as the premier healthcare system in the country,

one that meets all wartime and peacetime health and medical needs for the active

military, retirees, their families, and other beneficiaries. To achieve this vision, I

have established four priorities for 2002:

—Improve Force Health Protection and Medical Readiness

—Improve Performance of the TRICARE Health Program

—Improve Coordination, Communication, and Collaboration with Other Key Entities

—Address Issues Related to the Attraction, Retention, and Appropriate Training

of Military Medical Personnel.

I have also set specific objectives to successfully address these priorities, and we

have instituted a focused planning process to monitor our progress.

Achieving our vision requires more than just the traditional focus upon preventive

medicine and the delivery of restorative healthcare. To meet the health and medical

needs of our entire beneficiary population while meeting our requirements for the

force health protection of our active duty personnel, we must continue to improve

and seek to optimize our integrated system of healthcare. This integrated system

consists of uniformed, civil service and contract medical personnel working together

to improve the health of our beneficiaries across the country and around the world.

This system must rapidly identify and mitigate potential health threats, and provide preventive measures and education to preserve the health and vigor of our population. Should these measures fail, we must be prepared to treat disease and restore the sick and injured to health through use of the most efficacious treatments

that medical science can offer. The need for an effective, integrated system also extends beyond the period of active service, for those in need of rehabilitation following injury or illness, and for the care of our retired beneficiaries who have honorably served their country. All the while, we must continuously improve the quality

of care we provide, the safety and satisfaction of our patients and exercise fiscal

stewardship in managing the system.

We must use the concepts of evidence-based medicine to ensure that patients receive treatments that are effective. We must continue to contribute to the body of

medical knowledge by participating in scientific research, particularly in our knowledge of hazards of the battlefield, chemical and biological terrorist threats, and the

operational environment.

As we face the threat of terrorism, it is more important than ever that we ensure

effective coordination and cooperation with other federal agencies and organizations

with necessary expertise. These include the Congress, and especially the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services.

Accomplishing this vision will require that we create and maintain high quality

information systems, that we attract and retain high quality medical professionals,

that we provide the necessary tools and training for our personnel, and that we

maintain our commitment to achieving the vision.

MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM FUNDING

In the President’s Budget Request for fiscal year 2003, the DHP submission is

based on realistic estimates of providing healthcare benefits to DOD eligible populations. It includes inflation assumptions for pharmacy of 10.5 percent plus anticipated program growth for an overall increase of 15 percent from fiscal year 2002

program. Private sector health costs have been inflated at 7 percent to reflect our

recent experience: anticipated program growth brings the overall rate of change to

12 percent from fiscal year 2002. We will manage the healthcare system to improve

performance and contain the healthcare costs within budgeted amounts. We will

make prudent decisions that result in effective performance. We seek your assistance in making permanent the contract management flexibility you provided in the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and in alleviating the restrictions on moving resources across budget activity groups. The Department must

have the freedom to move funding in response to where healthcare is received, either within the military healthcare facilities or through the private sector.
385

The President’s budget for the DHP consists of the following amounts:

Millions

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) ............................................................... $14,360

Procurement ..................................................................................................... 279

Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E) ............................ 67

Total ....................................................................................................... 14,706

O&M Funding by Budget Activity Group

Thousands

Direct Care ....................................................................................................... $4,070,811

Private Sector Care ......................................................................................... 7,159,674

Consolidate Health Support ............................................................................ 809,548

Information Management ............................................................................... 666,709

Management Activities .................................................................................... 221,786

Education and Training .................................................................................. 350,092

Base Operations/Communications .................................................................. 1,081,651

Total O&M ............................................................................................. 14,360,271

In addition to the DHP budget, the Military Health System is supported with $6.0 billion for Military Personnel (MILPERS) and $0.165 billion for Military Construction. The fiscal year 2003 total unified MHS budget is $20.9 billion.

The DOD Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund is projected to provide an additional $5.7 billion for the healthcare costs of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, $4.3

billion for private sector care, $0.8 billion for direct care (O&M), and $0.6 billion

for MILPERS.

This budget request reflects implementation of accrual financing for the

healthcare costs of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, including their new TRICARE for

Life benefits. This will entail both payments into the fund ($8.1 billion) to cover the

government’s liability for future healthcare costs of current military personnel and

receipts from the fund (projected $5.7 billion) to pay for care provided to eligible

beneficiaries. Our budget reflects a decrease to the DHP appropriation to account

for the payments from the Fund and an increase to the military services’ Military

Personnel accounts to cover the Department’s normal cost contribution. This alignment ensures consistency with the accrual funding for the military retirement pension costs under Title 10, chapter 74. We ask your help in modifying NDAA 2001

and 2002, which currently direct that the Defense Health Program make the annual

contribution to the accrual fund. We recommend that the Military Personnel accounts make these payments. They have received increases for this purpose in the

fiscal year 2003 Budget Request.

FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION AND MEDICAL READINESS

Even before the events of September 11th, Secretary Rumsfeld’s Quadrennial Defense Review asserted that both terrorism and chemical and biological weapons

would transform the strategic landscape for the Department. The MHS has underway numerous activities to ensure that preparedness, including formation of a highlevel working group with Department of Health and Human Services representatives to improve collaboration on defense against biological and chemical terrorism.

Deliberations continue on DOD policies regarding re-introducing the anthrax vaccine immunization program as a result of the FDA approval of the renovated vaccine manufacturing facility and the Institute of Medicine report that certified the

safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The MHS has also placed renewed emphasis

on training military healthcare personnel in recognizing symptoms of and refreshing

treatment plans for exposure to chemical and biological agents. One of the first objectives we set in this regard is the requirement for all medical personnel in the

Military Health System to complete training appropriate for their medical skills.

We are actively developing Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols and guidelines for possible use during the war on terrorism, to include protocols on smallpox

vaccine, pyridostigmine bromide (PB) tablets, botulinum toxoid vaccine, and anthrax

vaccine post-exposure with antibiotics. The MHS is developing and implementing a

seamless system of electronic healthcare and surveillance data, integrating the entire spectrum from fixed facility systems to field hand-held technology. The deployment health system is maturing in response to a growing array of acute and chronic

deployment health concerns, with recent added emphasis on environmental and occupational health surveillance. Earlier this year, we published new clinical practice

guidelines for post deployment health and management, that provides our clinicians
386

with important information on how to manage health care delivery for military personnel who return from a deployment and have health concerns.

We continue to expand and improve both the vaccine healthcare center network

to support our world class vaccine safety assessment program, and the deployment

health clinical center network to provide multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment

of service members with deployment related health problems.

TRICARE

This military health system (MHS) program benefit provides an essential link between medical readiness and everyday healthcare delivery. Meeting the force health

protection responsibilities of the MHS depends upon the success of TRICARE in providing both quality healthcare and challenging clinical experiences for military

healthcare providers. Important to this success is a stable financial environment.

The President’s fiscal year 2003 Budget Request for the DHP provides that stability.

TRICARE Contracts.—TRICARE’s success also relies on incorporating best business practices into our administration of the program, specifically our managed care

contracts. Our new generation of TRICARE contracts will encourage best business

practices by our contractors without over-direction by the government. We also are

working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to make sure our future TRICARE

contracts provide appropriate opportunities for VA participation in provider networks. We have listened to the advice of industry and our beneficiaries on how to

structure these contracts and we are confident that the design will help us to continue providing high quality care. We enter this new generation of contracts with

a commitment to our beneficiaries to further raise their satisfaction and to ensure

continuity of quality services. We place a great deal of importance on contractor customer service performance—to include positive and negative financial incentives—

to ensure that our beneficiaries are provided the kind and type of information and

services they seek in a timely and accurate manner. Also, we will continue to partner with The Military Coalition and National Military and Veterans Alliance, who

collectively represent the interests of more than four million current and former

military personnel. This partnership ensures that we really know what our beneficiaries feel and think about the TRICARE Program. Their feedback helps us to

better address the concerns and needs of our beneficiaries.

TRICARE for Life.—Implementation of TRICARE for Life has proceeded exceptionally well. As in all new program startups, we have experienced some problems.

Nevertheless, we aggressively handle each one until we reach a satisfactory resolution. Since the October 1, 2001, start date, we have processed over twelve million

claims and the overwhelming majority of information we receive is that our beneficiaries are extremely satisfied with TRICARE for Life. They speak very highly of

the senior pharmacy program as well. This program began April 1, 2001, virtually

problem-free. Since October 1, 2001, through April 15, 2002, 8.2 million prescriptions have been processed through the TRICARE retail pharmacy networks and the

our National Mail Order Pharmacy program, providing over $415 million in prescription benefits for our age 65 and over beneficiary population for the fiscal year.

Examples of the problems we identified and addressed with the initial implementation of TRICARE for Life include a group of 185,000 beneficiaries inadvertently

excluded from the initial data match with CMS to verify Medicare Part A and B

coverage. This problem did not involve denial of benefits for these beneficiaries.

Rather, Medicare could not forward their claims automatically to TRICARE for the

first 60 days. We have corrected this problem.

Another example involves approximately 4 percent of potentially eligible TFL

beneficiaries who have not revalidated their military benefits eligibility status as required every four years. This affected only family members, as retirees retain eligibility without periodic revalidation. The failure to revalidate eligibility (sometimes

referred to as obtaining a new ID Card) resulted in claims being denied. We implemented several changes to address this issue:

—We determined that the potential for these individuals to be eligible is so high

that TRICARE began paying claims for these beneficiaries February 15, 2002.

Concurrently we are notifying each beneficiary through personal letters and Explanation of Benefits messages that they must revalidate their eligibility. We

will continue paying claims for these individuals through August 1, to allow

them ample opportunity to update their eligibility.

—The Defense Manpower Data Center developed a letter that beneficiaries may

sign and return to validate their continuing eligibility. This eliminates the need

to travel to an ID card issuing facility to obtain a new ID card. In the meantime, DOD will track these beneficiaries and use every reasonable means to assist them with this process.
387

—In addition to contacting individual beneficiaries, we will renew our efforts

through the media, caregivers, beneficiary organizations, and other organizations to inform all beneficiaries about their TRICARE for Life opportunity.

Sub-acute and Long Term Care.—The reform actions implemented through NDAA

2002 ensure availability of high-quality sub-acute and long-term medical care and

services for all DOD beneficiaries in the most efficient manner. The new authority

to provide home healthcare and respite care for qualifying active duty family members supports readiness through the improved quality of life for special needs families. Alignment of the TRICARE benefit and payment system for skilled nursing facility and home health care with Medicare will greatly improve coordination of benefits for our age 65 and over beneficiaries and simplify authorization and provision

of medically necessary sub-acute and long-term care for all.

Portability.—The TRICARE National Enrollment Database (NED), implemented

July 2001, provides health coverage portability to all TRICARE Prime enrollees.

NED provides a standardized beneficiary-centered enrollment process and eliminates the procedural and automated systems’ disconnects that existed throughout

the military health system, including the contractors’ systems, prior to the implementation of the NED.

In our continuing efforts to improve and optimize our military health system, the

military services have developed and submitted plans to invest the fiscal year 2001

and fiscal year 2002 optimization dollars provided by Congress. Service health leaders developed the MHS Optimization Plan in 1999 setting forth an overarching fiveyear strategy to guide health system improvements to achieve a more efficient, costeffective, world class integrated health system. The foundation of the optimization

plan is population health improvement and prevention. A Special Assistant for Optimization was established at the TRICARE Management Activity to assist in integration of these efforts. A MHS Population Health Improvement Plan and Guide has

been published which provides our clinical staffs with guidance for most efficiently

managing the health of our beneficiaries.

We remain focused on the quality of care delivered within military treatment facilities and by our TRICARE providers. We have established performance measures

for our facilities—and measuring ourselves against national benchmarks for outcomes and utilization. We will establish a Quality Forum this year to better integrate our delivery system and truly become a quality-driven organization.

Finally, there is a renewed focus on customer service and satisfaction in

TRICARE. Our medical and line leaders regularly review customer satisfaction

measures from around the country. We are assessing improvements in satisfaction

with access, quality and staff courtesy. We introduced TRICARE On-Line in several

pilot sites to further empower our patients, and simplify the interaction with the

health care system—to include on-line enrollment and appointing services. In our

next generation of TRICARE contracts, we are seeking to appropriately incentivize

contractor performance and innovation on behalf of the patient.

COORDINATION, COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION

The MHS has built many strong relationships among other federal agencies—including the Congress—professional organizations, contractors and beneficiary and

military service associations. These relationships facilitated the MHS’s ability to respond in the aftermath of the terrorist actions of last fall. The MHS role in the new

homeland security responsibilities will span an array of federal, state and local

agencies and will demand effective cooperation among all involved. Our close working relationship with beneficiary associations and our contractors can be credited for

the smooth implementation of TRICARE for Life.

DOD’s collaboration with the VA dates back many years and much has been accomplished. We have eight joint ventures throughout the country providing coordinated healthcare to VA and DOD beneficiaries. We have over 600 sharing agreements in place covering nearly 7,000 healthcare services. However, all of these

agreements are not fully utilized. Eighty percent of VA facilities partner with us

through our TRICARE networks. It should be noted, that the level of participation

by VA within the TRICARE networks varies. Our reserve components capitalize on

education and training opportunities with over 300 agreements in place. DOD, VA

and the Indian Health Service collaborate in the Federal Health Care Information

Exchange (formerly known as the Government Computerized Patient Record) which

will enable DOD to send laboratory results, radiology results, outpatient pharmacy,

and patient demographic information on separated Service members to the VA. Before fiscal year 2005, we expect not only to have the ability to transmit computerized patient medical record data to VA but also to receive this information from VA.

While we have achieved many successes, it is time to reinvigorate these collabo-
388

rative efforts to maximize sharing of health resources, to increase efficiency, and to

improve access for the beneficiaries of both departments. The focus of our efforts is

to move the relationship with the VA from one of sharing to a proactive partnership

that meets the missions of both agencies while benefiting the service member, veteran and taxpayer.

Our vision of DOD/VA coordination is a mutually beneficial partnership that optimizes the use of resources and infrastructure to improve access to quality health

care and increase the cost effectiveness of each department’s operations while respecting the unique missions of the VA and DOD medical departments. Our guiding

principles include collaboration; providing the best value for the taxpayer; establishment of clear policies and guidelines for DOD/VA partnering; and fostering innovative, creative arrangements between DOD and VA. As DOD and VA move toward

a more proactive partnership, we have established short-term goals to be accomplished during this fiscal year. These include establishing solid business procedures

for reimbursement of services, improving access to health care through VA participation in TRICARE, examining joint opportunities in pharmaceuticals, facilitating

healthcare information exchange, and establishing a long-range joint strategic planning activity between DOD and VA. We will accomplish this through the VA-DOD

Executive Council, where senior healthcare leaders proactively address potential

areas for further collaboration and resolve obstacles to sharing.

Concurrent with these ongoing efforts, DOD actively supports the President’s

Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery to Veterans announced by President

Bush on Memorial Day 2001. DOD has provided office space, administrative support

and functional experts to ensure the Task Force accomplishes its mission of developing recommendations to improve quality and coordination of healthcare for our

nation’s veterans. I will continue to work closely with my colleague, Dr. Gail

Wilensky, to ensure the success of the Task Force in meeting their objectives; and

we look forward to the Task Force’s recommendations.

MILITARY MEDICAL PERSONNEL

The Quadrennial Defense Review directs development of a strategic human resource plan to identify the tools necessary to size and shape the military force with

adequate numbers of high-quality, skilled professionals. The MHS depends on clinically competent, highly qualified, professionally satisfied military medical personnel.

In developing the MHS human resource plan, we have begun several initiatives to

determine retention rates, reasons for staying or leaving the service, and what factors would convince one to remain in the military.

At the request of Congress, we commissioned a study by the Center for Naval

Analyses (CNA) to examine pay gaps, retention projections, and the relationship between pay and retention. We acknowledge the significance of the findings. The CNA

study shows a relationship between pay and retention—although it points out that

there are factors other than pay that affect retention. A typical military physician—

for example, a general surgeon with 7 years of service—receives one-half of his or

her income in ‘‘incentive pays.’’ CNA estimates the ‘‘pay gap’’ for the surgeon is currently $137,000, or 47 percent. The challenges of military service can be unique and

tremendously rewarding personally and professionally. We know that financial compensation is not the sole determinant of a medical professional’s decision to remain

in the service or to leave. We can never expect to close the pay gap completely. However, we are concerned by the CNA findings and are analyzing them now. The ability to shape military medical staff size and mix with appropriate pay and other

human resource management tools are critical to meeting our mission requirements.

We will simplify the health professions’ compensation system to place more management authority within the Department. The rapid pace of change in the civilian

healthcare personnel market, which competes directly with our military accession

and retention programs, requires flexibility in the management of pay for optimum

effectiveness.

Additionally, we are expanding our use of the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). The President’s Budget provides funding for an increase

of 282 scholarships. In addition we are exploring ways the Department can maximize use of incentives in the efforts to optimize the accession and retention of appropriate personnel to meet mission requirements.

MILITARY HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEMS

We leverage advances in information technology to contribute to the delivery of

quality care, patient safety, improved system management and ease of patient access to healthcare. An essential element of quality remains the assurance of the credentials of the health professionals practicing in our health system. We have now
389

in operational testing at ten military medical facilities a single database that supports the management of the professional credentials for active and reserve component health personnel across all services. We anticipate that this system, the Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System, will begin full deployment to all

sites in the very near future. We plan to explore the potential for integrating this

system with the Veterans Administration’s credentials system, VetPro.

The Theater Medical Information Program, nearing implementation, supports the

medical readiness of deployed combat forces. This system will aggregate medical information from all levels of care within the theater thereby supporting situational

awareness and preventive medicine needs for operational forces. Medical data generated at battlefield locations will be transmitted to a central theater database,

where the command surgeon will have a comprehensive view of the theater medical

battlefield and be in a better position to manage the medical support to all forces.

This system serves as the medical component of the Global Combat Support System

and has an integrated suite of capabilities that includes the Composite Health Care

System II. User testing will be conducted this summer during Exercise Millennium

Challenge and initial operational test and evaluation is scheduled for later this year.

The Military Health System has successfully created an electronic computer-based

patient record. The Composite Health Care System II (CHCS II) generates, maintains and provides secure electronic access to a comprehensive and legible health

record. CHCS II merges the best commercial off-the-shelf applications on the market

into a single integrated system capable of worldwide deployment both in fixed facilities and in the field environment, as part of the Theater Medical Information Program. The Composite Health Care System II will undergo formal operational test

and evaluation this summer. Once completed, a worldwide implementation decision

will be made.

The Executive Information/Decision Support Program assists health managers at

all levels throughout the MHS. This program provides an exceptionally robust database and suite of decision support tools for health managers. It supports managed

care forecasting and analysis, population health tracking, MHS management analysis and reporting, Defense medical surveillance and TRICARE management activity reporting. The data repository began operating in fiscal year 2001.

The Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support Program reflects how information technology and business process re-engineering can lead to significant return

on investment and tremendous user satisfaction. This program provides responsive

medical logistics support to all military services. Electronic catalog sales have grown

from $204,000 in April 1999 to over $23.2 million in fiscal year 2001. The prime

vendor section of this program has grown to electronic sales of $1.3 billion in fiscal

year 2001. More importantly, it has reduced procurement lead times from up to 45

days to 2 days or less, reduced medical logistics inventory by 85 percent and allowed

a 95 percent fill rate with delivery in less than 24-hours. This program is the first

in DOD to receive Clinger-Cohen Act certification.

TRICARE Online uses the Internet to assist our beneficiaries gain access to the

Military Health System. It is an enterprise-wide secure Internet portal for use by

all DOD beneficiaries worldwide. It provides information on health, medical facilities and providers, and increases patient access to healthcare. Beneficiaries may create their own secure health journals securely on this site, TRICARE Prime patients

may make appointments with their primary care providers, and all beneficiaries

may access 18 million pages of health and wellness information. This system is

scheduled for worldwide deployment later this year following operational testing

now underway.

We believe that our medical technologies can be helpful to the Department of Veterans Affairs and together we are exploring joint technologies as a means for closer

collaboration.

As the MHS pursues the many initiatives outlined above, it will become even

stronger. The Military Health System’s continued mission-oriented focus on its primary responsibilities has further cemented its world-renowned stature as a leader

in integrated healthcare.

Again, I thank you for this chance to speak with you about the Military Health

System and the exceptional people who make it the vibrant, innovative, comprehensive system that it is.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We will

be asking questions after we are done with the speakers. I will now

recognize Lieutenant General Peake.

General PEAKE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to represent Army medicine before the committee today.
390

Last week two soldiers were posthumously awarded the Medal of

Honor, one an Army dentist recognized for his actions in the South

Pacific, which makes 52 Army medical personnel inducted into that

hall of heroes.

One of the many Medal of Honor recipients that I was chatting

with there came up to me and said, you know, the medic in my

unit deserved that more than I did. The tradition of heroism continues today in Afghanistan and around the world, and the medic

will be recognized by medals and decorations that will be determined in the near future, but hopefully the not too distant future.

I can tell you today that it is appreciation by those young soldiers who have come back through the hands of medics to places

like Walter Reed, who have had extremities saved, whose lives

have been spared because we have quality people to do that. Those

soldiers I visited at Walter Reed were wounded on a Monday, and

telling the story of their journey to a forward surgical team in Afghanistan, to the combat support hospital in Uzbekistan, air evac

to be reoperated on in Landstuhl, Germany, and at Walter Reed by

Saturday night. They and their families appreciate that kind of

care. It is a pretty direct contribution to our country and for this

effort, taking care of those in harm’s way.

I visited the National Library of Medicine last week, a magnificent institution that is part of the National Institutes of Health. It

serves the Nation and really serves the world. It started as the Library of the Army Surgeon General, as a cross-referencing system

that has been the information enabler of medical research, the

Index Medicus. It came about because an Army doctor had $82,000

appropriated for the Surgeon General’s Library, and began that

cataloging effort, a value to the nation.

Today the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is another such

world class national, international asset, with collections of

pathologic specimens that go back to our Civil War and with recognized scientific and educational leaders that will leverage that scientific repository. They have leading edge forensic identification

and that is called upon in virtually every major disaster, the September 11 terrorist attack now not even the most recent.

But September 11 sure did highlight the value of our men and

women. Response right here with environmental teams from our

Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, now commanded by Brigadier General Bill Bester, the expertise of our experts in infectious disease in dealing with things like the anthrax

letters, our folks were proud to contribute in such an important

and visible effort.

But that enthusiasm for our contribution is part of our culture.

I would like to read just a short extract from an e-mail from one

of our surgeons to the colonel who trained him in surgery. It says,

‘‘I did an awesome case yesterday on a Special Forces soldier who

had blown off a drop zone during a jump and did his PLF, a parachute landing fall, into the tail end of a truck. He came in shock

with a rigid abdomen. He had a huge liver laceration, the biggest

and deepest I have seen.

I took your advice and packed him immediately, and did a modification of your temporary abdominal closure, and it worked like a

charm. I had to take him to the Hospital Militaire for Intensive
391

Care Unit (ICU) care, and then brought him to meet the Air Force

critical care team that took him to Brooke Army Medical Center.

All of the adjuvant stuff recently had made me forget how cool it

is to be an Army surgeon.’’

Well, that one came from Honduras, it’s not just in Afghanistan.

We are engaged all over the world in taking care of soldiers and

looking after our forces. The Hospital Militaire is a Honduran hospital where he had built a relationship with the physicians there.

That ability of military medicine to bring people together in a positive way is important.

Admiral Cowan and I recently spent some time together in Malaysia, where the medical leaders of 26 Asian Pacific countries

gathered. That meeting was run by Major General Nancy Adams,

who has done a superb job of medical leadership in that region, in

sharing American values and opening constructive dialogue in

places like China and Vietnam. Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, our

combined laboratory in Thailand, are all places today where that

medical coalition plays out to benefit soldiers directly, and the ongoing missions on a broader scale.

The foundation for our ability to contribute in these many ways

comes from our direct care system. That is not only our force protection platform and our training base, but also the basis for the

delivery of arguably the finest health benefit around, the TRICARE

benefit that Dr. Winkenwerder spoke about. The tremendous steps

forward to fulfill the promise of TRICARE for Life resounds in

every single retiree group with whom I meet, and it is well recognized also by those on active duty today.

TRICARE Prime Remote for family members, now implemented

with interim rules, a pharmacy benefit that was put in place on

time on target last April by the TRICARE Management Association

(TMA) team, all have been important success stories in this story.

All of that said, we can’t sit still. My Chief, General Shinseki

speaks eloquently and more importantly, is aggressive in his leadership to transform the Army and insure relevance to meet the

missions of the 21st century, of leveraging the technological promise of doing things better. We in medicine must keep up with that

vision, linking our battlefield medics more easily, pushing our research base for things like fiber bandages, blood substitutes on the

battlefield, and the next generation of vaccines for diseases that we

will not face at home but present threats to our soldiers deployed.

We keep proactively detecting the emergence of new diseases. Understanding things like mad cow disease. Engineering the best

business practices for the delivery of population health. All of these

things have a positive spin-off in the care of soldiers and their families and for being models for the Nation.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. We

really appreciate this committee’s support for the care of soldiers

so consistently and over so many years, sir. And more importantly,

our soldiers and their families appreciate it. I look forward to your

questions.

[The statement follows:]
392

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. It is my privilege to serve as the 40th Army Surgeon General.

This morning I would like to discuss the opportunities and challenges that face

the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) as we provide medical support to the force.

As we all know, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have dramatically

changed America and the world. On that day Army medics were front and center

providing quality and compassionate health care to their fallen comrades at the

Pentagon. Today as I speak, Army medics are providing that same quality and compassionate care in support of Enduring Freedom and many other operations around

the world to include our homeland. The AMEDD is uniquely capable of supporting

these operations. The depth, breadth, and flexibility of our capabilities based medical force enable us to place an integrated health care delivery system any place in

the world. Stories of how our combat medics are providing life saving care to injured

soldiers in Afghanistan—followed by rapid evacuation to an Army forward surgical

team, to a deployed combat support hospital and back to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center or Walter Reed Army Medical Center—demonstrates how well we take

our combat casualty care from point of injury back to the United States for tertiary

care. Today we have similar medical systems established in Bosnia, Kosovo, Philippines, and Kuwait.

While all of these have been considerable challenges, we have met our October

1, 2001, NDAA commitment to military retirees age 65 and over by implementing

TRICARE Plus and continue today to ensure our military families receive quality,

seamless healthcare as their family members deploy to fight this war.

The September 11, 2001, attack on America resulted in the Army expanding its

focus by programming resource requirements to the protection of the homeland,

while sustaining the transformation process to ensure continued dominance across

the full spectrum of operations anywhere in the world. The AMEDD’s resource priorities for both the fiscal year 2004–09 Army and Defense Health Program (DHP)

will focus on the key capabilities necessary to fulfill the obligations to the Army and

its family. They will also be consistent with the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)

guidance and the Chief of Staff, Army Vision: Readiness, People, and Transformation. All of these resources support the three fundamental components of our

mission: Deploying a Trained and Equipped Medical Force; Projecting a Healthy and

Medically Protected Force; and Managing the Health of the Soldier and the Military

Family.

Deploy a Trained and Equipped Medical Force

Medics in support enable the Soldier to be on point for our Nation. In October

2001, we began a new era of Army Medicine. Army Healthcare Specialists, active

and reserve, now attend a 16-week training program at the Army Medical Department Center and School. This new Medical Occupational Specialist (MOS) is the

91W. Training is focused on emergency care, primary care, medical force protection,

and evacuation and retrieval. All medics now graduate with National Registry

Emergency Medical Technician certification and will require routine revalidation of

their critical medical skills. Over the next few years we will be transitioning all of

our health care specialists to this enhanced standard.

Army graduate medical education (GME) programs are the keystones to the quality of Army medicine. Our GME programs include military-unique aspects of a given

specialty, which prepares physicians for the rigorous demands of practice in a wartime or contingency environment. Residents receive orientations and lectures concerning war zone injuries, trauma and military deployments. Additionally, they attend formal training that includes a centralized combat casualty care course, advanced trauma life support, and medical management of chemical and biological

casualties. After completing an Army graduate medical education, a physician is

uniquely qualified to deploy at all levels within the theater of operations to support

the military medical mission. We now place board certified physicians in our brigade

and division surgeon positions to ensure our divisional soldiers receive the highest

levels of care regardless of where they are in the world.

We must ensure that the infrastructure and the capabilities of the institutional

AMEDD are robust and are leveraged to meet our obligations to operational forces.

We do this through comprehensive, planned support to Power Projection Platforms,

by deployment of a trained and expert medical force through professional officer

filler system (PROFIS) and assignment rotations, and by targeted new initiatives

that can fill operational medical gaps anywhere in the world as well as in support

of homeland defense requirements.
393

To have a capable and ready Army medical force, we must have the ability to recruit and retain quality, highly skilled health care professionals. We are 8 months

into what is projected to be a long war on terrorism, a war that will take us around

the globe and will require the sustained efforts of our entire military—active and

reserve. Without the ability to recruit and retain these vital health care professionals we face personnel shortages that could prove harmful to our deployment

platform. For example, we continue to explore all sources to accomplish the recruitment of sufficient nurses to support all of our current missions. Unfortunately the

nurse shortage that is being experienced generally is also being experience within

the Army Nurse Corps. We are particularly concerned about our Nurse Anesthetists

and our Operating Room Nurses who are critical for our deployment mission.

Our Reserve Medical Forces are valued members of the Army. This is particularly

true of the AMEDD where in 2002, 63 percent of the total medical force is in the

Reserve Components. Ensuring that all reserve forces are medically prepared, and

that Soldiers are healthy, is a critical issue for the Army. The Federal Strategic

Health Alliance (FEDS-HEAL) is an important program to assist in providing medical and dental care to reserve forces. We must ensure that our reserve members

are medically and dentally ready, so when called upon they can immediately deploy

and fulfill their vital role as part of the AMEDD.

Medical evacuation of casualties from the battlefield has been one of the

AMEDD’s modernization priorities for several years and it remains so. Clearing the

battlefield serves as a critical enabler for the combat commander, allowing him to

concentrate on the prosecution of the mission. Air evacuation is the fastest and most

flexible method, and the AMEDD has been working with the aviation community

to improve the UH–60 Blackhawk and create a state-of-the-art evacuation platform—the HH–60L.

We have a balanced AMEDD Investment Strategy (AIS) that accelerates the provision of AMEDD capabilities to transition to the Interim Force and provides a

bridge to the Objective Force. Concurrently, we must also ensure that the AMEDD’s

obligations to maintain the capability of legacy medical units through the recapitalization are met.

Wherever possible, we are incorporating acquisition and fielding strategies that

extend our purchasing power, with priority given to earliest deploying units and

those that are likely to be called upon for Small Scale Contingencies (SSC) and

Homeland Defense. I want to provide the U.S. Army Reserve with medical equipment sets that are operationally capable of responding to homeland or SSC requirements. We are also improving our worldwide posture by ensuring that medical materiel in Army prepositioned stocks is modern, complete, and properly maintained.

Another AMEDD modernization effort is exploratory work on the next generation

of medical shelter systems. These systems will have multi-functional design that

will allow for quick reconfiguration for multiple medical applications. At home or

abroad, across the spectrum of conflicts and full ranges of environments including

chemical and biological scenarios, these shelter systems will improve the quality of

care for our patients.

To promote tactical mobility, the AMEDD is working with the Transportation

Corps to define medical requirements for trucks in the Family of Medium Tactical

Vehicles (FMTV). The FMTV-LHS consists of a truck with a pneumatic load-handling system that will be used to transport current and future deployable medical

systems. Tactical mobility will be a critical factor on the battlefields of the future

and the medical force must be able to keep pace with the maneuver elements.

The United States Army Medical Research and Material Command has awarded

a four year, $13.95 million contract to the American Red Cross for a hemostatic

dressing using the blood clotting agents fibrinogen and thrombin, shown to be much

more effective at stopping massive bleeding than traditional gauze bandages. There

are estimates that a bandage like this could have saved 3,000 to 7,000 lives in Vietnam. We expect to obtain FDA approval and have the product in the field by 2006.

Blood substitutes and freeze-dried blood should allow the medics to carry the replacement blood needed to stabilize patients.

Currently, in our field hospital in Uzbekistan, a system for concentrating air for

hospital oxygen is being used in support of Enduring Freedom. This system avoids

transporting heavy canisters of bottled oxygen, eliminating the requirement to

transport some 17 tons of hazardous material from a Combat Support Hospital’s

basic load. Further development of digital radiography is a medical readiness enabler. Digital x-rays allow facilities near the front to have images without heavy

film developing systems. The Digital Imaging Network-Picture Archiving and Communications Systems (DIN–PACS) provides us with reliable and consistent management of digital images within and between medical treatment facilities, avoiding

film-based environmentally hazardous chemical processing and improving access
394

and relative standard of care rendered to our patients. Teleradiology enables the secure transfer of images between fixed facilities and with deployed units for reachback support, and helps the Army compensate for the continued attrition of radiologists by leveling digital workloads across wide geographic areas.

Using new technologies, digitization, and enhanced mobility to achieve a lighter,

faster, more responsive medical capability will ensure that military medicine is

there to support the deployed service member.

Project and Sustain a Healthy and Medically Protected Force

We must provide the capability to train, project and sustain a fit and healthy

force that is protected against disease and non-battle injury. We must continue to

develop and sustain effective disease- and injury-prevention programs that increase

productivity and improve the health and fighting strength of the force. We must improve and streamline rehabilitative services for injured and ill soldiers to expedite

return to full duty status. A good example of this is our Center of Excellence for

Land Mine Injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We are able to take soldiers who have been wounded in Afghanistan to WRAMC and provide comprehensive reconstructive surgery and rehabilitative services in one stop.

Finally, we must continue to develop and maintain surveillance programs and

databases to monitor the health and medical readiness of the force. We must be able

to reliably detect and assess threats to health from the environment this includes

the timely identification of infectious diseases, chemicals, climatic extremes, and

other hazards. We have done this in Operation Enduring Freedom by sending in our

Special Medical Augmentation Team-Preventive Medicine (SMART-PM) to collect,

analyze, and summarize occupational and environmental health exposure surveillance data.

Among the lessons learned by military medicine from the Persian Gulf War is the

importance of Force Health Protection and the need for attention to it before, during, and after the deployment. It is the leverage of information and information systems that will allow us to take this core competency of military medicine and make

major advances. We continue to work towards a longitudinal and queriable digital

patient record that will facilitate this proactive approach.

Environmental monitoring entails knowledge of potential health threats in the

air, water, and soil to which our service members are exposed. Army Preventive

Medicine Units are currently assessing the occupational and environmental health

risks to our force in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and numerous other locations throughout the world. For example, our medics are monitoring our troops for

altitude sickness; a health threat when fighting at high altitudes in Afghanistan.

There are also some age-old diseases that we continue to combat such as tuberculosis and malaria that have the potential to affect the combat readiness of our

troops and newer ones like HIV that we continue to research and study as we plan

for future operations. While some of these medical threats might not be of interest

to the U.S. population, they are important to the military. We place U.S. Forces in

areas where these diseases pose serious threat to our Soldiers.

Our abilities are not limited to surveillance of our military personnel. When an

anthrax laced letter was opened in Senator Daschle’s office the U.S. Army Medical

Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID), one of only two Level D Laboratories in the Nation, immediately provided the expertise to confirm that it was

indeed anthrax. The Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine provided

a SMART-PM to developed strategies along with the CDC and EPA to confirm and

document the presence of anthrax contamination in the U.S. Capitol building. The

SMART-PM assisted in the sample planning and interpretation of analysis for over

20,000 samples for Bacillus anthracis collected in over 30 buildings. The Armed

Force Institute of Pathology processed over 4,000 environmental and clinical specimens for study and or confirmation of anthrax from the National Capital Region.

Manage the Health of the Soldier and the Military Family

The healthcare of the soldier and the military family is a component of the Chief

of Staff of the Army’s Well-Being Initiative, and is our Priority One ‘‘must fund’’

DHP requirement. We are expected to have, and our beneficiaries deserve, a worldclass system that supports peacetime and wartime contingency requirements, and

we will achieve that in several ways. The President’s fiscal year 2003 Budget ensures adequate funding for our health care system as it accounts for the cost of inflation and health care growth experienced throughout the health care industry. Our

military medical readiness is inextricably linked to the direct care system. Our

Army hospitals are the training bases and staging areas for deployment of worldclass health care capability to support our soldiers anywhere in the world. Full

funding to sustain this capability is essential. Historically, the DHP has survived
395

through supplementals and large year-end reprogrammings. This cannot continue.

We need to establish and sustain the DHP at the appropriate funding level, as requested in the President’s Budget, to ensure we can provide the excellent health

care benefits that you have legislated for our soldiers. Through optimized clinical

and business practices supported by a fully funded Defense Health Program, we can

deliver the best possible medical care to our soldiers, family members and retirees,

while ensuring an ability to support our military force in operations around the

world.

I am programming targets for local investment in capital expense equipment to

allow these expenditures to be programmatic rather than opportunistic. We must

continue to comprehensively monitor resource requirements for the enhanced benefits authorized by the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

and those authorized in the Fiscal Year 2002 NDAA, and include these requirements in our DHP submission. Additionally, we adequately program resources to

support Occupational Health mission requirements.

I expect maximum utilization of our direct care system and I have charged my

regional medical commanders with optimizing the productivity and utilization of our

hospitals and clinics consistent with sound business practices. Investment capital

will be targeted for business plans that meet strict return on investment criteria.

Regional and local medical commanders will allocate sufficient resources for planning and execution of AMEDD obligations for deploying and deployed forces. This

includes health and logistics support to Power Projection, installation protection,

and facility expansion requirements. Any proposed new or expanded missions, to include advances in medical practices and technology, will be validated and approved

prior to consideration for funding.

Physical facilities also have a key role in optimization. We need to systematically

invest in the sustainment and recapitalization of our medical, dental and research

facilities in order to meet the expectations of our customers and provide only the

most modern health and research environments for our beneficiaries and staff. We

also can use those investments to re-look our mission and our partnership opportunities with the VA, HHS and other health resource partners. One excellent

partnering example currently exists at our new Bassett hospital replacement in

Fairbanks, Alaska, where we are sharing our new building and other resources with

the VA as part of the Alaska Federal Health Care Consortium. Other recent examples of target investment include the new James K. Okubo Health and Dental Clinic

at Fort Lewis, Washington, serving both soldiers and their families in a new, modern outpatient setting close to home and workplace. These predictable developments

contrast with unpredictable new mission requirements like Europe’s Efficient Basing initiative or the Land Partnership Program in Korea. We need to be able to

place the needed healthcare facilities in the right place at the right time to support

the CINCs. It is imperative that we are able to provide these facilities in a timely

manner.

The increased capacity in the military treatment facilities should reduce the cost

of our TRICARE contracts. The competitive salaries packages available for civilian

healthcare employees improve our ability to recruit and retain the best personnel

in a competitive labor market. A final benefit of these investments is improved staff

and patient satisfaction.

There are systems issues that enable us to optimize health care delivery. The

AMEDD has been at the forefront of the Department of Defense in reengineering

supply chain management, leveraging into strategic partnerships with the military

services, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to

increase purchasing volume and obtain the best value. We have also invested in

technologies such as Digital Imaging Networks, Point of Use systems, and pharmacy

robotics to improve productivity, accuracy, and cost accounting. The AMEDD has

embraced acquisition reform and electronic commerce initiatives to reduce paperwork, improve responsiveness, and enhance delivery of the healthcare benefit.

Army Medicine is more than an HMO. We follow in the proud tradition of such

soldiers as Captain Ben Salomon, an Army dentist killed on Saipan in July 1944,

the first dentist to receive the Medal of Honor. Our system of integrated care, teaching medical centers to outlying health clinics, schoolhouse to research and development, form the base for supporting the Army across the world and across the spectrum of conflict. We do that quietly and on a daily basis as we field the Table of

Organization and Equipment (TOE) force, engage with both active and reserve

forces, and respond to the Chief of Staff’s vision of our Army’s role in alleviating

human suffering and transforming the Army, and ensuring our Soldiers have world

class health care available no matter where they are deployed.

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.
396

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General. May I now call

upon Admiral Cowan.

Admiral COWAN. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to be here on behalf of the men and women of Navy medicine. I just returned from

a Pacific trip, visiting the clinics and the hospitals in the Navy

throughout the Pacific. I left Honolulu 2 days ago and woke up

with laryngitis.

Since my comments mirror and echo Dr. Winkenwerder’s and

General Peake’s, I would like to abbreviate my opening remarks

and I have also submitted a written statement.

Since becoming the Navy Surgeon General last summer I have

carried the message of Force Health Protection, that is, it is our job

to produce healthy and fit sailors and marines, to protect them

from all hazards as they go in harm’s way, to restore the sick and

injured while at the same time caring for their families at home,

and finally, to help a grateful Nation thank its retired warriors by

providing healthcare for life for them and their families.

The events of September 11th and beyond have only strengthened my conviction that this is the correct course for Navy medicine and the military health system. Two weeks ago I returned

from a visit to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where I saw our Navy fleet

hospital caring for the detainees. It was inspiring to see these Sailors performing high quality healthcare services to these 300 detainees, bearing their insults and hatred while not compromising their

morality or their mission as members of the United States Navy.

It was not luck nor coincidence that these and other responses to

the contingencies since the terrorist attacks have been so successful; it’s because we have devoted many years to force level protection. We have continuously trained, we have prepared and cared

for our patients, and these units like the fleet hospital in Guantanamo are no different from any of the other thousands of men and

women in Navy medicine.

I think we have been very successful, and that success could not

have been achieved without the support of Congress. Congress has

made great strides in funding this year and the future promises

further stability. For this you have our gratitude. You have also

been extremely helpful in defining the military health benefit

through legislation and in the first full year of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), both quality and access are increasing, as the health benefit continues to be the number one

quality of life issue for retention in the United States Navy. Your

continued support and stable and adequate funding insure that

continuation so that we can deliver high quality care in the right

places at the right time.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In closing, I simply thank you again for your you support, and

I am available for any questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL MICHAEL L. COWAN

Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens and other distinguished Senators, thank you

for the opportunity to share Navy Medicine’s accomplishments in 2001 and plans

for the future.
397

We have successfully responded to many challenges placed before us as we continue to face a period of unprecedented change for medicine. The world, as we know

it, changed dramatically on September 11th. Not since Pearl Harbor has America

been attacked with such viciousness, and never have we had to deal with terrorism

on such a scale coming to our homeland. We have had to make a ‘‘sea change’’ in

our thoughts and actions. Until now, we always prepared to deploy to war somewhere else. During the Cold War, we prepared, trained and deployed to face our

enemy. September 11th forced us to change our thinking, but not to abandon our

mission.

My vision of Navy Medicine is Force Health Protection. To produce hyper-fit,

hyper-healthy Sailors and Marines; protect them from all possible hazards when

they go in harm’s way; restore the sick and injured, while at the same time caring

for their families at home; and finally, help a grateful Nation thank its retired warriors by providing health care for life.

High quality care and health protection are a vital part of the Navy’s ability to

execute worldwide missions. Just as the American people need to know that the

Navy is guarding their safety, our Sailors, Marines, their families and retirees need

to know they are protected by the best health care we can provide. Since becoming

the Navy Surgeon General, I have preached the message of Force Health Protection

through the business processes of Readiness, Optimization and Integration. The

events of September 11th have only served to strengthen my conviction that this

is the correct course for Navy Medicine. We’re building on great success. We have

the right men and women, and we have the right focus. I would like to share with

you my current efforts to frame Navy Medicine’s mission.

Readiness

I believe readiness consists of two parts: preparing a ready sailor or marine and

our own organizational readiness within Navy Medicine.

The response of our medical professionals to the events of September 11th provides a heartening illustration of our readiness to respond... our preparedness

to fulfill our mission. It was shown clearly by the men and women who assisted at

the scene of the Pentagon, who, without hesitation, bravely went to their battle stations. It was also clearly shown by the people of the Hospital Ship USNS Comfort,

and supporting facilities, who had done their homework, made preparations, conducted drills, had their sea bags packed, had their affairs in order, and were ready

to go. It was shown by our preventive medicine teams and research commands in

their response to the anthrax attack on the Capital. Their effort and responsiveness

helped ensure the continuity of our government operations.

After the terrorists struck the Pentagon, our Navy medicine people were among

the first to respond. Numerous naval medical personnel at the Pentagon ran to the

crash site and even as officials screamed warnings of another incoming plane, none

left their burned or injured victims. As the hours passed, they also began treating

firefighters and other rescue personnel. Most stayed all night and into the next day.

Members of the National Naval Medical Center’s Special Psychiatric Rapid Intervention Team (SPRINT) were mobilized at a location near the Pentagon and provided stress management assistance and one-on-one counseling, aiding an estimated

1,500 individuals during a 2-week period following the attack.

I would also like to elaborate on the response of the USNS Comfort who provided

care and respite to New York City’s rescue and recovery workers, firefighters and

policemen. Within 12 hours of being notified, on 12 September 2001, the USNS

Comfort left its berth in Baltimore with staff members from the National Naval

Medical Center and other commands and headed to New York City. As the ship arrived at Earle, New Jersey to on-load provisions and pharmaceuticals, it received

orders to change its mission. It would now provide logistical and support services

to emergency personnel working in the disaster recovery area. In little more than

an hour, 450 medical and support personnel packed, disembarked and boarded

buses for a return trip home. The smooth transition from a treatment facility to a

support oasis for exhausted firefighters and rescue workers trying to save lives in

Manhattan, exemplified the flexibility of our staff.

Preparedness was also underlined by the Navy staff of the Capitol Hill Clinic,

Naval Medical Research Center and the National Naval Medical Center who responded to the anthrax attack on the Capital. The ability to rapidly detect and identify a bioterrorism (BT) incident is the foundation for the response to such an event.

The Biological Defense Research Directorate (BDRD) of the Naval Medical Research

Center (NMRC) originally pioneered rapid detection of potential Bioterrorism/Biowarfare (BT/BW) agents during the Gulf War. BDRD pioneered the development of

rapid hand-held assays for the detection of BT/BW agents. These rapid and robust

assays are similar in principle to home pregnancy tests and provide an initial
398

screening tool for identifying BT/BW agents within 15 minutes. BDRD was called

upon to test Capitol Hill buildings and provide invaluable information on the levels

of contamination. Responding to Capitol Hill staff exposure to the anthrax bacterium, Navy Medicine provided over 7,000 anthrax swabs to Congressmen, their

staff and other Capitol Hill employees. Numerous individuals were put on prophylactic prescriptions of antibiotics and were closely monitored for any complications.

These efforts were key to keeping the Government ‘‘open for business’’.

Navy Medicine has also recently deployed Fleet Hospital 20 to Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. With the help of Seabees, staff from Naval Hospital Camp

Lejeune, North Carolina and other hospitals, cleared the land and set up the fleet

hospital, providing ethical and humane treatment to detainees. I have to share my

pride in how Navy healthcare professionals ‘‘knew where their battle stations were’’

and responded in setting up 27 required beds in less than 10 hours.

Whether responding with triage and emergency medical treatment at the Pentagon, or swiftly manning up a 250-bed hospital aboard the USNS Comfort, setting

up a field hospital or responding to biological threats in these Congressional Halls,

our response has been mission done exactly right—as the American people expect.

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. The platforms include the 2 one thousand bed hospital ships, 6 Active

duty and 4 Reserve 500 Bed Fleet Hospitals, 84 Casualty Receiving and Treatment

ships (CRTS) and medical units assigned to augment the Marine Corps and our

overseas hospitals. One measure of readiness is whether we have personnel with the

appropriate specialty assigned to the proper billets; that is, do we have for example

surgeons with the right skills assigned to surgeon billets. 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 (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.

Feeding the SORTS system is a program known as the Expeditionary Medical

Program for Augmentation and Readiness Tracking (EMPART) which Navy Medicine uses to monitor the deployment readiness of individual personnel 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

EMPART.

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 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. My

staff is in the process of developing this measure of individual health, which will

also facilitate our measure of population health.

Retention

Finally, as we work to meet the challenges of providing quality health care, we

must not forget the crucial role of our health care providers. We appreciate and

value our providers’ irreplaceable role in achieving our vision of ‘‘superior readiness

through excellence in health services.’’ We need to do a better job however demonstrating this value, much earlier in an officer’s career. I am particularly concerned

about our retention rates for both enlisted and officer medical specialties. The critical skills retention bonus will enable us to increase retention rates for both officers

and enlisted. In addition, we appreciate the accession bonus provided in the fiscal

year 2002 NDAA as it adds another very powerful tool to our toolbox to improve

retention.

Medical Corps

The annual loss rates for the Medical Corps, as a whole has held steady at 8–

9 percent and the primary care communities are healthy. However, loss rates within

certain specialties are very high. Specialties such as General Surgery have a loss

rate over 22 percent, Orthopedic Surgery at 27 percent, and Anesthesia at 22 percent. Several wartime critical specialties are undermanned, including anesthesia (74
399

percent), cardio-thoracic surgery (46 percent), and orthopedic surgery (81 percent).

In addition, we predict a large exodus of radiologists in the next two years as many

reach the end of their service obligations.

Our focus must be on more flexible pay, raising the specialty caps, and removing

the restrictive aspects of contracts. The surgical specialists, in particular, have significant pay gaps with their civilian colleagues (often in excess of $100,000 per

year).

Distribution problems result where we are not able to keep pace with attrition in

some specialties. We have several military treatment facilities where we are unable

to assign a military radiologist. The enormous gap in pay between the services and

the civilian market for radiologists makes it difficult to recruit or retain. In addition,

we have not been able to adequately contract for these specialties. For example, at

Naval Hospital Great Lakes we established a $400,000 personal services contract

for a radiologist, and for over a year no one applied. Our best option is to ‘‘grow

and retain’’ our specialists.

Dental Corps

Despite efforts to improve dental corps retention, the annual loss rate between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2001 increased from 8.3 percent to 10.5 percent. Current projections for fiscal year 2002 suggest an 11.5 percent loss rate. 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

Navy Medicine continues to monitor the nationwide nursing shortage and its impact on the Nurse Corps. To date, we have been relatively healthy in our recruiting

efforts through diversified accession sources; however, we are in direct competition

with the private sector for a diminishing pool of appropriately prepared registered

nurses, particularly in the specialty areas. Meeting operational and peacetime

healthcare delivery missions with appropriate numbers of maternal-child, psychiatric, and perioperative nurses will be particularly challenging. Currently, board

certification pay is authorized only for Nurse Practitioners (NP), Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) and Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMW). So far,

the CRNA incentive special pay program has been successful.

Medical Service Corps

In the Medical Service Corps, we are experiencing a relatively stable annual loss

rate of 9 percent; however, loss rates vary significantly between specialties. A key

issue for this community is that 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.

The critical specialties to recruit and retain at this time are optometry, pharmacy,

psychologists and environmental health officers. Navy-sponsored training is currently provided to some optometry students, which has helped with high loan problems. In addition, we have several other scholarships and pay initiatives which are

being pursued to assist in recruiting and retaining optometrists. While we expect

success with optometry recruiting, we expect retention challenges.

Pharmacy is another difficult community with our current end strength only at

91 percent. We access pharmacists through direct accessions and the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP).

Enlisted Members

Within the Hospital Corps I am most concerned about under-manning in five

Navy Enlisted Classifications (NECs). In the operational force, search & rescue

corpsmen are manned at 69 percent and corpsmen for USMC reconnaissance battalions at 59 percent. In our MTFs, psychiatric technicians are staffed 57 percent, orthopedic technicians 66 percent, and advanced laboratory technicians 75 percent.

Dental technician shortfalls are beginning to appear both in recruitment and retention.

Optimization—Embrace Best Business and Clinical Practices

There is no more important effort in military medicine today than implementing

the MHS Optimization Plan to ensure the most efficient and effective delivery of

health services to our Sailors, Marines and their families.

Analysis of our direct care system indicates that in many cases, Military Treatment Facilities are not optimally staffed or resourced to deliver efficient health care.

For example, a Family Physician working with two clinical support staff may be

able to effectively care for a panel of 750 adults. When given the industry standard
400

of 3.5 support personnel, that same provider may assume responsibility for 1,500–

2,000 adults. The Optimization Plan requires the cost of additional support staff to

be recouped via higher throughput. When the volume of care is increased through

more efficient processes, a return on investment is generated in which the actual

cost of health care is lower.

We must find new ways to allow our people to fulfill their duties in the most efficient manner possible. Our men and women continue to improve their skills in the

medical field and incorporate best business practices. This result has been achieved

while maintaining our high quality of health care delivery. In the future, we must

continue to equip our people with the latest knowledge and technology needed to

maintain this high level of service.

The added resources from the Optimization Fund are most welcome, and are

being wisely invested in areas that will bring the greatest return. With this investment our commanding officers are developing some very innovative measures at the

Military Treatment Facility (MTF) level.

Navy Medicine initiated an aggressive strategy to capture the best evidence-based

clinical and population health practices of a number of key health care systems.

Sharing these benchmark practices promotes improvement and optimization. Vigorous performance measurements provide additional focus and direction, ensure

strategic alignment, and serve as a progress reports. Strong work to date has already resulted in many well-articulated goals and objectives at our MTFs for needed

changes. The most immediate challenge that I see is using performance measurement to drive these organizational changes.

In the Navy, we are making available comparative performance data on all facilities—so MTF commanders can see where they stand compared to others. Hopefully,

the low scoring ones look at the higher scoring ones, see what they are doing, and

make the appropriate changes to raise their performance. A spirit of friendly competition is engendered. Ultimately, it allows us to raise the bar for the whole organization. As we continue our journey of applying performance measurement, we will

begin to identify targets for our system and for each MTF (in conjunction with the

MTF CO). Holding MTF COs accountable for meeting those targets will be the next

step in this evolution.

When Navy Medicine first decided that using metrics would help us drive organizational change, we asked the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) to help us. With

Navy Medicine’s consensus on our mission, vision, goals and strategies, we

partnered with CNA to develop a fairly complex system of composite metrics that

we can look at to see if we are going in the right direction. We are completing our

second year with these metrics 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’re reviewing data from two other ‘‘levels’’ of 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 just identified measures for our ‘‘Leading Indicators’’ that our leadership sees on a monthly basis. In developing and revising these

measures, we are finding the BALANCE between measures of satisfaction (patient

and staff), financial health, clinical quality, operational or process measures, and

readiness. Once we look at the historical data for these indicators, we will be setting

not only targets for where we want to be, but also action triggers in case we are

going in the wrong direction. We will agree on a level below which we will no longer

just watch and see if it improves, but will instead 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.

I am aware that initial investments carry the inherent risk that return may not

be earned quickly enough to pay for investment. However, I am firmly committed

to changing the business practices and culture of Navy Medicine to recapture workload currently being done in the private sector.

Integration

Navy Medicine is a vital part of the overall composition of our total force. To ensure smooth operations between these parts, we continuously work to integrate ourselves throughout the Departments of the Navy, Air Force and Army. Our field is

highly complex and requires a strong effort to ensure a fluid motion between specialties. Integration must also be maintained with our sister services, our TRICARE
401

civilian partners, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Public Health Service

to ensure all federal beneficiaries have appropriate access to high quality health

care. I have made collaboration with the Department of Veterans Administration

one of my top three goals and have underlined this commitment for my commanding

officers. Progress has been made, but more needs to be done. Many of the barriers

and regulations which were thought to be insurmountable are not that formidable.

However, the process of collaboration is crucial to success. It is also important for

resource sharing initiatives to truly improve access to quality care and be advantageous for both DOD and the Department of Veterans Administration. Navy and

VA clinics coexist within several of our facilities such as at Naval Hospital Beaufort,

Naval Hospital Guam and at the Naval Medical Clinic Key West. We are actively

pursuing VA sharing arrangements at many other facilities, and have formed numerous local Navy/VA working groups to continue to identify additional opportunities.

Integration should also include our patients with whom we must more effectively

communicate. The next step of integration is—‘‘Webification.’’ Today’s beneficiaries

demand access to healthcare information, involvement in the healthcare decision

process, and high quality, hassle-free customer service. They are also very technologically sophisticated and expect us to make the best use of the Internet to provide

these services. A significant number of our beneficiaries have access to, and know

how to use, the Internet. In response, we are beginning to ‘‘webify’’ Navy Medicine

to help create new business areas, enhance current ways of doing business, and optimize other business processes.

E-Health is the newest way of conducting the business of healthcare, and represents the application of Internet principles, techniques, and technologies to improve health services delivery. Facilitating electronic exchange of information within

the healthcare community enables stronger and more effective collaboration among

patients, doctors, hospitals, employers, payers, laboratories, pharmacies, and suppliers. Linking these stakeholders to more information, reducing redundancies and

increasing compliance in population health and disease management programs

holds great promise for reducing the cost of healthcare delivery, improving patient

safety, and health care quality.

As E-health begins to take on a larger role within Navy Medicine, physicians will

adopt the Internet as an important component of their patient encounters to provide

health services and enhance communication. For Navy Medicine, E-health is all

about improved access, health services, provider-beneficiary relationships, best business practices to support force health protection through optimization.

I am particularly excited about the new TRICARE Online website portals, which

will allow patients to make appointments on line, communicate with their

healthcare providers and access healthcare advice data bases. I have called upon my

physicians to embrace this new technology and ensure its spread throughout Navy

Medicine.

Navy 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 have started to develop the next generation

of vaccines against naturally occurring or bio-engineered weapons. The DNA Malaria vaccine has provided the foundation for the development of other DNA-based

vaccines used to battle a host of infectious diseases such as anthrax, smallpox or

plague.

Traditional vaccines have saved countless millions, but have their limitations.

They take years to develop and can be difficult and costly to manufacture. Many

need constant refrigeration and generally can’t be mixed to inoculate against more

than one disease at a time. And there’s always the danger of side effects. This new

generation of vaccines is expected to be safer, cheaper, more stable, have fewer side

effects and is more effective against a wider variety of diseases, than traditional

vaccines. The DNA vaccines are expected to have what researchers call ‘‘agility’’—

they can be retailored quickly to become ‘‘just-in time’’ inoculations against bacteria,

viruses and other pathogens that have emerged or have been re-engineered in

enemy labs to make existing vaccines ineffective. Another major advantage of the

agile vaccines is that production from start to finish might take a matter of months,

not years. While traditional vaccines use live virus or killed organisms that stimulate humans to develop an immune response against a specific disease, these agile

vaccines use fragments of an organism’s DNA. Navy researchers are recognized
402

world leaders in development of these DNA vaccines and believe the vaccines may

be able to protect today’s children from some of the world’s most deadly scourges.

As previously mentioned, it was Navy teams from NMRC that invented the rapid

hand-held assays that were used nation-wide to screen for anthrax. They were the

first to identify anthrax contamination at the U.S. Supreme Court, CIA mail room,

within the State Department diplomatic mail pouch system and in one of the Congressional Office Buildings. Through continuing efforts in the pursuit of scientific

and technological excellence, BDRD is acknowledged as the premier BT/BW detection and identification program within the Navy and one of the premier programs

within the United States. BDRD is specifically sought out by agencies of the U.S.

Government for guidance on BT/BW issues and laboratory expertise in the detection

and identification of threat agents. These agencies include the U.S. Secret Service,

the U.S. Capitol Police, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI) and others. The current colloidal gold-based detection technology may soon be replaced by state of the art paramagnetic detection technology.

Preliminary studies have demonstrated an increase in sensitivity of 10 to 1000

times over current capabilities. Very near future developments also include a Bio

Detector with rapid high-throughput DNA sequencing capability which provides a

state of the art ability to finger print BT/BW agents. DNA sequencing chip technology would make it possible to rapidly track the origin of pathogens such as the

Ames strain of B. anthracis. This capability would be invaluable in determining the

source of BT/BW agents and differentiating a bioterrorism attack from natural outbreaks. Furthermore, this capability will be utilized to develop a genetic library of

biothreat agents thus constituting a national biodefense asset.

Researchers at Naval Dental Research Institute (NDRI) Great Lakes, Ill. are

using saliva to help protect Sailors and Marines against two potentially deadly diseases. Two different saliva tests are being developed: One to see if individuals have

been exposed to tuberculosis (TB), and one to check anthrax antibody levels after

receiving the anthrax vaccine series of inoculations.

Tuberculosis is an ancient serious respiratory disease that has been on the upswing in the last several years. The current tuberculosis test requires a tiny amount

of reactant be injected into the skin of the forearm. A health care provider must

check the injection site 72 hours later to see if a telltale red circle, indicating the

presence of TB antibodies and exposure to TB. NDRI’s screening test requires only

a small amount of saliva and the results are available in 10 minutes. Non-health

care professionals can easily be trained to administer the test. The development of

a rapid salivary field test for diagnosing exposure to infectious tuberculosis (TB)

bacteria, is especially important to the Fleet and Marine Corps, where sailors and

marines are billeted in close quarters.

The anthrax test works similarly, but monitors the presence of antibodies after

receiving the anthrax vaccine. A high level of antibodies indicates that the vaccine

has been successful in developing protection against anthrax. Results are also available within 10 minutes and can be performed anywhere.

Two technologies are used in the test. The first, the lateral flow, is similar to an

over-the-counter pregnancy test. The prototype being tested at NDRI is about the

size of a stick of gum and rugged enough to be carried in a uniform pocket. It’s used

for screening to see if antibodies are even present. The second technology, fluorescence polarization, is much more sensitive and not only shows whether antibodies

are present, but at what levels. For example, it can test the difference between latent and active TB. This technology is housed in a hand-held monitor rugged enough

to use in any forward-deployed environment. It, too, can provide test results in minutes. NDRI has a patent pending on the spit tests, and is working with volunteers

now to ensure the reliability of the tests. If all goes well, it may be ready for use

in the Fleet by next year.

The anthrax and TB tests are just the first step in what could be a method to

check for exposure to a number of diseases—quickly, easily, economically, and without the needle stick of a blood test. Epitope mapping is currently being done to assure the international accuracy of this TB test. Protein antigens only found among

TB patients are being prepared commercially in order to manufacture prototype

units. Final approval for clinical trials has been obtained and trials should commence soon. Sailors and Marines go to the dentist annually for check ups, so ideally

while they are waiting for their appointments, they could spit in a cup and a whole

battery of tests could be run.

U.S. military personnel are at high risk for lethal radiation or chemical injury

from nuclear weapons/chemical weapons attack or nuclear accident. High dose radiation and some chemical agents obliterate the bone marrow (blood forming organ),

and are almost invariably fatal unless a matched donor can be found. Even casualties given a matched bone marrow transplant are susceptible to graft failure, graft
403

vs. host disease, and other complications. Therefore, autologous (self produced) bone

marrow would be most preferable and Navy researchers have developed techniques

for growing bone marrow stem cells in the laboratory. The therapies under development have obvious dual use potential for patients with cancer and genetic disease.

The methods to expand human bone marrow stem cells have been patented by the

Navy.

Major achievements have been made by Navy Researchers in transplant research

and tissue rejection studies. Severe burns account for a significant proportion of

combat casualties at sea and ashore following a thermal ordinance, nuclear, and

some chemical munitions explosions. Current standard treatment for severe burns

is limited. The major hurdle limiting curative skin transplantation capabilities is

tissue rejection. Recent insights into tissue rejection immunology have led investigators to conclude that the immune system can be ‘‘educated’’ to accept foreign tissues

while maintaining the ability to provide protection against disease causing germs.

This field of research is termed ‘‘tolerance’’ research. Navy Researchers have demonstrated that new immune therapies can be successfully applied in higher mammals, including monkeys, to allow for the transplantation of virtually any tissue

without the requirement for continuous immunosuppression. Navy investigators

have recently made a major breakthrough by showing that full-thickness skin grafts

without immune system suppression can be accomplished in animals.

As a member of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

(USUHS) Board of Regents and the USUHS Executive Committee, and as the designated Executive Agent for the University, I am pleased to say that the University’s focus on relevance, readiness, and optimization continues to be aligned with

both its establishing legislation and the special needs of the Military Health System

(MHS). The University, which holds full accreditation from its fourteen accrediting

organizations, continues to meet and exceed its mission to provide continuity and

leadership for the MHS. To date, USUHS has recruited and graduated over 3,250

uniquely qualified career-oriented uniformed alumni (3,101 uniformed physician officers, 157 advanced practice nurses and additional uniformed health professionals in

administration and allied health sciences). These USUHS alumni serve in critical

roles that are vital to the readiness mission of the MHS. The extraordinary retention of these military officers ensures continuity for the MHS and the safeguarding

of lessons learned during combat and casualty care. Currently, USUHS School of

Medicine (SOM) alumni represent over twenty-one percent of the total physicians

on active duty in the military services. Furthermore, a significant number of

USUHS graduates who have completed their residency training hold leadership or

operational positions throughout the MHS. The University’s mission statement,

Learning to Care for Those in Harm’s Way, succinctly captures its essential commitment to Force Health Protection.

The USUHS schools, institutes, centers and programs help ensure a thorough

preparation to effectively respond to the aftermath of weapons of mass destruction

(WMD), disasters and other contingencies. Today, USUHS is reaching out to other

federal agencies and the civilian medical communities to share its curricula and expertise. I echo the assessment of USUHS provided by the Secretary of Defense on

March 22, 2001, ‘‘the training USUHS students receive in combat and peacetime

health care is essential to providing superior force health protection. We place great

emphasis on the retention of quality physicians in the military. USHUS is a unique

national asset and a vital integrated part of the Military Health System.

Conclusion

In closing I would like to thank Congress for the additional funding that was already provided for the Defense Health System and enabling it to respond to our ongoing challenges. The resources now available allow us to operate on a more comfortable level. Indications are that we have adequate financial resources. It is important to note however, that we still have not addressed our facility replacement cycles. We also face continued rising Health care costs, salary inequities and unexpected increased costs from 9/11, which the President’s Supplement requests and fiscal year 2003 Budget Request are addressing. I would like to ask for your support

to ensure that we have timely, consistent and sustained funding levels over future

years in meeting our needs.

Navy Medicine has proven that it is ready to meet the new demands of a changing world. September 11th opened our eyes and shook our foundation, but I believe

we are prepared and we will prevail in this new and complex war. It will be an

asymmetric war, and we will strike back asymmetrically—politically, economically,

socially, and militarily. And in the end, the military piece will be paramount to success. Whatever challenges lie ahead, Navy Medicine will continue to be reasonable,

relevant, and responsive.
404

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, sir. And now may I call

upon General Carlton.

HOMELAND DEFENSE

General CARLTON. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear before you again this year. Clearly the world is very different

than when we appeared before you last year. I shared with you

some of the major initiatives that we have undertaken to respond

to weapons of mass destruction. The events of September 11 have

acknowledged the fact that we have a homeland contribution to

make to the defense of our great homeland.

We had practiced a Pentagon attack in May as a tri-service activity so that when the events occurred on September 11, we were

well schooled, we had learned our lessons, we performed well, and

saved lives as an Army-Navy-Air Force team. Our modular teams

were in place alongside our Army and Navy colleagues within minutes after the attack, and saved lives.

MC GUIRE AIR FORCE BASE

Within 24 hours of the September 11 attack, we had 500 medics

and 400 hospital beds, deployed to from McGuire Air Force Base,

just outside New York City. We had several hundred deployed to

support Washington, D.C. We had critical incident stress management teams in place immediately in the Pentagon, and they labored to prevent future mental health complications for several

months thereafter. September 11 was truly a wake-up call for our

Nation.

ANTHRAX THREAT

In October in response to another threat, the anthrax threat, we

deployed personnel in our biomedical augmentation teams with our

sister services to support the Centers for Disease Control and the

New York City Public Health Department in their testing suspected anthrax samples. We had 100 percent correlation between

our high tech pathogen identification system that gives an answer

in 1 hour instead of subsequent days, and were extremely pleased

with that technology and ability to help our colleagues in other

areas of Federal Government.

OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

Today the majority of our medics deployed in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM are Air Force medics. They are doing an incredible

job alongside of sister services and allies to care for our young men

and women who are in harm’s way. They are proving the validity

of our light modular expeditionary system know as Expeditionary

Medical Support (EMEDS).

The Special Operations Command Surgeon has said that if it

were not for the light, lean and life saving modular medical packages such as Small Portable Expeditionary/Aeromedical Rapid Response (SPEARR) and EMEDS, we would not have been able to

save the lives of the Special Forces people, many of whom incurred

the casualties early in the conflict.
405

CENTRAL COMMAND SURGEON

The Central Command Surgeon stated, and I quote, ‘‘Light, lean

and modular is the way to go. We will see more of the small modular medical teams far forward where they can save lives, and critical care air medical transport is the air evacuation system that

works.’’

These are strong testaments from the people on the ground who

are our customers. Our investment in such technologies as EMEDS

and rapid pathogen identification are paying huge dividends for the

country. We will continue to test and improve on those capabilities.

JOINT MILITARY-CIVILIAN EXERCISES

Another readiness focus we currently have is to make sure that

our civilian colleagues do not have to reinvent the wheel when it

comes to caring for mass casualties and biological and chemical

casualties. We are partnering in education, training, in joint military-civilian exercises across the country at this time, and are

being warmly received.

RECRUITING

We must also invest in our people. We continue to face a personnel manning crisis. We are experiencing shortages in all corps;

our losses have been greater than our gains for the past 3 years.

We are pursuing many initiatives to alleviate these problems but

it is a very serious situation and we appreciate your support as we

seek solutions.

The Air Force Medical Service recognizes that meeting these

challenges and realizing our vision of global engagement means

executing a strategy that would provide us a vital and interdependent link between our readiness and our peacetime missions.

At last year’s hearing, we talked a lot about an effective budget

programming and planning. We responded with, we must establish

a reliable modeling system, and this we have done. As we briefed

your staff, our long-view strategy provides a bottom up, microscopic

analysis of the way we do business across our entire Air Force

Medical System. With a focus first on readiness requirements, then

on clinical currency, followed by best business practices, we are

seeking the proper balance that will move us into the future.

PREPARED STATEMENT

We know we have a great deal of work to do but we believe we

have a sound strategy to insure that we have the right people in

the right numbers at the right places with the right training to

care for our people around the world. This is our job and our commitment to you and to this nation. I want to personally thank you

for the support and the leadership that you have given us in support of the medical programs in my 3 years as the Air Force Surgeon and in the 37 years that preceded that, and I look forward

to your questions.

[The statement follows:]
406

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL K. CARLTON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to

address the successes and challenges of the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS). The

year 2001 was a year that changed our world forever. The threat we feared—an attack on the homeland—became reality on September 11, 2001.

The AFMS swiftly rose to the challenge of September 11, and proved, once again,

its commitment to rapidly and effectively meet any contingency that faces our country. Within hours, 71 personnel arrived at the Pentagon site from Andrews Air

Force Base to provide emergency medical support. Four receiving hospitals were

quickly identified within the National Capital Area to provide support as necessary.

Within 24 hours of the attacks, the AFMS deployed 500 medics to McGuire Air

Force Base, New Jersey to respond immediately to any Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) tasking for equipment and/or personnel needed at the New

York City disaster. State-of-the-art medical emergency facilities were assembled,

which included four Expeditionary Medical Support packages (light-weight modular

systems that allow added bed sets as needed). Critical Care Air Transportable

Teams (CCATTs), which provide emergency medical attention while in-flight, were

quickly established at both the Pentagon and McGuire Air Force Base. Critical Incident Stress Management Teams conducted counseling to personnel assigned to recovery efforts at both locations as well.

Upon activation of the National Disaster Medical System, the AFMS also set up

its aeromedical evacuation assets at both McGuire Air Force Base and Andrews Air

Force Base. Overall, while little help was actually needed from the AFMS, it responded quickly and proactively with the help of several Air Force military treatment facilities. Such a response is exactly what America needs to stand prepared

for future terrorist threats, whether they occur on our shores or the shores of our

allies around the world.

Our vision of global engagement supports an Air Force that is charged with responding to the full spectrum of contingencies throughout the world, and at a moment’s notice. It also supports Joint Vision 2020, which states that today’s joint

force must be prepared to operate with multinational forces, government agencies,

and international organizations. To achieve these ambitious visions, we know that

we must consider our readiness and peacetime missions to be inextricably linked,

and we must have a strategy that is durable, comprehensive and far-reaching. We

do. This strategy is called the ‘‘Long View.’’

The Long View is an enterprise-based approach that emphasizes the realignment

of readiness requirements, clinical currency and best practices, enabling the AFMS

to provide high quality, cost effective health care and preventive services in all environments during peacetime and contingency operations. Crucial to success is the acceptance by each member of the enterprise that the needs of the AFMS outweigh

those of the individual unit. By thinking and acting globally, we will ultimately

strengthen our capabilities at the grassroots level and be able to respond effectively

to the needs of our nation anywhere in the world.

Global Vigilance

The AFMS is committed to the Air Force Vision 2020 of ‘‘Global Vigilance, Reach,

and Power.’’ Our Long View is founded on this readiness triangle. One of the ways

we are supporting global vigilance (to anticipate and deter threats) is through the

Institute of Global Health (IGH), located at Brooks AFB, Texas. The IGH is a worldwide educational program for medical providers to develop and improve their medical response skills. It develops and executes our international medical training programs, under the International Military Education and Training (IMET) and Expanded IMET (E–IMET) requirements implemented by the Defense Security Cooperative Agency. These medical training programs support the three components of

the AFMS readiness mission, including humanitarian and civic assistance (HCA),

medical response to disasters, and support of traditional wartime operations.

The objective of these ‘‘train the trainer’’ programs is to provide regional leaders

a foundation for building disaster/trauma systems and improving their health systems and emergency response systems infrastructure by acquiring the necessary

concepts and educational tools. Team training across specialties within healthcare,

emergency response organizations, and regional partners (including hands on interactive educational techniques) have been tremendously popular with our international partners. At the same time, these mobile programs help shape the international environment by supporting the theater commander-in-chiefs (CINCs) engagement plans to promote democracy, stability, and collective approaches to disasters or medical threats to the region. Ultimately, we are partnering with our allies
407

to protect our deployed forces in remote sites, that our troops might have the best

possible care wherever they are.

Key components of these programs are that they are tailored to the host nation’s

infrastructure and resources and are taught on-site. Certainly, a primary outcome

is the excellent training and experience the courses provide our own personnel.

Our prototype, ‘‘The Leadership Program for Regional Disaster and Trauma System Management,’’ was established largely through initiatives begun at the Air

Force’s Level-One trauma center, Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio,

Texas. These initiatives included a trauma refresher course for surgeons, a field surgery training course, Ecuador trauma symposiums, and clinical and field training

for the new Air Force modular medical teams. The huge success of our prototype

(taught to 25 countries since 1999; 16 scheduled for 2002) and the identified need

for similar courses on other medical topics, such as the new ‘‘Hospital-Focused Approach to Biological Weapons and Toxins Course,’’ has led to the requirement for

a sustainable infrastructure to support our global medical initiatives—thus the Institute for Global Health.

The Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve have partnered with us to support

these courses. In addition, we have partnered with the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), universities and international organizations in developing the IGH. We are excited about the future of the IGH and the

opportunities it offers to enhance global health.

In 1998, former Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Ryan stated that, ‘‘to meet the

needs of a complex global environment, Air Force officers would need specialized

skills to operate in coalition with partners in the contingency arena.’’ In response

to this call, we developed the International Health Specialist (IHS) program. The

program’s focus is to build partnerships with other countries in peacetime, before

disasters occur or assistance is needed. Then when disaster strikes, the medical networking is already in place and a more rapid and efficient response can occur.

AFMS members should be culturally aware and language proficient when deploying to increase mission effectiveness and force protection as we serve as instruments

of national policy. This is important in the areas of Humanitarian Assistance (HA)

and Disaster Response (DR) as well as in war winning operational support. Clearly

in the current Operation Enduring Freedom, coalition support and interoperability

will grow best with cross cultural understanding and clear communications. In fact,

we learned just how effective our IHS program really was when two French-speaking members of our Critical Care Air Transportable team worked successfully with

French colleagues in response to the bombing of U.S.S. Cole in October 2000, providing the best possible care for the casualties.

Currently, there are four fully capable IHS teams, and they are aligned under

Unified Commands: European Command, Pacific Command, Central Command, and

Southern Command. There are also IHS team members located at the Uniformed

Services University of Health Sciences and the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace

Medicine, and some serve as Special Operations medical planners. To ensure the

AFMS Total Force synergy is optimized, the IHS program partners with the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. The IHS also has partnered with the Air Force

Foreign Area Officer Branch to explore numerous language-training options with

the goal of having our medics meet and sustain the Air Force goal of 10 percent

of all officers proficient in a second language by 2005. Our language training opportunities do not stop at the officer level, however. The IHS Program has extended

its language training opportunities to enlisted personnel as well through the Base

Education Office Tuition Assistance Program and an IHS-funded enlisted opportunity for Language Area Studies Immersion experience.

Each team is composed of medics of all ranks and Air Force Specialty Codes. Its

members are cultural and language experts in their Area of Responsibility (AOR)

and have humanitarian assistance/disaster relief and interagency and joint operations experience. In addition to the Unified Command-aligned teams, the IHS program office maintains a database of 300 AFMS members with varying degrees of

cultural and regional medical experience who can serve as valuable assets for future

missions. The language expertise represented by AFMS members includes more

than 36 different languages. We are very excited about this program! The potential

for IHS involvement and the return on its investment in the international arena is

immeasurable: Today’s commanders must be able to appraise health-related information and resources in a multi-national, multi-cultural context.

Strategic Reach and Overwhelming Power

While we are striving to support global vigilance, we are also thoroughly preparing our nation’s ability for both strategic reach (to curb crises) and overwhelming

power (to prevail in conflict and win America’s wars). Part of this thorough prepara-
408

tion involves our continual development of state-of-the-art equipping and training

initiatives. We continue to fine-tune our crisis response by ensuring we have the

smallest, lightest, most flexible, and mobile system possible. We have nearly completed the transition from the Cold War legacy air transportable hospital to the Expeditionary Medical Support (EMEDS). The EMEDS system is a light-weight modular system that allows the AFMS to tailor our response to each situation, adding

bed sets as needed and offering services that range from prevention and basic primary care to aerospace medicine support and sustained surgical operations. Collective protection has also been designed and is being fielded.

In June, we were asked to take our EMEDS to Houston to assist the flood-ravaged

hospital system there. Our EMEDS treated over 1,000 patients, and our contribution was recognized by the mayor of Houston, the governor of Texas and the director

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As I noted previously, on

September 11 we also activated four EMEDS upon the request from our Chief and

Secretary to deploy EMEDS teams to McGuire Air Force Base, NJ, to provide additional medical capability to the medical group there in support of local authorities

in New York City. Our strategy envisions placing EMEDS throughout the country

to offer a regional quick response capability.

In partnership with our Army counterparts, the U.S. Air Force Medical Evaluation Support Activity (AFMESA) at Fort Detrick, MD, recently activated EMEDS–

XTI (Experimental, Exercises, and Technology Insertion) as a ‘‘test bed’’ for expedited fielding of medical technologies and processes. EMEDS–XTI will help to better

equip our medical providers for dealing with the medical challenges resulting from

attacks on our homeland as well as the medical requirements to support our expeditionary forces. Using EMEDS–XTI, AFMESA will immediately focus on assessing,

acquiring and fielding several key technologies, which include deployable medical

oxygen equipment, chemical and biological decontamination, and biohazard surveillance systems. EMEDS–XTI also serves as an available response unit in the region

in case of disaster.

Since the September 11 attacks, the concern regarding the threat of Weapons of

Mass Destruction (WMD), particularly chemical and biological warfare attacks, has

come to the forefront of our nation’s most critical issues. For the AFMS, however,

WMD has been a critical issue of concern and planning for the past few years—

proof-positive of our carefully prepared detection and response technologies and programs. A primary example of our latest technology is a state-of-the-art disaster response system called Lightweight Epidemiological Advanced Detection and Emergency Response System (LEADERS), which was designed to enhance the current

medical surveillance process and provide the earliest possible detection of covert biological warfare incidents or significant outbreaks of disease.

LEADERS, also in use by some civilian organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is a modular web-based application that supports the collection, storage and analysis and distribution of critical sets of medical

data to aid with rapid, effective response to natural disease outbreaks or overt/covert biological attacks within civilian populations or military forces. LEADERS is

very deployable—it is based on an application model that requires little or no additional infrastructure for deployment.

The LEADERS system is organized into three primary customer modules, which

include (1) Critical Care Tracking to facilitate the communication of bed availability

between hospital departments and emergency response teams; (2) Medical Surveillance to detect and identify disease outbreaks using medical information stored in

a database; and (3) Incident Management to enable a coordinated response of medical and non-medical personnel to potential or confirmed emergencies through a collection of command and control tools for situational awareness and response management. Together, these three modules allow multiple civilian and military applications, including identifying disease outbreaks, medical forensics, public health analysis, monitoring and improving clinical practice, monitoring medical fraud, improving infection control, and comprehensive outbreak management and response. We

will continue working with our civilian counterparts on development and fine-tuning

of this technology over the coming year.

Other efforts underway to improve the AFMS’s ability to respond to weapons of

mass (WMD) destruction include the First Responder Pilot Program, which consists

of 10 pilot bases that maintain a medical equipment list to support nuclear biochemical detection and provide decontamination capability at the MTF if appropriate. MTFs are required to scale requirements based on their local threat,

vulnerabilities, mission capabilities and manpower, deliberate plans, and agreements with local first responders and providers to develop credible, supportable first

response capability.
409

Another recent WMD initiative is the National Laboratory Response Network

(NLRN), which provides an early warning network to detect covert release of pathogenic agents. Collaborators include local and state departments of health, Department of Defense medical laboratories, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The

Air Force currently has 54 laboratories participating in this response network.

In addition to this network of laboratories, the AFMS has also assembled and

trained 35 Biological Assessment Teams (BATS) that identify pathogen agents

through the use of a commercial product called a Ruggedized Advanced Pathogen

Identification Device (RAPID). RAPID quickly and accurately identifies a variety of

pathogens, including conventional biological agents; it can accomplish tests in less

than two hours from the time of the sample being received, a marked improvement

over current pathogen identification technologies, which require the culturing of biological agents—taking as much as 48 hours for results.

In October, we responded to a request to send Air Force medics as part of joint

Microbiology Augmentation Teams to New York City and the U.S. Capitol to assist

staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and local authorities in

the testing of samples for anthrax. We were delighted when our preliminary results

completely correlated with the definitive cultures. Along with our sister Services, we

are offering our services in whatever capacity is needed by local, state, and federal

authorities during these tumultuous times.

The War on Terrorism in the United States will test the effectiveness of our technologies and training in many areas. To ensure we have the best the health care

industry has to offer, we are partnering with our civilian counterparts whenever

and wherever it makes sense. At the same time, we are sharing with them what

we have to offer as well. One of our biggest milestones over the past year is the

development of two Centers for Coalition Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness

Skills—or CSTARS. The CSTARS concept creates unique learning opportunities in

which civilian academic medical centers serve as training platforms to provide clinical experience to help sustain necessary readiness skills for our providers. The

evolving strength of the CSTARS program is that it allows for the development of

synergistic relationships and familiarity between academic medical centers and military medical assets (active, Guard, and Reserve), while simultaneously improving

wartime readiness and homeland defense capability.

Our centers in Baltimore and Cincinnati have begun classes this year and will

consist of full-time military medical personnel integrated into the facility of an academic medical center. Our partners are the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the University of Cincinnati. The faculty will coordinate the rotation of

military medical teams into the academic health center using patient care and didactic teaching sessions as the means of sustaining readiness skills. Additional

CSTARS programs are being considered to ensure geographical distribution across

the United States, with the goal of shortening the response time in homeland defense efforts.

Another way we are seeking to partner with the civilian community to reach our

mutual goals is through a new partnership with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System to collaborate on the development of sophisticated telemedicine technology that will ultimately link specialists in pathology, radiology and

dermatology with outposts at distant locations around the globe. Our goal is to

strengthen the AFMS’s expeditionary capability and provide state-of-the-art health

care to our personnel everywhere.

As my examples have shown, the face of medical readiness has changed drastically in the past decade. Therefore, so too have our training requirements. Today

Air Force medics are asked to provide a full spectrum of medical support, from caring for refugees requiring treatment for measles, dehydration or starvation to providing state-of-the-art trauma care in a disaster or wartime environment. Admittedly, until recently, few Air Force personnel have had the necessary experience in

these or many other readiness-based care requirements. In support of our readiness

case analysis and skills currency case analysis goals, we designed the Readiness

Skills Verification Program (RSVP).

The RSVP will define the clinical tasks required of our deployable medics and

build training programs targeted to keep our medics current. Individuals assigned

to mobility positions are required to maintain currency in RSVP tasks through attendance in formal training programs, ongoing clinical practice, and individual

study. The RSVP consists of training task lists for every Air Force specialty. Today,

all deployable medics—and soon, all Air Force medics—will focus their clinical training upon specific, measurable goals.
410

Where do we go from here? The Long View

Under the Long View, when we have built a solid foundation for readiness case

analysis (RCA) and currency case analysis (CCA), we must then ensure a strong

business case analysis (BCA) occurs in our decision-making. We are doing this

through an effective corporate structure that reviews every major AFMS resourcing

decision through a standardized process using the RCA-CCA-BCA model that allows

input from every applicable party and measures each decision against objective criteria. This maintains the enterprise strategic view of a comprehensive plan, preventing local or urgent decisions from adversely affecting the AFMS. We are now

planning far beyond the standard Program Objective Memorandum (POM) cycle to

10 years out and beyond. Our Primary Care Optimization (PCO) development and

rollout was the first use of this model.

Primary Care Optimization

Central to the AFMS Population Health Plan is the reengineering of our primary

care services under PCO. Sixty-five of our 75 Air Force medical treatment facilities

(MTFs) focus almost exclusively on offering primary care services. The goal of PCO

is to vastly improve the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of care delivered

through our primary care platform. An important strategy within PCO is to recapture care from the private sector so that all enrollees can benefit and also to better

manage the total financial risk of our health care system. Efficiencies are gained

by improving clinical business processes, by enhanced partnerships with civilian and

other federal healthcare partners, by effectively utilizing support staff skills, and

through robust information management that supports evidence-based health care

decision-making. Critical to PCO success is Primary Care Manager by Name, which

provides patients with continuity of care and allows providers and their teams to

better manage their practice by knowing who their patients are.

Since we began our ‘‘Quick Start’’ training for PCO two years ago, we have seen

some important returns on investment. Where teams are fully staffed, they are performing exceptionally well, and with great patient and staff satisfaction. Primary

Care Manager by Name enrollment has been accomplished in 100 percent of our facilities. MTFs are proactively contacting patients regarding needed clinical preventive services.

Many other objective measurements continue to improve. Population health preventive measures are on a positive slope along with provider productivity. AFMS

clinical quality measures, such as cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening,

and HbA1C annual testing for diabetics, are all above the 90 percent level for the

Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) national measures in all

our Major Commands. There are very few health care organizations in the United

States that can claim that type of preventive care success!

As we continue to improve PCO, our next step will be to pursue specialty care

optimization. We are reviewing a limited number of AFMS product lines associated

with surgical specialties in larger, bedded facilities: general surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, orthopedics, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, and anesthesia. As we implement our primary and specialty care optimization programs, the resourcing decisions arising from the work of various functional panels will have full visibility at

all levels of our corporate structure to ensure the Long View is the ultimate focus.

Manning the Mission

Of course a crucial factor in optimization is the ability to man our mission effectively, with the right number and mix of appropriately trained personnel at the

right place and at the right time. We are working hard to do this, but it’s been a

very challenging time for medical force management in the Air Force. Many issues

have been brought to the forefront, most importantly recruiting and retention and

a high operations tempo with substantial deployment needs. Shortages in the Medical Corps, Dental Corps, Nurse Corps, Biomedical Sciences Corps, and Medical

Service Corps have reached all-time highs and are expected to dramatically increase

private sector health care costs as we are forced to shift health care downtown.

These staffing shortfalls led to our largest recruiting requirements in AFMS history for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Centering our efforts around our RCA-CCA-BCA

model, we’ve sought solutions, such as addressing promotion concerns, exploring

special pays and investing additional resources in health professions scholarships

for better and more stable long-term staffing growth. The success of these force

management initiatives will enhance the future of our clinical capabilities and ultimately improve our readiness posture.
411

Population Health Initiatives

Optimizing our health care involves many factors, from training and equipping

our providers, to modernizing our facilities, to effectively manning our mission. It

also means educating our patients to take responsibility for their health and giving

them the tools to make it easier. This is a key tenet of population-based health care.

As the current chairman of the DOD Prevention, Safety and Health Promotion

Council (PSHPC), I want to praise the personnel serving on the council for their outstanding efforts in many areas, but particularly in reducing tobacco use and alcohol

abuse. In fact, our Tobacco Use Reduction Plan is nearly 80 percent complete. We

still have a problem in the armed services, but proactive initiatives such as sensible

pricing of tobacco and alcohol products in the commissaries and exchanges, better

education of our troops, and research studies that will help us focus our efforts better are all means to reducing the problem.

I’m pleased to say that the PSHPC has now chartered the Suicide Prevention and

Risk Reduction Committee to develop an action plan that will address suicide prevention across the DOD enterprise. The creation of both a DOD strategy and the

national strategy developed under the United States Surgeon General are important

steps in addressing this significant public health issue.

The Air Force Suicide Prevention Program has made a difference in the number

of suicides in the Air Force, but, unfortunately, we continue to lose valuable personnel who needlessly take their own lives. As we move forward with our program,

and in support of the DOD program, our primary goal within the Air Force is to

better understand the causative factors involved with suicide and thus be able to

implement the critical ingredients for effective suicide prevention.

Serving our Beneficiaries

The recent implementation of ‘‘TRICARE for Life’’ provided one of the missing

links to our population-based health care strategy. Now we truly have the foundation to provide ‘‘whole life’’ care to our beneficiaries. Fiscal year 2001 was a year

of preparation and implementation of this and other significant health care provisions in the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act.

The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Benefit, which started April 1, 2001, brought a

robust pharmacy benefit to our senior patriots. The expanded pharmacy benefit was

deployed with minimal problems and has been a tremendous success story for DOD

and our beneficiaries. The Air Force continues to work with the other Services to

minimize the impact of this enhanced benefit to ensure all of our beneficiaries are

served.

TRICARE for Life, the program that makes TRICARE second payer to Medicare,

and TRICARE Plus, the program that allows seniors to enroll in a primary care program at selected MTFs, both began concurrently on Oct. 1, 2001. We are delighted

that these programs will enhance the quality of life for our retirees. We are also

optimistic that TRICARE Plus will strengthen our medical readiness posture by expanding the patient case mix for our providers while reducing the government’s cost

to provide healthcare for these great Americans.

We are grateful to the committee and all of Congress for your support in adequately funding these programs. Your efforts have been crucial to their success, and

they will provide the AFMS the ability to restore its in-house funding expenses (particularly for equipment, facility repair, and maintenance) to planned levels, and it

will help ensure that our patients are provided quality care with state-of-the-art

equipment. Funding will also allow us to address numerous infrastructure requirements in medical facilities, particularly in the area of recapitalization. Additionally,

we are excited about the opportunities provided by congressionally directed optimization funding, which will help us strike the balance in maintaining a high state

of readiness, while providing efficient peacetime healthcare and investing in imperative modernization for the future.

VA/DOD Healthcare Resource Sharing

VA/DOD relationships continue to move forward as the VA/DOD Executive Council, which was reinvigorated in fiscal year 2001 with increased accountability and

leadership oversight, has established work groups to focus on a number of policy initiatives. The Air Force is pleased to participate in these work groups, which have

achieved significant success in improving interagency cooperation in areas such as

information management, pharmacy, medical surgical supplies, patient safety, and

clinical practice guidelines. The AFMS continues to support the progress of our four

successful joint ventures in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Las Vegas, Nevada; Anchorage, Alaska; and Fairfield, California.

At the Albuquerque site, which has operated effectively for more than 14 years,

we recently established an agreement with the VA to provide professional VA psy-
412

chologist oversight to our Air Force mental health services. We also recently established an agreement to reduce the veterans’ colonoscopy procedures backlog while

assisting Air Force personnel in the retention of critical skills.

In Las Vegas, our joint venture operates under common medical by-laws, allowing

the VA and Air Force providers to address the needs of both Departments’ beneficiaries. We collaborate with the VA to manage inpatient pharmacy services, and

we plan to manage the Intensive Care Unit in the same manner. This management

‘‘evolution’’ capitalizes on the experience of VA staff in inpatient operation of medical centers. In addition, the VA and the Air Force at the Las Vegas site are proposing to expand their existing emergency room to add a Step Down Unit and a secure recreation area for psychiatric inpatients.

In Anchorage, approximately 50 VA full-time employees work in the joint venture

hospital. A recently established ‘‘Joint Venture Business Operations Committee

(JVBOC)’’ was designed to provide structured communications and organizational

continuity to the planning and implementation of issues relevant to the joint venture.

In Fairfield, California, a VA outpatient clinic is located adjacent to David Grant

Medical Center (DGMC) on land leased from the Air Force. The VA actually purchases inpatient care from DGMC as well as other services that include specialty

outpatient, emergency services, ambulatory surgery, and ancillary services. An Executive Management Team (EMT) manages this VA/DGMC joint venture, which consists of commanders, directors, and senior level staff of both agencies. The EMT provides oversight to a Joint Initiatives Working Group (JIWG), which identifies operational issues that need to be resolved and develops recommendations for the EMT.

We are extremely proud of the collaborative team efforts that all four joint ventures are engaged in, and we expect continued innovations in the areas of resource

sharing in the future.

Customer Satisfaction

The Long View is built on metrics that show us how well we’re doing in supporting DOD’s missions. Customer satisfaction is one of the vital indicators of our

success or failure. I’m pleased to report that customer satisfaction in the Air Force

continues to rise. According to DOD’s latest Customer Satisfaction Survey Results,

90 percent of our enrolled beneficiaries indicate they would enroll or reenroll in

TRICARE Prime if given the option. The overall satisfaction with clinics and medical care exceeds national civilian HMO averages. With the expanded senior benefit,

improving access through primary care optimization, and our many population

health initiatives, it should be no surprise that we are receiving high marks from

our customers.

But the task is only begun. We will be working very hard in the months and years

ahead to ensure we are ready if and when another ‘‘September 11th’’ arrives. The

AFMS must keep the Air Force fit and healthy and be able to answer our nation’s

call whenever and wherever we are needed.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General. May I assure

you that all of your prepared statements have been made part of

the record.

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FUNDING REQUEST

I would like to begin by asking the secretary a question, a very

general one. In 1999, fiscal year 1999, the supplemental was $2,004

million; for fiscal year 2000, $1.4 billion; and fiscal year 2001, $1.6

billion. Given the past history of shortfalls, are you confident that

this fiscal year 2003 will fully fund the defense health program?

Dr. WINKENWERDER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that our request is

a realistic one and that we have made realistic estimates, and I

have a high level of confidence that we can and will execute within

that budget request. In part that depends on how we are doing this

year, and the signs thus far are that we are executing within the

budget this year and are confidently within that budget for this

year. So, I’m confident that we provided you a realistic budget for

2003.
413

Senator INOUYE. If I may, I would like to ask the services. General Peake, would you say we will fully fund your program?

General PEAKE. Sir, I believe we will be able to continue to provide the level of care that we are programmed to do. It will—there

are always things that we can use for investing and we are appreciative of the opportunity to have the venture capital that we got

this year to invest in certain things, and those opportunities we

continue to explore. But this year we have been able to get to a

really stable business picture for our commanders out there in the

field, unlike the previous years where we had to supplement at the

very end and as a result some made some poor decisions.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral?

Admiral COWAN. Sir, I would echo that. We are adequately funded this year and we find that it is not only the adequacy of the

funding but the timing of the funding that is important in delivering healthcare. Having a supplemental halfway through the year

or towards the end of the year is much less effective than being

able to plan and budget, so we are very grateful for this year’s

funding level.

Although we are adequately funded for maintenance and delivery

of healthcare, we are still not catching up to our deferred maintenance and repair, but we feel over time with increased stability of

the budget, we will be able to attack and improve that situation

too.

Senator INOUYE. General Carlton.

General CARLTON. Sir, we feel fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are

adequate funding, and we have actually been able to begin our recapitalization to restore our Air Force Medical Service to where we

were before a period of lean years.

MEDICAL PERSONNEL RETENTION

Senator INOUYE. We have done some research and we find that

one of the major reasons given by medical personnel for getting out

of the military has been educational debt. Why is that? For example, we find the average debt load for a military dentist, $84,000;

$64,000 for pharmacists; $118,000 for optometrists; $70,000 for

psychologists; $148,000 for podiatrists. Are you all concerned about

this, General?

General PEAKE. Sir, I am. It is a fact that when people have debt

like that, they are going to look for sources of income that are higher than what we can pay, and I think it has a direct impact on our

retention. We are excited about the prospect of using the critical

skills retention bonus at least until we can get a legislative proposal forward that would restructure the funding of the bonus

structure, if you will, but we are concerned about the ability to retain those folks who are just finishing their active duty obligation

or health scholarship program.

That is one of the reasons it is such an important tool for our

recruiting, the health professionals scholarship program. It is one

of the things that has made a real difference as we started to inch

ahead with getting dentists back into the Army. That needs to be

funded to just off set that kind of debt that you’re talking about.

Senator INOUYE. Is there anything we should do beyond that for

retention?
414

General PEAKE. I don’t think we will ever, sir, get to the point

where we can compete dollar for dollar with the civilian sector, but

I do think that quality of our practice would be the kind of things

that keeps us in. The ability to do things like the young surgeon

that I quoted, ‘‘It’s cool to be an Army surgeon,’’ we want to keep

that cool to be an Army surgeon, not only in the excitement of what

you’re doing but the fact that you have quality places to do it in

and the up-to-date equipment to be able to have the tools of your

trade. That and the ability to make the right decision for your patient, not the economic decision, but the right decision for your patient, that we still retain in the military is terribly important, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral Cowan, do you find that in your service?

Admiral COWAN. We are seeing over time an erosion in our ability to compete in many specialty areas. Part of that has been a

widening of the pay gap between the service and the civil sector.

In fact, this year for the first time, the average MCAT, Medical

College Admission Test, grade point average of young medical students that we accepted into the scholarship program was lower

than the national average. We were very much used to taking the

cream of the crop. But the military in many regards is becoming

less competitive.

We have legislative proposals that we are working within the

Pentagon to correct this and we feel that we will have to turn this

around over the next several years or we will begin to suffer in

readiness and other areas.

Senator INOUYE. General Carlton.

General CARLTON. Yes, sir. We have addressed this, and it is a

national problem, it is not unique to the military. As you look at

the debt load of the graduating seniors from medical school, dental

school, nursing school, podiatry school, all the professional schools,

it is a mounting debt that on the medical and dental out of a public

university approaches $100,000 by the time they graduate. Out of

a private medical school, it approaches $200,000.

We have applied $12 million to that this year on a loan repayment that covers many corps. We wish to expand that, and the

question of what are we going to beyond for retention, fully funding

our programs and allowing people a wonderful place to work, we

already take care of great people. And so reestablishing that, we

will have some proposals to your committee for what we can do

with the bonus structure. That is a tri-service initiative, but yes,

it is a major problem and it is a problem facing the Nation at this

time.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary.

Dr. WINKENWERDER. Yes. To your first question about the expense, it’s real, I think it’s there for everyone, the cost of medical

education and other allied health professional education is expensive today. But given that fact that we’re not going to change, we

have to compete, and upon coming on board last fall one of the

early issues I identified was this issue of attraction and retention

of personnel, and so identifying it as one of our four principal goals

in our overall strategic plan.

I had directed that a group, a tri-service group representing the

Army, Navy and Air Force be established to study this issue and
415

come up with recommendations that would also build upon the

Center for Naval Analysis report that we have just submitted to

Congress, which did in fact show that there were significant pay

gaps. Those gaps have grown since 1990.

I think a couple of additional facts in their conclusions were that

we had inadequate pay incentives and that we needed to simplify

our whole pay scheme. It’s too complex. We have 19 different pay

categories. I spent my time in the private sector before I came here

and one of the things I managed was a human resources department, and so I was very involved in pay, and this is a busy system

we have. We have to simplify it, have more flexibility, and I think

we can manage it with your appropriate oversight, and we intend

to come forward with a comprehensive set of recommendations that

we would really appreciate your careful look at and support of if

you are so inclined.

This is an issue that we want to address in the short term with

lifting the caps on the critical skills retention bonus and also some

restrictions on how we use the loan repayment funds, and then

over the long term, of course deal with the broader issue. I’m confident that we can do all these things. We’ve been dealing with the

problem that we’ve got.

Senator INOUYE. I wish you the very best, sir. Before I proceed

with more of my questions, I would like to recognize the real scholar when it comes to health, Senator Specter.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

thank you for convening this important hearing. It is unfortunate

that the schedules are so tight that there are not more Senators

here for this important matter, but I know that the staff will be

following up, and we appreciate what the Department of Defense

is doing on the healthcare issue. I wanted to compliment you especially on the work that is being done in the advanced research programs.

I work on the appropriations subcommittee on health and human

services and have chaired it some 61⁄2 years. We have put tremendous funding into the National Institutes of Health, but that work

has been largely research and they have not done the mechanistic

work.

I was talking to a doctor here recently who has a unique body

scan and other ideas which are being developed in Newport Beach,

California, and he told me that the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency is the agency which is looking beyond where NIH

is willing to go, and I wanted to stop by to commend you for that

and to keep that going. It is very hard to have the National Institutes of Health handle all the agencies.

So there has been corollary activity and there has been extensive

work done by your department on many very important items on

the health line for osteoporosis, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and

many of the ailments which affect men as well as women. I wanted

to thank you for what you are doing there and encourage you to

continue items like this advanced technology, that is very important. I personally was the beneficiary of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) a few years ago, and two decades ago there was not

even such a thing as an MRI. There is a very important program

which is underway at Walter Reed Army Medical Center trying to
416

get retrogression on plaque and heart ailments, so those kind of advance techniques are really worthwhile, and I wanted to stop by to

thank you and encourage you to do more. Thank you.

Dr. WINKENWERDER. Senator, if I might, if you wouldn’t mind,

just to say we really appreciate that support, and I want to commend all of the services for the terrific work they do. Again, having

come in within the last year, we have some outstanding healthcare

research, and it is under appreciated, under recognized. Cholera

vaccine, malaria vaccine work, even Hunan Immunodeficiency

Virus (HIV) vaccine work, now looking at a new vaccine for anthrax, and smallpox.

And so, we’re involved in all of these things and one of my goals

is to better coordinate the health research at DOD with health research at NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) because there are good things going on in both places. But

I think we’ve got some tremendous people, very, very animated,

very creative, that are doing things that are not always recognized.

So I thank you for that.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you for that testimony. I just wish I had

formulated a question to which there could have been an answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MEDAL OF HONOR

Senator INOUYE. If I may add to that, very few Americans are

aware that the top research program on breast cancer is carried

out by the military, not by NIH. The top research in the world on

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) happens to be administered by the military. And the list just goes on and on. And

I think if the people of the United States were made aware of all

of this, they might look a bit more kindly upon military spending.

So with that, if I may continue my questions, General Peake, you

brought up something that has been bothering me for decades. As

you may be aware, since the Civil War, 3,500 Medals of Honor

have been issued and of that number, about 2 percent have been

presented to medics, doctors, nurses, corpsmen, dentists and such.

And yet, of those who have been serving on the decks of carriers

or on the battlefields, they tell us time and again that when they

are injured, they very seldom call out for their wives, they call out

for the medic. And when a call for a medic is issued, that medic

will go through anything to get to the injured.

But in the citation, unlike other citations, he has not killed anyone or captured anyone, and there have been commanders who say

well, these medals are only for those who are killed or captured.

I hope that your department, sir, is doing something about this, all

of you. I want to be aggressive about this. General, what do you

think?

General PEAKE. Sir, I think there is Ben Solomon, who just got

this award. He deserved getting this award, but there was some of

that same notion back in World War II, and it was only through

some persistent efforts that General Scully led, or actually General

Schirrar started it, that allowed this medal to come to fruition. So

I agree with you, sir, and I think when we have a Chief like General Shinseki who appreciates the value of the medic as he does
417

from his personal experience, we are being recognized by our leadership and we will continue to make that push.

Senator INOUYE. If I were married to a nurse, I would be proud

to know that she had a medal. It works two ways, not just for the

morale of your personnel, but the morale of those at home. Admiral?

Admiral COWAN. Sir, I have never thought of this issue in those

terms before, but what you’re saying strikes a chord. I think the

expectation of military medicine is of excellence and when that

corpsman or nurse does a heroic job, that’s a job, and you have

given me food for thought as to how we appropriately recognize it,

and that is about all I can say at this point, sir.

General CARLTON. Sir, I concur with your comments. I believe on

September 11 we did a better job. We recognized all of our medical

team that performed heroically at the Pentagon, and so I think we

are doing a better job now than we have done before. I think a lot

has to do with taking the time to outline what are significant accomplishments and what is above and beyond the call of duty. So

I concur with your comments, and we’re working on that.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, are you going to make it a policy?

Dr. WINKENWERDER. It looks like we have tri-service agreement,

sir.

TRICARE

Senator INOUYE. Well, Mr. Secretary, Medicare payment rates for

physician services, which TRICARE reimbursement rates are based

on, have been recently reduced by 5 percent. Is DOD correspondingly reducing its rates?

Dr. WINKENWERDER. Mr. Chairman, our rates do mirror the

Medicare rates. We call them CMAC, CHAMPUS maximum allowable charge, I think is the acronym. And that would be our plan

to do so.

That said, a couple of points. First is, our participation rate in

the TRICARE program this year is the highest it has ever been,

and we believe our current payment rates are adequate. We don’t

have signs across the system that the payment rates for providers

are inadequate. But that said, I want to keep a careful eye on this

issue, particularly as it might affect providers in rural areas, and

so we are vigilant to any signs that it could become a problem.

I know that many private sector physicians are unhappy obviously about what is in store in terms of the trends for the next 1

or 2 years for Medicare payment rates.

Senator INOUYE. You have hit the problem right on the head, because the committee would not want to see beneficiaries be injured

as a result of this cut. So, will you favor this committee by keeping

us apprised?

Dr. WINKENWERDER. Yes, sir, we will continue to report back on

the status of that issue.

TRICARE FOR LIFE

Senator INOUYE. Has there been a change in the number of military retirees and their families in the treatment facility since the

TRICARE for Life benefit began?
418

Dr. WINKENWERDER. That’s a good question. I’m not sure that we

have an analysis that would provide an answer to that question,

and I would ask if we could take that question back and come back

with an answer for you.

Senator INOUYE. We have been told that it has had an impact on

military hospitals and we would like to know how and to what extent this impact has been.

Dr. WINKENWERDER. Okay.

Senator INOUYE. Are the others aware of any impact?

General CARLTON. Sir, we did not get funding when TRICARE

for Life came about, that a military retiree would get 80 percent

from Medicare and 20 percent from the military. So when we provide that healthcare, we do not get the 80 percent. The subvention

issue did not carry, and so we have not been able to expand our

services as we would like to our over 65 patients.

Admiral COWAN. Despite that, we note two things. One is that

by and large our over 65 patients want to come to Military Treatment Facility (MTFs) and that our healthcare providers want to

take care of them. So each of the services in their own way has

been taking back as many over 65 patients as possible without

crowding out other levels of beneficiaries. In the Navy this has

been a hospital by hospital analysis of patient populations and our

ability to absorb and take care of our over 65 patients.

The TRICARE Plus program that was set up by the Office of

Health Affairs was an attempt to assist us in doing that by allowing us to coordinate the primary care of our over 65 population

without requiring us to assume every facet of their care. That has

been very helpful.

General PEAKE. Sir, we’ve used the TRICARE Plus as an enrollment tool, but it really was sized to the capacity that we were able

to meet with the base that we were given. As General Carlton said,

there was no new money that came with that for us. And then next

year with full funding, we are still working the details out to insure that we have that level of funding to continue the level of effort.

TRANSFORMATION

Senator INOUYE. I have a whole lot of questions here but I notice

that the nurses are waiting. If I may, I would like to submit these

to you for your consideration and response.

However, I have one question I would like to ask General Peake.

As you know, the Army is going through this transformation. Does

that include the medical services?

General PEAKE. Sir, it does. And our notion of the transformation

is to leverage the kind of technologies that are in the pipeline so

that we can build them into the objective force. The Striker will

have a medical variant. The objective force future combat system

will have a medical variant that as part of that will have our requirements built into it.

But it is also the notion of training the medic better so that we

can be relevant on that 21st century battlefield. We already started

some of those kinds of initiatives with the enlisted program where

we train our medics for 16 weeks instead of the initial 10. They are

Emergency Medical Technician (EMT–B) qualified when they come
419

out of school now, and we are building a sustainment program to

keep those skills up.

It is all of those things that are part of the transformation. We

sit in the same meetings with General Shinseki to make sure that

we are in sync with where our Army is going in terms of being

more quickly deployable with the right footprint to be able to take

care of soldiers in that environment. When we built the Intern Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), we built a special medical footprint to

fit right into it and make sure that we could operate as they needed us to operate in their support.

Senator INOUYE. And you can keep up with that?

General PEAKE. Sir, we can, and in the future force, the armored

evacuation vehicle for us is the M–113, and is part of the legacy

force, and it has its issues with being able to keep up with Bradleys at this point.

Senator INOUYE. In World War II, we all carried a little kit about

the size of two packs of cigarettes. What do the men carry now for

infantry?

General PEAKE. Sir, they’re carrying an M–5A bag that is now

being expanded to carry the ability to do airway management,

splinting, IV solutions. In fact, some are carrying, as reported in

the press, or will be carrying blood substitutes, and we are moving

on with trying to force the technology, because we can now get a

blood study, but there is research underway so that they will have

the technology to make that diagnosis out on the front edge of the

battlefield more quickly and identify an agent that is perhaps causing an illness and then be able to treat it and then still maybe

move the patient back through the system for a better medical result.

Senator INOUYE. I presume it’s safe to say the marines have improved their medical kit since World War II.

Admiral COWAN. Yes, sir. In fact, each of the three services

works very closely together in leveraging one another’s strengths to

make a safety net for our forces wherever they go. We are using

more and more technology as our warriors go in smaller and smaller numbers, ever more technologically enhanced to control greater

areas of ground. That has been the history of warfare, and it continues.

And I think as General Peake said, this is why we are all so intent on pushing new technologies into production: fiber bandages,

blood substitutes, better vaccines to protect our warriors from the

hazards of what is their office space, the battlefield. And now the

Navy is concentrating on sea based medical support of operations

like Afghanistan, a sea based invasion of a landlocked country

where its nearest port is 750 miles away. The Air Force’s ability

to mobilize rapid transportation and the movement to forward position modules of fleet hospitals is enormous. We are meeting these

challenges, and we will continue to work to meet tomorrow’s together.

Senator INOUYE. General Carlton.

General CARLTON. Yes, sir. We have been transforming for about

3 years now. An example of that would be a 10th Mountain Division soldier who was severely injured 6 hours after arrival. He was

in shock in 15 minutes. And out of a back pack, a joint service
420

team took superb care of this gentleman after an impalement injury, and he is home with his family today.

This happened in the Apache helicopter crash of April 10, where

two Army helicopter pilots were severely injured. They received

very sophisticated care within 50 minutes, they were back in Germany in a subspecialty trained spine center in 16 hours, having

been ventilated the entire way since injury.

And so, we are investing heavily in this transformation, we believe it is exactly what we need to do. We have recently fielded an

ICU based on a personal computer, that our next generation will

be a personal digital assistant size. And so, we are pressing very

hard to tell our soldiers, sailors and airmen that wherever they go,

there will be United States quality healthcare as quickly as the

battle allows. It’s really been a transformation effort.

Senator INOUYE. Well, I’m certain the men and women of the

armed services will be happy to hear all of this. As I said, I will

be submitting questions and I hope you will look them over, sir. I

thank the first panel very much.
(421)

NURSE CORPS

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM T. BESTER, CHIEF,

ARMY NURSE CORPS, U.S. ARMY

ACCOMPANIED BY:

REAR ADMIRAL NANCY J. LESCAVAGE, DIRECTOR, NAVY NURSE

CORPS

BRIGADIER GENERAL BARBARA C. BRANNON, ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, NURSING SERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE

Senator INOUYE. Now we will hear from the chiefs of the service

nursing corps.

It is useful to remember that modern medicine and modern nursing began in conjunction with the military. The war that took the

British forces through the Crimea also took Florence Nightingale,

and she provided not only care and comfort, but also a system for

organizing medical research. She brought that leadership and compassion back to England and the civilian world as what we now

know as modern nursing.

In light with that great tradition and principle that nursing care

is found wherever our military is found, it is my pleasure to welcome our distinguished panel of leaders. I know that they will

bring us up to date on the accomplishments an challenges facing

military nursing.

I would like to welcome back Brigadier General William Bester,

the Chief of the Army Nurse Corps and the Commanding General

of the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. And we will hear for the first time from Admiral Nancy

Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps and Assistant Chief

of Healthcare Operations at the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.

And more importantly, she served on my staff.

We also welcome Brigadier General Barbara Brannon, Director

of the Air Force Nursing Service and Commander of the Malcolm

Grove Medical Center. I thank all of you for joining us this morning and I look forward to hearing you on the issues. And may I

begin with General Bester.

General BESTER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

very much for the opportunity once again to testify before you

today and talk to you about the Army Nurse Corps. This morning

my focus will highlight four important concerns that relate to the

ability of the Army Nurse Corps to serve this great Nation of ours:

Manning, support for the baccalaureate degree as entry level into

the Army Nurse Corps, our deployments, and nursing research.

Since our last testimony before this subcommittee, there has

been much analysis of the current and pending nursing shortage.

Nationally, only 81.7 percent of total licensed Registered Nurses

(RNs) were employed in nursing in 2000. Although this rate of participation is higher than the 77 to 80 percent rates that were re-
422

ported in 1980, many RNs are seeking positions in nonclinical settings, further exacerbating a shrinking pool of clinical nurses.

We can expect further declines in working RNs as the older population of RNs retire and the younger population entering the profession continues to decline. By 2020 the full number of full-time

employment RNs is projected to fall 20 percent below national requirements. This shortage of nurses in the civilian sector continues

to have a direct impact on the Federal nursing force for both our

civilian and military.

In fiscal year 2001 the Army Medical Command (MedCom) reported an 81 percent fill of documented civilian RN positions, and

a 76 percent fill of documented civilian Licensed Practical Nurse

(LPN) positions. Currently the MedCom has 668 outstanding recruitment actions for RNs and 358 outstanding recruitment actions

for LPNs, and all of these have been open for greater than 90 days.

Although MedCom decreased the average processing time for applicants from 126 days in fiscal year 2000 to 111 days in fiscal year

2001, these unreasonable processing time frames remain excessive,

resulting in a continued loss of interested qualified applicants to

the civilian sector. Over the last year under General Peake’s leadership, the Army Medical Command instituted measures to reverse

this trend.

Our healthcare facilities expended over $270,000 in fiscal year

2001 for local job fairs, attracting large numbers of Army nurses.

Madigan Army Medical Center developed an innovative nursing internship program designed to hire nursing students immediately

upon graduation. In conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management, an accelerated promotion plan was developed, reducing

promotion time from entry level GS–5 to GS–9 from 2 years to 1

year, resulting in 70 RN hires.

In fiscal year 2001 under General Peake’s leadership and General Peake’s guidance, MedCom nearly doubles its use of superior

appointment qualifications from 144 to 284. MTF commanders increased the use of relocation bonuses and retention bonuses by 25

percent and 113 percent respectively.

Despite these initiatives, we realize that we need additional tools

to insure a workable and competitive system for our future. Title

5 was simply not responsive enough to meet our needs. We actively

pursued Title 38 and direct hire authority to obtain more flexibility

in the hiring and the compensation and promotion of nursing personnel, which has historically been severely constrained by Title 5.

As a result of the recent approval of this much needed change in

our civilian hiring and personnel system, we can now create a flexible and robust civilian nursing work force.

Similarly, our military nursing work force is equally challenged.

In fiscal year 2001 for the third year in a row, our Reserve Officer

Training Program failed its nurse recruitment mission. The U.S.

Army Recruiting Command has been working hard but unable to

compensate for this shortfall, resulting in a shortage of 134 budget

end strength for the Army Nurse Corps in fiscal year 2001.

Fiscal year 2002 projects a 39 percent shortfall, further exacerbating our critical shortages.

Although our attrition rates have remained stable at 20 percent,

we continue to experience shortfalls in certain nursing specialties.
423

In a recent survey of company grade officers from various specialty

backgrounds, compensation and educational benefits continued to

be major factors impacting on a young officer’s decision whether to

remain on active duty or to seek civilian employment.

We are hopeful that approval of the critical skills retention bonus

that General Peake referred to earlier, if focused on our critical

specialty shortages, will enhance our ability to retain quality officers in these specialized areas of nursing practice.

In addition, continued funding of the Defense Health Education

and Training Program will insure that we continue to send a clear

message to our great professional nursing community that they are

valued and that we are supportive of their professional growth and

development.

The Army Nurse Corps once again reaffirms its commitment to

recognizing the bachelor of science degree in nursing as the basic

entry level for professional nursing practice. The American Association of the Colleges of Nursing and the American Nurses Association believe this requirement is necessary to manage the increasingly complex and demanding roles required of nurses today. Nurse

executives are indicating their desire for the majority of nurses to

be prepared at the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) level nationally. Many hospitals not already requiring the BSN have established BSN preferred policies for new hires.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, our Nation’s largest employer of RNs, has established the baccalaureate degree as the minimum preparation its nurses must have for promotion beyond entry

level beginning in 2005, and they have committed $50 million over

the next several years to help VA nurses obtain baccalaureate or

higher nursing degrees.

As the Army line units rely on officers with 4 years of college experience to read and manage our great soldiers, the Army Medical

Department also demands its leaders be 4-year college graduates.

Senator, the Army Nurse Corps continues to validate its wartime

mission. In fiscal year 2001, 722 Army Nurse Corps officers deployed to 18 countries around the world, consuming 14,581 mandays in support of our Army Medical Department mission. The current op tempo base is higher than ever, with over 350 Army Nurse

Corps officers deployed since October 2001 already totaling over

9,783 man-days. Army nurses continue to provide excellent patient

care, superb leadership, and much needed clinical services worldwide, including support of our most current mission in the global

war on terrorism.

The 249th General Hospital which deployed to the Balkans for

6 months with Task Force Med Eagle provided the only Echelon III

medical care to over 16 multinational forces in Bosnia and

Herzegovina. The 160th Forward Surgical Team deployed to

Bundase, Ghana, for Operation Focus Relief II, providing Level III

surgical capabilities as well as primary care support for a Special

Forces group there. Currently there are nurses deployed in three

forward surgical teams in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.

Finally, in support of homeland defense, Army nurses provided

immediate care following the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon, making order out of chaos, setting up treatment areas, pro-
424

viding lifesaving care, and evacuating patients by all means possible. At Walter Reed Army Medical Center, critical care nurses not

only cared for burn victims at Walter Reed, but additionally mobilized the local Washington Hospital Center to provide lifesaving

care to the burn victims of our Pentagon family.

These deployment examples demonstrate that Army Nurse Corps

officers will continue to deploy whenever and wherever needed,

providing outstanding clinical expertise, superb military leadership,

the highest quality of care to our most precious resource, the American servicemen and American servicewomen, and their commitment and dedication towards mission accomplishment in what is

frequently austere environments.

Finally, Senator, I would like to just touch on Army nursing research. Army nurses have long been at the forefront of nursing research. This tradition derives from a longstanding belief among the

Army Medical Department leadership that the nursing profession

is built on advanced educational preparation and a body of knowledge based on scientific research.

Over the past year investigators have been actively involved in

studies that address six priority areas. These priorities include

sustainment training; pre, intra and post-deployment health care

challenges; nursing care of our beneficiaries in garrison related to

satisfaction, cost effective care and to patient outcome; ethical

issues; research in women’s health of deployed soldiers; and monitoring nurse staffing effectiveness and its relationship to patient

outcomes. Findings from these studies will assist us in designing

educational programs for the training of our military and civilian

work force, as well as improving our system to better manage the

health care of our beneficiary population.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and

thanks to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

(USUHS) for their continued support in the training of our certified

registered nurse anesthetists and our family nurse practitioners.

Additionally, USUHS has been most responsive to the services’

need to create a clinical nurse specialist program in perioperative

nursing, which will start next year. Our continued partnership

with USUHS is key to maintaining a sufficient number of high

quality clinicians to meet the nursing issues.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, our Army Nurse Corps, as you can see, remains

ready, caring, and very proud. We continue to be positioned, ready

and fully prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow with a sustaining focus on a strong clinical foundation, professionalism, motivation, and the unfailing commitment that has been the professional thread of our organization now for 101 years. Thank you

once again for this opportunity to talk about Army nursing this

morning.

[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 Sates Army Center for Health

Promotion and Preventive Medicine and Chief, Army Nurse Corps. I am both

pleased and honored to testify before you today. This morning my focus will high-
425

light three important concerns that relate to the ability of the Army Nurse Corps

to serve the nation: manning, deployments, and nursing research. I would first like

to begin by discussing manning.

Manning.—Since our last testimony before this subcommittee, there has been

much analysis of the current and pending nursing shortage by national nursing organizations and multiple congressional subcommittees. All concur that the national

statistics vary in their description of the nature and extent of nurse workforce shortages, and that data is not sufficiently sensitive or current enough to compare nurse

workforce availability across states, or clinical nursing specialties. Current evidence

does, however, strongly suggest emerging shortages of nurses available or willing

to fill vacant positions in various healthcare venues. A recent report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions stated that supply depends on the

available number of qualified nurses willing to work in direct patient care. Nationally, 81.7 percent of licensed RNs were employed in nursing in 2000. This total varied across states from a high of 92 percent in North Dakota and Louisiana to a low

of 75 percent in Pennsylvania. Although this rate of participation is higher than the

76.6 percent to 80 percent rates reported in the 1980s, many RNs are seeking positions in non-clinical settings such as managed care corporations, pharmaceutical

companies and insurance companies, further exacerbating a shrinking pool of clinical nurses. We can expect further declines in working RNs as the older population

of RNs retire and the younger population entering the profession continues to decline. While the average age of nurses is currently 44.4 years, Buerhaus et al, in

an article, Implications of the Aging Registered Nurse Workforce, Journal of the

American Medical Association, states that approximately 40 percent of the nursing

workforce will be older than 50 years of age by 2010. He adds that by 2020, the

total number of full-time equivalent RNs is projected to fall 20 percent below requirements. Likewise, RN vacancy rates vary widely as noted in a June 2001 American Hospital Association survey reporting overall vacancy rates as high as 20 percent in California, 16 percent in Florida and Delaware, and 13 percent in Alabama

and Nevada. These statistics, coupled with the higher proportion of patients having

more complex nursing needs, becomes daunting.

These factors affecting the nursing supply in the civilian sector continue to have

a direct impact on the federal nursing force, both civil service and military. In fiscal

year 2001, the Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) reported an 81 percent fill of

documented civilian RN positions and a 76 percent fill of documented civilian LPN

positions, which is a decrease of 8 percent and 6 percent respectively from fiscal

year 2000. Currently, the MEDCOM has 668 outstanding recruitment actions for

RNs and 358 for LPNs, which have been open for greater than 90 days. Although

MEDCOM decreased the average processing time for applicants from 126 days in

fiscal year 2000 to 111 in fiscal year 2001, these unreasonable timeframes to process

qualified applicants remain excessive and, as a result, we continue to lose interested

qualified applicants to the civilian sector.

Over the last year, MEDCOM instituted long and short-term measures to reverse

this trend, making nursing in Medical Healthcare Facilities a viable employment option for civil service nursing personnel. In lieu of posting vacancy announcements,

over $270,000 was expended at the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) level in fiscal

year 2001 for local job fairs, which attracted large numbers of nurses. Madigan

Army Medical Center, in partnership with nursing programs in the local area, developed an innovative nurse internship program. Student nurses, hired as interns

during their collegiate days, have the option to convert to permanent hire upon

graduation. Furthermore, in conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management,

an accelerated promotion plan was developed reducing promotion times for entry

level GS 5 to GS 9 from two years to one year, resulting in 70 RN hires. MTF commanders also made judicious use of Title 5 financial incentives designed to make

salaries more competitive. In fiscal year 2001, MEDCOM nearly doubled its use of

superior appointment qualifications from 144 to 284. MTF Commanders increased

the use of relocation bonuses and retention bonuses by 25 percent and 113 percent,

respectively.

Despite these initiatives, we realized that we needed additional tools to ensure a

workable and competitive system for the future. Title 5 was simply not responsive

enough to react to the tempo of change in the workforce. Through the diligent efforts of the Administration, Congress, and our military leadership, such relief has

been provided through the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act and

the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. These Title 38 and Direct Hire Authority initiatives will allow flexibility in the hiring, compensation, and promotion

of nursing personnel previously constrained by Title 5. Our charge is to now implement these plans creating a flexible, yet robust civilian nurse workforce.
426

Similar to our civilian employees, our military nursing workforce has been equally

challenged. In fiscal year 2001, our ability to attract young nurses diminished. For

the third year in a row, our Reserve Officer Training Cadet (ROTC) program failed

to meet its nurse recruitment mission. The four-year timeframe to realize the benefit of any corrective action compounds the problem. The U.S. Army Recruiting

Command (USAREC) has been unable to achieve the additional mission created by

ROTC shortfalls, resulting in a shortage of 134 in our budgeted end strength for

the Army Nurse Corps in fiscal year 2001. Projections for fiscal year 2002 nurse recruitment are more ‘‘grim’’ as USAREC is projecting a 39 percent percent shortfall

in nurse corps accessions further exacerbating our shortage with an inventory of

3,164 versus a budgeted end strength of 3,381.

Over the last year, members of Congress made concerted efforts to create programs designed to increase the nursing market and we thank you. All of these efforts have the ability to increase the civilian sector’s ability to hire; however, they

also directly compete against our military programs to attract nursing students and

new graduates. To level the playing field, the Army Medical Department continues

to explore additional initiatives to recruit and retain quality Army Nurse Corps officers. Although our attrition rates have remained stable at 20 percent, we continue to

experience shortfalls in some of our most critical nursing specialties. A recently conducted exit survey of company grade officers in various specialties indicated that

compensation, education, and quality of life are the pivotal points that affect young

officers’ decisions to remain on active duty. Although as a corps we have taken steps

to increase flexibilities in assignments, the continued high optempo failed to reduce

our attrition rates. We anticipate that through the recent directive by the Secretary

of Defense authorizing the implementation of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus

program, critical nursing specialties will hopefully be adequately compensated,

thereby maintaining our mission requirements and assuring mission accomplishment. Additionally, within the funding of the Defense Health Education and Training Program, we hope to retain training accounts designed to develop our young officers both clinically and as leaders. Investing these resources is critical to maintaining our force structure, sending a message to our officers that they are valued.

To adequately recruit and retain our force, we must demonstrate through our actions that we recognize the unparalleled contributions of military nursing and that

we show our commitment to these dedicated military officers and professional

nurses via benefit packages such as educational dollars and accession and retention

bonuses.

Deployment.—The Army Nurse Corps continues to validate its wartime mission

through multiple deployments. In fiscal year 2001, 722 Army Nurses deployed to 18

countries consuming 14,581 man-days dedicated to our primary mission of supporting our active duty service members. The current optempo pace is higher than

ever with 349 Army Nurses deployed since October 2001 for 9,783 man-days. Army

nurses continue to provide excellent patient care and clinical leadership and services

worldwide to include our most current mission in support of the Global War on Terrorism in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations.

The 249th General Hospital was deployed to the Balkans for 6 months, and with

Task Force Med Eagle, provided the only Echelon Level III medical care to over 16

Multi-National Forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They provided expert clinical nursing

care and support to 7,435 outpatient visits, 110 inpatient admissions, 122 medical

evacuations and 95 surgeries. In addition to providing patient care, nurses were involved with many educational, training and humanitarian related missions during

the deployment. The 249th successfully trained and certified 104 soldiers in Combat

Life Saver Courses and graduated 51 soldiers in Emergency Medical TechnicianBasic (EMT–B) Courses, with every single soldier successfully passing the National

Registry Exam. They participated in ‘‘Fit Eagle’’, which provided health promotion

and assessment activities to troops deployed in the region. The nurses provided, instructed and trained over 12 continuing education offerings monthly that covered

all aspects of professional deployment and ongoing professional development.

The professional nursing staff from the 86th Combat Support Hospital from Fort

Campbell, Kentucky deployed to support Operation Joint Guardian in Kosovo for

Task Force Medical Falcon V (TFMF V). They provided a wide range of care that

included acute illnesses, injuries, minor surgeries, rule out myocardial infarctions

and acute trauma.

Forward Surgical Teams (FSTs) provide rapidly deployable immediate surgery capability that enables patients to withstand further evacuation within the forward

division, separate brigade and Armored Calvary Regiment operational areas. During

September 2001 in Korea, the 127th and 135th FSTs conducted a four-day live surgical exercise performing eight successful surgical procedures. This was the first
427

time two FSTs conducted a joint exercise. The 160th FST deployed to Bundase,

Ghana for Operation Focus Relief II providing Level II surgical capabilities as well

as primary care support to the Special Forces Group. This mission allowed for implementation of new doctrine for providing primary care with lab, x-ray and family

practice capabilities within the FST. Currently, there are nurses deployed in three

FSTs in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Joint Task Force-Bravo in Honduras hosted 25 medical readiness-training exercises (MEDRETEs) in Central America. These exercises can treat up to 600 outpatients per day. The nine-day General MEDRETE provided patient care for over

5,600 patients, and convoyed to eight different locations. Additionally, the nurses

provided two quarterly continuing education seminars for 38 Honduran nurses from

six hospitals. These seminars addressed topics ranging from the nursing process to

the care of medical and surgical patients to physical assessments with a cardiac

focus to BCLS and ACLS certifications. The nurses at JTF-Bravo were challenged

daily to step out of the hospital environment and function in an austere environment, providing quality nursing care to an extremely needy population. These experiences afford our military nurses the opportunity to learn about the health care

system of their host nation, as well as fostering a relationship with Honduran

health care professionals who could potentially be caring for U.S. soldiers.

The Reserve Component Army Nurse Corps Officers continue to support our deployed forces as well. The 399th Combat Support Hospital (CSH), U.S. Army Reserves from Taunton, Massachusetts mobilized for Task Force Med Falcon IV at

Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo. The health care mission was vigorous, treating 79 inpatients and over 800 outpatient trauma victims of hostile fire, sniper fire and land

mines in one 30-day period. The 399th CSH initiated an EMT Course and a Combat

Life Saver Course for the 101st Airborne Division in June 2001, with nurses as the

primary instructors. The nurses also were actively involved with humanitarian care,

delivering quality nursing care to a community that was torn from the aftermath

of a brutal war. Later in their deployment, the 399th CSH was provided the opportunity to work jointly with a British Contingent, whose added mission provided

medical support to Kosovo Force troops and additional emergency care to the local

national Government Organizations, United Nations and civilian populations. This

joint endeavor included treating the tragic bombing incident patients involving the

Nis Express Bus.

Deployments are now not only overseas, but include homeland defense. Since the

horrific attacks on September 11, many Army Nurses rose to the occasion displaying

their ability to respond to any adversity. These nurses made order out of chaos, setting up treatment areas, providing life-saving care and evacuating patients by any

means available. At Walter Reed Army Medical Center, critical care nurses were integral in the immediate care of burn victims from the attack on the Pentagon bombing, both at WRAMC and the regional civilian burn center.

Nurses are also critical team members in the Medical Command Aeromedical Isolation Teams and the specialty augmentation response teams, known as SMART. In

August 2001, members of the 167th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, an Air National Guard Unit from Martinsburg, West Virginia, trained our nurses on the

aeromedical isolation team at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID). This unit trained on initial containment patient care to

ensure patients with infectious diseases will not spread the contamination while

being evacuated back to USAMRIID.

These few deployment examples highlight success stories of deployed Army Nurse

Corps Officers in a myriad of settings. Army Nurse Corps Officers will continue to

deploy whenever and wherever needed, providing clinical expertise, high quality

care, commitment, dedication, training, and humanitarian care to accomplish the

mission in, what is very frequently, very austere environments.

Nursing Research.—Army nurses have long been at the forefront of nursing research. This tradition derives from a longstanding belief among the Army Medical

leadership that the nursing profession is built on advanced educational preparation

and a body of knowledge based on scientific research. Last year I directed Army

nurse researchers to re-prioritize nursing research programs within the Army Medical Department. The resulting agenda focuses on compelling military healthcare

problems over which we have an ability to influence outcomes. Today I will share

with you the progress and accomplishments demonstrated by Army nurse researchers. Over the past year these investigators have been actively involved in studies

that address each of five priority areas I identified. The first priority area was the

identification of specialized clinical skill competency training and sustainment requirements. Trauma resuscitative care is a key competency required of military

nurses. Trauma care of the injured soldier or civilian casualty in the field differs

from that provided in a fixed facility. Little is known about the extent and frequency
428

of trauma skills retraining required by Army nurses and medics assigned to field

units. Researchers and advanced practice nurses assigned to the 67th Combat Support Hospital, the 30th Medical Brigade and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in

Europe are conducting a three-year study to evaluate the ability of our nursing staff

to perform resuscitative skills to manage traumatic injuries. They will then determine the rate and timing of trauma skill degradation. The findings of this study

will assist us in the design of effective military and civilian trauma skills

sustainment programs.

As military roles expand beyond traditional expectations to include disaster relief,

humanitarian assistance, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and treatment of detainees

from the war on terrorism, emerging ethical issues borne of increasingly complex

and ambiguous clinical situations in healthcare must be addressed. One Army nurse

research team is studying the ethical issues experienced by Army Nurse Corps

(ANC) officers and Department of the Army civilian (DAC) registered nurses (RNs)

in their practices in field and garrison military hospitals. This team is characterizing the most frequent and challenging ethical issues in order to provide the foundation for pre-emptive educational programs that will prepare nurses in a variety

of military settings to best manage the ethical challenges presented to them.

My second priority area was designed to identify the nursing care requirements

necessary to meet the many pre-, intra-, and post-deployment healthcare challenges

facing soldiers, veterans and their families. Nurse researchers at Tripler Army Medical Center are conducting two important studies, the Building Strong and Ready

Families (BSRF) Study and the New Parent Telehealth Study. Both are aimed at

strengthening family structures and helping young couples develop effective coping

skills. In the first study, nurses and chaplains are teaching evidence-based health

risk behavior modification and marital skill development. Participants who received

these interventions exhibited significant reductions in personal and family stress

and reported improvements in perceived quality of life and readiness to change risk

behavior. In the New Parent Telehealth Study, video teleconferencing technology allowed community health nurses to maintain close relationships with young mothers

at distant locations in soldier families at risk for abuse.

Great progress continues in the deployed women’s health research program conducted by LTC Nancy Ryan-Wenger, an Army Nurse reservist at Ohio State University. Her work in the area of self-diagnosis and treatment of gynecological infections

for military women in austere environments has been recognized by the National

Institutes of Nursing Research with the award of a large research grant to further

develop this work in additional civilian populations.

To date, the area that has received the most attention is that of the third priority

area, issues related to the nursing care of our beneficiaries in garrison. Army nurse

researchers at Brooke Army Medical Center have identified the safety and health

benefits of engaging patients with cancer in programs of exercise during and after

treatment; they have identified cost-effective techniques of pressure ulcer prevention; and developed a longitudinal tracking mechanism for monitoring patient outcomes in burn recovery. Each of these studies was conducted with financial support

from the TriService Nursing Research Program.

The value of having a consistent funding stream for the TriService Nursing Research Program is found in a series of three nursing research studies that each

build on one another, and move us closer to better understanding the health care

needs of our active duty soldiers. In the first study, which occurred in the early days

of TRICARE, a team of nurse researchers at Madigan Army Medical Center examined access to care for various categories of military healthcare beneficiaries. Among

many findings, it was evident that active duty personnel were the least satisfied of

all beneficiary groups with TRICARE. This finding has been supported by other

studies as well.

The issue of active duty dissatisfaction was the stimulus for a second study that

is currently in progress. In this study, focus groups are being conducted to better

understand the expectations of and experiences with military health care. The beneficiary groups targeted in this study are active duty and family members of active

duty. Clearly the possibility for this TriService funded study to inform and influence

policy is significant.

Preliminary findings from the second study lead to a surprising discovery that is

creating the foundation of a third grant being submitted for funding. Active duty

personnel, both enlisted soldiers and officers, as well as family members, expressed

different experiences with ‘‘soldier care’’ compared to traditional TRICARE, the military’s managed healthcare program. Soldier care encompasses first line treatment

obtained at battalion aid stations, troop medical clinics or from medics or flight surgeons. Soldier care occurs close to the units in which active duty personnel are assigned.
429

The third study in the series, therefore, proposes to smooth and simplify the interface between the military unit and the MTF. Improving this process has substantial

readiness ramifications that may affect the individual, the military unit, and the

Army as a whole from the standpoint of morale and deployability, as well as recruitment and retention.

This series of studies demonstrates the contributions possible from work that

builds on prior investigations. This collection of studies identified several military

unique healthcare issues that would not have been evident from any single investigation. It is important to note that some of the most influential studies will occur

over time as insights build on one another—we appreciate your support of these efforts.

Just as identification of acute care nurse staffing requirements and their relationship to patient outcomes is a national concern, it is also an Army Nurse Corps research priority area. This past year, nurse researchers at Walter Reed and Madigan

Army Medical Centers began implementing mechanisms for monitoring inpatient

nurse staffing effectiveness and patient outcomes. This monitoring and reporting

system is potentially capable of processing data from a large number of Army MTFs

and may offer cost-effective real-time staffing decision support tools to nurse leaders

of inpatient hospitals.

As mentioned earlier in this statement, issues related to civilian and military

nurse retention in this era of critical shortages are top priorities in the Army Medical Department. The quality of the work environment for hospital-based nursing

staff has come under increased scrutiny by the nursing profession and the public,

especially given the national nursing shortage and efforts aimed at marketing nursing as an attractive career option for young men and women. Nurse researchers at

Walter Reed Army Medical Center are conducting a 2-year study of military and civilian nurses on inpatient units in Army hospitals to identify the relationship between the work environment and nurses’ intent to leave military employment.

In conclusion, Army nurse researchers are seeking the answers to important questions in military healthcare. The Army Nurse Corps is in the process of identifying

areas for collaboration with researchers in the Navy and the Air Force. The

TriService Nursing Research Program is supporting regional workshops to promote

joint research across service lines. Your continued support of the TriService Nursing

Research Program has resulted in many advances in caring for our nations most

precious commodity—our soldiers, their family members, and the deserving retiree

population.

I would like to sincerely share my gratitude and thank 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

much higher percentage pass rate for national certification than our civilian counterparts. Additionally, USUHS has been most responsive to the need to create a

Clinical Nurse Specialist Program in Perioperative Nursing. Our continued partnership with USUHS is key to maintaining sufficient numbers of professional practitioners necessary to support our primary care mission.

Finally Senator, 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. The Army Nurse Corps remains Ready,

Caring and Proud. We continue to be positioned and ready to meet the challenges

of tomorrow, with a sustained focus on a strong clinical foundation, professionalism,

motivation and the unfailing commitment that has been the professional thread of

our organization for over 100 years. Thank you for this opportunity to present to

you the many contributions made by Army Nurses.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General. I now call upon

Admiral Lescavage.

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Rear

Admiral Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps and

Assistant Chief for Healthcare Operations at the Navy’s Bureau of

Medicine and Surgery. It indeed is an honor and privilege to represent 5,000 Navy Nurse Corps officers, Active and Reserve.

I would like to highlight the role of the Navy Nurse Corps, where

we have established ourselves as a powerful presence in Navy Medicine, focusing on the goals of readiness, optimization and integra-
430

tion. I will speak to each of these goals and additionally provide an

update on professional nursing in Navy medicine.

The first goal is readiness. Our readiness mission focuses on ensuring a healthy and fit force. Seventy Navy Nurses are serving in

key operational billets aboard aircraft carriers, amphibious ships,

Marine Medical Battalions, and as flight nurses. For Operation

ENDURING FREEDOM an additional 51 Navy nurses augment

our Fleet Surgical Teams, Marine Medical Battalions, and our

Fleet Hospitals.

There have been several humanitarian missions and joint exercises involving a total of 130 Active and 28 Reserve nurses. At

Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, our Navy nurses staff Fleet

Hospital 20 at Camp X-Ray, and provide care to detainees.

As you know, following the events of September 11th, homeland

security became a priority. Within 18 hours, our Hospital Ship

COMFORT was steaming to New York City with nursing presence

heavily represented to provide emergency care. That same day at

the Pentagon readiness became reality when the triservice nursing

staff extensively collaborated with civilian rescue units.

Given recent events, I want you to know that we continue to explore emergency training. A new Navy Trauma Training Program

will begin this summer in conjunction with the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Trauma Center. At

Naval Hospital Bremerton, through an agreement with

HarborView Medical Center, we are also able to gain experience in

the management of multiple trauma victims. Also, we have cooperative programs existing with our Naval Hospitals in Jacksonville,

Florida and Pensacola, Florida.

The second goal is optimization. We continuously review our programs to meet our mission. Through the concept of the Five Rights,

the Navy Nurse Corps is focused on the right number of nursing

staff, with the right skills and training, in the right mix of specialties, in the right assignments, at the right time. This, now, is our

biggest effort.

Many nurses occupy a variety of executive positions such as

Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, and Officers in Charge.

We excel in multiple Department of Defense positions as well, such

as those at the TRICARE Management Activity, the Pentagon,

Navy Medicine Headquarters, and in the Office of Homeland Security.

Through nurse managed clinics, we promote positive outcomes. I

am thrilled to tell you that the Diabetes Management Program at

the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, and the Asthma

Case Management Program at our Naval Hospital in Jacksonville,

have resulted in resource savings, better disease control, and enhanced patient compliance. Other nurse managed clinics focus on

cardiac rehab, wound ostomy care, women’s health, and ambulatory

infusion centers. Our patients clearly love seeing the nurses in

these clinics.

In the area of nursing research, we appreciate your continued

support for the TRICARE Nursing Research Program. Thus far, we

have completed 36 studies with 12 in progress. After a recent study

on shipboard nursing on aircraft carriers, we are exploring the recommendations made because of their operational relevance, and
431

that is just one example. Additionally, the Diabetes Disease Management Program at Bethesda served as a pilot study for one of our

grants.

The third goal is integration. Integration involves teamwork to

support smooth operations with our Navy counterparts, the other

uniformed services, Department of Veterans Affairs staff, and civilian partners. With the Naval Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet, for example, family nurse practitioners implement programs and render

healthcare services to personnel onboard at least 40 of our ships.

They provide such services as physical exams, PAP smears, and

nutritional counseling in the ship’s clinic as well as at pierside by

the Mobile Medical Education and Clinical van. In essence, Senator, we provide care to the deckplate, thus saving lost work hours

for our sailors.

In addition, Navy nurses in Rota, Spain function as critical members of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Space Shuttle Medical Support Team. These are just two of the numerous initiatives we have regarding integration.

Finally, our status on professional nursing in Navy medicine.

Meeting our mission of Force Health Protection requires that we

closely monitor the impact of the national nursing shortage. I’m

happy to report that thus far, active duty Navy Nurse Corps numbers have been healthy due to our recruiting and retention efforts.

Direct procurement of qualified civilian nurses accounts for 35 percent of our annual accessions. The remaining 65 percent originate

from our four scholarship or pipeline programs.

In addition, we have enjoyed an increasing retention rate over

the past 3 years. I believe factors contributing to our retention include graduate study opportunities; which are the number one reason why our Navy nurses stay on, diversity in assignments, job security, collegiality, operational experiences, benefits, and leadership

positions.

Within the Nurse Corps Reserve, 95 percent of our billets are

filled. Incentives such as the accession bonus, stipends for graduate

education, and loan repayment programs are beneficial in procuring our reservists. Last year, our Navy nurse reserve officers

contributed over 8,300 days in military treatment facilities and 190

days aboard our ships.

We must continue to keep recruitment and retention, as you well

know, on our radar scope to be responsive to the needs of the work

force. I believe that nurses seek three things: education, compensation and appreciation. We use every effort to make these provisions.

Graduate education programs in identified specialties are essential to retaining outstanding Navy nurses and to sustain a flexible

work force. For the first time in our history, I’m happy to report

that all of our fiscal year 2002 selections for our Duty Under Instruction Program have been dedicated solely to masters and doctoral degrees. We are pleased with the upcoming Clinical Nurse

Specialist Program for Perioperative Nursing at the Uniformed

Services University of Health Sciences, and also with the recent

discussions regarding a possible nursing doctoral program.

In the area of compensation, active duty accessions are holding

at this point with the use of the $5,000 Nurse Accession Bonus.
432

Family, pediatric and women’s health nurse practitioners and certified registered nurse anesthetists, as well as our certified nurse

midwives, receive Board Certification Pay. In addition, our nurse

anesthetists receive Incentive Special Pay.

We will continue to evaluate the need, though, for specialty pay

in other fields such as mental health, perioperative, and emergency

trauma nursing, as a retention tool, especially as competition increases for the dwindling supply of these nurses. Your continued

assistance with these initiatives is greatly appreciated.

Civil service nurses are the foundation of our stable work force.

The passing of Direct Hire Legislation and delegation of Title 38

U.S. Code pay and promotion authorities enable us to fill nursing

positions and retain qualified staff members. We are in the process,

as are my counterparts, of planning and implementing these new

initiatives. However, we would appreciate your support in assisting

to recind language in the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Bill which requires completion of a clinical education program affiliated with DOD or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In closing, as always, I am grateful for your tremendous support.

In my other role as the Assistant Chief for Healthcare Operations,

I see our Nurse Corps officers as critical to the healthcare team.

They possess a wealth of knowledge, admirable clinical expertise,

strategic foresight, and dynamic leadership. Since our world is rapidly changing, we must remain adaptable at all times, be accountable, maintain constant readiness, and pull together as critical

healthcare team members in all settings to successfully meet any

challenges. I can assure you, Senator, that we do that and more.

I look forward to working with you during my tenure as the Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Thank you for this great honor

and privilege, and once we complete our questions, I will let you

know which side of the dais I prefer to be on.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL NANCY J. LESCAVAGE

Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens and distinguished members of

the Committee. I am Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse

Corps and Assistant Chief for Healthcare Operations at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. It is an honor and a privilege to represent a total of 5,000 Navy

Nurse Corps Officers, Active and Reserve. I welcome this opportunity to testify regarding our achievements and issues.

I would like to highlight the role of the Navy Nurse Corps in Navy Medicine

where quality of care and Force Health Protection are vital in executing worldwide

missions and in preparing for the challenges of tomorrow. In order to meet our

goals, we have established ourselves as a powerful presence and primarily focus on

Readiness, Optimization and Integration. I will speak to each of these goals, followed by a status update on professional nursing in Navy Medicine.

Readiness

Our readiness mission focuses on ensuring a healthy and fit force deployed and

at home. Our Navy Nurses immediately respond to local communities and operational deployments on a daily basis. Seventy Navy Nurses are serving in operational billets on aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, Marine Medical Battalions, as

Flight Nurses, and in key staff leadership and training positions.

In support of Operation Enduring Freedom alone, an additional fifty-one Navy

Nurses have been mobilized to augment our Fleet Surgical Teams, Marine Medical

Battalions, and Fleet Hospitals providing health service support to the Marines and

Sailors afloat and ashore. There have been several humanitarian missions and joint

exercises involving a total of 130 Navy Nurses over the past year. Twenty-eight

Navy Nurse reservists have been mobilized to provide backfill for deployed mem-
433

bers. In addition, at Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Navy Nurses with dual

specialty skills have made huge contributions in staffing deployed Fleet Hospital 20

at Camp X-Ray and providing daily medical care to detainees.

Following the events of September 11, homeland security became a priority for the

Nation, the Navy and Navy Medicine. Navy Nurses perform a vital role in leading

Navy Medicine’s effort to ensure that our people, facilities, and assets are optimally

prepared to respond to any threat or actual attack.

Immediately after the attack, Navy Nurses not only responded to patient care

needs, but also augmented the Federal Emergency Management Agency to assist

with coordination of medical services for New York City and the Pentagon. Within

18 hours, the USNS Comfort was steaming to New York, with nursing staff heavily

represented, to provide care to numerous emergency relief personnel. At the Pentagon, readiness became reality with the extensive TRISERVICE nursing collaboration with civilian community rescue units.

Given recent events, we continue to explore training opportunities for our Navy

Nurses to maintain operational readiness to respond to critically injured patients in

time of war, national emergencies, natural disasters, or humanitarian need. A new

Navy Trauma Training Program has been established in conjunction with the University of Southern California and Los Angeles County Trauma Center for our Navy

Nurses to obtain hands-on clinical experience in trauma. The first session for one

of our Fleet Surgical Teams will begin this summer.

Partnership between military and civilian colleagues is another avenue we continue to explore to train our military nurses. One example is an agreement between

Naval Hospital Bremerton and Harborview Medical Center, a Level I Trauma Center. Through this program, we successfully enhance our nurses’ speed, flexibility and

skill mastery in the management of the multiple trauma victim, similar to those injuries seen with casualty incidents.

Optimization

Optimization focuses on providing the right care by the right person at the right

time as an integral part of our comprehensive health services delivery system. Recognized in their fields as experts and leaders, many nurses have been at the forefront of Navy Medicine as critical health care team members in meeting fiscal, regulatory and healthcare challenges into the future. They occupy a variety of executive

positions such as Commanding Officers, Executive Officers or Officers in Charge of

Clinics. Navy Nurses excel in strategic and leadership positions at Department of

Defense Health Affairs, the TRICARE Management Activity, the Pentagon and

headquarters assignments in establishing and implementing policy. In addition, visionary leaders are assigned to new positions, such as the Deputy Director of Navy

Medicine’s Office of Homeland Security.

Across Navy Medicine, our professional nursing community is comprised of active

duty and reserve Nurse Corps officers, civil service nurses, and contract nurses. We

continuously review our processes to meet our mission by emphasizing the concept

of the ‘‘Five Rights.’’ These rights focus on the right number of nursing staff, with

the right skills and training in the right mix of specialties, in the right assignments,

and with the right formal education. Nurse-managed clinics and nursing research

studies are a few examples where we have maximized the benefits of these five

rights to bolster the level of increased population health and positive patient outcomes.

At the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) in Bethesda, the Diabetes Disease

Management Program utilizes Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of

Defense protocols with success. Nurses function in key roles as nurse practitioners,

case managers and certified diabetes educators resulting in a potential cost avoidance of approximately $200,000, better disease control and enhanced patient compliance. At the Naval Hospital in Jacksonville, the Asthma Case Management Program utilizes National Institute of Health guidelines, with significant resource savings of 56.5 percent and better patient outcomes through patient education, a coordinated self-monitoring plan and physician/nurse follow-up. In addition, in other military treatment facilities like Naval Medical Center San Diego and Naval Medical

Center Portsmouth, nurse-managed clinics focus on cardiac rehabilitation, diabetic

education, wound ostomy care, women’s health, and ambulatory infusion centers.

In the area of nursing research, we appreciate your continued support for the

TriService Nursing Research Program. Since the program’s inception in fiscal year

1992, we have completed 36 studies with 12 in progress. We continuously review

the results to enhance our practice and provide opportunities for further research.

For example, we are exploring the recommendations of a recent study on shipboard

nursing on aircraft carriers because of its relevance to our operational readiness. In
434

addition, the Diabetes Disease Management Program at NNMC served as a pilot

study for one of our grants.

Integration

Integration involves teamwork to support smooth operations with Navy counterparts, other uniformed services, Department of Veterans Affairs staff, and TRICARE

civilian partners in all clinical settings. The following examples focus on Force

Health Protection as well as other unique missions.

