[Senate Hearing 106-743]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-743, Pt. 1 deg.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 4576/S. 2593
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 1 (Pages 1-650)
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
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-769 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Defense
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
Professional Staff
Steven J. Cortese
Sid Ashworth
Susan Hogan
Gary Reese
John J. Young
Tom Hawkins
Kraig Siracuse
Robert J. Henke
Mazie R. Mattson
Charles J. Houy (Minority)
Sonia King (Minority)
Administrative Support
Candice Rogers
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 1, 2000
Page
Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Secretary of the
Navy........................................................... 1
Monday, March 6, 2000
Department of Defense: Deputy Secretary of Defense............... 89
Wednesday, March 8, 2000
Department of Defense:
Medical Programs............................................. 127
Surgeons General............................................. 149
Nurse Corps.................................................. 187
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the
Secretary...................................................... 241
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
Department of Defense: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.... 333
Tuesday, April 25, 2000
Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the
Secretary...................................................... 383
Wednesday, April 26, 2000
Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense........ 443
Wednesday, May 3, 2000
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 527
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Hutchison, and Inouye.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Secretary of the Navy
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DANZIG, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ADM. JAY L. JOHNSON, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
GEN. JAMES L. JONES, COMMANDANT, U.S. MARINE CORPS
opening statement of senator ted stevens
Senator Stevens. We do have scheduled votes. There was to
be a series this morning. They have now been joined together at
2 o'clock, theoretically. They have not started yet. But the
whole idea is that we are supposed to have these votes three in
a row. So what I would like to suggest is that we proceed to
your statements without interruption, and when it comes time to
go vote, we will go vote.
We will be gone roughly 20 minutes. As the vote is 20
minutes long, we will vote last on the first one and first on
the last vote and the middle one as we have to be there for 20
minutes. So we will be about 30 minutes standing in recess, if
that is agreeable to you. If any of you have really pressing
plans or problems, we will have to deal with those.
I should start off, Admiral Johnson, by saying I am
informed this may be your last regularly scheduled meeting
before our committee. Time passes too quickly, Admiral. We
shall regret that. We have enjoyed our relationship and look
forward to being with you for the balance of your term. I do
thank you for what you have done.
It is your first appearance before us, General, so we are
happy to welcome you on board. And we hope you do not disappear
as quickly as the Admiral has. Time just goes by too fast.
Mr. Secretary, would you like to start off, sir?
Mr. Danzig. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. You may use whatever time is available
here until we have to go vote with just your statements, and we
will get to questions as my colleagues come in. And Senator
Inouye has asked that we proceed. He is on his way.
Mr. Danzig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all have formal
statements to submit for the record, if that is agreeable to
you. We will each talk informally for just a couple of minutes.
I should say that I found myself thinking back to our
appearance before this subcommittee last year. Thinking about
the intervening year, I must say I regard it as one of
considerable progress for the Department of the Navy. A lot of
that progress is a consequence of the activity and the actions
of this subcommittee, really everyone in this room, and of
Admiral Johnson and General Jones.
I note particularly the just extraordinary cooperation
between these two service chiefs over the time that they have
both been in office. I think the Navy and Marine Corps, as
individual services, and the Department of the Navy as a whole,
is really moving ahead because of this cooperation.
On the personnel side, it has been, I think, a year of real
achievement. I feel quite good about a number of things we have
done. The pay innovations, the large 4.8 percent pay raise, the
rollback in REDUX, the revision to the pay table, the
substantial support of Department of the Navy bonuses--all I
think had very positive morale effects. We see it as well in
our retention statistics.
I am very pleased that the three of us have managed to
produce a fiscal year in which the Department of the Navy, both
the Navy as a service and the Marine Corps service, met their
recruiting goals--the only services to do that, and that we
came in above end strength this last year, in striking contrast
to some previous years. That remains very much a struggle for
us in the year ahead, but it is very much our goal. We are, the
three of us, very committed to it. And your support in that
regard is very important.
We are also very conscious of the fact that it is not pay
alone that keeps our people and makes a success of what it
means to be a sailor and a marine. We have emphasized, between
us, the idea of improving the conditions of work. The Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO) has put a lot of emphasis on reducing
the unnecessary inspections and burdens associated with the
inter-deployment training cycle. The Commandant has put a fresh
emphasis in the Marine Corps on the importance of family.
We are doing some, I think, quite innovative things. The
Navy College Program, for example, gives college credits as a
matter of course to people who come into the Navy in the course
of their Navy training. The typical sailor will now get a road
map as he or she enters boot camp of college credits that he
can earn through Navy training. Typically he or she will earn
30 college credits in his first term. You need 60 for an A.A.
degree, so you are halfway there simply by virtue of the kind
of training we are giving. And those credits are recognized by
major universities through the American Council on Education.
We are beginning to reshape the sense of what it means to
be an enlisted person in the Navy and Marine Corps. We put a
lot of emphasis on smart work kinds of programs, equipping
sailors and marines with the right tools, using civilian labor
where we can, for example, to paint ships on both coasts, where
previously we were burdening sailors.
We are automating where we can and saving manpower. A lot
of proposals that we will talk about over the course of these
hours save us a lot of money by reducing costs of ownership.
They also go a fair way towards raising morale by letting
people do what they came to the military to do--professional
military jobs--and not second order kind of work.
On the technology and platform sides, we also have made a
lot of progress. I am very pleased that you see in the budget
before you a request for building eight ships. The sustaining
rate is higher than that. Over time, we need to get to a build
rate of about 8.6 per year. But eight ships for these first 4
years in the program represent a significant step forward in
stabilizing the kind of program that we are pointing to.
I would add that we have emphasized between us the idea of
investments in research and development so that we really
modernize our surface fleet. The Navy program has in it over
these next 5 years some $1.5 billion of research and
development to modernize the carrier, and almost $4 billion of
research and development funds to modernize our surface
combatants, the DD-21 particularly. And some of this spills
over as well into real benefits for our submarine fleet. For
example, electric drive, which is something we can talk about
later this afternoon if you would like to.
So, here again, I see a very significant improvement. Not
all of it is just platform centered. The Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet is something the three of us are very enthusiastic
about, that may be useful to talk about. It represents an
information technology investment that captures the phenomenal
opportunity that this age gives us for both improved efficiency
and also for much greater effectiveness in different ways of
doing business.
However, this is hardly a record of self-satisfaction. We
can point to real achievements in all kinds of areas, but in no
sense do we reach Nirvana. In the personnel area we have
reduced gap billets at sea from 18,000 to 9,000. That is a very
real benefit. Our carrier battle groups are deploying now at
fill rates of 93 and 95 percent versus the high 80's 2 years
ago. But still, 9,000 gap billets at sea is 9,000 too many.
Improved recruiting in this last year is a very substantial
benefit to us, but we need to do it again this year. And we
need to do it steadily as we also need to continue with
substantial pay raises year after year.
Our procurement rates are not quite yet where we want to
get them--we need to increase them and make them more vibrant.
And I would add that our infrastructure investments need to
become more robust. All three of us feel that that is the area
that we have had the least investment relative to the need,
that we have done the least kind of corrective work on. And you
see that reflected in some dimensions of the priority list you
have seen from the CNO and the Commandant.
prepared statement
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I will just conclude by
saying that I do regard it as a year of great progress. And I
think, really, everyone in the room has shared in that
progress. And I think the challenge for us is, can we do as
well in the year ahead?
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Danzig
I became Secretary of the Navy in November of 1998. I am both happy
and unhappy with what we have accomplished over this period. Happy
because I think we made evident progress towards three of our four main
objectives. We improved the way we treat, develop and treasure our
military personnel. We improved the way we work--both in training and
in our combat operations. And we improved our investment strategies,
buying more of what we need today and investing more in transformative
information-age technologies that position us for the future.
Our satisfaction on these counts is tempered, however, by the
substantial work that remains to be done in all three of these areas--
we are still not yet where we should be--and by our inadequate progress
in the fourth area, the improvement of our infrastructure.
Personnel.--We came, in 1999, face-to-face with the fact that our
Sailors and Marines are working too hard, stretched too thin, and paid
too little. The administration proposed a 4.4 percent pay raise, a
rollback of Redux, a worthwhile revision in our pay tables, and
numerous special pays. This committee not only gave us what we asked,
but went further and very admirably secured a 4.8 percent pay raise
(the largest in a generation), improved housing allowances, and better
retirement arrangements. Together these steps conveyed a sense of
concern and commitment to our military that is vital to our well being.
All our military personnel are indebted to you. Personally, I thank you
for your deep and deeply effective care for those who serve in our
military.
Together, we also used 1999 to embrace the proposition that the
well being of our personnel is not determined by pay and benefits
alone. In my view, when adequate pay and benefits are achieved, the
conditions of work do more to determine military morale and retention
than any other variables (including, even, incremental changes in
benefits). Though we will lose people if they are paid too little, when
they are committed to us it is not because of the pay, but because of
what they do.
Sailors and Marines have special opportunities to do important and
exciting things: they represent America all around the world; they
operate and maintain the most technically advanced and powerful
equipment the world has ever known; they are empowered by shouldering
immense responsibility at unusually young ages; the nation closely
watches and strongly depends on their actions; they honor each other
and are honored by their fellow-citizens. The most important thing we
can do is to keep military work meaningful and honor it. For some, this
may conjure visions of rhetoric and parades. For me and this committee,
it meant in 1999, means in this year, and will mean, I think,
throughout this century, that we need to master the everyday mechanics
of supplying, maintaining, manning and operating the military--so that
we support and make meaningful the work of our military personnel. That
is the truest and most meaningful way in which we honor our personnel.
Spare parts, for example, have a mundane character, not the ring of
rhetoric. But when we have too few airplane spares, our pilots have
fewer flying hours for training, and our mechanics are doomed to
``cannibalizing'' parts (moving them from one plane to another and then
back again). For this reason, as well as to sustain operational
readiness, over the last two years, we increased our investment in
aviation spare parts by more than a quarter of billion dollars.
In the same vein, I have put great stress on programs like ``Smart
Work'' and ``Smart Ship'' that give sailors and Marines better tools,
use civilians and automation where possible to alleviate military work
loads, and redesign our ships to improve working and living spaces and
reduce required manning and over-crowding. These are funded in the
budget before you at almost $400 million. Equally fundamentally, both
Marine and Navy recruiting met their goals in 1999 and we achieved end-
strength above our targets in both services. We reduced gapped billets
at sea from 18,000 to approximately than 9,200 today. Our battle groups
are deploying with manning levels in the range of 93 percent, as
compared with about 88 percent two years ago. EISENHOWER, for example,
will depart Norfolk more fully staffed than any other carrier in the
last three years at 96 percent manned.
We can all be proud of these achievements. But they are not enough.
A year's fine pay raise must be reinforced by a series of pay raises
significantly above inflation. The budget before you proposes that.
Incremental improvements in housing allowances should be accelerated
looking to a goal, wonderfully embraced by the Secretary of Defense,
for the elimination of out of pocket housing costs within five years.
Recruiting remains demanding and precarious--it will take exceptional
effort to exceed desired end strength again this year.
9,200 gapped billets is still 9,200 too many. My goal is to bring
that number close to zero over the next twelve months. Despite movement
in the right direction, our personnel systems and our systems of
shipboard life remain, in important respects, infected by the
psychology of conscription. We need to dig deeper to maximize and
protect the value of the truly skilled and high cost workforce that we
employ. The budget before you does these things in ways that I hope we
will discuss in the course of this hearing. But that we are not yet
where we should be is underscored by the fact that our reenlistment
rates, though improved, remain below our goals. In sum, our personnel
situation has gotten better, but there is still a lot of work to do.
Training and Operations.--Our operations have been universally
successful, as befits the most powerful Navy and Marine Corps in world
history. For the first time in history, the Navy is being used to
influence events in land-locked countries--our missiles descended on
Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, our planes and missiles provided a
significant portion of the fire power in the Kosovo campaign. Our
unimpeded ability to operate from the sea made the Navy and Marine
Corps the forces of choice for first night operations against Iraq
during Desert Fox. The flexible and versatile nature of Naval forces
was aptly demonstrated by the 26th MEU's ability to both lead allied
troops into Kosovo and then turn and assist relief efforts after a
devastating earthquake in Turkey. As a part of our effort to protect
our workforce, the CNO initiated a successful effort to reduce a
quarter of the inspection demands on Sailors between deployments. The
Commandant is taking similar steps within the Marine Corps to create
more time for families, for professional development and mentoring.
As a part of our effort to valuing our enlisted men and women, as
traditionally we have valued our officers, we have reduced Navy boot
camp and Marine first-term attrition and we have introduced a Navy
College Program that is providing college credits for all Navy
training. This will get a typical seaman half way to an AA degree
during his first term in the Navy. We are using our broad band
communications to facilitate shipboard ``distance learning'' and
information age simulations to improve training. A thorough review of
our pilot training program is cutting more than a year from that over-
elaborate process.
There is no question in my mind about the operational readiness of
the Navy and Marine Corps. Still, we must not run a marathon as though
it were a sprint. Strong foundation investments are required to sustain
our capabilities for these operations over the longer term. Navy and
Marine EA-6Bs are indicative of this requirement--they were strained
severely in Kosovo. The program before you reflects investments both to
bring another squadron on-line and to bring more aircraft to higher
readiness in existing squadrons. Similarly, it is evident that we need
more submarines than were envisioned in the 1997 Quadrennial Review.
The budget before you allocates $1.1 billion to refuel either four
additional Los Angeles class submarines, or as a down payment to refuel
four Ohio Class submarines and convert them to fire conventional
Tomahawk missiles. I regard both possibilities as very attractive and
cost-effective and look forward to discussing them with this committee.
Investment.--Obviously, I have touched on some important
investments in what I have said earlier in this statement. Our
investment in equipment is a primary method of improving things for our
personnel. As our equipment ages, the sense of the importance of our
work and our ability to do it, erodes; everything takes longer and too
many things are done not to accomplish a valued mission, but instead to
simply avoid losing ground. Investment in equipment is also, as with
the EA-6Bs and submarines about which I have spoken, essential to
maintaining our operating capabilities. The budget contributes to our
operations by a vibrant buy of 42 F-18E/F aircraft, by procurement of
11 V-22s and by procuring eight ships per year in each of the first
four years of the program and seven in the last.
Just as significantly, we have made a clear, and in my view
crucial, investment in the future. Ship R&D budgets have been brought
to $1.5 billion over the program years for redevelopment of our
carriers and over $3.9 billion for our next generation surface
combatant, DD-21. We are investing heavily in changes that will reduce
manpower, reduce acoustic and radar signatures, improve damage control
and increase fighting capability. Electric drive and integrated power
systems, announced for the DD-21 last month, are exemplary of this
transformation in all these dimensions.
Concomitantly, the information age is opening wonderful
opportunities for us. Our program for expanding communication and
computer capabilities on ships, IT-21, yielded dramatic results during
Kosovo operations. Not only will it expand, but also it will be paired
this year with the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet for shore-based
facilities. With an Enterprise Resource Plan next in the offing, we can
weld our disparate communications, computing and data systems into a
coherent whole. The result will be a Navy and Marine Corps that is
substantially more effective as well as significantly more efficient.
As in the other areas I have mentioned, our progress is not
perfect. To conserve funds, we eliminated T-45 aircraft procurement in
fiscal year 2003. We are making only halting progress towards replacing
our aging helicopters and support aircraft. In our ship-building,
increased investment in R&D for DD-21 has led us to delay the
introduction of that program by one year, from 2004 to 2005, enabling
us both to free up money for R&D and to reap the benefit of our
ambitious plans. The delay, however, must be reconciled with our need
to build surface combatants both to sustain the fleet and to maintain
our industrial base. Our building rate remains in 2001 as planned, but
in the program presented to you, the DDG-51 buy is stretched and
expanded to compensate for the one year DD-21 deferral. Moreover,
though our ship building program is much stronger than it was two years
ago, it still does not reach the required sustaining rate and the DD-21
deferral diminishes by two (to 39) the ships built during the program
years (we deferred 3 DD-21s, but added 1 DDG-51 for a net diminution of
2 ships).
Infrastructure.--This is the area in which we have made the least
progress. Our BRAC efforts have been invaluable, leading to savings we
estimate at $2.6 billion per year. We are effectively managing to close
bases and, as an added bonus, are often seeing civilian communities
thrive with the land and facilities that we have turned over to them.
We have, through our regionalization and strategic sourcing programs,
introduced new methods of management that will conserve personnel and
save money.
Still, this is the area of our budget in which we have the least
adequate funding. Our BRAC efforts imperatively require the
environmental remediation funds sought in this year's budget in order
to remove costly bases from our books. We also very much require
further authorization to undertake public/private ventures and, over
the longer term, we will need to spend more in our military
construction budgets. We can point to dramatic successes in
refurbishing housing and workplaces in bases as far apart as Naples and
Hawaii, but the backlog of maintenance and repair continues to grow
throughout our establishment. Over the longer term continued deferral
is not sustainable.
In sum, we have much to be proud of. The strength of our Navy and
Marine Corps is improving. But I am equally struck by how much we still
have to do. This committee is indispensable both to our progress to
date and to our prospects. I thank you for the role you play.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral Johnson.
Admiral Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
associate myself with all of the remarks of Secretary Danzig,
and I will try not to repeat. But I would like to offer a
couple of points.
The first is just to offer my own thanks for the work of
this subcommittee and the committee and the staff in terms of
what we realized in the fiscal year 2000 budget. It really is
making a difference for our sailors and their families. We felt
that it would. We are seeing it in real terms now. And we are
very grateful to you for that.
The Fleet update, I could talk at length on. I will not,
except to remind everyone that today, like every other day,
half of our Navy is underway and a third of our Navy is forward
deployed around the world. And if the metric is execution, then
we are where we need to be out forward, because the mission
execution, the planning and the morale out there is exactly as
we would all want it to be, and they continue to make us proud.
I will say, on the non-deployed side of our lives, that we
are also hard at work unburdening our sailors so that they can
spend time with their families and also empowering their
commanding officers and working seriously, as we have been for
a couple of years, to better resource them at home so that we
can then turn that into combat capability out forward.
One comment in the readiness area. And that has to do with
our execution or implementation of the President's directives
on the training range at Vieques. And that is only to say that
Rear Admiral Kevin Green is now on watch in his post in Puerto
Rico. He is already rebuilding the relationship that we know is
so important to all of us. And while I certainly at this stage
would not try to predict what the outcome of that very complex
issue is, know please that we are committed in the United
States Navy and Marine Corps and the Navy Department to doing
everything we can to preserve this national training asset and
to do so in a way which is especially supportive of the people
of Vieques.
In the meantime, we continue--our clock never stops--we
continue to train battle groups and amphibious ready groups.
And in the case of the Atlantic forces, for now, that training
will be in other places. Soon, again, we hope it will be back
in Vieques. In either case, I would like for the record to
state that General Jones and I will never, ever put our sailors
or marines in harm's way without their being adequately trained
and ready to execute their missions out forward.
The Secretary talked to recruiting. He talked some to
retention. I am encouraged by some of the things we see in the
recruiting area. I am very proud of our recruiting force, for
making their numbers now 17 months in a row. In this
environment, that is a heroic statement on their behalf. And I
applaud their efforts.
I take small comfort in that, though, because we all still
have not done anything to fill up the delayed entry pool. So we
have got more work to do.
Retention is a mixed report. I can deliver some more on
that later.
The number one priority for us in the short term is our
people. The number one priority for us in the long term is
ships and aircraft in sufficient numbers and capabilities so
that we can ensure the operational primacy of the United States
Navy throughout this century.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, as you point out, this is my
last scheduled hearing before you. I would just like to express
my sincere appreciation to you, to Senator Inouye, to the
members of the committee and the committee staff. For the past
4 years, in both the personal and the professional sense, you
have made a huge difference to this CNO and to this service
that I so proudly serve. And I am grateful to you for that. And
I stand by for the questions, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Admiral.
General Jones.
Opening remarks--readiness overview
General Jones. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, I am very
pleased to be with you today representing the 212,000 marines
on active duty and in the Reserve, and the almost 17,000
civilian marines that work with us side by side on a daily
basis.
I would also like to thank you and the committee for your
support, and sending a very strong message of support last year
to the marines and their families, which has made a quality
difference in their lives and has sent expressions of support
to those people who are on the edge of deciding whether they
are going to stay in uniform or leave our ranks. It has had a
profound difference, and we thank you for that.
Our challenge, however, having had this good year, is to
figure out ways to sustain it. Because my fear is that if we do
not do this we are going to be meeting here year after year,
talking about the challenges of modernization and readiness and
how we rob from one account to pay for the improvements in
another, and we will talk about retention and we will talk
about recruiting problems, and we will not continue to emerge
from the precarious position that we have been in for the last
several years.
It seems to me also a fitting time that, as we close the
page on the 20th century, to really reflect a little bit on
some of the fundamental lessons that that century has taught
us, in many cases, the hard way. I fundamentally think that it
is a really good time to reflect on the evolution of our
history and our Nation as it emerged from a somewhat reluctant,
but yet full of potential, power into the position of global
influence that we enjoy today and that I think our citizens
expect us to continue to be able to provide.
Before any really good things happened in the latter half
of the 20th century in particular, there were men and women in
uniform who were on the ground making those things happen,
through the hot wars, through the cold wars and the conflicts.
But that umbrella of military power and national security
commitment, which was funded and resourced, allowed the United
States to emerge into its current position of global dominance.
And I think it is important to understand and to have an
appreciation, and maybe even a discussion, with regard to what
level of funding is required to maintain that position of
dominance, which is in our national interest and in our global
interest in the 21st century. For me, the national security
color is self-evident. But it is directly linked to, I think,
the aspirations that we have to maintain our global economy and
our role within that economy.
It is important, I think, to sustain the exportation of our
democratic models, which people seek to embrace. It is
important to sustain the transformation and exportation of our
culture. And as we go into the 21st century and we are the
leader in technology, I think that element, that sustainment
pillar of our national ethic if you will, is going to be also
very, very important.
But the idea that the national security pillar somewhat
stands alone I think is false, and I think it has to be
sustained. In the past 60 years of history, 8 percent of our
gross domestic product was invested in national security. The 3
percent that we choose to invest today pales somewhat in
comparison.
We are a global power. We have global responsibilities, and
we have positions of leadership that I think our American
citizens embrace. And I think that we need to make sure that we
properly invest in that account in order to make sure that we
do not keep having the same discussions year after year with
regard to how we are going to sustain that element and that
pillar that defines us as a country.
Within that context and within that environment, naval
forces play a role that this committee understands perhaps
better than anyone. The ability to project forces and presence
overseas directly affects not only the peace and the stability
but the shaping of the environment. It directly affects the
benefits that accrue to our economy. The wonderful example that
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in uniform project
to the population the world over has direct payback in terms of
who we are as a people and how we are defined in the eyes of
the world.
We are able, through our mobility, to respond to crises
and, in many cases, to defuse crises before they even start.
Our scalability of forces allows us to impact immediately in a
crisis area. And, finally, the credibility of our forces
influences those who would wish us ill to modify their
behaviors.
The Marine Corps is basically a three-tiered operation in
terms of combat power. The first tier, which is well
understood, is the marine expeditionary units, which are aboard
our amphibious ships and which deploy cyclically and regularly
with our sailor counterparts, our Navy counterparts.
The next tier is the marine expeditionary brigades, which
we are now bringing back into being with identified commanding
generals and identified capability. This is hinged to the
maritime prepositioned ships. And when you marry them up with
the force, they become the maritime prepositioned force. This
is a robust, paid for capability that is resident within the
warfighting capability of our armed forces, and will be
increasingly understood and utilized by our warfighting
Commanders-in-Chiefs (CINC's). And we are very much in the
market of advertising that capability once again.
Consider the marine expeditionary unit as the lead element.
It is the lead element of the brigade, which is the lead
element of the larger force, which is the marine expeditionary
force, which has a major theater war contingency capability.
Naval forces are funded to operate, not just funded to be. And
we invest in that capability up front.
Recruiting and retention
Finally, your marines' readiness rests on four pillars. The
first one is its people. And with regard to that pillar, I am
pleased to report to you that our recruiting and retention
efforts are proceeding along very satisfactorily, both in
quality and quantity. I would also like to signal to you the
tremendous potential of the Junior Reserve Officer Training
Corps (ROTC) program. The Marine Corps has 210 high schools
signed up for this program, with 60 in waiting.
This is a very cost-affordable program. We calculate that
between 30 and 40 percent of the young men and women who join
the high school Junior ROTC programs actually do wind up
wearing the marine uniform. And I think the statistics for the
rest of the services is in that category as well. There is an
exciting possibility to expand those programs. And the idea of
being able to teach values to our young high school students
that could motivate them towards service is very powerful and
very exciting.
Finally, within your Marine Corps, we are returning 3,900
marines in fiscal year 2001 to the operational force through A-
76 competition and our own internal reforms. That is the
equivalent of over a regiment of marines that will return
without asking you for any additional funding.
Legacy systems and infrastructure
Our systems are very important. We use the term ``legacy
systems'' to describe older systems. We are at a crossroads
right now. The budget last year allowed us to really make some
serious inroads into modernization. We hope to sustain that. We
are still working very hard on maintaining the older systems
that we have. It is in some respects a quality-of-life issue,
because parts are hard to come by and we do need to move on and
get these older systems out of our structure.
prepared statement
Infrastructure investments are important for quality of
life, as is modernization. And, Senator, I know you have to go,
and I would be happy to expand on the modernization perhaps
when you return. Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Danzig deg.