With the Regional Support Group for Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet,

Family Nurse Practitioners provide leadership in implementing programs and rendering healthcare services to Navy and Marine personnel on 40 ships in support of

population health management, medical readiness, patient education and primary

care. They provide these services in the ship’s clinic as well as at pierside through

the Mobile Medical Education and Clinical Unit. Physical exams, PAP smears and

nutritional counseling are just a few of the specific services provided at the

deckplate.

Our Navy Nurses in Rota, Spain function in an exciting role as members of the

NASA Space Shuttle Medical Support Team. Nurses receive extensive training in

trauma, hazardous materials injuries, and space physiology. They become critical

members of the health care team that must be ‘‘in place’’ prior to launch time.

Professional Nursing in Navy Medicine

Our success in meeting our mission of Force Health Protection requires that we

closely monitor the impact of the national nursing shortage, like our colleagues in

the other services. Given the aging of the current registered nurse workforce, the

decreasing number of students who choose nursing as a career and the ever increasing demand for professional nursing services, the current and future number of registered nurses is insufficient to meet our national health care needs. Many studies,

such as the one conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, have predicted that

jobs for registered nurses will grow by 23 percent, meaning that the need for nurses

will grow by about 500,000 positions by the year 2008.

Thus far, the Navy Nurse Corps numbers have been healthy due to recruiting via

diversified accession sources over the past ten years. Direct recruitment of qualified

civilian registered nurses and reservists account for 35 percent of annual accessions.

The remaining 65 percent originate from our current scholarship or ‘‘pipeline’’ programs, such as the Nurse Candidate Program, Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program, Seaman to Admiral Program and Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps. To

help ensure a healthy and stable Navy Nurse Corps, these programs have served

us well in recruiting and retaining the high caliber of Navy Nurses currently on active duty.

We have also been able to sustain our end strength requirements through our increasing retention rate over the past three years. Factors contributing to our retention include: graduate study opportunities, diversity in assignments, job security,

collegiality, operational experiences, benefits, and leadership positions.

Over the past year, our Reserve Nurse Corps officers have enhanced our ability

to meet our regular mission requirements and have provided a total of 8,384 days

in military treatment facilities within the United States and abroad as well as 190

days on ships. We presently have 95 percent of our Navy Nurse Reservist billets

filled. Our recruiting goal for fiscal year 2002 is 272 reservists. Incentives such as

the accession bonus, stipends for graduate education and loan repayment programs

are beneficial in procuring our reservists. In addition, we are encouraging the nursing leadership at military treatment facilities to market potential affiliation with

the Reserves for those Navy Nurses who are choosing to be released from active

duty.

It is critical that we continue to keep recruitment and retention on our ‘‘radar’’

scope in order to be responsive to the needs of the work force market. I have noticed

that nurses seek three things: education, compensation and appreciation. We make

every effort to make these provisions.

As previously cited, education and training is the number one reason for retention

of Navy Nurses. Graduate education programs in identified specialties are essential

to meet patient care needs, retain outstanding Navy Nurses and sustain a flexible

workforce. For the first time in our history, all fiscal year 2002 selections for the

Duty Under Instruction Program have been dedicated to Masters and Doctoral Degrees. We will continue this focus since all accessions into the Navy Nurse Corps

are based on a qualifying Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. We are also

pleased with the upcoming start-up of a Clinical Nurse Specialist Program for

Perioperative Nursing at the Uniformed Services University for Health Sciences and

recent discussions regarding a Nursing Doctoral Program at the University.
435

Compensation, other than pay and benefits, includes bonuses. Active duty accessions are holding at this point with the use of the $5,000 Nurse Accession Bonus.

Board certification pay is provided to our Family, Pediatric and Women’s Health

Nurse Practitioners, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) and Certified

Nurse Midwives. In addition to their board certification pay, there is a two-tiered

incentive special pay system that exists only for CRNAs at $6,000 or $15,000, depending upon completion of their training obligation. We will continue to evaluate

the need for specialty pays in other specialized fields such as Mental Health,

Perioperative and Emergency/Trauma Nursing as a retention tool, especially as

competition increases for the dwindling supply of nurses.

Our civil service nurses enable us to provide quality nursing care through a stable

work force in our military treatment facilities. In the past, we have expressed our

concerns over the differences in compensation and hiring practices between and

among the government and private sectors, in order to maintain an adequate level

of civilian nurses. Your support in passing Direct Hire Legislation for civil service

nurses and delegation of Title 38 U.S. Code pay and promotion authorities enables

us to fill nursing positions and retain qualified staff members.

In closing, I appreciate your tremendous support with legislative initiatives and

the opportunity to share the accomplishments and issues that face the Navy Nurse

Corps. In my other role as Assistant Chief for Healthcare Operations, I see our

nurses as critical members of the healthcare team in all settings, from development

of clinical and business plans and policies to program implementation. Our nurses

possess tremendous knowledge, admirable clinical expertise, strategic foresight and

dynamic leadership. Since our world is rapidly changing, we must remain adaptable

at all times, be accountable, maintain constant readiness, and pull together as critical Health Care Team members in all settings to successfully meet any challenges.

I can assure you we do that and more.

I look forward to working with you during my tenure as the Director of the Navy

Nurse Corps. Thank you for this honor and privilege.

Senator INOUYE. General Brannon.

General BRANNON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a great

honor to represent the 19,000 Active, Reserve and Guard Air Force

nursing personnel as their Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force

Nursing Services. This is my third testimony before this committee

and that reminds me how quickly time passes, and how rapidly our

world can change from one year to the next.

Today we are a Nation at war and fully engaged in defeating the

vast network of terrorists who would rob us of our security and deprive us of our freedom. I am proud to be an American and I am

particularly proud to be an Air Force nurse.

PENTAGON ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Our nurses and medical technicians were in the trenches when

American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon on September 11th.

They quickly found themselves triaging and caring for the injured

on the Pentagon lawn. Their outstanding clinical skills and leadership undoubtedly saved lives that day. Since that horrific event,

Air Force nurses and medical technicians have provided vital support during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS SUPPORT

The unusual characteristics of our enemy and the dynamics of

this battlefield have put our medics in far forward positions to directly support Special Operations units. Be assured, our Air Force

medical technicians, surgical nurses, and critical care air transport

nurses are very near the front lines. Active duty, Reserve and

Guard medical evacuation crews have transported 721 patients to

date from forward operating locations to medical facilities in both

Europe and the United States.
436

AFGHANISTAN

Our nursing air evac teams also provided care in the air during

the transport of detainees from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay.

TRAINING

Training is the critical success factor to insure nursing is ready

to meet a wide range of readiness requirements. The Air Force has

established training platforms in civilian trauma centers where our

teams can hone those critical wartime skills. We call these programs Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C–

STARS), which stands for centers for sustainment of trauma and

readiness skills. Forty nurses and 100 medical technicians will be

among those trained this year at our active duty C–STARS at the

Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore.

On the home front, the nursing profession is fighting its own

campaign to provide enough nursing care to meet the growing demand in our country. It is a campaign to improve working conditions, to polish the image of nursing, and to attract more people

into our wonderful profession. The Department of Health and

Human Services forecasts the requirement for 1.7 million more

nurses by 2020, but estimates that only 635,000 will be available.

AIR FORCE RECRUITING

Air Force recruiting continues to be challenged by the nationwide

nursing shortage. Last year we did not meet our nurse recruiting

goal for the third consecutive year, and we were 215 nurses below

our authorization of 4,005. This year’s recruiting requirement is

383 nurses and as of last month, 252 had been selected for a commission. We expect to end the year with 275 accessions. While this

is still short of our requirements, it actually represents an almost

21 percent increase over last year’s accessions. This is a strong indicator that our new recruiting strategies and policies are having

a positive impact.

This past year nursing has partnered even more closely with recruiting service to provide additional support and tools at the local

level to maximize recruiting. Nurses from our Air Force facilities

are holding open houses and visiting local schools of nursing to assist recruiters in spreading the good news about Air Force opportunities. We have also developed compact disks (CDs), brochures and

business cards to be used to advertise Air Force nursing benefits.

Last summer I assigned a nurse to each of our four recruiting

groups to work directly with potential nurse recruits and also to liaison with Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) units to increase

the number of nurse candidates.

One tool our recruiters are not finding as successful as in years

past is the $5,000 accession bonus for a 4-year commitment. Two

years ago, 61 percent of our accessions accepted the bonus and

signed on for 4 years. Last year that dropped to 29 percent, and

this year, so far it’s a meager 19 percent that are accepting the

bonus and signing for 4 years. We must continue to look for recruiting incentives that will be more competitive with the generous

benefits offered by civilian employers.
437

RETENTION RATES

Based on historical retention rates and models, I anticipate the

Air Force Nurse Corps will be about 400 nurses under our authorization at the close of this year. Although we will dip down to just

under 90 percent of our requirement, there is a bright spot on the

horizon. Last month we received the authority to grant $2.5 million

this year in loan repayments for baccalaureate nursing education

and we have already had an overwhelming response to the program. More than 100 active duty nurses have signed up and applied for the loan repayment. This has great potential to increase

retention in our most critical areas.

On another positive note, I am delighted to report that retention

rates among our first-term enlisted medics has increased this year

to 58 percent following the implementation of the selective reenlistment bonus. While this is a real success story, retention among career enlisted members, those with 10 to 14 years of service, still remains five points below our Air Force goal.

PRIMARY CARE OPTIMIZATION

Nursing personnel continue to be a backbone of the successful

implementation of primary care optimization (PCO). This proactive

healthcare systems focus on preventive services and on population

health programs. A pivotal member of that PCO is the healthcare

integrator, which is a role not really seen in the civilian healthcare

system. Health Care Investigators (HCIs) are nurses who coordinate healthcare services for a large patient population and make

sure that patients receive the right care at the right time from the

right level of provider. Each Air Force medical facility now has at

least one HCI who has been trained in our formal course, and we

are seeing a positive impact reflected in increased patient satisfaction and in better clinical outcomes.

PRACTICAL NURSES

I am also happy to report that we have made progress in

strengthening our healthcare team by increasing the number of licensed practical nurses. This educational program is provided by

St. Phillip’s College in San Antonio, and the clinical training is at

Wilford Hall Medical Center. Last year 40 enlisted members

earned their certification and they are now practicing in this expanded role.

NURSE RESEARCH PROGRAM

This year we have continued to capitalize on funding available

through the tri-service nursing research program. Air Force nurses

are engaged in studies on readiness training and nursing practice

models. Your advocacy and financial support of nursing research

enables us to build our military nursing science and to improve patient care.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share our tremendous Air Force nursing accomplishments. The tumultuous events of

this past year will live forever in our memories and in our history.
438

I am proud beyond words at the dedication of the patriotism and

of the heroism displayed by Air Force nurses every single day, and

I can assure you that they are fully prepared to support our fighting forces and the men, women and children of our United States.

Thank you for your tremendous support and leadership as we protect and defend the greatest Nation in the world.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL BARBARA C. BRANNON

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am Brigadier

General Barbara Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force (AF) Nursing Services and Commander of Malcolm Grow Medical Center at Andrews Air Force Base.

It is my honor and privilege to represent the 19,000 dedicated members of the active

and reserve components of AF Nursing Services. This is my third testimony before

this esteemed committee and that reminds me how quickly time passes and how

rapidly the world can change from one year to the next. Today we are a nation at

war and fully engaged in defeating our enemy, the vast network of terrorists who

would deprive us of our freedom and rob us of our security. I am so proud to be

an American and equally proud to be serving in our Armed Forces. As a people, we

have shown great resolve, tenacity and a remarkable degree of solidarity. We have

demonstrated again the strength of character and the morale fiber that is the foundation of our great nation. Those who do not understand our core values seriously

underestimate our might. More than ever, I am proud to be an Air Force Nurse.

We have provided the critical support and care upon which our war fighters depend

when they are in harm’s way—lifesaving care—and a lifetime of caring.

Readiness

Air Force Nursing Services is committed to responding anytime, anywhere to our

nation’s call and we are prepared to support the full spectrum of readiness missions

from war-winning operations to humanitarian, civic assistance, and disaster response. Our nurses and medical technicians ‘‘were in the trenches’’ when American

Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on September 11. Major Bridget Larew is an

Air Force nurse practitioner at the Pentagon’s DiLorenzo TriService Clinic. When

she reported for duty that day, she never imagined she would be caring for patients

on the lawn of the Pentagon but she was trained and ready to respond. Major Larew

took charge as the initial on-scene clinic commander and quickly organized a triage

team with over 100 volunteers. She also provided direct care for burn patients and

other casualties. Major Larew’s outstanding clinical skills and leadership saved lives

that day.

Since that horrific event, Air Force nurses and medical technicians have provided

vital support during our war on terrorism, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. The

unusual characteristics of this enemy and the dynamics of this campaign have resulted in unprecedented requirements for our independent duty medical technicians

to provide medical support to special operations units. Additional training is required to prepare our medics for the special operations environment and they are

proving to be vital members of these units. Lieutenant Colonel Paul 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 a Special Forces mass casualty incident.

Due to the shortage of anesthesiologists, our CRNAs have had increased opportunity to demonstrate their tremendous clinical skills and leadership. Lieutenant

Colonel Sheryl Claybough, a senior CRNA assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base, deployed to Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, as Medical Operations

Squadron Commander and Surgical Team Chief from August through December

2001. She excelled in interaction with all Joint Forces in the area, significantly impacting the continued success of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH.

In addition to CRNAs and independent duty medical technicians, we have deployed critical care and emergency nurses, perioperative and medical-surgical

nurses, and medical technicians. These personnel are members of smaller, more capable medical teams than we have assembled in the past, and these modules are

‘‘additive’’ to provide the right level of support and services to meet the needs of the

population served. Some examples of these modules include the Mobile Forward

Surgical Team (MFST), Critical Care Air Transportable Team (CCATT), and the

Small Portable Expeditionary Aeromedical Rapid Response (SPEARR). Our more capable, but still relatively modest in size, Expeditionary Medical Support System

(EMEDS) is deployed incrementally and has 25–85 personnel assigned depending on
439

services available. EMEDS can support a population of up to 5,000 personnel with

emergency and operating room services and an inpatient capability between 10 and

25 beds. Forty-five percent of the EMEDS are deployed far forward in the

battlespace of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.

In 2001, Air Force nurses and technicians provided care in the air to over 20,000

patients in our aeromedical evacuation (AE) system. In support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, Active Duty, Reserve and Guard AE teams have transported

366 patients from the Central Command (CENTCOM) Theater of Operations to

medical treatment facilities in Europe and the United States. These missions carried 154 urgent/priority and 212 routine patients. In addition, our nursing AE teams

provided medical care during the transport of detainees from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay.

When the Houston, Texas community called for help during their disastrous flood

in June 2001, Air Force nurses and technicians responded as part of a 25-bed

EMEDS that deployed from Wilford Hall Medical Center. Air Force medics provided

care to 1,000 people during the 13-day deployment and they also got valuable field

training during the experience.

The Air Force Surgeon General’s Readiness Skills Verification Program has paved

the way in identifying clinical skills needed for deployment thereby ensuring personnel are current in their practice and ready to deploy. We developed readiness

skills checklists for each of our 14 nursing specialties and identified training gaps.

Air Force Nursing is now closing those gaps by assisting with the development of

training platforms at civilian trauma centers. Known as Centers for Sustainment

of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS), these sites are offering outstanding

sustainment training for our critical care, perioperative, and emergency nurses and

technicians.

Captain Kristine Pinckney from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, was one of the first Air

Force nurses to train at our premiere C-STARS, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma

Center in Baltimore, Maryland. She sharpened her trauma skills with the assistance of four Air Force nurse instructors who are appointed to the University of

Maryland School of Medicine clinical faculty, and work and teach in the trauma resuscitation units and surgical suites. Captain Pinckney’s impression: ‘‘Excellent

course! I provided hands-on care to critically ill trauma patients using a team approach. Now I feel more prepared and confident to care for patients during deployment.’’ The state-of-the-art shock trauma center will be accommodating 40 Air Force

nurses and 100 medical technicians throughout 2002. In addition, we are beginning

to explore ways to partner with the Department of Veterans Affairs to coordinate

joint clinical skills enhancement training.

Recruiting

The nationwide shortage of nurses continues and has the potential to impede the

ability of healthcare institutions to provide the best quality patient care. Last year,

the Air Force Nurse Corps experienced our third consecutive year of failing to meet

our nurse recruiting goals. We have recruited approximately 30 percent less than

the recruiting goal each year and we ended fiscal year 2001 at just over 200 nurses

under our authorization of 4,005. Our fiscal year 2002 accession requirement is 383

nurses and as of April 2002, 252 nurses have been selected for a direct commission

and we expect to end the recruiting year with 275 new accessions. In light of these

continued recruiting shortfalls, we have worked hard to balance our vacancies

across our facilities and minimize the impact on the mission. Where possible, facilities have contracted with civilian nurses to fill critical needs.

We have identified new strategies to boost recruiting and have made several policy changes to enable more nurses to qualify for a Nurse Corps commission. In the

summer of fiscal year 2001, Recruiting Services asked for a review of the nurse accession educational requirement because of their difficulty in recruiting nurses with

a Bachelor’s of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree. We have had a ‘‘BSN only’’ accession standard since 1997; however, we acknowledged that an adjustment was prudent and necessary in light of the nursing shortage. We returned to our earlier policy of allowing accession of nurses with an Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN) and

a baccalaureate degree in a health-related specialty, and one year of nursing experience. To date, only three nurses have taken advantage of this new policy since its

implementation in September 2001.

Another policy change in fiscal year 2001 expanded the pool of potential nurse recruits with clinical skills critical to support our wartime response; this pool includes

nurse anesthetists, medical-surgical nurses, mental health and critical care nurses.

In August 2001, we began commissioning nurses in these critical wartime specialties up to age 47, as opposed to the previous age limit of 40, and we also granted

them one-year constructive service credit. The maximum age to serve on active duty
440

remains 62 years for nurses, so those over age 42 continue to be ineligible for retirement unless they have had prior military service. We have had 21 nurses above the

age of 40 enter under this policy. In addition, our nursing specialties that are

manned below 90 percent receive the one-year constructive credit as well. These

specialties include Obstetrics, Neonatal Intensive Care, Midwifery, Women’s Health

and Pediatric Nurse Practitioners.

Recruiting Services has also indicated that their biggest hurdle in nurse recruiting has been the requirement for one year of clinical experience. In the past, we

capped our new graduates or novice nurses at 25 percent of our accession goal due

to limited clinical training opportunities in our hospitals. In fiscal year 2002, we increased the recruiting goal for new graduates to 33 percent of our total recruiting

requirement by expanding our training capacity at larger facilities. Furthermore, I

authorized that the 12-month experience requirement for ‘‘fully qualified’’ nurses be

waiverable to 6 months, depending on the quality of the individuals’ clinical experience. There have been 10 waivers, 100 percent-approved in fiscal year 2002.

Incentives used to persuade registered nurses to choose the Air Force as a career

include Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarships, constructive service

credit for experience in undermanned specialties and accession bonus programs. In

fiscal year 2001, 44 nurses entered the Air Force after graduating from Air Force

ROTC programs. We recently increased our goal to 70 graduates in light of our increase in training capacity for new graduates at our larger facilities. ROTC is an

excellent ‘‘grow our own’’ program and these graduates bring great talent to our

corps. We are closely monitoring recruiting data to determine if these incentives are

successful in attracting these talented clinicians.

In previous years the $5,000 accession bonus for four years of service was successful in attracting nurses to military service. This past year we saw a decrease in the

number of nurses opting to commit to a fourth year in order to receive the $5,000

bonus. In fiscal year 2000, 61 percent of our nurse accessions took the bonus, but

in fiscal year 2001 we saw a dramatic reversal; only 29 percent signed on for four

years with the remaining 71 percent opting for no bonus and only a three year obligation. We will continue to explore means to be more competitive with civilian employment incentives.

Approaching the recruiting challenge from many directions, Air Force Nursing

Services is currently evaluating educational scholarship programs to boost recruiting. The Navy Nurse Corps’ recruiting has remained remarkably stable and their

success is attributed to their collegiate scholarship and stipend programs.

As Assistant Surgeon General for Nursing Services, I am personally and energetically engaged in our officer recruiting efforts. I have written to nurses inviting

them to consider nursing opportunities in the Air Force, manned recruiting booths

at professional conferences and hosted a one-day recruiting event at Malcolm Grow

Medical Center for deans and students in nursing programs at northeast universities. I travel frequently and take every opportunity to highlight the exciting and

rewarding opportunities Air Force Nurses enjoy. I have also assigned several nurses

to work directly with recruiting groups and focus exclusively on nurse recruiting.

Recruiters are using innovative strategies to champion Air Force Nursing through

marketing materials, websites, conference coverage and other publicity campaigns.

Retention

Our end strength reflects both accession shortfalls and losses through attrition.

At the end of fiscal year 2001 there were 3,790 nurses on active duty, 215 below

our authorized endstrength. This deficit is projected to grow to over 400 by close

of fiscal year 2002 based on historical nurse retention data. We have had a decrease

in retention beyond the initial active duty commitment. Given today’s retention environment, 69 percent will remain in the Nurse Corps until their fourth year of

service as opposed to 79 percent in 1995. Twenty-eight percent will stay until their

eleventh year of service vice 46 percent in 1995. The stop-loss program was implemented for all Air Force nursing specialties following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and it continues to be in effect.

Last year, I directed that every nurse who voluntarily separates be interviewed

by the Chief Nurse, or a senior Nurse Corps officer in their organization. Exit interviews were standardized to facilitate identification of factors that most influenced

nurses to separate prior to completing a full military career. 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. Junior nurses also cited non-competitive salaries

as being instrumental in their leaving. We are actively working to improve staffing

through recruiting efforts and have developed standardized staffing ratios for our

facilities. Studies show that higher staffing levels of all types of nurses result in a
441

decrease in adverse patient outcomes from 2 to 25 percent and enhanced job satisfaction. The other desires cited by separating nurses cannot be accommodated within the structure of our active duty nurse corps. We continue to offer Reserve, National Guard, and Public Health Service opportunities for those who need more stability and flexibility in their service commitment.

We appreciate the critical skills retention bonus Congress authorized in the fiscal

year 2001 NDAA which amended U.S. Code Title 37 to establish broad officer and

enlisted retention bonus authority. It provides payments of up to $200,000 over a

career for members qualified in a Secretary of Defense designated critical military

skill. 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 and rank-ordered our critical nursing specialties. These specialties include obstetrical nurses, mental health, medical-surgical, neonatal intensive care, CRNAs

and Women’s Health Nurse Practitioners.

Anticipating a severe shortage of CRNAs, we instituted an unprecedented loan repayment program in fiscal year 2001 that grants reimbursement of education costs

up to $25,000 per year of training, for a maximum of two years or $50,000. This

was intended as a recruiting tool, available for civilian CRNA students willing to

sign on for an additional three years. It is being marketed heavily by our Air Force

nurse anesthesia consultant and there appears to be growing interest. Equally

promising, we have just received funding for one-hundred $25,000 loan repayments

for other nursing specialties. The $2.5 million will be used this year to offer loan

repayment to nurses on active duty between six months and eight years and who

are willing to accept an additional 2 year active duty obligation. Thus far, we have

had an overwhelming response and received over 100 applications which meet the

established criteria. This program has great potential to boost retention in critical

year groups.

I am delighted to report that retention of our first term enlisted nursing personnel

has improved after the implementation of a selective reenlistment bonus. Last year

I reported a medical technician first term retention rate of 51 percent, the lowest

in seven years and well below the goal of 55 percent. Rates rose above the goal in

February 2001 and, by September, reached 58.7 percent. While this is a great success story, retention among career enlisted members, those with 10 to 14 years in

service, remains at approximately 90 percent, significantly lower than their goal of

95 percent.

We appreciate your continued support of legislation focusing on improving military quality of life and benefits. Quality of life issues, including child care, housing,

salary and benefits, and workload are cited in Air Force Chief of Staff surveys as

major factors considered when people make career decisions.

Primary Care Optimization

Air Force nursing personnel are the ‘‘backbone’’ of the successful implementation

of Primary Care Optimization (PCO). This endeavor remains a high priority in the

Air Force Medical Service because 50 of our 74 remaining medical treatment facilities are outpatient clinics only. Key nursing initiatives that support the delivery of

best-quality primary care services include the addition of Health Care Integrators

(HCI) on our clinical teams and an increase in the number of nurse condition-management clinics.

The HCI is without civilian counterpart and they have proven to be invaluable

since the implementation of the role three years ago. These highly experienced

nurses manage the healthcare of an enrolled population by identifying their needs

and ensuring they receive the right care at the right time, from the right provider.

The HCI assists leadership in determining specialty care requirements availability

based upon their populations’ health, and in prioritizing resources.

This past year, we evaluated the progress in the implementation of the HCI role

and how well we were preparing and supporting our HCI’s. Based on feedback from

our facilities and working HCI’s, a course was designed to better prepare these

nurses to meet their responsibilities. Each MTF now has at least one nurse who has

completed the course and this has enhanced job satisfaction and greater success in

our population health initiatives.

Several examples illustrate the importance of the HCI. At Ellsworth AFB, the

HCI readdressed a TRICARE Lead Agent’s decision to disapprove funding for an insulin pump machine for a diabetic patient. The patient was on the verge of kidney

dialysis and was a frequent appointment user-clearly a ‘‘high cost’’ patient. The good

news in this case is that the proactive HCI, Major Christine Liddle, conducted a

thorough cost analysis and facilitated approval of the insulin pump. This case alone

saved $50,000 per year in renal dialysis care and preserved the quality of life for
442

the patient. In addition, the TRICARE regions’ policy on insulin pump purchases

changed and better health maintenance was possible for many other patients.

At the local level, the HCI at FE Warren AFB in Wyoming noticed an alarming

pattern of non-compliance with medical recommendations among the population of

200 diabetic patients. The HCI orchestrated a Diabetic Patient Profiling Program

for those needing glucose testing and also provided comprehensive diabetic education. The patients began to demonstrate an enhanced desire to ‘‘take control of

their disease’’ as evidenced by a surge in their completion rate of critical laboratory

testing ordered by their healthcare providers. A phenomenal 95 percent of the diabetic patients at FE Warren completed their lab work as compared to 53 percent

the year before, a rate well above the national target of 87 percent. This is a big

step in the direction of better health since it has been demonstrated that close monitoring of lab values, coupled with the adoption of a healthier lifestyle, reduces the

risk of cardiac disease, blindness, kidney damage, and serious infections associated

with diabetes.

In women’s health, the HCIs at MacDill AFB made a positive impact in promoting

mammograms for those in high risk categories for breast cancer. They launched an

innovative marketing campaign during October 2001 that resulted in 151 women

being screened in one month, five of whom were subsequently diagnosed with early

breast cancer. This early identification and intervention increased their five-year

survival rate from 85 to 95 percent. The Air Force has been focused on prevention

for many years, and nurses in our primary care clinics ensure that preventive

health assessments and interventions are part of every patient visit.

Our enlisted personnel are also key members of our PCO teams and integral to

the success of our population health programs. They have been at the forefront of

our initiative to decentralize immunizations and provide this service in all Primary

Care Clinics. By closely monitoring patients’ immunization status and administering

medications during their clinic visit, our medical technicians have increased the

number of children protected by immunizations and have ensured that our active

duty members are fully immunized in advance of deployments.

Last year I spoke of the vast untapped potential of our enlisted force, and I am

happy to report that we have made exceptional progress in our initiative to increase

the scope of practice for our enlisted nursing personnel and to boost the number of

Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) on our nursing team. We have partnered with a

civilian college to provide LPN education and clinical training and, in 2001, we had

40 enlisted members successfully complete the program and earn their practical

nurse certificate.

The continued financial support of the TriService Nursing Research Program enabled us to fund valuable studies on new technologies in the patient care environment and on military nursing practice models. Nurses at Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, conducted research on wartime nursing competencies.

This initiative used a web-based computer assisted training program (STAN) and

an innovative simulation laboratory to assess the readiness skills of over 200 clinical

nurses. This research spawned a wartime injury sustainment-training program that

boosted the readiness of over 75 percent (170) of the medical-surgical nurses assigned to Wilford Hall Medical Center. The clinical skills targeted as a requirement

for wartime nursing have been validated by a review of the injuries seen in the casualties from the campaign in Afghanistan, and in the survivors of the New York

City and Pentagon bombings. Many of the victims suffered bomb blast injuries,

hemorrhagic shock, orthopedic and spinal injuries, thermal/inhalation injuries and

head trauma. The nurses who received additional training based on the findings of

the study are now well prepared to provide combat casualty care.

As I forecasted during last years’ testimony, we initiated the AFMS Nurse Telephone Triage Demonstration working group this past summer. Our hypothesis is

that nurse telephone triage facilitates patient access to the appropriate level of

healthcare in the timeframe needed. The goals of the project include improving access to care, boosting patient and staff satisfaction, and decreasing the inappropriate use of costly civilian emergency department (ED) visits. This project was initiated with a $100,000 TriService Nursing Research Program grant. This two-year

study kicked off in July 2001 at three sites in Florida—Patrick AFB, MacDill, and

Tyndall AFB—and 14 triage nurses are assigned to the project.

The triage nurses collaborate with the patient and the primary care teams to ensure referral to the right level of care to meet the patients’ needs. In September

2001, the MacDill AFB triage nurses ‘‘re-directed’’ 220 callers planning to go to the

ED to a more appropriate level of care—saving approximately $20,000. Evaluation

indicated that 50 percent of the callers did not need an acute appointment within

24 hours and they were referred for routine visits or instructed in appropriate home

care. We anticipate that this study will support nurse telephone triage as a valuable
443

patient-focused practice that facilitates appropriate care for patients in a timely

manner.

After the alarming medical mishap statistics were reported by the Institute of

Medicine last year, we immediately evaluated our patient safety programs. We applied for and received a grant from the TriService Nursing Research Program that

helped us develop a prototype virtual schoolhouse on ‘‘Medical Team Management’’

for use in training medical personnel throughout the AFMS. This program combines

facilitated and web-based modules to teach the principles of teamwork, communication, stress management and other human factor interventions to prevent medical

mishaps. The actual rollout of the program began last month and evaluation of

training will begin soon. We believe this program has the potential to prevent accidents in the medical system and preserve patients’ faith in our healthcare professionals.

Closing Remarks

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the past year has

been a tumultuous time in our Nation that will live in our memories and be recorded in our history. As the Air Force Nurse Corps’ leader during this tragedy and

its aftermath, I have been proud beyond words of the skill, patriotism, and heroism

displayed by Air Force nurses and medical technicians. They serve our fighting men

and women stalwartly and willingly, and possess a passion and spirit that has allowed them to persevere when faced with monumental tasks and challenges. They

are prepared to go anywhere, anytime, to support our military forces and the men,

women, and children of our great nation. Thank you for your tremendous support

and leadership as we protect and defend the greatest nation in the world! GOD

BLESS AMERICA!

CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE ANESTHETISTS

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, General Brannon. I

think I will start with the Air Force. I have received reports that

indicate that your fiscal year 2001 initiative on loan repayments for

certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) has been a great

success. Is that correct?

General BRANNON. I believe we are still awaiting funding for

that, sir.

Senator INOUYE. You haven’t received the funding for that?

General BRANNON. I’m sorry, we have received funding for CRNA

loan repayment, but we have not had many takers. I think we had

only one new accession this year who accepted a loan repayment,

so it hasn’t made a great deal of difference.

Last year we were about 90 percent manned with CRNAs, which

is very critical to our Wartime and Peacetime Mission. With our

current stop-loss program, we sit at 100 percent manning, but

when the stop-loss is lifted next year, we expect it to go down to

about 82 percent, which will be a critical problem for us.

LOAN REPAYMENTS

Senator INOUYE. Obviously there is a shortage of nurses all over

the land. Keeping that in mind, do you have any ideas, notwithstanding your chiefs sitting in back of you.

General BRANNON. With regards to improving recruiting of

nurses, next year, I understand we will also be allowed to offer

loan repayments for recruiting service, and I think that is going to

have tremendous potential to draw new people into the Air Force.

As I go around and visit at student nurses meetings and at other

professional symposia, the recruiters tell me that one of the main

questions that people come up and ask with regard to military

service is, do you have a loan repayment program, and the next

question is, what kind of bonuses and incentives are you willing to
444

offer me. I think once we get folks into the military, the rewards

are very obvious, but to attract them to take the chance, sometimes

it takes a little bit more.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral, any ideas as to what we should be

doing?

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Yes, Senator. In the late 1980s we experienced a nursing shortage. Fortunately my predecessors instituted

several programs to help prevent that hitting the Navy Nurse

Corps again, and fortunately for us, that’s why we enjoy the numbers we do today.

Nurses find Navy nursing very attractive. As I mentioned in my

testimony, nurses want to be appreciated, compensated and educated. I also highlighted the number one thing on their list for

staying in is education. We have the opposite problem in our middle ranks. We can’t get enough of our nurses to depart. That is beginning to slow our promotion numbers and it will be interesting

to see the effects when our numbers for promotion slow.

As far as charming the nurses on the outside, I feel as General

Brannon highlighted, our recruiting efforts are just going into the

schools, adopting schools, sending nurses in there to the nursing

programs and showing them what we’re all about in the Army,

Navy and the Air Force.

Also, with accession bonuses, most of our nurses coming in for

the first time accept that $5,000 accession bonus. I feel if that went

away, that would stop a lot of people from coming in. So the compensation piece is there right now. It may have to go higher in the

future if we see the numbers change; but I feel we are at the peak

now in seeing that we, as the Navy Nurse Corps, will sustain our

numbers. It will be interesting this time next year to see where we

are. Right now, we’re okay.

Those programs we offer, in order to guarantee our nurses, with

certain numbers coming in, are the ROTC Programs, Nurse Candidate Programs, our Direct Accession, our Reserve Recall Program, and our Medical Enlisted Commissioning program. And

through that last program I mentioned, it is an absolute thrill to

see some of our corpsmen or enlisted Sailors come into the Navy

Nurse Corps after having enlisted experience.

General BESTER. Senator, a couple things regarding accessions.

First of all, I think one of the accession mechanisms that we use

is certainly the Army enlisted commissioning program. The Admiral just referred to it and we have the same equivalent program

in the Army. General Peake this year has allowed us to jump from

55, where that program normally was, to 75, so we are bringing an

additional 20 people in. It’s a great system because what we get out

of the graduates is, we’ve already got a soldier, all we need to do

is get him settled into the profession of nursing. So that’s one of

the ways we’re attacking this thing.

I think the accession bonus is a great issue, and we have supported the Air Force’s submission of a Unified Legislative Brief

(ULB) in April to increase the accession bonus to a ceiling of

$30,000, although the intent of our services is, at least the Air

Force and Army at this time, is to use that up to a level of $10,000.

I think $10,000 gets us in the equivalent ballpark that we see our
445

civilian counterparts offering to new graduates as they try to recruit those folks into civilian institutions.

The health professional loan repayment program is working extremely well for us in the Reserves for our CRNAs and our critical

care nurses. Those monies are just becoming available and General

Peake and I will be sitting down to look at those opportunities as

far as using some of those dollars in that arena for next year.

As far as retention goes, I think the issue on retention is twofold. First of all, I think we need to focus on those critical shortages

we have, certainly anesthesia and operating room nursing in the

Army, and we have addressed that by forwarding a request for the

critical skills retention bonus to be started this year.

And I think the second point is, as the Admiral brought up earlier, the reason most of our nurses, midrange nurses stay in the

Army Nurse Corps, are the educational opportunities, i.e., graduate

level education that we support them so well in. So I think it would

be imperative that we continue to fund those kind of programs.

NURSING RESEARCH PROGRAM

Senator INOUYE. Speaking of education, in the fiscal year 2002

Defense Appropriations Bill we directed the Secretary of Defense to

fully fund the research program and once again, we find that it’s

not funded. Do you think it should be funded fully?

General BESTER. Senator, we find that the tri-service nursing research program is critical to what we do as far as establishing a

scientific basis for our nursing practice, and it has been well received over the last decade that that has been in operation. I know

that the Institute of Medicine in 1996 developed a committee to

look at and to basically evaluate the tri-service nursing research

program, and they saw a real need to look at nursing specific

issues as it relates to the military, and the recommendation was

that we have military nurses do that research. So, we find that

program very key to where we will be in the future and to progressing the profession of nursing in the military, so we would certainly like to see that program continue.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral.

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Senator, in my opinion, to not fully fund our

research program is a great mistake. Research is how, indeed, we

make ourselves better and it has tremendous value added for all

of us and all of our beneficiaries.

One of my personal goals as Director of the Navy Nurse Corps

is to further expand our efforts in research that will impact our

practice and everyday policy. We indeed have always appreciated

your support for the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program

(TSNRP) funding. Through that, we have been able to better support, as I mentioned, the study that we just finished on the aircraft

carriers for carrier nurses. We have standardized our Health Promotions Program, including smoking cessation and weight and cholesterol reduction. Other pending projects are going to help us focus

on quality of life and our families’ needs during the stressful times

of deployment.

Our researchers have really done a great job in recent years in

improving their methodologies and highlighting through publication what they have done and we have all learned from that. With-
446

out the TSNRP funding, we certainly risk valuable research that

would ultimately, in my view, impact Force Health Protection.

Senator INOUYE. General.

General BRANNON. Our Federal Nursing Services Council has

really advocated the tri-service nursing research program be a very

high priority for funding and we are disappointed that it did not

achieve funding again this year. I am concerned that if it is not

funded, we will lose the ability to conduct some of that military

specific research, some of the readiness research that civilian funding sources might find a little too narrow or too unique to fund. So,

I think its continuation enables us, as I said earlier, to forward our

military nurses science.

Senator INOUYE. I realize that you should not object to a command decision from above, but hearing from you three, we can assure you, it will be refunded fully. So if you get punished by the

Secretary of Defense, please send me a note.

UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SERVICES

Senator INOUYE. One of the matters that gives me great pride is

the success of USUHS. The retention rate of graduates of USUHS

beyond the obligatory period is higher than West Point, Annapolis

or the Air Force Academy. I think it says something about the

medical profession. What about the graduate school of nursing? Are

you having any problems in retention?

General BESTER. Sir, as I mentioned earlier, we think the world

of USUHS. We think it is key to who we are. Currently we send

all of our family nurse practitioners to graduate level education

through the USUHS program. We think they not only get a fine

education, which by the way, Senator, they score on the certification exam much higher than the national average, our graduates

coming out of USUHS.

Senator INOUYE. Almost 100 percent.

General BESTER. Yes, sir, it is 100 percent pass rate. All of the

graduates that come out of USUHS rave about the program out

there and rave about the quality of education they get. Certainly

we also use that program for our certified registered nurse anesthetists, and I am looking very much forward to the CNS program

and perioperative nursing study starting next year. We think that

USUHS provides us not only the educational base and foundation

that we need, but certainly gives us the military orientation during

that training that you just don’t get in any civilian program, so we

think it’s key to who we are.

Senator INOUYE. Do you believe that this graduate school should

be permanently funded?

General BESTER. Yes, Senator, I do.

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Senator, what’s not to like about USUHS?

They serve us well, not only in the graduate school of nursing, but

in all the other schools they have. Certainly retention is great for

the students graduating from there. I find particularly exciting

that they are able to accommodate a special need of ours this year,

and that is to start a program for our operating room nurses, a

masters degree program. I see that the opportunities at USUHS,

and what we can do in training, will enable our military members

to be even better at what they do every day. And again, with doing
447

research, looking at the needs of our patient population and then

generating programs for how we best can train not only our nurses

but all of those working in the military medicine, all the better.

The anesthesia program for nurses up there is incredible, as well

as the Nurse Practitioner Program, and I thank you for that.

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NURSING

Senator INOUYE. Do you think the graduate school of nursing

should be permanently funded.

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. How about you, General Brannon?

General BRANNON. Yes. We have 152 Air Force nurses that are

graduates of the USUHS graduate school of nursing, both family

nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and we

currently have 13 CRNAs in the program. As my counterparts have

said, they do enjoy 100 percent pass rate on certification. I think

one of the best things about the program is they really have the

flexibility to build into the curriculum current readiness education

needs and the people going through the program, particularly

CRNAs, have an opportunity for field experience and using the

equipment that they will use in the field. So they really come out

ready to go to war and ready to function in that operational as well

as a peacetime environment, and we certainly couldn’t get that

anywhere else. So, the graduates are enthusiastic, the supervisors

that they come back to are very enthusiastic, and I think retention

has been excellent.

CRNAs, however, once they finish their term of service do tend

to leave, and it’s very difficult to keep them in the numbers that

we require.

Senator INOUYE. They receive $180,000 a year on the outside.

General BRANNON. Correct, sir, and that does seem to be compelling.

We can keep them to 20-year retirement often, which is a good

thing, but very few feel the need to stay longer.

Senator INOUYE. Do you believe that the graduate school of nursing should be permanently funded?

General BRANNON. Without a doubt, sir. I think of it as an institution that has room to grow.

CIVILIAN JOINT PROGRAMS

Senator INOUYE. I have many questions I would like to submit

to you but finally, we have been receiving reports from civilian facilities, emergency rooms in hospitals, in which your nurses have

been engaged in programs with their staffs, and they are extremely

pleased and they want us to continue this. Do you think it should

be continued. General?

General BESTER. Senator, are you referring to our trauma programs?

Senator INOUYE. Yes.

General BESTER. Yes, we found those programs to be wonderful

programs and a big benefit to our forward surgical teams. We had

the program at Ben Taub in Houston and we recently moved it to

Miami. It has been an excellent program, and I know General

Peake is in frequent contact with the program down there to make
448

sure that our physicians and nursing personnel that are going

through that program are getting the kind of training that they

need, and all we are getting is positive feedback, so we are very

much in favor of that program.

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Yes, Senator, it’s really critical because

with what we do in many of our military treatment facilities, we

do not see the type of trauma cases and emergency cases that we

need to in order to better hone in on our skills. And as I explained

in my testimony, we have four programs that are ongoing and I

would like to see even more as we better connect with our civilian

counterparts. What they can do for us and with us is incredible. I

feel we have only just begun in that arena.

General BRANNON. Within our Air Force healthcare system, we

are more a network of clinics and small hospitals than large facilities. We have five medical centers and it is difficult for our people

to maintain the clinical skills critical to our readiness tasking, so

I think these civilian joint programs are imperative and they are

working very, very well. I mean, people have come back from them,

we have done some evaluation, and found they have been able to

bring their skills up to a level that is eminently deployable, sir.

Admiral LESCAVAGE. Senator, if I may also add, this is a good

place to do recruiting. We have recruited some of those people,

some of the nurses into our programs.

Senator INOUYE. Several months ago I visited an emergency

room in Los Angeles County and I believe there were just as many

military nurses there as civilian nurses, and it happened to be Saturday night so it was very very busy.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

I would like to thank all of you for your participation and your

testimony. If I may, I would like to submit a few more questions,

a little bit of homework, and if you would return your responses

to us, the record will be kept open for 2 weeks, and we would appreciate that.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO WILLIAM WINKENWERDER

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM (DHP)

Question. How can the Department assure that in fiscal year 2003 the direct care

system doesn’t suffer at the expense of the TRICARE contracts? Has the DHP fully

accounted for contractor claims (change orders, bid price adjustments, and requests

for equitable adjustment)? If not, how can the Department be sure that there is

enough money budgeted for private sector care?

Answer. The Department believes that the fiscal year 2003 DHP President’s

Budget is realistically funded, to include a 15 percent increase for pharmacy in the

direct care system. The TRICARE contracts are funded at a growth rate of 12 percent. This accounts for all currently approved change orders, bid price adjustments

and requests for equitable adjustment. The Department has implemented several

initiatives to increase oversight, improve performance and contain costs of the

health care programs. Examples are performance contracts and Military Health System (MHS) Executive Review.

Question. Is the Department suppressing any areas of the DHP budget to stay

within a given top-line amount? If so, please describe.
449

Answer. The Department is not suppressing any areas of the DHP budget to stay

within a given top-line amount. The fiscal year 2003 DHP President’s Budget represents a realistic projection of the financial requirements necessary to meet the

healthcare delivery responsibilities of the Department.

Question. A significant cost driver to the Defense Health Program budget has

been rising pharmacy costs. How does the Department plan to control costs for this

benefit, including Senior Pharmacy?

Answer. An integral factor in controlling pharmacy costs within DOD is to pursue

every opportunity to take full advantage of the Department’s access to best Federal

prices for pharmaceuticals. The pharmacy benefit structure is evolving to encourage

maximal use of Military Treatment Facilities’ pharmacies and the National Mail

Order Pharmacy (NMOP) program where the Federal prices are readily available.

In the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program, for example, over 43 percent of a

day’s supply dispensed is through the NMOP program, a result of our marketing

and education efforts to beneficiaries. Another example is an increase in the Basic

Core Formulary at our military pharmacies, providing access to a wider range of

drugs specifically targeted to the older population. Additionally, we continue to explore opportunities to partner with the Veterans’ Administration for providing pharmacy services to DOD beneficiaries, thereby providing yet another venue at Federal

prices.

On a larger scale, the recently published proposed rule to establish a DOD Uniform Formulary includes three cost control mechanisms: (1) A three tier co-pay

structure, based on the commercial best business model, provides a tool allowing

DOD to negotiate the best possible pharmaceutical prices for both beneficiaries and

the government; (2) the three tier co-pay also encourages beneficiaries to select

equally effective, less expensive medications; and (3) movement of market share

from the more costly retail network to the National Mail Order Pharmacy (NMOP)

will further generate savings for both the government and beneficiaries when beneficiaries elect to continue on non-formulary medications.

When implemented, the proposed rule will deliver a uniform, consistent, and equitable pharmacy benefit, allowing for patient choice, while optimizing resources. Cost

savings are dependent on product negotiations, beneficiary selections regarding

products and point of service, and formulary decisions made by the DOD Pharmacy

and Therapeutics Committee.

MILITARY TREATMENT FACILITIES (MTF)

Question. Is it costing taxpayers more or less to treat TRICARE For Life (TFL)

beneficiaries in the Military Treatment Facilities (MTF) where the MTFs have to

cover the full cost of care than if they receive private sector care since Medicare

pays for 80 percent of the costs and TFL is the secondary bill payer?

Answer. From the perspective of the Military Health System (MHS) budget, it

would undoubtedly cost the MHS less to treat TFL patients in the private sector

since the accrual fund pays 20 percent of the cost while Medicare pays 80 percent,

the largest portion of the cost. If care were provided to Medicare eligible patients

in MTFs, the DOD would be paying 100 percent of the care costs. Therefore, the

DOD has no economic incentive to shift greater levels of Medicare eligible care to

their MTFs.

However, the current levels of Medicare eligible patients being treated in MTFs

are necessary to present the types of cases required for military physicians and supporting staff to maintain clinical skills to meet our wartime mission. Losing this

case-mix would seriously hamper readiness and imperil our military Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs.

From the taxpayer’s perspective care in the MTFs is often less expensive than

care purchased from the private sector, when the true cost to the government is tabulated (OSD accrual fund plus Medicare).

T-NEX

Question. How much progress has been made in the development of the next generation of TRICARE contracts (T-NEX)? Furthermore, what guarantees are there to

ensure that the next generation of contracts will be an improvement over the previous round of contracts?

Answer. The Department is on a very aggressive schedule and progress is being

made. Prior to the initiation of the T-NEX activities, TMA senior management met

with representatives of the Surgeon Generals and approved an outcome based, best

practices approach to the development of the contracting structure to continue the

TRICARE program in all regions. Management approved the establishment of an

Integrated Product Team (IPT) (known as the Request for Proposal [RFP] Develop-
450

ment Team [RDT]) to develop the concepts of the new performance-based contract.

The RDT, composed of representatives from the Surgeons General, each TMA directorate and each Lead Agent, developed the government’s objectives and requirements. Interspersed between these government-only meetings were two, week-long

public forums attended by health care delivery industry representatives to include

the current TRICARE Managed Care Support contractors (MCSCs), consultants,

and TRICARE beneficiary fraternal organizations. The RDT, upon considering the

public’s input, developed a draft RFP and posted it on the TRICARE website for

comments. A third public forum was held to provide the government an opportunity

to present the concepts contained in the RFP and once again solicited the public’s

input, which again included input from the incumbent contractors.

The T-NEX contracts’ development process has greatly benefited from this public

and industry input as many of the concepts developed for a best practices approach

will be carried over into the new contracts. Our partnership with industry, to include all current TRICARE contractors, continues as evidenced by their active participation in the recent industry forums. They were held for the TRICARE Retiree

Dental Program (January 10, 2002), the TRICARE National Mail Order Pharmacy

program (September 26, 2001) and the proposed design for the contracts to replace

the MCSCs (October 25–26, 2001). These forums are invaluable as we continue to

explore industry best practices to improve on the current TRICARE contracts structure while not changing the basic structure of the program. As we continue to develop the T-NEX contracts, more public forums will be held to solicit valuable industry and incumbent contractors’ input.

It is the Department’s intention to capitalize on the lessons learned from the earlier generation of contracts and continue to make gains in customer service, quality

and access to care, and economize where industry best practices can improve the

status quo. In addition, the requirements being developed for T-NEX are less prescriptive and outcome-based (versus procedural) and carry with them incentives for

superior performance and service.

Question. When will the Department be releasing the request for proposals for TNEX, and what is the timeline for contract award and start dates?

Answer. We do not have definite timelines for the healthcare/admin RFPs at this

time as we are still in the process of developing requirements. In addition, significant contract related decisions have not been finalized. Once these key decisions

have been made we will be able to develop timelines.

MEDICAL EXPENSE AND PERFORMANCE REPORTING SYSTEM (MEPRS)

Question. The Medical Expense and Performance Reporting System (MEPRS) is

being used as a basis for calculating the amounts to be transferred to the accrual

fund. What are you doing to improve the reliability of the cost and patient care information in MEPRS?

Answer. The TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) has established the MEPRS

Management Improvement Group (MMIG), a joint Service and TMA workgroup

chartered to develop, implement and manage MEPRS policies and procedures. This

includes integrating the collection, processing and reporting of standard workload,

financial and labor data in the Expense Assignment System (EAS). The MMIG has

developed a MEPRS Management Improvement Plan, through which it has implemented several recent initiatives designed to improve data quality:

Workload and Financial Reconciliation Data.—Quality assessment tools for workload and financial reconciliation have been developed and deployed. These tools provide standard audit processes that identify and explain variations and provide crosswalks between data collected in source systems and data reported in MEPRS to ensure data quality. Each Service medical department has published a financial reconciliation procedure that must be used as part of the Military Health System

(MHS) Data Quality Management Control Program.

MEPRS Early Warning and Control System (MEWACS).—The fielding of Early

Warning System IV (EAS-IV) in fiscal year 2002 has dramatically decreased the

time required for Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) to review and submit their

monthly MEPRS data reports, so that virtually all MTFs are now able to submit

their data within 45 days after the end of the month. To capitalize on the availability of more timely data, TMA has developed a new tool that automates many

analytical functions for MTF review. MEWACS is a web-enabled interactive automated Microsoft Excel workbook that provides timely, reliable and relevant MEPRS

data feedback (in both tabular and graphical formats) to each MTF, proactively

identifying data anomalies in sufficient time to make appropriate corrections. To

complement this process, the TMA staff analyzes regional, Service and MHS-wide

data to detect trends and assists MTF personnel in detailed analyses and in cor-
451

recting root causes of data errors. An updated MEWACS workbook is posted monthly on the TMA web site.

MEPRS Application and Data Improvement Workshops.—TMA has developed and

implemented an improved MEPRS education and training program targeting personnel responsible for data management and reporting. This hands-on course focuses on proper interpretation and application of MEPRS data, and provides a detailed understanding of the enhanced capabilities of the EAS-IV Data Repository.

Feedback from participants in the first three iterations of these workshops has been

extremely positive.

Question. To better determine the costs associated with TRICARE For Life, how

is the Department tracking the utilization rates for the Medicare-eligible beneficiaries for care obtained at the MTF as well as care obtained in the civilian health

care system?

Answer. The Department is able to directly measure utilization of purchased civilian health services for TRICARE For Life (TFL) because purchased care TFL claims

records are explicitly coded as TFL claims. For utilization of TFL services in the Direct Care system, the Department is currently using utilization rates for all age 65

and over beneficiaries. This is an approximate approach. It gives a slightly high estimate because it includes the workload of a relatively small number of age 65 and

over beneficiaries that are not eligible for TFL (a small number of age 65 and over

beneficiaries never became eligible for Medicare). The Department is currently making changes in its automated systems so that it can reliably distinguish TFL-eligible

from TRICARE-eligible age 65 and over beneficiaries in MTF workload data.

Question. The improvement of information technology compatibility and the establishment of an interoperable electronic patient record system are priorities both internal to DOD and between DOD and VA. When will these systems be operational?

Answer. DOD strongly supports the need for appropriate sharing of electronic

health information across federal agencies and is committed to ensuring that VA

has the information required to provide continuity of care and benefit eligibility determinations for eligible veterans. The Composite Health Care System II (CHCS II)

is the DOD medical and dental clinical information system that will generate and

maintain a comprehensive, life-long, Computer-based Patient Record (CPR) for each

Military Health System beneficiary. The Military CPR will ensure complete and

standardized medical records will be available 24 hours a day anywhere in the

world throughout the Service member’s DOD life cycle. CHCS II is currently undergoing user testing and formal DOD operational test and evaluation. Worldwide fielding of CHCS II is expected to begin in the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. This

effort will meet the DOD and VA long-term information sharing objectives.

For near-term information sharing, DOD and VA have collaborated extensively to

deliver a technical solution using the Federal Health Information Exchange (FHIE),

formerly known as Government Computer-based Patient Record (GCPR), an interface between DOD’s CHCS I and Veterans Health Information Systems and Technical Architecture (VistA). DOD has transmitted protected health information from

approximately 3.75 million records on 1.8 million retired and separated service

members to VA. DOD will continue to transmit protected health information to VA

on a monthly basis. The Memorandum of Agreement and High Level Planning Document addressing the governance of the FHIE initiative and other interagency initiatives that may arise in the future was signed May 3, 2002. VA has successfully

completed testing. Enterprise-wide use of the FHIE within VA is anticipated to

begin late in the third quarter of fiscal year 2002.

Question. To what extent does the fiscal year 2003 budget request reflect savings

due to joint ventures with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)? What opportunities exist in the out years for additional savings due to joint ventures?

Answer. Any operating costs the Department of Defense (DOD) is able to avoid

through its joint ventures with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) certainly

has a positive effect on the Defense Health Program budget. However, there is no

system in place that reports a specific amount of the operating cost of each joint

venture that would have been greater if the joint venture did not exist. Significantly, each joint venture model resulted from new construction and operates somewhat differently than all others. Additionally, in all but one, DOD is the host. That

means that VA took advantage of DOD’s new construction needs to plan for their

requirements in the new facility. The economies of scale unquestionably benefit both

Departments. Most importantly for DOD, VA staff augments DOD’s medical capability resulting from skill shortages or deployments. However, other benefits to DOD

would not show up in the budget. For example, military surgeons performing surgery on both DOD and VA beneficiaries are able to maintain combat-related skills

that would otherwise be difficult to achieve. While these are not identified as budget
452

line items, they are indirectly taken into consideration by the Services in their annual budget formulations.

Opportunities exist wherever there are DOD and VA facilities near each other,

or for that matter where there is a military mission and adequate numbers of veterans and military beneficiaries to justify a jointly operated medical facility. The

joint ventures have typically resulted from both agencies coordinating their health

care needs and integrating their requirements in well planned-out economically

based joint operations.

DEFENSE ENROLLMENT ELIGIBILITY REPORTING SYSTEM (DEERS)

Question. Since accurate budgeting is dependent on knowing the user population,

what is the Department doing to ensure that the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) accurately reflects the eligible population?

Answer. The Defense Management Data Center (DMDC) has worked closely with

the Services for many years to improve the quality of the data that is found in

DEERS. The Services have made major strides and more are expected.

DMDC meets with the Service representatives several times a year for a working

level discussion of issues and requirements. Concentration is on accessions, separations, unit changes and promotions/demotions. The Air Force, previously the most

timely, used to provide transactions every other day for these four actions. However,

since June 1, 2001, the Air Force has had serious data processing difficulties. In

April 2002, DMDC sent a team to San Antonio to review the problems and re-emphasize the need for timely and accurate data. The Air Force is doing everything

it can to resolve the issue. Other Services are making internal changes to support

more frequent submissions to DMDC.

DMDC edits transactions from the Services and provides extensive reports back

to the Services reflecting quality of specific data elements in addition to late or lacking accessions/separations etc. Moreover, DMDC has formed a quality assurance

team to specifically identify and implement additional quality assurance techniques

to further the improvement of the data quality within DEERS.

RAPIDS (the ID card application) has been modified to more tightly control the

adding of uniformed Service members, even when documentation reflects they are

entitled. Policy now requires all but very junior grades be added to DEERS via the

official personnel system. Analysis had revealed that most of the additions of more

senior personnel were due to SSN/Name issues needing resolution within the personnel system. The need for ID cards for our junior members and the lack of true

real-time Service feeds to DEERS makes it necessary to still allow the adding of

new recruits. Updates to the RAPIDS application continue to add more stringent

edits, related to the adding/changing of family members. A Joint Service User’s

Manual is reviewed on a regular basis with a special three day annual meeting totally devoted to this document.

Each Service has a Personnel and a Medical Project Officer to represent them to

discuss DEERS and RAPIDS issues. This group meets four times a year to discuss

new requirements, data quality issues, and other issues. DMDC not only attends all

of these sessions but provides extensive support to the group.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY (AFIP)

Question. Over the past decade, there have been at least four separate studies undertaken to investigate potential solutions for AFIP’s facilities problems, with no results. Is there still a need for new AFIP facilities?

Answer. The need for appropriate facilities for the AFIP is clear. At present the

AFIP is housed in nine buildings in five locations throughout the District of Columbia and neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland. Its facilities are scattered and

largely obsolete. Many of them are leased commercial properties with insufficient

security.

The need for new and/or renovated facilities first surfaced in 1990, when the

Army Surgeon General recommended that a new AFIP facility be located on the

campus of the National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda, MD). There it could complement the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Armed Forces

Radiobiology Research Institute, Howard Hughes Institute, National Library of

Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health. An architectural engineering study

by the Engineering Field Activity-Chesapeake concluded that the AFIP’s main facility (Building 54 of Walter Reed Army Medical Center) was obsolete and that a move

to Bethesda was feasible.
453

In 1996–97, three independent studies conducted by architectural and engineering

consultants examined Building 54 and found serious life-safety issues. All three recommended extensive immediate renovation of the facilities for continued short-term

clinical and laboratory use.

Since 1998, the scope and missions of AFIP have been under continuous study and review. The Army Medical Command provided a total of $17 million of Operations and Maintenance funds in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to upgrade Institute systems to minimal standards. Most recently, the Army Medical Command was provided $25 million in fiscal year 2002 to continue repair of the facility.

In an fiscal year 2000 report to Congress, the ASD(HA) confirmed the need for

620,000 square feet of modern space for AFIP (composed of administrative, clinical,

laboratory and laboratory support space) and that the best economical solution to

the AFIP facilities issue was new construction.

Question. Please describe in detail the various roles that the AFIP plays in national security. In light of the events of September 11, do the current facilities adequately meet the intensified demands on the AFIP? How has the AFIP’s workload

increased since September 11?

Answer. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) supports the Department’s readiness mission. AFIP is a designated reference laboratory for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Several other federal

agencies also routinely use AFIP for consultation, education, and research. The

AFIP is unique within DOD in that it is the only laboratory that combines both the

research and clinical aspects of healthcare, allowing it to include clinical consultation and correlation in its assessment of healthcare problems.

Specific categories of AFIP’s national readiness roles include:

1. CBRNE (Chem/Bio/Radiation/Nuclear/Explosives) Role:

—Development of ‘‘fingerprint’’ identification of CBRNE threats which would facilitate rapid identification and characterization of threats as well as mass

screening of personnel who might have been exposed to such a threat agent.

—Interaction with the Global Emerging Infection Surveillance System (GEISS),

which is a linked global public health surveillance system that facilitates early

detection of illnesses that could be the result of bioterrorism.

2. Environmental Pathology: AFIP’s unique capabilities in the area of environmental pathology are critical in assessment of heavy metals toxicity, chemical

threats, and radiation illness, all of which are potential terrorist weapons.

3. Armed Forces Medical Examiner (AFME): The AFME provides support to

armed forces throughout the world. The staff in the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner (OAFME) is routinely called upon to investigate deaths of military

personnel whether or not these incidents are combat related. The staff was also

called upon to investigate the deaths that occurred at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The facilities at AFIP are inadequate for some of the examinations that are required in support of national security. AFIP’s Bio Safety Level 3 laboratory is currently undergoing upgrades to meet the strict standards of the CDC’s Laboratory

Response Network for the handling of potential biothreat agents.

Question. Why does the fiscal year 2003 budget not include funding for new AFIP

facilities if the need is so great and long overdue?

Answer. The Department is currently evaluating options to address this long-term

need. In the meantime, efforts are ongoing to upgrade the existing facility using Defense Health Program Operations and Maintenance funds. While a series of repair

projects to the existing laboratory enables continuation of mission functions, it does

not solve the long-term problem of providing AFIP with modern and sufficient laboratory space.

Question. If the AFIP is not high enough on the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

priority list for funding, is there merit to considering transferring the responsibility

of the AFIP, or certain functions of the agency, from the DOD to another federal

office or agency? If so, what agencies might be best suited to assume AFIP functions? Which AFIP functions should remain at DOD?

Answer. Throughout its long history, AFIP has provided outstanding support to

DOD, other federal agencies, and to civilian medicine throughout the world. One of

the main reasons that AFIP has been able to succeed at its mission is because of

the institutional, intellectual, and scientific synergy that characterizes the organization. AFIP’s success is attributed to its three integrated missions of research, clinical medicine, and education. AFIP also has a tremendously rich repository of rare

and interesting cases that allows current pathologists to draw on the expertise of

those before them.

Regardless of AFIP’s organizational placement, DOD will continue to require its

services, such as support from the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner.
454

At this time the Department is evaluating options for the future of AFIP. A study

that is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002 will assist us in clearly understanding

both the future requirements for AFIP and alternatives for its financing and operation.

Question. Is it imperative that all functions of the AFIP be in one location?

Answer. It is not imperative that all functions of the AFIP be in one physical

structure. The current requirement cites a need for a new research/clinical facility

of 420,000 square feet, the renovation of the existing building (Building 54), and

continued use of Building 53 and the two AFIP tissue repositories at Forest Glen

Annex. This plan consolidates AFIP functions on the Walter Reed Army Medical

Center (WRAMC) campus and the Forest Glen annex.

The bulk of the Institute’s consultation (100,000 cases annually), education

(500,000 hours), and research requires multiple components of the Institute for coordination and mission completion. Before a diagnosis is rendered, several departments review most AFIP cases. The Institute by nature is a synergistic organization. It is possible, but less than optimal, for certain functions, such as the DNA

Repository and Tissue Repository, to be remotely located. This geographic separation would be at a cost in terms of timely mission response; additional site management, security, force protection and staffing; increased costs associated with specimen shipping and handling; and increased risk to specimen damage during transit.

Geographic proximity to collaborative partners provides a valuable clinical and research nexus for AFIP. Partners include the National Institutes of Health, National

Library of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter

Reed Army Institute of Research, National Naval Medical Center, Walter Reed

Army Medical Center (WRAMC), George Washington, Georgetown, Howard, and

American Universities. Their criteria for one location include:

—Immediate need to consolidate operations into a single complex or closely located compounds

—Proximity to other federal medical research organizations and collaborative

partners

—Availability of world-renowned professional staff

—Relative costs incurred by relocating to other sites.

Question. The report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 Military Construction Appropriations Bill includes language directing the DOD to undertake an assessment

of alternate locations in lower cost regions within the Mid-Atlantic area. In conducting its assessment, DOD was instructed to take into account regional facilities

that could provide research, medical, DNA analysis, forensic, and biometric support

to the Institute. What is the status of the Army’s efforts to satisfy this language?

What sites have been examined thus far and what sites will be examined in the future? Please provide an assessment of each site reviewed, along with the associated

estimated costs, that comport with the fiscal year 2002 language.

Answer. Following direction in the committee report to undertake an assessment

of alternate locations in the Mid-Atlantic area, the Department received additional

communication from Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, requesting consideration of other locations in West Virginia to determine

the feasibility of relocating AFIP. Four locations were visited by members of Senator

Byrd’s staff, the Army staff, the U.S. Army Health Facility Planning Agency

(HFPA), and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). These locations were

determined to have potential as relocation sites for AFIP. Estimated construction

cost for relocating to West Virginia was in excess of $505 million due to the requirement to provide not only the laboratory and its supporting facilities but all requisite

support facilities on an installation.

Sites with facilities capable of providing research, medical, DNA analysis, forensic, and biometric support to AFIP, located in the Mid-Atlantic region from New

York to Georgia, are also being assessed. A report is being completed by the Office

of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) that complies with the direction to undertake an assessment of alternate locations. This report will be forwarded

to the committee upon completion.

Question. In fiscal year 2002, $25 million was provided for certain renovations at

the current AFIP facilities. Please describe how these funds are to be expended. Will

these renovations eliminate the need for new facilities for the AFIP, or is the funding intended as a Band-Aid solution? Do the renovations necessitate the relocation

of AFIP employees to alternate site? If so, how many will be relocated, and to

where? Will these relocations be temporary or permanent?

Answer. These funds will be utilized to renovate a portion of the building for

AFIP’s Department of Microbiology, which focuses on the development of rapid molecular diagnostics for bio-warfare agents. The renovation will include the construction of an additional Bio-safety Level 3 laboratory suite. In addition, renovations
455

will provide laboratories for the remainder of the Division of Geographic Infectious

and Parasitic Diseases Pathology and the Departments of Environmental and

Toxicologic Pathology and Cardiovascular Pathology.

During the anticipated two years of renovation, AFIP plans to use temporary laboratory and administrative spaces within its facilities on the Walter Reed campus

and at off-site locations. Current transition planning calls for approximately 150

personnel to occupy temporary and leased laboratory and support facilities in Maryland during this timeframe. While the investment in repair is significant, the Department acknowledges that repair does not obviate the future need for a new facility.

Question. In a letter dated February 1, 2002, the Secretary of the Army informed

me that ‘‘Questions regarding facility solutions for the AFIP have led to a comprehensive analysis by the DOD of the best and future structure and functions of

the Institute. Once this study is completed, the precise long-term facility needs of

the AFIP can be addressed.’’ When will this study be completed and do you believe

that this study will yield results given that the previous four studies did not? I

would like to be kept informed of developments related to the AFIP, and I would

appreciate receiving a copy of the study, which I hope can be expedited, to assist

in determining ways in which the Appropriations Committee might be able to help

the AFIP achieve its goals.

Answer. The Department is currently conducting an organizational and functional

assessment of the AFIP. The study is scheduled for completion in fall 2002. This

work will provide an assessment of AFIP’s mission, essential functional requirements, financial operations, and mission staffing. It will allow the Department to

better define what new or recapitalized facilities are required to support AFIP’s mission. A copy of these findings will be provided to the committee upon completion

of the study.

Question. Does the AFIP need to be co-located with the Walter Reed Army Medical Center? If so, please explain why?

Answer. Long-standing associations with all federal medicine resources in Washington, D.C. and with many civilian medicine activities make the Walter Reed campus and the current support provided by the Army a natural fit for AFIP. The Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) and its campus are the flagship of Army

Medicine. Its long history is linked to both the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and the AFIP. These three institutions comprise part of a synergistic federal medical reference center and campus. The AFIP has been on the

grounds since 1955 and has enjoyed a consultative, educational, and research relationship with the hospital since 1909.

There are five approved American College of Graduate Medical Education

(ACGME) pathology subspecialty residencies at AFIP: forensic pathology,

dermatopathology, hematopathology, neuropathology and pulmonary. These support

their respective clinical services of dermatology, hematology, neurology and psychiatry, and pulmonary medicine. Many WRAMC clinical specialties, particularly surgical subspecialties, use AFIP resources extensively for clinical rotations, clinicopathology correlations, applied research, and education/training needs. The AFIP is

also part of the pathology residency program at WRAMC and National Naval Medical Center (NNMC)-Bethesda, with important rotations in telemedicine and molecular diagnostics as well as system-based pathology services.

The AFIP has unique ties to clinical specialties like urology and gynecology. In

the Department of Urology, the AFIP provides pathology services for the Congressionally directed Prostate Disease Research Center and the Nephrology Service (kidney biopsies). The Institute also supports WRAMC’s Comprehensive Breast Cancer

Program as well as the U.S. Military Cancer Institute. Specialized AFIP tissue registries, such as the Persian Gulf Illness (PGI) registry, are linked to WRAMC clinical services specifically in gastroenterology (Hepatitis C), urology (sperm morphology), and the Persian Gulf Illness (PGI) evaluation center. Continuing investigations in PGI linked to infectious processes are pursued with the AFIP’s Department

of Geographic and Infectious Parasitic Diseases. The AFIP also maintains a Laboratory Animal Medicine facility and actively supports WRAMC approved research protocols, many of which requiring pathology support.

Many AFIP staff, particularly military, holds appointments and clinical privileges

at WRAMC and NNMC. AFIP staff provides on-going clinical, pathology and radiology services. Medical students, pathology, and clinical service residents and fellows rotate through specialized system-based departments of the AFIP.
456

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

TRICARE

Question. Secretary Winkenwerder, I understand that the Department of Defense

may be reducing the number of TRICARE regions from twelve to as few as three.

Would you please explain the logic of this consolidation of regions?

Answer. By realigning the regional structure, we look to reduce TRICARE administration burdens by reducing the number of contract change orders, eliminating redundant contractor overhead costs, and decreasing the number of contracts to monitor. We are also looking at minimizing disruption of the beneficiary and provider

communities during transitions between regions; and lessening jurisdictional issues

and regional differences.

We expect to finish our analysis and decide on whether or not to change the current number of TRICARE regions prior to the end of the fiscal year.

Question. What is the Department of Defense’s time frame for solicitation of next

generation TRICARE contracts? When do you anticipate beginning your consultations with Congress on this issue?

Answer. We do not have definite timelines for the healthcare/admin RFPs at this

time as we are still in the process of developing requirements. In addition, significant contract related decisions have not been finalized. Once these key decisions

have been made we will be able to develop timelines.

We have developed a communication plan that incorporates contact with all stakeholders in a logical pattern, and at an appropriate level, so no one is left out of the

decisional, coordination, or information processes associated with such a high interest Department endeavor. We have opted to be as open as our procurement security

plan allows. Attached is an illustration of how we intend to execute our plan.

Question. I understand that you intend to remove the pharmacy benefit from

managed care support contracts and begin purchasing pharmacy benefits through

a national stand-alone contract. How much money do you anticipate that this action

will save? How did you arrive at your calculations?

Answer. The rationale behind consolidating the current multiple managed care

support retail network contracts under one contract is based on management and

control principles not possible under the current scenario. Advantages of consolidation include reduced administrative costs through centralized pharmacy claims processing and customer service. It will also resolve portability problems in the current

retail network benefit. Consolidation will permit uniformity in policy implementation by reducing the risk of multiple interpretation and will allow centralized government controlled formulary management. Disadvantages to the government are

few and relate primarily to the risk of relying on a single contractor.

Question. What do you believe the greatest advantage restructuring of the pharmacy program will be?

Answer. The greatest advantage will be the unprecedented capability of providing

management oversight to what has previously been a fragmented, disparate benefit

by using tools such as the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service and the Uniform Formulary provided by previous legislation. A streamlined, integrated operational

structure will enable TMA to effectively manage the benefit that currently operates

in a multi-layered, inefficient configuration proven to consume significant resources

in both time and money. Most importantly it enables DOD to structure a pharmacy

program to uniformly provide appropriate drug therapy to meet patients’ clinical

needs in an effective, efficient, and fiscally responsible manner.

Question. The fiscal year 2002 Senate Appropriations report included language

which urges the President to appoint a multi-agency, secretarial level task force as

part of the National Prion Research Project. To your knowledge, has this task force

been appointed, and if so, who are the members?

Answer. To my knowledge, the President has not appointed this task force. However, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has established an interdepartmental Steering Committee for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy/Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE/TSE) Affairs. The committee assures ongoing coordination between agencies and integrates contingency planning in case

BSE or Variant Creatzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) is found in the United States.

Moreover, the committee identifies and responds to potential BSE and vCJD

vulnerabilities in the United States. Finally, it is responsible for coordinating the

risk communication plans of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), CDC, NIH,

USDA, Customs Service, State and Defense departments, State Association of Feed

Control Officials, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
457

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

JOINT VENTURE HOSPITALS

Question. Assistant Secretary Winkenwerder, as I noted in my opening remarks,

the idea of joint civilian/military hospitals has thrived in the Air Force community

of Alamogordo, New Mexico.

Not only has this concept produced significant cost savings, it has led to increased

efficiency in the administration of services, as well.

Does the Department of Defense have a plan to seek broader application of this

joint venture arrangement in military communities throughout the country?

Answer. The Department of Defense has included in its DOD/VA sharing objectives a plan to create a joint planning capability to assist in assessing our mutual

needs for the future. This would include determining if and where joint ventures

would be effective in the future. Possible joint ventures are being reviewed by one

of the DOD/VA Executive Council Work Groups on joint utilization of facilities.

Question. Would it make sense to assemble a set of criteria against which hospitals in military communities could be assessed for determining whether such joint

ventures might work for them?

Answer. Yes. At the very least, DOD should include the VA in regional business

plan development and long term facility planning. DOD capabilities should also be

included in the VA Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Program process.

Question. Could you provide me with an update on the status of the DOD-VA hospital partnership at Kirtland Air Force Base? Do you foresee any significant changes

in the working arrangement that exists between these agencies?

Answer. We consider the federal facility at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, New

Mexico, to be our most mature joint venture. This joint venture, which has been in

full operation since 1987, has adapted itself to dramatically changing circumstances

associated with the Air Force’s personnel reductions. Originally, the Air Force operated a full wing in the federal facility, as well as a health care clinic and a dental

clinic adjacent to the facility. Personnel reductions left it unable to staff its own

medical unit in the hospital. Both sides of the joint venture overcame that situation

and a healthy relationship exists with the Air Force buying its beds from VA. The

ability of both sides to adapt to such changes is testimony to the quality of the leadership and the sound business relationship that is present at the federal facility at

Kirtland AFB. A number of recent visitors there have commented on the positive

climate that exists there.

RETENTION/TRICARE

Question. Assistant Secretary, I noted in your testimony that recruitment of Military Medical Personnel is one of the top priorities you have listed for transforming

the Military Health System into a first-rate system.

It has come to my attention that one of the military hospitals in my state has

been trying to recruit a neurosurgeon for nearly one-and-a-half years, to no avail.

Could you speak to this problem in general terms?

Answer. The Air Force operates medical treatment facilities in New Mexico. The

Air Force indicates they are not recruiting for a neurosurgeon for their New Mexico

facilities. However, the Veterans Administration Hospital in Albuquerque indicates

they have been actively recruiting for a neurosurgeon for over a year.

The Military Health System (MHS) depends on clinically competent, highly qualified, professionally satisfied military medical personnel. In developing the MHS

human resource plan, we have begun several initiatives to analyze retention rates

and the reasons medical professionals choose to stay in or leave the Service.

At the request of Congress, the Department of Defense commissioned a study by

the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) to examine pay gaps, retention projections,

and the relationship between pay and retention. We acknowledge the significance

of the findings. The CNA study shows a relationship between pay and retention—

although it points out that there are factors other than pay that affect retention.

A typical military physician—for example, a general surgeon with 7 years of service—receives one-half of his or her income in incentive pays. While base pay and

other components which make up the remaining half of total compensation have

been increasing recently, the incentive pays have not kept up with changes in the

civilian community. Several physician specialties are at their maximum rates allowed under current authority. CNA estimates the pay gap for a surgeon is currently $137,000, or 47 percent. The challenges of military service can be unique and

tremendously rewarding personally and professionally. We know that financial compensation is not the sole determinant of a medical professional’s decision about
458

whether to enter or remain in the Service. We can never expect to close the pay

gap completely. However, we are concerned by the CNA findings and are analyzing

them now. Incentives to optimize our ability to shape military medical staff size and

mix with appropriate experience levels are critical to meeting our mission requirements.

Question. Secondly, please give us a sense of how you will tackle this problem?

What are the prospects for success?

Answer. The Department is currently evaluating the leveling of specialties where

imbalances exist between Services’ manning levels. We are expanding our use of the

Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) to include using it to retain

highly qualified professionals who already serve on active duty. Use is currently limited to those who did not participate in the Armed Forces’ Health Professions’ Scholarship/Financial Assistance Program—removal of this prohibition would improve the

program’s effectiveness as a retention incentive.

The Department is maximizing use of currently authorized incentives in our efforts to optimize the accession and retention of appropriate personnel to meet mission requirements. We agree with the Center for Naval Analyses’ finding that it is

important to simplify the health professions’ incentives authority to place more

management authority within the Department. The rapid pace of change in the civilian healthcare personnel market, which competes directly with our military accession and retention initiatives, requires flexibility in the management of incentives

for optimum effectiveness.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION (FHP)

Question. After our experience in the Persian Gulf, it is clear that we have a ways

to go when it comes to force health protection. When I reviewed your statement, I

was pleased to read of the new and innovative programs that have been initiated.

However, I am not so sure that we are conducting enough research. It has been over

ten years since Desert Storm, and yet we still have to convene special research advisory committees to try to get to the bottom of Gulf War Illness. Would you please

highlight DOD’s current efforts in this area?

Answer. Gulf War veterans who suffer from fatigue, memory loss, muscle and

joint pain, difficulty sleeping and a myriad of other symptoms need effective treatments. I agree that research has not yet provided complete and satisfactory answers

for those of our Gulf War veterans with chronic multi-symptom illnesses. There are,

however, many excellent federal and private sector medical research facilities

throughout this country, working to understand the chemistry, physiology, causes

and possible treatments of these frustrating chronic multi-symptom illnesses.

The Department of Defense remains actively involved with the Departments of

Veterans Affairs (VA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) in funding a comprehensive spectrum of research proposals. The proposals have been given high

marks for scientific merit by independent scientific review panels and complement

or complete research which has already been funded and initiated and/or finished.

Currently that program is funding studies on low level chemical exposures relevant

to Gulf War veterans and is initiating new projects in risk communication research,

neurobiology of stress, immune function, deployment toxicology methods and force

health protection epidemiology. Moreover, continued programs on health behaviors

intervention research are promising. The DOD Deployment Health Research Center

is continuing work with the VA on the Millennium Cohort Study, the Recruit Assessment Program and the deployment health assessments. Finally, with money

added by the Congress, peer-reviewed projects on Gulf War illnesses diagnostic criteria at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and on comparative

studies of chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia at Georgetown University are

being negotiated for continued efforts. DOD is committed to continue support for a

research program designed to assess and understand the health effects which have

been recognized after the Gulf War and other military actions.

TRICARE

Question. I am growing very concerned about the increasing number of letters I

am receiving from health professionals in Texas that have decided not to participate

in TRICARE. What can we do to stem this tide? Do we need to look at reimbursement rates? How can the reimbursement process be accelerated?

Answer. Over time, providers choose to participate or not participate. Our most

recent data shows that Texas has an average participation rate of 97 percent. This
459

is equal to the national average participation rate. The participation rate in Texas

has remained fairly constant. It is noted that as some providers go from participating providers to non-participating providers others decide to participate with

TRICARE. Although individual provider’s participation status can change, the average participation rate for Texas has remained constant. The TRICARE networks in

Texas continue to meet the program’s standards with no deficiencies. TRICARE is

not aware of any specific areas of the state where there is a participation problem

either caused by reimbursement rates or some other factor.

The relationship of DOD payment levels to Medicare’s for institutional and professional health care services is central to the ongoing success of TRICARE. However,

TRICARE beneficiary access to care is severely impaired in some locations because

providers in remote areas refuse to become CHAMPUS authorized or participating

providers and demand payment in advance from patients. Providers cite low reimbursement as their main rationale for denying access to care for our beneficiaries.

Congress has given the Department the authority to adjust reimbursement rates

to assure access to health care services for our active duty members and eligible

beneficiaries. Improvements include the enactment of Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 716 authorizes higher provider reimbursement

rates than normally allowable) and Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 757 authorizes the establishment of special locality-based reimbursement rates). These provisions allow the Department to increase reimbursement rates to the market level for specific services for providers not in the network,

and pay a provider up to 115 percent of TRICARE Maximum Allowable Charges

(TMAC) to be in a network. The final rule implementing these provisions was published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2001. TMA is considering requests on

a case-by-case basis.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)

Question. I am aware that there is great concern in the Pentagon regarding the

threat posed by biological weapons. Many in the Congress had anticipated that

DOD’s fiscal year 2003 budget submission would contain the down payment for the

construction of a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) vaccine production

facility. Regrettably, the Department’s initiative has stalled. Instead of measurable

progress, I understand DOD has now convinced HHS to consider paying for the facility. Do you believe that HHS is going to build a vaccine production facility whose

laboratory space would be dominated by the production of DOD-specific vaccines?

Answer. DOD and HHS are continuing to work together identifying requirements

for vaccines that address unique military requirements and the larger need for public heath vaccines. Each Department will need to identify resources necessary to

meet their needs. If a dedicated facility is needed to meet national requirements,

it is expected that multiple agencies will share the cost to construct and operate

such a facility.

DOD/VA COOPERATION

Question. What measurable progress has been made in terms of DOD/VA cooperation?

Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. MacKay, and the Under

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. Chu, have developed an excellent cooperative and collaborative relationship. They have established two councils, one for health matters and another for benefits. The health council is co-chaired

by Dr. Roswell and myself. The members of the council are the senior health care

leadership within the respective Departments. We meet every other month. We

meet with Dr. MacKay and Dr. Chu on a quarterly basis to advise them of our

progress in accomplishing their initiatives. This unquestionably demonstrates our

mutual commitment to improving inter-departmental cooperation at all levels. Moreover, I have listed some outcomes of our mutual commitment below:

—Community-Based Clinics (CBOC) Program.—VA Medical Centers (VAMC) occupy clinic space provided by military facilities as a part of VA’s CBOC program. For example, Louisville, Kentucky, VA Medical Center, manages three of

Fort Knox’s four primary care clinics. VA provides a broad range of services to

support these clinics including: primary care, urology, orthopedics, women’s

clinic, podiatry, audiology, psychiatric, MRI and other radiology, medical library

and orthotic laboratory services. VA’s clinic at Fort Knox recorded over 10,000

unique visits for the year. The Army provides space for the clinic, provides

equipment, and prescription services. The VAMC is approximately 47 miles

from Fort Knox.
460

—Allergen Extracts.—The Walter Reed/U.S. Army Allergen Extract Laboratory,

Washington, D.C., (USACAEL) provides delivery of diagnostic and therapeutic

allergen extracts to 29 VA medical centers and outpatient allergy clinics. This

agreement facilitates the treatment of 1,800 veterans per year with allergy injection therapy for allergic diseases such as insect venom anaphylaxis, asthma,

and allergic rhinitis. In addition, it is estimated that, over 18,000 veterans are

evaluated for allergic diseases annually using these high quality diagnostic allergen extracts. VA covers the costs of personnel, supplies, and equipment. VA

benefits from the high quality services of USACAEL, which is one of the largest

suppliers of therapeutic and diagnostic allergen extracts in the world, and from

the economies of scale offered by participation in the program.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GENERAL JAMES B. PEAKE

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

THIRD PARTY COLLECTION PROGRAM (TPCP)

Question. The military treatment facilities (MTFs) bill third party insurance companies for those beneficiaries who carry other health insurance. What are the Services doing to ensure that all reimbursable care is being billed?

Answer. The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) manages the most successful

TPCP in the Department of Defense (DOD), collecting nearly 45 percent of the total

DOD TPCP collections. For fiscal year 2001, we collected a greater percentage of the

amount billed (43 percent) than DOD as a whole (35 percent), than the Air Force

(31 percent), and than the Navy (30 percent). Variability of this metric across our

like MTFs for fiscal year 2001, expressed as a range, is as follows: Medical Centers,

33 to 41 percent; large Medical Department Activities (MEDDACs), 30 to 51 percent;

MEDDACs, 24 to 52 percent; OCONUS inpatient MTFs, 21 to 52 percent; and

Health Clinics, 24 to 45 percent. Continuous improvement of the program includes

the following actions in the concerted effort to bill for all reimbursable care.

All Services will be transitioning from an all-inclusive to an itemized billing methodology for outpatient services by the end of fiscal year 2002, and for inpatient services by the end of fiscal year 2003. The shift to an itemized billing methodology will

increase acceptance of our claims by insurers through meeting their edit requirements and will facilitate full implementation of electronic billing. The result will be

an increase in collections as a percent of amount billed, and a reduction in payment

turn-around time, improving cash flow.

With the transition to itemized billing, all Services will be standardizing other

health insurance (OHI) and insurance company names and addresses between the

Composite Health Care System and the Third Party Outpatient Collection System.

Standardization of this information between automation systems ensures accuracy,

leading to more efficient and effective billing, increasing collections.

Implementing lessons learned from the TPCP Business Process Reengineering

(BPR) demonstration conducted in TRICARE Region 3, resulting in improved identification of OHI, facilitating increased billing and collections. The AMEDD Uniform

Business Office (UBO) has disseminated to MTFs performance measurement standards for outpatient itemized billing, which are based on the TPCP BPR metrics.

Requiring development and implementation of MTF UBO compliance plans, which

include procedures to ensure compliance with DOD and industry coding and billing

standards.

Documenting and disseminating best business practices identified by MTFs for

improving billing and collections. A few of our other MTFs that have identified these

best business practices, that we have disseminated for consideration by other MTFs,

are: William Beaumont Army Medical Center (placing an employee or volunteer in

the outpatient pharmacy to obtain/update insurance information from beneficiaries

while they wait for their prescriptions to be filled); Irwin Army Community Hospital

(mass mailing of the TPCP Insurance Information form to all known non-active duty

beneficiaries in the catchment area, requesting they fill it out and return); Walter

Reed Army Medical Center (request from the local Civilian Personnel Office a list

of civilian employees that are also retirees/family members enrolled in the Federal

Employees Health Benefits Program).

FACILITY CAPACITY AND COST

Question. Is data available on the number of instances in which beneficiaries have

not been able to obtain care at a Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) and were re-
461

ferred to the civilian network due to medical personnel shortages. If so, what additional costs were incurred.

Answer. While our data systems do not allow us to query referrals caused specifically by manpower shortages, they do allow us to estimate the cost of insufficient

capacity at our MTFs. In fiscal year 2001, 9 percent of the outpatient visits and 15

percent of the inpatient dispositions required by patients enrolled to Army MTFs

were sent to the network for a total cost paid of $251,696,358.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

OUTCOMES MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE

Question. General Peake, in the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations Act and

the Fiscal Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act, the Committee on Appropriations added, with my support and the concurrence of Senator Stevens, a total

of $26 million for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center to conduct an outcomes

management demonstration project. Please provide a status report of the Outcomes

Management Program (OMP) at Walter Reed.

Answer. The Outcomes Management Program within the Walter Reed Healthcare

System (WRHCS) has been successfully stood up and is now making its presence

fully felt across that system. Almost 20,000 patient surveys have been completed

and over 27,000 chronic disease management scorecards established since the inception of this program. As part of its objective to optimize clinician’s productivity, in

excess of 150 contract healthcare providers and support personnel have been deployed throughout the system as well. We have reengineered our primary care process within the WRHCS by redefining the role of each member of the primary

healthcare team to ensure a coordinated effort to the care of each individual patient.

The data shows the quality of the care provided has improved by almost any measure since Outcomes Management began. Some examples:

—The average Hemoglobin A1c of Diabetes patients, an index of blood sugar control, has improved with a decrease of 9 percent, from 8.3 percent to 7.5 percent.

—Over 97 percent of our congestive heart failure patients now receive optimal

therapeutic agent care—beta blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors

and furosemide in appropriate dosage—compared with a national average of 65

percent.

—Emergency room visits by Diabetes patients have declined 18 percent between

fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.

—Across the board improvements in compliance with recommended diagnostic

and preventative health maintenance testing, consistently exceeding national

standards or Department of Veterans Affairs performance levels.

Further evidence of improvement on healthcare operations is the significant increases in the variety and volume of patients being treated within the WRHCS. For

example, Walter Reed Army Medical Center alone has seen an increase in outpatient primary care visits of 16 percent (same period fiscal year 2002 over fiscal

year 2001) while ambulatory procedure visits have increased 4.5 percent and monthly outpatient specialty care clinic visits are up 4.2 percent over the base year.

Question. I am advised that this project improves the care of military health beneficiaries and has grown in popularity with patients and staff. How does OM help

to fulfill the promises made by the Military Healthcare System (MHS)?

Answer. The first and most important obligation we have to our beneficiaries is

that each individual will receive the best healthcare possible in whatever setting

that care is received within our system. This includes our military treatment facilities as well as within our TRICARE network. OMI plays a significant role in our

strategic planning to insure we meet that promise. In optimizing our IM/IT resources to increase the productivity of the healthcare provider and the quality of the

care they provide. This is accomplished by presenting a constantly updated baseline

or standard of care to which our system must practice and then arraying patient

specific care data for providers allowing them to make better, more timely clinical

decisions for their patients. In short, OMI will facilitate the Army Medical Department measuring the treatment provided to each patient with a chronic disease,

against a nationally recognized standard of care in order to evaluate the quality and

efficiency of the care provided within its treatment facilities.

Question. Please provide information and significant milestone events for the

record regarding this Congressional initiative.

Answer. The Outcomes Management Program within the Walter Reed Healthcare

System (WRHCS) has been successfully stood up and is now making its presence

fully felt across that system. Almost 20,000 patient surveys have been completed
462

and over 27,000 chronic disease management scorecards established since the inception of this program. As part of its objective to optimize clinician’s productivity, in

excess of 150 contract healthcare providers and support personnel have been deployed throughout the system as well. We have reengineered our primary care process within the WRHCS by redefining the role of each member of the primary

healthcare team to ensure a coordinated effort to the care of each individual patient.

The data shows the quality of the care provided has improved by almost any measure since Outcomes Management began. Some examples:

—The average Hemoglobin A1c of Diabetes patients, an index of blood sugar control, has improved with a decrease of 9 percent, from 8.3 percent to 7.5 percent.

—Over 97 percent of our congestive heart failure patients now receive optimal

therapeutic agent care—beta blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors

and furosemide in appropriate dosage—compared with a national average of 65

percent.

—Emergency room visits by Diabetes patients have declined 18 percent between

fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.

—Across the board improvements in compliance with recommended diagnostic

and preventative health maintenance testing, consistently exceeding national

standards or Department of Veterans Affairs performance levels.

Further evidence of improvement on healthcare operations is the significant increases in the variety and volume of patients being treated within the WRHCS. For

example, Walter Reed Army Medical Center alone has seen an increase in outpatient primary care visits of 16 percent (same period fiscal year 2002 over fiscal

year 2001) while ambulatory procedure visits have increased 4.5 percent and monthly outpatient specialty care clinic visits are up 4.2 percent over the base year.

Question. Is this program considered worthwhile and being expanded outside the

Walter Reed Health Care System?

Answer. Given the proper resourcing, the Outcomes Management program now

being developed within the Walter Reed Healthcare System will serve as a template

for the Army Medical Department and the Military Health System as a whole. We

expect it to be a major component of our efforts at leveraging IM/IT assets to improve care, reducing long-term costs for chronic disease, and fully optimizing our

healthcare resources. We are currently working to integrate the fielding of OMI

with other AMEDD and MHS IM/IT initiatives and hope to complete that work

soon. The current fielding plan now being worked during:

Fiscal year 2002: The National Capital Region. Complete fielding and training to

all designated medical units within the area.

Fiscal year 2003: Fort Bragg, NC; Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma Washington; Fort Greely U.S. Army Health Clinic and Community Hospital, Fort Wainwright, AK; Elmendorf AFB Medical Facility, AK.

Fiscal year 2004: Fort Knox, KY; Fort Eustis, VA; West Point, NY; Fort Lee, VA;

Fort Monmouth, NJ.

Question. What level of funding is necessary to sustain the program through fiscal

year 2003?

Answer. To sustain the program within the Walter Reed Health Care System,

continue the expansion of the clinical optimization strategy, execute the current

fielding plan to new facilities in fiscal year 2003 and make identified improvements

and modifications to the OMI software package expected to be required as the system expands rapidly through the fielding schedule and carry out technology transfer/mentoring initiative with a non-federal sector entity, $12 million to $16 million

in funding will be required by the Outcomes Management Program in fiscal year

2003.

Clinical and administrative personnel will account for approximately 70 percent

of the cost of the program with equipment accounting for 25 percent and travel, supplies, and software license fees for the remainder.

Question. In as much as this program appears to be highly successful, when do

you anticipate that it will receive a Military Healthcare System funding stream?

Answer. Line item funding for the Outcomes Management at Walter Reed is on

track to be included within the fiscal year 2004 to 2009 POM.

Question. When will policy be implemented to ensure expansion of this program

outside the Walter Reed Health Care System?

Answer. Given the proper resourcing, the Outcomes Management program now

being developed within the Walter Reed Healthcare System will serve as a template

for the Army Medical Department and the Military Health System as a whole. We

expect it to be a major component of our efforts at leveraging IM/IT assets to improve care, reducing long-term costs for chronic disease, and fully optimizing our

healthcare resources. We are currently working to integrate the fielding of OMI
463

with other AMEDD and MHS IM/IT initiatives and hope to complete that work

soon. The current fielding plan now being worked during:

Fiscal year 2002: The National Capital Region. Complete fielding and training to

all designated medical units within the area.

Fiscal year 2003: Fort Bragg, NC; Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma Washington; Fort Greely U.S. Army Health Clinic and Community Hospital, Fort Wainwright, AK; Elmendorf AFB Medical Facility, AK.

Fiscal year 2004: Fort Knox, KY; Fort Eustis, Va; West Point, NY; Fort Lee, VA;

Fort Monmouth, NJ

Question. I am advised that the Outcomes Management technology is proving to

be effective in the military environment. Would it be possible for the Department

to extend this technology to support a field trial to medically underserved areas that

have low income, but high disease rates?

Answer. Yes Sir, I believe we could. It would have to be somewhat limited in

scope and duration but I think this work would be of great assistance to healthcare

systems that care for dispersed, isolated and medically underserved populations.

Authority for this kind of effort would also have to be defined but given that authority exists, and that a willing and able team could be assembled, this definitely could

and should be done.

As I mentioned earlier, the OMI facilitates quality as well as efficiency gains. Providers that are isolated by topography and distance from medical resources and support would be well served by it. Once again I would say that to fully field and support a field trial of this type could cost between $3 million and $5 million annually

depending on equipment, telecommunications, transportation, numbers of contracted

medical and technical support personnel and of course the duration of the project.

The Director of the OMI Program is prepared to meet with your staff to fully explore this if that is your intent.

Question. How would you organize a successful field trial in a non-federal sector

(such as a public health system) to ensure that the benefits of the investment Congress has made to date are widely disseminated?

Answer. The success of the OM project is being shared with as large an audience

as possible through the publishing of articles, individual and group presentations,

and a demonstration site on the world wide web. We are also leveraging the investment by sharing the products and experience of this project with organizations within the Department of Health and Human Services tasked with supporting rural, underserved populations and with issues of medical quality and safety.

Preliminary planning does indicate that a project of this type lasting three to five

years and involving a sizable population could cost between $3 million and $5 million annually. It is difficult without a better understanding of such an endeavor to

precisely lay an implementation plan. My staff is prepared to explore this further

if that is your intent.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

LIFE SUPPORT FOR TRAUMA AND TRANSPORT (LSTAT)

Question. General Peake, as you are aware, the Committee has provided funding

for the Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) program in the Army procurement account. Could you comment briefly on the merits of this self-contained,

life support system?

Answer. The LSTAT program is of significant importance to the Army Medical

Department as we support the Army Transformation Initiative. This spiral development program allows for its early use in qualified missions now and continues to

refine the platform toward full spectrum battlefield requirements in the foreseeable

future. Today, this FDA approved platform provides life-sustaining capability for

National Guard search and rescue missions in Alaska as well as evacuation and

inter-medical facility support in the Balkans. This support can be expanded with additional procurement of platforms. A post-September 11 emerging mission includes

the potential need for military response to terrorist attacks and the consequence

management of generated patients, especially where civilian medical infrastructure

is compromised or overwhelmed. Several Army Reserve hospital units are being

equipped with Clinically Operational Equipment Sets (COES) over the next few

years to assist in this mission, and LSTAT capabilities complement this action.

Though important, these missions do not reflect the core AMEDD mission of providing support on the engaged battlefield. The LSTAT must reduce its weight, provide on-board oxygen generation and automated controls, and communicate within

the Army information architecture to meet the challenges of the future Army Objec-
464

tive Force. So I must encourage the Congress to continue its support, not just in

the procurement of LSTATs today, but equally important in its spiral development

to the platform requirements necessary to meet the Chief of Staff’s vision and our

future battlefield needs.

NATIONAL PRION RESEARCH PROJECT

Question. General Peake, it is my understanding that peer review of the grant

proposals for the National Prion Research Project will occur in December of 2002.

When do you expect actual awards to be approved?

Answer. The National Prion Research Project will be conducted using a two-tier

(peer and programmatic) review process, as recommended by the National Academy

of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine. Peer (scientific) review will occur in November

2002. Programmatic Review will occur in February 2003. Programmatic Review

funding recommendations will be aided by an Institute of Medicine report on the

status of Prion research (to be delivered in mid-January 2003). Grants will begin

to be awarded in March 2003, with all awards made by September 2003.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Question. It’s no secret that in order to provide quality medical care to our troops

and their families, we must recruit and retain the very best and brightest health

professionals. What can we in Congress do to make military service attractive to

doctors and particularly nurses?

Answer. The increasing demand for health care professionals and the robust nature of the civilian sector magnifies the differences in pay gap between the civilian

and military sectors.

The stark reality of today’s recruitment market is that the Army Medical Department must buy the majority of its new accessions. Without robust student recruiting

programs, supported by sufficient allocations properly funded, accessions will not be

maintained at a level necessary to meet the current and future needs. Recent years

have seen an ever-increasing requirement to utilize student scholarship programs

to obtain the same number of accessions into the force annually.

The retention of fully qualified, highly trained mature clinicians is of major concern to the Army Medical Department. As we continue to fact challenges and expensive solutions in the recruiting environment, it simply becomes cost effective to retain those we have trained and developed.

A crucial factor in the retention of our clinical personnel is availability of various

special pays which attempt to provide some degree of parity in compensation between our military health care providers and their civilian counterparts. While

there have been many changes effecting the wages of civilian health care providers,

the monetary ceiling for special pays has not been increased for the last ten years.

Congress directed a study be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of special

pays on retention and evaluate the civilian pay gap for the health professions. The

Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) report—Health Professions Retention-Accession

Incentives Study (HPRAIS) was recently sent to Congress. The results indicate that

the civilian pay gap is one of the major dissatisfiers of physicians, and it has similar

effects on other health care professionals. The results support most of the content

of initiatives being proposed by the Services and Health Affairs. Congress may assist by authorizing and appropriating increased special pay rates or cap authorizations, and legislating a redesigned incentives optimization program that will provide

the Services with the flexible tools necessary to revive health professions retention

and recruiting.

Monetary incentives are not the sole factor evaluated when attempting to increase

retention of the force. Issues of adequate facilities covered by adequate support staff

to allow our clinicians to maximize their effectiveness are also crucial. Frustrations

with inadequate or antiquated treatment environments coupled with the perception

of spending excessive time to meet necessary administrative requirements will cause

highly skilled and dedicated soldier clinicians to leave the service for the civilian

sector.

Lastly, we are concerned that the currently proposed Senate Bill 1864 will further

degrade the Services abilities to attract Registered Nurses. Consideration should be

given to expanding the Bill to include DOD. In particular, DOD should be included

with the proposal to establish the National Commission on the Recruitment and Retention of Nurses.
465

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO MICHAEL L. COWAN

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Question. The military treatment facilities (MTF’s) bill third party insurance companies for those beneficiaries who carry other health insurance. What are the Services doing to ensure that all reimbursable care is being billed?

Answer. In December of 2001, all Navy MTFs were tasked with implementing a

Business Process Reengineering plan with guidance provided by TMA. A list of business process improvements (BPIs) was developed and Region 3 was selected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the BPIs. As a result of the success in Region 3, all

MTFs were directed by BUMED on October 24, 2001 to evaluate the Third Party

Collection (TPC) BPIs for implementation. Each MTF was tasked with customizing

these BPIs to their MTF to improve their collection efforts for TPC. Based on TPC

revenue reported in the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2002, it appears that

the BPIs that were developed and implemented at specific MTFs have proven effective in improving TPC efforts. Some of the program elements implemented include:

—Review of the administrative procedures for identification of other health insurance (OHI) utilizing the Third Party Collection Registration Form in beneficiary

medical records and to improve the collection of OHI data to increase the number of claims generated.

—Reviewing written policies and procedures that impact effectiveness of the Compliance Program.

—Using audits and/systems reports and monthly reports to monitor compliance.

—The recent requirement for the establishment of a UBO Manager/Point of Contact at each of the Health Support Offices will provide oversight for the Third

Party Collection Program regionally who will be required to maintain a close

working relationship with the Navy Service TPC Program Manager at BUMED.

—Front Desk processes in Admission Offices and Outpatient Clinics are being

standardized to assist the Business Offices in collecting OHI information from

patients at each point the patient enters the MTF’s.

—Currently MTF’s have various reports from the Composite Health Care System

(CHCS) to insure that all visits are billed. Beginning August 1, 2002 itemized

billing will be based on Evaluation & Management Codes, Procedure (CPT–4)

Codes, and Diagnosis (ICD–9–CM) Codes which is similar to the process used

in civilian physician offices. Automated systems have been developed and improved to identify OHI information and identify procedures and/or diagnoses

and downloading all of the information related to clinical procedures and ancillary services (pharmacy/laboratory/radiology) into a Third Party Billing System.

Electronic billing is also being review to enhance the billing process.

—Data Quality issues are being addressed to improve Third Party reimbursement.

—BUMED is providing funding for MTFs to hire and train coders to provide more

accurate billing.

Question. Is data available on the number on the number of instances in which

beneficiaries have not been able to obtain care at a Military Treatment Facility

(MTF) and were referred to the civilian network due to medical personnel shortages? If so, what additional costs were incurred?

Answer. Currently, our data systems do not allow us to link network referrals and

military staffing shortages. Our medical staffing is driven by our Total Health Care

Support Readiness Requirement (THCSRR) model. The THCSRR model determines

the number of medical personnel required to staff all contingency platforms, which

include those needed in a wartime theater and those needed for day-to-day operational requirements. There is also a sustainment component to the THCSRR model

which calculates the number of medical personnel needed in training to support all

officer and enlisted communities based on known attrition rates. This model is used

primarily for Navy medical personnel requirements and does not link directly to network referral patterns within any existing data system.

Moreover, network referrals are not entirely due to military staffing, as they are

also due in part to the complexity of care and mandatory access standards. We are

currently working with our sister Services and the TriCare Management Activity

(TMA) to develop specific metrics which would indicate the amount of care that is

being referred into the network for MTF enrollees.

Question. The Army and Air Force have provided special pay in fiscal year 2002

for pharmacists, optometrists, and psychologists to assist in retaining these critical

medical personnel. Why hasn’t the Navy provided these special pays? And, how has

this impacted the Navy’s ability to retain these skilled personnel?
466

Answer. There is no difference in pay for psychologists between the Services. The

Navy pays eligible psychologists the same diplomate pay as the Army and Air Force.

This pay was initiated in October 1994. Likewise, the Navy, Army and Air Force

pay pharmacists and optometrists the same Board Certification pay. However, 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 is considering future year funding options. These pay issues have adversely

impacted the Navy’s ability to attract and retain skilled personnel in these crucial

specialties.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GENERAL PAUL K. CARLTON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

MILITARY TREATMENT FACILITIES (MTF)

Question. The military treatment facilities (MTFs) bill third party insurance companies for those beneficiaries who carry other health insurance. What are the Services doing to ensure that all reimbursable care is being billed?

Answer. We have taken great strides in improving the overall execution of our

Third Party Collection Program throughout the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS).

After a steady decline in revenue since fiscal year 1997, we have reversed the negative trend in third party reimbursement revenue. This began in fiscal year 2000,

when six of our MTFs in Region 3 participated in a successful reengineering demonstration. Each of these MTFs increased their reimbursement revenue. Consequently, we’ve directed all of our MTFs to develop business plans using the reengineered model. Focus to-date throughout the AFMS has been providing extensive

training for program managers, program marketing to MTF personnel; and gathering and documenting Other Health Insurance (OHI) information. Complete and

accurate OHI information is the cornerstone of a successful program. Gathering and

verifying OHI information takes an MTF-wide effort. To ensure this effort is sufficient, our focus has been on establishing data collection and verification processes

at all points of encounter, educating staff on the importance and benefits of the program, and equipping staff with the skills and tools to get the job done. This includes

the hiring of certified coders to conduct medical record coding training and auditing,

which will result in more accurate coding and subsequently ‘‘cleaner’’ claims, a prerequisite for outpatient itemized billing that begins in the Fall of fiscal year 2002.

Finally, last year Congress passed legislation (through the National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 2002), which directs the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to

conduct a pilot program in which Brooke Army Medical Center and Wilford Hall

Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas charge civilians who are not covered

TRICARE beneficiaries, fees representing the actual costs of trauma and other medical care provided. The SECDEF has one year to implement this program.

Question. Is data available on the number of instances in which beneficiaries have

not been able to obtain care at a Military Treatment Facility (MTF) and were referred to the civilian network due to medical personnel shortages? If so, what additional costs were incurred?

Answer. There is no real-time data that depicts beneficiaries’ inability to obtain

care at MTFs. Though we have data that shows a gradual decline in access to care,

this data does not show why an appointment or a provider was unavailable. Other

data sources indicate the provider shortages and provider availability problem. For

fiscal year 2002 we are experiencing a combined shortage of 420 physicians and dentists. This shortage is expected to grow to 880 by fiscal year 2004. We fully expect

these provider shortfalls to impact network referrals and private sector care costs.

The resulting costs incurred in the private sector could be significant. In planning,

we assume that 80–100 percent of a lost provider’s productivity must go downtown,

particularly in the area of specialty care. As a result of this shift to private sector

care, the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) projects annual losses between

$250,000–$700,000 per lost provider and an additional annual loss of $300,000 per

lost provider for private sector ancillary costs. We also experience significant opportunity costs (idle fixed resources) that can easily double this amount. We estimate

that the total costs could easily exceed $2 billion in fiscal year 2004.
467

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. The subcommittee will reconvene next Wednesday, May 15. At that time we will hear testimony from the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Until then, we stand

in recess.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Wednesday, May 8, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 15.]

(469)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:17 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Stevens, Cochran, and Shelby.

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, CHIEF OF STAFF

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Good morning. Appearing before the committee

this morning is the Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable

James Roche, and the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force,

General John Jumper. Mr. Secretary, General Jumper, we welcome

you here and look forward to your testimony.

At this moment in history, the Air Force faces a complex and

daunting challenge, one that perhaps is more demanding than any

previously faced by our current generation of military leadership.

For example, our troops are actively engaged in hostilities overseas,

fighting terrorism in its breeding grounds, and our uniformed services also have been called to protect us here at home against terrorist threats, a vulnerability uncovered by the tragic attack on our

Nation only months ago. While fighting the war on terrorism today,

you must continue to plan and prepare our forces for future battles

against sophisticated enemies.

The Air Force has certainly played its part in facing the challenge. Last year alone, our Air Force pilots flew close to 20,000 sorties in support of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom.

This comes in addition to more than 16,000 sorties flown last year

over the skies of Iraq and Yugoslavia.

Mr. Secretary and General Jumper, let me say that the committee and I are extremely proud of the work done by our Air Force

men and women in uniform in support of these operations and we

congratulate you, sir.
470

To continue our military efforts to address the terrorist challenge, the administration requested fiscal year 2002 supplemental

appropriations totaling $14 billion for the Department of Defense

(DOD). The lion’s share of these funds will be used to support the

war on terrorism directly. And I can assure you this committee will

do all it can to support your Department’s efforts by providing

these much needed funds as quickly as possible.

Nonetheless, the Air Force, like the United States Army, Navy,

and Marines, must continue to prepare for the future even as we

fight today. Transforming our forces to engage future enemies is a

challenge that will remain for years to come, but transformation is

not simply developing new futuristic weapons systems. It requires

new concepts for battle and fundamental changes to the very culture of the military service.

In the case of the Air Force, let me ask in simple terms. Is the

Air Force ready to train an increasing number of pilots to fly unmanned combat aircraft instead of putting them in cockpits? In

other words, are we having enough men and women who are

trained in the new age of high technology?

Mr. Secretary and General Jumper, we will want to explore this

and many other questions with you following your prepared statements. In particular, we hope to discuss with you the health of

your tactical fighter programs, the C–17 aircraft financing plan,

the troubled air space program, and of course, the small matter regarding leasing of tanker aircraft.

But before I ask you to proceed, I would like to call upon my cochairman, Senator Stevens, for any opening remarks.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to all for being late this morning. I got caught in a traffic jam

in a tunnel.

This year we have before us real rate of production for the F–

22, the new multiyear contract for the C–17, authority to recapitalize the air refueling tanker fleet, the EELV, a dramatic leap forward in space launches, the JASSM advanced precision munition,

and the Predator and Global Hawk. These systems and others are

entering mature phases of research and development, and by the

end of the decade, we expect to have a dramatically advanced air

and space dominance.

And this is not possible because of decisions we made this year,

but it is because of the determination to support the Air Force in

the past 10 years. The committee advocated the first multiyear contract for the C–17. We battled to sustain the F–22 and accelerated

the funds for JASSM, and we pushed to enhance the capabilities

and quantities of UAV’s. I do believe we are where we are because

of the leadership that we have.

I want to especially commend General Jumper for his leadership

in the past three commands, Commander of the Air Force, Commander of the European Command, for the Air Combat Command,

and I really think now as Chief, your efforts to bring advanced

technology and far beyond a better air superiority that have directly contributed to the unprecedented range of opportunities we

enjoy today.
471

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to be brief. Again, I apologize for delaying. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Cochran.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am pleased to

join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses today. We appreciate their cooperation with the committee, and I look forward to

hearing their testimony.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Shelby.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. I just want to welcome the Secretary and General Jumper and look forward to their testimony. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Now may I call upon the Secretary. Secretary Roche.

Secretary ROCHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens and distinguished members of the committee. It is a distinct

honor to appear before you today representing the Air Force team

with General John Jumper. As you have noted, General Jumper is

one of the finest officers in the American armed forces and certainly someone with whom I am deeply honored to serve.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask John

at this point to introduce a very special guest whom we think you

would like to get to know, Technical Sergeant William Calvin

Markham, one of our air commandos who spent a number of

months, 3 in fact, in Afghanistan doing some of the fine work.

John.

CLOSE AIR SUPPORT

General JUMPER. Sir, if we could ask Tech Sergeant Markham to

stand up. Sergeant Markham went into the interior of Afghanistan

in the middle of October and stayed for 29 days straight in the field

working close air support with his Army colleagues to bring close

air support from Navy aircraft, Air Force aircraft, to include bombers and fighters of both of our services to bear on the enemy. It is

heroes like Sergeant Markham that we read about in the newspapers, and he is here today to join us to lend some credence to

our testimony this morning, sir.

Senator INOUYE. We congratulate you and welcome you, sir.

Sergeant MARKHAM. Thank you, sir.

Secretary ROCHE. Mr. Chairman, we are committed to exercise

our responsibility, together with our sister services, to provide for

this Nation’s defense now and in the foreseeable future. You have

our full attention and we are ready to get down to the important

business at hand.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will make some opening

remarks, as will General Jumper, and we request that our written

statement, the Air Force posture statement, be included in the

record, sir.
472

Sir, America’s Air Force has had numerous opportunities over

the past several months to implement and validate significant

changes in the concept of military operations and, indeed, the conduct of war. With the full support of the Secretary of Defense, we

have encouraged and exploited the rapid advancement and employment of innovative technologies to create a portfolio of powerful air

and space capabilities. We have begun to reorganize and find efficiencies throughout the Air Force, and we have taken significant

action to implement the findings of the Space Commission in our

new role as the Department of Defense executive agent for space.

We proceed, however, eager rather than complacent, recognizing

that much work and many more opportunities to improve await us.

Despite our dedication to demanding critical and global operations,

we have not faltered in our steps to continue the task of transforming our force to match the demands of this new century.

But first and foremost, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, we can all

be justifiably proud of the American airmen who serve our country

at home and abroad. Elaborating on your point, sir, in operations

Northern Watch and Southern Watch, we have quietly amassed a

total of almost 250,000 sorties in the last 10 years. Operation Enduring Freedom has demanded over 45,000 sorties to date, some of

which have broken records of mission range, hours flown, and combat reconnaissance, and tanker support to joint operations, mobility

demands, and humanitarian supplies delivered have all been unprecedented. As an example, sir, our tankers have flown close to

10,000 sorties to date. Fifty-five percent of all of our sorties have

been in support of Navy and Marine Corps colleagues.

For the first time in the history of warfare, the entire ground operation of landlocked Afghanistan, infiltration, exfiltration,

sustainment of supplies and support equipment has been accomplished by air. In Noble Eagle, as you noted, sir, over the skies of

America, 20,000 airmen, 265 aircraft, 350 crews mainly from the

Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, but also from our Active Air Force and allies, flew over 21,000 tanker, fighter, and airborne early warning sorties, as well as prepositioned C–130’s for

emergency purposes.

Our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partner nations

have deployed the airborne warning and control system (AWACS)

to our country to help defend American air space. This is the first

time since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 that a continental European force helped to defend the continental United States. This

month we bid farewell from a grateful nation to these fine airmen

who helped us in time of need and who are now heading home.

TRANSFORMATION

As we continue our transformation, support our airmen, reinvigorate the military industrial base, and become an even more efficient team, our vision remains a total air and space force providing

global reconnaissance and strike, including troops and their support, across the full spectrum of operations.

INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE

But we have pressing needs. We need to modernize our intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance platforms, and tankers so that
473

we can do the jobs we need to do. We need to develop capabilities

to engage near instantaneous attack to exploit the advances in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and here we do that by

linking manned and unmanned systems, overhead systems, et

cetera.

GUARD AND RESERVE

And we have to understand exactly what the role of our Guard

and Reserve will be in the steady state for homeland defense of the

United States. We have a strategy developing for our air logistics

centers. We need to continue to do that.

READINESS

Finally, sir, we cannot wait until we are on a par with potential

enemies in the realm of air superiority, especially with respect to

our fighter and attack capabilities. As General Jumper, the highly

respected, revered colleague at my side today, is fond of saying,

when we go to war, we never want to have a fair fight.

AIR POWER

It is fundamental to the defense of this Nation that we must own

the skies and maintain the capability to operate freely in any air

space we require, the definition of air dominance. We are the

guardians of the high ground, and we cannot afford to allow any

adversary to control the skies over any area where our soldiers,

marines, sailors, or airmen must operate. We achieve this in concert with our naval air power colleagues.

A recent RAND study observed that no American soldier has

been killed in combat by an enemy air attack since 1953, a compelling statistic that speaks to both the superiority of air power and

the extent to which we as a Nation must maintain that kind of

dominance.

F–22

This, Mr. Chairman, is the crux of the reason we so fervently

seek to acquire the F–22 aircraft and in sufficient numbers. We

cannot accept the loss of air superiority and air dominance. The F–

22 will enable our pilots to strike in all weather, night, day, and

in anti-access, anti-aircraft, and emerging threat scenarios.

Other focus areas include development of concepts and strategies

to seamlessly integrate our manned and unmanned systems, as

well as retaining our people, especially those in mid-career who

will benefit from the provisions of this budget for improved family

housing, pay, and facilities.

And we wish to pause and give a special thank you to you and

your colleagues for the support of our airmen over the last many

years. It has made a huge difference, an absolute huge difference,

including spare parts. The fact that spare parts have been flowing

now for the last couple of years has made a major difference to our

operating forces.

Mr. Chairman, American airmen are able to perform the extraordinary feats asked of them because we are blessed with the full

support of the American people, the Congress, and the President of
474

the United States, all of whom have been graciously supportive of

our efforts and missions. We sincerely appreciate the confidence in

our commitment and our capabilities, as well as the wisdom, vigilance, and patriotic sense of duty that join us in our journey to provide our Nation with superiority in air and space throughout the

century.

You have gone to the current theater of operations, sir, as have

General Jumper and I, and I know you were as impressed as we

were with the airmen you met, the dedicated team of men and

women, that you and your colleagues in the Congress have raised

and have maintained. And on their behalf, may I please say thank

you.

Senator INOUYE. General Jumper.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER

General JUMPER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before the committee today. I am proud to sit here beside

my boss and offer the committee our comments. They will be brief

this morning, as Secretary Roche covered the highlights of the current state of our Air Force.

I would like to take a moment, though, Mr. Chairman, to thank

you and the distinguished members of the committee on behalf of

all our Nation’s airmen, Active duty, National Guard and Reserve.

As the Secretary said, we both have had the opportunity, as have

many of you, to travel in the area of operation over recent months

and to witness firsthand the superb performance of our young people in uniform, and I say this of all uniforms, not just the Air

Force, doing superb work for our Nation. In every crisis—and I

have been doing this now for more than 35 years—I continue to be

extremely impressed by the dedication and commitment of our

young people, in this case, our young airmen out there in the field.

AIR FORCE RECRUITS

This comes as a surprise to many in our society who would believe that these youngsters are raised in the era of Beavis and

Butthead and the Simpsons and taught to disrespect anything of

authority or anything that smacks of institution, but you know, Mr.

Chairman, I get to go quite often down to Lackland Air Force Base

where we graduate our basic trainees, and it is inspiring to see

these youngsters on their graduation day all decked out in their

bright new blue uniforms. When you go, you see the same scene

at least once every time. Some young newly minted airmen standing in front of his mother, shaking his mother saying, yes, Mom,

it is me. They do not even recognize the kid they sent off 6 weeks

prior.

And you go shake the hands of these youngsters, and they all tell

you, sir, the Air Force saved my life. I was on a downhill spiral to

nowhere. Somebody took me by the cuff of the neck and shoved me

in the direction of the Air Force, and it saved my life.

Or you hear comments like, sir, this is the first time I have ever

had a chance to be proud of myself or anybody acknowledged that

I was actually worth something.

And this is the opportunity that our military gives these youngsters, and when you show them how to be proud and you provide
475

the right leadership, they go out and perform the way that they do

for our Nation. And this generation, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you,

properly led and properly motivated, is no less dedicated or committed or patriotic than any generation that ever served this Nation. And we thank you for giving them the resources they need to

do their job.

SPARE PARTS

I have had more than one knuckle-dragging maintainer out on

the flight lines in hostile territory tell me that he would be glad

to give up a pay raise in order to get spare parts he needed to fix

the airplane. Thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

committee, they have both, the pay raise and the parts they need

to do their job. We are starting to see that readiness turn up in

a way that makes us all proud.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Chairman, we have seen nothing less than a transformation

in the way we have used our military over the last few months,

with people like Tech Sergeant Markham out in the field using the

miracle of modern information technology to put bombs on targets,

using aircraft like the B–52 for close air support. General Curtis

LeMay would roll over in his grave at the thought of a B–52 doing

close air support. But it is these youngsters like Sergeant Markham who put these systems together and make the processes work

in ways that we never dreamed of to take care of the problem that

is in front of them and to confront an enemy as elusive as the al

Qaeda hiding in caves. There has been no greater demand on our

technology—unmanned aerial vehicles, global positioning system

(GPS)-guided bombs, laser-spotting equipment that Sergeant Markham used to put weapons on target—than this very low tech environment that we were in in the country of Afghanistan.

SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES

Now, as we contemplate this, Mr. Chairman, not every future

war, as you said, is going to be low tech, and we have high tech

systems that are being developed out there that we are going to

have to be ready to face. A whole new series of surface-to-air missiles, the SA–10’s, 12’s, and 20’s, will challenge us in the sky.

RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT

The Russian, the former Soviet Union, aircraft manufacturing

companies are pumping out very capable airplanes. From time to

time, we get our hands on these airplanes, and the next generation

of airplanes that they put out are going to be very capable. When

our guys fly their airplanes, they beat our guys flying our airplanes

almost every time.

F–22

And that is why we need this F–22, Mr. Chairman, not only for

the air superiority in the air-to-air role that the Secretary talked

of, but as he also said, to be able to take care of this threat on the

ground. The F–22 is often marketed as an air-to-air dog fighting
476

airplane, but it is going to do much more than that. Most of the

reason we need it is to be able to penetrate those most difficult

threats we will face in the future to take out these surface-to-air

missiles.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, Mr. Chairman, we come to you today proud of our Air Force

and representing proud airmen who are out there serving this Nation day in and day out, and it is a pleasure and a privilege for

us to be here. I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES G. ROCHE AND GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Air Force remains focused on

transformation. It is a continuous journey, and fundamental to succeeding in the

joint services’ task to provide for this nation’s security. This fiscal year 2003 budget

takes significant strides along this path, and will enable us to remain the world’s

most capable air and space force.

During the past year, the Air Force has had numerous opportunities to implement

and validate significant changes in the conduct and strategies of war, exploit the

rapid advancement of innovative technologies, and deliver global reconnaissance and

strike for America’s national security. Our successes are America’s successes; they

are the direct result of the tireless and unconditional service by men and women

of the Total Air Force and their families.

We recognize much work and many opportunities to improve await us. Despite

our unassailable dedication to a demanding operational pace at home and abroad—

including NORTHERN WATCH, SOUTHERN WATCH, NOBLE EAGLE, and ENDURING FREEDOM—we have not faltered in our steps to continue the tasks of our

unprecedented transformation. We are pressing forward to develop and refine our

operational and organizational processes and strategies to address the changing national security and economic environments. We are focusing on the horizontal integration of our manned, unmanned, and space assets in order to provide real-time

actionable, exploitable intelligence to commanders. We are committed to leveraging

technology to combine our air and space capabilities in order to increase asymmetric

advantages for our nation. And, as our transformation continues, we will support

our people, revitalize the military industrial base, and seek efficiency at every turn.

We are the world’s preeminent Air and Space Force, remaining true to our vision

by providing Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power across the spectrum of military

and humanitarian operations for America and our allies.

We are able to perform the extraordinary feats asked of our Air Force because

we are blessed with full endorsement from the American people, the Congress, and

the President of the United States—all of whom provide unwavering support to our

efforts and missions. We sincerely appreciate this confidence in our commitment and

our capabilities to provide our great nation with superiority in air and space

throughout this century.

PREFACE

If Americans had not fully understood the idea of ‘‘asymmetry’’ before September

11th, they received a horrific education on that day. In a lesson reminiscent of one

60 years earlier, air assets were employed in a malicious fashion on an unsuspecting

people. This time, however, the attacks resonated a particular evil, for civil airlines

were used to wreak destruction and death upon civilians.

The World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania were the battlefields of asymmetric warfare. A terrorist group exploited the United States’ asymmetrical vulnerabilities, far in excess of their relative size and the physical results

of the attacks. Within minutes of these attacks, the United States, through Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM, was providing education on an

asymmetry of its own making—the object lesson of joint and combined warfare visited on the perpetrators of the September 11 strikes. The Air Force is fully prepared

to execute the missions required—with our air, space and special forces assets—to

carry this global war on terrorism to its conclusion, ending as President Bush declared, ‘‘at a time and place of our choosing.’’
477

Operation NOBLE EAGLE (ONE)

Operation NOBLE EAGLE unofficially began three minutes after North American

Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) received word from the Federal Aviation

Administration of two hijackings. F–15 Air Defense fighters from Otis Air National

Guard base in Massachusetts raced toward the skies over New York. Thirty minutes

later, a similar attack unfolded in D.C. Within minutes, Guard F–16s from Langley

AFB were on an intercept track while other Guard F–16s headed to the skies over

the Capital. Though notified too late to thwart the attacks, the jets were in place

to stop any further strikes, including the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Within hours of these attacks, the Air Force had established combat air patrols

across America with air refueling support to keep them aloft, and command and

control assets to direct them. By December, these sorties exceeded 8,000. Meanwhile, as the Air Force air defenses secured the skies, numerous other combat support enablers—strategic and tactical lift, civil engineers, medical teams, combat

communications, command centers, chaplains, and security forces—rolled into action. The Air National Guard generated over 100 C–130’s to support the movement

of FEMA, FBI, human organs and blood, Combat Support Teams (CSTs), medical

equipment, and combat communications. In addition, over 70 personnel arrived from

Andrews AFB to help coordinate emergency medicine at the Pentagon alongside the

Surgeon General of the Air Force.

Within 24 hours, the Air Force swiftly deployed 500 medics to McGuire AFB, to

respond to any Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) tasking for equipment and/or personnel needed at the World Trade Center. State-of-the-art medical

emergency facilities were assembled, which included four Expeditionary Medical

Support packages (EMEDS) (lightweight modular systems). Critical Care Air Transportable Teams (CCATT), which provide emergency medical attention while inflight, were quickly established at both the Pentagon and McGuire AFB. The port

mortuary also was activated, with over 600 Air Force Active duty, Guard and Reserve personnel deploying to Dover AFB. They assisted in the identification and

preparation of the remains of the Pentagon attack victims, working alongside the

Armed Forces Medical Examiner, FBI, Army and Navy personnel. Critical Stress

Management Teams conducted counseling to personnel assigned to recovery efforts

at both locations. Finally, since the National Disaster Medical System was activated, the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) also set up its aeromedical evacuation

assets at both McGuire AFB and Andrews AFB.

Meanwhile, demonstrating their invaluable integration in the Total Force, Air

Force Reserve and Air National Guard airlift crews were among the first to bring

in critical supplies, equipment and personnel, including emergency response teams

from FEMA, fire trucks, search dogs, and earth moving equipment. At the time of

this writing, more than 10,000 Air Force Reservists and over 20,000 Air National

Guard members have been mobilized, and many more continue to provide daily support as volunteers. Thousands of Air National Guardsmen, Reservists, civilians, contractors, and Active duty members are ensuring air and space security over America.

Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF)

When the President decided on the appropriate course of action, air and space

forces were called into action. At the outset, Air Force bombers proved instrumental

to putting weapons on targets in Afghanistan. The vast mobility capabilities of the

Air Force quickly moved assets into the theater, while simultaneously making possible Navy and Air Force fighter attacks.

ENDURING FREEDOM also revealed an improvement from even the most recent

operations. Air and space precision assets paired with multi-service special forces

on the ground proved an effective, efficient and devastating mix of capabilities. Additionally, we have pushed developing technologies forward and have found operational successes in advanced employment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

This operation is about creating effects—deterrence and defeat of terrorism—so it

is more than simply munitions-on-targets. The Air Force is at the forefront of psychological campaigns, applying robust information warfare campaigns while also

leading the humanitarian relief mission—essential to any long-term stability in the

region. Airdropping millions of rations to a starving people, Air Force mobility forces

directly affected the future of the new Afghan government.

‘‘Let’s Roll!’’

As it has throughout its history, America will champion the cause of freedom and

defeat those who would attempt to deny us this most basic tenet. Guaranteeing our

success is ‘‘. . . the strength of our country—the skill of our people and the superiority of our technology.’’
478

1 According to two leading scholars, successful enterprises ‘‘consolidate corporate-wide technologies and production skills into competencies that empower individual organizations to adapt

quickly to changing opportunities.’’ The 3 identifying characteristics of core competencies are:

(1) They transcend a single product or service and provide potential access to a wide variety

of markets; (2) they are perceived by customers to deliver significant benefit; and (3) they should

be hard to imitate. See C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel, ‘‘The Core Competence of the Corporation,’’ Harvard Business Review, May-June 1990.

INTRODUCTION

The world’s premier Air Force begins 2002 under new leadership. The Secretary

and Chief of Staff bring unique and complementary experiences to bear upon the

dynamic promise of American air and space power in the 21st Century. The Air

Force is in the business of global reconnaissance and strike, including the full application of unparalleled mobility forces. Our efforts are fuelled by a vision of Global

Vigilance, Reach, and Power to help the Nation assure our allies and friends, while

dissuading, deterring or decisively defeating any adversary. The specific concept of

‘‘core competencies’’ 1 well known among successful organizations has been adapted

by Air Force leaders to characterize the capabilities that are central to our mission:

air and space superiority, information superiority, global attack, precision engagement, rapid global mobility, and agile combat support.

The Air Force, and the Nation, entered 2001 aware of the challenges and opportunities of a new administration. The Department of Defense was to undergo significant evaluation, with the expectation of dramatic changes to follow. President Bush

brought an eminently qualified team to Defense and National Security, and the Air

Force welcomed the injection of energy and attention the Nation’s defense was to

receive. Long a force for innovation, airmen continued their leadership throughout

the months of military reinvention. Capabilities-based planning was emerging as

the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) focal point, and the Air Force strove to

maximize the assessment of new technologies, revolutionary concepts of operation

and visionary organizational changes. However, amidst this important task, terror

struck the United States. The Air Force, and the Nation, exited 2001 at war.

This new adversary, and those of the future, will pose a formidable challenge to

American interests at home and abroad. They will attempt to intimidate, deter or

defeat our nation through a variety of means, to exploit our asymmetrical

vulnerabilities and avoid confronting U.S. military power directly. These strategies

will include the use or threatened use of weapons of mass destruction, and the use

of terrorism on U.S. soil. They will also attempt to counter the tremendous asymmetric advantages of U.S. air and space power.

To meet these challenges, Air Force strategy calls for a capabilities-based approach to defense planning. This enables the Service to answer a broad range of

challenges posed by potential adversaries, while also developing the capabilities it

needs for the future. This capabilities-based planning must remain tied to ongoing

Air Force transformation that continues to develop new technologies, concepts of

employment and organizational adaptations.

The Road Ahead

The transformation of the military now runs parallel to the transformation of our

Nation. Just as the military is exploring new capabilities and concepts of operation

(CONOPs) to engage threats, America as a whole is experiencing new appreciation

for the cost of freedom. The Air Force, the Department of Defense and the American

people are up to the challenge.

Though a shock, the events of September 11th did not fundamentally alter the

course for a transformed military; rather, they served as an affirmation of our current direction. Turning away from decades of restrictive force-to-threat planning, the

Air Force along with the Defense Department is on course to define desired effects,

and then secure capabilities which allow us to reach that end. Additionally, the

QDR and the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) address organizational changes,

which add to the effectiveness of new military methods.

This describes the heart of Air Force transformation. Assessing existing and potential adversaries’ capabilities against our own, we are developing Task Forces for

a variety of mission requirements, from strategic response to homeland security. For

example, Global Strike Task Force, which describes how we will operate in an antiaccess scenario, is the next step in our journey to fully achieve our mission while

also opening doors to adaptive and innovative operational plans, and relevant organizational structure.

In order to draw the greatest effectiveness from these capabilities, the Air Force

will exploit America’s technical dominance to elevate our asymmetric advantage

over any adversary. This involves harnessing the attributes of stealth, precision,
479

standoff, space, and information technology. The success of our capabilities-based

CONOPS depends upon reducing the find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess

(F2T2EA) cycle and achieving persistent ISR capabilities. Key to this is the horizontal integration of manned, unmanned, and space assets. By facilitating digital

conversations at the machine-level we will provide the Joint Force Commander with

the decision-quality information required to ensure success—the ‘‘sum of the wisdom’’ resulting in a cursor over the target. With determined exploration and exploitation of space capabilities—culture, principles, personnel and assets—we will widen

our asymmetric advantages and set the bar beyond reach of any adversary. Such

transformation will guarantee America’s Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power—establishing powerful national mechanisms to assure, dissuade, defeat or deter.

These are the building blocks to true transformation—technologically elevated capabilities, focused CONOPs and embedded structural changes. The Air Force remains at the forefront of each of these transformational elements. We ensure the

freedom to operate around the globe and in the sky and space above, under any circumstances, and for whatever mission the Nation requires. This is asymmetry—exploitation of capabilities no other force in the world possesses—and it is fundamental to redefining jointly fought warfare on America’s terms. Maintaining this advantage is critical, and a constant challenge. In the year ahead, we will meet this

test by solidifying the roots of our success: Readiness, Transformation, and the resource that makes these possible—our People.

THE YEAR IN REVIEW

In 2001, the Air Force had an enormous impact on the peacekeeping and combat

missions around the world. From the Korean Peninsula to Kabul, across every continent and over all bodies of water, Air Force civilian, Active, Guard and Reserve

forces were executing global reconnaissance and strike missions. Through combined

exercises, humanitarian interaction around the globe, and decisive combat action,

we assured our friends and dissuaded, deterred or defeated our adversaries.

In the Balkans, contributions to the region included fighter, tanker, command and

control, ISR, and airlift aircraft. Combat search and rescue (CSAR) forces, special

operations units and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) also flew in support of the

operation. In 2001, the Air Force flew approximately 1,000 sorties, enforcing no fly

zones over the former Yugoslavia.

In Southwest Asia (SWA), the Air Force maintained a continuous, steady-force

presence of more than 8,000 airmen in support of Operations NORTHERN WATCH

(ONW) and SOUTHERN WATCH (OSW). Air Force ISR assets provided crucial intelligence and situational awareness, particularly in the form of indications, warning and intelligence. We were the vital element in monitoring Iraq’s compliance with

United Nations’ directives. Coalition forces flew over 22,000 combat sorties in SWA

during 2001, 70 percent of which were flown by the Air Force.

In response to the terrorist activity of September 11th, we began providing support to homeland defense via Operation NOBLE EAGLE and support to the war

against terrorism via Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. By the end of 2001, we

had flown 11,000 combat air patrol, surveillance, and refueling sorties protecting

U.S. cities and other high-value assets. We also maintained an alert readiness status on the ground in order to scramble and intercept threat aircraft. Nearly 14,000

airmen have deployed to Southwest Asia in support of ENDURING FREEDOM.

This number represents nearly every specialty in the Air Force, from engineers to

explosive ordnance disposal, pilots to special operators. Of the over 18,500 total coalition sorties flown, almost 46 percent have been flown by the Air Force. These sorties included fighter, tanker, command and control, special operations, UAV, ISR,

and airlift aircraft. Initially, the Air Force was the sole provider of airlift for humanitarian relief to the people of Afghanistan. By the end of December, Air Force mobility teams had delivered over 2.4 million humanitarian daily rations and over 4,300

tons of wheat, rice, and cold weather gear. Ultimately, in the land locked country

of Afghanistan, everything brought in to build up and sustain our forces was

brought in by air.

The Caribbean and South America continued to be the focus of the ongoing war

on drugs. Counter-narcotic missions were flown around the clock by all interagency

organizations. The Air Force contributed aircraft and crews flying missions as fighter-interceptors, airlift, ISR and CSAR. Of the almost 3,000 sorties flown, the Air

Force flew approximately 25 percent. These efforts directly contributed to seizures

that totaled over 75,000 kilos of narcotics.

Establishing operational imperatives for 2001 and beyond, the Secretary of Defense named the Air Force as executive agent for national security space. We now

shoulder the responsibility for planning and programming of space systems for the
480

Department. The Secretary and Undersecretary of the Air Force will direct efforts

to nurture a space culture and ensure that the advancement of space capabilities

receives focused and heightened emphasis. Throughout the year, we also maintained

approximately 100 satellites in earth orbits that directly supported, and continue to

support, not only the Air Force but also the other Services and the civilian population. Global Positioning Satellites assisted travelers worldwide. Data provided by

Air Force weather satellites and communications and missile launch-detection satellites was used by all services. In order to maintain this robust capability, we

launched, deployed, and initialized operations of eight additional assets in 2001.

The Air Force provided an American presence in regions of the world where the

United States is working to build goodwill and improve relations. It also enabled

quick humanitarian relief during natural and man-made disasters. During the

month of January, following a devastating earthquake in India measuring 7.7 on the

Richter Scale, two C–5s and four C–17s transported 115 short tons of humanitarian

cargo to Ahmedabad, India. In April, a C–17 airlifted 10 cheetahs from Africa to

America as part of a gift to the United States from the people of Namibia. Additionally, Air Force engineers from Active and Air Reserve Component RED HORSE

units accomplished several school construction and water well drilling humanitarian

projects throughout Central and South America.

When the floodwaters rose in Houston in June, a C–17 transported federal relief

workers and 30,000 pounds of relief supplies to Texas. Additionally, the Air Force

deployed a 92-person Expeditionary Medical Support System (EMEDS) to the area

to relieve local hospital emergency rooms workload. The EMEDS cared for over

1,000 patients from this disaster, and the AMS envisions placing EMEDS throughout the country to offer added future regional quick-response capabilities. Later, in

August and September, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C–130 aircraft

equipped with modular airborne fire-fighting systems flew 185 missions and

dropped over 800,000 gallons of fire suppressant on wildfires in Idaho and California. Additionally, they flew 45 support sorties lifting 414 firefighters and over

300,000 tons of cargo into the area.

Whether at home or abroad, in combat, humanitarian operations or training, we

strive to accomplish the mission effectively, efficiently and safely. Effective risk

management directly contributes to readiness and warfighting capability. In 2001,

a combination of targeted mishap prevention efforts and chain-of-command commitment resulted in sustained low mishap rates in all major areas. On the ground, a

record low was achieved for off-duty sports and recreation fatalities with four total.

In the on-duty ground fatality category, the Air Force tied the fiscal year 1998 all

time record low of three. In the air, Class A Flight Mishap performance yielded the

third lowest mishap rate in USAF history.

The Air Force-wide fielding of safety tools and metrics such as the web-based

Safety Automation System continues to improve operational and acquisition risk

management decision-making. These efforts, coupled with aggressive seasonal safety

campaigns, enable leaders at all levels to take proactive action aimed at specific

trend areas. The Air Force’s commitment to safety as a combat multiplier continues

to enhance force preparedness and mission accomplishment.

‘‘The Expeditionary Air and Space Force (EAF) After 2 Years’’

Our considerable mission accomplishments in 2001 have in large measure been

made possible by the continued maturation of the EAF. Throughout the year, we

called upon all facets of our Air Force—Active, Guard, Reserve, civilian, and contractors—to meet the demands of the war on terrorism and our steady-state commitments. In addition to the rotational deployments in support of OSW, ONW, Icelandic

Operations, and counter-drug operations; we were called upon to support wartime

efforts at home with ONE, and overseas with OEF. The large demand on the Air

Force increased the OPSTEMPO drastically and placed a sizeable stress on our most

valuable asset, our people. The Air Force is stretched thin, standing up several expeditionary bases overseas while at the same time defending the skies over the

United States with numerous aircraft on ground and airborne alert. Our people

have risen to the occasion in winning this war. We will maintain the Air and Space

Expeditionary Force (AEF) structure throughout this effort to the maximum extent

possible however, everyone in the Air Force realizes the mission has changed and

the requirement to deploy for longer periods of time may increase.

The Expeditionary Air and Space Force—Sum of the Parts

Often misunderstood is the difference between the elements that collectively define the Expeditionary Air and Space Force. Whereas the EAF is a construct and

is the Total Air Force, the AEFs are a subset and represent the core of our

deployable combat power and forward presence capability. The EAF also enables the
481

Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve to participate more heavily in Air

Force expeditionary operations. The increased predictability of the AEF rotation

cycle allows us to schedule voluntary participation well in advance. This voluntary

participation currently provides about 25 percent of the aviation package and 10

percent of the Expeditionary Combat Support. This support brings both OPSTEMPO

relief as well as highly trained and skilled talent to the operations. This interaction

lays the basis for the development of our transformational initiative, Future Total

Force (FTF) (explored later).

AEF Prime consists of operational capabilities neither organically assigned to

AEFs, nor incorporated in the rotational cycles. This includes regional command and

control, intelligence, space, special operations, and the umbrella of deterrence provided by our nuclear forces. AEF Prime enables much of the global reachback we

rely on for logistics and analysis.

AEFs are not individual organizations, autonomous fighting forces, or units. Instead, our 10 AEFs represent buckets of capabilities the Air Force can draw upon

to satisfy the requirements of theater commanders—flexible, responsive, adaptable.

A nominal AEF has about 12,600 people supporting 90 multi-role combat aircraft,

31 intra-theater airlift and air-refueling aircraft, and 13 critical enablers. The

enablers provide command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance, as well as combat search and rescue. AEFs are composed of squadron and sub-squadron elements, which are on-call for a period of three months in

a 15-month cycle. If deployed, forces from AEFs make up Air and Space Expeditionary Task Forces (AETF). Finally, we have two Air and Space Expeditionary

Wings (AEWs) that provide crisis response capability beyond what the two in-cycle

AEFs can cover. They also contain unique capabilities, such as stealth aircraft, that

are not distributed across the ten AEFs.

Air Force Reserve Command made major AEF contributions in 2001 having met

virtually 100 percent of both aviation and combat support commitments, while also

deploying 14,000 plus personnel in volunteer status in the current 15-month AEF

cycle (Dec. 1, 2000–Feb. 28, 2002). The challenge for 2002 will be to meet ongoing

AEF commitments with volunteers from a Reserve force which has had a large portion of its operations and combat support mobilized for homeland defense and the

war on terrorism.

The Air National Guard alone contributes nearly 25,000 men and women every

15 months to the AEF rotations. During AEF cycles one and two thus far, Guard

units provided over 20 percent of the total force aviation packages and nearly 10

percent of all expeditionary combat support requirements.

EAF Mobility provides the ability to deploy and sustain expeditionary forces. It

includes airlift and air-refueling capabilities—the linchpin of power projection. Many

mobility units accomplish the AEF role when specifically assigned to an AEF eligibility period and the EAF Mobility role all other times.

EAF Foundation consists of support capabilities not organically assigned to AEFs.

This includes acquisition, logistics, health care, education and training. Due to the

expeditionary nature of the Air Force, individuals normally assigned to an EAF

Foundation organization can still be assigned to an AEF and deploy to contingency

operations during their three-month eligibility period.

The EAF is a force structuring mechanism because it frames Air Force modernization, recapitalization, and transformation efforts. The AEFs and EAF Mobility provide the rotational basis for steady state expeditionary operations. Therefore, current and future programs must ensure adequate capability in the EAF to respond

to global contingencies while providing predictability and stability for our people.

EAF Today

Our current level of commitment exceeds the capability we have available in our

two on-call AEFs and one on-call AEW. In career fields such as Security Forces, Engineers, Communications and Information, and Medical, we have reached into future AEFs to source enough people to meet the current requirement. Low Density/

High Demand (LD/HD) assets such as Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft (AWACS) and special operations aircraft have deployed almost their entire inventory to meet the war effort. We have been aided greatly in this LD/HD challenge

with the deployment of NATO AWACS that have deployed to the United States in

support of ONE. For the first time ever, the on-call AEW and portions of the remaining AEW were employed. Additionally, a large portion of the total tanker force

deployed to support Air Force and Navy strikes, while our mobility forces rapidly

moved thousands of airmen and support equipment overseas allowing us to quickly

engage the enemy on our terms, not theirs.
482

Fully Capable AEFs

Providing the flexibility needed for full spectrum operations requires continued efforts to round out capabilities of our AEFs to make them inter-changeable. Currently, our 10 AEFs are not all the same. For example, only three of the AEFs have

precision, standoff strike capability, and only nine have an F–16CJ squadron for

suppression of enemy air defenses. Until the disparity is rectified, the EAF construct will have limits—many LD/HD and stealth systems remaining tasked at maximum levels.

As the EAF continues to mature and technologies advance, we will expand the

capabilities each AEF can provide. With enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) we will enlarge the battlespace an AEF can control; improve our

ability to do real-time targeting; and dramatically increase the number of targets

an AEF can engage. Finally, we will continue to improve our expeditionary combat

support capabilities—effective, responsive logistics are the key to sustaining expeditionary forces and operating from austere locations.

Reflection and Resolution

After a morning of terror on September 11th, there was reassurance. Aircraft over

American cities lent calm rather than fear, for they were the Active, Guard and Reserve Air Force keeping watch. We reacted within minutes of the attacks to establish a defensive posture and to prepare our offensive forces, just as we spent 2001

reacting successfully to humanitarian and combat operations around the globe.

While meeting the requirements of the new war on terrorism, we will continue our

transformation journey. The capability to deliver massed, discriminate and precise

effects anywhere in the world within minutes, and the persistent ISR to evaluate

actions are within reach for America’s air and space forces. This is the contribution

of the Air Force to the Nation—asymmetric capabilities that assure, dissuade, deter

or decisively defeat.

READINESS

Though no organization in America was ready for the attacks of September 11th,

none was more ready for the immediate aftermath than the Total Air Force team.

From humanitarian to combat operations, the operational demands before the attacks were tremendous. Though significant milestones were reached in terms of reducing the effects of high tempo operations, the advent of war placed many of those

gains on hold. The war on terrorism has disrupted the AEF schedules, which will

create training, organization and resource impacts in the near future. Unaffected

though, is our objective of 10 fully capable AEFs—each a flexible, identical crosssection of capabilities for the Joint Force Commander to employ. America’s competitive edge is due in large part to its emphasis on realistic, comprehensive training,

and we must continue to ensure our forces get that training. Equally important is

ensuring our personnel have the resources needed to accomplish their jobs.

Recapitalization

Our fielded forces have aged to the point that they will not be able to compete

with emerging and future threats. In order to deal with the global security environment, the Air Force must rebuild its aging infrastructure and modernize its outdated weapon systems. Higher priorities, however, require that we pursue a structured recapitalization process that will ensure tomorrow’s warfighters have the advanced tools, technology, and equipment needed to preserve America’s air and space

dominance.

The budgetary constraints and spending reductions mandated in the 1990s caused

the Air Force to seriously underfund modernization and infrastructure improvements. For example, in 1990 the Air Force purchased 257 aircraft; by 1996, that

number had fallen to 30. This dramatic cutback in hardware acquisitions signaled

an unavoidable shift in USAF priorities. Modernization stalled in order to maintain

core operational capabilities and keep the fleet of older aircraft flying. Unfortunately, this financially driven reprioritization placed the nation’s mid- and long-term

air power readiness at significant risk.

We now face a dangerous situation. Our aircraft fleet is getting older, less capable, and more expensive to maintain—all at the same time. Reversing this negative

trend requires the Air Force to structure its recapitalization plans to avoid largescale procurement spikes and critical modernization gaps.

The recapitalization of our airframes and weapons systems is only a partial solution. The Air Force needs to upgrade its infrastructure and physical plant, which

include sustainment, restoration, modernization, transportation, support equipment,

and communications systems. At the same time, the Air Force must be prepared to

conduct real-world operations on a global scale. While recapitalization is important
483

we can never forget investing in our people. The Air Force needs to take particular

care in preserving this resource and expanding its capabilities. With the help of

Congress, we have made considerable progress in addressing pay, benefits, and

quality of life issues but more remains to be done.

Understanding the range and nature of Air Force capabilities is a prerequisite to

comprehending the readiness and transformational requirements. Securing our task

forces’ potential capabilities demands insightful and bold initiatives. How comprehensively we elevate the systems, processes, and people will determine how effectively America will be able to operate on the global stage in the decades ahead.

CORE COMPETENCIES

Air and Space Superiority

Air and space superiority is the ability to control the entire vertical dimension,

from the surface of the earth to the highest orbiting satellite, so the joint force has

freedom from attack and freedom to attack. This is the essential first step in achieving battlespace dominance. As was true with operations in the 20th Century, dominance of the vertical dimension will remain the most critical capability for 21st Century Joint Force.

Air Superiority

The Air Force is investing in a range of systems encompassed in the entire

F2T2EA kill chain. Among the air superiority assets that contribute to this targeting

and attack process are the legacy air-to-air platforms. While we await the fielding

of new systems, we strive to maintain the viability of our current assets. The F–

15 and F–16 programs continue to pursue modernization of radars, engines, and enhanced combat capability to ensure near-term fleet maintenance and air superiority

in air-to-air combat environment. Finally, key weapon advances rest with continued

development and production of the Joint Helmet Mounted Sight as well as the AIM–

9X and AIM–120 next-generation air-to-air missiles. While modernization of current

systems is required to make them as capable as they can be, our greatest advantage

with current systems is our robust training and the availability of ranges to conduct

that training.

Self-defense against enemy air defense systems is a key element to ensure air superiority. Several electronic warfare programs support this important capability.

The Joint Services Electronic Combat Systems Tester meets our operational requirement for a mobile verification system to confirm installed electronic countermeasures systems on F–15, F–16, and A–10 are operable. It tests end-to-end electronic combat capabilities, identifies system problems before takeoff, and provides

the highest level of confidence to the warfighter that the EW suite is operational.

Comet Pod is a new infrared (IR) countermeasures system designed to provide

covert, preemptive protection for the A–10 against IR surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).

Fielding this system will greatly enhance survivability of the A–10 in its low-altitude close air support role. Additionally, the Advanced Strategic and Tactical Expendable program addresses multiple Combat Mission Needs Statements and provides accelerated ramp-up for production of the MJU–46 covert IR flare. This operational requirement acceleration responds to today’s air war threat in Afghanistan

and currently provides protection to special operations aircraft in the combat zone.

The AF leads the way in Radio Frequency (RF) Towed Decoys on fighter and

bomber platforms. These countermeasures provide protection against advanced SAM

threats and increase the viability and lethality of current platforms to conduct operations in the modern RF threat arena. These defensive systems have proven invaluable in combat over the last decade, and will continue to add to our legacy force

capabilities.

Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR)

The CSAR mission provides friendly forces protection and assurance by recovering

downed aircrew members or other persons in isolated locales and returning them

to friendly control. Primarily charged with supporting combat personnel, CSAR continues to play an important role in civil search and rescue activities. The aging nature of the CSAR fleet, however, increasingly jeopardizes the Air Force’s ability to

accomplish the CSAR mission. Moreover, CSAR assets lack appropriate compatibility with our advances in strike, command and control, intelligence, surveillance

and reconnaissance systems, though some advances in information fusion have been

completed.

Other improvements are forthcoming. Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) will

modify nine HC–130’s with the APN–241 ground map radar, which enhances position awareness and increases system reliability. Additionally, AFRC is beginning

the upgrade of the forward-looking infrared for the HH–60G helicopter fleet.
484

Space Superiority

Space superiority ranks with air superiority as a top priority. The ability to exploit and assure U.S. access to space assets while denying the same to our adversaries is of great importance, and as the ultimate high ground, space provides America with military advantages that cannot be duplicated.

Space Commission

In 2001, the Secretary of Defense named the Air Force as Executive Agent for

Space in his implementation of Space Commission recommendations. This made the

Air Force responsible for department-wide planning, programming, and acquisition

of space systems. Consistent with the National Reconnaissance Office’s (NRO) long

standing approach, the Air Force will manage space systems with a ‘‘cradle to

grave’’ philosophy, integrating systems acquisition with operations. To accomplish

this, the Space and Missile Systems Center has been transferred from Air Force Material Command to Air Force Space Command. The Under Secretary of the Air Force

is now dual hatted as the Director of the NRO, and will have acquisition authority

for all Air Force and NRO space systems, as well as Milestone Decision Authority

for all DOD space programs. This will allow a comprehensive review of all space

systems, to determine the optimal method of satisfying national/military requirements. The first National Security Space Program Assessment was accomplished

this year, comparing DOD and NRO program budgets against existing plans. This

assessment will be used in drafting the first National Security Space Plan, due in

mid-CY02.

Spacelift Range System (SLRS)

Achieving and maintaining space and information superiority requires an operational space launch capability that can deploy satellites to orbit with speed and

flexibility—the high ground of military operations. The Spacelift Range System

modernization program is replacing aging and non-supportable equipment to improve reliability and efficiency; reducing the cost of operations and standardize

equipment on the Eastern and Western launch ranges.