Department of the Navy 2000 Posture Statement
This Posture Statement discusses the Department of the Navy's
mission, the Naval Services' accomplishments during the past year, our
direction for the future, and the priorities that must guide our
decision-making.
Last year, the Navy and Marine Corps conducted intensive operations
in support of U.S. national strategy to shape the international
security environment, to respond to the full range of crises, and to
prepare for future challenges. Naval forces contributed heavily to
operations in Kosovo, continued high-intensity operations in support of
Operation Southern Watch, and participated in numerous humanitarian
operations, while continuing to provide routine forward presence and
engagement worldwide. Significantly, despite heavy operational
requirements, naval assets were drawn mostly from normally deployed
rotational forces rather than surge deployments.
Even while heavily engaged in current operations, the Naval
Services continue to lay the groundwork for the transition to the naval
forces of the future. The Navy and the Marine Corps are closely
examining the strategic, technological, operational, and organizational
implications of the future security environment in preparation for the
upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review. We are working systematically to
take advantage of the latest advances in information technologies as
they pertain to all aspects of our operations, assets and activities.
Both services are significantly invested in organizations and processes
dedicated to fostering innovation and successful transformation on an
ongoing basis. All these efforts help drive the Department's
modernization and recapitalization efforts.
While keeping a weather eye toward the future, we also address more
immediate issues associated with current readiness. We are cautiously
optimistic that the recent compensation improvements as well as various
``Smart Work'' and other quality-of-life measures initiated by the
Services are having the desired impact on recruitment and retention
problems. We see some improvement in our effort to reduce maintenance
and spare parts backlogs. And we remain heavily committed to
implementation of the Revolution in Business Affairs and exploration of
various efficiencies throughout its many activities.
We invite you to read the discussion of these themes. You will see
that ready Naval Services remain vital to the Nation's present and
future security.
i. the navy-marine corps team today
The Navy and Marine Corps provide the Nation with a continuous,
adaptable, and active instrument of security policy with which to
promote stability and project maritime power. Forward-deployed, combat-
credible expeditionary naval forces are important to shaping the global
security environment; helping assure access to regions of vital
interest; and permitting timely and frequently the initial crisis
response from the sea. The ability to reassure friends and allies,
deter potential adversaries, and, when called upon, engage in combat at
all levels of intensity makes the Navy-Marine Corps Team especially
useful to the Nation in peace, crisis, and war.
The Value of Naval Forces
Inherently versatile naval forces can execute a broad range of
missions and are relatively unconstrained by regional infrastructure
requirements and restrictions by other nations. At one end of the
spectrum, rotational naval forces are engaged daily to favorably
influence overseas security environments. These same forces are thus
immediately available for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, or
crisis response. Likewise, naval forces provide the most cost-effective
and survivable component of our strategic nuclear deterrence triad of
nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, manned bombers, and
inter-continental missiles. At the other end of the spectrum, on-
station Navy and Marine Corps forces can provide a timely and powerful
response through the full range of strike and amphibious operations.
They are central to the unimpeded flow and sustainment of follow-on
forces in both small-scale contingencies and larger-scale conflict.
Operations in 1999
The flexible and scaleable nature of U.S. naval power as an
instrument of national security policy was shown by the operations
conducted during 1999. Five Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs) and
five Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) embarked in Amphibious Ready
Groups (ARGs) deployed during the year, manned by more than 55,000
Sailors and Marines. Similarly, 33,000 Marines were deployed or based
forward in support of other operations.
Navy and Marine Corps units played key roles in the Kosovo
operations. Sea-based strike aircraft from U.S.S. Enterprise, U.S.S.
Theodore Roosevelt, and U.S.S. Kearsarge and land-based naval aircraft
flew thousands of combat sorties as part of the air campaign, suffering
zero losses and achieving remarkable levels of precision. Tomahawk Land
Attack Missiles (TLAM) launched from surface ships and submarines
struck some 45 percent of key command and control and politico-military
infrastructure targets during the campaign. Also, TLAMs achieved a more
than 80 percent success rate against assigned targets in all-weather
conditions. The only standoff electronic warfare aircraft available to
NATO forces, Navy and Marine Corps EA-6Bs accompanied all U.S.
strikes--as well as those flown with allies--in over 1,600 missions.
Land-based P-3Cs, carrier group-based S-3B aircraft, and SH-60B
helicopters maintained a continuous anti-ship combat patrol in the
Adriatic Sea throughout the campaign. Furthermore, land-based naval
aircraft flew more than one-third of all reconnaissance missions
despite constituting only 20 percent of the reconnaissance platforms
in-theater.
Combat-ready Marines embarked aboard the Nassau and Kearsarge ARGs,
supported by Navy helicopters flying from U.S.S. Inchon, provided
prompt presence ashore in support of humanitarian efforts to aid
Kosovar refugees. Notably, Marines participated in the construction of
a refugee camp for 20,000 displaced Kosovar Albanians at Camp Hope,
Albania. As part of the Kosovo Force (KFOR), Marines of the 26th
MEU(SOC) (Special Operations Capable) were among the first U.S. ground
troops to enter Kosovo. While operating in the eastern sector of
Kosovo, Marines conducted such missions as clearing mines and
maintaining security.
Immediately following hostilities in Kosovo, Navy Seabees from
Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Three constructed living quarters
and restored utility systems for U.S. forces involved in the
peacekeeping mission at Camp Montieth and Camp Bondsteel. The Seabees
were also involved with various civic action projects, such as
rebuilding schools, as well as supporting Navy Medical Corps personnel
who provided medical and dental care to Kosovar Albanians and Serbs.
In the Pacific, Marines from Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task
Force 31 embarked aboard U.S.S. Belleau Wood and 11th MEU(SOC) embarked
aboard U.S.S. Peleliu participated in Operation Stabilise, providing
communications and heavy-lift helicopter support of the United Nations-
sanctioned, multi-national peacekeeping mission in East Timor.
We maintained a continuous carrier presence in the Arabian Gulf
throughout 1999. All six of the CVBGs that operated in the Gulf last
year conducted strike operations in support of Operation Southern
Watch. Surface combatants also continued Maritime Interdiction
Operations in support of United Nations' economic sanctions against
Iraq. Forward-deployed naval forces based in Japan continue to provide
visible overseas engagement and project U.S. influence in East Asia.
And, for the second consecutive year, the carrier and other ships
homeported in Yokosuka, Japan deployed on short notice to the Arabian
Gulf.
Navy and Marine units contributed significantly to other
humanitarian operations in 1999. In addition to their role in Kosovo,
Marines from the Kearsarge ARG arrived quickly on-scene after Turkey's
devastating earthquake and provided disaster relief and humanitarian
assistance to the Turkish people. A key element of this support was the
ability of naval forces to provide the assistance from the sea without
placing an undue burden on Turkey's shattered infrastructure.
Navy and Marine Corps Reserves also were readily employed during
1999. During the Kosovo operation, Reservists provided more than one-
third of the naval staff for the Joint Task Force headquarters, all of
the Navy air maintenance and ground security augmentation, one-third of
the Construction Battalion personnel, and flew EA-6B strike support
missions. Reserve Civil Affairs Marines deployed continuously to Bosnia
and Kosovo in support of both combat and humanitarian operations.
Marine Corps Reservists also provided substantial humanitarian
assistance in the Caribbean and Central America including relief
efforts in the aftermath of hurricanes Georges and Mitch.
ii. naval forces in the 21st century
The Changing Security Environment
Threats to Regional Stability
The events of the last decade demonstrate that we live in an
uncertain time. While we are confident that no nation will match the
U.S. on a global scale in the foreseeable future, some nations
inevitably will seek to compete with U.S. influence on a regional
level. Pursuing economic, political, and military policies designed to
raise the cost of U.S. engagement, they may try to diminish the stature
and cohesion of our regional partnerships. Such states--or non-state
entities--are likely to invest in asymmetric military capabilities that
they perceive can leverage their effect on our willingness or ability
to remain engaged on behalf of friends and allies.
Our ability to dominate the world's oceans and, when required,
project maritime power ashore, may discourage the adventurism of
unfriendly regional powers and afford us the means to defeat them
should that be necessary. Forward-deployed U.S. Naval forces promote
stability and reassure allies, and offer a counterweight to the
influence of unfriendly regional actors. Such forces contribute to a
security framework that complements other instruments of national power
to build regional stability.
Globalization's Impact
The sea has always been the principal path of international trade.
The ``Information Age'' has given rise to another path--cyberspace--
that is becoming equally indispensable. The globalization of markets,
networks, and information inextricably links U.S. economic and security
interests more than ever. As the flow of information, money,
technology, trade, and people across borders increases, the ability to
distinguish between domestic and foreign policy will become
increasingly blurred. We can best preserve our well-being at home by
being effectively involved in the world beyond our shores.
Globalization offers the prospect of widespread economic and political
benefits, but requires a stable environment to make this a sustainable
reality.
Future Risks to Our Military Preeminence
The trend toward globalization may provide state and non-state
actors conventional and unconventional means to advance agendas that
are opposed to this stability. Access by potential adversaries to a
variety of sophisticated technologies with military relevance may, over
time, reduce the technological edge of U.S. platforms, weapons, and
sensors, while making our actions more transparent. The growing
availability of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies with
direct military application highlights this trend. Even with a strong
intelligence program, we may be confronted by a sudden realization that
a potential adversary possesses a significant capability to interfere
with our operations.
While U.S. naval forces will remain pre-eminent, challenges to that
status are likely to increase and be fundamentally different in nature
than in the past. U.S. forces increasingly may face enhanced threats
posed by theater ballistic missiles as well as biological and chemical
weapons. Our increased reliance on information systems in warfighting
may also create a vulnerability to information warfare.
The warfighting concepts and capabilities of potential
adversaries--especially anti-access strategies--are of special concern.
Unfettered access to all domains of the battlespace will be a key
operational requirement and will hinge on control of the seas and the
airspace over it--the cardinal prerequisite to theater access and force
sustainment. Dominance in areas such as anti-submarine warfare,
neutralization of mines, and defense against air and missile threats
will be required to ensure such access.
Warfighting in the Future
Projecting U.S. maritime power from the sea to influence events
ashore directly and decisively is the essence of the Navy and Marine
Corps Team's contribution to national security. The strategic and
operational flexibility of naval forces provides the U.S. extraordinary
access overseas. Sea-based, self-contained, and self-sustaining naval
forces are relatively unconstrained by regional infrastructure
requirements or restrictions. Further, naval forces can exploit the
freedom of maneuver afforded by the seas to respond to contingencies
and remain engaged in activities that support our interests around the
world.
The Navy-Marine Corps vision, . . . From the Sea, steered us from
the broad ocean areas into the littorals where most of the world's
population resides and conflicts occur. Forward. . . From . . . the Sea
broadened that shift in focus. The landward focus of those documents
provides a bridge from strategic vision to programmatic priorities and
operational concepts. The defining characteristics of naval forces
suggest this vision will remain relevant in the future security
environment. However, emerging threats and opportunities will require
us to develop and assess new concepts of warfighting in the Information
Age that may differ from those of the past.
Characteristics and Attributes
Naval forces have enduring characteristics and attributes that have
evolved from constant exposure to the vastness, harshness,
unpredictability, accessibility, and opportunity offered by the sea.
Three defining characteristics differentiate the Naval Services
from our complementary sister Services and make us a uniquely powerful
asset. First, we operate from the sea. Second, we are an expeditionary
force--our ships, aircraft, Sailors and Marines are forward-deployed,
and they exercise power far from American bases. Third, in an age of
jointness, the Navy and the Marine Corps are linked more closely than
any other two Services in their structures, training, deployments,
operations, equipment, and staffing.
Four clusters of attributes derive from these defining
characteristics:
Mobility and Adaptability.--Naval forces can operate anywhere on
the oceans, free of diplomatic restraint. As such, they have an
unmatched ability to operate forward continuously, react to
contingencies with power and speed, and act as the enabling force for
follow-on Army and Air Force power projected from the U.S.
Versatility of Power/Scalability.--Ships can be benevolent and
welcome visitors, sending their Sailors and Marines ashore as
ambassadors of U.S. interest and good will. Ships can also manifest our
interest by re-positioning at high speed to areas of concern. The same
ships can also deploy Marines to rescue our citizens or deter those who
would harm them. And ships and submarines can be important platforms to
gather intelligence. Ultimately, they can bring massive and precise
firepower to bear and deploy Marine forces to deter and, if necessary,
fight and win battles and campaigns.
Presence and Visibility.--Ships can be purposely conspicuous or
exceptionally difficult to detect. In peacetime, we value visibility
for the sense of security and stability our forces convey by signaling
U.S. interest, readiness, and ability to act if a crisis brews. The
same ships, stationed close in, on the horizon, just over it, or in
unlocatable places and circumstances, can be used as needed in crisis
or conflict. With the ability to cumulate forces, naval power can be
adjusted or scaled at will, increasing or decreasing pressure as our
civilian leadership chooses to raise or lower U.S. commitment, and
engage or disengage much more easily than land-based forces.
Cooperative and Independent Capabilities.--Naval forces are
important instruments of international cooperation. Navy ships conduct
numerous exercises and interact with naval forces of allies, neutral
nations, and even potential adversaries every year. The Marine Corps is
a natural partner for many foreign land forces. At the same time, the
Navy and Marine Corps are a powerful independent force, with little
reliance on foreign bases or overflight rights to conduct strike or
forcible entry operations around the world.
In short, the enduring attractiveness of naval power is the
flexibility that stems from these inherent characteristics and
attributes. Investments in the Navy and Marine Corps are like money in
the bank. We do not need to know precisely how and where we will use
this resource in order to see its value--indeed our value is greater
because we are useful virtually anywhere and anytime. Our expeditionary
character, mobility, adaptability, variable visibility, and cooperative
and independent capabilities combine with our immense firepower to make
us an especially relevant and useful force.
New Opportunities
Historically, these advantages were developed over time and with a
high cost in technology. Even then, communications between dispersed
ships and land commanders were often sporadic. In years past, it was
difficult for ships at sea to discern what was happening on and near
land. Strike capabilities from the sea were limited by weapon bulkiness
(as compared with the small size of ships) and small magazine capacity.
Naval firepower and Marine combat forces could be projected onto and
over the land only a limited distance.
Entering this new century, the technology, information, strike and
telecommunications revolutions are rapidly undoing these bounds on
naval power. For example:
--Communications capacity between ships, from ships landward, and
from air- and space-based assets have increased by several
orders of magnitude. Information processing capabilities have
expanded concomitantly.
--Sensor and surveillance systems provide ship-based forces with
information about and insights into the land environment that
can equal that of land-based forces.
--The power, reach, and precision of naval strike assets exceed
anything previously available in the history of warfare. For
example, TLAMs, targeted within hours onboard ships and
submarines, can fly hundreds of miles, hitting targets with
precision measured in a few meters. Carrier strike aircraft
deliver similarly precise ordnance far inland. When combined
with the ability to insert Marine forces hundreds of miles from
their ships without the need to first build up forces on a
beachhead, our forces are able to maneuver and engage over
great land areas, more precisely, and more quickly than any
naval force in history.
--Sustainment capacity has grown proportionately. Improved sea-based
logistics capabilities and larger, better-outfitted amphibious
platforms will facilitate operations of indefinite length and
allow land forces to become less dependent on vulnerable, fixed
bases or stockpiles.
Investing for the Future
Unique among the Services, the Navy-Marine Corps Team gains much of
its combat power by coordinating operations in six battlespace
dimensions: on the sea, under the sea, on land, in the air, in space
and in cyberspace. Our challenge is to invest in a balanced fashion,
shifting the emphasis as particular opportunities present themselves
and seek optimum synergy between the Navy and Marine Corps and among
the different dimensions in which we operate. To this end, we must
invest wisely:
--To have or assure access to, and maintain presence and maneuver
within, areas where civilian leadership wants to assert U.S.
interests. In seeking control of the battlespace, we will
maintain and enhance mobility (shipbuilding capacity and a
sustained build rate); counter anti-access strategies (mine
warfare, anti-submarine warfare) and asymmetric strategies
(Biological, Chemical, and Information Warfare); and maneuver
on and over land (Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV),
MV-22).
--To know what is occurring, identify threats, and be prepared to act
quickly on that information. By investing in Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles/Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UAVs/UUVs), submarine
intelligence collection and communications systems, space
systems, Information Technology 21st Century (IT21), nodal
analysis, and our Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), we
will improve our ability to have superior knowledge of the
battlespace and turn this knowledge into the capability to
act.
--To project power and strike, if necessary, with weapons and forces,
unilaterally or in conjunction with joint or allied forces.
Weapons and platforms such as Tactical TLAM, F-18E/F, DD-21,
LPD-17, EA-6B follow-on, Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), SH-60R,
MV-22, AAAV, Light-Weight 155 mm Howitzer will enhance
precision and speed of attack and maneuver within the
battlespace. deg.
--To protect and sustain ourselves and, when required, others. This
requires enhancing force protection (Navy Area Defense, Navy
Theater-Wide); expanding sealift and combat logistics (Maritime
Preposition Force Enhancement and Maritime Preposition Force
Future programs); improving ``reach back'' capabilities (IT21,
Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI)); and increasing use of
robotics and automation.
These are only a few examples of the necessary investments for
conducting warfare in the Information Age. We invite you to examine in
greater detail the actual weapons and support equipment being procured
by the Department of the Navy in the Navy's Vision, Presence, Power and
the Marine Corps' Concepts and Issues program guides.
Connecting Strategy and Capabilities
Transforming our Naval Services is a complex, ongoing process that
requires priorities to be examined rigorously. The annual Navy
Strategic Planning Guidance (NSPG) and its prioritized Long-Range
Planning Objectives, provide the links between strategy and the CNO's
Program Assessment Memorandum (CPAM) and the Integrated Warfare
Architecture (IWARS) assessment process used as the Navy's program
planning tool. The Marine Corps Master Plan provides the link between
Operational Maneuver from the Sea, and the Marine Corps' doctrine,
plans, policies, and programs. These Service documents and processes
are developed in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense's Future
Year Defense Plan and, internal to the Department of the Navy, the
Secretary of the Navy's Planning Guidance (SPG).
In Chapter II, we described our efforts to apply new technology to
warfighting in the Information Age. However, warfare is, at its core, a
clash of wills, thus the human dimension--the ability to take
aggressive and decisive action faster than our adversaries--is all-
important. In Chapter III, we discuss the important investments we must
make in our people to prevail in future conflict.
iii. readiness and modernization
Even as the Naval Services continue the transition to the
capabilities needed for the future, today's Navy and Marine Corps must
remain ready for missions and tasks that may arise at any time.
Indispensable to our readiness posture are the men and women of the
Navy and Marine Corps. We also know that many in corporate America
characterize their search for quality employees--like the ones we
seek--as being ``in a battle for people.'' Consequently, the Naval
Services must be prepared to compete strongly in this ``battle.'' We
must continue to put in place the resources to attract, train, and
retain the people we need for the future. That said, we must also
ensure that our Sailors and Marines have the ships, aircraft, and
equipment necessary for the complex and demanding jobs that lie ahead.
Strategic Manpower
The recruiting, training, and retention of quality people are key
to the Naval Services' continued success. Maintaining our talented and
skilled workforce requires constant attention. During the 1990s, we
reduced our force structure, postponed some modernization and
recapitalization, and redirected our resources to maintain operational
readiness. At the same time, the pace of operations and deployments
continued unabated, and we began to see growing challenges in meeting
the professional and personal needs of our Sailors and Marines.
Clearly, a more equitable balancing of operational requirements with
responsibilities to our people is required.
One of the inescapable lessons we have learned from recent
operations is that victory and success in the Fleet and field often
hinge on actions taken at the lowest levels. To prevail on the complex
battlefields of the future, Sailors and Marines will require judgment,
strength of character, and the ability to make sound, timely,
independent decisions. We must, therefore, invest wisely in the areas
that together define not only the Quality of Life, but the ``Quality of
Service'' in the Navy and Marine Corps.
``Quality of Service'' has several aspects. Some aspects are
tangible, such as adequate compensation, a guaranteed retirement
package, comprehensive health care, and other benefits traditionally
associated with Quality of Life programs. Others, however, are
intangible--and in some ways more important. Indeed, they are cardinal
factors that make a career in the Naval Services attractive to talented
people relative to other options they may have.
These intangibles--job satisfaction, professional growth, high
quality training and education, and personal recognition--comprise
crucial elements of the Quality of Service. Sailors and Marines must
have personal and professional pride and satisfaction from what they do
throughout their service to the Nation. They must sense that what they
do is important and worth the personal sacrifices they make and the
``opportunity costs'' they incur. Thus, we must ensure that they
continue to hone their professional skills and enhance the combat
effectiveness of their units. They must be afforded continual
opportunities for professional growth and a physical working
environment commensurate with those offered by competing careers. This
is central to their Quality of Service--and ultimately to the
operational readiness and combat effectiveness of the Navy-Marine Corps
Team.
Our recruiting efforts must extend to all segments of America's
diverse population so that we not only get the people we need, but
continue our connection to society at large. By making smarter and more
effective use of our resources, especially technology, we will empower
our people with rigorous and meaningful training and education, and
help them increase their proficiency in the use of highly sophisticated
weapons, sensors, and information systems. Regional experts must be
cultivated: people who know the cultures of the world like they know
their own. Finally, we must continue to act energetically to improve
the Quality of Life of the entire Navy-Marine Corps Team--Sailors,
Marines, retirees, civilians, and their families.
Pay Package Reform
The recent improvements in military compensation, including the
``Pay Triad'' (enhancements to basic pay, pay table reform, and reform
of retirement benefits), and special and incentive pays, should have a
positive effect on our ability to attract and retain high-quality
individuals. Early feedback from the Fleet and operating forces on the
financial initiatives passed in fiscal year 2000 seems positive.
Such improvements, however, should not be viewed as a one-time fix.
Rather, they are part of an ongoing commitment to a healthy standard of
living for the members and the families of a smaller, busier force. In
addition to special incentive bonuses for targeted specialties,
consistent support for competitive across-the-board compensation will
be a key factor in addressing recruiting and retention challenges for
the total force. Continuous pay table analysis and, as needed, pay
increases will be important in retaining Sailors and Marines.
Reducing the At-Sea Billet Gap
The Navy has significantly reduced its unmanned at-sea billets.
These unmanned billets created additional burdens for units, often
forcing other Sailors to be assigned out of their specialties or to be
called upon to do double duty. As a result of our 1999 initiatives, we
reduced that number by 35 percent to 12,000. This has already produced
good results in the Fleet. For example, the John F Kennedy battle group
deployed in September 1999 with 95 percent of their billets filled. The
remaining billet shortfall will decline further as we meet our
recruiting goals, gain ground on retaining our top personnel, and
better shape our personnel structure.
Recruiting Outlook--Challenges!
Navy.--The Navy's end-strength requirement for the next several
years is steady, but any force structure increases above Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) levels will require an appropriate increase in
end-strength. In the wake of a 7,000 recruit shortfall in fiscal year
1998, the Navy met accession and end-strength requirements in fiscal
year 1999. In fact, we exceeded our single-year needs in some of the
Navy's highly technical ratings.
Several initiatives contributed to this success. We increased the
recruiting force by more than 30 percent in less than a year; we
expanded the number of recruiting stations to improve accessibility and
visibility; and we introduced a new series of Navy advertising
``spots.'' Additionally, we implemented several new or enhanced
programs to improve our recruiting performance. These include:
--Enhanced incentives.--The Navy College Fund and the Marine Corps
College Fund, together with the Montgomery GI Bill, help
Sailors and Marines pay for college education. The Navy and
Marine Corps also offer enlistment bonuses, paying cash awards
to qualified recruits. Recruits in selected programs are
eligible to receive both.
--Targeted general detail recruits for ``A'' schools.--To attract
more recruits, we are guaranteeing advanced technical training
after an initial 12-18 month sea tour as a general-detail
Sailor. This increased time our first-term Sailors spend at sea
enhances Fleet readiness, gives them valuable experience and
motivation entering ``A'' school, and results in lower
attrition from these schools.
Nonetheless, the recruiting environment continues to be daunting.
Unemployment is at record low levels, college attendance is increasing,
and the propensity to join the military is decreasing. Although the
Navy met end-strength and accession requirements for fiscal year 1999,
we were not able to improve our recruiting posture entering fiscal year
2000 as the numbers in the Delayed Entry Program, our recruiting
reservoir, are at a record low. To overcome these developments, the
Navy will maintain the increased level of recruiters and expand the
recruiter support structure.
Marine Corps.--The Marine Corps has met or exceeded its accession
goals since June 1995. The Marines, however, are undertaking several
recruiting initiatives designed to ensure continued success. Working
with their advertising agency, the Marine Corps has contracted with two
leading generational scholars to better understand what motivates and
appeals to ``Millennials,'' the generation after ``Generation X,'' and
will use this insight to craft the Marine Corps' message to resonate
with America's 21st century youth.
As demographics change and populations shift, the Marine Corps
recruiting force will change along with it. This year, the Marine
recruiting force initiated a nationwide restructuring effort, based on
market research, advertising effectiveness, demographics, and the costs
of relocating recruiters, to better align the distribution of its
recruiters with target populations.
With increasing costs in the advertising industry, the Marine Corps
is exploring new advertising venues to reach the youth of America. The
Marine Corps' long-range plan and focused, consistent message has
served recruiting well; future success will depend on continued hard
work and robust funding levels.
Retaining Our Best People
Navy Enlisted Retention.--Overall enlisted first-term retention
during 1999 was approximately 30 percent, about eight percent below our
long-term, steady-state retention target. Second- and third-term rates
were also below steady-state goals. Despite these lower retention
rates, the Navy retained enough good Sailors, in conjunction with a
successful recruiting year, to end fiscal year 1999 about 1,000 Sailors
over end-strength. Short-term extensions continue to maintain a high
``stayer'' rate, especially among first-term Sailors. In fact, since
fiscal year 1996, the Navy has experienced a steady increase in the
percentage of Sailors opting for shorter (less than 24 months)
extensions. Our objective is to convert these shorter-term extensions
into long-term contracts. Improving the Quality of Service in the Navy
and Marine Corps, including overall financial compensation, better
advancement opportunities, and maintaining personnel tempo within
established goals, is fundamental to our efforts.
Marine Corps Enlisted Retention.--Current enlisted retention is
relatively stable. The Marine Corps is experiencing first-, second- and
third-term reenlistment rates that are close to historical norms. In
fiscal year 1999, 23 percent of our eligible first-term Marines re-
enlisted into the career force. This represents 100 percent of our
first-term reenlistment goal. Since 68 percent of our enlisted force is
comprised of first-term Marines, in fiscal year 2000, we will need to
retain 26 percent of our eligible first-term Marines. With the smallest
enlisted career force in the Department of Defense, retaining high-
quality, career Marines is key.
Navy Officer Retention.--During the past few years, reduction in
the number of ships masked the adverse impact of reduced officer
accessions and lower retention. As the Navy approaches a steady-state
force, some 53,000 officers will be required. In addition to the ``Pay
Triad,'' the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Authorization Act
included new bonuses specifically targeting unrestricted line officer
retention. These included continuation pay for Surface Warfare and
Special Warfare Officers. It also included enhancements to other
special and incentive pays, such as a restructuring of Aviation
Continuation Pay and legislative limit increases to Nuclear Officer
Incentive Pay rates. While it is too soon to gauge the full effect of
these initiatives, we are optimistic that these positive steps,
combined with specific community programs discussed below, will help
improve retention in several specialized areas.
Aviation Warfare: As widely reported, Naval Aviator retention
decreased significantly in the last four years. Various initiatives,
including the enhanced fiscal year 2000 aviation bonus program, are
beginning to have a positive effect. While continuation of mid-level
officers remains our greatest retention challenge, we have seen a
significant increase in resignations of senior aviators--up seven
percent in the last year for aviators with 14 to 18 years of service.
Surface Warfare: During the 1990s drawdown, the Surface Warfare
Officer community had difficulty retaining enough junior officers to
fill ship department head billets, reaching a low of 17 percent
retention in fiscal year 1995 and improving only to 24 percent last
year. We recommended and Congress enacted the Surface Warfare Officer
Continuation Pay, which encourages officers to remain in the community
through the department head milestone. As a result of this and other
initiatives, Department Head School classes are full and the retention
trend appears more favorable.
Submarine Community: Submarine officer accessions remain below
requirements. While retention rates improved slightly (30 percent in
fiscal year 1999 compared to 27 percent in fiscal year 1998) and remain
adequate in the near-term, they must reach 38 percent by fiscal year
2001 to meet steady-state manning requirements for a notional force of
50 attack submarines. The current Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay (NOIP)
program remains the surest and most cost-effective means of meeting
manning requirements. The Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act
raised the limits of the NOIP program, providing the Secretary of the
Navy a flexible means to meet future accession and retention
challenges.
Special Warfare: Special Warfare Officer, or ``SEAL,'' retention
rebounded slightly from the downward trend of the past few years,
reaching 70 percent at the end of fiscal year 1999. Although this rate
falls short of the required steady-state level of 74 percent, it
suggests that the tide is turning. The recently enacted special and
incentive pays, which include an increase in Diving Duty Pay, repeal of
the restriction on drawing more than one Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay,
and establishment of Naval Special Warfare Officer Continuation Pay are
key factors in improving SEAL retention.
Marine Corps Officer Retention.--Officer retention in the Marine
Corps is stable, but we remain guarded about future trends. Although we
attained our authorized officer end-strength for fiscal year 1999, the
more than ten percent attrition rate was higher than the historical
average of nearly nine percent. Higher than average loss rates may lead
to an erosion of experience within the officer corps particularly in
the mid-range, company-grade ranks. Many of our ground occupational
specialties are already experiencing inventory imbalances, exacerbated
by the higher than expected attrition rates. Our internal force
management policies for assignments are sufficient, at present, to
address these imbalances.
Fixed-wing aviators continue to be the most serious Marine officer
retention concern. Overall, Marine Corps aviation officer inventory is
at 90 percent of total requirements for fiscal year 2000, with our
rotary-wing and naval flight officer billets manned at near 100
percent. However, retention of both fixed- and rotary-wing aviators
with 12-16 years of service is much lower than desired. We believe the
restructured Aviation Continuation Pay program will address our present
shortages.
Civilian Workforce Management.--More than 27 percent of the
Department's civilian workforce will be eligible for retirement in the
next five years, including a large percentage of our highly technical
employees. With challenges such as regionalization, downsizing, and
competitive sourcing changing the way we do business, a viable,
flexible, and multi-skilled civilian workforce will continue to be a
critical part of our total force. Multiple, innovative recruitment
strategies designed to attract and retain young college graduates as
well as a highly skilled technical professional talent pool will be
needed.
Smart Work/Smart Ships
As a matter of principle, we need to treat our people as valued
professionals even as we seek to employ them in demanding jobs. The
Smart Work and Smart Ship programs are two key initiatives that
allocate the right resources to help our Sailors and Marines do their
jobs smarter. In this way, we can enrich the Quality of Service in the
Navy and Marine Corps while concurrently enhancing overall readiness.
Smart Work encompasses a host of initiatives that capture new
technologies, seek better ways of doing business, and follow through on
commitments we have made to our people. For example, Smart Manning
entails improving personnel policies to achieve workload reduction
through better use of manpower and enhanced training improvements.
Substituting capital for labor means applying commercially available
services for labor-intensive tasks such as painting. Sailor and Marine
time is reserved for high value-added work and combat training--the
sorts of things they joined the Naval Service to do. Acquiring off-the-
shelf tools and ensuring safe, healthy, and efficient working
conditions will save service members time and effort, and allow them
the time to devote to their professional development. We will also
invest in research and development to design labor-saving tools that
are not commercially available.
In the Smart Ship area, the Navy is moving rapidly to apply the
lessons we learned in U.S.S. Yorktown in 1997, and more recently in
U.S.S. Ticonderoga, and the first Smart amphibious ship, U.S.S.
Rushmore. Installation of seven core technologies--Integrated Bridge
System, Integrated Condition Assessment System, Damage Control System,
Machinery Control System, Fuel Control System, Fiber Optic LAN, and
Wireless Internal Communication System--is planned for most of the
Fleet. Innovative ideas such as new watchstanding regimes and expanded
inport duty sections are already replacing old ways of doing business
and are yielding tangible benefits. Given the program's success, the
Navy recently chartered a Smart Ship Summit. This top-level approach
will provide a mechanism to ensure efforts are coordinated across the
Navy in the most cost efficient manner.
The Marine Corps is also looking for labor saving investments and
processes to reduce the time Marines spend in activities not directly
contributing to combat readiness. As an example, the Marine Corps
recently identified nearly 1,200 positions as candidates for
replacement with civilian or contractor personnel. Manpower savings
realized from this and other initiatives will result in increased
manning levels in our operating forces.
Inter-Deployment Training Cycle (IDTC) Workload Reduction
The imperative to ``work smarter'' is also being addressed by the
Navy's Inter-Deployment Training Cycle (ITDC) Workload Reduction
Initiative. Training and inspection requirements, many worthwhile, over
the years became a burden on Sailors' time, generating a major Quality
of Service issue for them and their families. This initiative has cut
these requirements by 25 percent, thus helping to relieve the load on
non-deployed crews. Commanding Officers have enhanced control and
flexibility to maintain combat readiness. As such measures continue to
come on line, Sailors will experience some relief, which, in turn,
should contribute to higher morale and retention.
DoN Education Initiatives
The higher tempo and complexity of future operations will test our
Sailors' and Marines' abilities to innovate, adapt, and apply their
knowledge and experience to a variety of tasks in dynamic situations.
Continuous learning is necessary for keeping our Sailors and Marines on
the cutting edge, including an increased reliance on advanced distance
learning systems. The Department will put career-long emphasis on each
Service member's educational and training needs and accomplishments.
Specific programs are described in Appendix A.
Similarly, in order to maintain our high level of performance and
improve retention, we are committed to making high quality education
programs available to our civilian workforce. Likewise, programs such
as the Defense Leadership and Management Program, the Executive
Leadership Development Program, the Department of the Navy's Brookings
Institute course, and the Presidential Management Internship program
will continue to provide valuable opportunities for the professional
growth and enrichment of our civilian employees.
Quality of Life
An important element of our new approach to Quality of Service in
the Navy and Marine Corps, Quality of Life (QoL) programs comprise
numerous services that add to the well-being of our people and are
important factors in both overall readiness and retention. QoL programs
traditionally include compensation, safety and health programs, medical
care, military housing, PERSTEMPO, and legal, chaplain, community, and
family services. QoL elements provide support for our families and
enable Sailors and Marines to concentrate on their prime
responsibility--mission accomplishment. Specific programs are discussed
in the Navy's Vision, Presence, Power and the Marine Corps' Concepts &
Issues program guides.
Health care remains an integral part of our overall readiness.
While TRICARE has been fully implemented, we have more to do before we
truly deliver on our commitment to provide quality, accessible health
services to the entire beneficiary population, including retirees. The
Department of the Navy is working actively with the Department of
Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the other Services on ways to
improve TRICARE and, while hard work remains, civilian and military
leadership is committed to making the health care system responsive to
its customers.
Readiness Posture
Deployed versus Non-Deployed Readiness
To some extent, deployed naval forces are able to maintain a high
level of readiness at the expense of non-deployed forces. However, the
allocation of resources to meet the requirements of deployed forces
creates difficulties for non-deployed units, which subsequently must
overcome a larger readiness hurdle as they begin to prepare for
deployment. The Navy's cyclical readiness posture is represented by the
``Readiness Bathtub,'' which illustrates how combat readiness varies
with time. While the ``Bathtub'' chart focuses on air wing readiness,
similar challenges confront the entire force.
The readiness of Marine operating forces rests on four pillars:
Marines and their families, current systems, facilities, and
modernization. All need attention and resources in order to maintain a
Corps that will be ready and relevant on the battlefields of the
future. Similar to the ongoing trend in the Navy, the high state of
readiness maintained for our forward-deployed forces comes at the
expense of organizations with a lower priority, such as the supporting
establishment. The pace of modernization efforts and the level of
investment in infrastructure also remain concerns, affecting both
readiness and Quality of Life. Indeed, projections of future funding
levels do not fully support all that we know should be done.
Nevertheless, the enhancements provided in the fiscal year 2000
budget have already begun to address some of our most pressing needs.
With the help of Congress, we have applied considerable resources to
ameliorating the problem, but it will take time for the positive
effects to be reflected throughout the Fleet and operating forces.
Training Range Availability
The use of live ordnance is a vital means of training our forces in
combined-arms operations in preparation for deployment. The inability
to train at the Vieques range has degraded the combat readiness of
deploying Atlantic Fleet ships and air wings since the spring of 1999.
The ability to conduct coordinated live fires from ships and strike
aircraft is particularly crucial, given that four deploying battle
groups over the past fifteen months engaged in combat operations
shortly after arriving in theater. We are also concerned that if our
friends overseas see that Americans are unwilling to support live fire
ranges at home, they will be less inclined to share their ranges with
us.
Force levels
The Navy and Marine Corps continue to meet their commitments
primarily by drawing upon forward-deployed, ``rotational'' forces
rather than requiring additional deployments of units that have just
returned from, or are beginning to work up for deployment. We have been
able to do this mainly by demanding more from our people and our
equipment. But this cannot go on indefinitely. As we approach the next
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Navy and Marine Corps will make
the point that our force levels need to remain balanced with usage
expected in the future security environment. For example, the Marine
Corps' latest internal study suggests that an end-strength increase may
be necessary to bring all units in the operating forces to a manning
level of 90 percent. However, before formally requesting an increase,
we are insuring that all personnel policies serve to employ our current
Marine manpower in the most efficient manner.
Already, there is growing evidence that our forces are stretched.
Carrier underway time during deployments has risen steadily from
historical norms. The aircraft carrier homeported in Japan had
unplanned deployments to the Arabian Gulf twice in the past two years
to cover our commitment there. While the last QDR specified a 50 attack
submarine force, the engagement plans of our regional Commanders-in-
Chief (CinCs) and the 1999 Joint Chiefs of Staff Attack Submarine Study
suggest considerably more are needed than the 56 boats we have today.
Further, a recent surface combatant study indicates that more ships
could be required than the current QDR force level. On the aviation
side, the Kosovo campaign illustrated the extraordinary demand for
certain high demand/low density assets like EA-6Bs. Furthermore, as a
result of the high operational tempo of the 1990s, Navy and Marine
Corps aircraft and helicopters are more quickly reaching the end of
their service lives than projected just a few years ago and must be
replaced.
The 1997 QDR stated that a fleet of slightly more than 300 ships
was sufficient for near term requirements and was within an acceptable
level of risk. Three years of high tempo operations, however, suggest
that this amount should be reviewed in the next QDR. Many analyses
point to a need for more ships than we currently have. Certainly the
specific numbers and types of ships will--and should--be debated. While
the capabilities of tomorrow's netted sensors and weapons will increase
the potency of each ship and aircraft, numbers will always matter.
Mid-term Modernization
Although sustaining current operational readiness is a prime
priority, maintaining equipment and infrastructure and modernizing our
forces are growing concerns. The understandable call to pay for
readiness first must be balanced with the imperatives to improve the
equipment we have. Modernization enables our current forces to continue
to be valuable warfighting assets in the years ahead while concurrently
trying to mitigate escalating support costs of aging equipment. Also,
as technological cycle times are now shorter than platform service
life, it is fiscally prudent to modernize the force through timely
upgrades.
Solid, proven platforms are the best candidates for modernization.
We plan to modernize the CG-47 Aegis cruisers and several aircraft
types (F-14, P-3C, EA-6B, E-2C, and AV-8B), and extend the service life
of our fast attack nuclear-powered submarines. SH-60B/F helicopters
will be upgraded to SH-60R models, while the CH-60 will replace several
older helicopter types. Additionally, the Marine Corps is upgrading its
HMMWV fleet of vehicles, modernizing its main battle tanks and Light
Armored Vehicles, and upgrading its current MM88 tank retrievers to the
Hercules (Improved Recovery Vehicle).
Infrastructure
Shore facilities are important, but only select facilities
(bachelor quarters, utilities, and waterfront, airfield, and training
facilities) can be maintained in conditions of readiness that enable
them to meet mission demands with minor difficulty. All other shore
facilities are funded to lower readiness levels. Backlog of maintenance
and repair of real property is currently over $2.5 billion and is not
projected to stop rising until it reaches $2.8 billion in fiscal year
2004. The Navy plans to demolish 9.9 million square feet of excess or
obsolete infrastructure by fiscal year 2002 to help reduce
infrastructure operating costs.
Part of the problem, however, is that the Navy has excessive
infrastructure. While the number of ships and Sailors has been reduced
by 40 percent and 30 percent respectively since 1988, infrastructure
decreased by only 17 percent. As a result of four Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) rounds, we will spend more than $5.6 billion less on
infrastructure through the year 2001 and $2.6 billion less per year
thereafter. However, additional closings are the surest way to bring
infrastructure needs and costs into balance.
Environmental Challenges
The Department continues its active program of environmental
compliance and stewardship both afloat and ashore. We are pursuing
research and development of technologies and innovative pollution
prevention strategies to meet effectively our environmental
requirements. This research has focused on marine mammal protection,
contaminated site cleanup, and hull paints and coatings. Also,
environmental planning is now an essential aspect of our acquisition
efforts. Environmental considerations are explicitly taken into account
when acquiring weapon systems and platforms and are reviewed
periodically throughout each program's life cycle.
Long-term Recapitalization Challenges
We must recapitalize for three basic reasons. First, the risks to
our future military preeminence described in Chapter II require prudent
investment in new capabilities. Second, the aging of many of our ships,
aircraft, and vehicles, coupled with the added wear and tear associated
with use, mandates their systematic replacement. Third, the industrial
base that supports our armed forces is still largely unique and, absent
new programs, would likely not remain economically viable.
To some extent in recent years, however, we maintained our near-
and mid-term readiness at the expense of investments in longer-term
capabilities. Resolving this tension between current imperatives and
long-term requirements has been, and will remain, a challenge. In fact,
it is becoming apparent that what was a long-term issue is now
attaining some urgency, as we seek additional funding to keep current
and future shipbuilding plans on track.
Nonetheless, we are making substantial investments in programs that
will be the core of our forces in the first decades of next century.
The DD-21 destroyer, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF), CVN-77 and CVN(X) aircraft carriers, MV-22 Osprey, Virginia-
class SSN, LHA Replacement, the San Antonio-class LPD-17, and the
Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) are examples. Additionally,
the Navy is studying the concept of converting of four Ohio-class SSBNs
into cruise missile carrying submarines (SSGNs) with special operations
capabilities. These programs are profiled in detail in the Navy's
Vision, Presence, Power and the Marine Corps' Concepts and Issues
program guides.
Lift Requirements
The Marine Corps amphibious lift requirement remains at 3.0 Marine
Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs). The current plan is focused on the
formation of 12 ARGs, which achieves the fiscally-constrained
amphibious lift goal of 2.5 MEBs. The plan shapes the future amphibious
force with the number and type of ships required for a flexible,
crisis-response capability. Ultimately, the amphibious force will
consist of 12 TARAWA- and WASP-class LHA/LHDs, 12 San Antonio-class
LPD-17s, and 12 Whidbey Island- and Harpers Ferry-class LSD-41/49s,
capable of forming 12 integral ARGs or operating independently in a
``split-ARG/MEU(SOC)'' configuration.
Strategic sealift assets include afloat prepositioned stocks
maintained around the world as well as ships earmarked for rapid surge
deployment of forces from the U.S. Prepositioning supports all four
Services and the Defense Logistics Agency. For example, each of the
three Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons, stationed in the Mediterranean
Sea, Indian Ocean, and Eastern Pacific Ocean, carries unit equipment
and supplies to support a brigade-sized Marine Air-Ground Task Force
for 30 days of combat. Enhancing our capabilities as defined in
Operational Maneuver From the Sea, we continue to pursue both our our
Maritime Prepositioning Force Enhancement (MPF(E)) and Maritime
Prepositioning Force of the Future (MPF(F)) programs. With the fielding
in fiscal year 2000 of the first of three ships, the Maritime
Prepositioning Force Enhancement program will add one ship to each MPF
squadron, creating space for a Navy Fleet Hospital, Naval Mobile
Construction Battalion equipment and an Expeditionary Airfield. MPF(F)
will combine the capacity and endurance of sealift with the enhanced
speed and flexibility of airlift to marry-up forces and equipment in a
forward area. With onboard cargo handling systems compatible with
existing MPF ships and commercial systems, we will increase the speed
and efficiency in reinforcing our assault echelons ashore.
Surge sealift includes roll-on/roll-off ships, self-sustaining
container ships, barge transport ships, crane ships, hospital ships,
and other specialized craft that support contingency deployment of all
Services. Nineteen Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) ships are
being delivered through fiscal year 2002, adding approximately five
million square feet of additional lift to current Army prepositioning
and surge capacity, while a twentieth LMSR will provide additional
Marine Corps lift as part of the MPF(E) program.
force of the future
Addressing the challenges that confront the Department will require
systematic innovation, the solving of difficult interoperability and
integration problems, and the steady pursuit of promising scientific
and technological initiatives. We are committed to allocating the human
and fiscal resources to ensure that innovation, interoperability and
integration, and scientific and technological goals are met in the most
cost-effective manner possible. We are also intent on finding
efficiencies in the way we operate and manage naval forces and their
supporting organizations, which may permit us to free up additional
resources for modernization and recapitalization.
Navy-Marine Corps Integration
The potential benefit from increased Navy and Marine Corps
integration, from warfighting doctrine to procurement strategies, is
compelling. As the two Naval Services integrate their complementary
warfighting concepts more closely in support of a comprehensive
forward-deployed naval expeditionary capability, a concomitant
integration of force planning methodologies, resourcing, and innovation
will be necessary.
Through greater integration, the Naval Services seek increased
flexibility of their striking power, for example, by restructuring
Navy-Marine Corps carrier air wings. These new wings and their
supporting units will be tailored to provide a range of crisis-response
options. Carrier air wing composition will continue to evolve as the
Navy and Marine Corps phase in new multi-mission aircraft. Likewise,
the Department is exploring a common aviation plan to streamline
acquisition and procurement strategies, training, and other areas.
In the Information Technology world, the Department will replace
its numerous independent local networks with a Navy/Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI) capable of more efficiently and less expensively
supporting more than 400,000 Navy and Marine Corps users. The NMCI
architecture will provide a state-of-the-art voice, video, and data
network with end-to-end computing services for forces ashore. NMCI will
be fully interoperable with both afloat and shore commands through the
IT21 and the Tactical Data Network (TDN) initiatives. It will provide
better ``speed of action'' and significantly improve security through
implementation and enforcement of standardized information assurance
practices. Although some immediate restructuring of our operating costs
will be necessary to support this consolidated service plan, the
benefits are impressive. The end result will be a Navy Department
enterprise-wide global information infrastructure with a high capacity
for effective management and sustainment of deployed forces around the
world.
Innovation
The Navy and the Marine Corps have ongoing initiatives to translate
such capstone concepts as Network-Centric Warfare (NCW) and Operational
Maneuver from the Sea into reality. The Naval War College's Navy
Warfare Development Command (NWDC) and the Marine Corps Combat
Development Command (MCCDC) are tasked to refine these concepts and
also develop future warfare ideas. NWDC's Maritime Battle Center (MBC)
and the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) also explore
candidate concepts, tactics, techniques, and procedures for the
application of advanced technologies. Navy Fleet Battle Experiments
(FBEs) and Marine Corps Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWEs) 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 the Navy and the Marine Corps strongly support joint
experimentation initiatives. Indeed, given their long history of
innovation, they actively support the Joint Experimentation Program at
all levels, from concept development to experimentation analysis. In
addition, the Navy and Marine Corps seek to be the ``testbeds'' by
which joint experimentation can leverage Service-developed integrated
warfighting concepts. For instance, in April 1999, the Extending the
Littoral Battlespace (ELB) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration
(ACTD) conducted the first of two demonstrations of a wireless network
connecting ships at sea, aircraft, and ground forces (both small units
and individual Marines). This test illustrated the exceptional
potential that wireless network technology holds for increased
information exchange among all forces in a Joint Task Force
organization.
Interoperability
The Services are making significant investments in fielding only
interoperable systems and migrating in-service, legacy systems into the
``netted'' world. For example, the IT21 initiative will provide a
reliable and ubiquitous network to all afloat commanders for rapid data
flow among sensors, weapons, and command and control nodes and is key
to the reprioritization of Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) programs to
execute the NCW concept. The Navy is developing a Common Command and
Decision (CC&D) capability that implements tactical command and
decision functions within a common open architecture. The ongoing
Cooperative Engagement Capability program is also the key to the Navy's
Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP) concept that will maintain common,
continuous and unambiguous track information on all airborne objects
within a specified surveillance zone. Other key interoperability
programs include the Global Command and Control System--Maritime (GCCS-
M), and the MAGTF Software Baseline (MSBL).
Carriers and large-deck amphibious ships are also being fitted with
identical or very similar command, control and communications (C\3\)
subsystems. Improving configuration management and software
standardization will result in better sharing of data among CVBGs and
ARGs, improving speed of information flow, and providing a common view
of the battlespace. To make sure these advanced C\3\ systems will work
when and where it counts, interoperability testing begins long before a
deployment, with a well-defined configuration management and a systems
integration testing program for all deploying CVBGs and ARGs.
C\4\ISR systems for joint, allied, and coalition forces must be
analyzed and agreed upon to make interoperability a reality. Use of
COTS technology, international standards, and ``plug and play''
architectures offer ways to avert technology gaps with allies and
provide the most economical course for achieving required capability.
In many cases, policy and procedures can be improved to take advantage
of emerging technologies that offer interoperable solutions. Security
Assistance and Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Information Exchange, and
Disclosure and Access processes, carefully administered, are also ways
to enhance allied interoperability.