SLRS modernization follows a phased approach. To date, the completion of new

downrange satellite communications links, a new fiber optic network, and new

range scheduling systems are providing government and commercial users more

flexibility at the spacelift ranges. In 2001, these improvements enabled the rapid

launch of 3 systems in just 4 days using Cape Canaveral AFS equipment—an unprecedented feat for America’s spacelift ranges. The next phase replaces old, baseunique systems with modern, standardized range safety, flight operations and analysis, communications, tracking, telemetry, planning and scheduling and meteorological systems. Once completed, the SLRS modernization program, coupled with the

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, will meet the future launch

demands of national security, civil, and commercial payloads.

In addition, Air Force spacelift ranges are central to supporting the Department

of Defense’s cooperation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) in the development of technology, operational concepts, and flight demonstration for the next generation of reusable launch vehicles. This cooperation also

offers the basis for the evolution and future development of reliable, rapid, and assured access to space for air and space vehicles.

Information Superiority

Information systems are integral to every mission of the Air Force. Success in

achieving superiority in this domain requires an effects-based approach, superior

battlespace awareness, well integrated planning and execution, and properly trained

and equipped information operations (IO) organizations. Information superiority

means that our information systems are free from attack while we have freedom to

attack an adversary’s systems.

Information is both a critical capability and vulnerability across the range of military operations from peace to war. In coordination with Joint Forces, the Air Force

engages daily in conducting IO functions across this spectrum of military operations.

We provide information superiority to our Air Force commanders and Joint Forces

CINCs as well as to friendly multinational forces by conducting information operations in the air, space, and information domains.

Command and Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

(C2ISR)

Currently, many military operations are limited in the area of C2ISR capabilities,

which increases the amount of time, it takes to locate and destroy many targets.

While we are aggressively pursuing and fielding solutions to streamline this process,

some of our current C2ISR systems, which our forces rely on, are vulnerable to ad-
485

versary manipulation. The challenge still exists to improve our own ability to disrupt the C2ISR systems of our adversaries. Of further concern to our C2ISR capabilities is limited radio frequency spectrum availability. Spectrum is the medium

that supports the mobility, dispersion, and high tempo of operations. To meet this

critical need for spectrum we must develop a strategy aimed at sustaining expanding spectrum access as we face evolving national security responsibilities.

Our operational and tactical command and control airborne platforms and ground

systems organize and direct efforts to create desired effects, whatever their form.

Our C2 assets include the air and space operations center (AOC) with its decentralized component control reporting centers (CRC) and Theater Battle Management

Core Systems (TBMCS); the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS); the

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS); and the Multi-Platform

Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP).

The other half of C2ISR is central to achieving battlespace superiority—knowledge. ISR assets gather and processes the data into decision-quality information.

Currently, our limited numbers of airborne ISR systems are in extremely high demand. The RC–135 Rivet Joint, U–2, Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS),

Predator, and Global Hawk UAVs have proven indispensable during OEF and the

expanding war on terrorism by providing real-time target data, threat warning, and

battle damage assessment.

The CRC is the JFACC’s ground tactical execution node for C2 and battle management. It provides wide-area surveillance, theater air defense, identification, data

link management, and air battle execution. The current system was developed in

the 1970s and must be replaced. The CRC replacement, the Battle Control System,

will exceed year 2010 requirements for time-critical targeting, open system architecture, small deployment footprint, remote operations, multi-sensor fusion, and AEF

responsiveness.

Air and Space Operations Center (AOC)—The Falconer

As the primary element of the Theater Air Control System, the AOC is responsible for planning, executing, and assessing the full range of air and space operations. It is the premier operational system at the disposal of the Joint Forces Air

Component Commander (JFACC). By fusing the data from a vast array of C2 and

sensor systems, the AOC creates a comprehensive awareness of the battlespace so

the JFACC can task and execute the most complex air and space operations across

the entire spectrum of conflict.

Especially significant among these operations is time-critical targeting. This is the

development of swift reaction to the threat within theater battle management. Accomplishing this requires combining C2, rapid intelligence collection, analysis, and

dissemination with positive control of airspace and the tasking of combat forces to

coordinate the entire air battle with joint and coalition partners and component

commanders. It is the ultimate goal of the targeting process—to reduce the F2T2EA

cycle from hours to minutes.

The Air Force has long understood the need to address standardization of command and control of air and space forces. The last decade witnessed the AOC as

equivalent to a ‘‘pick up game,’’ requiring on-the-job training and hundreds of individuals working long hours to produce an air tasking order. Throughout 2001, we

aggressively addressed this problem and the Falconer AOC is now on path to becoming an efficient weapon system. Our focus will be refining the AOC into a standardized weapon system run by operators formally trained in C2 Operations. We must

also improve the weapon system’s modularity, scalability and interoperability to

meet requirements ranging from Major Theater War (MTW) to a Humanitarian Relief Operation (HUMRO) or Non-combatant Evacuation Operation (NEO).

If there are adequate resources to develop Advanced Technology AOC, we will

‘‘right-size’’ the AOC to meet each mission’s requirement. The system will be interoperable with internal and external U.S. National, Allied, Coalition and Joint

Nodes. Utilizing emerging technologies to maximize reachback, we will dramatically

reduce the footprint of the AOC while enhancing JFACC decision processes and

timelines, and reduce costs. Supporting combat operations during Operations

NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM validated our strategic vision for C2

systems. We will continue to develop the AOC, which sets the standard for new Air

Force capabilities-programming efforts, and keep it on course to revolutionizing the

operational level of warfare.

The ‘‘engine’’ of the AOC is the TBMCS. It is an integrated, automated C2 and

decision support tool that offers the senior air and space commander and subordinate staffs a single point of access to real- or near-real-time information necessary

for the execution of higher headquarters taskings. TBMCS supports a full range of

functions including threat assessment, target selection, mission execution, battle
486

damage assessment, resource management, time-critical target identification and

prosecution, and defensive planning. During ONE and OEF, TBMCS was rapidly deployed supporting both CENTCOM and NORAD operation centers. TBMCS will

evolve into an open-ended architecture capable of interface with a variety of joint

and coalition data buses, displays and links.

The Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) remains the premier air battle management and wide-area surveillance platform in the world. Still, aging aircraft issues, obsolete technologies, and the proliferation of advanced adversary systems necessitate several upgrade programs. This year, one-third of the AWACS fleet

completed an improved radar system upgrade, which will reach full operational capability in fiscal year 2005. The next computer and display upgrade will replace the

1970 vintage processors with an open architecture system. Finally, a satellite communications access program will provide improved connectivity with regional and

national C2 centers.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) provides battle management, C2, and ground moving-target detection. We will replace the on-board computers with commercial-off-the-shelf equipment by 2005 under the JSTARS Computer Replacement Program (CRP). The CRP is the foundation of all JSTARS communications and sensor upgrades, and should reduce life-cycle costs and minimize

the number of obsolete parts.

Another 707-airframe C2ISR asset is the RC–135 Rivet Joint—the premier aircraft in its class. We continue to modernize the Rivet Joint’s sensors using an evolutionary, spiral development program. Recapitalization and modernization efforts

promise to keep the RC–135 and U–2 viable well into the 21st Century. As we look

to the future, we are examining the growth of the Rivet Joint as part of the Multisensor Command and Control Constellation. Although the U–2 is not currently in

production, we continue to modernize the aircraft with updated sensors and aircraft

modifications to support our ongoing mission needs. Advanced imagery sensors will

allow the U–2 to collect top-notch data for the battlefield commander. Aircraft modifications, such as cockpit, defensive and power system upgrades will ensure U–2

survivability and viability. Air Force DCGS continues to provide robust processing

and reporting of the U–2, Global Hawk, and Predator collected data. System modifications/upgrades and increase in capacity will ensure continued delivery of timely

intelligence to enable time critical target prosecution.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) provide unmatched access for information, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Their capabilities expand ISR collection coverage while reducing the need to place our people in harm’s way. We are committed

to the production and fielding of Global Hawk as the next generation of high altitude airborne ISR platform. We have transitioned Global Hawk from an Advanced

Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) program to a formal acquisition program. In the spring of 2001, Global Hawk successfully completed a deployment to

Australia, where it supported maritime reconnaissance and achieved a number of

UAV aerial firsts, including the first trans-Pacific crossing.

Due to this success, and a high level of confidence in the platform, Global Hawk

was deployed in support of OEF. The development of advanced sensors will enable

Global Hawk to support the time critical targeting mission more completely. Finally,

demand for the older Predator UAV remains high. The successful weaponization of

Predator holds the promise of significantly shortening the time critical targeting

timeline. Based on the tremendous successes of Predator A, testing is underway on

an improved version, the larger Predator B.

Air Force weather satellites enable information superiority every day during joint

operations around the globe. The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)

constellation provides global weather imagery and other environmental data to support mission planning. Augmented with civil satellites, joint forces are provided

timely, accurate pictures of the weather affecting operations. The Air Force is modernizing environmental data collection with the new National Polar-orbital Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). In conjunction with the Department of Commerce, development of the NPOESS will provide the nation a consolidated system for all national weather monitoring needs. NPOESS will cost the DOD

significantly less than building and fielding a DOD-unique follow-on system and will

provide enhanced environmental monitoring capability to support emerging weapons

systems and concepts of operations.

The Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP–RTIP) is developing a scalable X-band electronically-scanned array (ESA) for use on a variety of

platforms for air-ground surveillance, including a future 767 manned, wide-area surveillance platform, the Global Hawk, and potentially a NATO manned platform variant. On the 767 platform this array would provide five to ten times the air to

ground surveillance capability of current JSTARS, reduce target revisit times, im-
487

prove moving-target track capability, and enhance radar resolution. Furthermore,

MP–RTIP on a 767 is envisaged as the first development spiral toward achieving

a Multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A) capability as part of an overarching and transformational Multi-sensor Command and Control Constellation

(MC2C) to support future employment of the task forces addressed later in the text.

Communication

Achieving information superiority depends considerably on the availability of a robust, worldwide communications capability. Communications are critical to the joint

fighting forces deployed worldwide. We are modernizing Military Satellite Communications (MILSATCOM) systems to keep pace with this demand. Inseparable from

such modernization is Tasking Processing Exploitation and Dissemination (TPED).

TPED describes how information is transferred among our numerous systems and

highlights bandwidth as a serious topic. Bandwidth is a critical parameter—more

is better—defining how much and what kind of information we can disseminate.

Over the next ten years, our need for reliable, redundant, and secure communications is expected to increase 15 to 20 times beyond the current capacity. The

MILSATCOM systems in use today simply cannot meet that demand and supply

CINCs with sufficient protected coverage to adequately support the warfighter. Further, in an environment of extremely high worldwide demand and competition, commercial providers cannot be leveraged for they lack the protected bandwidth, security, and coverage necessary to fully support military operations.

Despite shortcomings, the MILSATCOM system is making significant contributions to current, daily operations. The scope and speed of joint operations, including

OEF, simply would not be possible without MILSATCOM systems, notably the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS) and the Military Strategic and Tactical Relay System (Milstar). In fiscal year 2001 we successfully launched one DSCS

and one Milstar satellite. Additionally, a complete modernization of satellite communications is underway. Wideband Gapfiller Satellites (WGS) are low-cost, high bandwidth communications satellites intended to greatly increase the on-orbit bandwidth

available to the warfighter. WGS satellites will help bridge the requirements gap

until the Advanced Wideband System (AWS) is brought on-line. Similarly, the

Milstar constellation is planned for replacement beginning in 2006 by the new Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites. The Air Force awarded a System Development and Demonstration contract in November 2001 to design the

AEHF satellite system.

To leverage the full capability of our new technologies, we are combining our efforts with the other Services to form the joint Global Information Grid (GIG)—a

globally interconnected, end-to-end set of information capabilities and associated

processes that allow warfighters, policymakers, and support personnel to access information on demand. Currently as the AEF deploys to support combat operations,

it connects to the global information grid via the Theater Deployable Communications (TDC) package. This package is replacing legacy deployable AF communications equipment with scalable, lightweight, and reliable transmission, networking,

and network management equipment. TDC allows timely reachback to the United

States for intelligence, logistics and people support that otherwise would have to deploy forward. During OEF operations, we successfully deployed TDC to support combat operations, demonstrating that TDC is the capability needed to support AEF

communication requirements.

Contributing to the GIG, the AF is building an enterprise architecture ensuring

our diverse projects and initiatives are closely integrated to deliver maximum capability to the warfighter. In support of the enterprise architecture, the AF

‘‘infostructure’’ architecture facilitates system integration by providing timely and

cost effective communications and information technology capabilities. The AF

infostructure leverages commercial and government developed technologies and ensures these technologies are controlled and integrated.

To provide our people better access to information and applications needed for

their specific missions, we have fielded additional capabilities through the Air Force

Portal. The Air Force Portal is envisioned as the single access point for practically

all our information needs. Leveraging commercial successes in web-enabled information technology and communications, our members now have access to the Air Force

Portal almost anywhere in the world.

Information Warfare (IW)

Multi-faceted information warfare planning and execution is another challenge of

information superiority. In the effort to create specific effects to accomplish campaign objectives, the Air Force closely coordinates information operations (IO) plans

between and among supported and supporting commands to prevent redundancy,
488

mission degradation, or fratricide. The numerous organizations participating in

these coordination efforts include representatives from the COMAFFOR for Computer Network Operations and the Air Intelligence Agency, to IO squadrons and IW

flights. To enhance the effectiveness of these organizations, we specifically designed

tools for the IW planning and testing efforts. In an effort to normalize IO as a

warfighting asset, we integrated AIA into the Air Combat Command, the IW lead

for the Combat Air Forces. They directly support the Joint Force Commander

through the JFACC/COMAFFOR.

We continue to make every effort to define requirements and layout a viable longterm strategy/roadmap to provide IW capability to the warfighter. The IW MAP has

become a leading edge planning tool for the Air Force in this arena. Its expressed

purpose is: (1) To define, document, and advocate Air Force IW requirements, (2)

To integrate those requirements into the Air Force Capabilities Investment Strategy, (3) To identify solutions meeting validated IW needs, and (4) To provide IW

Mission Area expertise to the warfighter and to the Air Force corporate process.

Subsequently, the MAP helps to focus disjointed efforts, reduces duplication, promotes integration among architectures and enhances operations.

Information Assurance (IA)

The Air Force maintained a robust IA capability through a Defense in Depth

strategy that integrated people, operations, and technology for multi-layered, multidimensional protection. People were trained to do the IA mission and protect the

network. We changed policies and procedures to ensure IA operations are effective

and efficient. We also implemented finally, technological advances to provide physical protection to our information weapon system. Consequently our IA posture has

never been better.

Training initiatives included a year long IA Campaign that focused our attention

on such corporate issues as IA roles and responsibilities, network threats and countermeasures, computer network defense, and EAF web security which significantly

improved our collective IA knowledge and capability. We also continued our emphasis on individual certification for network operators and maintainers through the development of a Job Qualification Standard toward mission-ready, deployable people.

Addressing procedures, we implemented a Time Compliance Network Order

(TCNO) process. TCNO allows senior leadership to track and ensure completion of

critically important computer security configuration changes. This resulted in a tenfold reduction of network infections attributed to malicious code attacks from 2000

to 2001. Another important operational initiative is the deployment of Scope Network teams to our installations to fine-tune base-level networks. Scope Network’s

mission is to optimize and tune networks and firewalls and ensure their proper configuration. They deploy throughout the year to measure, analyze, train, and mentor

at the base level.

Finally, our primary IA technology initiative is a layered equipment suite to discourage hackers and filter viruses as well as provide tools to identify vulnerabilities

like the Combat Information Transport System (CITS), and the Network Management System/Base Information Protection (NMS/BIP). These systems provide a

standard tool suite to each Air Force installation.

The requirements for global-level detection and early warning of natural disasters, conventional military or chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and highyield explosive (CBRNE) aggression remain as critical as ever. At the same time,

September 11th introduced a new category of threat that will challenge the ability

of America’s C4ISR networks to cope with strategic-level surprise, fait accompli or

limited objectives strategies, among others. Information superiority, the mastery of

prediction, assessment and employment of data, is arguably our Nation’s most

pressing challenge.

Global Attack

Global Attack is the ability to create desired effects within hours of tasking, anywhere on the globe, including locations deep within an adversary’s territory. It also

includes the ability to retarget quickly against objectives anywhere, anytime, for as

long as required.

Among Air Force programs supporting these capabilities is our bomber fleet. Our

B–1, B–2, and B–52 bombers provide a global rapid response, precision and standoff

strike capability, 24/7 battlespace persistence, and a level of time-critical targeting

(TCT) capability. The new transformation era reinforces and re-emphasizes our ongoing basic bomber modernization plan—increase lethality, survivability, flexibility,

supportability, and responsiveness.

All three platforms now carry the highly accurate 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack

Munition (JDAM), and are all being fitted to carry new standoff precision guided
489

weapons. In addition, future integration programs will see the inclusion of smaller

precision weapons. To improve their survivability, bombers are receiving a range of

upgrades to include defensive system, situational awareness and electronic countermeasure upgrades. To enable attack of time-critical targets, the Air Force is upgrading bomber avionics and communication systems and linking them directly with remote sensor and targeting systems.

To enhance our ability to kick down the door in remote theaters and clear the

way for follow-on forces, the Air Force is planning for a mix of new generation

manned and unmanned, air superiority and ground attack aircraft. However, until

the F–22, Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV)

become an operational part of our inventory, we will continue to rely heavily on our

legacy fighters—the F–15, F–16, F–117 and A–10—to provide a potent mix of airto-air and air-to-surface capability. These platforms are all programmed to receive

upgraded voice and data communication systems linking them to a joint command

and control net. Programmed improvements to avionics and situational awareness

systems will allow for better all-weather/night operations, combat identification and

response to time-critical and moving targets.

F–15E modernization incorporates robust data-link capability and integration of

smart weapons to ensure all-weather, deep strike lethality. The recent addition of

Global Positioning System (GPS)-guided, precision guided munitions (PGMs) on the

F–117 give it an adverse-weather capability. However, these aging platforms are

growing more expensive to maintain and operate, and their combat effectiveness is

expected to eventually decline as projected surface-to-air and air-to-air threats with

greater capabilities emerge. The introduction of the stealthy F–22 and JSF will

maintain America’s technological advantage and ensure our ability to defeat nextgeneration threats while replacing our aging force structure with leap-ahead capabilities.

One of our Guard and Reserve’s top modernization priorities is incorporating precision targeting pods into their F–16 aircraft. From 1998 through 2000, we outfitted

all our Reserve units and selected Guard units with LITENING II pods. This acquisition gave Guard and Reserve F–16s a critical precision strike capability while configuring these units with the system capabilities of the Active F–16 force. Additionally, the Guard will join the Active force in procuring Advanced Targeting Pod

(ATP) for an initial operating capability in 2003.

Two critical F–16 programs, the Combat Upgrade Integration Details (CUPID)

and the Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP), will bring decisive

combat capability (night vision, helmet-mounted cueing, and data links) to our F–

16 fleet. Additionally, the Falcon Structural Augmentation Roadmap (STAR) will ensure the F–16 fleet is structurally sound to perform its mission through its designed

service life. Collaborative programs between our Active and Reserve components increase our overall procurement flexibility and close the gap in combat capability.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM)

The recent DOD Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) announced a transition from the

Cold War nuclear triad to a new capabilities-based triad in response to the more

complex, evolving security environment. Consistent with NPR direction, the Air

Force is providing for long-term sustainment of ICBM capabilities. Minuteman III

(MMIII) ICBMs will be deployed through 2020 and supported by on-going life extension programs. We will begin to look at alternatives for a follow-on ICBM to be fielded as MMIII reaches the end of its service life. Peacekeeper (PK) ICBMs will be retired beginning in CY02. As the PK system is deactivated the Air Force intends to

transfer some warheads currently on PK to the MMIII, thereby avoiding a costly

life extension program on certain MMIII warheads. This replacement effort will ensure that the newest warhead with all modern safety features remains a part of the

ICBM force, an essential nuclear strike element in the nation’s capabilities-based

triad.

Precision Engagement

Our current operations emphasize the powerful advantage of being able to create

precise effects rapidly. The Air Force offers tremendous capabilities to meet this national requirement from pinpoint humanitarian responses to precise weaponry. Precision is fundamental to all of our operations and, in particular, to transformational

combat operating concepts. Along with information superiority and stealth, precision

engagement enables our forces to identify an adversary’s key centers of gravity and

relay that information to strike assets, thus reducing risks by avoiding unnecessary

engagements (a concept generally referred to as ‘‘parallel warfare’’). Enhancing precision engagement will allow us to accomplish this cycle in near real-time. This
490

would allow us to maximize the leverage gained from the fluid interaction of joint

forces in more effective prosecution of operations.

We have made significant progress in our efforts to develop and field a new generation of weapons that can attack and destroy pin-point, hardened, and relocatable

targets at night and in most weather conditions while greatly reducing the risk. By

rapidly adapting new technology employed under actual combat conditions in Operations ALLIED FORCE and ENDURING FREEDOM, we now have an array of precision weapons that can be employed from nearly all of our combat aircraft. Our

high priority precision engagement programs now include the Joint Air-to-Surface

Standoff Missile (JASSM), Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), and eventually the

Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).

JASSM is a precise, stealthy, cruise missile that will enable us to destroy heavily

defended, hardened, fixed and relocatable targets from outside of area defenses.

JASSM program recently entered low rate initial production and will be delivered

to the field in 2003.

JSOW is an accurate, adverse-weather, unpowered, glide munition. We are currently procuring two variants, the AGM–154A and AGM–154B, which are capable

of destroying soft and armored targets at ranges exceeding 40 nautical miles.

JDAM employs GPS-aided guidance, incorporated in a tail kit, to deliver generalpurpose bombs or penetration warheads with near-precision accuracy. We will use

JDAM in all weather conditions from multiple platforms to destroy high-priority,

fixed, and relocatable targets. The first operational use of a 2,000-pound JDAM was

from a B–2 during Operation ALLIED FORCE and JDAM has been used extensively

during OEF. The F–22 will employ the 1,000-pound JDAM against anti-access and

air defense systems. Using the 500-pound JDAM currently in development, the B–

2 that carries up to 16 2,000-pound JDAMs in OAF, would be able to carry up to

80 500-pound JDAMs in future conflicts. This will provide the first step in the Air

Force’s transition to miniature munitions. Succeeding steps include the Small Diameter Munition (SDM). SDM, under development for the F–22, will offer standoff

capabilities against the most difficult surface-to-air threats. The F–22 will carry up

to eight SDMs internally.

WCMD has an inertial-guided tail kit that enables us to accurately deliver the

Combined Effects Munition, Sensor Fuzed Weapon, and the Gator Mine Dispenser

from medium to high altitude in adverse weather. WCMD became operational in

late 2000 and has been successfully employed in OEF from the B–52.

Key to precision engagement is the GPS navigation signal used by sensors and

shooters to assist in targeting the enemy with pinpoint accuracy. Successful joint

operations rely on the GPS signal: search and rescue, rendezvous, and mapping are

only a few examples. Rigorous upgrades to both satellites and warfighter equipment

are currently in work to protect the ability of American and allied forces to employ

the GPS signal on the battlefield and deny it to our adversaries while preserving

civil use.

Precision capabilities allow the United States to engage in operations with dramatically reduced risk to friendly forces, significantly less costs in men and materiel, and with greater likelihood of success. The strike side of precision engagement

enables us to employ one weapon per target to destroy it with minimal collateral

damage and greatly increase the number of targets that can be struck per sortie.

The benefits are exponential. By minimizing the number of sorties required to

strike a target, we shrink the forward footprint necessary and minimize the number

of airmen, soldiers and sailors in harm’s way. Indeed over the last decade, the Nation has faced numerous engagements wherein precision has proven the method for

success. From the Balkans to Kabul, combatant commanders have required precision capability, not large-scale conventional operations. However, this demand has

dramatically reduced our large Cold War reserve munitions stockpiles. As current

operations continue to tax existing PGM inventories, the Air Force is working to expand the capacity of our industrial base to fill preferred munitions requirements.

This strategic effort, along with our continued acquisition of JDAM, JASSM, JSOW

and WCMD, will increase PGM capabilities over the next several years. The changing nature of warfare with its emphasis on precision engagement, necessitates that

munitions recapitalization and development of transformational small weapons will

remain among our top priorities.

Precision strike, however, is more than simply very accurate munitions. It is also

the ability to generate precise effects other than destruction. For that reason we

also invest in various non-lethal weapons, offensive information warfare capabilities,

and directed energy weapons that enable the U.S. military to affect targets without

having to destroy them. This enables effects-based operations that match precise capabilities to desired effects—the ultimate in deterrence.
491

Rapid Global Mobility

Rapid Global Mobility ensures the nation has the global reach to respond quickly

and decisively anywhere in the world. As the number of forces stationed outside the

United States has declined, the need for an immediate response to overseas events

has risen. Given that access to forward bases will remain critical and become increasingly risky, the rapid deployment and agile sustainment of expeditionary air

and space forces will be key to our ability to operate across the spectrum of conflict.

Airlift and tanker aircraft give the United States the ability to swiftly reach out

and influence events around the world. OEF and ONE have, again, shown the utility of rapid global mobility. We have also witnessed the potential need to provide

critical tactical lift capability for immediate response at home. However, even with

the success of these ongoing operations, the Air Force desperately needs to continue

airlift and tanker modernization efforts to ensure the United States maintains its

ability to operate globally. As part of our on-going effort to assess our airlift requirements in light of current and anticipated needs, Air Mobility Command is undergoing a comprehensive review of our air mobility force structure.

Global Air Traffic Management (GATM)

In addition to aging aircraft problems, the Air Force mobility fleet must also respond to the added requirements of a new air traffic architecture. GATM focuses

on increasing system capacity and flight efficiency, while continuing to meet flight

safety standards. The most critical technology elements are satellite-based navigation, increased use of data links rather than voice for pilot/controller communication, and improved surveillance that will enhance both ground and cockpit situational awareness. Incorporation of these technologies will ensure our mobility fleet

maintains unrestricted access to global airspace.

An essential means to ensure the AF’s ability to support its 54.5 million-ton miles

per day airlift requirement is through the procurement of additional C–17s. The AF

has identified a need for at least 180 C–17s, and will award a follow-on multi-year

procurement contract to reach that number. A mobility tiger team with Active, Reserve and Guard representation will continue to study beddown plans for these additional aircraft.

The average age of our KC–135 tankers is now over 41 years and operations and

support costs are escalating as structural fatigue, corrosion, systems supportability,

and technical obsolescence continue to take their toll. To keep these aging aircraft

operational, we are modernizing the avionics and navigation systems on all Active,

Guard, and Reserve KC–135s. Called Pacer CRAG (compass, radar and global positioning system), the project provides for a major overhaul of the cockpit to improve

the reliability and maintainability of the aircraft’s compass and radar systems. The

project also meets the congressionally mandated requirement to install the global

positioning system in all Defense Department aircraft. As an added safety measure

for formation flying, a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) will be installed.

TCAS gives pilots the ability to actively monitor other aircraft and provides advance

warning of potential mid-air collisions.

The ongoing war on terrorism is further stretching the tanker fleet, motivating

the Air Force to consider accelerating replacement options. The Boeing 767 Global

Tanker Transport Aircraft (GTTA) is a promising alternative to quickly replace the

KC–135E, our least capable and most costly to maintain tanker aircraft. While considering this and other lease options, the Air Force is focused on acquiring the

world’s newest and most capable tanker; increasing fuel offload, increasing availability, and increasing reliability-all with far lower support cost.

The Air Force is pursuing a two-phased modernization plan for the C–5 fleet.

Phase I is the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) and Phase II is the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). C–5 AMP replaces unreliable/unsupportable engine/flight instruments and flight system components, installing GATM equipment to assure complete access to global airspace and installing

navigation/safety equipment to reduce risk of mid-air and ground collisions (i.e.

TCAS). C–5 RERP improves aircraft reliability, maintainability and availability by

replacing the power plant and other unreliable systems. Several C–5 aircraft will

undergo multi-year testing to evaluate the potential for modernizing this aging, but

important mobility asset. The results of that evaluation will determine the need for

additional C–17 acquisitions or other alternative.

Modernization of the C–130 fleet is proceeding with a two-pronged approach to

maintain an intra-theater airlift capability well into the 21st Century. Procuring

168 new C–130Js to replace our oldest C–130s and modifying the remaining fleet

will reduce total ownership costs and simplify maintenance, training, and operational employment. New C–130Js will replace eight EC–130Es and 150 of our most

worn-out C–130E combat delivery aircraft. In addition, 10 C–130Js will replace the
492

Reserve’s 10 WC–130H aircraft at Keesler Air Force Base, MS. These aircraft and

crews are specially trained and equipped to penetrate severe storms while collecting

and transmitting extensive meteorological data necessary to track and forecast the

movement of these severe storms to a special ground station. C–130Js will also replace the Air National Guard’s aging Commando Solo platform, as well as complete

other Guard units. The remainder of the AF’s C/AC/EC/HC/LC/MC–130 fleet will

undergo an Avionics Modernization Program (C–130 AMP). This will include stateof-the-art avionics and a new ‘‘glass’’ cockpit that will eliminate the need for a navigator in the combat delivery aircraft. Along with increased reliability, this modernization will make the fleet compliant with the GATM and the DOD’s navigational safety requirements.

Rapid Global Mobility is also dependent upon expeditious airfield support. Moving

aircraft tails in-and-out of a field quickly can determine success or failure of an operation. The Air Force is procuring the Tunner (60K) and Halvorsen (formerly next

generation small loader or NGSL) loaders to replace older equipment, providing a

new capability to interface directly with all military and commercial cargo aircraft.

The Tunner is optimized for high volume to support operations at major aerial ports

while the Halvorsen is C–130 deployable to support mobility operations at forward,

austere bases.

Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM)

The Air Force has begun a new self-protection initiative to counter man-portable

air defense systems (MANPADS). LAIRCM will use state-of-the-art technology to

provide an active IR defense for the AF’s airlift and tanker aircraft. LAIRCM builds

on existing systems designed to defend helicopters and small, fixed-wing aircraft. It

will add a laser, which provides the increased power needed to protect aircraft with

large IR signatures like the C–17 and the KC–135. Operational capability is expected on the first C–17s in late fiscal year 2004. Additional airlift and tanker aircraft will be LAIRCM-modified in the future.

CV–22

The CV–22 is the Air Force designation for the special operations variant of the

V–22 Osprey—a vertical takeoff and landing airplane designed for long range, rapid,

clandestine penetration of denied areas in low visibility, adverse weather, and/or at

night. With twice the range and speed of a conventional helicopter and state-of-theart avionics system, the CV–22 will be able to complete most of its missions under

the cover of darkness without being detected. We will use the CV–22 to infiltrate,

exfiltrate, and resupply Special Operations Forces (SOF) and to augment personnel

recovery forces when needed. Currently, the entire V–22 program is undergoing a

major restructuring that will address technical and safety concerns. Flight tests of

the two CV–22 test vehicles, suspended through 2001, will resume in 2002 and continue through 2005.

VIP Special Air Mission/Operational Support Airlift (VIPSAM/OSA)

The Air Force continues to modernize the VIPSAM/OSA fleets to provide senior

leaders with improved capabilities to respond to national crises. Aging CINC support aircraft are being replaced with modern commercial aircraft with intercontinental range and robust communications (leased Gulfstream Vs, designated the C–

37, and Boeing 737–700 designated the C–40B). This innovative strategy to leverage

the commercial aircraft industry should be completed by fall 2002. The President’s

VC–25s will receive major upgrades to the passenger cabin infrastructure. Additionally, major upgrades to the communications suite will provide airborne capabilities

comparable to that of his White House office. The four C–32s (Boeing 757s) will also

receive advanced ‘‘office-in-the-sky’’ upgrades to include broadband data and direct

broadcast service. As funds become available, remaining VIPSAM aircraft will be

evaluated for similar upgrades.

Agile Combat Support (ACS)

Responsiveness, deployability, and sustainability—the cornerstones of American

expeditionary operations—are the mandate of agile combat support. The basic objectives established set to achieve these goals remain intact. The Air Force established

set objectives to elevate the capabilities of the ACS elements by developing lighter,

leaner, and more rapidly deployable forces; creating more responsive planning and

execution capability; executing improved agile combat support command and control; and assuring an agile, responsive, and survivable sustainment capability.

While progress has been made toward achieving these objectives, much of the deployment strain in support of OEF has fallen on our expeditionary combat support

forces. Some high-demand support areas have exceeded their on-call capabilities in

current AEF rotation cycles, as a result of our surge mode activities, which are like-
493

ly to continue for some time. Consequently, we are continuing to make gains in

right-sizing deployment teams so they are postured efficiently and effectively for expeditionary needs. We are placing high emphasis on the development of expeditionary site planning tools that provide the means to tailor our deployment capability based on assets pre-positioned in the theater.

Reconstituting our current bare base systems and wartime stocks, as well as developing and acquiring bare base assets and other types of support equipment that

are ‘‘lighter and leaner’’ and more rapidly deployable are also integral to achieve

force responsiveness. Essential investments in infrastructure and pre-positioning

are mandatory ingredients of improved reception and beddown capabilities at our

fighter and bomber forward operating locations (FOLs).

The fielding of the Integrated Deployment System at all of our AF Wings has improved the responsiveness of our Wing deployment process. Our information technologies must continue to mature with expansion of such capabilities as the virtual

logistics suite hosted on the Air Force Portal. These essential components provide

real-time situational awareness for ACS command and control that leverages logistics and combat support across simultaneous operations in multiple theaters that

now include the CONUS. The CSAF’s Logistics Review (CLR) and ongoing Logistics

Transformation are reengineering our logistics processes to achieve an agile, effective, well integrated logistics chain that is responsive to AEF requirements.

Whether forward deployed in AEF operations, or completing homeland security

missions, we must be prepared to operate under any conditions. Protecting critical

bases of operations and defeating CBRNE weapons and their means of delivery is

one of the most complex challenges facing the DOD. Our balanced response to the

proliferation of these weapons, integrates the four pillars of counterproliferation—

proliferation prevention, counterforce capabilities, and active and passive defense

measures. Our counter-NBC operational readiness initiative sets Air Force-wide standards

for readiness, identifies shortfalls and develops capabilities to effectively cope with

CBRNE attacks. This initiative includes a counter-NBC roadmap and an enhanced

counter-chemical warfare CONOPS. The roadmap is an innovative investment strategy that cuts across Air Force plans and programs to increase counter-NBC visibility, while offering enhancements for effective air and space operations in NBC environments.

Regardless of contamination, combat or humanitarian settings, the medical service plays an important role in agile combat support. Through training initiatives

and innovation in field systems this year, AFMS has raised the bar on its capabilities. The results of these efforts are the addition of state-of-the-art equipment and

training facilities which guarantee AFMS’ ability to respond effectively when the nation calls.

One example is EMEDS , which is a lightweight modular medical system that allows the AFMS to tailor its response to each situation. Another revolutionary disaster response system is the Lightweight Epidemiological Advanced Detection and

Emergency Response System (LEADERS), designed to enhance the current medical

surveillance process and provide the earliest possible detection of covert biological

warfare incidents or significant outbreaks of disease. The Air Force will continue to

work with its civilian counterparts to develop and fine-tune this technology over the

coming year.

Along with developing relevant facilities and equipment, the AFMS is expanding

its training capabilities through the development of the Coalition Sustainment of

Trauma and Readiness Skills (CSTARS) program. CSTARS creates learning opportunities in which civilian academic centers serve as training platforms to provide

clinical experience to help sustain necessary readiness skills for AFMS providers.

The CSTARS arrangement allows for synergistic relationships between academic

medical centers and military medical assets, while simultaneously improving wartime readiness and homeland security capability. Finally, AFMS training also extends to allied and friendly nations. The Institute of Global Health (IGH), located

at Brooks AFB, Texas, is a worldwide educational program for medical providers to

develop and improve their medical response skills. Programs are tailored to the host

nation’s infrastructure and resources and are taught on-site.

This cross-section of examples of initiatives that will help achieve the four ACS

objectives are producing meaningful results. There is, however, more to be done to

better prepare our ACS capability for supporting the EAF vision. For example, we

need to fill readiness shortfalls in key logistics resources strained by expanded operations including people, skills, spares, munitions, bare base assets, vehicles, etc. We

need to improve our capability to rapidly develop deployment and sustainment plans

for fast-breaking contingencies. Enhancements need to be made to our ACS command and control capability to make it more responsive, better integrated, and suffi-
494

ciently robust to support AEF needs worldwide. Finally, modernization of equipment

and the tools essential to complement skilled personnel require investments in R&D

in Science and Technology initiatives that will help reduce our ‘‘footprint’’ while improving our ACS capability.

Additional Readiness Concerns

Facilities and Infrastructure

Air Force installations and facilities that are available when and where needed,

and with the right capabilities, form the foundation supporting current and future

operational requirements and readiness. Our installations and facilities are the platforms from which we launch and recover Air Force and Joint weapon systems while

simultaneously providing work and living environments for personnel and their families. For example, bases like Whiteman AFB, Missouri and Ramstein AB, Germany,

are important nodes in the global network that sustains OEF operations while also

sustaining thousands of airmen, dependents, and their communities.

Regular and planned upgrades are an essential part of keeping a healthy infrastructure upon which to build and sustain air and space capabilities. In fiscal year

2002, operations and maintenance (O&M) sustainment funding precluded fully

maintaining Air Force facilities and infrastructure and will increase the backlog of

necessary repairs. In the near term the Air Force facilities recapitalization rate falls

short of DOD’s 67-year facilities recapitalization goal. In fiscal year 2002, our military construction (MILCON) and O&M restoration and modernization accounts allowed us to achieve a recapitalization rate of 163 years. With Congressional assistance we were able to reduce our fiscal year 2002 rate to 118 years.

In the fiscal year 2003–07 Adjusted Program Objective Memorandum we were

able to fully fund O&M sustainment across the FYDP and achieve a restoration and

modernization recapitalization rate trajectory that will meet the OSD’s 67-year goal

by 2010. This track must be maintained. Sustaining and modernizing our facilities

and infrastructure will ensure we have the right facilities at the right time and

place to support military readiness.

Vehicle Replacement Program

The Air Force vehicle fleet is in serious need of recapitalization. Underfunding of

the program during the past decade has created a backlog of more than 41,000 general and special purpose vehicles that have exceeded their life expectancy. This

backlog represents half of the entire Active, Guard and Reserve vehicle fleets. The

backlog continues to grow each year, despite efforts to lease vehicles and extend vehicle life expectancies through enhanced technology. Current funding is below the

annual requirement. On-going operations have created a need for 879 additional

leased and procured vehicles valued at $42.4 million to support the mission. Failure

to replace aging vehicles has a direct impact on of readiness and ultimately our combat capability.

Realignments and Closures

Reductions in Air Force manpower and force structure continue to outpace those

in infrastructure. As a result, the Air Force continues to fund unneeded facilities

while struggling to maintain its vital operational readiness. Our physical plant

today is too costly, and we have too much of it. Excess infrastructure continues to

waste precious dollars that could be better used for force modernization and quality

of life. The Air Force needs to close unneeded installations and direct the savings

into readiness areas: base operating support, real-property maintenance, family

housing, and military construction at crucial operational bases. The Air Force will

comply with the Secretary of Defense’s guidance for conducting the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process in 2005, as authorized in the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act.

Environmental Leadership

The Air Force continues to be a leader in the stewardship of our environment

through compliance, pollution prevention, resource conservation, and environmental

restoration. We have achieved the Defense Planning Guidance goal for 2002 for the

environmental restoration program, to have cleanup remedies in place for 50 percent of our active installations high-risk sites. The next goal is to have remedies in

place for 100 percent of the high-risk sites by the end of 2007. We are on track to

achieve that goal, as well as having remedies in place for all medium risk sites by

the end of 2011 and all low-risk sites by the end of 2014.

The Air Force has a tremendous range of flexible, rapidly responsive capabilities—the skill sets that allow us to meet any mission requirement. Constant im-
495

provement will require innovation, creativity and re-assessment, but also the funding support to recapitalize critical components.

Towards Developing Systems

Experimentation and Wargames

We conduct experiments and wargames to evaluate near- and far-term air and

space capabilities and operational concepts. Joint Expeditionary Forces Experiment

(JEFX) is the Air Force’s large-scale experiment, which is fully integrated with Joint

Forces Command’s Millennium Challenge series of experiments. It is a live and constructive event focused on improving time critical targeting; command and control

of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and alliance participation in an

open-floor Combined Air and Space Operations Center. The Global Engagement

(GE) wargame is held every other year to explore the potential capabilities of joint

air and space power and future concepts 10 to 15 years into the future. GE V demonstrated air and space power’s unique capability to ensure access to operational

areas where the enemy employs robust anti-access strategies. In August 2001, we

completed a year of post-game analysis from GE-V. This analysis showed the Air

Force is on the right vector toward the future in the area of force capabilities and

is making great strides in addressing time critical targeting requirements. GE V

also provided substantive recommendations for improvements in space control, information operations, and forward logistic support.

Planning is underway for the next Global Engagement (GE VI), scheduled for November 2002. This game will explore mid-term joint /combined operational concepts,

such as rapidly dominating the battlespace and setting conditions for transitioning

to sustained joint operations.

During odd-numbered years, we conduct the Air Force Future Capabilities

wargame that takes a longer view, striving to shape our strategic vision by testing

alternative concepts, systems, and force structures that may appear 20 to 25 years

into the future. These wargames have produced new air and space concepts, such

as long-range standoff warfare, reach-forward C2 capability, space force application,

and the link between C2, ISR and target engagement, which continue to mature

through follow-up analysis and subsequent wargames. We have just concluded the

2001 Futures Game that focused on defining C2 and ISR for the 2020 air and space

campaign; overcoming anti-access strategies; survivability of space capabilities; future transformational capabilities; computer network operations; and conducting future joint/coalition operations. Insights from this game will be developed, analyzed

and investigated further throughout 2002.

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs)

ACTDs marry new operational concepts with mature technologies meeting

warfighter needs in two to four years at a reduced cost. The Air Force currently has

21 ongoing ACTDs. An example is the Hyperspectral Collection and Analysis System ACTD that will demonstrate various hyperspectral sensors on operational platforms and integrate them into the existing tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination architecture. Another example is the Thermobaric Weapon ACTD, which

provides an energetic thermobaric penetrator payload to defeat enemy tunnel facilities and weapons with two to three times the lethality of conventional high explosive payloads.

Battlelabs

Since their inception in 1997, Air Force battlelabs have developed over 120 initiatives, including the application of commercial scheduling software for the Air Force

Satellite Control Network, telecommunications firewalls for base phone systems,

and the use of speech recognition to reduce mission planning time. The recently

commissioned Air Mobility Battlelab, with a charter to rapidly identify and assess

innovative operational and logistics concepts, joined the ranks of the Air and Space

Expeditionary Force, Command and Control, Force Protection, Information Warfare,

Space, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Battlelabs.

Enhancing Fundamental Practices

Agile Acquisition

The Air Force launched Agile Acquisition to streamline and synchronize the business of defining, funding, developing, acquiring, testing and sustaining the weapon

systems our Air Force uses to defend America’s freedom. The goal is simple: Field

today’s technology... TODAY. While we’ve had many individual successes in the

past, individual successes do not translate into fundamental reform. We must get

to the point where doing things smartly is not news. Agile Acquisition is the strategy to achieve systemic improvement.
496

As a strategy, Agile Acquisition has three major thrusts: First, we will relentlessly

attack our own processes and get rid of those steps that are not value added. Second, we are going to free our leaders to lead and demand that they take the initiative. We are going to train them to be innovative and think creatively, provide periodic refresher training, and then hold them accountable for being agents of change.

Finally, we’re going to offer a lot of help through our new Acquisition Center of Excellence, which opened for business on December 2001.

The acquisition reform of Lightning Bolts 2002 gives us the tools to make those

changes. They will focus our acquisition efforts and, at the same time, reinforce our

other initiatives to transform and improve the services and products we provide.

The Lightning Bolts will also reinforce and complement the headquarters reorganization announced in December 2001 by the Secretary and Chief of Staff. In addition, the AF is an active member of DOD’s Rapid Improvement Team, chartered to

streamline the Information Technology system acquisition process to less than 18

months. Towards that end, we are leading prototype programs aimed at eliminating

serial and redundant oversight processes, expanding participation by interested parties, and sharing accountability from program inception. Achieving agile acquisition

is not a luxury; it is a requisite for success. We must provide absolutely the best

and newest capabilities to our fighters in the shortest time possible. Our acquisition

processes, too often seen as a roadblock to real progress, must become as agile as

our warfighters.

Another key aspect of acquisition reform involves bringing the warfighter into the

process early on. This is an essential element of our capabilities-based concept of

operations which is discussed in a later section.

Long Term Depot Maintenance Plan

Depot maintenance is another critical element of our overall warfighting capability. The current depot posture has been influenced by the downsizing of our operational force; the reduction of our organic infrastructure; the introduction of new

technologies; and recent depot legislative changes. In order to maintain a ready and

controlled source of depot maintenance, the Air Force has prepared a Long Term

Depot Maintenance Plan for submission to OSD and Congress by the summer recess

of the Congress.

The overarching objective of this plan is to ensure that Air Force equipment is

safe and ready to operate across the whole range of contingencies, from training to

supporting major theater wars. Partnering with private industry is a key element

of our plan and provides the best value approach for maintaining our depots. And,

benchmarking our depots is essential for us to understand where best to invest.

Leveraging the best of public and private capabilities ensures the Air Force will

take advantage of what each does best. Partnering is also the method by which we

will be able to most efficiently utilize our current facilities as well as bring in technologies to support core capability requirements in the future. However, taxing programs to fund capital improvements is a contentious process. We continue to explore

the concept of depot capital appropriations to smooth out the investment streams.

The Air Force Long Term Depot Maintenance Plan will provide military strength

by ensuring we possess an organic ‘‘core’’ capability sized to support all potential

military operations. It will be a living document and postures our three organic depots to continue to support the warfighter.

Organizational Experimentation—Future Total Force

In the 21st Century, the U.S. Air Force anticipates deriving its strength from the

flexibility and the diversity of its integrated Active duty, Air National Guard, Air

Force Reserve and civilians more than ever before. Optimum use of Air Force component resources is critical in providing the complete potential of American air and

space power. Future Total Force (FTF) efforts will include new ways to optimize the

components to make the best use of our resources and people and to build on a foundation of high standards and strong cooperation among the components.

In the 1990s, the restructuring of the Air Force placed a greater emphasis on the

force structure in the Air Reserve Component. Today, the Guard and Reserve account for over 65 percent of the tactical airlift, 35 percent of the strategic airlift capability, 60 percent of air refueling, 38 percent of fighters, and significant contributions to rescue, bomber, and combat support missions. Additionally, the Guard and

Reserve have an increasing presence in space, intelligence and information systems.

Guard and Reserve units also provide support in pilot training; radar and regional

control centers manning; at the Edward’s Test Center, California; Test and Evaluation missions in Arizona; instructing in weapon system school houses; conducting

flight check functions at Air Force depots; and helping to develop the Homeland Defense mission. Today, the Guard and Reserve components are providing day-to-day
497

mission support. They are no longer simply a ‘‘reserve’’ force—their collective capabilities make operating as an expeditionary Air Force possible.

Future success will depend upon our ability to develop an even closer partnership

between the components and a ‘‘seamless’’ integration of all assets. FTF will explore

expanding the integration of our people and systems, seeking efficiencies and

leveraging their individual strengths by combining operations into new organizational structures—blended units. Together, Active, Civilian, Guard and Reserve

form a more capable, more efficient and more effective organization than any could

provide individually.

Blended units will integrate Active, Civilian, Guard, and Reserve capabilities in

creative new ways, that may appear as radical departures from the past but which

have already been part of the Air Force business practice for years. Flying and support functions, for example, will be so integrated with component personnel as to

be invisible to outside observers. This will focus attention on conserving valuable

manpower, resources, and skills while reducing overall costs. Finally, blended units

will maintain the ability to deploy rapidly and will explore new avenues toward an

overall goal of providing a ‘‘best mix’’ of personnel for the assigned mission.

Developing blended units will not be without challenge. Out-dated laws and policies would have to change to reflect requirements in command and control, fiscal

and personnel issues. Demands for more efficient use of resources (personnel and

aircraft), greater flexibility and integration of personnel and administrative systems,

higher reliance on the commercial marketplace skills of individuals, and rapid adjustment to changing cultural, social, and economic influences on the Air Force institution will serve to further promote blended organizations.

The Guard and the Reserve are more than just our partners in providing air and

space power, they are an integral part of today’s Air Force and form a special link

between the Active duty Air Force and America’s citizens. To a great extent, they

are citizens first. Blended units would take advantage of that connection to the citizenry and their broad base of knowledge and experience, in both civilian and military matters. The Air Force goal is to create a truly ‘‘seamless’’ force of airmen—

one organization of airmen who are interchangeable but who also operate in a different status at particular periods in their air and space careers. The Air Force is

committed to evolving its FTF to meet the highly complex security demands in its

future.

Enhanced Homeland Security Missions

As operators of two legs of the nuclear triad, the Air Force remains at the heart

of homeland security. Since its establishment in 1947, the Air Force has been actively and successfully deterring aggressors, intercepting intruders, and providing

ballistic missile warning. The September 11th attacks brought homeland security to

the forefront with the publication of Executive Order 13228, establishing the Office

of Homeland Security. The Air Force is being called upon to counter a new class

of foreign and domestic terrorist threats through both defensive and offensive actions. Air defense capabilities remain on high alert to intercede and prevent further

misuse of our nation’s civil aviation assets. Expeditionary capabilities have been

called upon to help destroy terrorist operatives where they live. In all actions, the

air and space expeditionary force construct provides the flexibility to place forces

where and when we need them.

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (formerly: National Missile Defense)

The Rocket Systems Launch Program provided targets and interceptor vehicles for

two National Missile Defense tests in 2001. Using decommissioned Minuteman II’s,

simulated incoming missiles were launched from Vandenberg AFB while a Minuteman II stage two and three combination, with test interceptor on board, was

launched from Kwajelein Island. In the two tests supported this year, both successfully intercepted the target vehicle, meeting a huge technical milestone in the quest

for homeland missile defense.

CONCLUSION

Air Force capabilities provide America with a unique set of strengths—asymmetric advantages. However, today’s technological advantage is no guarantee of future success. Maintaining our current leadership position requires addressing our

aging infrastructure, modernizing outdated weapon systems and harnessing technology to achieve our vision. To be sure, this requires funding, but a significant part

of the improvements rests with ingenuity. In fact, how we maximize the collective

potential of our Active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian resources will affect our ability

to exploit the advantages our core competencies create. Realizing this potential

through better business practices, more sophisticated training methods, acquired
498

technologies, and other innovative means will be even more challenging given our

ongoing efforts in the war on terrorism. Yet the risks of failing to meet the requirements for readiness are unacceptable. Readiness is one prerequisite for American

military success. Another is transformation.

TRANSFORMATION

New Impetus to Transform—The evolving geopolitical context

The terrorist attacks of September 11th have forever changed the world we live

in. Now, more than ever, our military must transform to preserve the asymmetric

advantages it currently enjoys—specifically, its air and space capabilities. These advantages are in danger of eroding in the face of emerging security threats including

the diminishing protection of geographic distance; the proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction; rapidly advancing technologies (such as sensors, information processing, and precision guidance) available to adversaries; escalating competitions in

space and information operations; greatly reduced access to forward bases; the prospect of operations in urban areas; and finally, the prominent threat of global terrorism, especially within our open borders. The demonstrated superiority of our air

and space forces over Afghanistan, and the asymmetric advantage they continue to

provide the nation must not be taken for granted. Success is not a birthright, we

must continue to transform to stay ahead of our adversaries.

America’s future success requires us to fully exploit our current technological

dominance to seek asymmetric advantage over our adversaries. Such transformation

will encompass the horizontal integration of manned, unmanned, and space assets

and require us to successfully address emerging and time-critical targets. It will require digital communications at the machine level which result in providing Joint

Force Commanders with decision-quality information. The sum of this wisdom is a

cursor over the target.

Transformation can include multiple technologies that enable new missions, significantly improved old systems and processes, or using existing capabilities or organizations in new ways. Ultimately, transformation will drive how the military is organized, trained, and equipped. Transformation can also involve changes in military

doctrine or tactics, techniques, and procedures that determine force deployment, employment, or the way forces are led or interact with each other to produce effects.

It is also important to remember that transformation extends into every aspect of

the Air Force—be it warfighting or support capabilities. For example, transformation of our business systems is currently being embraced to take advantage

of new technologies and processes already proven in commercial industry. These

ideas and products will enhance our efficiency and increase the crossflow of information across Air Force communities.

A recapitalized force is fundamental to the realization of transformational forces.

Though we are shortening acquisition cycles, new systems still take years to reach

the field. Therefore transformation in the immediate future must begin by using legacy systems in new ways. We will continue to adapt and innovate in order to push

the envelope of our capabilities.

Transformation—Realizing Potential Capabilities

In the 2001 QDR, the Secretary of Defense provided specific direction for military

transformation. Future defense planning will shift from the previously ‘‘threatbased’’ approach to a ‘‘capabilities-based approach,’’ focusing on ‘‘how an adversary

might fight, rather than specifically on whom the adversary might be or where a

war might occur.’’ To support the SECDEF’s goals, the Air Force remains in a continued state of evolution and transformation, aggressively pursuing advanced technologies, innovative methods of employment, and bold organizational changes.

Transformation is nothing new to the Air Force. It has been an innate characteristic

of airmen from the Wright Brothers to airmen operating in the 21st Century.

Continued AF transformation will enable the United States to defeat an adversary

by giving the Joint Forces Commander the exact warfighting effects he needs, at the

right place, and at the right time. AF transformations will help DOD achieve its

‘‘operational goals;’’ give the United States more operational flexibility and capability to address the future security environment; defeat adversaries’ asymmetric

strategies; reduce friendly casualties and collateral damage; and sustain America’s

current asymmetric advantages into the future.

Capabilities-Based Concepts of Operations (CONOPs)

AF warfighters are working hard to lay the foundation for the next step in our

transformation to a capabilities-focused Expeditionary Air and Space Force. Our

goal is to make warfighting effects, and the capabilities we need to achieve them,

the drivers for everything we do. The centerpiece of this effort is the development
499

of new Task Force Concepts of Operations (CONOPS) that will guide our planning

and programming, requirements reform, and acquisition. We have identified several

Task Force CONOPS that we are fleshing out—Global Strike Task Force (GSTF) is

a prominent example and is the farthest along in development.

GSTF defines how the AF plans to operate when faced with an anti-access scenario. It will meet the immediate needs of our regional CINCs by leveraging our

current and near-term capabilities to overcome anti-access threats like the next generation surface-to-air missiles and other defensive networks. By incorporating the

stealth and supercruise capabilities of the F–22 with advanced munitions like SDB

we will enable our stealth assets like the B–2s and F–117 to take apart the enemy

defenses. This capability guarantees that follow-on air, space, land, and sea forces

will enjoy freedom from attack and freedom to attack. Key to the success of the entire family of Air Force Task Forces will be the horizontal integration of manned,

unmanned, and space ISR assets. A key component of horizontal integration is the

Multi-sensor Command and Control network that will help provide the actionable,

exploitable intelligence the JFC needs to make effective decisions.

What warfighting effects will the AF provide? What capabilities do we need to deliver these effects? Our family of Task Force CONOPs will provide the answers to

these questions. With this focus, we then understand what key requirements are

needed to support these CONOPs.

Advanced Capabilities

Manned Assets

Stealth provides the ability to fly largely undetected in hostile airspace and penetrate air defense systems. Stealth will be absolutely essential to establish air superiority in the decades ahead against rapidly improving air defense systems and fighters. The F–22, JSF, UCAVs, improved B–2 bombers, and highly stealthy stand-off

weapons comprise the critical stealth capabilities under development now and into

the future.

The F–22, with its revolutionary combination of stealth, supercruise (i.e. supersonic-cruise without afterburner), maneuverability, and integrated avionics, will

dominate the skies. The F–22 is clearly needed to counter the rapid deployment of

third generation fighters to potential U.S. adversaries. In addition, when outfitted

with the SDB, the F–22’s ability to penetrate an adversary’s anti-access airspace

and destroy his most critical air defense capabilities, will enable 24 hour stealth operations and freedom of movement for all follow-on forces—fully leveraging our nation’s asymmetric technological advantages.

In 2001, flight-testing continued to demonstrate the revolutionary capabilities.

Specifically, the F–22 successfully completed an AIM–120 guided missile launch,

and initial radar detection range measurements (met specification requirements the

first time out—an unprecedented accomplishment).

On 14 Aug the Defense Acquisition Board approved the F–22’s entry into low-rate

initial production (LRIP). Entering operational service in 2005, this transformational leap in technology is the linchpin to preserving the nation’s most important military advantage for the warfighter: the capability to rapidly obtain and

maintain air and space dominance.

Acting in concert with the F–22 will be the JSF. The JSF program will develop

and field an affordable, lethal, survivable, next-generation, multi-role, strike fighter

aircraft for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and our allies. With its combination

of stealth, large internal payloads, and multi-spectral avionics, the JSF will provide

persistent battlefield stealth to attack mobile and heavily defended targets. Furthermore, JSF planned reliability and maintainability will enable an increase in sortie

generation rate and mission reliability, and will reduce the logistics footprint as

compared to legacy aircraft.

On 25 October 2001, the Secretary of Defense certified to Congress that all JSF

Concept Demonstration Phase (CDP) exit criteria had been accomplished; the technological maturity of key technologies was sufficient to warrant entry into the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase; and both CDP contractors

achieved greater than 20 hours of short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft

operations. On October 26, 2001, the JSF program officially entered the SDD phase

with the award of contracts to Lockheed Martin for the airframe and Pratt & Whitney Military Engines for the propulsion system. During the SDD phase, the program will focus on developing a family of strike aircraft that significantly reduces

life-cycle cost, while meeting the Services’ operational requirements. The program

will use a block upgrade approach, based upon an open system architecture, which

addresses aircraft and weapons integration and supports the Services’ Initial Operational Capability (IOC) requirements in the 2010–2012 timeframe.
500

International partners will share the cost of JSF development. The United King- dom signed an agreement in January 2001 to contribute $2 billion to the SDD program, and negotiations are underway with other potential international partners.

International participation in JSF will result in substantial benefits to the United

States in such areas as future coalition operations and interoperability; financial

savings; appropriate U.S.-foreign industry technology sharing; and strengthening

political-military ties with our allies.

For ballistic missile defense, one of the most important manned assets is the Airborne Laser (ABL). ABL is a transformational boost-phase intercept weapon system

that will contribute significantly to our multi-layered missile defense architecture.

Structural modification of a 747 aircraft, the first of two ABL prototypes, was completed in CY01. In CY02, ABL will begin an intensive period of subsystem integration and flight testing, progressing toward a lethal demonstration against a ballistic

missile. The ABL program transferred to the Missile Defense Agency in October

2001 and will return to the Air Force for production and deployment. The ABL will

also provide critical data for the development of a Space Based Laser (SBL).

Unmanned Assets

Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles have the potential to provide revolutionary

suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and strike capabilities to future joint

force commanders. Our UCAV X–45 system demonstration program with DARPA

will demonstrate the feasibility of UCAVs to affordably and effectively accomplish

these missions in the high threat environments of the 21st Century. The first demonstration aircraft test flights will begin in 2002. UCAVs will eliminate the operator

from harm’s way for high-risk missions and, in conjunction with manned platforms,

be a crucial enabler for GSTF and other Air Force Task Forces.

Space Based Assets

Maintaining and developing space superiority is critical to the transformation of

the U.S. military to meet the challenges ahead. At the forefront of this development

is leveraging the resident expertise of our space warriors, and integrating their cultural strength and wisdom with air forces in order to achieve maximum operational

effects. The ability to exploit and deny access to space is of great importance in this

new era where dominance in information systems may determine battlefield success

or failure. The Air Force is investigating or pursuing revolutionary new capabilities

to ensure adequate space situational awareness (in addition to traditional space surveillance) as well as defensive and offensive counterspace capabilities.

We are transforming our space situational awareness with a much needed improvement to the nation’s missile detection and warning capability. The highly accurate Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite system on orbit today was developed

over 30 years ago to provide strategic missile warning. Modernization to meet 21st

Century warfighter needs is critical. The new Space Based Infrared system (SBIRS)

provides a single architecture for the nation’s infrared detection needs—a ‘‘system

of systems’’—meeting our security requirements for 24/7 strategic and tactical missile warning, missile defense, technical intelligence and battlespace characterization.

This transformational space system consists of two primary components: SBIRS

High and SBIRS Low. SBIRS High includes four satellites in Geosynchronous Orbit

(GEO) and two in a Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) that will work hand-in-hand with

the 20–30 Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites being developed through the Ballistic

Missile Defense Organization’s (BMDO), (since renamed the Missile Defense Agency

(MDA)), SBIRS Low program. Both programs currently are under review. SBIRS

High has experienced unacceptable cost growth and is being considered for restructuring. SBIRS Low may be delayed as the state of the program’s maturity is being

evaluated.

Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN)

AFSCN is a global system of control centers, remote tracking stations, and communications links used to establish initial contact with all deploying military satellites, and to control early checkout operations. In addition, the AFSCN enables

common satellite operations such as telemetry, tracking and commanding, mission

data receipt and relay, and emergency satellite recovery. We also use the AFSCN

to update the navigational database of GPS satellites, which ensures effective support to the warfighters. In fiscal year 2002 we initiated an AFSCN modernization

program using commercial-off-the-shelf equipment. It is critical that we continue

this effort since much of our current infrastructure is so old that spare parts no

longer exist. Moreover, since nearly 50 percent of the total AFSCN workload supports National requirements, the system’s viability is essential. Preservation of both

the AFSCN infrastructure and the frequency spectrum it uses for military satellite

operations is vital to successful national security space operations.
501

Launch Systems

Our heritage launch systems continue with a 100 percent success rate this year.

The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) will build on past successes while

transforming today’s fleet of Delta, Atlas, and Titan space launch vehicles into lowcost, efficient space transportation systems. The EELV will deliver navigation,

weather, communications, intelligence, early warning, and experimental satellites to

orbit on time and on budget to meet warfighter needs. Boeing Delta IV and Lockheed Martin Atlas V rocket families are currently in Engineering Manufacturing

and Development to provide launch services beginning next year through the year

2020 and beyond. Our partnership with industry will meet military, government,

and commercial spacelift requirements at 25 percent to 50 percent lower costs than

current systems.

Space-Based Radar (SBR)

From the ultimate high ground, space-based ISR will provide near continuous

overflight of enemy targets to complement airborne and ground-based sensor platforms. SBR will revolutionize battlespace awareness by providing deep-look, wide

area surveillance of areas in a manner unaffected by political sensitivities and most

denial efforts—absolute leap-ahead technology. Persistent ISR will be achieved with

day/night, all weather detection and tracking of moving and fixed targets; improved

mapping, charting, and geodesy; and responsive targeting data from sensors to

shooters. Due to its basing mode, SBR can provide the nation a non-provocative,

long-range capability to enable early situational awareness in advance of hostilities

and throughout the spectrum of conflict. This will allow us to tighten the timelines

for prompt attack of both anti-access systems and enemy centers of gravity. SBR

is being designed to fit into the portfolio of other ISR assets.

Information Warfare (IW) and Information Assurance (IA)

Of primary importance to IW operations is the horizontal integration of manned,

unmanned, and space systems to achieve the machine-to-machine interface of command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. This integration provides executable decision-quality information to the commander in near-real-time. Second is our ability to protect these

systems from adversary manipulation through defensive information warfare. Third,

is the ability to deny adversaries these same capabilities through offensive information warfare.

Information superiority enables our military to achieve ‘‘decision cycle dominance’’

and allow us to act and react much more rapidly and effectively than our adversary—creating transformational military advantages. While technology will never

completely overcome Clausewitz’s ‘‘fog of war,’’ achieving information superiority as

described here could certainly minimize it for us and maximize it for our adversary.

Information superiority also yields additional benefits. First, a reduced forward

deployment requirement expedites the time to begin effects-based operations and reduces the number of personnel and equipment exposed to threats. Second, by avoiding massive attrition tactics, it would result in far fewer casualties and collateral

damage. Third, under the right circumstances, effective offensive information warfare capabilities, which include computer network attack, military deception, public

affairs, electronic warfare, and psychological operations (PSYOP), could prevent the

need for destruction by influencing our adversaries to capitulate before hostilities

begin. This latter possibility will be crucial in many of the environments the military will have to operate in the future, such as urban areas and various military

operations other than war, in which employing highly destructive kinetic weapons

would not be desirable.

In the future, the Air Force will field C4ISR capabilities that enable dynamic assessment, planning, and the rapid execution of global missions. The system will be

tailorable across the spectrum of operations and be horizontally and vertically integrated across components, functions, and levels of command. Joint Force Commanders will be able to exploit knowledge and awareness to use the right tools at

the right time in the right way-and do it all faster and with higher fidelity than

the adversary.

Predictive Battlespace Awareness (PBA)

PBA involves those actions required to understand our adversaries to the extent

of being able to accurately anticipate his actions before they make them. This includes understanding how our adversaries organize and employ their forces. It

means knowing their centers of gravity, capabilities, and weaknesses. PBA is an ongoing intelligence effort which begins long before forces are deployed. Ultimately,
502

PBA allows finite ISR assets to be focused on confirmation of anticipated actions instead of the more time-consuming discovery.

Communication Enhancement

We are now transforming the way information technology is used in the Air Force

as we implement the One Air Force... One Network initiative. This enterprisewide approach to IT will allow more responsive and more robust service to the

whole Air Force. In addition, Global Combat Support System-Air Force (GCSS–AF)

will integrate combat support information systems, thus removing the business inefficiencies resulting from numerous, independent stand-alone systems. With GCSS–

AF, the Air Force will finally have the means to provide an enterprise view of combat support information. GCSS–AF, through the Air Force Portal, will provide the

warfighter, supporting elements, and other Air Force members the means to

seamlessly integrate agile combat support information necessary to efficiently field

and sustain our Air and Space Expeditionary Forces.

Another piece of integration is the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). We aggressively accelerated development of this enabler of machine-level, digital conversations between our C2ISR and strike platforms so that the ‘‘sum of our wisdom’’ results in a cursor over the target. JTRS will also provide a flexible and adaptable

information exchange infrastructure, which moves the joint force forward in getting

operators and commanders the timely decision-quality information needed in today’s

warfighting environment.

Precision Engagement

The small diameter bomb, the first ‘‘miniature’’ munition in development, will provide an evolutionary capability in kills per sortie. The SDB weapon will use a common carriage system for fighters and most bombers, to carry at least four and potentially up to 12 SDB weapons per 1760 data bus aircraft station. This will allow a

fighter-size platform to carry 16 or more SDBs and a bomber to carry up to 288.

We will employ the SDB from low-to-high altitude, from standoff or direct attack

ranges, and in adverse weather conditions. Each SDB weapon will employ GPSaided guidance and be independently targeted. The Phase I SDB will have a capability against fixed or stationary targets, while the Phase II SDB will add a seeker

with Automatic Target Recognition to provide a capability against mobile and

relocatable targets.

To increase our capability against time-critical and moving targets, we are experimenting with existing and miniaturized versions of precision weapons on UAVs. The

range and loiter time of the ‘‘hunter-killer UAV’’ coupled with the direct feed of realtime targeting data, will increase our opportunities against moving targets—tightening our decision cycle and maximizing our warfighting effects. What these systems and our other advancing capabilities indicate is that we are within range of

our goals of persistent ISR, the finding to targeting to assessing within minutes

cycle, and fidelity in the integration of our systems. We seek near instantaneous attack capabilities once a target is approved for attack.

Innovation and Adaptation

All of the new systems and technologies in the world cannot supplant ingenuity.

Whether modifying current systems, developing streamlined efficiencies in organizations, or simply thinking creatively, innovation and adaptation are at the heart of

any transformation, and embedded in Air Force heritage. The same visionary essence behind the flight at Kitty Hawk works today to link emerging technologies

with dynamic future concepts of operation. The driving spirit of innovation in past

times of war exists today in the impetus to evolve our air and space capabilities and

elevate the security of the nation. Innovation and adaptation will be tremendously

important again in fiscal year 2003, and they will resonate in all the systems we

develop, in our fundamental practices, how we organize and even in our evolving

roles and missions in homeland security.

The prerequisite to achieving the transformation force outlined in the QDR is our

commitment to a strong Science and Technology (S&T) program. S&T is the critical

link between vision and operational capabilities. We continue to invest in a broad

and balanced set of technologies derived from basic and applied research, and advanced technology development on a continuum of maturity levels from short- to

long-term. This time-scaled approach keeps emerging capabilities in the pipeline

and fosters revolutionary developments.

The Air Force S&T community is working closely with operators and strategic

planners to explicitly link research activities with our core competencies, critical future capabilities, and future concepts of operation. This effort has produced eight

short-term goals and six long-term challenges to focus our S&T investment. The

short-term S&T objectives are focused on warfighter priorities in the following
503

areas: Target Location, Identification, and Tracking; Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence; Precision Attack; Space Control; Access to

Space; Aircraft Survivability and Countermeasures; Sustaining Aging Aircraft; and

Air and Space Expeditionary Force Support. Long-term S&T challenges also involve

revolutionary capabilities in Finding and Tracking; Controlled Effects; Sanctuary;

Rapid Air and Space Response; and Effective Air and Space Persistence. Successful

pursuit of these challenges and objectives will meet the transformation goals of the

Air Force and maintain our air and space dominance today and well into the 21st

Century.

Our new homeland security environment will necessitate both traditional and

non-traditional responses, with significant coalition, joint, and interagency involvement. Whatever the threat, the AOC provides the critically important real-time predictive battlespace awareness for decision-makers. The Air Force will work closely

with the other agencies to form a tightly knit web of resources that will be readily

available to answer the call. In this way, Homeland Security efforts will be interwoven and fundamentally aligned with the Air Force’s top priorities.

Additionally, Air Force counterair and ISR capabilities are significant contributors

to the multi-layered missile defense system, incorporating air and space-based elements that provide effective, affordable, global protection against a wide range of

threats. Future space capabilities such as the SBIRS will greatly enhance our ability to track and engage ballistic missiles while space-based radar technologies will

identify and track fixed and mobile ballistic missile launchers. Finally, the ABL will

engage ballistic missiles in their boost phase, while the F–22, working with advanced ISR systems, will defend against cruise missiles.

Consequence Management

The Air Force has played an important role in consequence management. We have

provided critical resources such as airlift, command and control, and disaster preparedness response forces to other lead agencies and the Joint Forces Civil Support

Teams. The AFMS is acquiring a variety of modular packages that can be used to

support civilian authorities requesting our assistance at home or abroad. Within two

hours of notification, the Small Portable Expeditionary Aeromedical Rapid Response

(SPEARR) teams deploy ten specialists with the capability to provide a broad scope

of care, including initial disaster medical assessment, emergency surgery, critical

care, and patient transport preparation. This will increase the state medical response capability for homeland security. Additionally, Air National Guard men and

women both command and contribute to the nation’s current Civil Support Teams—

including critical mobility requirements that support the air transportation of these

teams to sites of potential CBRNE or WMD attacks.

In the QDR, the Secretary of Defense identified Homeland Security as a top priority for the Department of Defense. The Air Force has a role in each aspect of preventing, protecting from, and responding to attacks against our homeland. The Air

Force has a robust array homeland defense capabilities today and will improve and

transform as necessary for the future. As in the past, we stand ready today to contribute these unique capabilities and develop new technologies to aid our national

command authorities in combating threats or attacks to our homeland.

Conclusion

The same relative advantages of speed, flexibility, range, lethality and the like

that have defined air power since its inception also define the collective talents of

airmen—military and civilian alike. The partnership among all of the components

of the Air Force is elevating the nation’s air and space capabilities to even greater

heights than ever conceived. Yet we are not satisfied. We will continue to aggressively pursue our critical future capabilities through every avenue, drawing on all

of our resources, and finding no satisfaction in compromise. While funding is critical

to securing new and revitalized systems, the Air Force is focused on the source of

the most exponentially beneficial results—our innate skill at integration, innovation,

and visionary implementation of ideas and processes. Ultimately, it is from our airmen, our most essential resource of people that transformation will accelerate, accelerate and continue.

PEOPLE

‘‘People are a priority’’ is not just a slogan in the Air Force, it is an imperative.

Historically, the Air Force has been a retention-based force and continues to be so

today. We rely on recruiting and training technically and mechanically gifted individuals to develop and operate our advanced air and space systems. Though we exceeded our fiscal year 2001 recruiting and accession goals, there are some critical

skills in need of special attention—scientists and engineers in particular. We must
504

take action now to address these and other developing personnel gaps in the uniformed and civilian Air Force alike.

Before September 11th, we were deploying our people at a rate three times higher

than we were a decade earlier. Though we were narrowing the gap between force

structure drawdowns and increased commitments, the marker has been shifted significantly and we anticipate a growth in requirements. The addition of Operations

NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM and the creation of new homeland security requirements to an already strained personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) warranted an assessment of our total manpower requirements. We are working with

our sister services and OSD on this issue.

Recent events have accentuated the contributions our Total Force—Active duty,

Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and civilians—brings to our National Defense team. We must now size this force appropriately to meet new demands by capitalizing on positive recruiting results, honing retention programs, and examining

closely tasks that might better be performed by civilians, of members of the Guard

or Reserve. To attract and retain the best people in a high-technology world, we will

accelerate our efforts to develop, educate, train and compensate our people to continue to lead the world as a technologically superior military force.

Retention is more than a quality of life issue. It involves letting our people know

that what they are doing matters. It is about instilling our Airmen with pride in

a mission well done. At the end of their careers they will remember being part of

a team that made a difference. To this end, we have initiated a major ‘‘re-recruiting’’

program.

Recruiting

The Air Force exceeded fiscal year 2001 enlisted recruiting goal of 34,600 by almost 800. We still require 99 percent of our recruits to have high school diplomas

and nearly 75 percent to score in the top half of test scores on the Armed Forces

Qualification Test. In addition, we brought 1,155 prior-service members back on Active duty, nearly double the number from fiscal year 1999.

We must enlist airmen whose aptitudes match the technical requirements we

need. In fiscal year 2001 we implemented targeted recruiting programs for mechanically skilled recruits. These efforts paid off, allowing us to exceed our recruiting goal

for these skills by 763. We did, however, fall short of our recruiting goal by 203 in

the general skill area. This includes the Security Forces career fields, which have

become vital in light of current operations.

The Air Force is postured well to increase recruiting goals to meet new requirements. Previously approved increases in advertising, a more robust recruiting force

with broader access to secondary school students, and competitive compensation

prepares the Air Force to meet future recruiting challenges. We budgeted $77 million for recruiting advertising in fiscal year 2002, which is nearly five times the

amount from fiscal year 1998. For fiscal year 2002, we programmed an additional

$9 million for the enhanced initial enlistment bonus program, and the prior service

reenlistment program, up from $123.8 million in fiscal year 2001. These bonus programs help to recruit hard-to-fill critical skills and to encourage recruiting during

historically difficult recruiting months.

Officer recruiting faces many of the same challenges as enlisted recruiting. However, we continue to draw America’s best and brightest, even given the lure of a

competitive job market. In the ROTC program, we implemented several initiatives

to attract more candidates, offering contracts to freshmen cadets rather than waiting until their sophomore year, and a one-year commissioning program to attract

both undergraduate and graduate students. Overall in fiscal year 2001, we achieved

105 percent of our line officer accession target, up from 97 percent in fiscal year

2000. Recent legislation, which increased the maximum age for appointments as cadets into Senior ROTC scholarship programs, further increases our recruiting opportunities. We are also examining changes to the program to reduce attrition during

the ROTC cadet years.

Of particular concern, however, is the area of military and civilian scientists and

engineers. We fell short of our accession goal for these groups by nearly 250, and

have begun an all-out effort to plus up recruitment and target retention of these

critical specialties. For example, in fiscal year 2003 we begin a college sponsorship

program to attract scientists and engineers from universities where there is no

ROTC program. Thanks to prompt Congressional action, we have the authority to

implement bonuses, adjust funding to create retention allowances, and work toward

implementing special salary rates for the most difficult to retain fields. At the December 2001 Scientist and Engineer Summit, the Secretary and the Chief of Staff

embraced these and other initiatives to remedy the accession challenge. The Air
505

Force recognizes the great need for these bonuses and has programmed funds accordingly. However, funding levels were cut during the appropriations process.

We have also found recruiting health care professionals especially difficult. Many

medical, dental, nurse and biomedical specialties are experiences critical shortages.

For example, only 80 percent of our clinical pharmacy positions are currently filled.

We are now reviewing accession initiatives for pharmacists.

In fiscal year 2001, the Air Force Reserve exceeded its recruiting goal for the first

time in five years—accessing 105 percent of their target. However, there are significant challenges ahead in recruiting citizen-airmen. Historically, 30 percent of Reserve accessions come from eligible members (i.e. no break in service) separating

from Active duty. In fiscal year 2002, recruiting will have to make up that part of

the goal, more than 3,000 people, from other applicant sources until Stop Loss is

lifted. Once lifted, we expect there will be challenges in filling many vacated positions. One of the biggest challenges for Reserve recruiters this year is Basic Military

Training (BMT) quotas. While recruiting services increased emphasis on enlisting

non-prior service applicants, BMT allocations have not kept pace. This problem is

forecasted to worsen this year as a result of Stop Loss. Reservists are working diligently to increase BMT allocations and explore solutions to address BMT shortfalls.

The Air National Guard has placed recruiting and retention emphasis on Air

Force Specialties where shortages exist by offering enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, Student Loan Repayment Program, and the Montgomery GI Bill Kicker Program. As a result, many of the Air National Guard critical maintenance AFSCs

have seen real strength growth from 2–6 percent over the last two fiscal years.

These incentives have contributed greatly toward enticing and retaining the right

talent for the right job. Though recruiting and retention rates have increased, the

Air National Guard realizes that potential problems exist that may affect future

sustained capability.

Retention

Over 128,000 Active duty airmen, 46 percent of the enlisted force, are eligible for

reenlistment in fiscal year 2002/03. Although positive about a career in the Air

Force, our people are being lured away by the availability of higher-paying civilian

jobs. To sustain our readiness posture for rapid deployment, we must retain our

highly trained, experienced, and skilled people. By keeping our experience, we reduce recruiting and training requirements and continue to build and maintain our

technical expertise.

Retention will continue to be a priority and a challenge in the future. We are

aware Stop Loss and the increased tempo of ONE and OEF may have a negative

affect on retention and we are planning for offsets already. We must provide a robust compensation package that rewards service, provides for a suitable standard

of living, ensures a high quality of life, and retains our high caliber professionals.

We must continue to reduce out-of-pocket expenses incurred through frequent

moves, deployments, and other temporary duty. Our airmen must view a military

career as a viable and competitive option if we are to maintain an all-volunteer

force. To that end, we have initiated an aggressive campaign to ‘‘re-recruit’’ our

force, through individualized mentoring and career counseling. This effort began

with scientists and engineers, as well as Battle Managers, and will include other

critical skills in the coming months. Pilots were to be the initial focus, but the demands of ONE and OEF required that we delay the re-recruiting of this group. Congress has rallied to the Air Force’s needs in all of these, and we will rely on continued help, particularly in the year ahead.

Officer retention trends continue to raise concerns. We monitor these trends

through the officer cumulative continuation rate (CCR), or the percentage of officers

entering their 4th year of service (six years for pilots and navigators) who will complete their 11th year of service, given existing retention patterns. Although the fiscal year 2001 CCR for pilots increased from 45 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 49 percent, it’s significantly lower than the high of 87 percent in fiscal year 1995. We have

fully manned our cockpits, but our rated pilot staff manning has fallen to 51 percent. Airline hires in fiscal year 2002 will be down from over 3,000 last year to approximately 1,500 this year; however, we anticipate the hiring will surge again

shortly thereafter. Therefore, we can expect the USAF pilot shortage to continue for

at least the next eight years until we fully realize the effects of the ten-year Active

duty service commitment for undergraduate flying training. We are optimistic that

our ‘‘re-recruiting’’ effort will further enhance pilot retention and help alleviate the

shortage sooner.

The mission support officer fiscal year 2001 CCR has held steady at 44 percent.

However, retention rates for several high-tech specialties have decreased—scientists

(36 percent), developmental engineers (42 percent), acquisition managers (40 per-
506

cent), and air battle managers (47 percent). Conversely, navigator rates improved

in fiscal year 2001, rising three percentage points to 72 percent. Navigators are a

critical rated resource being used to fill many pilot vacancies at headquarters level.

In the next few years, we expect a rapid decline in this large retirement-eligible

population. We also need to retain every experienced air battle manager (ABM) we

can to preserve our warfighting capability. This high-demand, low-density career

field retention is negatively impacted by increased operations tempo.

The Air Force Reserve exceeded Command retention goals for their enlisted airmen during fiscal year 2001. Again, it was the team effort of the members, first sergeants, supervisors and commanders that led the Reserve to this exceptional

achievement. Bonuses also continue to be an effective tool in retaining our members.

The flexible Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) program is an important part of our

multi-faceted plan to retain pilots. In fiscal year 2001 we offered ACP payments

through 25 years of aviation service, resulting in a substantial increase in committed personnel. Because of this success, we plan a similar design for the fiscal

year 2002 ACP program, and extension of this program to navigators and ABMs.

Seventy-eight percent of our enlisted skills are now receiving re-enlistment bonuses, up two percentage points from fiscal year 2000. The authorization to pay officer and enlisted critical skills retention bonuses should help retain individuals in

high demand by the civilian sector. We are initially targeting this new authority to

Science, Engineering, and Communications and Information. Also, the authority to

increase special duty assignment pay provides the flexibility to target our most

pressing enlisted skills. The Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA) authorizes installment payment authority for the 15-year career status

bonus, and an educational savings plan to encourage re-enlistment in critical specialties. Additionally, the Air Force Reserve is studying special duty pay initiatives

for senior enlisted positions, such as command chief master sergeants and unit first

sergeants for future implementation.

The Air National Guard’s number one priority is to increase their traditional pilot

force, which has maintained a steady state of 90 percent. During the past year, the

Guard continued to see an increase in ACP take rates to 93 percent. ACP has accomplished its goal by retaining qualified full-time instructor pilots to train and sustain our combat force. The Guard and Reserve continue to pursue substantial enhancements to the Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) and Career Enlisted Flyer

Incentive Pay (CEFIP) to increase retention in the aviation community, as well as

attract/retain individuals to aviation. These initiatives, which affect over 13,343 officers and enlisted crew members in the Guard and Reserve, are aimed at those traditional aviators who do not qualify for the ACP for AGRs and the Special Salary Rate

for Technicians.

Training

Training the world’s best Air Force is challenging in today’s rigorous, expeditionary environment. Increased accessions stress our training facilities and personnel. During surge periods, we operate at maximum capacity by triple-bunking

students in two-person dorm rooms. We are currently seeking funds to improve the

training infrastructure.

Lower than required enlisted retention rates are increasing our training burden.

Also, fewer experienced trainers are available to train 3-level personnel. Despite

these challenges, our technical training schools have been able to meet their mission. We increased our use of technology and streamlined the training processes to

produce fully qualified apprentices ready to support the warfighter.

Even with the EAF, our tempo can make educational pursuits difficult. Our learning resource centers and Advanced Distributed Learning initiatives address this situation by offering deployed personnel education and testing opportunities through

CD–ROM and interactive television. Additionally, we have joined with the other

Services, the Department of Labor, and civilian licensing and certification agencies

to promote the recognition of military training as creditable towards civilian licensing requirements.

Defining the Air Force’s institutional training and educational requirements for

leadership development allows the services to weigh resource decisions better and

to emphasize to our people the institution’s investment in their careers. The Air

Force is pursuing leadership development and career mentoring strategies, to prepare the Total Force for the 21st Century. These competency-based strategies are

focused on understanding the leadership needs of our transforming force and creating a development process that will better prepare Airmen to serve and lead. The

Air Force is examining more deliberate career broadening, emphasizing two categories of competencies—occupational (what we do) and universal (who we are). We

are also examining potential changes to the professional growth of officers including
507

the rationalization of advanced degrees and professional military education. Force

readiness, sustainability, and mission performance all depend on selecting, training,

and retaining the best individuals with the necessary skills, as well as motivating

every member of the service and taking care of Air Force families.

Civilian Workforce Shaping

Today, less than 10 percent of our civilians are in their first five years of service.

In the next five years, more than 40 percent will be eligible for optional or early

retirement. Historical trends indicate that approximately 33 percent of white-collar

employees and 40 percent of blue-collar employees will retire the year they become

eligible. In addition, downsizing over the past decade skewed the mix of civilian

workforce skills, compounding the loss of corporate memory and lack of breadth and

depth of experience.

While we are meeting mission needs today, without the proper civilian force shaping tools, we risk not being ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges. To help shape the

civilian workforce, it is imperative that we fund civilian force development initiatives to include skill proficiency and leadership training, and tuition assistance programs. The fiscal year 2002 NDAA did authorize the payment of expenses to obtain

professional credentials.

In addition, management tools are essential in shaping the force by opening the

door to new talent so we can gather the right skill mix. These initiatives include

pay comparability and compensation, a streamlined and flexible hiring process, recruiting incentives for technical skills and student employment programs. Also, the

fiscal year 2002 NDAA provided the authority for a pilot program allowing for payment of retraining expenses and extended the use of Voluntary Separation Incentive

Pay (VSIP) and Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) for workforce restructuring. To incentivize key senior personnel to accept critical positions, we continue to support implementation of a last move home benefit.

Quality of Life

Quality of life ranks as one of the Air Force’s top priorities, so our quality of life

initiatives attempt to balance the intense demands we place on our mission-focused

Total Force. With continued congressional support, the Air Force will pursue adequate manpower; improved workplace environments; fair and competitive compensation and benefits; balanced deployments and exercise schedules; safe, affordable,

and adequate housing; enhanced community and family programs; improved educational opportunities; and quality health care, as these have a direct impact on our

ability to recruit and retain our people and sustain a ready force.

The fiscal year 2002 NDAA provided for the largest raises for mid-level and Senior NCOs (7–10 percent) to improve pay based on their education and experience

levels. Junior enlisted members received a 6–6.7 percent pay raise and captains and

majors received a 6–6.5 percent raise while all other personnel received a 5 percent

raise. Basic Allowance for Housing rates effective 1 Jan 02 will be based on 11.3

percent out-of-pocket for the National Median Housing Cost for each grade and dependency status. Additionally, the fiscal year 2002 NDAA authorizes several additional travel and transportation allowances that will reduce out-of-pocket expenses

for our military personnel.

Higher priorities have led to a deferral of much-needed infrastructure

sustainment, restoration, and modernization of the workplace. Together with spare

parts and equipment shortfalls, budget limitations impede successful execution of

mission requirements, cause lost productivity, and negatively impact quality of life.

It will take increased funding levels focused on infrastructure restoration and modernization to allow us to optimize the condition of the workplace environment and,

furthermore, help eliminate the risk to our near- and long-term readiness.

Providing safe and adequate housing enhances readiness and retention. The Air

Force Dormitory Master Plan and Family Housing Master Plan identify and

prioritize our requirements, while DOD is championing the reduction of out-of-pocket housing expenses by fiscal year 2005. We project significant improvements in our

military family housing by reducing our inadequate units from 59,000 at the beginning of fiscal year 2002 to 46,000 at the beginning of fiscal year 2003, and with the

help of privatization efforts underway, eliminating inadequate units by 2010. During fiscal year 2001–04 we plan to privatize over 21,000 housing units at 26 installations. Similar improvements are being made in our unaccompanied housing, where

more than 1,600 dormitory rooms will be constructed as a result of the fiscal year

2002 program.

The Air Force continued to set the standard in providing quality childcare and

youth programs. In addition to 100 percent accreditation of Air Force child care centers, the Air Force achieved 100 percent accreditation of all of its before- and after-
508

school programs for youth 6–12. In fiscal year 2001, the Air Force expanded the extended duty childcare program for members required to work extended duty hours

and in fiscal year 2002 will test using this program for members working at missile

sites and those who need care for their mildly ill children. Many youth initiatives

implemented in fiscal year 2001 are part of the affiliation of the Air Force’s youth

program with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

The Air National Guard also identifies childcare as a readiness issue. With increasing demands from Commanders and family members, the ANG formed a

Childcare Integrated Process Team (IPT) to study innovative childcare options. The

IPT yielded a website developed for internal use by ANG field units to pursue

childcare alternatives in relationship to the unit’s location, demographics, and legal

issues. Additionally, the Guard has proposed a cost-sharing pilot program based on

the Air Force childcare cost model.

Tremendously important to child and family quality of life are the commissaries

and exchanges. The Air Force continues to support these benefits as vital non-pay

compensation upon which Active duty, retirees, and Reserve component personnel

depend. Commissaries and exchanges provide significant savings on high quality

goods and services, and a sense of community for airmen and their families wherever they serve. As a result, commissaries and exchanges are cited as a strong influence on retention and a highly valued component of quality of life.

Additionally, lodging facility improvements and temporary lodging facilities have

become a higher quality of life priority. Constructing facilities in sufficient quantity

and maintaining existing facilities not only supports our members and families in

TDY and permanent change of station status, but also yields significant savings in

travel costs and ensures force protection. All new construction and renovations meet

the recently adopted VQ standard—‘‘one size fits all ranks’’—mirroring the industry

standard of 280 square feet per room with private baths for all grades.

Physical fitness is unquestionably a force multiplier, and investment in fitness facilities, equipment, and programs directly impacts readiness. An independent assessment of our fitness centers documented a requirement of $645 million for construction and renovation at Active duty and Reserve bases. The Air Force committed

$183 million in fiscal year 2000–05 Quality of Life funding and has steadily increased annual MILCON funding, including $52 million this year.

Meanwhile, today’s Air National Guard member families are in immediate need

of dedicated full time family readiness and support services—specifically information referral support and improved communications and education capabilities. The

Air National Guard has developed a program solution in fiscal year 2001 to fund

a full-time contracted family readiness program at each Wing and Combat Readiness Training Center. While funding for fiscal year 2002 has been added in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations, there is no sustained funding in the

FYDP. Properly funded and resourced, the ANG family readiness program will significantly enhance mission capabilities by reducing pressures on personnel and their

families and improving their Quality of Life.

Healthcare

The recent implementation of DOD health care initiatives, such as TRICARE for

Life, provided the missing link to the Air Force Medical Service’s population-based

health care strategy. Now, the AFMS has the foundation to provide whole care to

its beneficiaries. The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Benefit, started 1 April 2001,

brought an expanded benefit to the Air Force’s retired population. TRICARE for

Life, the program that makes TRICARE second payer to Medicare, and TRICARE

Plus, the program that allows seniors to enroll in a primary care program at selected MTFs, both began concurrently on 1 October 2001. These new programs will

undoubtedly enhance the quality of life for the Air Force’s older retiree population.

TRICARE Plus will also strengthen the AFMS’s medical readiness posture by expanding the patient case mix for our providers.

The AFMS continues to make great strides in its population health initiatives and

customer satisfaction. Central to the AFMS’s population health plan is its Primary

Care Optimization program, which improves clinical business processes through

maximizing medical support staff skills and duties and through robust information

management that supports effective decision-making. The Primary Care Manager by

Name program provides much-needed continuity of care and, ultimately, better patient management by providers. Other population health initiatives include the Air

Force Suicide Prevention program, which has served as a model for DOD and the

nation in their efforts to address this significant public health issue. As a result of

AFMS’ initiatives, health care customer satisfaction continues to rise in the Air

Force. According to the latest Customer Satisfaction Survey Results, 90 percent of

the Air Force’s enrolled beneficiaries indicate they would enroll or re-enroll in
509

TRICARE Prime if given the option. The overall satisfaction with clinics and medical care exceeds national civilian HMO averages.

Conclusion

The Air Force implemented structural and cultural changes via EAF concept to

enhance responsive force packaging, as well as to provide more stability/predictability in deployment and home station scheduling. We must continue to address

force-wide balanced tempo issues with manning, infrastructure and equipment,

training, recruiting and retention, and mission requirement assessments. High

OPSTEMPO has taken its toll: our people are still deployed three times more often

than prior to Desert Storm-based on a force 60 percent its former size. Air National

Guard and Air Force Reserve participation has steadily increased since Desert

Storm, which has created unique challenges for Guardsmen and Reservists balancing civilian careers with increased military requirements. Trends show demand

for air power will only increase; EAF holds promise by giving airmen predictability

and stability. We must also take care of our families with adequate housing programs, medical facilities, and base support services. Our efforts continue to pay off,

yet they must be actively renewed and revitalized—flexible enough to adapt to new

circumstances and demands in a changing world.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

The events of September 11th reaffirmed the importance of the Air Force’s current

focus on People, Readiness, and Transformation. Our future success hinges on our

ability to recruit and retain highly qualified airmen, to provide these dedicated warriors with the resources required to accomplish their mission, and to continue to explore new and innovative approaches to the art of warfare.

While the world’s security environment changed dramatically, one thing that remains constant is America’s need for Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power. That is

your Air Force Vision, and what we strive to deliver every day. Fully exploiting our

advantages in air and space capabilities is not an option—the risk of failing to do

so is too great. We must remain the dominant air force in the business of global

reconnaissance and strike (attack and mobility).

Through recapitalization efforts, we hope to maintain the fundamental basis from

which to perpetuate our transformation journey. This is a daunting task, and it cannot be achieved without substantial costs. Integration of systems, mastering realtime targeting, and the exploitation of new CONOPs, are more than mere objectives,

they determine our ability to project power in tomorrow’s battlespace.

With America’s continued support, the United States Air Force is poised for unprecedented success. The future holds sober challenges for America’s military forces.

Some may find easy remedy, while others will require tremendous sacrifice. In

whatever scenarios lie ahead, the United States will be able to look to the Air Force

for asymmetric capabilities that ensure our dominance of air and space. These capabilities, when employed in joint warfighting operations, will prove to be the resident

military strengths that will enable America to assure, dissuade, deter or decisively

defeat the adversaries of freedom.

F–22 AIRCRAFT

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. You ended your presentation with the F–22. What is the status of the F–22?

General JUMPER. Sir, the F–22, as you know, is in testing. When

we get the F–22 out at Edwards Air Force Base—I was out there

2 weeks ago. I spent a day looking into the F–22 and its test program and talking to the pilots who fly it. The pilots who fly it are

blown away by its capabilities. It is orders of magnitude improvement over anything we have, and they are very confident in its capabilities.

As you know, we are working through several issues with the F–

22. One of them is a vibration problem on the tail surfaces. This

problem is a problem that manifests itself on not the whole vertical

surface but on the movable part of the rudder, and it is one that,

although it has a very low probability of any sort of a catastrophic

failure, it is something we have to pay attention to.
510

We have a series of fixes that we know will deal with this problem. It is not dissimilar to the problem that they have had with

the F/A–18 in its development and previously in the F–15 during

development. So, we have fixes to this problem and we are working

those fixes. We will get this problem dealt with before we press on

with any next stage of development.

The other problem we are dealing with is software stability. At

any stage of a program like this, in a software-intensive airplane,

this is a problem we have to deal with. We have got ways to deal

with that too.

There is nothing in here in the F–22 program that I see right

now as a show stopper. We are having trouble getting the test airplanes built and delivered and we are working that with Lockheed

Martin. The strike, of course, had an effect on that and we are

working our way through that. But when the airplane is delivered,

when the guys get it up in the air, it is doing magnificently. So,

I think overall I was very encouraged when I left Edwards Air

Force Base and talked to the testers out there.

Senator INOUYE. As you are aware, the Secretary of Defense, in

preparing for the fall budget review, called upon the services to

look at four major weapons systems: Comanche, Crusader, V–22,

and the F–22. Do you believe that what is happening now will satisfy the Secretary as to whether we should keep it or not?

General JUMPER. Well, sir, I do not think there is any thought

of actually canceling the program. I think there is a discussion

about the numbers, and we welcome the opportunity for us to justify the program again and the numbers. And he has left the book

open to talk about the full range of capabilities for the F–22, the

current version or other versions that might provide us a better

air-to-ground capability. So, we think it is another opportunity for

us to defend the program, and if we cannot defend it properly,

shame on us.

Secretary ROCHE. If I may, Mr. Chairman. He is giving us the

opportunity that if we can make a case for more, we can make the

case for more or for variants of them. One of the points that we

welcome is the chance to talk about, this is not your grandfather’s

F–22. This is an airplane that, as we have looked at it, we have

stressed certain parts of it much more than has been in the past

so that each one of these is a tremendous ground attack airplane

with a small diameter bomb, with the avionics that go into the fire

control system for ground warfare being done effectively at no additional cost, or the other mods to the airplane that are very simple.

This will be an extraordinarily good plane for air-to-ground purposes.

In fact, the work that Tech Sergeant Markham has been doing

was a forerunner to what we would like to be able to do with the

F–22. It is the only system we know of that has a really good

chance against deep moving targets like transporter-erector-launchers for Scud’s or mobile air defense systems. Because of its stealth,

because of its super cruise, its capabilities make it a very natural

system to be able to attack those kinds of targets, which are becoming increasingly important.
511

Senator INOUYE. As you presently assess the future intelligentwise and technology-wise, what do you consider to be the appropriate numbers we should consider for F–22’s?

Secretary ROCHE. Well, one of the things we are doing at this

time, sir, is going back to basics, back to a clean sheet of paper,

and starting over for this era, not for the prior era. This plane

originally was thought to be ordered on the numbers of around 750.

We have about 700 F–15C’s and F–15E’s. So, that was a placement

number. With the advances in weaponry, et cetera, maybe the

number would be smaller. Maybe it will be less than 339. We have

thought 339 was a good place to start. But the variants. It may be

that we would be better off to take beyond 339 and have some that

are much more oriented to air-to-ground and a variant of the F–

22. Or given its capabilities, we are looking now to see if maybe

a few less would do. But we are starting with a clean sheet of

paper so that we can make the best case to the Secretary, not just

take out the old case and give it to him again.

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE

Senator INOUYE. About 10 years ago, it was almost taboo to talk

about unmanned aircraft. General, I noticed in your testimony

there is much about that.

General JUMPER. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Are we going to be spending more on unmanned

aircraft?

General JUMPER. Sir, I think that the role of unmanned aircraft

is going to increase. I think that we have seen the worth of the unmanned intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance aircraft, both in

the form of Predator and Global Hawk in this war.

I am amused at the articles I read that say that somehow the

white scarf fighter pilot crowd—I guess I am one of those—is somehow opposed to the emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles

(UAV’s). But, Mr. Chairman, I am the guy back in the Kosovo war

who insisted that we put a laser ball on the Predator UAV so it

could spot targets on the ground to guide the bombs from the fighters. And then later on, I am the guy that insisted we put a Hellfire

missile on the Predator UAV. I will tell you in the pilot community

out there, anything that will improve our ability to get to the targets is welcome.

We do have to proceed with some bit of caution in the UAV world

as we get into the unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) business

and we decide a concept of operations on how these are going to

be employed. For example, if you take one of the current concepts,

which is to put the conventional warfare UAV into a box of some

type and then load them onto C–17’s or C–5’s and deploy them off

to a theater, those are the same C–17’s and C–5’s that are needed

to and are being counted on by other services and other pieces of

the Air Force that need to get deployed into place. Once they get

there, you still have to have people to take them out of the containers and to put them together and to test fly them and then to

load them out and be ready to go. We want to make sure that, as

we develop that concept of operations, it is not decreasing the rapidity of air power because one of our main features is that we get

there quickly.
512

The alternative to that is to make a UAV that you can deploy

nonstop, which means that you have to make it air refuelable. As

a matter of fact, any of these UAV’s that are going to be dealing

with any distances of the type we deal with today would have to

be air refuelable, and when you start putting air refueling technology, which is not unlike the technology they use to mate the satellites up in space, onto the UAV, now pretty soon it is not considered expendable anymore. Somebody is asking, well, it costs so

much money, we better put a person on it to make sure it gets

there and back safely.

GLOBAL HAWK

So, these are the things we are having to balance as we evolve

the technology, but at the right place and the right time, Mr.

Chairman, I can tell you that we will blend UAV’s into the appropriate mission areas. The one that I see on the near horizon is the

role of the Global Hawk will eventually replace the U–2. That

makes sense to me. Then I think in the long-range strike technology, a replacement bomber, whether that be a suborbital, an orbital, or an airborne machine, I think we need to look very closely

at UAV’s. And the replacement gun ship I think would be an excellent candidate for UAV’s.

These things are all being looked at, Mr. Chairman, by fighter

pilots like me.

Secretary ROCHE. Mr. Chairman, we have benefitted from General Franks allowing John and me to ask to put things into the

theater that were really not ready for prime time. And we have

learned a tremendous amount, both the advantages of these systems and also some of the difficulties. We have learned, for instance, the fact that when you think about an F–16 will have one

pilot, a UAV has a pilot and a systems operator.

PILOTS FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

And to answer your question about training pilots for UAV’s, we

are doing that extensively. Right now we are using pilots who come

from manned aircraft to have temporary duties with the UAV’s and

then go back to manned aircraft because the pilot instincts, we

have recognized, have become very, very important since they are

working in two-dimensional space when they normally would be

working in three-dimensional space. We have a few navigators who

have their own private pilot’s license who are also flying these, and

over time that specialty may evolve into something other than a B–

1 pilot and an F–15 pilot. But as pioneers, we really need these

folks flying them because they give us the kind of feedback that

help us design the next generation.

So, we know they take some attention, more than other things.

We recognize if you try and fly multiples of these at the same time,

that you are talking about swarms of unattended vehicles. Swarms

demand an enormous amount of bandwidth, a lot of technology, et

cetera. So, looking to where they really pay off and where it may

not be so wise to use them is something we have had a chance to

do in this campaign that otherwise would have taken years to

learn.
513

Senator INOUYE. Before I call upon the co-chairman of this committee, I must say, Mr. Secretary, how stunned I was and yet I realize it is true that since 1953, no American in uniform has ever

been killed by an enemy aircraft. I think that Americans should realize that. I think much of the credit can go to you and your predecessors.

Secretary ROCHE. Well, and to you and your predecessors, sir,

and your colleagues.

Senator INOUYE. Congratulations. We did not know our record

was that good.

General JUMPER. It is pretty good, sir. You do not want to take

it for granted, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Stevens.

SPACE-BASED INFRARED SYSTEM

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Secretary, I understand that we have had

a recertification of the space-based infrared system (SBIRS) High

program. Could you tell us what is the status of that program now?

Secretary ROCHE. Senator Stevens, this is a program of which I

do not take great pleasure in talking about. It is a problem program that has come into a cost growth that I find to be quite

shocking. We have gone back to square one. We have asked all the

appropriate people if all the requirements were still necessary. We

were told they were. John Jumper and I have tried to tell everybody do not add any more requirements to this, for heaven’s sakes.

Let us get this thing back in shape.

We have stretched the program out. We have gone through it

with Mr. Aldridge to try and get there. We have ended the total

systems performance responsibility authority to the contractor that

gave the contractor total control. We have introduced much more

management attention from the part of the Government. All of the

management of the program itself has been turned over.

It is a program that is still in difficulty and I would not want

to lead you to think that we have got a fix, but we are paying an

enormous amount of attention to it. And we are told that it is still

as necessary as ever, and we are on the path of trying to execute

the new restructured program. But it is going to cost us money out

of the Air Force budget.

Senator STEVENS. What were the basic causes for the increase in

cost? And does it have a time line now?

Secretary ROCHE. Oh, sir, it does have a time line. I am sorry.

The launch date is not on the top of my head. I can get that for

you.

[The information follows:]

SPACE-BASED INFRARED SYSTEM

The launch of the first GEO satellite is planned for October 2006.

Secretary ROCHE. But I can tell you in detail when we took a

good, hard look as to why did this happen, why was it 1 year ago

we had an indication of a small problem prior to my confirmation,

and then within 3 or 4 months, it turned into a multi-billion dollar

problem?

When we brought outsiders into the program to take a look, I regret to tell you it was the basics, Senator. It was the program real-
514

ly was not ready to move as fast as it had. People thought software

could be reused that simply could not be reused. The program management, by having the Government stand back and devolve all the

authority to the companies, the companies kept trying their best,

but not really having the Government aware of how deeply in trouble the program was. And then finally, it also appears that basic

systems engineering was not done.

NATIONAL SYSTEM ENGINEERING INSTITUTE

We are seeing this problem of basic systems engineering as a

problem appearing in a number of programs to the point where we

are very concerned about the capabilities of the United States and

the industrial base in the systems engineering field. Secretary Aldridge and I are talking about the possibility of, at some point,

coming back to you and asking authority to create a national systems engineering institute where we can start to train engineers

how to do something. That was a magnificent competitive advantage of the United States but appears to not be as present as it

used to be. We know it is not in the civilians in Air Force because

most of them are retired. And in total systems performance responsibility, our officers and civilians were not asked to get deeply into

the program. That has ended now.

Senator STEVENS. I worry sometimes we are losing some of these

systems abilities to our friends overseas in terms of our increased

procurement from overseas. I would like to have you follow up on

that institute concept, and we should discuss that I think.

[The information follows:]

NATIONAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INSTITUTE

The Air Force is planning to establish an Institute of Systems Engineering to address problems with the systems engineering approach used by Air Force/contractor

integrated teams identified during the acquisition and sustainment of some large

complex systems. These problems include: Inconsistent systems engineering application across the Air Force; loss of technical discipline (e.g., configuration management, integrated risk management, modeling and simulation, etc.); Loss of expertise, aging workforce (over 50 percent eligible to retire over next five years); Recruiting and retention issues (‘‘new employees’’ not expected to be ‘‘lifers’’)

A major premise for the Institute is that systems engineering is not something

one can learn entirely in the classroom, but must also learn through hands-on experience working on real systems. The concept is to bring together government, industry, and academic stakeholders to eventually form a nationwide Institute of Systems

Engineering. Implementation will be in phases using a spiral approach. First phase

will focus on coordinating Air Force and other Services’ capabilities, followed closely

with the development of alliances with appropriate universities, professional societies, and industry. Plans are to have some early Institute capability/presence in

place later this year. This coalition would be able to leverage each other’s physical,

financial, and intellectual resources to minimize additional investments and accelerate the stand-up of the Institute to provide services where needed nationwide.

The objective of the Institute is to: (1) educate and train engineers and managers

in the best practices, tools, industry standards, lessons learned, and the right questions to ask, as well as educate and train engineers in the basic systems engineering

process and principles; (2) provide consultative services, through the establishment

of a senior level consultation group comprised of industry, government, and academia experts to programs with systems engineering issues; and (3) advocate and

maintain the systems engineering process and tools in order to sustain a robust disciplined process into the future.

The Institute should provide: A spectrum of services and capabilities from justin-time workshops and conferences led by government and industry practitioners

using real-world cases, to Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and universityled training, certification, and degree programs, which continuously incorporate best
515

practices from government and industry into their education and training curricula.

The capability to identify best practices, lessons learned, and deficiencies in the application of systems engineering principles; shape strategies and implement changes

to address deficiencies; and set industry standards to promote the best practices for

systems engineering throughout the government, industry, and academia.

Air Force actions to establish the Institute of Systems Engineering include: The

Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) Commander has a team in place, which includes active participation by the Space and Missile Center (SMC), to identify and

coordinate the activities needed to stand-up the Institute.

The AFIT School of Engineering will be the Air Force academic anchor.

AFIT and AFMC will work in collaboration and partnership with the other Services to establish a coalition of educators, trainers, and practitioners of systems engineering (e.g., Naval Postgraduate School, academic centers of excellence, professional societies, and leading aerospace companies).

The Air Force is briefing industry partners as quickly as they can be scheduled.

Working meetings have already been held with Lockheed Martin and Boeing personnel. As a complement to the Institute, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

for Acquisition (SAF/AQ) will investigate ways to incentivize contractors to employ

sound systems engineering practices.

A Draft Institute of Systems Engineering Charter is in coordination.

A Draft Integrated Management Plan and Schedule will be released for coordination on May 31.

In summary, the Air Force is assiduously pursuing ‘‘spiral development’’ of the Institute of Systems Engineering to include initiation of an early capability by the end

of calendar year 2002. In addition, revitalization of the systems engineering process

is proceeding in parallel.

F–22

Senator STEVENS. General Jumper, you mentioned in your statement about the tail buffet factor on the F–22. It is my understanding that has occurred on almost every twin-tailed airplane in

the past. Is that right?

General JUMPER. That is correct, sir, in one form or another.

Senator STEVENS. So, this is not an unexpected phenomenon but

one that has come out through basic testing of the aircraft.

General JUMPER. Exactly true. And it is important to point out,

Senator Stevens, that there have not actually been any cracks that

have been experienced in the test program. These are mathematical projections of what might happen. So, we have actually not

experienced one. We are just projecting that this is going to be a

problem.

Secretary ROCHE. No manifestations at all, sir.

Senator STEVENS. It seems there have been a hyper-awareness of

the problem on this aircraft, but there have not been that many of

them delivered yet, have there?

General JUMPER. We have had eight of them delivered now, sir,

that are the test airplanes. We have asked for some more testing

to be done to make sure that we understand and we characterize

this problem properly. But as of right now, we have got eight out

there, sir.

C–17

Senator STEVENS. The chairman and I are quite interested in the

force of C–17’s that are going to be deployed soon, particularly

those going to the Pacific. Have you got a time line yet for that?

Secretary ROCHE. We do, sir. We can get that to you. It is part

of this new multiyear buy, and I believe it is eight planes going to

one part of the Pacific and eight planes to another part, sir.

[The information follows:]
516

C–17

We announced Monday, 15 April 2002, that Hickam AFB and Elmendorf AFB

have been identified to beddown an eight Primary Aircraft Authorized (PAA) fleet

at each location. These aircraft are tentatively scheduled to be in place at Hickam

AFB in fiscal year 2006. Elmendorf is tentatively scheduled for fiscal year 2007

pending completion of their military construction requirements.

General JUMPER. Exactly.

Secretary ROCHE. By the way, we should tell you the plane has

just behaved unbelievably well in this conflict. For an aircraft that,

like other aircraft, had very difficult birthing problems that you

know better than I, Senator—both of you. You lived through them

from the start in 1977 through the final planes. It has done both

the retail long haul job and the short haul job beautifully. We have

never had an aircraft that could do that before.

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Secretary, we know the history of that.

Twice three committees in the Congress killed that airplane, and

we kept it alive. And thank God we did.

HIGH DEMAND PERSONNEL

General Jumper, I am told by the staff that there is a shortage

now of some of the high demand personnel for the Air Force, security police, intelligence. What is causing that?

General JUMPER. Well, sir, the phenomenon of the 11th of September was that not only did we have to go to higher threat conditions overseas, which is the way we have been doing business during the decade of the 1990’s, but we had to go to a higher threat

condition both at home and overseas at the same time. Previously

when you had an increased threat condition overseas, you would

empty out your bases in the United States to go deal with that. In

this case we had to do it both at home and overseas. It has put

great demand on our security forces, and they are spread very, very

thinly around the world right now trying to protect the Nation’s assets around the world.

It is not only security police, but it is other specialties that are

in high demand out there in the commercial market: aircraft mechanics, communication specialists, computer experts, et cetera. Especially the kind that I described to you in my opening statement

that are committed, loyal, and dedicated are the very ones that

companies out there want to hire away from us.

So, the qualification of our people and the different nature of this

war on terrorism that we are engaged in have created this demand

inside a healthy economy that has put us at a deficit.

RECRUITING GOALS

Now, having said that, we have, as of this month, achieved our

recruiting goals for this year well ahead of time. Our retention

rates are continuing to improve in almost all categories so that

some of this problem will be exacerbated.

We have been asked by the Secretary of Defense that before we

go ask for more manpower, that we find ways to explore things

that people do in uniform and see if they can be done another way

and sort of reengineer our manpower in the Air Force, and we are

doing that. But we are stretched very thin, Senator Stevens.

Mr. Secretary, you may want to——
517

Secretary ROCHE. I had the pleasure yesterday, Senator, of

swearing in the 37,283d recruit who was the recruit who put us

over our goal for the year up in New York.

PILOT SHORTFALL

We are still having trouble getting pilots. We are still short on

pilots. Our officer accessions are not all that we would like them

to be, and we are working very hard to look at the various programs. We are increasing Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC)

programs. We are reaching deeper into the high schools to get

young people to be more interested in the Air Force. We have about

600 junior Air Force ROTC programs now, and we want to move

that up to 900. We need to get to these young people and tell them

they can be pilots. They can be battle managers or they can be officers involved in the space world or noncommissioned officers

(NCO’s) involved in the space world.

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE PILOT TRAINING

Senator STEVENS. I think I have taken more than my time already, but let me ask you, General, should we ask the academy to

change its curriculum so we get people started on UAV training

while they are still in the academy? It seems to me there are a lot

of people—my brother, for instance, never liked to fly, but he liked

to fly those model airplanes and put engines in them back in those

days. I know you have got some different types of training out

there such as gliders, but I do not think you have any training per

se in UAV’s. Do you?

General JUMPER. No, sir. We are actually training them in the

units themselves. The consideration I would offer, Senator Stevens,

is that these people we are having pilot these Predator UAV’s we

are also asking essentially to do close air support. In some cases,

they are putting laser spots on the ground and having to control

airplanes in the air much like Sergeant Markham did from the

ground, and they are also having to take the responsibility in some

cases for shooting missiles off of these airplanes. So, the skill set

that we require is a skill set that is very closely associated with

close air support, and the education that goes along with a close

air support specialist that is trained usually at the lieutenant or

captain level.

AIR FORCE ACADEMY

But the technical part of your question, Senator, if you do not

mind me adding, is exactly right. What we need out of the Air

Force Academy are the people who are technically smart about the

integration of systems, and the Secretary has visited the Air Force

Academy. They were about to cut down the engineering and

sciences curricula in the Air Force Academy in the basic core curriculum. The Secretary went out there and reversed that decision.

As a matter of fact, we are going to increase the technical specialty.

But we need the people who understand the principles of unmanned flight, the principles of orbital and suborbital flight, the integration of manned/unmanned in space platforms at the technical
518

level. And what we really need to work on are these systems engineers that the Secretary talked about before at the academy level.

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

you, gentlemen.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator Shelby.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Secretary, I understand that you and the General have been

down to Maxwell Air Force Base to the Air University. We talked

about that earlier. One of my concerns that they tell me about at

Maxwell is the ROTC training requirements facing the schoolhouse

down there. It is my understanding requirements have increased

26 percent, and they need some money there. I do not know if you

have looked at that, but a 26 percent increase puts more demand

on them. Do you want to comment on it?

Secretary ROCHE. Yes, sir. I think the modern Air Force is being

surprised at the degree to which General Jumper and I will get

into curriculum and to make sure the curriculum is right. We have

a joke with each other. I do the Air Force Academy because I am

the more academic. He does Maxwell’s advanced schools because he

knows the professional military education (PME) better than I do.

We both were a little surprised to find that ROTC cadets drop

out a lot between their first and second year, especially the 4-year

scholarship students. My experience as a naval ROTC midshipman

was I could not have dropped out because I was at sea. So, I asked,

well, how can they drop out? Well, we do not put them anywhere

between their first and second years. And we both went, gosh, here

is a chance for them to work with our first sergeants, to get to

know the Air Force at its most meaningful level. And so, we are

going to make a change. We are going to have those cadets go out

and work in the units. That is putting a greater burden on the

ROTC management.

Senator SHELBY. But it is for a real reason, though, is it not?

Secretary ROCHE. It is a wonderful reason.

Secondly, precisely because of the point that Senator Stevens

raised, we have gone back to see where do we get our technical Air

Force officers from. The academy is fixed in numbers in total. The

ROTC program is our best chance to get technically educated officers. We do better there than we do in the officer training school

(OTS) program. Therefore, we are shifting. We have agreed to shift

a number of the billets from OTS to ROTC, which will put a burden. With that shift, we have committed to making sure we fund

the direction we have given, sir.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you.

KC–135

I have several questions here dealing with the aging fleet and

primary depot maintenance. You are very familiar with it. What

impact have the rigors of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle had on your periodic depot maintenance (PDM)

schedules and your near-term operational capabilities of the KC–

135 fleet? General?
519

General JUMPER. Well, sir, as you know, we have about 120 KC–

135’s in the PDM line at Tinker Air Force Base today. In the last

several years, we have doubled the amount of time from about 180

days to more than 300 days it takes to take one of these airplanes

apart, fix all the corrosion and things that are wrong with

them——

Senator SHELBY. That is too long.

General JUMPER [continuing]. And put them back together again.

It is too long.

MISSION CAPABLE RATES

Once they go through the process, we are getting good mission

capable rates out of the tankers and we are getting good mission

capable rates out of our airlift fleet. These are recovering now from

a long time of decline. As you would expect, when we go into combat, we see an increase in the mission capable rates, because people are working very hard using cannibalization and other techniques to keep them in the air. As you would expect, our older

bombers show the effects more than the newer airplanes, but increased operation puts a greater demand on spare parts and a

greater demand on our maintenance people.

While we see, in the overall fleet, the results of our investment,

with the help of this committee of more than $1.5 billion over the

last 4 years to fully fund our spares accounts, we have seen that

level off and start back up again. When you start and do an operation like Afghanistan, the charts start going all over the place, as

you increase your tempo of operation.

Senator SHELBY. Sir, will your fiscal year 2003 PDM request

meet your requirements?

Secretary ROCHE. To the best of my knowledge, yes, sir. We face

an issue that something is wrong if one-fifth of our 135 fleet has

to be in major depot at any one time. That is losing 20 percent of

your capability. While the planes work when they get out, they

have to get back for corrosion control and other repairs very, very

quickly.

The money we have there now continues to work these and with

the basis of replacing them sometime later in this decade or early

next decade. But it is one of the reasons why we were trying to

jump start and move more quickly so that we could retire some of

the oldest ones, the E models which are facing about $3 billion

worth of work in the next several years.

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Secretary, the specific goals of your plan

would be to move forward, get the oldest out, and get the ones you

can rehabilitate back to their units quickly. What about the specific

goals?

TANKERS

Secretary ROCHE. The specific goals, Senator, are right now we

have roughly 600 tankers, 59 KC–10’s and 545 KC–135’s. Thank

God this committee and others helped the Air Force get the KC–

10’s in the mid-1980’s, taking some new DC–10’s and converting

them into tankers, because they have been the principal plane that

has served the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft.
520

What we would like to do is to take a look at the fact that our

newer aircraft, if we have the F–22’s and Joint Strike Fighters, because of internal carriage, will not have to refuel as often. Therefore, we probably, when we are finished, will have a need for something less than 600 tankers, but it is certainly going to be in the

400 or 500 range, somewhere in there we think.

LEASING TANKER AIRCRAFT

We would like to try to get a replacement for the oldest. We will

retire approximately 130 if we can get 100 to replace them and

then study what we need and what pace to go on. But the issue

is can we do this lease so that it is a business case that you and

all your colleagues could say, yes, that makes great sense. That is

good for the taxpayer, good for the Air Force, good all the way

around. If we can do that, then we have a model to say this takes

care of the worst. Now, exactly when do we have to do the next

ones? And we can shift to a buy.

Senator SHELBY. How long is that going to take, Mr. Secretary,

to put this together?

Secretary ROCHE. By the time you finish the whole fleet, sir, it

will be 2020, 2025.

Senator SHELBY. A long time, is it not?

Secretary ROCHE. But some of those planes are going to be awfully old. That is why we have this desire to get going with this.

Senator SHELBY. But you are going to fully fund this this year.

Secretary ROCHE. Yes, sir. We have no choice.

Senator SHELBY. You have got the request and you have got the

help.

Secretary ROCHE. Yes, sir.

C–5

General JUMPER. If I could just add, Senator. It is the unexpected that always causes the hiccups. I was recently down in

Georgia looking at the C–5 PDM line, and there was a C–5 there

where they had found a 17-inch crack in the spar. It is when that

happens is when you go into these delays that take you from 180

days to more than 300 days of repair time. It is the unexpected.

KC–135 FLEET

In the KC–135 fleet, we have had flaking on the fuel tanks. We

have spent almost 40,000 man-hours dealing with this flaking

problem. Again, these are the unexpected things that pop up that

require us to come back to you and ask for help.

Secretary ROCHE. The flaking is because we fixed leaks by coating the tanks and the coating is flaking. This is, as Secretary

Rumsfeld says, keeping a 1934 Oldsmobile going. You can do it. It

just costs so much money. At some point it is not wise to continue

trying to keep these things going.

The 707’s have catalytic corrosion problems where dissimilar

metals are no longer separated as they were originally. You get a

little water, you get a battery. Some of the aluminum is

delaminating. These are things that take a lot of time, and when

you have one-fifth of your force in major maintenance, plus the rou-
521

tine maintenance—and as any of the 135 people will tell you, when

they fly, they take a lot of spare parts with them.

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Secretary, lastly after you go through a

major maintenance plan on the KC–135, in other words, really do

it right, what is the life of it then?

Secretary ROCHE. We think these planes could make it. Certain

of these planes. The ones that are very good are the ones that were

reserved for the Strategic Air Command for years. They had very

low hours on them, and they were taken very, very good care of.

They should be able to be the last ones in the KC–135 fleet and

they should last us until 2025 or 2030, as long as we do this. It

is the ones that have been used in TACAIR, have been used more

often, that are just showing the wear and tear and the oldest ones.

But by 2020, Senator, these are all going to be real old planes.

They average 41 years of age now. The E models average 43 years.

Add 15 years, you are talking about 60-year-old planes. We have

never flown 60-year-old planes.

Senator SHELBY. They are going to live longer than we are, are

they not?

Secretary ROCHE. Longer than I will.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Cochran.

SPACE-BASED INFRARED SYSTEM HIGH ORBIT

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Senator Stevens brought up the issue of the space assets in the

missile defense area, SBIRS High. You mentioned some of the

problems and the challenges that are faced in that area.

Under Secretary Aldridge recently certified, though, that the program is essential to national security and its cost can be controlled,

so it is continuing. But my question is last week the Senate Armed

Services Committee cut the funding request by $100 million. What

I am curious to know from you, Secretary Roche, is what the impact of that $100 million cut would be on the program?

Secretary ROCHE. It is a program that does not need that kind

of a problem now, sir. Anything that disrupts its schedule or causes

us to have to restructure to account for that will only engender

more cost increase and more schedule delay. We are hoping that

we can have that not happen so that we can take the restructured

program and try to provide some stability to the program as we go

forward. Any disruption in any of these programs really causes

havoc, and this is enough that it may cause havoc.

AIRBORNE LASER PROGRAM

Senator COCHRAN. One other program that you mentioned in

your testimony was the airborne laser (ABL) program. Another example of cuts in the President’s budget request are illustrated in

that program. Last week the Senate Armed Services Committee cut

$135 million from the President’s $598 million request for the airborne laser. That will eliminate the design work I am told and the

procurement of the second ABL aircraft. Although the Missile Defense Agency is responsible for developing this program, the Air
522

Force is executing it for the Missile Defense Agency and will operate it, as I understand it, after it is deployed.

So, I guess, General Jumper, I will ask you. What would be the

impact of the cut that has been recommended by the Armed Services Committee if we do not do something about that?

General JUMPER. Senator, we think the airborne laser is going to

be a very significant part of the theater ballistic missile defense.

It has shown success in each phase of its development and testing.

Of course, a cut does nothing more than stretch it out and, in the

end, increase the cost. So, we are very much in support of the airborne laser and we want to see it built to its completion.

Now, within the missile defense arena, the program responsibility, they have certain prerogatives to trade off these resources,

and I must admit that I do not know the reason why, the justification for this cut. But we very much support the airborne laser and

its role in theater missile defense.

Secretary ROCHE. And to the best of our knowledge, this is a program that is doing well. The ground tests held earlier in the year

performed well. General Kadish has told me that everything he

knows about it looks good, and we think it is one of those programs

that is working and should not be cut.

GLOBAL HAWK PROGRAM

Senator COCHRAN. You have already mentioned some of the unmanned vehicle programs. One that I think, General Jumper, you

predicted was going to be a very important and successful program

was the Global Hawk program. The pre-production aircraft have

been deployed to Afghanistan. You were talking about that. I would

be interested in your assessment of the Global Hawk’s performance

and how it has fit in with the assets that have been deployed to

Afghanistan.

General JUMPER. Senator, the Global Hawk is doing very well.

As you know, it is really still in developmental testing and we deployed it over there in its test phase. As you know, one of them

crashed over there as a result of simply a malfunction that is part

of the testing process. Having said that, though, the airplane is

performing magnificently.

The Secretary and I have been alarmed at the price increases in

the Global Hawk, and the costs have gone up. We have taken steps

to make sure that we separate the Global Hawk air vehicle from

the sensors that are in the Global Hawk and we make sure that

those sensors in the Global Hawk are the subject of a proper competition to incentivize the people who do that very important sensor work to keep their costs intact.

I would say that the system is performing magnificently. I think

the Global Hawk is going to serve this Nation not only as a surveillance asset, but in the future as a communications relay asset and

other roles as well. I think in many ways it can substitute for a

constellation of low orbiting satellites in a localized confrontation.

So, I think the future of the Global Hawk is bright if we can control the costs, and that is the Secretary’s challenge to the company.

Secretary ROCHE. Senator, one of the things that John and I are

doing, in the unmanned vehicles, we are not treating them as just

airplanes that do not have pilots riding in them. We are saying
523

that these are new forms of air-breathing vehicles and we ought to

think about them more broadly and not just say, well, this is what

we do with an airplane.

So, among other things, we have issued a challenge to the contractor and have set a budget and a time limit and said we would

like to give you freedom to think of how best to employ these to

do the effects we want have done. So, for instance, it may be because they have such endurance without a pilot wearing out, that

if you put two of them in an air space at the same time, you can

do much more than just one plus one. We are trying to make people realize that we are asking for innovative ideas, asking for innovative combinations of sensors, and not trying to treat them like

a classic airplane that as it goes through its development, where

from day one you seem to know everything you need to know about

everything you want.

In this case, it is quite clear, by putting in programs that were

not ready for prime time, we have learned. We have also learned

things that we want.

PREDATOR

So, for instance, in Predator, sir, it is quite clear there is no reason to have two types of wings, one that can carry Hellfire and one

that cannot. So, now all Predators built will be Predators that will

have the ability to carry Hellfire should we choose to do so. We

have learned about how to make use of these, and we are experimenting with various sensors on Predator.

In the case of the middle ground, there is Predator A, which is

in our words a razor blade. We want to keep it very cheap and we

are willing to have a computer chip die for our country.

GLOBAL HAWK

Global Hawk. The sensors were getting so expensive that the

benchmark was we could reopen the U–2 line, and that does not

make sense. So, the sensor costs have to come down.

In between, we have developed a concept of operations for

hunter-killer, an unattended vehicle that can be programmed to

hunt for specific types of targets, to alert people when it is there,

go through a decision, and if the decision is to shoot, to shoot, trying to develop new concepts that exploit the technology as compared to just using the technology in the ways we used manned

aircraft.

SPACE-BASED RADAR

Senator COCHRAN. One of the other new developments I was

reading about in your statements is the space-based radar, which

is another development program. I wonder if you could acquaint us

with that. When I first came across it, I thought maybe it was a

version of the SBIRS High/Low or had some relationship to those

programs, but it is separate and different. Could you explain that

to the committee?

Secretary ROCHE. It is and we are hoping to do this one right.

The configuration and control board of the space-based radar is

Pete Teets, John Jumper, and Jim Roche. We are the three and we
524

are holding this thing amongst us very tight so as to not allow requirements to go crazy. To try and do something like put joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint STARS) in space,

to have the ground moving target indicator so precise that you

could target would be so expensive that we think that that is foolish.

Secondly, we have oft times approached these systems, Senator,

as if each system stood in the world by itself as compared to their

being part of a portfolio and providing a mosaic-like picture. One

of the things that we really have learned in this conflict is how to

fuse intelligence, how to fuse data, and the value of having all of

these devices sampling.

So, for instance, in one case there was a target that was seen by

special systems, seen by Global Hawk, Predator, et cetera, but only

one mode of the Global Hawk caught it. And then when we recued

the others, we found a very lucrative target. The fact that it was

a mosaic was important.

So, we are trying to approach space-based radar not to cure

world hunger, but to be a proper member of a portfolio of systems

and therefore keep its costs down, keep the requirements down,

and to start it with its sensors before we turn it over to the big

primes who may want to add lots of things to it.

Senator COCHRAN. Interesting. Well, I think our committee ought

to be cooperative in the effort to provide the funding that we need

to keep this on track and let you carry forward with your ideas on

this subject.

C–17’S IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

One parochial issue has come up and been brought to my attention. You know, the C–17’s are being deployed around the country.

We were happy that the Air National Guard in Jackson, Mississippi will be host to some of those planes.

What we are concerned about now is whether or not there will

be full utilization of the aircraft in terms of flying hours and operational tempo. They do not want to be treated like second class citizens because they are not active duty Air Force, but they have

been very competent with C–141’s and before that with other airlift

planes and have provided important supplementary services in

time of need and in time of war. So, they are very proud of their

accomplishments and would like to continue to be thought of as

fully capable to operate those.

What I would like for you to do is let us know how you are going

to transition into the new planes to be sure that we meet crew proficiency standards, that they are second to none, and that the flying hours are what are needed in order to take full advantage of

those assets. Can you give us a reaction to that now?

General JUMPER. We are still working on the crew ratios and

how we are going to do exactly what you say with the proper manning of the unit. The C–17 is so important we cannot have it not

being fully utilized. So, we are going to have to take steps to make

sure that that happens. But the crew ratios and the details are still

being worked as far as I know, Senator, but we will keep you up

to speed on where we are on that.
525

Secretary ROCHE. We thought it was unprecedented to give you,

as part of our program to be as transparent as possible, all of our

thinking based on 180 C–17’s and the number of C–130’s we see,

to give all of the members a map of where everything would go so

that you understood where our thinking was.

One of the things we are observing in these newer aircraft is

they are far more reliable. If they are far more reliable, then the

limiting factor is people, not the airplane. So, therefore, having

multiple crews allows us to use the same plane more often.

OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE

And the Guard has done a magnificent job in the current conflict.

After all, 80 percent of what was done in Operation Noble Eagle

was done by our Air National Guard and Reservists, about 20 percent by active duty folks. And an awful lot of the mobility and an

awful lot of the tanking that has occurred, bridging across the

world has been done by the Guard. They have performed magnificently.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

B–2

Mr. Secretary, about 30 years ago, we began to very seriously

discuss stealth bombers, and research programs began. About 5

years after that, we came up with the B–2. When the B–2 was initially conceived, some were talking about 270 copies, and we finally

settled on about 132. At that time, it was determined that the unit

costs would be approximately $200 million because we could spread

the research and development (R&D) throughout all those aircraft.

But with the passage of time, it came down to 70, to 40, and to

21. And a plane that was scheduled to cost $200 million a copy now

became $2 billion a copy.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

A few years ago, we decided that the Joint Strike Fighter was

important to replace your F–16’s. If we maintain the numbers, we

can get it for a reasonable price, but now I hear rumbles that we

are cutting down the numbers. The Navy may have second

thoughts about the numbers they will procure. Can you tell us

what the situation is? Because I do not want you to get into this

B–2 syndrome because that would be terrible.

Secretary ROCHE. Yes, sir, and this committee, because of what

you did in the C–17, is fully aware that that was originally 210

planes, 120 planes, 40 planes, 80 planes, 120 planes, now 180

planes. That does not do scheduling or cost any good as things

bounce around like that, and we worry about this in the case of the

F–22 as well.

In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter, we all went through the

analysis last fall and decided that this was the right thing to do

and these were the right numbers. In the case of the Air Force, we

had less of an immediate demand for the Joint Strike Fighter than

our sister service. Our sister service needed it more quickly. It was
526

clear that as part of being part of a larger Department of Defense,

that we should come on board early, and we did so.

As we look at the total number of planes, the issue is not so

much how many are bought 15 years from now, but how they are

purchased in the short term because if the rate increase is done

poorly, it throws costs off very, very quickly, say, onto us, if the

Navy were to drop out. We are working closely with the Navy to

try to avoid that. If we can get to rate at the right levels, then worrying about how many are sold in 2017 and 2015, we have time to

worry about that because by then one would expect international

purchasers, et cetera. It is how you start the program that is most

critically important when you have one that is large where you are

talking maybe 2,500 planes that might come down to 2,000 planes.

We worry about others, for instance, the F–15E where an insufficient number were built and they were very expensive and they

were expensive to maintain because you have to have separate logistics lines for a small number of aircraft. It is one of the problems

of maintaining the B–2 today because there are only 21 of them,

but its uniqueness permits us to say it is a good thing to do.

So, we are very worried about the rate of production, getting up

to the right rate. That includes the F–22 and we will be just as adamant when we talk about the Joint Strike Fighter and not worry

about what happens out at 2015 or 2017.

Senator INOUYE. Where are we now?

Secretary ROCHE. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter, there

are, as you know, discussions within the Navy to make some adjustments. In the case of the Air Force, we are still looking at the

total number. It seems right but it could be smaller. But what we

are certainly interested in is hundreds of them which would be to

get the program started correctly, and that is where the real costs

come in.

As you point out, Mr. Chairman, we buy the most expensive airplanes and we do not buy the cheap ones. The most expensive ones

are the ones that have to carry the load of all of the fixed costs that

go with it. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter, if this stays on

track—but it is only entering its system development and demonstration (SDD) phase now. For instance, in the engine, it will

take until about 2007 for all the software associated with the engine to be incorporated in the plane. It is going through its really

tough phases next, and we are hoping costs can be contained on the

flyaway costs, let alone the average unit cost which is when you

have to incorporate all the overhead. The average unit cost you do

at the end of a program looking backwards. The flyaway costs you

look at each time.

Senator INOUYE. Well, I wish you the very best, sir, because we

are supporting you.

Secretary ROCHE. Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Stevens.

Senator STEVENS. I have no further questions.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, General Jumper, we thank you

very much for your appearance today. But we would like to submit,

if we may, prepared questions for your response.
527

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JAMES G. ROCHE

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

SPACE-BASED RADAR

Question. Secretary Roche, in your statement, you called Space Based Radar the

‘‘ultimate high ground.’’ I would be interested in your view of a satellite architecture

called MIRIAH–ROSAE discovered by a firm in Jackson, MS. Several professors at

the University of Mississippi and University of Kansas have evaluated the technology mathematically and found it worthy of further development.

I am told that radar is highly sensitive to errors in time division, and it also depends on Doppler History, however, MIRIAH uses Very Large Arrays comprised of

triads of Very Large Baseline Interferometers whose dependencies are far less sensitive. Apparently, MIRIAH has an ideal raw data format that leads to faster,

cheaper, and more accurate processing, and is coherent in three dimensions.

Could you provide for the record a review of this technology for research and development potential for application to Space-Base Radar as well as Future Imagery

Architecture, SBIRS-High, GPS Navigation Satellite Services, and Global Communications Satellite Services?

Answer. The Air Force has not had the opportunity to evaluate the MIRIAH–

ROSAE concept. While I cannot offer an opinion on the suitability of MIRIAH–

ROSAE for the programs mentioned at this time, we have contacted the company

and advised them of how they may submit their proprietary information through

our unsolicited proposal process. We will review the concept when the materials are

received.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

F–22 RAPTOR

Question. I am aware the Department of Defense is concerned about the cost of

procuring three fighter aircraft nearly simultaneously. I am also aware it has been

recently reported that the Department of Defense directed you to reevaluate how

many F–22’s it really needs. With the newly discovered cracks in the tail sections

of some F–22’s, is this directive to reduce the number of planes a response to concerns about the performance of the F–22 or merely a budgetary concern? What savings will this reduction of procured F–22’s actually produce? Will it create significant savings or will it merely increase the per-unit cost of each airplane?

Answer. First, there have been no cracks on the F–22. Second, let me assure you

that the overall performance of the F–22 remains outstanding. And third, the Air

Force welcomes the opportunity to review requirements and force structure options.

Structurally, our flight tests revealed some issues we didn’t wholly expect, such as

vertical fin buffet. This aerodynamic phenomenon results in vibration on the vertical

tail, similar to the problem experienced in both F/A–18 and F–15 development.

However, it differs in that those programs could be solved without concern for preserving a stealth profile. Although this is not a safety of flight issue, we must address a solution. This is a good example of why we have a development flight test

program—fin buffet is an extremely difficult phenomenon to model. I’m confident we

have the fixes scoped, and we have already incorporated some structural changes

to the production aircraft. This is certainly not a showstopper, but we are keeping

an eye on it.

With regard to overall testing results, the F–22 is meeting or exceeding all of its

key performance parameters. At its inception, the F–22 design was primarily an effort to maximize the characteristics necessary for air superiority in the 21st century

threat environment. Yet we continued to explore the possibilities of the F–22’s design and overwhelming capabilities. That has led to a truly different F–22 than the

platform of several years ago. Now, we are developing an F–22 that is a multi-role,

air dominance aircraft, capable of defeating both advanced air and ground threats.

The unprecedented combination of supercruise, generationally-advanced stealth, integrated avionics, and revolutionary maneuverability defines transformational capability—and the F–22 is successfully demonstrating them all.
528

In terms of the up-coming program review, I welcome the opportunity that this

study presents us. I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of Defense that it

makes sense to occasionally go back to a clean sheet of paper and review our procurement plans to make sure we are still pursuing the right kinds of things in the

right kinds of numbers. So we will evaluate a number of options, including F–22

variants that might play in the mix. I’m not sure what the final answer is, but

that’s what we are going to find out.

Finally, we won’t know the full costs until we’ve completed the review. Moreover

there are critical ‘‘costs’’ to capabilities inherent to any force structure decision that

we must also explore. However, as a minimum, previous F–22 quantity reductions

have shown that if planned total procurement falls, unit costs increase, not only for

the F–22, but also for the F–35.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Question. Because of the Joint Strike Fighter relies on much of the technology and

production capabilities employed on the F–22, what effect will slashing the production of F–22s have on the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter?

Answer. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has already benefited significantly from technology transfer and lessons learned during the development and

flight-testing of the F–22. For example, Pratt & Whitney is using information obtained during the development and testing of the F–22 F119 engine to develop the

F135 engine for JSF. At his point, we do not know how a reduction in the number

of F–22s produced would impact the JSF schedule. However, any reduction is surely

to have an impact on JSF costs. Overhead rates would undoubtedly rise, in turn

driving development and production cost increases. In addition, there would certainly be additional costs resulting from lessons or techniques lost in the elimination

of large-scale F–22 production.

It is important to note, however, that reductions to either program have serious

negative impacts on military capabilities, and little or no positive relief for defense

budgets. The Air Force’s capabilities requirements for the 21st Century, indeed our

entire, balanced force modernization plan is based on a force structure composed of

both F–22s and JSF (as well as many other systems). A reduction in any one program alters overall capability of the entire joint force and would require comprehensive restructuring of our modernization plan in order to try and effectively compensate for otherwised diminished capabilities.

DEPOT PROVISIONS

Question. As I am sure you are aware, both the House and Senate versions of the

fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Bills contain language that would dramatically expand the statutory definition of what is considered ‘‘core’’ workload.

What is the Air Force’s position on these provisions?

Answer. Both of these provisions will severely limit the Air Force’s ability to manage logistics and acquisition capabilities and provide logistics support to the

warfighter at ‘‘best value.’’ The provisions will eliminate many current public-private partnerships, and restrict the Air Force’s ability to partner with industry in

the future. Restricting partnerships will significantly increase costs to the government. Partnering with industry provides for sharing of facilities, equipment and

workforce skills. These provisions would require the many of the logistical support

function currently provided in the private sector to be duplicated or transferred to

government activities. The transition costs to bring in those logistics functions already on contract will be significant in terms of both investment dollars and readiness support to the warfighter. The provisions will also drive additional hiring in

areas like system engineering, which is predominately done on contract today. Hiring additional government engineers with the right skills just adds to the current

problems that the Service has hiring and retaining existing scientists and engineers.

Additionally, the Senate language will shorten the transition period to establish

core logistics capabilities from four to two years. This will result in unstable logistics support due to immature technologies inherent in every program early in the

process. The compressed timeframe will drive inappropriate decisions made too

quickly which can prevent best value and can result in increase total life cycle costs

to the warfighter. The short decision timeframe will result in the exact opposite of

the stated intention to improve ‘‘planning for future workloads in the public and private logistics sectors and allow for better workload and workforce planning within

the public depots.’’ Neither the House nor the Senate version of these provisions

should be adopted without DOD first conducting a thorough study.
529

B–1 BOMBER

Question. Last year, when you unexpectedly announced the retirement of onethird of our nation’s B–1 bombers, you committed to reinvesting the savings directly

into the modernization of the remaining airframes.

What is the status of the B–1 modernization program?

Answer. The B–1 modernization program is on track to improve B–1 lethality,

survivability, and supportability. Specifically, Block E is currently in flight test and

scheduled to start dedicated operational testing this Fall. Block E replaces the current avionics computers, upgrades the data transfer units, and converts the operational flight software from Jovial to Ada. In addition, the ability to employ the

Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) will be delivered concurrently with

the new avionics computers in fiscal year 2003. Finally, the B–1 Joint Stand Off

Weapon (JSOW) and Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) capability will

be delivered in fiscal year 2004. These three new capabilities significantly increase

B–1 lethality.

The Defensive System Upgrade Program (DSUP) is designed to improve B–1 survivability. The program began flight test in August 2001, but testing has been

slowed by ALE–55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD) maturity issues. The B–1

DSUP test program has conducted ten ALE–55 decoy deployments with very limited

success. Recognizing the ALE–55 decoy is a program risk, the Air Force is pursuing

a concurrent DSUP risk reduction effort with a Fiber Optic ALE–50 (FO–50). Because of these issues, the Air Force is currently evaluating the way ahead.

Other modernization efforts focused on improving B–1 lethality, survivability, and

supportability include modernization of the B–1 automatic test equipment, procurement of additional interim data link capability, situational awareness improvements, and procurement of depot tooling. Future efforts planned for the B–1 include

a fully integrated datalink capability and upgrades to the inertial, radar, and onboard diagnostics systems.

NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

Question. Is the AF considering expanding investments in nanotechnology, which

has recently been described by DOD as having the greatest potential for revolutionary changes in military warfare since the invention of gunpowder? The AFRL,

which is pioneering collaborative efforts with world leaders in nanoscience such as

those in my own home state of Texas, is acquiring a reputation for technical leadership in this field. How is the Air Force planning to leverage this capability?

Answer. The Air Force Science and Technology (S&T) Planning Review, conducted

in response to the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, identified

nanotechnology as one of the most important future technologies for the Air Force.

With an investment of approximately $18 million in fiscal year 2002, the Air Force

has in place a robust nanotechnology research program. As this technology matures

and proves successful, we anticipate it will provide an array of new warfighting capabilities with many different applications. The current Air Force investment in

nanotechnology research represents a broad scope of scientific disciplines leveraging

strong collaborations between world-class leaders in diverse technical areas.

Current research focused on nanomaterials provides the enabling foundation for

developing new capabilities that until now have not been achievable because of technology deficiencies. The physical properties of materials (i.e., corrosion, reactivity,

fracture, adaptivity, radiation reflection/emission, etc.) stem from their molecular

composition. While definitive applications have yet to be identified, it is anticipated

that this technology will lead to revolutionary warfighting capabilities as the emerging technology provides the ability to design tailored material properties. Tailored

structural materials could provide resistance to corrosion and thermal degradation,

which would make a significant contribution towards aerospace sustainment. In addition, nanomaterials technology could be the key technology resulting in highpower devices that are compact enough to enable high-power directed energy weapons to be used on fighter aircraft. This would provide a revolutionary capability of

instantaneous target defeat.

In the area of nanoenergetics, research is focused on capabilities to tailor the composition of explosives and propellants. As the delivery platforms and weapons are

miniaturized, so is the available volume of energetic materials. As a result, if the

desired target effects are to be achieved, the energetic output of the munition must

be increased to compensate for the reduced volume. By manipulating the chemical

and physical structure of the individual molecules and/or small molecular clusters,

the warfighter could be provided with the capability to deliver the desired explosive

effect in a much smaller package. Other potential benefits may include the ability

to control the rate of explosion and reduce collateral damage.
530

Another key area of nanotechnology research is focused on developing the basic

technology building blocks that will enable new computational capabilities. Application of this technology to quantum computers and computation methodologies could

provide orders of magnitude (up to 1,000 times) of increased computing power and

capacity over current high-speed computers. This new class of computer hardware

and computational software could enable the warfighter to process data in volumes

that would overpower today’s capabilities. Of particular importance is the capability

to process and fuse massive amounts of intelligence and communications data, making important battlefield information available to the warfighter in near-real-time.

This capability could also support in-flight retargeting of weapon systems, which

would provide substantial flexibility in changing targets as new information becomes available.

In summary, nanotechnologies could result in lower cost, lighter weight, stronger,

and faster products for air and space applications. Nanotechnology research has the

potential to revolutionize the way the Air Force conducts warfighting operations.

The Air Force plans to continue investing in this robust Science and Technology effort and will continue to leverage this investment into superior warfighting capabilities via strong collaborations with the world’s technology leaders, including those in

other Services and Defense Agencies, industry, and academia.

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

C–17

Question. General Jumper, I understand that there is a significant funding shortfall in Manpower, Flying Hours and Equipment for the Jackson C–17 conversion in

fiscal year 2003 and in the ensuing Future Years Defense Plan. Could you provide

us with a budget update, detailing how you plan to transition to this new airframe,

meet crew proficiency standards, and optimize the flying hours per aircraft?

Answer. The original Air Mobility Command (AMC) beddown plan for Jackson

was based on the United States Air Force buying 137 C–17s. As part of this plan,

Jackson would have become an Air National Guard wing with an Active Duty Associate squadron manned at a 5.0 crew ratio (2.0 Air Guard Reservist, 1.0 Traditional

Reservist, 2.0 Active Duty). The United States Air Force has since increased its C–

17 buy request to 180 aircraft to meet Mobility Requirements Study 2005 validated

airlift requirements. To provide the optimal crew force, AMC/CC redistributed the

active duty crew force from Jackson to active duty units gaining C–17 aircraft under

the 180 beddown plan. On 15 April 2002, the Air Force presented a comprehensive

Mobility Force Structure Plan to Congress. As part of this plan Jackson will transition from an 8 Primary Aircraft Authorized (PAA) C–141 unit with a 2.0 crew ratio

to an 8 PAA C–17 unit with a 3.0 crew ratio in the fiscal year 2004 time frame.

This crew ratio along with their current manpower, flying hours, and funding allows

Jackson to meet crew proficiency standards and optimize the flying hours per aircraft. Within the current fiscally constrained environment, an increase in manpower

or flying hours is not feasible for either AMC or the Air National Guard. As lead

command, AMC will continue to work with the Air National Guard to meet future

airlift Total Force requirements.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. The subcommittee will now stand in recess until

Tuesday, May 21 at 10 a.m., at which time we will receive testimony from the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld.

General JUMPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary ROCHE. Thank you very much, sir, Senator Stevens,

Senator Cochran.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Wednesday, May 15, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 21.]
(531)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Hollings, Dorgan, Reid, Feinstein,

Kohl, Stevens, Cochran, Specter, Domenici, Bond, and Shelby.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

ACCOMPANIED BY:

GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, U.S. AIR FORCE, CHAIRMAN, JOINT

CHIEFS OF STAFF

LAWRENCE LANZILOTTA, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMPTROLLER, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Good morning. Today will conclude our overview

hearings on the fiscal year 2003 budget request of the Department

of Defense (DOD) with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Richard Myers.

We want to thank you for making time in your very busy schedule to join us this morning. We understand how challenging your

positions are at this point in our Nation’s history. A little over 8

months ago, our world was shattered by the surprise attack. On

September 5th, just 6 days earlier, you testified before this committee, Mr. Secretary, and in your opening remarks you said: ‘‘We

are entering a world where new threats can emerge suddenly. We

need to have a military that is sized and structured to meet those

challenges.’’

Mr. Secretary, reading those words today has a chilling effect on

all of us. Little did we know when you spoke how close we were

to learning about these emerging threats.

Today we are interested to hear how you are responding and restructuring the military and your Department to meet these new

challenges. For fiscal year 2003 you are requesting $370.8 billion

in new budget authority for your Department, not counting funding
532

for military construction, which is not in the jurisdiction of this

subcommittee. Your request is $48 billion more than you received

in fiscal year 2002.

During our hearings this year we have heard the testimony of all

of the military departments, the Guard and Reserve, and the Surgeon Generals of your budget request. As we have examined the

testimony of these officials, it is clear that they are basically

pleased with your budget request. The Navy might not be buying

enough ships, but that is mostly because ship programs are not

ready to be accelerated.

We learned even more about the shortfall of Air Force tanker

and transport aircraft. At the same time, we were told that the Air

Force plans to invest $4.6 billion this year on the F–22, even

though there are concerns with software delays and a potential

problem with the aircraft tail. General Jones gave us an optimistic

assessment of the V–22 for the marines and the Army testified it

desperately needed the Crusader program, but I gather you have

now decided to recommend its termination.

Mr. Secretary, many of us had the opportunity to hear General

Shinseki address the Crusader program last week before the

Armed Services Committee. In his testimony, the General noted

the importance of the Crusader and, as you recall, he pointed out

that today our Army artillery is outgunned by many potential adversaries and he believes that the Crusader was the solution to

that problem.

General Shinseki’s best professional military judgment was that

the Army needs this system. Today, Mr. Secretary, you have the

opportunity to explain why you believe we should ignore the advice

of our military professionals and cancel this program. Perhaps you

can enlighten us on why you believe your members of your organization know a little better than those who have spent their career

studying this art of warfare.

There is one other issue, Mr. Secretary, that we still do not have an answer to. What are you going to do with the $10 billion contingency fund you have requested in this fiscal year? We would also

like to hear about your plans for the Osprey, the Comanche, and

the F–22. We would like to know if these programs are likely to

suffer the same fate as the Crusader.

Mr. Secretary and General Myers, we welcome you here this

morning to discuss these and other issues. We recognize yours is

a very demanding and almost impossible job. But you should know

that this committee stands ready to help you to meet these demands and we are ready to assist you, sir. So we look forward to

hearing your testimony and the responses to our committee’s questions.

But before proceeding, I would like to call upon the co-chairman

of this committee, Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, General Myers, I join the chairman in welcoming

you to come today and appearing before us again for the second

time in 2 weeks. We have discussed the supplemental and the

homeland security issues and your words were very important to
533

us. I am hopeful we will be able to get that supplemental out of

our committee this week.

The fiscal year 2003 bill has a new direction and new details for

and priorities for the administration. Your objectives, pay and quality of life for our military personnel, readiness for our forces, and

recapitalization of the system, are reflected in your request. In the

absence of a budget resolution, we are somewhat delayed. But I see

no real threat or problem in securing satisfaction of the priorities

that you have outlined, Mr. Secretary.

We welcome your comments on budget cuts and the language

presented in the Senate version of the defense authorization bill.

We are hopeful that we will be able to consider all of these matters

after the Memorial Day recess, which starts at the end of this

week. We had hoped that the bill would be out before the Memorial

Day recess. The absence of a budget resolution has delayed our

work of necessity. We are waiting to see what the House will do

with regard to deeming that we have a budget level to proceed.

The chairman mentioned you did testify and we watched your

appearance on the decision to terminate the research and development of the Crusader system. As I understand it, once the program

is completely terminated we must have an authorization to proceed

once again if we want to oppose your action, Mr. Secretary. I have

said and told the chairman that I will not seek to replace that

money for the Crusader unless there is an authorization bill that

the President accepts that restores it. What will happen in that

process we do not know.

But I have got to tell you that I am deeply troubled by the process that brought this to us, and I am sure you recognize this. We

have had a series of opportunities for the Department to make the

decision that terminated that program. It was included in the

President’s budget. It was included in the comments that you made

before our committee in September. It was included really in every

appearance before us from members, the uniformed members of the

Department, until the day that the decision was made to terminate

the program.