Doctrinal interoperability issues may be even more complex than
technological ones. One of the challenges facing the Naval Services in
the next few years is thinking through the operational and
organizational implications of employing netted systems and fully
engaging in ``Network-Centric Warfare.'' Certainly, naval forces have
been operationally netted via tactical data links for decades. However,
the extraordinary advances in information technology, particularly the
networking of multiple systems, leveraged through efforts like IT21 and
the NMCI, promise to increase the combat effectiveness of naval and
joint forces far beyond what earlier data links enabled.
Reserve Integration
Some 89,000 Navy Reservists and 39,000 Marine Corps Reservists
serve the Nation today, indistinguishable from their Active
counterparts. The effective integration of Reserve elements with Active
components will be indispensable as demand for military forces
increases and the Active force stabilizes at a reduced level. For
example, the Marine Corps Reserve contributes approximately one-fourth
of the force structure and one-fifth of the trained manpower of the
total Marine Corps force.
Recognizing the great potential in our Reserve communities, we are
identifying scenarios and roles that could require short- or long-term
activation of the Reserves. Many Reservists possess skills gained in
the civilian workforce that can be called upon when required by our
Active forces. Thus, we are introducing a mechanism to identify the
skill areas for which there is no active Departmental occupation
counterpart.
In addition to the value of their military specialty training and
training for mobilization, Reservists provide an essential link to
American society. In many regions of the country, Navy and Marine Corps
Reservists are the only symbols of Department of the Navy. They are
recognized within their communities for the sacrifices of military life
and their service to America, and as such they provide welcome feedback
from their communities to Navy and Marine Corps leaders. Our ability to
leverage all of these strengths is important for future mission
capability, but we must be sensitive to the legitimate needs of
Reservists to pursue their civilian vocations.
Promising New Technologies
Transformation of our forces is underpinned by advances in science
and technology. Such advances may significantly affect disparate areas,
from warfighting tactics and techniques to propulsion plants to overall
platform cost and design. Some of these include:
--Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles
(UUVs).--Technology, especially in the areas of sensors and
processing, has moved forward at an amazing pace.
Correspondingly, the demand for battlespace information has
increased even more quickly. Future roles for UAVs and UUVs
include reconnaissance and targeting, environmental data
collection, and, ultimately, direct combat.
--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. IPS is expected to
save resources and enhance operational effectiveness through
decreased fuel usage, reduced manpower requirements for
maintenance, increased crew ability to handle combat battle
damage, and will give greater flexibility to ship designers to
use the ship's volume more efficiently.
--Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS).--Beginning with
the first of the next-generation aircraft carrier, CVNX-1,
EMALS will replace steam catapults that are currently used to
launch carrier aircraft. EMALS will significantly reduce
weight, catapult manning requirements, and life-cycle costs.
Revolution in Business Affairs
Even as we seek the transformation of the warfighting capability of
the Navy and Marine Corps, we also must fundamentally improve the
supporting business processes of the Department. Frequently referred to
as the Revolution in Business Affairs (RBA), our goal is to deliver
state-of-the-art capability from equally modern and creative
acquisition and support organizations, particularly in the commercial
sectors of the U.S.
Advanced Technologies
By using advanced technologies in our next generation aircraft
carrier program, we anticipate total life cycle cost savings of about
30 percent for the second carrier of that class compared with today's
NIMITZ-class carrier, which includes a 20 percent reduction in manpower
(approximately 600 billets). Following an evolutionary approach that
inserts advanced technologies into key areas of the carrier, including
integrated combat suites, propulsion and electrical distribution
systems, an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, and a completely
redesigned interior arrangement, we will enhance combat capability
while improving ``livability'' and reducing total ownership cost.
Similarly, DD-21 will be the first major U.S. surface combatant
designed as a single, integrated system. This holistic approach,
encompassing the ship, all shipboard systems, crew, associated shore
infrastructure, and all joint and allied interfaces, has the potential
to reduce manning as well as operating and support costs by up to 70
percent.
Commercial Logistics Support
Another important element of the RBA addresses the feasibility of
commercial logistics support to military systems, which will replace a
``business-as-usual'' approach in which the Services themselves are the
logistics support agencies. In this regard, the V-22 Osprey program
awarded a highly innovative, fixed-price contract for commercial
procurement and logistic support of its engine. The contract provides
two base years and five option years of contractor logistics support
for the engine through Allison Engine Company's revolutionary ``Power
by the Hour'' program. The cost avoidance from this commercial support
approach is estimated to be approximately $533 million over V-22
program lifetime and is related directly to improvements presently
experienced on commercial engine variants.
Shifting Design Responsibilities
The Navy is shifting more design responsibilities to the
shipbuilder and relying more on commercial tools, such as computer-
aided designs. The design/build program being used in the Virginia-
class SSN program resulted in a stable design at the start of lead ship
construction and should preclude costly design changes during
construction. This program includes the disciplined application of
commercial specifications and components, which we believe will also
help to reduce design and acquisition costs while at the same time
enable the Navy to stay on the leading edge in technologies and
systems.
Cycle Time Reduction
Integrated Product and Process Development is a management tool
that integrates all activities from product concept through production
and field support. It uses multifunctional teams to optimize
simultaneously the product and its manufacturing and sustainment
processes to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives. We will
look to industry to team with combat system integrators to provide
designs that will meet our requirements, provide the latest technology,
and reduce cycle time as well as total ownership cost. This approach is
being used in the LPD-17 and DD-21 programs.
Teaming
The first four Virginia-class SSNs are being built under an
innovative teaming arrangement between General Dynamics Electric Boat
Corporation (EB) and Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS). EB is the prime
contractor responsible for the entire design/build process with NNS as
the major subcontractor. Construction of the first four ships is shared
by ship section: NNS builds the bow, stern, sail, and some forward
sections of each submarine, while EB builds the hull sections, the
engine room modules, and the command and control operating spaces. The
two firms will then each assemble and deliver two submarines.
The Navy's DD-21 program uses a team-based acquisition approach
that leverages competition and innovation. By requiring competition
between teams of shipbuilders and system integrators in the initial
concept phase of the program, we are assured of a better weapon system
at the lowest future production and support costs. Allowing the teams
to enjoy maximum design flexibility helps us to mitigate risks and
future costs while potentially optimizing system capabilities.
Business Vision and Goals
During the past decade, America's commercial sector has
reorganized, restructured, and adopted revolutionary new business
practices to maintain its competitiveness in the global marketplace.
While the Department of the Navy is not a business, it maintains a
large and diverse business infrastructure to support its warfighting
forces. Published in 1999, the Department's Business Vision and Goals
provides guidelines for modernizing its business operations to match
more closely those of the private sector. This vision statement seeks
to support future initiatives across the Department while encouraging
local innovation.
We already are improving our business practices through initiatives
like Enterprise Resource Planning pilot projects, making costs more
visible to decision-makers, and Electronic Business/Electronic Commerce
which integrates business improvement efforts with enabling
technologies. The Department-wide intranet will further streamline
information flow. Additionally, capital investments in tools and
materials, as demonstrated in the Smart Work program, will reduce labor
burdens on our Sailors and Marines.
The vision statement is supported by four strategic goals that
provide an overall framework for the organizational and cultural
changes needed to make our business side as effective as our
warfighting side. These goals are:
--Foster continued conceptual, technological, and operational
superiority.--Develop business programs to complement
warfighting. Leverage leap-ahead technologies that offer a
warfighting edge into the 21st century and align acquisition
processes to take advantage of global market forces driving
information and technology.
--Recruit, engage, and retain the best people--military and
civilian.--Create an environment that fosters sense of purpose,
innovation accomplishment, and personal development. Make
laborsaving investments that enhance capabilities and improve
working conditions.
--Implement decision support systems that deliver recognizable value
for every dollar spent.--Give decision-makers the capability to
rapidly access data, knowledge, and expertise to enhance their
understanding of complex situations.
--Create a business environment focused on teamwork and outcomes.--
Organize with a focus on outcomes versus activity. Adopt the
best business practices for providing services and products to
our customers.
The Navy and the Marine Corps show remarkable strength and
adaptability in executing missions in the national interest. Our
business vision and goals seek to channel this same energy and
flexibility into building a modern, efficient support structure that
supports individual initiatives and corporate action simultaneously.
summary
This Posture Statement delivers two messages. First, today the
Naval Services are actively and effectively supporting the Nation's
national security strategy. Our operations in 1999 illustrate the scope
and scale of Navy and Marine Corps action worldwide--and we have ample
reason to believe the coming years will be just as demanding.
Nevertheless, we face readiness and modernization challenges. With the
help of the Administration and Congress, we are making progress in
meeting these challenges.
Second, the security environment is changing in the face of new
political, economic, and technological developments. In response, the
Naval Services are transforming how we operate under future conditions.
While the defining characteristics and attributes of naval forces will
endure in the Information Age, emerging threats and opportunities will
require new investments and capabilities if we are to realize our full
potential.
In closing, we hope we have engendered the strong conviction that
the Naval Services will continue to provide vital, indeed indispensable
value to the Nation's security. The balancing of present needs and
future imperatives will always be a complex endeavor. With your help,
we will continue to successfully meet the Nation's commitments by
investing wisely in future force structure and capability.
appendix a.--don education programs
Officer Programs
These programs and initiatives provide opportunities for career-
oriented performers to receive funded graduate and professional
military education (PME). They are largely directed at active-duty
unrestricted line officers (URL) in order to align the URL with staff
corps and restricted line officer communities which are highly
successful at including education opportunities in their career paths.
The Navy Washington DC Intern Program, Naval War College (NWC) Seminar
Program, the Marine Afloat College Education Program, Tuition
Assistance, new degree programs at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS),
and Distributed Learning (DL)/Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL)
programs provide officers with the advanced education required to serve
in the naval forces of the future.
Foreign Area Officer (FAO) Program
Close and continuous military-diplomatic interaction with foreign
government defense and military establishments is essential to develop
and maintain the capability to engage in constructive, mutually
supportive, bilateral and multilateral military activities and
relationships across the range of operations. The military and
diplomatic offices at U.S. Embassies and diplomatic posts must be
staffed with commissioned officers with a broad range of skills and
experiences. The officers must also be versed in politico-military
affairs; familiar with the political, cultural, sociological, economic
and geographical factors of the countries and regions in which they are
stationed; and proficient in the predominant language(s) of the
populations of their resident countries and regions. As well, the
Department of the Navy requires officers with similar capabilities to
serve in their organizations.
Enlisted Programs
The Navy College Program simplifies and enhances the opportunity
for every Sailor to earn a college degree during their career. In the
past, young people often joined the Service to get money to go to
college after their service. Now, they will have a greater opportunity
to go to college while serving their country. Enhanced partnerships
between the Navy and accredited universities and colleges will optimize
the granting of college credit to Sailors for training and experience
gained within their career fields, in addition to credits earned
through traditional education programs. This program is geared toward
the realities of life at sea, and allows Sailors to pursue a college
degree anytime, anywhere.
The Marine Corps addresses the educational needs of Marines and the
Marine Corps family through a tailored Lifelong Learning (LLL) concept.
LLL establishes an integrated, one-stop program for course enrollment,
access to research tools and the internet, basic skills enhancement,
and nonresident courses that is available to Marines on an ``anytime,
anywhere'' basis. Marines may access the Marine Corps Satellite
Education Network (MCSEN), which facilitates degree completion
regardless of duty station. LLL addresses a wide range of educational
interests, ranging from vocational to academic. Offerings encompass
high school completion, the Military Academic Skills Program (MASP),
Apprenticeship Program, Tuition Assistance, and Sailor-Marine American
Council on Education Registry Transcript (SMART). These programs are
greatly enhanced by the merger of Marine Corps Libraries with Voluntary
Education as part of Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS).
Civilian Programs
In order to maintain our high level of performance, we are
committed to providing civilian employees with the best education
programs possible to meet their needs in the new work environment. To
this end, we are developing strategies to improve the efficiency and
availability of training opportunities for our civilian workforce.
Involvement in programs like the Defense Leadership and Management
Program, the Executive Leadership Development Program, and the
Presidential Management Internship Program display our commitment to
developing leaders. One of the Department's most significant challenges
for our senior executives is keeping pace with the startling tempo of
technological change. Constant and rapid updating, and continual
learning, is essential. We have designed a corporate plan for the
development of our Departmental executives. The employment of this plan
will provide the Department with a skilled civilian workforce, while
laying a solid foundation of success for the future.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
We will just stand in recess until we come back.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Stevens. Thank you for your patience.
General Jones, you were not quite finished when we had to
depart. They vitiated the last vote, so we did not have to stay
for three votes.
Marine Corps modernization
General Jones. Thank you, sir.
The last pillar I was going to discuss was modernization
and our efforts with regard to Joint Strike Fighter, the
acquisition of the V-22, the most important ground
modernization program, the AAAV, are all proceeding apace and
we are enthusiastic about the service life that they will give
us and also the 21st century capability that this will do in
terms of our power projection capability.
I would also like to underscore and express my appreciation
to the Secretary and the CNO for their unwavering support in
the amphibious lift profile, and specifically the LHD-8 and the
LPD-17 programs, which we are profoundly grateful for. And I
finally close by talking about the capability of a base in
Florida, called Blount Island, which is the home base of our
maritime prepositioned ships that we currently lease. That
lease will expire in 2004.
It is a national asset. It is for sale. And I believe that
it would be very prudent to discuss ways in which we could
acquire ownership of that base either this year or in fiscal
year 2004, whatever the timeframe is. The owner has expressed
an interest in selling it, and selling it to the Government.
That, coupled with our Army prepositioned ship base in
Charleston, gives us an important national capability for power
projection. And I would commend that to you, sir, for
consideration.
Senator Stevens. Where is that base in Florida?
General Jones. It is near Jacksonville, sir. It is called
Blount Island. And it is the original home port of maritime
prepositioned shipping. But it is a leased facility, and I just
wanted to signal to you that we are coming to the end of the
lease. And the owner indicates that he wants to sell it.
prepared statement
Senator Stevens. Have your people prepare a paper on that
for the committee, would you please?
General Jones. I gladly will, sir. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Blount Island, Florida, Strategic National Defense Asset
The significance of Blount Island (BI) to the National Military
Strategy.--Blount Island is a vital national strategic asset, through
its role in support of the Marine Corps' Maritime Prepositioning Force
(MPF) program and mobilization in crises. Since 1986, the MPF
Maintenance Cycle for prepositioned equipment and supplies has been
conducted at BI. BI is part of the Strategic Enabler entitled
``Strategic Mobility'', and is an asset which is critical to the
worldwide application of U.S. military power and our military strategy,
under the strategic concepts outlined in the National Military Strategy
of Forward Presence and Crisis Response. Under these concepts, the MPF
program provides rapid and efficient strategic deployment options
through strategic siting around the globe for the geographic and
combatant CINCs. This enables MPF to be especially responsive to
regional crises and disaster relief.
Use of Blount Island was acquired through lease, based on the
results of an extensive siting study in 1985. Of sixty different
locations considered, all but BI were ruled out based on various
considerations such as water depth, ammunition explosive arc, overhead
clearance, acreage, cost, and climate. Since the Marine Corps began
operations at BI in 1986, alternative sites to the BI location have
been investigated. The Marine Corps has identified and considered more
than 100 alternative site locations on DOD facilities and private
property to provide suitable facilities to accomplish the MPF program
mission. No other existing facility can provide the same capability and
economic efficiencies.
Lease costs for BI are over $11 million annually. The lease expires
in 2004, subject to negotiable option periods, which could extend the
lease through the year 2010. Lease costs are expected to rise
significantly.
Negotiations for the lease option will begin in February 2003. If
negotiations for the lease renewal fail, any efforts to obtain a new
fixed term lease requires that the total present value of the lease
life-cycle costs would be ``scored'' or applied in the first year of
the Total Obligational Authority (TOA), e.g., a 6-year firm term lease
would be scored at $68.7 million (6 yrs @ $13 million/yr with a 3.75
percent discount). Through fiscal year 2004, leasing will have cost the
Marine Corps $154.7 million.
Continuing to lease is risky, costly, contrary to DOD policy, and
opposed by OMB. Cyclical lease renegotiations create cost uncertainty.
Lease renewal for fiscal year 2005-fiscal year 2010 becomes more
problematic if the rent rate exceeds our Congressional rent cap of
$12.3 million on annual lease payments. Assuming long-term leasing is a
non-starter, we could establish a year's lease with multiple annual
renewals. However, this alternative is not a sound business choice,
because it is inherently uncertain, has higher costs, shorter lease
term, owner opposition, and continuing encroachment threats.
Failure to acquire real property interests to control civil
encroachment could seriously impede the Marine Corps' ability to
support the National Military Strategy and ultimately jeopardize the
nation's defense capabilities.
Acquisition is currently planned in two phases. The first phase,
the highest priority, is programmed in fiscal year 2002 at $35 million
and would acquire approximately 362 acres outside the leased area,
consisting of fee and easements to ensure no additional incompatible
development occurs within the Explosives Safety Quantity Distance
(ESQD) ammunition arc. The second phase at $119 million is currently
unfunded but would acquire the Blount Island leased area, consisting of
1,089 acres. Adequate funds to purchase Blount Island must be obtained
soon because lease renewal negotiations must start by February 2003.
Conclusion.--Acquisition is the Nation's best course of action and
the most cost-effective means to secure long-term protection of this
vital strategic asset.
______
Blount Island Acquisition Brief to the Jacksonville, Florida Chamber of
Commerce, March 1, 2000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA01.015
National Strategic Asset, Blount Island, FL
the case for dod acquisition
section i--the maritime prepositioning force (mpf)
The MPF:
--Supports National Military Strategy
--Continues to be a Naval force power projection capability, major
theater force enabler and/or multiplier, proven in global
contingency operations
--Delivers sustainable combat power to the CINCs
--Provides core capability into the 21st century
--Will evolve with operational concepts such as Operational Maneuver
From The Sea (OMFTS) and MPF (Future).
A vital underlying element of the MPF is the world class
maintenance facility located at Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida.
In 1985, numerous sites were reviewed when Blount Island was selected
as the site for our prepositioning maintenance operations. Several
subsequent studies have expanded the number of facilities looked at and
have continued to validate the long-term viability of Blount Island.
Strategic Requirement
The facility at Blount Island is the premier forward presence
prepositioning maintenance facility in the world. Over 100 sites have
been examined since the inception of the MPF program in various
internal and external studies. Blount Island has been repeatedly
validated as the best and most cost effective facility to conduct
maintenance cycle operations.
The Port of Jacksonville's additional throughput capabilities were
clearly demonstrated during Operation Desert Shield/Storm when 59 ships
and over 220,000 tons of unit equipment and sustainment cargo were
shipped to Southwest Asia. Only the military ammunition port at Sunny
Point, NC handled more tonnage than Jacksonville Port.
--Blount Island was recognized as a national strategic asset during
Desert Shield/Desert Storm. With the exception of ammunition,
Jacksonville Port was the top throughput port in the country.
--Blount Island has the ability to surge and berth up to seven ships
simultaneously.
--CINCTRANS, recognizing the strategic importance of Blount Island,
has committed Mobility Enhancement Funds to complete the rail
loop at Blount Island, making it even more effective for
throughput and mobilization.
--Recent CINC Integrated Priority Lists support continued permanent
operations at Blount Island.
--The Joint Warfare Integrated Capabilities Assessment (JWICA) has
validated the strategic significance of Blount Island.
--Continued operations at Blount Island support the National Security
Strategy, Naval Forward Presence, the current Maritime
Prepositioning Force Concept, Forward . . . From the Sea, and
evolving Operational Maneuver From The Sea and Maritime
Prepositioning Force Future concepts.
--Blount Island Command is also designated a Required Operational
Capability (ROC) 28 regeneration facility in the Marine Corps
Capabilities Plan.
Operational Requirement
The MPF concept has earned a place as an essential element of the
National Security Strategy. MPF provides rapid deployment of personnel
and equipment of Marines and Sailors, by air to link up with
prepositioned equipment and supplies embarked aboard Maritime
Prepositioning Ships (MPS), which are forward positioned for rapid
response to potential crisis and conflicts.
--MPF provides flexible options for rapid deployment and employment
of forces across the spectrum of conventional operations.
--Maritime Prepositioning Forces are naval power projection assets
that significantly support the employment of Naval
Expeditionary Forces.
--The three MPS squadrons provide the Nation a unique, operationally
ready, geo-strategically prepositioned capability.
--The MPF concept remains a relevant and proven capability which
provides cost-effective crisis response capability, improving
responsiveness to contingencies, and operational flexibility
for combat, disaster relief, and humanitarian assistance
operations.
--Blount Island Command's mission focuses on attainment, maintenance
and sustainment of all requirements in support of the MPS. MPF
Maintenance Cycle operations conducted at Blount Island are
vital to maintaining the readiness and continued capability of
the MPF program.
Blount Island remains vital to maintaining and sustaining the
operational capability of the MPF, is the best site available, and
offers the following capabilities:
--Dedicated 1,000 foot pier and capability to berth seven ships
simultaneously in crisis
--Adjacent staging area (33 acres) for complete ship downloads/back
loads, 262 acres exclusive use
--Excellent road/rail network
--Major airport only 15 minutes away
--Close proximity to Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany
--Trained and dedicated local workforce in place
Acquisition of Blount Island for the Department of Defense
The acquisition will generate long-term savings and secures a
facility that is vital to the Nation, Naval Forward Presence, the
Maritime Prepositioning Force concept, and the future of the Marine
Corps. Acquisition is currently planned in two phases.
--Phase I would acquire approximately 362 acres external to the
currently leased property to prevent additional incompatible
development from occurring within the current explosive safety
quantity distance (ESQD) arc.
--Phase II would acquire approximately 1,089 acres of the current
Blount Island leased property.
Permanent acquisition of the Blount Island facility will ensure the
continued viability of forward presence in the National
Military Strategy
No other facility can provide the nation the capability to perform
the maintenance cycle operations as efficiently and effectively as the
facilities and personnel at Blount Island without cost prohibitive
investments and disruptive transfer of functions to another
(undetermined and likely inadequate) site. Without securing Blount
Island through acquisition, a key component of the National Military
Strategy is at risk.
section ii--the case for separate army and usmc prepositioning sites
The paper addresses the vulnerabilities of moving to Naval Weapons
Station, Charleston vice the Department of Defense permanently
acquiring the world-class prepositioning maintenance and mobilization
site at Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida.
The August, 1998 Joint Staff J-4 directed Institute for Defense
Analysis (IDA) study, ``Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis
(COEA) on Collocating the Army and Marine Corps Afloat Prepositioning
Maintenance Sites at Charleston, South Carolina and Blount Island,
Florida'', examined collocation issues in depth, and validated with the
Combatant Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) the strategic necessity to
maintain two separate sites.
The study concluded that collocation:
--Increases vulnerability of prepositioning maintenance cycle
operations to terrorism and major storm damage.
--Decreases throughput capability and strategic flexibility via the
loss of additional slip ways at Blount Island.
--Results in the likely loss of a major mobilization site if Blount
Island Command (BICmd) is closed through commercial
development.
--Disruption of organizations during transition.
--Increases work stoppage vulnerability.
--Loss of excess capacity for possible future expansion of
prepositioning forces.
--Could result in creation of a joint prepositioning command and
recommended against it because:
--Joint command would add another command layer.
--Conflicting requirements were envisioned.
In February 1999 the USMC site survey to update our own inhouse
assessment of NWS Charleston re-validated the IDA study relocation
concerns and determined relocation would be even more costly now (over
$200 million). No positive reasons for collocating were identified.
Results are summarized as follows:
--With the exception of one excess building, only raw land is now
available to support USMC relocation to NWS Charleston.
--Over $200 million for development of new facilities,
infrastructure, hard stands and pier expansion would be
required for stand-alone Marine Corps operations at three on-
base sites: the pier/marshalling area, maintenance area, and
lighterage maintenance.
--This does not include an estimated $70 million in relocation
costs.
--Collocation would also include scheduling conflicts.
--The Army Afloat Prepositioning Force (APF) at end state will have
19 Large Medium Speed Roll-on/roll-off Ships (LMSRs) and
the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) will have 16 ships.
Assuming the APF will also move to a 36-month maintenance
cycle, this equates to one ship per month for 36 months.
--Sharing current Army facilities and infrastructure (as opposed to
constructing usable facilities for the MPF program) is not a
wise option for the Nation's defense, based on the envisioned
scheduling conflicts and limited staging areas at both the Army
maintenance site and near the pier. There would be no excess
capacity in crisis.
--APF and MPF operate under very different operational and
maintenance concepts.
--There is inadequate infrastructure for sharing the current
facilities (Army still doing work outside, insufficient
hard stands, etc.).
--Surge and reconstitution conflicts.
--Higher maintenance cycle costs.
--Proposed MPF site is 5 miles from pier.
--Road network to the pier is two lane, winding road through
swampland.
--Second destination transportation costs will be higher.
--There will be a loss of skilled workforce at Blount Island.
--We can anticipate disruption to maintenance operations at BICmd
as USMC presence at the facility draws down.
--Many contractor and government employees will not relocate.
--Specialized maintenance skills are required in many commodities.
--Bridge clearance. Both the Cooper River and Mark Clark bridges at
Charleston are clearance hazards for the MPF AMSEA vessels to
transit the Cooper River to NWS Charleston. The AMSEA vessels
would require major ship modifications of approximately $5.25
million total.
Other Issues
$37.7 million in facility improvement costs invested by the DOD in
the Blount Island facility will now be lost.
Tenant costs at Charleston will be higher than current out-sourced
facility maintenance costs.
DOD will lose use of ROC 28 reconstitution and regeneration
facility.
section iii--short synopsis of alternative mpf maintenance site studies
Alternative siting for the MPF Maintenance Cycle invariably
resurfaces whenever the issue of addressing continued use, procurement
and acquisition of Blount Island Command is discussed. Initiating a new
study is viewed by some as a panacea to the complications of acquiring
BICmd. However, reviewing the body of historical work since 1985, four
major surveys have been completed on potential MPF maintenance sites,
and a study of current use of Charleston and BICmd for maintenance
operations has recently been completed.
These detailed studies have examined numerous commercial and
government owned sites to perform MPF maintenance. All studies have
concluded that Blount Island is not only the best, but the only viable
place to accomplish the maintenance mission. Given the continued growth
of civilian infrastructure in and around existing U.S. ports (both
commercial and military), the likelihood that a new study will reveal a
location at a reasonable price (under $200 million) which can support
MPF maintenance operations is very remote. The studies are synopsized
below:
The USMC survey of 1985 recommending Blount Island, Jacksonville,
FL considered 60 locations. All but five were eliminated for various
limiting factors such as water depth, overhead clearance, acreage,
available facilities (cost), and ammunition safety. The five remaining
ports were physically surveyed.
All except Blount Island were eliminated due to the aforementioned
limitations or other factors such as annual weather patterns.
The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA)
In 1992 CNA evaluated the purchase of Blount Island verses moving
to an alternative site. CNA reviewed the 1985 USMC study and also made
use of a 50 port, Department of Transportation study of ammunition
capable, commercial ports. All commercial sites were eliminated (for
the same factors as above) with the exception of Blount Island. CNA
physically surveyed ten ports: Blount Island, FL; Port Hueneme, CA; NWS
Indian Island, WA; NWS Yorktown, VA; NWS Seal Beach, CA; Craney Island,
Norfolk, VA; NWS Charleston, SC; NWS Earle, NJ; NWS Concord, CA;
Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Pt, NC (MOTSU).
Six options were presented by CNA based upon physical capability
and ranked by cost as follows: NWS Charleston, SC; Purchase of Blount
Island, FL; Continue Lease of Blount Island, FL; NWS Yorktown, VA;
MOTSU; NWS Indian Island, WA.
MOTSU and Indian Island, although listed, were determined to be
cost prohibitive, due to upgrades and operating costs required at those
sites being many times greater than the first three options. NWS
Yorktown, subsequent to this study, now has a bridge restricting
overhead clearance of the five AMSEA class ships. Even though
Charleston also restricts the AMSEA ships, CNA placed it on the top of
the cost rankings. In order for AMSEA ships to enter Charleston major
modifications are required to the mast and superstructure.
In its ranking CNA ``cost penalized'' Blount Island for lack of
troop support facilities (BEQ, mess, gym, etc.), even though there are
less than 70 uniformed personnel assigned to Blount Island Command. The
fact that there are two major naval stations (Mayport and NAS
Jacksonville) in close proximity is one of the main reasons the Blount
Island location was chosen in the first place.
CNA Conclusion
Buy or lease Blount Island.
Logistics Management Institute (LMI)
In 1993, the LMI conducted a survey for the Army to locate a site
for Army afloat prepositioning maintenance. LMI reviewed previous
surveys and physically surveyed the following locations: Port Hadlock,
WA; NAS Yorktown, VA; MOTSU; Ft. Eustis, VA; Blount Island; Military
Ocean Terminal Bayonne, NJ (MOTBY); NAS Earle, NJ; Wilmington, NC; NAS
Charleston, SC; Four sites in the San Francisco Bay area.
LMI found that only Charleston and Blount Island were suitable as
prepositioning ship maintenance sites. LMI recommended Charleston
because Army prepositioning vessels are not restricted by overhead
clearance and the Army estimated their ships would carry 25 percent
more ammunition than do USMC ships. This second item caused the
potential explosive safety arc of Army ships to exceed the limits
imposed on Blount Island. In reality, the Army ships now actually carry
significantly less ammunition than MPF vessels.
LMI Conclusion
For the Marine Corps . . . use Blount Island.
______
Prepared Statement of Gen. James L. Jones
our role: a ready and relevant force
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished members of the
Committee, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to report to you on
the state of your Marine Corps and its important contributions to the
nation.
Let me first offer my sincere thanks to the Committee, the
Congress, and the Administration for your help. You sent a clear signal
on national defense with your vigorous support for our fiscal year 2000
budget. The resources you provided substantially reduced our
modernization backlog and allowed us to reverse the decline in our
infrastructure. We have turned an important corner, and we now need
your help in sustaining and improving upon our progress. Marines and
their families are grateful for your assistance. Among other things, it
provided for the largest pay raise in 20 years, strengthened the
retirement system, and overhauled pay tables.
Pay and allowance increases are of great importance, but they alone
do not suffice to attract young Americans to our ranks, or to retain
them in sufficient numbers. Instead, it is the intangible qualities of
military service that prompt Marines to join and remain a part of our
uniquely demanding profession. These qualities include dedication to
country and Corps, great career satisfaction for both a Marine and his
or her spouse, and recognition and appreciation from our citizenry of
the great value of such a commitment.
Today, over 20,000 Marines are either forward-deployed with the
Amphibious Ready Groups of the numbered fleets or forward-based in
Japan. Other Marines of the Operating Forces are training at their
bases and stations in the United States, in order to remain prepared
for immediate deployment. Still others--to include both uniformed
Marines and our 15,000 ``Civilian Marines''--serve in our supporting
establishment, where their efforts to recruit, train, retain,
administer, and supply today's Marine ``Total Force'' directly
contribute to the readiness of our Operating Forces and provide the
infrastructure that sustains our Marine families.
This past year, our Marines participated in a wide range of
missions. The most prominent of these were the operations in the
Balkans, Iraq, and East Timor, and the humanitarian relief efforts in
Turkey, Central America, and South America. Our Marine Expeditionary
Units (Special Operations Capable) conducted continuous forward
presence operations, including participation in exercises and
engagement operations, along with their partnered Amphibious Ready
Groups. Some Marines conducted training deployments to South America,
Africa, and the equatorial Pacific region, and still others
participated in counter-narcotics operations in support of Southern
Command.
In the United States, Marines performed many important missions.
Following a series of hurricanes that struck the Atlantic seaboard, our
units conducted relief operations in conjunction with local
authorities. Our Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF), a
unique military organization and a recognized national asset, remains
prepared to assist state and federal agencies in responding to the
possible use of weapons of mass destruction on American soil. In fact,
we have proposed relocating CBIRF in the upcoming months, in order to
increase its responsiveness to the national capital region.
The Marine Corps Reserve continues to make an extraordinary
contribution, both at home and abroad. As part of our Total Force,
Reserve Marines augment and reinforce the regular component, performing
a variety of missions. Recently, for example, they provided civil
affairs expertise in the Balkans. Reserve Marines and units
participated in a variety of exercises, while others trained in locales
as distant and varied as Norway, Romania, Egypt, Japan, Korea,
Thailand, and Australia. In the U.S., they train to maintain readiness
for mobilization, and conduct community service projects in their
hometowns, thereby strengthening the link between the military and our
society. We are reviewing options for greater reserve integration with
active units, to include participation in scheduled overseas
deployments. The Marine Corps Reserve is in the midst of the last of
its Quadrennial Defense Review-driven structural adjustments, and it
should soon stabilize at 39,000 Marines.
Our Marine Corps Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (MCJROTC)
Program is yet another way in which we connect to our society. In our
high schools in the United States and in Department of Defense schools
overseas, we currently have 178 MCJROTC units, with a combined
enrollment of 25,127 Cadets. Through this program, retired Marines
provide instruction in the fundamentals of leadership and the core
values that form the heart of our service culture. School
administrators, parents, and communities celebrate the success of our
MCJROTC units in instilling within young Americans the virtues of
responsible citizenship. As an added bonus, approximately one-third of
our graduating MCJROTC Cadets enter military service, to include
commissioning programs in colleges and service academies. The Congress
has authorized us to expand to 210 units, beginning next year, and we
are enthusiastically pursuing that goal.
Your Marine Corps, in partnership with the United States Navy, is
prepared to execute its mission as a naval expeditionary force in
readiness. With your continued support, we will remain ready for the
challenges of today, while preparing to address those of the future.
our legacy: vanguard of the new american century
As the history of the 20th century reflects, the growth of our
nation's influence throughout the world was preceded by Americans in
uniform. During two World Wars and during the long struggle of the Cold
War, the U.S. military stood as a bulwark against global and regional
aggression, defending our interests and those of our allies, and
facilitating the expansion of our economy, culture, and democratic
values. The benefits of this undertaking accrued not only to our own
citizens, but also to the people of many distant lands whose lives were
transformed through exposure to America and Americans. Historically,
this constituted a rare phenomenon: the extension of a nation's
influence through ideas, rather than conquest, and for noble, rather
than self-serving, purposes. Our military element of national power--
and our willingness and ability to use it effectively, when
threatened--provided the security environment that made possible the
miracle of the ``American century.''
With a legacy of contribution in the 20th century, and the
knowledge that an active American presence around the world is both a
vital component of our continued prosperity and of remaining a positive
global influence in the 21st century, the influence of a strong
American military is beyond dispute. What remains a point of debate is
the proper level of investment in the ``maintenance and development''
of this capability.
An examination of our defense spending as a percentage of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) over the last half of the 20th century is
informative. Following the U.S. rise to superpower status during World
War II, our investment in defense, nonetheless, reached a low point in
1948, when it was estimated to be 3.6 percent of our GDP. Spending
levels rose during the Korean conflict and remained at 5.0 percent or
higher through most of the Cold War. Since 1991, however, the defense
share of the budget has steadily decreased. Our average level of
investment over the past 60 years, as a percentage of GDP, was 8.8
percent. Today's U.S. global military capability and responsibility is
sustained at a cost of about 3 percent of our GDP.
When comparing U.S. defense expenditures to that of other nations,
it is clear that the U.S. spends as much on its military as many other
leading nations combined, a comparison that makes our annual defense
spending appear to be disproportionate. Reality is more complex. As the
only nation with global interests, responsibilities, and capabilities,
our defense requirements--the underpinnings of our status as a
superpower--are correspondingly greater than those of nations whose
interests are regional in scope. Interestingly, however, some of these
other nations closely match our own commitment to defense. For example,
the United Kingdom spends about 2.9 percent of its GDP on defense,
France spends about 2.8 percent, Turkey and Greece each spend over 4
percent, and some Persian Gulf countries--like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and Oman--spend about 12 percent. Thus, while none share our global
responsibilities, several invest in defense a share of their national
treasure that is approximately equal to, or greater than, ours. The
difference is that only we have global responsibilities. The military
component of those responsibilities is of vital importance.
A number of factors underscore our requirement for adequate defense
investment. First, it is essential that we recapitalize and modernize
to maintain our current military strength. Over the next two decades,
the cost of sustaining our older equipment will increase steadily. For
example, many systems are rapidly nearing the end of their service
lives. To simply maintain the status quo, we will soon face the need to
replace ever-growing quantities of our materiel. However, prudence
dictates that we modernize our military capability to maintain our
current advantage over potential adversaries who will also invest in
technologically advanced systems, or those who will attempt to confront
us with asymmetrical challenges. While technology is costly, we must
devote sufficient resources to extend our present military advantage
into the future.
Further, the cost of human resources is growing steadily. We spend
increasing amounts to recruit and retain an all-volunteer force in a
burgeoning economy marked by record-low unemployment. Training costs
also continue to increase, as equipment becomes more sophisticated, and
potential combat environments become more complex.
A multiplicity of threats to our national security continue to
require that we invest consistently and responsibly in the military
pillar of national power. In many regions throughout the globe,
virulent nationalism, long repressed during the half century of the
Cold War, has re-awakened. Religious strife and regional radical
fundamentalism overlay an already fractured political geography, giving
rise to opportunists who have no compunction against orchestrating mass
violence to preserve or expand their power. Similarly, the competition
for the world's scarce resources is becoming increasingly intense as
the gap between rich and poor nations continues to widen. The
possibility of major interstate conflict remains a great concern, and
major theater war scenarios in the Arabian Gulf or in Northeast Asia
still fill the lion's share of defense planners' time and energy.
Terrorism has occupied a prominent place in the history of inter- and
intra-state conflict throughout recorded history. Today, the enormously
destructive weapons at the disposal of the terrorist elevate our
concerns to a much higher plane. Most ominous, perhaps, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the specter of a
growing threat to our homeland.
Clearly, if the U.S. is to maintain the global influence that has
proven so beneficial for Americans and for the world, we must maintain
the pillar of superpower status that sets and sustains the conditions
for that influence to grow and to prosper: a capable and powerful
military. Over the past decade, efforts to balance the budget and to
reduce the federal deficit have resulted in increasing budgetary
pressure on defense investment. These constraints have forced the
military services to make difficult choices in prioritizing resources
between force structure, near-term readiness, and modernization. An
ever-increasing operational tempo during this period has complicated
the prioritization effort. However, economic forecasts of a continuing
budget surplus suggest that resources for increased discretionary
spending will be available over the coming years. The armed services
require sustained, steady support and growth; periodic ``spikes'' in
resource allocation are not efficient over the long term. The question
that you must consider--indeed, the question that our nation should
debate--is this: What is the proper level of investment in defense, as
a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product, that will enable the nation
to maintain its superpower status in the 21st century?
our culture: the qualities of a naval expeditionary force
The Naval Services are well positioned to confront the national
security challenges of the new century. Naval forces can help to defuse
a crisis quickly by taking up position offshore or by conducting long-
range precision strikes, when required. They can seize critical ports
and airfields as part of an assault by a joint task force, or they can
deliver critical supplies and services in order to assist with
humanitarian or natural disasters. Because all of this can be done from
the sea, with or without any host nation support, naval forces will
continue to offer multiple options for shaping the national security
environment.
In his posture statement, the Secretary of the Navy highlights
three characteristics that define the uniqueness of the Naval Services.
First, we operate from the sea. Second, we are an expeditionary force:
our ships, aircraft, sailors, and Marines are forward deployed. Third,
the Navy and Marine Corps are inherently joint at the operational and
tactical levels in their structure, training, deployments, operations,
equipment, and staffing.
From these characteristics, we can derive six attributes that
capture the extraordinary value of naval forces to our geographic
Commanders in Chief:
Presence.--Whether on a visit to the port of an ally or stationed
off a hostile shore, naval forces provide a visible indication of U.S.
military power and the commitment to employ it in defense of our
interests. There is no substitute for presence if one hopes to shape
the outcome of events. The trendy notion of so-called ``virtual
presence,'' in point of fact, amounts to ``actual absence.'' Forward
presence is an understandable and unmistakable marker of American
interest in a region. It provides the means for the ``on-scene
shaping'' that is both the primary military mechanism for our strategy
of engagement, as well as a tool for the creation and maintenance of
stability. The physical presence of a credible and capable force deters
aggression and encourages conflict resolution at levels short of war.
It also advances American ideals, and presents a bright example of the
positive aspects of military engagement in a democracy. It inspires
emulation by example. Take it away, and you create a vacuum into which
opponents may enter.
Versatility and Scalablity of Power.--Naval forces operate across
the full spectrum of conflict from peacekeeping to major theater war.
They can transition quickly from the normal mix of forces in a given
theater to a much more powerful force. This can be accomplished without
deploying a large command and control system or creating land-based
infrastructure. A forward-deployed Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special
Operations Capable) can serve as the lead element of a larger and more
capable Marine Expeditionary Brigade. Similarly, a brigade can pave the
way for the deployment of an even more powerful Marine Expeditionary
Force.
Flexibility.--Naval forces possess latent combat power, the
application of which can range from maritime interdiction through
amphibious assault and strike operations, or operations as a part of a
large joint or combined force. They can be fully engaged in an
operation one day and withdrawn the next, quickly reconstituting their
combat capability for follow-on missions. Further, they can conduct
operations unilaterally, as part of a joint force, or in concert with
allies.
Credibility.--Naval forces are particularly well suited to the
roles of compelling, deterring, and responding to hostile actions.
There is ample historical precedent of the performance of these roles,
a factor that potential foes around the world must always consider.
Sustainability.--Naval forces are uniquely able to conduct long-
term combat or contingency operations without the establishment of
large, fixed bases on foreign soil and are free from excessive reliance
upon extensive contractor support. Logistics support is part and parcel
of the normal structure that is forward-deployed for peacetime
operations.
Affordability.--Naval forces are funded to operate, not simply
funded to be. This is a defining quality of our expeditionary culture.
While the Naval Services are expeditionary by nature and in
culture, interest in such capabilities is growing in the Department of
Defense and the military services. Indeed, with the extensive reduction
of our overseas presence during the past decade, it is today necessary
for each of our services to be able to deploy rapidly and to operate in
austere environments. There has been much discussion of new, emerging
expeditionary requirements and capabilities. In the Naval Services,
however, an expeditionary force is much more than the narrowly defined
entity described in the Department of Defense dictionary as ``an armed
force organized to accomplish a specific objective in a foreign
country.'' We believe that an appropriate definition of a naval
expeditionary force is:
A flexible and agile force operating from the sea and organized
to accomplish a broad range of military objectives in a foreign
country or region. This force must be able to deploy rapidly,
enter the objective area through forcible means, sustain itself
for an extended period of time, withdraw quickly, and
reconstitute rapidly to execute follow-on missions.
Service culture directly impacts upon the expeditionary character
of a force. The Navy and Marine Corps have developed and sustained an
expeditionary mindset and culture for more than two centuries of
service. An expeditionary culture requires institutional flexibility
and mandates continual preparedness for deployment on short notice. In
the case of the Marine Corps, with 68 percent of our enlisted Marines
on their first tour of duty, we have flexible ties to fixed geographic
bases. Readiness for short-notice deployments is one of the principal
articles of faith subscribed to by Marines assigned to our Operating
Forces. Thus, Marines understand well the requirement to maintain their
personal and family readiness. Despite recent concerns with regard to
operational tempo, we find that our Marines who are assigned to
regularly deploying squadrons and battalions are also the most likely
to reenlist. Young men and women join our ranks expecting to be
deployed. They want to respond to the nation's global challenges, and
we do not disappoint them.
our focus: the operating forces
The readiness of the Operating Forces is our highest priority. It
rests upon four pillars: (1) Marines and their families, (2) ``legacy''
systems, (3) infrastructure, and (4) modernization. Our challenge is to
maintain the individual strength of each, while achieving a proper
balance in our application of resources among the four.
People will continue to be the most important pillar of our
readiness. We continually develop and sustain preparedness for
immediate deployment. This requires attention to the physical readiness
of Marines and their equipment, as well as ``family readiness.'' We
accomplish the former through physical means, primarily, rigorous
training. The latter is the product of instilling in our Marines
unquestionable confidence that their families are adequately supported
in terms of pay, health care, housing, and schools--especially during
deployments.
The second pillar of readiness--legacy systems--requires continued
attention to the maintenance of materiel fielded in the period spanning
the last four decades of the 20th century. Much of this equipment is
currently beyond its intended service life, resulting in a continually
growing maintenance requirement. Still, it is this equipment with which
we conduct operations today. It is essential that we support it
properly, until it can be replaced.
Our third readiness pillar--infrastructure--is likewise of critical
importance to the accomplishment of our mission. Our bases and stations
are the launching points for deploying units of the Operating Forces,
and they are home to our Marine families. We must ensure that they
provide adequate ranges and training facilities, are environmentally
sound, and promote the overall health and well being of our Marines,
our civilians, and our families.
Finally, our fourth pillar--modernization--will ensure ready and
capable Marine Air Ground Task Forces well into the future. We must
procure key warfighting systems in a timely manner, and in the proper
quantities. As our legacy systems approach the end of their useful
lives, they become of increasingly marginal tactical use, and require
modernization.
Marine forces are joint, combined, and fully interoperable across
the spectrum of potential conflict. With existing resources, we are
breathing new life into our capabilities. Such measures include:
Marine Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable)
(approximately 2,200 Marines and Sailors, self-sustaining for 15 days)
--Validated mission profiles as ``light weight warfighting
capability''
--Prepared to incorporate MV-22 Osprey
--Acquired new light weight Interim Fast Attack Vehicle
Marine Expeditionary Brigades (up to 17,000 Marines and Sailors,
self-sustaining for 30 days)
--Embedded brigade command element in each Marine Expeditionary Force
--Validated mission profiles as ``medium weight warfighting
capability''
--Initiated development of standards of performance
--Re-established brigade link with Maritime Prepositioning Ships
Squadrons
Marine Expeditionary Forces (approximately 50,000 Marines and
Sailors, self-sustaining for 60 days)
--Validated mission profile as ``heavy weight warfighting
capability''
--Completed requirements to augment organic fire support capability
--Increased reconnaissance capability
Our responsibility to the nation is to be successful in
warfighting, and the single best expression of that task is found in
our service doctrine. Our capstone warfighting concept for the future--
Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS)--reflects our best
understanding of the 21st century warfighting environment and how we
can succeed in that environment. It is the foundation upon which we
will build our doctrine of the future. Marines understand that OMFTS
depends upon the Navy's complete support. To that end, during January,
the Chief of Naval Operations and I co-hosted a Navy-Marine Corps
Warfighting Conference at Quantico, Virginia. This exchange of ideas
among the senior leaders of our two services will serve us well as we
shape the naval warfighting capability of the 21st century.
Navy-Marine Corps teamwork is the strength of the Naval Services.
Allow me to cite some examples. First, as you know, a variety of
manufacturing, training, and maintenance deficiencies converged on us
last summer, resulting in a Corps-wide grounding and complete
reassessment of the state of the AV-8B Harrier fleet. By April of this
year, we will have returned the great majority of these aircraft to
service. We could not have made such great progress in such a short
period of time without the support of the Chief of Naval Operations and
the Navy. Additionally, despite the constraint of available
shipbuilding funds, the Navy has strongly supported the continued
modernization of the amphibious force, at the cost of other projects.
This clear commitment to the readiness of the overall naval force is an
enduring characteristic of the Navy-Marine Corps team, and it bodes
well for the future.
In addition to our strong partnership with the Navy, the Marine
Corps is a significant force provider and a major participant in joint
operations. Our contribution to the nation's combat power is,
proportionally, at an historical high. Marine units constitute about 20
percent of the U.S. military's active ground maneuver battalions, 20
percent of the active fighter/attack squadrons, 17 percent of the
attack helicopters, and nearly one third of the ground combat service
support in the active forces. When the United States commits
significant forces to any military operation--combat or otherwise--
Marines will be there * * * for about six percent of the defense
budget.
our direction: new capabilities for a new century
We have a well-ordered plan to manage the transition of today's
Marine Corps to a 21st century sea-based force. With the continued
strong support of the Congress, Marine Air-Ground Task Forces, by the
end of this decade, will offer a greater range of flexible and potent
military capabilities to U.S. leadership. We have begun to build the
doctrinal and educational foundation of the future Marine Corps. We are
in need of your support to complete the task.
Recruiting the Force
While we have met or exceeded our recruiting goals for the past 55
months, we do not take this success for granted. With 68 percent of
Marines on their first enlistment, we are always the ``youngest'' of
the four services. Although it is not widely known, we must annually
recruit more young men and women into our enlisted ranks than does the
Air Force. This year, our goal is to recruit 39,343 Marines for the
Total Force, while next year this figure will rise to just over 41,000.
Given those factors, we are concerned about the diminishing numbers
of young Americans available for military service and their
demonstrated low propensity to enlist. Competition from a strong
economy exacerbates this trend, as does the higher percentage of youths
who are able to attend college with the financial assistance of non-
military related programs. The extent of the recruiting challenge can
be quantified by recruiting costs. Today, the Marine Corps spends over
$6,000 to complete a single enlistment contract--a ``bargain basement''
amount--and that figure is rising continually.
The unpredictable demands of modern conflict and the increasingly
complicated technology we employ require that the Marine Corps seek out
young men and women of character who are physically fit and
intellectually prepared. The surest source of such high-caliber
recruits is from among the ranks of the graduates of America's high
schools and colleges. Accordingly, our recruiting program relies on our
ability to reach the largest possible range of qualified young
Americans. Unfortunately, our recruiters are not only experiencing a
decline in access to school directory information, but in many cases,
schools are denying them permission to conduct campus visits. Some
school districts allow their individual administrators to establish and
enforce restrictive policies. While these take many forms, it is the
denial of directory information that is most damaging to our recruiting
efforts. If this trend continues, it will not only have a negative
impact on Marine Corps recruiting, but it will also threaten the
viability of the All-Volunteer Force. Those who restrict the access of
recruiters to their schools would probably be the first to object to a
return of the draft. I believe that all services would benefit from
assistance in getting our nation's high schools and community colleges
to support military recruitment efforts. Therefore, I ask for your
support in ensuring that school systems benefiting from federal funding
reciprocate with access and directory information for our military
recruiters.
Retaining the Force
The Marine Corps is very mindful of retention issues. As one might
expect, retaining Marines who are trained in some technical skills
presents a great challenge. Although officer retention appears to be
experiencing a modest increase over last year, we remain watchful with
regard to the retention of our fixed-wing aviators.