That happening at the time it did I think creates a situation

where those of us who have been trying to support the Department

and support the request are in the position where we are facing

questions now from everyone else: Are there any other areas that

we are going to face termination? How many are under review now

by this group that is within the Secretary’s office?

I do not think it is fair to the President, the Army, or the Congress to have such a decision happen after we have had the hearings. We have gone all the way through the hearings. This is the

windup hearing now. To have that decision made so late is what

is really the problem as far as I am concerned.

We have had other systems cancelled both by the Congress and

by administrations before and I can understand why you would be

brought to make the decision. But I too will await the comments

you wish to make today, Mr. Secretary. Again, I just do not think

it is fair to make those decisions so late in the process, after the

authorization hearings have been held and after the appropriations

hearings have been held, to have us face a cancellation of a significant new initiative.
534

I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Secretary, and thank you

very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, sir.

May I recognize Senator Cochran.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am pleased to

join you and Senator Stevens in welcoming our witnesses for this

hearing today. I do not know of any other part of the Government’s

responsibility that is more important than defense. Hearing the

presentation of the budget request for the Department of Defense

is something we should take very seriously and we do.

We are pleased with the performance that you have turned in in

this time of stress and threat to our country. We appreciate the devotion to duty that has been reflected in your performance and I

congratulate you for it and wish you all the best and pledge to you

our effort to cooperate with you and to work with you and to support you.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator STEVENS. I failed to mention one thing. Mr. Secretary,

I hope you will tell us what is going to happen to the Crusader

money. Is it going to stay in the Army or is it going to be allocated

throughout the Department?

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Now may I recognize the Secretary.

Mr. Secretary, it is yours now.

INTRODUCTION

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran. I thank you for this opportunity to

meet on the President’s budget request. In addition to General

Myers, I have asked the Principal Deputy Comptroller, Mr.

Lanzilotta, to join us. Unfortunately, Dr. Zackheim, the Comptroller, has had a death in the family and was not able to be here.

As you, I am deeply grateful to the outstanding service of the

men and women in uniform. As you, I visit the troops around the

world from time to time, most recently in Manas Air Base in

Kyrgyzstan and in Afghanistan, and they are certainly doing an

outstanding job as they put their lives at risk for all of us. It certainly makes all of us determined to make sure that they have everything they need to do their jobs. I look forward to working with

you and the committee to ensure that they are in fact the best

trained, the best equipped fighting force on the face of the Earth,

ready not only for the challenges we face today, but also for the

challenges we face in the future, indeed increasingly deadly challenges in the 21st century.

BUDGET TOPLINE AND WAR ON TERRORISM

To that end, President Bush has requested a $14 billion supplemental for fiscal year 2002 and a $379 billion budget for fiscal year

2003. The 2003 budget request is $48 billion increase over 2002. It

includes $19.4 billion for the war on terrorism, $9.4 billion for a variety of programs related to the war plus $10 billion which is essen-
535

tial to conduct the war effort and provide the minimum necessary

flexibility to respond quickly to the changes in operations as the

war unfolds.

Our estimate—and in direct answer to Senator Stevens’ question about the $10 billion—our estimate is that the $10 billion should

cover the war on terrorism for about the first 5 or 6 months of fiscal year 2003, the normal things—force protection, combat air patrols, strip alerts, fuel, transportation, maintenance, support services, mobility, costs for the Guard and Reserve—the normal activities of the global war on terrorism.

We had a choice. We either put nothing in for the fiscal year

2003 war on terrorism, because you cannot know precisely what

the amount will be, or you make a guess that it is going to increase

or stay at the current level, or you just take a number like 10 that

will bridge us between the end of this year when Congress goes out

of session and into October, November, December, January, February, when Congress would have a chance to see what has in fact

happened in fiscal year 2003 with respect to the war on terrorism

and make an orderly judgment.

So there is no mystery. It is not complicated. That is in effect what the $10 billion is for.

The $379 billion is a significant investment of the taxpayers’

hard-earned money, but certainly nothing is more important, as

Senator Cochran said, than our Nation’s security. I urge that we

do take up the defense budget first, not last, and that we give our

forces the tools they need to do the job.

I also am hopeful that the President’s fiscal year 2002 supplemental request will pass, which is essential to preserving readiness

for the rest of the fiscal year and to support for the defense emergency response fund which gives us the ability to prosecute the

war.

CRITICAL MISSIONS

Our country is being called on to accomplish three difficult missions at once: first, to win the global war on terrorism; second, we

have to prepare for the wars we may have to fight later in this decade by making sure that a number of long-delayed investments

during the so-called procurement holiday of the last decade—and

making a number of those investments in procurement, people, and

modernization; third, we have to be prepared for the wars in the

future between 2010 and beyond, and therefore we do have to

transform the armed forces so that they can deter and defend

against the emerging threats of the 21st century.

Each of these missions is critical. None can be put off. We cannot

delay transformation while we fight the war on terrorism.

As we painfully learned on September 11th, our adversaries are

transforming. They are watching us. They are studying how we

were successfully attacked, how we responded, and they are looking

for ways that we may be vulnerable in the future. We stand still

at our peril.

Last year the Department’s senior leadership, civilian and military, began intensive discussions about where Americans’ military

should go in the years ahead. In 1 year the Department of Defense

developed and adopted a new capabilities-based defense strategy,
536

we replaced the decades-old two major theater war construct for

sizing our forces with an approach that is more appropriate for the

21st century, we adopted a new approach for balancing risks, one

that takes into account not only operational risks, but also the

risks to people, to the failure to modernize and the failure to transform.

We have announced a new unified command structure with a

new Northern Command to help in defending the American homeland. And we have developed new contingency planning guidance

to assure that the United States has up to date contingency and

operational plans that are appropriate to our new national security

environment. We did this all while fighting a global war on terrorism.

TRANSFORMATION GOALS

In the course of last year’s defense reviews, we identified six key

transformational goals around which we are focusing our strategy:

protecting the homeland and forces overseas; projecting and sustaining power in distant theaters; denying enemy sanctuary; protect U.S. information networks from attack; use information technology to link up U.S. forces so they can fight jointly; and last, to

maintain unhindered access to space and protect U.S. space capabilities from enemy attack.

The President’s 2003 budget request advances each of those

transformational goals by accelerating transformation programs

and funding the objectives that I have just outlined.

One of the programs the Department is pursuing is a revitalized

effort to test and develop ballistic missile defenses capable of defending the United States, our friends and allies, and our forwarddeployed forces from limited ballistic missile attack. On September

11th terrorists took commercial jetliners and turned them into missiles, killing thousands. Let there be no doubt, it is only a matter

of time before terrorist states armed with weapons of mass destruction develop the capability to deliver those weapons to U.S. cities,

giving them the ability to try to hold America hostage to nuclear

blackmail.

With the power and reach of weapons today, we have little margin for error and we need defenses that can deter and defend

against such attacks. That is why I am concerned about the Senate

Armed Services Committee’s decision to cut more than $800 million

from the President’s request for missile defense.

PROGRAM TERMINATIONS AND TRANSFORMATION

Terminations. As we all know, resources are finite and even with

the significant increase in the budget proposal, these transformational investments cannot be made without terminating some

programs and finding other savings. Although this year’s requested

budget increase is large, virtually all of it is spoken for by a number of must-pay bills covering the cost of inflation, $6.7 billion;

health care, retirement, and accruals, pay raises, $14 billion; realistic costing for readiness and procurement is another $7.4 billion;

and funding for the global war on terrorism at about $19.4 billion.

After counting the costs of keeping the Department moving on a

straight line, the costs of the war, there is really not a great deal
537

that is left. In the 2003 budget request, we have made $9.3 billion

available, in part by terminating a number of programs, such as

the DD–21, the Navy Area Missile Defense, and 18 Army legacy

programs. Let us face it. It would be nice to have retained them

all, but choices have to be made. There is just no question about

it.

As we put together the 2003 budget, a number of programs, including Crusader, required further review. After several months of

examination, we decided to recommend termination of the Crusader program. The decision to recommend termination is not

about killing a bad program. It is potentially a good system. It is

not about a system that could not be used. It is a system that is

wanted by a number of people, including the Army. But that is not

the issue.

The issue is how do we balance the risks. In short, it is about

forgoing a system that was originally designed in an earlier period

to make room for more promising technologies that can accelerate

transformation.

In February of this year, we began developing the defense planning guidance for fiscal year 2004 and the fiscal years 2004 to 2009

program. The senior civilian and military leadership had to focus

on the looming problem of a sizable procurement bow wave beyond

fiscal year 2007. This is shorthand for describing the cost of the

procurement of systems that would be ready for fielding later in

this decade. If all were funded they would crowd out all other areas

of investment and thereby cause a repetition of the same heartaches and headaches that we still suffer from today as the result

of the procurement holiday in the 1990’s. The time to address that

bow wave is now, not earlier—not later, excuse me.
538

ARMY TRANSFORMATION AND CRUSADER

If you look at this chart, you will see what the Army looks like

for 2003 to 2007. If you add 2 years at the end for 2008 and 2009,

if every program we have today in the budget were funded the way

it is currently programmed—Larry, why do you not give him a

hand and let us get it up there. If every program that is in the

budget were funded the way it is currently programmed, including

Crusader, the bow wave soars.

If you look at—Larry, please point to where the line is for 2007.

This year we are working now on the 2004 to 2009 budget. Show

where 2009 is up at the top. That is what we are facing.

Mr. Chairman, you said that—you suggested that we were ignoring the advice of the military and the Chief of Staff of the Army.

We are not ignoring his advice at all. It is understandable that he

would like all of those. So would the Navy, and the Navy’s looks

roughly the same. So would the Marines and so would the Air

Force.

There is no way that is going to happen. We all know that. That

means that at some point, if you wait until 2009 to address it, it

is too late. If you start earlier and address it, you can in fact have

an impact on what happens to this so-called bow wave that exists

out there.

We have great respect for General Shinseki and for his views

and for the other service chiefs. They are doing a wonderful job.

But it is their job to make proposals for systems that fall within

their service and then it is somebody else’s job to take all of those

proposals—and they all look like this—and bring them together

and rationalize them and make them more coherent.

Second, let it be said that combatant commanders—General

Franks out in Central Command—they do not fight with Army systems or Navy systems or Air Force systems. What they want to do

is fight with joint systems. They have to take all of the capabilities,

not the ones that one service recommends but all of them, and

make them rational and coherent and then be capable of putting

power on a specific target in a specific way.

So the task we are faced with in the Department is, it would be

wonderful if we could just simply say yes to all the services, make

any recommendations you want, and resources are infinite, we do

not have to worry about that, and then we can go about our business. But somebody has to make tough decisions and in my view

you have to make them earlier rather than later.

The Crusader, if fielded in the next decade, would have represented an improvement over the existing Paladin howitzer in

rate of fire and in mobility. The issue is whether the United States

would be better off upgrading Paladin and eliminating Crusader

and accelerating the Future Combat System, which you can see is

shortly behind the Crusader, not very far, and it has an artillery

piece as well, and improving the munitions of all of those capabilities simultaneously, including the rocket systems. The answer we

believe is yes, we are better taking the Crusader out, bringing the

Future Combat System forward, upgrading the precision of the munitions.
539

We are convinced that that is a better way to invest the money

and that was why the decision was made.

WHY TERMINATE CRUSADER NOW

Senator Stevens raised the question, why now? How could we do

it right in the middle of a markup? Would you put the time line

up. This is an important question because we do not—first of all,

we would like never to have to make these decisions. It would be

much more pleasant to be able to come down here and say everything that every Senator wants is going to happen.

The problem is, if you look at the black lines, those are DOD actions, and what we do is we start in the early part of the year with

the defense planning guidance. We started in February. We start

developing that so that we can begin building the budget starting

in May and June for 2004 to 2009. We are doing that right now.

The defense planning guidance has as its function making decisions.

Now, the complication is that the Congress is the red line, and

we are still talking about a 2002 budget authorization and 2002

budget appropriation there. We are talking about the fiscal year

2001 supplemental in July 2001 there. Then the red to the right

is the 2003 budget authorization and the 2003 budget appropriation. The reality is there is only about 3 or 4 weeks when we could

make any decision that would not conflict in some way with some

portion of the congressional authorization or appropriation process.

I wish it were otherwise. But our task now is to be building the

2004 to 2009 budget, and that is what we are doing downtown. We

then fashion the final portion of it and send it to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in November. The President makes his
540

decisions and he sends it up to the Congress in February, and you

will be working on the 2004 to 2009 budget while we are building

the 2005 to 2010. We are always out of sync.

There just is no way I know of that we could make a decision

and have it not land up here at an awkward moment when you are

either working the appropriation or the authorization. I would

dearly love to know some way, other way to do it, but I do not

know.

The hardest choices really are those about balancing risks between the challenges we face in the near-term and the mid-term

and those less certain, but possibly more formidable, challenges

that we face in the longer term. That was certainly the choice we

had to make in terminating the Crusader and recommending that

to the Congress.

ALTERNATIVES TO CRUSADER

It is not, of course, an indication, in answer to your question,

that the United States can do without ground forces. To the contrary, it is a decision that reflects confidence in the Army that they

have set a course over the longer term that is sound and indeed

needs to be accelerated.

Nor is it a decision that the future Army can manage without direct fire and rely solely on air support. Rather, it is a decision that

precision in artillery and rocket fires can be as revolutionary as it

has already proven in air-delivered weapons and that mobility and

rapid deployability will be crucial in the future, not only in getting

to the battlefield but in maneuvering over potentially vast areas.

In direct answer to your question, Senator Stevens, it is the

Army’s plan and the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) plan

that those dollars would stay in the Army, they would effect direct

fire in terms of rockets, precision guided munitions, and acceleration of the Future Combat System, which as I say has an artillery

piece, as well as some upgrades to the Paladin. There are a number

of the technologies attached to Crusader which clearly can be migrated both back to Paladin and forward into the Future Combat

System.

In short, it was a decision about balancing risks, a decision that

was made after a great deal of consideration.

As to what our needs in the coming period will be, in light of the

new defense strategy and the initial insights from the war, we

weighed the relative merits of the Crusader against other alternatives to meet the Army’s need for organic indirect fires, both cannon and rocket. Following a great deal of discussion and evaluation, it became apparent to me that on balance alternatives to Crusader would be more consistent with both the new defense strategy

and, we believe, with the Army’s overall transformation effort.

A couple of statements have been made about Crusader. Some

have suggested it might be helpful, for example, in Afghanistan.

The idea of trying to get the Crusader into Afghanistan, a landlocked country, is I think a reach. Had that been the case that indirect fire artillery would have been an advantage, certainly the combatant commander and his land component commanders would

have brought artillery to the battle. They, the experts, made a deci-
541

sion not to. They were the ones who made that decision, let there

be no doubt.

Another assertion which has been made is that Excalibur munitions will be exorbitantly expensive, as much as $200,000 per

round. In truth, the Excalibur Program Office currently estimates

that average procurement unit costs will be about $33,000 a round

and believe that refinements to the production plans could yield

costs of no more than $10,000 per round. That is still expensive,

but if you think about it, if a precision round can do what 10 or

20 dumb rounds can do that is not a bad tradeoff.

Second, you can use a precision round in much closer proximity

to your troops. You can use a precision round in much closer proximity to civilians, where you are worried about collateral damage,

and it seems to me that if one adds in the logistics costs of moving

dumb bombs, which have a much poorer rate of hit, much less

lethality, the logistics costs alone I think shift the equation.

Another assertion is that the Crusader cancelling would lead to

midterm operational risk because Paladin is outranged by enemy

systems. U.S. forces clearly will retain an unparalleled capability

to deliver fire support at long range in the mid-term. The Army’s

field artillery capability is provided by Paladin and MLRS, the

Multiple-Launch Rocket System. Extended Range MLRS with a

reach of 45 kilometers can outrange virtually all howitzers in the

hands of potential enemies. Guided MLRS and Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) provide even greater range at 60 to 300 kilometers.

When post-gulf war improvements to the Army’s fire support capability are considered, such as Apache Longbow, the MLRS upgrades, Paladin improved ammunition, the firepower of its divisions is overwhelming. The test I think would be to ask any of

those countries that supposedly have better artillery whether they

would trade the United States for our capability to put power on

a target, and the short answer is there is not a country on the face

of the Earth that would even think about it.

Mr. Chairman, there are always reasons to not do something.

But if we do not make tough choices now, then in the long run we

are not serving the interests of the Army, the armed forces, or the

security of the country.

FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET PRIORITIES

As we transform for the threats we face, we have to prepare the

force for conflicts they may have to fight later in the decade. To

deal with the backlog that resulted from the procurement holiday

of the last decade, we have requested $71.9 billion for procurement,

$68.7 billion in the procurement title, an increase of 10.6 percent

over 2002, and $3.2 billion in the defense emergency response fund.

We have requested $150 billion for operation and maintenance

accounts for 2003, including a substantial funding for the so-called

readiness accounts of tank miles, steaming days, flying hours.

If we are to win the war on terror and prepare for the threats

of tomorrow, we have to take proper care of the Department’s

greatest asset, which are the men and women in uniform. They join

because they love their country and they believe that freedom is

worth defending. But at the same time, we have to recognize that
542

they have families to support and children to educate. We already

ask them to voluntarily risk their lives. They should not be asked

to live in substandard housing while they do so.

That is why the President’s 2003 budget requests $94 billion for

military pay and allowances, including a $1.9 billion across the

board 4.1 percent pay raise, plus $300 million for targeted pay in

the mid-non commission officer (NCO) grades and mid-officer

grades; $4.2 billion to improve military housing, putting the Department on track to eliminate most substandard housing by 2007;

funds to lower out of pocket housing costs for those living off base

from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent, putting us on track to eliminate

the out of pocket housing cost for men and women in uniform by

2005; $10 billion for education, training, and recruiting; and a

breathtaking $22.8 billion to cover realistic estimates of the cost of

military health care.

The hard truth is that that line item promises to grow and put

pressure on all other categories of the budget, research and development (R&D), modernization, transformation, pay, and the like,

and we need to face up to that.

Some have argued that the military departments need relief from

end strength caps because of the many demands that have been

placed on our forces. There is no question but a lot of demands are

being made, but before entertaining such relaxation I have asked

the services to scrutinize the missions and assignments from which

we can extract our uniformed forces to relieve some of the pressures. While the numbers are not always large, one area that we

must look to immediately are those missions to which our forces

are assigned, but in which there may be some exposure, for example, to prosecution to the International Criminal Court. As you

know, we are working closely with the Department of State to ensure that our forces would be protected from prosecution before

committing U.S. forces overseas.

BUDGET TRADEOFFS

After the cost of keeping the Department moving on a straight

line, the cost of the war, and the savings generated, we are left

with about $9.8 billion. That requires some tradeoffs. We are not

able to meet our objective of lowering the average age of the tactical aircraft. However, we do invest in unmanned aircraft and in

the F–22 and Joint Strike Fighter, which require significant upfront investments now, but will be coming on line in the years immediately ahead.

While the budget funds faster growth in science and technology

(S&T), we were not able to meet our goals of 3 percent for the overall budget, though we are slightly higher than the 2002 President’s

request.

Clearly, we were not able to fund the shipbuilding in fiscal year

2003 at a rate that we clearly will need in the future. As with

every department, the Navy had to make some tough choices and

they did. The 2003 shipbuilding budget is $8.6 billion. It procures

a low of five ships for several reasons.

First, there are a number of problems, including contractor problems and also past shipbuilding cost estimates that were way too
543

low and they were not in the forward year budget and we needed

to fully fund them.

Second, the Navy made a calculation that in the short term it

can maintain the desired force level at the proposed procurement

rate because of the relatively young average age of the fleet. The

Navy’s forward year defense plan does budget for 7 ships in 2005,

7 in 2006, and 10 in 2007.

Mr. Chairman, $379 billion is a great deal of money, but if we

consider the estimated cost of September 11th attacks to the national economy, they range from about $170 billion to almost $250

billion in lost productivity, sales, jobs, revenues, not to mention the

terrible cost in human lives and human suffering. We, as you know

well, cannot put a price on defending our country. We have to deter

and defend from those who may wish to attack and kill our people.

The President’s budget amounts to about 3.3 percent of our gross

national product. Compared to the cost in lives and treasure if we

underinvest, it is a needed and proper investment in our national

security.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I believe I have touched on most of the questions that you asked,

Mr. Chairman, and that were asked by Senator Stevens. If not, I

would be happy to touch on them in response to other questions.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD H. RUMSFELD

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to meet

with you on the President’s Budget request. As each of you, I am gratified by the

outstanding service of the men and women in uniform. Recently I visited with

United States and coalition forces stationed in Afghanistan and at Manas Airbase

in Kyrgyzstan. They are heroes, each and every one.

Many are active duty, others are guard or reserves—dedicated men and women

who have put their regular lives on hold to answer their country’s call.

And visiting with them—as I know many of you have in recent months—makes

us all resolve to make sure they have everything they need to defend freedom. I look

forward to working with you to ensure that they are the best trained, best equipped

fighting force on the face of the earth—ready not only for the challenges we face

today in the war on terror, but for the different, and equally deadly challenges we

will face as the 21st century unfolds. To that end, President Bush has requested a $14 billion supplemental for DOD in fiscal year 2002, and $379 billion for fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2003 request is a $48 billion increase from the 2002 budget. It includes $19.4 billion for

the war on terrorism—$9.4 billion for a variety of programs related to the war, plus

a $10 billion fund, which is essential to conducting the war effort and provides the

minimum necessary flexibility to respond quickly to changes in operations as the

war unfolds.

The 2003 request is a large increase. But in constant 2002 dollars, the proposed

2003 defense budget is lower than the defense budgets during the Korean War, the

Vietnam War and the Reagan Administration’s Cold War defense build up. Nonetheless, $379 billion is a significant investment of the taxpayer’s hard earned

money. And, Mr. Chairman, we need every nickel—and we need it as soon as possible. Nothing is more important than our nation’s security—on that, we all agree.

I urge that Congress take up the defense budget first, not last—to give our forces

the tools they need to do the job.

I also urge you to pass the President’s fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations request, which is essential to preserving readiness for the rest of this fiscal

year—and to support the Defense Emergency Response Fund, which give the Department the flexibility we need to prosecute to this war.
544

I realize that some of your colleagues have questions about the $10 billion war

reserve the President requested. Examples of where the money would likely be

needed include:

—Incremental costs for continued operations in Operation Enduring Freedom—

fuel, transportation, supplies, maintenance, repair parts, communications, temporary duty travel, support services, and more:

—Mobilization costs—pay of the National Guard and Reserve members who have

been mobilized and are providing major essential support to the war on terrorism, or are backfilling active personnel deployed in support of the war. Areas

of likely support include security and force protection, infantry, special operations, transportation, chemical and biological, intelligence, civil affairs, communications, strategic and tactical airlift, air refueling operations, and aero-medical staging capabilities.

These two funding categories would consume most of the $10 billion, but we cannot yet project our exact requirements. We intend to come back to Congress when

we have finalized our requirements for this $10 billion reserve.

The men and women of this Department are today being called on to accomplish

three difficult missions at once:

—First, we must win today’s global war on terrorism;

—Second, we must prepare for the wars we may have to fight later in this decade—by making a number of long-delayed investments in procurement, people

and modernization;

—And third, we must prepare for the wars we may have to fight in 2010 and beyond—by transforming the Armed Forces so that they can deter and defend

against the emerging threats of the 21st Century.

Each of these missions is critical. None can be put off. We cannot delay transformation while we fight the war on terrorism. As we painfully learned on September 11th, our adversaries are transforming. They are watching us, studying how

we were successfully attacked, how we are responding, looking for ways we may be

vulnerable in the future. We stand still at our peril.

NEW DEFENSE STRATEGY

Last year, the Department’s senior leaders—civilian and military—began intensive discussions about where America’s military should go in the years ahead. And

in just one year—2001—the Department of Defense:

—Developed and adopted a new capabilities based defense strategy;

—Replaced the decade-old two Major Theater War construct for sizing our forces,

with a new approach more appropriate for the 21st Century;

—Adopted a new approach for balancing risks—one that takes into account not

only operational risks, but also the risks to people, modernization and transformation;

—Reorganized and revitalized the missile defense research and testing program,

free of the constraints of the ABM Treaty;

—Reorganized the Department to better focus on space capabilities;

—Through the Nuclear Posture Review, adopted a new approach to strategic deterrence that increases our security while reducing our strategic nuclear weapons;

—Announced a new Unified Command Structure, with a new Northern Command

to help in defending the American homeland; and

—Developed new contingency planning guidance to assure that the United States

has up to date contingency and operational plans that are appropriate to our

new national security environment.

And we did all this while fighting a worldwide war on terrorism—not bad for a

Defense establishment that is supposedly so resistant to change.

In the course of last year’s defense reviews, we identified six key transformational

goals around which we are focusing our new defense strategy: to protect the U.S.

homeland and forces overseas; to project and sustain power in distant theaters; to

deny enemies sanctuary—so they know no corner of the world is remote enough to

protect them from our reach; to protect U.S. information networks from attack; to

use information technology to link up U.S. forces so they can fight jointly; and last,

to maintain unhindered access to space—and protect U.S. space capabilities from

enemy attack.

The President’s 2003 budget request advances each of these transformational

goals—accelerating transformational programs and funding the objectives outlined

in our new defense strategy.

Specifically, the President’s fiscal year 2003 budget provides for:
545

Protecting Bases of Operation/Homeland Defense.—$8 billion for programs to support defense of the U.S. homeland—$45.8 billion over the five year Future Years Defense Program (2003–07)—an increase of 47 percent.

Denying Enemies Sanctuary.—$3.2 billion for programs for this purpose—$16.9

billion over the next five years—an increase of 157 percent.

Projecting Power in Denied Areas.—$7.4 billion for programs to help ensure the

ability to project power across long distances—$53 billion over the next five years—

an increase of 21 percent.

Leveraging Information Technology.—$2.5 billion for programs to help leverage

advances in information technology to connect U.S. forces in the air, at sea and on

the ground—$18.6 billion over the five year FYDP (2003–07)—an increase of 125

percent.

Conducting Effective Information Operations.—$174 million for programs to help

us protect our information networks and to attack those of adversaries—$773 million over the five year FYDP (2003–07)—an increase of 28 percent.

Strengthening Space Operations.—$200 million to strengthen space capabilities—

$1.5 billion over the five year FYDP (2003–07)—an increase of 145 percent.

While new technologies represent only a portion of the Department’s overall

transformation program, transformational investments account for 17 percent, about

$21 billion, of all procurement and RDT&E in 2003, rising to 22 percent by 2007.

Over the next five years, we propose to invest more than $136 billion in transformational technologies and systems. Of this, $76 billion represents new investments to accelerate or start new transformation programs.

We have applied a strict definition to programs included in these totals as transformational, counting only systems that offer the warfighter a distinctly new kind

of capability. Many activities that enable transformation, or extend current capabilities, are not included in these figures. For example, the $1.7 billion in this budget

for funding for the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and other precision-guided munitions is not counted as transformational. The total investment in additional

systems that support transformation approaches $25 billion in the fiscal year 2003

budget and $144 billion over the five year FYDP.

MISSILE DEFENSE

One of the programs the department is pursuing a revitalized effort to test and

develop ballistic missile defenses capable of defending the United States, friends

and allies, and our forward deployed forces from limited ballistic missile attack. Mr.

Chairman, on September 11th, terrorists took commercial jetliners, and turned them

into missiles, killing thousands. It is only a matter of time before terrorist states

armed with weapons of mass destruction develop the capability to deliver those

weapons to U.S. cities—giving them the ability to try to hold America hostage to

nuclear blackmail. With the power and reach of weapons today, we have no margin

of error—we need defenses that can deter and defend against such attacks.

Missile defense is part of our new defense strategy, and a key element of the New

Triad of capabilities we intend to pursue—an approach that combines reduced offensive nuclear forces, advanced conventional offensive capabilities, and a range of new

defensive capabilities. Missile defense is critical to our strategy of reducing America’s reliance on strategic nuclear weapons—and one of the reasons why President

Bush was able to make the decision to make historic reductions in U.S. operationally deployed nuclear warheads.

Mr. Chairman, that is why I am concerned about the step by the Senate Armed

Services Committee to cut more than $800 million from the President’s request for

missile defense. These cuts put at risk our ability to develop and deploy effective

missile defenses. Missile defense funding represents only 2.1 percent of the overall

defense budget. We need all of the President’s request. I urge you to restore these

cuts and fully fund the President’s missile defense budget request.

TERMINATIONS

As we all know, resources are finite—and even with this significant increase,

these transformational investments cannot be made without terminating some programs and finding other savings.

Although this year’s requested budget increase is the largest in a generation, virtually all of it is spoken for by a number of ‘‘must pay’’ bills—covering the cost of

inflation ($6.7 billion), healthcare/retirement accruals and pay raises ($14.1 billion),

realistic costing for readiness and procurement ($7.4 billion) and funding for the

global war on terrorism ($19.4 billion). After counting the costs of keeping the Department moving on a straight-line, the costs of the war, there is not much left.
546

In the 2003 budget request, we have made $9.3 billion available, in part by terminating a number of programs, such as the DD–21, Navy Area Missile Defense, 18

Army Legacy programs, and the Peacekeeper Missile. We also accelerated retirement of a number of aging, and expensive to maintain capabilities, such as the F–

14 and 1,000 Vietnam-era helicopters. It would have been nice to keep them all. But

choices have to be made.

As we put together the 2003 budget before you, a number of programs—including

Crusader—required further review. After several months of careful examination, we

decided to recommend termination of the Crusader program. Last Thursday, I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Crusader decision. I ask

that portions of my testimony from that hearing be made a part of the Record today,

but allow me to briefly summarize a few key points.

The decision to recommend termination of the Crusader program is not about killing a bad system. It is potentially a good system. It is not about a system that could

not be used. It could. And it is a system that is wanted by many. But that is not

the issue. The issue is how do we balance the risks. In short, it is about foregoing

a system originally designed in an earlier period, to make room for more promising

technologies that can accelerate transformation.

In February of this year, we began developing the Defense Planning Guidance for

the fiscal year 2004 budget and the fiscal years 2004–2009 program. The senior civilian and military leadership team had to focus on the looming problem of a sizable

procurement ‘‘bow wave’’ beyond fiscal year 2007—shorthand for describing the cost

of the procurement of systems that would be ready for fielding late in this decade.

If all were funded, they would crowd out other areas of investment and thereby

cause a repetition of the same headaches we still suffer from today as a result of

the procurement holiday in the 1990s. The time to address that ‘‘bow wave’’ is

now—earlier, not later.

If you’ll look at the chart of the Army fiscal year 2003–07 budget, and then add

two years at the end. If every program we have today continues to be funded the

way it’s currently programmed, including the Crusader, the bow wave soars. The

time to deal with that bow wave is not in two, three or four years, because by then

the investments will have been made and lost. The only way to deal with it is to

make tough choices now on major defense acquisition programs, like Crusader.

The issue is not, in my view, whether Crusader is a fine artillery piece. It is. If

fielded early in the next decade, Crusader would have represented an improvement

over the existing Paladin howitzer in rate of fire and speed of maneuver. The issue

is whether the United States, during the period we see up on the chart, is better

off upgrading the Paladin, eliminating Crusader, accelerating the future combat system and improving the munitions of all of those capabilities, including the rocket

systems? And the answer is, I think we would be better off.

We are convinced it is better to invest that money in capabilities such as increased accuracy, more-rapid deployability, and the ability to network fires—that

will make Army indirect fire systems effective and relevant on the battlefields of

the 21st century.

The debate over Crusader is about whether to spend roughly $9 billion more to

procure some 480 Crusader howitzers or, instead, to use those funds to accelerate

a variety of precision munitions—including GPS-guided rounds for all U.S. 155 mm

cannons, as well as adding GPS guidance and accuracy to upgraded Multiple

Launch Rocket System vehicles and the more mobile, wheeled versions of this system, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).

Transforming to give our country the capabilities that revolutionary changes in

technology offer and to enable us to fight and win the nation’s wars in the 21st century as effectively as we did in the last century, requires hard choices and tough

decisions. The hardest choices are those about balancing risks between the challenges we face in the near and mid-term and those less certain, but possibly more

formidable, challenges that we will face in the longer term. That was the choice we

have made in recommending terminating Crusader and shifting the funding into

programs that are more appropriate to the future.

It is not, of course, an indication that the United States can do without ground

forces. That is nonsense. To the contrary, it is a decision that reflects confidence

that the Army has set a course over the longer term that is sound and, indeed,

needs to be accelerated. Nor is it a decision that the future Army can manage without indirect fires and rely solely on air support. Rather, it is a decision that precision in artillery and rocket fires can be as revolutionary as it has already proven

in air-delivered weapons, and that mobility and rapid deployability will be crucial

in the future, not only in getting to the battlefield, but in maneuvering over potentially vast battle areas.
547

In short, it was a decision about balancing risks, a decision that was made after

consideration of those risks and the capabilities this nation will require in the coming decades.

The Quadrennial Defense Review emphasized the need for U.S. forces to demonstrate an ability to swiftly and surely defeat adversaries in distant theaters, and

by doing so, deter them. In particular, the strategy confirmed the need for ground

forces that are lighter, more lethal, and more readily deployable than today’s force.

Throughout the conflict in Afghanistan, we have seen the remarkable synergy between ground, air and naval forces. If nothing else, Operation Enduring Freedom

has demonstrated some of the advantages that can be achieved with joint, integrated approaches to warfare. Not only is the safety and effectiveness of our troops

improved, the result is the rapid and precise destruction of enemy forces. We know

that ground operations will continue to be a critical dimension of warfare, and that

accurate indirect fires will continue to play an important role in deterring and defeating a range of potential adversaries.

In light of the new defense strategy and initial insights from the war, DOD senior

leadership weighed the relative merits of Crusader against other alternatives to

meet the Army’s need for organic indirect fires—both cannon and rocket. Following

extensive discussion and evaluation, it became apparent that, on balance, alternatives to Crusader would be more consistent with both the new defense strategy

and, we believe, with the Army’s overall transformation effort.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address many of the assertions that have been

made in the Crusader debate.

For example, the assertion has been made that Paladin had trouble keeping up

with Abrams tanks during Desert Storm. During Desert Storm, the Army followed

well-rehearsed tactics to ensure that heavy divisions operated as a team. Those tactics are what accounted for the fact that many of the divisions’ key vehicles—including Paladin howitzers—did not have top speeds to match those of tanks or infantry

fighting vehicles. While tanks are designed with fast top-speeds, they are not employed at those speeds over long periods. For example, the VII Corps moved about

400 miles in 96 hours, or about 4 miles per hour on average.

Others have suggested that Crusader would have been of help to us in Afghanistan. The idea of trying to get a bunch of Crusaders in place to participate in the

Anaconda battle, quite frankly, boggles the mind.

Another assertion which has been made is that Excalibur will be exorbitantly expensive—as much as $200,000 per round. In truth, the Army’s Excalibur program

office currently estimates the average procurement unit cost will be $33,000. OSD

(AT&L) believes that refinements to the Army’s production plans could yield unit

costs of no more than $10,000 per round.

Another assertion is that precision rounds are not useful in the absence of precise

target locations. In fact, precision munitions will provide the capability to direct

suppressive fire much closer to friendly troops than is now possible with unguided

rounds. Accelerating precision rounds does not preclude artillery units from using

a mix of guided and unguided munitions.

Another assertion is that canceling Crusader creates too much midterm operational risk because Paladin is outranged by many enemy systems. U.S. forces will

retain an unparalleled capability to deliver fire support at long range in the midterm. The Army’s field artillery capability is provided by Paladin and MLRS. Extended-Range MLRS—with a reach of 45 km—can outrange virtually all howitzers

in the hands of potential enemies. Guided MLRS and ATACMS provide even greater

range—60 km and 300 km, respectively. When post-Gulf War improvements to the

Army’s fire support capability are considered (Apache Longbow, MLRS upgrades,

Paladin, improved ammunition), the firepower of its divisions has doubled.

Mr. Chairman, the point is this: If we can’t cancel this system, and we can’t do

it now, what systems can we cancel and when can we cancel them? There is always

a reason not to do something. But if we do not make tough choices now, then in

the long run we are not serving the interests of the Army, the U.S. armed forces,

and the security interests of the country.

MODERNIZATION, PROCUREMENT AND READINESS

As we transform for the threats we face, we must also prepare the force for conflicts they may have to fight later in this decade, by improving readiness, increasing

procurement and selective modernization.

To deal with the backlog that resulted from the ‘‘procurement holiday’’ of the last

decade, we have requested $71.9 billion for procurement—$68.7 billion in the Procurement title (an increase of 10.6 percent over fiscal year 2002) and $3.2 billion

in the Defense Emergency Response Fund. Procurement is projected to grow stead-
548

ily over the five year FYDP to more than $98 billion in fiscal year 2007, and will

increasingly fund transformation programs over time. We have requested $150 billion for operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts

in 2003, including substantial funding for the so-called ‘‘readiness accounts’’—tank

miles, steaming days and flying hours for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

PEOPLE

If we are to win today’s war on terror, and prepare for the threats of tomorrow,

we must take proper care of the Department’s greatest asset: the men and women

in uniform. They joined because they love their country—and believe that freedom

is worth defending. But at the same time, we must recognize that, like all of us,

they have families to support and children to educate.

We already ask them to voluntarily risk their lives for us—they should not be

asked to live in substandard housing while they do so.

That is why the President’s 2003 proposed budget requests:

—$94.3 billion for military pay and allowances, including $1.9 billion for an across-the-board 4.1 percent pay raise and $300 million for targeted pay raises

for mid-grade NCOs and officers; —$4.2 billion to improve military housing, putting the Department on track to

eliminate most substandard housing by 2007;

—Funds to lower out-of-pocket housing costs for those living off-base from 11.3

percent today to 7.5 percent in 2003—putting us on track to eliminate out of

pocket housing costs for the men and women in uniform by 2005;

—$10 billion for education, training, and recruiting; and

—A breathtaking $22.8 billion to cover realistic estimates of the cost of military

healthcare. The hard truth is that this line item promises to grow and put pressure on all other categories of the budget—R&D, modernization, transformation,

pay and the like. We need to face up to it.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

We must also protect our men and women in uniform from the jurisdiction of the

new International Criminal Court, which is expected to come into being this July

1st.

The ICC’s entry into force this summer means that Americans may soon be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American

people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.

The United States has a number of serious objections to the ICC—among them,

the lack of adequate checks and balances on powers of the ICC prosecutor and

judges; the dilution of the U.N. Security Council’s authority over international

criminal prosecutions; and the lack of any effective mechanism to prevent politicized

prosecutions of American service members and officials.

These flaws would be of concern at any time, but they are particularly troubling

in the midst of a difficult, dangerous war on terrorism. There is the risk that the

ICC could attempt to assert jurisdiction over U.S. service personnel, as well as civilians, involved in counter-terrorist and other military operations—something we cannot allow.

Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty.

To the contrary, the ICC will claim the authority to detain and try American citizens—U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as current and future officials—even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the

treaty. The United States understandably finds that troubling and unacceptable.

In fact, some have argued that the military departments need relief from endstrength caps because of the many demands we have placed on our forces. Before

entertaining such a relaxation, I have asked the services to scrutinize those missions and assignments from which we can extract our forces and relieve some of the

pressure. While the numbers are not large, one area that we must look to immediately are those missions for which our forces are assigned but in which there may

be some exposure to prosecution by the International Criminal Court. As we consider U.N. peacekeeping mandates—for example, the mission in East Timor—I intend to work closely with the Secretary of State to ensure that our forces would be

indemnified from prosecution before committing them.

To deal with the threat posed by the ICC, some have proposed legislation, including the American Servicemembers Protection Act, as passed by the House of Representatives. Such legislation will provide needed protections for our men and

women in uniform, as they conduct the global war on terrorism and voluntarily risk

their lives to defend our freedom and way of life.
549

TRADEOFFS

After the costs of keeping the Department moving on a straight-line, the costs of the war, and the savings generated, we are left with about $9.8 billion. That’s a lot

of money. But it required us to make a number of difficult tradeoffs.

—We were not able to meet our objective of lowering the average age of tactical

aircraft. However, we are investing in unmanned aircraft, and in the F–22 and

JSF, which require significant upfront investments, and should be coming on

line in the years ahead.

—While the budget funds faster growth in Science and Technology (S&T), we

were not able to meet our goal of 3 percent of the overall budget, though we

are slightly higher than the President’s 2002 request.

—And clearly we were not able to fund shipbuilding in fiscal year 2003, at a rate

we need to in the future. As with every department, the Navy had to make

tough choices. The fiscal year 2003 shipbuilding budget is $8.6 billion, and procures a low 5

ships, for several reasons. First, there are a number of problems, including contractor problems and also past shipbuilding cost estimates that were off and not in

the forward year budget and which we need to fully fund.

Second, the Navy made a calculation that, in the short term, it can maintain the

desired force level at the proposed procurement rate because of the relatively young

average age of the fleet—and that it is more important now to deal with significant

needs that had been under-funded in recent years, such as shortfalls in munitions,

spare parts, and steaming hours for the men and women at sea, which are fully

funded in this budget. Further, we are investing in SSGN conversion, which does

not count in ship numbers because, while they give us new capabilities, they do not

technically buy new ships.

The Navy’s Future Years Defense Program budgets for 7 ships in 2005, 7 ships

in 2006 and 10 ships in 2007.

CONCLUSION

$379 billion is a lot of money. But consider: the estimated cost of the September

11th attacks to the national economy ranges from about $170 billion to almost $250

billion in lost productivity, sales, jobs, and airline revenue, media and advertising,

and costlier insurance for homes and businesses, not to mention the terrible cost

in human lives and human suffering.

The point is this: we cannot put a price on our ability defend this country, and

deter those who might wish to attack and kill our people. The President’s proposed

defense budget amounts to a modest 3.3 percent of our country’s Gross Domestic

Product. Compared to the cost in lives and treasure if we under invest, it is a needed and proper investment in our national security.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Now may I recognize General Myers.

General MYERS. Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens and distinguished members of the committee: It is indeed an honor to report on the state of our Nation’s armed forces. While the open

wounds created by the events of September 11th have begun to

heal, nothing will erase the horror of that day from our memories.

We remain a Nation at war and our troops are still faced with

grave danger.

The al Qaeda network has been severely damaged and they know

they are going to pay a price if they directly challenge our forces.

But just as a wounded animal is the most dangerous of all, al

Qaeda remains a real threat. Without a doubt, they still seek to

harm our men and women in uniform, our citizens, and our way

of live.

FUTURE OF OUR ARMED FORCES

Around the world we face other dangers, challenges, and obligations. This demanding world forms the strategic context for the future of our armed forces. To serve our Nation effectively, we must
550

win the war on terrorism, continue to improve our joint warfighting

skills, and transform our forces. We are making steady progress in

all three areas, but there is still much to do.

As we all know, the war on terrorism is being conducted using

many different means, from military operations to diplomacy to law

enforcement. On the military front, our operations are intended to

achieve three objectives: first, to disrupt and destroy global terrorist organizations; second, to eliminate safe havens for terrorists;

and third, to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not fall

into the hands of terrorist groups.

The successes we have achieved so far are founded on three factors. The first is the superb training of our armed forces. Our

troops were ready from day one and they performed magnificently,

whether flying the longest duration combat missions on record, or

fighting from cave to cave in the bitter cold and high altitude of

the Afghan mountains, or creating logistics bases from scratch, or

launching strike missions from the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier in the black of night.

The second has been the invaluable contributions of our coalition

partners, including the anti-Taliban Afghan forces. At last count

there were over 80 countries working together and that number

alone should send a clear message to terrorist organizations that

they can run, but they cannot hide forever.

The third is the unprecedented coordination of effort by U.S. governmental agencies. We have individuals from several agencies deployed with our troops on the front lines. We have inter-agency coordination groups assigned at various military headquarters and

we have military liaison officers attached to civilian organizations.

Most importantly, we all understand the critical need to share intelligence information and integrate our planning processes so that

our collective efforts form a whole far greater than the sum of its

parts.

I know you are aware that we have extended our operations beyond Afghanistan. Most notably, we have begun to train and assist

the military forces in the Philippines, in Yemen, and in the Republic of Georgia in their counterterrorism efforts. I recently returned

from a trip to the Pacific, where I visited our troops on Baselon Island. In addition to the training and assistance the Special Forces

are providing, the Seabies and Marine engineers are building the

first road on that island.

Now, this is really tough work. It is every stereotype you have

ever seen about the tropics. It is hot, it is humid, dense jungle,

dust, mud, bugs, you name it. But we have got tough people there.

The construction troops and Special Forces trainers are not only

doing tough work, they are doing vitally important work.

In the Philippines, the Abu Sayyaf group is ruthless. With ties

to al Qaeda, they are a threat that extends beyond the Philippines.

We will continue to work closely with the Philippine Government

to help eradicate this particular threat.

The cooperative effort in the Pacific goes beyond the Philippines.

On the same trip, I also met officials from Japan and South Korea.

It was gratifying to hear first-hand the steadfast commitment of

our allies to achieving victory in this war on terrorism.
551

As the months have progressed since September 11th, we have

started to transition from interim actions to more permanent arrangements. For example, to ensure we have the best capabilities

available for the homeland defense mission, the President recently

signed a revised unified command plan to establish a U.S. Northern Command. This revision provides several improvements. First,

it helps eliminate the gaps and seams among the different military

organizations that have homeland defense responsibilities; and it

allows for better military support of civilian agencies. It also improves our ability to anticipate and to plan, rather than to merely

react to events.

Second, I think it helps advance our transformation efforts by allowing the commander of the Joint Forces Command to concentrate

on joint exercises and experimentation.

But we cannot focus solely on today’s counterterrorism operations. We must also support other worldwide commitments, such

as Operations Northern and Southern Watch, the Balkans peacekeeping mission, and the defense of the Korean Peninsula. We

must face other challenges of the 21st century. With the help of

Congress, we have come a long way in recent years toward improving our joint warfighting capabilities. We are working hard to get

even better and certainly the operations in Afghanistan are proof

of our progress. But much more work needs to be done.

C4ISR

In my view, the area with the greatest potential payoff is command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, or C4ISR for short. Currently our commanders have vastly different C4ISR suites. For example, the Combined Air Operations Center at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi

Arabia is essentially state of the art. But if you had visited the

commander for the Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan just before

the operation, General Hagenbeck, you would see a different variety of equipment, from paper maps and grease pencils to a few

laptop computers. If you go aboard a Navy warship, you would see

another command and control suite that is very different from the

previous two.

What we need is a common suite that links everything together

and allows commanders to pick and choose what elements they

need to prosecute their mission, not only among U.S. forces but

with our coalition partners as well. To that end, we are developing

a standardized command and control architecture called a Standing

Joint Force Headquarters that will lead to an improved ability to

receive and deploy forces, what I call ‘‘plug and play.’’

This summer Joint Forces Command will test this concept in the

Millennium Challenge joint exercise, an experiment. These types of

improvements will also help us continue to transform our armed

forces. Transformation is not defined by a policy or choice. It is an

inexorable process of change. To me, it is simply fostering changes

that result in a dramatic improvement in the way a combatant

commander wages war, and such dramatic improvement requires

not only technological change, but also and perhaps most importantly changes in how we think.
552

True transformation must include training and education, doctrine and organizations. As we transform our forces, we need to

build capabilities that allow us to defend our interests in a wide

array of situations. The key to that in my view are flexibility and

adaptability. Our people must be expert at many tasks and our

equipment must be applicable to many missions.

Another key to transformation is recognizing that sudden technological breakthroughs are few and far between. More often than

not, transformation results from an accumulation of incremental

improvements and arises from the course of service modernization

efforts. Let me give you an example.

When I was flying in Vietnam we often targeted bridges and

anti-aircraft sites and we had to wait for the right weather and fly

a lot of sorties to destroy each single target. In the course of that

we lost a lot of crews and a lot of planes, all because our weapons

were not very accurate. Think about where we are today. We have

got weapons relatively impervious to weather conditions, that steer

themselves using the global positioning system satellite signals,

and now we can use one sortie to destroy several targets.

How did we get to today’s capabilities from Vietnam? Incremental improvements along multiple paths. We improved the targeting and guidance capabilities of our bombs, even figuring out

how to use a global positioning system which we originally thought

was going to be just an aid to navigation to guide them. On another

path, we developed unarmed aerial vehicles that could loiter for

hours over the battlefield, improving our ability to identify and locate potential targets. On still another path, we worked on data

transformation and computer processors so we could see the reconnaissance pictures in real time.

All these separate improvements added up to the transformation

of capabilities that we are seeing in the battlefield in Afghanistan.

This transformation has been built on successive improvements

over a period of 30 years, not necessarily on any single breakthrough. That is why service modernization programs are so important to the process of transformation.

Members of the committee, I am pleased to say that the U.S.

military remains the preeminent military force in the world. This

excellence is due in no small part to your unwavering support for

our troops. We have made tremendous strides in recent years in

providing our people a comprehensive set of quality of life improvements, especially in the areas of pay, housing, and health care.

Sustaining the quality of life of our people is crucial to recruiting,

to retention, and to our readiness to fight. But more importantly,

it is the right thing to do for the men and women who this very

minute are fighting to defend our freedom.

Your support of these initiatives and the global war on terrorism

is greatly appreciated. But there are a couple of issues I would like

to bring to your attention. First, some of our capabilities are being

stretched. The war has increased the operations tempo for segments of the force, including Active, Reserve, and Guard units.

Tempo is especially stressed for those specialized assets and capabilities commonly referred to as ‘‘low density, high demand.’’ Of

course, we are managing this essentially every day, trying to reduce that stress.
553

I am also concerned about the diminishing availability of training ranges and military operating areas. Environmental concerns

are very, very important and we take those very seriously, but we

must be able to strike a balance with readiness requirements. In

mid-April the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld, forwarded

to Congress the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative. The

service chiefs and I fully support this proposed legislation and I

would ask for your support as well.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to work with you and

the committee on these issues and others that impact our Nation’s

security and our defense. I thank you again for your support in the

war against terrorism and for the opportunity to be here today, and

we look forward to your questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS

It is an honor to report to Congress on the state of the U.S. Armed Forces. The

United States is engaged in a multi-front war that includes operations in direct defense of our homeland and a sustained military campaign overseas. All elements of

our force—Active, Reserve, and National Guard—are taking part in this struggle to

maintain the safety and security of our Nation, and the results of the initial campaign have been promising. While there are relatively few American troops deployed

‘‘on the ground’’ in Afghanistan, it is important to note that a significant percentage

of the force is directly engaged in some aspect of the global war on terrorism. At

the same time, other threats to U.S. interests remain a part of our strategic calculus. Thus, we have forces committed to other missions, such as defense of the Korean peninsula, protection of U.S. interests in Southwest Asia, and peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

With our friends and allies, we continue to gather intelligence and take action

against the Al Qaeda network and other terrorist organizations that threaten nations around the world. As President Bush has reminded us on several occasions,

the global war on terrorism will require great effort over an extended period of

time—and it will require all elements of our national power. The U.S. Armed Forces

are ready to engage the enemy for as long as it takes to complete the mission.

We face a difficult task—to defeat multiple enemies who are capable of striking

asymmetrically from hundreds of locations around the world. Winning this new

global war will require flexibility in adapting to changing operational conditions and

new technologies and procedures to enhance our combat capabilities. An equally important imperative in the midst of this war is to continue to modernize and transform our forces to meet future challenges in this rapidly changing 21st century.

These imperatives dictate my priorities as Chairman—to win the global war on

terrorism, to improve the joint warfighting capabilities of the U.S. Armed Forces,

and to transform those forces so they are ready to face future challenges. I look forward to working with President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Congress in the

months ahead to achieve these goals and to address other critical issues facing the

U.S. military. To keep our forces superior to those of any other nation, we must invest in our quality force today and create the capabilities needed to meet the challenges of tomorrow. The brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen who are defending our way of life are counting on us to make the right decisions.

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

As you well know, we are engaged in only the first phase of the global war on

terrorism. In this new kind of war, we face adversaries who refuse to adhere to the

norms of international behavior, who possess or have sought access to weapons of

mass destruction (WMD), and who have demonstrated both the capacity and the

will to use those weapons. Our objectives in this war are clear: to disrupt and destroy global terrorist organizations, to eliminate safe havens for terrorists, and to

prevent access to WMD by terrorist groups.
554

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we have conducted

both offensive and defensive operations. The Reserve Components have been essential to these actions. As of late April 2002, we had alerted over 107,000 individuals

for activation and completed the call-up of more than 74,000 people. Additionally,

since September 11, the number of personnel, both active and reserve, deployed to

the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility increased from approximately

22,000 to a high of about 60,000, with about 55,000 in theater as of the end of April

2002.

The direct defense of the American homeland is called Operation NOBLE EAGLE.

This operation comprises combat air patrols and alert aircraft to enhance the security of U.S. airspace as well as actions to protect civil population centers, critical

infrastructure, and special events. NOBLE EAGLE also includes Coast Guard inspections of cargo vessels and patrols in defense of major sea ports. Additionally,

there is widespread augmentation of civil site security with both active duty and

reserve component military personnel. Familiar examples of these actions are the

6,100 National Guard troops augmenting security at 421 airports, a program that

is scheduled to continue through May of this year. We have also enhanced security

at military and other government installations and for space launch operations at

Cape Canaveral. And for seven months, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO) provided airborne early warning aircraft and aircrews to augment our airspace protection operations under Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This action freed

U.S. E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft for the war effort in forward areas.

Our offensive operations are labeled Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. These

actions include, but are not limited to, ground, air, and naval operations in the Afghan theater and North Arabian Sea; planning and training for follow-on operations; and a host of support activities. The combat operations are notable for their

distance from the United States, the deployment most of the ground forces solely

by air, and the integration achieved between the technologically unsophisticated Afghan opposition forces and U.S. forces. Also of note, air operations included not only

reconnaissance, air refueling, and strike missions, but also simultaneous humanitarian airdrop missions by C–17s flying from Germany.

Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM have both highlighted

many lessons that will be of great use in the subsequent campaigns of this war, as

well as in our planning, programming, and transformation efforts. Foremost among

them is the importance of versatility and flexibility to achieving operational success.

Forward air controllers on horseback and special operations troops transporting

their high-tech gear on donkeys to isolated mountain tops from which they directed

strikes of precision guided munitions are illustrations of the kind of versatility and

flexible thinking we need to foster.

A second lesson is the ever-increasing importance of operations in the information

domain—the most significant aspect of which is a ‘‘networked’’ operations capability.

We have continued the process of connecting sensors, shooters, and command and

control elements with a single network of voice and data links, without regard to

platforms or individual Services. We do not yet have this capability complete, but

we are making steady progress. For example, in Afghanistan special operations

forces (SOF) on the ground guided strikes from both U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft. Additionally, Navy and Air Force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms were able to feed sensor outputs to Marine and SOF ground

units, as well as other airborne platforms. We were also able to link real-time inputs

from unmanned aerial vehicles to orbiting AC–130 gunships, which then provided

responsive and pinpoint fire support to ground operations. These Afghan operations

provide a hint of the operational advantages we will gain when this element of the

transformation process is more mature.

The more we rely on information resources and systems, the greater must be our

efforts to protect them. An important step will be the development of military doctrine for Information Assurance/Computer Network Defense. This doctrine will

guide our actions in employing safeguards against attacks upon our critical information networks and in detecting, combating, and recovering from cyber attacks as

soon as they are attempted.

Finally, another lesson learned with every operation, but one that bears repeating, is that the friction and fog of war remain difficult to overcome. Our goal is to

ensure our enemies face greater difficulties than we do. But our adversaries are always thinking and reacting in an attempt to defeat our forces. And although we do

our best to prevent errors, human beings make mistakes and mechanical systems

sometimes fail. We will never have perfect success—and sometimes will suffer tragic

accidents. History tells us these difficulties will never be completely eliminated, but

we continue to work hard to reduce their occurrence as much as possible.
555

In addition to providing lessons learned, the campaign has reinforced some existing concerns and validated concepts that we have been working on for quite some

time. It has had a significant impact on and exacerbated shortfalls in specialized

assets and capabilities. It has also added emphasis to the requirement of maintaining an adequate inventory of precision guided munitions (PGM). These weapons are

an increasingly important tool for operational commanders across the entire spectrum of conflict. We need to maintain sufficient capacity in the industrial base to

manufacture adequate quantities of PGMs. We also need to protect our ability for

production surges to meet increased demands associated with sustained high-tempo

operations. We ask for your continued help in building PGM inventories so we may

retain the full capability to deliver this lethal combat power in the future.

Other weapon systems that have further validated their potential in Afghanistan

are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). These systems are increasingly important in

reconnaissance and surveillance and have recently demonstrated unmistakable potential for strike missions. We will continue to experiment with additional roles and

missions for these vehicles, improve their communications, and develop and acquire

them faster.

The war has also validated our emphasis on the importance of interagency coordination and cooperation, especially the need for close partnerships with both domestic and international law enforcement agencies. On the domestic front, the military

will usually act in support of civilian law enforcement and first responders, as has

been the case in Operation NOBLE EAGLE. We are working to build strong ties

with other government agencies in the areas of training, planning, and operations—

and especially in intelligence sharing.

As the war continues, the Armed Forces will remain focused on the fundamental

mission of homeland defense. To better organize our forces at home and provide support to civil authorities, we have modified the Unified Command Plan to establish

a combatant command responsible for homeland security. We are also analyzing the

potential advantages to be gained by combining U.S. Space Command and U.S.

Strategic Command into a single organization. We anticipate being able to make a

recommendation to the President on this initiative within the next several months.

The new Northern Command (NORTHCOM) will help eliminate the seams between the multiple military organizations that currently share responsibility for

homeland defense. It will encompass the continental United States, Alaska, Canada,

Mexico, and adjoining waters to approximately 500 nautical miles. The command

will serve as a single point of contact for support to civil authorities and cooperation

with our North American friends and allies. NORTHCOM will improve the effectiveness of our homeland defenses; however, our first line of defense will remain our

overseas forces.

On the overseas front, our main effort is the destruction of the Al Qaeda network.

Continued success toward that goal will require sustained effort as we work with

our friends and allies around the world to disrupt, preempt, and prevent terrorist

attacks at their source. We have troops in the Philippines, Yemen, and the Republic

of Georgia training and assisting their forces in antiterrorism efforts—another illustration of the global nature of this war. At the same time we stand ready to plan

for and take action against other international terrorist organizations and the nations that harbor them when ordered to do so. And we are working diligently with

our friends and allies to prevent the proliferation of WMD and their acquisition by

terrorist organizations.

Our challenge will be to prioritize resources and coordinate operations in support

of that mission with our other security responsibilities. We must remain trained and

ready to execute the full range of military operations to protect simultaneously the

homeland as well as other U.S. interests in the near term, even as we transform

our forces to meet future challenges.

IMPROVING JOINT WARFIGHTING CAPABILITIES

The superb warfighting capabilities of the Services have given us the winning

edge in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and provide the foundation for success

against future adversaries. While our forces operating in and near Afghanistan have

achieved enormous success on the battlefield, the same operations have revealed

that much more can be accomplished.

Joint warfighting brings the combat capabilities of the Services together with a

focus on desired effects, resulting in a whole that is greater than the sum of the

parts. It is, therefore, imperative that we continue to improve joint warfighting capabilities. We have made great progress in improving those capabilities, especially

since the landmark Goldwater-Nichols legislation of 1986, but there is much still to

be accomplished. In pursuing further improvements, there are four areas of par-
556

ticular importance to me: joint command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR); interoperability; joint officer management; and joint experimentation.

Joint C4ISR

A cornerstone of joint warfighting is C4ISR. Although we have made significant

recent improvements, current deficiencies in joint C4ISR result in gaps and seams

between the combatant commands and between the forces the Services provide.

These gaps and seams must be eliminated. An adequate joint C4ISR capability will

provide the necessary flexibility to better integrate diverse capabilities and achieve

desired effects.

In terms of command and control, development of a standardized joint force headquarters is essential to improving our ability to rapidly deploy and employ joint

forces. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review Report discussed the implementation

of a standing joint force headquarters within each regional combatant command.

The regional combatant commanders and U.S. Joint Forces Command are developing proposals that they will test in a series of exercises. Among the options we

will examine are deployable joint task force headquarters and the deployable joint

command and control systems required to support them. Building on these efforts,

we will be able to recommend a standardized model. I ask for your support of this

critical joint warfighting initiative.

Interoperability

The second key to improvements in joint warfighting is interoperability. The ability to fight jointly requires command and control and weapon systems that are

interoperable with each other and with those of our coalition partners. The force

must have systems conceived, designed, and produced with joint warfighting in

mind. We must think in terms of interchangeable modules we can ‘‘plug and play’’

in any situation and command. These modules can be as simple as individual components. They may be complex like a multi-Service ISR network providing data to

multiple layers of command at multiple locations. Or they may be planning tools,

staff processes, and organizations that are standardized across combatant commands.

Here, too, joint C4ISR is a focus for our efforts. We have made important strides,

but are acutely aware of the need to solve interoperability shortfalls in our legacy

C4 systems. And it is critically important that future C4ISR systems have interoperable technologies, processes, and products. In terms of C4ISR, the necessary ‘‘plug

and play’’ capabilities will be designed to facilitate immediate employment and readiness to accept additional forces, execute missions, and integrate multinational and

interagency support.

Joint Officer Management

In the long term, a third key to improving joint warfighting capabilities is continued improvements in the management of our joint officers. The quota-based system

mandated by the Goldwater-Nichols legislation has served us well; however, joint

officer management must evolve to reflect the way we operate in today’s environment. To meet future requirements, we need more flexibility than currently exists.

I applaud the independent study on joint officer management and professional military education directed by Congress. We are in the process of obtaining funding and

selecting an organization to conduct the study, and we are prepared to work closely

with you to facilitate continued improvements.

Joint Experimentation

Meaningful improvements in all areas of joint warfighting will require a willingness to question current practices, organizational patterns, and command processes—in essence, continued progress toward significant cultural change. One of the

most important means of engendering this change is the joint experimentation process. This process is designed to evaluate new missions, devise new force structure,

and test new operational concepts. For example, this summer the Millennium Challenge 2002 joint experiment will test the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM)

model of the standing joint force headquarters. Joint experimentation also allows us

to integrate the experimental concepts and new weapon systems being developed by

the Services into a joint framework early in the development process. Finally, joint

experimentation is a key element of the transformation process, and the revised

Unified Command Plan will enable JFCOM to focus more time and effort on experimentation and transformation efforts. Naturally, we need to use the lessons from

Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in the joint experimentation process to ensure

we are prepared for subsequent battles in the war against terrorism.
557

The willingness to examine and change, if necessary, all aspects of joint capabilities is imperative if we are to win the global war on terrorism and surmount other

national security challenges of the 21st century. The process of improving joint

warfighting is a key component of and is closely intertwined with our transformation efforts. Just as it is necessary to improve our joint warfighting capabilities to succeed against future enemies, it is also necessary to transform the force.

TRANSFORMATION OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES

Transformation is a process of change devoted to maintaining U.S. military superiority in all areas of joint warfighting. It is on-going and must be continuous since

our enemies will persist in attempts to neutralize or erode our superiority and exploit perceived weaknesses. As history has repeatedly shown, Service modernization

efforts have often proven to be the key to transformational change. For example, in

World War II an accumulation of incremental technical advances and tactical lessons, combined with a willingness to experiment, led to significant improvements in

combat capabilities. And while sudden technological, organizational, or doctrinal

breakthroughs are possible and should be pursued vigorously, I believe current modernization programs will provide an important impetus for transformation in the

21st century as well.

Technological change alone does not lead to transformation—intellectual change

is also necessary. Transformation, therefore, must extend beyond weapon systems

and materiel to doctrine, organization, training and education, leadership, personnel, and facilities. We need to foster a mind set that allows us to take advantage

of both new ideas and new technologies.

Capabilities-Based Approach

Part of the required cultural change entails a transition to a capabilities-based

model as the foundation of our transformation efforts. Such an approach does not

preclude consideration of specific threats. Indeed, it would be unwise to ignore those

nations and organizations that pose a clear danger to U.S. interests. It is, however,

appropriate, given the rapidly changing international security environment and the

diffused nature of the threats we face, to shift the weight of our considerations away

from our historical emphasis on specific threats. The United States cannot know

with confidence which nations, combinations of nations, or non-state actors will pose

threats to our interests, or those of our allies and friends. It is possible to anticipate

with greater accuracy the capabilities that an adversary might employ. Such a capabilities-based model focuses more on how an adversary might fight than on who the

adversary might be. It broadens our strategic perspective and requires us to identify

the capabilities U.S. military forces will need to deter and defeat a wide variety of

adversaries.

Accordingly, an appropriate blueprint for change will include the following important considerations. First, we must base the process of change on an overarching

set of strategic capabilities we believe our forces must possess to support the National Security Strategy now and in the future. Second, we need to use those capabilities to guide the development of joint operational concepts and architectures that

drive decisions concerning materiel and non-materiel improvements and to establish

standards for interoperability. Third, because transformation involves more than

fielding new systems, we must integrate requirements for new doctrine, organizations, training and education, leadership, personnel, and facilities into the process.

Fourth, we need to find ways to modernize and integrate legacy systems when it

makes sense, while developing technological bridges with interagency and international partners. Finally, we must ensure that the transformation process is characterized by unity of effort based on clearly defined roles and responsibilities

throughout DOD.

Joint Vision 2020 contains the conceptual outline we will use to help guide these

transformation efforts. To ensure the validity of those concepts, we have completed

a detailed evaluation of the document and will update it based on the results of the

2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, changes to our defense strategy, the global war

on terrorism, and strategic guidance from the administration.

Information Capabilities

The area offering the greatest promise for the most significant transformation in

the near term is information sharing. The U.S. military is an ‘‘information intensive’’ force. Much of the military superiority we currently enjoy rests on our ability

to achieve and maintain a decisive advantage in accessing, gathering, exploiting,

and acting on information. The ability to arrive at and implement better decisions,

faster than an opponent can react, rests on the accumulation, processing, and understanding of vast quantities of operational and tactical information.
558

We have taken the first steps toward fully integrating our capabilities to find and

strike targets of all types, using networks of sensors and shooters to achieve an effects-based targeting capability. Our goal is to allow dispersed forces to collaborate

on operations and give our warfighters the ability to achieve desired effects rapidly

and decisively—with a speed and accuracy that will overwhelm an adversary’s ability to respond. This goal is attainable if we creatively use existing and planned technologies.

Success will depend on several factors. First, we must take advantage of U.S.

leadership in information technologies to create networks that allow a coordinated

exchange of information among different levels of command and a wide variety of

units at ever-increasing rates. Second, we must shift from a reconnaissance to a surveillance approach in gathering information on adversary operations, emphasizing

the ability to ‘‘watch’’ or ‘‘stare’’ at targets. Third, we must continue to place an appropriate emphasis on vital information transfers such as voice, video, and data exchanges, and on the ability to operate effectively in areas with primitive or nonexistent communications infrastructure. These requirements drive a growing need

for more transmission capability or bandwidth. In Afghanistan we used the maximum available bandwidth, and as we continue the interlinking of networks, our

bandwidth requirements will only increase. It is also imperative that we continue

to hold the line on military radio frequency spectrum allocations. Finally, adequate

investment in communications infrastructure is an absolute necessity. In particular,

our reliance on satellite communications capabilities is expanding exponentially,

and we need your support in ensuring the Military Satellite Communications program continues to enjoy full funding.

We will also use improved networks of information systems to transform logistics

capabilities. By taking advantage of new technologies, improving logistics processes,

and fusing information from many different sources, decision support tools will integrate data to make logistics information available to the appropriate commander

anywhere in the world. We have already fielded an initial joint decision support capability and have successfully experimented with a shared data environment that

provides integrated information from various Service legacy systems. This type of

logistics capability will provide the joint warfighter with real-time situational

awareness and allow us to control and use our logistics assets with greater effectiveness and efficiency.

Continued improvements in all facets of information capabilities are dependent on

acquiring, operating, and protecting computer networks. U.S. Space Command has

the responsibility for Computer Network Operations. The command’s main areas of

effort include reassessing the command and control relationships among Computer

Network Attack (CNA) forces, re-evaluating CNA request and approval procedures,

developing a Computer Network Defense mission needs statement, acquiring improved indications and warning capabilities for impending information attacks, and

focusing all actions toward an effects-based capability.

Force Requirements

Developing better ways to identify, validate, and acquire new systems is essential

to effective transformation. To improve the generation of joint warfighting requirements, we initiated actions two years ago to improve the Joint Requirements Oversight Council process. Since then, we have established processes to develop, test,

and approve joint operational concepts and architectures that will be used to establish and enforce standards for system interoperability. Additionally, we now have

a process to implement joint experimentation recommendations and have greatly

improved our ability to assess and implement transformation beyond weapon systems and materiel.

As discussed previously, among the most important non-materiel initiatives is the

development of a standardized Standing Joint Force Headquarters model. This

headquarters will serve as a tool for combatant commanders to improve joint

warfighting and better integrate Service-provided forces. The development of this

model will require us to identify baseline command and control systems and standardized organizations, tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Another important initiative is focused on interagency cooperation. Threats to

U.S. national security in the 21st century will, more often than not, require an

interagency response, especially when they involve homeland defense. As a result,

missions and responsibilities will transcend agency boundaries, making a decisive

and timely interagency response to crises increasingly important. We recognize the

need, therefore, to work closely with non-DOD agencies of the U.S. government on

training, crisis planning, and coalition building.

In terms of materiel changes, the improved accuracy and effectiveness of precision-guided munitions and our ability to match them to a variety of delivery systems
559

have significantly reduced collateral damage and non-combatant casualties while

greatly increasing the combat effectiveness and versatility of our forces. They have

become integral to the plans prepared by the combatant commanders; therefore, we

must ensure our requirements determination and acquisition processes meet this

warfighter need. As we continue experiments to evaluate transformational technologies, we will look for weapon systems with similar high-payoff potential.

One area with such a high-payoff potential is theater missile defense. Analysis

over the last decade has consistently validated the combatant commanders’ requirements for a family of missile defense systems. There is a specific requirement for

land- and sea-based, lower tier, terminal phase missile defense systems because of

their capability against the predominant and growing short-range ballistic missile

threat. The fielding of the Patriot PAC–3 is an important first step, but it only partially covers potential threats. We are, therefore, in the process of assessing a wide

range of options for protection of sea- and airports of entry. Additionally, we will

continue to evaluate methods of broadening terminal-phase defense beyond a single

tier to improve operational flexibility and the ability to achieve a sufficient probability of shootdown against the entire range of missile threats.

CRITICAL ISSUES FOR THE U.S. MILITARY

As you consider the specifics of the fiscal year 2003 Defense Budget, I would like

to bring to your attention a number of issues that are critical to maintaining today’s

quality force and meeting tomorrow’s challenges. The most important of these is

supporting our troops.

People

Success in all missions depends on our number one asset—our people. We must

continue to keep faith with both our active and reserve component members, as well

as our retirees. We must keep their trust and confidence by ensuring they are compensated commensurately with the responsibilities they shoulder, the risks they

face, and the hardships they bear. We also need to ensure they have the tools and

facilities they need to accomplish their missions. Collectively, the Joint Chiefs are

committed to five quality of life initiatives: pay and compensation, health care, unaccompanied and family housing, infrastructure and workplace improvements, and

those base support programs that comprise our community services. This past year’s

legislation was a large step in the right direction. We are grateful for the hard work

of the Administration, Congress, and Department of Defense in raising the standard

of living and improving the quality of life of our Service members and their families,

including the continued Congressional support of the Secretary of Defense’s initiative to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses to zero by fiscal year 2005.

I am also grateful for the strong support of Congress in providing a comprehensive, world-class health care program for our active duty and retired service members, and their families. We must now ensure the military health care system is

fully funded. In view of today’s security environment, we also must develop and

fund adequate vaccine production capability and immunization programs, as well as

medical surveillance systems that provide early warning of potential threats, enhanced medical data collection, and tracking processes to support the medical aspects of consequence management.

Congressional support of our program to eliminate substandard family and unaccompanied housing has been outstanding. The Services have made great strides

and, for the most part, remain on track with their plans to achieve this goal by

2007.

We must also commit to reversing the decay of infrastructure and workplaces.

Within civilian industry, the replacement, restoration, or modernization of buildings

is accomplished in roughly a 50-year cycle. By comparison, the rate of investment

in DOD infrastructure has fallen to a level that requires over 100 years for recapitalization. The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget significantly increases our outyear infrastructure investment and puts DOD on a path to approach a recapitalization rate of 67 years by 2007. We need to ensure resources are available in the future to adequately sustain, restore, and modernize our facilities.

Finally, community services is a critical quality of life area that is, perhaps, the

easiest to overlook, but dollar for dollar, is one of the most effective programs the

Services provide. Based on the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, we are reviewing

existing community services programs and policies to ensure we meet the needs of

the changing demographics of military families and keep pace with modern requirements.

Providing better quality of life for our service members and their families directly

affects recruitment, retention, and family welfare. Personnel and family readiness

are inseparable from operational readiness. We have made significant investments
560

over the past several years in the quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and

marines and their families; we must maintain the positive trends we have worked

so hard to establish.

Readiness, Modernization, and Recapitalization

The war on terrorism has provided fresh validation of previous readiness assessments. Our forward deployed and first-to-fight forces remain capable of achieving

the objectives of our defense strategy. However, we remain concerned about the effects of a sustained high operations tempo on the force, strategic lift and

sustainment shortfalls, and shortages of ISR assets, as well as the challenges associated with the WMD threat, antiterrorism, and force protection. Additionally, in

some locations, we face operational limitations that may affect mission success.

Usage restrictions and a shortage of training ranges and operating areas contribute

to lost or degraded training opportunities, resulting in reduced operational readiness. I am especially concerned about maintaining an appropriate balance between

environmental and readiness concerns. To that end, the Service Chiefs and I join

the Secretary of Defense in requesting your support for the Readiness and Range

Preservation Initiative. Overall, recent funding increases have helped address critical readiness concerns, but we must maintain a proper regard for both near- and

long-term readiness initiatives.

One avenue for maintaining that balance is through modernization of our existing

forces. The development and procurement of new weapon systems with improved

warfighting capabilities leads to incremental improvements that cumulatively may

result in transformative changes. Through a sustained and carefully managed process, we can reap the benefits of such an incremental approach while also pursuing

more radical technological changes. Modernization thus serves as a hedge against

both near-term readiness shortfalls and failures of unproven technologies.

I also remain concerned about the recapitalization of older assets. Our older fleet

is taking its toll in increased operational costs and reduced equipment availability

rates. For example, between fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 2001, the Air Force’s

F–15C/D aircraft, at an average age of 171⁄2 years, have experienced a 28 percent

increase in cost per flying hour (constant fiscal year 2000 dollars) and a decrease

from 81 percent to 77 percent in mission capable rate. Similarly, the Navy’s EA–

6B aircraft, at an average age of 20 years, have experienced an 80 percent increase

in cost per flying hour (constant fiscal year 2000 dollars) and a decrease from 67

percent to 60 percent mission capable rate. For the Army, the M2A2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, at an average age of 101⁄2 years, has experienced a 61 percent

increase in cost per operating mile (constant fiscal year 2000 dollars) and a decrease

from 95 percent to 93 percent in mission capable rate.

We cannot continue to defer procurement as we did over the last decade. Rather,

we must accelerate the replacement of aging systems if we are to sustain our ability

to meet near-term challenges and all of our 21st century commitments. In conjunction with the Service staffs, we have conducted a steady-state procurement estimate

that concluded the DOD should spend $100–$110 billion (fiscal year 2001 constant

dollars) per year to recapitalize today’s force structure. The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget significantly increases current and out-year procurement investment

and puts DOD on a path to approach steady-state procurement. We need your support to continue this real growth in procurement accounts.

Strategic Mobility

Over the past several years, DOD has worked diligently to overcome the shortfalls

in strategic lift capability identified in the Mobility Requirements Study-2005. The

events of September 11 and the subsequent U.S. military response once again highlighted a requirement to deliver combat forces and their support elements quickly

anywhere in the world.

Our strategic lift forces proved themselves capable of supporting a fight in a landlocked country with limited infrastructure, 8,000 miles from the United States; however, we also identified deficiencies that call for resolution. For example, we do not

have a sufficient number of C–17s to meet our strategic lift requirements, so procurement of additional aircraft remains our top strategic mobility priority. Our

tanker force has significant shortfalls in numbers of available tankers, air crews,

and maintenance personnel. Additionally, improvements in speed and capacity for

inter-theater sealift are not expected to develop in the commercial marketplace so

the government will be required to make research and development investments if

we are going to derive benefit from emerging technologies in this area.

Personnel Strength

The domestic and overseas commitments of the war on terrorism, when coupled

with other ongoing commitments, have stretched our active forces. These commit-
561

ments also have the potential to stress our Reserve Component forces and their civilian employers who are sharing precious people resources who are vital to continued economic recovery. As we move forward in the war on terrorism, the Services

will continue to review their end-strength requirements. At the same time, we must

examine our tasked missions to ensure we are using our uniformed personnel only

where military personnel are needed to do the job. We will assess missions, technology, and force structure as part of our transformation efforts, to determine the

optimal size of the force required to meet all challenges, now and in the future.

CONCLUSION

I look forward to working closely with Congress as we progress toward these

goals. We face adversaries who seek to destroy our way of life. In response, your

Armed Forces will not rest until we have achieved our part of the victory in the

global war on terrorism. At the same time, improving the joint warfighting capabilities of our Armed Forces and transforming those forces are essential if we are to

prevail over the ever-changing threats and challenges of the future.

In pursuing these goals, we face tough, complex issues—with no easy answers. It

is understandable that reasonable people can disagree on both the substance of and

the solutions to those issues. The great strength of our form of government is the

open dialogue engendered by such disagreements, and one of the privileges of my

position is the responsibility of providing military advice to aid that dialogue. The

men and women of our Armed Forces, at great personal risk, are doing a superb

job. We owe them our best as we face these challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and your continued outstanding support of our soldiers,

sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, General Myers.

I am certain all of us are aware that members of this subcommittee are concerned about the status of systems such as

Commanche, the Crusader, the Osprey, the F–22. But on the front

pages of every morning paper and very likely in the headlines

speak of this new massive threat, terrorist threat against America.

From the information you have received, Mr. Secretary, is there

anything you can tell us as to the nature or the magnitude of this

threat?

TERRORIST THREATS

Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Chairman, I can. First as to the nature. Last year when we were revising our strategy we moved from

a threat-based strategy to a capabilities-based strategy because it

was clear that threats are going to come at us in ways that go for

vulnerabilities. That is to say, we are less likely to be attacked

against our Army or our Navy or our Air Force directly because it

would be expensive for people to try to develop those capabilities

and they serve a great deterrent effect. We are more likely to be

attacked through asymmetrical vulnerabilities—our space assets,

cyber attacks, our dependency on electronics as an advanced, technologically advanced country, terrorist attacks, ballistic missiles,

cruise missiles, things that go for seams in our circumstance as a

free people, the very fact that we are a free people and we do not

care to live in a repressive society where people are not allowed to

get up in the morning and go where they want and say what they

want and children go off to school and we can expect them to come

home safely.

So we have to expect that the asymmetrical advantage of a terrorist is that he can attack at any time, at any place, using any

conceivable technique, and it is physically impossible to defend at

every time, in every place, against every conceivable technique.

There is no way to do it. The only way to deal with those threats
562

is to go after them where they are, and that is why the President’s

global war on terrorism is based on that principle that we have to

find the global terrorist anywhere in the world and we have to stop

nations from providing safe haven for them.

With respect to the nature of the weapons, there is no question

but that we will continue to be surprised in the sense that who

would have—if you think about taking one of our airliners filled

with our people and using it as a missile, to fly it into the World

Trade Center or the Pentagon, that is a new technique of terrorism. We can expect other new techniques of terrorism.

The problem I see, and it is a very serious one, is that there has

been a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist networks have close linkages with terrorist states, the states

that are on the worldwide known terrorist list—Iraq, Iran, Libya,

Syria, North Korea, one or two others. Now, those countries have

been developing weapons of mass destruction for some time. They

are testing and weaponized chemical and biological weapons. They

are aggressively trying to get nuclear weapons. We know that.

I guess the second part of the question you posed as to the magnitude is I think realistically we have to face up to the fact that

we live in a world where our margin for error has become quite

small. In just facing the facts, we have to recognize that terrorist

networks have relationship with terrorist states that have weapons

of mass destruction and that they inevitably are going to get their

hands on them and they would not hesitate one minute in using

them.

That is the world we live in. Can we do that? Yes, we can live

in that world. We have to rearrange ourselves here at home. We

have to rearrange ourselves worldwide. We have to recognize that

our warning—we are going to be living in a period of limited or no

warning because of the asymmetrical advantages of the attacker as

opposed to the defender. We have to recognize that the word ‘‘surprise’’—the only thing we ought to be surprised about is that we

are surprised when we are surprised.

If a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique, that advantage is there. The al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan trained hundreds of these people. They are spread across

the globe. They are in our country and they are very well trained.

We have seen their training manuals. They are well financed. They

are still getting money.

We are putting pressure on them all across the globe, trying to

shut down their bank accounts, trying to make it more difficult to

travel, more difficult to raise money, trying to make it more difficult for them to recruit and retain their people. But it is a difficult task. It is taking all elements of national power and it is the

hand we have been dealt with and we are hard about it.

Senator INOUYE. There is nothing specific as far as your information is concerned?

SPECIFIC TERRORIST THREATS

Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Chairman, I have got so many specifics

in my head. I get a daily briefing every morning from the fused intelligence supposedly from our intelligence-gathering agencies. I

read it. In every case there are a series of threats, specific in a few
563

cases, general in other cases, not specific as to time, not always

specific as to location, rarely as to location, but more categories. If

you add them all up, they end up in the hundreds.

What we have to do is see that they are distributed to the people

who have responsibilities, and so they go out to our combatant

commanders who have force protection responsibilities so that they

can use their best judgment as to whether, for example, to take a

ship and get it out of port if there is a risk to that ship. Department of State from time to time draws down their Embassy personnel.

But the odds are that on any given day nine-tenths will be walkin traffic, some people trying to find out how we will respond. We

know for a fact that from time to time we get a threat warning,

not because there is a threat, but because the people issuing the

threat warning want to see what we are going to do. They want

to learn how we respond to that kind of a warning and they jerk

us around, try to jerk us around, and test us, stress our force in

a way.

I always have lots of specifics, but needless to say I cannot discuss specifics here in an open forum, and it is not really the nature

of my business anyway. It is more the intelligence and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) side.

INVESTMENTS IN NEW WEAPONS

Senator INOUYE. Before my time expires, I just wanted to make

certain the record is clear that as far as investments in weapons

systems and other procurement items I believe the Army’s share in

fiscal year 2003 is about $19 billion, the Air Force is about $38 billion, and the Navy is about $38 billion. So that would make Army

5 percent and the Navy and Air Force 10 percent.

Looking at the chart there, one might get the impression that the

bulk of the money went to the Army and I think I would just want

to clarify that.

Secretary RUMSFELD. You say the bulk of the money went to the

Army?

Senator INOUYE. No, one might get the impression.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, if you could put up the other chart,

please, Larry.

Senator INOUYE. Am I wrong that the Army’s investment is $19

billion for fiscal year 2003 and the Air Force and Navy $38 billion?

Secretary RUMSFELD. I think that that is not apples to apples,

no, sir. I would have to check it.

Here is the indirect fires chart that shows the investment in artillery, the Paladin artillery piece, the Crusader, and then the Future Combat System coming in the outer year. The top of that

chart are all rocket systems, but all of those are investments designed to enable the Army to provide indirect fires for combatant

commanders.

Do you want to answer the question of the chairman?

General MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the procurement

numbers for the Army, but the Army increase from 2002 to 2003

was $10 billion, the Navy-Marine Corps overall increase was $9.5

billion, and the Air Force increase was $12.7 billion.
564

Senator INOUYE. What is the total amount for this 2003 fiscal

year.

General MYERS. For the Army, sir?

Senator INOUYE. Yes.

General MYERS. $90.9 billion.

Senator INOUYE. What is the Air Force?

General MYERS. $107 billion. That does not include any money

that would come to them through the Defense Emergency Response

Fund (DERF).

Senator INOUYE. I am talking about the investments, not the

total budget.

General MYERS. Sir, I am sorry, we do not have that number

with us.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Stevens.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your answer to the questions I

raised. I still have a problem about the timing of the decision and

I think we ought to have some informal meetings. If we had been

on time with our bills this year—and because of 9/11 we started

off behind time, as we all know. But hopefully we can get on time

next year. But if we were on time, your bill should be on the floor

by at the end of April and passed some time by May.

I think we should not have decisions coming out of a planning

group like you have that do not phase into the budget of the President. If there is going to be a cancellation, I think it should be discussed prior to the time when the President prepares and presents

his budget in the spring. Otherwise we lose out.

I just make this statement to you that we lived through a period

of time when there was a group of people in the Congress who did

not like this generation request but they are all for the next generation request. We had to fight C–17 three times, we had to fight

the V–22 three or four times. We have faced problems with every

major system in its infancy, and to have one that was almost mature like Crusader cancelled I think is going to lead to a whole series of problems if we are not careful.

COUNTERTERRORISM FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

Let me ask you this question, though, specifically. We provided

$17.9 million for a regional defense counterterrorism fellowship

program in the 2002 budget. It is my understanding the Department has not implemented that program. Senator Inouye and I

when we went to Indonesia recently spent a lot of time with their

military and their government. It is very clear that the new dialogue between our military people and the military people in Indonesia is very productive. But we created that fund primarily with

Indonesia in mind, but it has not been implemented. Can you tell

me why it has not?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, we very much favor that fund

and, as you know, are anxious to be of help with the CT fellowship

as one of the tools to help countries develop their indigenous capacity to deal with the threat of terrorist networks. It is in the process

of being implemented, as I understand it, and we favor it, we are

for it, and certainly the country you just visited is one of those

countries that would be an appropriate beneficiary of that.
565

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION (PCS) MOVES

Senator STEVENS. Into a totally different area, over the years we

have been concerned with the number of permanent change of station moves that military people are required to make. That causes

service members and their families I think to decide to leave the

military when they are moved too often. In last year’s budget request the President requested a level of funding that would allow

52 percent of the force to move each year.

Have there been any changes in the whole concept of the number

of permanent change of station moves within the Department?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Changes in the last 6 or 8 months, not to

my knowledge, although I share your concern. I personally believe

that it is unhelpful for a lot of reasons. It is hard on families, but

it is also hard on a person’s ability to learn their job if they are

constantly being moved from one place to another. So I am hopeful

that we will be able to lengthen tour lengths somewhat during this

year and next year.

Dr. Chu, the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, has

in fact been performing a study, which has not yet been supplied

to us. The other piece of that is my personal view is that it would

be also desirable for people to have the opportunity to serve somewhat longer in a total career, given the fact that people are living

longer and that a number of people would like to not have to be

up and out. I keep finding people who are outstanding noncommissioned officers who are in their 40’s who are kind of shoved out at

the top, as well as in the officer ranks.

CRUSADER DEPLOYABILITY

If I could just go back quickly to Crusader, I believe you made

the comment that Crusader was a mature system. The Crusader

that is relatively mature, where there is a prototype, is 60 tons.

The one that the Army is working on is a downsized one, down to

40 tons. They do not know if they can do that, but they believe they

can get it down there. There is no prototype yet for that.

Even going from 60 to 40 tons, it is not really 40 tons. It is really

97 tons. If you want to take a single tube with the fuel and the

people and the armor and the supply vehicle that has the ammunition in it, what you need to fight with a Crusader, it is not 60, it

is not 40, it is actually 97 tons. To take a battalion of Crusaders,

if it were ever to happen, 18 tubes, and put them into a battle in

a landlocked country—you would have to fly it in, obviously—it

would take something like 60 to 64 C–17’s, according to

TRANSCOM, Transportation Command. It is half of the entire C–

17 fleet to get in one battalion of Crusaders, 18 tubes, into a battle.

That assumes you have got airports that are safe and you can

unload. Then you have got bridges and roads that you can take

that heavy equipment and take it from the safe airport into the

battle. That is a tough task.

PCS FUNDING

Senator STEVENS. With regard to the change of station—thank

you for that comment, Mr. Secretary—General Myers, we reduced

the PCS funding for 2002 precisely because of the complaints we
566

were having, we were receiving, about the number of moves that

personnel, military personnel, are having to make. How have you

adjusted the military to meet that reduction?

General MYERS. Senator Stevens, as you know, I think the services are each taking actions to respond to that, that budget decrease. The joint staff is part of the group that is led by Dr. Chu

that is reviewing this whole process to come back and talk about

what the appropriate amount is and we will continue to stay engaged in that. I know the services are actively engaged and I agree

with the comments that the Secretary made.

Senator STEVENS. I think my time is up, but I will just make

this. We are approached mainly by married couples, both in the

service, with children. They are established in one base and then

all of a sudden everybody has to move, the children change schools

in the middle of the school year. There just does not seem to be

the focus on the individual families’ problems when that happens.

But we hear about it. I assure you we hear about it, particularly

with the families that have multiple children, and some of them up

our way have four and five kids in their family and that is a massive thing, to move a family and children in the middle of a school

year and put them in another place, particularly if you do it every

2 years.

We just think that the policies have not changed as the military

has changed, because we remember a fully single military. I remember going with Senator Hollings over in Germany when there

was not one single enlisted person that had an accompanied tour

authorized. Now they all have accompanied tours and to have that

changed every 2 years is just, I think, is outmoded.

I would hope you would address that because I hear more about

that at home from military people than I think any other thing, is

the move in the middle of the school year. I urge you to review that

and see if there is not some way to modify the policy as a whole

throughout the Department.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

As you observed in your testimony, the Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended an $800 million cut in the missile defense programs. Obviously this is going to slow down or in some

areas maybe cancel programs that this administration has been

supporting. Particularly I am concerned about theater programs

that are now in the process of the last stages of development and

in some cases being fielded to protect troops in the field and assets

overseas that are located in areas where there is a very real threat

of missile attack.

To what extent do you think we should seriously consider trying

to restore these funds on the floor of the Senate or in conference

with the House?

MISSILE DEFENSE FUNDING

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, I am certainly hopeful that the funds

will be restored. We now have the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)

Treaty will be behind us in June. We will for the first time be able

to go out and test and experiment with a variety of things that had
567

been inhibited by the treaty in prior periods. We do not have a set

of conclusions, but we clearly need to invest the money in theater.

Of course, ‘‘theater’’ depends on where you live. This is our theater and if our deployed troops are overseas that is a theater as

well. We do need to be able to address all of that spectrum of issues

with respect to ballistic missiles.

You know, these things can be launched from ships at relatively

medium distances off our shores. It could be launched from various

locations at our friends and allies and deployed forces. The missile

technologies are being proliferated around the globe. North Korea

has been active helping all the states, the terrorist states I mentioned earlier, develop their ballistic missile programs.

We also have to recognize the risk from cruise missiles. As I said

earlier, we have to recognize that that is the kind of thing—terrorism, cyber attacks, the kinds of missiles with weapons of mass

destruction we have talked about—that our country is at risk from.

SPENDING TO DIRECTLY DEFEND THE UNITED STATES

Senator COCHRAN. One of the statements that was made this

week that is very alarming to me is the suggestion by the FBI Director that it is inevitable that we are going to have further terrorist strikes against the United States and maybe even some of

the kind that have been seen in Israel. To what extent does this

budget provide funding for the Department of Defense to be engaged and actively involved in defending against these kinds of attacks against the United States and our people?

Secretary RUMSFELD. It is very difficult to get an exact number,

but the defense establishment of course is intimately working with

the Coast Guard that deals with our coasts and our ports. We have

been providing the combat air patrols over the United States. We

have a great deal of funds in for force protection around the world.

We have funds in the budget for intelligence-gathering, which contributes significantly to that. Across the Government it is a large

number that is being spent.

Do you want to—well, I will take a look here. Yes, this does not

have a specific number, but it is a very difficult thing to pull all

those threads and characterize them as in that particular category,

but it is a great deal.

SHIPBUILDING

Senator COCHRAN. It is my hope, too, that we will observe the

importance of the amphibious forces and other naval assets that

were involved, particularly in the very early stages of the war in

Afghanistan, bringing planes and other assets to an area where we

could actually get engaged in an effort to prevail in that theater.

Obviously we do not have enough money in the budget to solve all

of the needs of all the defense systems and programs in all the

services, but I could not help the other day being impressed by the

Chief of Naval Operations, the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, talking about how old a lot of our

amphibious assets are.

The average life of four different classes of ships is 33 years. To

accelerate the LPD–17 program, for example, seems to be a matter
568

of some urgency. Do you agree with that and would you support

funding to try to address that problem?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, we have completed a portion of a

shipbuilding study and there is no question we are going to need

more ships than we currently are on a trajectory to have. The actual mix of those ships is a complex one and it is not clear to me

that I would want to answer that question without getting the Department of the Navy to sit down and go through with a good deal

of granularity precisely what they think the proper mix of ships

ought to be.

We know the total number has to go up and, while the average

age of our Navy is not ancient, it is relatively young, which is the

reason the Navy made the tradeoff decision it did for this year to

have a lower shipbuilding budget than any of us would have wanted, they felt that there were more urgent needs they needed to address, but they then step it up in the period immediately following

2004—2003, I should say.

I do not doubt for a minute that, because of your correct point

that the categories of amphibious ships are in fact older than the

total Navy, that they ought to be looked at as possibilities for the

numbers of ships to be built in the years immediately ahead.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Feinstein.

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

Good morning, Mr. Rumsfeld.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Greetings.

STRATEGIC LIFT

Senator FEINSTEIN. Two questions for you, then one for the General. I want to continue the discussion of strategic lift. It seems to

me that that is a real shortfall that we have. You spoke of it in

your written—or wrote of it in your written testimony on page 24.

General Franks has testified as to the shortage. Admiral Blair says

that one of his great shortcomings was the absence of both air and

sea lift.

In the budget are 12 C–17’s for 2003 and 15 being built in 2002.

I am prepared to support you on the Crusader, but it seems to me

that more ought to go into the lift area. It takes us so long to get

adequate forces into any theater that we really ought to beef this

up more than we have.

Would you comment?

Secretary RUMSFELD. You are certainly correct, Senator Feinstein. Lift is a subject that comes up every year as we are working

with the Air Force and the Navy and the Army. There is a competition for those assets. We are going to have to improve and

strengthen our capability in that area. What you have to do is

make tradeoffs and judgments. The budget we have before us for

the C–17 is what we concluded was an appropriate balance, given

the balancing of all those risks.

General Myers, do you want to comment on it?

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, it is a very small number of C–17’s. I

am looking at the Air Force aviation. Fifteen in 2002 and 12 in

2003.
569

General MYERS. Right, Senator Feinstein, that is correct. But we

do have a multi-year procurement program here that buys 60 aircraft over the period, over the period that we are talking about. I

think it takes our total of C–17’s to 180.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Over what period, General?

General MYERS. I think that is through—it is for 6 years.

Senator FEINSTEIN. 180?

General MYERS. To 180 C–17’s.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Total?

General MYERS. Total at that point. I think they are working on

procurement increments beyond that as well. So when you combine

what we are doing in the C–17, we are buying new, what we plan

to do with the C–5 aircraft as well, what we have done with shipbuilding over time, where our strategic lift in sealift is more robust

today than it was 10 years ago when we did Desert Storm, I would

agree with the Secretary, I think we have struck the right balance

here.

But this is something that the service chiefs, the combatant commanders, have all said, based on the last mobility study, that we

need 54.5 million ton-miles per day out of our strategic lift, and

that is the goal we are working towards.

Secretary RUMSFELD. I would add that our allies frequently are

without lift as well. So when we try to work with coalitions we are

continuously pinged for assistance with respect to airlift. They also

need to address this issue.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, it is just as I look at this this is a very

high priority item and I would rather see some funds transferred

from other places into this, so at least when we move we could

move in a much more timely way really than we seem to now.

NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW AND FIRST USE

Now, having said that, Mr. Secretary, I cannot resist the opportunity, because I have written you two letters on the subject and

have not had a response, and that is on the nuclear posture review.

I viewed with substantial consternation the leak that was carried

in the Los Angeles Times, which pointed out that certain rogue

states were targeted for a first use of a nuclear weapon if we did

not like what they were doing.

Now, I can understand that with respect to biological and chemical weapons perhaps. But China was also added to that list with

respect to any cross-straits military activity. I would view that as

one of the worst things we can possibly ever do in terms of its repercussions across the world. I am not alone in this. Bruce Blair

in his writings points out that here is America, the world’s juggernaut in military, economic, and domestic terms, inducing the

rest of the world to emulate U.S. policy and lift the 50-year-old

taboo against the use of nuclear weapons.

I am very puzzled by it. I have asked you in two letters if I might

have a more in-depth response to why this was done at this particular point in time, because I think it is just counterproductive.

It says to everybody else: You better start building your supply of

nuclear weapons. And if the United States is going to do this, why

should we not countenance doing the same thing?

If you could respond, I would appreciate it.
570

Secretary RUMSFELD. You bet. If we have got two letters from

you that have not been answered, I will get that fixed promptly.

I apologize.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Secretary RUMSFELD. With respect to this subject, the document

you are talking about is highly classified. I do not tend to get into

details with it. The way you have characterized it is not accurate.

That is to say, the article that you were referencing your comment

off, to the extent it is roughly what you have said, is not accurate.

The Nuclear Posture Review I think it is correct to say—and

General Myers, I would be happy to have you chime in here—I

think it would be accurate to say that the recently concluded Nuclear Posture Review does not change the threshold for the use of

nuclear weapons one bit. Clearly, the thrust of the quotations you

were using suggested to the contrary.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Correct. So you are saying that among the

states that were mentioned—I think there were seven or so in the

Times article that I read—and the addition of China and the specific reference to a cross-straits military action would not bring

about a nuclear response from us, is that correct?

Secretary RUMSFELD. What I am saying is, number one, it is a

highly classified document which I do not talk about in open hearings. Number two, it—nowhere in it does it make judgments about

when nuclear weapons would be used. Those are decisions for the

President. Third, the single most significant thing in the Nuclear

Posture Review, Senator, was the fact that the President made a

decision to reduce offensive strategic operationally deployed nuclear

weapons from thousands down to the 1,700 to 2,200 level. That is

not something that anyone could characterize who has an ounce of

judgment as something that is, if the article suggested it, as something that is lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons

or sending a signal to other nations that we would not want emulated.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do not mistake me. I did not say that it was.

That is good.

Secretary RUMSFELD. I understand that, but I think the article

you quoted had some of that in it. If I misunderstood you I apologize.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I am not concerned about that part because I know the facts on that part. What I am concerned is this

new little twist in there that I had never heard before. I really, respectfully, am not the only one. Many others have commented, including the Center for Defense Information.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, I think I have said about all I can on

that classified subject. Thank you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I appreciate a response or a classified

briefing then perhaps.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Sure. Let General Myers.

General MYERS. Senator Feinstein, let me just—and we have to

be careful how far we go into this whole issue in this forum. But

I might just say that the Nuclear Posture Review in terms of the

threshold for use and that issue, the way we put together a socalled new triad actually would diminish the need to use nuclear
571

weapons. That is the part we need to go into, I think, in another

session, or maybe the letter can handle that.

But I think the kind of work that was done in the Nuclear Posture Review actually makes it a lot less likely that we would ever

have to resort to nuclear weapons to solve any——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I appreciate that, and because this

came out in California I have had a lot of people very deeply concerned about it. As a matter of fact, they know much more about

this than they do about our approval of judges, which happens to

be another resounding call. And there is really deep concern, and

I think if it is wrong the record has to be corrected.

SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN

But I would like to go on before my time expires to one other

quick thing, General. I am very concerned about the deterioration

in Afghanistan. I am concerned about the reports that there is deterioration in the stability of the establishment of a new government. I am concerned by the skirmishes that are now taking place,

which indicate to me a resiliency on the part of the Taliban and

al Qaeda and that they will in fact try to come back if in fact they

can come back.

I am concerned that this budget may not reflect our best interests in terms of maintaining a long-term peaceful stability to enable a new government to develop, to enable a new military to develop, and to enable a country decimated to get back on its feet economically. This goes into something Senator Biden made comments

about this, additional funds that he thought. I think there is a very

strong feeling among many of us that it is to our interest to see

that the country remains stable and that we have a peacekeeping

force there to ensure it.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, I find that we did apparently answer your letter, but very recently and it may not have gotten into

your hands yet.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have not received it.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Here is a copy of it.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Secretary RUMSFELD. The situation in Afghanistan is complex. It

is a country that has been at war for many, many, many years. It

is a country that throughout its history has had clan fighting, it

has had enormous drug trafficking and crime. On the other hand,

there is a persuasive indicator that things are more stable there

than they were, because refugees are returning. It is becoming a

problem how many refugees are coming in. They are coming in

from neighboring countries. The internally displaced people are

moving back to their homes and into the cities. People vote with

their feet. They are obviously saying to themselves: It is better

there than where I am.

So I think that as a key indicator the flow of refugees back into

that country ought to tell us that it is certainly not stable like

Washington, DC, or San Francisco or wherever, but for Afghanistan it is not bad.

The humanitarian workers are able to get around for the most

part. Big areas are reasonably secure. People get killed every once

in a while, just like they do in the United States and Europe. It
572

is nowhere near as stable as here, but it is a vastly better place

than it was.

I do not know what the situation will be with the government except that the interim government is in place, the loya jirga process

is underway. They are going to go from an interim government to

a transitional government in the period ahead. The skirmishes you

refer to are correct. There are periodically mild dustups between

the so-called warlords or regional leaders, for a variety of reasons.

Sometimes it is fights between people over personal grudges from

before. Sometimes it is over turf. Sometimes it is over control of a

border.

I do not know. I am told if you wanted to have as many peacekeepers in Afghanistan, given the size of the country, as we have

per population or per square mile in Kosovo or Bosnia, it would be

just over 100,000. The question is how do you do that proportionately. Even in those countries you still have some untidiness, Bosnia and Kosovo.

We are not against an international peacekeeping force expanding. If that is what people want to do, it might be a good thing.

There is no one opposing it. The problem is there is no one stepping up and wanting to do it. Indeed, the United Kingdom that led

the first ISAF asked to be relieved. The Turks have agreed to come

in if we give them assistance, which we are doing, but they have

asked not to be extended. Some other countries are in the process

of moving out of the current ISAF. If there were countries that

were eager to take over and eager to come in and put peacekeepers

in there, I am sure the Karzai government would be happy to have

them.

What we are doing is we are trying to find the terrorists around

the world that are trained to kill innocent men, women, and children. That is a big task. It is an enormous task. We are going to

have to keep on in Afghanistan until we keep finding more al

Qaeda and Taliban and the ones that are in the neighboring countries.

But in addition we are helping to train the Afghan army. The

Germans are helping to train the Afghan police force. I do not

know, I do not know what else one can do. You cannot do everything. You have to make choices. And the government is anxious

to have an Afghan army and so we are helping do that. If other

countries want to step forward and do the international security

assistance force, I think that is fine.

U.S. ROLE IN AFGHANISTAN

Senator FEINSTEIN. But we are not, is that correct?

Secretary RUMSFELD. What we are doing with respect to the

ISAF is we have agreed to provide logistics, intelligence support,

communications assistance, and last we have agreed to be a quick

reaction force to assist the ISAF if they get in difficulty.

Second, with respect to the second phase of the ISAF, we are the

ones out with the donors conference trying to help the Turks raise

the money so that they can take over the leadership of ISAF. We

have agreed to do all the things we did with the British leadership

and in addition we are now negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the Turkish government which will undoubtedly
573

leave us in a position of providing even more assistance for the

Turkish ISAF leadership than we did for the British. So we are

doing quite a bit.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you very

much.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator Bond.

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

Mr. Secretary and Chairman Myers, welcome. As a former Governor and as co-chair of the National Guard, obviously I am very

much interested in the high level of involvement of Guard and Reserve forces in homeland security and it concerns me very much

that the establishment of the Northern Command does not appear

to have involved sufficient input from senior National Guard leaders. The adjutants general, the Governors, have a role in this and

I think they ought to be able to participate at the high level.

Do you envision incorporating the National Guard input from the

States at the most senior level? To give you a hint of what I am

thinking about, I have proposed legislation to make the deputy

commander a representative of the National Guard. So I would appreciate it, General, if you want to respond to that.

General MYERS. You bet, Senator Bond. I think you raise a very

important issue. As you know, this command does not stand up

until October 1, so we are in the implementation planning phase,

if you will, where issues like that are being discussed and trying

to find the right way forward.

I think you are right in your assertion that any command such

as this is going to have participation from National Guard units

and Reserve component units as well as active duty units. In fact,

there will probably be a fairly heavy reliance on some National

Guard capabilities. I do not think there is a question.

The issue of whether or not you should have a senior Guard person in the hierarchy there I think is still being considered. My personal view is I think somewhere in that hierarchy that would be

appropriate. I think we need to have that.

Senator BOND. I think you have a real problem and, based on

past experience, it is a very difficult one to solve. So we will look

forward to working with you. But I am afraid that, from what we

have seen, that only giving the appropriate rank to a member, to

a leader of the National Guard, will solve the problem. If he does

not have enough stars, they are not going to be paying any attention to him or her.

General MYERS. We are going to work all that. I think those are

valid concerns, but I think they are concerns that the Secretary

and I and the folks that are working this implementation plan,

which we are right in the middle of, are going to work.

Senator BOND. Thank you.

Let me move to another one, either Mr. Secretary or Mr. Chairman. Recently it was discovered that a tail stress problem exists

in the F–22 Raptor. It is already the Nation’s most expensive fighter and the testing will be delayed as changes to the airframe are

considered. Air Force officials said last fall they found certain high

force maneuvers put unacceptable stress on the tail of the F–22.
574

Given the fact the aircraft will cost over $200 million when completed and the overall program cost is over $60 billion and rising,

as you are looking at the budget constraints is there consideration

being given to adjusting the current planned buy of 339 aircraft?

General MYERS. I can talk a little bit about the fin buffet problem. I relied for a while on some articles in the press that turned

out to be incorrect. I talked to General Jumpers, Chief of Staff of

the Air Force, last week on this issue to find out what the issue

was.

When you have twin tails we know we have a buffet problem. We

have it in the F–15 and you have probably ridden in the F–15. You

can look behind you at high speeds and you can see the tails back

there move. It is one of the phenomena.

Senator BOND. I am scared to look back. I was worried enough

just looking forward.

General MYERS. Me too, Senator. But even on the world-renowned and the great F–15 that is built in St. Louis there——

Senator BOND. Thank you.

General MYERS [continuing]. That I have several hundred hours

in, even in that airplane we have this issue.

On the F–22, I understand it is not even an issue yet. It is one

of those things that they predict that at the edge of its service life

out at 8,000 hours they might have a problem that affects the rudder back there on the fins, and certainly they are taking steps in

the test program to characterize this.

In terms of the numbers, I will let the Secretary handle that.

ADJUSTING F–22 PROCUREMENT QUANTITIES

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, this goes back to the question that

Senator Stevens raised early on about this time line. As we have

indicated, the Department of Defense, while you are working on

the 2002 supplemental and the 2003 budget, we are working on the

2004 to 2009 budgets. As we do that, the defense planning guidance gets completed, which it now is, and in that there are a series

of studies that are called for.

If there seems to be no question about something, it goes in basket one and we may just say continue this or do this. If there is

a question but we feel that the service or the joint staff or the OSD

has not looked at some options, we take basket two and say come

back with some options, but make sure this particular option is included. Then in basket three we say just come back with options;

we don’t have an option we want you to look at for sure. Last is

a plan to deal with something.

Now, there are dozens of things that have been lumped in one

of those four baskets in the defense planning guidance. What happens during this period that you are working on 2002 and 2003,

we are working on 2005—correction, 2004 to 2009. All of those

things are under review. As I said to Senator Stevens, I do not

know that there is any way on Earth that this can—that we could

do it any differently.

We simply need that time to build the budget. We are reviewing

what ought to be in that budget for 2004 to 2009.

Senator BOND. Thank you, sir. The Navy has made readiness——
575

Secretary RUMSFELD. Could I? I am sorry to interrupt. I apologize. The question—the dilemma we face is let us say that in a

month or two or three those studies come out and you are still

working on our bill. Should we tell you then or should we wait

until you have gone out of session in December and the new budget

comes out? It is hard to know.

Senator BOND. Mr. Secretary, I apologize. We are working under

time constraints——

Secretary RUMSFELD. Oh, I am sorry.

AVERAGE AGE OF AIRCRAFT AND SHIPS

Senator BOND [continuing]. And I had a couple of questions I

wanted to add. The Navy’s near-term readiness emphasis has benefited depot maintenance, spare parts and ammunitions, but shipbuilding and tac air have been negatively impacted. I was recently

told for the first time in the history of the Navy the average age

of naval aircraft is older than the average age of ships.

I am concerned that we are spending good money on aging platforms that have reached the end of their useful life, such as the

F–14, which costs about twice as much to maintain as the F–18.

The plan for retiring F–14’s calls for replacing them with F–18’s.

Yet this year the DOD reduced the F–18 buy with no guarantee the

shortfall would be made up in the coming years. I am very much

concerned about it.

I am told the Navy has a plan for adjusting tac air, but the overall shortfall in the Navy’s shipbuilding and tac air account may

limit it. Do you have a plan for improving the procurement of shipbuilding and tac air?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, we do. In my opening statement I did

not go through that portion, but in the written version we indicate

what the plan is with shipbuilding. You are quite right, we do have

to increase it in the forward year defense plan that we are currently working on and we intend to do that.

Second, with respect to the tactical aircraft, you are also correct.

As the age of those aircraft goes up, the cost of maintaining them,

the difficulty of spare parts, is a very serious problem. When you

go on a procurement holiday during the 1990’s and you arrive in

the year 2001, 2002, you have to pay the piper. One of the reasons

the shipbuilding budget is lower is because the Navy made some

tradeoff decisions and therefore the budget is as proposed.

With respect to the F–18, I am told that we have a multi-year

procurement contract and that the proposal we have in for 2003 for

44, the multi-year contract commits the Navy to purchasing 48

plus or minus 6 aircraft, so we are well within the contract.

Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator STEVENS [presiding]. Senator Domenici.

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

Senator STEVENS. Wait, wait, wait. My mistake. Senator Shelby.

MISSILE DEFENSE FUNDING CUTS

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Rumsfeld, Senator Cochran brought up the cuts in the

missile defense program that you are very aware of and we are all

going to be working with you to restore. What my concerns were
576

in this area are the cuts, yes, but where were these cuts? Some of

them were specific to the program. In other words, if you stop the

critical development initiatives in the program, like systems engineering, system integration initiatives, and so forth, you are really

going in the back door to kill missile defense as I see it. I think

that is what some people would like to do.

I appreciate your comments on that. I know that you are going

to fight to restore those cuts. We are going to fight with you and

I believe we will prevail at the end of the day, at least I hope so.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, thank you. You are exactly right,

not only were the funds reduced, but the funds were reduced in a

micro way——

Senator SHELBY. That is right.

Secretary RUMSFELD [continuing]. That go directly to our efforts

to have a broad-based research and development program across a

range of possibilities, and they are particularly harmful because

not only of the total amount, which is significant in and of itself,

but the way it has been done.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

Senator SHELBY. Targeted. Thank you. Well, I look forward to

working with you and others on the committee for this.

Into another area, science and technology funding. DOD remains,

Mr. Secretary, below the 3 percent funding target for science and

technology research that you set. I believe—and we have talked

about this before at these hearings—robust investment in fundamental science and technology is absolutely essential to transformation and future success.

You have demonstrated your interest in transformation and are

looking to future weapons. Science and technology is where so

much of this comes from. Mr. Secretary, with that in mind, when

will the Department of Defense meet the 3 percent goal and show

a stronger commitment to basic science and technology research?

How do we do it? I know we are talking about money, but we are

also talking about priorities, are we not?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Exactly right. It is a matter of priorities

and it is in my view a reasonable goal to get up to the 3 percent

level. Where we are this year is we are coming in with a proposal

that is higher than last year’s——

Senator SHELBY. It is.

Secretary RUMSFELD [continuing]. Presidential request proposal.

Now, as you know, what happens when the budget gets up to the

Congress, it gets changed around quite a bit and things get put

into that number that we had not requested and that we do not

believe are directly headed towards helping the problem you have

posed as to how do we develop these capabilities out 5, 10, 15, 20

years.

Senator SHELBY. That is a priority for you, is it not?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Absolutely.

Senator SHELBY. The science and technology funding for the

weapons of the future.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Absolutely.
577

I would have to go back and look, but my recollection is we are

on a trajectory to get up to that 3 percent during this forward year

defense plan.

Senator SHELBY. Could you furnish that for the record, if you

would?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

While the Department continues to embrace the goal of achieving a level of funding for science and technology (S&T) that represents 3 percent of total obligational

authority (TOA), the events of September 11th and nearer term military requirements have slowed our programmed achievement of that goal. The fiscal year 2003

President’s Budget Request reflects S&T funding at levels over 2 percent across the

future years defense program. The following table reflects the S&T funding levels

through fiscal year 2007:

Fiscal year S&T Percent of

DOD TOA

2003 ........................................................................................................................................................ $9,890.1 2.7

2004 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10,228.8 2.7

2005 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10,499.7 2.6

2006 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10,312.4 2.4

2007 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10,420.5 2.3

Senator SHELBY. I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici.

COMPENSATING MILITARY PEOPLE

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

Mr. Secretary, just by way of an observation, I have on a number

of occasions in the past couple of weeks run into Americans who

have walked up and want to say something to me. In the four instances that I am going to refer to they have all been people that

wanted to tell me that their spouse was in the military and just

yesterday that spouse was a marine pilot and the spouse was telling me that they had been married for 2 years and how scared she

was because for the first time he could not tell her where he would

be, at least for a while.

But then she volunteered and said how grateful she and her husband were for the pay which had increased so dramatically for her

husband, a very experienced marine pilot, and for their housing allowance, which is the first time I had heard somebody walk up and

mention it, and indicated that she hopes everything will go well for

her husband and he was ecstatic about going to war, going off to

do what he signed up to do.

But more important, she said: I want to tell you that we think

you care about us. I think that is happening to our military personnel across the world wherever they are. I think what they are

doing and our concern through you and our President and the Congress is actually, it is hitting a real, real important kind of vein in

these Americans who are serving us. I hope you know that already,

but I think it is important that we share it with you because we

get plenty of complaints and we share them with you.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Sure. Well, I am pleased to hear that. You

are right, there is nothing more important than the human beings
578

who make up this great armed forces for us, and they do a wonderful job and they deserve to be appropriately compensated.

U.S. RELIANCE ON SPACE

Senator DOMENICI. I want to talk a little bit here now about a

memo that was circulated to senior Pentagon officials suggesting

that the United States may be too reliant on space systems. I understand, I know that you have been a strong proponent of

leveraging our advantage in space for military purposes and I too

have supported research being conducted at places like the Sandia

Space Vehicle Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base next to

Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque.

Could you elaborate as to why you have raised this concern about

our overreliance on space and has that concern been prompted by

operations in Afghanistan?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, I do not know what memo you are referring to. Is it a memo that has my name on it?

Senator DOMENICI. Yes.

Secretary RUMSFELD. The concern that has been discussed—and

I would like to have General Myers comment as well; he used to

head up the Space Command, as you know. The concern that exists

is we have a wonderful advantage because of our space assets and

they began back in the Eisenhower period and they have contributed a great deal to our ability to do what we do. A great many

of those assets are not hardened and therefore one has to ask the

question, if you have that potential vulnerability how do you manage that?

One of the things you can do is to harden them. The other thing

you can do is to have certain types of redundancies and see that

you are getting what you need from multiple sources, rather than

single sources.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, let me shift over to you, General. First

of all, I never get a chance to thank you for what you do. I see him

a little more than I see you, but I want to extend my thanks to

you for the way you have been conducting yourself——

General MYERS. Thank you, Senator.

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. In behalf of our country.

I know that you and the Secretary have highlighted the importance of the war in Afghanistan and investment to further the objective force. In particular, we have seen the importance of the

interoperability of our air and ground units in Afghanistan for coordinating close air support and support from heavy bomber

strikes.

If I am not mistaken, General, the Theater Aerospace Command

and Control Simulation Facility that is at Kirtland Air Force Base

provides virtual simulation training for the Air Force crews and

also joint exercise with the Navy and the Army as well. I raise this

issue because I believe that NACCSF could rapidly enhance the

kind of networked operation capabilities that you have mentioned

in your testimony.

So first, if you are familiar with that facility would you care to

offer your comments about how you see it accelerating the interoperability of forces?
579

General MYERS. Senator, I am familiar, but not familiar enough

to answer that directly today. So I will furnish that for the record.

But on inter-operability——

Senator DOMENICI. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

THEATER AEROSPACE COMMAND AND CONTROL SIMULATION FACILITY (TACCSF)

ACCELERATING THE INTEROPERABILITY OF FORCES

The Theater Aerospace Command and Control Simulation Facility conducts exercises in a shared, virtual battlespace environment such as DESERT PIVOT. The recent DESERT PIVOT exercise (13–17 May) included participants from all four Services. This exercise included horizontal and vertical integration of command and control assets in a simulated air war. Participants were both local (operating in-house

simulations) and distributed (operating simulators at other sites around the country). This exercise provides an opportunity for the Services to practice command and

control of military operations in a virtual environment. In this way crews can learn

the capabilities and limitations of other Service systems as they could otherwise do

only in combat.

General MYERS. Clearly there is, as I said in my opening statement, too, there is clearly no more important requirement than to

ensure that when our forces go on a mission that they be able to

coordinate among each other in a seamless way. We do a pretty

good job of that today, but we can do a much better job. So simulation facilities and other capabilities like that are essential to that

capability and to that requirement. I will just say that and then

I will furnish for the record on the facility specifically in Albuquerque.

Senator DOMENICI. I will submit two questions on that same

issue to each of you.

General MYERS. Okay. Can I go back to the space piece for just

a second?

Senator DOMENICI. Indeed.

General MYERS. Once I got to Space Command and had been

there just a little bit of time, it really did become apparent that the

wonderful advantage we acquire from having preeminent space

systems can also be an Achilles’ heel if we do not watch it. I think

the Secretary is absolutely right, we often do not even know if our

systems are under attack. If you go back to this commercial satellite 5 or 6 years ago that failed and people’s pagers did not work,

doctors could not get to work, bank transactions could not be made,

you could not swipe your card in a service station and expect to pay

for the gasoline because it would not transmit through this one satellite.

The frustrating thing to me was that until you investigate you

do not know what the situation is. Are you under attack? Did you

have a malfunction? What is it that is causing this problem?

I think the 2003 budget and previous budgets have dealt with

this in a fairly responsible way. But it is one of the things we have

got to keep our eye on. If you look at our communications satellites,

without going into a lot of detail in open hearing, they are fairly

vulnerable. Global positioning system satellites, that signal is a

very, very weak signal and vulnerable as well. On and on you go

on our space systems.

I do not think anybody is proposing that we do not need these

space systems. We just need to take the step that makes sure that
580

we know what is happening to them when they are on orbit and

that we know the difference between malfunctions and attacks,

that we, if you will, the term ‘‘harden’’ as the Secretary uses, if we

harden them, make sure they have the ability to tell us what is

happening so we can analyze them properly and take corrective action.

Senator DOMENICI. There is a lot of research going on on hardening, is there not?

General MYERS. Absolutely, and that is all required. We have

just got to pay particular attention because we get great leverage

from these assets. We need to make sure that we protect them.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE [presiding]. Thank you very much.

Senator Hollings.

GETTING MORE C–17’S AND PILOTS

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

Mr. Secretary, I am somewhat hesitant on the question, not important to a Defense Secretary, but very important to Charleston,

where we have the C–17’s based. In fact, we had all the 141’s and

around the clock in Desert Storm they did an outstanding job.

Right to the point, they are doing an amazingly outstanding job

right at this minute in Afghanistan. Eighty percent going in there,

you do not take a boat; you fly in, and it is the C–17’s that are

bringing them in.

Now, we had 120 C–17’s were planned and we were assigned in

Charleston 54. General Myers or somebody can get these figures

down. We had a beddown of the additional 60. In addition to the

120, we were going to get 60 more, which we all support. But instead of getting more, we are cutting Charleston back from 54 to

46 in order to look like assign where they have no C–17’s whatever,

but they do have some good political leaders in these areas, at

Travis, Dover, March, Elmendorf, and Hickham.

I know better than any because I have been out there over a

month or so ago and shook hands again with all the pilots to thank

them for what they were doing. We have an outstanding Reserve

unit. In addition to the 437th, we have the 315th Reserve. Actually,

the Reserve are flying a little bit more than 50 percent of the

flights.

Point: You do not have Reserve C–17 pilots at these other things,

and it looks good on a sheet of paper, well, we just put a few

around here to get the vote to get the extra 60. But you do not need

that. Everybody is going to support you and the Defense and President in making sure we get the additional 60 C–17’s and it is not

necessary, whereas you are going to unfairly penalize those who

have been doing the outstanding job and been gearing up to get the

additional ones and everything else on the one hand, but on the

other hand not have the Reserve units.

We do need more C–17 pilots at this minute. I have been trying

to see if we can get more trained and into the regular Air Force.

But look at those figures or have the staff look at those figures and

say, heavens, just do not penalize the people who have been doing

the good job. Just at least get us the original number of the 54,
581

rather than—we got a briefing just the other day they are going

to cut me back to 46 to make these reassignments, which I do not

think are in the interest of the Defense Department because you

do not have the Reserve pilots and you do not have the Reserve

units for C–17’s at all of these various fields and everything otherwise.

So I would appreciate it if you could get someone on the staff to

look at that.

Secretary RUMSFELD. We will certainly do it, Senator. There is

no question but the C–17 fleet is important to us and we will get

back to you with some answers.

Senator HOLLINGS. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

C–17

We recognize the vital role C–17 Reserve crews are playing in our war on terrorism. Currently, these C–17 crews are Reserve Associate crews based at McChord

Air Force Base, Washington, and Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina, and

help us fulfill our airlift role by flying a large portion of the C–17 missions in Afghanistan. In light of this fact, the Air Force plans to utilize other Reserve units

at Travis Air Force Base, California, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, March Air

Reserve Base, California, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, and Hickam Air Force

Base, Hawaii. As part of our Mobility Force Structure brief presented to Congress

on April 15, 2002, the Air Force plans to redistribute assets from current beddown

locations. In doing so we plan to convert one C–5 Reserve Associate unit at Travis

Air Force Base, California, and one C–5 Reserve Associate unit at Dover Air Force

Base, Delaware, to C–17 Reserve Associate units. We plan to create a C–17 Reserve

Associate unit at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, and plan to convert the Reserve

C–141 unit at March Air Reserve Base to a C–17 unit equipped unit. The C–17s

at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, are planned to have an Air National Guard Associate unit. Creating C–17 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command

active duty/associate units in Hawaii, and Alaska is consistent with the new military strategy emphasizing increased chances of future military action in Pacific.

General MYERS. Can I take this opportunity, Senator Hollings,

just to tag onto what you said about those great air crews? I have

traveled in the theater, in General Frank’s theater, and I took the

liberty on one occasion to fly up with the crew in the front end of

the C–17 up on the flight deck with a fairly young crew. I think

we had maybe a captain and a lieutenant in the seats and a captain backing up behind.

This was a flight from inside Uzbekistan down to a forward operating location and then into Afghanistan the next day, into

Bagram, down to Kandahar, and then back to Uzbekistan. It required tactical approaches to some of the airfields because of the

threat. It required the use of night vision goggles.

I will tell you—and they were out of Charleston, it just so happens, as you would probably expect—what a tremendous job those

young men and women, because one of the crew members of course

was a woman, what these young men and women do. I just could

not pass up the opportunity to on the record say how impressed I

was with their professionalism, their dedication, and the C–17 for

that matter.

Senator HOLLINGS. I thank you very much, General. Their morale is high and I want to keep it high. It would somewhat be injured, I feel—I know I am injured if you are going to start cutting

me back just after we have been doing an outstanding job.
582

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator Kohl.

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Rumsfeld.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Sir.

Senator KOHL. Good morning.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Good morning.

AVIATION SECURITY

Senator KOHL. This weekend Vice President Cheney told the

American people that another terrorist attack was in all likelihood

imminent. However, at the same time these warnings are being

sounded, combat air patrols around our cities have ended. In the

case of commercial aircraft, those patrols were our second line of

defense, the first line of course being the screening of passengers

and baggage.

In the case of chartered aircraft, however, those fighter patrols

were our only defense against another hijacking. No security whatsoever takes place on chartered aircraft, which would allow a terrorist to charter a large aircraft, board with his friends, carry on

luggage with explosives, and use that aircraft as a weapon against

innocent civilians exactly as what happened on 9/11.

In light of these recent warnings, I am more determined than

ever to see this enormous gap in our aviation security system addressed. So I would like to ask you, Secretary Rumsfeld: Do you believe that currently unsecured chartered aircraft pose a security

threat? How serious is that threat? How important is it that we address that threat as quickly as we can? Is the Department of Defense working with the Department of Transportation to deal with

this threat?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, let me take that in pieces. It is an

important question. Vice President Cheney was exactly correct in

his statement on Sunday. We do face additional terrorist threats

and the issue is not if but when and where and how. We need to

face that.

Certainly the issue of aircraft is an important one. I can say

without question or debate or any concern at all that our security

today is vastly greater than it was on September 11th, for some of

the reasons you have mentioned, but for some other reasons as

well. There is no question but that the commercial airliners are

doing a much better job in terms of security. We have security in

airports. There have been men and women in uniform up until this

month and they are going to be transitioned out later this month.

In addition, the radars—our whole defense establishment was

oriented out to look for foreign threats and that has now been

changed. The radars that we are using in the United States do a

vastly better job of managing and tracking air traffic in the continental limits of the United States and indeed in Hawaii and Alaska

as well because of the changes in radars, and the linkages between

the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is now excellent.

Now, the combat air patrols have not been eliminated. We still

have random combat air patrols. We still have random Airborne
583

Warning and Control System (AWACS) flights. We believe we have

a system which is uneven in how it is done for the very purpose

of confusing people as to how it is done. It is not a regular pattern

as to what we are doing, but we feel quite confident that it is doing

a good job.

So I think that any aircraft has the ability to fly into any target,

whether it is a nuclear powerplant or a school or a hospital or a

building. That is a fact and it is not possible to ground all aircraft.

There what we have to do is to balance out, as we have done, the

whole host of things, but the principal place the work gets done is

on the ground, as you suggested.

GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS

Senator KOHL. I am not sure if I made myself clear. General

aviation, private airplanes, chartered aircraft, there is no security.

Nothing prevents anybody from boarding those aircraft. When you

go into any of those terminals, there is nothing that happens to

take a look at who is boarding, with what they are boarding, and

what their intentions might be, which sets up a situation potentially exactly, Secretary Rumsfeld, like 9/11.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, I would have to talk to the Department of Transportation. They are the ones, of course, who are managing the airports.

Senator KOHL. Well, I guess I would ask you this question. If I

am citing the facts correctly that there is literally no security at

our general aviation airports, that anybody can board an aircraft

without being looked at in even the most cursory way, would that

disturb you?

Secretary RUMSFELD. There is no question but that, given the

warnings we have had and the use to which aircraft can be put,

that that is a problem if it is true. I just am not knowledgeable

about whether or not general aviation airports are as you characterized them. I am sure you are right, but it is really something

that the Department of Defense is not involved in. It is a Department of Transportation responsibility and I would have to check

with Secretary Mineta, which I will be happy to do.

Senator KOHL. I would like to suggest you might give him a call

at your earliest convenience.

We are working with them and I wanted to raise that issue with

you because I know it is something that would concern you also.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes, sir.

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS REDUCTIONS

Senator KOHL. Last question, sir. President Bush will sign an

arms control agreement very soon with Russia that will reduce our

deployed strategic nuclear arsenal from roughly 6,000 weapons to

between 1,700 and 2,000. The agreement does not call for destruction of the 4,000 or so weapons. Instead, the President intends to

keep these weapons in storage. Clearly, 1,700 to 2,000 strategic nuclear weapons are more than enough to deter any would-be adversary.

The question I am asking you is whether you envision any scenario that would require 6,000 strategic nuclear weapons? After
584

that the question is, so why do we not destroy those 4,000 or so

instead of putting them in storage?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes, sir, Senator Kohl. Technically, the

treaty that is going to be signed is 1,700 to 2,200, as opposed to

2,000.

Senator KOHL. Yes, I am sorry.

Secretary RUMSFELD. I think that the important thing that came

out of the Nuclear Posture Review was the dramatic downsizing of

our offensive operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons that

the President has proposed and that we are in the process of getting on that trajectory now with the decisions made with respect

to Peacekeeper, for example, as well as some submarines.

What will actually happen to the warheads is an open question.

Some will undoubtedly be destroyed. Some will replace warheads

on other strategic nuclear weapons that we intend to maintain in

the fleet. Still others will be stockpiled for safety and reliability

problems.

One of the nightmares in this business is that the phone will

ring and we will be told that a whole class of our weapons are no

longer safe or reliable, for whatever reason. As you know, they are

looked at and checked from time to time and the Department of

Energy has that responsibility. To the extent that we get that

call—and it happens from time to time—that some class of weapon

is under question, then we would need to replace that class of

weapon with some other weapons. So it is perfectly appropriate to

have additional weapons.

If you think about it, time and money can change the number of

weapons you have. Russia today has open production lines for nuclear weapons. We do not. It would take us years to start up our

ability to make nuclear weapons, warheads. Therefore, having additional weapons to be able to use them in the event of a problem

with safety and reliability, it would be mindless not to. It would be

inexcusable for us to destroy all those weapons and not have them

as a backup in the event they are needed.

The other issue that you did not mention, which is something

that is important to me and I know to the President, is the theater

nuclear weapon issue, which keeps getting set aside. The Russians

have many thousands, multiples of the numbers we do. They also

have a long queue of nuclear weapons that have not yet been destroyed and they also have a lot of piece parts that could be reassembled conceivably.

So the problem of what we do with those is an important one,

as you have suggested. But I think what is even more important

is the drawdown from five, six, whatever the numbers may be on

their side or our side, down to 1,700 to 2,200.

SECURITY AND MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Senator KOHL. Are we not very concerned about the other side

not destroying, even more so than ourselves?

Secretary RUMSFELD. I would not put it that way. I would put

it that we are worried about their management of their nuclear

weapons and the security of them and the risk that they could get

loose and be available to people who we would prefer not to have

them. Quite honestly, it does not make a lot of difference whether
585

they destroy them or not. If one is worried about what they might

do with them, it is more an issue that, as you have suggested, of

the security of them.

I would expect they would have the same interest in keeping

some for safety and reliability as we would, for example.

Senator KOHL. Well, some minimum amount on both sides. But

are we not and have we not been for some time concerned about

the security?

Secretary RUMSFELD. You bet.

Senator KOHL. And to the extent that weapons, nuclear weapons,

are stored and not destroyed, then that concern about security is

there, is it not?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Absolutely. I am not worried about the security of our weapons, sir.

Senator KOHL. I agree with you. But in order for them to destroy

their weapons, they would need that agreement on our side?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Oh, I do not think so. We did not need this

treaty in a sense. The President announced he was going to go

down to 1,700 to 2,200 regardless of what the Russians did. Then

Mr. Putin announced that he was going to do that. The agreement

is useful, I suppose, but we were going to do what we are going

to do regardless.

The problem with the issue of destroying those weapons, one

problem I have mentioned. A second problem is this: There is not

any way on Earth to verify what people are doing with those weapons. To get that kind of transparency or predictability into what

they are doing, you would have to know what their production

rates are, how fast they could increase to production rates and

make new weapons, if you are worried about how many weapons

they have, the extent to which they could take tactical nuclear

weapons, theater weapons, and reform them into strategic offensive

nuclear weapons, the extent to which they could take piece parts

and reassemble them into offensive nuclear weapons.

So there are so many things one would have to look at that the

idea that you could verify it—we could not verify it. Now, in our

country everyone knows what we do. Goodness gracious, there is

not anything that the General or I even think that does not end

up in the newspaper 5 minutes later. But everything we do is

transparent and when we destroy weapons everyone in the world

knows it. When we do not destroy weapons, everyone in the world

knows it.

That is not true in Russia. It is not true even today. We do not

have a good grip on how many theater nuclear weapons they have.

We do not have a good grip on what their production rates are for

nuclear weapons in a given year.

So I think this understanding, which has been turned into a

treaty, is a good thing. I think that the country is doing the right

thing in attempting to turn Russia toward the West and take steps

which will reassure them that we in fact intend to do this, so that

they can reassure those in their country who are doubting. There

are some people in their military who doubt these things and wonder if this turning West by Russia is really going to be the right

thing for Russia or the permanent thing for Russia. If a treaty

helps in that regard, I am all for it.
586

Senator KOHL. I quite agree with you and I also believe that it

is an excellent agreement. I would like to hope that as time moves

on we can move from stored nuclear weapons on both sides to destroyed nuclear weapons on both sides. I think you might agree

with that.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you, sir.

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Mr. Secretary, General Myers, on behalf of the committee I

thank you very much for your appearance today and for your testimony. In the coming weeks we will review the testimony we have

received to formulate our recommendations to the full committee.

We will do our very best to expedite this process. having said that,

there are many questions that we would like to submit to you.

Members have asked me to submit them in their behalf and we

look forward to your responses to them.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. DONALD H. RUMSFELD

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS STAFFING

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, last year the Committee made a great effort to support you in some of your initiatives such as transformation of combat units, reducing outdated legislative reporting requirements, and in reducing the headquarters

staff committed to legislative liaison. The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations

Act contained a provision which capped the number of personnel committed to legislative affairs positions. Unfortunately, the Department has reported to the Committee that rather than reducing these staff positions, 661 people are now committed to these jobs. Last year the Department reported that 464 people were committed to these staff assignments. How are you implementing the direction of Congress, and do you need further assistance?

Answer. Last year I testified the department required 464 legislative personnel

to handle the requirements from the Congress. Based upon your legislation of last

year we again determined the number of personnel in legislative functions and redefined what is actually legislative liaison verses legislative support. We have now determined that there are 218 personnel throughout the Department of Defense directly committed to full-time legislative affairs positions. A legislative liaison position is defined as, ‘‘Those individuals having responsibility for direct and personal

contact and communications to provide advice, information, and assistance to the

Congress on all Department of Defense issues.’’ In addition, we have another 443

personnel in support of legislative requirements. Personnel filing those positions are

defined as, ‘‘Individuals that have responsibility for assisting those who perform direct legislative liaison functions.’’ These functions are normally administrative in

nature. For example, the Army has 35 personnel responding to Congressional correspondence alone, which are normally responses to Congressional constituent letters.

At the same time, we determined the Department had a total of 31 personnel providing appropriations legislative liaison and an additional 11 personnel providing

appropriations legislative support.

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, do you intend to reduce legislative affairs staff during fiscal year 2003?

Answer. I have learned that because of the congressional requirements placed on

the Department our legislative liaison staff is staffed properly to meet those requirements. It is my belief that we are under the cap of 250 personnel you directed in

your bill last year so I do not intend to reduce the total number of legislative affairs

personnel any further during fiscal year 2003.
587

NAVY SHIPBUILDING

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, many of the reviews emerging the Department of

Defense last year differed in the number of ships necessary to fulfill Navy requirements. Recommended numbers ranged from 310 to 360 vessels. Have you made any

progress in determining the actual number of ships required? How has the emerging

requirement for a fleet of Littoral Combat ships changed this requirement?

Answer. The Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review dated September 30,

2001, identified the current fleet of approximately 310 ships as the baseline from

which the Department will develop a transformed force for the future. The Department recognizes that the number of ships in the fleet, in and of itself, is not the

best indicator of fleet capability. Ships of today are more capable and advanced.

Therefore, when compared to fleets of the past, fewer ships may be adequate to

meet current requirements. However, in light of our new defense strategy, requirements may change. The Department annually assesses the current fleet and its capability against the projected operational requirements for warfighting and peacetime missions of the Navy. The results of these assessments are reflected in the

budget submittal each year. The number of ships required for the Navy will change

over time as requirements, technology, and capabilities evolve.

The restructuring of the DD 21 program into the family of surface combatants will

result in DD(X) destroyer, CG(X) cruiser, and littoral combatant ship (LCS) platforms. The quantities required for each class of ship has not been determined at this

time.

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I remain extremely concerned about the prior year shipbuilding bill. The fiscal year 2003 budget requests $645 million for this purpose

and there is word that next year’s bill will be even larger. What actions have been

taken to correct this problem?

Answer. The table below is a summary of the Department of the Navy completion

of prior year shipbuilding requirement across all major shipbuilding programs as reflected in the fiscal year 2003 budget request

[Then-Year Dollars in Millions]

Fiscal year— Total 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

LPD–17 ..................................... 140.0 173.0 242.7 373.4 419.1 71.4 0 1,419.6

SSN–774 ................................... 119.0 227.2 276.7 213.1 254.4 75.8 0 1,166.2

DDG–51 .................................... 125.0 143.6 125.5 59.4 70.2 38.1 0 561.8

CVN–76 .................................... 106.0 169.4 0 0 0 0 0 275.4

CVN–68 RCOH .......................... 97.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.0

T-AGOS ..................................... 10.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.0

SSN ERO ................................... 0 16.0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0

Total ............................ 597.0 729.2 644.9 645.9 743.7 185.3 0 3,546.0

I am equally concerned regarding the prior year shipbuilding bill for it hampers

the Department’s ability to initiate new, transformational programs by tying up

funds in future budgets to pay for old programs. It is my intention and that of the

Navy to eliminate this funding line as soon as possible. I have implemented a policy

of budgeting to more realistic cost estimates for acquisition programs to avoid this

situation in the future. In the meantime, the Department is taking steps to mitigate

cost overruns on current programs.

The Navy is intensely managing the Completion of Prior Year Shipbuilding requirements as it prepares the fiscal year 2004 budget submission. The Navy has implemented rigorous controls to minimize changes in programs and has challenged

its industry partners to improve cost performance by reengineering processes, employing lean manufacturing, and reducing overhead. If any cost increases beyond

what is currently recognized in the fiscal year 2003 budget request despite these

measures, the Navy plans to de-scope existing shipbuilding contracts to stay within

budget constraints.

The Department’s cost estimating process is under constant review to ensure that

risk factors such as low rate production, labor availability, and inflation are appropriately reflected. Aggressive sharelines and contractual incentives are being implemented to better facilitate on-target performance. From a budgetary standpoint, the

Department is striving to more effectively reconcile budget and program scope prior

to contract award.

The cumulative effect of these actions should provide greater control of prior year

cost growth and ensure that accurate cost estimates are used for future budgeting.
588

MILITARY TRANSFORMATION

Question. Mr. Secretary, everyone agrees that our military must transform over

time to meet possible future threats. Yet the way ahead is not clear to many and

sometimes there appears to be little coordination between the military services. I

have a series of questions for your comment that I hope will help clarify to the Committee what your vision is for transformation.

Technological change, plus today’s political environment and public expectation

demand minimal casualties in war. All appear to lead to using fewer manned aircraft and ground systems in future wars. Will our military rely more on unmanned

systems in future conflicts?

Answer. Unmanned systems are increasingly being integrated into ongoing operations and new generations of these systems will incorporate even more sophisticated capabilities and sensors. Use of Predator, including versions armed with the

Hellfire missile, and Global Hawk UAVs in Afghanistan are harbingers of even

more advanced systems to come. Already Predator’s have transmitted live targeting

data to AC–130 gunships within minutes of identifying potential targets. The Air

Force’s Unmanned Combat Air, Vehicle prototype undertook its maiden flight recently and the service is interested in developing an even more capable version of

Predator. The Navy is seeking to experiment with Global Hawk in support of carrier

battle group operations while putting into place plans to procure these capabilities

in future budget years. That said, the UAV capabilities in the force today can be

considered quite primitive compared to where they are likely to be in another 10–

15 years. That is because continuing information technology advances will lead to

even more uses of unmanned systems in coming decades.

UAVs will likely play a critical enabling role in linking together hundreds and

perhaps thousands of small sensors that can be deployed and integrated together

across a future battlefield. Tremendous power will be derived from this future type

of sensing phenomena—something referred to as the power of the collective. We

don’t want to sense in just one or two ways, but in a multitude of ways. If sensing

is important to future military operations then U.S. forces must be able to sense

in depth—vertically from space to beneath the sea—and horizontally deep into an

enemies territory. Tactical and operational sensing are equally important so that

sensing is brought to bear in a number of ways. Certain elements of this changed

strategic concept can be glimpsed during operations in Afghanistan.

Question. If we move to more unmanned systems, do you expect military force

manning requirements to decrease over time?

Answer. Increased use of unmanned systems is part of the demassification of combat taking place with the widespread embrace of Network Centric Warfare. Dramatically increased levels of integrated information, necessary for the extensive use

of unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned combat air vehicles and even unmanned

undersea vehicles, allows the military services to relocate where personnel are located on future battlefields. There will always be a role for the infantryman or rifleman up close with the enemy, but many other aspects of how personnel can be redistributed and used in future conflicts will be more fully revealed over the course

of experimentation and the development of new operational concepts in coming

years. Transformation, by its very nature, will generate broad implications for personnel policies.

Question. Transformation is not simply buying futuristic weapons; it requires

changes in doctrine, battle plans, and military culture. Yet, we are building ships

and aircraft carriers now that could last until the middle of this century. Do you

envision our naval forces fighting in carrier battle group formations 50 years from

now like they do today?

Answer. Given the pace of transformation, it is unlikely that naval forces will be

organized around carrier battle group formations by the middle of the century. The

widespread adoption of Network Centric Warfare will enable vastly dispersed naval

forces to exert operational control over vast swaths of the world’s ocean and littoral

regions. These forces will be characterized by starkly different platforms, including

new high-speed hull designs and littoral combat ships linked to an Expeditionary

Sensor Grid composed of thousands of discrete sensors and even unattended munitions. This change is all part of the demassification of warfare taking place with the

transition from Industrial Age forces to those embracing Information Age capabilities. Speed is also a critical element in this transition, which includes speed of deployment, speed of employment and speed of sustainment. The Navy is already taking steps in this direction through its experimentation with the High Speed Vessel.

This joint venture, in cooperation with the Army and Special Operations Command,

is yielding valuable insights into what speed can bring to operations and is opening

the door to new operational concepts as well.
589

Question. Military transformation calls for a heavy reliance on improved information management and communications systems. How can the United States remain

dominant in this fast moving, ever changing field?

Answer. Our ability to successfully transform will depend in large measure on exploiting the power inherent in information and networks, while realizing use of the

technology creates opportunities for both friends and foes alike. Transforming the

military services from the Industrial Age to the Information Age thus hinges on

leveraging Network Centric Warfare, which is the cornerstone of future force capabilities. With potential enemies likely becoming increasingly adept in leveraging information technology, it is imperative that the U.S. military dramatically reduce the

cycle time required to field new generations of networks and information systems.

Continuous adaptive acquisition and operational prototyping are two ways to quickly get new capabilities into the warfighter’s hands, while simultaneously working

on the next iteration and the next. The net effect is a continual flow of innovative

capabilities to the combat forces with those capabilities growing and changing over

time. This approach offers a more efficient means to stay on the technology curve

rather than freezing a design and then developing and building it over a 15–20 year

time horizon.

ABM TREATY

Question. This June, the United States will formally withdraw from the ABM

Treaty. Mr. Secretary, will you describe for the Committee what withdrawing from

the ABM Treaty means for our missile defense program? That is, what key testing

programs can now move forward? What construction and development programs can

now be undertaken?

Answer. When ABM Treaty withdrawal becomes effective in June, the United

States will be able to effectively and efficiently test and develop the most promising

missile defense technologies, as well as, eventually, deploy layered missile defenses

to protect all 50 states, our Allies, and friends. In particular, the United States will

be able to proceed with testing those promising technologies that were previously

cancelled because they may have conflicted with ABM Treaty prohibitions. These include the AEGIS SPY–1 radar tracking strategic ballistic missiles, and concurrently

operating ABM and non-ABM radars (GPR–P and THADD). Indeed, without ABM

Treaty withdrawal this June, additional test activities of this sort, as well as those

involving new mobile, sea-based, and land-based ABM sensors would all likely have

been cancelled due to potential conflict with the ABM Treaty.

In addition, following ABM Treaty withdrawal the United States will be able to

proceed this year with construction of missile defense test facilities in Alaska; in

particular, construction of the ABM interceptor silos at the Missile Defense Test Bed

at Fort Greely, Alaska. Other elements of the Missile Defense test bed will be built

starting early in 2003. Moreover, following ABM Treaty withdrawal, the United

States will be able to pursue cooperative development of missile defenses with our

friends and allies against the full range of missile threats.

SPACE PROGRAMS

Question. Mr. Secretary, modernizing our military space assets is a key to transformation, yet there are several major space programs that have experienced numerous setbacks. In particular, the Space-based infrared system and the Advanced

EHF communications satellite programs have had numerous delays and cost overruns. How do you plan to get these programs under control?

Answer. The Space Based Infrared System—High Component (SBIRS-High) has

had significant problems, but the Department has identified and implemented corrective actions that I feel will solve the problems. Following the discovery of a $2

billion over-run on SBIRS-High, the Air Force chartered an independent review of

the program. This found that the prime contractor and government did not perform

sufficient system engineering before aggressively moving into acquisition; that configuration control and design requirements ‘‘flow-down’’ were inadequate; and that

internal government and contractor management was poor. Common to all these

problems was the experimental use of contractor ‘‘Total System Performance Responsibility’’ (TSPR), which has proved a failure for complex developmental programs. To correct these problems, the SBIRS-High government and contractor management teams have been either replaced or significantly restructured. The contract

has been changed to remove the TSPR clause and functions, and return those to

the government. A government chaired and controlled system engineering board and

configuration management board will reassert control of these functions. Finally, a

series of senior management reviews and expanded cost reporting tools have been
590

implemented to track the SBIRS-High recovery plan and execution of the new baseline.

The Advanced EHF program has encountered numerous challenges, many of

which arose from an attempt to accelerate the launch schedule following the April

1999 loss of a Milstar EHF satellite. The acceleration was to mitigate delays in getting protected EHF capability to the warfighter. A sole source contracting team was

created in an attempt to gain efficiencies through a single contracting team that had

experience developing EHF technologies and were already working on the Milstar

program. As the design effort progressed, detailed cost estimates revealed that the

design complexities required to address United States and International Partner

operational requirements required changes to the satellite design and drove the

need for increased funding. More recently, funding perturbations from a Congressional cut in fiscal year 2002 and some yet-unrealized funds from international partners have forced schedule delays. We believe the performance issues have been satisfactorily resolved and that the current baseline design will meet all operational

requirements and enable satellite communications interoperability between the

United States and our key allies in future joint operations. OSD remains fully engaged and will maintain oversight on this program to assure cost and schedule stability. Finally, DOD is evaluating alternatives for the protected satellite communications requirements after the third Advanced EHF satellite. This is part of our effort

to achieve a transformed national security wireless communications system that will

better enable network centric warfare.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM HARKIN

IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (IAAP)

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, last year Congress passed an amendment I introduced regarding secrecy and worker health. I was pleased to get the support of your

Department for this amendment. The amendment required you to notify workers at

the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant of possible exposures and tell them how they can

discuss those exposures without violating any security requirements. It modified a

requirement to review secrecy and security policies as they impact former nuclear

plants. And it asked you to report back within 90 days.

This issue is really important to the workers and former workers at the Iowa

Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP), which has a unique status as both a former Atomic

Energy Commission nuclear weapons plant and an operating Army ammunition

plant. Recently the Department of Energy, as at other nuclear weapons facilities,

has worked hard to foster openness at the plant and to address the health concerns

of former workers. Unfortunately, the Army has not been in the same position.

Secretary Rumsfeld, when will we receive the overdue report, and when will the

former workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant be contacted? Can you expedite this?

Answer. The report is in final coordination at this time and should be forwarded

to your office soon. Efforts are continuing to finalize a contract between the Army

and the researchers who will, among other health related activities, contact current

and former employees who worked at IAAP. Notification efforts should begin later

this summer.

Question. Do you think it makes the government look foolish when the Energy Department says a plant assembled nuclear weapons, but the Defense Department

won’t admit the weapons were there?

Answer. Former nuclear weapons sites within the United States are unclassified.

However, it is the policy of the U.S. Government to neither confirm nor deny the

presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any location independent of the classification. The basis for security requirements inherent in this U.S. policy is to deny

militarily useful information to potential or actual enemies, to enhance the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence, and to contribute to the security of nuclear weapons, especially against threats of sabotage and terrorism.

Question. In 1999 the Army asked for former nuclear weapons storage sites to be

excluded from the ‘‘neither confirm nor deny’’ policy for similar reasons, but the request was denied. Army officials have told me this is still a problem for them. Will

you reconsider that request?

Answer. The Army is no longer pursuing such an exception.

OVERSIGHT OF MISSILE DEFENSE

Question. When the Missile Defense Agency was created at the beginning of this

year, national missile defense programs were exempted from normal testing require-
591

ments, including operational testing by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

How will we know if the program is ready for deployment, if it will work against

realistic threats, without independent operational testing and evaluation?

Answer. The Missile Defense Agency and the Ballistic Missile Defense System

(BMDS) are not exempt from testing requirements. Each of the elements of the

BMDS will undergo rigorous development testing to reduce risk in the program and

to demonstrate technical maturity. Testing will become increasingly operationally

realistic as development of the element progresses. As the element’s capability

evolves and military utility is demonstrated, an operational test agent will be designated to perform operational assessments to characterize the operational effectiveness and suitability of the element as an input to decisions to produce, operate, and

deploy. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (Director, OT&E) will review

test results and provide an input to the Department’s decision process as well as,

when applicable, to the Congress.

Question. What are the provisions for independent oversight of this new agency

and its programs?

Answer. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (Director, OT&E) is represented on the Missile Defense Support Group and is in a position to review for

and advise the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and the

Director, MDA on potential OT&E testing issues throughout the development of the

Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). His staff will attend test meetings, review

documentation, and have access to MDA’s plans and programs to accomplish the

oversight mission. In support of decisions to procure and operate elements of the

BMDS, the Director, OT&E will exercise his Title 10 oversight responsibilities with

respect to OT&E and Live Test Fire and Evaluation. A report will be submitted to

Congress characterizing the demonstrated operational effectiveness and suitability,

where applicable. The Director, OT&E Annual Report to Congress will address

OT&E activities.

Question. Recently, it was announced that in future missile defense tests, information on the targets and on countermeasures would no longer be made public.

How can Congress and the public evaluate the testing and the significance for creating an effective missile defense system if we don’t know what the target was or

how countermeasures were deployed?

Answer. We recently revalidated the classification of this information and it meets

the criteria of Executive Order 12958. Last year the General Accounting Office reviewed the classification decisions made by the Missile Defense Agency over the

past decade and determined that its classification process was accurate and reasonable, and agreed that this sensitive information was properly classified consistent

with DOD standards and provided protection for national security reasons. Congress

will continue to have access to this classified information in closed sessions for their

deliberative processes. However, the nature of ballistic missile defense countermeasures is extremely sensitive. Detailed knowledge of these techniques, technologies and systems could lead an adversary to develop capabilities that can defeat

our systems.

Question. There have been repeated problems with incomplete and misleading information on missile defense tests, with problems and limitations coming to light

long after initial reports have described a success. Won’t these restrictions make it

harder ever to find out the truth?