Over the past several years, we have discharged about 8,000 first-
term Marines per year prior to the end of their first enlistment. In
fiscal year 1999, we achieved a 22 percent reduction in such early
attrition, and it appears that this positive trend is carrying over
this year. If we can sustain this effort, we can ease accession
requirements for our recruiters. This is a task that has the attention
of Marine leaders of all grades. While only a few can be
``recruiters,'' we are all ``retainers.''
Recent quality of life enhancements have done a great deal to
assist us in meeting our retention goals and we thank you for your
support. The ``compensation triad'' of pay raises, Pay Table Reform,
and REDUX elimination is having a positive impact in the Operating
Forces. We must continue to invest in this area. Secretary Cohen's
recent initiative to further improve Basic Allowance for Housing rates
to cover 100 percent of the normal costs of housing by 2005 is exactly
the kind of message we need in our retention efforts.
On the list of needed improvements that influence retention,
military health care ranks very high. Military families are faced with
frequent moves as a condition of the profession. When faced with
limited health care availability, poorly informed support staff
personnel, and the out-of-pocket expense of today's TRICARE system,
frustration is palpable. The retired military community feels this
problem, as well, and their best efforts to settle near large military
medical facilities are no guarantee of reliable access to health care.
To them, adequate health care is part of a commitment made by the
nation for their past service. We have a moral obligation to support
our retired and disabled veterans. They, more than any other group in
the 20th century, shaped our nation for the bright future we envision.
In this time of unprecedented economic surplus, it seems to be both
reasonable and fair to suggest that we should seize the moment to take
care of them.
Staffing the Force
We are reviewing our practices in order to try to narrow the gap
between our Operating Force structure and the manpower available to
fill that structure. Through privatization or consolidation of
functions, we can redistribute manpower to meet our most pressing
needs. To date, we have identified almost 2,100 Marines who, beginning
in fiscal 2001, will be returning to billets the Operating Forces. We
are actively reviewing more billets for similar consideration. Still,
we might not be able to narrow the structure-to-staffing gap
sufficiently, and as we review our force structure, we might yet
determine a need for more Marines.
Your support in fiscal year 2000 for an increase in the end
strength of the Corps by 370 Marines will make possible a significant
improvement in the breadth and depth of our support for the Department
of State, through the Marine Security Guard program. When this increase
comes to fruition, we will be able to better protect our overseas
diplomatic posts. While there is more work to be done in this area, the
additional manpower allocation is an important step in the right
direction.
Among its many great reforms, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986
took aim at the size of service headquarters staffs. Legislation in
1991 directed a four percent reduction per year from fiscal year 1991
through fiscal year 1995. The Marine Corps complied with that
legislation and follow-on legislation, and as a result we will have
achieved a 27 percent reduction in our headquarters staff by 2001. We
pride ourselves on being as ``lean'' as possible in this area, and we
continually seek opportunities to transfer force structure from our
Supporting Establishment to our Operating Forces. I do not, however,
endorse further reductions in our service headquarters staff as
mandated by Congress in 2000. The legislated reduction--15 percent
between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2002--will greatly limit the
ability of our headquarters to fulfill its Title 10 and operational
responsibilities. I respectfully request Congressional review of this
mandate, and I ask the Congress to craft legislation that more fully
considers the impact of reductions on each service and department.
Amphibious and Naval Surface Fire Support for the Force
The five Tarawa-class Amphibious Assault Ships (LHAs) are scheduled
for retirement over the next 15 years and we need to closely examine
options for their replacement. An LHD-8 transition ship and follow-on
LHA replacement ships will better serve and meet Marine Corps
requirements. The LDP-17 program represents a new generation of
amphibious ships. In 2008, when the last LPD-17 class ship is scheduled
to join the fleet, the amphibious force will consist of 36 ships or 12
three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs).
We support the achievement of a 3.0 MEB amphibious lift capability.
Current plans will bring the United States up to a fiscally constrained
2.5 MEB-lift capability by fiscal year 2008. Dedicated amphibious
forces have proven their worth in peace as a deterrent, and in war as a
combat force multiplier. Such forces represent an invaluable and
irreplaceable capacity to represent sovereign U.S. interests, whether
operating independently or as part of a Naval Expeditionary Force. The
forcible entry capability of modern amphibious forces simply cannot be
replicated.
The recent funding of the acquisition and conversion of the USNS
Soderman to become part of the Maritime Prepositioning Force will offer
Commanders in Chief a substantial increase in capability. The Soderman,
along with its two predecessors in the Maritime Prepositioning Force
Enhancement program, brings a unique set of naval construction and
expeditionary airfield options to remote theaters of operation. The
next generation of maritime prepositioning ships will further extend
our ability to project and sustain U.S. military power in the world's
littorals.
A credible naval surface fire support (NSFS) program is a critical
component of forcible entry from the sea. Under current plans, the Navy
will begin construction in fiscal year 2005 of the DD 21-class ships,
each to be equipped with two 155-millimeter naval guns. Additionally,
the Navy has committed, in the interim, to installing the 5 inch/62
caliber naval gun on 27 new DDG 51-class destroyers and retrofitting 22
CG 47-class cruisers with the same system. Firing the Extended Range
Gun Munition (ERGM), this gun will measurably improve our near-term
NSFS capability. We have been at considerable risk in naval surface
fire support since the retirement of the Iowa-class battleships. This
situation will continue until the DD 21-class destroyers join the fleet
in strength. This program must be accorded a high priority of effort.
Sustaining the Force
We must undertake the wisest possible course to conserve our real
property and, when necessary, to acquire any additional property that
is mission critical. The Blount Island facility in Jacksonville,
Florida is truly a national asset that must be purchased to ensure its
availability over the long term. Its peacetime mission of support to
the Maritime Prepositioning Force has been of exceptional value to the
Marine Corps, while its wartime capability to support massive logistics
sustainment from the continental U.S. gives it strategic significance.
In 2004, our lease of this facility will expire. In the near term, we
request $35 million to secure the necessary easements in order to
prevent further encroachment against the facility, but our long term
national strategy should be to purchase this key facility outright.
Independent studies--including one completed in 1997 for the J-4
Directorate of the Joint Staff--have confirmed the importance of
maintaining complementary Army and Marine Corps prepositioning
maintenance sites and have highlighted the strategic value of Blount
Island's throughput and follow-on sustainment capabilities.
Command and Control for the Force
We have entered an era of increasing reliance on high-end
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems and their
associated communications suites. With new technologies introduced on a
daily basis, our systems can quickly become obsolete. Our warfighting
Commanders in Chief desire to field forces with the highest
capabilities in this regard, but they will come at a significant cost.
Two recent situations illustrate this trend. First, during combat
operations in Kosovo in the spring of 1999, the Marine Corps planned to
deploy two F/A-18 Hornet squadrons to Hungary to help fulfill the NATO
operational plan. Unfortunately, these Hornet squadrons operated the
early ``A'' model of the aircraft, and had not yet been upgraded with
the technology provided by the Engineering Change Proposal 583, which
would have enabled our F/A-18As to operate more effectively with the
NATO air command and control system in theater. As a result, the Marine
Corps was forced to substitute two F/A-18D squadrons in place of the
two F/A-18A squadrons, and this in turn caused a great deal of extra
wear on these already frequently-deployed aircraft and their personnel.
The Kosovo operation further highlighted our dependence on
satellites in modern warfare. The conflict there, involving an American
force that was approximately 7 percent the size of our Desert Storm
force, required an astounding 184 percent increase in military
satellite communication bandwidth over that of Operation Desert Storm.
The benefits of our command and control systems to our warfighters are
tremendous, but we are experiencing difficulty in keeping up with
growing requirements for fast, secure, and reliable bandwidth. The
complexity of these systems and their networks adds to the challenges.
Your continued support of highly capable ground, sea, and space-based
command and control systems is critical to our success in modern
warfare.
Training the Force
The need for the preservation of key training bases and ranges is a
major issue involving the rights and responsibilities of our citizenry.
Our citizens who live outside the gates of military training facilities
generally gain immediate economic benefit from the military's presence.
There is no guarantee of such benefit at every facility, however,
because some--most notably, those at which live-fire training is
conducted--were chosen specifically because of their relative isolation
from large population centers. Economics can only be an ancillary part
of the relationship. In the main, we rely upon the patriotism of our
citizenry to support the training needs of our nation's military.
Our bases are an integral part of community life across the country
and overseas. Here at home, they enjoy broad community support. In a
profession that can be rootless at times, bases often provide our
strongest connection to the society we are sworn to defend. For
servicemen and women without families of their own, their involvement
in local school, church, and charitable activities are important
qualities of their lives.
As befits the actions of good neighbors, we will continue to do
everything within our ability to address the legitimate concerns of
local communities regarding noise, environmental, and other issues. We
must, however, retain our ability to conduct core training in an
efficient and effective manner, and we must conserve our precious
maneuver areas against encroachment. Our record of stewardship
demonstrates that Marines are responsible resource custodians, and
strong supporters of the environment. We must work with civilian
leaders to achieve a reasonable balance between our training
requirements and our conservation efforts. At stake in this issue are
mission accomplishment and the very survival of our servicemen and
women in combat, both of which our nation demands.
Modernizing the Force
The Marine Corps' continued success through this century will rest
upon our modernization effort. Even if every other concern regarding
the preparedness of the Operating Forces is rectified, within a few
years, we will be at risk of sending our men and women into combat with
outmoded equipment. For this reason, we place great importance on
modernization, and we have developed a plan to achieve our goals. It
calls for upgrades and replacements for a number of aging legacy
systems.
The Advanced Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAAV) is our highest-
priority ground modernization program. It will provide extraordinary
mobility, high water and land speed, increased firepower, and improved
protection to assaulting Marines, thereby enhancing our already robust
forcible entry capability, and extending the flexibility of our forces.
A recent internal review of our ground-based fire support systems
suggests that our post-Cold War reductions in artillery left us with
serious deficiencies in that area. Our ultimate objective is to develop
an appropriate mix of cannon and rocket artillery systems, in order to
improve our ability to provide timely, accurate, and effective fire
support for Marines. Our envisioned family of weapons is a triad of
systems: the lightweight 155-millimeter howitzer (LW 155), a very
lightweight cannon, and a mobile rocket system. Together, these weapons
will provide our forces close and continuous fire support in any
environment, across the spectrum of conflict.
The Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) will form the
backbone of our ground transportation, providing greater capacity,
mobility, and reliability to our forces. Paired with the second-
generation High Mobility, Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), the
MTVR will fulfill the great majority of transportation requirements for
many years.
Aircraft modernization is critical to our overall effort. The MV-22
Osprey program has been a great success by any measure, with 30
aircraft in existence or under construction and 16 requested in the
fiscal year 2001 budget. After a model development and testing program,
the Osprey is being delivered at the budgeted cost, within
specifications, and with a high degree of customer confidence.
Production is currently slated to increase to 28 aircraft per year in
2003, but we believe that a goal of 36 per year is more efficient in
the long run because of the increasing cost of maintaining the CH-46E
and CH-53D aircraft during the long transition period.
Our aircraft now in development--the Joint Strike Fighter, the AH-
1Z, UH-1Y--will join the Osprey to form a Marine aviation combat
element of impressive power, capability, and flexibility. The Joint
Strike Fighter represents the future of Marine fixed-wing aviation. Its
design is so promising that we decided to await the advanced technology
it offers. The plan to build 3,500 of these aircraft will make it the
workhorse of the joint fighter fleet, and it will serve well into the
future at an affordable unit cost. As the first truly joint aircraft,
it deserves your enthusiastic support.
The AH-1Z and UH-1Y programs will provide significantly improved
performance and reliability for our attack and utility helicopter
fleets. By rebuilding existing aircraft, we will deliver to the
Operating Forces helicopters that are virtually new, but at a very low
cost.
Given our success with the MV-22, the development of a four engine,
or ``quad'' tilt-rotor (QTR) aircraft is of particular interest to the
Marine Corps as a component of a future aviation fleet. The QTR might
also have great potential in filling the Joint Common Lift (JCL)
requirement in the future.
The future offers remarkable promise and progress to those who can
turn vision into reality. Our modernization plan is sound, and the
initial steps are already underway. However, due to our projected
funding levels, I remain concerned about the pace of our modernization
efforts. The additional resources that are required to finish the task
will undoubtedly be viewed as a wise investment by our children and
grandchildren, many years from now.
our future: past is prologue
The generation that fought and won the Second World War--as Tom
Brokaw argues, our country's ``Greatest Generation''--committed the
resources necessary to secure our liberty, and as a result, this
generation has left us a tremendous inheritance. We begin the new
century with the benefit of an economy that has brought relative wealth
to an unprecedented portion of our society and an understanding of the
best manner in which to extend that wealth to many more persons both at
home and abroad. More important, we have gained the benefit of the
hard-earned wisdom of that generation about the role of the United
States in the world. Some of those great Americans earned that wisdom
through experience and later applied it during long and distinguished
careers in the United States Congress. Our continued efforts to build
on those twin benefits are our best insurance that the 21st century
will be the second ``American Century.''
I am deeply encouraged by our nation's prospects for the future.
Our citizens appreciate the benefits of our pre-eminent position in the
world and are willing and able to sustain that position for future
generations. Our young people are bright, talented, and will, if given
the opportunity, measure up to the challenges of tomorrow. Your United
States Marine Corps stands ready to respond to the nation's needs
today, and we will continue to work closely with the Congress and the
American people to preserve our readiness and relevance in the future,
as we ``make Marines, win battles, and return responsible citizens to
the nation.''
General Jones. And, sir, thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. We thank you very much. We are sorry about
the interruptions. We are still waiting for the budget process,
of course, right now. And I expect we will be waiting for a
while. But we want to go ahead with these propositions and
explore some of the matters that you gentlemen have spoken
about.
Do you have an opening statement at all, Senator Inouye?
Senator Inouye. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. I do not have an opening statement. Do you
have an opening statement, Senator?
Senator Hutchison. I will also wait, too. I have a few
questions. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Let me start off then. We will have a 5-minute round and
just keep going. There will be others coming that will want to
ask questions.
Mr. Secretary, last year you testified, and I want to
quote. You said: ``I think maybe ballistic missile defense does
pose an opportunity in terms of national missile defense, but
it is an opportunity that is technologically further out and
more demanding.''
Now, we do not see much that has changed since that time,
except we do have the statements that were made by Admiral
Johnson and we understand that. But let me ask you, has the
Navy, to your satisfaction now, completed the flight test of
the kill vehicle or an intercept test? Would you make the same
statement today that you made last year?
Mr. Danzig. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, we have come along
in our testing in a satisfactory and good way. The promise from
Navy ballistic missile defense is maturing. We still have more
testing and development to do. That will include significant
tests over the course of this next summer and in the time
ahead.
Realistically, I think the point remains, though, as the
CNO has also made it, that Navy ballistic missile defense
offers good prospects and offers the potential of being a
complement to land-based systems. It can be an increment to
this Nation's national missile defense systems. We ought to be
preserving that option and that opportunity and not trampling
upon it in the near term.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Senator Inouye and I have
visited the sites and have tried to keep up with that program.
Admiral Johnson, in view of your statements, could you tell
us why the Navy decided not to include missile defense
capability in the DD-21 design?
Admiral Johnson. Well, sir, as we stand right now, I would
suggest that it is not precluded from that. But our clear focus
of effort priority is to embed it in the Aegis fleet that we
have. And indeed, that is what we are doing with the theater
shots that the Secretary alluded to a moment ago. So between
the area system and the DDG-51's and the theater system in the
Aegis cruisers, we believe there may be an evolution then to
DD-21, but we are not there yet.
We have called it the first variant. The DD-21 is part of a
family of surface combatants, wherein the first member of that
family that we will see is the land attack destroyer, which is
DD-21, to be followed down range by a cruiser variant of that
same family. So, I say it does not preclude it, it is just not
in the short term.
Senator Stevens. Do you have the funds now to proceed with
the Aegis class? Is a lack of funding holding up anything the
Navy wants to do in national missile defense?
Admiral Johnson. Right now, sir, we have the money we need
to do the theater tests which we spoke of a moment ago. That is
clearly priority one. In my unfunded requirements list, you
will see some requests that I would apply to either risk
mitigation on the theater side or additional missiles on the
area side.
So the short answer is it could use enhancement. But the
clear priority which we have in the theater track for this year
and next year is funded. And that is job one for us.
Senator Stevens. Will you quantify for the record, please,
what funds it would take for the second portion there?
Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
In the unfunded requirements list the Navy is requesting additional
resources for the procurement of missiles for Navy Area, and we are
supportive of the Director BMDO Budget Enhancement List (BEL) which
identifies items for both Navy Area and Navy Theater Wide.
CNO Unfunded Requirements List
Navy Area, Defense Wide Procurement ($42.6 million request)
Procures an additional 17 SM-2 Block IVA missiles in fiscal year
2001 for delivery in fiscal year 2003 to equip initial ship.
Director BMDO Budget Enhancement List (BEL) includes:
Navy Area, Defense Wide Procurement ($28 million request)
Procures an additional 9 SM-2 Block IVA missiles.
Navy Area, RDT&E ($75 million request)
Additional Risk Reduction activities for entry into Engineering
Manufacturing & Development (EMD) stage.
Navy Theater Wide, RDT&E ($160 million request)
Acceleration of NTW Block I deployment to increments of Block 1A
Contingency Capability to fiscal year 2005, Single Mission Capability
which meets Block 1 Threat Set (2 ships and 50 missiles) to fiscal year
2007 and full Multi-Mission Capability (4 ships and 80 missiles) in
fiscal year 2008.
--Development of tactical AEGIS computer program modifications.
--Acceleration of AN/SPY-1 Radar signal processor upgrades.
--Acceleration of SM-3 Kinetic Warhead (KW) Infrared (IR)
discrimination algorithm development.
Procurement of additional SM-3 test missiles for Threat
Representative Testing (TRT).
Acceleration of SM-3 efficient production modifications.
Acceleration of Advanced Radar Development.
--Develop Prototype NTW Block II Radar Array.
Acceleration of NTW End-to-End Test Bed Development.
Initial funding for Japan Co-Development Phase II (Potential
Demonstration and Validation phase).
Operational readiness
Senator Stevens. General Jones, we have a situation now in
readiness that Marine Corps funding is down, I understand, from
the 2000 levels, and the Navy-Marine Corps non-deployed
readiness declines. The real question is whether we have the
training to deploy now or we are having training for war. Do
you have the funds now to handle your assignments as far as
deploying the battalion landing teams and marine expedition
units? Really what I am saying is, how quickly could you deploy
now the expeditionary brigade, the full bore of what your
readiness calls for?
General Jones. Mr. Chairman, the good news is that as the
service chief of a rotational force, we are organized to deploy
full-up forces on a regular basis. And across the three levels
of our warfighting capabilities, the marine expeditionary unit
(MEU), the brigade and the force, we do have the readiness
capability and the training to sustain that deployment. The MEU
(Special Operations Capable (SOC)) go out on a regular basis
for 6-month deployments aboard Navy ships. They were used very
successfully in the early days of the Kosovo operation. They
performed magnificently. They backloaded and floated around to
Turkey and assisted in a major humanitarian operation, all in
the space of 2\1/2\ months.
So our rotations are very good. The problem is that as we
have drawn down the force over the years, the cyclic rate of
utilization of equipment and men is of course a cause for
concern in terms of replenishment, replenishment of the spirit
and replenishment of the tools. And of those two, the cyclic
rate of utilization of equipment is the one that causes us most
concern. But we are meeting those tests.
Senator Stevens. You said you have concern about the
deployability of new units.
General Jones. I think that the readiness levels of the
units and the money that has been provided allows us to sustain
that operation. We could always use more, but I cannot report
to you that we are deploying units that are marginally trained
or we do not have the money to train them. We are doing okay at
the force levels that we have.
Senator Stevens. Secretary Danzig, I just have one more
question here. The LPD-17, the lead ship in the class, is 10
months behind, I am informed, $185 million, or 30 percent, over
budget. Is the report that I have been given true? And if so,
what are the impacts on the second and third ships of this
class?
Mr. Danzig. The report you have been given is largely
accurate. A combination of the innovations in design tools and
in the application of those tools simultaneously to actually
designing the LPD-17 has pushed the ship over the planned
budget. In addition, we have requested changes in the design of
the LPD-17. One of them I highly value is to reduce the
manpower associated with that ship, from some 350 sailors, and
therefore reduce the total ownership costs associated with that
ship. But it has produced the effects you described in the
first ship.
The second and third ships will show some effects, but much
more moderate. The second and third ships produced should be
delayed on the order of 4 and 3 months. And the perturbations
in the system should be diminished. The first ship design
produced at Bath should not experience the delays as a result
of this.
I think the increase in cost and the delays are the up-
front part of the program. Taking the program as a whole, these
12 ships in this class to be produced over the course of this
next decade, we are looking at a $9 billion to $10 billion
program, with something on the order of a $400 million or 4
percent cost increase.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Admiral Johnson, next year you will have 55 attack
submarines. A recent staff study indicated that you should have
maybe up to about 68 or 70. Most of your colleagues suggest
that the higher number is a proper one. What does this budget
do to your attack submarine fleet?
Admiral Johnson. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
In this budget, we are buying another Virginia-class,
number three in the class. And it streams out at one submarine
a year through the year 2005. We also are refueling in this
budget an attack submarine SSN-688, with a stream in the coming
years to refuel six others.
We also are preserving the option in this budget, by some
$31 million investment, to not decommission four of the seven
remaining SSN-688's that could be refueled. We are maintaining
the option to refuel them in this budget.
We also have the option in this budget to deal with the
SSBN to SSGN conversion, or some combination thereof. So my
point is we take seriously the joint continuous strike (JCS)
study. We accept the range of 55 to 68, as you discussed. And
right now, the short term from a requirements standpoint, we
want to keep our options open, not to go below that 55 number,
and we believe that what we have invested in this budget in new
program and options for refuelings will keep us there, sir.
Senator Inouye. If the cost of refueling was comparable to
converting Tridents to cruise missile submarines, which option
would you prefer?
Admiral Johnson. If it were comparable?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Admiral Johnson. If the subject is SSN's, I would prefer to
refuel the 688's. But it is not quite that simple, and there
are other trades. That is what we are looking at in the context
of the deliberations for fiscal year 2002.
We have three things at play here, as I said. One is the
688 refuels. One is the SSGN conversions. And one is the new
buys of Virginia-class submarines. What we are looking at now,
all of us, is the smartest way ahead, given those three phases,
if you will, to the submarine force structure issue. But my own
personal sense is we do not want to let go of an asset right
now to take us down below 55. Because, if we do, we will have a
dickens of a time getting back up there.
And as you know, in the long run, out past where we are
looking now in terms of budget years and program objective
memorandums (POM's) and future years defense programs (FYDP's),
we must increase the build rate on the Virginia-class
submarines, as well, to stand a reasonable force structure out
in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe.
Senator Inouye. If you kept up with the present plan with
the options you have, in 20 years, how large will your attack
submarine fleet be?
Admiral Johnson. I am going to waffle the answer, and I do
not mean to do that purposely, but I hope to make a point here.
It depends on how many Virginia-class submarines we come to in
a sustained build rate after the year 2005. That really is
going to determine that answer, sir. But in no case, with the
options we have on the table now, would we take ourselves down
to the 50, which was the number in the quadrennial defense
review (QDR) last. It will keep us at that baseline of 55
minimum.
Senator Inouye. One of the major concerns, General, among
the folks would be chemical/biological terrorist attacks.
Recently, a couple of explosions were felt in Georgetown, and
they all got excited. They thought it might have been a
terrorist attack. From where you stand, because of the
experience the Marines have had, do you believe that our
forces--active, Reserve, National Guard--are prepared to
counter any chemical or biological attacks on the United
States?
Chemical and biological incident response force
General Jones. We have an emerging capability, but we are
not certainly where we ought to be. Secretary Cohen has been
very deeply involved in talking with the Chief of Staff of the
Army and making sure that the National Guard and Reserve are
attempting to reorient themselves in terms of their thinking on
those issues.
From the standpoint of the Marine Corps, my predecessor,
General Krulak, had the vision to create a very special unit,
which is a national asset called the Chemical and Biological
Incident Response Force. He based it at Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina. We have recently gone through the necessary approvals
to transfer that unit closer to the National Capital region. It
will be effective for worldwide deployment and used within the
continental United States in August of this year.
It is a very capable unit. It is a model that we must
emulate and replicate elsewhere in the Nation. But I think the
interagency service, the service chiefs, are coming to grips
with this problem. But I do not think we are where we want to
be.
Senator Inouye. What is the mission of this special force
that you have?
General Jones. It can rapidly deploy. It was first deployed
in support of the Olympics in Atlanta. And it was located right
near the site where we had an explosion, or potential
explosion. And its capability is to deploy and to diagnose the
agent that is being used, if it is chemical or biological. And
it provides, at least in the first instance, emergency
assistance to the afflicted area and provides treatment. It is
a roughly 350-man organization. It is air deployable. And I
think it is a good model for what we need in the future, but we
need more of them.
Senator Inouye. We have had a lot of discussions about the
Joint Strike Fighter. How important is it to you and what is
the status now?
Joint Strike Fighter
General Jones. The Joint Strike Fighter, sir, is very
important to the Marine Corps. I would say, more importantly,
it is important to the Navy, and also the Air Force as well. It
is a revolutionary capability in terms of the technology that
it will bring to the capability of the United States. For the
Marine Corps, because we have chosen to skip a generation, that
means we are going to stay with the F-18's for much longer,
betting that the Joint Strike Fighter will in fact come on line
at the right time and in the right amounts and with the
capability that we want to have then.
I am very excited about the program. I am very closely
observing the competitors who are developing the capability.
And along with the CNO and the Secretary of the Navy, we think
it is going to be a good program, and we hope that the costs
will not escalate as they typically do in other programs. And
right now we are quietly optimistic that it will be delivered
on time and at the advertised price.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I notice the red light is on.
I am sorry.
Senator Stevens. That is all right. We were enjoying your
conversation.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. I liked your conversation, too.
Did you finish your line of questioning, Senator Inouye? I
am happy for you to finish.
Senator Inouye. I will wait. I have a few more questions.
V-22
Senator Hutchison. While we are with General Jones, I am
just going to ask you about the V-22 and if you believe that
the funding is sufficient, that the procurement rate is
sufficient for you to have the V-22's that you need at the time
that you are going to need them?
General Jones. Thank you, Senator.
We are excited about the acquisition of the V-22. As you
know, in fiscal year 2001, we have funding for 16. We really
think that in the unfunded priority list, adding 2 more makes a
lot of sense to get to our out-year acquisition strategy of 36
a year as opposed to 30, which we think is more cost effective
and gives us the capability sooner rather than later.
We are scheduled right now to deploy the first operational
squadron with our MUSOC's in fiscal year 2003. That will be an
exciting moment for all of us who have been involved in the V-
22 program since its inception.
Senator Hutchison. So your preferred rate is 36?
General Jones. At the end state, that would be what we
would recommend. And in order to get there, we have 16 in this
year's budget, and if we could get to 18, it would be helpful.
Senator Hutchison. This year. Thank you.
Secretary Danzig, last year was the year that the Navy
announced that it was going to lower its recruitment standard
to a general equivalency diploma (GED) from a high school
diploma. I was concerned about it in our hearing last year, and
I wanted to ask you if you have in fact enough experience with
that? Approximately how many people have entered the Navy with
that lower standard? And do you have enough experience to see
if it is successful and if it is the standard today?
Mr. Danzig. Senator, I appreciate your interest in this
issue. It is a significant focus for us as well.
First of all, 9 out of 10 of the people who come into the
Navy now have high school degrees, not GED degrees. We require
that at least 90 percent of the people coming into the Navy
have those high school degrees. The change that you are
describing was our decision last year that instead of taking 5
percent that had only GED degrees, we would take 10 percent in
that category, 1 out of every 10 of the recruits who come in.
We made that decision because we concluded that we could
screen people who did not have high school degrees but had
other qualifications and make sure that these were
exceptionally able people. We did not view it, and I still do
not view it, as in any way a lowering of standards. We demanded
that people in that category of not having had the high school
diploma have higher than average scores on our tests, have
employment histories, have character references. And on
balance, my judgment was, taking some more of these
exceptionally qualified people, as measured by test scores and
character references and job experience and who were older than
the norm, was a good thing to do rather than to try and get, at
the margin, the last increment of people who had high school
diplomas.
In terms of our experience, I would say there is one
obvious positive attribute and one negative one. The positive
attribute is that we have recruited these people very
successfully. We have met our recruiting goals. And in fact,
they have, in boot camp, had lower attrition than was
historically the norm for non-high school graduates. And I
think it is because of the screening that we have described.
On the other hand, they have had higher attrition than high
school diploma graduates in boot camp. And I count that both
ways. On the one hand, it suggests to me we are screening out
people we should be screening out in boot camp. And on the
other hand, I would prefer lower attrition.
We are going to develop some formal data on this, and I
would be happy to share it with you. But those are my
impressions of this at the moment. I think it is well worth
continuing. I think it is a step in the right direction. But
the results have not been dramatic one way or the other.
Senator Hutchison. So the standard is 10 percent?
Mr. Danzig. Correct.
Senator Hutchison. And are you over 5 percent in fact in
the last two recruiting years? Have you gone beyond the 5
percent?
Mr. Danzig. In fiscal year 1999, we recruited, as we
planned to, 90 percent high school graduates. Ten percent of
what we are calling these proven performers, people who had the
above average scores, did not have the high school diploma. We
are continuing on that track in this year. That amounts to
about a total of 6,000 out of the 57,000 that we recruit for
all of our enlisted people this year.
Senator Hutchison. I would be interested in continuing
progress reports on this.
Mr. Danzig. Good.
Senator Hutchison. Because I am concerned about it still.
But I certainly am open to what the results are.
Mr. Danzig. Thank you, Senator. Senator, I would suggest
also you might like to meet some of these people. And perhaps
we could arrange that.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Mr. Danzig. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Admiral, your budget has some very good
points in the increase areas, especially I am pleased that you
are obviously increasing in the military personnel to
accommodate the higher salaries that have been passed. And that
is certainly what we intended. Family housing has increased.
And having visited the bases, I know that that is the absolute
probably first priority to increase. But in return for that, I
assume research and development (R&D) and military construction
(MILCON) are decreased in your budget. And I would like to know
what are the short-term effects of that decrease and the long-
term effects and what are we losing?
Admiral Johnson. The R&D piece of it is generally--I guess
the way I would characterize it is we are making huge R&D
investments tied to the programs that are taking us forward
with recapitalization. I think the Secretary mentioned earlier
the DD-21 program. But, nonetheless, we have added $1.7 billion
to that program alone in R&D because we are truly trying to be
revolutionary. So there are lots of different pockets of R&D
investment.
Senator Hutchison. Are you saying that is in your
procurement area?
Admiral Johnson. That is correct, yes, ma'am.
So we are making huge R&D investments for the revolutionary
systems.
Senator Hutchison. In other accounts?
Admiral Johnson. Indeed. CVNX is one, Joint Strike Fighter
is another one. The DD-21, the New Attack Submarine, virtually
every program, V-22, all of them have significant R&D streams
attached to them, mostly on the front end, to really leap us
forward. So we feel, overall, very good about that. It is going
to give us a lot.
The MILCON is one that we continue to work with. We
prioritize it. We are not there yet. I accept that. We ask for
help every year. We will continue to do so.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, I heard the comments of
Senator Hutchison on the GED program. We had a hearing on the
Challenge Program for the National Guard. When they are
finished with that program, they get a GED.
Senator Hutchison, I would urge you to take a look at that,
because we found that the Citadel was willing to take graduates
from the Challenge Program, but the military was not. And I
think I am the one that raised the question of why is this the
case. If they have come through programs where they have been
rehabilitated, these disadvantaged kids, many of them kids from
broken homes that have changed high schools and just do not
adjust and do get into one or more of these federally sponsored
programs, some of them sponsored by other entities that are out
there trying to help these kids, you wonder why the military
should be unwilling to take them if we are trying to urge the
colleges to take them.
Senator, I would urge you to talk to some of these people.
And I would be glad to get you the hearing record of the
hearing we had here about those young people and how marvelous
they can turn out if they have been given an opportunity. But
to put a stigma on the GED, after they have come through a
rehabilitation program, I think is very unwise. And I would
hope that you would continue to take as many as you can take,
provided that they have come through and demonstrated that they
have cleaned themselves up.
I do not want to get too political about it, but I do not
know of any reason why, if someone smokes a marijuana cigarette
once cannot go in the military, we can elect a President that
has. And it is time that we stopped this business of
discriminating against these kids when the political system
does not discriminate against anybody.
Mr. Danzig. And if I could just add, Senator, I think the
high school diploma is a very relevant credential. It is our
best single predictor of ``stick-to-itiveness'' in the
military. But it should not be the be-all and end-all. When we
have extraordinary applicants for the military who have the
kinds of characteristics in terms of test scores and proven
character, ``stick-to-itiveness'' in the National Guard program
or whatever, we ought to take account of that. We ought not
lock ourselves so much into a category that we rigidly say,
well, we are turning you away because we have taken x percent
and cannot take x plus y percent.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to
what both of you have said. I have visited with some of the
products of the Challenge Programs, and I absolutely agree that
these kids are incredible. But I do think that we need to
continue to monitor exactly what the standards are. I think
your added assessment factors are very sound. I just think we
should monitor it and make sure we are doing the right thing.
Mr. Danzig. I completely agree.
Senator Stevens. I would agree. But my mind goes back to
the time I served with a Cabinet officer that quit high school
after the sophomore year and became one of the largest
publishers in the United States and a distinguished member of
the Department of Defense Secretariat and the Secretary of the
Interior for quite some many years. I do not put all of the
stigma to not having a high school diploma that other people
do. I have known a lot of people in my life who had other
things they had to do, because of family and otherwise, who
have turned out to be just excellent, excellent administrators
and officers.
Mr. Danzig. And senior chiefs and master chiefs in the
Navy.
Senator Stevens. That is right. And a few pilots I have
known.
Following on Senator Inouye's questions, Secretary Danzig,
we have been wondering why we cannot go to a multi-year
procurement for the Virginia-class submarines so that we could
achieve a stable production and lower unit cost. Why has that
not been recommended by the Secretariat?
Mr. Danzig. I think that is a plausibly right position to
be in. I would like to get a little more experience with the
teaming arrangement that we have constructed in the Virginia-
class submarine, between General Dynamics and Newport News and,
if we can, discuss that topic further with you and come back to
you with further analysis of it.
Senator Stevens. Well, I think it should be tied to the
industrial base concept. We have worked that out here. I think
we are prepared to continue with a handoff between those two
yards, or at least between two of the three yards. But, as a
practical matter, it does seem to me that we are missing the
multi-year savings that are there if we do not go into this
project properly. We would prefer ending up with more rather
than fewer submarines at the end of the program for the same
cost. I do not know why we cannot proceed to adjust as quickly
as possible the multi-year procurement.
Mr. Danzig. I think the thrust of that is right, Mr.
Chairman. I agree. The kinds of savings we have seen from the
F-18 at the more than 7-percent level, and from the DDG-51's,
where we have been buying them multi-year--and we have
requested multi-year authorization further from you in this
budget--suggests that things like this may work for the
Virginia-class submarines. Recognize that the numbers are
smaller--we are buying one a year--and that the teaming between
the two companies creates additional complexities.
But if we could get savings at the significant percentage
levels that we see associated with other programs, we certainly
ought to be looking very closely at that. And I will take this
as encouragement.
Senator Stevens. I do not see how we can avoid getting the
savings. When you get multi-year procurement on the
subcontracting level, those people just cannot afford to come
in and out of this business on a one-ship basis.
Mr. Danzig. Right.
Senator Stevens. And it is the stability factor of
procurement that gives you the savings, in my judgment. It has
worked in the C-17. It has worked in many other programs. And
this committee has defended multi-year contracting. I assume it
will continue to do so, and I would hope that we could work
with you on it.
Can I shift to recruiting, though?
Mr. Danzig. Certainly.
Senator Stevens. Last year we were very disturbed when we
heard the reports about recruiting. Tell us where we are now in
recruiting and retention, reenlistment in the Navy and in the
Marines.
Mr. Danzig. Well, both the CNO and the Commandant I think
will want to comment. Let me just say briefly, in terms of
overview, that I view Marine Corps recruiting as the very model
of what we want. We are now into our fifth year of month-by-
month achievement of goals. As the CNO commented in his opening
statement, the health of the delayed entry pool is very
important. And the Marine Corps is achieving, I think,
substantial increments in the delayed entry pool (DEP) to bring
it to the kinds of levels that we want. I feel quite good about
that.
At the same time, Navy recruiting has grown healthier. We
have increased the number of recruiters in the field, from
3,500 to 5,000. We have increased the advertising budget, and
the number of recruiting stations. Above all, we have gotten
smarter about how we recruit. We have done things like look to
former service members who are interested in returning to the
Navy. This year, I think we will recruit as many as 3,000 such
former service members--a very substantial change in the way we
recruit.
We are focusing more on community colleges, recognizing
that some 70 percent of high school graduates we are interested
in are going on to community colleges. That requires a change
in the way we recruit. It is challenging for us to meet the
Navy goal of 57,000 this year. It means we are recruiting more
than 1,000 high school graduates every week. That is an
extraordinary thing to go out and do. But, so far this year, we
have been making that goal, and I think we have a good prospect
of getting there. It is not a certainty, but I think Navy
recruiting is steadily improving.
Perhaps Admiral Johnson or, if it is all right with you,
Mr. Chairman, the Commandant might like to add to that.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir, Admiral?
Admiral Johnson. Just to add a couple of things. The
Secretary's remarks characterize the active force exactly as it
is. I would just further comment that we still--in terms of the
challenge that he talked about--on the Reserve side we are
struggling right now and are below the number. Back to this
delayed entry pool, filling up that surge tank allows us the
flexibility, as you level yourself through the year, to ensure
you have got the right skill mixes and loads in all of your
classrooms. Without that pool filled, it jeopardizes all of
what I just described.
Historically, you want to start the fiscal year with your
DEP, your delayed entry pool, at about the 43 to 44 percentile.
Right now we are in the high 20 percent. So that is a serious
challenge that we have to continue to deal with.
The Secretary mentioned the things about just to hold our
nose at the water line on the active side, 1,500 more
recruiters on the street, double the advertising budget, open
179 more recruiting stations, et cetera, et cetera. So that
just gives you some idea of the magnitude of the environment
challenge we are dealing with out there.
I can speak to retention as well, sir. Just to say briefly
that, on the enlisted side, the critical skills, tied to the
2000 budget, I would tell you there is good news and we are
awaiting some good news. On the enlisted side, we really are
seeing upturns in first- and second-term retention at 2 to 4
percent. That is not much, but it is sure better than the way
we were trending before.
In addition to that, we are seeing in the selective
reenlistment bonus program execution this year, we are 26
percent ahead of what we had forecast. That translates to
highly skilled technicians that we are able to ship over and
keep on the team. That is really good news. So that is a
positive trend, tied directly, we believe, to the goodness of
the 2000 budget and some of the non-money things, but mostly
the pay and special pays and bonuses.
On the officer side, there are some parts that we are
getting good feedback and others where we are still challenged.
The best report I can give you I think is in the surface
warfare officer side. We are filling department head seats
right now. Classrooms, over the last 3 years, we have averaged
half full classrooms. We had to increase the tour length for
department heads, from a nominal 36 up to 55 months. We have
been able to roll that back now. That is certifiable good news.
On the aviation side, however, I would tell you that we are
still, I think, extremely challenged. The bonus is having some
impact, but it is certainly not what we were hoping for yet. It
is early enough in the year, where we have got some time. But
one data point that would be of interest to you, sir, is that
whereas last year we had 120 aviator resignations in the fiscal
year--I think that is the number--this year we are not halfway
through the fiscal year and we are already three ahead of that
and climbing. So we still have some challenges.
Senator Stevens. General Jones, we will get back to you
when my turn comes again.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, as a result of base closures and budget cuts
on military health facilities, many of the over-65 retirees
have been forced into Medicare. And Medicare does not provide
the benefits that these men and women have become accustomed to
while they were on active duty. So the letters I receive, they
use the words, ``I have been betrayed.''
Many of them are suggesting they would like to be enrolled
in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Do
you have any views on that?
Mr. Danzig. I am very sympathetic to those requests. I
think that would represent a substantial improvement in health
care benefits that veterans would receive. And that would help
us in a number of ways, both in terms of the moral commitments
that exist as well as in terms of the atmosphere that exists
even with respect to the kinds of issues we were just talking
about with Senator Stevens, about recruitment and the like. If
veterans have good feelings about their military service, they
are our best recruiters. If they do not, they are our strongest
disincentivizers for people to enlist.
The obvious questions are: What is the cost? And how is
that carried? And who is paying it?
This also applies to some other important things we could
do, as, for example, prescription drugs for over-65 military
retirees. My sense is that we are all trying to work our way
through that situation. The bill that Senator Warner has
submitted, with many cosponsors, is indicative of efforts in
that regard.
We are going to need to see, from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and from some others, some indication of
the costs and the accounting, who would pay those costs
associated with these good steps. But as a matter of principle,
it strikes me as a desirable thing to do if we can figure out a
way to fund it.
Senator Inouye. We have been told that the pharmaceutical
coverage would be about $500 million per year.
Mr. Danzig. Yes.
Senator Inouye. What would be the full Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program costs?
Mr. Danzig. I think we need to look to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to cost that for us, because obviously it
is not simply a Navy matter. But I am sure that they will
provide data like that to you directly, Senator. I do not have
that number.
Senator Inouye. Do you concur that we should have them
enrolled in the FEHBP?
Admiral Johnson. As you know, Senator Inouye, we have FEHBP
pilots ongoing right now, as we have in other areas, with
TRICARE Senior Prime, et cetera. Let me just say that the Joint
Chiefs have been very much invested this year in this whole
business of health care, as we were in the pay and retirement
issues last year. And just to echo what the Secretary said in
my own words, from the Joint Chiefs perspective and as a
service chief, to me, it is irrefutable that we have a
commitment to obviously our active duty folks, but also our
retirees, including the over-65 retirees. We have to find a
way.
And so in all of this construct and the various programs
that are being dealt with this year to take us there or to take
us partway there, I think the imperative in this year's budget
must be a clear, unambiguous signal to all of the people I just
described, including the over-65 retirees, that we are honoring
their commitment. It may take us a while to get there, but we
are honoring that commitment.
Senator Inouye. Will this budget send that signal?
Admiral Johnson. I believe that it will, sir.
Senator Inouye. Do you have any thoughts, General Jones?
General Jones. Sir, I concur with the Secretary and the CNO
emphatically.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, I have another question. It
is on the Aegis SPY-1 radar. Most of the surface combatants use
that now. But the new DD-21 will be using the multi-function
radar. When we begin to build a DD-21, what is going to happen
to the SPY-1 radars?
Mr. Danzig. Well, the multi-function radar is now subject
to considerable research and development, it is an important
part of the investment that DD-21 would give us. It does not
render the SPY-1 radar irrelevant or outmoded for many
platforms that use it. And precisely where we will go with
regard to this is something that we need to focus on and
develop as we understand better the research and development
rewards that come from the development of the systems for the
DD-21.
One of the things I would hope we could accomplish over the
time ahead is the development of a radar road map that would
give us good developed answers to these questions. And the CNO
may want to comment further now. But for myself, I do not feel
as though we yet--I yet, at any rate--have enough information
to give you a detailed sense of what that road map should look
like.
CNO?
Admiral Johnson. I would only comment that you are right on
with the road map. We are hard at work in developing such a
road map. And we believe that will answer many of these
questions. It will have to evolve, though. And I think as we
get smarter on this first member of the SC-21 family, called
the DD-21, that will help us shape the road map. But Aegis is
an integral part, as the Secretary says, of our surface
combatant force and will be for many, many, many, many years.
So shaping that road map is our daily work right now.
Senator Inouye. Phasing out the SPY-1 program would have an
effect upon the industrial base, will it not?
Admiral Johnson. Conceivably it could, yes, sir, depending
on what came behind it or around it. But I will tell you, in
the context of what we are doing at my house, at work every
day, phasing out the SPY-1 radar is not something we give much
energy to. In fact, we give no energy to it. We are looking to
enhance it and make it even more effective.
Mr. Danzig. I feel, Senator, that it is a little analogous
to when we walk or we run. We have one foot on the ground in
one place and we lift up one and move forward to another place.
We need both legs. We stand on a system that exists at the
present moment. It certainly, over the long term, would have
industrial base implications if we cease to produce the SPY-1
radar. But I think those are long-term questions we have not
come to yet.
Senator Inouye. I listened with great interest to your
discussion on the GED students. My only concern is it was 5
percent and now it is 10. I was here in the seventies when it
was increased. Does that not concern you?
Mr. Danzig. Yes, it does, Senator. I was here also in the
seventies. I was in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD), in the Office of Manpower, and I came to Congress and
testified that I thought the standards were being lowered
excessively. The ASVAB grading system had been mis-normed, and
a number of us spent a lot of time saying we need to tighten
this up. So I care very much about this.
I would note, very importantly though, from my end, the
levels we are talking about, in moving between either 90
percent of high school diplomas, as the Army has, or 95 percent
as the Marine Corps has, are both extraordinarily high levels.
Historically, we have never been near those levels. The
seventies and the like are levels in the 70 percentile of high
school graduates kind of ranks, not in between 90 and 95. We
are way up there.
And when the idea of taking 2,500 more people in without
high school diplomas was raised, my reaction was I am only
interested in this if we do this in a way that in fact gives us
some benefits in terms of the people who are coming in, that we
are getting more of the kinds of people the chairman was
talking about, that we are getting more people with high
scores, that we are getting people who are, as we have labeled
them, proven performers.
And the proof of the pudding is in their records. And this
is why Senator Hutchison is quite right: we really need to look
at their performance in boot camp and in the field. But, so
far, the evidence in boot camp is that our attrition has
improved over the normal attrition associated with non-high
school graduates. So there is a positive indicator there.
I do not want to gild the lily. It is not as good as it is
for high school graduates. But I am very comfortable that the
Navy is in the right place, at 90 percent. And I am not
proposing that we take 80 percent. You are not seeing that from
us.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. I pass.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye, did you have more
questions?
Futenma Air Base, Okinawa
Senator Inouye. General, if I may ask you, in 1998, Okinawa
elected a new Governor. And there is no question that many of
us felt that the predecessor was not too friendly. Can you tell
us where we are relocating marines from the Futenma Air Base to
other locations? Is he cooperating with you?
General Jones. Sir, the Governor of the prefecture of
Okinawa and General Earl Hailston, who is the senior marine on
island, have been working very skillfully and very successfully
together to bring about what I consider to be an unprecedented
state of harmony on that island, between our forces who reside
there and the local population.
The progression and development of the island since the end
of World War II is such that the majority of the population is
now in the southern part of the island, and that is where most
of the development has taken place. And as a result, there are
attendant pressures on our bases and stations.
It has been the stated intent of the prefecture that the
one base in particular, the Futenma Air Base, should be
relocated to the north. We have been working closely with
Governor Inamine. I have recently returned from Okinawa, and I
can attest to the good situation that is there. It is, frankly,
from a quality-of-life standpoint, one of our most modern
facilities of any base. We have high reenlistment rates, high
extension rates, great satisfaction expressed by families who
live there on Okinawa, and a great people-to-people program. I
am extraordinarily proud of the work that our sailors, airmen
and marines on the island do in so many wonderful ways to
bridge that gap between our two cultures and our nations.
Our policy has been to be good neighbors and to make sure
that our requirements are well understood by both the
prefecture and the government. And they understand that. And at
such time as they are ready to move forward with serious
proposals that would meet our requirements for a presence in
that very important part of the world, we will participate
fully. But we must wait until the political situation is such
that they desire to move forward.
So there is a tripartite discussion between the Government
of Japan, the prefecture and ourselves. But I can tell you that
in the 33 years I have been in uniform, I have never seen a
better relationship on the island.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
One more question. Mr. Secretary, 20 years ago we began our
debate on a 600-ship Navy. And today it is about 300. Are we
going to be able to maintain that 300?
Mr. Danzig. Yes. My feeling is that it is important to do
that. There is a report that has been requested by the Senate
Armed Services Committee of our long-term shipbuilding plans
and what would be required to maintain that number. My hope is
that that report will reach this body within the next few
weeks.
One of the things that it will show is that to maintain
that 300-ship Navy, when you take into account different
classes of ships, one needs to build at a rate of about 8\2/3\
ships a year. One of the important things to do over the long
term, in my view, is to get to that rate, on average. We have a
little leeway at present because so many of our ships were
built in the early 1980's and tend to have service lives of 30
years or longer. So the need to replace the bulk of our fleet
really begins to be felt especially intensely 30 years after
the early 1980's. In other words, after 2010.
But we need, in my view, to get ourselves into a better
position to deal with that hump in those years. And I think
that the basis for that kind of plan is indicated in the
materials we will be sending forward to you.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, I do have one more
question. Back on the housing issue, I just wanted to follow up
with Admiral Johnson. I have visited, both in Ingelside and
Kingsville, the privatization efforts that are being made.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. And I wanted to ask you if you have had
enough experience to believe that that is going to be good for
the Navy and if it is going to be used in other places?
Admiral Johnson. The short answer, Senator, is yes. We went
to school heavily on what you saw, and I have seen, down in
south Texas and up in Everett, Washington. We learned a lot
from those first two ventures, public/private ventures. We have
retooled that into sort of what I call phase two. And in fact,
right now, we have five more public/private ventures that are
being worked, two in this year, 2000, and three more hopefully
in 2001. Two of those in Texas, one in New Orleans and one
escapes me right now. But, anyway, yes, we are very much
interested in that. We like it a lot.
Senator Hutchison. Are they staying up with wear and tear
and maintenance?
Admiral Johnson. Yes. Again, this was part of the lessons
learned on the first ones and how you set the maintenance
schedules and incentivize it. So we learned a lot. It also has
to do with out-of-pocket expense. And as you know, Secretary
Cohen has put forward a great initiative on the base allowance
for housing (BAH) this year. So we are doing a lot in that to
make it better for our members and their families. But the
public/private venture piece I think is a fundamental part of
our future and we like it.