Answer. Without more specific information as to what, if any, misleading information, problems and limitations you are referring to it will be impossible to specifically address these concerns. We are certainly willing to provide Congress with information addressing their concerns. As to the effect of our determination that target and countermeasures information will now be classified, Congress will continue

to have access to this classified information in closed sessions for their deliberative

processes consistent with the way other classified national security information is

handled.

PENTAGON WASTE

Question. When you first took your position I was glad to see you placed an emphasis on reducing waste and improving contracting, inventory, and financial and

accounting procedures. One of my big concerns has been lack of control over inventory that is shipped from one point to another—the Pentagon loses track of vast

quantities of items, some of which are restricted or classified.

Can you describe your program, and give a timeline, for implementation of modern inventory control systems? What can we do to help?
592

Answer. Under the Future Logistics Enterprise initiative, the Department is focusing on integrating ongoing modernization programs within the Services and the

Defense Logistics Agency to introduce a modern system architecture that supports

best commercial practices for supply chain and inventory management. Under that

initiative, between now and fiscal year 2005, commercial-off-the-shelf or COTS enterprise resource planning and supply chain management tools are being introduced

and connected with Department ‘‘legacy’’ systems to enable the Department to improve logistics business processes. This embracing of commercial practices and

COTS technology will allow the Department, by the end of fiscal year 2007, to tap

into the power of online marketplaces to create supply chain exchanges that support

true eBusiness with the commercial marketplace, thus reducing the Department’s

need to hold inventory by focusing on managing relationships with industry. In the

meantime, we are already supporting true eBusiness with some of our key transportation service providers to improve in-transit visibility. DOD’s in-transit visibility

system, the Global Transportation Network or GTN currently receives movement information from over 50 commercial transportation service providers and 30 DOD

automated information systems. GTN collects, integrates and displays transportation movement information to permit visibility as assets transit the Defense

Transportation System pipeline. In fact, during Operation Enduring Freedom, GTN

has reached record in-transit visibility levels. Considering the fact that the environment in which we are currently operating had a non-existent infrastructure, we are

now routinely capturing and reporting over 93 percent of all cargo and passengers

moving in support of the global war on terrorism. Congress can help by continuing

to support, through legislation and funding, the Department’s logistics modernization efforts as we move forward in adopting commercial practices.

Question. Recent reports have shown widespread abuse of credit cards issued to

make small purchases easier. How will you prevent these credit cards from being

used for personal goods?

Answer. On March 19, 2002, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in

conjunction with the Director of Defense Procurement, established a Government

Credit Card Task Force. Their findings have been rolled into the newly established

Concept of Operations for the Purchase Card that was created at the direction of

the Director, Defense Procurement. In addition to serving as a deskbook for the purchase card program, the Concept of Operations will be a tool for reengineering the

program. It emphasizes strong internal controls. The Joint Program Office for the

Purchase Card is also developing new training tools, including web-based offerings,

that will help ensure that cardholders have the most up-to-date information on how

to correctly use the card. Finally, the DOD Inspector General has developed data

mining techniques that improve our ability to spot card misuse/abuse. They are currently field testing those techniques.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

CRUSADER

Question. Mr. Secretary, could you explain why Army leaders say the Crusader

artillery program is vital to maintaining the Army’s warfighting edge over the coming decade, but you have decided to cancel it?

Answer. One of the highest priorities that the current administration has placed

on the Department of Defense is the need to transform all of our military departments. Our country needs an Army that is mobile, lethal, and deployable across a

wide range of future contingencies. The Crusader decision was not about any one

weapon system, but really about a strategy of warfare. This strategy drives the

choices that we must make about how best to prepare and equip our total forces

for the future. Accordingly, I decided to recommend to Congress that the Crusader

funds be redirected so as to provide resources for more promising technologies that

offer greater payoffs and are more consistent with the Army’s overall transformation

effort.

RISK IN MILITARY STRATEGY

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, prior to September 11th, persistent funding shortfalls, compounded with expanding requirements and record high operational tempo,

had resulted in significant risk in executing the national military strategy of fighting two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. Now our country faces just that

scenario should we choose to escalate our activities in Iraq? Does the increase in

the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget eliminate this risk?
593

Answer. First, the new defense strategy that this Administration has adopted is

different from the previous one of fighting two nearly simultaneous major theater

wars, and so the premise of your question no longer applies. However, let me say

that the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget increase was not formulated to eliminate

strategic risks. This increase does not buy as much as one might think. Almost $20

billion is for the war on terrorism and related requirements. About $28 billion of

the increase went to cover inflation ($6.7 billion), must-pay bills such as pay raises

($2.7 billion) and new accrual funding for retirement and health care benefits ($11.4

billion), and realistic costing of weapons acquisition and readiness ($7.4 billion).

That would be the entire $48 billion, except we made program reductions and management changes that netted us over $9 billion, which were used to fund our most

pressing requirements. No funding was included for an escalation of activities

against Iraq. For a major escalation such as this, added funding would be needed—

otherwise there would be increased risks to other defense priorities and commitments.

EC–130 AIRCRAFT

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, the recent Air Force plan to redistribute C–130 aircraft did not address the urgent need of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard’s

193rd Special Operations Wing in Harrisburg. They were one of the first units to

deploy to Afghanistan and only just returned on March 19, 2002. This unit is being

asked to fly some of the oldest C–130’s in the U.S. inventory around the world on

a moment’s notice to perform their Psychological Operations mission. Their recent

performance in Afghanistan was so successful that the unit was often mentioned by

General Myers and yourself in their daily briefings on the war. Mr. Secretary, what

can you do to speed the delivery of new EC–130 aircraft to this unit?

Answer. I am very proud of the job that has been done by our special operations

Commando Solo crews in Afghanistan. Commando Solos are unique, high demand/

low density platforms and continue to be an asset for the department. Commando

Solo is also wholly comprised of volunteer air national guardsmen.

In fiscal years 1997 through 2001, the transition from the EC–130E to the EC–

130J model provided five of the planned eight C–130J aircraft and special operations-unique modifications. The Air Force Master Plan provides funding for the remaining three C–130J for conversion to EC–130J in fiscal years 2006 through 2008.

The 193rd Special Operations Wing is the only unit that flies the EC–130 and will

receive all eight EC–130J aircraft. In addition, the fiscal year 2003 budget request

contains $79.4 million to mitigate special mission equipment obsolescence and degraded capability equipment issues on EC–130 aircraft.

COUNTERDRUG TRAINING

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, the Pennsylvania National Guard operates the

Northeast Counterdrug Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap and has been highly successful in providing a variety of counterdrug training for law enforcement from

an eighteen state region. However, it has been widely reported in the media that

you do not support counterdrug efforts by the U.S. Military. Can you tell me what

your recommendations and plans are for future counterdrug support by the Department of Defense?

Answer. The Department issued its new counternarcotics policy on July 31, 2002.

The Department will continue to execute drug supply reduction and drug demand

reduction programs consistent with statutory responsibilities, Presidential direction

and Department of Defense priorities.

Specifically, the Department will implement Drug Demand Reduction programs

that promote the readiness of the Armed Forces and the Department’s civilian personnel and that reduce illegal drug use within the Department’s communities.

It will also implement supply reduction programs that collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence, support interdiction operations, and train host nation counternarcotics forces.

Finally, it will implement other programs that support foreign military and law

enforcement counternarcotics activities, so long as they benefit the Department, enhance readiness of the Department, contribute to the war on terrorism, advance the

Department’s security cooperation goals, or otherwise enhance national security.

The Department is still evaluating how this new policy will impact specific programs, including National Guard training for domestic law enforcement. Currently

we are exploring the possibility that the Department of Justice will assume responsibility for the National Guard Counterdrug Schools. We will keep Congress fully

informed as this develops.
594

MORALE AND RETENTION

Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, can you describe the effects that the increased

operational tempo has had on your personnel in terms of morale and retention?

Answer. Thus far, after controlling for the effect of Stop Loss which generates involuntary retention of certain critical skills, the overall retention picture has been

favorable. This is consistent with research which suggests that a low number of deployments—including deployments to hostile areas—does not harm retention,

whereas a number of such deployments could. My first hand experience in visiting

with the troops suggests that the vast majority believe they are involved in necessary and important work, and morale is good.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Question. General Myers, keeping the cost down on the Joint Strike Fighter seems

to be particularly important, since price increases could lead to force cuts. Given recent indications that the Navy may reduce the number of JSFs it will purchase; do

you expect the unit price of the airplane to increase?

Answer. The Department of Defense is resolutely committed to the Joint Strike

Fighter (JSF) program, and shares your concern about costs. While it would be premature for me to speculate about the Department of the Navy’s Joint Strike Fighter

force structure plan, clearly order numbers affect unit price. From JSF’s inception,

affordability has been a cornerstone for the program, and in this regard we have

reason for optimism.

Current cost projections are based solely on planned United States and United

Kingdom procurement quantities. With the recent Memorandum of Understanding

signings by Canada, Denmark, and the Netherlands, and projected signings by Italy,

Norway, and Turkey, conservative predictions estimate that total procurement

quantities may climb by anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 aircraft. The economies of

scale associated with such an increase would reduce total costs for all program participants.

Question. General, some have argued that if the price of the JSF grows too high,

the Air Force would pull out of the program. What is the current thinking?

Answer. The Air Force fully supports developing and fielding the Joint Strike

Fighter (JSF) and has not given me any indication they are wavering in their commitment to the program. JSF, along with F–22 and Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle

(UCAV), represents a crucial part of the Service’s future force structure.

The JSF is an affordable precision engagement and global attack fighter with superb stealth capabilities. It will constitute the persistent portion of the Air Force’s

future force structure. Given its importance to the joint warfighter, we are making

every effort to keep aircraft cost down, especially since affordability has always been

one of its chief strengths.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

Question. Currently we have 22 long range B–2 bombers. Is this sufficient? What

is the plan for the next generation of short range and long range bombers?

Answer. [Deleted].

TACTICAL FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Question. Are we spending too much money on Tactical Fighter Aircraft? When

is the last time the United States lost a series of ‘‘dogfights?’’ How can we justify

an estimated $67 billion on the F–22 Raptor, an estimated $300 billion on the Joint

Strike Fighter, and the continued improvements and recapitalization efforts to the

F–15 and F–16 fleet in the out years?

Answer. The United States can ill afford not to procure the F–22 and Joint Strike

Fighter (JSF). These aircraft are essential to our capability to project force deep into

the enemy’s battle area while defending friendly airspace and ensuring maximum

warrior survivability. Until the F–22 and JSF are combat ready, the USAF must

continue to maintain the F–15 and F–16 fleets in order to respond to all threats

to U.S. security.

Even though the last U.S. fighter to be shot down by an enemy fighter occurred

during the Vietnam War, the F–22 and JSF remain critical to U.S. defense. These
595

aircraft are not designed solely to win ‘‘dogfights.’’ They are multi-mission capable

and will use their unique, transformational capabilities, such as supercruise, stealth

and integrated avionics, to attack fixed and mobile targets as well as perform electronic attack.

The F–15 has consistently enjoyed a competitive edge over all other air superiority fighters since its introduction into the USAF inventory in 1975. But today, as

other countries and potential adversaries continue to improve and develop new antiair systems and fighters, the F–15 is beginning to lose its advantage. Currently, the

F–15 is at rough parity with the Su-27 and Mig-29. By 2005 the F–15 will be at

a disadvantage with the anticipated fielding of the Su-35 and export versions of the

Rafale and Eurofighter. Worse yet, the development and proliferation of advanced

and, for many third world countries, affordable SAMs such as the SA–10/12 will result in a sanctuary for the enemy because the F–15 is unable to survive in this environment. This is where the F–22’s stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, and integrated avionics make a transformational difference. As part of the Global Strike

Task Force, the F–22’s capabilities enable it to penetrate airspace denied to older

systems, destroying enemy SAMs, command and control assets, and air threats.

After the F–22 ‘‘kicks down the door,’’ the JSF is the persistent force that follows

up with precision engagement of multiple enemy targets using its all weather,

stealth, and precision air-to-ground capabilities.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. The subcommittee will stand in recess until

June 5. At that time we will receive testimony from public witnesses. I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., Tuesday, May 21, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 5.]

(597)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

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

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Cochran.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY, U.S. ARMY

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM J. LENNOX, JR., SUPERINTENDENT

ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANT SECOND CLASS ANDREW BLICKHAHN

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Today we’d like to welcome the superintendent

of the service academies. Each person is accompanied by an outstanding cadet or midshipman from their respective institutions.

The service academies have a long tradition of educating and

training young men and women for future leadership as officers in

the United States military. The academies couple economic rigor

with military training and development to graduate top notch

young officers.

Every year, the academies receive thousands of applications from

outstanding young men and women across the country. The high

school grade-point average for those accepted into the academies is,

on an average, 3.9 on a 4.0 scale, and scholastic assessment test

scores average over 1,300. Admissions are also based on participation in athletic and non-athletic extracurricular activities, leadership positions, community involvement, and work experience.

It’s a rigorous application process, and only the highest caliber

candidates are accepted. So why do these young men and women,

who could have their pick of top universities, choose to apply in increasingly large numbers to the academies? The committee is looking forward to hearing from the cadets and midshipmen here today

on that very subject.

This is the first hearing that this committee has held to review

the service academies. We look forward to a frank and open discussion today with our panel on the state of service academies and
598

their continuing traditions of excellence to prepare our future military leaders.

Joining us today, we have the superintendent of the United

States Military Academy at West Point, Lieutenant General William Lennox, Jr. Joining General Lennox is Second Lieutenant Andrew Blickhahn, who reached a rank of E–5 prior to becoming a

cadet at West Point. We’re also happy to have here today the first

Marine commandant of midshipmen, Colonel John Allen, from the

United States Naval Academy. And joining Colonel Allen is Ensign

Benjamin A. Drew, who has just graduated from the Naval Academy. And finally, I would like to welcome Lieutenant General John

Dallager, superintendent of the United States Air Force Academy.

And joining General Dallager is Cadet First Class Todd Garner,

who will serve as cadet wing commander next year. And congratulations to you for your achievements and to all of you who are here

today.

Senator Stevens wanted to be here, but, as you know, the supplemental appropriations is now under consideration on the floor, and

he is the senior Republican on the committee, and he has his job

there. He has to be at his post, so he has asked me to submit his

statement in the record. And without objection, it will be done.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for inviting the Superintendents of the Military

Academies to appear before the committee this morning.

With our nation’s military engaged in the Balkans, central Asia, the Philippines

and Colombia, we must pay close attention to the means by which we train and prepare our combat leaders.

Mr. Chairman, you and I have each served more than 30 years in Congress, and

have had the privilege of nominating many scores of men and women to the academies.

They have emerged as fine military leaders, but of equal importance, tremendous

community and civic leaders.

That is the significant dividend from our investment in the academies—men and

women with a commitment to public service, in every form.

I also want to note my interest in the role of the academies in training international students.

As we find our nation increasingly engaged around the globe, it is vital that we

have strong personal ties with the military leaders of these nations.

Engaging those potential leaders at a young age, and providing them insight to

our values, is critical.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the witnesses, and look forward to the hearing. I may

be called to the floor to assist in managing the pending supplemental, but will return if possible.

Senator INOUYE. May I first call upon the superintendent of the

Military Academy at West Point, General Lennox?

PREPARED STATEMENT

General LENNOX. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to

appear before your subcommittee to discuss the mission, goals and

the challenges of the United States Military Academy. I have a

written statement that I’d like to submit for the record.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection, so ordered.

[The statement follows:]
599

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM J. LENNOX, JR.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to discuss with you the mission, goals, and challenges of the United States Military Academy. I would also like to thank you for

allowing us to address this distinguished assembly during this momentous year for

the Academy, our bicentennial.

The United States Military Academy was founded in 1802 under the presidency

of Thomas Jefferson. In his vision, West Point was a means to democratize American military leadership and to ensure that it would be representative of American

society. Since that time, the leaders who have graduated from the Academy have

been representatives of the nation that they served. They come from all walks of

life—varying economic, social, religious, and ethnic backgrounds.

West Point graduates have seen America through good times and bad, peace and

war. Early leaders like William MacNeil or George Washington Whistler helped

build the nation in the early 19th century. Gallant men like Ulysses S. Grant and

Robert E. Lee, weathered the great Civil War. In the early 1900’s, LTC Thomas

Goethals directed the construction of one of the greatest engineering achievements—

the Panama Canal. During the global conflicts of the 20th Century, individuals like

John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur, and Dwight D. Eisenhower secured the nation. The past generation of the Long Gray Line contributed astronauts like Frank

Borman, Ed White, Jr., and Buzz Aldrin; leaders like Norman Schwarzkopf in the

sands of Desert Storm and Wesley Clark in the mountains of Kosovo; individuals

as diverse as Roscoe Robinson—the Army’s first African-American 4-star General

and Allison Jones, Class of 2000, who was awarded the Soldier’s Medal for her courage following the terrorist bombing in 1998 of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi; and

warfighters like Franklin Hagenbeck and Jason Amerine assisting anti-Taliban

forces in the austere Afghanistan countryside. We are proud that the people we

taught made much of the history we teach.

Many of our former cadets, now commissioned officers, are called upon to overcome obstacles they could not imagine when they graduated; but that is the purpose

of the United States Military Academy. As the nation’s premier institution for leader development, the mission of the United States Military Academy is: ‘‘to educate,

train and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country; professional

growth throughout a career as an officer in the United States Army; and a lifetime

of selfless service to the nation.’’

As a result of their four-year experience, the Academy envisions that graduates

will possess the intellectual, military, physical and moral-ethical foundation for professional growth and service as commissioned officers in the Army. They will be prepared for the uncertainty and ambiguity associated with military service during this

period of strategic transition, and they will be able to anticipate and manage change

in their organizations. They will be able to do so because they will have reflected

upon and developed a personal understanding of the unique characteristics of their

chosen profession and the principles that govern the fulfillment of their office. Additionally, they will be inspired to serve the nation as a lifetime endeavor.

Expressed as a specific outcome goal for its graduates, the Academy envisions

that graduates will be: ‘‘commissioned leaders of character who, in preparation for

the intellectual and ethical responsibilities of officership, are broadly educated, professionally skilled, moral-ethically and physically fit, and are committed to continued growth and development both as Army officers and as American citizens.’’

In support of this overarching goal, graduates must understand: the profession of

arms and the application of a broad liberal education in the arts and sciences to

that profession; the ideals of the American Constitution and the responsibilities of

commissioned officers to its defense; and the values and ethical standards of the

United States Army. Graduates must also demonstrate: personal devotion to the duties of a commissioned officer; intellectual curiosity, imagination, and creativity;

ability to act rationally and decisively under pressure; mastery of the basic military

and physical skills required for entry into commissioned service; inspiration and motivation to lead American soldiers in war and peace—leadership characterized by a

winning spirit; ability and motivation to achieve and sustain unit climates that are

conducive to military effectiveness and professional excellence; and personal commitment to the selfless standards of officership within the United States Army.

The developmental systems and programs—academic, military, physical, and

moral-ethical—are structured to contribute to instilling these characteristics in each

of our graduates.

Through our academic program, cadets receive a balanced, world-class, liberal

arts education focused on the creation of independent and self-directed learners. The
600

curriculum balances engineering, math and science, and humanities. Understanding

that the challenge for today’s Army officer is to bring people and technology together

to accomplish diverse missions in areas around the world, we have recently adjusted

our curriculum. Cadets now receive more classes focused on foreign cultures, foreign

languages and information technology. These changes allow us to continue to develop officers who can anticipate and respond effectively when confronted with new

problems in this dynamic world. All cadets receive a Bachelor of Science degree,

which is designed specifically to meet the intellectual requirements of a commissioned officer in today’s Army.

Military development begins on a cadet’s first day. First-year cadets spend their

first summer learning military skills at Cadet Basic Training. They road march,

conduct individual tactical training, and learn teamwork under tough, demanding

conditions. At Camp Buckner, second-year cadets sharpen advanced military and

leadership skills during Cadet Field Training. They carry out weapons training,

combatives, and small unit maneuvers. They also spend a week at Fort Knox, KY

conducting a mounted maneuver exercise. The third-year and fourth-year cadets

plan and lead most of the training for the plebes and yearlings. In addition, upperclass cadets are sent to Army units and schools during the summer to train. Military training is combined with military science instruction throughout the academic

year to provide a solid military foundation.

Each cadet also participates in a demanding physical education program. Cadets

achieve the highest levels of personal fitness in a program that emphasizes a lifelong pursuit of physical development and instills the winning spirit through four

years of classes. Every cadet also participates in an intercollegiate, club or intramural level sport each semester. West Point fields 25 intercollegiate sports, 25

sports clubs, and a number of intramurals. This rigorous physical program instills

the ‘‘winning spirit’’ and contributes to the mental and physical fitness that is required for service as an officer in the Army.

These programs—military, academic, and physical—are encompassed by ethical

development centered on our Honor Code that simply says, ‘‘a cadet will not lie,

cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.’’ The code is strictly enforced and imbedded

in all that we do. Cadets receive formal, values education in areas such as respect,

honor, and consideration of others. This is critical to developing our professional

ethos.

These developmental programs combined create the West Point Experience. The

West Point Experience is about producing leaders of character for our nation and

our Army. Leaders that seek to discover the truth, decide what is right, and demonstrate the courage to act accordingly, and leaders that always choose the harder

right over the easier wrong. But maintaining the West Point Experience and accomplishing our mission is not without challenges. There are two major challenges that

we continuously face.

The first is maintaining the Academy’s relevance in a perpetually changing world.

Today, our Army and the officers who lead it are being placed on the path of peace

as well as in harm’s way. They are being asked to provide humanitarian relief and

to fight and win our wars. They operate, in short, across the full spectrum of conflict. As a result, 21st century officers must have the mental agility and a comfort

with ambiguity to operate and win in this complex, global environment. In response

to this, two years ago the Academy conducted an academic curriculum review. We

realized that rapid adaptation to ambiguous situations requires leaders broadly educated in the languages, customs, and cultures of the world beyond our shores. It also

requires leaders who are familiar with technology, especially information technology. Accordingly, we slightly decreased the engineering course requirement allowing us to increase foreign culture, foreign language, and information technology

opportunities. Currently, we are looking at the Cadet Honor System and our military program to confirm that they are balanced properly within the West Point Experience to enable us to fulfill our mission of developing leaders of character. This

is West Point’s challenge, to ensure that our developmental programs balance continuity with change to produce leaders relevant to the needs of America’s Army.

The United States Military Academy must also actively compete with other similar colleges and academies to obtain an extremely scarce resource, namely, young

Americans willing to commit to a lifetime of service to the nation. However, schools

that have cutting-edge recruiting programs, excellent facilities, top-tier professors,

integrated student services and institutionally supported athletics have a distinct

advantage in luring this limited human resource to their campuses instead of into

the ranks of our Army. Therein lies the challenge: to maintain a physical plant and

program plan that remains competitive with other tier one institutions; and to

maintain the historic integrity of a 200-year-old institution and national historic

landmark.
601

In the recent past, the Academy had been operating at a Minimum Sustainment

Level (MSL) of funding for several years, and that was simply inadequate to compete with our sister service academies and our civilian undergraduate peers. The

USMA staff worked closely with the Department of the Army to develop a Competitive Sustainment Level (CSL) of funding, which would represent a significant increase over the MSL. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, the Department of the Army

supported a ‘‘Competitive Sustainment Level’’ in funds for West Point. In addition

to this, the Association of Graduates has raised a considerable sum of funds used

for ‘‘Margin of Excellence’’ gifts to the Academy. These gifts enhance our academic,

military, physical, and moral-ethical programs as well as our facilities, recruiting

and cadet activities. The synergy of public and private dollars—CSL and Margin of

Excellence—will restore a competitive balance with other tier one institutions as we

fight to attract America’s finest young men and women to serve our nation.

As we look toward the future, every graduating class will play a critical role in

leading and shaping the Army of the 21st century. We must continue to develop

leaders who are capable of performing many roles. The Army needs officers who are

both warriors and leaders who can serve as ambassadors. These future officers will

have the character of a true leader who is ready, willing, and able to meet the challenges of the Army and the Nation. They will defend our way of life both on the

home front and abroad, wherever they are called. Just as we have been by America’s

side for the last 200 years, we will continue to be by her side for the next 200 years.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM JAMES LENNOX, JR.

Lieutenant General William James Lennox, Jr. of Houston, Texas, assumed duties

as the 56th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point,

New York on June 8, 2001. He entered the Army following graduation from the

United States Military Academy in 1971, where he earned his commission as a lieutenant of Field Artillery.

General Lennox has served in a wide variety of field assignments. He served as

a Forward Observer, Executive Officer, and Fire Support Officer in the 1st Battalion, 29th Field Artillery, and as Commander, Battery B, 2d Battalion, 20th Field

Artillery, 4th Infantry Division. He was the Operations Officer and Executive Officer for the 2d Battalion, 41st Field Artillery, 3d Infantry Division. He commanded

the 5th Battalion, 29th Field Artillery in the 4th Infantry Division and the Division

Artillery in the 24th Infantry Division. General Lennox has also served in a number

of staff positions including White House Fellow, Special Assistant to the Secretary

of the Army, and Executive Officer for the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and

Plans. He served as Deputy Commanding General and Assistant Commandant of

the U.S. Army Field Artillery Center; Chief of Staff for III Corps and Fort Hood;

Assistant Chief of Staff, CJ–3, Combined Forces Command/United States Forces

Korea and Deputy Commanding General, Eighth United States Army; and, most recently, Chief of Legislative Liaison.

In addition to his Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Military

Academy, General Lennox holds a Masters Degree and a Doctorate in Literature

from Princeton University. His military education includes the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, the Infantry Officer Advance Course, the distinguished graduate

from the United States Army Command and General Staff College, and the Senior

Service College Fellowship at Harvard University.

General Lennox’s awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; the

Legion of Merit with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters; the Meritorious Service Medal with 1 Oak

Leaf Cluster; the Army Commendation Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters; the Army

Achievement Medal; the Korean Order of Military Merit, Inheon Medal; the Ranger

Tab; the Parachutist Badge; and the Army Staff Identification Badge.

General LENNOX. Sir, first, I’d like to thank you and your colleagues for the support to the academies, both in terms of finances,

but, more particularly, in terms of the great applicants that you

give us every single year. I just want to highlight for you one class,

the class that just graduated, and talk to you briefly about them.

Last Saturday, we commissioned 947 leaders of character. This

year’s graduating class was another great class. It included three

Rhodes scholars, three Marshall scholars, three Truman scholars,
602

along with two all-American athletes and more than 40 all-conference athletes.

For 200 years, West Point has provided timeless leadership for

our Army and for our Nation. We began by producing engineers

and artillerists. And throughout the past two centuries, we’ve produced presidents, military leaders, corporate innovators, heads of

state, astronauts, and patriots. General Shinseki, the first Japanese-American Chief of Staff of the Army, is a 1965 graduate. The

long, grey line includes over 100 all-Americans, 79 Rhodes scholars,

75 Congressional Medal of Honor winners. As the Nation’s premier

institution for leadership development, West Point continues to

educate, train, and inspire leaders of character committed to the

values of duty, honor, and country.

As seen in combat in Afghanistan, officers of the 21st century

must be flexible, principled, and self-learning. Army officers must

be ready and willing to lead American soldiers and make complex

decisions in complicated environments with little or no time. To

succeed, they must be part Ivy League professor, part professional

athlete, part international ambassador, and all warfighter.

We’ve seen these traits in some of our graduates, like Captain

Jason Amerine, class of 1993, the Special Forces officer who assisted Hamid Karzai in his march toward Kandahar; and in Captain Nate Self, class of 1998, the Army Ranger who led the attempted rescue of the Navy SEAL in the Shahiko Mountains.

How do we develop these traits? We develop them academically,

physically, and militarily all in a moral, ethical environment.

First we develop them intellectually, challenging them to achieve

in a curriculum that balances engineering, math, sciences, and humanities. For example, this past year, West Point cadets won academic competitions in all disciplines—from the National Security

Agency (NSA) cyber-defense exercise in an international mathematical contest in modeling, to five National Honor Society awards

for excellence in history and the best program at the National

Model United Nations (U.N.). In creating independent, self-directed

learners who can think critically, we produce officers who will anticipate and respond effectively when confronted with new problems in our dynamic world.

Second, we develop them physically. We imbue them with the

winning spirit by putting them through the best college fitness program in the Nation and by training them to meet and exceed Army

standards for fitness and by encouraging their participation in individual and team sports at the intramural, the club, and the intercollegiate levels. This past year, we produced conference champions

in softball, men’s indoor and outdoor track, men’s cross-country, lacrosse, and golf. Our rugby club finished third in the Nation, behind Berkeley and Utah.

And, finally, we produce disciplined leaders by training them to

be, know, and do. That is, we give cadets the knowledge, the loyalty, and the courage to follow orders, make decisions, and set the

example for the soldiers whom they will lead in combat.

As we speak, West Point cadets are preparing to attend some of

the Army’s most demanding training. This summer, cadets will become paratroopers at Fort Benning, and combat divers in Key

West. They will learn mountain warfare in Vermont, and cold-
603

weather warfare in Alaska. Finally, we’ll send several hundred cadets to serve as platoon leaders in Army units worldwide.

Together the intellectual, the physical, and the military challenges create the leadership qualities needed to win our Nation’s

wars on the 21st century battlefields. But all of these qualities are

wasted if we do not instill in them the moral and ethical values

that are critical to maintaining the Nation’s trust in our armed

forces. West Point remains, in the words of President Bush, ‘‘the

guardian of values that have shaped the soldiers who have shaped

the history of the world.’’

As we look forward, every graduating class will play a critical

role in leading and shaping the Army of the 21st century. On June

1, the class of 2002 added 947 leaders of character to our Nation’s

armed forces. The new class of 2006 will begin its exciting 4-year

journey in just a few weeks.

At West Point, we will continue to develop leaders who are capable of performing many roles. These future officers will be ready,

willing, and able to meet the challenges of the Army and the Nation. They will defend our way of life, both on the home front and

abroad, wherever and whenever they are called. Just as we have

defended America’s freedom for the last 200 years, we’ll be ready

for the next 200 years.

Again, sir, thank you for the opportunity that you gave us today,

and thanks for the support you’ve given us over the years.

I’d like to introduce Andy Blickhahn—Second Lieutenant Andy

Blickhahn, our First Captain, who just graduated June 1, last Saturday.

Senator INOUYE. Before I call upon the Lieutenant, may I call

upon my colleague?

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I’m glad

to join you this morning in welcoming our panel of witnesses from

the service academies. I know of no finer institutions of higher

learning in the country than our service academies that are represented here today.

And I’m very, I guess, unique among Members of the Senate. I’ve

had the privilege of serving on each of the Board of Visitors of each

academy, was chairman of the Military Academy at West Point at

one time, and now on the Navy Academy. My first opportunity was

on the Air Force Academy. I haven’t been at King’s Point, I’m

afraid, but I—maybe I will get to visit there and learn more about

what they do.

But these experiences have convinced me that these are true national assets of great importance, and we need to do everything

possible to support them and protect their interests and ensure

that they continue to provide the kind of leadership for our country—and not just military officers, but even beyond. When you look

back over the course of our Nation’s history, some of our greatest

political leaders have been graduates of the service academies.

So I take our responsibilities in this regard, making sure we appropriate the funds that are sufficient to carry on these important

activities, very seriously. And we appreciate your being here and
604

sharing with us your views and your suggestions about how we can

do that.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Senator.

Before I call upon the Second Lieutenant, I want to advise all of

you that the absence of our membership here is not any indication

of disinterest. We happen to have, at this moment, eight committees having hearings. A very important supplemental appropriations bill is now pending on the floor, which, among other things,

would include an $18 billion account for the military. And so it is

understandable that members will have to be absent.

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT BLICKHAHN

And so, with that, I’d like to call upon the next general—Second

Lieutenant Blickhahn.

Lieutenant BLICKHAHN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to discuss with you my

experiences as a recent graduate of the United States Military

Academy at West Point. My name is Lieutenant Andrew

Blickhahn. I graduated from West Point as the First Captain and

Brigade Commander 4 days ago. I was commissioned the Second

Lieutenant of Infantry.

Why did I go to West Point? It seemed like the only choice for

me. I’ve always wanted to be a soldier. I enlisted in the Army right

after high school. And after spending about 3 years on active duty

and having reached the rank of sergeant, I knew I wanted to make

a career out of the Army, and I knew I wanted my contribution to

affect the Army as a whole. I decided I wanted to be an officer.

From the examples set by my commanding officers, I knew I wanted to be commissioned as a graduate of West Point.

Leadership lessons start on day one at West Point. To be a good

leader, each cadet must be a great follower. Daily inspections of

rooms, personal appearance, academic requirements, and homework all contribute to an ingrained habit of excellence. Cadets

learn to lead by example in every aspect of their lives. As I developed into a leader of the corps of cadets, I found West Point offers

leadership development opportunities not found at any other place.

West Point is superb in developing character. Cadets police their

own ranks with a strong and active honor code. I have learned that

living honorably enables and is a requirement for outstanding leadership. The mentorship and knowledge of our professional staff and

faculty help cadets make sense of their experiences and grow as

people and leaders.

The time I spent, the knowledge I gained, and the experiences

I had have better prepared me to lead soldiers and were things I

could have gained only at West Point. Most of all, West Point

taught me what it means to be a selfless servant of the Nation and

a leader of character.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Lieutenant.

Now may I call upon Colonel Allen?
605

UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

STATEMENT OF COLONEL JOHN R. ALLEN, COMMANDANT OF MIDSHIPMEN

ACCOMPANIED BY ENSIGN BENJAMIN A. DREW

PREPARED STATEMENT

Colonel ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, good morning, sir, Senator Cochran.

We are very grateful for this opportunity to speak with the committee this morning, sir. And as did General Lennox, I also have

a written statement, which, with your permission, I’d like to submit into the record.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection, so ordered.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLONEL JOHN R. ALLEN

Mister Chairman and committee members, it is an honor to speak to you today

on behalf of the Naval Academy Superintendent, VADM Ryan. Last month we graduated almost 1,000 Navy Ensigns and Marine Corps Second Lieutenants, and I

could not have been prouder to send them into the Fleet and to our operating forces

to serve this great nation at home and abroad. Your Midshipmen, and the officers

they become, never cease to amaze me for their maturity, insight, dedication, and

commitment to service. They become men and women of profound character; and

they have never failed the American people.

Your Naval Academy today is persevering in the midst of the war against terrorism and the threat of future strikes against the United States. And from the

front lines, to the streets of America, Annapolis graduates are playing a central role

in this struggle. The United States Naval Academy continues to produce officers of

the Naval Service who are prepared for the rigors and challenges of leading our

Sailors and Marines in combat. As I speak with you today, there are Naval Academy

graduates in the forward echelons of Operation Enduring Freedom—leading Marines and SEALs, flying in the skies above Afghanistan, positioning our ships and

preparing for the next phase of this conflict. In the coming struggle I, and all of

us at the Naval Academy, gather encouragement and strength from your untiring

support. It is times such as these when America needs certainty—certainty that you

so steadfastly provide as you support our services and as you lead this nation into

the future.

Our mission at Annapolis is enduring:

To develop midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue

them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to provide

graduates who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential

for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government.

We view the mission’s component elements as developing midshipmen morally,

mentally and physically. In my testimony, let me address each of these. In terms

of moral and professional development, we know that in war, in peace, and in crisis,

character is the single most important quality in a leader—moral courage, the conscious choice—the habit—of doing the right thing everyday. What Douglas Southall

Freeman once described as, ‘‘That quality of mind which makes truth telling instinctive rather than strange.’’

We recognize the imperative that men and women who lead in combat must possess the moral authority to issue orders which may sorely tax their Sailors and Marines in the crucible of battle. This plays in virtually every dimension of the Academy experience today, from the carefully crafted and orchestrated immersion of the

midshipman in leadership, our honor concept, in ethics instruction, and in our character development; to instruction in seamanship, tactics and naval warfare; to the

vital spiritual preparation of our young leaders in their faith and in their beliefs.

This year, with the Class of 2005, we placed significant emphasis on military and

social etiquette—the ‘‘gentleman’’ portion of the classic term ‘‘officer and a gentleman.’’ This focus on officership is not new, but this year we concentrated it in

a series of lectures on customs, courtesies, traditions, and etiquette. We remain res-
606

olute in our commitment to continue this program, and we are expanding it into

the upper three classes next year and beyond.

In all our emphasis on moral development we continue to return to the message

that an officer of the naval service is a public figure and servant of the nation. Indeed, our message is clear: Our oath of office, sworn so solemnly on Induction Day,

means midshipman have an absolute, a sacred, obligation to embody the highest

moral principles of our precious naval service in every dimension of their lives—and

in every one of their pursuits.

For the current Brigade, men and women who arrived here during a period of relative peace, the discovery of their true purpose and of the Nation’s reliance on them

during these moments of trial, in Afghanistan and beyond, is interesting and enlightening to watch. As I observe the midshipmen react to reports from the front

lines and prepare themselves for their role in this conflict, I see purpose in their

eyes and sense grim resolve as these young men and women, especially the recently

graduated Class of 2002, prepare to join the fight against terrorism. These midshipmen know this conflict is for the long haul; this fight is to the finish, and they

know there will be a place for them in the struggle ahead.

To transition to the next element of our mission, the mental development of the

Brigade, this was an important year for the Naval Academy—a year of continued

accomplishment. As the Members of the Committee are aware, there is a survey

conducted annually amongst the students of the 331 top universities and colleges

in the Nation. This survey, the Princeton Review, provides important insights into

the student perceptions of the quality of their educational and college experience.

The Naval Academy has always fared well in this survey, but this year, the Naval

Academy, in the category of ‘‘student accessibility to the professors of the faculty,’’

placed first in the nation. This high praise by the midshipmen speaks volumes

about the commitment of the faculty to the academic and intellectual development

of these future officers.

The Naval Academy’s admissions process, aided and supported by nominations

from Senators, Congressmen, and other of our country’s leaders, continues to deliver

some of the finest of America’s youth. Our nationwide efforts to attract the highest

qualified young men and women have yielded more than 1,200 great Americans who

will join the Brigade of Midshipmen on June 28. As I administer the oath of office

to these future members of the Class of 2006, it will reaffirm once again the quality

of the bright young men and women of America who seek service to their country.

I am also proud that more than ten percent of our incoming class are enlisted Sailors and Marines who have already proven themselves as leaders in the operating

forces. Once these students arrive at the service academies, they are afforded one

of the finest academic experiences an institution of higher learning can offer. This

is our return on the sacred trust by the Congress of the United States and the

American people.

Another means of gauging the academic experience and accomplishments of the

Brigade is through the graduate education opportunities afforded our young officers

after commissioning. For the size of our student body, this is an important signal

of the quality of the academic rigor of our institution. This year, from the Class of

2002, twenty-seven graduates continue on to immediate postgraduate education. Of

these, three will attend Oxford University, including our Rhodes Scholar, ENS

Emmy Spencer. Three ensigns will attend Cambridge, including one Marshall scholar and two Gates Scholars. The remaining 21 graduates will attend other splendid

postgraduate institutions in the country including Georgetown, MIT, and University

of California at Berkley. These accomplishments are something about which we are

truly proud.

Yet another example of the academic achievements of the midshipmen is in space

operations. This year, Naval Academy midshipmen, sponsored by the Aerospace Department, built and launched a satellite and controlled it from a Naval Academy

ground station—truly a great accomplishment and an example of institutional commitment to space and the aerospace program. Also this year, we added a new academic major, Information Technology. Its appearance as the 19th major at the

Naval Academy is in direct response to the expressed needs of operational commanders in the Fleet. This demonstrates the Academy’s ongoing efforts to leverage

advances in computer systems and command and control technologies to ensure the

relevance of the institution to the operational needs and requirements of the naval

service. In addition, we have added significant Information Technology components

to the core engineering curriculum to ensure all midshipmen have opportunity to

keep pace with today’s technology.

To transition to the physical development of our midshipmen, and in celebration

of the 200th Anniversary of our magnificent sister Academy, the United States Military Academy—let me recite the words of one of the distinguished sons of West
607

Point who said: ‘‘Upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that on other

fields . . . on other days will bear the fruits of victory.’’ I believe with all my heart

Douglas MacArthur was right in this statement, and this institution is committed

to the physical development of its young officers. The end state of our physical mission is to create young officers who are accustomed and conditioned to winning, but

who possess humility in victory and resilience in setback.

The physical preparation of midshipmen spans a wide range of activities from individual conditioning in any one of several world-class fitness centers, to

intramurals and club sports, to Division 1A intercollegiate competition in 30 sports

administered within the Naval Academy Athletic Association. We have made great

strides this year to truly insinuate a sense of individual physical fitness and physical discipline for the midshipmen. The fierceness of our intramural competition has

already paid big dividends in building small unit esprit de corps and cohesion, as

well as generating additional leadership opportunities.

Every day, Navy athletes continue to achieve the same kind of excellence on ‘‘the

friendly fields of strife’’ as they do in the classrooms or within their professional development. Last year Navy athletes won two-thirds of all their competitions, and the

Naval Academy produced 5 All-Americans, 2 Academic All-Americans, 4 Conference

Athletes of the Year, and 1 Coach of the Year Award. We have welcomed a new

Director of Athletics who has already made an impact on the Academy, as his focus

is not just on athletics, but on the institution—on its traditions, history, mission,

and service. The athletic department, and the teams that will benefit from his leadership, understand their role in preparing midshipmen to lead Sailors and Marines.

This is another area where we will seek your continued support in the future. One

of our challenges to properly support our very necessary athletic program is to provide proper indoor physical education space. However, the Naval Academy is currently operating with a deficit of adequate indoor athletic space of 180,000 square

feet. Therefore, our Board of Visitors has indicated to the President that our highest

military construction priority is the construction of a new field house at Turner

Field. The new field house will provide a 120,000 square foot facility, which will

substantially address our critical deficit. We need to advance this facility as much

as possible.

There could be, perhaps, no greater measure of the marriage of the principal components of our mission—the moral, mental, and physical preparation of the midshipmen—than in the areas of our club and extracurricular activities, opportunities

for our midshipmen to ply the skills, prowess, and leadership qualities they learn

every day. For example, this year our International Pistol Team finished #1 in the

country with 7 All-Americans, our Triathlon team finished #1 in the country and

our Powerlifting, Men’s Rugby, Boxing, and Women’s softball club teams ranked #2

in the country. In addition, we won the International Law Competition, the Ethics

Bowl Competition, and our community service outreach program, the Midshipman

Action Group, was awarded the Council for Advancement and Support of Education

Circle of Excellence Award.

As I speak to you today, your midshipmen have transitioned into their summer

training period. After a long year of academic and physical rigor, you could feel their

excitement and their anticipation as they departed Annapolis for service around the

world with the Fleet and Marine Corps units. The diversity of the summer training

experience for the midshipmen is simply remarkable and spans the spectrum from

service with forward deployed operational Fleet units, to internships in the Federal

Government. Midshipmen will be going to sea in submarines and on surface combatants, and they will be serving with operational naval aviation squadrons and aboard

forward deployed aircraft carriers. Midshipmen will train with special operations

and special warfare elements, and will be serving with Marine Corps units around

the world. As well, over 150 midshipmen will be involved in summer internships

with organizations such as NASA Goddard and Johnson Space Flight Centers, Lawrence Livermore and Brookhaven National Laboratories, and with the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and in various Offices of the Secretary of Defense and the State Department.

As we graduate the Class of 2002, we are reminded the academic year began with

a national tragedy that caused death and devastation upon this nation in a way we

have never before experienced in all the annals of American history. The enemy, an

evil malignant force, is bent upon one thing, the destruction of our country, its way

of life, and its people. Already, 15 Naval Academy graduates have fallen in the

opening attack and the continuing battle. With the Class of 2002, nearly 1,000 graduates entered the naval service to join this fight. Of that number, 272 are joining

the surface units of the Fleet, 345 will become naval aviators and naval flight officers, 129 will go to sea in our submarines, 27 will become SEALs or special operators, and 165 have become Marines. From our youngest graduates, to the Vice
608

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, your Naval Academy

graduates are engaged in every facet of the defeat of this implacable and determined

enemy, the elimination of terrorism, and the restoration of peace. In the months and

years to come, the leadership and fighting prowess of the graduates of your Naval

Academy will be profoundly and unambiguously demonstrated to the enemies of

America and to the opponents of freedom.

In this, and in the coming struggle, we always remain mindful of the silent messages so dramatically displayed on the monuments and the buildings of the Naval

Academy. From these granite words we draw strength and inspiration. Words such

as ‘‘Don’t give up the ship.’’ or ‘‘I have not yet begun to fight.’’ define who we are

and color our enduring role in the defense of America and its people. But perhaps

no message left for us by our alumni better embodies that for which your Naval

Academy and its graduates stand than that cast in the magnificent bronze doors of

our Naval Academy Chapel. They are ancient Latin words, Non Sibi Sed Patriae,

and are rendered not just in bronze, but are emblazoned on the heart and in the

soul of every graduate of Annapolis and translate as ‘‘Not for self... but for country.’’ Distinguished Members, your Naval Academy continues today, as it has for one

hundred fifty-seven years, to produce men and women of character and unimpeachable integrity to lead the Sailors and Marines of our naval service. We are tremendously grateful for your continuing support in so many areas and for your leadership in this time of national emergency. As we discharge our duties at the Naval

Academy, we will remain always faithful to our mission and to those silent, but all

encompassing words: ‘‘Not for self... but for country.’’

Colonel ALLEN. Thank you, sir. I’d also like to make some preliminary comments, if I may.

I speak to you this morning to tell you how great an honor it is

for us to come to the Hill and to speak to you about the Naval

Academy and this great institution—the great institutions of the

service academies.

Admiral Ryan asked me to extend his greetings to you, sir, and

his sincere thanks for the tremendous support of this committee,

to the Naval Academy, in so many ways—not just resources, but

in advice and other services that the committee has provided to us

for so long.

He asked me also to relay that last month we graduated nearly

1,000 Navy ensigns and Marine second lieutenants. We could not

be more proud of these young men and women and more confident

of their capabilities and role as they join the fleet and our operating forces, particularly to serve this Nation now in this time of

emergency.

And one of these fine graduates is with me today, Ensign Benjamin Drew, who will have an opportunity to speak in just a few

moments, sir.

Ensign Drew hails from Michigan and is a third-generation Jewish-American. He entered the Naval Academy with the Class of

2002 directly from high school. He has excelled in all facets of midshipman life, achieving a 3.83 in mechanical engineering over his

4 years, graduating 11th in his class.

Beyond that, Ben had an opportunity to serve as an exchange

midshipman with the Air Force Academy in the Service Academy

Exchange Program and will be attending, shortly, Georgetown University in the National Security Studies Program, eventually becoming a submarine officer in the United States Navy.

Ben is a prime example of the success the Naval Academy program continues to produce in the officers of our naval service, officers who are prepared for the rigors and for the challenges of leading sailors and marines in combat.
609

Now, the preparation of our officers is done through three main

mission areas: moral, mental, and physical development.

In terms of mental—or moral development, we recognize the imperative that men and women who lead in combat must possess the

moral authority to issue orders, which will sorely test the sailors

and marines that they will lead in the crucible of combat. This

plays in virtually every dimension of the academy experience today,

from the immersion of the midshipmen in leadership instruction, in

the honor concept, in ethics, to character development, seamanship,

tactics instruction, to the vital spiritual preparation of our young

midshipmen for their beliefs and their values.

In mental development, in the brigade this year, it was a year

of continued accomplishment. Our admissions process continues to

deliver some of the finest young men and women of America to Annapolis. And once these students arrive at the Naval Academy,

they are afforded one of the finest academic experiences an institution of higher learning can provide in America today. This year, for

example, the class of 2002 produced 27 midshipmen who will go to

postgraduate education, including a Rhodes scholar, Ensign Emmie

Spencer. And, as previously mentioned, Ensign Drew will continue

on to Georgetown University.

Also this year, we added a new academic major, a 19th major,

in information technology, and have done so in response to the

needs of our operating forces. We have incorporated significant information-technology components in our core engineering program,

and we ensure that all midshipmen will be able to continue to lead

in the expanding technology that will confront our forces in the future, sir.

The physical preparation of the midshipmen is the third mission

area and spans a wide range of activities, from individual physical

readiness, to leadership opportunities and intramural and club

sports, to Division 1A intercollegiate competition in 30 varsity

sports. And this year, Navy athletes won two-thirds of all of their

competition. The Navy produced five all-Americans, two academic

all-Americans, and four conference athletes-of-the-year and one

coach-of-the-year award.

While this was a year of accomplishment for the Naval Academy,

it was a different year for us, because it began with a national

tragedy unparalleled in its proportions in American history. Fifteen

Naval Academy graduates have already fallen in the opening attack and in the continuing operations in the continuing battle. Midshipmen understand that this enemy is bent upon nothing less

than the destruction of this country, its way of life, and its people.

In the class of 2002, nearly 1,000 graduates, entered the naval

service at the end of May to join this fight. And whether they’re

serving with the surface or the subsurface—the submarine forces

of our fleet, flying in naval aviation or leading SEALs or marines,

they are ready, and they’re determined, and they will not fail this

country or its people.

The remaining midshipmen in the brigade are preparing themselves morally, mentally, and physically for the challenges ahead,

challenges to their homeland and challenges to American interests

and our friends overseas. In the months and years ahead, you, Mr.

Chairman, Senator Cochran, the other members of the committee,
610

and the American people can continue to rely on the graduates of

the Naval Academy, like Ben Drew, to do their duty and to deal

swiftly and decisively with the enemies of this Nation.

In all this, again, sir, we are so grateful for the support of this

committee and of Congress and of the American people. We could

not be more proud of these midshipmen, of the officers that they

have become. And, again, sir, thank you for the opportunity for us

to come today to speak to you about the academy.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Colonel.

And now may I recognize Ensign Drew?

Ensign DREW. Thank you, Colonel Allen. Mr. Chairman, Senator

Cochran, I would like to sincerely thank you for this opportunity

to come before this committee and speak on behalf of the recently

graduated class of 2002 and relate my own experiences about the

U.S. Naval Academy.

Exactly 12 days ago, nearly 1,000 newly commissioned officers

became ensigns and second lieutenants in the United States Navy

and the United States Marine Corps, respectively. I can honestly

tell you that these are some of the most motivated, dedicated, hardworking, and altruistic young people that you will ever come

across. After 4 years by the bay, as we know it, they have challenged themselves mentally, morally, and physically, beyond their

limits to reach a new potential and to do what they came to do,

and that job is to lead.

As I sit here right before this committee today, I have classmates

who have already opted and eagerly accepted the opportunity to go

directly to their ship. I have other classmates who have eagerly accepted and relinquished all of their leave so they can go directly

to flight school, submarine school, and dive school so that they can

take part in defending this country.

As a third-generation Jewish-American, I have been indebted to

this country for my entire life, because it gave my grandparents

refuge after World War II. And I am honored today to wear this

uniform before you. That is just one story. That’s my personal

story. There’s 4,000 other midshipmen in the brigade that had

their own stories and their own reasons why they came to the

Naval Academy, which are just as good and better, just as influential and just as convincing.

Annapolis—the men of Annapolis and the women of Annapolis—

revere the 68,000 graduates who have preceded us. On May 24,

2002, when the newly commissioned officers accepted their diplomas, received their commissions, donned their new uniforms and

rank insignia, they accepted a commitment to this institution, to

the Naval Academy, to themselves, and to this country. And I assure you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran, as a representative

of my class, we will fulfill that promise.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Senator INOUYE. Ensign, I thank you very much, sir.

And now may I call upon the General?
611

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN R. DALLAGER, SUPERINTENDENT

ACCOMPANIED BY CADET FIRST CLASS TODD GARNER

PREPARED STATEMENT

General DALLAGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran. We appreciate the opportunity to tell you and America that you can be very proud of the cadets, the faculty and the

staff at your United States Air Force Academy.

And, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would request my

statement be inserted into the record, and I would just like to summarize a few of the major points.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection, so ordered.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN R. DALLAGER

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Mister Chairman and committee members. It’s an honor to be here

today to discuss the United States Air Force Academy and the people, programs,

and facilities we’re most proud of. As you know, many of our Air Force professionals

are presently deployed to remote locations around the globe defending our nation’s

security interests. Many of these individuals are graduates of the Air Force Academy. For almost 50 years the academy has been commissioning second lieutenants

into the Air Force. Officers who have gone on to win the Congressional Medal of

Honor, become Chief of Staff of the Air Force, hold public office, and die in defense

of this country. There’s a recipe for success at USAFA, and it includes the focus on

academic education, character development, athletic competition, and military training. Or as I like to refer to them: ‘‘brains, heart and soul, and guts.’’

OVERVIEW

This past year has been one of tremendous tragedy and perseverance. Ask any

graduate of West Point, the Naval Academy, or the Air Force Academy and they’ll

all admit their service academy experience was very challenging. Compound this already difficult challenge with the events of 9–11 and the security requirements following, and we have, I believe, entered a new era. Yet, much like our nation, the

officer, enlisted, civilian, and cadet populations never waivered, and became keenly

focused on the potential threats to our country and the ways and means to protect

it.

We just graduated over 900 second lieutenants dedicated to defending the Constitution of the United States of America. As Superintendent I can assure you they

are up to the task. The continued strength of America’s Air Force will depend on

our ability to recruit and retain quality people. Thanks to your and other Members

of Congress’ support, the Air Force Academy continues its tradition as a top tier

leadership institution and commissioning source. Thank you for your continued support.

BODY

Developing the brains, heart and soul, and guts of America’s youth is an institutional challenge to say the least. Yet, if I had to select only one thing I could highlight as being most proud of, it would be the caliber of graduates we commission

each year. I’d like to take a moment and touch on a few reasons why I feel this

way.

First, we start with the best and brightest. Our admissions experience has been

a college president’s dream, especially for the past couple of years. Competition for

nominations is keener than it has ever been both in terms of qualifications and

numbers of applicants. Acceptances of appointment offers remain at all-time highs,

and cadet attrition has been far lower than historic averages. That says good things

not just about the academy, but also the caliber, determination and patriotism of

America’s high school youth.
612

All of our academy programs are dedicated to building leaders of character for the

nation. We maintain a very challenging core curriculum, but it doesn’t stop there.

We exist to make our Air Force and nation better, and relevance is critical. For example, the academy was the first undergraduate institution to design, build, launch,

and command its very own satellite. The program, now known around the academy

as Falconsat was just an idea in one astronautics instructor’s head back in 1991;

but by 1995, 15 cadet astronautics majors ‘‘balloon launched’’ the first USAFA

spacecraft known as USAFASAT–B. Several successful balloon launches followed

and the lessons learned from these ‘‘near-space’’ flights led to the first ‘‘true’’ launch

of Falconsat I aboard a ‘‘minotaur’’ missile. Falconsat II goes up in January 2003

aboard the Space Shuttle with a USAFA graduate as pilot and a former USAFA

math instructor as mission commander.

On a similar note, USAFA cadet programs are impacting our fight against terrorism. As you know, the AC–130 gunship is a formidable weapon and has flown

over Afghanistan in that war. Despite its effectiveness, the modifications required

to make it as deadly as it is had a price in efficiency. The Air Force Academy took

on the challenge to reduce the gunship’s drag without moving anything, affecting

its functionality, or becoming ‘‘expensive.’’ Over a 4-year period, 36 cadets and an

aeronautical engineering instructor came up with a solution fitting these criteria.

Pending funding approval, when fully implemented, the modifications recommended

will result in a 30-minute increase in flying time and a 2,000-foot increase in ceiling—improvements positively affecting future operations. This program received

rave reviews from the cadets involved: their studies were more than mere theory

and hypothetical problems. They are solutions being used right now, in today’s Air

Force.

Speaking of today’s Air Force, it’s an expeditionary force with global reach and

global power. But how do you relate this experience and knowledge to 4,000∂ ca- dets? For several years now we’ve included a program entitled ‘‘Global Engagement’’

that gives cadets a taste of what life is like in a deployment situation. Global Engagement is an intense 9-day course, taught 6 times throughout the summer. In

these 9 days, under the supervision of officers and enlisted personnel (many from

the Reserve components), cadets construct, defend, and re-deploy an entire base.

They’re responsible for their own security, facilities, defense against attack, morale,

and welfare. If they don’t have a good plan, and fail to construct appropriate housing, then they have nowhere to sleep. If they fail to properly secure their perimeter,

a small aggressor force will succeed in a surprise attack, and if they’re unable to

properly configure their mess hall, then they go hungry until they get it right. This

program challenges the cadets’ abilities to absorb training and put it to use immediately. Nothing beats hands-on training and, in my opinion, this hands-on approach

to preparing our graduates for deployments is as close as you can get to operational

missions.

For you see, it’s all about leadership. The academy is often referred to as a ‘‘leadership laboratory’’ because the cadets run the squadrons, the groups and the wing

with supervision from active duty personnel. At each level they have cadet commanders and staff. All of these positions run for a single semester allowing as many

cadets as possible to experience the challenges of leading. The purpose behind our

leadership laboratory is to provide experience in a somewhat forgiving arena. I use

the word somewhat because there are definitely consequences for cadet actions.

They may not be commanding a fighter squadron or sending their troops into combat, but trust me, many of their decisions seem like life and death—especially those

affecting their peers.

As we all know too well, peer pressure can be a powerful thing, both positively

and negatively. At USAFA, character development programs educate the cadet wing

on how to handle peer pressure, and many other challenges to ethical decision making. For example, programs like our National Character and Leadership Symposium

(NCLS) invite speakers from around the country and the world to address character

issues to an international audience. This last year we hosted guest speakers from

senior military ranks, CEOs/presidents of private corporations, and professors from

other universities. Students traveled from as far away as Japan to attend the

NCLS. This program continues to grow, and with it its audience, benefitting many

more people than just the cadet wing.

Most of our other character development programs specifically target the cadet

wing. The Falcon Heritage Forum is a good example. In this program, distinguished

veterans are united with cadets to share experiences, mentor, and appreciate one

another. This link with previous generations provides tremendous understanding of

the honor, dedication, and selflessness required to serve in our armed forces. As it

turns out, the Falcon Heritage Forum is equally as popular amongst cadets and veterans alike.
613

Turning now to athletics, members of the Falcon football team and I were at the

White House less than a month ago to receive our 15th Commanders in Chief trophy. Air Force has provided a home for the CINC trophy for all but one year since

1989. Athletic competition is crucial to developing our future leaders. Our men’s and

women’s intercollegiate sports, our many and varied club teams, and the cadet wing

level intramural competitions all demand the pursuit of victory with honor—a lesson that serves our future leaders well.

The goal of athletics at the service academies isn’t so much to win games—it’s

a means to the much more important end of transforming cadets into officers who

will subordinate ‘‘self’’ to pull together as a team to accomplish the mission under

difficult circumstances. General MacArthur probably said it most eloquently: ‘‘On

the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that, upon other fields, on other days,

will bear the fruits of victory.’’ It’s a truism, but one well worth reminding ourselves

about; the pressures of competitive athletics are often regarded as the closest peacetime comparison to those experienced in actual military combat. In this pressurized

crucible, competitive athletics forges the high levels of individual character we expect—and demand—of our service academy graduates.

Now, let me take a moment and thank you and other Members of Congress who

supported our breaking ground on an important addition to our athletic facilities.

This new facility provides upgrades for both our men and women further fostering

development of traits such as: courage, aggressiveness, self-confidence, intensity,

and teamwork.

CHALLENGES

While the nation can be proud of all its military academies and their graduates,

there remain challenges we must address.

The nationwide shortage of science and engineering talent affects the Air Force

and the Air Force Academy in the sense that we have to compete for ‘‘blue-suit’’ instructors in these areas. Given the operational Air Force’s requirements for people

in the S&E area, we’ll almost certainly have to hire additional civilian professors

to teach. While they are outstanding teachers, what they cannot offer to the degree

uniformed instructors can is the mentorship that comes from being in front of a

class in uniform, bringing past military experiences to bear on classroom instruction. You teach subject matter by what you say, but inspire professionalism by what

you are.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and members, in its short history the Air Force Academy has established a tradition of producing quality leaders for the nation. One hundred and

sixty-two academy graduates have made the ultimate sacrifice in America’s battles.

Graduate valor and bravery have garnered this nation’s highest awards including

a medal of honor, 16 Air Force crosses, and 266 silver stars. Thirty-six graduates

have been POWs. Exceptional graduate leadership has saved lives and produced victories in conflicts around the globe. Our graduates have led and are leading the Air

Force—there have been 315 generals including 18 four-stars. Graduates have made

an impact in every walk of life. Many of our alumni are captains of industry—727

are presidents/CEOs of companies, 33 are astronauts, and over 500 are doctors. Others are lawyers, airline pilots, entrepreneurs, inventors, teachers, ministers, government officials, coaches, authors—and one, Heather Wilson, is the first female veteran Member of Congress. The long blue line is making an impact across society

and the Air Force Academy is proud of its living legacy.

The events of 9–11 were a watershed in our history. For the first time, our homeland faces a real and constant threat of attack. These are extraordinary times which

demand extraordinary leadership, not only to win the war against terrorism but to

guide our economy and inspire confidence in all sectors of society. The cornerstones

of the Air Force Academy experience—integrity, service before self, and excellence

are expected from all academy graduates. Now, more than ever, the country needs

leaders of character to lead the nation.

On behalf of the men and women who serve in America’s Air Force and sister

services, thank you for your leadership and superb support—and for the privilege

to appear before you today. We would be honored to host you at USAFA and share

with you the privilege of serving alongside America’s most precious treasure—its

sons and daughters—as we develop leaders of character for our Air Force and nation.
614

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN R. DALLAGER

Lt. Gen. John R. Dallager is Superintendent, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado

Springs, Colo. He directs a four-year academic, military training, athletic and character development program leading to a bachelor’s degree and commission as an Air

Force officer.

The general, a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, earned a

bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering in June 1969. He has served

in several United States, joint staff and instructor positions, as well as squadron,

wing numbered air force and combined/joint task force command positions.

A command pilot with more than 2,900 hours in F–4, A–10 and F–15 aircraft, he

has accumulated 600-plus combat hours over Southeast and Southwest Asia, and

Bosnia.

QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS

General DALLAGER. First, applications are up substantially. The

qualifications of applicants are at an all-time high resulting in an

extraordinarily competitive and extremely challenging selection

process. Appointment offers are being accepted at record-high

rates. For the past 2 years, attrition has been at record lows.

We just completed the selection process for the class of 2006,

which will arrive and start basic cadet training in just a couple of

weeks. We had 16,500 applications, up from around 9,000 last year.

The average combined scholastic assessment test (SAT) score for

selectees was 1,310, and the average high-school grade point average (GPA) was better than 3.9. Women will comprise 19 percent of

the class, and minorities will make up 18 percent. Both the women

and the minority admissions are up, continuing a trend that we’re

very, very proud of. Clearly, there’s an abundance of patriotic,

high-achieving, goal-oriented young people who are eager to learn

and earn their commissions and serve their country.

CURRICULUM REVISION

Secondly, we’ve just completed a thorough revision of our core

and our majors programs. They say it’s easier to move a cemetery

than to undergo a curriculum revision, but we felt it was essential

to do so to permit our time-challenged cadets to meaningfully integrate our exceptionally rigorous academic, military training, athletic, and character-development programs. I’m proud to say that

our Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Jim Roche, personally took part

in the process because of his fierce belief in the importance of education. The result, we believe, will be a better-balanced, more interdisciplinary curriculum that will, among other things, ensure enhanced technical literacy of all our graduates and increase our output of badly needed science and engineering graduates.

From our nationally recognized character-development programs,

to building and launching our own satellites, we have much to be

proud of. Our cadets are preparing for our wars of the future with

sister-academy competition in NSA’s highly technical cyber-war

program. And on the fields of friendly strife, we compete for the

coveted Commander-in-Chief’s trophy. Despite the traditional competition, we all realize that ultimately, we’re on the same team,

America’s team, fighting the same fight for national security.

The sky is the limit for our cadets, literally and figuratively. Our

graduates emerge as leaders of character and have achieved stellar

records in the military, in government, and in civilian life serving

our Nation.
615

When you think about what kind of young person typifies our future Air Force officer, you should think of outstanding young

women and men, like the cadet right here with me, Cadet First

Class Todd Garner, of Bettendorf, Iowa, our Cadet Wing Commander for the fall semester. There’s no doubt in my mind that

with the young men and women like Todd, preparing to serve their

country, our Nation will be in great hands.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have and, with your permission, would

like to turn the microphone over Cadet Garner.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, General Dallager.

And now may I call upon Cadet First Class Garner?

Cadet GARNER. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you and good

morning. I’d like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak before this subcommittee today. It is always a pleasure to have the

opportunity to express the awesome opportunities and experience

provided by the Air Force Academy.

With the graduation of the class of 2002, I can say firsthand that

the academy finished another year of producing nearly 1,000 extremely motivated and committed officers into the United States

Air Force. This year, with the class of 2003 at the reins, we hope

to go above and beyond 2002’s success in developing leaders for our

future Air Force.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY CADET WING

As the vision created by the United States Cadet Wing says, we

are the United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing, a wing

united and committed to carry on the honor, tradition, and sacrifice

of those who, inspired in spirit, came admirably before us. We take

pride in our academy and revere the privilege it presents us to

serve our Nation. We willingly accept the challenges ahead, and demand the passion and desire essential to overcome all obstacles

and break all barriers. We are the United States Air Force Cadet

Wing, and we will leave no doubt that we create the world’s finest

officer.

Again, I am excited to be here to express the awesome attributes

of the academy, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank

you.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Cadet First Class.

I decided to suggest to the committee that we have a hearing of

this nature, because these are the young men, the young men and

women they represent, who have said to us that they are willing

to stand in harm’s way to uphold and defend the honor of our country. I wanted the people of the United States to see why we are

spending their hard-earned tax monies.

Hardly a day goes by when I don’t receive a letter or a call telling us that we’re spending too much for defense. My response is

a very simple one. If any person is willing to stand in harm’s way

and give his life for this country, the least I can do is to provide

the best. And that’s what this committee is committed to doing.

And so, with that, I know I speak for all of the members of the

committee. We thank you very much, and we are extremely proud

of all of you.
616

RESPONSE TO BRANCHING QUESTION

Lieutenant Blickhahn, you’re in the infantry, aren’t you?

Lieutenant BLICKHAHN. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. I was told that the—of all the special services,

the infantry is not on the top of the list. Why did the number one

man pick the infantry?

Lieutenant BLICKHAHN. Sir, if you’re looking to lead soldiers and

to execute the Army, the infantry is the place to be. West Point

ingrains everyone into an understanding of the total Army picture.

I felt that the contribution that I could best give to the United

States Army, to America, is to be at the top of the spear being an

infantryman, making sure we take care of the business for America.

Senator INOUYE. As you know, I have something very personal

here. I was scheduled to become a member of the class of 1949 at

West Point, but the war came along and denied me that privilege.

But seeing all of you, it makes me feel good that I could have been

there, once upon a time.

Ensign Drew, you have been selected for the submarines?

Ensign DREW. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. You know that that’s top of the heap.

Ensign DREW. I am aware, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. I want to congratulate you, because I’ve been

told that to be selected as a member of a submarine, you must be

exceptionally good—not just disciplined and knowledgeable, but one

who is willing to live with other people under extraordinary circumstances. That means psychologically, you’re top of the heap

here, so congratulations. What made you select the submarines?

Ensign DREW. I’m sorry, could you repeat your question, Mr.

Chairman?

Senator INOUYE. What made you select the submarines?

Ensign DREW. Well, Mr. Chairman, during the second-class summer at the Naval Academy, I had the opportunity to go to Italy and

embark upon the U.S.S. Hartford, which was conducting dynamic

mixes with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a 30-

ship Italian operation, and I had an opportunity to see the

versatility of the submarine. I was very impressed with the mission. I was very impressed with it being covert, uncertain, and

stealth. And essentially everything on the surface is a floating target.

Beyond that, sir, the people, the enlisted sailors, are some of the

top-quality—actually are the cream of the crop of what you see in

the Navy. They are some of the most intelligent and hardworking

individuals—a lot of them have college experience, and generally

something went awry that led them to the Navy and to the nuclear

power program—and they’re incredibly capable and incredibly motivational.

And, finally, sir, the actual equipment, the submarine itself, is a

very exciting platform, being on it, being inside a closed, confined

space. It’s quite a leadership challenge, and I was—it was an overwhelming experience to be onboard it, and I would like to pursue

it.
617

Senator INOUYE. Cadet First Class Garner, what made you become what you are today?

Cadet GARNER. Mr. Chairman, I have a passion for flying. I have

a passion for this country. And I felt that there was one place

where I could do both to the best of my ability, and that was at

the academy. I came here, have been working my best, hope to get

out there, get a fighter jet, and then serve our Nation proudly.

Senator INOUYE. What do you hope to be flying?

Cadet GARNER. Sir, I hope to fly the F–16.

Senator INOUYE. He’s got it all selected.

Cadet GARNER. Now I just need some people to agree with me

on this one, sir.

Senator INOUYE. You want to try the F–22?

Cadet GARNER. That would be awesome, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Well, it’ll be ready for you.

Senator Cochran.

APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR SERVICE ACADEMIES

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I know

that there is not enough money appropriated every year to meet all

the needs of the service academies. And because of that, you’ve all

engaged in some fundraising activities among your alumni and

other friends of the service academies. Tell us about, each of you—

I hope you will give us an overview of what your program is in this

regard, and what it’s designed to do, and the nature of the success

that you’ve had so far in these efforts?

General LENNOX. Sir, that’s a great question. It’s not so much

that we have not gotten enough money. What we do is, we ask

from the Federal Government, from the departments, the money it

takes to make second lieutenants, and we get that money. The

Army, in my case, has been very supportive of providing us the

money that it takes to run the academy. What we look for is margin of excellence, the things that provide the cadets a broader experience, one step above.

Over the last few years, we’ve been able to raise about $200 million. Where does it go? It goes into facilities first—for example, the

football stadium, our marksmanship center, a gymnastics center, a

tennis center—giving us some of the best facilities in the college experience across the Nation. We also provide money for cadet clubs,

for the academic experiencing, sending cadets to 25 different countries around the world during the summertime for language immersion, for example. And, let’s see, a few of the other things that

we do with the money is providing cadets the broader experiences

they would not get in just the basic program.

Senator COCHRAN. One of my best friends back in Mississippi is

a graduate of the academy, Billy Munger, and he’s——

General LENNOX. Yes, sir.

Senator COCHRAN [continuing]. And he’s told me about his personal commitment to the academy and his efforts to encourage others to support the fundraising drive that you have going on. He’s

been a very generous supporter of the academy.

General LENNOX. Sir, he has been one of the best. And it’s people

like him who have given us that boost that we need to give these
618

cadets the broader experience that they need for confronting some

of the things that they’re going to see over the next few years.

Senator COCHRAN. Colonel Allen, tell us about the Naval Academy?

Colonel ALLEN. I’d like to echo General Lennox’s comments with

regard to the resourcing that we receive from the Government, that

we are well resourced, and, as a result, the fundraising in which

we are engaged—and I’ll use for an example the program we now

call the Campaign for Leadership for the Nation, which is a campaign—a 5-year campaign being run through the Naval Academy

Foundation. It permits us to provide excellence above the core to

the Brigade of Midshipmen. In particular, at this juncture, the

campaign’s objective is $175 million. We’re about $100 million into

the campaign at this point.

Some of the kinds of benefits for which we find that this money

can be of value to the academy is, for example, the Glenn Warner

Soccer Stadium, renovation for the football stadium, enhancements

to some of the academic experiences that the midshipmen have, the

funding of distinguished chairs amongst the faculty, conferences—

there’s a conference on leadership that has been very generously

funded by one of our benefactors.

So we recognize that there are so many magnificent young men

and women in America today who are making difficult choices with

the 4 years that they will spend in a college environment. And as

prestigious as the academy is, the added benefit of this public or

private giving, above the core, is excellent in helping us to attract

the very finest young men and women of the country to come to

the Naval Academy because they see the magnificent facilities that

can be achieved—or the potential that can be achieved through this

private giving.

As well, it also connects the citizens of the Nation to the service

academies, and we think that’s very important. And just as the

General said, someone who truly supports the academy is able to

demonstrate that support by generous support in many ways.

So we think that the private giving, in addition to the resourcing

that we receive from Congress, truly permits us to add the margin

of excellence to attract the very finest young men and women in

this country for future service as officers of the naval services and

the armed forces, sir.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.

General Dallager.

FUNDING FOR THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY

General DALLAGER. Senator Cochran, thank you very, very much.

I would echo my colleagues’ comments. One slight difference with

the Air Force Academy is that, of the three that are represented

here, we are the junior academy. We’re following in their footsteps,

in that we’re embarking on what we would call the ‘‘silent phase’’

now of the first-ever capital campaign that will occur in conjunction

with our 50th anniversary.

The themes, I think, are essentially the same at the Air Force

Academy. We receive tremendous support from our Nation through

appropriated funding.
619

PRIVATE FUNDING

As we look at the competition for men and women of the quality

who are represented here, I would offer to you that the competition

amongst the top-tier institutions in the Nation continues to get

tougher and tougher and more competitive. To maintain that margin of excellence that they’ve both suggested, we believe will take

Government funding. We also think there’s an opportunity there

for graduates and friends of the academy to help.

So this will span literally all four mission pillars at the Air Force

Academy—academics, athletics, character development, as well as

military training—to ensure that we are able to continue producing

the types of leaders that you can see we’re producing right now.

INCREASED ENROLLMENT

Senator COCHRAN. The Armed Services Committee, in its authorization bill, has a provision in there suggesting an increase in enrollment from 4,000 to 4,400 students per academy by the year

2007. What impact is this going to have in the current fiscal year’s

budget request? Are there going to be any additional needs for

funds because of this authorization, or is this something that will

be phased into your regular appropriations request over time?

General LENNOX. Sir, the military academy supported that provision, as long as it didn’t require us to do it by the deadline. Right

now, I do not have the space to expand to 4,400. I’m short barracks

space. I could probably go to about 4,200, but that’s all. Over time,

we will work on the barracks, and then we would be able to go to

that number later.

Senator COCHRAN. Okay.

Colonel Allen.

Colonel ALLEN. Sir, we have the existing infrastructure now to

go to 4,400. Back in 1986, in fact, the size of the Brigade of Midshipmen was 4,685, so we have the infrastructure for an expanded

brigade at this point. As well, with the numbers of magnificent

men and women who are applying to the academy, our admissions

can support it, as well, sir. So we can field a brigade of 4,400, sir.

Senator COCHRAN. General Dallager?

General DALLAGER. Sir, we are undergoing, in our dormitories

right now and for the next several years, renovation after—in the

case of the one dormitory, it’s about 40 years old now. It’s the first

time it’s had a renovation, and we are triple-bunking about onequarter to one-third of the cadet wing. That will be resolved probably in 2 to 3 years.

The Air Force is currently looking at the mix—we are just one

of three commissioning sources for our Air Force—we have Reserve

Officer Training Corps (ROTC), as well as the academy—and looking at the proper balance there. And then once they have determined whether they would like to retain the same mix or increase

some of those commissioning sources, then we would be able to

support that. But it would take a phased-in approach, and we

would then need the budget for that.
620

HONOR CODE-STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

Senator COCHRAN. My last question is for the current graduates

or students at the academy, and it relates to the military leadership training in character education that has made the service

academies quite distinctive, in my opinion. Could you tell us how

important you think, it is to involve the students in this process,

to give them responsibilities for helping enforce the provisions of

the honor code and the integrity of the individual students at the

academy?

Lieutenant BLICKHAHN. Senator Cochran, sir, the involvement of

the Corps of Cadets within the enforcement of the honor code is

critical to the success and the implementation of the honor code

itself. When the cadets have internalized it and when they own the

code, when they’re policing their own ranks, that’s where you see

the manifestation of all the ideas and theories about honor and

character—is when they’re actually executing it. And it’s that daily

habit of accountability, standards, and discipline that makes the

West Point graduate so inundated in the concept of the honor code

and become that leader of character when we graduate.

On a daily basis, our decisions, our time schedules, everything is

centered around the decision-making process and doing the right

thing at West Point. And I think for the cadets to own it and for

the cadets to be the enforcers of that code brings it down, internalizes it, and makes it personal for every cadet.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.

Mr. Drew.

Ensign DREW. Senator Cochran, the Brigade of Midshipmen is a

leadership laboratory. And that laboratory is run entirely by the

Brigade of Midshipmen. We have a chain of command that operates

everything from the honor concept to the adjudicatory authority on

conduct and minor offenses, and major offenses at times.

The point is—is that the midshipmen are in charge, and they

take an active role in the military professional development at formations, at training evolutions. They plan the training evolutions.

They plan the objectives for the year—the leadership objectives.

And the midshipmen are an entirely—it’s in their hands to make

a difference and to do what they want. And they do a great deal

at this time.

In addition, we also police our own, and we also enforce our own

standards, and not only by learning about it in the classroom, but

by actually demonstrating in Bancroft Hall, on the athletic fields,

doing different obstacle courses and different training evolutions.

We actually have an opportunity to internalize what we learn in

the classroom. And it is up to the midshipmen to cultivate themselves and develop themselves into the officer, as well.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.

Mr. Garner.

AIR FORCE HONOR SYSTEM

Cadet GARNER. Senator Cochran, just like the other two academies, our honor system is completely cadet-run. We do everything

from the actual initial allegations to the clarifications to the actual

board, and we take it very seriously. This is something that we
621

have a lot of respect for, and which we really feel is extremely important to the success of the academy. It teaches us not only to

make tough decisions, but to hold each other accountable for tougher situations, for instances where it might not be so clear. It tells

us that we are here, we are making decisions, we are responsible

for those decisions, and, when it comes down to it, we can trust one

another, we can count on one another, and we will be officers who

take accountability for their own actions.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

TECHNOLOGY AND THE SERVICE ACADEMIES

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. And if I may, now I’ll ask a few

technical questions.

Recent events in Afghanistan have demonstrated to us that our

military is becoming highly dependent upon technology. At the

same time, we have seen statements and articles suggesting that

the service academies may not have been up to par in preparing

our young students to meet the needs of this day. Is there any justification to that?

General Lennox.

General LENNOX. Sir, none at all. Right now, we have a core curriculum that includes the engineering aspects, math, science, as

well as the humanities. Every graduate has a background in technology. We’ve just reviewed the curriculum. We’ve opened up more

humanities courses because of the kinds of things that you saw in

Afghanistan, but each graduate will have that engineering, math,

and science background. And, in fact, we added another information-technology course.

If you take a look at some of the competitions over this past year,

whether it was math modeling or the NSA’s competition, all three

academies have been in the running there. I see no problem in the

technology area for our graduates.

Senator INOUYE. Colonel Allen.

Colonel ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the Naval Academy produces

about two-thirds of the technical degrees, the annual accession of

young officers into the Navy and the Marine Corps, so we believe

that we are, in fact, on the leading edge of the technical preparation of the young officers for their challenges, their leadership challenges, in the operating forces and in the fleet.

And, as I have mentioned in my statement, sir, this year we have

added a 19th major, a major in information technology (IT), which

will have 10 additional core courses added in that major. Plus, we’ll

have five, what we call, secondary-discipline courses, which all

other midshipmen will have the opportunity to take. Plus, we’ll be

expanding information-technology opportunities in other aspects of

our curriculum. So the midshipmen are, in fact, exposed significantly—and certainly with the advent now of the 19th major in

IT—to the challenges of information technology.

As well, we’re in the process of the renovation of Luce Hall,

which is the center for our professional development. And when

Luce Hall comes out of renovation, we will have a new networkcentric operations center, which will, in many ways, give us added

capability to—for the midshipmen to be trained and educated in

the principles and processes of network-centric warfare, which, of
622

course, is the way by which the fleet and the Navy prosecute warfare in conjunction with the Marine Corps today and in joint operations.

So we believe that we do, in fact, prepare the midshipmen technically for the challenges of the Navy and the Marine Corps. Very

importantly, though, we also believe that the moral preparation

that they receive and their personal dedication to physical development, prepares them very well, sir, at the accession level, and, of

course, prepares them with habits of leadership and dedication for

a lifetime in their career. So we believe that the academy is, in

fact, answering the needs of the Nation technically, morally, and

physically, sir.

Senator INOUYE. General Dallager.

AIR FORCE ACADEMY TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM

General DALLAGER. Mr. Chairman, I would echo my colleagues’

comments. We, too, have a broad-based core every academy cadet

goes through that is 55 to 56 percent technically oriented—math,

science, physics, chemistry—and ultimately every graduate from

the Air Force Academy graduates with a Bachelor of Science. That

is significant.

One of the areas of particular concern to us is the relevance of

the instruction we’re providing. And I’ve already mentioned the

fact that we have had cadets who have designed, built, launched,

and controlled their own satellite. They will be doing something

similar this coming January on a shuttle launch, where the pilot

is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, and the

commander of that shuttle, which will launch this satellite, was a

math teacher several years ago at the Air Force Academy. They

work things such as drag reduction on unmanned aerial vehicles.

Cadets and faculty worked together to do some drag reduction on

the AC–130 gunship, which most of you are familiar with and

which has been used extensively in Afghanistan that will increase

the ceiling as well as the time over target, which is critical in areas

like Afghanistan, for example.

So we believe that we are very focused on the technical aspects—

information technology, information operations, information warfare—and it’s important, as the other academies do, to look ahead

10 to 15 years and to focus our educational efforts on what we

think will be the technology and the facility with that technology

that officers will need to have in the future.

ADMISSION STANDARDS FOR ATHLETES

Senator INOUYE. Recent press articles have been very critical of

admissions standards for athletes by service academies. If you care

to, I’d like to get your comments.

General?

General LENNOX. Sir, our admissions process looks at the wholecandidate score. That score examines a high school or a candidate’s

academic background, athletic, and leadership qualities—about 60

percent academic, about 30 percent leadership, and about 10 percent athletic. Our athletic department is one of 15 departments

that sit on the admissions committee.
623

All people coming into West Point are qualified at the beginning.

All candidates have been qualified. We don’t use the concept of

waivers. So—and, in fact, over the last 3 years, we’ve reduced the

number of recruited athletes coming in, focusing—to be honest, focusing more on the athlete who can play the sport and perform

academically at the academy.

So I’ll tell you that our athletes are not a problem area. Some

of them are at risk, but they are no more at risk than some of the

other areas that we recruit, possibly some of the minority areas. So

I would say it is not a problem at the Military Academy.

Senator INOUYE. Colonel?

Colonel ALLEN. I would echo the comments of General Lennox,

sir. The athletes who come to the Naval Academy are—fall within

admissions standards upon entry, sir. They adhere to the standards of the institution while they are members of the Brigade of

Midshipmen, and they meet the standard for graduation when the

time comes. Just as any other potential candidates who come to the

Naval Academy, should we elect—or should we detect that someone

needs additional grooming or additional opportunities to learn

something in the line of chemistry or calculus, we have other options—foundation private schools where we might suggest that an

entering candidate could receive an additional year after graduation from high school for preparation for the very demanding technical education of the Naval Academy. But upon their entry to the

Naval Academy, they fall within admissions standards, sir.

Senator INOUYE. When the academy requested that your star

quarterback be kept for another season, was that because of academic standing?

Colonel ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the academy did not request that

he remain another season.

Senator INOUYE. Well, maybe the football team.

Colonel ALLEN. I think he might have wanted to stay another

season, sir, but we did not countenance a request for that midshipman to remain another season or another year, sir.

Senator INOUYE. General Dallager.

RECRUITMENT OF ATHLETES

General DALLAGER. Mr. Chairman, we, like the other academies,

recruit scholar athletes. The classes that have entered in the last

several years rank in the top 14 percent across the Nation, using

the whole-person concept. So we’re very, very interested in their

academic capabilities, their leadership and extracurricular activities, their character, as well as their athletic abilities. Approximately 85 to 86 percent of the young women and young men over

the years that come to the Air Force Academy have lettered in at

least one sport during their high-school career. So, again, it does

emphasize the whole-person concept.

SCHOLAR-ATHLETE SCHOLARSHIPS

As an indicator of the success of that program, the National Collegiate Athlete Association (NCAA) awards postgraduate scholarathlete scholarships, and the Air Force Academy ranks number

two, behind only Stanford, in the total number of recipients during

the years those have been presented.
624

Again, I would echo the sentiments of our colleagues. We believe

that athletics is absolutely essential for a well-rounded officer, particularly individuals who will be entrusted with people’s lives and

have to make decisions, sometimes under the stress of combat. And

one of the great venues for cultivating and honing those skills is

on the fields of friendly strife.

ACADEMY STANDARDS

Senator INOUYE. Then I would say that you would agree that the

athletic programs do not in any way dilute the standards set by the

service academies?

General LENNOX. Sir, our athletes are all qualified to come to the

military academy.

Colonel ALLEN. Sir, they enhance the experience at the Naval

Academy.

General DALLAGER. I would agree with both those comments.

Senator INOUYE. Then, once again, in behalf of the committee, I’d

like to thank all of you and tell you how proud we are to have you

serving us and leading us.

It should be noted that less than one-half of 1 percent of the people of the United States step forward to take the oath and say, ‘‘We

are willing to stand in harm’s way.’’ When you consider that less

than one-half of 1 percent defend the honor of this country, it’s

awesome. And you are the heart of that 1 percent—the one-half of

1 percent—and we depend much upon you, and we just hope that

the training we have provided you has not only been adequate, but

the best available.

But before we call a recess, Senator Cochran, do you have any

further questions?

Senator COCHRAN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we’ve been reassured this morning, and impressed with

the quality of the statements and testimony we’ve heard. And I just

want to add my thanks to all of you for the hard work you do and

the great job you do in helping to ensure that we are capable of

defending our country.

Senator INOUYE. Gentlemen, yours is an awesome responsibility,

training our Nation’s future leaders. And listening to all of you, I

can say that I can go to sleep tonight much more soundly.

To our students and recent graduates, naturally we say congratulations. We wish you the very best in the years ahead. We expect one day that you’ll be called upon to testify before us, because

many of the academy graduates become the highest offices. Right

now, the Army Chief of Staff is an academy grad. And I believe the

same thing is with the Navy. And so it is not farfetched when

someday the Chief of Staff may be a man named Blickhahn, or the

CNO maybe someone called Drew, or the Chief of the Air Force

may be someone called Garner. And, in fact, I’d be willing to put

my money on that.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]
625

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM J. LENNOX, JR.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

CADET EXPOSURE WITH THE USNG AND USAR FORCES

Question. What exposure do the Cadets have with the National Guard and Reserve Forces? Is there an appreciation for the many capabilities that these forces

bring to the table and is there an adequate amount of time given to developing a

working relationship between the Cadets and Midshipmen and the National Guard

and Reserve Forces?

Answer. USMA Cadets are exposed directly to the Army Reserve, who provide instruction to the cadets during their Military Science education and Cadet Field

Training. Cadets gain an appreciation of the Army Reserve and Army National

Guard during Military Science education when introduced to the Total Army and

the contributions of the Reserve Component towards the Army mission and National

Defense. An appropriate amount of time is allocated on this subject. During Cadet

Summer Training, all cadets are introduced to the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship by a reserve training battalion. The Military Academy has also had cadets participate in its Troop Leader Training Program with reserve units. Additionally, West

Point has a Army National Guard officer assigned to the Academy, who is fully engaged in cadet activities—to include coaching the Army Rifle Team.

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO COLONEL JOHN R. ALLEN

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

MIDSHIPMEN EXPOSURE TO NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

Question. What exposure do the Cadets and Midshipmen have with the National

Guard and Reserve Forces? Is there an appreciation for the many capabilities that

these forces bring to the table and is there an adequate amount of time given to

developing a working relationship between the Cadets and Midshipmen and the National Guard and Reserve Forces?

Answer. Midshipmen receive exposure to the reserve forces primarily through the

Merchant Marine Individual Ready Reserve Group during ‘‘youngster’’ (sophomore)

training cruise on the yard patrol (YP) craft. During the summer, approximately 15

of these individuals volunteer to perform as safety officers aboard the YPs. The

skills that they bring to the training program are invaluable since many have been

employed as pilots in the areas that the YPs visit. Additionally, a few reservists are

actively involved with the sailing program during the summer. Academically, there

are several instructors who are reservists that have been called to active duty to

teach. Although they do not specifically teach topics about the National Guard and

Reserve Forces, they interact with the midshipmen on a daily basis. In the Strategy

and Tactics course, the reserves are addressed in a case study of Operation Desert

Storm. The case study discusses the large numbers of reserves that were mobilized

and some of the roles that they filled. Additionally, a proposal is being reviewed that

would establish a reserve unit at the Naval Academy to support the YP training

during the summer.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN R. DALLAGER

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

CADETS AND MIDSHIPMEN

Question. What exposure do the Cadets and Midshipmen have with the National

Guard and Reserve Forces? Is there an appreciation for the many capabilities that

these forces bring to the table and is there an adequate amount of time given to

developing a working relationship between the Cadets and Midshipmen and the National Guard and Reserve Forces?

Answer. The short answer is that there is good—and growing—exposure to the

Air Reserve Component (ARC), appreciation for their capabilities, and working relationship with these forces. Moreover, we plan to continue to expand this relationship

in light of the current indispensability of the ARC to the national defense.

In the fall of 2001, the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) began to examine how to improve our interaction with the Air Reserve Component (ARC). Our

goal is simple; better prepare cadets for the ‘‘real’’ Air Force where the ARC is an
626

equal partner in the daily execution of the Air Force mission. We began a multipronged approach and have already made measurable, reportable progress.

In order to improve the exposure cadets have to the Guard and Reserve we have

established an ARC Support Office in Harmon Hall (USAFA headquarters building)

manned by two experienced ARC Colonels, one each from the Air Force Reserve

Command (AFRC)—an Academy grad, and the Air National Guard (ANG). Concurrently, we began adding ARC members (primarily pilots) to the faculty, 34th Training Wing and Prep School staffs. We employed a process where we recalled ARC

personnel to Extended Active Duty (EAD) in tours ranging from two to four years.

These people will primarily be full-time instructors working for the Dean. Deploying

ARC members serving on EAD tours fulfills two key objectives: first, we are increasing the rated presence in the classroom as role models to our future Air Force leaders; second, we are exposing the cadets to outstanding examples of the ARC. This

second objective can be summarized by a comment in a recent staffing package entitled ‘‘Developing the Air Reserve Component Vision at the USAF Academy.’’ In addressing the needs of the cadets for increased knowledge of the ARC, it stated, ‘‘The

one effective way to improve their knowledge is through direct, routine contact with

the ARC, similar to what they will experience in the Air Force after graduation.’’

Aggressively using tools available, including the EAD approach, we will achieve increased Total Force integration and thereby awareness and appreciation of the ARC

role in the Air Force and the nation’s defense by our cadets.

A final note on the status of the EAD program: Although we are in the early

stages of the EAD program, we have already added seven AFRC and two ANG officers to our team. An article was recently published in the June 2002 edition of Citizen Airman magazine that recounts the journey of two AFRC members who have

recently joined the USAFA faculty. The web address is: http://www.afrc.af.mil/hq/

citamn/jun02/academy.html. As we continue to evaluate the requirements in the

classroom and couple that need with our desire to grow the ARC presence at the

Academy we will continue to seek nominations from the Guard and Reserve for

qualified instructors. We currently have an additional five positions advertised. The

advertisements are located on the ANG web site and other locations. The ANG web

address is: http://www.ang.af.mil/OM/career/Recall%20Vacancies/

eadadvertisements%20default.htm

The first exposure to the ARC is the interaction of United States Air Force Admissions Liaison Officers (ALO) with prospective candidates. Out of the 1,900∂ ALOs,

over 800 are primary duty, Category E (CAT E, [non-pay, retirement points only])

reservists assigned to the 9001 Air Reserve Squadron, HQ ARPC. Many others are

CAT A and B Reservists or National Guardsmen, who perform ALO duties as additional duty volunteers. These officers provide information about Air Force educational opportunities to high school counselors and administrators in all 50 states

and several overseas locations. They explain U.S. Air Force Academy and Air Force

Reserve Officer Training Corps programs and admissions procedures to young men

and women potentially qualified and interested in an Air Force career.

USAFA’s rated officer presence has declined due to Air Force wide rated management issues. This situation has required the 34th Operations Group (OG) to increase the use of both officer and enlisted reservists to relieve the manning shortfalls in their airmanship programs and associated staff duties to accomplish the

mission. Currently, the 34 OG’s robust reserve program stretches over four squadrons and currently has 37 reservists actively participating. The trend would indicate

continued growth. The 34 OG’s airmanship programs motivate and inspire USAFA

cadets to make the crucial decision to attend undergraduate pilot training (UPT).

Currently 42 percent of Air Force UPT students come from the Air Force Academy.

Reservists provide the much-needed manpower in all of the 34 OG programs, including scheduling in airmanship programs, managing flying hours program, tours, orientation rides, and tandem jumps.

Air Force Reserve members provide critical management to numerous programs

within the 34 Operations Support Squadron (OSS). Many of these programs were

previously non-existent due to the 34 OSS’s limited rated presence and other manpower shortages. For example, a Reservist serves as the Pegasus program manager.

Pegasus is an ‘‘operationally geared’’ orientation flight program for Air Force Academy cadets serving to motivate future officers toward rated careers. Another critical

area for a safe flying training operation is the Cockpit Resource Management (CRM)

program. Here again a Reservist created and maintains CRM periodic training

courseware and collects trend data thereby ensuring compliance with all Air Force

CRM regulatory guidance. As with all Air Force flying operations, there is an active

Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) program. Again, a Reservist established and

manages the 34 OG BASH program. A Reservist also functions as our primary

ground safety officer implementing all 34 OG ground safety programs.
627

94 Flying Training Squadron (FTS) Reserve augmentation accounts for over 50

percent of Supervisor of Flying (SOF) staffing levels, ensuring airfield safety and

program effectiveness for Airmanship 251, 461, and advanced programs. Reservists

serve as instructor pilots for the ‘‘Soar For All’’ program, teaching cadets the basics

of flight and culminating with a solo in a glider. Reservists support staff training

deployments, competitions, and Higher Headquarters taskings and serve as the core

of experience in many of the 94 FTS flying programs.

Reservists assigned to the 98 FTS serve as AM–490 (Basic Parachute Course) instructors, UV–18B Twin Otter pilots and parachute riggers. They serve to elevate

the 98 FTS experience level and contribute continuity and quality to the flight and

jump operations. Reservists actively augment several high-visibility training deployments.

In the 557 FTS Reservists provide augmentation for squadron’s safety and standardization and evaluation programs for their Initial Flight Training (IFT) program.

Reservists provide recent Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) experience to enhance the cadet’s understanding of the future UPT environment.

The Department of Civil Engineering is particularly successful in blending academic instruction on the ARC with the establishment of working relationships. For

example, our Civil Engineering Senior Seminar (CE 405) last spring, both the ANG/

CE (Col Jan Stritzinger) and the AFRC/CE (Col Jon Verlinde) presented a lesson

on the mission of the ANG and AFRC civil engineers and how they fit in the total

force mission. All 66 of our civil and environmental engineering majors from the

Class of 2002 attended the class.

Additionally, we get great support from the AFRC and ANG each year providing

CE and Services NCOs to serve as mentors during the Field Engineering and Readiness Laboratory (FERL) portion of our 5-week summer course. This year we have

91 students (77 USAFA, 12 ROTC, and 2 West Point cadets) enrolled in the course.

Twenty active duty, two AFRC, eighteen ANG NCOs and four civilians serve as

mentors to the cadets, leading them through numerous construction activities

(house construction, concrete placement, asphalt roadway, surveying, operating

heavy equipment, etc.). The Buckley ANG (140 FW/SV) unit cooks the meals in

Jack’s Valley for our cadets and mentors for the three weeks at FERL. Through this

program, our cadets get an appreciation of the skills and abilities the AFRC and

ANG folks bring to the fight. CE 351 is our cornerstone CE course to give the cadets

a hands-on feel for what CE and construction is about before they begin the last

two years of course work as a Civil or Environmental Engineering major.

The Global Engagement (GE) training exercise is the annual bare-base exercise

experienced by third-degree cadets each summer. In the exercise, cadets learn the

basics of deployed operations during five ten-day rotations. Each group of 200 cadets

learns how, (many for the first time), to survive in a deployed environment. In all,

over 1,000 cadets will receive the training. There are 33 associate instructors supporting GE and of that number, four are members of the 951 Reserve Support

Squadron, AFRC, Dobbins AFB GA. Last year members of the 140FW/SF (Security

Forces) CO ANG were members of the cadre. The continued support of the ARC has

been crucial to the successful outcome of Global Engagement exercise through the

years.

The Department of Philosophy’s instructors occasionally use the Guard and Reserve to make points about military ethics. Every USAFA cadet must take Philosophy 310, ‘‘Ethics’’ a course that focuses on moral issues in war-fighting and professional military service. Each year about 30 cadets choose to take a follow-on elective

course entitled ‘‘War, Morality, and the Military Profession.’’ Instructors sometimes

explore the roles and founding philosophies of the National Guard and the Reserve

to illustrate concepts taught in these courses. For instance, an important principle

in what’s called the ‘‘Just-War Tradition’’—a centuries-old but living system of principles intended to ensure that war is ethically commenced and prosecuted—is usually called ‘‘right authority.’’ Among the questions this principle helps answer is,

‘‘Who may, with moral authority, order forces into combat?’’ Activation and deployment of Guard and Reserve assets offer valuable cases in point for discussions of

this principle. Cadets who at first do not see a substantive moral issue in the War

Powers Act may suddenly ‘‘get it’’ whey they’re asked to explain why a state governor can’t order his Guard forces to deploy to Afghanistan. Class discussions might

then turn to broader questions—e.g., if troops have been illegally deployed, are any

actions they undertake necessarily immoral? Sometimes an instructor will choose to

discuss questions surrounding the concept of the citizen-soldier—e.g., whether a professional (full-time) military is necessarily less connected than a conscript, Guard

or Reserve force to the ethics of its parent society and thus more likely to act in

ways the society would consider immoral. (The alleged disconnect between the ethos

of the U.S. society-at-large and the U.S. military is something of a hot topic; cf.
628

Ricks’ ‘‘The Widening Gap between the Military and Society’’ in The Atlantic Monthly, July 1997, or Halberstam on Mogadishu in War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals, Scribner 2001.) All sections of the core course spend significant time considering the extent of the military member’s obligation to service and,

if necessary, sacrifice. (Is an enlistment a ‘‘contract’’ with built-in limitations, or is

the call to service absolute? In discussions of this and similar questions, the actions

of Guard and Reserve members provide useful case studies—e.g. in instances of

‘‘failure to go’’ during Desert Shield).

The Department of History’s core course, History 202, ‘‘Introduction to Military

History’’, addresses the historical development and expanding role of United States

Guard and Reserve forces, air, land, and sea. Starting with lessons on 18th century

colonial America and the Revolutionary War, the course describes the origins of the

Minutemen and the development of America’s citizen army. Further lessons trace

changes in the American military throughout the early part of the 19th century and

focus subsequently on the American Civil War. The use of state militias, irregulars,

and volunteers between 1861 and 1865 is introduced to cadets. Our students learn

about what one historian has identified as ‘‘the American Way of War.’’ This refers

to the uniquely American approach to conflict characterized by citizen-soldiers,

rapid mobilization, industrial strength, overwhelming power, decisive victory, and a

return to civilian life. With several lessons devoted to the wars of the 20th century,

our cadets are exposed to the increasing role of American National Guard forces as

they were called up and integrated into a globally deployed military. The last lessons of the course cover post WWII developments, the Cold War, Vietnam, the Gulf,

and more recent conflicts. Cadets are fully apprised of the contributions of Guard

and Reserve personnel and, in particular, understand that the reserve component

carries out a huge percentage of our war fighting and contingency missions. We feel

that it is important to devote in-class time to discussion of the ARC as well. Fortunately, their ubiquitous use in the history of American warfare and their unique nature as ‘‘citizen-soldiers’’ provide rich examples for instruction.

The Academy’s three reserve legal functions provide direct mission support as

well as instruction to cadets. The 10th Air Base Wing Legal Office has five reserve

attorneys who provide services ranging from environmental law to legal assistance,

including military justice. The law department has two reserve attorneys who teach

courses to cadets. The Headquarters legal office has two attorneys who provide services ranging from constitutional law to senior management legal counseling on A–

76 procurement issues, utility privatization and legislative initiatives. The seamless

integration of the reservists into Academy operations not only directly benefit the

Academy, but provide career incentives to the reservists who develop the skills necessary to assume active duty mission elements when required by AEF rotations.

The Chaplains at the Academy depend on reservists (both ANG and AFRC) to

augment our staff during periods of surge activity. During the summer over 20 reservists support not only the arrival of the new class of cadets, ministering to their

spiritual needs at this sometimes stressful period of their young lives, but continue

in place, many for a month or more to support the Basic Cadet Training (BCT) activities in the field. A typical ARC contingent would involve six chaplains representing a diversity of faiths and one or more enlisted Chaplain’s Assistants.

The events of September 11 had a dramatic impact on the Academy’s deliberate

and systematic ARC integration plan intended to improve our working relationship

with ARC forces. The Academy needed to add capability, primarily to our security

and medical forces, and we needed to do it immediately. The ARC responded with

39 officers and 33 enlisted members serving in both long and short tour capacities.

The integration process was smooth as our new colleagues joined the rest of the

team in the performance of critical tasks thereby allowing the Air Force Academy

to remain focused on our number one mission, taking our Nation’s best and brightest and producing second lieutenants. The rapid surge capability demonstrated by

the ARC provided additional assurance that we were on the correct vector in embracing this new relationship. Based in part on our early successes, but also because

we know that it is the correct approach, we are seeking additional nominations for

Air Officers Commanding (AOCs), Faculty and Training Wing staff members from

the ANG and AFRC.

The important bottom line to this answer is that we are being aggressive and rapidly pressing ahead with our ARC Vision to enhance the Total Force experience of

our Cadets. Again, the goal is simple and to the point: ensure that our Cadets have

a seamless transition from the Air Force Academy to the operational Total (Air)

Force.
629

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. So, with that, we thank you all very much for

your testimony, and we wish you godspeed.

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Wednesday, June 5, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 12.]

(631)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 9:50 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye and Domenici.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. BUTLER, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. First, my apologies. I just had an emergency requiring medevacing a patient I hope you will understand.

Good morning. Today the subcommittee will receive testimony of

members of the public who have petitioned the committee to be

heard. The right of the public to petition the Congress is one of the

most sacred of our country’s promises. It is a right that helps ensure our democracy remains strong, and we have traditionally

ended our annual hearing process with public witnesses, and today

we continue that tradition.

We have received and granted the request of 37 witnesses to testify. Because of the large number, we would ask that you try to

limit yourselves to about 4 minutes, if that is possible. However,

your complete statement will appear in the record, and I can assure you that I will read every one of them.

Let me assure you that the committee will review your statements, and before we begin I should tell you that, at this moment,

there are eight committee hearings going on. This is just one of

them. As a result, the members on this committee are the chairmen of other committees, and they have their responsibilities. So

with that, may I proceed by calling our first witness, the deputy

legislative director of the National Association for Uniformed Services, Mr. Benjamin H. Butler.

Mr. Butler, welcome, sir.

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am also

a retired U.S. Marine and master gunnery sergeant, and I am representing the National Association for Uniformed Services today,

and we are very grateful for the opportunity to testify before you.
632

We know that Congress has not passed the authorization bill yet,

but we understand it calls for a fully funded defense health budget.

We greatly appreciate how this committee has always funded our

health care, and especially appreciate this committee’s support for

the TRICARE for Life and Senior Pharmacy program. In light of

this, I would like to bring your attention to some of our medical

care issues of interest for this year.

During recent hearings, a major topic of discussion has been the

Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs (DOD–

VA) sharing. We believe that improved cooperation will save funds,

but we have the following recommendations. First, we do not want

to see unification of the budgets. The budgets should be kept separate, with memos of understanding at sharing sites. We think the

joint procurement of medical equipment and drugs is a good idea,

because such purchases would benefit from economy of scale to

save money in both systems.

Development of a uniform claims and billing system would greatly benefit DOD–VA sharing initiative. It has been our long-time

hope that part of the growing costs of medical treatment in both

DOD and the VA could be paid by improved billing of private insurance companies and authorizing payment by the medicare system, commonly called medicare reimbursement or subvention.

Numerous attempts to allow retirees to use their medicare benefits and the Military Treatment Facility (MTF’s) have failed. In

part this failure has been called because various systems do not

share the same system for claims and billing. Since one of the primary systems for all medical claims in the country is medicare, if

DOD and the VA adopted the standard industry claim system, all

parties such as private insurance companies, the DOD, VA, and

medicare would know what medical services, pharmaceuticals, laboratory services and so forth have been provided, thus making better use of scarce appropriated funds.

On another topic, the law enacting the TRICARE for Life program requires medicare part B enrollment for participation. In addition, part B is required for all retirees reaching age 65 on or after

April 1, 2001 for them to participate in the new pharmacy program. Although we believe in the principle that the military benefits should stand alone and not require part B participation, the

part B will save the TRICARE for Life program funds. However,

we believe that requiring part B for participation in the pharmacy

program does not result in significant savings, and creates a hardship for some beneficiaries and should be eliminated. In addition,

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 their medicare benefits overseas, we recommend

that this requirement be eliminated for all retirees residing overseas.

Some retirees who live near military installations did not enroll

in part because they believed that they would receive care at the

hospitals and clinics located on the military bases, which later

closed. Many are in their seventies and eighties now, and to enroll

would require them to pay huge penalties. While we certainly understand that this is going to cost money, we recommend that those

who relied on these hospitals and were 65 on or before the date
633

TRICARE for Life was enacted be allowed to participate in

TRICARE for Life without enrolling in part B medicare. We think

it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,

the funding and implementation of TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy program has had a significant positive impact on our

military retirees at a time when they need it the most. As we travel throughout the country and visit with retiree at Retiree Days,

we find that they are very appreciative of these new programs. We

greatly appreciate your part in this. We want to thank you for your

continued support on these additional key issues.

[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 current and future issues of

defense funding.

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 passing

landmark legislation last year 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.

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 location supports this goal. In light of these overall objectives we would request that

the committee examine the following proposals.

UNIFORM CLAIMS 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. In part this failure has been caused we believe 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 DVA adopted

the Medicare claims system ALL parties—Private Insurance Companies, DOD, the

DVA 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 DVA

hospital or clinic the facility receives nothing from Medicare to help pay for that

beneficiary. Of course, the people sworn to protect the Medicare trust fund like the

situation as it is. And who can blame them? However the financially strained medical systems of the VA and DOD should receive some of the support their patients
634

have paid. Again, if DOD and the VA adopted Medicare’s billing system it could support an effective attempt at subvention.

THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AS A TRICARE PROVIDER

At this time 80 percent of Veteran Affairs installations are nominally TRICARE

providers in the TRICARE Networks. However, last year TRICARE paid only $3.7

million to VA facilities for care provided to TRICARE beneficiaries. Part of the problem is clearly the previously discussed failure to have one system of Medical Record

keeping and one method of claims and billing. Therefore, the change suggested

above to follow Medicare’s claims and billing system could alleviate some of the

problems. It is also crucial to solve this problem so that the VA can qualify to be

a TRICARE for Life provider. It could be a way to help improve coordination and

predictability as well as a cost saving for both the DVA and DOD if the VA became

a qualified Medicare provider. If this was accomplished then Medicare Part A or

Part B would be first payer and TFL would pay the rest. This could be a serious

stream of money (primarily from Medicare) to the VA for non-service connected

treatment that the VA provides to military retirees. But unless and until the VA

qualifies as a MEDICARE provider this is not possible. Since the door has been

opened to coordinate Medicare payments and TRICARE by the coordination of their

benefits in TRICARE for Life this would be a coordination that should make sense

for all three Departments and would most importantly, improve the treatment of

many beneficiaries.

JOINT MTF/VISN/TRICARE CONTRACTOR PROJECTS

When looking far into the future we can see coordinated networks for a region’s

Military Treatment Facility (MTF), its Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN)

and the civilian TRICARE contractor. This would actively use the VA as a provider

of specialty health care, save money for DOD and plan a core of coordinated services. A test program in the Central TRICARE region called the Central Regional

Federal Health Care Alliance has just been rolled out to look at, and coordinate

areas of practice including possibly: ‘‘catastrophic case management, telemedicine,

radiology, mental health, data and information systems, prime vendor contracting,

joint provider contracting, joint administration processes and services and education

and training.’’ The governing board’s members of this experiment include DOD’s

Lead Agent for the Region, VA’s VISN Director and the president and CEO of the

Region’s TRICARE Contractor. If this plan succeeds in improving the health care

of the beneficiaries and, hopefully, saving money for the taxpayers perhaps its form

can be transported or modified for other regions.

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. Although we believe in the principle that the

military benefit should stand-alone and not require Part B participation, the Part

B will save the TFL program funds. However, we believe requiring Part B for participation in the pharmacy program does not result in significant savings and creates a hardship for some beneficiaries, and it should be eliminated. In addition,

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.

Some retirees who lived near military installations did not enroll in Part B because they believed they would receive care at the hospitals and clinics located on

the military bases, which subsequently closed. Many are in their 70’s and 80’s now

and to enroll would require them to pay huge penalties.

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.

MILITARY HEALTH CARE IN PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS

The TRICARE benefit in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is different than that

provided in the United States. NAUS believes that the TRICARE triple option benefit should be implemented in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in the same manner that it is being offered in the United States. Further, the FEHBP Demonstration program has been highly successful in Puerto Rico and is due to end on 1 Janu-
635

ary 2003. NAUS strongly recommends that the FEHBP demonstration in Puerto

Rico be extended and made a permanent program.

INCLUDE PHYSICIAN AND NURSE SPECIALTY PAY IN RETIREMENT PAY 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.

Results of a recent survey of military urologists 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.

More than half of mid-level military urologists (5–15 years of service) have not made

their future career decisions. The survey also showed that 83 percent of senior military urologists, those with over 15 years of service, plan to retire at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, prompt action to retain these and other highly skilled medical

professionals is needed.

NAUS recommends that prompt action be taken to improve these special pays and

to include them in the retired pay calculations.

END PREAUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS/NON-AVAILABILITY STATEMENTS FOR TRICARE

STANDARD

When the TRICARE program was begun beneficiaries understood that options

would include a fee-for-service plan (TRICARE Standard), a preferred-provider plan

(TRICARE Extra) and an HMO (TRICARE Prime). However, TRICARE standard is

not a fee-for-service plan. Beneficiaries who use the TRICARE Standard plan must

obtain pre-authorizations to obtain care out of the Military Treatment Facilities or

the networks. TRICARE Standard should be a true fee-for-service plan and no

preauthorization or non-availability statement should be required.

FEHBP

The NAUS has been a long time supporter of legislation that would provide military personnel the option of participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit

Program. Currently, a bill introduced in the 107th Congress, H.R. 179, would provide that option. NAUS believes that FEHBP should be an option for all uniformed

service beneficiaries. We are confident that the TRICARE program and the

TRICARE for Life program will be successful. Further, because they are an outstanding value for most beneficiaries, they will be the health plans of choice. However, in a few cases, the TRICARE/TRICARE for Life options may not be the best

choice, or may not be available; and 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.

SUMMARY

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 INOUYE. Well, I thank you very much, sir. I can assure

you that this committee will do its utmost to meet your requests.

That is the least we can do. Most people do not realize this, but

our military is made up of volunteers, and all of them have taken

the oath to stand in harm’s way in our behalf if such be necessary,

and anyone who is willing to stay in harm’s way in my behalf, as

far as I am concerned, you deserve the best.

Secondly, we have the problem of recruiting and retention, and

if we do not provide the wherewithal, then I do not expect the

young men and women to volunteer, so we are quite sympathetic

with the problem. We will do our very best, sir. Thank you very

much.

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
636

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the associate professor of

psychology at George Mason University, representing the American

Psychological Association, Dr. Stephen Zaccaro.

STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN ZACCARO, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF

PSYCHOLOGY AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF

THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. ZACCARO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Dr. Stephen

Zaccaro, professor of psychology at George Mason University, and

a researcher who studies leadership, leader development, and team

effectiveness in military contexts. I am testifying today on behalf

of the American Psychological Association (APA) a scientific and

professional organization with more than 155,000 psychologists and

affiliates.

While I am sure you are aware there are a 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 the national defense, particularly with support from the Army

Research Institute, the Office of Naval Research, and the Air Force

Office of Scientific Research.

As a member of the larger scientific community, APA joins the

Coalition for National Security Research and over 40 scientific associations and universities in urging the subcommittee to provide

DOD with $11 billion for 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 level research in fiscal

year 2003, or 3 percent of the overall Department budget. This figure also is in line with the recommendation of the Independent Defense Science Board, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the

House and Senate Armed Services Committee. We strongly urge

the committee to direct a small portion of the proposed increases

for national security activities to these Science and Technology

(S&T) research accounts to achieve the $11 billion funding target.

Beyond the overall S&T budget, the behavioral research programs within the military labs need your continued attention. In

1999, the Senate requested from the Department of Defense a report on the behavioral, cognitive, and social science research in the

military due to your committee’s ongoing concerns about the erosion of DOD’s support for research on individual and group performance, leadership, communication, human-machine interfaces,

and decision making.

In the final report, the Department found that, quote, the requirements for maintaining strong DOD support for the behavioral,

cognitive, and social science research capability are compelling, and

that this area of military research has historically been extremely

productive, with a particularly high return on investment and high

operational impact, end quote.

My own research on leadership has been funded by the Army Research Institute (ARI). The focal point and principal source of this

expertise for all the military services. Identifying, nurturing, and

training leaders is especially critical to the success of the military,

as war-fighting and peace-keeping missions demand more rapid adaptation to changing conditions, more skill diversity in units, increased information processing from multiple sources, and increased interaction with semiautonomous systems.
637

The ARI budget for fiscal year 2003 will sustain the Army’s current investment in leadership and cognitive readiness research, but

APA is very concerned again this year that both the Office of Naval

Research and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research appear to

be eliminating entire lines of applied human-centered research in

fiscal year 2003. Given the current global climate, this is not the

time to zero out research in human factors and training that is

mission-specific to the military, and we urge the subcommittee to

request further clarification from the Navy and the Air Force and

reinstate their budgets for 6.2 and 6.3 behavioral research.

Clearly, psychological scientists address a broad range of important issues and problems vital to our national security, and we ask

you to support the men and women on the front lines by supporting

human-oriented research.

Senator INOUYE. We shall most certainly discuss this matter

with the authorities, as you suggested, and we will do our very

best.

Dr. ZACCARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN ZACCARO, PH.D.

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. Stephen Zaccaro, Associate Professor of Psychology at George Mason University, and a researcher who

studies leadership development and team problem solving in military contexts. I am

submitting testimony on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA), a

scientific and professional organization of more than 155,000 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), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Air Force Office

of Scientific Research (AFOSR). I would like to address the proposed fiscal year

2003 research budgets for these three military laboratories within the context of the

larger Department of Defense Science and Technology budget.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) RESEARCH 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 billion for 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 level research in fiscal year 2003 (or 3

percent of the overall department budget). This figure also is in line with the recommendation of the independent Defense Science Board, the Quadrennial Defense

Review, and the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
638

As our nation rises to meet the challenges of a new century, including multiple,

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 become only more vital over the next several decades. Accordingly,

DOD must support basic Science and Technology (S&T) research on both the nearterm 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 declined in constant dollars during the last decade. This decline poses a 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 billion in fiscal

year 2003 in order to maintain global superiority in an ever-changing national security environment. We strongly urge the Committee to direct a small portion of proposed increases for national security activities to the core S&T research accounts

to achieve the $11 billion funding target.

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 encourages the Committee to provide, at minimum, increases at

the level of inflation for behavioral science programs within the three Service research laboratories.

Within DOD, the military service laboratories provide a stable, mission-oriented

focus for science and technology, 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 be able 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). Our past investment in basic research in particular is responsible for the dramatic increases we have seen in our

military capabilities—and yet basic research continues to be a target for cuts and

elimination. Especially at the 6.1 and 6.2 levels, research programs which are 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:

‘‘ilitary 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 ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (ARI)

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 non-
639

commissioned officer job demands, thus strengthening the backbone of the servicethe 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.

THE 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.

THE AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (AFOSR)

AFOSR behavioral scientists are responsible for developing the products which

flow from manpower, personnel, and training and crew technology research in the

Air Force, products which are 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 recent cuts to the Air Force behavioral research budget, for example, 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 supporting the human-oriented research within the laboratories and universities.

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 three military research laboratories: the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Army Research Institute, and the Office of Naval Research. Given the increasingly complex

demands on our military personnel, psychological research on leadership, decisionmaking under stress, cognitive readiness, training, and human-technology interactions have become even more mission-critical, and the Committee strongly encourages the service laboratories to fully fund their behavioral research programs.
640

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness represents the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International. Major General Paul Weaver, (Ret.).

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PAUL WEAVER, (RET.), ON BEHALF

OF THE JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL

General WEAVER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank

you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify before you this morning. As you know, I have had the privilege of appearing before this

committee numerous times over the last 8 years in my capacity as

the Deputy Director, and then as the Director of the Air National

Guard. You have been more than gracious with your support in our

efforts to have the Air National Guard as the most effective and

sought-after reserve component force in our Nation, and I cannot

thank you enough. You all made it happen, Mr. Chairman.

I come to you today, obviously, as a civilian who retired after 35

years of military service with a plea to ask for your support and

assistance in a cause that became very personal to me on January

1 of this year. On that day, my wife, Kathy Lee, behind me, and

I took our 21⁄2-year-old daughter Julia, with us here today, the

youngest of our eight children, to the emergency room at Mary

Washington Hospital, Virginia. That date really changed our lives.

A few days before, when we sought and received medical assistance for her, we were told she had all the signs of the flu, which

was prevalent at that time. We were told to treat her with all the

normal precautions for a young child, drinking plenty of fluids and

so on. For 3 days, her conditioned worsened to the point that a

weight loss became very noticeable, and she was losing mental

awareness of her surroundings.

On New Year’s Day morning we noticed a severe degradation of

her overall health. 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 her condition was grave,

and that he was not sure that she was going to make it. Julia, who

we called the Precious, needed to get into a pediatric intensive care

facility immediately. The closest available was Walter Reed, here

in the District. the attending physician said the only chance she

would have would be to be transported by helicopter ambulance,

and then he said that would be a long shot.

The chopper arrived a short time afterwards, and Julia was put

on the chopper with the staff, not allowing us to proceed with her

because of the lack of space in the chopper. We prayed to our Lord

Jesus Christ to bless her and keep her safe. As the chopper lifted

off, I could never explain the feeling in our hearts that we may

never see our little girl alive again.

We were told that upon her arrival at the pad at Walter Reed

Medical Center, a flurry of activity by the crack and professional

staff kicked in. We arrived approximately 2 hours later by car to

find her alive, barely, with multiple tubes and IV’s coming from her

little body. She was in the intensive care ward for approximately

2 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.
641

I made a commitment to God that if I could ever do anything to

help in finding a cure for diabetes, I would do that, and so, Mr.

Chairman and members of this committee, that is why you see me

before you today. I am pleading for your help and assistance in

honoring the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s request for

funding for $3 million for the technologies in metabolic monitoring

that are known as TMM at the Department of Defense.

My daughter’s daily regimen with juvenile diabetes begins in the

morning with a finger prick to test her blood and her first shot of

insulin of the day. At lunch she will have her blood tested again,

usually followed by another insulin injection. Prior to dinner, the

same protocol takes place, and then again at bedtime. At 3:00

every morning we test her blood again to make sure her blood is

within range, never quite knowing what to expect, whether we will

need to give her an insulin shot if she is too high, or a glass of orange juice to bring up her glucose level from going too low. In a

nutshell, Julia has her fingers pricked about five to eight times a

day, and receives two to four shots a day, Mr. Chairman.

Just briefly, let me explain how technologies in metabolic monitoring, better known as TMM, could help greatly and be of benefit

to all members of the Armed Forces, something I know a little bit

about, as well as you. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s

interest in technologies in metabolic monitoring arises from the

needs of men, women, and children with diabetes who must endure

four to six finger pricks a day to regulate their blood glucose levels.

TMM would noninvasively monitor diabetes metabolism, and would

allow individuals with the disease to ultimately improve the control

of fluctuations in their blood glucose levels, potentially reducing the

severity of complications such as kidney failure, blindness, nerve

damage, amputation, heart attack, and stroke.

I cannot overemphasize enough the need to control the fluctuations of a person’s blood levels. The greater the fluctuations, the

more severe consequences will occur for the individual in later life.

You simply cannot control these fluctuations unless you can continually monitor them.

The development of TMM would also have a significant application in protection the men and women of the Armed Forces. It will

monitor more than just glucose levels for diabetics. TMM could potentially monitor metabolic products of personnel in the field to determine health status and accurately communicate this information. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it would provide an ability to respond quickly in the field by also providing technology that would

enable us to deliver drug treatments and nutritional supplements

that may be required by our personnel.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for your support from the bottom of my

heart to not only assist our daughter, Julia, but thousands like her

who are afflicted with this disease. I ask your generous support in

assisting our Armed Forces in advancing the technology that will

have the potential of saving lives on the battlefield. Let my daughter, Julia, and so many like her help in aiding our brave young

men and women who are on the front lines today in our war on

terrorism. No funds are too great for their sacrifices being made

today.

God bless you, Mr. Chairman.
642

Senator INOUYE. General, I am going to do whatever I can, and

when we do, it will be called the Julia Weaver Foundation Fund.

General WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. God bless you.

Senator INOUYE. You will get it.

General WEAVER. Thank you, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION

INTERNATIONAL

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International (JDRF) thanks Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens and the Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this testimony in support of $3 million in research funding to allow

the Department of Defense (DOD) to continue and expand the Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring (TMM) Initiative, the goal of which is to identify and expand research areas that have direct impact on the ability to monitor, understand and predict metabolism with special emphasis on issues associated with diabetes.

APPLICATIONS

JDRF’s interest in this technology arises from the needs of men, women and children with juvenile, or insulin dependent, diabetes, who must endure four to six finger pricks a day to test their 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, 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 $105 billion per year, and its financial impact is so severe that one out of four Medicare dollars and one out of ten

health care dollars overall are 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 16 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 the field, but may not be aware of their risk due to medical problems. In fact, it is an alarming statistic that most wartime deaths occur

due to medical problems, caused by environmental stress and illness, rather than

to enemy attack.

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.

One example of the potential value of this technology would be in the monitoring

of astronauts when they are in space for several months. During this time, astronauts are at risk for illness due to disease or environmental stresses, such as temperature extremes, vacuum or sleep deprivation. This technology would provide continuous and real-time measures of health, and a means to intervene if stress or illness is detected. NASA also foresees applications to utilize this technology to conduct research on the development and sustenance of life in extreme environments.

Thus, this technology has a potential application as a more efficient and effective

means to protect the health and safety of both civilians and the military by detecting abnormalities early and providing real time information that could be acted

upon therapeutically. Such a device would ultimately improve the lives and health

of both civilians and the military.
643

PROGRAM STATUS

The Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring (TMM) Initiative was established in

2001 by direction and with the support of Congress and close involvement of several

agencies including JDRF, the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Institutes

of Health (NIH) and NASA. We want to extend our appreciation to the Subcommittee for their support of this initiative.

The fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $2.5 million was used to establish the Department of Defense Research Program in Technologies for Metabolic Monitoring,

which is managed at DOD by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC). Ultimately 5 applications addressing aspects of metabolic monitoring were funded in fiscal year 2001.

With the additional $2.5 million in congressional appropriations secured for fiscal

year 2002, the TMM Initiative will solicit research programs that aim to identify

potential new metabolic measures of diabetes that can be adjunct measures to glucose, ultimately potentially increasing the sensitivity of glucose measure.

The TMM Initiative held a workshop meeting May 21st–22nd, 2002, which was

attended by approximately 70 researchers from the sensors community encompassing academia, industry, the military and space researchers. Through a series

of short research presentations the meeting provided an overview of the ‘state of the

art’ of current research in metabolic monitoring as well as a focus on problems that

had been encountered. Metabolic sensing of glucose, the gold standard measure of

diabetes metabolism, was a key area of focus. Others addressed metabolic monitoring in aeronautical and military scenarios. The meeting increased awareness in

the research community of the TMM Initiative and the key needs for sensors in diabetes, the military and NASA. An important accomplishment of this meeting was

that it brought together researchers from a very broad range of backgrounds to discuss common problems and develop new ideas because of these interactions.

The fiscal year 2002 Technologies for Metabolic Monitoring Request for Proposals

(RFP) was finalized and made public at the end of May of 2002. The 2002 RFP is

intended to provide seed funding for proof of concept studies. Collaboration between

military, NASA, academics, and/or industry is encouraged and all persons are eligible to apply.

REQUEST

JDRF requests funding for this program in fiscal year 2003 at $3 million to enable

USAMRMC to expand this research and develop a broad program that includes military, academia and industry researchers. A $3 million appropriation will allow

USAMRMC to fund this crucial outside research and capitalize on the opportunities

provided by the fiscal year 2002 funding.

Considering that this funding could ultimately save the United States billions of

dollars in health care, improve the quality of life for 16 million Americans with diabetes, and better protect the lives of our men and women of the armed forces in

the field, we believe that this is a worthwhile investment for the Department of Defense.

Thank you for considering this request.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the director of marketing

and communications of the Air Force Sergeants Association, Command Sergeant (Ret.) Richard M. Dean. Command Sergeant.

STATEMENT OF CMSGT RICHARD M. DEAN, (RET.), DIRECTOR, MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION

Sergeant DEAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. First off I want

to thank you for this opportunity before this committee, and I want

to thank you for the tremendous support this committee continues

to provide for increased pay and allowances, enhancements of military health care, increased educational benefits, and enhanced reserve component benefit for active duty and retired military personnel.

Everything is in the written testimony, but there are a couple of

items that I would like to highlight. The first is, as you said earlier, our military personnel are engaged all over the world in police
644

actions, they are rooting out terrorists, and providing humanitarian

relief missions wherever they are needed. These deployments are

really stretching the forces thin, as we all know, and as they are

deployed more often away from their families the support system

that is left at home becomes even more critical, and the systems

I am talking about are the commissaries, the BX systems, the educational and job opportunities for dependents. We would ask you

fully fund these programs and not make any reductions in these

programs.

For military pay for enlisted personnel, last year the targeted

pay increases did a lot to decrease the gap between the enlisted

and the officer pay charts, and we ask that you continue the targeted pay raises to decrease that gap, because the enlisted personnel in our military forces today have stepped up. With the decreased manning they are assuming positions of greater responsibility, many that were held by commissioned officers in the past,

and they are also increasing their education tremendously so that

they can better perform their jobs out there, so we ask that you

continue the targeted pay raises for the enlisted personnel.

Military health care, you have done a great job in funding the

health care programs for the military, especially the TRICARE for

Life and TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program. What we would ask

is that you continue to do these and prevent any increases in copay

or reductions to the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program or the

TRICARE for Life program.

As far as retired pay, we ask that funding be provided to restore

full military pay compensation, along with concurrent VA disability

compensation to retirees, and for the Air Force Reserve component

members we ask that funding be provided to provide adequate

health care, full benefits, comparable retirement benefits similar to

the active duty, all of which are critical to providing a strong and

ready militia.

For this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. DEAN

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, on behalf of the 135,000

members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for the tremendous support this committee continues to provide in increased military pay and allowances,

overall benefit increases, enhancement of military health care, increased educational

benefits, an increased focus on the needs of military reserve component members,

and support for military retirees who are also disabled as a result of their military

service. We also thank you for this opportunity to offer our views on the 2003 funding efforts needed to assure the quality-of-life of our Armed Forces, thereby improving recruitment and retention goals in an effort to ensure the defense of our country. Of course, your task is especially critical this year as we wage a war on terrorism while, at the same time, working to enhance quality-of-life programs.

In this testimony, we will limit the focus to items directly related to quality-oflife issues for active duty Air Force, Air Reserve Component, and retired members

and their families. Those items are overall quality-of-life, workload vs. available

workforce, military health care, housing and housing allowances, pay, and retirement benefits.

THE QUALITY OF THE MILITARY LIFE

The men and women in the Armed Forces work very long and hard hours in extremely difficult environments to protect this nation. They are generally selfless and

devoted to get the job done—often to the detriment of their own well-being while

sacrificing many things the average American citizen often takes for granted. Espe-
645

cially with Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle, military forces today

face significantly greater missions with considerably fewer people, increasing family

separations, a decline in some health care programs, deteriorating military housing,

diminishing opportunities for educational benefits, and still sizable out-of-pocket expenses with every military member relocation. It is amazing that so many continue

to selflessly serve in the Armed Forces. They obviously do so because of their dedication to a higher, patriotic ideal. Another factor in today’s environment is the increasing reliance on reserve component military members, and the extraordinary sacrifices they make in balancing their civilian jobs and long-term call-ups to military

duty. While all of these issues are important, the paragraphs below will highlight

several areas you will consider as you develop the appropriations for fiscal year

2003.

WORKLOAD VERSUS AVAILABLE WORKFORCE

As a result of our Armed Forces members’ efforts, we have witnessed the fall of

the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of the United

States as the world’s only true ‘‘super power.’’ Of course, as those memories and

challenges fade into the past, we now have entered a new era of military challenges.

Clearly, our National Strategy is no longer one of projecting America’s military force

only in support of our ‘‘vital national interests.’’ We are now, instead, globally engaged in police actions, rooting out terrorists where we can find them, and in humanitarian efforts (military operations other than warfare) around the world. As

you are well aware, this has taken a tremendous toll on maintaining an all-volunteer force, because instead of decreasing the workload commensurate with the decrease in personnel, the workload has increased to provide support for those expanded operations. Global military missions (with far fewer people) have increased

several fold while manpower has decreased by almost half. The results are not only

an increase in deployments, but also an increase in responsibilities of those left behind as they now must assume even more tasks because the job that needs to be

done at home must continue to be accomplished. Added to this is the increased burden of providing for the quality of the lives of military family members who require

additional support as military members deploy for longer periods of time. In that

environment, programs such as family support and morale welfare and recreation

programs, military commissaries and exchanges, educational and job opportunities

for family members all become even more important.

These programs will only remain viable if manning levels are increased to parallel

tasking. The Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act called for more

base realignments and closures to eliminate unnecessary infrastructure and transfer

the assets (people, equipment and money) to remaining bases. If this is in fact done,

it would decrease the workload and lessen the pace of deployments. If this transfer

of manpower is not done, more and more military members will leave, and fewer

and fewer people will choose to enter any of our Armed Services. This is a situation

we have created, and it is one we can and must correct.

At a minimum, we urge this subcommittee to fully support the manpower required both to maintain our military missions at home, to carry out the war of terrorism and other obligations abroad, and to provide for the unique manpower requirements of the reserve component as a result of the call-up of over 80,000 Guard

and Reserve members to successfully executive Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom.

MILITARY PAY AND COMPENSATION

Continuing to build on the gains made in the fiscal year 2002 Authorization, it

is important to realize that the work is not finished. We applaud the pay adjustments made, especially for enlisted members who receive relatively lower pay, but

they are only the first step in accurately adjusting the pay charts. Also, annual minimum military pay raises through the year 2006 a half percentage above the Employment Cost Index continues to send a strong signal to those serving in our

Armed Forces. However, there are some realities which must be examined about the

way we pay our military members—especially the enlisted members. There are two

pay charts for the military: one for commissioned officers, and a significantly lower

one for enlisted members. The net effect of across-the-board pay raises over the

years has served to pull these charts further apart while the manpower reductions

have placed more and more responsibility upon the shoulders of the enlisted force.

As AFSA representatives visit Air Force bases around the world, they run into innumerable cases where relatively low-ranking enlisted members are handling technologically awesome tasks. In addition, many positions previously held by commissioned officers are now held by enlisted members. The responsibilities of these con-
646

verted positions, often involving life or death decisions, have not changed; only the

pay grades of the persons now making those decisions have changed. Not only have

the mid-to-upper grade NCOs assumed many tasks formerly handled by commissioned officers, they often train junior commissioned officers.

While at the same time facing the same ‘‘economic survival’’ challenges as the

commissioned officers, the enlisted members have not only accepted the burden of

increased responsibility, they have become increasingly educated in an attempt to

adequately carry out those responsibilities placed upon them. In fact the most recent quadrennial review report has highlighted the need to increase enlisted pay

commensurate with increased responsibility and education levels. This subcommittee can help make those necessary adjustments.

It is time that military compensation be re-examined and a new model must be

established to remove the disparity between the officer and enlisted compensation

tables by moving them closer together to accurately reflect the changing enlisted

roles in relation to the overall military establishment. No longer should we have to

discuss ‘‘military poverty.’’ We would urge this subcommittee to establish minimum

military pay levels above the poverty level. Recent targeted enlisted pay raises supported by this subcommittee have greatly helped. We ask that you support or exceed

full funding for the targeted raises indicated in S. 2514, the fiscal year 2003 NDAA,

as it has developed through the Senate Armed Services Committee. These continuing pay adjustments will aid tremendously to help sustain an enlisted force.

We sincerely appreciate the good work of this subcommittee in protecting those

who serve by providing increases in military pay. We ask that we continue to build

on past achievements by:

—Fully fund a 4.1 to 6.5 percent military pay raise for fiscal year 2003, with

weighting toward middle- and senior-enlisted grades.

—Establish a new model for military pay recognizing modern enlisted responsibilities.

—Establish minimum pay and compensation levels to place all members above

the national poverty level.

—Fund increased BAS rates to enlisted members assigned to single quarters without adequate availability of a government messing facility (S. 2514, Sec. 602).

HOUSING AND HOUSING ALLOWANCES

A military member’s residency location is dictated by a number of factors, usually

not by the member’s choice. Those deploying, of course, live where (and under whatever conditions) the location of the mission dictates. At home base, factors include

the member’s rank, the number of family members (if any), the availability of onbase housing, dormitory space, and other factors. Those living on base generally face

a variety of models of on-base housing ranging from a half-century old, to very modern structures. Some homes meet the quality muster—some are substandard. In an

effort to achieve efficiencies, DOD has entered into arrangements with private industry for the construction and maintenance of on-base facilities. The goal of construction outsourcing and privatization is to cut down on the backlog of the number

of homes that are dilapidated and which must be upgraded or replaced. AFSA supports this effort toward privatization with the caveat that we must ensure that privatization should not infringe on any military benefits or cause more out-of-pocket

expenses for the military member.

For those who must live off-base, the provision of the Basic Allowance for Housing

(BAH) is intended to account for the average of 85 percent of the members out-ofpocket housing expenses. This committee has recently taken strong steps to provide

funding to achieve that goal. Indeed, BAH is based on an independent assessment

of the cost of housing for given areas based on certain parameters, including an arbitrary standard of housing (square footage, number of bedrooms, and whether an

apartment/townhouse or stand-alone dwelling) determined by rank. Unfortunately,

under the BAH standard, the only enlisted grade authorized a stand-alone dwelling

is the very highest grade of ‘‘E–9.’’ AFSA supports full funding of BAH, but maintains that BAH has created significant consternation among the military members

because of the unrealistic standard used to determine where enlisted military members may live. Their allowance generally dictates the neighborhoods where they reside and the schools their children may attend. Ironically, in order to protect their

families from the limitations of the standard, enlisted members—especially the midto lowest-ranking (who are obviously paid the least)—must expend additional outof-pocket dollars. A fact of the military institution is that privileges and benefits increase following the achievement of higher rank; however, BAH needs to be restructured to protect all military members and their families regardless of the member’s

rank.
647

To improve housing and housing allowances, we ask this committee to:

—Ensure that military members’ housing and housing allowances are adequate

to cover actual housing costs.

—Restructure BAH to provide adequate housing in safe neighborhoods with quality schools for those members who must live off-base.

—Modify the housing standard that determines square footage, number of bedrooms, and apartment or stand-alone dwelling to more closely coincide with average private sector standards.

MILITARY HEALTH CARE

Military health care and readiness are inseparable, and military members and

their families must know that no matter where they are stationed or where the families live, their health care needs will be taken care of. In recent years, this subcommittee has made significant contribution to restoring funding of military health

care programs, providing TRICARE Prime Remote to active duty family members,

eliminating TRICARE Prime co-payments for active duty family members, and providing the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy and TRICARE for Life programs. We ask

that full funding is provided to support comprehensive, low-cost pharmaceuticals for

military health care beneficiaries. Further, that full funding is provided to support

military health full usage of military medical facilities and to support the manpower

needed to service all beneficiaries. The health care benefit is absolutely critical to

readiness for those currently serving. It is also an earned career benefit for those

who have served—a strong, clear message that this committee has continued to

send through its support of these programs.

We ask the support of this committee for the following health care concerns.

—Provide full funding to support comprehensive health and pharmaceutical care

to all beneficiaries.

—Support TRICARE eligibility of dependents residing at remote locations after

the departure of the sponsor for unaccompanied assignments (S. 2514, Section

703).

—Establish continuing eligibility of surviving dependents for the TRICARE Dental Program benefits (S. 2514, Section 701).

—Establish funding for full Reserve health care and for research related to warfield environments in light of the high rates of deployment as part of Operations

Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom.

RETIREMENT BENEFITS

One of the values of the enlisted corps—before ‘‘core values’’ were buzzwords—was

‘‘service before self.’’ Thankfully many military members took this value seriously

and decided to remain in the service to their country because of patriotism, their

desire to make a difference in the world, and their dedication to and pride in their

country. Regretfully, their country has not shown a reciprocal dedication to many

of those who gave so much in defense of this country—those being the members who

retired after 20 or more years of honorable service with a service connected disability. Retired members in this category have their retirement pay reduced dollarfor-dollar for each dollar they receive in veterans disability compensation.

It is AFSA’s position that ‘‘retirement pay’’ is for extended and honorable service.

It is also our position that ‘‘veterans disability compensation’’ is compensation for

decreased functionality or suffering as a result of that service. We do not believe

these two in any shape, form or fashion—regardless of the math used—equate to

using the same period of service for similar benefits. Retirement pay and disability

compensation are not similar benefits, they are as different as daylight and dark.

Armed Forces’ retirees see a disgrace in their country asking them to pay their disability compensation for injuries sustained in the defense of their country!

We ask this committee to support, at a minimum:

—Appropriate to support the funding parameters indicated in the Senate Budget

Committee report for fiscal year 2003, and S. 2514, the fiscal year 2003 NDAA,

to phase-in restoration of retired pay for those with VA service-connected disability ratings of 60 percent or higher. While this association supports full retired pay restoration regardless of VA disability level, the phase-in of full retired pay for those with the highest disability ratings is a good first step.

SURVIVOR PROGRAMS

Our members greatly appreciate the provision in the fiscal year 2002 NDAA extending Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) eligibility to members killed on active duty, regardless of years of service. This action corrected a long-standing inequity. But more

still needs to be done. Before age 62, SBP survivors receive an annuity equal to 55
648

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 in the middle of the game.

Thus, thousands of retirees signed up for the program in the belief that they were

ensuring their spouses would receive 55 percent of their retired pay for life. They

are further dismayed to find out that widows who earned Social Security through

their own earnings still face a reduction in the SBP annuity at age 62. To add further to the need for changes in this program, 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 27 percent. This means that the government has enjoyed a 13

percent reduction in its burden to fund the program—shifting the benefit cost to the

beneficiary. 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 this subcommittee to provide appropriations to correct some of these inequities. The paid-up SBP initiative enacted in 1998 will ease this disparity somewhat for members retiring after 1978, but the subsidy will still fall far short of the

promised 40 percent and now comes too late for many older retirees. In other words,

members who enrolled in SBP when it first became available in 1972 (and who have

already been charged higher premiums than subsequent retirees) will have to continue paying premiums for up to 36 years to secure paid-up coverage. Unfortunately,

the 1998 paid-up provision does not become effective until 2008. That is simply too

late for many enrolled in the program; we urge that you accelerate the paid up provision to October 2003 at the latest.

To show this country’s dedication and compassion for its military retirees, we ask

you to:

—Eliminate the Age-62 SBP annuity reduction by supporting S.145.

—Provide funding to accelerate the ‘‘paid-up’’ SBP program (for those 70 years of

age and who have paid into the program for 30 years) from the current implementation in 2008 to the year 2003.

EDUCATION

We should take action now to raise the value of the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB),

the military’s primary tool for a successful post-military readjustment into civilian

society. The MGIB should cover the cost of an average university, instead of an arbitrary dollar figure that has little to do with actual education costs. This should include adequate funding to cover books, tuition and fees toward a higher education

for not only after separation, but also for those able to take classes while in the military. The better educated a member becomes, the better he/she can perform their

increasingly difficult taskings and accept greater responsibilities.

Also, we ask this Congress to change the enrollment methods now in place. The

first thing to do is immediately provide an opportunity, an open window, for all military members not enrolled in the MGIB to enroll in that program. The other enrollment change is to eliminate the one-time enrollment opportunity during basic training—when members can little afford to enroll and are so overwhelmed with information. We ask you to allow military members to enroll in the MGIB anytime during

their careers. However, if only windows of opportunity for enrollment are to be used,

a less than optimum option we recommend is to allow an opportunity for enrollment

at each reenlistment point.

Additionally, we ask you to support legislation to change the policies that tend

to push members away from the educational benefit. Policies such as requiring military members to contribute $1,200 toward their own educational ‘‘benefit,’’ merely

provide a deferred-compensation windfall to DOD. A better move would be to eliminate the $1,200 member contribution; this would affirm that military members

‘‘earn’’ the benefit by putting their lives on the line for this nation.

Although we realize that many of these benefits below fall under the purview of

the Department of Veterans Affairs, cross-funding/income will require VA and DOD

support. Therefore we ask that this subcommittee support:
649

—A new G.I. Bill Model tying the value of the MGIB to an annual educational

benchmark that reflects the actual cost of tuition, book, and fees at an average

4-year college be implemented.

—An open window for enrollment for in the MGIB be established.

—Eliminate the member’s $1,200 enrollment fee.

—Make enrollment in this benefit an automatic part of being in the military or,

at the least, allow members to enroll at any time during their careers.

—Allow members to transfer the educational benefit, in whole or in part, to immediate family members.

AIR RESERVE COMPONENT (ARC) MEMBERS

Our nation’s military is now truly a ‘‘Total Force.’’ The citizen soldier works sideby-side with their active duty counterparts on a daily basis. It is safe to say that

our military forces could not meet mission requirements without the constant dedication and support from the ARCs. In addition to facing many of the same challenges active duty members face, ARC members are still not totally recognized for

all their sacrifices. Therefore, additional funding must be made available to provide

the ARC members with adequate health care, full benefits, comparable retirement

benefits, and protection of their families. Their readiness is critical to our nation’s

defense and attainment of these goals for ARC members is important.

Just as with the active duty force, increased mission taskings are coming despite

plans for continued cutbacks in Reserve forces end strengths. Furthermore, because

of the nature of the use of America’s military forces, today—more than ever—reserve component members face challenges of accomplishing increasingly long-term

military deployments, while at the same time hoping to continue to enjoy the support of their civilian employers. Proposed tax credits as in S. 540, Reserve Component Tax Assistance Act of 2001, if implemented for employers and self-employed

ARC members would be great gestures on the part of our nation for their support

to our ARC members and more importantly—the defense of this country.

In order to meet the readiness needs of today’s ARC forces, we should:

—Provide full benefits and protection of the families of reservists.

—Ensure proper manning levels to allow home land missions and the ability to

participate in military tasking abroad.

—Provide full funding for an accelerated study to reduce the reserve retirement

age from 60 to 55.

GENERAL FUNDING ISSUES

In addition to the issues explained above, we asked the subcommittee to consider

the following:

—Fund a daily stipend for those who support funeral honors details.

—Fund POV storage in lieu of shipment when members are ordered to non-foreign ports outside of CONUS when POV shipment is prohibited.

SUMMARY

We not only ask members of our military forces to accomplish great things under

austere conditions, but to be ready to accomplish those great things anywhere in

the world on a few hours notice. These members sacrifice many facets of their family lives. We ask them to sacrifice many things most Americans take for granted.

Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee repeatedly demonstrates an understanding of

these hardships and challenges. As such, we are pleased to have had an opportunity

to share the views of our members with you relative to your deliberations about the

fiscal year 2003 Defense Bill. As always, this association and its members are ready

to provide you with full support on matters of mutual concern.

Senator INOUYE. Sergeant, I want to commend you, because the

latest reenlistment statistics indicate that in the Air Force for the

first-timers it is over 70 percent, and in spite of the fact that we

are at war, the reenlistment rate is high, and I think it has something to do with your work. Congratulations.

Sergeant DEAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness represents the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Ronald L. Van Nest.
650

STATEMENT OF RONALD L. VAN NEST, CRNA, M.A., VAN NEST AND ASSOCIATES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF

NURSE ANESTHETISTS

Captain VAN NEST. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is

Ronald Van Nest, Captain, Nurse Corps, United States Navy (Ret.).

I am a certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA) a member of

the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I served

in the Navy for 30 years. I am testifying today on behalf of the

AANA, which represents more than 28,000 nurse anesthetists, including 540 that serve in the Armed Forces. I hope to inform you

today about the critical need to maintain adequate numbers of

CRNA’s on active duty.

For several years, the number of CRNA’s serving on active duty

has been falling short of the number authorized by DOD. In a letter to the president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists dated March 14, 2002, the Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Health Affairs stated that, quote, the nurse-anesthetist specialty has been identified by the Department as a critical wartime

shortage for several years, close quote.

Right now in Afghanistan the only anesthesia professionals deployed are nurse anesthetists. Recruitment of nurse anesthetists

for the miliary becomes increasingly difficult when the civilian sector faces shortages also. The number of nurse anesthetist vacancies

increased 250 percent from 1998 to 2001. Staffing firms for health

professionals report that from 1997 to 2000, nurse anesthetist recruitment has risen by up to tenfold, making nurse anesthesia the

second most recruited health profession.

Incentives for recruitment and retention of nurse anesthetists in

the military must remain of the highest priority so the services can

meet their medical mission. There has been no change in the incentive specialty pay (ISP) since the increase from $6,000 to $15,000

was authorized in fiscal year 1995, even though civilian pay has

continued to rise since then. We ask this committee to look at raising the ISP ceiling from $15,000 to $30,000 so the services can retain nurse anesthetists.

The AANA also supports funding for the critical skills retention

bonus for fiscal year 2003 for CRNA’s in the military. On May 8,

2002, the Assistant Surgeon General for the Air Force Nursing

Services testified before this subcommittee requesting the expansion of the critical skills retention bonus to health professionals

with critical skills like CRNA’s. The Air Force has only 82 percent

of its authorized CRNA’s on active duty. They will not be able to

maintain readiness without bonuses to retain nurse anesthetists.

At that same May 8 hearing, the Chief of the Army Nurse Corps

told this subcommittee that the critical retention bonus is a priority issue to retain both CRNA’s and operating room nurses in the

Army Nurse Corp.

CRNA’s are proud to serve this country. On September 11, 2001,

military nurses were called to action to provide medical response

to those who were injured from that terrorism. The Navy sent the

hospital ship, COMFORT, within 18 hours of the attack.

In conclusion, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists

thanks you again for your support of military CRNA’s, and I thank
651

you for your support over the years to me, when I was on active

duty.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator INOUYE. We will do our best to continue our support of

the CRNA’s, because without you our medical services would be incomplete. We do not have enough anesthesiologists, that is obvious,

and you provide the necessary services that we need, so we will do

our very best, sir.

Mr. VAN NEST. Thank you, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD L. VAN NEST, CRNA, M.A.

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 540 active 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 IN THE DOD

The practice of anesthesia is a recognized specialty within both the nursing and

medical professions. Both CRNAs and anesthesiologists (MDAs) 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 MDAs are both educated to use the same anesthesia processes in the provision of anesthesia and related services.

Nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia providers in combat areas

in every war the U.S. has been engaged since World War I. Military nurse anesthetists have been honored and decorated by the U.S. and foreign governments for

outstanding achievements, resulting from their dedication and commitment to duty

and competence in managing seriously wounded casualties. In World War II, there

were 17 nurse anesthetists to every one anesthesiologist. In Vietnam, the ratio of

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 and Desert

Storm. Military CRNAs continue to provide critical anesthesia support to humanitarian missions around the globe in such places as Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia. Currently, CRNAs are the only anesthesia providers deployed in Afghanistan. No anesthesiologists are assigned to these missions.

On September 11, 2001, military nurses were called to action to provide medical

response to men and women injured from the horrible acts of terrorism imposed on

this country. The Navy sent the USNS Comfort ship to NYC, within 18 hours after

the attack. Each Nurse Corps of the Navy, Army and Air Force responded quickly

to the attacks on the Pentagon with TRIAGE units and worked with the civilian

community rescue units.

When President George W. Bush reacted to the ‘‘terrible acts of terrorism’’ against

the U.S. with 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. On May 8, 2002,

Brigadier General Barbara C. Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force Nursing Services, testified before this Senate Committee providing 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.’’ This committee must ensure that

we retain and recruit CRNAs for now and in the future for the ever-changing military operation deployments overseas.

NURSING SHORTAGE HOW THIS COMMITTEE CAN HELP THE 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
652

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 AANA President, Debbie A. Chambers, CRNA,

MHSA, states 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

baby boom retirement impact. 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. One in seven CRNAs intend to retire within 5 years and one-third within 10 years.

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.

In 1990, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published findings

indicating a national shortage of almost 5,400 nurse anesthetists. The study concluded that nurse anesthesia educational programs would need to produce between

1,500 and 1,800 graduates annually to meet societal nurse anesthesia demands by

the year 2010. Nevertheless, only about 1,100 nurse anesthesia students graduate

annually.

At a time of a national nursing shortage greater utilization of nurses at the military treatment facilities (MTFs) will be needed to meet the medical needs of aging

retirees in the new TRICARE for Life program. The passage of the fiscal year 2001

Defense Authorization Act included TRICARE for Life, the expansion of medical

care for all military retirees over the age of 65 at the MTF.

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

As recently as 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.’’

The critical skills retention bonus would assist each of the service branches to

both retain and recruit CRNAs. Currently, the Air Force will be losing between 15–

17 CRNAs in 2002. With the Air Force only having an 82 percent capacity of CRNAs

filling critical needs for war time, they will not be able to maintain military medical

readiness without needed bonuses to retain CRNAs.

Currently, the Army is facing similar shortages in CRNA billets too. During the

May 8, 2002, Senate Defense Appropriations Committee hearing on Medical Programs, Brigadier General William T. Bester, told Chairman Daniel K. Inouye that

the Critical Retention Bonus is a priority issue to retain both CRNAs and Operating

nurses in the Army Nurse Corps.

The AANA requests funding for the Critical Skills Retention Bonus for fiscal year

2003 to ensure the retention of CRNAs in the military services.

The Incentive Special Pay for Nurses

On May 8, 2002, Brigadier General William T. Bester, Chief Army Nurse Corps,

testified before this Senate Committee:

‘‘To adequately recruit and retain our force, we must demonstrate

through our actions that we recognize the unparalleled contributions of
653

military nursing and that we show our commitment to these dedicated military officers and professional nurses via benefit packages such as educational dollars and accession and retention bonuses.’’

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.

There has been no change in the ISP since the increase was instituted in fiscal

year 1995, while it is certain that civilian pay has continued to rise during this

time. In addition, those CRNAs under obligation who are receiving only $6,000 suffer from an even larger pay gap. It would seem that the basic principle uncovered

by the 1994 DOD Health Affairs study would still hold true today—that a large

earnings gap contributes greatly to difficulties in retaining CRNAs.

High demand and low supply of CRNAs in the health care community leads to

higher incomes widening the gap in pay for CRNAs in the civilian sector compared

to the military. The fiscal year 2001 AANA Membership survey measured income

in the civilian sector by practice setting. The median income in a hospital setting

is $104,000, MDA group $96,000, and self-employed CRNA $110, 800 (includes

Owner/Partner of a CRNA Group, CRNA Physician Group, or Locum Tenens Agency

and or Independent Contractor). These median salaries include call pay, overtime

pay, and bonus pay.

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. For

example the AANA fiscal year 2001 membership survey reported, CRNA’s median

annual vacation is 21 days, 6 days of holiday and 6 sick days.

Active duty CRNAs are subject to working 24 hours a day 7 days a week when

deployed. In contrast, civilian contract CRNAs employed within MTFs work 35–40

hours a week and have higher pay. These contract CRNAs have higher salaries

ranging from $93,000–$129,000. In 2002, the Army reported MTFs paying

$130,000–$180,000 for CRNA contractors. Depending on the contract, these CRNAs

typically work weekdays with no on-call duties, or other administrative, supervisory,

or teaching responsibilities. AANA members have mentioned that this can create a

morale issue amongst CRNAs working at MTFs. In addition, there are cases when

active duty CRNAs have separated from the military to then contract with a

TRICARE subcontractor and make a higher salary at the same MTF.

Rear Admiral Kathleen Martin, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, stated for the

record before this Senate Committee at the February 28, 2001 hearing:

Compensation is an issue for military staff as well. I clearly see this as

an MTF commander. Military personnel work side by side with contract

staffs who command salaries far exceeding those of their military counterpart. This creates additional dissatisfaction for our military members. Compensation is a powerful driver in the decision to remain on active duty or

to leave the service.

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 for CRNAs be maintained and even increased as we enter this

period of a severe nursing shortage.

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 ISP for CRNAs from $15,000 to $30,000, 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,
654

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

masters degrees in education, administration, or management are not eligible for

board certification pay since their graduate degree is not in a clinical specialty.

Many 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.

EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF PROVIDERS IS CRUCIAL

In light of the fact that it costs less to educate CRNAs, that nurse anesthetists

draw minimal bonuses compared to physician anesthesiologists, and that numerous

studies show there is no significant differences in outcomes between anesthesia providers, it is clear that CRNAs are a cost-effective anesthesia provider for the military. From a budgetary standpoint, it is vitally important to utilize these high quality, cost-effective anesthesia providers in appropriate ratios with their physician anesthesiologist counterparts. ‘‘Over-supervision’’ is not only unproductive; it is financially wasteful and unnecessary.

The U.S. military services do not require anesthesiologist supervision of CRNAs.

There are many military medical treatment facilities throughout the world which

have military CRNAs as their sole anesthesia providers, and this practice arrangement has not had a negative impact on the quality of anesthesia care. Increasing

numbers of anesthesiologists in the military has resulted in practice models with

wasteful practice ratios. There continue to be proposals in various branches of the

military for increased supervision of CRNAs, with attempts by physician anesthesiologists to place unnecessary supervision language into local military treatment facility policies which would require strict adherence to a practice model of one CRNA

to every one anesthesiologist.

A practice model requiring one anesthesiologist for every nurse anesthetist would

be financially wasteful. Even a requirement of having one anesthesiologist to every

two or three CRNAs is also wasteful. But even more importantly, the Services would

lose mobilization effectiveness by requiring multiple anesthesia providers where autonomous CRNAs have previously provided anesthesia safely and effectively for over

100 years. This military standard is based on the need of the Services to provide

a wide range of health care with as few providers as necessary during mobilization

to remote or isolated locations. Historically, CRNAs have always worked independently at such locations; therefore, there is no basis for requiring supervision of

CRNAs when they then return to more urban facilities. A predetermined ratio of

supervision should not become part of the practice environment. In March of 2000,

Rear Admiral Kathleen Martin, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, testified to this

Senate Committee:

Our advanced practice nurses—all practice to the fullest extent of their

competency and practice scope to ensure the right care provider delivers

care to the right patient based on their health requirements. In this manner, we maximize our provider assets while allowing them to maintain

those critical practice competencies needed for wartime roles.

The ability to function autonomously in remote locations is required of all military

CRNAs. It is the promise of this independence that draws many to military anesthesia service. Therefore, any attempt to adopt an anesthesia practice standard that

would require that an anesthesia care team consisting of a CRNA and a supervising

anesthesiologist to deliver all anesthesia would not only undermine mobilization effectiveness, but it would also prove detrimental to the morale of military CRNAs

and would undermine attempts by the Services to recruit highly motivated individuals.
655

AANA recommends that this Committee direct DOD to maintain the mobilization

effectiveness of CRNAs by enforcement of the current practice standard of autonomous anesthesia care by CRNAs in all locations.

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. In addition we commend and thank this committee for their continued support

for CRNAs in the military.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the legislative director of

the Retired Enlisted Association, Deirdre Parke Holleman, Esq.

Ms. Holleman.

STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARK HOLLEMAN, ESQUIRE, LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION

Ms. HOLLEMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am here representing the members of the Retired Enlisted Association, a Veteran Service Organization (VSO) made up of retired enlisted and

present career enlisted personnel from all the uniformed services.

Before speaking briefly on our concerns about fiscal year 2003, I

want to thank the subcommittee on behalf of The Retired Enlisted

Association (TREAs) members for the great improvements that

have been implemented in the last 2 years in the area of military

retiree benefits.

The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy and TRICARE for Life program

have greatly improved the quality of life for our over–65 and medicare-eligible retiree members, and of course we know where the

money that made these programs realities came from, so joining

speakers who have already spoken, and those who will speak after

me, TREA wishes to thank this committee and its staff once again.

Now onto this year. TREA is very hopeful that the improvements

that have occurred in military health care will continue. Primarily,

we hope that this subcommittee will see that there is full funding

for the direct care system, the managed care support contract, and

TRICARE standard. Many military retirees under 65 years of age

are totally dependant upon one of these programs for their health

care. After all, there are still military retirees who do live close to

MTF’s and are enrolled in TRICARE Prime.

Additionally, in the tradition of military families, many retirees’

children are active duty personnel today, and are dependant on the

direct care system and the managed care contracts for their own

and their family’s care. If these programs are not fully funded,

readiness and the health of the entire military family suffers.

TREA respectfully asks this subcommittee to make sure that the

direct military health care system is fully funded.

Additionally, TRICARE Standard must be properly funded and

its system simplified so we can see an increase in medical provider

participation. With the providers’ displeasure in both the level of

payment that is controlled by medicare rates and the complications

and administrative problems in filing a claim, providers have simply chosen to opt out. It is poison in such small portions. Unless

these problems are solved, TRICARE Standard is simply a phantom benefit in many of the areas of the country. Happily, concurrent receipt is moving in this session of the Congress in both the
656

House and the Senate. While retired pay and survivor issues are

not under the direct purview of this subcommittee, we know that

you are well aware the veteran groups have made this cause one

of their chief focuses for this session. TREA strongly believes that

it is a great injustice to require an offset of military retired pay

and veterans disability compensation. Both Senator Reid’s S. 170

and Representative Bilirakis’ H.R. 303 have overwhelming support

in the chambers. In the Senate, there are 81 cosponsors to authorize concurrent receipt, including 15 members of this subcommittee.

That is why, hopefully when it is authorized, we ask that you support it in this fiscal year 2003.

Additionally, there are numerous bills in both Houses aimed at

improving the survivor benefits programs (SBP). These bills would

move up the paid-up date for SBP, would end the reduction at age

62 of survivor’s annuity, and would end the Survivor Benefits Program/Dependency Indemnification Compensation (SBP/DIC) offset.

All these are sound and fair proposals, and should be supported.

Finally, numerous military families, whether retirees or active

duty, are dependant on the commissaries for an important non-paid

benefit. The present proposals to seriously cut back on the staffing

and hours of commissaries will be damaging to the active duty, the

retirees, and our members. The present plan to eliminate 2,650

commissary positions, which is over 12 percent of the workforce, by

October 1 of this year, will seriously erode this benefit. TREA respectfully requests that you fully fund the commissaries for fiscal

year 2003.

Thank you again for all the work and care you provide to all

parts of the military, and thank you for listening to us.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much for your kind compliments. May we assure you that all of us are well aware of your

needs and quality of life has always been our top priority.

Ms. HOLLEMAN. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN, ESQ.

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL GRANTS OR CONTRACTS

The Retired Enlisted Association does not currently receive, has not received during the current fiscal year or in either of the previous 2 years any Federal money

for grants or contracts. All of the Association’s activities are accomplished completely free of any Federal funding.

INTRODUCTION

The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA) wishes to thank the Chairman and the

Distinguished Members of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for the

opportunity to come before you to testify about the funding issues that will have

serious effects on our members in fiscal year 2003 and in the Future. But before

we begin we wish to take the opportunity to thank this Subcommittee for the great

improvements in military health benefits we have seen in the past year with the

implementation of the Senior Pharmacy Benefit and TRICARE or Life (TFL).

HEALTH CARE

Full funding for health care

In the last 2 years we have seen great steps forward in the implementation of

a host of improvements in the military health care programs for all Uniformed Services Beneficiaries. These included not only TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy Program but the lowering of the Catastrophic Cap on retired beneficiaries’

out-of-pocket costs from $7,500 to $3,000 per family and numerous improvements
657

for active duty families’ benefits. A historic accomplishment of this Subcommittee

was full funding in fiscal year 2002 for the military health care budget for the first

time in memory. This was a wonderful accomplishment that allowed those in positions of power to plan realistically for the following year rather than to wait for a

necessary supplemental fund. A fully funded Defense Health Budget will both meet

readiness needs of the Active Duty and the health needs of their families and the

retirees and their families and survivors who are dependent on the system. It is crucial to all military retirees but especially those under 65 who are enrolled in

TRICARE Prime Programs for there to be sufficient funding to maintain the MFTS’

quality of care, staffs, equipments and plants. Additionally, it is essential to fully

and realistically fund the managed care portion of the military health care plan so

retirees throughout the country can have a plan that will protect their health while

not destroying their finances. TREA is very pleased that the President’s budgetary

request for Military Health Care truly covers the costs of Military Health Care as

planned by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the next fiscal year. This a great

step forward. TREA respectfully requests that this Committee assure that full funding continue for fiscal year 2003 and into the future. However, those are not our

only concerns.

TRICARE Standard improvements

TRICARE Standard (CHAMPUS) the fee for service option portion of Military

Health Care for Active Duty Family Members and Retirees under the Age of 65 is

falling farther and farther behind both the rest of Military Health Care and civilian

health care plans. The reimbursement levels are much too low to attract quality

health care providers. Additionally, the claims processing is so cumbersome and

complicated that numerous health care providers are refusing to take any TRICARE

Standard patients or refusing to take any more than they presently have. This is

particularly true in both rural areas and in urban areas where there are few military patients and thus TRICARE is not crucial to a doctor’s practice. It is TREA’S

suggestion that either Medicare payments must be increased or TRICARE’s CMAC

(TRICARE Standard’s CHAMPUS’s maximum allowable charge) must de-linked. Either way the CMAC must authorize higher payments to providers. We are well

aware that Congress has given the Secretary of Defense the authority to increase

reimbursements and improving TRICARE’s Business Practices. However very little

has happened on that front. TRICARE Standard still is full of paper claims, baroque

rules and slow as well as low payments. Until both payments are increased and bureaucratic hassles are lessened we see no reason to believe that more quality providers will join the program. This seems to be the only way that we will be able

increase the number of health care providers to make TRICARE Standard a benefit

for military retirees and active duty families in more than name only.

COMMISSARIES

Commissaries are an important benefit to numerous military retirees who still

live near military bases. They can save close to 30 percent for high quality food as

compared to commercial outlets. They also care about the commissaries around the

world since so many of their children serve in the military in far-flung places. That

is why TREA is concerned by DOD’s proposal to cut the Commissaries funding in

fiscal year 2003 and concerned about their long-term goal to privatize the entire program. We think the presently instituted employee cuts are already hurting the efficiency and quality of the commissaries and we ask this Subcommittee to stop the

walk down this long road. We believe that the savings envisioned by DOD could

only occur if the contract allowed the private company to close unprofitable stores.

These are the Commissaries that are placed in out of the way places throughout

the world and are the ones that are most crucial to the readiness mission. If the

contract was drawn with care to require that these carried commissaries must remain open with proper hours we believe that DOD will find the expected savings

illusory. TREA requests that this Subcommittee assures that the Commissary benefit is properly funded in fiscal year 2003 and beyond.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS

TREA members, as we are sure all military retirees, strongly hope that the offset

presently in place in the Department of Defense’s Survivor Benefit Program is eliminated in this session of Congress. At the present time when a survivor of a military

retiree who paid for full SBP reaches 62 years old the payment drops from 55 percent to 35 percent. This is a precipitous drop that is particularly painful for the enlisted retiree’s family. Since an enlisted retiree’s average income being only $16,000

a year this leaves his or her survivor with only $6,600 a year from their spouses’
658

military service. This leaves numerous widows in real want. We are presently working with members of Congress and the Veterans groups to change this inequity.

Both Senators Thurmond of South Carolina and Senator Smith of New Hampshire

have bills in the Senate to change this. Until such an authorization bill is passed

we are well aware that you can do nothing to fund it. However, we are hopeful that

you can support your colleagues in implementing this change and if we are successful in passing it we hope you will fund it.

Another improvement that we hope to get authorized in this session is paid up

SBP. Set to begin on October 1, 2008 the program would allow retirees who have

paid into SBP for at least 30 years and have reached 70 years of age can stop making payments and still have their spouses covered. We are working to have the paid

up program start as soon as possible. Retirees who enrolled in the SBP program

when it began have already paid in more than 30 years and have certainly covered

their spouse’s possible future benefit. The extra retired pay would be a real boon

in their older years. Again, this is a proposal that has yet to be authorized. If, as

we hope it is, TREA would request that this Subcommittee appropriate the necessary funds to make it a reality.

CONCURRENT RECEIPT

TREA is very hopeful that there will be further substantial steps towards the goal

of full concurrent receipt of retiree pay and VA disability pay. Yet again, we note

that military retirees are the only class of Federal retirees who have their retirement pay reduced when they receive VA disability pay. The Veterans organizations

have worked for years to correct this injustice. This year it seems very likely that

we will move substantially closer to our goal. Both the House and the Senate have

moved to authorize concurrent receipt for those with 60 percent and over disability

and to provide the money to pay for this step in the next 5 years. Senator Reid’s

S. 170 which would provide concurrent receipt for all military retirees who have a

VA disability presently has 81 co-sponsors including 23 members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and 15 members in this Subcommittee. It is clear that the

time is right to start to right this wrong. TREA respectfully requests that this Subcommittee makes sure that the funding is provided if the authorization of this

change is passed later this year.

CONCLUSION

The Retired Enlisted Association wishes to note publicly that the last 2 years

have shown great gains for our members and all retired military personnel and

their families and survivors. There have been great improvements in the health care

benefit for those over 65 including TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy Benefit. These and many other benefits were funded through this Subcommittee. We are

very grateful. Additionally, it finally looks hopeful that we will make a substantial

step towards reaching our goal of full concurrent receipt. That, too, will have to go

through this Subcommittee. We ask that that you continue your extremely important and impressive work. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present

TREA’S views on a few important issues. We hope to discuss these matters in the

future with you and your staffs. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. We are pleased to have Senator Domenici with

us. Would you like to make a statement?

Senator DOMENICI. No, thank you. We are short of time, and I

would rather hear from the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the chair of the DOD Task

Force of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dr. John

Leland. Dr. Leland, welcome, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN LELAND, CHAIR, DOD TASK FORCE OF THE

INTER-COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

Dr. LELAND. Thank you. Good morning again. My name is Dr.

John Leland. I appear before you today as a representative of the

Task Force of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers concerned with Federal funding of research and development.
659

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) International, has 125,000 members, including over 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. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to

present our views on the importance of the science and technology

accounts at the Department of Defense.

We would like to express our deep appreciation to the members

of this subcommittee for their past support, and for their fiscal year

2002 funding approved for the DOD S&T programs. In fiscal year

2002, DOD set an S&T funding bill of 3 percent of the Department’s total obligational authority. That goal was achieved only

after Congress added an additional $1.1 billion to the President’s

request.

The DOD S&T programs make essential contributions to national defense by fueling innovation and training the scientists and

engineers of tomorrow. Revolutions in defense S&T such as the

global positioning system, self-propelled unmanned vehicles, and

communications, date back to work initiated in the seventies and

eighties. These revolutionary technologies are the valuable contributions of our Nation’s engineers and scientists. Furthermore,

they would not have been possible without the vision and support

of Members of Congress like yourselves to promote the continued

strengthening of this Nation’s investment in DOD science and technology programs.

Federal funding for defense basic and applied research has provided the majority of financial support for graduate level education

in defense-related fields. The defense industry has a workforce

whose average age has been increasing at an alarming rate, and

as a result of declining support for defense-related S&T over much

of the past decade, defense laboratories and the defense industry

have had great difficulty in attracting and retaining the best engineering and scientific talents of this Nation.

My own institution, the University of Dayton, has experienced

this first-hand. The university conducts research in the areas of advanced materials, nondestructive evaluation, and aging aircraft

systems for the U.S. Air Force. The university, which often acts as

an employment source or agent for neighboring Wright-Patterson

Air Force Base, has found that increasingly difficult to find qualified scientific and technical talent to fill jobs at both the university

and the Air Force Base.

Hon. Ronald M. Sega, Director of Defense Research and Engineering at DOD, expressed concern about the downsizing of the

S&T workforce during the last 12 years, stating, we are at a critical point that requires a focused effort to bring stability to the

workforce that will attract and retain talent. For fiscal year 2003,

the administration has proposed significant increases for the Department, yet funding for the DOD’s science and technology programs will actually decline 3.7 percent. We urge this subcommittee

to approve robust and stable funding for science and technology

programs in fiscal year 2003.

Specifically, our task force urges this subcommittee to provide 3

percent of the total Defense Department budget, or $11 billion, for

the science and technology programs for 2003, a funding target con-
660

sistent with numerous program and Department reviews. In 1998,

the Defense Science Board recommended that the Department’s

S&T budget be about 3.4 percent of the total budget.

The Department’s own Quadrennial Defense Review, released in

September 1999, stated, a robust research and development effort

is imperative to achieving the Department’s transformation objectives. DOD must maintain a strong 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 3 percent of DOD

funding per year.

The President’s Commission on the Future of the United States

Aerospace Industry released an interim report this year, stating,

the United States is just now beginning to see the effects of the research and development (R&D) budget declines of the 1990’s. The

commission also stated their support for the DOD goal to increase

S&T investment to 3 percent of the total budget.

With consideration of the fiscal year 2003 budget, it is important

to recognize the critical role DOD science and technology plays in

ensuring the future national security of the United States. These

defense science programs simultaneously contribute to the research

enterprise of this country and the education of tomorrow’s scientists and engineers. Investment in DOD science and technology

programs produces the scientific and engineering research underlying today’s preeminent U.S. military forces. As increasingly varied and unpredictable threats to America develop in the coming

years, this technological superiority will become an increasing national security imperative.

In conclusion, I want to again thank the subcommittee for its

continued support of DOD science and technology, and for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of ASME International and its

members. We look forward to assisting you in any way possible.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN LELAND

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Defense (DOD) Task Force of the 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 2003 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 2003 budget request for the DOD S&T Program is $9.670 billion, 2 percent lower than the fiscal year 2002 appropriated levels.

Basic Research and Applied Research are down $10 million (0.7 percent) and $307

million (7.5 percent), respectively. Advanced Technology Development appears to

have increased $124 million (2.8 percent), but after accounting for new Air Force

programs widely believed to be inappropriately categorized, Advanced Technology

Development is actually down $168 million or 3.8 percent. Science and Technology,

as a whole, is $168 million (3.8 percent). Individually, the Army and Navy are experiencing cuts of 20 percent to 30 percent in the Applied Research and Advanced

Technology Development categories. Air Force Applied Research is down 9 percent
661

and Advanced Technology Development is up 30 percent (or down 21 percent if suspected non-S&T programs are accounted for.)

In fiscal year 2002, DOD set an S&T funding goal of 3 percent of the department’s

Total Obligational Authority (TOA). That goal was barely achieved after Congress

added an additional $1.1 billion to the President’s request. After subtracting the

newly created $10 billion War Contingency Fund from DOD’s fiscal year 2003 TOA,

S&T funding is 2.6 percent. If suspected non-S&T 6.3 programs are accounted for,

S&T funding drops to 2.5 percent.

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. As a result of declining support for defense-related S&T research and development 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.

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. Strengthening defense-related engineering

sciences is essential for meeting the future needs of the DOD.

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 people 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 shrank, leaving little incentive for young engineers to seek defense-related career opportunities.

The President’s Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry noted in its March 20, 2002 Interim Report that, ‘‘The United States is just now

beginning to see the effects of the R&D budget declines of the 1990s.’’ Revolutions

in Defense Science and Technology such as the Global Positioning System (GPS),

stealth, propulsion, unmanned vehicles and communications date back to work initiated in the 1970’s and 1980s. These revolutionary technologies are the valuable contributions of our engineers and scientists and have promoted the continued

strengthening of this nation’s investment in DOD Science and Technology programs.

While these revolutionary technologies have not yet been fully exploited by our military, we cannot postpone the creation of new revolutionary technologies because existing ones have not been fully exploited. Breakthroughs cannot be planned and revolutions in technology often take 20 years to be implemented.

In 1998, the Defense Science Board recommended that the department’s science

and technology budget be about 3.5 percent of the total budget. Last year’s Quadrennial Defense Review stated that, ‘‘A robust research and development effort is

imperative to achieving the Department’s transformation objectives. DOD must

maintain 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.’’ The President’s Commission

on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry also, ‘‘supports the DOD goal

to increase science and technology investment to three percent of the overall budget,

and encourages continued progress toward this goal in the fiscal year 2003 budget.’’

Unfortunately, the current year budget takes a step back from the progress made

last year and the out-year budget projections of the department do not even keep

pace with inflation after fiscal year 2004, much less make progress toward this

noble goal.
662

RECOMMENDATIONS

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 recommend a balanced portfolio of physical and

life sciences accompanied by a healthy increase in these accounts for fiscal year

2003, 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.

Therefore, the Task Force supports the findings and recommendations of the

Quadrennial Defense Review and the Defense Science Board Task Force, and endorses the allocation of 3 percent of the total DOD budget to S&T funding. This

would amount to approximately $11 billion for fiscal year 2003 in the 6.1, 6.2 and

6.3 categories.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much for your very timely testimony. As you know, we are in the process of working on our

markup, and we will take your matters in very serious consideration.

Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just give

a brief statement. We have a witness here named Dr. Rogene Henderson from the Lovelace Respiratory Center. He is going to testify

with reference to what this respiratory center might do in a partnership arrangement with the United States Government. They

happen to have one of the most eloquent facilities for testing the

air and they are proposing that an institute be created so that

somebody can do a better job with dirty bomb assessments, which

they are particularly expert at, and they are making a proposal. I

am hopeful we will listen carefully. It may be a very good investment. I do not know. We will have to look at it.

I just wanted to welcome the doctor, and thank you for putting

him on the list so we can hear from him.

Senator INOUYE. This is on dirty bombs?

Senator DOMENICI. He is a very clean fellow.

Senator INOUYE. Well, I thank you, and I will look forward to his

testimony.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

I would just like to briefly remind the Committee of the important work that the

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute is doing in the area of acute lung injury

and respiratory disease. This institute is nationally renowned for its efforts in aerosol science, inhalation toxicology, and other lung diseases such as asthma and

bronchitis. In collaborative efforts with universities and other laboratories, Lovelace

has made significant headway in reducing the risks that our military personnel face

from possible biological or chemical exposure on the battlefield.

The terrorist attacks on our country have ushered in new concerns about biological and chemical agents and how our civilian population might be subject to their

harmful effects. Anthrax and radioactive aerosol from ‘‘dirty bombs’’ are two examples of airborne contaminants that have posed, and will continue to pose, serious

danger to the homeland. Much has yet to be learned about how such agents can

be detected, how they spread, and how their potential health risks should be treated.

I believe that the experience and technical capability that Lovelace Institute has

developed in the past gives it a great opportunity to address the problems we face

today in the form of terrorist attacks. Investing in activities that can give us a better understanding of how to detect, assess, and provide effective treatment for such

threats makes eminent sense.
663

Senator INOUYE. Now may I call on the former Director of Defense Research and Engineering and professor of engineering at the

University of Virginia, Professor Anita Jones.

STATEMENT OF DR. ANITA JONES, FORMER DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE

RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING AND QUARLES PROFESSOR OF

ENGINEERING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Dr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. My subject is also defense science and

technology. I have one message to deliver, and that is that DOD

science and technology programs should be focused today on creating breakthroughs that will enable entirely new military capabilities.

In this time of U.S. dominance, this is the critical time to deemphasize the incremental, whether it is research or advanced development, in order to seek breakthroughs that can lead to tomorrow’s

capabilities. I would submit to you that today’s investment focus is

on comfortably short-term. Even the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency (DARPA), the agency whose raison d’etre is to create technology breakthroughs, is investing most of its budget in activities that are planned around short-term returns.

I would like to give you an example of the kind of program that

made sense 15 years ago, but does not today, and that is the specialized prototype science and technology information systems that

the services and DARPA have built for many specific military missions. Command and control, transportation scheduling, air sortie

planning, et cetera. They made sense a decade ago, but industry

now knows how to build these systems. It is not necessary to do

this kind of prototype building of system after system. We have

reached the point of diminishing returns. This is just one candidate

area where I think the committee can direct what is now near-term

to be invested in more further-term activity.

I cochair the 2001 Defense Science Board (DSB) summer study

on the subject of defense science and technology. The DSB would

be glad to submit that report to this committee and to brief Members and staff on our recommendations. We make a number of recommendations that are consistent with my theme today of seeking

more technology breakthroughs. Let me just offer three areas

where there is clear potential, a potential for a technology breakthrough that could generate a new military capability.

The first one is cyber security. Essentially, all our information

security technology is based on a perimeter defense model. Moats

were a perimeter defense. They did not work in the Middle Ages.

The Maginot Line was a perimeter defense. It did not work. We

need a sustained, multidecade investment in research to find a new

basis other than perimeter defense so that we can replace things

like firewalls, intrusion detection systems. The DOD needs to step

up to that.

A second area that I would suggest is some systems in which to

explore military command. I mentioned before that the DOD has

built a number of prototype S&T information systems, some to support command and control, but they focus on control, control of information collection, display, dissemination. We need to take a

hard look at command. The way a commander might express com-
664

mander’s intent to a large force, all of whom have suitable and

maybe better than the commander’s situational awareness.

There is a new technology that DOD has not really embraced and

should, and that is the virtual presence entertainment-oriented

computer game kind of technology. We need to explore its ladder

command structures, and that is a technology that could help the

military do it.

A third area that I would like to highlight is reducing the terror

of bio warfare agents. Bio agents are a terror weapon in part because we lack an effective and immediate therapeutic response. It

takes years, 10 to 15 years, typically, to develop a vaccine or a drug

to make a specific intervention. The Defense Science Board believes

there is a possibility that could be reduced not just to a shorter

number of years but in fact to weeks or days. This is a DOD challenge. The pharmaindustry will not step up to it. Health and

Human Services (HHS), which promulgates the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) processes, which takes so many years, will not

step up to it. DOD does.

These are just three examples of research challenges that require

new knowledge and the development of new technology, military

technology. This is a time when we have no military peers that the

DOD should reduce S&T investment in the incremental programs

and invest in long term, high risk potential breakthroughs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, professor. As we are

well aware, research gives us the edge, and we will try to be there.

Thank you very much.

Dr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANITA JONES

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and members of the Staff, I am

pleased to be here today. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you.

I have one message to deliver and that is: Redirect the DOD science and technology program to create breakthroughs that will enable entirely new military capabilities.

In the next several decades when the US has no military peers is the critical time

to de-emphasize incremental research and incremental advanced development in

order to seek breakthroughs that can lead to substantive new military capability.

Between the 1980s and today, the amount of the DOD S&T investment in programs that have any chance of generating a breakthrough has dwindled. The DOD

S&T investment focus is uncomfortably short term focused.

The greatest responsibility for creating breakthroughs falls to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Breakthroughs are the raison d’etre for

DARPA’s existence. Yet, the bulk of DARPA’s budget is invested in incremental

goals and in activities that are planned to show short-term return.

I want to offer one example of a class of programs that are most definitely short

term focused. Information technology provides that example. For the past two decades and more, DARPA and the services have built S&T prototype information systems in order to experiment with information technology to support every conceivable military mission. To a great extent these prototypes use commodity

workstations, networks and software. They do not stress the state of the art in information technology. Military mission software, however, may be unique.

S&T prototype information systems have been built for mission planning, command and control, training, materiel management, transportation scheduling,

among many others. This has reached the point of diminishing returns. Some of

these systems may have potential for transferring technology into service acquisition. But, they typically have no potential for breakthroughs either in technology,

or in the exploration of a revolution in the conduct of military affairs.
665

Enough is enough! Information technology and its application is sufficiently advanced that most such efforts should move entirely out of the S&T arena. Any component exploration that is needed should be an orderly portion of service acquisition

development. This change in determining what is appropriate for S&T and what is

properly a limited development activity is overdue. Much more is known today

about how to construct such information systems to support both military and civil

business processes.

Today and in the future it should be rare that DARPA, in particular, engages in

constructing such prototypes unless the main program focus is on the exploration

some dramatically new technology for which the information system provides a context.

I co-chaired the 2001 Defense Science Board Summer Study on the subject of defense science and technology. The DSB would be glad to provide members of this

Committee with that report, and to brief members and staff. We have a number of

recommendations that are consistent with my theme today, which is ‘‘today, DOD

S&T must seek more technology breakthroughs’’.

I offer just three examples where a breakthrough is possible and needed. Two of

them come directly from that DSB study:

Cyber-security.—Essentially all information security technology is built upon a perimeter defense model. Just like the kings who built moats around castles centuries

ago, today current intrusion detection software is another. Like moats and the Maginot Line, information system perimeter defenses do not work. They cannot work—

especially in a military context. The military and the intelligence community, as

well as civil society, need a better solution. DOD/DARPA should field a major effort

seeking a new breakthrough in cyber-security. There exist promising, but unexplored, new approaches. I anticipate a couple of decades of basic research work are

required.

Military command of forces, when all forces have (what they need of) complete situational awareness.—There has been much discussion of a revolution in military affairs and network centric warfare. The S&T prototype information systems that relate to revolutionary command and control have stressed control, not command.

Such systems collect, catalog, transmit, display, and process data; that is they offer

new tools for control of information. But these prototypes do not offer many genuinely new approaches to command. The virtual presence, entertainment oriented,

computer games, involving hundreds of thousands of players, offer a new venue for

exploring genuinely new ideas about command, expressing commander intent, and

operating with flatter command structures. Yet, the DOD is yet to create a truly

future-focused research effort to explore command large numbers of forces that have

situational awareness equal or better than that of the commander.

Reduce the terror of biowarfare agents.—Bioagents are a terror weapon in part because the nation lacks effective and immediate therapeutic responses. Let’s address

this problem! Today, it takes roughly 10 to 15 years to develop a safe drug for a

specific purpose. Modern genomics and proteomics provide new tools: rapid and high

throughput empirical laboratory processes and computation-based drug design.

When it can be used, computational analysis is much faster than laboratory experimentation. In both cases, more specific knowledge at the molecular level enables the

discovery of drugs that are more specific. This makes possible the desired intervention with fewer negative side effects. Our Defense Science Board study recommends

a high-risk research effort to reduce pathogen-targeted drug discovery from years

to days! Is that reduction possible? Substantial reduction is clearly possible. A fresh,

no-holds-barred approach that is focused specifically on biopathogens is needed to

find out. Pharma industry will not see a market for biowarfare agent drugs and will

not build the necessary pathogen databases. The Health and Human Services department, which asserts the Federal Drug Administration procedures, is unlikely to

think in terms of reducing years long processes to days. Reducing pathogen drug

discovery is a DOD challenge.

These are just three examples of research challenges that require knowledge and

technology breakthroughs. Each could enable genuinely new military capability.

In this time when no military peer exists, the DOD should reduce investment in

incremental programs in order to invest in leapfrog advances. In my view, fully half

of the budget of DARPA, the defense agency whose goal is to make breakthroughs,

should be invested in efforts that have some potential of producing breakthroughs.

This would require a substantive reorientation of the DARPA investment portfolio.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address this Committee.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is director of Government relations of the National Military Family Association, Ms. Joyce

Wessel Raezer. Ms. Raezer, welcome.
666

STATEMENT OF JOYCE WESSEL RAEZER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION, INC.

Ms. RAEZER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the National Military Family Association (NMFA)

thanks you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of military families and for your understanding of the link between quality of life

and the retention of a quality force. NMFA’s written statement provides greater detail on our perspective regarding the military’s

quality of life in these challenging times. As a member of the military coalition, we also endorse its testimony, which you will be

hearing later this morning.

NMFA thanks you, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee, for

your leadership in providing the funding over the past several

years to improve the personnel benefits and compensation package

necessary to support a strong and ready force. We ask that you

continue the support of our service members and ensure funds are

available for all of our important components of the compensation

and quality of life package, pay, housing allowances, commissaries,

health care, dependent education, child care and permanent change

of station moves.

Fiscal year 2002 brought good news and bad news to military

families facing a mandated Permanent Change of Station (PCS)

move. Congress did increase the reimbursement rates for many of

the expenses borne by families when they move. Unfortunately,

however, just as word was getting out about these improved reimbursements, some families began hearing from their service personnel branches that because of cuts in PCS funding their summer

move might have to be delayed until fall, after school starts.

NMFA applauds congressional efforts to encourage the services

to reduce the numbers of PCS moves service members make. We

have unpacked enough boxes, enrolled our kids in enough new

schools, and had to leave enough good jobs to know that families

should not move just for the sake of moving. We believe, however,

that an appropriate baseline must be established for all types of

military moves and reduction targets set from that baseline before

significant cuts are made.

NMFA thanks the Congress for the funding provided for the defense health system and for the continued direction to DOD to improve TRICARE operations in such areas as access and claims

processing. Although the fiscal year 2003 budget request calls for

what is believed to be a more accurate level of funding for the program, NMFA urges this subcommittee to continue its efforts to ensure full funding to meet the needs for military readiness of both

the direct care and purchased care segments of TRICARE.

NMFA also thanks this subcommittee for its support of Department of Defense and civilian schools attended by large numbers of

military children. Congressional authorization and appropriations

for the DOD supplemental impact aid funding and additional funding for schools educating large numbers of military special needs

children helps civilian districts most affected by the military presence in a community.

NMFA is pleased to note that your support for the education of

military children is contagious. DOD has now established an educational opportunities directorate to help installations and school
667

districts reduce the transition problems military children face as

they move. Increasing numbers of installations and commanders

are promoting partnerships in local schools to support the education of all children. Among the most successful of these partnership activities is the joint venture education forum in Hawaii. By

working together, military and education leaders in Hawaii have

helped to allocate funding you have provided and raised both the

level of military support for the State schools’ and education leaders’ understandings of the unique needs of military children.

As our military juggles existing deployments and missions with

the war on terrorism and homeland defense, the military family

and community feel the strain. Support services for families of deployed service members are wonderful, but they are expensive.

NMFA urges the Congress to provide the same level of support for

family readiness programs as other components of mission readiness. NMFA also urges the Congress to ensure that the families of

all members of the total force have access to the training, information, and support needed to ensure family readiness while the service member is performing the mission.

While successful in military operations, the total force concept

has not yet reached the family support arena. Our Guard and Reserve families tell us they need better information about benefits

such as health care and sometimes education and assistance in

dealing with changed financial circumstances. They tell us their

family program coordinators are stretched too thin to provide all

the assistance needed by geographically dispersed families. They

also tell us they need the same kind of access to child care as their

active duty peers, who can use installation child development centers and family care providers.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you again for your advocacy and pay

and benefit improvements necessary to retain the quality force that

now protects our homeland and wages war against terror. We ask

you to remember that in time of war, mission readiness is tied to

service member readiness, which is tied to family readiness. Military members and their families look to you for continued support

for the compensation and benefit packages that enhance their readiness and quality of life. Please do not let them down.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOYCE WESSEL RAEZER

Mister Chairman, the National Military Family Association (NMFA) thanks you

for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of military families. We

thank you and the Members of this Subcommittee for your attention to issues affecting the quality of life of servicemembers and their families and for your understanding of the link between quality of life and the retention of a quality force. We

thank you, especially, for your efforts in the first session of the 107th Congress,

which resulted in:

—A pay package that provided across-the-board and targeted increases, amounting to the largest pay increase since 1982

—Funding increases for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to decrease average out-of-pocket costs for the DOD standard for each grade to 11.3 percent

—Improvements and adequate funding for the Defense Health System

—Appropriation of $30 million in DOD supplemental Impact Aid funding for civilian schools serving large numbers of military children, as well as additional

funding to meet repair and maintenance needs in these districts and to help

them serve military children with special education needs
668

NMFA believes that the most important message we can bring to you today is

that the momentum begun to improve military pay, benefits, and quality of life during the 106th Congress and continued last year in the first session of the 107th Congress must intensify as our servicemembers and their families face the challenges

of the war on terrorism. The critical issues facing military personnel and families

prior to September 11—pay, housing, health care, family support, and education for

their children—have not gone away. The families we represent, including our 120

installation NMFA Representatives who report to us regularly, say they recognize

the support the Congress has given them over the past few years and see the very

real benefits of your actions. They also tell us, however, that military families today

face greater challenges because of the ongoing war on terrorism and the new mission of homeland defense. After a decade of military force downsizing, high optempo,

and seemingly-ever-increasing deployments and family separations, many in the

military community already felt stretched too thin before September 11. The openended nature of the war on terrorism and homeland defense, coupled with the fears

of additional terrorist attacks at home and new security measures on installations,

leave military families and the people who support them wondering how to define

‘‘normal’’ in June 2002.

In this statement, we will highlight just a few of the issues affecting the quality

of life of military families today: Health Care, military spouse employment, Permanent Change of Station (PCS) funding, family readiness, family member education,

and the special challenges facing families of mobilized National Guard and Reserve

members.

HEALTH CARE GAINS FOR MILITARY FAMILIES

After a rocky start over several years, the TRICARE system is providing most of

the promised benefit for most active duty military families. Recent legislative provisions have improved the benefit, especially by making the TRICARE Prime Remote

Program available for active duty families living with their sponsor in locations outside the catchment area of a Military Treatment Facility (MTF). Although DOD anticipates that the full implementation of the program will occur this fall—1 year

late—families have been able to take advantage of a waived charges provision,

which enables them to have the same lower out-of-pocket costs for health care as

other active duty families in TRICARE Prime living where a MTF or Prime network

is available.

NMFA is also pleased to report that the partnership established between the

DOD Office of Health Affairs, the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), and the

beneficiary associations continues, to the benefit of both beneficiaries and the Department. Although much of the focus of the frequent meetings of association representatives and DOD personnel over the past year was to work out implementation

details of the TRICARE for Life benefit, other TRICARE benefits and programs

were discussed and beneficiary input sought. NMFA appreciates the information received in these meetings and the opportunity for dialogue with the persons responsible for managing DOD health care policies and programs.

NMFA would like to congratulate DOD for the implementation of the TRICARE

Senior Pharmacy program in April 2001 and TRICARE for Life in October 2001. By

restoring the promise of lifetime health care to Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries, Congress and the Department of Defense also told current servicemembers

and their families that their own service to the nation is appreciated and that the

government will continue to show it values that service even after the member retires.

We also thank TMA for increasing access during the past year to a program important to many of our most vulnerable families: the Women, Infants, and Children

Overseas (WIC–O) program. After years of hearing from military families who lost

access to this Federally-funded, but State run, program because the military was

sending them overseas, NMFA is gratified that this valuable nutrition program is

available to a growing number of families. Last spring, we testified before this Subcommittee that five WIC-Overseas sites had opened. Although TMA did not meet

its target of having all sites open by the end of 2001, it has steadily expanded the

number of program sites and outreach to families and, at last report, expects to

have a WIC–O Office at each overseas installation by the end of this year.

HEALTH CARE CHALLENGES REMAIN

However grateful we are for recent benefit improvements, program implementations, and for the increased opportunities for beneficiary input, NMFA remains apprehensive about several issues: funding, beneficiary access to health care, the development of a new generation of TRICARE contracts, and the ability of National
669

Guard and Reserve families to transition easily into TRICARE when the

servicemember is called to active duty. Although the fiscal year 2003 budget request

calls for what is believed to be a more accurate level of funding for the Defense

Health Program, 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.

Although recent TRICARE surveys highlight continued improvements in beneficiary access to care, NMFA continues to hear of problem geographic locations and

scenarios that point to unresolved access issues. Over the past year, an increasing

number of TRICARE Prime beneficiaries, including active duty members, are telling

NMFA they are unable to obtain an appointment at the MTF within the Prime access standards. At some locations, we suspect that the full range of resources needed

for MTF optimization have not been provided. We are especially concerned about reports of staffing shortages within military Service health care specialties. At other

locations, we suspect the problem is rooted in the alternative financing provisions

in the TRICARE regional contracts. In TRICARE Regions 1, 2, and 5, the contract

calls for the MTF rather than the managed care support contractor to pay for care

received by a Prime beneficiary enrolled to the MTF who must be sent for care in

the civilian sector. The TRICARE Prime access standard for a specialty appointment

is thirty days. Beneficiaries tell us, however, they often are told by clinics and appointment clerks at the MTFs that appointments are not available and that they

should ‘‘call back next month.’’ They are not offered the option to schedule an appointment with a TRICARE network provider downtown. They report that when

they use the magic words ‘‘access standard’’ or ask to be referred to a civilian provider, an appointment often becomes available. NMFA is concerned that the alternative financing contract provision creates a barrier to the cooperation needed between the MTF and the managed care support contractor to ensure beneficiaries receive care within TRICARE Prime access standards.

NMFA also continues to hear that beneficiaries in certain sections of the country

face increasing difficulties in finding civilian providers willing to accept TRICARE

rates as payments. Although the TRICARE contractors’ lists of network providers

in many communities seem adequate at first glance, beneficiaries who call these

providers for an appointment are often told that they are taking no new TRICARE

patients. This scarcity of providers is not just a problem for TRICARE Prime patients. Beneficiaries using TRICARE Standard also report that providers are unwilling to have too high a proportion of TRICARE patients in their caseloads. Providers

cite problems with TRICARE claims processing, low reimbursement rates, and the

hassles associated with becoming authorized as a TRICARE provider as reasons not

to participate. Beneficiaries look both to DOD and the TRICARE contractors to ease

the administrative burden on providers, fix the claims problems, and ensure that

reimbursement rates are set at the proper level. On paper, TRICARE is a very robust health care program and benefit compared to many other insurance plans;

however, a robust benefit is no benefit if the beneficiary cannot find a provider willing or able to provide the needed health care.

As we watch DOD prepare for competition on a new round of TRICARE contracts,

NMFA is concerned that some of the issues that affect beneficiary access, provider

satisfaction, and costs to the government may remain unresolved. A clear line of

command and accountability must be established so that beneficiaries with problems accessing care or with concerns about the quality of their care can be assured

their problem will be fixed. Beneficiary and provider education must be consistent

across regions and must include information not just for Prime beneficiaries and

network providers, but also for TRICARE Standard beneficiaries and non-network

providers. Although DOD has made progress in improving portability and providing

a uniform benefit across the regions, the elimination of regional differences and barriers to portability remains a challenge for the new round of contracts.

As the military Services continue their optimization efforts to provide care to

more patients through the direct care system, resources must be available to ensure

beneficiary access. Robust provider networks and adequate reimbursement levels to

encourage providers to treat TRICARE Standard beneficiaries are needed in the

purchased care segment of TRICARE to provide care to beneficiaries unable to obtain care within the MTFs. In the new TRICARE contracts, the rules governing

beneficiaries’ access to the TRICARE benefit, such as the list of procedures requiring preauthorization, must be standardized across all regions and communicated in

multiple formats to beneficiaries and providers.
670

HEALTH CARE FOR GUARD AND RESERVE FAMILIES

Accessing providers willing to accept TRICARE patients and understanding the

benefit and the rules inherent in the military medical system are especially worrisome issues for some of TRICARE’s newest beneficiaries: the families of Guard and

Reserve members called to active duty. The varieties of Guard or Reserve orders,

the complexities of the TRICARE system, and the geographic dispersion of a unit’s

members and families combine to make communication about the benefit and access

to assistance when there is a problem very difficult. TRICARE contractors and representatives of the TRICARE region Lead Agents routinely conduct TRICARE briefings for members of units about to mobilize; unfortunately, in most cases, family

members—the people who will actually have to deal with the system once the

servicemember deploys—are not in attendance. If the servicemember lives in a different TRICARE region from where his unit is located, he will receive the wrong

region’s information for his family at the briefing.

DOD has tried to ease Guard and Reserve families’ transition into TRICARE by

creating a demonstration project that waives the annual TRICARE deductible;

eliminates the requirement for the beneficiary living within the catchment area of

a military treatment facility to obtain a Non Availability Statement (NAS) before

receiving inpatient care from a civilian hospital; and pays the charge of 115 percent

over the TRICARE Maximum Allowable Charge (TMAC), rather than only the

TMAC rate. This demonstration project should help patients maintain the continuity of care they need by increasing the likelihood that they can continue seeing

the family’s civilian doctor at minimal cost. NMFA has learned, however, that many

families have not learned about the demonstration, and thus are unable to make

an informed choice about whether to join TRICARE Prime if they are eligible. Families of Guard or Reserve members activated for over 179 days are eligible to join

Prime, the lowest cost option in TRICARE. Because Prime is managed care, however, and Prime patients must go to a provider in the Prime network, the patient

may not be able to continue to see their current doctor. The pregnant spouse of a

Guard or Reserve member activated for over 179 days should be offered the option

of remaining in TRICARE Standard (with no deductible and higher reimbursements

under the demonstration) so that she could stay with her civilian doctor even if the

doctor is not part of the TRICARE network. Unfortunately, because all families are

not being told about this option, some women are signing up for Prime, and then

told in the middle of their pregnancy that they must switch providers.

NMFA believes that Guard and Reserve members and their families deserve access to accurate information tailored for their needs. We applaud the Region 2

TRICARE Lead Agent who has established a Reserve Liaison position within the

Lead Agent’s office. This person directs the region’s information efforts to the Guard

and Reserve population and also answers questions from beneficiary. A Reserve

member himself, the liaison understands the issues affecting this group of new

TRICARE beneficiaries.

Every TRICARE region’s Lead Agent should have such a liaison to improve the

flow of accurate information to beneficiaries and provide a reliable source of assistance should beneficiaries experience difficulties.

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION IMPROVEMENTS

NMFA is grateful to the Congress for helping to remedy one of the greatest financial stressors on the military family: the out-of-pocket costs associated with Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves. Increases in PCS reimbursements and allowances included in the fiscal year 2002 NDAA and effective over the next 2 years will

ease the financial burden for many servicemembers and their families when the government orders them to move. Increases in military pay and Basic Allowance for

Housing (BAH) received the most attention from servicemembers and families after

enacted in the last session of Congress; however, NMFA anticipated that the PCS

reimbursements would be equally appreciated as the summer move season kicked

off and as more families learned of these changes. Word was beginning to filter out

about these changes when, unfortunately, some families began hearing from their

military Service personnel branches that the Service would not have enough money

to move them on schedule this summer. The Navy, for example announced in early

March that the $30 million cut it received in PCS funding would result in the delay

of some moves until the next fiscal year. For families with school-age children, delaying until October a planned summer move that would have enabled their children to begin the school year at their new school is not an option.

Military families understand the mission requirements that occasionally force

them to remain at a duty station longer than anticipated or even force them to

make that mid-school year move. However, they want to know that, when the
671

servicemember needs a move to advance his or her career or when they have finished their time in an overseas or remote tour, they will be able to make the move

as planned and not be told there is no money available to move them. Families do

not understand how Congress could both increase reimbursement amounts and decrease the appropriation used to pay for PCS moves.

NMFA applauds Congressional efforts to encourage the Services to reduce PCS

moves that neither enhance a servicemember’s career nor meet mission requirements. Many moves, however, are non-discretionary—including accession moves,

separation moves, and moves associated with shifts in unit basing. NMFA believes

that the types of discretionary moves and their frequency should be calculated first

and then annual targets established from this baseline.

NMFA also encourages the Congress to continue pressing DOD for improvements

in the move process. Although the series of pilots established by DOD at the direction of Congress have been allowed to expire, the data from those pilots must be

collected, reported, and analyzed. The best practices identified from the pilots must

be put in place whenever possible to bring needed improvements. Military families

should have realistic expectations about the quality of their military move; movers

and the military Services must ensure that the customer service associated with the

move meets the expectations of family members.

NMFA urges the Congress to ensure that adequate funding is provided to move

the military members and their families due for PCS moves this summer and to

continue its direction to the Services to reduce total PCS moves, but only after an

appropriate baseline has been established. PCS improvements identified through an

evaluation of data collected from the move pilot projects must be made for all moves,

and not just for another round of pilots.

MILITARY SPOUSE EMPLOYMENT

NMFA appreciates Congressional efforts to improve the education and job opportunities of military spouses. Sixty-three percent of military spouses are in the labor

force, including 87 percent of junior enlisted spouses (E–1 to E–5). The loss of the

spouse’s income at exactly the time when the family is facing the costs of a PCS

move is further exacerbated when a spouse is unable to collect unemployment compensation due to provisions of State laws. In many States, the military spouse is

not eligible to collect unemployment compensation when the spouse’s unemployment

is due to the servicemember’s change of duty location. States frequently determine

that the decision of a military spouse to move with the servicemember is a ‘‘voluntary quit’’ and the benefit is denied. Spouses need the assistance of the military

leadership and possibly friends in Congress to help raise the level of awareness

about the inequities of these determinations so that more States will approve unemployment compensation for military spouses.

FAMILY READINESS IN TIME OF WAR

The all-volunteer military today is predominantly a young, married force with

children. Currently, 55 percent of the military is married; 56 percent of the married

population is between the ages of 22 and 29. Studies show that military members

tend to marry younger, begin to have children at a younger age, and have larger

families than their civilian peers. Nearly one million children, or 73 percent of all

military children, are under age 11; 40 percent are 5 years of age or younger. Approximately 6 percent of military members are single parents, ranging from a low

of 3 percent of Marines to a high of almost 8 percent of Army members.

As our military juggles existing deployments and missions with the war on terrorism and homeland defense mission, the military family’s lifeline—its community—feels the strain. Family services are important even to an installation not

pressured by high perstempo or war-related deployments. Family centers, military

chaplains, and installation mental health professionals help ease the transition to

the military environment for newly-arrived families. They provide financial counseling, information on accessing local social services, parenting classes, opportunities to learn about the community, as well as opportunities to volunteer to help others. Military youth programs offered by installation youth services and chaplains

provide meaningful activities for many military youth, especially in the vulnerable

preadolescent years. Additional services set up to support families when units deploy include counseling services, e-mail and video teleconferencing centers, and special family activities. These services ease the strain of deployment for families left

behind and reassure the servicemember that the family is being looked after.

Because of the events of September 11, the deployments associated with the war

on terrorism and homeland defense are different for families than the previous decade’s regular deployments to Bosnia, Kosovo, and other areas. Many deployment lo-
672

cations are secret and the servicemembers’ return dates are often unknown. And because they are being told to prepare for the long-term, and that they must live not

only with the fact of deployments, but also the threat of more domestic terrorism,

families know that the support services needed will be different from both the Gulf

War and the deployments of the past decade. The e-mail services, dedicated support

personnel, and unit support centers are wonderful, but expensive. Too often, the

funding provided for contingency operations does not include enough for the support

services needed at home. Installations must find the money out of their own operations and maintenance accounts to set up the family programs needed when units

deploy.

NMFA is grateful to the Congress for including in this year’s NDAA the provision

in Sec. 652 granting DOD authority to provide additional assistance in fiscal year

2002 to families of members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty ‘‘to ensure

that the children of such members obtain needed child care, education, and other

youth services.’’ This assistance is to be directed primarily to providing family support and child care for children of servicemembers deployed or ordered to active

duty in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom. Report language states that

the intent of this section is to ensure that the Secretary of Defense has the authority to provide the types of family support services provided during the Persian Gulf

War. NMFA is concerned, however, that resources are not yet available to enable

the Services to provide all of the support services needed by the families, unit family

volunteers, and Service support personnel trying to cope with the current situation.

The Congressional direction to provide support services at least at the baseline

level of what was provided in the Gulf War is appropriate. Some resources for information and support are more accessible now thanks to the internet and e-mail than

they were in Desert Storm; more units have family readiness groups with a network

of better-trained volunteers than those who rallied to support the troops and each

other in Desert Storm. Desert Shield and Desert Storm came at the end of a decade

of military build-up and increased resourcing, but by the end of the war, most observers noted that the family support structure was stretched to the end of its limits. The current combined war on terrorism and homeland defense mission come at

the end of a decade of military downsizing and increased missions. Many volunteers

and installation support staff were already strained before September 11—NMFA

wonders where the back-up is for these dedicated front-line family support workers

when we will need to rely on them for a long term measured in years rather than

months.

NMFA applauds the DOD Office of Military Community and Family Policy, whose

staff, assisted by chaplains, MWR, and family support staff from the Services and

by staff from other organizations and agencies, quickly set up the support center

for family members of the victims of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. The center, located in a nearby hotel, was accessible to the families and provided counseling, benefit information, financial assistance, and other help all in one location.

The lessons learned from the operation of this center should assist installation family support staff in providing the services needed by families facing the high stress

of wartime deployments. One of the key lessons is the importance of the accessibility

of the services to families who need them. The kind of incident that could cause an

installation to increase security and lock-out everyone who does not live on the base

or work in certain critical jobs would also be the kind of incident that would increase the demand for family support services. By locating the Pentagon assistance

center outside of any military installation, DOD provided easy access for those needing the assistance. Most military families live off-base. NMFA has long promoted

more outreach by family centers and installation support personnel into the civilian

communities where many military families live so that family members unable to

get to the installation for these programs can still receive the assistance they provide. The possibility of further incidents that could heighten the demand for support

programs while, at the same time, causing installations to restrict access makes this

outreach even more imperative.

Since quality family support contributes to the readiness of the mission, NMFA

believes that the cost of family support must be factored into the cost of the contingency and appropriate funding budgeted and provided upfront.

SUPPORTING THE SCHOOLS THAT SUPPORT OUR CHILDREN

NMFA thanks this Subcommittee for its support of schools operated by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA). DOD schools have received a

wealth of favorable publicity during the past year on its test scores, minority student achievement, parent involvement programs, and partnership activities with the

military community. The quality of these schools is a testament not only to the gen-
673

erous support provided by the government, but also to the commitment of military

families to quality education. Although they appreciate the long history of Congressional support for these schools, parents of military children in the DOD Domestic

Schools are concerned about an upcoming study on whether some or all of these

schools should be turned over to local civilian public school districts. NMFA is grateful that the Congress wants to gather as many facts as possible before deciding the

future of these schools and anticipates that families, commanders, and communities

will have the opportunity to provide input into this study.

Because approximately 80 percent of military children attend civilian public

schools, NMFA is also grateful for Congressional support of quality education for

these children and their civilian classmates. Congressional authorization and appropriations for the DOD Impact Aid supplemental funding, and the additional funding

for schools educating large numbers of military special needs children, helps those

districts most affected by the military presence. This Subcommittee’s additional appropriations to help schools educating military children in Hawaii and Alaska have

also had a positive effect on the quality of education provided in these States.

NMFA is also pleased to note the increased involvement by military leaders in activities designed to promote quality education. In Hawaii, the Joint Venture Education Forum (JVEF), with equal members from the Pacific Command and Hawaii’s

State education office, has raised the level of military involvement in the local

schools. It helped allocate the funding provided by the Congress to fix facilities and

purchase needed school materials. The JVEF is currently sponsoring a survey to

gauge military parents’ concerns about the schools so that future projects will target

efforts where most needed. By working together, the military and education leaders

in Hawaii have created a partnership model that will result in improved educational

quality for all children.

Your assistance for all schools—DOD and civilian—that educate military children

will be even more important this year. Many schools educating military children,

because they are located on or near military installations, have identified additional

security concerns in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Schools’ mission to ensure military children are focused on learning became more complicated with the

terrorist attacks and the subsequent deployments. Children are affected by the absence of a parent, even when the parent is just on a civilian business trip. Knowing

that parent is away on a military mission that is featured on the nightly news adds

tremendously to the stress for the child. Children under stress may ‘‘act out’’ in

class or may not be able to concentrate on school work. The uncertainty of deployment length and, in some cases, the uncertainty about the whereabouts of the deployed member raises the stress level even further. Fears about possible further terrorist acts in the United States make things worse as children ask: ‘‘Why did Mom

or Dad have to leave when we might be in danger here?’’

Schools near military installations that educate many military children understand what happens in a deployment situation, but need to ensure that additional

counseling and other resources are available to help. They often have access to family support personnel at the installation for assistance. On the other hand, schools

with children of now-activated Guard and Reserve members are often dealing with

‘‘military children’’ for the first time and are doing it without that safety net of the

installation family center, chaplains, health professionals, and counselors. They are

calling NMFA, looking for resources on how to set up support groups for children

and families or on how to be aware of problems associated with a parent’s deployment. Usually, the stresses facing families did not originate with the schools; however a school’s inability to support a child through the stresses will affect that

child’s ability to learn. School can become the one stable element in a family’s life

during a deployment.

NMFA also urges the Congress to be aware that several school districts—both

DOD and civilian—are also facing a challenge caused by the DOD initiative to privatize military family housing. As more housing for military families is built either

on a military installation or in a part of the civilian community, the school district

serving that committee may see shifts in enrollment and be called upon to provide

more school facilities. NMFA believes that DOD and the Services must share in the

solution to the school facility problem caused by the privatization initiative. Many

schools will not have the resources to provide adequate school facilities or even

buses to move children from the new housing to existing schools within the shortened construction timeline under the privatization ventures. NMFA believes that an

increase in the supplemental Impact Aid appropriations, with an amount fenced to

help school districts deal with facility or transportation needs caused by housing privatization, may be necessary in future years. Additional funding may also be needed

for DOD schools at CONUS installations undergoing privatization. NMFA urges the

Congress to ensure that the schools educating military children have the resources
674

they need to provide security for the building, students, and staff, and also the resources to provide counseling and other assistance to families and training to teachers on the issues facing families of deployed servicemembers. In providing oversight

and resources to support military family housing privatization projects, the Congress should also consider the needs of school districts charged with educating the

military children living in the housing.

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE FAMILIES

As of May 29, 83,746 National Guard and Reserve members were on active duty

in support of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. Most of the issues facing the families of these members are similar to those facing families of active duty

members who are deployed, but with a different spin and often a different intensity.

The Guard or Reserve family may be living the life of a military family for the first

time and most are dealing with the deployment-associated stresses without the

backup of military installation family support resources. Although there is much

talk within DOD and the Services about the ‘‘total force’’ comprised of active and

reserve component melded together to accomplish the mission, what NMFA hears

from Guard and Reserve families tells us that the ‘‘total force’’ concept has not yet

fully reached the family support arena.

NMFA has been in regular contact with Guard and Reserve family support personnel and with families over the past few months. We have heard wonderful stories

of families caring for each other, of the leadership attempting to ease the problems

servicemembers and families face, and of employers showing their commitment to

their employees by paying their health care premiums or the differential between

their military and civilian pay. We have also heard many of the frustrations faced

by these families, frustrations that often begin even before the servicemember receives orders. National Guard and Reserve members are proud of the contribution

they make to the nation’s defense and their families are proud of them. Families

are frustrated, however, at the many difficulties they encounter in accessing information, understanding their benefits, adjusting to a new family income level that

is often smaller than before the member mobilized, and finding themselves the only

military family in the neighborhood. Because they are often the only military family

in the neighborhood, they feel they are being ignored and that the family’s contributions toward the war effort are unnoticed and unappreciated.

Since Desert Storm, the Guard and Reserve, like the active component, have devoted more resources toward building family readiness groups and ensuring that

family members are registered in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and have military ID cards. Thanks to National Guard State and Reserve regional family readiness coordinators and unit volunteers, more families have

learned about their benefits and how to deal with issues that arise when the member is activated. Unfortunately, the offices of these family coordinators and unit volunteers are often one-deep, leaving them with neither the time nor stamina to address all the issues facing the families of deployed members. Basic support services,

such as communication, continue to be a problem in many Guard and Reserve units.

Communication and family support are more difficult in the Guard and Reserve

than in the active force because of the geographic dispersion of the members and

their families. Unlike the active units located on one installation with the families

all within reasonable proximity to the installation, members of Guard and Reserve

units are scattered, often in several States. When the units hold family readiness

meetings or pre-deployment briefings, only the families closest to the unit headquarters can come to the briefings. Units must ask families to pay their own way

to family meetings, often to include overnight accommodations. Therefore, many

cannot come and miss out on important information and the opportunity to get to

know other families.

The lack of benefit information and persistent communication difficulties are common themes in comments to NMFA from Guard and Reserve families. The Office

of DOD Reserve Affairs has posted a great deal of information on its website. Its

Family Readiness Toolkit, for example, contains useful information; however, many

families report difficulties in accessing the tool kit without causing computer problems. Guard and Reserve families ask for standardized materials that are appropriate to all services, so that if an Army Reserve member happened to live close to

a Navy installation, he or she would understand how to access services there. They

also ask for better information about how to access benefit information or financial

assistance. Resources are available to help provide emergency financial assistance

to Guard or Reserve members. The military service relief societies and the Red

Cross’s National Guard Assistance Fund are among the options; however, many

members and leaders at the unit level do not know these services are available.
675

NMFA suggests that DOD 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 deployed members, but also the parents

of servicemembers. Involving the local community leaders in setting up these support groups would address two of the common 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 sacrifice.

Compensation issues are also of concern among Guard and Reserve members.

Many have taken cuts in pay, without their employer volunteering to pay the difference between their civilian pay and the Guard or Reserve salary. In addition to

earning less, some Guard and Reserve members were also caught in some problems

with pay processing. For some families, the lack of payment has led to overdue payments on bills, and occasional threats to foreclose on their mortgage or turn them

over to collection. 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 must partner with other organizations and explore

new means of communication to provide information and support to geographically

dispersed Guard and Reserve families.

MILITARY CHILD CARE

Since September 11, both active and reserve component families’ need for child

care and youth services from families has increased with the operational demands

connected with the war on terrorism and homeland defense activities. Some installations have responded with extended duty child care, at Child Development Centers

and in Family Child Care homes and are even waiving families’ copayments for

these extended hours. Child Development Centers and Family Child Care homes,

however, cannot meet all of the need, especially for the families of the National

Guard and Reserve members called to active duty. Most Guard and Reserve families

do not live near a military installation where they could access a military Child Development Center, even if it had space. Approximately 53 percent of Selected Reserve members are married with children; 5.4 percent of reserve component members are single parents, compared with 6.2 percent of the active force. When the

servicemember is not home to help care for children, the family will need more child

care. In some cases, military spouses are quitting their jobs or dropping out of

school because they cannot find the child care they need at an affordable rate.

In the fiscal year 2000 NDAA, Congress provided DOD with the flexibility to increase the availability of child care and youth programs through partnerships with

civilian agencies and other organizations. The Services set up several pilot programs

to take advantage of this flexibility and obtain more care off the installation. Under

the provisions of the law, DOD is to submit a report this year to the Congress outlining what it had done. NMFA is looking forward to hearing of these initiatives

and hopes that some of them have been directed at servicemembers, including

Guard and Reserve members called to active duty, who cannot access installation

Child Development Centers. In 2000, only 2.8 percent of DOD child care was provided by Family Child Care homes located off-base; 5.3 percent was provided

through resource and referral services. Guard and Reserve families, as well as active duty families living and/or working longer distances from an installation need

assistance not just with finding quality child care near their homes, but also in paying for that care. When a military family enrolls their child in a military Child Development Center or Family Child Care home, the cost of that child’s care is shared

between the government through appropriated funds and the servicemember. When

a military family who cannot access child care through the military places their

child in a civilian child care facility, that family bears the entire cost.

National Guard and Reserve members are essential to today’s military mission.

Concerns about finding and affording quality child care when called to active duty

affect their mission readiness, just as they affect the ability of other active duty

members. The child care needs of activated Guard and Reserve members must be

calculated in DOD and Service estimates of demand for child care services, and assistance must be given to these families in accessing child care. This assistance

should start with referral services, but will probably also need to include subsidies

for certain members.
676

NMFA encourages DOD and the Services to make better use of the flexibility

given them by Congress and to partner with community-based child care companies,

agencies, and local school districts to assist members of the Guard and Reserve

called to active duty in meeting their child care needs.

MILITARY FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES—READY TO MEET THE MISSION

Members of the Uniformed Services—active and reserve component—are doing

the nation’s work today all over the world. They ask the nation to give them the

tools they need to do that job: equipment, training, and leadership. They also look

to the nation for recognition that their job is not nine to five and that it involves

their families in ways few other jobs demand. Military members and their families

want the nation to understand that the military family drives retention decisions,

that the family’s quality of life is a readiness requirement, and that even a community as strong as the military community will fall apart if it is asked to do too much

with too little for too long. They also look to the nation to understand that quality

of life is not just about pay. It 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 children. It is about meeting the aspirations of a

spouse for a career and a couple for a secure retirement. It is about respect for a

job well done.

We thank this Subcommittee and the 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 in time of war, even more than during peacetime deployments, 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 force 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 INOUYE. Thank you very much. Most Americans are not

aware that the situation has changed in our military. I participated

in the ancient World War II, and at that time 96 percent of the

men in my regiment had no dependents. Only four had dependents,

4 percent. They were married, and a few had children. Today the

average is about 70 percent with families, and so our military is

now a family affair, and we are well aware of that.

For example, we know that at Walter Reed, for example, there

are more—well, pediatricians than orthopedic surgeons. We have

more gynecologists than orthopedic surgeons. Those are the realities of this day, and we will do our best to make certain that the

families maintain a high quality of life.

Ms. RAEZER. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Our next witness is a member of

the Public Policy Committee of the Lymphoma Research Foundation, Ms. Alayna Kassan.

STATEMENT OF ALAYNA KASSAN, MEMBER, PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE, LYMPHOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Ms. KASSAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Alayna

Kassan, and I am here today to represent the Lymphoma Research

Foundation (LRF) and the thousands of people who are living with

a blood cancer, either lymphoma, leukemia, or multiple myeloma.

LRF and its partners in the Blood Cancer Coalition believe that

this is a time of great opportunity for blood cancer research, and

that a corresponding program would be a logical and wise addition

to the congressionally directed medical research program

(CDMRP). I am here today to respectfully request that $16 million

be provided for blood cancer research in the CDMRP.
677

Four years ago, at the age of 27, I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s

disease, a form of disease that typically strikes teenagers and

young adults between the ages of 16 and 34. For over a year, prior

to my diagnosis, my immune system was so compromised that I

constantly battled flu-like symptoms, lost more than 20 pounds,

had trouble functioning both inside and outside of work, and often

could not even get out of bed. Though I was diligent about seeking

medical attention, my doctors were wrongly convinced I was depressed or had an eating disorder and my cancer went

undiagnosed.

Unfortunately, my story is not unique. Unlike some other forms

of cancer, there are no means of prevention, screening, or early detection for the blood cancers. They are difficult to diagnose because

their symptoms are often confused with those of other illnesses. As

such, patients are often misdiagnosed or diagnosed late in the

course of their disease.

Thanks to advances in research, more than 80 percent of patients

diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease today will be cured. Happily, I

have been cancer-free since completing chemotherapy and radiation

treatments, and I am expected to live a long and healthy life. However, the treatment I received does put me at an increased risk for

other health problems, including secondary cancers in the radiation

field. Notwithstanding, my family and I are extraordinarily grateful for the recent medical breakthroughs that made it possible for

me to stand here before you today as a lymphoma survivor. Had

I been diagnosed 20 years earlier, I might not have been lucky

enough to be with you today.

While my story is ultimately one of success, the statistics in

hematological cancers overall are quite grim. Today, there are approximately 700,000 people living with one of the three blood cancers, with lymphoma being the most common. This year, approximately 100,000 Americans will be diagnosed with this cancer, and

almost 60,000 of them will die. While the overall rate of all types

of cancers is on the decline, that trend is not seen in the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and myeloma. The incidence of non-Hodgkin’s

lymphoma has nearly doubled since the 1970’s, and the mortality

rate is increasing at a faster rate than other cancers.

The blood-related cancers know no barriers in terms of age, race,

or gender. Although leukemia strikes 10 times as many adults as

children, it is still the leading cause of death among children under

age 15. All three diseases have a particularly high incidence among

men of middle age, and leukemia and lymphoma are the leading

fatal diseases of men under age 35.

Additionally, the causes of the blood cancers are not clear, although exposure to certain chemicals appears to increase the risk

of lymphoma and is the subject of much research. Furthermore, research has suggested links between exposures to certain viruses

and the risk of developing lymphoma.

Recently, I was invited to take part in the assembly of a blue ribbon panel to evaluate the National Cancer Institute’s blood cancer

research portfolio. The results of the deliberations of this leukemia,

lymphoma, and myeloma progress review group (PRG) is a 5-year

research plan that has been published and widely circulated among

specialists in the field, patients, and policymakers. The PRG report
678

recommended a number of actions, including develop innovative

strategies to reduce the time for new blood cancer therapies to 2

years, implement strategies to improve the clinical trial system,

and enhance investment in research to understand the causes of

the blood cancers.

As you may know, the Department of Defense currently funds

breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer research programs through the

CDMRP. The DOD research initiatives are complementary to the

cancer research program at the MCI, and have been widely praised

for their planning and oversight systems that involve both researchers and patient advocates.

I would like to share with you some of the many compelling reasons for establishing a blood cancer program at the DOD, including

the service connection between Agent Orange exposure and blood

cancers, the unexplained increasing incidence of blood cancers in

the general population, and the influence of blood cancer research

on the development of treatments for other nonblood cancers. In

fact, the combination chemotherapy and radiation treatment that

I received for Hodgkin’s disease is now being used in other cancers,

and yielding promising results.

Last year, this subcommittee included in its bill a new research

initiative directed at chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). It is

certainly understandable to focus on CML as a first step because

of the exciting research that yielded the treatment. We would recommend, however, that a broader approach to blood cancer research is warranted, and again respectfully request that $60 million be provided for blood cancer research in the CDMRP.

It is my sincere hope and belief that your investment in blood

cancer research will result in a greater understanding of these devastating diseases, and ultimately many more happy endings such

as mine.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEONARD M. ROSEN, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND

CHAIR, PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE, LYMPHOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is a great

pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of the Lymphoma Research Foundation (LRF). LRF, the result of a recent merger of the two leading lymphoma research and education organizations, is a national organization dedicated to eradicate

lymphoma and serve those touched by this disease. We are pleased to announce our

merger because we believe it represents an important step forward in our ability

to address the challenge of lymphoma. We believe this is a particularly promising

time for new approaches to research on lymphoma and the other blood-related cancers, and we appreciate the opportunity to present some ideas to you.

Although the mission, expertise, and special knowledge of LRF relates to

lymphoma, the most commonly occurring hematological cancer, including both

Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in this testimony I will address all

of the blood cancers. LRF has joined its colleagues from other blood cancer research,

education, and advocacy organizations to advance a responsible public policy agenda

that relates to all of the blood cancers. We believe that recommendations related

to research initiatives at the Department of Defense (DOD) should pertain to all of

the blood cancers rather than to only one of these cancers.

THE BURDEN OF THE BLOOD-RELATED CANCERS

There are approximately 700,000 people living with one of the three hematological

cancers—lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma. This year, approximately
679

100,000 Americans will be diagnosed with one of these cancers, and almost 60,000

will die from one of them. Unfortunately, the good news regarding declines in incidence for most cancers does not hold true for the blood-related cancers. NCI has reported that the rate of new cases and deaths for all cancers combined has declined

between 1990 and 1997, but that trend is not seen in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and

myeloma. The incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has nearly doubled since the

1970’s. In addition, the mortality rate from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is increasing

at a faster rate than other cancers.

The blood-related cancers know no barriers in terms of age, race, or gender.

Young children through the elderly are diagnosed with the blood-related cancers. Although leukemia strikes ten times as many adults as children, it is still the leading

cause of death among children under age 15. All three diseases have a particularly

high incidence among men in middle age, and leukemia and lymphoma are the leading fatal diseases in men under age 35.

Unlike some other forms of cancer, there are no means of prevention, screening,

or early detection for the blood cancers. They are difficult to diagnose because their

symptoms—fatigue, weight loss, and symptoms related to a compromised immune

system—are often confused with those of other illnesses. As a result, patients are

often misdiagnosed or are diagnosed late in the course of their disease.

The causes of the blood cancers are not clear, although exposure to certain chemicals appears to increase the risk of lymphoma and is the subject of much research.

In addition, research has suggested links between exposures to certain viruses and

the risk of developing lymphoma.

THE STATE OF BLOOD CANCER RESEARCH

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), at the urging of patient advocates and researchers, recently convened a blue ribbon panel of scientists, physicians, industry,

and patient advocates to evaluate the NCI blood cancer research portfolio, identify

opportunities and challenges in blood cancer research, and make recommendations

for research in the field. The result of the deliberations of this group, called the Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Myeloma Progress Review Group (PRG), is a 5-year research plan that has been published and widely circulated among specialists in the

field, patients, and policymakers.

The PRG report acknowledged the tremendous advances that have been made in

blood cancer research. These include:

—Research that is providing information about ways to use the body’s immune system to fight disease.—The first monoclonal antibody was developed and approved for the treatment of indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This is the

first in a series of monoclonal antibodies that will use the body’s immune system to fight cancer. Another form of targeted therapy is radioimmunotherapy,

in which an antibody carries a radioactive particle to the tumor to enhance the

antibody’s ability to attack and kill its target. A new radioimmunotherapy was

approved for use at the end of 2001, representing an important new treatment

option for individuals who may have failed other treatments. Cancer vaccines,

which work to establish an immune response against cancer cells, are currently

being tested in lymphoma patients. These trials are still underway and therefore the results are not in.

—The development of less toxic and more targeted therapies than traditional chemotherapy.—Many of you are probably familiar with the development of the new

drug called Gleevec, which was originally approved for the treatment of chronic

myelogenous leukemia (CML), and has also been approved for treatment of a

solid tumor, gastrointestinal stromal tumor. This drug is based on an understanding of a genetic flaw that causes CML and on a strategy to correct that

‘‘flaw.’’ This drug has been heralded as the first of the so-called targeted cancer

therapies which have limited side effects, and some have described it as a ‘‘cure’’

for CML, although it is certainly too early to make that determination.

—Research that will help physicians diagnose the specific type and subtype of

blood cancers.—Important work at NCI has led to a greater understanding of

the subtypes of lymphoma and which subtypes are most likely to respond to

treatment. As this basic science finding is translated into new diagnostic tools,

physicians will be able to offer individuals a more precise diagnosis and help

patients make more informed treatment decisionmaking.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The PRG report recommended a number of actions that should be taken to improve blood cancer research and enhance treatments for these diseases. Among the

recommendations were the following:
680

—Develop innovative strategies and structures to reduce the time for development

of new blood cancer therapies from a period of 5–10 years to 2 years.—The report

proposed that funding be made available for new consortia models that bring

together academic researchers, government, industry, and patient advocates.

These multi-institutional research centers would facilitate the translation of

basic research findings into new therapies. —Implement strategies to improve the clinical trials system.—Advances in blood

cancer drug treatment depend on a well-functioning clinical trials system, and

the PRG report recommended that efforts be made to increase the rate of participation of blood cancer patients in clinical trials. If trials must be constructed

to enroll patients according to their disease subtype, there will be special challenges to prompt and full accrual to these trials, and new trial designs may be

necessary. —Enhance the investment in research to understand the causes of the blood cancers.—Research suggests that exposure to certain chemicals and to certain viruses may increase the risk of lymphoma, and a greater investment in this inquiry is necessary.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF LRF AND BLOOD CANCER COALITION

LRF and its partners in the Blood Cancer Coalition, The Leukemia & Lymphoma

Society and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, believe that this is a time

of great opportunity for blood cancer research and that a blood cancer research program would be a logical and wise addition to the Congressionally Directed Medical

Research Program (CDMRP). The Blood Cancer Coalition applauds the Subcommittee for its longstanding support for the breast and prostate cancer research

programs and its more recent support for the ovarian cancer research program.

These programs have been hailed by researchers and patient advocates as model research initiatives, and the Subcommittee is to be congratulated for its commitment

to them.

Last year, this Subcommittee included in its bill a new research initiative directed

at CML. It is certainly understandable to focus on CML as a first step, because of

the exciting recent CML research that yielded the treatment Gleevec. We would recommend, however, that a broader approach to blood cancer research is warranted

and respectfully request that $16 million be provided for blood-cancer research in

the CDMRP.

There are compelling reasons for inclusion of all of the blood cancers, including

CML, in the CDMRP.

Link of Agent Orange to Blood Cancers

Agent Orange is a toxic chemical that was used to defoliate jungle terrain and

clear vegetation around enemy military installations. Recent studies prove that individual exposure to Agent Orange causes an increased risk of developing lymphoid

malignancies. The Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes hematological diseases

such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, and multiple myeloma as service-connected for Vietnam Veterans, based on exposure to Agent Orange or other

herbicides. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences predicted that lymphoma,

leukemia, and myeloma would account for the second largest number of cancer cases

diagnosed among Vietnam Veterans.

LRF believes that the connection between Agent Orange exposure and blood cancers, as well as their increasing incidence in the general population and the serious

treatment challenges associated with these diseases, make the blood-related cancers

a logical investment for the Committee.

Impact of Blood Cancer Research on Other Cancers

In addition to the service links to the blood cancers, there are other powerful reasons to invest in blood cancer research. Key advances in blood cancer research have

contributed to significant improvements in the treatment of other, non-blood cancers. Researchers believe that understanding the blood cancers helps us identify

new treatments for these cancers and also for solid tumors.

Curing cancer with drugs began with breakthroughs in the 1950s in the treatment and cure of blood cancers. Many chemotherapy agents that are now used in

the treatment of a wide range of solid tumors evaluated from agents that were originally used in treatment of blood cancers. The 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 modern day therapeutic interventions like

monoclonal antibodies that target and disable antigens on the cell surface thought
681

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.

A strong cancer research effort, like that included in the CDMRP, would profit

from a focus on blood cancer research. LRF and the Blood Cancer Coalition are convinced that an investment in blood cancer research through the CDMRP would benefit not only blood cancer patients but also patients with other cancers.

As is true in many areas, the research potential in blood cancers far outstrips

available resources. Additional resources would enable the many outstanding researchers in the field to build on their sophisticated understanding of normal and

malignant cell biology to develop new treatments, and we urge you to accelerate

that research process by including a blood cancer research initiative in the CDMRP.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today.

Senator INOUYE. I can assure you that we will very carefully

study this, because blood cancer is a curse that we would like to

help you wipe out if that is at all possible. As you know, we are

working assiduously on breast cancer, on prostate cancer, and

maybe this should be our next area. We will do our best.

Ms. KASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is from the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and the Joslin Diabetes Center, Mr. Ron Violi

and Dr. Sven Bursell.

STATEMENT OF RONALD L. VIOLI, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH

ACCOMPANIED BY DR. SVEN BURSELL, DIRECTOR, JOSLIN VISION

NETWORK, JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER

Mr. VIOLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. At Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh we are

focused on improving, predicting, and preventing and finding the

cure for juvenile diabetes.

We have talked to you in the past about the work of our principal investigator, Dr. Massimo Trucco, who we have here with us

today, and his work on defining the genetic susceptibilities of resistance to type I diabetes. The focus remains and has been broadened to include advances in islet transportation and cell regeneration research.

In recent years, we have seen islet transplantation used in the

treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes. However, these patients

face rejection and must be treated with a lifetime regime of

immunosuppressants.

For fiscal year 2003, Dr. Trucco will concentrate on methods of

care for young diabetics who cannot tolerate the toxic drugs that

are used to fight rejection. He has been successful in developing

protocols that preserve the transplantation in islets without the

need for immunosuppressants. In fact, his methods have proven to

be effective in laboratory mice, and have enabled the regeneration

of pancreatic endocrine cells.

Another strategy effective in the lab involves the isolation of

bone marrow stem cells from the bone marrow of diabetic patients.

Once these cells are isolated, they are trained to produce insulin

and are reinfused into the patients, who will be able to accept them

without the need for immunosuppressants. These protocols have

shown promising results, and will next need to be tested in primates before going to human trials.
682

The diabetic research program at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh is regarded as a world-class, state-of-the-art research center

that is having a tremendous impact on diabetes research both nationally and internationally. For us to continue this groundbreaking work, we respectfully request $7.6 million in Federal

funding for fiscal year 2003 so that we may expand our efforts on

this important work that we have done so far. Please know that

we are grateful for the support you have shown us in the past, and

for the support we have received from the Department of Defense

and especially our colleagues at Fort Detrick. We are hopeful you

will be able to support this request, and we will answer any questions. Thank you.

Dr. BURSELL. Mr. Chairman, I also thank you for your support

of the joint diabetic project in the past and the opportunity to testify here today. I am Dr. Sven Bursell, the director of the Joslin

Vision Network, and the Joslin Diabetes Center portion of this request is for $7.6 million. The Joslin Vision Network (JVN) is based

on remote sight retinal imaging, which is the core of this project.

It is on display today in the Dirksen Senate ground floor room 50,

where we will be demonstrating real time retinal imaging.

By December of 2002, we will have deployed a total of 20 independent JVN imaging sites and seven centralized reading centers

operating off their own servers in the Department of Defense infrastructure, concentrating on sites in Hawaii, the Walter Reed Army

Medical Center, in Alaska at the Elmendorf Air Force Base, Clearwater, Florida, and San Diego, the Navy. We are also focusing on

other sites such as the Arweda Clinic in Northern New Mexico.

The JVN validation studies have shown that JVN eye care program is equivalent to current clinical gold standards of dilated eye

photography and dilated ophthalmologist eye examination. The results have been published in the Journals of Ophthalmology and

Retina. The next generation JVN application has been developed,

and now uses totally nonproprietary hardware and software.

We anticipate that the current level of funding for 2003 will

allow us to provide support for existing JVN systems and to target

new deployments for 15 additional JVN systems at 10 additional

sites that will be identified in collaboration with participating

agencies. This will make a total of 35 sites deployed through the

DOD and VA that we will be operating.

Work on the development of an interactive comprehensive diabetes management program was initiated in 2001, and involved leaders in diabetes clinical management, education, lifestyle modification, and medical infomatics from the Joslin Diabetes Center, Department of Defense, Veterans Health Affairs and Indian Services.

The data indicate that a three to sevenfold health care cost reduction can be realized while still maintaining quality of care excellence using this disease management system. Production of this

system will go into place at the end of the summer, and the prototype is also on display in the Dirksen Building today.

We will incorporate image enhancement and retinopathy feature

detection algorithms and full automation into our newly developed

retinal imaging system. This will further facilitate the imaging of

different fields required for diabetic retinopathy diagnosis, reduce

the time for retinal imaging and assessment, increase cost effi-
683

ciency, and significantly increase patient throughput and satisfaction.

We are also initiating a collaborative program with Children’s

Hospital of Pittsburgh, focusing on the identification of genes associated with increased risk for diabetic complications. This is important, as we know that some of the diabetic patients will develop

complications much more rapidly than others.

Thank you again, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD L. VIOLI

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we would like to thank you for

the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of Children’s Hospital of

Pittsburgh and the Joslin Diabetes Center regarding their collaborative initiative,

the Joint Diabetes Project.

As you are aware, 3 years ago, you provided us with the opportunity to combine

our resources to offer the most advanced detection, treatment, prevention and basic

and applied research approaches to managing diabetes and its resulting complications. We have made important progress since the program’s inception and remain

enthusiastic and optimistic about our work together in the future.

SUMMARY

This request of $15,200,000 represents the collective costs of both institutions, to

be divided equally between our respective endeavors with The Department of the

Army, RDT&E.

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh: Plan for Fiscal Year 2003

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh is nationally and internationally recognized for

its diabetes research program, led by our principal investigator, Dr. Massimo

Trucco. Dr. Trucco directs the activities of the Pediatric Research Section of the Diabetes Institute of the University of Pittsburgh at Children’s Hospital, where new

and promising programs have been initiated with the very specific goal of improving

the prediction, prevention and possibly, the cure of Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes.

As we have mentioned in the past, Dr. Trucco conducted groundbreaking research

in 1998 in which he identified a common childhood virus as being one of the possible

triggers for diabetes in those who are genetically predisposed. Since undertaking the

Joint Diabetes Project, he has employed state-of-the art technology (i.e., microarray

in suspension and pyrosequencing) to better define genetic susceptibility and resistance markers of Type 1 diabetes.

These new technical approaches have allowed us to develop screening protocols

that are reliable, less time consuming (they can be performed in under 30 minutes),

are less costly and more importantly, can be applied to entire populations.

FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM OVERVIEW

For fiscal year 2003, we look to expand upon the Joint Diabetes Project funded

by Congress through the Department of Defense by pursuing a program that will

allow us to screen Army personnel, and later other military personnel and their dependents for genetic susceptibility to diabetes. By using the above-referenced advanced testing technology, individuals who are identified as being genetically and

immunologically at-risk for developing Type 1 diabetes will be selected to be enrolled in new promising human diabetes prevention trials that are presently undergoing the close monitoring of an NIH-supported scientific committee of which Dr.

Trucco is a selected member.

The clinical practicality of treating Type 1 diabetics with islet transplants obviating the need for exogenous insulin replacement, became evident once the first 7

successful transplants were officially announced by the Edmonton group in Canada.

This study proved two major points: the technical feasibility of improved islet isolation procedures and transplantation modalities and second, that more than one

donor is required to obtain an appropriate beta cell mass to treat one recipient.

However, even with an appropriate beta cell mass, islet transplants are still susceptible to immune rejection. To protect the graft against the negative consequences of

this process, the Edmonton team used a cocktail of potent immunosuppressive
684

drugs. The recipients are required to maintain this regimen of immunosuppression

for their entire lifetime

Complementary efforts will be promoted to provide care for young diabetic patients who cannot be treated with the conventional protocols for islet transplantation because of the toxicity of the necessary immunosuppressive regimen. To this

aim, Dr. Trucco will be testing tolerization protocols that are designed to preserve

transplanted islets without the need of immunosupression. These protocols have

been proven to be very effective in laboratory mice in promoting the regeneration

of the endocrine cells of the pancreas that had been damaged by immunocompetent

cells present in the recipient.

An alternative strategy, also proven to be successful in the animal model, involves

the isolation of bone marrow stem cells from the bone marrow of diabetic patients.

Once these cells are isolated, they will be ‘‘educated,’’ using in vitro methods, to

produce insulin and will be re-infused into the recipient, who will then be able to

accept the newly trained cells without the need of immunosuppression.

These protocols have produced very promising results in the rodent animal model

of the disease, but need to next be tested in non-human primates before they can

be safely transferred to human trials. We have already begun to undertake this

work in collaboration with primate experts who were recently recruited from Oregon. The preliminary results of these studies will soon be submitted for publication.

In addition, we will continue to work closely with our colleagues at Joslin by utilizing their telemedicine network to allow us to centralize the data that is stored

from our studies. This will enable us to develop a large shared database of generic

information from which we can perform the required analysis to establish any association that may exist between genetic risk and a more rapid development and/or

progression of diabetic complications, such as retinopathy, cardiovascular disease

and kidney disease. Through these efforts, we can provide early detection of those

who are at increased risk of developing complications and can manage their care

through the use of telemedicine, thus improving patient care, reducing complications

and lowering the associated cost of care.

Fiscal Year 2003 Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Funding Request—$7,600,000

The diabetes research program at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh is regarded

as a world-class, state of the art research center that is having a tremendous impact

on diabetes research, both nationally and internationally.

While we recognize the constraints under which the Committee is working this year, we are respectfully requesting $7.6 million in Federal funding for fiscal year

2003 so that we may continue our efforts and expand upon the important work that

has already been done. The proposed budget will consider expenditures associated

with:

Medical Technology to Improve the Predication and Prevention of Type 1 Diabetes

Salary Support ................................................................................................. $500,000

Equipment ........................................................................................................ 2,500,000

Supplies/Reagents ............................................................................................ 1,500,000

Management Cost (mailing, receiving, bar-coding, and storing blood samples) ............................................................................................................... 1,500,000

CHP & Joslin Joint Program (mapping of genes predisposed to diabetes

complications) ............................................................................................... 500,000

Department of Defense Administrative Fee .................................................. 1,100,000

Total CHP/Diabetes Project Costs ....................................................... 7,600,000

JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER

Fiscal Year 2002 Status Report

JVN Deployment.—By December 2002 we will have deployed a total of 11 independent remote JVN imaging sites and 5 centralized reading center sites operating

off 2 independent servers in the Department of Defense Infrastructure concentrating

on sites in Hawaii, Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Alaska at Elmendorf Air

Force Base. In the VA system we will have deployed a total of 8 remote imaging

sites, 4 reading center sites operating off 2 independent servers and at the Joslin

Diabetes Center we will have 7 imaging sites and 4 reading center sites operating

of the Joslin JVN server for a total of 39 separate sites operating the JVN system.

Additionally, a total of 21 JVN imagers, 16 JVN readers and 3 senior JVN adjudicators have been trained and certified throughout the participating organizations.

JVN Validation.—The JVN validation study has been completed and the results

published in the March 2001 issue of Ophthalmology. The results demonstrated the

equivalence, with respect to level of diabetic retinopathy assessment, between JVN
685

digital video imaging through a non-dilated pupil to the current clinical gold standard of the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study protocol of dilated 7 stereo

standard field 35-mm photography. In addition the above prestigious peer reviewed

publication the JVN studies have resulted in a further 5 peer reviewed publications

and a total of 10 abstracts accepted for presentation at the Association for Research

in Vision and Ophthalmology, American Diabetes Association, and American Telemedicine Association national meetings.

JVN Application Enhancement.—The next generation JVN application is developed using totally non-proprietary hardware and software. Workstations are now

standard PCs with MicroSoft 2000 operating systems interfaced to the Agfa PACS

environment. The system is fully DICOM and HL7 compliant as well as being compliant to emerging HIPAA security standards. The development off the Agfa PACS

environment facilitates direct interfaces to the DOD CHS and VA VISTA medical

record systems. Thus the JVN system becomes an integrated component of the DOD

and VA patient medical record system. Additionally, the JVN system is operational

over the internet with the appropriate securities implemented.

Deployment of the Advanced System.—The initial prototypes of the system have

been tested, issues identified and optical designs modified during 2002. The final optical design for the new non-mydriatic retinal imaging system has been completed

and a patent is being sought for the optical design of the illumination component

of the retinal imaging system. The prototype is currently under production and it

will be tested on the JVN system at the Joslin Diabetes Center from April through

June of 2002. By October or November of 2002 we anticipate producing a number

of production units to be deployed in existing JVN sites for further testing in the

clinical environment. The rationale for this development effort was to enable a portable and significantly less expensive retinal imaging system that would overcome

the current limitations of the commercially available models.

The portability is a critical requirement for mobile operations to remote communities as well as in the DOD. The automated reading center application is also being

readied for deployment. The first phase of the application was developed using the

existing JVN database of 48,000 retinal images that have already undergone manual grading for diabetic retinopathy. The validation testing provided a sensitivity

that indicated the need for improvement of the algorithm before implementation in

the reading center. The application is currently designed to automatically detect any

abnormalities in the retinal images. It is anticipated that the implementation of this

application will reduce the reading center workload by at least 75 percent. Collaborative Program with Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh An initial symposium that includes investigators from the JVN and Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh was be

hosted by the VA as part of their National Diabetes meeting on March 28, 2001.

The deliverable for this meeting is consensus agreement on a formalized collaborative program that leverages the telemedicine experience of the JVN and the

immunogenetics expertise of Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh in the development

of a program that can significantly impact on the care of diabetic patients.

Fiscal Year 2003 Objectives

Deployment.—We anticipate that the current level of funding for 2002 will allow

us provide support for existing JVN systems and to target new deployments for 15

additional JVN systems at 10 different sites that will be identified in collaboration

with the participating agencies. This will make a total of 28 sites deployed through

the DOD and VA that will be operating the JVN system.

JVN Application Enhancements.—There will be ongoing development work to continue enhancements to the JVN platform. These enhancements will include incorporation of a module to facilitate rigorous clinical research studies in diabetic eye disease, to validate JVN imaging for the detection of other eye diseases such as glaucoma and age related macula degeneration, and to incorporate application enhancements based on user feedback.

Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program.—Work on the development of an

interactive comprehensive diabetes management program was initiated in 2001 and

involved leaders in diabetes clinical management, education, lifestyle modification

and medical informatics from the Joslin Diabetes Center, the Department of Defense, the Veteran Health Affairs and the Indian Health Services. The rationale for

this effort was the recognized need to be able to provide a continuum of care for

diabetic patients in contrast to the current more disjointed care that is provided.

This need was further highlighted by recent results from the Diabetes Prevention

Program (DPP). The patients were randomized to either intensive life style modification, metformin or placebo treatment. After follow up of 4.6 years, life style reduced the progression to diabetes by 58 percent. Moreover, the development of diabetes was reduced by 31 percent. The results indicated that one of the primary rea-
686

sons for the success of this study was the implementation of a case management

program. This is exactly what we are developing for the CDMP, namely a care manager centric interactive application that provides more continuous and immediate

contact between patients, care managers and physicians over secure websites. Work

will be continuing for the development of the appropriate modules that will be deployed and implemented in the web-based comprehensive diabetes management program. It is anticipated that the development of the interactive web-based education

and behavior modules will provide the largest potential benefit with respect to motivating patients to set reasonable goals for their management of diabetes and thus

maximize the clinical benefit.

Deployment of the Advanced System.—We will incorporate full automation into the

new retinal imaging system. This will facilitate the imaging of the different fields

required for assessment of level of diabetic retinopathy. This will reduce the time

for retinal imaging and significantly increase patient throughput. We will also continue our development efforts to enhance the capability of the automated retinal

reading application to detection of specific types of retinal lesions. This will further

enhance the efficiency and reduce the resource load that would be needed to staff

a JVN reading center.

Collaborative Program with Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh

The main area of potential collaboration would be in the identification of genes

associated with the risk for diabetic complications. This is important as we know

that some diabetic patients will develop complications much more rapidly than other

diabetic patients who are comparably aged with comparable glycemic control. This

fact would implicate a genetic component associated with a risk for developing diabetic complications. Thus it becomes logical to leverage the expertise at Pittsburgh

with respect to immunogenetics and genechip technologies and Joslin’s expertise

with gene analysis and JVN technology to undertake a study involving gene expression associated with an increased risk for development of diabetic complications

such as diabetic retinopathy with a primary focus on type 2 diabetic patients.

Joslin Diabetes Center

DOD Admin & Mgmt Costs (@ 12 percent) ................................................... $1,012,000

DOD–JVN Expenses ........................................................................................ 1,932,000

Joslin-JVN Expenses ....................................................................................... 1,932,000

Shared CDMP Costs ........................................................................................ 1,824,000

Cost Benefit Analysis ...................................................................................... 400,000

Collaborative Project with CHP ..................................................................... 500,000

TOTAL, Joslin Diabetes Center ........................................................... 7,600,000

SUMMARY

For fiscal year 2003, Federal funding for the Joint Diabetes Project will allow both

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and the Joslin Diabetes Center to continue their

work to improve the diagnosis and treatment of enlisted personnel and their dependents with diabetes. Through the concentration of efforts and resources, it is our

intent to work collaboratively to find a cure for diabetes.

Joint Diabetes Project, Fiscal Year 2003 Funding

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh ......................................................... $7,600,000

Joslin Diabetes Center .......................................................................... 7,600,000

Total Program Costs ................................................................... 15,200,000

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be a part of this project with the Department

of Defense and we are grateful for the support that you and your colleagues have

provided to us. Please know that we would be grateful for your continued support

again this year.

Senator INOUYE. What sort of arrangement do you have with the

Indian Health Service?

Dr. BURSELL. Currently we are using the technology and infrastructure that was developed through the DOD program to supply

clinical services and systems for the Indian Health Services.

Senator INOUYE. As you know, the Native Americans have a

higher incidence of diabetes than any other group. Can you provide
687

this committee with a little memo on your activities with the Indian Health Service?

Dr. BURSELL. I would be very happy to do so, sir.

Senator INOUYE. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is from the Naval Reserve Association, Captain

Marshall Hanson, and the National Association of Uniform Services, National Military Veterans Alliance, Colonel Charles C. Partridge.

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON, CO-CHAIR, NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL MILITARY

VETERANS ASSOCIATION

ACCOMPANIED BY COLONEL CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE, CO-CHAIR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES, ON BEHALF

OF THE NATIONAL MILITARY VETERANS ALLIANCE

Captain HANSON. Mr. Chairman, I am Marshall Hanson. I would

like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. The overall goal of

the National Military and Veterans Alliance is a strong defense.

We acknowledge the support that your committee has been providing to the young men and women who are deployed overseas

and stationed at home, but we also believe the comprehensive care

of the dependents of these young warriors allow the members of

our Armed Services to better concentrate on their jobs. We believe

that funding lifelong medical and dental care for all of the uniformed service beneficiaries, regardless of age, active or reserve

status or location support this goal.

Details are provided in our submitted testimony, but we would

like to call attention to the need of funding TRICARE providers

and in turn supporting the troubled TRICARE network. This is especially hard on the families of reservists who do not relocate when

their warriors are mobilized. We hope the committee will support

money for military treatment subvention and utilization of veterans affairs hospitals as TRICARE providers.

Lastly, we should not forget the needs of our soldiers, sailors,

marines, and airmen in the field. Quality of life includes quality on

the job. The National Military Veterans Alliance feels it is important to invest defense dollars for equipment procurement beyond

the administration’s budget. The service chiefs have provided nonfunded requirements for both the active and reserve components

that will be needed by our people in the near future.

I will be followed by my codirector.

Colonel PARTRIDGE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Chuck

Partridge with the National Association of Uniformed Services and

the National Military Veterans Alliance. We want to thank you and

this committee for the strong support you gave in enacting

TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy benefit. That has

made a tremendous difference in the lives of our members. We

have some more work to do on the TRICARE Standard benefit for

those under 65, and we will be getting some proposals over here

within the next few months, but we really want to thank you. It

would not have happened without this committee.

I would also like to mention one other point that is off the point

of medical. It is the Defense Commissary Agency. The plan is to

cut, and the cuts have begun, 2,650 spaces out of the Defense Com-
688

missary Agency and to cut funding for the next year by $137 million, and this is being done based on some very limited studies and

incomplete analysis. We are concerned that as this proceeds, the

service and the hours, we are going to lose some smaller commissaries, so we are asking this committee to leave flexibility in

the appropriations process for restoring these funds next year if it

does prove this is a problem.

The authorizing committees have directed that the General Accounting Office (GAO) look at it, and that will be done, as well as

other studies, and I think they will be prepared to act once the results are in, but of course they will need funding if they need to

restore it.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support for the

men and women of our Armed Forces, and we will be glad to answer any questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARSHALL HANSON

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 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.

DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY FUNDING AND STAFFING

Commissaries are arguably the number one benefit of the non-pay portion of the

military pay and compensation package. Now the benefit is under attack!

While our highly trained and motivated military force is proving the force and

might of the world’s only superpower, their families convenient access to high quality food at savings that approach 30 percent from military commissaries is in serious jeopardy.

Why is this happening? Why would the Department of Defense want to reduce

the commissary benefit? The answer is money. DOD wants to reduce the subsidy

for the commissary system that provides food and other essentials to troops and
689

families around the world, which will end up in the military community losing the

benefit.

We understand that the Defense Commissary Agency is in the process of eliminating 2,650 personnel positions (from a total of less than 20,000) by 1 October 2002

and reducing funding by $137,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. We believe that a reduction of this size will degrade the quality of the benefit by eliminating smaller commissaries and reducing days and hours of operation.

These cuts are not Congressionally mandated but were proposed by the Administration and approved by the Authorizing Committees with language expressing concern. We believe that as the effects of these cuts are felt in fiscal year 2003, additional funding will be needed to restore the health of the commissary system.

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. In that regard, the leaders of the commissary system have been and are continuing to make internal

changes to improve efficiencies and reduce overhead operating costs. However,

streamlining, improving internal operations and implementation of cost saving

measures must not reduce the value of the benefit.

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.

ACTIVE AND RESERVE FORCES

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

fight a War against undefined terrorist factions.

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.

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.

In addition, we ask that funds be provided utilizing the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. While the Senate has wanted 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.

CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING UNIFORMED SERVICES HEALTH CARE

The National Military and Veteran’s Alliance would like to thank the Sub-Committee and the Full Appropriations Committee for its leadership in passing landmark legislation last year 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.

Mr. Chairman, the overall goal of the National Military and Veteran’s Alliance

is a strong National Defense. We believe that comprehensive, lifelong medical and

dental care for all Uniformed Service beneficiaries regardless of age, status or location supports this goal. In light of these overall objectives, we would request that

the committee examine the following proposals.

UNIFORM CLAIMS 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. In part this failure has been caused we believe 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 DVA adopted

the Medicare claims system ALL parties—Private Insurance Companies, DOD, the

DVA and Medicare/Medicaid would know what medical services, pharmaceuticals,
690

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 DVA

hospital or clinic the facility receives nothing from Medicare to help pay for that

beneficiary. Of course, the people sworn to protect the Medicare trust fund like the

situation as it is. And who can blame them? However 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.

THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AS A TRICARE PROVIDER

At this time 80 percent of Veteran Affairs installations are nominally TRICARE

providers in the TRICARE Networks. However, last year TRICARE paid only $3.7

million to VA facilities for care provided to TRICARE beneficiaries. Part of the problem is clearly the previously discussed failure to have one system of Medical Record

keeping and one method of claims and billing. Therefore, the change suggested

above to follow Medicare’s claims and billing system could alleviate some of the

problems. It is also crucial to solve this problem so that the VA can qualify to be

a TRICARE for Life provider. It could be a way to help improve coordination and

predictability as well as a cost saving for both the DVA and DOD if the VA became

a qualified Medicare provider. If this was accomplished then Medicare Part A or

Part B would be first payer and TFL would pay the rest. This could be a serious

stream of money (primarily from Medicare) to the VA for non-service connected

treatment that the VA provides to military retirees. But unless and until the VA

qualifies as a MEDICARE provider, this is not possible. Since the door has been

opened to coordinate Medicare payments and TRICARE by the coordination of their

benefits in TRICARE for Life this would be a coordination that should make sense

for all three Departments and would most importantly, improve the treatment of

many beneficiaries.

JOINT MTF/VISN/TRICARE CONTRACTOR PROJECTS

When looking far into the future we can see coordinated networks for a region’s

Military Treatment Facility (MTF), its Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN)

and the civilian TRICARE contractor. This would actively use the VA as a provider

of specialty health care, save money for DOD and plan a core of coordinated services. A test program in the Central TRICARE region called the Central Regional

Federal Health Care Alliance has just been rolled out to look at, and coordinate

areas of practice including possibly: ‘‘catastrophic case management, telemedicine,

radiology, mental health, data and information systems, prime vendor contracting,

joint provider contracting, joint administration processes and services and education

and training.’’ The governing board’s members of this experiment include DOD’s

Lead Agent for the Region, VA’s VISN Director and the president and CEO of the

Region’s TRICARE Contractor. If this plan succeeds in improving the health care

of the beneficiaries and, hopefully, saving money for the taxpayers perhaps its form

can be transported or modified for other regions.

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. Although we believe in the principle that the

military benefit should stand-alone and not require Part B participation, the Part

B will save the TFL program funds. However, we believe requiring Part B for participation in the pharmacy program does not result in significant savings and creates a hardship for some beneficiaries, and it should be eliminated. In addition,

some 12,000 retirees residing overseas are required to participate in Part B Medi-
691

care 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.

Some retirees who lived near military installations did not enroll in Part B because they believed they would receive care at the hospitals and clinics located on

the military bases, which subsequently closed. Many are in their 70’s and 80’s now

and to enroll would require them to pay huge penalties.

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.

MILITARY HEALTH CARE IN PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS

The TRICARE benefit in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is different than that

provided in the United States. NMVA believes that the TRICARE triple option benefit should be implemented in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in the same manner that it is being offered in the United States. Further, the FEHBP Demonstration program has been highly successful in Puerto Rico and is due to end on 1 January 2003. NMVA strongly recommends that the FEHBP demonstration in Puerto

Rico be extended and made a permanent program.

INCLUDE PHYSICIAN AND NURSE SPECIALTY PAY IN RETIREMENT PAY 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.

Results of a recent survey of military urologists 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.

More than half of mid-level military urologists (5–15 years of service) have not made

their future career decisions. The survey also showed that 83 percent of senior military urologists, those with over 15 years of service, plan to retire at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, prompt action to retain these and other highly skilled medical

professionals is needed.

NMVA recommends that prompt action be taken to improve these special pays

and to include them in the retired pay calculations.

END PREAUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS/NON-AVAILABILITY STATEMENTS FOR TRICARE

STANDARD

When the TRICARE program was begun, beneficiaries understood that options

would include a fee-for-service plan (TRICARE Standard), a preferred-provider plan

(TRICARE Extra) and an HMO (TRICARE Prime). However, TRICARE standard is

not a fee-for-service plan. Beneficiaries who use the TRICARE Standard plan must

obtain pre-authorizations to obtain care out of the Military Treatment Facilities or

the networks. TRICARE Standard should be a true fee-for-service plan and no

preauthorization or non-availability statement should be required.

FEHBP

The NMVA has been a long time supporter of legislation that would provide military personnel the option of participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit

Program. Currently, a bill introduced in the 107th Congress, H.R. 179, would provide that option. NMVA believes that FEHBP should be an option for all uniformed

service beneficiaries. We are confident that the TRICARE program and the

TRICARE for Life program will be successful. Further, because they are an outstanding value for most beneficiaries, they will be the health plans of choice. However, in a few cases, the TRICARE/TRICARE for Life options may not be the best

choice, or may not be available; and 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.

SUMMARY

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.
692

Senator INOUYE. I can assure you, Mr. Partridge, we will do our

best to resist closing the commissaries, and at the least slow down

the process. Many Americans feel that commissaries are not necessary because you have all these shopping malls and Wal-Mart

and K Mart and what-have-you, but we do have commissaries because they provide better bargains than most of these organizations, and with the limited pay we provide our military personnel

the least we can do is provide them with adequate and reasonable

shopping. We will do our best.

Colonel PARTRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Captain HANSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the associate professor of

electrical engineering at the University of Nevada, Dr. James

Henson. Welcome, Dr. Henson.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES HENSON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, ON

BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF EPSCoR STATES

Dr. HENSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim

Henson. I am associate professor of electrical engineering at the

University of Nevada. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on

behalf of the coalition of the 21 States and Puerto Rico that participate in the experimental program to stimulate competitive research

(EPSCoR).

I am here today to speak in support of both the Defense Department’s science and engineering research program and an important

component of that research, the Defense Department’s experimental program to stimulate competitive research at EPSCoR. The

coalition wishes to be associated with the statement of the Coalition for National Security Research in support of additional funding for defense research and development. I wish to commend the

subcommittee for its strong support for funding DOD S&T programs, and urge you to maintain a stable investment in the Department’s S&T efforts.

The coalition of EPSCoR States strongly supports the Department’s budget request. The Defense EPSCoR program is a small

but significant part of the larger program, and therefore the coalition recommends that Congress appropriate $25 million to the Defense EPSCoR (DEPSCOR) program. DEPSCoR is a research and

development program that was initiated by the National Science

Foundation through a merit review process.

DEPSCoR is improving our Nation’s science and technology capability by funding research activities at universities and nonprofit

organizations and States that historically have not received significant Federal R&D funding. Research is funded only if it is in areas

that are important to national defense.

My own experience with the DEPSCoR program is a good example of how it works. Since joining the university in 1991, I have

been continuously involved in defense sponsored research efforts

funded separately by the U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, the U.S. Army Research and Engineering Laboratory of the

U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and most recently the

U.S. Army Research Office through the DEPSCoR program.

My own research involves a simulation analysis of high resolution radar imaging systems and systems imagery. Potential appli-
693

cations include high-speed generation of radar imaging for interactive war game simulation, preparation of pilot briefing material,

automatic target detection and recognition algorithm development,

automatic terrain interrogation and assessment, and the evaluation

of sensor performance for next generation radar systems.

The objective of our current Army research-sponsored DEPSCoR

research program is to provide a fundamental understanding of

radar texture through the development of techniques through the

analysis of high-speed synthesis radar imagery for naturally occurring distributed targets as a function of radar sensor parameters

such as frequency, depression angle resolution, and imaging modes.

This project, funded through the DEPSCoR program in April

2001, is already providing results that will more accurately allow

us to model naturally occurring terrains and enhance our image

analysis products. The funds associated with the project are supporting master’s level graduate students with salary and tuition in

the University of Nevada’s electrical engineering department. The

education, training, and technical preparation of these engineers

for potential careers in Government laboratories and intelligence

agencies is just as important as the research itself.

As a group, these students must be considered a national asset

which must be encouraged and mentored to ensure the continued

superiority of our military and intelligence services. I would like to

note the coalition believes the Department should reevaluate the

current one to two matching requirement for DEPSCoR, since it is

significantly higher than other defense research programs.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, the Coalition of EPSCoR States supports funding the Defense Department’s research programs, particularly budget function 6.1 and 6.2. With the beginning of the

war against global terrorism, the technological demands facing our

military have increased. New research must be pursued to meet

new challenges in the field of information warfare, high technology

terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and threats

into other parts of the world.

It is essential Congress assure that scientific research and technological advances in support of our military are not eroded because of the lack of adequate funding for DOD’s basic and applied

research. It is important that this committee ensure that the fiscal

year 2003 budget request keeps pace with the needs of science and

technology. Finally, the Coalition of EPSCoR States believes a $25 million

Defense EPSCoR program will ensure that Federal funding dollars

are being used in a cost-effective way, and that the EPSCoR States

are contributing to the Nation’s defense efforts.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES HENSON

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity

to submit this testimony regarding the Defense Department’s basic scientific research program and the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive

Research (DEPSCoR).

My name is Jim Henson. I am an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering

at the University of Nevada. I am here today to speak in support of both the Defense Department’s science and engineering research program and an important

component of that research, the Defense Department’s Experimental Program to
694

1 Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). This statement is submitted on behalf

the Coalition of EPSCoR States and the twenty-one States and Puerto Rico that participate in EPSCoR.1

The Coalition wishes to be associated with the statement of the Coalition for National Security Research in support of additional funding for Defense research and

development. This Subcommittee has long demonstrated its strong support for the

Department’s science and technology research, which have produced the innovations, and technological breakthroughs that have contributed to ensuring that our

fighting men and women have the best available systems and weapons to support

them in executing their national defense missions. The bench science the Subcommittee has wisely supported in our Nation’s universities and laboratories has

produced significant benefits for the people in the field and on the front lines. The

Coalition of EPSCoR States strongly urges you to maintain a stable investment in

the Department’s science and technology (S&T) efforts.

The Coalition of EPSCoR States strongly supports the Department’s budget request for basic research. The Defense EPSCoR program is a small, but significant,

part of this larger program. The Coalition recommends that Congress appropriate

$25 million to the Defense Department’s budget for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (Program Element PE 61114D).

EPSCoR is a research and development program that was initiated by the National Science Foundation. Through a merit review process, EPSCoR is improving

our Nation’s science and technology capability by funding research activities of talented researchers at universities and non-profit organizations in States that historically have not received significant Federal research and development funding.

EPSCoR helps researchers, institutions, and States improve the quality of their research capabilities in order to compete more effectively for non-EPSCoR research

funds. EPSCoR is a catalyst for change and is widely viewed as a ‘‘model’’ FederalState partnership. EPSCoR seeks to advance and support the goals of the program

through investments in four major areas: research infrastructure improvement; research cluster development and investigator-initiated research; education, career development and workforce training; and outreach and technology transfer.

With the movement of the Nation toward an S&T policy increasingly aimed at

global competitiveness and economic well-being, it is imperative that all States have

a sufficient S&T base. Science and technology capability, like education in general,

cannot be limited to a select few States and institutions for our Nation to progress

and maintain world leadership.

The Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Experimental Research

(DEPSCoR) was authorized by Section 257 of the Fiscal Year 1995 National Defense

Authorization Act (Public Law 103–337). The Defense Department’s EPSCoR helps

build national infrastructure for research and education by funding research activities in science and engineering fields important to national defense. DEPSCoR’s objectives are to:

—Enhance the capabilities of institutions of higher education in eligible States to

develop, plan, and execute science and engineering research that is competitive

under the peer-review systems used for awarding Federal research assistance;

and

—Increase the probability of long-term growth in the competitively awarded financial assistance that universities in eligible States receive from the Federal Government for science and engineering research.

The Defense EPSCoR program contributes to the States’ goals of developing and

enhancing their research capabilities, while simultaneously supporting the research

goals of the Department of Defense. DEPSCoR grants are based on recommendations from the EPSCoR state committees and the Department’s own evaluation and

ranking. Research proposals are only funded if they provide the Defense Department with research in areas important to national defense.

My own experience with the DEPSCoR program is a good example of how it

works. Since joining the University in 1991, I have been continuously involved in

Defense-sponsored research efforts funded separately by the U.S. Army Waterways

Experiment Station, the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and most recently, the U.S.

Army Research Office through the DEPSCoR program.

Access to common view battlefield conditions from a variety of airborne and landbased sensors is a critical element that permeates all U.S. Army battle dynamics

and that represents a key technology in the planning and conduct of future mis-
695

sions. This common view must be accurate and of high fidelity in order to achieve

the commander’s objectives and aid a common, collaborative, real-time picture of the

battlespace including weather, terrain, environment and their combined effects on

reconnaissance, surveillance, and targeting systems.

To support this mission, my own research involves the simulation and analysis

of high-resolution radar imaging systems and system imagery. Potential applications include high speed generation of radar imagery for interactive war game simulations, preparation of pilot briefing materials, automatic target detection and recognition algorithm development, automatic terrain interrogation and assessment,

evaluation of sensor performance for next generation radar systems, and tactical decision aid development.

The objective of our current Army Research Office-sponsored DEPSCoR research

effort is to improve our fundamental understanding of radar texture through the development of techniques for the analysis and high speed synthesis of radar imagery

for naturally occurring distributed targets as a function of radar sensor parameters

such as frequency, depression angle, resolution, detector type, and imaging mode.

This project, funded through the DEPSCoR program in April 2001, is already producing results that will allow us to more accurately model naturally occurring terrains and enhance our simulation and image analysis products.

At this time the funds associated with the project are supporting five Masterslevel graduate students with salary and tuition in the University of Nevada’s Electrical Engineering Department. The education, training, and technical preparation

of these engineers for potential careers in government laboratories and intelligence

agencies is just as important as the research itself. As a group, these students must

be considered a national asset which must be encouraged and mentored to insure

the continued superiority of our military and intelligence services.

Last year the Defense Department issued an announcement of a competition

under the aegis of the fiscal year 2002 Defense EPSCoR program. A total of 244

projects were received from the 19 States eligible to participate in DEPSCoR. Following review of the individual projects by the appropriate research office (the Army

Research Office, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Office of Naval Research, or the Air Force Office of Scientific Research), 54 projects were selected this

Spring for funding with $15.7 million appropriated for fiscal year 2002. The average

award was $291,000.

The partnership concept also extends to our interactions with the Federal agencies. Joint development of the Defense EPSCoR and other EPSCoR program goals

and objectives will ensure that the program achieves its mission of stimulating competitive research. Indeed, given the buy-in and participation by so many constituencies, EPSCoR is a good example and model for Federal-State partnerships in

science and technology.

It is important that the DEPSCoR program continues this very important role of

bringing new researchers into productive relationships with DOD, and avoids the

ever-present danger of using DEPSCoR funds to replace existing DOD funding of

already-established researchers.

The EPSCoR program yields a return far beyond the original investment. EPSCoR

allows the States to accomplish more than is possible through the regular research

programs. It has helped Nevada attract and retain young researchers who are able

to demonstrate through EPSCoR support of their research, that they have bright futures in fields of research that are of interest to the Defense Department.

The Coalition appreciates this Subcommittee’s long-standing support for Defense

EPSCoR and we urge you to continue that support. The Coalition recognizes the

very tight fiscal constraints this Subcommittee faces, but we respectfully request

that you provide $25 million for the Defense EPSCoR program for fiscal year 2003.

In addition, the Coalition recommends that the Defense Department develop a

statewide infrastructure development program in eligible States. Currently, the

DEPSCoR program provides only for individual investigator grant support. A statewide infrastructure development program similar to the infrastructure development

program managed by the National Science Foundation will enable eligible States to

strengthen their defense research capabilities.

Finally, the DEPSCoR program requires a one-to-two matching requirement, a

match that is significantly higher than many other Defense research programs. This

requirement places a burden on the individual participating States. The Coalition

believes the Department should re-evaluate the value of the current matching requirement.

The Defense Department’s Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research is a wise and worthwhile investment of scarce public resources. It will continue to contribute significantly to efforts to build scientific and engineering research efforts in support of national defense needs.
696

Mr. Chairman, the Coalition of EPSCoR States, supports funding for the Defense

Department’s research programs, particularly Budget Functions 6.1 and 6.2. With

the beginning of the war against global terrorism, the technological demands facing

our military have increased. New research must be pursued to meet new challenges

in the fields of information warfare, high technology terrorism, the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction and threats in diverse parts of the world.

It is essential that Congress ensure that scientific research and technological advances in support of our military are not eroded because of the lack of adequate

funding for DOD’s basic and applied research. It is important that this Committee

ensure that the fiscal year 2003 budget request keeps pace with the needs of science

and technology. The Coalition of EPSCoR States supports realistic funding levels

that help sustain vigorous science and engineering research programs at the Defense Department. Finally, the Coalition of EPSCoR States believes a $25 million Defense EPSCoR

program with the modifications suggested will ensure that Federal dollars are being

used in a cost-effective way and that the EPSCoR States are contributing to the Nation’s Defense efforts. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Senator INOUYE. I am looking over your testimony and listening

to you. Does the University of Nevada carry out all of this, such

as, radar imaging systems potential application include radar imagery, interactive war games simulation?

Dr. HENSON. Mr. Chairman, that is my own research area, and

I do considerable software development for the DOD agencies that

I indicated, and they apply those products in various ways, some

of which——

Senator INOUYE. What do your five graduate students do?

Dr. HENSON. Pardon me?

Senator INOUYE. The graduate students.

Dr. HENSON. They are supported under this research funding as

research assistants for me.

Senator INOUYE. So you have had good results?

Dr. HENSON. Indeed.

Senator INOUYE. Well, we will try to keep that up.

Dr. HENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is the Department of Pharmacology, Howard

University College of Medicine, Research Society on Alcoholism, Dr.

Robert Taylor.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF

PHARMACOLOGY, HOWARD UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE,

ON BEHALF OF THE RESEARCH SOCIETY ON ALCOHOLISM

Dr. TAYLOR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Dr. Robert Taylor. I am a medical doctor, a professor in the medical school, and

researcher on alcoholism, a disease that devastates our society.

Today I am presenting testimony on behalf of the Research Society

on Alcoholism that I will call the RSA.

The RSA is a professional research society. Its 1,400 members

conduct basic clinical psychosocial research on alcoholism and alcohol abuse. The society’s mission is to promote research that can

lead the way toward prevention and treatment of alcoholism, a disease that has probably affected everyone in this room in some way.

In recent years the RSA has presented testimony to this committee about alcoholism and alcohol problems in the military, a serious problem that compromises military readiness and the health

and safety of our military personnel. The society has appreciated

the past support of the subcommittee and the Congress in listing

alcoholism among the eligible research areas for which applications
697

may be submitted for peer review and potential funding under the

Department of Defense peer-reviewed medical research program.

Although this program is relatively new, being created by Congress in 1999, the DOD reports that alcohol-related research

projects funded from 1999 to 2000 produced interesting research

outcomes ranging in areas from basic research biology of alcoholism

to clinically applicable findings, stating that alcohol abuse prevention is another topic area of interest due to the impact it can have

on the readiness of the military personnel.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that the RSA is disappointed

that in the fiscal year 2002 Defense Department conference agreement alcoholism was dropped from the research projects to be funded by the DOD peer-reviewed research program. This is especially

disheartening, after the subcommittee listed alcoholism in the Senate fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations Committee report.

That is Senate Report 107–109.

Our request from the RSA is quite simple. We request this subcommittee make sure that alcoholism is included among the research topics listed under the DOD peer-reviewed medical research

program for fiscal year 2003. According to the 1998 defense survey

of health-related behaviors among military personnel, the most recent survey the Department has conducted on health-related matters in the Armed Services, heavy drinking among military men is

over 40 percent more prevalent than in the civilian sector, and

among young men 18 to 25 the rate of alcohol use is about twice

that for the military than for civilians.

Among military personnel on the lowest pay grades, about 1 in

5 experience productivity loss due to drinking, 1 in 6 report serious

consequences of drinking, and 1 in 10 report symptoms of alcohol

dependence. Finally, heavy drinkers are more likely to report a

higher number of days each month with mental health problems

and the need for evaluation of depression.

While alcohol research is funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism at National Institute on Health (NIH)

and the Department of Veterans Affairs, few studies funded by

these organizations focus on prevention and treatment approaches

that are specific to the needs of the military. Little is known about

how prevention measures should be implemented in the unique social context of military work and life. Thus, the RSA urges the

DOD to fund research into the causes, consequences, prevention

and treatment of alcohol abuse and alcoholism among our military

personnel who choose to serve their country in an environment

quite different from civilian life.

Now, Alcohol research has reached a critical juncture, and the

scientific opportunities are numerous. We have great advances over

the last 2 or 3 years in terms of where we are going with our research in genetics, prevention, and in treatment as well.

In conclusion, the RSA urges the subcommittee to include alcoholism among the research topics listed under the DOD peer-reviewed medical research program for fiscal year 2003, and the RSA

respectfully suggests to the subcommittee that the magnitude and

consequence of alcohol misuse in the military calls for a dedicated,

continuous, and focused alcohol research effort supported by the

DOD.
698

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will answer any questions if you

have them.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT TAYLOR

The Research Society on Alcoholism (RSA) appreciates the opportunity to present

its views to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. RSA is a professional research society whose 1,400 members conduct basic, clinical, and psychosocial research on alcoholism and alcohol abuse. The Society’s mission is to promote research

that can lead the way toward prevention and treatment of alcoholism.

In recent years, our organization has submitted testimony to this subcommittee

about alcoholism and alcohol problems in the military, a serious problem that compromises national preparedness and the health and safety of our military personnel.

We have appreciated past support from the Congress by including alcoholism research among the recommended research areas for funding under the Department

of Defense (DOD) Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program.

RSA was disappointed, however, that the fiscal year 2002 Defense Department

Conference Agreement dropped alcoholism from the research projects to be funded

under the Peer Review Program, especially after this Subcommittee listed alcoholism in the Senate fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Committee Report

(Senate Report 107–109).

The RSA respectfully requests that the Subcommittee include alcoholism under

the research topics recommended for funding under the DOD Peer Review Medical

Research Program in fiscal year 2003. Statistics continue to show that alcohol abuse

remains a significant problem in the military and is an issue of considerable relevance to troop performance and the safety of our service personnel.

Although the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program created by Congress in

fiscal year 1999 is still relatively new, the DOD reported that projects funded in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 produced interesting research outcomes, ranging

in areas from the basic research biology of alcoholism to clinically applicable findings research. For instance, in the topic area of alcohol abuse, a research team at

Tripler Army Medical Center showed that even short-term alcohol abuse, equivalent

to 3 days of binge drinking, can alter the hydration status of the individual 18 hours

after the last drink of alcohol.

In the military, the costs of alcoholism and alcohol abuse are likely to be enormous. Heavy drinking among military men is over 40 percent more prevalent than

in the civilian sector. Among young men aged 18 to 25, the rate of heavy alcohol

use is about 1.8 times higher for the military than for civilians. According to the

1998 Department of Defense Survey of Health Related Behaviors Among Military

Personnel, the most recent survey the Department has conducted on health related

behaviors in the armed services, one in four young military men engages in heavy

drinking, defined as having five or more drinks at least once a week.

The prevalence of heavy drinking is particularly high among service men that are

not married (23.9 percent), those in the Army (17.2 percent) and Marine Corps (23.0

percent), and for personnel in the E1–E3 pay grades (25.9 percent). Further, among

personnel in the lowest pay grades (i.e., E1 to E3), about 1 in 5 experiences productivity loss due to drinking (20.7 percent), 1 in 6 reports serious consequences of

drinking (15.2 percent), and 1 in 10 reports symptoms of alcohol dependence (10.2

percent). Because these negative effects are most prominent among the junior enlisted personnel, the absolute numbers of personnel experiencing drinking problems

are quite large. Finally, heavy drinkers are more likely to report a higher number

of days each month with mental health problems and the need for evaluation of depression.

A research team at a national research center in Berkeley, California found that

drinking rates of young adults prior to entering the military are about the same as

their age cohorts in the general population. This year, this longitudinal study is

seeking to explain how and why the drinking rates of military youth are higher

after 2 years in service.

Importantly, although heavy alcohol use and associated negative effects have declined significantly since 1980 when the first DOD Health Survey was conducted,

rates have been relatively stable over the past decade and there was no decline from

1995 to 1998. These findings stand in striking contrast to dramatic declines in rates

of illicit drug use among military personnel over the same period, with a decrease

from 37 percent in 1980 to 6 percent in 1998. The unchanging, high levels of heavy

drinking and negative alcohol-related consequences highlight the critical need for

more programmatic effort and resources directly targeting alcohol use in the mili-
699

tary. In the 1998 DOD survey, a substantial proportion of current heavy alcohol

drinkers had a history of alcohol treatment since entering the military, indicating

that they are at high risk for future alcohol-related problems and additional treatment episodes.

Research holds the promise of developing a better understanding of the etiology

of alcoholism, more effective prevention programs and new and better methods for

the treatment of alcoholism. While alcohol research is funded primarily at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) at the National Institutes

of Health and at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), few studies funded by

the NIAAA and the VA focus on prevention and treatment approaches that are specific to the needs of the military. Little is known about how prevention measures

should be implemented in the unique social context of military work and life. The

Research Society on Alcoholism urges the DOD to fund research into the causes,

consequences, prevention, and treatment of alcohol abuse and alcoholism among our

military men and women who choose to serve their country in an environment quite

different from civilian life.

We are poised at a time of unprecedented opportunities in alcohol research. Scientists are exploring new ways to prevent alcohol-associated accidents and violence,

and prevention trials are developing methods to address problem use.

For the first time scientists have identified discrete regions of the human genome

that contribute to the inheritance of alcoholism. Genetic research will accelerate the

rational design of drugs to treat alcoholism and improve our understanding of the

interaction between heredity and environment in the development of alcoholism.

The field of neuroscience is another promising area of alcohol research. The development of more effective drug therapies for alcoholism requires an improved understanding of how alcohol changes brain function to produce craving, loss of control,

tolerance, and the alcohol withdrawal syndrome. This knowledge is starting to bear

fruit. Naltrexone, a drug that blocks the brain’s natural opiates, reduces craving for

alcohol and helps maintain abstinence. Ongoing clinical trials will help determine

which patients benefit most from Naltrexone and how the drug can best be used.

Naltrexone works best in conjunction with psychotherapeutic interventions. It is not

known what adjunctive therapies would be most appropriate for the military population. Other promising treatment agents, such as acamprosate, are currently undergoing evaluation in the United States. The military needs to be part of this effort.

Alcohol abuse and alcoholism are devastating problems of national importance.

The high rates of heavy drinking and associated problems among military personnel

demand immediate and increased attention. Rates of alcohol use have remained unacceptably high for the last decade while most other health indicators in the military have shown substantial and clinically significant improvements.

Alcohol research has now reached a critical juncture, and the scientific opportunities are numerous. With the support of this subcommittee and the Congress, we believe that we can produce significant advances in alcohol research and aid in understanding and reducing the problem of alcoholism and alcohol abuse in the military.

Request.—The Research Society on Alcoholism urges the Subcommittee to support

the following two initiatives:

(1) Include alcoholism among the research topics listed under the DOD Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program.

(2) Provide a $10 million targeted allocation to a focused alcohol research effort

that balances the increased morbidity, mortality, lost productivity, accidents, and an

overall reduction in readiness caused by the high rate of alcohol abuse and alcoholism in the military with the abundance of research opportunities to more effectively prevent and treat alcohol dependence and alcoholism among the men and

women serving in our armed forces.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

Senator INOUYE. Dr. Taylor, I will take it upon myself to urge my

colleagues to make certain that alcoholism is among the research

topics listed under the peer-reviewed medical research program.

Dr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you, sir. Our next witness is from the

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Edmundo Gonzales.
700

STATEMENT OF DR. EDMUNDO GONZALES, ON BEHALF OF THE

LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Dr. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am testifying on behalf of Dr. Rogene Henderson, who because of a flight that was

canceled cannot be here, so she asked me to read her statement,

with your indulgence.

Senator INOUYE. Please do.

Dr. GONZALES. We thank the senior Senator from New Mexico,

Senator Domenici, for introducing us. We in fact have a long past

history in the area of respiratory research.

Chairman Inouye and members of the subcommittee, thank you

for the opportunity to speak to you on this important matter. It is

clear from the recent history that our Nation faces the risk of terrorist acts at home. The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute

(LRRI), because of its past Federal investments, has unique facilities and equipment that can be used to address the key questions

related to the DOD mission and to the homeland security.

From its studies under the aegis of the Atomic Energy Commission on the health effects of inhaled fission products to the more

recent studies on complex airborne pollutant mixtures, the LRRI

has served the Nation’s needs by providing information on how

best to protect the public health from airborne noxious agents. Now

the country faces threats from terrorism, and LRRI stands ready

to again meet this country’s needs.

The LRRI’s ability to monitor, to characterize, and to define the

health effects of chemical, biological, and radioactive agents can be

marshalled to help diminish risk from scenarios of terrorist attack.

Therefore, we propose the establishment of a national respiratory

research initiative project at Lovelace.

The Lovelace program will include three major components. One

is the establishment of the National Atmospheric Exposure and Decontamination Simulation Laboratory. This laboratory will allow

simulation for combustion and explosion processes that study the

dispersal, exposure, and cleanup scenarios for chemical, biological,

and radioactive materials. The facility would be open to collaborative use by national laboratories, universities, and private companies engaged in federally funded R&D work of critical national

importance.

The second component of the program will be the establishment

of the Lovelace Institute Air Assault Science Center. This center

will allow Lovelace scientists and collaborators to focus on issues

directly related to these terrorist attacks. These will include studies in the dispersal of spores of biological agents, development of

new detectors for identifying airborne biological agents, development of sampling strategies suitable for radioactive aerosols released from dirty bombs, development of protective technology for

biological, chemical, or radiological active aerosols, and assessment

of inhaled dose from various types of terrorist attacks.

The third component of the Lovelace program will be to provide

scientific support for the DOD Center for Terrorism and Manpower

Readiness efforts regarding health effects. These studies will include characterization of acute lung injury due to trauma and

smoke inhalation. Continuation of our studies on the effect of low

levels of chemical warfare agents on the immune system, studies
701

on protecting troops against adenovirus infectious agents, novel

methods of health surveillance or early detection of bioterrorist attacks, study of lung disease risk from dirty bomb explosions, and

development of models to predict toxicity of low doses of threat

agents.

The Lovelace Institute has a longstanding record of focusing aerosol exposure and health research on important national issues related to inhaled toxic agents. Much of the fundamental facilities

and equipment and expertise required to address these homeland

security issues are already in place, but are engaged on other

issues, but what we need is core funding to marshall these resources to meet specific homeland security research needs and to

complement the existing physical and human resources necessary.

We wish to create a focused rapid response capability for working

with the Department of Defense on their mission and other key

agencies to provide real time information to military, law enforcement, and public health authorities when the threat is first identified.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ROGENE HENDERSON, SENIOR SCIENTIST, LOVELACE

RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) has an established national

and international reputation for its ability to handle critical questions regarding the

generation, monitoring and study of the toxic effects of airborne noxious agents.

From its early studies of the health effects of fission products to its more recent

studies on complex airborne pollutant mixtures, the LRRI has served the nation’s

needs to know how best to protect the public health from noxious agents. Now, as

the country faces threats from terrorism, the LRRI stands ready once again to meet

the country’s needs. The LRRI’s ability to characterize and define the health effects

of chemical, biological, and radioactive agents, along with the history of delivering

scientific answers, uniquely qualifies us to help diminish risk from scenarios of terrorist attack. Because of past investment, the Lovelace Institute has the facilities

and equipment that allow our scientists to test exposure models for biological clues

that lead to cures and preventives.

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NATIONAL RESPIRATORY

RESEARCH INITIATIVE PROJECT

This Lovelace Initiative proposes the formation of a partnership with the DOD to

address the national needs that now face our country. These proposed projects include: The National Atmospheric Simulation Laboratory, The Lovelace Institute

Aerosol Science Center, and Projects Supporting Counter Terrorism and Manpower

Readiness.

Accordingly, the Lovelace Institute is requesting $10 million to advance this partnership with DOD with the following component projects:

The National Atmospheric Simulation Laboratory

The DOD faces serious challenges in developing force protection measures against

chemical, biological, and nuclear (CBN) agents for personnel, facilities, supplies, and

equipment in vulnerable off-battlefield locations such as supply, training, and staging areas (i.e., fixed and temporary bases), office buildings, housing and schools (including dependents and civilian personnel), supply depots, and transport (air, sea,

and land operations). Actions against both DOD and civilian targets on 9–11 demonstrated the vulnerability to disruption of operations from fire and exposure to airborne combustion products and dusts from structural materials. The subsequent anthrax attacks demonstrated how easily small amounts of CBN materials, and the

difficulty of implementing isolation and clean-up operations and determining readiness for return to normal service could disrupt operations. The ‘‘war on terrorism’’

is very likely to involve sporadic and poorly-anticipated enemy actions against personnel, facilities, and resources (e.g., water and food supplies) dispersed among civilian populations.
702

DOD requires an improved ability to predict, assess, and overcome off-battlefield

threats to extremely diverse targets of CBN agents. DOD requires an improved

knowledge of: (1) the dispersion of hazardous materials in physically-complex offbattlefield environments; (2) the rapid but thorough assessment of airborne and surface-deposited CBN agents in workplaces and residences (including contamination

of personnel), storage areas, supplies and equipment; (3) the efficacy of alternate

containment and clean-up strategies; and (4) the criteria for determining when safe

operations can be resumed.

A laboratory for simulating combustion and CBN contamination, dispersal, exposure, and clean-up scenarios in off-battlefield DOD operations is necessarily a critical component of the strategy to improve off-battlefield force protection. Scenarios

involving various ‘‘real-world’’ combinations of rooms, wall and floor coverings, furniture, ductwork, supplies, storage areas, equipment, and vehicles need to be duplicated for tests using real and simulated CBN agents under controlled conditions.

The capabilities of the government-owned Inhalation Toxicology Facility located

on Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, NM and leased to the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (recently renewed for 25-years) will be extended as a national resource for the conduct of research requiring simulation of human exposure

atmospheres. This world-renowned facility is currently used by LRRI for its research

requiring atmospheres of airborne materials for studies of environmental air pollutants, new aerosolized therapeutic agents, and hazards from specific chemicals.

This initiative will create a resource broader in capability than required by LRRI

for its existing studies by: (1) enhancing portions of the facility to create additional

capability to work with highly-hazardous chemical and biological agents and to simulate indoor contamination scenarios; and (2) actively opening the facility to collaborative use by national laboratories and universities, or private companies engaged

in Federally-funded R&D work of critical national importance.

The Development of the Lovelace Institute Aerosol Science Center

A major threat of terrorist attack is in the form of exposure to the biological

agents or radioactive aerosols from explosion of dirty bombs. In these scenarios, lethal or harmful aerosols of biological or radioactive materials are released and inhaled by people. The victims of the ‘‘anthrax attacks’’ were subjected to inhaling anthrax spores dispersed by opening mail and suspended in the air. Anthrax spores

were used to kill persons who were exposed to the spores. Other biological agents

are capable of a similar outcome. Explosion of a dirty bomb containing radioactive

material could contaminate a wide area and cause acute and chronic effects in victims inhaling the radioactive aerosol.

As in the proposal submitted for the Exposure and Decontamination Simulation

Laboratory, Lovelace has the specialized scientific ability needed to study aerosolized agents. These attacks demonstrated the ability to select victims (members

of the U.S. Congress), use common ordinary delivery systems, and trigger the attack

in a strategic and directed manner. Material for making dirty bombs is easy to obtain and could easily be used for terrorist attack. We do not know how much radioactive aerosol could be produced in such a scenario.

We also need to develop new detection instruments and evaluate the efficacy of

control technology to minimize inhalation exposure. The proposed Lovelace Institute

Aerosol Science Center will allow aerosol scientists at Lovelace to focus on issues

directly related to terrorist attacks. Lovelace has acquired aerosol expertise relevant

to bioterrorism and radioactive aerosol through collaborative works with Sandia National Laboratories for developing a detector of biological agents and by working

with the Department of the Army to study radioactive aerosols from explosive environments. We propose to investigate the following issues:

—Mechanisms to disperse spores by opening envelop and contents leaking in

mailrooms. We propose to study these phenomena in the Exposure and Simulation facility.

—Development and evaluation of new detectors for rapidly identifying airborne biological agents.

—Developing sampling strategy and air sampling instruments that are suitable

for studying radioactive aerosol from dirty bombs.

—Development and evaluation of control and protection technology that is suitable to minimize exposure of biological or radioactive aerosols.

—Assessment of an inhaled dose of aerosol from a terrorist attack and determination of the potential health risks.

The Lovelace Institute has over 55 years of experience in aerosol science and represents a huge national resource in combating today’s chemical, nuclear and biological threats through the air that we breathe. Already in place are the scientists,

equipment, and laboratories to accomplish the technical goals listed above. What is
703

not in place is an infrastructure to accomplish these tasks rapidly in the face of a

new real world threat such as occurred in the recent anthrax attack. Re-stated,

what we propose to create is a rapid response team with the appropriate new equipment, operating procedures, pre-constructed protocols, pre-approved animal model

studies and simulation laboratories to be able to immediately provide real-time information to military, law enforcement and public health authorities when a threat

is first identified.

Specifically, expanding on the above list, we will create the systems to duplicate

particular aerosol dispersal situations in the laboratory in such a way as to predict

the area and rate of dispersal of a given aerosol, the magnitude of expected penetration into the airways and lungs, the most effective method of protection for individuals who must work in the presence of the aerosol and provide real time suggestions

of technical solutions for mitigating the spread and cleansing the affected areas.

Along with the development of these rapid response capabilities, we will develop

new technologies for on-site evaluation of the nature of the suspected or known aerosol including the ability to determine the size, density, porosity and ‘‘stickiness’’ of

the suspect agent. Thus, a rapid response simulation laboratory plus the development of new on-site mobile technologies will be created to meet the current and expected future threats of dispersal of toxic or biologically active agents through an

aerosol. Added to these capabilities will be expanded nuclear aerosol experience

gathered over 50 years of work for the DOE in the study of the health effects of

aerosolized radio nuclides.

Providing Scientific Support for DOD Counter Terrorism and Manpower Readiness

The Lovelace Institute is prepared to address major areas of concern in regard

to the health effects of terrorist attacks, including, the effects of low-level exposure

to nerve agents, the appropriate treatment of trauma-induced lung injury, and the

protection of military personnel from opportunistic lung infections. The LRRI proposes the following studies to address these and other concerns, to help improve the

nation’s homeland defense.

Characterization of Acute Lung Injury Due to Trauma or Smoke Inhalation

Bio-terrorism attacks often result in lung injury either from trauma due to explosions or from inhalation of smoke due to fires. Trauma-induced lung injury can lead

to a condition known as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in which the

lung fills with protein-rich infiltrates and large numbers of neutrophils, leading to

respiratory insufficiency. Another common lung injury in bio-terrorist attacks is due

to smoke inhalation. This project will address the mechanisms involved in both

types of injury using animal models of trauma- and smoke-induced lung injury. New

proteomic approaches will characterize the lung response to such injuries and will

point to new therapeutic approaches for the care of the affected individuals.

Effect of Chemical Warfare Agents on the Immune System

Although the nerve gas, sarin, has rarely been used in warfare, because of the

ease and low cost of production, it is a tool of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist groups and rogue nations. The threat of nerve gas-related terrorism has become a major concern after the September 11th terrorist attack. While the people

in the immediate vicinity of a nerve gas attack would be exposed to clinical/lethal

doses, the majority of people surrounding the area are likely to be exposed to subclinical doses of the agent. In the 1994–95 Japanese subway sarin attacks, 19 people

died and more than 6,000 people exhibited some degree of sarin toxicity, in spite

of rapid medical attention. Many of the surviving victims have shown signs of immunodeficiency. Our preliminary results suggest that subclinical doses of sarin impairs T cell function, and the effects of sarin on the immune system are mediated

through the central nervous system. Moreover, sarin-exposed animals have dramatically reduced serum glucocorticoid levels. To understand the cellular and molecular

bases of sarin-induced immunosuppression, we propose to expose rats to subclinical

doses of sarin by daily inhalation for 5 days. We hypothesize that the effects of sarin

on T cell function are relayed through the sympathetic pathway of the autonomic

nervous system, and might be reversed by treatment with ganglionic blockers. Moreover, changes in serum glucocorticoid levels might serve as a biomarker for cholinergic toxicity.

Protecting Against Adenovirus Infectious Agents

Adenoviruses of Subgenus B and E, including serotypes 3, 4, and 7, have been

shown to be important causative agents of lower acute respiratory infections especially children and military training personnel. While much is known regarding the

pathogenesis of adenovirus subgenus C viruses, these viruses are in general associated with very mild respiratory disease. Currently, no animal models of patho-
704

genesis of subgenus B and E adenovirus-induced pneumonia been reported. The proposed studies will provide new information regarding adenoviral-induced pneumonias that significantly impact and hinder the mobilization of new military training personnel.

This laboratory is currently investigating the pathogenesis of adenoviruses Ad 3,

Ad 4 and Ad 7h, which have been isolated from patients. In a mouse model of pathogenesis, Ad 3 and Ad 7 cause significantly more lung inflammation as compared to

Ad 5. Importantly, peribronchiolar and alveolar inflammation are markedly increased by subgenus B adenoviruses. Coinciding with increased lung inflammation,

lung remodeling and epithelial cell injury are present during acute infection of

Subgenus B adenoviruses. In addition, important lung homeostatic functions, such

as fluid balance, host defense, and surfactant regulation are altered during acute

infection. Current projects are elucidating the molecular mechanisms of altered lung

function and increased pathogenesis in these novel animal models. Delineating the

critical function of viral genes in the mechanisms of lung pathogenesis during acute

subgenus B infections of the lung is also under investigation.

Host defense against adenoviral infections, particularly subgenus B adenoviruses

has not been investigated. Previous work from this investigator has shown that the

normal lung microenvironment contains proteins that modulate adenovirus infections in vivo. Future work from this laboratory will use a proteomics strategy to elucidate novel antiviral factors that mitigate adenoviral pathogenesis in the lungs of

established animal models. Collectively, further understanding of the natural host

defense mechanisms against adenovirus will provide important insight into therapeutic strategies against adenoviral-mediated lung disease.

The development of animal models to understand adenoviral pathogenesis, particularly to infection by adenovirus serotypes associated with severe disease in

immunocompetent hosts, will be essential for the testing of antiviral and vaccine

therapies. This laboratory is focused toward understanding molecular mechanisms

of lung pathogenesis and altered lung function during acute adenoviral infection.

Genomic and proteomic strategies will allow rapid assessment of important mediators in both effector functions of pathogenesis, as well as viral host defense of the

healthy lung. Likewise, elucidation of important viral-host interactions will provide

novel information regarding adenoviral-mediated lung disease in human populations

and suggest potential targets for intervention.

Mechanisms of Dispersion of Biological Agents

After the September 11th terrorist attack, Americans have also been the victims

of bioterriorism. Anthrax spores were used to kill selected persons. These biological

agents were in powder form inside the mail. Some of the spores were dispersed by

opening the mail and some just leaked out of the envelope. The dispersed spores

were suspended in the air and caused respiratory symptoms by inhalation. There

is no systematic study of the mechanisms of dispersion of biological agents and

therefore, it is difficult to adopt an effective preventive method for this type of bioterrorist act. The objectives of the proposed study are (1) to understand the mechanisms of dispersion of biological agents during mail opening and leaking, (2) to investigate inhalation of the dispersed spores, (3) to assess the risk of the inhaled biological agent, and (4) to develop preventive methods for minimizing dispersion of biological agents. These studies will improve understanding of how the biological

agents are dispersed and inhaled by exposed persons as well as help to develop preventive measures.

Novel Methods of Health Surveillance for Early Detection of Bio-terrorist Attacks

Problems in detecting a bioterrorist attack are similar to problems encountered

in detecting other disease outbreaks. Often small outbreaks are missed because of

limitations in the diagnosis and reporting of diseases. Even large outbreaks can be

missed when people do not seek health care, when laboratory tests are not performed or when the information is not relayed to public health officials. Detection

can also be delayed until people are ill enough to justify seeking medical treatment.

This occurred in several recent anthrax infections.

A series of studies were conducted at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute

to evaluate novel methods to enhance disease surveillance. A study of nurse hot line

data from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, showed more than a 17-fold increase in calls for

diarrhea during the 1993 Milwaukee cryptosporidiosis outbreak. Moreover, consistent patterns of seasonal variation in diarrhea- and vomiting-related calls were

detected from the Baltimore, Maryland and Albuquerque, New Mexico, hot lines.

The study concluded that nurse hot line calls may provide an inexpensive and time-
705

ly method for improving disease surveillance and, as a result, would rapidly evaluate the potential effects of bioterrorist attacks.

We propose to modify nurse hot line information systems to add triage for specific

biosterrorist events, test these modified systems and implement the systems in

nurse hot line call centers. Lovelace Health Systems (LHS) is a supplier of nurse

hotline protocols. In addition, LHS operates a nurse telephone triage service as does

the University of New Mexico Medical Center. These are the only two call centers

in Albuquerque. LHS is also part of a nationwide nurse hotline system operated by

CIGNA Healthcare Systems. We propose to field test the modified nurse hotlines

Lung Cancer Risk Estimates for Aerosolized Materials (Beta-Emitting Radionuclides) from ‘‘Dirty Bombs’’

Dirty bombs are low technology weapons containing radioactive materials that

could potentially be used by terrorist groups. Radioactive materials (beta-emitting

radionuclides) released into the air could be inhaled and cause early or late health

effects in bystanders. Understanding the risk for health effects is necessary for managing such events. A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission document (NUREG/CR–

4214), completed in 1989, provides methods for estimating the radiological health

risks of nuclear power plant accidents that can be used for evaluating nuclear terrorism related scenarios, including those involving dirty bombs. Since the publication of NUREG/CR–4214, data has become available that would significantly improve risk estimates for both early effects (pulmonary fibrosis) and late effects (lung

cancer). Recent study of workers in the Russian nuclear weapons production has

shown that early effects occurred at doses lower than expected based on the

NUREG/CR–4214 models. In addition, lifespan studies in dogs have been completed

at Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute that provide cancer data that is unavailable from studies of human populations. This experimental data will be used to refine the risks for health effects from inhaled radioactive materials that might be released from a dirty bomb. Improved risk estimates will assure that best information

is being used to protect the health of the American public.

Development of a Model to Assess the Toxicity of Low Doses of Anthrax or Radiation

Dr. Scott’s career has largely focused on developing models for predicting risk to

humans from exposure to low doses of radiation. Risk models have been developed

for stochastic effects of low-dose radiation (e.g. cancer induction) as well as for

health effects (lethality and morbidity) that arise in humans after exposure to moderate and high doses. His risk models are used in the MACCS/MACCS2 codes developed at Sandia National Laboratories for the U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission

for nuclear accident risk assessment and in the corresponding European code

COSYMA. The risk models have also been used by the National Radiological Protection Board in the UK for assessing consequences of nuclear incidents and have impacted on decision making for the U.S. Department of Defense related to exposure

of military personnel resulting from a nuclear detonation. The risk models allow for

evaluating risks for specific health effects of exposure to single radiations, combinations of different radiations (including from internal and external sources as may

arise from a terrorist act) and for brief or chronic exposure. In addition to risk modeling, Dr. Scott has also been involved in respiratory tract dosimetry modeling for

inhaled toxicants such as high-specific-activity plutonium oxide particles. He has introduced novel approaches to characterizing risk from inhaled toxicants when small

numbers of highly toxic particles are airborne. For such scenarios, probabilistic descriptions of intake and risk are used. The Crystal-Ball-based computer program his

research group developed assigns a probability for intake (via inhalation) of highly

toxic airborne material (e.g. plutonium oxide) for exposure scenarios of interest and

accounts for inter-individual variability in respiratory function characteristics as

well as for variability in aerodynamic characteristics of the airborne toxicant. The

dosimetry model can be applied to males and females and for different ages. The

risk and dosimetry models used by his research group could be adapted for application to a variety of terrorist-related exposure scenarios for U.S. citizens (e.g. inhalation exposure to anthrax).

Senator INOUYE. Do your studies and research suggest that your

programs have potential for great success?

Dr. GONZALES. I am not a scientist, Mr. Chairman, but the success is the fact that we had completed our work on the studies of

inhalation of fission radioactive products to the point that the Department of Energy felt that it was no longer necessary to com-
706

plete. We have done most of the work. Our scientists participated

with the Russian incident in Chernobyl, and we are the experts in

the area. We are used to accomplishing what we set out to do.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Gonzales.

[The information follows:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Question. I understand that the $10 million that Lovelace Respiratory Research

Institute is requesting for partnership with the Department of Defense will be divided among three component projects. However, would you please provide us with

a full accounting of how you expect these resources to be allocated between the proposed Simulation Laboratory, the Aerosol Science Center, and the Counter-terrorism

support? Answer. The projects will be conducted over a three-year period with the $10 million allocated in the following manner:

[In millions]

Simulation Laboratory ........................................................................................... $3.6

Aerosol Science Laboratory ................................................................................... 3.6

Counter-terrorism Support Activities ................................................................... 2.8

Total ............................................................................................................. 10

More specifically:

Simulation Laboratory

A facility for simulating contamination/exposure environments is necessary to conduct research to improve detection, characterization, and mitigation of Nuclear,

Chemical, and Biological (NBC) terrorism threats. The simple containment chambers used in past studies of aerosol dispersion and animal exposures to NBC agents

do not adequately simulate the contents and complexity of real-world office, school/

daycare, housing, workplace, vehicle, or outdoor public environments. Laboratories

especially modified to simulate dispersion-contamination-clean-up scenarios and to

conduct studies of biological agents are not only necessary for the aerosol dispersion

and health research to be conducted by Lovelace, but are also necessary for validating detection and mitigation technologies developed elsewhere. The latter need

is evident from agency contacts (DARPA, EPA) Lovelace has already received.

Existing government-owned facilities at the inhalation toxicology laboratory on

KAFB will be modified using the requested funds to provide: (a) multiple (2–3)

rooms capable of being configured to simulate different (e.g., the above) environments and having room-scale containment controls suitable for contamination with

NBC agents followed by clean-up and re-use; (b) laboratories for secure storage of

limited amounts of NBC agents and preparation of experimental set-ups; (c) laboratories for precisely-controlled exposures of animals to NBC agents other than in the

simulation rooms; and (d) units for safely disposing of contaminated materials while

maintaining complete separation of NBC hazardous materials from off-site public

waste streams (sewage, landfill). The majority of the laboratories will be capable of

operation at the biosafety P–3 level, with a small area capable of operation at the

biosafety P–4 level. The requested funding will also allow conduct of initial ‘‘proof

of concept’’ studies linking the Lovelace aerosol dispersion and health outcomes

studies (described in accompanying sections) under realistic environmental conditions.

Although the simulation laboratory will be primarily used for studies funded

wholly at Lovelace by DOD and other agencies, the facility will also be used by

agencies to validate detection and mitigation technologies developed by other organizations (especially LANL and SNL). Agencies soliciting development of improved

technologies through other funding mechanisms will require ‘‘test beds’’ in which alternate technologies can be compared under identical conditions. Moreover, the

basic operations (safety, security, etc.) of the simulation laboratory will be continually staffed by Lovelace to facilitate its use as a ‘‘user facility’’ by other organizations (e.g., UNM) requiring P–3 or modest P–4 biosafety capability.

Aerosol Science Laboratory

The Aerosol Science Center will be devoted to the study of the release and dispersions of NBC agents under conditions of a terrorist attack. A major threat of terrorist attack is exposure to the NBC agents in the form of airborne particulates or

aerosols. Biological aerosols such as anthrax spores and chemical agents can be
707

readily released into a room or other public areas. An explosion of a dirty bomb containing radioactive material could contaminate a wide area. The Aerosol Science

Center will allow Lovelace scientists and collaborators to focus on issues directly related to terrorist attacks. These include:

—Studies of the dispersal of spores of biological agents,

—Development of new detectors for airborne biological and radioactive agents,

—Development of sampling strategies suitable for radioactive aerosols released

from dirty bombs,

—Development of protective technology for NBC aerosols, and

—Assessment of inhaled dose from various types of terrorist attacks.

There is a need for additional and upgraded facility alternations and equipment

that are more directly related to the completion of the studies envisioned for the

Aerosol Center. These include upgrading: The aerosol generation and sampling

equipment; the aerosol wind tunnels; and the testing facilities for nuclear and biological aerosols, and state-of-art aerosol instrumentation.

In the initial studies, we propose to examine the release of biological aerosols from

envelopes and packages. This study will provide insights into the limitations and

capabilities of bioterrorism. We will also study personal protection equipment for

their efficiency in reducing exposure to biological agents. In addition to the DOD

studies, the Aerosol Center in conjunction with the Simulation Laboratory, will

serve as a validation laboratory for other agencies such as DOE, CDC and EPA to

evaluate detectors, sampling strategies, and protection technology developed

through other funding mechanisms.

Counter-terrorism Support Activities

The counter-terrorism support activities will address health effect issues related

to the major types of agents that terrorists might use in attacks on U.S. citizens.

Nuclear Agents—$1.8 million

Dirty bombs are low technology weapons containing radioactive materials that

could potentially be used by terrorist groups to contaminate large areas with radionuclides. If such occurs, it will be essential to quickly evaluate the degree of contamination of individuals, so that appropriate triage measures can be taken.

The Lovelace studies will directly address this problem in a multifaceted approach. Animal studies will be conducted to determine the association between the

degree of contamination and the presence of sensitive, easily available biomarkers

of genotoxicity that can be measured in circulating blood lymphocytes. The animals

will be exposed to simulated atmospheres from dirty bomb explosions, using information from our national laboratories on the appropriate source terms. The animal

studies will provide data for use in mathematical modeling the dosimetry and the

health risks from the exposures to allow quantitative health risk assessments for

exposed individuals. Finally, we will develop a health surveillance strategy for rapid

detection of bioterrorist attacks.

Biological Agents (Program and Costs for these studies are included in item

II above.)

Biological weaponry, particularly microbes (anthrax) and viruses (smallpox), continue to possess substantial risk from bioterrorism. The contribution of Lovelace in

this area will be in addressing the gap in our knowledge of how these agents are

dispersed. These studies are described in the proposals for the aerosol science laboratory described above. No health studies are planned at Lovelace.

Chemical Agents—$1.0 million

Nerve gases are chemical agents of terrorism that have already been used, for example, in the subways of Tokyo. While we know the effects of high levels of nerve

agents, there is little information on the effects of the low levels of exposure that

would be experienced by the vast majority of people involved in a terrorist attack.

The LRRI, through studies funded under the DOD Gulf War initiative, has already

conducted studies on the effects of low-level exposure of animals to the nerve gas,

sarin. The findings indicate that low-level exposures suppress the immune system

and alter the density of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor sites in the brain. These

initial findings must be followed up to determine the exact nature of the immune

suppression and the effect of the altered receptor sites on behavior. These studies

are essential to understand the appropriate treatment of persons exposed to low levels of nerve gas following a terrorist attack.

Question. After initial establishment of this partnership, what level of continued

support would be required to sustain your research operations?

Answer. We anticipate two components to the funding of our proposed partnership

with DOD: Alternation and Upgrade costs for the current facilities and equipment
708

mostly driven by items I and II; and multi-year funding for ongoing maintenance

of these alterations, and for research programs in all three items I, II and II.

We foresee that the funding requested will cover a three-year period. In that time

we anticipate completion of the setup of the simulation laboratory and the aerosol

science facility. These facilities, once established, will be available for use by other

institutions for facilitation of federally funded research related to homeland defense

and for validation of tools developed by others for use in protection against terrorist

attacks. Funding from these external agencies is expected to help support the maintenance of the facility. Therefore we estimate that funding required for maintenance

of the facilities will be no more than $0.5 million/yr.

To continue the health effects research described under the counter-terrorism support activities will require a collaborative agreement with the DOD to continue

those parts of the research most pertinent to DOD needs. Good progress on the

projects is expected to occur within the three-year period of support, but the projects

are multifaceted, and will undoubtedly require additional support for follow-up on

some key initial findings. The funding required would also depend, in part, on other

research needs of the DOD that may arise. One might estimate that a continued

support of $3 million/yr would allow Lovelace to follow-up the earlier work and to

respond quickly to new, urgent needs that may arise as the result of a terrorist attack.

Senator INOUYE. Now may I call upon representatives of the Department of Software and Electrical Engineering, Mr. Frank Lutz

and Dr. Frank Tepfenhart, and the dean of the School of Science,

Technology and Engineering of Monmouth University. Dean

Francis Lutz.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM TEPFENHART, DEPARTMENT OF SOFTWARE AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, SCHOOL OF SCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING OF MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY

ACCOMPANIED BY DR. FRANCIS LUTZ, DEAN, SCHOOL OF SCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY

Dr. LUTZ. Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to

speak with you this morning about the increased threat of bioterrorist attacks we are facing and the important role defense funding

should play in developing homeland security countermeasures that

could reduce human suffering and the loss of life.

We recognize the important role the Centers for Disease Control

and the Department of Health and Human Services play in the development of the biological and chemical countermeasures needed

in an attack, but we believe strongly that the Department of Defense should take a lead in developing the logistics software information and engineering systems capability that will be needed to

recognize and respond rapidly to a bioterrorist attack.

The science and technology programs within defense have always

been important to the conduct of basic and applied research by the

engineering and science education communities. These programs

enable new initiatives that sustain the technological currency of

our defenses. Now they can and should also enhance our capacity

to respond more rapidly to the consequences of covert bioterrorist

attacks. Monmouth University wants to meet the need to develop

a coordinated information system that can quickly identify patterns

of research resulting from such attacks.

We have natural sources of disease that can escalate into a problem of frightening proportions. Now we also have enemies of the

State that would celebrate the spread of a deadly disease throughout the American populace. A major health threat can arise anywhere and spread like wildfire. Responses to health threats are for

the most part local. It is at a local doctor’s office or a local hospital
709

that a patient will be diagnosed and treated. The county health department likely will be the first line of defense in containing a disease. A failure at the local level to respond rapidly and appropriately could escalate a problem into a catastrophe.

We want to provide information systems that allow local, county,

and State health departments to be a coordinated first line of defense. Our first effort toward this goal is a rapid response system.

It is intended to provide early warnings of health threats, identify

correct responses, task appropriate resources, and track the evolution of the problem. By providing the ability to more rapidly identify and correctly respond to a health threat, we hope to limit the

number of illnesses and fatalities associated with a given outbreak.

The rapid response system will contain a database that captures

the current and past state of health within the community. This

data can be processed using epidemiological models to predict the

future. Variations from those expectations indicate possible problems and alert the county that actions are necessary.

Once an alert has been triggered, the correct procedure for responding to the problem can be identified. Responses must take

into account requirements for isolating infected individuals for distribution of medications, maintaining public order, and so on. Appropriate response is built upon knowledge about roads, waterways, population distributions, and structures for use as emergency

shelters.

As we have seen with our national intelligence agencies, it is necessary to share information among all affected agencies in order to

prevent catastrophic events. The same is true within the health

services community. The rapid response system will utilize and exploit data bases located at hospitals, veterinary hospitals, schools,

nursing homes, and other local sources that contain data about the

state of health at the county level. It will provide data to State and

national systems. This kind of information-sharing enables a coordinated State and/or national response to a health threat.

As of today, the number of victims of the attack on the World

Trade Center who are Monmouth County, New Jersey residents totals 147. Too many of us know a victim or a victim’s family member.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity that you have

given us to present our efforts, and we add our thanks to those of

others to you and the committee for your continued support of the

science and technology programs within Defense.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM TEPFENHART

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for the honor to speak

with you this morning about the increased threat of bio-terrorist attacks we are facing and the important role defense funding should play in developing homeland security counter measures that could reduce human suffering and loss of life. We recognize the important roles that CDC and HHS play in the development of the biological and chemical counter measures encountered in an attack. But we believe

strongly that DOD should take a lead in developing the logistics, software engineering and information systems capability we will need to recognize and respond rapidly to a bio-terrorist attack.

We know how important the Science and Technology Programs within Defense

have always been to the conduct of basic and applied research by the engineering
710

and science education communities. These programs enable new initiatives that sustain the technological currency of our defenses. Now they can, and should, also enhance our capacity to respond more rapidly to the consequences of covert bio-terrorist attacks.

Monmouth University wants to meet the need to develop a coordinated information system that can quickly identify patterns of disease resulting from a covert bioterrorist attack. We believe that it is not so much a matter of if a health threat

of major proportions arises, but when. We have natural sources of disease that can

escalate into a problem of frightening proportions. We have enemies of the state

that would celebrate the spread of a deadly disease through the American populace.

Already, anthrax has been delivered through our mail as a weapon of terror.

A major health threat can arise anywhere and at anytime. It can spread like wildfire through the population. Responses to health threats are, for the most part,

local. It is at a local doctor’s office or hospital that a patient will be diagnosed and

treated. The county health department shall be the first line of defense in containing a disease. A failure at the local level to respond rapidly and appropriately

will enable a problem to escalate into a catastrophe.

At Monmouth University, we want to provide information systems that allow

local, county and State health departments to be a coordinated first line of defense.

Our first effort towards this goal is the Rapid Response System. It shall provide

early warnings of health threats, identify correct responses, task appropriate resources, and track the evolution of the problem. By providing the ability to rapidly

identify and correctly respond to a health threat, we hope to limit the number of

illnesses and fatalities associated with a given outbreak.

The Rapid Response System shall contain a database that captures the current

and past state of health within the community. This data shall be processed utilizing epidemiological models to predict the future. Variations from expectations

shall indicate possible problems and alert the county that actions are necessary. The

introduction of a new disease into the region will also trigger alerts.

Once an alert has been triggered, the correct procedure for responding to the

problem shall be identified. Responses are all encompassing. It is necessary to take

into account requirements for isolating infected individuals, distribution of medication, maintaining public order, and other social factors. Appropriate responses shall

build upon knowledge about roads, waterways, population distributions, and structures for use as emergency shelters. A response must be thorough to be effective.

As we have seen with our national intelligence agencies, it is necessary to share

information among all affected agencies in order to prevent catastrophic events. The

same is true within the health services community. The Rapid Response System

shall utilize and exploit data bases located at hospitals, veterinary offices, schools,

nursing homes, and other local sources that contain data about the state of health

at the county level. It shall provide data to State and national systems. This kind

of information sharing enables a coordinated State and/or national response to a

health threat. It is only by taking such a broad view to the problem that we can

limit the consequences of major health threats.

As of today, the number of victims of the attack on the World Trade Center who

were Monmouth County, New Jersey residents totals 147. Many of us know a victim

or a victim’s family member.

Monmouth University is committed to making America a safer place to live. We

appreciate the opportunity that you have given us to present our efforts. We look

forward to the collaboration needed to develop this rapid response capability.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Has your university started any program to develop this rapid research response center?

Dr. LUTZ. We are in the process of trying to form coalitions locally so we could have the capability to develop the center as soon

as we can.

Senator INOUYE. And you feel you do have the capability?

Dr. LUTZ. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Dr. Tepfenhart.

Dr. Tepfenhart: We have given our statement together. I am here

to answer any technical questions you may have. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, and we will study your proposal.

Dr. LUTZ. Thank you very much.
711

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is from the University of

Tulsa, Oklahoma. Dr. Tom Landers.

STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS L. LANDERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CENTER FOR AIRCRAFT AND SYSTEMS/SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF OKLAHOMA INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Dr. LANDERS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am statewide executive director of the CASI Center, which is the Center for Aircraft

and Systems Support Infrastructure, which is a coalition of Oklahoma universities, including Tulsa University of Oklahoma and

Oklahoma State University. We appreciate the opportunity to

present testimony about the motivating national interest for CASI

and our approach to serve those needs.

Modern aircraft fleets, both military and civilian, have become

increasingly expensive to develop, maintain, and operate, yet the

DOD mission requires the fighting force capable of high readiness

and mobility, so we continue to rely on our existing inventory of

aircraft, many of which are aging systems, as referred to earlier

this morning in the testimony by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. An example is the KC–135, our primary air-to-air

refueling platform, used heavily in Operation Enduring Freedom. The fleet has an estimated replacement cost of $40 billion. Every

effort must be made to promote fleet readiness in this time of mobilization and to prolong the fleet life ultimately to as much as 80

years. Thus, the maintenance, repair, and overall capabilities of the

Air Force’s logistics centers are vital to force readiness in support

of the war-fighter. The engineering and management challenges in

this arena are not less than those for new weapons systems, and

thus require the best of Government, industry, and university partnership. We gratefully acknowledge Congress’ incremental funding

to DOD for the CASI program in the past 2 years, and I might add

that we appreciate the support of the Oklahoma Regions for Higher

Education and the universities, which have invested about $1 million in center infrastructure and project cost-sharing in the center’s

start-up phase.

Since Oklahoma is an EPSCoR State, and you have heard testimony earlier this morning about EPSCoR, I might add that the vision for this center emerged from the Oklahoma EPSCoR process.

One of the many successful CASI projects last year illustrates

our potential impact on force readiness. It involved technology for

maintenance of the B–1 bomber Pitotstatic Probe Interface, which

is essential for aircraft flight control of the B–1 and other weapons

systems employed during Operation Enduring Freedom.

Due to active project participation by our faculty, students, civilian engineers of the Air Force, and uniformed maintainers, that

team approach has resulted in very successful and rapid adoption

by the Air Force, so the Air Force is estimating that the annual

cost savings resulting from that will be at least $500,000 per year,

which is like a 1-month payback on that $30,000 project. But perhaps more importantly, the capacity to generate sorties, bombing

missions, is increased through compression of the aircraft’s turnaround cycle by a factor of 7 to 1, from 2 weeks to 2 days.

Today we respectfully request an additional $8 million of congressional incremental funding in the pending fiscal year 2003
712

budget. The Air Force has defined and prioritized the use of previous funding, and will do so for the fiscal year 2003 funding. Plans

include an expanded program of summer quick-look projects such

as the B–1 project that I mentioned. In-depth engineering support

and technology insertion activities on these and other priority

issues for the logistics centers, education and training programs to

meet those centers’ workforce needs of the future, and augmentation of technical and programmatic capabilities at the CASI universities so they will be able to better support in the future, in addition to further engagement of our regional universities, including

the University of Central Oklahoma, and Langston University.

Over the past 3 years, the CASI Coalition has become a credible

partner of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center. We seek to provide expanded service to them and to other DOD logistics centers,

and the requested funding is viable to grow the center toward that

end.

Thank you, and may I answer any questions.

Senator INOUYE. Dr. Landers, thank you for your testimony. We

will certainly look into this as we proceed into the markup. Thank

you very much.

Dr. LANDERS. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. LANDERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for Oklahoma’s Center for Aircraft and Systems/

Support Infrastructure (CASI). This testimony will identify the motivating national

interest and describe the CASI approach to serve those needs.

We gratefully acknowledge Congress’s incremental funding for the past year to

the Department of Defense in the amount of $3 million for the CASI program.

Today we respectfully request an additional $8 million in the pending fiscal year

2003 budget. The Air Force is actively leading the definition and prioritization of

initiatives to utilize the proposed incremental funding. Plans include an expanded

program of summer collaborative initiation projects, in-depth problem solving on

these and other priority topics, collaborative engineering support/technology insertion activities, education/training support, augmentation of technical and programmatic capabilities at the CASI universities, and expansion of statewide participation by regional universities.

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL INTEREST

The United States is operating in a new era that requires a military force capable

of high readiness and mobility. The aircraft fleets to support this mission have become increasingly expensive to develop, maintain, and operate. Fewer new aircraft

are being built and the existing fleets must be retained in service periods that, in

some cases, dramatically exceed the original design lifetime. For example, the C/

KC–135 fleet is scheduled for retention in the operational inventory until the year

2040, when the average aircraft age will approach 80 years. Thus, the maintenance,

repair, and overhaul (MRO) capabilities of the Air Force’s Air Logistics Centers

(ALCs) are vital to force readiness in support of the warfighter. The Oklahoma City

Air Logistics Center (OC–ALC) at Tinker Air Force Base supports the C/KC–135

and other aircraft fleets and systems. Although MRO costs of these aircraft are rapidly increasing, fleet replacement is both expensive (e.g. $40 billion for the existing

fleet of more than 600 C/KC–135 aircraft) and lengthy (years before initial availability and decades for full fleet replacement). The technical challenges of maintaining an aging fleet are comparable to, and in some respects exceed, those in development of new aircraft platforms and systems.

The OC–ALC and other military aircraft programs and logistics facilities rely extensively on aircraft original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and secondary engineering support firms to establish and update aircraft maintenance technologies and

practices. However, the private sector sometimes lacks the specific expertise needed

at the critical times to fully support the ALCs. There is also a need for an inde-
713

pendent source of alternative approaches, innovations, translational R&D, and new

technology insertion. Oklahoma’s research universities can partner with private-sector firms to provide this timely infusion of necessary expertise under the CASI

framework and utilizing DOD contracting mechanisms. Several firms have already

engaged CASI to provide specialized and complementary expertise.

CASI MISSION AND APPROACH

CASI is the first academic entity of its type in the nation focusing on creation of

a state-wide, multi-disciplinary approach for conducting applied research and development, modeling, technology insertion, and engineering support activities for aircraft MRO sustainment. CASI has been organized under the aegis of Oklahoma’s

State Regents for Higher Education to provide a single point of contact through

which the aviation community may access the capabilities of universities in the

State. CASI supports public and private-sector partners with economics-based lifecycle engineering, management methods, and technology insertion to assist aircraft

fleet owners in increasing readiness, lowering maintenance cycle times and costs,

promoting environmental compliance, and improving safety.

The comprehensive universities primarily responsible for CASI administration are

the University of Oklahoma System, the University of Tulsa, and the Oklahoma

State University and A&M System. These systems of higher education include main

campuses in Norman, Tulsa, and Stillwater, respectively; system campuses such as

Cameron, Langston, and Northeastern Oklahoma A&M; and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. Langston University is the CASI Affiliate institution,

providing expertise in information technology and Center outreach. Other regional

institutions such as the University of Central Oklahoma and Cameron University

are also involved, in technical topics such as corrosion electrochemistry and digital

design capture. Representatives on the CASI Board of Directors act under the authority of the Vice-Presidents of Research at the respective universities. The Board

includes Dr. John Nazemetz of Oklahoma State University (Co-Director), Dr. James

Sorem of the University of Tulsa (Co-Director), and Dr. Thomas Landers of the University of Oklahoma (Executive Director).

The OC–ALC Technology Thrust Areas represent the kinds of engineering support

required by the Air Logistics Centers: Structural/Materials, Avionics/Electronics/

Software, Information Technology, Environmental, and Depot Industrial Processes.

Expertise is dispersed throughout Oklahoma’s Higher Education System corresponding to these requirements, including:

—Corrosion management, high performance materials, aircraft coatings, and

ultra-precision surface finishing methods.

—Fatigue and fracture mechanics.

—Modeling, simulation, and forecasting for reliability, physics of failure, and logistics.

—Supportability and economic cost-of-ownership modeling and business management.

—Hazardous waste stream abatement, remediation, advanced environmental

monitoring methods, and pollution prevention technologies.

—Industrial, manufacturing, and human factors engineering (e.g., man-machine

studies, resource allocation, machining and metrology, process improvements,

material handling and logistics, metrics and benchmarking, and industrial hygiene).

—Information Technology in cyber-security and in the product realization and

sustainment process, including digital collaborative design, database management, and data mining.

—Avionics and ground electronics supportability applications such as real-time

aircraft health assessment, fault isolation and detection, repair verification testing and calibration.

In fiscal year 2000, the CASI consortium established a cost-share program designed to stimulate the CASI collaboration with the OC–ALC and other air logistics

centers. The Oklahoma Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

(EPSCoR) office, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, and CASI universities provided seed funding for this initiative. The State Regents and CASI universities have also invested substantial resources over $1 million to develop the center

infrastructure, including Center leadership and activation of contract mechanisms.

The State cost share programs have fostered several new technology insertion activities with collaborating entities at the OC–ALC.

During the past 3 years, CASI faculty and students have initiated approximately

$6 million in projects supporting OC–ALC through contracts managed by firms in

the private sector. These projects span the five Technology Thrust Areas. Five
714

projects (5 faculty) in summer of 2000, 19 projects (23 faculty) in summer 2001, and

18 projects (23 faculty) in summer 2002 have initiated collaboration with missioncritical programs at OC–ALC. These summer projects immerse the faculty and students in the problem domains and foster both short-term benefits to force readiness

and long-term benefits to the growing partnership. Two projects in Summer 2001

demonstrate the positive impact of CASI work on force readiness, particularly in

terms of reduced costs and process cycle times: —B–1B (Lancer) Pitotstatic Probe Interface.—This project involved development of

leak-testing and calibration apparatus, technology and process, significantly

benefiting B–1B force readiness. The project resulted in estimated cost reductions of $500,000 per year (a 1-month payback) and compression of the calibration cycle time by a factor of 7:1, from 2 weeks to 2 days. The Air Force anticipates rapid force adoption due to active participation and highly favorable reception by maintenance staff.

—E–3A (AWACS) Torque Tube Reengineering.—This project involved rapid prototyping and reverse engineering, resulting in a viable sourcing of scarce replacement parts. Through substitution of machined aluminum for cast titanium, replacement parts may be fabricated by a wide range of small businesses or even

on base at the ALC in a few days. The previous sourcing required a lead-time

of months.

CASI is also participating in the OC–ALC Science and Engineering Career Panel

(SECP) to define requirements and develop strategies for meeting OC–ALC hiring

needs in these critical career fields associated with expanding workload and impending retirements during the next decade. The CASI program introduces students to

ALC mission and career opportunities.

CASI faculty have begun entering into strategic relationships to provide technology support for DOD systems maintained at sites outside of Oklahoma, including

the Ogden Air Logistics Center (OO–ALC) at Hill Air Force Base in Utah and the

Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR–ALC) at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia.

Senator INOUYE. Now may I call upon the director of biodefense,

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Dr. Nancy

Connell.

STATEMENT OF DR. NANCY CONNELL, DIRECTOR, THE CENTER FOR

BIODEFENSE, UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF

NEW JERSEY

Dr. CONNELL. Greetings, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Dr. Connell, and I am the director of the Center for Biodefense at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of

New Jersey (UMDNJ).

I would like first to thank the committee for its support of the

Center for Biodefense over the past 3 years. UMDNJ is the Nation’s largest freestanding public university in the health sciences.

Located on five statewide campuses, the university is well-positioned to respond to chemical and biological terrorist attack

through our expertise in infectious disease research and statewide

resources in public education, training, emergency response, and

planning.

The Center for Biodefense was created in 1999 in anticipation of

the possibility of bioterrorist attacks taking place in the United

States. We are a truly collaborative effort engaged with State and

local organizations such as the New Jersey Department of Health

Office of Emergency Management to enhance our current capabilities and ensure consistency with their plans to coordinate activities

in their fight against terrorism.

With the support of this committee, UMDNJ has achieved over

$8 million in targeted appropriations to develop the center’s programs in research, education, training, public health, and emergency response. Funding secured for the center for fiscal years

2000 and 2001 is focused on research to better understand the
715

human immune response to infection by a wide range of agents.

Through proposals accepted by the U.S. Army medical defense research program, we at the center aim to develop faster, more efficient methods of identifying specific infections.

Using gene chip technology, by the end of 2002 staff at the center

will have characterized and compared the genetic response of

human cells to infection by nine different agents, most of them select agents, including anthrax. We hope then to be able to differentiate one infection from the other by scrutinizing the immune response of the victim, and not by trying to identify the presence of

the organism itself.

In fiscal year 2003, the center will continue this work by testing

new Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) chips designed to display genetic

sequences to allow for this rapid screening and positive identification of the presence of the agent in question. Experiments conducted by the center over the last 2 years is using large amounts

of data for UMDNJ scientists to draw upon in developing new directions in basic research in infectious diseases such as

immunotherapy and vaccine.

We respectfully request funding of $4 million for the Center for

Biodefense to enhance and expand our scientific research agenda.

The center’s high containment biosafety level 3 laboratory facilities

act as a backup or surge capacity lab in the event that the New

Jersey State labs are again overwhelmed by a State or national

emergency.

UMDNJ is respectfully seeking $2 million to upgrade and maintain its Biohazard Safety Level (BSL)-3 capabilities at a state of

constant readiness and to expand its existing facilities in order to

provide additional surge capacity and backup support for New Jersey and regional State laboratories in the event of another bioterrorist event.

The center’s other activities include emergency response planning, education, and training. In the wake of the 1993 attack on

the World Trade Centers, the university hospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) set up a mutual aid compact with New York

City in the wake of that first attack in 1993. As you all know, New

York City lost communications and incidence command when the

trade towers fell. What you may not know is that it was UMDNJ’s

emergency medical department and the center staff who were able

to replace fallen communications, command facilities, and personnel in a fully coordinated manner for several weeks following

the September 11 attack.

New Jersey’s overall response was a triumph of interagency cooperation, and the work accomplished by UMDNJ and the center

leading up to this event was a major contributor to the State’s

achievements and the entire region’s response to the worst terrorist

attack in U.S. history.

Support received from Congress in fiscal year 2002 is enabling

the center to establish a statewide system of equipment, personnel,

and training to further enhance the capabilities of New Jersey’s

first responders to react to and mitigate a mass casualty event. In

fact, UMDNJ is already playing a significant role in the forthcoming expansion of surveillance activities in the State by training
716

epidemiologists and improving infrastructure in local and county

health departments.

Practical lessons in epidemiology surveillance and other public

health issues are already presented to local and State officials

through the center’s educational program. Since October 2001,

more than 100 presentations have reached target audiences in

most of the State’s 21 counties, including law enforcement agencies.

Support is formally and respectfully requested to address these

kinds of requirements for the center’s mass casualty response system, and to expand its training of emergency responders and public

health officers on strategies to combat terrorism, and this would include development of a local statewide real time surveillance system.

The Center for Biodefense is playing a critical role in the

counterterrorism and bio defense activities within the State of New

Jersey. We believe that a comprehensive approach encompassing

research, education, public health initiatives and emergency response represents a model that could be successfully emulated in

other regions of the Nation. We stand ready to offer our expertise

to further our country’s homeland defense initiatives.

We wish again to thank the members of the committee for past

support of UMDNJ’s bioterrorism efforts and applaud the critical

role you play in meeting our Nation’s needs to prepare for these

emerging threats.

Thank you very much, and I will take questions.

Senator INOUYE. The members of the subcommittee looked upon

this as the Lautenberg project. We will do our best to continue it.

Dr. CONNELL. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. NANCY CONNELL

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of this committee, my name is Dr. Nancy

Connell and I am the Director of the Center for BioDefense at the University of

Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey—New Jersey Medical School.

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is the largest

freestanding public university of the health sciences in the country. The University

is located on five statewide campuses including three medical schools, and schools

of dentistry, nursing, health related professions, public health and graduate biomedical sciences. UMDNJ comprises a University-owned acute care hospital, three

core teaching hospitals, an integrated behavioral health care delivery system, a

statewide system for managed care and affiliations with more than 200 health care

and educational institutions statewide.

UMDNJ is home to the International Center for Public Health, a strategic initiative that has created a world-class infectious disease research and treatment complex at University Heights Science Park in Newark, New Jersey; the New Jersey

Medical School National Tuberculosis Center, one of only three model TB Prevention

and Control Centers in the United States funded by the Centers for Disease Control

(CDC); the Center for Emerging Pathogens at the New Jersey Medical School, which

serves as a focus for infectious disease research; the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI), a joint venture of UMDNJ and Rutgers

University, recognized as one of a select number of national centers of excellence

by several Federal agencies; and a statewide system of Level I and II Trauma Centers.

In addition, UMDNJ plays a dominant role in providing continuing education and

outreach in all aspects of emergency preparedness. Basic and applied research

among the UMDNJ campuses directly addresses the biomedical implications of biological and chemical weapons and appropriate response in the event of their use.

UMDNJ’s scientific and academic expertise uniquely positions us to develop a

comprehensive, statewide program to combat chemical and biological terrorist attacks. With the strong support of the committee, UMDNJ has achieved over $8 mil-
717

lion in Congressional targeted appropriations to develop a Center for BioDefense in

New Jersey, with programs focused on research, education, training, public health

and emergency response. The Center is engaged with various local and State organizations, such as the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management, the New Jersey

Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Newark Department of Health

to enhance current capabilities, ensure consistency within contingency plans and coordinate the Center’s role in the fight against terrorism.

UMDNJ established the Center for BioDefense in 1999 in anticipation of the possibility of bioterrorism attacks taking place in the United States. This foresight

proved timely, as the country was subjected to an unprecedented release of a bioweapons agent, Bacillus anthracis, in the fall of 2001. Congressionally directed appropriations of $3.2 million secured for the Center in

fiscal year 2000 and 2001 are focused on scientific research to better understand the

human immune response to infection by a wide range of agents. Through proposals

accepted by the U.S. Army Medical Defense Research Program, scientists at the

Center aim to develop faster, more efficient methods of identifying specific infections.

This work is vitally important in protecting all Americans, especially in the event

of multiple and simultaneous use of biological weapons.

Researchers at the Center theorize that detecting the use of a bioweapons agent,

such as anthrax or plague, could be accomplished by looking at the host’s cellular

response within the first few hours after infection. This is because within minutes

of infection the body mounts an immune response. Researchers can then determine

whether early infection leads to specific profiles of gene expression, a characteristic

pattern that can differentiate one infection from another. Using gene chip technology, by the end of 2002, staff at the Center will have characterized and compared

the genetic response of human cells to infection by nine different agents, including

anthrax. The other agents that are being studied are plague, tularemia, glanders,

hantavirus, dengue virus, influenza virus, monkeypox and multidrug-resistant TB.

In fiscal year 2003, the Center for BioDefense will continue this work by amassing

the data collected so far and testing new ‘‘DNA chips’’ that will be designed to display sequences allowing for the rapid screening and positive identification of the

agent in question. Additional experiments will focus on understanding the functions

of the genes identified in the first 2 years of the funded research. During 2001–

2002, Center scientists will have identified key aspects of the human immune response to infection by listed agents. These experiments will yield large amounts of

data for UMDNJ scientists to draw upon in developing new directions in basic research in infectious diseases, such as immunotherapy and vaccines. For example,

last fall neurochemists at UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School predicted the longterm effects of exposure of neurons to anthrax toxins and began studies of the molecular basis of these interactions. We now know, as we predicted, that many of the

victims of last fall’s attacks who recovered from inhalation anthrax have lasting

nuerological problems. UMDNJ respectfully requests funding of $4 million for the

Center for BioDefense to enhance and expand its scientific research agenda.

In addition to research, the Center for BioDefense is playing an increasingly important role in all other areas of counter-terrorism and biodefense activities within

the State of New Jersey and across the nation.

The Center’s high containment (BSL–3) laboratory facilities act as a backup, or

surge capacity lab, in the event the New Jersey State labs are overwhelmed by a

State or national emergency. This is an important element in the State’s planning

and response to the anthrax outbreak last year. In addition, Center staff in the

BSL–3 labs offer resources and assistance to law-enforcement agencies for specialized training in such topics as recognizing a clandestine biological laboratory. Staff

expertise and BSL–3 support is lent to industry and other academic institutions as

well.

In order to remain at the cutting edge of biodefense research, and to remain a

resource in the war on terrorism, UMDNJ is proposing to upgrade, expand and

maintain the BSL–3 laboratory. Support of $2 million is respectfully sought to maintain the current BSL–3 Lab at a state of constant readiness and to upgrade and

expand existing facilities. These enhanced laboratory facilities will provide additional surge capacity and back-up support for the NJ State laboratories in the event

of a bioterrorist event.

The Center’s other activities include emergency response planning, education and

training. The Center and UMDNJ’s extensive Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

department were planning, preparing, exercising and training with New Jersey’s

first responders and alongside New York EMS and law enforcement personnel long

before September 11th. A mutual aid compact had been implemented following the

first World Trade Center bombing years ago. On September 11, when New York offi-
718

cials had to ask many to withhold their help because it could not be effectively integrated into their emergency operations, these officials actually reached out to the

Center for BioDefense and UMDNJ, along with the New Jersey State Police, and

requested their assistance. Having co-trained with New York personnel for years,

UMDNJ and Center staff were able to replace fallen communications, command facilities and personnel in a fully coordinated manner for several weeks following the

September 11th terrorist attacks. UMDNJ’s commitment to success was evident in

the New Jersey response to this event as our Emergency Medical Services department coordinated all actions of the State’s EMS contingent for the 2-week duration

of our involvement. New Jersey’s overall response was a triumph in interagency cooperation; the work accomplished by UMDNJ and the Center leading up to this

event was a major contributor to the State’s achievement.

Congressionally targeted appropriations approved for the Center in fiscal year

2002 are enabling us to establish a regional statewide system of vehicles, equipment

and personnel to further enhance the capabilities of New Jersey’s first responders

to react to and mitigate mass casualty events. The Center’s staff provides training

to first responders on how to fully utilize the capabilities of these assets.

While the responsibility of surveillance rests within the State and local governments, UMDNJ has played a significant role in the forthcoming expansion of surveillance activities in the State. Funded through the Centers for Disease Control,

New Jersey will be expanding central state and local capacities for surveillance.

UMDNJ will work closely with the State to train new epidemiologists and improve

infrastructure in local and county health departments. Practical lessons in epidemiology, surveillance, and other public health issues are already presented to local and

State officials through the Center’s education programs. At these forums, strategies

to combat bioterrorism are taught, much in the same manner as in the military’s

‘‘War Colleges.’’ More than 90 education and training presentations given by the

Center since October 2001 have reached each region of the State and most of its

21 counties. UMDNJ is respectfully requesting $2 million to address equipment requirements of its mass causality vehicles, and to sustain and expand its training

of emergency responders, government officials and public safety health officers on

strategies to combat bioterrorism.

Additionally, the Center for BioDefense is poised to develop a real-time EMSbased surveillance system to be integrated with the University’s electronic medical

records system that now covers 1,000 faculty physicians and 200,000 patients. In

conjunction with the State’s existing and proposed surveillance systems, this enhanced system, integrating data from the State’s busiest EMS systems operated by

or affiliated with UMDNJ, will help public health officials to more quickly detect

acts of bioterrorism and other threats to the public health. UMDNJ respectfully

seeks $2 million for this initiative.

The Center for BioDefense at UMDNJ is playing a critical role in the counter-terrorism and biodefense activities within the State of New Jersey. In the future we

will work to expand even further our cooperative efforts with neighboring States to

insure that our region is well prepared to meet the new threats of bioterrorism. Our

comprehensive approach to bioterrorism, encompassing research, education, public

health initiatives and emergency response represents a model that could be successfully emulated in other regions of the nation. We stand ready to offer our expertise

to further our nation’s preparedness.

We wish to thank the Members of this Committee for their support of UMDNJ’s

initiatives that has allowed us, in a few short years, to gain a State and national

reputation for leadership and rapid response to terrorism. We look forward to continuing to provide leadership within these areas.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the executive director of the

American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases, Ms. Joan Goldberg.

STATEMENT OF JOAN GOLDBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH, ON BEHALF

OF THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR OSTEOPOROSIS AND RELATED BONE DISEASES

Ms. GOLDBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am Joan Goldberg,

as you said, executive director of the American Society for Bone

and Mineral Research, and also representing the National Coali-
719

tion for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases. I am here to urge

you and your colleagues to continue the support for maintaining

the Department of Defense Bone Health program.

Bone health is an essential element of military readiness. The

President’s budget seeks to assure military readiness by keeping

our first-to-fight forces trained and equipped to adapt to emergency

threats. This requires the ability to endure vigorous exercise during

training and combat.

From the moment a soldier gets his or her orders, he or she faces

new physical demands, including frequent weight-bearing activities

such as marching, running, and carrying heavy equipment, all of

this to develop a high level of physical fitness. An increase in

weight borne heightens the risk of stress factors, and the military

is carrying more than ever. Dietary deficiencies add to the risk.

On March 4, as reported in The Washington Post, our troops

climbed the forbidding slopes of the Takora Gar Mountain in Afghanistan. They were carrying upwards of 80 pounds on their

backs in military gear. They also took turns carrying their wounded comrades on the uneven terrain in freezing cold at high altitude

awaiting helicopter rescue. Their joints swelled. With soldiers less

well-conditioned, a fracture or broken leg or foot could have spelled

the difference between survival and death.

Stress fractures occur too frequently and impair military readiness. They are costly in service time lost and medical expense. The

incidence of stress fracture among U.S. military is high. From an

estimated 1 to 20 percent. The highest rates are for women. Stress

fractures are most common in the legs and feet, but they also occur

in the ribs and upper extremities. For healing to occur, a recruit

must stop running or marching for weeks. For many of our military

in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the time simply is not available.

The DOD recognizes stress fracture is a major problem and has

supported the following research:

A study in San Diego that found a direct correlation between current and prior fitness levels in stress fracture, and developed a tool

being tested for its predictive value.

A University of Ohio investigation revealed that reproductive

function is not disrupted in women because of an increase in intensive training or a low fat diet, as commonly believed. Rather, menstrual cessation, which means a drop in estrogen production, which

has a harmful impact on bones, occurs because the calorie or energy intake is insufficient to meet the increased energy demands

of intensive training, and you can see that in 5 days.

Another study found that dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), a

hormone, may help maintain and improve bone mass in women

with low estrogen, such as women with anorexia nervosa.

Another demonstrated that alcohol consumption increases the

risk of skeletal injury during rigorous exercise by inhibiting bone

remodeling and reducing bone mass.

These findings are directly translatable into strategies to improve the military’s bone health through improved physical conditioning and diet, but we need to learn more to develop more prevention approaches, better diagnostic tools, and improve treatment

approaches.
720

For example, another DOD study discovered that ultrasound

alone is not helpful in predicting fracture, but new technologies, including a new Positron Emission Tomography (PET) device, looks

promising. Another study just published in the Journal of Bone and

Mineral Research indicated that Cox-2 inhibitors slow or stop bone

healing in fractures in animals, while an editorial suggested a

change in treatment for humans based on this evidence.

New studies are urgently needed to identify new strategies to

eliminate stress fracture during physically intensive training, in

combat, to optimize physical training, and nutrition standards for

helping young men and women, and to develop practical methods

and markers to predict impending injury.

Promising DOD research is ongoing. It includes investigations of

vitamin D and calcium intake, exercise, and new diagnostic methods, among others. 2002 funding will likely address the effective resistance training on bone structure and function, practical monitoring strategies to identify individuals at risk, and interventions

to optimize bone turnover to favor building bone.

Mr. Chairman, stress fractures erode the military’s physical capabilities and reduce military readiness. We thank you for your

past well-spent support for funding. We respectfully request that

the Department of Defense maintain an aggressive and sustained

bone health research program at the level of $12 million in fiscal

year 2003.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN GOLDBERG

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Joan Goldberg, Executive Director of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. I am here today on

behalf of the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases to urge

your support in maintaining the bone health research program within the Department of Defense and providing sufficient funding to sustain the program.

Bone health is an essential element of military readiness. The President’s budget

‘‘seeks to assure military readiness by keeping our ‘‘first to fight’’ forces trained and

equipped to adapt to emerging threats.’’ A major component of being trained and

equipped is assuring that the physical health of our troops is at a level to endure

the vigorous exercise during training and during operational activities associated

with combat. In peacetime or combat, soldiers are at risk for injury, incapacitation,

and degraded performance resulting from injuries such as stress fractures—all of

which compromise the mission, readiness, and budget of the Armed Forces.

From the moment a soldier gets his/her orders, that individual undergoes a new

set of physical demands. Military training utilizes frequent weight-bearing activities, such as marching and running, to develop a high level of physical fitness. It

also introduces additional factors such as carrying a pack, wearing boots, and training on uneven terrain. The increase in weight bearing increases the risk of stress

fractures to the lower extremities. Factors such as low bone density, dietary deficiencies, menstrual irregularities, insufficient/inadequate exercise and sleep deprivation also contribute to the development of stress fractures, yet the optimum diet,

amount of sleep and type of exercise best employed for bone health are not known.

Stress fractures are extremely costly to overall U.S. military readiness in terms

of both service time loss and medical expenses. Costs due to stress fractures just

among the 2,000 female Marine recruits trained annually are estimated to be

$1,850,000 per year, with 4,120 lost training days and an extended training period.

The incidence of stress fracture among U.S. Military recruits is high, ranging from

approximately one to 20 percent, with higher rates reported for women than for

men, with women suffering a higher rate of particularly debilitating pelvic stress

fractures. Stress fractures are most common in the tibia (legs) and metatarsals

(feet), but also occur in non-weight bearing bones, including the ribs and upper extremities. In order for healing to occur, the stress must be removed, which means
721

that a recruit would have to stop running or marching for a period of time in order

for healing to occur.

The DOD has recognized stress fracture as a major problem and, through its

Army Military Operational Medicine Research Program, supports research to advance the understanding of methods to improve bone health of its recruits. This research will result in strategies to eliminate stress fracture during physically intensive training and combat; to optimize physical training and nutrition standards for

healthy young men and women; and to develop practical methods and markers to

predict impending injury (poor physical fitness at the time of entry into recruit

training is a strong predictor of injury).

CURRENT STUDIES

Developing an injury model based on training, physiological and population-related factors, and refining predictions of stress fracture based on loading, bone damage and remodeling estimates.

Determining if a protein-based supplement food bar can promote an increase in

bone mass in physically active young military trainees with adequate calcium intakes. If a measurable benefit to bone mineral accretion can be demonstrated

through the use of a nutrient supplement, this could be of immediate use in military

feeding strategies.

Examining gait patterns associated with stress fracture risk and specifically determining structural and biomechanical factors that contribute to tibial stress fracture risk. Identification of biomechanical factors associated with stress fracture may

lead to development of preventive measures such as strategies for gait modification

to reduce loading rates.

Comparing recovery times from tibial stress fracture in subjects treated with electric field stimulation. This study will also determine the most cost effective approaches to diagnosis and treatment of tibial stress fracture to accelerate return to

duty. Stress fracture healing time using conservative but generally favored treatments of rest from weight bearing activity averages 3 months, making this a significant cost to military readiness.

Assessing the effects of oral contraceptives use on bone mineral density and incidence of stress fracture in young female runners. (An earlier study looked at oral

contraceptives and discovered decreased peak bone mass in the rat.)

Determining if skeletal physiology including PTH, vitamin D, bone turn over, and

bone density at the beginning of military training predicts risk of stress fractures.

To determine if calcium intake, exercise patterns and menstrual function during

military training contributes to the level of peak bone mass and risk of stress fractures over 4 years at the U.S. Military Academy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research has demonstrated that thoughtful modification of physical training programs can delay the time to stress fracture occurrence and reduce the overall incidence of stress fractures without compromising physical standards or training level.

This research is expected to provide information to further reduce training injuries

through better identification of at risk individuals, and through scientifically based

training, dietary, and medical interventions.

A meta-analysis of 76 studies demonstrated that progressive resistance and aerobic training increase and/or maintain bone density in women.

Another ongoing study discovered DHEA may help maintain or improve bone

mass in low estrogen women, such as those with anorexia nervosa.

Scientists also found that ethanol consumption increases the risk of skeletal injury during rigorous exercise by inhibiting bone remodeling and reducing bone mass.

Moreover, when bone is subject to lack of movement (e.g., after injury), ethanol

worsens the negative effects. (Bed rest, for example, already has a negative impact

on bone.)

It has also been found that 1 week of rest early in basic training provides no protective effect against stress fracture in male soldiers.

AREAS OF NEED

Research is needed to better relate the effects of types of physical training with

specific diets and health habits in terms of their impact on the acquisition of peak

bone mass. Also, longitudinal studies of bone physiology and bone remodeling in

physically active populations need to be conducted, in addition to identifying the influences of specific types of intense physical training.

Mr. Chairman, stress fractures erode the physical capabilities and reduce the effectiveness of our combat training units, essentially compromising military readi-
722

ness. Therefore, it is imperative that the Department of Defense maintains an aggressive and sustained bone health research program at a level of $12 million in

fiscal year 2003.

Senator INOUYE. I did not realize that stress fractures were this

commonplace in the military.

Ms. GOLDBERG. Very common. There are a lot of different studies, and this actually is a report of the ongoing research going on

at the Department of Defense. Some studies find 6 percent, 10 percent. It depends on whether they are looking at officers in training

or recruits. It is also common in the rest of the population.

Senator INOUYE. Is it primarily dietary?

Ms. GOLDBERG. We know that dietary puts you at risk. We also

know that poor physical conditioning before starting physical training is another factor. We think that sleep deprivation and alcohol

consumption are also involved, and we are trying to identify exactly

what is the best nutrition and physical conditioning to help prevent

that. Genetics may be involved as well.

Senator INOUYE. We will check this out. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is the director of the legislative programs of the

Fleet Reserve Association, Master Chief (Ret.) Joe Barnes.

STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF JOE BARNES, (RET.), DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

Chief BARNES. Mr. Chairman, Fleet Reserve Association (FRA)

appreciates the opportunity to present its views on the 2003 defense budget. The association thanks this distinguished subcommittee for its leadership and strong support for the pay, health

care and benefit improvements enacted in recent years. My statement today addresses the end strength’s pay and other priority personnel issues. Bob Washington, FRA’s director of member services,

is speaking later on behalf of the military coalition.

The National Fleet Reserve Association (NFRA) strongly supports the coalition’s positions on health care, reserve issues, and

other quality of life programs. First, FRA supports an increase in

end strength to ease both operational and personnel tempos now

imposed upon a force too small to sustain the war on terrorism,

while at the same time attempting to meet other operational commitments.

Second, the association recommends continued progress toward

closing the military pay gap by funding higher than civilian pay increases. Congress is also urged to repeal the law that authorizes

annual military pay caps below civilian wage levels.

Third, Congress should be commended for authorizing the Navy

to determine the amounts of sea pay and submarine pay its personnel receive. Although the sea pay program expanded, submarine

pay rates have not changed for 13 years. FRA requests support for

the appropriations necessary to cover the cost of the new rates for

these programs.

Fourth, the association again encourages Congress to fully authorize and fund the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and

veterans disability compensation for disabled retirees. This was authorized for 2002 contingent upon funding being included in the

2003 budget. The Senate Budget Committee allocated funding in

its budget resolution to authorize and gradually fund concurrent

receipt beginning in 2003 for military retirees rated 60 percent and
723

above. This mirrors language in the House budget resolution, and

indicates progress towards FRA’s objective of full concurrent receipt for all disabled retirees.

Fifth, FRA appreciates the increases in the allowance for temporary lodging expenses authorized for 2002 and the authority to

raise PCS per diem rates. However, service members still incur significant cost in complying with relocation orders.

Sixth, the 2003 budget reduces commissary funding by $137 million, and eliminates over 2,600 positions from stores and headquarters staff by September 30, 2003. FRA is concerned that the

size and scope of the reductions may negatively impact quality and

service to customers. FRA strongly recommends full funding of the

commissary benefit in 2003 and beyond, and opposes any efforts to

privatize commissaries.

Seventh, spouse employment is a major consideration in the wellbeing and retention of service members. FRA salutes Congress for

adopting provisions last year to provide military spouses with financial and other assistance and job training and education. The

association urges continued support and sufficient funding for these

programs in the fiscal year 2003 budget. FRA encourages your review of other issues addressed, including the needed reform of the

survivor benefit plan and equity amendments to the Uniformed

Services Former Spouses Protection Act.

Finally, two FRA initiatives are discussed, the extension of a dislocation allowance to retiring service members, and the retention

of the final month’s retired pay by surviving spouses at the time

of the retiree’s death. If authorized, the association asks your support for these proposals.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I stand ready to answer

any questions you may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE BARNES

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman: The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is grateful to have been invited to present its statement on the fiscal year 2003 Defense Budget. The Association’s President and Board of Directors also thank you and the members of the Subcommittee staff for the outstanding quality of life successes gained over the years

for the men and women serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. FRA salutes each of you for a job well done.

The FRA is the oldest and largest Association in the United States representing

enlisted men and women of the Sea Services whether on active duty, in the reserves, or retired. Established in 1924, FRA’s primary mission is to act as the premier ‘‘watchdog’’ organization for maintaining and improving quality of life for Sea

Service personnel. In the past 5 years, for example, FRA led the way in a campaign

to amend the military’s ‘‘Redux’’ retirement system for the better and provided a pay

study referenced by Congress in the adoption of pay reform for mid-grade enlisted

personnel in 2001, and subsequently by Congress in 2002 with regard to further revising the pay for all noncommissioned and petty officers in grades E5 thru E9.

There are other issues and programs advocated by FRA over the past few years

that are now a reality including sea duty pay reform, Tricare for Life and expanded

pharmacy benefits for older military retirees. The latter are major benefit enhancements also advocated by The Military Coalition which is comprised of 33 nationally

prominent military and veterans organizations.

FRA is the leading enlisted association in the Coalition and has the distinction

of holding two of the six elected offices (President and Administrator) in the Coalition. Additionally, three of nine Coalition committees are co-chaired by members of

FRA’s legislative staff.
724

The Association strongly endorses all Coalition positions on health care, reserve

issues, and other quality of life programs. This statement addresses some of the

same issues including end strengths, basic pay, commissary funding, concurrent receipt, PCS reform, and spousal employment plus other in-house concerns such as

submarine pay.

END STRENGTHS

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, avowed that the Armed Forces will defeat terrorism ‘‘no

matter how long it takes or where it takes us.’’ Missing from the statement was the

promise to succeed ‘‘no matter how many uniformed service members are needed to

do the job.’’

Since 1995, FRA has annually requested increases in military manpower. Operational levels involving uniformed members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air

Force, and Coast Guard 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-in-chief.

Today, those engagements have accelerated to meet anti-terrorism campaigns directed by the Bush Administration, including Transportation (Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration), and other governmental agencies involved in homeland defense measures. Over 70,000 National Guard and Reservists are now serving

in some active duty capacity, while increased numbers of active duty service members are assigned duties in and near Afghanistan and in other foreign locations on

land and sea.

Press reports indicate the Army has told the Pentagon it needs 20,000 to 40,000

additional troops over the next 5 years, the Air Force 7,000 and possibly more than

20,000, and Marine Corps an additional 2,400. The Navy declined to offer a specific

number. However, the Secretary of Defense isn’t favorable to the increase in manpower. FRA must support the military services. Before September 11 some defense

officials, both civilian and military, complained that uniformed personnel were doing

more with less, were over deployed, overworked, and stretched thin—this during a

peace time environment. Now that the United States has ordered troops into Afghanistan and surrounding areas, military personnel are stretched even more. Nevertheless, the troops are serving magnificently. The question is: How much longer?

Recommendation.—That this Subcommittee agrees to increase funding to ease

both operational and personnel tempos now imposed upon a force not sufficient in

numbers to sustain current operational commitments. Although Congress authorized a small increase in the fiscal year 2002 strengths of the Navy and Air Force,

the numbers fell short of their needs. The Army and Marine Corps, however received no increase in manpower, but are seeking increased numbers. FRA recommends that the Senate give greater credence to the needs of the individual services by adopting the House’s increase in uniformed manpower for fiscal year 2003.

The following warning is noteworthy in a Navy Times editorial of 12/10/01, ’Don’t

overextend 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.

BASIC PAY

FRA salutes the 106th and 107th Congresses for authorizing pay reform for midcareer enlisted personnel effective on July 1, 2001, and again on January 1, 2002,

as well as for senior enlisted members in pay grades E8 and E9. FRA is particularly

pleased that its 1999 study on mid-career noncommissioned and petty officers pay

played a significant part in opening the path to pay reform for enlisted personnel

in pay grades E5 and above.

The Association understands that the Administration is seeking an additional

$300,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 to execute further pay reform for mid-career enlisted personnel and to target raises for critical officer grades. FRA welcomes this

initiative while recognizing the importance of Congress’ commitment to increase

military pay each year by 1/2 percent more than the average wage hike in the civilian sector to help close the pay gap by the year 2006.

FRA appreciates Congress’ resolve to provide comparable pay for the Nation’s

Armed Forces personnel. This should have been authorized years ago when the gap

was closed by double digit pay increases in 1981 and 1982. In the Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1981, Congress made it clear it was trying to restore in current dol-
725

lars the relationship of military compensation to pay in the private sector ‘‘that existed in 1972 when Congress adopted the All-Volunteer Force.’’

Congress also declared that substantial’ improvements in pay rates ‘‘are necessary

in fiscal year 1982’’ to provide necessary incentives for a career of military service.

Additionally, the Senate found fault with the mechanism determining comparability

indices used at that time for proposing annual increases in military pay, and suggested that a better mechanism be developed within the next year. However, budget

constraints since then and until recently prevented any improvement in developing

legislation addressing the pay gap.

Recommendation.—That this Subcommittee adequately fund Congress’ commitment to closing the military pay gap by 2006 through the use of higher-than-civilian-pay increases to military basic pay. However, in order not to allow military pay

to again fall behind that in the civilian community, Congress must act to repeal the

law that authorizes capping annual military pay increases below that of civilian

wages. Additionally, FRA recommends that future pay increases for the Armed

Forces be based on the performance value of each pay grade within its own category;

enlisted, warrant officers, and commissioned officers. For example: If senior NCOs

and petty officers have a greater value to the military than warrant or commissioned officers of certain pay grades, then the basic pay for the senior enlisted

should be of a greater premium. The opposite would also apply.

SEA AND SUBMARINE PAY

Congress is to be lauded for authorizing the Navy to determine the pay its personnel will receive for sea and submarine duty. The Navy has taken steps to expand

its career sea pay program to include junior personnel and has diverted funds totaling $150,000,000 to finance the new rates. Submarine pay is however, another matter. The rates have not changed for 13 years and the purchasing power of submarine pay has deteriorated significantly. There is no money in the Navy’s fiscal

year 2002 budget to increase the rates to reflect the arduous duty required of a submariner.

Today’s operational commitments and shortages of manpower place even heavier

burdens on personnel deployed on naval ships and submarines. They are deserving

of higher rates for their outstanding effectiveness in discharging their mission to

provide the United States with the world’s most efficient and powerful naval force.

Recommendation.—Congress is urged to consider the sea and submarine duty programs as an imperative part of the Nation’s vital defenses. Both programs should

be funded independently. FRA requests of Congress the necessary appropriations to

cover the costs of the new rates for the two pays as established by the U.S. Navy.

CONCURRENT RECEIPT

The Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes a provision addressing the concurrent receipt of military non-disability retired pay and

any VA compensation for service-connected disabilities. Currently, the receipt of VA

compensation causes a like reduction to a retired service member’s military retired

pay. As a result, retired service members believe they are forced to pay for their

service connected disabilities.

The fiscal year 2002 NDAA authorizes concurrent receipt but only if the Administration seeks that authorization and includes funding in its fiscal year 2003 budget.

This did not happen, however, the Senate Budget Committee allocated funding in

its fiscal year 2003 Budget Resolution to authorize and gradually fund over several

years concurrent receipt for military retirees rated 60 percent and above. This mirrors language in the House Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately,

the Senate resolution has yet to come to the Senate floor for debate.

FRA is not privy to the Administration’s reason for not endorsing concurrent receipt. However, government officials often reference a 1993 Congressional Research

Service report citing programs (i.e.—social security, unemployment compensation,

black lung disease) that have offsets or limits in concurrent receipts. However, the

report states emphatically that: ‘‘. . . veterans’ disability compensation is always

payable fully and concurrently with income or benefits from nonmilitary sources because concern about preserving work incentives for disabled veterans and the longstanding policy that disabled veterans who are able to work in the private economy

after separation from military service should not be penalized.’’ (Emphasis added.)

The report further noted that its review listed 25 pairs of programs that in a

broad sense might be relevant to policies pertaining to military retired pay and veterans’ compensation. ‘‘However,’’ the report warns, ‘‘many of the program pairs are

not similar enough to the veterans’ situation to be instructive.’’ (Emphasis added.)
726

Actions relative to tax changes to the military’s disability retirement system

forced many retired service members to seek redress from the Veterans Administration, later the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Before 1975 military disability

pay was tax exempt. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 forced the Department of Defense

(DOD) to change the rules so that only a percentage of the member’s disability retired pay attributable to combat-related injuries would be tax-exempt. Subsequently,

many retiring service members petitioned the VA for relief for service-connected injuries.

Service members, whether in uniform or retired, are considered Federal employees, subject not only to Title 10, U.S. Code, but Title 5, U.S. Code, the latter that

governs the conduct and performance of government employees. Both active and retired Federal civilian employees eligible for veterans’ compensation may also receive

full benefits of Federal civil service pay or Federal civil service retirement payments, including disability retirement with no offsets, reductions, or limits.

Recommendation.—FRA encourages Congress to fully authorize and fund concurrent receipt of military non-disabled retirement pay and veterans’ compensation program as currently offered to other retired Federal employees—including those receiving benefits under the Federal Government’s disability program. Congress must

remember that U.S. service members not only had a major hand in the creation of

this Nation, but have contributed more than any group to the military and economic

power of the United States for more than 200 years.

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION (PCS) REFORM

FRA appreciates the significant increases in the Temporary Lodging Expense

(TLE) allowance authorized for fiscal year 2002 and the authority to raise PCS per

diem expenses to match those for Federal civilian employees in fiscal year 2003.

There are significant steps to upgrade allowances that had been unchanged in over

15 years. Even with the much-needed changes, however, servicemembers continue

to incur significant costs in complying with relocation orders.

For example, PCS mileage rates have not been adjusted since 1985. The current

rates range from 15 to 20 cents per mile and are significantly lower than the temporary duty mileage rate of 36.5 cents per mile for military members and Federal

civilians. Members are authorized time off for house-hunting trips in advance of a

PCS relocation, but unlike Federal civilians, they must do so at personal expense.

FRA also believes that adequate funding for the Relocation Assistance Program is

essential.

Recommendation.—FRA urges continued up-grades of permanent change of station reimbursement allowances in fiscal year 2003 to recognize that the government,

not the servicemember, should be responsible for paying the cost of doing the government’s business.

COMMISSARIES

The President’s fiscal year 2003 budget reduces Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) funding by $137,000,000 and eliminates 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, FRA 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 story

shelves. This would have a significant adverse impact on the benefit, which is widely recognized as a valuable part of the service member’s compensation package and

a cornerstone of quality of life benefits. FRA strongly opposes any efforts to privatize

commissaries and strongly supports full funding of the commissary benefit in fiscal

year 2003 and beyond.

Recommendation.—FRA opposes privatization of commissaries and strongly supports full funding of the benefit to sustain the current level of service for all commissary patrons.

SPOUSAL EMPLOYMENT

Recently the Armed Forces have become concerned with the plight of military

spouses who lose employment when their service member husbands or wives are

transferred to new locations. Studies indicate that many military families suffer significant financial setbacks when spouses leave employment to accompany their military sponsor on permanent changes of station (PCS). Some losses are substantial.

Worse, yet, is the lack of equal or even minimal employment opportunities at new

duty stations.

Spousal employment is a major consideration in the retention of the service members and the services are launching new programs to assist spouses in finding full
727

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. Further, Federal and State cooperation to provide unemployment benefits is required to provide unemployment compensation equity to military spouses forced to leave jobs due to PCS orders

Recommendation.—FRA salutes Congress for the provisions it adopted in the fiscal year 2002 NDAA to provide military spouses with financial and other assistance

in job training and education. The Association urges Congress to continue its support of the military’s effort to effect a viable spousal employment program and to

appropriate sufficient funds to assure the program’s future success.

OTHER QUALITY OF LIFE CONCERNS

SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

FRA believes the Federal Government continues to renege on its commitment to

members of the uniformed services who opt to participate in the military’s Survivor

Benefit Plan (SBP). The plan was to be patterned after the Civil Service/Federal

Employees Retirement Systems with the cost to be shared; 40 percent by the government and 60 percent by participating military retirees. Both of these points appear numerous times in congressional hearings on SBP before the House and Senate

Armed Services Committees.

Hearings in the 94th, 95th, 96th, and 99th Congress’ note that the military’s SBP

should ‘‘conform identically to the formula’’ or ‘‘function in an identical fashion’’ to

the civil service plan. During a September 1976 hearing conducted by the House

Armed Services Committee, a Department of Defense General Counsel letter of July

26, 1976, was inserted for the record. The letter read that if Congress failed to make

certain corrections to the military’s SBP as it had authorized for the civil service

plan, it would ‘‘constitute an unwarranted inequity that has extremely adverse impact on the morale of retirees and those nearing retirement.’’

The 40–60 share between the government and the participating military retiree

is reported in Senate Hearing No. 99–298 of June 20, 1985 that lists five different

references to the intent of the plan to share the cost at the above percentage figures.

Spokesmen for the Congressional Budget Office and Department of Defense referred

to the cost-sharing as follows:

—(CBO).—Under current law, members retiring today will bear about 62 percent

of the cost of the Survivor Benefit Plan; roughly consistent with the 60 percent

goal for cost-sharing.

—(DOD).—The legislative history of the SBP shows an intent that the Government contribute approximately 40 percent of the benefits.

There is reluctance by Congressional sources to accept the fact that the military’s

Survivor Benefit Plan was designed to emulate the civil service plan or that the participating service member was to incur but 60 percent of the program’s costs.

Equity has gone the way of all good intentions. Military SBP participants have

seen their share of the plan’s cost rise above the 70 percent factor (approximately

73 percent overall, 79 percent for those enrolled since the 1970s.) The rise in the

plan’s cost-sharing for military retirees was predicted as early as 1980 (Senate Report No. 96–748, p. 7) and again in 1996 (Military Compensation Background Papers, Fifth Edition, Sep. 1996, p. 691). In fact, DOD, in the Senate Report referenced

immediately above, warned that if certain changes were not made to the Plan, ‘‘the

officer portion of the cost sharing will escalate to 76 percent, while enlisted members share 125 percent of the costs.’’ Nearly 10 years earlier, in the September 1,

1976, House hearing referenced above, a DOD General Counsel letter of August 30,

1976, was inserted for the record. It stated that over time, ‘‘inflation will cause the

cost of the SBP participant to become increasingly out of balance with the cost to

his or her counterpart participating in the comparable plan for Federal civil servants.’’ Meanwhile, the civil service and Federal employees’ plans remain at participating costs of 50 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

There is yet another cost-sharing inequity that exists in the military SBP. Participants in the plan pay premiums over a much longer period than their counterparts

in the civil service/Federal employees’ plans. This gives the Federal retiree a far

more advantageous benefit-to-premium ratio.

FRA is in agreement with Retired Air Force Colonel Mike Lazorchak who wrote

in Navy Times, January 15, 2001, ‘‘(E)ach year Congress fails to pass more meaningful SBP rates, military retirees are forced to give the government an ever-increasing interest-free loan in return for their benefits. Admittedly, an increase in

the government subsidy will require Congress to increase the annual contribution

to the Military Retirement Trust Fund, most of this increase is merely a repayment
728

of the interest-free loans that military retirees have been required to give the government for decades.’’

Recommendation.—The high cost of participating in the military’s Survivor Benefit Plan is contrary to the intent of Congress to pattern it after the Civil Service/

Federal Employees survivor plans. Congress is urged to amend the military’s Survivor Benefit Program to repeal the minimum post-62 SBP annuity over a period

of 10 years. [35 percent to 40 percent in October 2002, to 45 percent in October

2005, and 55 percent no later than October 2011.] Additionally, to further amend

the year 2008 to 2003, at which time the military retiree who has paid premiums

for 30 years and is at least 70 years of age, will be a paid-up participant. In the

event the authorizing committee agrees to the above amendments, FRA urges the

Subcommittee to appropriate the necessary funding.

UNIFORMED FORMER SPOUSES PROTECTION ACT (USFSPA)

The USFSPA was enacted nearly 20 years ago, the result of Congressional chicanery that denied the opposition an opportunity to express its position in open public

hearings. With one exception, only private and public entities favoring the proposal

were permitted to testify before the Senate Manpower and Personnel Subcommittee.

Since then, Congress has made 23 amendments to the Act: eighteen (18) benefitting

former spouses. All but two of the 23 amendments were adopted without public

hearings, discussions, or debate. In the nearly 20 years since the USFSPA was

adopted, opponents of the Act or many of its existing inequitable provisions, have

had but one or two opportunities to voice their concern to a congressional panel. The

last hearing, in 1999, was conducted by the House Veterans Affairs Committee and

not before the Armed Services panel having oversight authority for amending the

USFSPA.

FRA believes that Congress is avoiding its responsibility to the men and women

who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the United States. For nearly 200

years, Congress controlled the pay and allowances of active, reserve, and retired

military personnel. The States had no say as to how Federal payments would be

regulated, even when the recipient retired from military service. In fact, the Federal

courts ruled that in retirement the member was still in the military service and was

in all respects still performing service’. This led to the term, ‘‘reduced pay for reduced but continuing service.’’ In short, military retired (or retainer) pay is not a

pension or an annuity. Through the media and other public forums, members of

Congress, reporters, and outside advocates for the enactment of a former spouses

protection act, used the term ‘‘pension’’ to describe military retired pay. Today, the

word has nearly replaced its true nomenclature.

Few provisions the USFSPA protect the rights of the service member. They are

unenforceable by the Department of Justice or DOD. If a State court violates the

right of the service member under the provisions of USFSPA, the Solicitor General

will make no move to reverse the error because the Act fails to have the enforceable

language required for Justice or Defense to react. The only recourse is for the service member to appeal to the court, which in many cases gives that court jurisdiction

over the member that it didn’t have when the original ruling violated the Act. Some

State courts also award a percentage of veterans’ compensation to ex-spouses; a

clear violation of U.S. law.

Recommendation.—That Congress take a hard look at the USFSPA with the purpose of amending the language so that the Federal Government is required to protect its service members against State courts that ignore provisions of the Act and

modify other provisions that weigh heavily in favor of former spouses. FRA urges

the distinguished members of the Subcommittee to suggest to their colleagues on

the Armed Services Committee that hearings be scheduled to determine required

changes to the Act.

DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE

Throughout a military career, service members endure a number of permanent

changes of station (PCS). Most often the moves require additional expenses for

household relocations. Such expenses may include, but are not limited to, loss of

rent deposits, abandonment or forced sale of items that must be replaced, added

wear and tear on household goods in transit, disconnecting and connecting telephone service and other utilities, and the purchase of some furniture replacements

for the new home.

To help defray 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.
729

In 1989, Congress increased the allowance from one month’s basic allowance for

quarters (BAQ) to two months.

Service members retiring from the Armed Forces are not eligible for dislocation

allowances, yet many are subject to the same additional expenses as their active

duty counterparts. In August 2000, the Marine Corps Sergeants Major Symposium

recommended the payment of dislocation allowances to retiring members who, in the

opinion of the Sergeants Major, bear the same financial consequences on relocating

as their active duty counterparts. Both reflect management decisions.

Recommendation.—That if the authorizing committee should amend 37 USC, 407,

to authorize the payment of dislocation allowances to members of the Armed Forces

retiring or transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Reserve, the Association requests the necessary funding to execute the payments.

TERMINATION OF RETIRED PAY ON DATE OF RETIREE’S DEATH

FRA believes it is insensitive for the Federal Government to continue recovering

the balance of the retired pay of a member of the Armed Forces whose death occurs

on any date in the final month of the retiree’s life. Current regulations require the

military’s finance center to terminate payment of retired pay upon notification of the

retiree’s demise. Further, to recoup outstanding retired pay checks or direct deposit

payments including any check or deposit paid for the month in which the retiree

dies.

Eventually, the finance center will pay the eligible survivor for each day the retiree was alive during the month of demise. Meanwhile, the eligible survivor will

experience a considerable drop in income. The retiree, unlike his or her active duty

counterpart, will receive no death gratuity and, in the case of many of the older enlisted retirees, will not have adequate insurance to provide a financial cushion for

their surviving spouses. Although the SGLI program was initiated in 1965, it covered the retiree only up to 120 days after the effective date of retirement. Retirees

were then authorized to purchase an individual policy of permanent insurance in

an amount equal to the SGLI coverage from any participating company in the program.

The problem is one of finances. When the service member retires, his or her income decreases by two-thirds. The average retiree is an enlisted member in grades

E5 thru E7 (74 percent of total enlisted retirees in fiscal year 2000) whose monthly

fiscal year 2000 retired pay averaged only $965. It was much less in the earlier

years. Simply stated, the majority of retirees with families could ill afford to convert

their SGLI policies. Others believed that the military would pay a death gratuity

to the family when the member passed away in retirement.

Recommendation.—If the authorizing committee should adopt the retention of the

final payment, the Subcommittee is requested to provide the necessary funding. Retirement and its related activities is a most agonizing if not a arduous experience

for many military retirees and families transitioning to an unfamiliar civilian lifestyle. Upon his or her demise, in consideration of the member’s service to the Nation

and the trauma surrounding the member’s death, the surviving spouse should be

authorized to retain the final retired pay check/deposit covering any month in which

the member was alive for at least 24 hours.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman. In closing, allow me to again express the sincere appreciation of

the Association’s membership for all that you and the distinguished Subcommittee

and staff have done for our Nation’s military personnel over these many years.

Senator INOUYE. Some of the matters you have suggested are in

the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. We will advise

them of your concern.

Chief BARNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. We will look at some of your recommendations

very seriously, sir.

Chief BARNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Our next witness is the director of research at the Johns Hopkins

University Applied Physics Laboratory, representing the Association of American Universities, Dr. John Sommerer.
730

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN SOMMERER, DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH,

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY,

ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

Dr. SOMMERER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

this opportunity to testify today. I am the chief technology officer

at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins, and my remarks today are submitted on behalf of the Association of American Universities, a national association of State universities and

land grant colleges. We want to thank the subcommittee and you,

Mr. Chairman, for your support of science and technology research

programs in the Department of Defense.

The universities play the largest role in basic defense research,

receiving more than 60 percent of this funding, as well as substantial funding for applied defense research and advance technology

development. As you know, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the

Defense Science Board, and the administration all advocate a

strong S&T program funded at about 3 percent of the overall DOD

budget. I am here today to urge the committee to continue their

support and, if possible, to increase funding in this area for fiscal

year 2003 to reach the 3 percent goal as quickly as possible.

Our prior investments in science and technology prepared the

military for war in Afghanistan, and you have seen some of these

technologies at work, we all have on the news. A satellite navigation receiver that you can hold in your hand, even while on horseback, tells you where you are within a few feet, and the products

of that investment are becoming pervasive in the commercial market.

Soldiers are communicating by satellites with small radios to call

in air support. Lasers, recently laboratory tools, are now in the

field to determine ranges and designate targets for smart bombs,

and soon micromechanical devices no bigger than a pen operating

within artillery shells will increase their accuracy. All these military capabilities resulted from breakthroughs in DOD-funded

science and technology research.

Let me point to another vital product of the basic research funding at universities, an educated workforce that can keep our troops

equipped with advance technology. The students who participate in

research today become the highly qualified scientists and engineers

that go on to work in academia, industry, and the Federal laboratories.

The Applied Physics Lab is a division of Johns Hopkins, but our

mission, as contrasted with that of pure research, is to enhance the

security of the Nation by applying technology in practical ways to

military operational problems. We help create solutions and also let

the military forces know what technology can do for them. To paraphrase Churchill, a gap exists between inventors who know what

they could invent if only they knew what was wanted, and the soldiers who know what they want and would ask for it if only they

knew how much science could do for them. It is our job to bridge

that gap.

Let me give one example. Basic research in quantum physics

served as the foundation of my laboratory’s development of the

world’s first prototype practical cryptographic system where secret

information can be transmitted from one place to another with no
731

possibility of undetected interception. In other words, information

security guaranteed by the laws of physics.

That expertise is now focused on the development of a practical

approach to quantum computing, a goal that, if achieved, would enable the efficient breaking of the majority of codes in use today and

permit information security only for those with quantum cryptographic systems. Essentially, no present-day information would

be secured by encryption any more.

For example, a lot of the information on the Internet is

encrypted, things like your credit card number, and it could all be

broken in real time. We need to know if quantum computing is

really feasible, to learn how to use it ourselves, and to make sure

that our national security codes do not become vulnerable to others.

It would be a pleasure to welcome you or your staff to the applied physics lab so you could see first-hand other exciting research

being done with the support of the Department of Defense and of

this subcommittee.

Thank you again for permitting me to testify today.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN SOMMERER

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity

to testify today. My name is John Sommerer, and I am the Director for Research

at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. My remarks today are

submitted on behalf of the Association of American Universities (AAU), which includes 63 of North 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 universities and colleges in every State that perform the science and technology research that is funded by the Department of Defense.

I want to thank this subcommittee and you, Mr. Chairman, for the 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 under program

elements 6.1 and 6.2 in the Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation section

of the Department of Defense appropriation. The Army, Navy, Air Force and the

‘‘Defense-wide’’ account under the Office of the Secretary all receive separate appropriations for these programs. Universities play the largest role in basic defense research, receiving more than 60 percent of this funding (program element 6.1). They

also receive substantial funding for applied defense research and advanced technology development (program elements 6.2 and 6.3, respectively).

I am here today to support an appropriation of $11 billion, 3 percent of the overall

Department of Defense (DOD) budget, for DOD science and technology programs

(6.1, 6.2 and 6.3) in fiscal year 2003. This recommendation is consistent with the

recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Report and the Defense Science

Board, 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.

The war on terrorism points out the urgency of our military’s need to be prepared

for unforeseen threats and to use advanced technology to defend our allies abroad

as well as protect our security at home. University research discoveries have made

major contributions to the nation’s technological edge. These include ARPANET

(forerunner of the Internet), inertial navigation, radar and electronic warfare, precision guidance, advanced materials, and reduced radar cross-section technology. Researchers today are helping to prepare the U.S. military to be ready for new threats

of the 21st century, including nuclear, chemical, biological, and other asymmetric

threats such as terrorism and cyber attacks. U.S. military troops are currently rewriting the rules of war in Afghanistan with new technologies, such as the Predator

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle that circles and watches for enemy activity, the Rapid

Multilingual Support Device that helps to issue instructions and orders in targeted

languages, and advanced laser-guided weapons. All these resulted from breakthroughs in DOD-funded science and technology research.
732

University-based research produces important advances in knowledge and helps

keep top scientists and engineers involved in defense research. Equally important,

the students who receive hands-on research training today become the highly qualified scientists and engineers who go on to work in academia, industry, and Federal

laboratories tomorrow. DOD is the third largest Federal funder of university research (after the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation). The funds are awarded under competitive merit review procedures to assure

high quality. Nearly 350 universities and colleges conduct DOD-funded research and

development. Universities receive more than 60 percent of defense basic research

funding. They also receive substantial funding for applied defense research and advanced technology development.

For all these reasons, we hope this subcommittee will continue the progress that

has been made in the past few years to provide increased support for these programs which make such an important contribution to national security.

It would be a pleasure to welcome you or your staff to the Applied Physics Lab

so that you can see first-hand the exciting research being done with the support of

the Department of Defense and this subcommittee. In addition, I would like to invite you to an exhibit featuring interactive examples of DOD-sponsored research to

be held on Wednesday, July 10 from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. in the Rayburn House Office

Building Foyer.

Thank you again for permitting me to testify today.

Senator INOUYE. Where is your Applied Physics Lab?

Dr. SOMMERER. It is located in Howard County, Maryland, about

halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. We might just take up your invitation.

Dr. SOMMERER. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Our next witness, the

dean of the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences of the University of Alaska, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, Dr. Vera Alexander.

STATEMENT OF DR. VERA ALEXANDER, DEAN, SCHOOL OF FISHERIES

AND OCEAN SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, ON BEHALF OF

THE CONSORTIUM FOR OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Dr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Chairman Inouye, and thank you

very much for the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is

Vera Alexander. I am dean of the School of Fisheries and Ocean

Sciences at the University of Alaska, and I appeal to you on behalf

of the 66-member institutions of the Consortium for Oceanographic

Research and Education (CORE). CORE represents the mainstream of American academic oceanographic research, and I want

to take the opportunity this morning to discuss with you the community’s concerns about the state of the U.S. academic research

fleet, also known as the University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) fleet.

Since the end of World War II and the adoption of the model for

support for public research, the academic community has been the

leader in understanding problems related to the oceans. During

this period, the support from the Navy has been critical in addressing the many questions about our seas and the results from these

investigations have contributed to the primacy of the United States

military.

An essential component for quality oceanographic research is the

ability of investigators to go to sea, and that calls for modern, capable science platforms. This requirement was recognized many years

ago, leading to the Navy’s development and support of public and

supported academic research vessels, known today as the Univer-
733

sity National Oceanographic Laboratory System, UNOLS fleet.

UNOLS is an organization of academic oceanographic institutions

working in cooperation with agencies of the Federal Government to

ensure broad access to the modern, well-operated research vessels,

submersibles, and facilities which are required to support a healthy

and vigorous research program in the ocean sciences.

Through the UNOLS fleet, the oceanographic research institutions have been able to help the Oceanographer of the Navy and

the Chief of Naval Research meet the research needs of their customers, America’s sailors and marines. The UNOLS fleet is able to

support the Navy’s science needs because in the past four decades

the Navy, the National Science Foundation, and universities and

research institutions have made substantial investments in research infrastructure.

It is because we have research vessels at sea that much of the

research that is so important to the naval war-fighter can be conducted. Quite simply, without a robust fleet of ships at sea, a broad

number of crucial areas of research will not be available to the

Navy.

Now, here is the problem. Unfortunately, in the coming decade

many of the current UNOLS vessels will reach retirement age. At

the University of Alaska, for example, the research vessel ALPHA

HELIX will reach retirement age in 2005. The research vessel

GYRE at Texas A&M University will be ready for retirement in

2006.

In the coming decade, at the rate of about one a year, we will

see nearly all of the ocean and regional class vessels currently in

service come up for retirement. If resources are not dedicated soon

to begin recapitalizing the academic research fleet, the research capability afforded the Navy by the UNOLS fleet will be severely diminished.

This looming crisis in fleet infrastructure has not gone unnoticed.

In December 2001, after extensive discussion in both Federal agencies and the academic community, the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee, which is known as FOFC, completed charting

the future for the academic research fleet, a long-range plan for renewal. It should be noted the Oceanographer of the Navy and the

Deputy Chief of Naval Research both sit on the committee, and this

report clearly outlined the state of vessels within the fleet and examined what will be required to replace ships when they reach retirement age, and provided a time line for fleet replacement that

ensures that the fleet remains state-of-the-art.

This report has received broad support within the academic community. It has received the endorsement of the UNOLS council.

More importantly, though, it has received the support of the Federal agencies who use the UNOLS fleet. In December, the plan was

approved by the National Ocean Research Leadership Council, of

which the Secretary of the Navy is a member.

In addition to the effort that has been done to address the general needs of the fleet, there has been considerable work undertaken to provide for a replacement of the next research vessel

scheduled to retire, the research vessel ALPHA HELIX. In fact, tomorrow I will be chairing a design review panel at the National

Science Foundation on the Alaska Regional Research Vessel, the
734

ARRV. Because of the design funding made available already by

the National Science Foundation, we will be in a position in fiscal

year 2004 to start building the ship.

While the ARRV will operate primarily in the Alaska region,

which has the majority of the continental shelf and coastline of the

United States, the vessel has much broader national impact in the

academic research community. Inherent in all UNOLS vessels is

the fact that they are a shared resource. They provide a platform

for researchers from around the country to conduct their research

for the Navy.

In addition to being a shared tool, the ARRV is the most pressing

need in the fleet. There will be a long line of vessels in the next

10 to 12 years that will need to be replaced, and the longer we wait

to replace the first one, the longer we will have to wait to replace

the GYRE and the other eight vessels that will follow it. More importantly, the cost will also go up with time, if we wait. Acting

now, we will keep the fleet’s capabilities modern, in the long term

save the taxpayers money.

While the FOFC plan is a specific and comprehensive blueprint

for the future of the fleet, it requires necessary funding to actually

keep the fleet afloat. On behalf of the academic oceanographic community, CORE requests that in this year’s appropriation bill you

strongly encourage the Navy to provide funding in the fiscal year

2004 request to begin recapitalizing the academic research fleet.

Without strong encouragement from Congress, we fear that the

unique capabilities the fleet provides the Navy will begin to decline.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. VERA ALEXANDER

Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Stevens, and members to the subcommittee

thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Dr. Vera Alexander. I am Dean of the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences at the University

of Alaska. I appear before you on behalf of the 66 member institutions of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education. CORE represents the mainstream of American academic oceanographic research. I want to take the opportunity this morning to discuss with you the oceanographic community’s concerns

about the state of the U.S. academic research fleet, also known as the UNOLS Fleet.

Since the end of World War II and the adoption of Vannevar Bush’s model of public support for basic research, the academic community has been the leader in understanding problems related to the oceans. During this period the support from the

Navy has been critical in addressing the many questions about our seas, and the

results from these investigations have contributed to the primacy of the United

States’ military.

An essential component for quality oceanographic research is the ability of investigators to go to sea, and that calls for modern, capable science platforms. This requirement was recognized many years ago, leading to the Navy’s development and

support of publicly-supported academic research vessels, known today as the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) fleet.

UNOLS, is an organization of academic oceanographic institutions working in cooperation with agencies of the Federal Government to ensure broad access to the

modern, well operated, state of the art research vessels, submersibles and facilities

required to support a healthy and vigorous research program in the ocean sciences.

Through the UNOLS fleet, oceanographic research institutions have been able to

help the Oceanographer of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Research meet the research needs of their customers, America’s sailors and marines.

The UNOLS fleet is able to support the Navy’s science needs because in the past

four decades the Navy, the National Science Foundation and universities and re-
735

search institutions have made substantial investments in research infrastructure. It

is because we have research vessels at sea that much of the research that is so important to the naval warfighter can be conducted. Quite simply without a robust

fleet of ships at sea, a broad number of crucial areas of research will not be available to the Navy.

Unfortunately in the coming decade many of the current UNOLS vessels will

reach retirement age. At the University of Alaska for example, the R/V Alpha Helix

will reach retirement age in 2005. The R/V Gyre at Texas A&M will be ready for

retirement in 2006. In the coming decade at a rate of one a year, we will see nearly

all of the Ocean and Regional Class vessels currently in service come up for retirement. If resources are not dedicated soon to begin recapitalizing the academic research fleet, the research capability afforded the Navy by the UNOLS fleet will be

severely diminished.

The looming crisis in fleet infrastructure and has not gone unnoticed. In December 2001, after extensive discussion in both Federal agencies and the academic community, the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee, completed Charting the

Future for the Academic Research Fleet, A Long Range Plan for Renewal, also

known as the FOFC report. It should be noted that the Oceanographer of the Navy

and the Deputy Chief of Naval Research both sit on the committee. The FOFC report clearly outlined the state of the vessels within the fleet, examined what will

be required to replace ships when they reach retirement age, and provided a

timeline for fleet replacement that ensures the fleet remains state-of-the-art.

This report has received broad support within the academic community. It has received the endorsement of the UNOLS Council. Maybe more importantly though, it

has received the support of the Federal agencies who use the UNOLS fleet. In December, the plan was approved by the National Ocean Research Leadership Council,

of which the SECNAV is a member.

In addition to the effort that has been done to address the general needs of fleet,

there has been considerable work undertaken to provide for the replacement of the

next research vessel scheduled to retire, the R/V Alpha Helix. In fact tomorrow, I

will be chairing a design review panel at the National Science Foundation on the

Alaska Regional Research Vessel, the ARRV. Because of the design funding made

available by the National Science Foundation, we will be in a position in fiscal year

2004 to begin building the ship.

While the ARRV will operate primarily in the Alaska region, the vessel has a

much broader national impact in the academic research community. Inherent in all

UNOLS vessels is the fact that they are shared resource providing a platform for

researchers from around the country to conduct their research for the Navy.

In addition to being a shared tool, the ARRV is the most pressing need in the

fleet. There will be a long line of vessels in the next 10 to 12 years that will need

to be replaced. The longer we wait to replace the ARRV, the longer we will have

to wait to replace the R/V Gyre, and the other eight vessels that will follow it. More

importantly, the longer we wait to build the ships, the more expensive the vessels

get. Acting now will both keep the fleets capabilities modern and in the long-term

save taxpayers money.

While the FOFC Plan is a specific and comprehensive blueprint for the future of

the fleet it requires the necessary funding to actually keep the fleet afloat. On behalf of the academic oceanographic community, CORE requests that in this year’s

appropriation bill you strongly encourage the Navy to provide funding in fiscal year

2004 request to begin recapitalizing the academic research fleet. Without strong encouragement from Congress, we fear that the unique capabilities that the fleet provides the Navy will begin to decline. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Senator INOUYE. I will get together with Senator Stevens to work

on a replacement for the ALPHA HELIX. I think we can do it.

Now may I call upon the director of legislative affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Ms.

Kimberlee D. Vockel.

STATEMENT OF KIMBERLEE D. VOCKEL, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE

AFFAIRS, NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Ms. VOCKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to present the defense funding priorities of the Non Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA) for fiscal year 2003. While
736

I am unable to highlight all of the areas the association believes

should be funded, I have chosen to focus on five specific provisions

of the Senate Defense authorization bill, S. 2514, that are particularly important to the enlisted men and women serving in the

Armed Services.

NCOA’s first funding priority for fiscal year 2003 is the active

duty basic pay raise. Last year, the subcommittee provided funding

for a substantial and much-needed pay raise. However, the 2002

increase was only one step toward pay comparability for active

duty service members. S. 2514 authorizes a 4.1 percent across-theboard pay raise for active duty service members and a targeted pay

raise ranging from 5.5 to 6.5 percent for mid to senior noncommissioned officers. NCOA recommends the subcommittee ensure funding for this pay raise.

NCOA’s second defense funding priority is an increase in the

basic allowance for housing. The 2000 National Defense Authorization Act provided for an elimination of out-of-pocket housing costs

for active duty service members by 2005. Last year’s defense bill

brought us closer to that elimination by dropping the out-of-pocket

expenses to 11.3 percent of the national median housing cost. S.

2514 further decreases the expenses to 7.5 percent. Considering the

increasing cost of off-base housing, utilities, and transportation,

NCOA recommends that this subcommittee provide funding to accelerate the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses in 2003.

The association’s third defense funding priority concerns the selected reserve Montgomery GI bill. S. 2514 authorizes an extension

of the usage period for the reserve GI bill from 10 to 14 years. In

today’s high op tempo guard and reserve environment, service

members find it increasingly difficult to juggle employment and

school commitments with family and reserve responsibilities. A

part-time student guardsman or reservist could easily exceed the

10 years currently authorized to complete an undergraduate degree. NCOA recommends that this subcommittee ensure that reserve personnel accounts are adequately increased to cover the extension of the selected reserve Montgomery GI bill usage period an

additional 4 years.

NCOA’s fourth defense funding priority concerns defense health

care. The 2001 National Defense Authorization Act created

TRICARE Prime remote coverage for families of service members

assigned to areas where there is no TRICARE Prime option. However, the program require that the family member reside with the

service member. Since there are many circumstances where service

members are assigned unaccompanied, this program unintentionally excludes the families that desperately need the TRICARE

Prime remote coverage. S. 2514 authorizes expanding eligibility to

those family members who are unable to reside with the service

member. NCOA recommends that this subcommittee ensure full

funding of the defense health programs to include the expansion of

TRICARE Prime remote coverage.

NCOA’s fifth funding priority is concurrent receipt. For many

years, the association has fought to get Congress to authorize and

fund the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation. S. 2514 authorizes concurrent receipt for

military retirees with a 60-percent disability rating and above.
737

While this is a positive step in the right direction, NCOA recommends that this subcommittee appropriate funds to allow all

disabled retirees to receive veterans disability compensation concurrently with receipt of their full earned military retired pay.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to present

the funding priorities of the Noncommissioned Officers Association.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator INOUYE. I believe your recommendations are reasonable,

and I will make certain that this matters are studied by the committee.

Ms. VOCKEL. Thank you, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIMBERLEE D. VOCKEL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—FISCAL YEAR 2003 APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

Basic Pay Raise

Basic Pay Raise NCOA recommends that this Subcommittee appropriate the necessary funds to provide a 4.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for servicemembers

and a targeted pay raise ranging from 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent for mid to senior

noncommissioned officers. NCOA further recommends future additional increases in

annual pay adjustments well above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) with the objective of restoring pay comparability for uniformed service personnel as soon as

possible. NCOA further recommends that the Subcommittee consider the recommendations of the Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation to reform

basic military pay tables to provide more appropriate pay adjustments between

grades.

Basic Allowance for Housing

NCOA recommends that this Subcommittee appropriate the funds needed for the

acceleration of projected funding increases to match local housing costs, by grade,

at every CONUS location as soon as possible. In view of the existing pay comparability gap and the rising private sector housing costs, NCOA believes it does

not serve retention and readiness interests to delay elimination of out of pocket expenses until 2005.

Extension of Reserve GI Bill Delimiting Period

NCOA recommends that this Subcommittee ensure that Reserve Personnel accounts are adequately increased to cover the extension the Reserve Montgomery GI

Bill benefits usage period an additional 4 years beyond the current 10-year eligibility window.

Continuation of TRICARE Prime Remote Eligibility

NCOA recommends that this Subcommittee ensure full funding of the Defense

Health Program to include the expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote coverage to

include active duty servicemembers’ family members who are unable to reside with

the servicemember.

Concurrent Receipt

NCOA recommends that this Subcommittee appropriate funds to allow disabled

uniformed service retirees to receive veterans’ disability compensation concurrently

with receipt of their full earned military retired pay.

National Call to Service Program

NCOA recommends that this Subcommittee not appropriate funds for the National Call to Service Program at this time to allow for more thorough discussions

and analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, on behalf of the

Non Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA), which represents active duty, reserve component, retired, and veteran enlisted servicemembers and their families,

I would like to express our sincere appreciation for the opportunity to present the

Association’s views on issues surrounding the defense appropriations for fiscal year

2003.
738

1 Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, May 17, 2002, Department of Defense,

page 185. 2 Id.

FISCAL YEAR 2003 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

NCOA is pleased that the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization bill (S.

2514) addresses so many of the ongoing needs of the men and women serving in

the Armed Services. While the 2003 Defense bill includes numerous quality-of-life

provisions that are beneficial to the men and women of the Armed Services, the Association would like to use this opportunity to highlight five personnel/quality of life

provisions that are of particular concern to the enlisted ranks. The following are five

provisions for which the Association requests this Subcommittee provide appropriated funds:

—4.1 percent across the board pay raise, with targeted pay raises for mid to senior noncommissioned officers ranging from 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent;

—Increase in the housing allowance that moves the reduction of the average outof-pocket expenses for off-post housing to 7.5 percent, coming closer to eliminating out-of-pocket expenses by 2005;

—Extension of the Reserve GI Bill delimiting period from 10 to 14 years;

—Continuation of TRICARE Prime Remote eligibility for dependents residing at

remote locations after departure of sponsors for unaccompanied assignments;

and

—Concurrent receipt of retired pay and VA disability compensation for a serviceconnected disability.

The Association would also like to take this opportunity to express its concerns

about the ‘‘National Call to Service Program’’ provision.

BASIC PAY RAISE

The debate between Congress and the Pentagon on how to define and address the

pay gap between military and civilian pay continues; however, recognition of the existence of the gap is universal. In 1999, Congress initiated the ‘‘comparability-plus’’

plan that would increase basic pay by the Employment Cost Index (ECI) plus .5 percent until 2006. For the 4th year in a row, the Authorizers have approved a pay

raise, at the request of the Department of Defense, for servicemembers of 4.1 percent, which is above the rate of inflation. They have also acknowledged the need

to enhance the pay of mid to senior noncommissioned officers by providing a 5.5 to

6.5 percent targeted pay raise. Regardless of the definition or means of elimination,

the fiscal year 2003 pay raise is needed to get servicemembers closer to their civilian counterparts.

On May 17, 2002, the Department of Defense released its 9th Quadrennial Review

of Military Compensation (QRMC), which focused on military basic pay and special

and incentive pays and bonuses. The study identified two fundamental tenets of an

effective military compensation system: balance and flexibility 1. Based on these tenets, the QRMC provided two important policy recommendations that NCOA believes should be weighed by this Subcommittee when considering defense appropriations for fiscal year 2003. The following are those recommendations: 2

—The first priority is to ‘‘get basic pay right.’’ Basic pay is the foundation of the

compensation system. If basic pay is not set at an appropriate level, the system

will become imbalanced, requiring other compensation tools to fill the gap.

Today, basic pay has fallen behind for some segments of the force, particularly

mid-grade enlisted personnel and junior officers. This deficit is due primarily

to the fact that the traditional basis for evaluating the adequacy of military pay

is no longer valid. Today the Department pays its enlisted force as high school

graduates and its officers as college graduates. In fact, the educational levels

across the force are significantly higher.

—A new basis for comparing military and civilian pay is needed. For enlisted personnel, a composite profile of the earnings of high school graduates, those with

some college, and college graduates serves as an appropriate comparison for different segments of the force. For officers, civilians with baccalaureate or advanced degrees working in professional and technical occupations are the appropriate comparison group. The earnings of warrant officers are appropriately

compared to a composite profile of civilians with some college and college graduates. Getting basic pay right first is the basis for balance in the military compensation system.

The QRMC recommended that a targeted pay raise is needed for E–5 through E–

7 in fiscal year 2003, ‘‘to further narrow the differential to the 70th percentile of
739

3 Id, page 187.

4 Id.

civilian earnings.’’ 3 The study also found that targeted raises for grades E–8 and

E–9 are necessary ‘‘to preserve promotion incentives to these grades.’’ 4

NCOA Recommends

That this Subcommittee appropriate the necessary funds to provide a 4.1 percent

across-the-board pay raise for servicemembers and a targeted pay raise ranging

from 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent for mid to senior noncommissioned officers. NCOA

further recommends future increases in annual pay adjustments well above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) with the objective of restoring pay comparability for uniformed service personnel as soon as possible. NCOA further recommends that the

Subcommittee consider the recommendations of the Ninth Quadrennial Review of

Military Compensation to reform basic military pay tables to provide more appropriate pay adjustments between grades.

BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING

With increasing costs of off-base housing, utilities, and transportation, as well as

a pay comparability gap that is only slowly being addressed, the out-of-pocket expenses for living off-base are as vital an issue for enlisted families as is the basic

pay raise. In the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress approved a plan that would eliminate out-of-pocket expenses by 2005. While NCOA

applauds Congress’ efforts to reduce these expenses for servicemembers’ and their

families, the Association asserts that the elimination should be accelerated.

Out-of-pocket expenses were reduced to 11.3 percent of the national median housing costs for each grade in the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act,

and the fiscal year 2003 Defense bill authorizes a reduction to 7.5 percent. The proposed reduction for 2004 is 3.5 percent of the national median housing costs for each

grade, and 0 percent in 2005. Living in high-cost areas can reduce the effectiveness

of raises in basic pay, since enlisted families are forced to use their pay raises to

make up their housing costs.

NCOA Recommends

NCOA recommends that this Subcommittee appropriate the funds needed for the

acceleration of projected funding increases to match local housing costs, by grade,

at every CONUS location as soon as possible. In view of the existing pay comparability gap and the rising private sector housing costs, NCOA believes it does

not serve retention and readiness interests to delay elimination of out of pocket expenses until 2005.

EXTENSION OF RESERVE GI BILL DELIMITING PERIOD

Individuals who initially join the National Guard or Reserve from civilian life become eligible for the Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). Eligibility requirements include possession of a high school diploma, agreement to serve 6 years

in the Selected Reserve, and completion of initial active duty for training. In today’s

high-OPTEMPO Guard and Reserve environment, servicemembers find it increasingly difficult to juggle employment and school commitments with family and Reserve responsibilities. A part-time student-Guardsman or Reservist could easily exceed the 10 years currently authorized for Reserve MGIB benefits to complete an

undergraduate degree. To enable successful completion of educational goals and access to all earned educational benefits, the period of benefit eligibility should be extended beyond completion of the 10-year eligibility period.

NCOA Recommends

That this Subcommittee ensure that Reserve Personnel accounts are adequately

increased to cover the extension of the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill benefits usage

period an additional 4 years beyond the current 10-year eligibility window.

CONTINUATION OF TRICARE PRIME REMOTE ELIGIBILITY

NCOA is grateful for the fiscal year 2001 NDAA provision authorizing TRICARE

Prime Remote coverage for families of servicemembers assigned to areas where

there is no TRICARE Prime option. However, this program has a shortcoming in

that it requires that the family member must reside with the servicemember. This

requirement may be reasonable when the family has a choice of accompanying the

member, but this is not always the case. It can prove particularly troublesome for

family members whose sponsor has Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders that
740

are ‘‘unaccompanied.’’ In such circumstances, there can be many good reasons why

the family finds itself living in an area without Prime access while awaiting the end

of the unaccompanied tour.

Further, families of deployed Guardsman and Reservists called to active duty for

over 179 days are eligible for the Prime Remote benefit, but in most circumstances

the servicemember is sent far from their residence, and the family remains behind.

Other circumstances where families are separated include families who may return

to their home of record during deployment and college students residing away from

home. These families are unfairly burdened by having to pay much higher copayments for care than their counterparts fortunate enough to have an opportunity to

reside with the sponsor.

NCOA Recommends

That this Subcommittee ensure full funding of the Defense Health Program to include the expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote coverage to include active duty

servicemembers’ family members who are unable to reside with the servicemember.

CONCURRENT RECEIPT

NCOA has long held that military retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation are paid for different purposes, and one should not offset the other. Specifically,

retired pay is earned compensation for completing a career of arduous uniformed

service, while veterans’ disability compensation is paid for pain and suffering and

loss of future earnings’ potential caused by a service-connected disability. NCOA

strongly believes the time has come to recognize this essential distinction by authorizing and appropriating the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability

compensation paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act authorized the elimination of the offset of retirement pay by disability compensation; however, the language stipulated that the President had to request funding in his budget request

and that Congress had to pass offsetting legislation. While this did nothing substantive for disabled military retirees, it did set the stage for Congress to move toward eliminating the offset. The fiscal year 2003 National Defense bill authorizes

eliminating the offset by 2007 for retirees with VA disability ratings 60 percent and

above. Previous attempts to fix this inequity have all been met with the same response-the cost is too large. But, the cost to men and women in uniform who have

been injured while serving this Nation is far greater. No one disabled in the course

of serving his or her country should have to forfeit an earned retirement—for years

of faithful and dedicated service—in order to receive VA disability compensation for

the wounds, injuries, or illnesses incurred in such service.

Congress recently affirmed a similar principle in repealing the outdated statutory

provision that, before October 1, 1999, required partial forfeiture of military retired

pay by retired servicemembers who accepted post-service employment as Federal civilians. The same rationale applies to disabled servicemembers. That is, both categories of retirees deserve to receive the full retired pay they earned by virtue of

their career of military service. Just as they should not be required to forfeit that

retired pay based on their subsequent civilian employment, they should not have to

pay a retired pay penalty because their service in uniform caused them long term

disability. Compensation for the latter condition must be provided in addition to

their earned retired pay, not in place of it.

NCOA Recommends

That this Subcommittee appropriate funds to allow disabled uniformed service retirees to receive veterans disability compensation concurrently with receipt of their

full earned military retired pay.

NATIONAL CALL TO SERVICE PROGRAM

One of President Bush’s initiatives since taking office has been to encourage

Americans to volunteer their time and skills to a cause greater than themselves.

Following the horrific attacks on Americans on September 11, 2001, American citizens scrambled to find ways to offer their services to assist in America’s recovery.

Blood and financial donations increased exponentially, and citizens flocked to provide other recovery services where they could. There is no doubt that Americans felt

an unprecedented desire to contribute to their nation. With a decisive military response quickly following the worst terrorist attack on American soil, service in the

military became a popular option for many. Regardless of the means by which

Americans gave their time, the motivation was the same-service before self, the recognition of the need to serve a cause greater than themselves. The concept of an

‘‘all volunteer’’ military follows that same motivation. Because the United States no
741

longer drafts individuals to serve in the military, we must rely on men and women

to answer the call to serve their country.

The National Call to Service Program provision in the Senate version of the fiscal

year 2003 National Defense Authorization bill appears to be designed to support the

President’s volunteerism initiative, as well as to make military service more attractive for those looking for a way to serve the country in its time of need. While

NCOA recognizes the many benefits of this program, the Association has many more

concerns. With no apparent feedback from the various services and a generally negative response from the Association’s members, NCOA believes that this program

needs further analysis to determine its long-term effects on the services and their

recruiting practices. Without thorough discussions of this issue having taken place,

the Association cannot support this provision at this time.

NCOA Recommends

That this Subcommittee not appropriate funds for the National Call to Service

Program at this time to allow for more thorough discussions and analysis.

CONCLUSION

The Non Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA) would again like to offer its

thanks to this Subcommittee for the opportunity to present the Association’s views

on defense appropriations for fiscal year 2003. While the Association’s focus is not

necessarily on the weapons and equipment provisions in the Defense Authorization

bill, the Association maintains its view that these items are essential to the wellbeing of the men and women serving in the Armed Services. With that said, NCOA

would like to ask that the five personnel/quality of life provisions previously outlined in this testimony be given special attention by this Subcommittee and that

this Subcommittee will ensure funding for their successful implementation. These

five provisions, the basic pay raise, the increase in housing allowances, the extension of the Reserve GI Bill delimiting period, the extension of TRICARE Prime Remote eligibility, and concurrent receipt, are all important issues to our members and

their families. Your support of these programs would be greatly appreciated.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the executive director of the

Reserve Officers Association of the United States, Mr. Jason Spiegel.

STATEMENT OF JAYSON L. SPIEGEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SPIEGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the 80,000

members of the Reserve Officers Association (ROA), I am grateful

for the opportunity to present ROA’s views with respect to the defense appropriations bill for 2003. I have a written statement

which, with your permission, I will submit for the record.

Let me thank you and the committee for your strong support of

the men and women of the Reserve component. Your faith and confidence in our dedication, achievements, and competence have not

been misplaced.

The Department of Defense and the Congress have both made it

clear that the future of our national defense policy will continue to

depend significantly upon the Reserve components. This total force

policy is being fully vindicated today by the 83,000 men and women

of the Guard and Reserve who have been mobilized in support of

Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. In fact, no major

extended operation involving U.S. military forces is possible without using our Reserve forces.

My written statement details various unfunded Reserve requirements. In the interest of time, I shall limit my remarks to two specific areas, equipment and the Congress of the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers.

With respect to equipment, this Congress long ago recognized

that Reserve equipment shortfalls are the major inhibiter of Re-
742

serve force readiness. The Congress has for the past several years

added funds to procurement specifically to provide equipment for

the Reserves, equipment that would not be readily available

through normal service channels. As a result, Reserve force equipment readiness has improved steadily.

These Reserve equipment funds remain vitally important to the

Reserve’s ability to perform their mission. The Reserves cannot

train to maintain the active components’ new state-of-the-art equipment if the Reserves have only old and substitute equipment handed down by the active components. Moreover, logistical cost and

strain involved in maintaining the parts required for multiple incompatible systems is no longer fiscally sound. DOD has indicated

that it wishes to fund Reserve force equipment within the normal

budgetary processes. The results thus far have been disappointing.

Absent the significant and consistent improvement in DOD’s approach to Reserve component equipment procurement, we believe

that the National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriation

must remain an essential element of Reserve force readiness.

Each of the Reserve components has specific high priority equipment shortfalls. With respect to the Army Reserve, we would draw

your attention to the biological integrated detection system. This

system detects any biological agents which may be released anywhere in the world by a hostile force. There are only two such units

currently in the Army inventory, one on active duty, one in the Reserve. The Reserve unit was mobilized immediately after September 11, and is continuing to perform its mission throughout the

world.

In addition, $28 million is required to complete the $42 million

buy for the next unit, which is scheduled to be fielded next fiscal

year in St. Louis. The Army Reserve also has needs for additional

humvees and high frequency radios.

The other services primarily have aviation needs. The Navy Reserve needs additional C–40 Air Force for its inter-theater airlift

mission, the Marine Corps Reserve requires F/A–18 upgrades so

that its Reserve aircraft are compatible with the active aircraft,

and the Air Force Reserves needs two C–17’s and 10 C–40A’s necessary for its critical air mobility mission.

Let me turn now to the Congress of the Interallied Confederation

of Reserve Officers. This is a forum that brings together reservists

from all the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Partnership for Peace (PFP) countries to discuss issues and advise the

Commander in Chief (CINC). Confederation of Reserve Officers

(CIOR) is not a private organization. It is an official organ of the

NATO Military Committee chartered under MC–248. Mr. Chairman, your colleague, Senator Thurmond, was the international vice

president of CIOR back in the mid-1950’s.

Each year, a NATO country hosts the International Congress of

CIOR, and in 2004 the Congress is scheduled to be held in the

United States. DOD has decided not to support this meeting because of the war on terrorism, and has urged that the meeting be

moved to another NATO country. We believe that is exactly the

wrong signal to send to our NATO allies, and we ask that the Congress provide $500,000 in fiscal year 2003 to prepare for and execute the CIOR Congress in 2004 to be held in the United States.
743

There is report language in the Senate Armed Service Committee

(SASC) report that does urge that DOD reverse itself and support

this Congress.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will answer any questions that you

may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAYSON L. SPIEGEL

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

2003.

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. 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 cornerstone of national defense policy for the future.’’

Studies and Analyses

Before September 11th, the results of recent force structure studies were largely

manifested as significant reductions to Reserve end strength underpinned by undue

optimism. It remains to be seen what changes to the national defense strategy may

be forthcoming as a result of emerging homeland security missions and the findings

and recommendations of the National Security (Hart-Rudman) Commission, the administration’s initial Defense assessment, the National Defense Strategy, and the

2001 QDR and its directed comprehensive review of Reserve forces.. Evolutionary

or revolutionary, these changes will ultimately hinge on affordability and the prudent acceptance of risk. Thus far there has been notable growth in defense spending, but how far that growth will go toward remedying the deficiencies of the previous decade remains to be seen.

Although earlier force structure reviews were described as being threat-based

rather than budget-driven, common sense and experience says that both of these

factors will play a large part in developing the final product in both cases. Ultimately the recommended solution will bear evidence of pressure from both sides of

the equation. To achieve balance in the face of unyielding economic constraint, force

structure will be transformed and so, too, will the definition of the perceived threat.

Clearly, this is not the way to develop a national defense strategy for the next

century; nevertheless, the actual product is more likely to resemble this model than

not. What may be salutary in this process will be the necessity of significantly

transforming the structure of the Total Force to integrate components and to eliminate as much as possible the current unnecessary redundancies that exist, both

inter- and intra-service and component. However the structure is finally crystallized, one thing is virtually certain: our Reserve forces must and will play an increasingly significant role in it and its employment.

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 de-
744

ployed 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.

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.

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 38 percent of the Total Force, but cost only 7.5 percent ($23.4 billion) of the fiscal year 2002 DOD budget. They require only 23 percent

of active-duty personnel costs, even when factoring in the cost of needed full-time

support personnel. We need only consider the comparable yearly personnel (only)

costs for 100,000 Active and Reserve personnel to see the savings. Over a 4-year

period, 100,000 Reservists cost $3 billion less than 100,000 Active duty personnel.

If the significant savings in Reserve unit operations and maintenance costs are included, billions more can be saved in the same period. ROA is not suggesting that

DOD should transfer all missions to the Reserve, but the savings Reservists can

provide must be considered in force-mix decisions. It is incumbent upon DOD to ensure that the services recognize these savings by seriously investigating every mission area and transferring as much structure as possible to their Reserve components.

ARMY RESERVE

The Army Reserve has played a major role in the Army’s increased post-Cold War

OPTEMPO. When the Army has deployed, so has its Army Reserve. The downsizing

of America’s Army and the Army’s decision to transfer much of its combat service

(CS) and combat service support (CSS) into the Reserve have required a much

greater reliance by the Army on its Army Reserve. The Army can no longer go anywhere or sustain its operations once there without the support of its Reserve components. However, this increased reliance has not generated adequate funding in the

Defense budget.

The expected fiscal year 2002 budget request, as have previous budgets, appears

to critically underfund the Army Reserve personnel, operation and maintenance,

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 expected share of the Army budget request in the fiscal year

2002 DOD budget request is $4.3 billion or 5.7 percent of the entire $75.5 billion

Army request. Separated into the Reserve Personnel, Army (RPA) and the Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) accounts, the request is for approximately $2.6 billion RPA and $1.7 billion OMAR. At those funding levels both accounts 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 is expected

to exceed $300 million.

Reserve Personnel, Army

The fiscal year 2001 authorized end strength for the Army Reserve is 205,300. Reliance on the Guard and Reserve for involvement in real world operations and domestic contingencies increased considerably during the last decade. During this evolution of the Reserve from a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency-type operation to its

current role as a full partner in the Army’s real world operations, adequate

resourcing to support readiness, training, manning and equipping of the Reserve to

enable it to support the Army and our national military strategy has become critical.

The expected RPA budget request for $2.6 billion will not provide adequate funds

to train, educate, man, and support Army Reserve personnel and units at levels required for immediate mobilization and deployment. Based on preliminary budget es-
745

timates we believe the fiscal year 2002 Defense budget request will critically

underfund the Army Reserve by over $150 million in several Reserve Personnel,

Army accounts. For example:

Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Personnel

Active Guard Reserve (AGR) personnel give USAR units the ability to maintain

a high-level of readiness by providing the additional training, command and control,

technical functional, and military expertise required to efficiently and effectively

transition from peacetime to a wartime posture. One of the greatest challenges facing the Army Reserve today is an insufficient number of full-time manning (FTM)

authorizations to support the over 1,900 USAR units in day-to-day operations.

The Army Reserve has the lowest percentage of FTM of all the Reserve components and historically has been the component most frequently called and deployed.

The shortage of FTM personnel constrains high priority units and causes personnel

turbulence in lower priority units, as personnel are cross-leveled to fill higher priority units.

The Army has established an 11-year ramp of 300 AGRs each year beginning in

fiscal year 2002 to increase the level of AGR FTM positions within the USAR. Projected fiscal year 2002 costs to support the fiscal year 2001 AGR increase and the

fiscal year 2002 ramp is projected to be $23.5M. The Army Reserve has a critical/

executable-funding shortfall of $23.5 million in its AGR FTM program.

Incentives Program

The USAR has validated requirements for $147 million to support its fiscal year

2002 incentives programs. Expected funding for the program based on the September 2000 Best Estimate (BES) is $115 million leaving a critical shortage of $32

million. Any shortfall will put at risk initial payments for non-prior service, prior

service, reenlistment, and health professional recruiting and retention bonuses; its

health professional loan repayment program; the Montgomery GI Bill Kicker; and

College First. Recent congressional actions to enhance incentives have increased the

non-prior service bonus from $5,000 to $8,000, the health professional loan repayment from $20,000 to $50,000, and the reenlistment window from 10 to 14 years.

We believe the Army Reserve will have a critical executable funding shortfall of $32

million in its incentives program.

Army Reserve Unit Sustainment Training

The Army had insufficient total obligation authority (TOA) to fully resource all

fiscal year 2003 unit training and collective training requirements and ensure sufficient train-up time for the Army after mobilization to meet required readiness levels. Supply, maintenance and unit management activities, command inspections,

safety programs, and emergency preparedness training/operations will not be conducted and pushed into IDT periods. The level of funding required is $107 million

and is funded at $50.0 million, leaving a critical shortfall of $57 million. The executable/critical shortfall for Army Reserve Unit Sustainment Training is $57 million

Operations And Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR)

The fiscal year 2003 DOD budget request for the Army Reserve Operations and

Maintenance (OMAR) account is $1.9 billion. We believe there is at least a $165.1

million executable/critical OMAR shortfall in the fiscal year 2003 budget request

that will force the Army Reserve to compensate by further reducing equipment and

facility maintenance, and supply purchases. Backlogs for maintenance and repair

continue to grow and necessary support to essential training continues to deteriorate, decreasing readiness and contributing to a lower quality of life for unit soldiers.

Full-Time Manning: MILTECHs

The lack of adequate numbers of required military technicians (MILTECHs) in

USAR units and maintenance facilities jeopardizes unit readiness. The Army has a

validated requirement for 8,990 MILTECHs based on staffing standards that require minimum staffing levels of required MILTECHs of 90 percent for Force Package (FP)1 units, 80 percent for FP2 units, 70 percent for FP3 units and 65 percent

for FP4 units. These percentage levels are considered the ‘‘high-risk’’ threshold for

USAR and ARNG MILTECH authorizations.

The current USAR MILTECH endstrength of 7,344 is 1,646 below the validated

requirement of 8,990. These MILTECHs will enable units to maintain a higher level

of readiness by providing additional training, technical, functional and military expertise required to efficiently and effectively transition from peacetime to wartime

posture.
746

The Army has established a ramp of 250 MILTECH each year beginning in fiscal

year 2002 to increase the level of MILTECH FTM positions within the USAR There

is no funding for the fiscal year 2003 ramp leaving a $8 million shortfall. The executable/critical shortfall for the USAR MILTECH program is $8 million.

Advertising

Army Reserve advertising is underfunded by at least $9.7 million in the fiscal

year 2003 budget request. Without adequate advertising funding, the Army Reserve

will be unable to overcome the market effects of a strong economy and the low propensity of our nation’s youth to enlist in the military.

The USAR fiscal year 2003 recruiting advertising requirement is $61 million, but

it is funded at only $50.3 million. The Army Reserve must expand its Internet advertising to keep pace with new technology and media habits of the targeted market. It must also consider the expanding female and Hispanic markets. In addition,

there are greater than ever needs to recruit special skills such as medical and linguists. The USAR recruiting environment is difficult. A good offset is a vibrant, adequately funded ad campaign that reaches the target audiences. The executable/critical shortfall for advertising is $9.7 million.

USAR Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS) Life Cycle Support

The RCAS infrastructure enables the USAR to integrate rapidly into joint organizations and is required to support Joint and Army C4/IT systems/concepts, i.e., Defense Message System (DMS), Common Access Card (CAC) Global Combat Support

System (GCSS) and others. The life cycle support of the fielded RCAS systems becomes the responsibility of each Reserve component in fiscal year 2002. The Army

has insufficient TOA to fully resource these costs that the USAR must pay to maintain the systems worth $2.4 billion in capital investment.

RCAS is crucial to the USAR day-to-day CONUS/OCONUS operations and is designed to support virtually every type of mission including effective C2, soldier’s

pay, mobilization, training, sustainment, and administration. The executable/critical

shortfall for the RCAS Life Cycle Support is $7.1million.

Force Protection

The Army Reserve has insufficient force protection funds. The events of September 11th raised the visibility of significant security deficiencies at several Army

Reserve facilities. Funding the entire Force Protection program is crucial if the

Army Reserve is to close its installations and maintain the minimum ATFP standards. If the program remains critically underfunded, Army Reserve facilities will remain unprotected and face a continuing terrorist threat. Current funding levels do

not permit the Army Reserve to upgrade and repair facilities in accordance with the

new DOD antiterrorism/force protection standards. The $52 million requirement is

funded at $28 million leaving a critical shortfall of $24 million. The executable/critical shortfall is $24.0 million.

National Guard And Reserve Equipment Request

The Office of the Secretary of Defense in its February 2000 ‘‘National Guard and

Reserve Equipment Report for Budget Year 2001’’, (the 2001 report is not available)

states that the Army Reserve has 89 percent of its Equipment Readiness Code A

(ERC A) equipment items and 87 percent of its ERC–P items on-hand for all units.

This represents a projected shortfall of equipment through fiscal year 2005 that exceeds $2.1 billion.

The greatest source of relief to Army Reserve equipment shortages is the National

Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NG&REA) 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, nearly $1.5 billion in equipment through the NG&REA. Without the appropriation the Army Reserve would still be struggling to reach 50 percent equipment

on hand (EOH). The NG&REA works, and works well. ROA urges the Congress to

continue the NG&REA and to fully fund the Army Reserve $896 million fiscal year

2003 equipment modernization requirement.

AIR FORCE RESERVE

Thank you for your continued interest in how the Air Force Reserve is doing as

it responds to today’s unique challenges while supporting active duty Air Force and

Joint Commanders. ROA is especially appreciative of your support in the fiscal year

2002 Defense appropriations for pay and allowance increases, as well as funding

school and special training. Your efforts to fund military construction and reserve

equipment help to address continuing shortages. Support in recruiting and adver-
747

tising helped our recruiters achieve an outstanding accession rate of 105 percent

and command retention rates were exceeded in all categories during fiscal year

2001. For the coming year, recruiters will have an additional challenge facing them

due to the Air Force enforcing stop-loss for over half of the year.

Highlights

The Air Force Reserve operates 447 aircraft and is mission-ready and able to deploy within 72 hours. The Air Force Reserve has 9,245 reservists in support of Noble

Eagle/Enduring Freedom down from a high of 12,500. They have also provided between 2,000 and 3,000 volunteers in other active duty statuses to those mission

areas. The challenge will be to support Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) commitments

with volunteers while continuing to support Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom. The

Reserve provided to AEF over 14,000 personnel during each of the first two 15-

month cycles.

Requirements

Of particular concern is the increased need for potentially 2,000 or more personnel

in the fields of security, intelligence, information operations, space, and maintenance. Additional issues of concern during the current tempo are:

—Fund 3- and 6-year reenlistment bonuses for the Selected Reserve up to 20

years to encourage retention of trained personnel

—Fund increased prior service enlistment bonus ($5,000 to $8,000) to encourage

prior service personnel to continue their military service (similar to non-prior

service recruits)

—Remove the appropriation prohibition on security forces so billets can be filled

with Reserve full-time support personnel

—Fund increased end strength ceilings during mobilizations

Just as with Desert Shield/Storm, recent events have once again reminded everyone of the critical need for the Air Force Reserve to be a Total Force participant.

The Reserve provides the Air Force with a surge capability in aircrew, support personnel, and airframes. It is imperative the Air Force Reserve remains a constant

contributor to our nation’s defense by being equipped with the latest equipment and

weapon systems.

Modernization requirements are:

Fiscal year 2003 requirements Quantity Cost in Mil- lions

C–17s .............................................................................................................................................. 2 TBD

C–40s .............................................................................................................................................. 10 TBD

KC–135 Engine Kits ........................................................................................................................ 2 kits $54

C–130 Js ......................................................................................................................................... 3 ac $217.9

F–16 Commercial Central Interface Unit—Upgrade ..................................................................... 80 kits $7.3

F–16 Processor Upgrade (Color) ..................................................................................................... 23 units $3.71

Tactical Radios (SCOPE SHIELD II) ................................................................................................ 41 sets $9.25

Motor Vehicles For Med UTC’s (Multi-Yr) ....................................................................................... 34 veh $1.87

Snow Removal Vehicles .................................................................................................................. 7 veh $1.2

Land Mobile Radios (Multi-Yr) ....................................................................................................... 5.5 bases $4.08

Intrusion Detection System (Multi-Yr) ............................................................................................ 5 bases $2.063

Hydrant Fueling Trucks ................................................................................................................... 9 trucks $1.4

Truck Tractors ................................................................................................................................. 10 trucks $0.77

Utility Truck (4x4) ........................................................................................................................... 5 trucks $0.152

Flightline Video Surveillance System .............................................................................................. 4 systems $0.72

Next Generation NVGs ..................................................................................................................... 30 sets $1.5

NAVAL RESERVE

Since September 11th, 2001, the Naval Reserve has recalled approximately 10,000

Selected Naval Reservists to support Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. The great preponderance of those mobilized has been dedicated to the conduct

and execution of Operation Enduring Freedom. The majority of these Naval Reservists have been recalled individually based on specific skills. They include significant

numbers of law enforcement officers and security specialists. Entire units of the

Naval Coastal Warfare commands were activated. Medical, supply, intelligence and

other specialties are been heavily tasked. Naval Reserve pilots are keeping the flow

of men and materiel flowing to the theater of operations.

Funding for fiscal year 2002 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 Con-
748

gress 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.

Naval Reserve end-strength was reduced from 88,900 in fiscal year 2001 to 86,011

in fiscal year 2002. The issue of peacetime contributory support versus surge training requirements continues to pull Naval Reserve personnel policies and operations

in two different, not wholly compatible, directions. Highly trained, motivated and

experienced Naval Reserve personnel should not be lost to the Naval Reserve Force

while the nation girds for the long-haul in the war on terrorism. ROA strongly urges

the Congress to increase Naval Reserve end-strength to 87,500 to support the increased requirements imposed by Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle

for the foreseeable future.

Several Naval Reserve personnel programs in particular should be maintained or

increased in fiscal year 2003: (1) Active Duty for Training is a program that provides Naval Reservists to the Navy CinCs for unique, short-term periods in support

of fleet requirements. ROA supports a funding level of $10 million for fiscal year

2003 for this highly successful program. (2) Additional support for non-prior service

accessions allows Naval Reserve recruiters greater direct access to the public. This

program accounts for approximately one third of new USNR enlistees. ROA encourages the Congress to increase the level of funding for this effort in fiscal year 2002

by $2.5 million in order to implement the non-prior service enlistment bonus program. (3) Additional active duty funding for schools should be provided in the

amount of $4 million. (4) Incentive pay for Reserve personnel in hard to fill and

hard to maintain specialties, such as medical programs, should be increased by $4

million. (5) Lastly, new funding should be provided to fund the funeral honors support program.

Naval Reserve Equipment Requirements

Fiscal year 2002 was marked by a sharp decline in procurement of equipment for

the Naval Reserve. Total Naval Reserve equipment procurement has steadily declined from $260 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $35 million in fiscal year 2002,

with NGREA and congressional add-ons virtually disappearing and P1R equipment

shrinking precipitously. This rapid downturn in real dollars is of significant concern

since the readiness of Naval Reserve hardware units is in great jeopardy. In summary, given the force-multiplying effect of today’s Naval Reserve and its proven potential as a cost-effective force multiplier to assist in additional missions, the Naval

Reserve must continue to receive sufficient funding and to hold and receive updated

warfighting equipment if the United States is to be expected to have a well-trained

contingency force ready to respond in the event of national emergency.

NAVAL RESERVE FISCAL YEAR 2003 EQUIPMENT NEEDS

[Dollars in millions]

UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENT Cost Quantity

C–40A Transport Aircraft .................................................................................................................... $189.0 3

Littoral Surveillance System ............................................................................................................... 30.0 1

IT–21 Fleet Readiness Infrastructure Support ................................................................................... 17.0 ..................

F/A–18 Mod, ECP 560 & AN/AAS ....................................................................................................... 37.0 6

Naval Coastal Warfare TOA ................................................................................................................ 70.0 ..................

P–3C AIP/Block Mod Update III Kits .................................................................................................. 27.0 3

P–3C/BMUP Kits .................................................................................................................................. 27.0 ..................

FLIR Targeting Pod .............................................................................................................................. 7.5 5

C–130T Avionics Modernization Program ........................................................................................... 4.0 20

F–5 Avionics Modernization ................................................................................................................ 16.0 4

CH–60 Helicopter ................................................................................................................................ 88.0 4

Equipment modernization is the most critical priority for the Naval Reserve. ROA

strongly urges the Congress to provide $527.5 million to support the vital and continuing Naval Reserve unfunded equipment needs in fiscal year 2003.

MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Nearly 5,000 Marine Corps Reservists have been recalled under the partial mobilization declared by the President. Marine Reservists are in every theater of the war

on terrorism. They are in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, guarding Al Qaeda detainees and

they were in Kandahar, Afghanistan securing the heartland of the Taliban. Every

Marine is first and foremost a Marine and a rifleman.
749

ROA urges the Congress to maintain Selected Marine Corps Reserve end-strength

at 39,558 (including 2,261 Active Reservists) in order to ensure the Marine Corps

capability to be the first expeditionary American force to meet and defeat the enemy

anywhere in the world.

Equipment Modernization

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

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.

MARINE CORPS RESERVE FISCAL YEAR 2003 UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT NEEDS

[Dollars in millions]

UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENT Cost Quantity

F/A–18A ECP–583 (12 USMCR aircraft) ............................................................................................ $70.0 36

CH–53E Helicopter Night Vision System (HNVS) ‘‘B’’ Kits ................................................................ 45.0 ..................

KC–130 APR V2 Radar Warning Receiver .......................................................................................... 2.0 ..................

CH–53E External Cargo Load Improvements ..................................................................................... 3.3 ..................

CH–53E APR–39A V2 Radar Warning Receiver ................................................................................. 20.0 ..................

NBC Equipment ................................................................................................................................... 0.8 ..................

KC–130T Avionics Modernization ........................................................................................................ 8.5 ..................

CH–53E SLEP Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................... 15.0 ..................

CH–53E Aircrew Procedure Trainer (APT) Flight Simulator ................................................................ 12.8 1

AH–1W Aircrew Procedures Trainer (APT) Flight Simulator ............................................................... 10.0 1

Supplemental Aviation Spares Package ............................................................................................. 7.0 ..................

Reserve Manpower Management System 21st Century ..................................................................... 1.2 ..................

Initial Equipment Issue (Reserves) .................................................................................................... 6.5 ..................

Aviation equipment funded through Aircraft Procurement Navy appropriation.

ROA recommends that the Congress authorize and appropriate $202.1 million for

these critical unfunded Marine Corps Reserve equipment priorities.

INTERALLIED CONFEDERATION OF RESERVE OFFICERS—CIOR

The Reserve Officers Association is asking the Congress to provide support,

through the Department of Defense, for the 2004 International Summer Congress

of the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) and the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Medical Officers (CIOMR) that will be hosted by the United

States. This is a United States nationally sponsored event, not a private association

conference. U.S. military team members, most of whom are world-class athletes, will

compete in international team sporting events, including orienteering, obstacle

courses and marksmanship, equivalent to triathlon ‘‘Ironman’’ sports competitions,

against other nationally sponsored teams over a period of ten days. A host of other

activities focused on military professional development, information exchange, and

leadership will also highlight the agenda.

This CIOR International Summer Congress was last held in the United States in

1993 in Washington and ROA, as agent for CIOR, deeply appreciated the support

of the Department of Defense, and its contribution of personnel and resources. That

Summer Congress was a tremendous success and highlighted the outstanding athletes and Reserve military forces of the United States, as well as the Capitol of our

nation. It should be noted that Senator Strom Thurmond previously served as the
750

United States International Vice President for CIOR. CIOR was created in 1948

prior to the Washington Treaty of 1949 that formed NATO. It serves the sole purpose of supporting NATO under a NATO Military Committee charter that empowers

CIOR to advise NATO on Reserve forces and to advocate and demonstrate a strong

public diplomacy for the citizen-soldier on behalf of NATO.

ROA strongly urges the Congress to support the commitment to, planning for, and

execution of the 2004 CIOR/CIOMR Summer Congress in Washington, D.C., to include fully funding the Military Competitions and the Young Reserve Officers Workshop events in the 2004 Summer Congress. Congress is further requested to create

a discrete budget line for CIOR/CIOMR in the Department of Defense account, and

appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year 2003 for the purpose of supporting the 2004

CIOR Summer Congress. By so doing, Congress will signal unequivocal U.S. support

for this important foreign policy and national security activity.

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 INOUYE. Well, I will suggest to my subcommittee that

we, on behalf of Senator Thurmond, provide the money.

Mr. SPIEGEL. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is the vice president of public policy, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Mr. George Dahlman.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DAHLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY, THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY

Mr. DAHLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to

testify on behalf of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. I am

George Dahlman, as you know, vice president, public policy, for the

society. I am also the parent of a child with leukemia.

During its 52-year history, the society has been dedicated to finding a cure for the blood cancers. Those are leukemia, lymphoma,

and myeloma. The society is both the largest private organization

dedicated to blood cancers and also the Nation’s second-largest private cancer organization. In 2002 we are providing $38 million in

research grants and a wide range of services to patients and their

families throughout our 59 chapters across the country.

A great deal of progress is being made in the treatment of many

blood cancers. Over the last two decades there have been impressive strides in the treatment of childhood leukemia. Just last year,

a new therapy was approved for chronic myelogenous leukemia

(CML) called Gleevec. It is a so-called targeted therapy that corrects the molecular defect that causes the disease.

Despite the advances in these diseases, they pose a continuing

risk to Americans. In 2002, more than 100,000 people will be diagnosed with a blood-related cancer, and almost 60,000 will die from

them. Taken together, the blood cancers are fifth among cancers in

incident, and second in mortality.

Why are these diseases important to the Department of Defense?

They are important for a number of reasons. First, research on

blood-related cancers have special relevance to the Armed Forces

because these are the cancers that appear among individuals with

chemical warfare 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
751

Orange in the Vietnam War caused an increased risk of lymphoid

malignancies.

This point was driven home in The Washington Post yesterday

in its description of a plot to explode a so-called dirty bomb, and

the number of cancer cases that would result from such an incident.

Secondly, research in the blood cancers has traditionally pioneered treatments in other cancers. Chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants are two striking examples of treatments first developed in the blood cancers now being applied to other malignancies. The more recent example of Gleevec and its targeted molecular approach to treatment clearly continues that tradition.

That relevance and opportunity was recognized last year when

Congress appropriated $5 million to begin the initial research into

chronic myelogenous leukemia through the Pentagon’s peer reviewed program. Since that program was announced, members of

the society, patient advocates, and leading researchers have enthusiastically welcomed the opportunity to become a part of that program. Unfortunately, $5 million does not go very far in medical research.

Recognizing that fact, and the opportunity here, a bipartisan

group of 31 Members of Congress have requested that the program

be modestly increased to $16 million and be expanded to include

all of the blood cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, and myelomas.

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 a more effective treatment to all who suffer

from these diseases.

The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, along with its partners in

the Blood Cancer Coalition, the Lymphoma Research Foundation

and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation strongly endorses

and enthusiastically supports this effort, and respectfully urges the

committee to include this funding in the fiscal year 2003 defense

appropriations bill.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy

to answer questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE DAHLMAN

INTRODUCTION

I am pleased to submit this statement on behalf of The Leukemia & Lymphoma

Society (LLS). The Society is the largest private organization dedicated to blood-related cancers and is the nation’s second largest private cancer organization. During

its 52-year history, the LLS has been dedicated to finding a cure for the blood cancers—leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma. Our central contribution to the search for

a cure is funding a significant amount of basic and translational research in the

blood cancers. In 2002, we will fund almost $38 million in research grants. In addition to our role as a funder of research, we provide a wide range of services to individuals with the blood cancers, their caregivers, families, and friends through our

59 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 has been made in the treatment of many blood cancers. Over the years, there have been steady and impressive
752

strides in the treatment of the most common form of childhood leukemia, and the

survival rate for that form of leukemia has dramatically improved. And just last

year, 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. This new therapy, a signal transduction inhibitor called Gleevec, is a

so-called targeted therapy which corrects the molecular defect that causes the disease, and does so with few side effects.

LLS contributed to the early research on Gleevec, as it has contributed to basic

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 and lymphoma present daunting treatment

challenges, as does myeloma. There is much work still to be done, and we believe

the research partnership between the public and private sectors—as represented in

the Department of Defense’s Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program—

in an integral part of that effort and should be strengthened.

THE GRANT PROGRAMS OF THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY

The grant programs of the LLS 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 LLS. Dr. Druker is certainly a star among those supported by 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 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 2002, more than 100,000 Americans will be

diagnosed with and almost 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 others treatment options are

extremely limited. For many, recurring disease will be a continual threat to a productive and secure life.

—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 2002.

—Almost 60,000 people will die from hematological cancers in 2002, 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 5-year survival rates are:

Hodgkin’s disease—83 percent

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—53 percent

Leukemias (total) 45 percent

Multiple Myeloma 29 percent

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia 14 percent

—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.
753

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

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.

Secondly, 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.

Now, research into these types of cancers is creating great new opportunities for

the understanding and treatment of a wide range of cancers. Scientists are investigating several new approaches to the treatment of blood cancers, and the results

of one of those exciting endeavors—the new therapy called Gleevec, to treat chronic

myelogenous leukemia (CML)—continues that pioneering trend. Although that drug

is receiving great praise and is even being hailed as a possible cure for CML, research by blood cancer scientists on the cellular mechanisms of cancer growth will

clearly enhance our understanding not only of blood-related cancers, but all cancers.

Investigators are working to develop a system of molecular classification of

hematological malignancies that may enable development of treatments that are

specific for each cancer. Genetic and molecular analyses of hematological cancers are

identifying targets for drug development. Gleevec—based on an understanding of

the genetic change that leads to this disease, is hopefully just the first of other similar drugs that are targeted to intercept a cellular malfunction that leads to cancer.

Other innovative approaches include cancer vaccines employing immunotherapy

to enhance the recognition and destruction of cancer cells; laboratory-designed

monoclonal antibodies to use the specificity of an antibody directed against a tumor

antigen to target therapy to the tumor, sparing normal cells; and use of an antibody

to carry a radioactive isotope or toxin to the cancer cells.
754

The public and private investment in research has yielded knowledge of the nature of hematological cancers and advances in treatment. These studies have served

as a model for treatment of other cancers and have contributed to our understanding of diseases associated with autoimmunity and aging. Research in blood

cancers has also contributed to our understanding of disease associated with

autoimmunity and aging, such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and Alzheimer’s diseases. The pace of discovery has recently accelerated, and there is great potential

for significant new advances in treating these diseases in ways that are more targeted and less toxic.

The potential in this field was recently illustrated with the release of a report by

the Leukemia, Lymphoma and Myeloma Progress Review Group (LLM–PRG). In

December 2000, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a blue-ribbon panel

of extramural researchers, clinicians, and advocates to provide advice on the NCI’s

blood cancer research program. This group of experts made a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening the blood cancer research program. One of those recommendations was for a public-private sector translational research consortium

with the lofty goal of reducing by half the period of time necessary for development

of a new blood cancer therapy. This idea is one that we would like to see developed

further, because it reflects our philosophy that collaboration and cooperation are

critical to improvements in cancer treatment; it also reinforces the commitment of

LLS to increase our investment in translational research in order to speed the

movement of basic research findings to the bedside.

It is this valuable translational approach to research—getting therapies from the

research bench to the bedside—that has characterized our emphasis and which has

now been made the emphasis in the initial CML research in the DOD program.

Finally, while the incidence of many cancers is declining, the incidence of nonHodgkin’s lymphoma has increased dramatically since the 1970s and recent statistics indicate both increasing incidence and earlier age of onset for multiple

myeloma. The reasons for these trends—which stand in, marked contrast to those

for many other cancers—are not understood. It is absolutely critical that possible

links between environmental exposure to toxins and blood-related cancers be thoroughly investigated. In total, some 110,000 Americans will be diagnosed with a

blood-related cancer this year, and more than 60,000 will die from them.

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 last year when Congress appropriated $5 million to begin

initial research into chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) through the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). As members of the Committee

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 announced, members of the Society, individual patient advocates and leading researchers have enthusiastically welcomed the opportunity to become a part of this program

and contribute to the promise of a successful, collaborative quest for a cure.

Unfortunately, $5 million does not go very far in medical research. Recognizing

that fact and the opportunity this research represents, Senators Jack Reed and

Mike DeWine, along with a number of your colleagues, have requested that the program be modestly increased to $16 million and that it be expanded to included 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.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society strongly endorses and enthusiastically supports this effort and urges the Committee to include this funding in the fiscal year

2003 Defense Appropriations bill.

We believe that building on the foundation Congress initiated last year 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 INOUYE. Thank you. What will $16 million do?

Mr. DAHLMAN. We are hopeful it will complement a lot of the

work being done by other agencies at NIH, and be able to give

them a start at looking at what some complementary research

might be.

Senator INOUYE. It is not duplicating?
755

Mr. DAHLMAN. No, it is not. A precedent has been set through

the program, through the breast cancer program and the prostate

cancer program. They have all been very innovative programs.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. I think I am one of the

cosponsors.

The next witness is the cochairman of the Health Care Committee of the Military Coalition, Senior Chief Robert Washington,

United States Navy (Ret.).

STATEMENT OF SENIOR CHIEF ROBERT WASHINGTON, (RET.), USN,

COCHAIRMAN, HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE, THE MILITARY COALITION

Chief WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Military Coalition is most grateful for your leadership and strong support of

last year’s improvement in military health care, pay, and other

benefits. The coalition also appreciates this opportunity to present

its concerns for 2003.

The coalition recommends increasing end strength to match demanding operational commitments, reauthorization of funding for

the proposed pay increases, and restoration of full pay comparability. The coalition also urges fully funding Guard and Reserve force end strength and missions and funding for concurrent

receipt relief in 2003, along with the reform of the SBPP program

authorized by the Armed Services Committee. The balance of my

statement will address health care concerns.

Recent landmark legislation enacted for uniformed services beneficiaries demonstrates Congress recognizes the extraordinary demands and sacrifices of the uniformed service career. The coalition

is grateful that priority was placed on the over-65 population and

active duty beneficiaries. However, similarly aggressive action is

needed to make TRICARE more responsive to the needs of the

under-65 beneficiaries, and to address other issues crucial to all

TRICARE beneficiaries.

Despite the initiative this subcommittee has promoted, our members tell us they have difficulty in finding TRICARE providers in

certain areas. Complaints run the course from insufficient reimbursement to demanding administrative requirements. The loss of

providers due to reimbursement restriction has escalated since the

TRICARE maximum allowable charge rates were tied to Medicare

rates. During the current controversy over the reimbursement

level, providers are simply refusing to take new Medicare patients,

or are dropping out of the program altogether. Those unwilling to

accept Medicare patients because of reimbursement are also reluctant to be TRICARE providers.

The coalition urges consideration of additional steps to ensure

provider participation and urging DOD to help implement existing

authority to increase reimbursement when necessary to attract providers, reduce administrative requirements, and take additional

steps to ensure rapid implementation of electronic claim processing.

There are problems with the coordination of TRICARE Standard

benefit with other health insurance, and there is an inequity in

benefit administration. If a beneficiary has other health insurance

that pays 115 percent of the allowable charge, TRICARE pays

nothing, leaving the beneficiary responsible for the remainder of

the bill. This is a denial of benefit, and it unfairly shifts costs to
756

beneficiaries. As a result, under-65 beneficiaries may have to give

up their TRICARE benefit due to private sector employment that

provides private health insurance.

We urge the subcommittee to eliminate the 115 percent billing

limit when TRICARE is compared to other health insurance and

reinstate the benefit methodology, the same benefit afforded to

TRICARE for Life beneficiaries. The coalition also urges funding to

expand TRICARE primary remote to family members who are unable to reside with service members. We also urge the expansion

of TRICARE coverage for ready Reserve and National Guard members and their families to ensure an adequate health care safety

net for them.

During this national crisis and the increased mobilization of the

Guard and Reserve, this is an important continuity of care matter,

as well as a recruitment and retention issue.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity for me to present the coalition’s views.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT WASHINGTON

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of

The Military Coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and

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

—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 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

—The Retired Enlisted Association

—The Retired Officers Association

—The Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces

—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.
757

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 permanent

change of station allowance enhancements. 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. But national leaders also have pursued an increasingly active role for America’s forces in guarding the peace in a still-dangerous

world—even more so since last September—so that today’s servicemembers are

being deployed many times more often than those of the mid-1980s. The increased

personnel tempo necessary to meet continued and sustained training and operational requirements has required servicemembers to work progressively longer and

harder every year.

Personnel Strengths and Operations Tempo.—The Coalition has been dismayed at

low force levels and the very modest Service requests for additional end strength

increases resulting in high operational tempo levels. The force is unduly stressed

due to insufficient numbers of personnel to support the war on terrorism and associated operational requirements, resulting in a negative impact on the quality of life

for uniformed services personnel.

The Military Coalition strongly recommends restoration of Service end strengths

consistent with long-term sustainment of current deployments and fulfillment of national military strategy. The Coalition supports application of recruiting resources/

voluntary recall policies as necessary to meet this requirement. The Coalition urges

the Subcommittee to consider all possible manpower options to ease operational

stresses on active, Reserve and Guard personnel.

Pay Raise Comparability.—The Military Coalition is extremely appreciative of the

Subcommittee’s support during the last 3 years in reversing the routine practice of

capping servicemembers’ annual pay raises below the average American’s. The January 2002 pay raise, the largest in 20 years, and the increased allowances approved

last year provided more appropriate financial recognition for career and high-performing servicemembers. But the Coalition urges the Subcommittee to do more.

As significant as the recent gains in military pay have been, it must be acknowledged that the annual increases approved so far will make up only about half of

the cumulative pay raise sacrifices imposed on servicemembers over the previous

two decades. The last time a large pay comparability gap coincided with a retention

crisis (in the late 1970’s), the gap was eliminated via double-digit raises in both

1981 and 1982.

The President’s Budget proposes an average 4.8 percent raise for fiscal year 2003,

which would shrink the gap another 1.2 percentage points. Even at that rate, it

would take another 6 years to restore full comparability. But current law would only

reduce the gap by one-half percentage point per year through 2006—and then once

again begin capping military raises below private sector wage growth.
758

The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to fund the Administration-proposed raise

and restore full pay comparability on the quickest possible schedule. The Military

Coalition believes all members need and deserve annual raises at least equal to private sector wage growth.

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES

Support of Active Duty Operations.—National Guard and Reserve members and

units shoulder ever-greater day-to-day operational workloads. Along with active

duty forces, they increasingly have come to face many of the same challenges as

their active counterparts.

Compounding the problem for National Guard and Reserve personnel, their increasing support of day-to-day active duty operations also has placed greater strains

on the employers of these members. This support has become less and less certain

as National Guard and Reserve members have taken longer and more frequent

leaves of absence from their civilian jobs. In the last few months, the requirements

of the war on terrorism led to the activation of over 76,000 National Guard and Reserve members for homeland defense and overseas deployments.

The Military Coalition urges continued attention to ensuring an appropriate

match between National Guard and Reserve force strengths and missions, and appropriations sufficient to fully fund those strengths and missions.

RETIREMENT AND SURVIVOR ISSUES

While issues affecting retired pay and survivor benefits for uniformed services

personnel (and their dependents) fall under a different subcommittee, the Coalition

would like to express its concern over two important subjects.

Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and VA Disability Compensation.—The

Coalition has long held that military retired pay and veterans disability compensation are paid for different purposes, and one should not offset the other. Specifically,

retired pay is earned compensation for completing a career of arduous uniformed

service, while veterans disability compensation is paid for pain and suffering and

loss of future earnings’ potential caused by a service-connected disability.

Previous attempts to fix this inequity have all been met with the same response—

the cost is too large. But the cost to men and women in uniform who have been

injured while serving this Nation is far greater. No one disabled in the course of

serving his or her country should have to forfeit an earned retirement—for years

of faithful and dedicated service—in order to receive VA disability compensation for

the wounds, injuries, or illnesses incurred in such service.

Rep. Michael Bilirakis’ HR 303 and Sen. Harry Reid’s S. 170 would correct the

unfair and outdated retired pay/disability compensation offset, and these bills enjoy

cosponsorship of 86 percent of the House and 76 percent of the Senate, respectively.
759

The Coalition believes strongly that that level of cosponsorship support is inconsistent with continued inaction, and that there needs to be a greater correlation between what Congress says and what it does. The remaining disabled warriors of the

Greatest Generation and Korea have earned and deserve better treatment, and Congress needs to provide substantive relief as a matter of urgency before any more of

their number fade into history.

Last year, Congress opted to leave the issue to the Executive Branch. The sad reality is that Administrations of any party have been consistently reluctant to seek

the budget resources to solve expensive personnel equity problems. Military members have had to look to Congress to do the right thing, and more often than not,

Congress has done so.

With other options exhausted, it is finally time for Congress to take real action

to address the grossly unfair financial penalties visited for so long on those who already have suffered most for their country—military retirees disabled as a result

of their service.

The Military Coalition urges Subcommittee leaders and members to voice their

support of concurrent receipt to House and Senate leaders most strongly, to ensure

authority and funding for substantive concurrent receipt relief in fiscal year 2003—

including appropriated funding for the necessary increases for DOD deposits in the

military retirement trust fund .

Reduction in Age-62 Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Annuity.—Since SBP was first

enacted in 1972, retirees and survivors have inundated DOD, Congress and military

associations with letters decrying the reduction in survivors’ SBP annuities that occurs when the survivor attains age 62. The amount of the reduction varies by the

circumstances in each case. Before age 62, SBP survivors receive an annuity equal

to 55 percent of the retiree’s SBP covered retired pay. At age 62, the annuity is reduced to a lower percentage, down to a floor of 35 percent of covered retired pay.

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 members 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 numbers

of members who retired in the 1970s (or who retired earlier but enrolled in the initial SBP open season) were not informed of it at the time they enrolled. This is because the initial informational materials used by DOD and the services to describe

the program made no mention of the age 62 offset.

These retirees and their spouses are often stunned to learn of this reduction in

survivor benefit, and they are further dismayed to learn that the survivor reduction

attributed to the retiree’s Social Security—covered military earnings applies even to

widows whose Social Security benefit is based on their own work history.

To add to these grievances, 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 inducement for retirees to elect SBP coverage—has declined to less

than 27 percent. The statute assumed that retiree premiums would cover 60 percent

of expected long-term SBP costs based on the Actuary’s assumptions about future

inflation rates, interest rates, and mortality rates. However, actual experience has

proven these assumptions were too conservative, so that retiree premiums now

cover 73 percent of expected SBP benefit costs. In effect, retirees are being charged

too much for the long-promised benefit.

In addition, a significant inequity exists from the military retiree’s standpoint in

that the survivor benefit plan coverage provided for federal civilian employees provides both a higher post–62 benefit and a higher government subsidy, as indicated

in the chart below.

FEDERAL CIVILIAN VS. MILITARY SBP ANNUITY AND SUBSIDY

[Percent]

CSRS 1 FERS 2 Military

Post-62 percent Of Ret Pay ............................................................................................... 55 50 35

Gov’t Subsidy ..................................................................................................................... 50 42 27

1 Civil Service Retirement System.

2 Federal Employees Retirement System.

Some might argue that federal civilians warrant higher benefits and subsidies on

the basis of their extended careers, but that is false reasoning. Military members,

except for disabled members, must serve at least 20 years to qualify for retirement
760

and often serve much longer. While many federal civilian employees do, in fact,

serve even longer periods, this is not necessary to qualify for retirement and survivor coverage, as many nondisabled federal civilians qualify for retirement after

serving considerably less than 20 years—and can do so with as little as 5 years’

service, depending on age.

The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act included a ‘‘Sense of Congress’’

provision specifying that legislation should be enacted to increase the SBP age-62

annuity to ‘‘reduce (and eventually eliminate)’’ the different levels of annuities for

survivors age 62 and older vs. those for younger survivors. But that statement of

support remains to be translated into substantive relief.

The Military Coalition strongly supports legislation sponsored by Sen. Thurmond

and Rep Miller (S. 145 and H.R. 548, respectively) that, if enacted, would eliminate

the disparity in a three-stage process—raising the minimum SBP annuity to 40 percent of SBP-covered retired pay immediately; to 45 percent on October 1, 2004; and

to 55 percent on October 1, 2011.

We appreciate only too well the cost and other challenges associated with such

mandatory spending initiatives, and believe this incremental approach offers a reasonable balance between the need to restore equity and the need for fiscal discipline.

Despite a shrinking federal surplus, action is needed now to correct this long-standing inequity.

The Military Coalition strongly recommends elimination of the age-62 Survivor

Benefit Plan annuity reduction and additional appropriated funding to cover the associated increases in DOD deposits to the military retirement/SBP trust fund.

HEALTH CARE ISSUES

The Military Coalition (TMC) is most deeply appreciative of the Subcommittee’s

exceptional efforts over the last 2 years to honor government health care commitments to uniformed services beneficiaries, particularly for Medicare-eligibles and active duty members and families. The long and impressive list of accomplishments

that this Subcommittee has provided funds for is worth enumerating once more:

—Authorization of TRICARE For Life (TFL) and the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy

Program (TSRx) for Medicare-eligibles;

—Establishment of the Military Medicare-eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to

guarantee funding for older beneficiaries’ care beginning Oct. 1, 2002;

—Reduction of the TRICARE Catastrophic Cap on retired beneficiaries’ out-ofpocket expenses from $7,500 to $3,000 per year per family;

—Elimination of TRICARE Prime copayments for active duty family members;

—Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for active duty families assigned where

Prime is not available; and

—Full funding of the defense health program in fiscal year 2002, for the first time

in many years.

These and other subcommittee-sponsored enhancements are saving military beneficiaries thousands of dollars a year and represent the greatest military health care

advancements in a generation. However, much remains to be done to fully implement this host of laudable initiatives, to address certain chronic program shortcomings, and to address remaining initiatives that will be essential to providing a

more equitable and consistent health for all categories of TRICARE beneficiaries, regardless of age or geography.

The Coalition looks forward to continuing its productive and cooperative efforts

with the subcommittee’s members and staff in pursuit of this common objective.

PROVIDE ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE DEFENSE HEALTH BUDGET

A top Coalition priority for fiscal year 2003 is to work with Congress and DOD

to ensure continued full funding of the Defense Health Budget to meet readiness

needs and deliver needed care, through both the military direct care system and

managed care support contracts, for ALL uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless of age, status or location. An adequately funded health care benefit is as critical

to the retention of qualified uniformed services personnel and to readiness as are

pay and other benefits. The Subcommittee’s continuing conscientious scrutiny of the

adequacy of annual budget proposals will be essential to avoid a return to the chronic underfunding situations that previously led to execution shortfalls, shortchanging

of the direct care system, inadequate equipment capitalization, failure to invest in

infrastructure and substitution of annual emergency supplemental funding requests

for candid and conscientious budget planning.

In years past, part of the funding problem was attributable to the lack of a clearly

defined benefit. With the introduction of TFL, the benefit is more clearly defined

and funding requirements should be better understood.
761

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.

TRICARE FOR LIFE IMPLEMENTATION

The Coalition is pleased to report that, The Coalition is actively engaged in two

OSD-sponsored TFL action groups working with DOD to facilitate implementation.

From our vantage point, the Defense Department continues to be committed to implement TFL consistent with Congressional intent and is working vigorously toward

that end.

The Coalition is concerned that DOD appears not to have budgeted the necessary

funds to adequately inform beneficiaries and providers about the upgraded TFL and

TSRx benefits. In most cases, informing beneficiaries was left to the managed care

support contractors. The result was a great disparity in the quantity and quality

of notice members received about these benefit changes. In many cases, the MCSCs

put limited resources into mailings and beneficiary briefings because they had not

budgeted for such things, and received little, if any, extra funding from DOD for this

purpose.

In many cases, beneficiaries’ best sources of information were magazines and

other TFL- or TSRx-specific publications published by beneficiary associations. Unfortunately, many beneficiaries did not have access to the association publications

and thus were inadequately informed.

The Coalition recommends the subcommittee establish safeguards to ensure adequate funding is provided for beneficiary education whenever significant changes

occur in military health or pharmacy programs.

IMPROVEMENTS IN TRICARE

The Coalition is pleased that the fiscal year 2001 NDAA made an effort to address

the lack of physician participation in TRICARE by requiring:

—DOD to designate specific rates for reimbursement for services in certain localities where access to health care services would be severely impaired; and

—Prepare reports analyzing the utility of increased reimbursements to ensure the

availability of network providers, and to determine the extent to which physicians are choosing not to participate in contracts to provide health care in rural

areas.

However, beneficiaries in certain geographies continue to report a lack of provider

participation in TRICARE, thus limiting in access and choice. Despite initiatives to

improve the program, we continue to hear complaints from providers of low and

slow payments, and burdensome administrative requirements and hassles. These

problems must be addressed by increasing reimbursement, streamlining claims

processing requirements, greater reliance on electronic claims technology and eliminating unnecessary reporting requirements. Only by decreasing the administrative

burden placed on providers and building a simplified and reliable claims system

that pays in a timely way can Congress and DOD hope to establish TRICARE as

an attractive program to providers and a dependable benefit for beneficiaries.

A key problem is that, since 1991, TRICARE fees have been tied to Medicare reimbursement rates that have been in continual decline. While Congress has previously given the authority to the Secretary of Defense to increase reimbursements

and mandated improvements in TRICARE business practices, only some of these

improvements have been implemented. To date, the Secretary of Defense has made

only very limited use of his existing authority to increase participation by raising

reimbursement levels. Because of the slow pace of change and reluctance to use existing authorities, there has been little increase in provider participation.

Once providers have left the system, promises of increased efficiencies have done

little to encourage them to return. Lessons learned from TFL implementation demonstrate the effectiveness of electronic claims processing. TFL has dramatically improved access to care for Medicare-eligibles by streamlining administrative procedures, processing claims electronically, making the system simple for providers, and

paying claims on time.

But TRICARE remains a morass of paper claims, bureaucratic layering, and low

and slow payments that has stubbornly resisted the kinds of upgrades that are essential to make TRICARE an attractive and reliable program for providers and

beneficiaries. Having implemented dramatic improvements in health coverage for

Medicare-eligibles over 65 and active duty dependents, it is essential for the subcommittee to apply similar aggressive action to make TRICARE similarly responsive

to the needs of under-65 beneficiaries.
762

The Military Coalition most strongly urges the Subcommittee to ensure sufficient

funding to raise reimbursements where necessary to attract adequate provider participation and to take additional steps as necessary to ensure funding for needed

TRICARE upgrades, including rapid implementation of electronic claims processing.

CONCLUSION

The Military Coalition would like to reiterate its profound gratitude for the extraordinary progress this Subcommittee has made in seeking to restore health care

equity for all uniformed services beneficiaries, particularly those who are Medicareeligible. The Subcommittee’s efforts to authorize the implementation of TFL and

TSRx are giant steps toward honoring the lifetime health care commitment. With

minor refinements, TFL should provide a comprehensive and equitable health care

benefit for all Medicare-eligible beneficiaries

But much work remains to be done with the TRICARE program. More urgent effort is essential, both by Congress and DOD, to enable TRICARE to attract and retain quality health care providers and to ensure prompt upgrade of the claims processing system, to deliver a more uniform health care benefit across all ages and geographic areas.

CLOSING STATEMENT

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present the Coalition’s views on these

critically important topics. We look forward to addressing further details of these

and other issues with you and the Subcommittee staff.

Senator INOUYE. I will personally take this matter to the attention of the authorizing committee, and we will try to work out

something that will carry out your recommendations.

Chief WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, sir.

Our next witness is the senior vice president of the Biologics,

Celera Genomics, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Dr. Stephen Hoffman.

STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN L. HOFFMAN, M.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BIOLOGICS, CELERA GENOMICS, ON BEHALF OF THE

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE

Dr. HOFFMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Stephen Hoffman, senior vice president of biologics at Celera Genomics. I am a

retired Navy Captain, the former director of the Navy’s malaria

vaccine development program, and I was fortunate to work for 2

years in the wonderful Inouye Building in Silver Spring. I am the

immediate past president of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) and I am here this morning to present

testimony on the society’s behalf.

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 basic science, medicine, insect vector control,

epidemiology, public health, and bioterrorism defense. In fact, most

of our country’s leaders in bioterrorist defense are members of our

society.

The DOD medical research programs play a critical role in our

Nation’s infectious disease and bioterrorism defense efforts. Furthermore, the programs are vitally important to maintain the

health of our troops. Working with the private sector and other

U.S. public health agencies, DOD scientists at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, the Walter Reed

Army Institute of Research and the Naval Medical Research Center, and DOD medical laboratories abroad are helping us to better
763

understand diagnose, treat, and prevent infectious and tropical diseases. Such diseases include malaria, Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome (AIDS), dengue, diarrheal diseases, and hepatitis.

Infectious diseases are the second leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for over 13 million deaths. Twenty well-known

diseases, including TB, malaria, cholera, have reemerged or spread

geographically since 1973, often in more virulent and drug-resistant forms. At least 30 previously unknown disease agents have

been identified in this period, including Human Immunodeficiency

Virus (HIV), Ebola, and hepatitis C, agents for which therapy is

not optimal, or does not exist at all.

With worldwide deployment of our military personnel, it is imperative to protect them against infectious diseases that occur

around the globe. Often, our troops are exposed to new strains of

a disease that does not exist within our own borders.

A significant accomplishment made by military scientists and

their corporate partners is the discovery of the first prototype vaccine that prevents valsifera malaria. Novel vaccines such as the

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) vaccine for malaria are being developed under the leadership of scientists at the Naval Medical Research Center. Most recently, licensure has been awarded for

malarone, a new drug for the prevention and treatment of malaria.

Another antimalarial 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 life span of only about 10 years.

Replacements must be sought continually. The society believes the

military overseas laboratories deserve special attention and mention. The U.S. Army and the Navy currently support medical research labs located in five developing countries, 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 diseases, and should be strengthened with increased funding and increased opportunities for collaborations with civilian scientists. The laboratories provide field

sites for testing of new drugs and vaccines, for performing basic research, and for increasing our understanding of disease and the

spread of disease. The overseas laboratories strengthens collaborations between the United States and foreign countries, expanding

our knowledge and understanding of infectious diseases, and providing hands-on training for both the U.S. and local students and

investigators, and for local health authorities.

The society supports the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act, S.

2487, recently introduced by Senators Biden, Helms, Frist, and

Kennedy, that includes additional resources to increase the number

of personnel and expand operations at the overseas labs operated

by the DOD and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) as part of an effort to enhance the capacity of developing nations to track, monitor, and report infectious disease incidents and

outbreaks.
764

We request and urge a strong national commitment to the DOD

infectious disease research programs to accelerate the discovery of

the products that protect American soldiers 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 has been a highly successful program, and our Nation’s continued commitment to this research is critically important, given the resurgent and emerging infectious disease threats

that exist today.

The STMH urges the subcommittee to make DOD infectious disease research a high priority in the DOD budget for the fiscal year

2003.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. HOFFMAN, M.D.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Stephen

Hoffman, Senior Vice President of Biologics at Celera Genomics. I am also the immediate Past President of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

(ASTMH), and I am here this morning to present testimony on the Society’s behalf.

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 basic science, medicine, insect vector control, epidemiology, and public health, and bioterrorism defense.

The Department of Defense (DOD) medical research programs play a critical role

in our nation’s infectious disease and bioterrorism defense efforts. Furthermore, the

programs are vitally important to maintain the health of our troops in the theater.

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 abroad are helping us to better understand,

diagnose, and treat infectious and tropical diseases. Such diseases include malaria,

AIDS, dengue, leishmaniasis and other parasitic infections, cholera, and common diarrheal diseases, scrub typhus, and hepatitis.

Infectious diseases are the second leading cause of death worldwide, accounting

for over 13 million deaths (25 percent of all deaths worldwide in 1999). Twenty wellknown diseases—including tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, and Rift Valley Fever—

have reemerged or spread geographically since 1973, often in more virulent and

drug-resistant forms. At least 30 previously unknown disease agents have been

identified in this period—including HIV, Ebola, Nipah virus, Marburg virus, and

hepatitis C—for which therapy is not optimal or does not exist at all.

A January, 2000, unclassified report from the CIA’s National Intelligence Council

labeled global infectious disease a threat to U.S. national security. ‘‘The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States,’’ concluded that

infectious diseases are likely to account for more military hospital admissions than

battlefield injuries. 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.’’

As mandated in The 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.’’

This includes diseases 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 troops are exposed to new strains of a disease that does not exist within our

own borders. Examples of the highly focused research conducted by the Program include efforts to make vaccines to prevent malaria and overseas strains of the AIDS

virus.
765

The Society believes the military’s overseas laboratories deserve special mention.

The U.S. Army and the Navy currently support medical research labs 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 testing of new drugs and vaccines, for performing

basic research, and for increasing our understanding of disease and the spread of

disease. 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.

The Society supports the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act (S. 2487) recently introduced by Senators Biden, Helms, Frist and Kennedy that includes among the

bill’s provisions additional resources to increase the number of personnel and expand operations at the overseas laboratories operated by the Department of Defense

and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as part of an effort to enhance the

capacity of developing nations to track, monitor and report infectious disease incidents and outbreaks.

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. The DOD investment in malaria vaccine development is not only good

public health policy, but it also makes good sense from an economic standpoint. Malaria is estimated to cause up to 500 million clinical cases and up to 2.7 million

deaths each year, representing 4 percent to 5 percent of all fatalities worldwide. Malaria affects 2.4 billion people, or about 40 percent of the world’s population. Tragically, every 30 seconds a child somewhere dies of malaria. Specifically, malaria

causes an enormous burden of disease in Africa, and is considered a primary cause

of poverty. In the recent Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health

of the World Health Organization it was estimated that malaria alone reduces the

economic growth of Africa by more than 1 percent per year, adding up to hundreds

of billions of dollars of lost income in the long run.

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 an important ally. Spread of this disease to the United States is not out of the question,

since mosquitoes 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. WRAIR scientists reported the first successful cultivation of vivax malaria.

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 10 years. Replacements must be sought continually.

In 1987 Congress mandated that the DOD establish the HIV Vaccine Research

program because of the significant risk of active-duty personnel in acquiring the

HIV virus. Today, in all branches of the military, approximately 400 military personnel become newly infected each year, with as many as one-third of these infections acquired during overseas deployment. The DOD’s HIV Research program is a

world leader in the study of HIV genetic variation world-wide and in the develop-
766

ment and testing of new vaccines to be used against HIV strains anywhere in the

world.

Although the Administration has transferred this program to the National Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, the Society hopes this Subcommittee will oversee the transfer of this program. 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.

Request.—ASTMH urges a strong national commitment to the DOD infectious disease research programs to accelerate the discovery of the products that protect

American soldiers 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 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 2003.

Conclusion.—Our borders remain porous to infectious and tropical diseases, including most recently the West Nile Virus, which has been found right here in

Washington, DC. Other diseases still largely confined to the tropics, like malaria,

pose a major threat to American travelers and especially to our military. In all military operations in the last century where malaria is 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 in developing nations.

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 INOUYE. What you have provided us today is very important. You can be sure this matter will be seriously discussed, because it is right here with us right now.

Dr. HOFFMAN. Thank you

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Our next witness represents the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the president, Fran Visco.

STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BREAST CANCER

COALITION

Ms. VISCO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am here as

a 15-year breast cancer survivor, and on behalf of the National

Breast Cancer Coalition, 600 member organizations, and 70,000 individual members across the country to thank you for your ongoing

leadership and support of this program.

Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do the enormous success

of this program. It has been incredible. We have created a model

of new scientific research that has been replicated not just by other

biomedical research programs in the Department of the Army, but

worldwide. Other countries, across this country, programs have

come to learn about the success of this program and to replicate it.

This program is a collaboration of the military, the scientific community, and the lay public. We are not here on behalf of one institution. As you know, this program funds scientists around the

world, in just about every State of this country, and it funds inno-
767

vation. It funds issues and proposals that are relevant to breast

cancer, those that will make a significant impact. It fills gaps in

the traditional funding stream.

There is no bureaucracy associated with this. We are able to respond rapidly to changes in the science, changes in the scientific

community, changes in the need of women and their families,

women with this disease. It has just truly been an incredible partnership whose success has not been matched elsewhere in the scientific community.

One of the most important components of this program is the fact

that it is transparent. The American taxpaying public knows where

the money has gone. It can go into the Army program web site and

see what has been funded and, as you know, every other year there

is a meeting called the Era of Hope, where scientists who have

been funded by the program report on the progress of their research to the public, and that meeting will happen in September

in Orlando.

It has just been incredible. On behalf of the program, as a member of the integration panel, and as a woman who has been diagnosed with breast cancer, I urge the committee to continue this

program with level appropriation so that we can continue the innovative work we have done, continue to create new models.

I have a little anecdote I would like to tell you. Last year, Dr.

Rick Klausner, who was then Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), was talking to me about the success of the DOD program, and he was referencing a number of the new mechanisms we

have put in place for the scientific community to respond to, and

what he said to me was, they were just brilliant, and he wished

that he could do that at NCI, but he cannot, so there you have

proof that we are filling gaps. We are not replicating what is happening, and we are really making a significant difference for

women and their families in this country.

So again I thank you, and I urge you to continue the program.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO, J.D.

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. As my testimony will describe in detail, the investment in cancer

research made by you and this Committee is one of the contributions that has

brought us closer than ever to the verge of significant discoveries about cancer.

I am Fran Visco, a breast cancer survivor, a wife and mother, a lawyer, and President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. 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.

Last year, your subcommittee appropriated, and the Full House and Senate passed a DOD appropriations bill, which included $175 million for the BCRP—level

funding from the previous year. Due to the extraordinary circumstances facing us

last year, the Conference Committee cut the Defense Health Programs across the

board by 15 percent—bringing funding for the DOD Peer Reviewed BCRP to $150

million for fiscal year 2002. For fiscal year 2003, we are requesting that you support

a $175 million appropriation—bringing funding up to the original amount approved

by the Subcommittee last year—for the DOD to continue its work to help eradicate

breast cancer.

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 l99l 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
768

breast cancer activists at every table where decisions regarding breast cancer are

made.

OVERVIEW OF THE DOD BREAST CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM:

The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has been an incredible

model that others have replicated. Broadly defined, the innovative research performed through the program has the potential to benefit not just breast cancer, but

all cancers, as well as other diseases. Its success is literally changing the face of

biomedical research in many arenas.

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

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 addition, 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.
769

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. For instance, the Clinical Bridge Award mechanism was developed in fiscal

year 2000 to sponsor novel research focused around clinical trials.

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. In a DOD BCRP funded study,

researchers found that over-expression of HER2-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. 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.

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 HER2-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 HER2-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.
770

FEDERAL MONEY WELL SPENT

In addition to the fact that the DOD program provides desperately needed, excellent quality breast cancer research, it also makes extremely efficient use of its resources. In fact, over 90 percent of the funds have gone directly to research grants.

The overall structure of the system has streamlined the entire funding process,

while retaining traditional quality assurance mechanisms.

Since 1992, the BCRP has been responsible for managing $1.2 billion in

appropiations, 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 2,300 publications in scientific journals, 1,800 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

next phase of this vital research program, now all that it needs is the appropriate

funding.

The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program reported the progress

of the program to the American people during two public meetings called the ‘‘Era

of Hope’’ (one in 1997, and one in 2000). These have been the only times that 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. These meetings allowed scientists, consumers

and the American public to see the exceptional progress made in breast cancer research through the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program.

At the first ‘‘Era of Hope’’ meeting in 1997, many scientists expressed their enthusiasm for the program and the opportunity to work substantively with consumers

at every step of the research process. In fact, the scientists who have seen first hand

the benefits of the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program have

issued a strong statement that in their scientific judgment the program should continue:

‘‘. . . we urge that this program receive ongoing funding. This program

has been broadly defined such that the research performed will be of benefit

not just for breast cancer, but for all cancers and other diseases.’’

This enthusiasm was reiterated at the second Era of Hope in 2000. A third Era

of Hope meeting has been scheduled for this year.

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.
771

COMMITMENT OF THE NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION

The National Breast Cancer Coalition is highly committed to the DOD program

in every effort, 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 over a month ago,

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 INOUYE. This subcommittee is most pleased to have been

your partner for over 10 years, and though we are not scientists,

we have provided the funds to provide for scientists, and I think

the total sum to date has exceeded $1 billion.

Ms. VISCO. Yes, that is correct, more than $1 billion.

Senator INOUYE. Anyway, after having spent that amount, you do

not think we are going to give up, do you?

Ms. VISCO. No, and we will not, either. The partnership will continue.

Senator INOUYE. We will do our best.

Ms. VISCO. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, and our next witness is a member

of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, Mr. John Willey.

STATEMENT OF JOHN WILLEY, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL PROSTATE CANCER COALITION

Mr. WILLEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Willey. I am a veteran of Vietnam. I served on a guided missile cruiser off the coast

of North Vietnam, and also on river patrol boats along the Cambodian border. I am also a prostate cancer survivor, president of a

small investment company here in Washington, as well as on the

board of directors of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition.

I would like to thank you for the honor and opportunity to share

my remarks on behalf of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition

(NPCC). The NPCC is the largest grassroots advocacy organization

dedicated to ending the devastating impact of prostate cancer on

America’s families. Our coalition includes patient advocates, research organizations, health professionals, minority groups, vet-
772

erans groups, survivors and families who are touched by and concerned about this debilitating and deadly disease.

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to request that the committee restore the Department of Defense congressionally directed medical

research program to its fiscal year 2001 level of $100 million. I

would also ask you to maintain sufficient funding at the Center for

Prostate Disease Research at Walter Reed, where many advances

in fighting prostate cancer have been made.

Our Nation currently faces many challenges. While we fight a

war on terrorism on many fronts, we must also fight a war on cancer in order to protect Americans against one of the biggest health

challenges facing the Nation. About as many Americans will lose

their lives to cancer this year as have lost their lives on all of the

battlefields during the 20th century.

For the last decade, prostate cancer has been the most commonly

diagnosed nonskin cancer of either sex, and the leading cause of

male cancer death. As you know, about 85 percent of individuals

in active and Reserve military service are men, about 2 million. If

you apply the average risk to that group across the Nation, about

300,000 servicemen will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during

their lifetimes. Men who have served in Korea and Vietnam when

Agent Orange was used will have a proportionately higher risk of

prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer research is vital to the future health and wellbeing of all American servicemen and, indeed, all Americans. The

disease knows no bounds. It affects men of all races, ethnicities,

economic backgrounds. Former New York City Mayor Rudy

Giuliani, retired General H. Norman Schwartzkopf, baseball manager Joe Torre, Dusty Baker, even members of this committee have

faced prostate cancer, and I deeply appreciate their willingness to

raise the awareness about this disease by speaking out publicly

and openly about their fights with prostate cancer and supporting

efforts to escalate the war against prostate cancer.

Despite the prevalence of prostate cancer among men, there is

hope that a cure will be found. Many advancements in prostate

cancer research are being made by the CDMRP and at Walter

Reed, which has helped to determine the efficacy of the prostate

specific antigen blood test, the PSA blood test. This is important

work. The team at Walter Reed has contributed significantly to the

current evidence that suggests that early detection through PSA

reduces prostate cancer mortality.

NPCC believes that PSA, along with the digital rectal exam,

saves lives and we encourage all men over 50, younger if African

American or if they have a family history of prostate cancer, to resolve to be screened annually. As a prostate cancer survivor, I firmly believe that screening and medical research save lives.

Mr. Chairman, because of you and your colleagues’ attention to

this matter, research continues to move forward. However, because

of funding reductions in the prostate cancer research program we

are unable to fund any clinical trials during fiscal year 2002. If

funding continues to be less than $100 million, the most valuable

and crucial tool for getting research to patients will be nonexistent.

By ensuring that the CDMRP is fully funded, we are confident that

a cure for this disease can be reached.
773

As patient advocates, we strongly believe in making the most out

of our finite resources, and hold the CDMRP accountable on how

it manages taxpayers’ dollars. The NPCC encourages accountability

by making every dollar of your appropriation count towards lifesaving research. Accordingly, research dollars can go further if you

continue to reduce the 15 percent of the appropriation that is lost

to departmental set-asides and overhead costs, ensuring more

money for life-saving research.

From its inception, the DOD program has been the most efficient

federally directed prostate cancer program by building accountability mechanisms into its basic operations. Its research is dedicated to increase evidence-based medicine, and it subjects itself to

regular review efforts. The program is also dedicated to nonduplication.

Mr. Chairman, the leadership of the committee in the past has

made a real difference in the lives of men like me, and more than

a million men who are battling prostate cancer. I certainly do not

envy your position in the choices you have to make, but I would

urge you to fully fund the DOD appropriation for prostate cancer

research.

If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN WILLEY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John Willey, I am veteran of the Vietnam War, where I served on a Guided Missile Cruiser off the coast

of North Vietnam and on River Patrol Boats in the Mekong delta along the Cambodian border. I am also a prostate cancer survivor, President of Chartered Investments here in Washington, and serve on the board of the National Prostate Cancer

Coalition (NPCC). I would like to thank you for the honor and opportunity to share

these remarks on behalf of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition.

The NPCC is the largest grassroots advocacy organization dedicated to ending the

devastating impact prostate cancer has on America’s families. Our coalition includes

patient advocate groups, research organizations, health professionals, minority

groups, veterans groups, survivors and families who are touched by or concerned

about this debilitating and often deadly disease.

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to request that the committee restore the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) to

its fiscal year 2001 funding level of $100 million. I would also like to ask that you

maintain sufficient funding for the Uniformed Services of the Health Sciences

(USUHS) and Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) program, Center for

Prostate Disease Research (CPDR), at Walter Reed Army Hospital at which many

advances in fighting the disease have been made.

Our nation currently faces many challenges. As President George W. Bush recognized in his State of the Union address earlier this year, providing homeland safety

is built upon protection of the economic, educational, and health security of all

Americans. While we fight the war on terrorism on many fronts, we must also fight

the war on cancer in order to protect Americans against one of the biggest health

challenges facing the nation. About as many Americans will lose their life to cancer

this year as have lost their lives on the battlefields fighting for this country during

the twentieth century. For the last decade, prostate cancer has been the most commonly diagnosed nonskin cancer, of either sex, and the second leading cause of male

cancer death. It is no secret that prostate cancer is of serious concern to all American men, especially those who protect our country. Since 1996, the NPCC has been

dedicated to ending to impact of this most silent killer in the cancer community,

silent because it often has few, if any, visible symptoms and, until recently, was a

disease men were ashamed to discuss in public.

Mr. Chairman, we know your committee understands the seriousness of this issue

and shares the common concern that 189,000 men will be diagnosed with the disease, and 30,000 men will die from it this year. We both have a keen interest in

ending this epidemic, and, on behalf of those whose lives have been devastated by

this disease, we greatly appreciate your support for prostate cancer research.
774

While neither the NPCC nor I knows the full impact of prostate cancer among

our men in uniform, we can offer some estimates. We know that about 85 percent

of individuals in active or reserve military service are men, about two million individuals. If you apply the average risk to this group, more than 300,000 service men

will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetimes. Prostate cancer is of

serious concern to American veterans. As well, men who served in uniform in Korea

and Vietnam, when Agent Orange was used, may bear an increased risk of prostate

cancer. Prostate cancer research is vital to the future health and well being of all

American servicemen—and all Americans.

This disease knows no bounds; it affects men of all races, ethnicities and economic

backgrounds. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and actor Barry

Bostwick, who plays the mayor of New York on television; Denver Mayor Wellington

Webb; retired General H. Norman Schwarzkopf; baseball managers Joe Torre and

Dusty Baker and even members of this committee have all faced prostate cancer.

I deeply appreciate their willingness to raise awareness about this disease by speaking publicly and openly about their fights with prostate cancer and supporting efforts to escalate the war against prostate cancer.

I am saddened to report that the number of men at risk of prostate cancer will

likely continue to expand considerably. As baby boomers become seniors over the

next decade, cancer incidence and mortality rates are expected to increase by as

much as 25–30 percent. Without a significant investment in research, early detection and prevention, the impact on human lives will be devastating. Even more distressing is the unequal burden of this disease. The incidence of prostate cancer

among African American men is up to 60 percent higher, and their mortality rate

is double that of white males. The risk can be even greater in families with a history of the disease. One close relative with the disease doubles a man’s risk and

having three close relatives with prostate cancer virtually assures a diagnosis during his lifetime.

While these statistics are disturbing, there are signs of hope that we are entering

an exciting and promising time for prostate cancer research. Opportunities in drug

development and new treatments have expanded dramatically in the last few years.

The recent mapping of the human genome and therapies targeted to molecular

mechanisms in cancer cells almost certainly mean that we stand at the threshold

of even more promising, innovative and life-saving advancements. Many of these advancements are being forged at the CDMRP and at the CPDR, which has also

helped to determine the efficiency of the prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test.

Through its important work, the team at WRAMC has contributed significantly to

the current evidence that suggests that early detection through PSA reduces prostate cancer mortality. NPCC believes that the PSA along with the Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) saves lives, and we encourage all men over 50, younger if African

American or with a family history of prostate cancer, to resolve to be screened annually.

I was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1996. As a survivor, I firmly believe that

screening and medical research save lives. Mr. Chairman, because of you and your

colleagues’ attention to this matter, research continues to move forward. However,

because of funding reductions, the prostate cancer research program was forced to

discontinue all clinical trials in fiscal year 2002. If funding continues to be less than

$100 million, clinical trials, the most valuable and crucial tool in getting new treatment to patients, will be non-existent at the CDMRP. By ensuring that the CDMRP

is funded appropriately, I am confident that a cure for this disease is in reach.

Allow me to provide some background on the CDMRP and its importance. The

CDMRP prostate cancer research program is unique. Within the research resources

of the Federal Government, it is the only program to offer organ site-specific research grants. If a researcher has a good idea, a funded grant at the DOD program

is 100 percent dedicated to prostate cancer. The impact on solving the problem of

prostate cancer is not subjected to the ‘‘fuzzy math’’ of other departments’ calculations of organ site relevance.

As a businessman, I can also attest to the ‘‘good business sense’’ that the program

incorporates. As stated in the CDMRP’s Annual Report for 2001, the program 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.’’ The 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 and have lead to huge returns on investments. This system contrasts

other departments’ grant processes that tend to favor research in which ‘‘proof-ofprinciple’’ has already been established.
775

From its inception, the DOD program has been the most efficient Federally directed prostate cancer program by building accountability mechanisms into its basic

operation. Its research is dedicated to increase evidence-based medicine, and it subjects itself to regular reviews of this effort. The program is also dedicated non-duplication of effort, investigating in projects that are unique and are not receiving funding from other sources. In addition, the DOD program has engaged survivors of

prostate cancer into its accountability practices from the very outset of its development. I have several friends and colleagues that 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 sort of consumer input helps drive the program to be more ambitious and creative in seeking

out new areas of research, by keeping a focus on what is important to survivors,

advocates, and researchers alike.

In one exciting study that is being conducted through the PCRP, researchers at

John Hopkins University, headed by Dr. Samuel R. Denmeade, are able to produce

several chemicals, called prodrugs, that are activated to kill prostate cancer cells

specifically. This promising research could lead to more effective prostate specific

cancer drugs.

Unfortunately, the CDMRP is not always able to award grants to worthwhile

projects. From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2000, the CDMRP received approximately 1,900 proposals but was only able to fund roughly 440 of them, spending

$176.2 million in prostate cancer research compared to $890.8 million spent on

breast cancer research from fiscal year 1992-fiscal year 2000. Despite funding less

than 25 percent of these proposals, the program has produced exceptional results.

Over 370 research projects have been published in scientific journals and over 25

have received a patent or licensing.

Funding these programs, however, is not enough. As patient advocates, we strongly believe in making the most of finite resources and hold the CDMRP accountable

for how it manages taxpayer funds. The DOD program is a model Federal effort that

has set the standard for prostate cancer research. The program’s innovative research has earned respect and recognition, especially for its success in translating

basic research from the laboratory bench to the clinic, where new treatments do patients the most good.

The NPCC encourages accountability by making every dollar of your appropriation count toward life saving research. These research dollars can go further if you

continue to reduce the 15 percent of the appropriation that is lost to departmental

set asides and overhead costs.

Mr. Chairman, the leadership of this committee in the past has made a real difference in the lives of people like me—and the more than a million other men who

are battling prostate cancer on a daily basis. I certainly do not envy the position

you and your colleagues find yourselves in—there are some very hard choices to

make in the process of allocating what is needed to protect Americans.

As the committee considers its fiscal year 2003 allocations, we ask you to remember to continue the war on prostate cancer as part of your guarantee of health security for all Americans. The NPCC asks you for the funds needed to help end prostate

cancer as a health concern for America’s families. Let Americans die ‘‘with the disease’’ rather than ‘‘from it,’’ and provide the CDMRP prostate cancer research program with no less than $100 million for peer review research in fiscal year 2003.

General Norman Schwarzkopf, a wise military leader and himself a prostate cancer survivor, recently discussed cancer research in the context of military strategy:

‘‘There always comes a time when you must get on with the battle. You cannot sit

back and do nothing because you’ll never have perfect intelligence on the enemy.

Base your battle plan on the best information you have, and be ready to modify your

strategy and line of attack. The important thing is just get on with it.’’

Your support will allow advocates, clinicians and researchers to do just that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Senator INOUYE. During the last fiscal year, as you know, we had

no choice because of the sudden urgency in fighting terrorism and

in order to provide funds for that we were forced to make cuts. This

time the moving force on this is the senior Senator from Alaska,

Ted Stevens, and I am certain he is going to insist that we go as

soon as possible to what you are seeking.

Mr. WILLEY. Thank you very much. The number $100 million is

critical for clinical trials, and clinical trials is critical for progress.
776

Senator INOUYE. We will do our best.

Our next witness is the president of the American Chemical Society (ACS), Dr. Eli Pearce.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELI PEARCE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CHEMICAL

SOCIETY

Dr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, good morning, and thank you for the

opportunity to testify. My name is Eli Pearce, and I am the president of the American Chemical Society (ACS), a congressionally

chartered organization comprising 163,000 chemical scientists and

engineers. I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the

society to share our views on the importance of strengthening the

Nation’s investment in defense research.

First, allow me to thank the subcommittee for the substantial increases it provided for defense research in fiscal year 2002. These

funds are an important step toward reversing the declines in defense research programs experienced in the 1990’s.

This year, the American Chemical Society urges you to increase the science and technology, or S&T program to $11 billion, a

growth of 11 percent from last year’s level. This is not an arbitrary

target. It is consistent with a longstanding recommendation reiterated last fall by the Department’s own Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR. This report called for 3 percent of annual spending

to be devoted to S&T in order to achieve the Department’s objectives.

The QDR states, and the ACS agrees, that a strong, steady investment in S&T is important to maintaining our technological

edge over adversaries, and it is absolutely critical to the Department’s efforts to transform the Armed Services. Revolutionary capabilities arising from the integration of new scientific discoveries

and emerging technologies will require the best in scientific and engineering insight and skill.

For example, the Army imagines nanotechnology science leading

to uniforms that can detect threats from chemical or biological

weapons, render the wearer invisible to infrared detection, and

change colors as needed. Equipment based on nanoscience could reduce the weight a soldier has to carry from up to 145 pounds to

only 45 pounds.

While these technologies may be theoretically feasible, they will

never exist without the fundamental scientific advances that can

only come from a great deal of hard work, a few brilliant experiments, and the sustained robust investment in S&T. The long-term

payoffs of investment in S&T are usually the most apparent, but

research programs can also produce very rapid returns.

For example, following the September 11 tragedies, DOD established a counterterrorism technology task force to identify budding

technologies that could be transitioned from the S&T program into

the field in 30 days. The results of this effort included the

thermobaric bomb recently deployed in Afghanistan. According to

Dr. Ron Sega, Director of Defense, Research and Engineering, the

product went from chemistry to weapon in just 3 months.

Although concentrated effort and extra funding were essential for

rapid deployment in this case, the wealth of options available to

DOD was the result of consistent long-term investment in S&T.
777

This new technology now joins the long line of successful innovations nurtured by DOD S&T programs, including night vision and

global positioning satellites which have become central to military

capabilities.

I would also like to say a few words about DOD’s basic research

program. DOD basic research not only supports mission-critical

science, but also helps maintain the vitality of the many science

and engineering disciplines essential to the military. In fact, 60

percent of DOD basic, or 6.1 research, is conducted in universities,

engaging some of the Nation’s best and most innovative scientific

minds in the technical challenges posed by the Department’s national security mission. Currently, DOD must decline almost as

many highly rated grant proposals as it can fund. These are lost

opportunities.

DOD-supported academic research also trains the next generation of scientists and engineers. Investing in young people, encouraging them to develop careers in military science and technology is

just as important to our future national security as investing in

new weapons systems. This should be considered when you work

to establish adequate S&T funding levels.

Mr. Chairman, we fully recognize that crafting budgets with limited resources means difficult decisions. However, the ACS believes

that a strong investment today in the defense science and technology programs, especially the 6.1 basic research accounts, can

serve to protect the lives of soldiers and maintain our military’s

preeminent position both in the near and more distant future. In

an environment where technology changes rapidly and future

threats are uncertain, it is also an essential part of adequately

managing risks to our national security. To meet the challenges of

today and the transformation challenges of tomorrow, we simply

have no choice but to invest in cutting edge science.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this important

matter. The American Chemical Society looks forward to assisting

you in any way possible, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELI PEARCE

Chairman Inouye and Members of the Subcommittee. Good morning and thank

you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Eli Pearce and I am the President

of the American Chemical Society, a congressionally chartered organization that

represents 163,000 chemical scientists and engineers.

I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Society to share our

views on the importance of strengthening the nation’s investment in defense research. First, allow me to thank the subcommittee for the substantial increases it

provided for defense research in fiscal year 2002. These funds are an important step

towards reversing the declines the defense research programs experienced in the

1990’s.

This year, the ACS urges you to increase the Science and Technology (or S&T)

program again, to $11 billion, a growth of eleven percent from last year’s level. This

is not an arbitrary target. It is consistent with a long-standing recommendation—

reiterated last fall—by the Department’s own Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR.

This report called for three percent of annual spending to be devoted to S&T in

order to achieve the Department’s objectives.

The QDR states, and the ACS agrees, that a strong, steady investment in S&T

is important to maintaining our technological edge over adversaries, and it is absolutely critical to the Department efforts to ‘‘transform’’ the armed services. Revolutionary capabilities arising from the integration of new scientific discoveries and
778

emerging technologies will require the best in scientific and engineering insight and

skill.

For example, the Army imagines nanotechnology science leading to uniforms that

can detect threats from chemical or biological weapons, render the wearer invisible

to infrared detection, and change colors as needed. Equipment based on nanoscience

could reduce the weight a soldier has to carry from up to 145 pounds to only 45

pounds. While these technologies may be theoretically feasible, they will never exist

without the fundamental scientific advances that can only come from a great deal

of hard work, a few brilliant experiments, and a sustained, robust investment in

S&T.

The long-term pay-offs of investment in S&T are usually the most apparent, but

research programs can also produce very rapid returns. For example, following the

September 11th tragedies, DOD established a Counter Terrorism Technology task

force to identify budding technologies that could be transitioned from the S&T program into the field in thirty days. The results of this effort included the thermobaric

bomb, recently deployed in Afghanistan. According to Dr. Ron Sega, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the project went from ‘‘chemistry-to-weapon’’ in

just three months. Although concentrated effort and extra funding were essential for

rapid deployment in this case, the wealth of options available to DOD was the result

of consistent, long-term investment in S&T. This new technology now joins the long

line of successful innovations nurtured by DOD S&T programs—including night vision and global positioning satellites, which have become central to military capabilities.

I would also like to say a few words about DOD’s basic research program. Basic

research supported by the Department not only supports mission-critical science,

but also helps maintain the vitality of the many science and engineering disciplines

essential to the military. In fact, 60-percent of DOD basic, or ‘‘6.1’’, research, is conducted in our nation’s universities, engaging some of the nation’s best and most innovative scientific minds in the technical challenges posed by the Department’s national security mission. Currently, DOD must decline almost as many highly rated

grant proposals as it can fund. These are lost opportunities. DOD-supported academic research also trains the next generation of scientists and engineers. Investing

in young people, encouraging them to develop careers in military science and technology, is just as important to our future national security as investing in new

weapons systems. This should be considered when you work to establish adequate

S&T funding levels.

Mr. Chairman, we fully recognize that crafting budgets with limited resources

means difficult decisions. However, the ACS believes that a strong investment today

in the defense science and technology program, especially the 6.1 basic research accounts, can serve to protect the lives of soldiers and maintain our military’s preeminent position both in the near and more distant future. In an environment

where technology changes rapidly and future threats are uncertain, it is also an essential part of adequately managing risks to our national security. To meet the challenges of today and the transformation challenges of tomorrow, we simply have no

choice but to invest in cutting-edge science.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. The American Chemical

Society looks forward to assisting you in any way possible.

Senator INOUYE. As you are aware, the administration is not

supportive of the full amount. Notwithstanding that, I can assure

you we will do our best to increase at least partially.

Dr. PEARCE. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, sir.

Representing the Coalition for National Security Research, Dr.

Allan Schell.

STATEMENT OF DR. ALLAN SCHELL, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION

FOR NATIONAL SECURITY RESEARCH

Dr. SCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am with the Institute

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers United States of America

(USA), and the former chief scientist of the Air Force Laboratory

System, but I am here to testify on behalf of the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR), which is a broadly based group

of scientific, engineering, mathematical, and behavioral societies,
779

universities, and industrial associations committed to a stronger

defense science and technology base.

We urge the subcommittee to approve robust and stable funding

for the Department of Defense basic research, applied research,

and advanced technology development elements in fiscal year 2003.

Specifically, CNSR joins many other organizations in urging the

subcommittee to increase the S&T program to $11 billion in fiscal

year 2003, which is 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 other officials. CNSR strongly supports DOD’s S&T programs across all defense organizations, particularly those supporting the Nation’s universities.

We also want to express deep appreciation for the committee’s

past support and for the fiscal year 2002 funding approved for

these programs. With consideration of the fiscal year 2003 budget,

it is important to recognize the vital role DOD S&T plays in ensuring the Nation’s future national security, and it also contributes, as

has been mentioned by other speakers, to the education of tomorrow’s scientists, engineers, and policymakers. It provides a critical

investment in several areas and, in fact, many of the hard sciences,

the DOD is funding the majority of the research programs.

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. The

challenges of a new era in homeland defense and asymmetric

threats, infrastructure protection, among others, place an even

greater emphasis on the need for forward-looking science and technology. When there are these big shifts in our concerns, that is the

time when we need to strengthen the basic sciences that we do

across the Nation, and the technology that transitions it, and the

support of this subcommittee is critical to ensuring that we maintain a viable S&T base.

I would like to take a moment to highlight one specific example

from a long list of technologies resulting from your investment in

defense science and technology. The integrated high performance

turbine engine technology program is a joint Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and

private industry R&D effort to develop more efficient and reliable

engines for military aircraft by increasing engine thrust-to-weight

ratio and, in fact, on the boards now is an improvement of 40 percent over the baseline engines of the thrust-to-weight ratio. This

leads to potential savings estimated at over $16 billion per year in

operating cost. The impact of these engine improvements is enormous, and it spills over into the civilian sector as well in terms of

the amount of fuel saved to deliver the same amount of cargo or

passengers.

Despite substantial appreciation for the importance of DOD S&T

programs on Capitol Hill, total research within DOD has declined

in constant dollars. This decline is a real threat to America’s ability

to maintain its competitive edge, and the advantage for defense of

our Nation. We strongly recommend that a small portion of proposed increases be directed for national security, be directed to the
780

core S&T research accounts to achieve the $11 billion funding target.

In closing, I want to thank the subcommittee for its continued

support of defense S&T, and for the opportunity to appear here

today. The Coalition for National Security Research looks forward

to assisting you in any way possible.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ALLAN SCHELL

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr.

Allan Schell. I am with the Research and Development Policy Committee at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA and a former chief scientist of

the Air Force laboratory system with over 30 years of experience in DOD research

programs. 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.

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 2003 (fiscal year 2003). Specifically, CNSR joins many

other organizations in urging the subcommittee to increase the S&T program to $11

billion in fiscal year 2003, 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. CNSR strongly supports DOD’s S&T programs across all defense organizations, especially those defense research programs providing support to our nation’s

universities. 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. I also want to express deep appreciation for the

Committee’s past support and for the fiscal year 2002 funding approved for these

programs.

With consideration of the fiscal year 2003 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.

The challenges of a new era—in homeland defense, asymmetric threats, infrastructure protection, and disruptive technologies, among others—place an even more

important emphasis on enhanced battlefield awareness and increased warfighter

protection.

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.

Current 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 will 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.

Now I would like to take a moment to highlight one specific example from a long

list of technologies resulting from your investment in defense S&T. The Integrated

High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program is a joint Department of Defense, NASA and private industry R&D effort designed to develop more

efficient and reliable engines for military aircraft by increasing engine thrust-toweight ratio on military aircraft by 30 percent. DOD is citing potential savings of

as much as $16 billion per year in operating costs as a result. In addition, the spill-
781

over benefits are already evident, as the technology is currently being used by commercial airlines allowing for less expensive and more reliable civil air travel.

Some additional examples of the results of DOD S&T investments which have

both national security and domestic applications follow.

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 is presently being 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

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.
782

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.

Despite substantial appreciation for the importance of DOD S&T programs on

Capitol Hill, total research within DOD has declined in constant dollars during the

last decade. This decline poses a real threat to America’s ability to maintain its competitive edge and to pursue a capability-based—rather than a threat-based—defense

as detailed by departmental leadership. We strongly recommend that a small portion of proposed increases for national security activities be directed to the core S&T

research accounts to achieve the $11 billion funding target, an increase which allows

for both preparation and protection of the men and women in our future military.

In closing, I want to again thank the subcommittee for its continued support of

Defense S&T and for the opportunity to appear here today on behalf of CNSR and

its members. The Coalition for National Security Research looks forward to assisting

you in any way possible.

ATTACHMENT: THE CASE FOR DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

A listing of recent report excerpts and statements by officials on the role basic

research programs play in supporting national security missions and the appropriate level of funding for such activities.

In an increasingly demanding and unpredictable security environment, U.S. military forces must be ready to meet America’s security obligations both at home and

abroad. Future military capabilities depend on a higher level of investment in

science and technology (S&T) funding. Further supporting this conclusion, the following is a list of findings from recent reports on S&T research:

‘‘A robust research and development effort is imperative to achieving the Department’s transformation objectives. DOD must maintain a strong science and technology (S&T) program that supports evolving military needs and ensures technological superiority over potential adversaries.’’——Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 2001 http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr2001.pdf (page 41)

‘‘To provide the basic research for these capabilities, the QDR calls for a significant increase in funding for S&T programs to a level of three percent of DOD spending per year.’’——Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 2001 http://

www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr2001.pdf (page 41)

‘‘DOD S&T is vital to future of U.S. military balance of power. Over the past century, technical developments funded by the military have had an enormous impact

on military capabilities and have been decisive in the outcome of conflicts.’’——Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Science and Technology

Base for the 21st Century, 1998 http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/sandt21.pdf (page 21)

‘‘Tomorrow’s military capabilities depend, in part, on today’s investment in enabling technologies that can be integrated into new or existing systems and employed

using new operational concepts.’’——2002 Annual Defense Report to Congress,

DRAFT Report

‘‘Our Armed Forces depend on the Department’s S&T program to deliver unique

military technologies for the combat advantage that can not be provided by relying

on commercially available technology.’’——2002 Annual Defense Report to Congress,

DRAFT Report

‘‘The President should propose, and Congress should support, doubling the U.S.

government’s investment in science and technology research and development by

2010.’’——Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, Hart-Rudman

Commission, 2001 http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf (page 32)

‘‘A strong Science and Technology (S&T) program provides options for responding

to a full range of military challenges. Technological superiority has been a characteristic of our Armed Forces and one of the foundations of our national military

strategy. It is through the Department’s investment in S&T that we develop the

technology foundation necessary for modernization efforts, discover new technologies

that produce revolutionary capabilities, and provide a hedge against future uncertainty.’’——2002 Annual Defense Report to Congress, DRAFT Report

‘‘In this Commission’s view, the inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century
783

than any potential conventional war that we might imagine. American national

leadership must understand these deficiencies as threats to national security.’’——

Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, Hart-Rudman Commission,

2001 http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf (page ix)

‘‘The Commission supports the DOD goal to increase science and technology investment to 3 percent of the overall budget, and encourages continued progress toward this goal in the fiscal year 2003 budget.’’——Commission on the Future of the

U.S. Aerospace Industry, Second Interim Report, 2002 http://

www.aerospacecommission.gov—Coalition for National Security Research—

www.cnsr.org (202) 624–1426 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY QUOTES—2002—

Coalition for National Security Research—www.cnsr.org (202) 624–1426

‘‘Science and Technology form the base for the second generation of transformation.’’——Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L) Pete Aldridge, AIAA Conference,

February 19, 2002.

‘‘Our S&T investment is projected to increase over the FYDP, to approach 3 percent of the total DOD budget, as we invest more heavily in transformational technologies and transition those technologies out of S&T and into systems at a faster

pace.’’——Pete Aldridge—Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and

Technology, March 6, 2002, House Armed Services Committee Military R&D and

Procurement Subcommittees Hearing

‘‘The prerequisite to achieving the transformation force outlined in the QDR is our

commitment to a strong Science and Technology (S&T) program. S&T is the critical

link between vision and operational capabilities.’’——Gen. John Jumper, Chief of

Staff, United States Air Force, March 7, 2002, Senate Armed Services Committee

Hearing on Defense Authorization.

‘‘In the war against terrorism, S&T is the enabler which links innovative research

to warfighter and homeland defense requirements.’’——Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, Chief

of Naval Research, Testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee Emerging

Threats and Capabilities Defense Authorization Hearing, April 10, 2002.

‘‘Many of the capabilities and systems that are in the field today are the result

of a conscious decision, years ago, to invest in Science and Technology (S&T) programs. The future security and safety of our nation depends in part on a strong research and development foundation.’’——Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Ron Sega, April 10, 2002 Senate Armed Services Committee Emerging

Threats and Capabilities Defense Authorization Hearing

‘‘The technological advantage we enjoy today is a legacy of decades of investment

in S&T. Likewise, our future warfighting capabilities will be substantially determined by today’s investment in S&T.’’——Air Force Written Testimony, April 10,

2002 SASC ETC Defense Authorization Hearing.

‘‘Homeland security efforts will depend on technologies such as biometrics, nextgeneration detection devices designed to find traces of chemical or biological agents,

dashboard electronics to ensure efficient border crossing for trucks and other vehicles, simulation software, and advanced encryption-standard codes.’’——Office of

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, at the Electronic Industries Alliance’s annual conference, 2001.

‘‘The key to maintaining U.S. technological preeminence is to encourage open and

collaborative basic research. The linkage between the free exchange of ideas and scientific innovation, prosperity, and U.S. national security is undeniable. This linkage

is especially true as our armed forces depend less and less on internal research and

development for the innovations they need to maintain the military superiority of

the United States.’’——National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, November 1,

2001 letter to Center for Strategic and International Studies Co-Chairman, Dr. Harold Brown.

‘‘S&T programs constitute the basis for the technological superiority upon which

our armed forces have established our nation as the world’s foremost military

power.... Our present military strength is the result of substantial S&T investments made a generation ago. . . . In a similar vein, our nation’s prospective security and military dominance ultimately depends on its ability to perpetuate technological advantages over the next few decades. S&T programs will enable us to maintain this advantage. . . . It is imperative, therefore, that we act to fund S&T at

3 percent of the total defense budget.’’——April, 2002 letter from Senate Armed

Services Committee members: Joseph Lieberman, Rick Santorum, Susan Collins,

Edward Kennedy, Wayne Allard, Bob Smith, Jean Carnahan, Ben Nelson, Pat Roberts, Jeff Bingaman, Jeff Sessions, Ben Dayton, Bill Nelson, and James Inhofe to

Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Ranking Member John Warner.

‘‘The committee commends the Department of Defense commitment to a goal of

3 percent of the budget request for the defense science and technology program and

progress toward this goal. The committee views defense science and technology in-
784

vestments as critical to maintaining U.S. military technological superiority in the

face of growing and changing threats to national security interest around the world,

and believes that both the defense agencies and the military departments have vital

roles in DOD’s science and technology investment strategy.’’——House Armed Services Committee, report language in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Committee report, May 3, 2002.

‘‘The Committee feels that a robust defense science and technology program is a

requirement in order to develop the new systems and operational concepts that will

enable transformation.... The Committee fully supports the Department’s stated

goal of investing 3 percent of the defense budget into science and technology programs.... The Committee urges the Department and each of the military services

to achieve the 3 percent goal as soon as practicable.’’——Senate Armed Services

Committee report language in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Committee report, May 15, 2002.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. As I indicated to Dr.

Pearce, notwithstanding the opposition of the administration, we

will do our best to increase the funding to whatever extent the

committee can handle.

Dr. SCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the director of legislation of

the Naval Reserve Association, Captain Marshall Hanson.

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON (RET.), DIRECTOR OF

LEGISLATION, NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION

Captain HANSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of nearly

88,000 naval reservists, the Naval Reserve Association would like

to express our deepest appreciation to your subcommittee for your

efforts over the last couple of fiscal years. In the next couple of

months, a number of outcomes and events will be converging. Your

allocation of appropriations and sage leadership will help set the

backdrop.

The Secretary of Defense’s Office is conducting a series of studies

emphasizing transformation of the duty status and the roles of the

Guard and Reserve. Additionally, the services are in the midst of

budget planning for fiscal year 2004. Despite the projected increases in the defense budget being considered by Congress, force

planners are tailoring the future more with pruning shears than by

adding additional bolts of cloth. The cause of this may be the

miliary’s approach to do more with less. The reality is, the wear

and tear is beginning to catch up on our Armed Forces equipment

and the expensive needed procurements are still being pushed into

the future to avoid visible cost.

The war is continuing to be waged and is expanding globally.

Collateral effects have affected the peoples of Israel, Palestine,

Pakistan, and India. Where our military will be in the coming

month will be tolled by events yet to come.

The Naval Reserve Association has concerns for the future structure of the Naval Reserve force because of the possibility that portions of the Naval Reserve may become the bill-payer. We suspect

that there are a number of people in planning who have their sites

on the Naval Reserve hardware units. Decommissioning of a Reserve P–3 squadron, Reserve CB battalions, fleet hospital units, or

naval coastal defense units would be a way to balance the Navy’s

budget. Personnel accounts could also be tempting. Comments have

already been heard as to why so large a Reserve is needed, when

only a small portion of it was mobilized.
785

What we request that your committee includes is language in the

appropriations bill to direct DOD to cease further reductions in

both active and Reserve component end strengths until the threats

to our Nation are properly determined and a national defense

strategy is clearly defined. The force planners for the active component have again failed to satisfy congressional wishes and include

complete Reserve component needs in their Program Objective

Memorandum (POM) budget.

Reserve equipment is being programmed into the outyears, if included at all. With the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) that

does not come close to meeting the current needs of equipment,

ships, and aircraft, the naval requirements for the most part fall

out of and off the table. We cannot count on the once-robust National Guard and Reserve equipment allowance to level the playing

field, although last year’s increased and unfunded appropriations

helped, it just scratched the surface.

The Naval Reserve, like other Reserve services, is dependent

upon Congress to provide for the reservist equipment needs. Over

the last 50 years there has been a historical cycle in support of the

Guard and Reserve. When money is tight, sentiments run against

the Guard and Reserve components. DOD studies become plentiful,

reviewing roles and missions, manpower utilization, and how the

total force policy should be. The initial result seems always to suggest cutting back on the Guard and Reserve, yet historically, as the

next crisis arises, it is always the Guard and Reserve that is called

upon to help combat the new threat.

With 60 percent of the Navy’s budget in manpower accounts, it

invests only 3 percent of its total obligation authority to the resources and people of its Reserve. For this investment, it has a

ready force of men and women with skills, talents, and motivation

that are unique. The Naval Reserve, which represents 20 percent

of the Navy, is a needed insurance policy at a very small price.

When reservists serve side-by-side with active duty, you cannot

differentiate them, yet inequities still exist with assigned duty, allowances, benefits, and retirement. Your efforts in past fiscal years

have helped bring remedy, but our common goal should be to continue toward parity both on the battlefield and at home.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I stand ready for any

questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARES STATEMENT OF MARSHALL HANSON

INTRODUCTION

On behalf of nearly than 88,000 active Naval Reservists, we would like to express

our deepest appreciation to each of you for your efforts over the last couple of fiscal

years.

In the next couple of months a number of outcomes and events will be converging.

Your allocation of appropriations and sage leadership will help set the backdrop.

Due this month to the Secretary of Defense is a review by the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (ASD/RA) to define Reserve Roles and

Missions. A further study has been contracted by ASD/RA on defining Reserve Component Duty Statues. The emphasis of each of these studies is transformation with

a goal to suggest new designs.

Additionally, the Services are in the midst of budget planning for fiscal year 2004.

Despite the projected increases in the Defense Budget being considered by Congress,
786

force planners are tailoring the future more with pruning shears, than by using additional bolts of cloth.

The cause for this may be the military’s approach to ‘‘do more with less.’’ Reality

is that wear and tear is beginning to catch-up with our armed forces equipment,

and the expense of needed procurements is still being pushed further into the future

to avoid visible costs.

The War is continuing to be waged and is expanding globally. Collateral effects

have affected the peoples of Israel, Palestine, Pakistan and India. Where our military will be in the coming months will be tolled by events yet to come.

The Naval Reserve Association has concerns for the future structure of the Naval

Reserve Force because of the possibility that portions of the Naval Reserve may become the bill payer. We suspect that there are a number of people in planning who

have their sights on Naval Reserve hardware units. Redistribution of a Reserve P–

3 Patrol Wings, Reserve Seabee Battalions, Fleet Hospital units, or Naval Coastal

Warfare/Littoral Surveillance units would be a way to balance the Navy budget.

Personnel accounts could be too tempting also. Comments have been already been

heard, as to why so large a Reserve is needed when only a small portion of it was

mobilized.

We request that your committee include language in the appropriations bill to direct DOD to cease further reductions in both Active and Reserve component end

strengths until the threats to our Nation are properly determined and a National

Defense Strategy is clearly defined.

The force planners for the active component have again failed to satisfy Congressional wishes and include Reserve component needs in their POM (Programs Objectives Memorandum) Budget. Reserve equipment is being slid into the out years, if

included at all. With a FYDP that doesn’t come close to meeting the procurement

needs of equipment, ships and aircraft, the Naval Reserve requirements for the

most part fall off (introduction continued) the table. We cannot count on the once

robust National Guard and Reserve Equipment (NGRE) Allowance to level the playing field. Although last year’s increase to $10 million appropriation helped, it just

scratched the surface.

The Naval Reserve, like other Reserve Services, is dependent upon Congress to

provide for the Reservist’s equipment needs. An equipment list is included with this

report. Yet, if the Naval Reserve could spend added dollars on just one piece of

equipment not funded in the Administrations budget, that next money would go to

the C–40A logistics airlift. The Congress has provided the Naval Reserve with five

of its six C–40A aircraft. The need is for twenty-one more aircraft.

Over the last fifty years, there is a historical cycle for the support of the Guard

and Reserve. When money is tight, sentiments run against the Reserve Components. DOD studies become plentiful reviewing roles and missions, manpower utilization, and total force policy. The initial result seems always to suggest cutting back

the Guard and Reserve. Yet, historically, as a crisis arises soon after these cuts are

planned, it is the Guard and Reserve that are called upon to help combat the threat.

The Naval Reserve invests about three percent of it’s total obligation authority

into the resources and people of its Reserve, and for this investment it has a ready

Force of men and women with skills, talents and motivation that are unique, and

that can be surged as needed. The Reserve is a needed insurance policy, at a small

price.

When Reservists serve side by side with Active Duty, you can not differentiate

them. Yet inequities still exist with assigned duties, allowances, benefits, and eventually retirement. Obsolete and aged equipment cause additional divergence. Your

efforts in past fiscal years have helped bring remedy, but our common goal should

be to continue toward parity both on the battlefield and at home.

Thank you, for the opportunity to testify.

ANTICIPATED FISCAL YEAR 2003 UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS READINESS SHORTFALLS

RPN

Non-Prior Service (NPS) Bonus ($2.5M).—This required funding would allow the

Naval Reserve to implement the enlisted NPS bonus program, which is authorized

by 37 USC 308c. As the Naval Reserve increasingly relies on the accession of NPS

personnel, it is taking steps to increase recruiting goals that may not be achievable

without these additional incentives. This is essential in order for Naval Reserve to

be competitive among the services.

Individual Protective Equipment.—Procurement is needed to train and outfit reservists who will be going to a theater location where a threat of biological or chemical agents could be possible. Currently, while active duty members have equipment

reservists are sent w/o protection. (e.g. Korea)
787

Annual Training (AT).—Continued funding to permit the (14) days A.T. as outlined by law, and (17) days for OUTCONUS, plus (2) days travel for over 84,000

SELRES.

Inactive Duty Training Travel (IDTT).—This is the primary vehicle which Naval

Reservists travel to their gaining commands to perform high priority work meeting

peacetime contributory support requirements and perform training required by

Navy training plans. IDTT is used to provide airlift support missions, operational

missions, aviation proficiency skills training, refresher skills training, exercises, and

training at mobilization sites. Funding should support a minimum of two visits per

year.

Active Duty for Training (ADT-FLEET SUPPORT).—Combat Commander requirements are greater than available funding. This will allow for greater direct and indirect support for Combat Commanders’ requirements. It will allow Commander

Naval Reserve to increase the amount of contributory support that can be provided

to gaining commands for command exercises, mission support, conferences, exercise

preparations, and unit conversion training. These funds also provides annual training for 4,500 members who ‘‘drill for points only’’ in voluntary training units (VTUs).

RECRUITING SHORTFALLS

Reserve Recruiter Support & Advertising.—Aggressive national recruiting advertising campaigns needs to be maintained. With higher retention rates in the active

fleet, the Naval Reserve must rely on non-prior service recruits. Advertising campaign includes media and market research, and placement of advertising in television, print, radio, direct mail, and public service announcements.

OMNR

Reserve Ship Depot Maintenance.—Includes deferred maintenance to meet guidance levels.

Reserve Base Support, Real Property Maintenance.—Funds are needed to arrest

growth of critical backlog and hold such backlog at fiscal year 2001 level. Most of

the buildings were built back in the 1940s/50s. Additional funds are need for collateral equipment furnishings and vehicles to complete MILCON projects.

RPM funding is need for demolition in RESFOR projects.

CONTINUING NAVAL RESERVE MODERNIZATION REQUIREMENTS

The C–40 aircraft procurement is needed to replace the aging C–9 fleet. The

Naval Reserve is the logistic airlift for the Navy. The Department of the Navy has

a fleet of (28) C–9’s needing replacement. The first twelve aircraft were purchased

used from commercial airlines, and are older than the Air Alaska airframe that

crashed off of California. Others are from the same manufacturing lot as the ill

fated Air Alaska aircraft. While inspected, air safety is still an ongoing concern.

With six C–40’s already authorized the Navy tried to sell its first C–9 aircraft,

and was only offered $200,000. Obviously, the commercial airline industry views

these airframes as fully depreciated. Besides age, these aircraft are handicapped by

noise and exhaust pollution. The sooner we replace C–9’s, the less we will have to

spend on C–9 upgrades.

The other argument for accelerated C–40 procurement is business-oriented. The

aircraft is a cargo combo Boeing 737–700 with 800 style wings, providing an aircraft

with more effective lift, and longer range. To buy single planes every other year

maximizes the price. Further, the production line, with this model, will be run for

only for eight to ten years, before Boeing changes model design. Extending the purchases of 737 cargo-combo model over a longer time horizon will mean mixing models. This will complicate ground support and aircrew training, and will also increase

costs. With an extended procurement timeline the Navy may be forced to seek 737–

700s from the used market, with a high cost of conversion to cargo-combo, and with

a reduced airlift and range. The conversion cost might exceed the original purchase

price.

An optimum solution would be purchasing three aircraft each year, over the next

seven years. In the long run it will save money. With a larger order, Boeing will

discount the price, and we would also have model consistency.

Money is also being requested for the CNRF Information Technology Infrastructure (IT–21). Different from the Navy/Marine Internet, this money would be earmarked to get the Naval Reserve out of the mire of DOS based systems, upgrading

its legacy software. The Naval Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) was

intended to eliminate the USNR legacy pay system. Problems arose because this

conversion was attempted within the existing budget, with costs kept on the margin.

The overall cost has ballooned with selected reservists missing pay. The Naval Re-
788

serve learned a hard lesson that upgrades in hardware, memory, software, data

flow, and staffing are needed. This was an exercise that Corporate America has already learned, you can’t upgrade computers on the cheap.

Funding is needed for the Naval Coastal and Expeditionary Warfare Forces, Seabees and MIUW’s to provide CESE, communications, and field support equipment.

Existing equipment is aged, and worn, often being to commercial specifications,

rather than military. Active units for deployment overseas have borrowed some of

this equipment. Naval Coastal Warfare is growing in importance with the Navy’s

focus on littoral operations. Home Defense multiplies the importance. Newer equipment needs to be procured in an ongoing schedule to be able to upgrade unit readiness.

Littoral Surveillance System, one is required per year for regional/port surveillance. This equipment has the capability to assist in waterside security of afloat

units.

Also needed are P–3 Upgrades. The Naval Reserve P–3 aircraft and avionics are

not as updated as those being flown by active duty are. A commonality with active

P–3C UDIII squadrons must be achieved to help maintain the Total Force. Missions

for the Lockheed P–3 Orion are being expanded to include counter drug counter

drug capabilities, and ESM.

Upgrading the Naval Reserve F/A–18A with precision guided munitions capability

is a requirement. With greater emphasis being placed on combat support and precision combat air strikes, there is a requirement to upgrade USNR capabilities to

match the active squadrons.

The Naval Reserve needs to modernize the F–5. The F–5 role is as the Navy’s

adversarial aircraft. The Naval Reserve operates the only dedicated adversarial

squadron with the mission of preparing the Navy’s tactical pilots prior to deployment. The F–5 is twenty-five years old. Without upgrades in avionics, navigation,

and radar detection, a keen edged adversarial performance can not be maintained

and our deploying pilots would be less well trained.

The Naval Reserve has acquired C–130’s over numerous budget years. Cockpit

configurations differ between airframes. Funding is needed to standardize cockpit

configuration of all NR/MCR C–130 T aircraft.

Upgrades for USNR helicopter forces will provide funding for infrared FLIR kits.

Projected costs—Unfunded equipment and training requirements

[In millions of dollars]

Amount

PROCUREMENT:

Airlift, C–40A Transport Aircraft (3), replacing aging C–9 aircraft ........... 189.0

Coastal/Expeditionary Warfare, upgrade equipment and small boats ....... 76.0

Seabees: Naval Construction Forces ............................................................. 27.0

C–130T Avionics Modernization, standardize cockpit configs of all

N&MCR aircraft .......................................................................................... 3.5

FLIR Kits (AAS–51Q) for SH–60B, procure forward looking infrared ....... 7.0

F/A–18A Mod, ECP 560, upgrade USNR precision munitions capability

(6) aircraft .................................................................................................... 36.6

F–5 Radar Upgrade, replace existing radars ............................................... 16.0

Individual Protective Equipment, to train units in gear required for

CINC tasking ............................................................................................... 7.0

IT CNRF Infrastructure, upgrade network infrastructure not included in

NMCI ............................................................................................................ 17.0

Littoral Surveillance System, procuring (1) system for year for regional/

port surveillance .......................................................................................... 30.0

Operational Flight Trainer upgrade/mod, to match current P–3C configuration ..................................................................................................... 12.0

P–3C/BMUP Kits, to achieve commonality with Active P–3C UD III

squadrons ..................................................................................................... 27.0

P–3C CDU upgrades, to increase counter drug capabilities ....................... 3.0

P–3C/AIP Kits, to improve ASW capability/target sensing, enhance

weapons suite .............................................................................................. 27.0

PERSONNEL FUNDING:

Active Duty for Training, Fleet support funding to meet Combat Commander rqmnts ............................................................................................ 10.0

Active Duty for Training, Schools ................................................................. 4.0

Funeral Honors Support ................................................................................ 2.0

Incentive Pay for Reserve Personnel (Medical Programs and others) ....... 4.0
789

Amount

Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus, NPS bonus program to compete

with other RC’s ............................................................................................ 2.5

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE:

Base Operation Support, equipment furnishings and vehicles to complete

MILCON. ..................................................................................................... 4.0

IT Legacy, Reserve sustainment, $$’s required to operate legacy IT systems a minimum ......................................................................................... 6.0

IT Reserve Modernization, upgrading existing legacy systems to perform

new functions ............................................................................................... 8.75

NMCI, Naval Marine Corps Intranet, expanding system to SELRES and

TAR personnel ............................................................................................. 33.0

Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (including demolition) .............................................................................................................. 20.5

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION:

BEQ Naval Air Station Atlanta ..................................................................... 6.75

Naval Reserve Center Montana w/land ........................................................ 6.0

Naval Air Station JRB New Orleans:

Engine Maintenance Shop Addition ...................................................... 1.5

Hazardous Material Storage ................................................................... 2.7

Alphabetical listing, not in order of priority.

Senator INOUYE. We will remember your profound words, when

reservists serve side-by-side with active duty you cannot differentiate them. Thank you very much.

Captain HANSON. Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the deputy director of the

national security foreign relations division of the American Legion,

Dennis ‘‘Mike’’ Duggan.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS ‘‘MIKE’’ DUGGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY—FOREIGN RELATIONS DIVISION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. DUGGAN. Good afternoon, Senator, and the American Legion,

the Nation’s largest organization of wartime veterans, welcomes

and appreciates this opportunity to present its views on the fiscal

year 2003 defense appropriations budget. We wish to continually

thank you and your subcommittee for all you have done on behalf

of the Armed Forces of the United States.

This budget is the first defense budget since 9/11. It contains

some $48 billion in defense spending than the current 2002 defense

budget. It also represents 3.3 percent of our gross domestic product,

up from 2.9 percent of gross domestic product in the fiscal year

2002 budget. Following some 5 consecutive years of small budget

increases and some 13 years of underbudgeting, a decade of overuse of a small military will necessitate, in our view, sustained investments, but this is a good budget, we believe, and it is certainly

a very good first step in that direction.

We believe that if we are to win the war on terrorism and defend

the homeland in this decade and beyond, we must provide for the

Department of Defense’s greatest assets, namely, our men and

women in uniform. They are doing us proud in Afghanistan and

around the world. We have always asked our military, just as we

were asked at one time, to risk our lives if need be, but we should

not also subject military families to repeated unaccompanied deployment and substandard housing, if at all possible. Quality of

life, we feel, for our servicemen and women are overall greatly enhanced by this budget, and we are grateful for that.
790

But as we know, there are currently over 80,000 mobilized reservists on duty, and the military stop loss policy is in effect. Our

military, our view, has been stretched thin even before Operations

Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. We also would encourage an

increase in service end strength, as I believe a number of the services have already requested.

Modernization for the Armed Forces has been delayed and curtailed for a long time. Since 1990, the average age of our Air Force

aircraft has increased from about 13 years old to currently about

22 years old. Today’s Navy we understand has about 315 ships, but

the rate of shipbuilding and retirement of ships in the fiscal year

2003 budget, it could shrink our fleet to fewer than 250 ships. Recognizably, modernization and transformation is a process, and it is

an expensive process but it is one that must continue.

With regard to concurrent receipts, much has been said about

that. We would only add our voice that we urge full concurrent receipt for all disabled military retirees.

Legislation, we would add, introduced in the House would allow

reservists to begin receiving retired reservist pay at age 55 instead

of 60. The American Legion supports that initiative.

The war on terror is highlighting a 10-year trend in increased reliance on the National Guard and Reserves. A full review, we believe a total force compensation equity is long overdue. Continuing

mission requirements together with a small active force structure

we believe called for that.

The American Legion also has deep concerns over the Defense

Commissary Agency, or the proposal to abolish all full-time wage

grade and GS positions and convert them to part-time positions

while reducing war powers. We understand this reduction in force

is taking place in most, if not all of the 280 commissaries. The impact on benefits and customer service will be deeply felt by these

cutbacks. We adamantly oppose that proposal. Commissaries are a

key component of the military pay and compensation package.

In closing, this budget we believe is a good budget. It supports

and funds the war on terrorism, and our Armed Forces as well.

More needs to be done, we believe, in the years ahead, and the

American Legion urges the following as a minimum.

First of all, sir, continued quality of life improvements, second,

defense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product still

continue at the 3.3 or even higher percentage, thirdly, enhanced

military capabilities with emphasis on modernization and transformation, and finally that the National Guard and Reserves must

be realistically manned, resourced, structured, equipped, and

trained, fully deployable, and maintained at high readiness levels

in order to accomplish their indispensable roles and missions in today’s military.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement, sir. Thank you very

much.

[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 authorization for fiscal year 2003. The American Legion

values your leadership in assessing and authorizing adequate funding for America’s

Armed Forces. As history continues to demonstrate, it is important for Congress to
791

meet its constitutional responsibilities to provide for the common defense in an uncertain world.

On September 11, 2001, America was viciously attacked by terrorists destroying

symbols of American strength and prosperity and killing thousands of Americans

within a few short hours. Yet within weeks, the United States responded by positioning armed military forces in Afghanistan and attacking those responsible. As

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has noted, we are still in the early stages

of what is predicted to be a long, dangerous global war on terrorism. This war has

two fronts: one overseas, waged against armed terrorists and the second being

fought here in the United States to protect and secure the Homeland. Indeed, the

freedoms and liberties that form this nation are made possible by the peace and stability provided by the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.

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

more budget-driven 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, the recession and in spite of the patriotic

American spirit which has followed the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

Mr. Chairman, the President’s proposed budget contains funding to fight the war

on terrorism and selectively modernize the existing force. A decade of overuse of the

military and its under-funding, however, will necessitate sustained investments, and

this budget proposal, in our view, represents a good first step. Still, this proposed

budget does not address increasing the military endstrengths of the Services, accelerating ship production, or funding full concurrent receipt of military retirement pay

and VA disability compensation for disabled military retirees.

If America’s Armed Forces are to be successful in the war on terror, and remain

prepared for the wars of tomorrow, adequate funding must be provided to take care

of the Department’s greatest assets, namely, our men and women in uniform. Today’s active duty, Guard and Reserve personnel are accomplishing their mission in

Afghanistan and around the world—and today, thanks to their accomplishments in

the war on terrorism, morale appears to be high.

The American Legion National Commander Richard Santos has visited American

troops in Germany, Kosovo, Macedonia and South Korea, as well as a number of

installations throughout the United States. During these visits, he was able to see

firsthand the urgent need to address real quality-of-life challenges faced by

servicemembers and their families. He has spoken with military families on issues

of concern to include Womens’ and Infants’ Compensation (WIC), quality of life

issues for servicemembers, and the heightened operational tempo. These concerns

play a key role in the recurring recruitment and retention woes and should come

as no surprise. The American Legion supports a reduction in the high operational

tempo and lengthy deployments by increasing military endstrengths. Military missions were on the rise before September 11th and deployment levels remain high,

it appears the only way, to reduce repetitive overseas tours is to increase military

endstrengths for the services.

Also, military pay must be on par with the competitive civilian sector. If other

benefits, like health care improvements, commissaries, adequate living quarters,

quality child care, and school systems are reduced, they will only serve to further

undermine efforts to recruit and retain the brightest and best this nation has to

offer.

MODERNIZATION

Modernizing and maintaining even today’s smaller military forces takes the kind

of sustained commitment and fiscal investment, in the future, that took place in the

early 1980s. To those who would argue that the nation cannot afford such an investment, we must ask just what is the cost of freedom? What this nation really cannot

afford is another decade of declining defense budgets and shrinking military forces.

If America is to remain a superpower able to promote and protect its global interests and the home front, and deter and defeat terrorism, it must be capable of providing and projecting force with complete confidence, using state-of-the-art weaponry, in a timely manner.

According to the Commanders in Chief of the services, the U.S. military is not

currently prepared to fight a war similar to the Persian Gulf War.
792

READINESS

In recent years, overly optimistic assumptions about actual funding requirements,

coupled with multiple unbudgeted contingency operations, have resulted in a series

of unit readiness problems. Training goals are not being met. Military readiness ratings have plunged due to reductions in operations and maintenance accounts as a

result of extended peacekeeping operations and 13 years of reduced defense budgets.

We have seen the 1st Infantry and 10th Mountain Divisions affected by the adverse

consequences of peacekeeping operations on combat readiness. Recently, the 3rd Infantry Division was rated as less than combat-ready due to lack of combat-oriented

training and personnel. Today, thousands of military personnel (both active and Reserve components) are deployed to about 140 countries around the globe. At any

given time, 26 percent of the active-duty military force is deployed to overseas commitments. Junior officers are leaving the military in large numbers. Maintenance

of equipment and weapon delivery systems is in peril because of limited spare parts

inventories. Due to depleted supplies of parts, the cannibalization of parts and creative engineering has become a common practice. Manpower shortages have resulted in ships borrowing crewmembers from other ships in order to deploy. Backto-back tours undoubtedly adversely impact crew integrity, morale, and readiness.

Hands-on training, actual flying hours, and ammunition have been restricted based

on available funding. When proficiency cannot be maintained, readiness is compromised and this places the nation’s ability to wage high intensity conflict at risk.

We salute the Administration for increasing readiness funding in this budget. Recognizably, many readiness problems are systemic and will require years to fix.

QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW (QDR)

The American Legion supports the force structure proposed by the Base Force

Strategy of the first President Bush administration, that is, maintain 12 Army 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 believes America can no longer afford to become the world

peace enforcer by dispatching forces on unbudgeted operations every time the

United Nations passes a resolution to do so. The American Legion believes Congress

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; the efforts are supported by the will of

the American people and Congress; and a clear exit strategy exists. Congress needs

to be involved in the policy of committing U.S. troops before troops are committed,

not afterwards.

PROCUREMENT/TRANSFORMATION

Only a few major systems currently in production would be funded in the fiscal

year 2003 defense budget. The funding level for procurement is improved but that

improvement needs to continue. The American Legion fully supports the Army’s

Transformation Program. Major development programs that The American Legion

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 acquire more submarines. The American Legion

strongly believes that the rate of annual shipbuilding needs to be increased so that

at least 8–10 ships are built annually.

If left unadvised, omissions in DOD’s modernization budget could 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, and

—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. The 2003 budget request addresses each of

the six transformational goals mentioned by the Secretary of Defense in his congressional testimony. It accelerates funding for the development of transformation programs as well as modernization. Recognizably, transformation is a process that

must continue.
793

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.

In light of potential biological/chemical threats to our military forces, The American Legion further urges Congress to expedite the procurement of improved and

sensitive equipment for the detection, identification, characterization and protection

against chemical and biological agents. Current alarms have not been sensitive

enough to detect sub-acute levels of chemical warfare agents. Improved biological

detection equipment also needs to be expedited.

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 curtailment of essential service modernization programs, diminution of defense industrial capabilities, and rejects the

transfer 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 used to defend the American people is imprudent. America

should focus on developing and deploying an anti-ballistic missile detection and

intercept system that is capable of providing an effective defense against limited attacks of ballistic missiles.

QUALITY OF LIFE

A major National Security concern of The American Legion is the enhancement

of the quality-of-life issues for service members, Reservists, National Guard, military retirees, and their families. During the first session of Congress, President

Bush and Congress made marked improvements in an array of quality-of-life issues

for military personnel and their military families. These efforts are much needed enhancements that must be sustained. The cost of freedom is ongoing, from generation

to generation.

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 improved services

for homeless veterans. For these actions, The American Legion applauds your strong

leadership, dedication, and commitment. However, a major issue still remains unresolved: the issue of concurrent receipt of full military retirement pay and VA disability compensation without the current dollar-for-dollar offset. The issue of concurrent receipt appeared in the fiscal year 2002 Budget Resolution and the Fiscal Year

2002 National Defense Authorization Act but the administration did not include

funding in the fiscal year 2003 defense budget to fund legislation ending this inequity. Every day, new severely disabled retirees are joining the ranks of American

heroes being required, by law, to forfeit military retirement pay.

Recently, 14 soldiers and 2 airman were awarded Purple Hearts during the War

on Terrorism. These newest American heroes would be the latest victims of this injustice should their war wounds result in debilitating medical conditions. During the

State of the Union Address, one such future recipient, SFC Ronnie Raikes, was sitting next to the first Lady. Concurrent receipt legislation in both chambers (S. 170

and H.R. 303) has overwhelming support by your colleagues. Enactment of corrective legislation and fully funding concurrent receipt are actions to properly reward

heroism and courage under fire for brave servicemembers such as SFC Raikes.

Military personnel and their families endure a life of service in the military in

spite of salaries, living conditions, and forfeiture of personal freedoms that most

Americans would find unacceptable. The American Legion applauds the President’s
794

request of $94.3 billion for military pay and allowances to help improve the quality

of life for America’s servicemembers.

Specifically, The American Legion recommends the following issues be addressed

to improve the overall quality of life for America’s men and women in uniform:

—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 somewhat behind the private sector. The American

Legion applauds the proposed 4.1 percent military pay raise. With the new Administration pledging to significantly increase military pay raises above that

dictated by the ‘‘ECI plus one-half of one percent,’’ there is continued excitement

in the field. We urge you to support the Administration’s proposed military pay

and allowances increases.

—Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).—The American Legion supports full funding of BAH, but maintains that it has created significant consternation among

the military members because of the unrealistic standard used to determine

where military members may live. Their allowance generally dictates the neighborhood where they reside and the schools their children may attend. Ironically,

in order to protect their families from the limitations of the standard, the lowest

ranking (who are obviously paid the least) must expend additional out-of-pocket

dollars. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has established a goal of eliminating all

out-of-pocket housing expenses by 2005. The President’s proposal to reduce the

servicemember’s share of housing costs from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent is a

solid step toward reaching that goal. The American Legion fully supports the

President’s proposal and commends the Secretary for establishing such a goal.

—Montgomery G.I. Bill Enhancements (MGIB).—The American Legion applauds

the improvements in the MGIB contained in Public Law 107–103, but more

needs to be accomplished. Today’s military educational benefits package directly

competes with other federally funded educational programs, such as AmeriCorp,

Pell Grants and others that offer equal or greater monetary benefits with less

personal sacrifice and hardships. The American Legion believes the veterans’

educational benefits package for the 21st Century must be designed to recruit

outstanding individuals and to serve as a successful transition instrument from

military service back to the civilian workforce.

The American Legion supports passage of major enhancements to the current AllVolunteer Force Education Assistance Program, better known as the Montgomery

GI Bill (MGIB), to include the following:

—The dollar amount of the entitlement should be indexed to the average cost of

a college education including tuition, fees, textbooks, and other supplies for a

commuter student at an accredited university or college for which they qualify;

—The educational cost index should be reviewed and adjusted annually;

—A monthly tax-free subsistence allowance indexed for inflation must be part of

the educational assistance package;

—Enrollment in the MGIB should be automatic upon enlistment, however, benefits will not be awarded unless eligibility criteria have been met;

—The current military payroll deduction ($1200) requirement for enrollment in

MGIB must be terminated;

—If a veteran enrolled in the MGIB acquired educational loans prior to enlisting

in the Armed Forces, MGIB benefits may be used to repay existing educational

loans;

—If a veteran enrolled in MGIB becomes eligible for training and rehabilitation

under Chapter 31, of Title 38, U.S.C., the veteran shall not receive less educational benefits than otherwise eligible to receive under MGIB;

—A veteran may request accelerated payment of monthly educational benefits at

any time after meeting the criteria for eligibility for financial payments;

—Eligible members of the Select Reserves, who qualify for MGIB educational benefits shall receive an appropriate amount of tuition assistance and subsistence

allowance and have up to 5 years from their date of separation to use MGIB

educational benefits.

—Commissaries.—The American Legion urges Congress to preserve full federal

funding of the military commissary system and to retain this vital non-pay compensation benefit. Furthermore, The American Legion fully supports the fulltime usage of commissary stores by members of the Reserve components, that
795

the system not be privatized and that DECA manpower levels not be further

reduced.

—Improving Substandard Housing and Working Conditions in Europe and

Korea.—A large percentage of the military family housing and work facilities,

particularly in Europe and Korea, are substandard and in need of extensive repair and modernization. The U.S. European Command Commander-In-Chief,

General Joseph Ralston, said that working conditions at some bases in Europe

were so bad that troops are better off deploying to Bosnia. The American Legion

supports improvements to substandard housing and working facilities in Europe

and Korea.

RESERVE COMPONENTS

The decreasing number of active duty personnel reinforces the need to retain combat-ready 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 as its life insurance policy. Over 80,000 Guardsmen and Reservists have been

activated for Operation Enduring Freedom.

The American Legion supports improved quality-of-life benefits such as those contained in the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act for the 6–7,000 Guardsmen who are

securing over 400 airports in America.

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, to include unlimited access to commissaries and lowering

the eligible age for receiving military retirement benefits to age 55.

HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY BENEFICIARIES

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 in fiscal year 2003. The American Legion recommends that

you continue to make this important program a reality by providing the necessary

funding. The American Legion also applauds your work last year in eliminating

TRICARE co-payments for active duty family members.

Earlier this year, The American Legion presented testimony before the Presidential Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery to our Nation’s Veterans. The

following points were made with regard to the Military Health System (MHS) and

the Veterans Health Administration and are included here for your consideration:

—The American Legion adamantly supports retaining the integrity of the separate MHS and VA health care delivery systems dedicated to their primary mission. Access to each system is an earned benefit resulting from honorable military service.

—The American Legion strongly recommends maintaining access for veteran and

military beneficiaries, especially for specialized services in both DOD and VA

systems.

—The American Legion advocates developing additional DOD–VA resource sharing joint ventures.

—The American Legion supports maximizing utilization of health care sharing

partnerships between all regional VA and DOD/TRICARE providers.

—The American Legion supports improving information technology to include

electronic medical records.

—The American Legion supports allowing Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

to utilize Medicare reimbursement for enrolled Medicare-eligible veterans and

TRICARE for Life retirees being treated for nonservice-connected conditions.

—The American Legion supports DOD and VA joint procurement ventures, expanding joint medical education, and training and improving relations between

DOD and VA in Homeland Security emergency preparedness.

The American Legion urges Congress to resist any efforts to close the Uniformed

Services University of Health Sciences (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
796

U.S. Public Health Service. The American Legion also supports the construction of

an Academic Center to accommodate the USUHS Graduate School of Nursing.

OTHER MILITARY RETIREE ISSUES

The American Legion believes strongly that quality-of-life issues for retired military members and families 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—you enlist a recruit, but you reenlist a family—is truer today than ever before, 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 both military retirement pay and VA disability compensation concurrently. The military retiree’s retirement pay is offset (dollar-for-dollar) by the

amount of VA disability compensation awarded. The purposes of these two compensation plans are fundamentally different. Longevity retirement pay is designed primarily as a force management tool to attract high-quality members

to serve for 20 years. A veteran’s disability compensation is paid for a disability,

injury or disease incurred or aggravated during active-duty military service.

Monetary benefits are related to the residual effects of the injury or disease and

subsequently reduced employment and earnings potential. Action should be

taken to provide full compensation for those military retirees who served more

than 20 years in uniform and incurred service-connected disabilities. Disabled

military retirees are the only retirees who pay their own disability compensation from their retirement pay. The American Legion supports funding to provide full concurrent receipt to all eligible disabled military retirees.

—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 45 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.

—Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA).—The American

Legion urges 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. The American

Legion believes that the provision for a lifetime annuity to former spouses

should be terminated upon their remarriage. Based on this current provision,

monthly provisions for life are being granted to former spouses regardless of

marital status, need, or child custodial arrangements. 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

American Legion urges hearings on the USFSPA.

CONCLUSION

Twenty-nine 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 wellequipped military. The fiscal year 2003 defense budget, while recognizing the War

on Terrorism and Homeland Security, represents a good first step in the right direction.

What more needs to be done? The American Legion recommends, as a minimum,

that the following steps be implemented:
797

—Continued improvements in military pay raises, equitable increases in BAH,

BAS, military health care, improved educational benefits under the Montgomery

G.I. Bill, improved access to quality child care, and other quality-of-life issues.

—Defense spending, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, needs to be maintained between 3 and 4 percent annually which this budget begins to do.

—The new 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.

—Legislation granting full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation for disabled military retirees.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes The American Legion statement.

Senator INOUYE. Director Duggan, I am certain you are well

aware the words of the American Legion are always seriously considered here.

Mr. DUGGAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Our next witness is a member of the board of directors of the National Brain Injury Research Treatment and Training Foundation,

Mr. Martin B. Foil, Jr.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL III, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

NATIONAL BRAIN INJURY RESEARCH, TREATMENT AND TRAINING FOUNDATION

Mr. FOIL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing

me to be here today. My name is Marty Foil, and I am the brother

of a young man with a severe brain injury. I serve as the vice

chairman of the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment and

Training Foundation, and as the executive director of Hines Farm,

a facility in Huntsville, North Carolina, built to care for individuals

like my brother who live with long-term disabilities as a result of

brain injury.

You may be familiar with my father, Martin Foil, Jr., who comes

each year to testify. He sends his regrets that he could not be here

today, and we ask that his written testimony be submitted for the

record.

Senator INOUYE. It will be received, sir, with thanks.

Mr. FOIL. Thank you.

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 DOD health affairs budget under

operation and maintenance for the defense and veterans head injury program (DVHIP). The DVHIP is a significant contribution to

the health of the United States military and veteran populations.

The DVHIP is a component of the defense military health system

providing direct care at military treatment facilities and veterans’

hospitals throughout the Nation. The primary purpose of the

DVHIP is to provide state-of-the-art medical care to personnel sustaining concussions and more severe brain injury while on active

duty so as to get them back to work or to appropriate rehabilitation

as soon as possible.

As you know, brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability in young Americans. Almost 2 million brain injuries occur
798

1 NBIRTT is a non-profit national foundation dedicated to the support of clinical research,

treatment and training. 2 JJBIC in Charlottesville, Virginia, provides brain injury rehabilitation to military retirees,

veterans and civilians through an innovative and cost effective day treatment program. JJBIC

is a new lead DVHIP treatment site. 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.

each year, and of those approximately 90,000 lead to long-term severe disability as a result. Males age 14 to 24 have the highest incidence of injuries.

Brain injury is also a leading combat concern in modern warfare.

Our written testimony includes an example of a Special Forces officer recently injured in combat who was cared for through the

DVHIP program from acute care through rehab and community reentry. Shortly after he began rehab, officials wanted to award him

the Purple Heart, but the DVHIP doctors advised waiting until he

had healed a bit from his injury, as he had little discretion over

his speech and needed some time to recover. After 14 weeks of intensive treatment, he was able to monitor his thoughts, say what

he chose, cook and care for himself, and travel independently on

public transportation.

The DVHIP is prepared to provide a full continuum of care for

troops sustaining brain injuries during this critical time in our history. Additionally, new research is needed to study the effects on

the brain from chemical and biological threats in order to develop

adequate responses and possible preventative efforts.

We are grateful for your support for the DVHIP over the years,

and hope that you will again provide funding to help provide the

best care possible to our Nation’s men and women in uniform. We

are also pleased that for the second year in a row some 20 members of the congressional Brain Injury Task Force and six Senators

from both sides of the aisle sent letters to you and Chairman Lewis

in support of funding the DVHIP.

I respectfully request your support for $5 million in the DOD appropriations bill for the DVHIP, and I am happy to answer any

questions you might have at this time.

Senator INOUYE. I can assure you we will do our very, very best.

Mr. FOIL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR.

Dear Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens 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 the John Jane Brain Injury Center (JJBIC).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 2003 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, Veterans Affairs (DVA), the Henry

M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS).
799

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; John Jane Brain Injury Center, Charlottesville, VA; Hunter McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, VA; Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, TX.

THE DEFENSE AND VETERANS HEAD INJURY PROGRAM (DVHIP)

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 most critical component of the program to military readiness is the assessment of mild brain injury on combat performance. Working with paratroopers at

Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Marines at Camp Pendleton, California and cadets at

the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, the DVHIP has developed

basic combat casualty care protocols to ensure treatments for brain injury are available in the field. Early identification of injured soldiers not only assists in immediate readiness efforts, but facilitates long term management as well as the study

of brain injury resulting from battlefield operations.

In addition to supporting and providing treatment, rehabilitation and case management at each of the 8 primary DVHIP traumatic brain injury (TBI) centers,4 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.

DVHIP IN ACTION IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM

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 which are induced by radiation, exposure to ionizing or iron plasma,

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 is prepared to provide a full continuum of care for military personnel

injured during current and potential future hostilities. More research is needed,

however, to study the neural pathways of neurotoxicity to develop adequate responses to and possible prevention of some of the more insidious terrorist

potentialities.

One example of the scope of the DVHIP is the care of a Special Forces soldier

recently injured in combat (Sgt. X). He suffered a head injury with both injury to

his brain and skull, along with a neck fracture and amputation of several digits of

his hand. Additionally, he sustained multiple shrapnel injuries. After evacuation

and stabilization at the Landstuhl Army Medical Center, he was transferred to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. (WRAMC). While at WRAMC,

DVHIP personnel worked with Neurosurgical and Neurology staff in caring for Sgt.

X in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The effects of brain injury and sleep disruption

from trans-Atlantic med-evacuation transport resulted in his disoriented and agitated state in the ICU. His day/night cycle was reestablished while the surgical

teams rendered further care. When he was ready for transfer to acute rehabilitation,

Sgt. X was transferred to the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California (another lead DVHIP site).

Although high ranking military officials were interested in awarding Sgt. X a Purple Heart immediately, the DVHIP staff strongly advised against this as Sgt. X was

exhibiting many symptoms of brain injury which could potentially do harm to himself and his career. Consistent with the severity of his injuries, he spoke all his

thoughts without regard to discretion, he was unable to problem solve and his memory for simple new material was very limited. In addition, his hand-eye coordination

was greatly impaired such that he could not pick up objects, yet he felt compelled

to act quickly ‘‘because that’s what sergeants do.’’ The highly trained brain injury

specialist staff at the Palo Alto VA worked with Sgt. X in a coordinated, integrated

manner. Each therapist received information about how the immediate preceding

session went and could incorporate the information into the current session. This

way they were able to confront the patient with evidence of both his problems and
800

how to get around them, as well as show him areas of intact function. Sgt. X was

taken out into the community in a closely supervised manner on a weekly basis to

both teach and assess how he was doing in the ‘‘real world.’’

After 14 weeks of intensive treatment (including 4 weeks of home convalescence

to implement what he had learned in the rehabilitation unit), Sgt. X had improved

to the point that he could be left at home alone, take public transportation independently, and was no longer ignoring the left part of space. He had normal handeye coordination; he could monitor his thoughts and say what he chose; and he had

improved in problem solving to the point that he solicited advice from others about

his plans. He could plan, shop for and prepare a meal for himself and others. He

was still impulsive and made serious decisions too quickly. He had visual spatial

problems which prevented him from working towards his hopes of becoming a mechanic and he lost his temper rapidly, but he was well on the road to recovery and

independence. His extended family was kept informed by face-to-face meetings with

the team, telephone conferences and supervised passes.

DVHIP Case Management was involved from the time of the initial referral, to

assisting the Army with Sgt. X’s medical retirement proceedings, to managing discharge arrangements. At the time of discharge, Sgt. X had developed plans for several months post discharge and was set up with VA outpatient services close to his

local community.

This is just one example of what DVHIP does for thousands 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 PROJECTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Combat Training and Sports

The combat training and sports TBI program identifies the impact of mild TBI

on military performance and develops treatments to minimize its effects. Active programs are currently ongoing at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; West Point U.S. Military Academy, New York; and Camp Pendleton, California.

Fort Bragg Paratrooper Study

Over 5,100 paratroopers have been tested at baseline; 142 post injury; 11 both pre

and post injury.

The analysis of symptom and cognitive reporting has lead to the development of

a clinical feedback form.

A concussion care clinic staffed with military and DVHIP personnel has been established that enhances the level of care for active duty personnel at Ft. Bragg.

A helmet study has been initiated regarding current Kevlar helmets which were

designed only to protect from penetrating injury. This study will enhance protection

from closed head injury, such as obtained during paratrooper maneuvers. Two helmet liners tested by Natick Labs will be compared with the current helmet. Based

on laboratory testing, it is expected that both liners are to be at least as protective

as the current model.

United States Military Academy at West Point

Approximately 2,000 cadets have been tested at baseline; 64 cadets studied post

concussion; 28 uninjured controls.

Grade I concussion analysis results were published in the August 2001 issue of

Neurology, demonstrating that reaction time abnormalities persist even after all

symptoms of the concussion have remitted.

DVHIP personnel were invited to perform testing at the Armed Forces Boxing

Championships at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The work with all military boxing competitions is to enhance safety at these morale-building events.

Camp Pendleton Marine Protocol

A training project involving corpsmen and military medical providers on the specifics of concussion care was successfully completed.

The concussion care clinic has cared for and followed over 300 concussed Marines.

Neuro-rehabilitation

A third randomized trial is ongoing at Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center focusing on military personnel with acute mild TBI. The study will compare a program of counseling and rest on convalescent leave plus graded return to work,

versus counseling and graded return to work alone. Primary outcome measure will

be post-concussion symptoms and work supervisor ratings.
801

5The DVHIP maintains an extensive historical military TBI archive, including WWI, WWII

(Okinawa Campaign), Korean War, Vietnam War and Gulf War TBI medical records. The Vietnam War data include paper and computerized records of Phases I and II of the Vietnam Head

Injury Study (VHIS) that have led to numerous publications. The DVHIP also includes a simple,

updated Head and Spinal Combat Injury Registry form similar to that used by the Vietnam

Head Injury Study. The registry has been approved by the Joint Committee of Military Neurosurgeons of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological

Surgeons and is ready for deployment in time of war.

The DVHIP site at the Naval Medical Center, San Diego provides outpatient evaluations and case management services to TBI survivors across the entire range of

severity of injury.

The lead veterans’ centers are conducting a randomized controlled study comparing in-hospital cognitive therapy to in-hospital functional rehabilitation for individuals with more severe TBI. The primary outcome measures are return to work

and level of independence at one year post injury.

The John Jane Brain Injury Center in Charlottesville, Virginia, is now a core component of the DVHIP and provides intensive inpatient rehabilitation to active duty

military personnel and veterans.

Pharmaceutical Interventions

The Tampa Veterans Hospital will evaluate the anticonvulsant medication,

valproate, in the treatment of agitation following traumatic brain injury.

The use of a sertraline protocol for post-acute post concussive symptoms was initiated at WRAMC and is being extended to other DVHIP sites. This study will determine if treatment with sertraline, a serotonin selective medication, will decrease

symptoms of post concussive syndrome, which often limits duty effectiveness. Such

a treatment could be very beneficial to military personnel recovering from concussions.

Two proposals for multi-center randomized controlled trials are currently awaiting

funding. One involves Donepezil treatment for memory problems after TBI, and the

other uses Citalopram for treatment of generalized anxiety following TBI. Generalized anxiety is a component of many post-traumatic stress situations, as well as

post-TBI. An effective treatment of these symptoms of irritability, sleep disorder,

and excessive worry would be of great use to affected military and veterans with

this disorder.

Data Management

Over the past year, the data management section has audited 28,471 evaluation

forms. These forms represent approximately 5,170 evaluations on approximately

1,560 TBI patients. The DVHIP database represents one of the largest collections

of data on TBI patients in existence.5 Follow-up data from several time periods postinjury is available on many patients. To move data tracking, entry and quality control processes into the 21st century, the data management section has been involved

with the automation of many evaluation components. Many of these components are

now ready for implementation. Paperless and web based data management systems

are also being reviewed to enhance DVHIP databases for future studies.

Education and Training

DVHIP educational projects include a telemedicine initiative involving a fall prevention teleconference and regional video teleconference on mild TBI evaluation and

management, and a telemedicine project to determine the ability to assess patients

from afar regarding their development of post concussive symptoms following mild

traumatic brain injury. In addition, DVHIP research findings were disseminated at

eight renowned national and international professional meetings and conferences.

FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROJECTS

While funding is critical to continue the full spectrum of care for military personnel and veterans sustaining brain injuries, DVHIP investigators also plan to use

the DVHIP Registry Data to follow up with individuals with mild TBI to determine

the amount of persisting symptoms and their current functioning. Because most

studies evaluate clinic or hospital samples, this unselected series could offer important information regarding recovery without complications compared with persisting

difficulties.

Funding is also needed to compare two low-cost treatment interventions to enhance recovery. Both educational interventions and focused case management systems are believed to enhance recovery and appropriate utilization of medical resources. This study will compare individuals treated with standard of care discharge

instructions with a population with enhanced provider and patient education re-
802

garding head injury; a system where enhanced case management has been implemented; and a population with both programs (focused education and enhanced case

management). This four group design will permit identification of those components

that are most helpful in after-discharge recovery from TBI.

CONCLUSION

The DVHIP is an integral part of the military health system, providing state of

the art care and innovative treatments to our nation’s military personnel and veterans sustaining brain injuries. The unique collaborative efforts of the DVHIP, combining clinical research, treatment, rehabilitation and training, contribute significantly to improving health care in the U.S. military.

The current hostilities significantly raise the risk of injury to our troops, and the

DOD and DVA must continue to be prepared to provide the best medical care possible to our men and women in uniform. Sgt. X and his colleagues deserve no less.

I respectfully urge your support for $5 million for the DVHIP in the fiscal year

2003 Defense Appropriations bill in the DOD Health Affairs budget under Operation

and Maintenance to continue this important program.

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is executive director of the Illinois Neurofibromatosis, Inc., Ms. Kim Bischoff.

STATEMENT OF KIM BISCHOFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS

NEUROFIBROMATOSIS, INC.

Ms. BISCHOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

appear before you today to discuss the Army’s neurofibromatosis

research program. I am Kim Bischoff, the executive director of Illinois Neurofibromatosis, which is a participant in a coalition of

neurofibromatosis, or NF advocacy groups, but more importantly, I

am the mother of Jennifer, a young woman who has

neurofibromatosis.

Let me first tell you about neurofibromatosis. It is a terrible genetic disorder involving uncontrolled growth of tumors along the

nervous system which can result in disfigurement, deformity, deafness, blindness, it can cause brain tumors, cancer, and death. It is

the most common neurological disorder caused by a single gene, afflicting approximately 100,000 Americans, but most strikingly, research has shown that NF is closely linked to cancer, brain tumors,

learning disabilities, and heart disease potentially affecting 150

million Americans in this generation alone.

As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, NF research is directly related

to military purposes because of its close implication with tissue degeneration and regeneration, and with the nervous system degeneration, deafness and balance. Indeed, this subcommittee in past

report language has stated that the Army-supported research on

NF includes important investigations into genetic mechanisms governing peripheral nerve regeneration after injury.

Thanks to this subcommittee’s strong support for NF research,

the Army’s NF research program has been funded at increasing

levels since fiscal 1996. In the past 7 years, Congress has provided

funding for a total of $90 million to the program, which has funded

80 awards to researchers across the entire country. These grants

support innovative groundbreaking research which has been phenomenally successful in advancing our knowledge of NF faster than

many scientists believed was possible. This program has produced

critical breakthroughs in NF research such as the development of

advanced animal models and clinical trials.

Mr. Chairman, with a proven track record of success, the Army’s

NF research program is now poised to fund translational and clin-
803

ical research which is both the most promising and the most expensive direction that NF research has taken. In the last 2 years, the

program has granted its first two clinical trial awards, but because

of limited funds had to decline other clinical trial applications that

scored excellent in the peer review process. This is why scientists

closely involved with the Army’s program believe that the high

quality of scientific application would justify a much larger program than is currently being funded. Therefore, I am here today

to respectfully request an appropriation of $25 million in your fiscal

year 2003 Department of Defense appropriation bill for the Army’s

neurofibromatosis research program.

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 untold 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 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 present this testimony to the subcommittee.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIM BISCHOFF

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 Kim Bischoff, Executive Director of Illinois NF Inc., 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 1985,

and I have a 18-year old daughter with NF. I am here on behalf of the 100,000

Americans who suffer from NF 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 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, causing deafness and balance problems, as well as other types of tumors

such as schwannomas and meningiomas.
804

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 related to military purposes because it is closely implicated with tissue degeneration and regeneration, to nervous system degeneration,

deafness and balance. Indeed, this Subcommittee, in past Report language, has stated that The 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, and it is important to gaining a better understanding of wound healing. This subcommittee also stated that NF may

be relevant to understanding Gulf War Syndrome because of the involvement of the

nervous system.

THE ARMY’S NF RESEARCH PROGRAM

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 2002, this funding has amounted to $90.3

million, in addition to the original $8 million appropriation. Between fiscal year

1996 and fiscal year 2001, 223 proposals have been received and approximately 80

awards have been granted to researchers across the country, with another 20 expected this year. This research has produced major advances in NF research, such

as the development of advanced animal models and clinical trials.

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), for example, sit on the

Army’s NF Research Program’s Integration Panel which sets the long-term vision

and funding strategies for the program.

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 2003 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 both the most promising and the most expensive direction that

NF research has taken. Increased funding is needed to continue to build on the successes of this program and to fund this translational research to continue the enormous return on the taxpayers’ investment.

In the last two years, the program has granted its first two clinical trial awards

but had to decline other clinical trial applications that scored in the ‘‘Excellent’’
805

range in the peer review process 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.

Therefore, I am here today to respectfully request an appropriation of $25 million

in your fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for the Army

Neurofibromatosis Research Program.

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 INOUYE. How is your daughter doing now?

Ms. BISCHOFF. She is doing quite well, thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Well, if I had my way, I suppose we would give

you everything you want. It sounds pretty good. I will do my best

to convince my colleagues.

Ms. BISCHOFF. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. The next witness is the senior vice president for

Government and international affairs for Cross Match Technologies, Mr. Bob Bucknam.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. BUCKNAM, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR

GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, CROSS MATCH

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Mr. BUCKNAM. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as

you said, I am Robert Bucknam, senior vice president for Government and international affairs with Cross Match Technologies, Inc.

I would ask respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that our prepared statement which was submitted be made a part of the record.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection.

Mr. BUCKNAM. Thank you, and I can briefly summarize my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience with

you regarding the application of biometric finger print systems in

ensuring the security of our personnel, facilities, and information

in the Department of Defense. Cross Match Technologies, Mr.

Chairman, is a privately held corporation located in Palm Beach

Gardens, Florida, and is a leading global manufacturer and provider of forensic quality finger print capture and identification

equipment and systems.

This technology was invented in the United States by Cross

Match Technologies, an American corporation. In the past year,

several criminal justice agencies have tested, evaluated, and operationally utilized the entirety of Cross Match Technologies’ product

line. Favorable results, in keeping with similar experiences

throughout the Federal, State, and local law enforcement communities have led to a growing interest in existing and about-to-be-introduced technologies from Cross Match.

Cross Match employs over 150 professionals and our chairman

and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Ted Johnson, has built a quality team of experts in the field of optics, electronics, and manufacturing. Live scan systems, Mr. Chairman, are used to electronically

create finger print records used to populate as well as search the
806

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI’s) integrated automated finger print identification system and data base.

Cross Match leads the digital, inkless, live scan finger printing

market in a number of respects. It was the first to achieve the

highest FBI finger print image quality rating, the first and only to

capture and store 1,000 dots per inch resolution, which is double

the industry norm. It is self-calibrating, which is a key for mobile

applications. First and only one to provide a submitting from Florida seaports. First to design a portable live scan system that is robust and durable for mobile use. First live scan provider to submit

via the Internet, over the virtual private network, to the Office of

Personnel Management and the American Association of Airport

Executives for airport employee background checks, and our

Verifier 300 single fingerprint reader meets strict standards, and

has been implemented in numerous domestic and international

border control sites.

Our commitment to innovation, precision, and strict customer requirements have resulted in continuous improvement to our fundamental designs and aggressive R&D programs, and an emphasis on

interoperability and changing needs. Our biometrics systems provide accuracy, speed, and dependability, while constantly lowering

cost.

Currently, Cross Match is engaged with the Navy to develop a

cutting edge application of two new systems for purposes of

credentialing and access control. To ensure success, Cross Match

has created a team, working with the Navy, to develop a pilot program dedicated to supporting and responding specifically to unique

requirements which can then be applied more widely throughout

other DOD entities after appropriate testing and operational

verification.

In addition to DOD, we have established a competitive advantage

internationally, selling and installing and servicing our systems to

over 200 customers in the United States and 34 countries worldwide, including airports and seaports, law enforcement and corrections, financial industry, Government assistance and welfare programs, children’s services, immigration and Border Patrol and nuclear power plants.

Enhancing security with intelligent biometric finger print technology will minimize the cost and manpower needed to ensure the

security of our personnel facilities and information domestically

and around the world. Military biometrics systems which accurately identify and verify, as well as reduce manpower and cost,

can be deployed in a timely fashion.

Biometric intelligence security systems are automated, flexible

and thorough. They increase efficiency at high volume access

points. Biometric intelligence systems can meet the needs of our intelligence forces, and is an effective method of identifying and

verifying personnel and their security access authorizations.

Using each individual’s unique finger print in either an intelligent card or a data base, a base-wide or asset-wide biometric system would provide a security net. Through authorization coding

you can protect those valued assets with higher levels of security

than that for less demanding access. An access can be dynamic. It

can be changed centrally, related to different threat situations.
807

The variety of our products, Mr. Chairman, include everything

from the Identification (ID) 1000, which is a 10-print live scan system, to the ID 1500, which is a palm print system, live scan system

that captures forensic quality images, our MV–5, which is a portable forensic quality fingerprint capture device, which is used

also—it has on it a 2–D or smart card reader for on-the-spot mobile

verification, and our Verifier 300, which is a single print.

We also have a number of new products coming online, Mr.

Chairman, including a four-slap live scan system, which is a low

cost alternative to the ID–1000, and a credentialing and access system.

In sum, Mr. Chairman, our products are robust, reliable, durable,

mobile, efficient, and cost-effective, and our biometric fingerprinting systems can be an important asset in protecting our personnel facilities and information in the Department of Defense.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. BUCKNAM

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations: Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience with

you regarding the application of biometric fingerprint systems in ensuring the security of our personnel and facilities in the Department of Defense (DOD). Cross

Match Technologies is a privately held corporation located in Palm Beach Gardens,

Florida, and is a leading global manufacturer and provider of forensic quality fingerprint capture and identification equipment and systems. This technology was invented in the United States by Cross Match Technologies, an American company.

In the past year, several criminal justice agencies have tested, evaluated and

operationally utilized the entirety of Cross Match Technologies’ product line. Favorable results, in keeping with similar experiences throughout the federal, state and

local law enforcement communities have lead to a growing interest in existing and

about to be introduced technologies from Cross Match Technologies. The following

is an overview of the company, its products, and our plans to keep pace with the

growing number of applications for digital fingerprint technologies as required by

the Department of Defense, as well as many other federal agencies.

Cross Match was founded in 1996 for the purpose of designing and manufacturing

forensic quality opto-electronic devices for the biometrics community. Cross Match

employs over 150 professionals. Chairman and CEO Ted Johnson has built a quality

team of experts in the fields of optics, electronics and manufacturing, committed to

making Cross Match a world-leading supplier of fingerprint-based, biometric solutions. As demonstrable proof of the company’s intent, its founding engineers hold

many key worldwide patents in the fields of optics and opto-electronics.

Live-Scan systems are used to electronically create fingerprint records used to

populate as well as search the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) database. Cross Match leads the digital, inkless, Live-Scan

fingerprinting market:

—First to achieve the highest FBI fingerprint image quality rating ‘‘Appendix F’’.

—First and only to capture and store 1,000 dots per inch resolution, double the

industry norm.

—First and only Live-Scan system that self calibrates (key for mobile applications).

—First and only Live-Scan provider submitting from Florida seaports.

—First to design a ‘‘portable’’ Live-Scan system that is robust and durable for mobile use.

—First Live-Scan provider to submit via the internet over Virtual Private Network to the Office of Personnel Management and American Association of Airport Executives for airport employee background checks.

—Our Verifier 300 single fingerprint reader meets strict American National

Standards Institute—National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requirements and implemented in numerous domestic and international border

control sites.
808

Our commitment to innovation, precision, and strict customers’ requirements have

resulted in continuous improvement to our fundamental designs, an aggressive R&D

program, and an emphasis on interoperability and changing needs. Cross Match is

committed to value, and does so without compromise. Its biometrics systems provide

accuracy, speed and dependability, while constantly lowering the cost of ownership.

An example of Cross Match’s dedication to innovation is reflected in a recently received $2 million award from NIST for an ATP (advanced technology program) to

develop an innovative, non-optical very low cost high resolution fingerprint capture

technology with far reaching potential impact on the industry.

Currently, Cross Match is engaged with a major Department of Defense agency

to develop a cutting edge application of two new systems for purposes of

credentialing and access control. To ensure success, Cross Match has created a team

working with the customer to develop a pilot program dedicated to supporting and

responding specifically to unique requirements—which can then be applied more

widely throughout other DOD entities after appropriate testing and operational

verification.

In addition to its Department of Defense customers, Cross Match has established

a competitive advantage internationally, selling, installing and servicing its systems

to over 250 customers in the U.S. and 34 other countries worldwide. These include:

—Airports and Seaports

—Law Enforcement/Corrections

—Financial

—Government Assistance/Welfare

—Children’s Services

—Immigration/Border Patrol

—Nuclear Power Plants

Enhancing security with intelligent biometric fingerprint technology will minimize

the cost and manpower needed to ensure the security of our personnel and facilities

domestically and around the world.

Strategic decisions must be made to ensure cost-effective force protection for the

entire DOD community.

Cross Match’s technology currently exists to meet critical needs. Its commercial,

off-the-shelf products have proven to be effective in local criminal, investigation, and

driver license identification systems. Military biometric systems, which accurately

identify and verify, as well as reduce manpower and costs, can be deployed in timely

fashion. Biometric intelligent security systems are automated, flexible, and thorough; they increase efficiency at high volume access points. Cross Match’s biometric

security systems efficiently and cost-effectively identify and verify access authorization for large numbers of people so military personnel can carry out core military

missions and focus on breaches of security.

The need for heightened security has focused our personnel and financial resources on checking and double-checking large numbers of people. Some security

processes currently in use are labor intensive, able to be compromised, and costly.

To maintain an acceptable level of force protection, military personnel and financial

resources have been diverted from core military missions to security. Automating security with intelligent technology will minimize the cost and manpower needed to

track large numbers of people; those resources can then be deployed against the few,

who are threatening our security and our way of life.

There are several factors that make security for the U.S. Military more costly and

labor intensive than most other government or industry needs:

—The U.S. military has such a high volume of personnel that it is imperative they

have a cost-effective, non-labor intensive, and reliable method of identifying and

verifying that people are actually the individuals who have authorization to

enter bases, access buildings, participate in training, deploy on missions, maintain military equipment and highly valued assets, and for other purposes.

—Unlike other security applications, military activities operate and deal with

high volumes of personnel 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week.

—There is a wide range of security authorization levels throughout the military

personnel, and access authorization is dynamic.

—Military assignments and deployments continuously change personnel and locations. The opportunity for human error is significantly greater than in a more

stable environment.

A biometric intelligent system provides an automated method of identifying and

verifying personnel and their security access authorizations. Using each individual’s

unique fingerprint and either an Intelligent Card or a database, a base-wide or

asset-wide biometric system would provide a security net. The authorization information and fingerprint records stored on an Intelligent Card or in a database would

identify personnel; identity is verified by comparing an individual’s fingerprint with
809

the stored fingerprint record. Through authorization coding, the military services

would be able to protect their most valued assets with a higher level of security

than that required for less demanding access control. In addition, access authorization data is dynamic—it can be changed centrally in reaction to changing threat status, troop movements, and other circumstances. Human error and other breaches

of security can thereby be minimized.

Manpower requirements and related funding for DOD installation and personnel

security are extremely high because the military must maintain round-the-clock access control and large numbers of personnel must pass through check points at each

security authorization level. In addition to being costly and diverting military personnel from core mission activities, there can be extensive delays and human error

with a labor-intensive security plan. Employing biometric intelligent systems automatically provides access to large numbers of people and requires security personnel

for non-matches. In addition to being more cost-effective and allowing military personnel to return to their critical mission assignments, a biometric system also minimizes access delays and associated inconvenience to personnel.

Biometric systems are cost-effective, efficient, and dynamic. In addition to access

control applications, they can be used to track and monitor military personnel as

well as allied or enemy personnel. An example of such an application is recording

and/or identifying battlefield casualties.

The following describes our vast array of products that may be of interest:

—ID 1000 10 Print Live Scan System.—The first and only FBI approved livescan

system that is portable, rugged, self calibrating and low in cost. It is now the

only livescan product to achieve 1,000 dots per inch.

—ID 1500 Palm Print Live Scan System.—The ID1500 Palm Image capture device

is able to acquire high quality, forensic quality images which can be used in forensic and criminal investigations.

—MV5 Fingerprint Capture Device.—Our portable forensic quality fingerprint capture device, the MV5, is used by the CJIS section of the FBI to train users of

the NCIC 2000 single finger identification system. This product has numerous

security applications and with the addition of a built in ‘‘2–D’’ or Smart Card

reader can do ‘‘on-the-spot’’ ID verification.

—Verifier 300 Fingerprint Capture Device (USB, Video and Ethernet).—Our forensic quality single fingerprint readers are fully compatible with the requirements

of the FBI for image size, quality and 500 dpi resolution and have applications

in Registration for National ID, Employee/Passenger ID badges, Immigration,

welfare, and Drivers license ID. and can be used for high security Physical as

well as Information/Network Access Control.

We also introduce three new products created to meet immediate security demands:

—Four Slap Live Scan System.—Low Cost alternative to ID1000. Provides for the

creation of a livescan fingerprint record using flat instead of rolled prints. Result is a very fast easy to use and affordable livescan system

—Credentialing System.—Employee ID badges can be made from the fingerprint

and picture record collected from the livescan record. These cards will contain

biometric fingerprint information

—Access Control System.—With the Cross Match Access control reader, the ID

badge (from above) and your fingerprint become the key for physical Photo ID

record or information access.

In summary, Cross Match’s attention to detail is important in a developing industry. High quality and customer satisfaction is Cross Match’s highest priority. Cross

Match concentrates its technologies in compliance to national industry standards.

This provides the ability to share data between disparate databases. Precision is

coupled to customer needs by continuous close dialog. Cross Match Technologies’ biometric fingerprint systems can be an important asset in protecting our personnel

and facilities in the Department of Defense.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today.

Senator INOUYE. Are your systems at the present time operational within the Department of Defense?

Mr. BUCKNAM. We have some that are currently operational in

the Department of Defense.

Senator INOUYE. What type of systems do you have?

Mr. BUCKNAM. The basic system, Mr. Chairman, is the ID 1000,

as I described, which is the 10-print live scan system, which again

has the benefit of interoperability. As you well know from your
810

many years in Government, and from my almost 27 years in Government, the worst thing you can do is create smokestacks that do

not communicate with one another. Our system is a system that is,

as I say, completely interoperable. It communicates with other systems, the data bases, and when you have it you can build up from

it, so we are currently in use in DOD, and hoping to increase that

usage far and wide.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. BUCKNAM. Many thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Our final witness is a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Tennessee, Dr. Mongi Abidi.

STATEMENT OF DR. MONGI ABIDI, PROFESSOR OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, ON BEHALF

OF THE UNIVERSITY PROGRAM IN MOBILE ROBOTS FOR NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, AND CHEMICAL THREAT DETECTION

Dr. ABIDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity for your allowing me to testify before your committee.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you for your patience.

Dr. ABIDI. Honorable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mongi Abidi. I am a professor of electrical engineering of the University of Tennessee, testifying on behalf of the

university program in mobile robots for nuclear, biological, and

chemical threat detection.

Long before September 11, the Army Tank Automotive and Armament Command, or TACOM, in Warren, Michigan, Wayne State

University in Detroit, and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville

were independently but actively developing crucial robotic and

sensing technologies to detect nuclear, biological, and chemical

agents, NBC for short.

The most challenging task in preventing NBC attacks is to detect, identify, and contain these deadly agents. However, because

of the threat, they pose to soldiers, first responders, security, and

emergency personnel and the population at large, the only safe way

known to man to handle such threat situations is to use remotely

operated robots equipped with intelligent sensors that can identify

these agents before humans are exposed.

This Army program has already developed robotic prototypes

which can perform under-vehicle inspection. All of us know that vehicles entering the Capitol premises today, for instance, are still inspected using a mirror on a stick. The technologies integrated by

the Army TACOM are at least one order of magnitude safer, faster,

and more accurate in detecting NBC threats.

These robotic systems can be used also for the detection of ordinary explosives and other contraband hidden under vehicles entering secure facilities like military bases, large Federal buildings, nuclear power plants, Federal laboratories housing large nuclear and/

or biological weapons, and/or nuclear waste material, one of the

components of a dirty bomb, if I may add.

This technology has broad civilian use as well, at airports and

shopping malls, and during events involving a large number of vehicles like sporting events. It is a vast improvement in homeland

security over the current method of using the mirror-on-a-stick approach which we presently use to inspect cars coming into the Capitol.
811

Technologies needing further development include imaging, sensors, and robotic mobility for on-road and off-road inspection in

order to provide the added intelligence and agility for these systems.

To expedite the development of these robots, a multidiscipline,

multiuniversity program in coordination with selected Government

agencies and potential vendors of nuclear, chemical, and biological

sensors is an efficient combination to achieve this goal. Appropriate

funding to integrate these technologies should lead to the rapid deployment of complete robotic systems that can address both military and homeland security needs.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak before you on

such an important matter to us all, and I appreciate it.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MONGI ABIDI

Honorable Members of the Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen: My name is Mongi

Abidi, I am a Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, testifying on behalf of the of the University Program in Mobile Robots for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threat Detection.

Long before September 11, the Army Tank Automotive and Armament Command

(or TACOM) in Warren Michigan, Wayne State University in Detroit, and the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, were independently but actively developing crucial robotic and sensing technologies to detect nuclear, biological, and chemical

agents: NBC for short.

The most challenging tasks in preventing NBC attacks is to detect, identify, and

contain these deadly agents. However, because of the threat they pose to soldiers,

first responders, security and emergency personnel, and the population at large, the

only safe way known to man to handle such threat situations is to use remotely operated robots equipped with intelligent sensors that can identify these agents before

humans are exposed.

This Army program has already developed robotic prototypes which can perform

under vehicle inspection. All of us know that vehicles entering the capital premises

today, for instance, are still inspected using a mirror-on-a-stick. The technologies integrated by the ARMY–TACOM are at least one order of magnitude safer, faster,

and more accurate in detecting NBC threats.

These robotic systems can be used also for the detection of ordinary explosives

and other contraband hidden under vehicles entering secure facilities, like military

bases, large federal buildings, nuclear power plants, federal laboratories housing

large nuclear and/or biological weapons and/or nuclear waste material. This technology has broad civilian use, as well, at airports and shopping malls, and during

events involving a large number of vehicles, like sporting events. It is a vast improvement in homeland security over the current method of using a mirror-on-astick approach.

Technologies needing further development include imaging, sensors, and robotic

mobility for on-road and off-road inspection, in order to provide the added intelligence and agility for such a system. To expedite the development of these robots,

a multi-discipline, multi-university program in coordination with selected government agencies and potential vendors of nuclear, chemical, and biological sensors, is

an efficient combination to achieve this goal. Appropriate funding to integrate these

technologies should lead to the rapid deployment of complete robotic systems that

can address both military and homeland security needs.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak before you on such an important matter to us all.

Senator INOUYE. Doctor, is your under-vehicle inspection system

operational at this time?

Dr. ABIDI. At this time, there are several prototypes that were

developed by the Tank Automotive Command, and the Tank Automotive Command have sought independently on their own the expertise that we have at the University of Tennessee to add the sensors to allow it to navigate independently, because it will not be
812

feasible to let a human being drive this vehicle. You need to operate it from a distance.

Senator INOUYE. About how much would this cost?

Dr. ABIDI. These devices presently are developed at a cost of about $10,000, to be able to do simple visual inspections, but the

addition of sensors like chemical, biological, nuclear sensors will

probably double or triple the cost, but the modularity of the concepts that we are providing will allow for a system or a person to

again choose what sensors to use, so the cost would vary, but this

is the future, in my view, for detecting serious threats like the

threats that they mention in my report.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, sir.

Dr. ABIDI. Thank you. I appreciate your patience.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator INOUYE. I want to thank all the witnesses who testified,

and as noted at the outset, this will conclude our hearings for the

fiscal year 2003 budget. Now we will begin our work.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., Wednesday, June 12, 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

Allen, Colonel John R., Commandant of Midshipmen, United States Naval

Academy, Department of Defense ....................................................................... 605

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 605

Question submitted to ...................................................................................... 625

Alexander, Dr. Vera, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska, on behalf of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research

and Education ...................................................................................................... 732

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 734

Barnes, Master Chief Joe, (ret.), Director, Legislative Programs, Fleet Reserve

Association ............................................................................................................ 722

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 723

Bester, Brigadier General William T., Chief, Army Nurse Corps, U.S. Army,

Nurse Corps, Department of Defense ................................................................. 421

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 424

Blickhahn, Lieutenant Second Class Andrew, United States Military Academy, U.S. Army, Department of Defense ........................................................... 597

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 604

Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri, questions submitted by ......................... 109, 119, 174, 256, 258, 302, 305, 370, 376, 594, 625

Brannon, Brigadier General Barbara C., Assistant Surgeon General, Nursing

Services, U.S. Air Force, Nurse Corps, Department of Defense ....................... 421

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 438

Brubaker, Brigadier General David, USAFR–NG, Deputy Director, Air National Guard, National Guard Bureau, Department of Defense ...................... 177

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 184

Bursell, Dr. Sven, Director, Joslin Vision Network, Joslin Diabetes Center ...... 681

Butler, Benjamin H., Deputy Legislative Director, National Association for

Uniformed Services .............................................................................................. 631

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 633

Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions submitted by .......................................................................................................... 452, 461

Carlton, Lieutenant General Paul K., Jr., USAF, Surgeon General of the

Air Force, Health Affairs, Department of Defense ............................................ 379

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 406

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 466

Clark, Admiral Vernon E., Chief of Naval Operations, Department of the

Navy, Department of Defense ............................................................................. 329

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 331

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 368

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Questions submitted by ............................. 51, 61, 107, 118, 369, 375, 527, 530

Statements of..................................................................... 127, 178, 471, 534, 603

Connell, Dr. Nancy, Director, the Center for Biodefense, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey ....................................................................... 714

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 716
Page

ii

Cowan, Vice Admiral Michael L., MC, USN, Surgeon General of the Navy

and Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Health Affairs, Department

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 379

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 396

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 465

Dahlman, George, Vice President, Public Policy, The Leukemia & Lymphoma

Society ................................................................................................................... 750

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 751

Dallager, Lieutenant General John R., Superintendent, United States Air

Force Academy, Department of Defense ............................................................ 611

Biographical sketch of ...................................................................................... 614

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 611

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 625

Davis, Lieutenant General Russell C., USAFR–NG, Chief, National Guard

Bureau, Department of Defense ......................................................................... 177

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 184

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 254

Dean, CMSGT Richard M., (ret.), Director, Marketing and Communications,

Air Force Sergeants Association ......................................................................... 643

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 644

Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 662

Questions submitted by ...................................... 55, 61, 173, 254, 257, 457, 706

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 6

Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, statements

of.............................................................................................................................. 7, 67

Drew, Ensign Benjamin A., United States Naval Academy, Department of

Defense .................................................................................................................. 605

England, Hon. Gordon R., Secretary of the Navy, Department of the Navy,

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 309

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 313

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 367

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 312

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 153

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 170

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 5

Garner, Cadet First Class Todd, United States Air Force Academy, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 611

Goldberg, Joan, Executive Director, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, on behalf of the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and

Related Bone Diseases ......................................................................................... 718

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 720

Gonzales, Dr. Edmundo, on behalf of the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute ........................................................................................................................ 700

Hanson, Captain Marshall, Co-Chair, Naval Reserve Association, on behalf

of the National Military Veterans Association .................................................. 687

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 688

Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator from Iowa, questions submitted

by....................................................................................................................... 166, 590

Henderson, Dr. Rogene, Senior Scientist, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 701

Henson, Dr. James, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Nevada, on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States ..................... 692

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 693

Holleman, Deirdre Park, Esquire, Legislative Director, The Retired Enlisted

Association ............................................................................................................ 655

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 656

Hollings, Senator Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina, statement

of ............................................................................................................................ 3
Page

iii

Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas:

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 57,

62, 114, 121, 175, 302, 306, 367, 375, 377, 458, 464, 527

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 5

Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii:

Opening statements ................... 1, 65, 125, 177, 309, 379, 469, 531, 597, 631

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 43,

60, 106, 117, 161, 368, 375, 448, 460, 465, 466, 586, 594

Jones, Dr. Anita, former Director of Defense Research and Engineering and

Quarles Professor of Engineering at the University of Virginia ...................... 663

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 664

Jones, General James L., Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of

the Navy, Department of Defense ...................................................................... 336

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 338

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 375

Jumper, General John P., Chief of Staff, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 469

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 476

Question submitted to ...................................................................................... 530

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 474

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International, prepared statement ..... 642

Kadish, Lieutenant General Ronald T., Director, Missile Defense Agency,

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 125

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 161

Kassan, Alayna, Member, Public Policy Committee, Lymphoma Research

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 676

Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 49

Landers, Dr. Thomas L., Executive Director, Center for Aircraft and Systems/

Support Infrastructure, on behalf of the Coalition of Oklahoma Institutions

of Higher Education ............................................................................................. 711

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 712

Lanzilotta, Lawrence, Principal Deputy Comptroller, Department of Defense .. 531

Leland, Dr. John, Chair, DOD Task Force of the Inter-Council Committee

on Federal Research and Development, The American Society of Mechanical

Engineers .............................................................................................................. 658

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 660

Lennox, Lieutenant General William J., Jr., Superintendent, United States

Military Academy, U.S. Army, Department of Defense .................................... 597

Biographical sketch of ...................................................................................... 601

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 599

Question submitted to ...................................................................................... 625

Lescavage, Rear Admiral Nancy J., Director, Navy Nurse Corps, Nurse Corps,

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 421

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 432

Lutz, Dr. Francis, Dean, School of Science, Technology and Engineering,

Monmouth University .......................................................................................... 708

McCarthy, Lieutenant General Dennis M., USMCR, Commander, Marine

Forces Reserve, Reserves, Department of Defense ............................................ 261

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 293

McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted

by ........................................................................................................................... 111

Myers, General Richard B., U.S. Air Force, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense ................................................ 531

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 553

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 594

Partridge, Colonel Charles C., Co-Chair, National Association for Uniformed

Services, on behalf of the National Military Veterans Alliance ....................... 687
Page

iv

Peake, Lieutenant General James B., MC, USA, Surgeon General of the

Army and Commanding General, U.S. Army Medical Command, Health

Affairs, Department of Defense .......................................................................... 379

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 392

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 460

Plewes, Lieutenant General Thomas J., USAR, Chief of Army Reserve, Reserves, Department of Defense ........................................................................... 261

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 262

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 302

Raezer, Joyce Wessel, Director, Government Relations, National Military

Family Association, Inc ........................................................................................ 666

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 667

Roche, Hon. James G., Secretary of the Air Force, Department of the Air

Force, Department of Defense ............................................................................. 469

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 476

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 527

Rosen, Leonard M., Member, Board of Directors; and Chair, Public Policy

Committee, Lymphoma Research Foundation, prepared statement ................ 678

Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald H., Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary,

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 531

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 543

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 586

Schultz, Lieutenant General Roger C., USAR–NG, Director, Army National

Guard, National Guard Bureau, Department of Defense ................................. 177

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 184

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 257

Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama:

Prepared statements........................................................................................ 8, 128

Statements of........................................................................................... 8, 127, 471

Sherrard, Lieutenant General James E., USAFR, Chief of Air Force Reserve,

Reserves, Department of Defense ....................................................................... 261

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 286

Shinseki, General Eric K., Chief of Staff, United States Army, Department

of the Army, Department of Defense .................................................................. 65

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 117

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 78

Sommerer, Dr. John, Director for Research, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, on behalf of the Association of American Universities ...................................................................................................................... 730

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 731

Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, questions submitted

by......................................................................................................................... 54, 592

Spiegel, Jayson L., Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association of the

United States ........................................................................................................ 741

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 743

Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 598

Questions submitted by ............................................................................... 456, 463

Statements of......................................................... 2, 66, 126, 310, 380, 470, 532

Taylor, Dr. Robert, Chairman, Department of Pharmacology, Howard University College of Medicine, on behalf of the Research Society on Alcoholism .... 696

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 698

Tepfenhart, Dr. William, Department of Software and Electrical Engineering,

School of Science, Technology and Engineering of Monmouth University ...... 708

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 709

Totushek, Vice Admiral John, USNR, Chief of Naval Reserve, Reserves, Department of Defense ............................................................................................. 261

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 281

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 305

Van Nest, Ronald L., CRNA, M.A., Van Nest and Associates, on behalf of

the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists .............................................. 650

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 651
Page

v

Violi, Ronald L., Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh .............................................. 681

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 683

Vockel, Kimberlee D., Director of Legislative Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America .............................................. 735

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 737

Weaver, Major General Paul, (ret.), on behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International ........................................................................ 640

White, Hon. Thomas E., Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army,

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 65

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 106

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 67

Winkenwerder, Hon. William, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health

Affairs, Health Affairs, Department of Defense ................................................ 379

Prepared statement, ......................................................................................... 384

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 448

Wolfowitz, Dr. Paul, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary,

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 43

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 10

Zaccaro, Dr. Stephen, Associate Professor of Psychology at George Mason

University, on behalf of the American Psychological Association .................... 636

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 637

Zakheim, Dr. Dov, Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, Office of the

Secretary, Department of Defense ...................................................................... 1

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 60

(vii)

SUBJECT INDEX

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Page

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 526

Air Force:

Academy ............................................................................................................ 517

Recruits ............................................................................................................. 474

Air power .................................................................................................................. 473

Airborne laser program ........................................................................................... 521

B–1 bomber .............................................................................................................. 529

B–2 ............................................................................................................................ 525

C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 520

C–17............................................................................................................. 515, 516, 530

In Jackson, Mississippi .................................................................................... 524

Close air support ...................................................................................................... 471

Core competencies ................................................................................................... 483

Depot provisions ...................................................................................................... 528

F–22............................................................................................................. 473, 475, 515

Aircraft .............................................................................................................. 509

Raptor ................................................................................................................ 527

Global Hawk program................................................................................ 512, 522, 523

Guard and Reserve .................................................................................................. 473

High demand personnel .......................................................................................... 516

Information technology ............................................................................................ 475

Intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance ........................................................ 472

Joint Strike Fighter ............................................................................................ 525, 528

KC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 518

Fleet ................................................................................................................... 520

Maxwell Air Force Base .......................................................................................... 518

Mission capable rates .............................................................................................. 519

Nanotechnology research ........................................................................................ 529

National Systems Engineering Institute ............................................................... 514

Operation Noble Eagle ............................................................................................ 525

People ........................................................................................................................ 503

Pilot shortfall ........................................................................................................... 517

Predator .................................................................................................................... 523

Readiness ............................................................................................................. 473, 482

Recruiting goals ....................................................................................................... 516

Russian aircraft ....................................................................................................... 475

Space-based infrared system .................................................................................. 513

High orbit .......................................................................................................... 521

Space-based radar ............................................................................................... 523, 527

Spare parts ............................................................................................................... 475

Surface-to-air missiles ............................................................................................. 475

Tanker aircraft, leasing ........................................................................................... 520

Tankers ..................................................................................................................... 519

The year in review ................................................................................................... 479

Transformation.................................................................................................... 472, 498

Unmanned aerial vehicle ........................................................................................ 511

Pilot training ..................................................................................................... 517

Pilots for ............................................................................................................ 512

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

A commitment to the future ................................................................................... 78
Page

viii

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 105

Advanced Army rapid emplaced bridge ................................................................. 118

Afghanistan update ................................................................................................. 96

AH–64A and AH–64D (Longbow) Apache helicopters .......................................... 120

Army:

Contracting officers .......................................................................................... 116

Fiscal year 2003 medical research budget ...................................................... 114

Helicopters ........................................................................................................ 84

Army National Guard:

Aircraft .............................................................................................................. 106

Paladin acquisition ........................................................................................... 105

Chemical demilitarization program ..................................................................... 89, 112

Chemical/biological training ................................................................................... 119

Civil support team coordination ............................................................................. 109

Cold weather gear .................................................................................................... 88

Composite materials ................................................................................................ 107

Crusader and Comanche ......................................................................................... 94

Digitization ............................................................................................................... 123

Directed energy weapons ........................................................................................ 101

Foreign language expertise ..................................................................................... 108

Fort Bliss:

ATSA relocation ................................................................................................ 124

Capacity ............................................................................................................. 115

Water ................................................................................................................. 115

Funding, adequacy of .............................................................................................. 103

Future combat systems (FCS) ................................................................................ 111

And LSI ............................................................................................................. 122

Army/Marine Corps cooperation on the .......................................................... 123

Lead systems integrator (LSI) ......................................................................... 121

Gulf war illness (GWI) research ............................................................................. 114

High mobility trailer procurement ......................................................................... 89

Homeland:

Defense.......................................................................................................... 106, 117

Security ............................................................................................................. 113

Hydra-70 ................................................................................................................... 124

Rocket system ................................................................................................... 108

Interim brigade combat team (IBCT) ..................................................................... 121

Capabilities ....................................................................................................... 82

MILCON for ...................................................................................................... 97

Status of ............................................................................................................ 81

Israel, tactical high energy laser negotiations with .............................................. 101

Lead systems integrator .......................................................................................... 122

Medium tactical vehicles, family of ........................................................................ 116

Military Heritage Institute................................................................................. 104, 105

Military personnel end strength ............................................................................. 106

Objective Force, fielding the ................................................................................... 83

Operations tempo, increased ................................................................................... 112

Patriot advanced capability 3 (PAC–3):

Deployment ....................................................................................................... 101

Testing ............................................................................................................... 100

Remote acoustic hemostasis technology ................................................................. 118

Reserve component:

Augmentation ................................................................................................... 91

Personnel call-up .............................................................................................. 84

Science and technology (S&T) and system demonstration and development

(SDD) ..................................................................................................................... 87

Senior DOD proponent ............................................................................................ 109

Soldiers:

On point for the Nation .................................................................................... 71

Protecting .......................................................................................................... 97

Space and Missile Defense Command .................................................................... 100

Special Forces teams equipment ............................................................................ 85

Strategic:

Environment ..................................................................................................... 70

Framework ........................................................................................................ 70

Technology maturity ................................................................................................ 98

The Army vision: People, readiness, and transformation .................................... 71

U.S. Army South relocation .................................................................................... 116
Page

ix

U.S. troops, recognition of ....................................................................................... 80

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) ......................................................................... 123

Wheeled vehicle maintenance ................................................................................. 123

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

AAAV program ......................................................................................................... 352

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 366

Budget shortfalls ...................................................................................................... 372

Current readiness: Operating the Navy and Marine Corps ................................. 320

DD–X program ......................................................................................................... 358

DDG program ........................................................................................................... 362

EA–6b program ........................................................................................................ 354

Executive summary ................................................................................................. 377

Fire support .............................................................................................................. 359

Fiscal year 2003—A dramatic improvement for the Department of the Navy ... 314

Future readiness: Transforming the force ............................................................. 324

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) ....................................................................................... 367

LPD–17 amphibious ship ........................................................................................ 360

Marine Corps’:

Relevance: Power projection from the sea-base ............................................. 339

Role: A scalable, sustainable, forcible entry force .......................................... 340

Transformation: Concepts, technologies, and organizations ......................... 341

Military construction ............................................................................................... 368

Military personnel fiscal year 2002 supplemental ................................................ 369

Navy readiness and procurement ........................................................................... 333

Navy’s role in the 21st century ............................................................................... 332

Navy-Marine Corps: The power of teamwork ........................................................ 313

Network-centric warfare ......................................................................................... 368

Northern Edge exercise ........................................................................................... 352

Personnel retention and recruiting ........................................................................ 363

Philippines ................................................................................................................ 355

Precision munitions ................................................................................................. 354

Sailors and marines: Investing in the heart of the team ..................................... 318

Sailors: Our most valuable asset ............................................................................ 335

Seabees ..................................................................................................................... 362

Security posture ....................................................................................................... 351

Shipbuilding ............................................................................................................. 350

Request .............................................................................................................. 368

Strategic context ...................................................................................................... 331

T–45 training aircraft .............................................................................................. 375

Terrorism, leading the way: Navy-Marine Corps operations in the global

war on ................................................................................................................... 315

U.S.S. Inchon ........................................................................................................... 367

HEALTH AFFAIRS

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 448

Anthrax threat ......................................................................................................... 404

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) ......................................................... 452

Central command surgeon ...................................................................................... 405

Coordination, communication and collaboration ................................................... 387

Defense enrollment eligibility reporting system (DEERS) ................................... 452

Defense Health Program (DHP) ............................................................................. 448

Funding request ................................................................................................ 412

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ............................................. 459

DOD/VA cooperation ................................................................................................ 459

Facility capacity and cost ........................................................................................ 460

Force health protection (FHP) ................................................................................ 458

And medical readiness ..................................................................................... 385

Health professionals recruiting and retention ...................................................... 464

Homeland defense .................................................................................................... 404

Joint military-civilian exercises .............................................................................. 405

Joint venture hospitals ............................................................................................ 457

Life support for trauma and transport (LSTAT) ................................................... 463

McGuire Air Force Base .......................................................................................... 404

Medal of honor ......................................................................................................... 416

Medical expense and performance reporting system (MEPRS) ........................... 450
Page

x

Medical personnel retention ................................................................................... 413

Military health information systems ...................................................................... 388

Funding ............................................................................................................. 384

Military medical personnel ..................................................................................... 388

Military treatment facilities (MTF) ................................................................... 449, 466

National Prion Research Project ............................................................................ 464

Operation Enduring Freedom ................................................................................. 404

Outcomes management initiative ........................................................................... 461

Recruiting ................................................................................................................. 405

Retention/TRICARE ................................................................................................ 457

T-NEX ....................................................................................................................... 449

Third Party Collection Program (TPCP) ................................................................ 460

Transformation ........................................................................................................ 418

TRICARE ........................................................................................... 386, 417, 456, 458

TRICARE for life ..................................................................................................... 417

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

ABM Treaty .............................................................................................................. 163

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 161

Airborne laser (ABL).................................................................................. 147, 173, 175

Allied cooperation .................................................................................................... 149

Annual appropriations ............................................................................................ 146

Arrow ........................................................................................................................ 149

Capability-based acquisition ................................................................................... 144

Controversial programs:

Navy area-wide defense ................................................................................... 164

SBIRS-low satellite ........................................................................................... 165

The THAAD missile ......................................................................................... 166

Cost control .............................................................................................................. 158

Costs ..................................................................................................................... 154, 170

Fort Greely and early capability ............................................................................ 167

General/budget oversight ........................................................................................ 171

Management challenge ............................................................................................ 162

MDA spending data ................................................................................................. 157

Midcourse budget ..................................................................................................... 172

Missile Defense Program execution ....................................................................... 164

Missile defense spending ......................................................................................... 152

Navy area defense ................................................................................................... 157

Nuclear interceptors 166

Tipped ........................................................................................................... 146, 154

Nuclear warheads .................................................................................................... 170

Organization and oversight ..................................................................................... 168

Overcoming countermeasures ................................................................................. 161

Oversight and test bed ............................................................................................ 172

Patriot PAC–3...................................................................................................... 143, 151

Radar ........................................................................................................................ 155

Scientific workforce availability ............................................................................. 160

Small business ......................................................................................................... 150

Space based infrared system (SBIRS) low ........................................................ 148, 174

Technology and integration ..................................................................................... 145

Test bed/X-band radar ............................................................................................. 171

Tests .......................................................................................................................... 170

Theater high altitude area defense (THAAD)................................................... 143, 152

Theater missile defense ........................................................................................... 142

Threat................................................................................................................... 158, 159

WSMR testing .......................................................................................................... 173

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

A legacy in homeland security ................................................................................ 188

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 254

Air National Guard:

Director’s overview ........................................................................................... 220

Equipping the ................................................................................................... 228

In Fargo, North Dakota ................................................................................... 243

Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 233

Preparing for the future ................................................................................... 224
Page

xi

Air National Guard—Continued

Safety program ................................................................................................. 237

Today ................................................................................................................. 222

Training the ...................................................................................................... 236

Armored brigade ...................................................................................................... 240

Army National Guard:

Director’s overview ........................................................................................... 196

Equipping the ................................................................................................... 203

Knowledge infrastructure ................................................................................ 218

Missioning the .................................................................................................. 217

Organizing the for success ............................................................................... 202

Preparing for the future ................................................................................... 200

Sustaining the ................................................................................................... 208

Today ................................................................................................................. 197

Training the ...................................................................................................... 210

ARNG Patriot Battalion .......................................................................................... 258

C–17...................................................................................................................... 183, 242

Basing in Jackson, Mississippi ................................................................... 242, 243

CBRN ........................................................................................................................ 256

Chief, National Guard Bureau closing thoughts ................................................... 238

Civil support team ................................................................................................... 245

Counterdrug operations ...................................................................................... 254, 257

Domestic air combat patrols ................................................................................... 239

Equipment shortages ............................................................................................... 252

Executive summary ................................................................................................. 184

F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 244

First responder ......................................................................................................... 250

Force, manning the .................................................................................................. 201

Guard and Reserve modernization ......................................................................... 244

Homeland security ................................................................................................... 183

KC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 183

Lightning II targeting pods ..................................................................................... 182

Misconduct ............................................................................................................... 258

Missions .................................................................................................................... 248

Mobilization .............................................................................................................. 246

National Guard Bureau ........................................................................................... 187

National Guard Posture Statement—Fiscal Year 2003 ........................................ 184

Northern Command ................................................................................................. 256

On guard for the 21st century ................................................................................ 193

150th Fighter Wing ................................................................................................. 255

Protecting America .................................................................................................. 186

At home and abroad ......................................................................................... 184

Quality installations ................................................................................................ 214

Quality of life ........................................................................................................... 183

Readiness, resources to ........................................................................................... 207

NURSE CORPS

Afghanistan .............................................................................................................. 436

Air Force recruiting ................................................................................................. 436

Certified registered nurse anesthetists .................................................................. 443

Civilian joint programs ........................................................................................... 447

Graduate School of Nursing .................................................................................... 447

Loan repayments ..................................................................................................... 443

Nurse research program .......................................................................................... 437

Nursing research program ...................................................................................... 445

Pentagon on September 11, 2001 .......................................................................... 435

Practical nurses ....................................................................................................... 437

Primary care optimization ...................................................................................... 437

Retention rates ......................................................................................................... 437

Special operations support ...................................................................................... 435

Training .................................................................................................................... 436

Uniformed Services University of the Health Services ........................................ 446

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

ABM Treaty .............................................................................................................. 589

Accomplishing several missions simultaneously ................................................... 11
Page

xii

Additional committee questions ........................................................................... 43, 586

Afghanistan:

Expansion of role in .......................................................................................... 59

Situation in ....................................................................................................... 571

U.S. commitments in ........................................................................................ 33

U.S. role in ........................................................................................................ 572

Aircraft and ships, average age of .......................................................................... 575

Allies and the United States, capabilities gap between ....................................... 37

Arab-Israeli relations .............................................................................................. 41

Armed forces, future of our ..................................................................................... 549

Aviation security ...................................................................................................... 582

Ballistic missile defense .......................................................................................... 47

Ballistic Missile Defense-Missile Defense Agency ................................................ 43

Budget:

Fiscal year 2003 priorities ............................................................................... 541

Tradeoffs ............................................................................................................ 542

C–17 .......................................................................................................................... 581

Funding ............................................................................................................. 28

Getting more and pilots ................................................................................... 580

Cold war era programs, elimination of .................................................................. 49

Compensating military people ................................................................................ 577

Contractor personnel ............................................................................................... 61

Cost savings ............................................................................................................. 23

Counterdrug training .............................................................................................. 593

Counterterrorism Fellowship Program .................................................................. 564

Critical infrastructure ............................................................................................. 55

Critical missions ...................................................................................................... 535

Crusader ................................................................................................................... 592

Alternatives to .................................................................................................. 540

Army transformation and ................................................................................ 538

Deployability ..................................................................................................... 565

Why terminate now .......................................................................................... 539

C4ISR ........................................................................................................................ 551

DD(X) Program ........................................................................................................ 52

Defense emergency response fund .......................................................................... 48

Defense Health Program ......................................................................................... 44

Defense request, affordability of ............................................................................. 32

Directed energy ........................................................................................................ 55

DOD consultants ...................................................................................................... 31

EC–130 aircraft ..................................................................................................... 43, 593

F–22, adjusting procurement quantities ................................................................ 574

Federal acquisition system ..................................................................................... 51

Future conflicts, strategy on ................................................................................... 49

Future cost increases ............................................................................................... 53

General aviation airports ........................................................................................ 583

Gulf war illness ........................................................................................................ 62

International Criminal Court ................................................................................. 548

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) ................................................................... 590

Joint Strike Fighter ................................................................................................. 594

Joint warfighting capabilities, improving .............................................................. 555

Legislative affairs staffing ...................................................................................... 586

Major theater wars .................................................................................................. 55

Marine expeditionary brigade vehicles .................................................................. 52

Military Commission Procedures Act ..................................................................... 54

Military construction........................................................................................ 56, 59, 62

Military personnel:

Issues, other miscellaneous ............................................................................. 60

Strains on .......................................................................................................... 25

Military strategy, risk in ......................................................................................... 592

Military transformation .......................................................................................... 588

Missile defense ......................................................................................................... 545

Funding ............................................................................................................. 566

Cuts ............................................................................................................ 575

Oversight of ....................................................................................................... 590

Support group ................................................................................................... 30

Test Facility and X-band radar ....................................................................... 29

Modernization, procurement and readiness .......................................................... 547

Morale and retention ............................................................................................... 594
Page

xiii

Navy shipbuilding .................................................................................................... 587

New defense strategy ............................................................................................ 18, 544

Nuclear Posture Review and first use .................................................................... 569

Nuclear weapons, security and management of .................................................... 584

Office of Strategic Influence .................................................................................... 28

Pentagon waste ........................................................................................................ 591

People ........................................................................................................................ 548

Military personnel ............................................................................................ 23

Permanent change of station (PCS):

Funding ............................................................................................................. 565

Moves ................................................................................................................. 565

Program terminations and transformation ........................................................... 536

QDR, new directions from the ................................................................................ 12

Requirements generation process ........................................................................... 50

Resources for this historic challenge ...................................................................... 10

Rising costs and must-pay bills .............................................................................. 12

Rockets, reductions in funding for training ........................................................... 52

SBIRS-Low........................................................................................................ 53, 61, 63

Science and technology funding .............................................................................. 576

Shipbuilding........................................................................................................... 51, 567

Sinai, U.S. troops in the .......................................................................................... 34

Space:

Programs......................................................................................................... 48, 589

U.S. reliance on ................................................................................................ 578

Strategic lift ............................................................................................................. 568

Strategic nuclear weapons reductions .................................................................... 583

Submarines, need for new ....................................................................................... 36

Supplemental:

Appropriations, fiscal year 2002 ...................................................................... 28

Spending of appropriations and bring down overseas deployments ............. 35

Systems, cutting unneeded ..................................................................................... 36

Tactical:

Aircraft purchases ............................................................................................ 45

Fighter aircraft ................................................................................................. 594

Tanker aircraft leasing ............................................................................................ 46

$10 billion contingency request .............................................................................. 26

Terminations ............................................................................................................ 545

Terrorism:

Budget topline and war on .............................................................................. 534

Congressional hearing on policies and consultation ...................................... 40

Funding war on ................................................................................................ 31

Global war on .................................................................................................... 553

Terrorist:

Specific threats ................................................................................................. 562

Threats .............................................................................................................. 561

Theater Aerospace Command and Control Simulation Facility (TACCSF) ........ 579

Tradeoffs ................................................................................................................ 24, 549

Transformation........................................................................................................ 38, 58

Goals .................................................................................................................. 536

U.S. Armed Forces, transformation of the ............................................................. 557

U.S. military, critical issues for the ....................................................................... 559

U.S.S. Inchon ........................................................................................................... 57

United States, spending to directly defend the ..................................................... 567

Vaccine production ................................................................................................... 58

War reserve, recapitalization of aging ................................................................... 53

Weapons, investments in new ................................................................................ 563

RESERVES

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 301

Army Guard and Reserve, increase of full-time support of .................................. 303

Army Reserve:

Equipment status of ......................................................................................... 303

Strategic storage of equipment for .................................................................. 302

Biological detection capabilities .............................................................................. 302

Current bonus systems ............................................................................................ 285

Employer support .................................................................................................... 285

Family of medium tactical vehicles ........................................................................ 304
Page

xiv

Final thoughts .......................................................................................................... 291

Foreword ................................................................................................................... 271

Health care ............................................................................................................... 300

Highlights of 2001 ................................................................................................... 286

Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 297

Manpower ................................................................................................................. 280

Marines and their families ...................................................................................... 294

Modernization .......................................................................................................... 286

And transformation .......................................................................................... 297

Naval Reserve Association ...................................................................................... 271

Navy Reserve:

C–40 aircraft for ............................................................................................... 306

FA–18A aircraft in ........................................................................................... 307

New missions ........................................................................................................... 291

On Target, Online—Strategic Funding Priorities for the Naval Reserve ........... 271

Private sector support ............................................................................................. 298

Readiness .................................................................................................................. 265

And transformation/modernization ................................................................. 289

Current .............................................................................................................. 296

Recruiting ................................................................................................................. 299

And retention....................................................................................... 264, 285, 288

Relevance .................................................................................................................. 266

Reserve facilities & infrastructure: Improving quality of service and quality

of life ..................................................................................................................... 277

Resourcing ................................................................................................................ 270

Supporting the fleet from the air and sea: Meeting strategic funding priorities ........................................................................................................................ 272

The Association Voice of the Naval Reserve .......................................................... 271

Upgrading information technology and systems ................................................... 275

Your Marine Corps Reserve today ......................................................................... 293

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY, U.S. ARMY

UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

Academy standards ................................................................................................. 624

Air Force Academy:

Funding for the ................................................................................................. 618

Technology curriculum ..................................................................................... 622

Air Force honor system ........................................................................................... 620

Applicants, qualifications of .................................................................................... 614

Athletes:

Admission standards for .................................................................................. 622

Recruitment of .................................................................................................. 623

Body .......................................................................................................................... 611

Branching question, response to ............................................................................. 616

Cadet exposure with the USNG and USAR Forces .............................................. 625

Cadets and midshipmen .......................................................................................... 625

Challenges ................................................................................................................ 613

Curriculum revision ................................................................................................. 614

Enrollment, increased ............................................................................................. 619

Honor code-student responsibility .......................................................................... 620

Midshipmen exposure to National Guard and Reserve Forces ............................ 625

Overview ................................................................................................................... 611

Private funding ........................................................................................................ 619

Scholar-athlete scholarships ................................................................................... 623

Service academies, appropriated funds for ............................................................ 617

Technology and the service academies ................................................................... 621

United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing ..................................................... 615

Æ