Do you want to add anything to that, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Danzig. That sounds fine to me. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Recruiting
General, let us go back to you, in terms of the questions I
asked, basically about recruiting and retention. Could you tell
me how you are doing?
General Jones. Yes, sir. As a point that may be of interest
to the committee, is that 68 percent of all marines are on
their first 4 years of enlistment. In other words, 50 percent
of all marines are first-termers all the time. Which means that
our career force is roughly 32 percent of our force. This
translates to a requirement to recruit about 35,000 marines
every year. Equal to that of the Air Force, for example--
actually, more than that of the Air Force.
As the Secretary mentioned, for the past 5 years, we have
successfully recruited first-term marines both in the quality
and the quantity that we require. I was a captain in the
1970's, and I well remember those days, and I would recognize
the signals if we ever got back to those days. And I would be
the first one to say we are in trouble.
Happily, we are not at that point. We are doing very well.
I have already talked in my earlier testimony about the
potential of the Junior ROTC program, which I think is
extraordinary given the relatively modest amount of money it
takes to fund one of those.
I would tell you that our recruiters are still facing
impediments in access to some of our school systems. Over 40 of
them around the Nation have, by policy, restricted access to
our recruiters. And I think that is something that we should be
concerned with and I think we should remove those impediments.
Senator Stevens. High schools or colleges?
General Jones. High schools.
And this causes problems. It sends a bad signal. It makes
the recruiters have to work much harder. And I think that that
should not be a policy.
Senator Hutchison. What is their stated reason for that?
General Jones. It varies. Some are very overt, that they do
not see any value to service in uniform. And by, as a matter of
policy, a superintendent of an entire system can deny physical
access to the schools or lists whereby our recruiters can
contact them and explain the advantages of serving in uniform.
Sometimes it is both. Sometimes it is one or the other. But
it is troubling enough to mention it.
Senator Stevens. Well, we will put a little rider on that
education allowance this year and see if they can understand
where their money is coming from. And besides that, the massive
amount of educational opportunities for young people today is
in the military.
General Jones. Absolutely.
Senator Stevens. We went to Bosnia, we went to Kosovo.
Those guys are going to school 4 hours a day.
General Jones. Absolutely. And we have such wonderful
programs and opportunities for our young people to come in and
not only get educated, but get ready to transition back to the
civilian sector and be productive citizens for the rest of
their lives and make a tremendous contribution across all walks
of life. I know I speak for my fellow service chiefs when I say
that we would be happy to work with you to eradicate that
restriction. And that will make life easier for Navy
recruiters, Army recruiters, Air Force recruiters, and Marine
recruiters.
With regard to retention, Mr. Chairman, there too the
Marine Corps is having a success story. I would just say,
though, that the booming economy does present attractions. And
so there are niches of highly technological fields where we
feel the pull of that attraction to the industry.
We are working hard to make sure that the quality-of-life
standards that our people in uniform expect for their families,
the safe and secure environment of the base, the stable, good
educational system and job satisfaction, and spousal
contentment with the service life are some of the intangibles
that we work hard to try to correct so that the serviceman or
woman will stay with us. And we hope to be successful. But we
do feel that tug. But, overall, as I sit here today, your
Marine Corps, manpower-wise, is in good shape.
[The information follows:]
March 3, 2000.
The Honorable Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, United
States Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: At yesterday's fiscal year 2001 Navy and Marine
Corps Budget Hearing, I spoke about the JROTC program, its great
popularity with students, and the positive impact the program has had
in the overall recruiting goals of the United States Marine Corps.
During my testimony, I also indicated that there are schools throughout
the United States that have an official policy of not allowing military
recruiters access to school campuses and/or prohibiting the release of
student directory information. There are 40 such school districts
identified throughout the Nation.
As a follow-up, I am providing you a list of those school
districts. Let me again express my appreciation for allowing me the
opportunity to respond to your questions and testify before the
Subcommittee on Defense. I look forward to continuing our close
relationship and if I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Semper Fidelis,
James L. Jones,
General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
The following school districts have been identified as having an
official policy that prohibits the release of student directory
information or of allowing military recruiters access to school
campuses:
First Marine Corps District
New York: Rochester City School District
Massachusetts:
Cambridge School District
Wakefield School District
New Hampshire: Exeter Regional Cooperative School District
Connecticut: State-wide, prohibits access and lists from Vo-Tech
schools
Fourth Marine Corps District
Virginia:
Stafford County School District
Fairfax County School District
Loudoun County School District
Maryland:
Prince George's County School District
Carroll County School District
Anne Arundel County School District
Kentucky:
Shelby County School District
Boone County School District
Pennsylvania:
Salisbury Township School District
Northwestern Lehigh School District
Pennridge School District
Mechanicsburg Area School District
Susquenita School District
West Perry School District
Central Dauphin School District
Derry Township School District
Governor Mifflin School District
Muhlenberg School District
Wallenpaupack School District
Upper Moreland Township School District
Centennial School District
Southern York County School District
East Lycoming School District
Sixth Marine Corps District
Alabama:
Dekalb County School District
Marshall County School District
Florida:
Miami-Dade County School District
Citrus County School District
North Carolina:
Wayne School District
Craven County School District
Watauga School District
Caldwell School District
Tennessee:
Hickman County School District
Bedford County School District
Ninth Marine Corps District
Missouri: Bowling Green School District
Twelfth Marine Corps District
Oregon: Portland Public School District California
Palo Alto: Unified School District
Mr. Danzig. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add one word on
the recruiters. General Jones touched on their well-being. I
think there is a terrific opportunity to provide more support
for recruiters, to give them better training, computerized
capability to keep track of their work, more support in terms
of use of cars and telephones, and civilian administrators in
stations. Put it all together, and I think there is an
opportunity that is both good for recruiters and good for
recruitment.
We are exploring this very actively in both services. You
may have a chance to get ahead of us if that area interests
you. And I think it might yield very rich rewards.
Admiral Johnson. In that context, Mr. Chairman, in the
unfunded priority list we have requested about $8.1 million in
support of the active recruiters and about $2 million in
support of the Reserves to exactly identify those things the
Secretary just mentioned.
Senator Stevens. That was going to be my next question,
about that Commandant's unfunded list of $1.4 billion.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. We added last year some money. We added a
substantial amount in this committee, $163.7 million. Most of
it survived the conference. But we do not see much movement on
your side, Mr. Secretary, of trying to up that attack on the
unfunded list. Why is that?
Mr. Danzig. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, upping the attack on
the unfunded list?
Senator Stevens. Trying to reduce that amount.
Mr. Danzig. Well, I think the unfunded list represents, in
both the Navy and the Marine Corps instances, a representation
of, in large measure, things that we have in our program but
have not been able to buy in the fiscal year 2001 because of
the same fiscal constraints that you experience. And I think it
is an expression of our intent, on the one hand, to get there
over these coming years, but, on the other hand, of the
exceptional reward, if money is available, of bringing some of
those things forward and doing them right now.
You will be the best judge, of course, of whether money is
available, but that is the way I read those lists.
Senator Stevens. I wish I was the last judge on how much
money was available.
Mr. Danzig. So do I, actually, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. I am afraid that is not the case.
I have just a couple more questions, Admiral. I know I am
sort of ending with you as you end your last official visit.
Although I think we will see you before the year is out,
Admiral. But I hope it will not be too burdensome.
I have just come back from Alaska, where I found a strange
thing. We are having a fight currently with some of the people
over the 60-year mandatory retirement age on commercial pilots.
The country is short of pilots across the board. About 40
percent of our pilots are 55 years old. We do not have many
roads. We do not use many boats in the wintertime. Pilots are
our main, main industry. If we do not have pilots, we are dead.
And as I talked to the Coast Guard out in San Francisco and
down in Key West in the last 2 weeks, they have got problems.
It just seems to me we are not wide awake about using the
Federal system to train pilots like we used to. I find, for
instance, we are not training any pilots in college ROTC for
the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. We are training other
officers in ROTC, and they go right in.
And if you have people coming out of ROTC who want to go
into pilot training, they have to go through subsequent
education. There is a holdup. Why cannot we restore the program
for Navy, Air Force and Army ROTC training for pilot schools in
conjunction with going to college?
Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir, I think that is something that
we ought to look at. We do have some flying programs that are
available. They are very spotty. We have some at the Academy.
But I think that may be an area that would be a worthwhile
investment, and we will be happy to take a harder look at that.
Senator Stevens. Would you take on talking to your chiefs?
Admiral Johnson. I would be happy to do that.
Senator Stevens. You are the senior one and you are
leaving, but I do think there is a spinoff there for the
civilian economy. Not all of them end up going into the
military, but they all end up as pilots if they complete their
course. And we have to find some way to turn out more pilots.
And I would like to be involved in that. I think that the whole
committee would. If we can find some way to initiate a real
forceful incentive to taking pilot training while you are going
to college, both men and women, I think many would welcome
that.
Admiral Johnson. Let me take that. And we will give you an
accurate lay of the land and we will represent it service by
service, and then we will give you some recommended pathways
forward and see what we can come up with. That is a great
suggestion.
Senator Stevens. I would really like to be involved in
that.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. And you can train them in Hawaii in the
summertime and we will take them in the wintertime, or vice-
versa if you insist on it.
We still have some problem about, as you mentioned, Mr.
Secretary, the ships going to sea 90 percent manned. That is
still not up to what it should be, in my judgment. What can we
do about these seagoing billets? Did you have that question
while I was gone?
Mr. Danzig. No. I appreciate the question. I think there
are several areas that can help. I note that we are getting
close to where we should be. The U.S.S. Eisenhower, for
example, deployed this last week. It has a ship's complement of
about 3,000. It was 100 people short. The battle groups we most
recently have deployed have been in the 93 to 95 percent range
of fill.
Still, we have asked you for authorization in this year's
program for career sea pay that will give us the capability to
increase that. That is a very useful asset for a Secretary of
the Navy and a Chief of Naval Operations to have available,
because it gives us, if we find that we are having trouble with
our sea pay fills, the ability to encourage people to go back
to sea.
Another arena of activity that is very valuable to us are
the kinds of bonuses that give incentives, particularly for our
officers to return to sea. And we see a healthy bonus program
in that regard.
Finally, the kind of support we have talked about for
recruiting and for retention, in general, builds up our end
strength capability. For example, we have asked for
authorization for the ability to give basic allowance for
housing to single sailors who are on board ships while they are
in port. That would give us an additional retention incentive
for people down through the rank of E-4 to stay in the Navy and
feel that while they are in port they were not disadvantaged by
being condemned to shipboard life; they could move out into
civilian housing. That is a tool that would be very useful.
So there are a number of these kinds of tools that, if you
can give us some opportunity here, I think we can get those
fill rates up even better.
Senator Stevens. It is my understanding, Admiral Johnson,
that was one on your list to fulfill as well.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. And somewhere along the line we did not
get it. I am not going to point fingers, but what would it cost
us to start it? If we put it in this supplemental and we
started that item on your unfunded requirements list, what
would it cost us to complete it if it started up this year and
then carried forward into 2001? You had 119 for the 2001
figure, but for the half year.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir, 118.7 is what I have got here on
my list.
Senator Stevens. How long does it take you to crank that
up?
Admiral Johnson. Not long at all.
Senator Stevens. If we made the money available by the end
of May you could crank it into this year?
Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir, for sure we could. And the
Secretary makes a key point. This is a distribution tool,
actually, more than it is a retention tool. One kind of takes
you to the other. But when you are talking about at-sea
manning, this is powerful medicine.
Senator Stevens. If we have our way, we will take part of
the surplus that is available. We had to move some money into
the next year, with the pay movement and things like that just
to make sure that we did not invade social security. We are now
told that there was money there that could have funded that and
the budget recognized that too. We will move that backward. But
there is some money here in this current year that we can make
available to defense, I think, a portion of it.
I wish you and the Commandant would take a look at your
unfunded list and prioritize it a little bit. What would be
your high priority, low dollar amounts? We are not going to
have a lot of money but we will have money enough to meet some
of those priorities on your list.
Admiral Johnson. I will be happy to provide you with that.
[The information follows:]
My highest priorities as reflected in my Unfunded Requirements List
of 9 February 2000 are in the areas of personnel and readiness. We are
meeting our near-term obligations but not funding these priorities will
place the Navy's long-term readiness at risk. These personnel and
readiness priorities are as follows:
[In millions]
Personnel End Strength and Recruiting Incentives.................. $77.0
Readiness APN-6 Spares............................................ 174.0
Readiness AOE Ship Depot Maintenance.............................. 40.0
Readiness Ship Depot Maintenance.................................. 142.3
Readiness Real Property Maintenance............................... 136.6
Personnel Career Sea Pay.......................................... 118.7
Readiness LHA Midlife............................................. 32.0
Readiness Training Ordnance....................................... 26.0
Readiness Laser Guided Bombs and Bomb Kits........................ 20.0
Any funding that can be appropriated to address these unfunded
areas would be of great benefit to Navy preparedness.
Senator Stevens. Would you prioritize the first 8 or 10? I
certainly would like to know.
Admiral Johnson. You bet.
Senator Stevens. We look forward to working with you.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you again, Admiral Johnson, for your
work with us and for your courtesy to us as we have traveled
through your command. I think this has been a most important
time for the Navy, with its deployments to the Persian Gulf and
so many other things. As I said, I am just back from visiting
the Coast Guard. I wish there was some way the Navy and the
uniformed services could help the Coast Guard more on that
interdiction concept, using some training missions to augment
some of their equipment that are available to meet that.
There is a surge now off the west coast as opposed to the
Caribbean. I am sure you have been briefed, as we have. But I
do think that your watch has been a very important one for the
Navy, and we commend you for the job you have done and for your
willingness to stand up and speak up for your people. It has
been a very, very good time, I think, for the Navy and we wish
you well when this tour is over.
Admiral Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Nice to have you back, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Danzig. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. And we will weather the coming years with
you, Jerry. We look forward very much to being with you in the
years ahead.
General Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. As long as we survive, we look forward to
it. Thank you very much.
Additional committee questions
There are some questions others had asked us to give to
you, as is the usual routine. We would appreciate it if you
would give those to us in writing.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Secretary Richard Danzig
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
lhd-8
Secretary Danzig, I am advised that the Navy recently submitted a
request to Defense Comptroller Lynn for release of funds previously
appropriated for LHD-8. $45 million was provided in fiscal year 1999
for Advanced Procurement items and another $375 million was provided in
last year's bill--along with language that would allow the Navy to
contract for the construction of this important ship on an incremental
basis.
Question. Do you have any information on when the Comptroller may
release those funds?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has requested the release of
funds from OSD. Currently, I understand the request is being staffed
within OSD but I do not have a specific timetable as to when these
funds may be released.
Question. What are the Navy's plans for contracting for the ship,
once the funds are released?
Answer. Upon release of the funds, the Navy plans to award a sole
source contract, after appropriate review, for the detailed design and
definition of long lead procurement. The contract is expected to be a
cost-plus award fee with a limitation of cost clause. We would then
move forward with construction upon appropriation of the required
funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. Does the Navy support or oppose the acquisition of
logistics ships through the lease purchase mechanism? Please articulate
and explain the Navy's position on this issue.
Answer. We support the acquisition of naval vessels, including
logistics ships through a lease-purchase mechanism when it makes
economic sense to do so. In the past, we have used this mechanism for
procuring SEALIFT tankers and Maritime Pre-positioning Force ships.
Given the current budgetary scoring conventions for capital leases,
there would have to be significant cost advantages to pursue this
approach. If that were the case, we would be hopeful that the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget could
arrange for the necessary budget authority to take advantage of such an
arrangement.
Question. What are the Navy's highest priorities for accelerating
shipbuilding? If Congress were to fund additional ships in the 2001
budget, should those ships be logistics ships?
Answer. We are facing the need to significantly increase our
shipbuilding rate just beyond the existing Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP) to maintain the force structure approved in the last Quadrennial
Defense Review. Accelerating any of our ongoing shipbuilding programs
would be helpful in that regard. I note, however, that in the case of
the TADC(X), the lead ship will be contracted for in fiscal year 2000.
I would prefer to see that program mature somewhat before increasing
the building rate.
Question. Why should the acquisition of logistics ships be funded
in the O&M (readiness) budget?
Answer. Lease payments are considered expenses and would
appropriately be funded in the O&M appropriation. This is the practice
now when we pay for chartered ships through the Military Sealift
Command. The purchase option would be funded in the Shipbuilding
appropriation. If appropriate adjustments to O&M budget authority are
made, use of this funding line should not have any negative
implications for readiness.
readiness/air combat training
Based on information made available to me, there are serious
problems in the material support for the Navy's air combat training at
Fallon Naval Air Station. Adversary and Topgun aircraft are old and
inadequately supported by spare parts; compared to the past, there are
relatively few adversary and Topgun aircraft, essential combat systems,
and live munitions available for training, and the type of adversary
aircraft available are not the types that our pilots are likely to meet
in combat.
Question. What is the Navy's plan, if any, to supply dissimilar
aircraft, such as reserve component F-16s, stationed at Fallon NAS for
adversary training?
Answer. In my recent ``Report to Congress on Adversary Aircraft'',
an annual Adversary shortfall of 26,000 sorties was highlighted.
Included in this shortfall are 16,500 dissimilar Category IV (advanced
threat) sorties. We are pursuing an Adversary aircraft strategy which
includes the following elements:
(1) Maintain a force of at least 36 F-5 aircraft.
(2) Provide a minimum of 18 F-16 aircraft (28 aircraft optimum) to
serve as advance threat fighter simulators. These aircraft could be new
or from Foreign Military Sales accounts; such as the 28 Peace Gate F-
16s that recently became available.
(3) Pursue joint solutions with the U.S. Air Force.
(4) Continue to employ the Naval Reserve component in the Adversary
support role.
If the fiscal year 2001 ``above core'' requirement for 18 F-16s is
supported by Congress, the Navy's priority for basing would be Naval
Air Station (NAS) Fallon. There are enough active duty pilots resident
at Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) to support an F-16
program decreasing the pressure on the Naval Reserve component to
support the F-16.
In addition, the use of USAF Reserve component and/or Air National
Guard (ANG) fighter units to supplement Navy Adversary requirements is
currently being pursued through a Joint Adversary Initiatives effort.
Question. What is the Navy's plan, if any, to increase the number
of adversary and fleet representative Topgun aircraft, spare parts,
essential combat systems (e.g. LANTIRN and other FLIR pods), and live
munitions used for training at Fallon NAS?
Answer. Current fiscal constraints have driven expansion of the
Navy Adversary program to an ``above core'' issue for the fiscal year
2001 budget proposal. While the requirement for additional Adversary
assets are well documented, Congressional support above the current
Navy TOA will be required to acquire additional Adversary aircraft.
The Navy's plan to increase spare parts at NAS Fallon includes
reducing the long lead times associated with Fallon's reliance on
``repair and return'' to host stations (NAS Lemoore, NAS Oceana and NAS
North Island).
The Navy has selectively increased Aircraft Intermediate
Maintenance Department (AIMD) Fallon's repair capability for the F-14A.
We have provided the station with HCT-10 F-14 adapters that have
significantly increased their Hydraulic Component Test and repair
capability. An F-14A generator test bench is currently in shipment that
will provide generator capability. We have begun to provide F-14A
avionics test and repair capability with the installation of the first
two Consolidated Automated Support System (CASS) stations. The next two
will arrive in March and April of 2001 and the last two in 2004. With
the arrival of the Test Program adapter Sets (TPS) currently in
shipment we will have capability on roughly 50 percent of F-14A
avionics. Through selective increases in ``I'' level capability, we
expect to reduce the impact of the long lead times on NAS Oceana, VA,
repair and returns on significant readiness degraders.
The CNO has included training ordnance as part of our above core
requirements list for fiscal year 2001. Additionally, we intend to
mitigate training ordnance shortfalls with programs such as Joint
Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS) and the Fleet Aviation
Simulator Training (FAST) Plan, which take advantage of advances in
simulation technology.
Question. What is the Navy's plan, if any, to increase the number
of flight training hours actually flown by pilots before and after they
come to Fallon for training?
Answer. The Navy's documented readiness ``bathtub'', a result of
our austere funding environment, unfortunately constrains the number of
flight hours a pilot can accomplish prior to arrival for Fallon
training. The availability of aircraft during the Inter-Deployment
Training Cycle [IDTC], the spare parts needed to maintain them, the
availability and experience of maintenance personnel to keep these
aircraft ready for training all contribute to limiting the hours of
pilot flying experience, as does the timely arrival of new pilots at
the completion of undergraduate flight training. Increasing the number
of flight hours to squadron pilots while ignoring other contributing
factors necessary to balance the readiness equation would accomplish
little. Naval aviation leadership has identified the elements needed to
balance this readiness equation and have developed a plan, Air Plan 21,
that when resourced, will provide a path to improved readiness.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
All of you discussed the problem of a historical increase in
operating costs. To achieve the same level of capability, operating
costs rise substantially every year. At a time when we are trying to
find additional resources to modernize the force and maintain an
intense global deployment schedule, it seems to me that one way to find
the money to accomplish these goals is to stem that rising tide of O&M
costs through the applications of new technology.
Question. I would like to know what technological research efforts
that Navy is making to bring down these costs?
Answer. The Navy is investigating several technology areas to help
reduce maintenance costs as part of the Navy's overall effort to reduce
total ownership costs. We are looking at both the Sailor/Marine and the
maintenance workload.
First, we want to recruit and match Sailors and Marines to the
right jobs at the right time while balancing individual and Navy-wide
needs. Second, we are studying ways to design affordable warfighter-
centered systems, organizations and jobs by applying knowledge of human
capabilities, limitations, and needs. Finally, we are investigating
technologies and processes to equip Sailors and Marines with effective
mission-essential competencies when and where they are needed at
affordable cost. Efforts to reduce maintenance workload include
``Smart'' systems for total asset management. A ``Smart'' system is
computer-based maintenance that integrates smart sensors, advanced
diagnostics, and advanced fault-prediction technology to reduce
operating costs by rationalizing maintenance procedures in the
operating forces.
The Navy is also investigating--and now bringing into the fleet--
very low maintenance components and long-life coatings and paints.
Advanced materials, such as advanced composites, are more resistant to
environmental damage than the steel and aluminum structures they
replace. These zero or very low maintenance structures may
substantially reduce the life cycle cost of the platforms on which they
are installed. The Navy is also looking at novel materials and
manufacturing processes for reduced costs. Finally, we are
investigating new high temperature materials for engine components to
improve thermodynamic efficiencies. These materials may prolong engine
life and may reduce fuel costs. Science and technology will continue to
contribute much to the Department of the Navy's efforts to reduce
operation and maintenance costs.
Question. How much savings does the Navy anticipate from the Health
and Usage Monitoring System slated for installation in its helicopter
fleet?
Answer. The total cost avoidance for the H-53E and H-60 legacy and
remanufactured aircraft is estimated to be approximately $1.0 billion
(in constant fiscal year 1999 dollars) through 2020. This equates to a
return on investment of 2.7 to 1 after considering the planned cost to
acquire and sustain the system.
Question. What savings does the service anticipate from electric
drive and similar propulsion conversions?
Answer. Integrated Power Systems (IPS) provide total ship electric
power, including electric propulsion, power conversion and distribution
and mission load interfaces to the electric power system. The Navy
expects that the utilization of IPS with electric drive will achieve
significant savings in ship operations and support costs over the life
cycle of a ship class.
The Navy estimates that a gas turbine combatant with IPS will have
fuel savings of 15-19 percent compared to a typical gas-turbine
combatant with mechanical drive and a Controllable Pitch Propeller
(CPP) system. With an IPS a ship designer can select the number and
ratings of the prime movers/generators to optimize the life cycle cost
without the constraint of having propulsion prime movers evenly divided
among the shafts. By combining the electric plant and the propulsion
plant, designers can reduce the number of prime movers, which
contributes significantly to initial acquisition cost, ship manning
costs, maintenance costs, and training costs.
Question. Mr. Secretary, can you please provide some detailed
information for the record on the participation of the Navy in
Department of Defense legacy programs? How many Navy personnel work on
Naval archaeology matters in DOD's legacy program? What are annual
expenditures for legacy programs over the past several years?
Answer. The Navy has received funding for 555 projects since the
program's inception in 1991. 308 of those projects were for natural
resource programs and the remaining 247 were for cultural resource
programs. The types of projects changed every year in accordance with
the varying areas of emphasis, which were published by DOD. The Marine
Corps did not ask for or receive Legacy funds from DOD during fiscal
year 1996 through 1999. During fiscal year 2000, the Marine Corps
received $100,000 of Legacy funds for one natural resources project at
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.
The Navy's archaeological programs fall into two general
categories, underwater and terrestrial archaeology. Navy legacy funding
has historically been directed mostly to underwater archaeology.
The DOD Legacy Program has funded the Naval Historical Center's
Underwater Archaeology Program (UA), which is responsible for the
inventory and protection of the U.S. Navy's historic ship and aircraft
wrecks. This funding has allowed the Navy to meet its mandate under the
National Historic Preservation Act and pursue a number of underwater
archaeology projects: the recovery of the Civil War submarine H.L.
Hunley; a survey and excavation of a Revolutionary War wreck in the
Penobscot River, Maine; site mapping, excavation, and possible
retrieval of at-risk artifacts from CSS Alabama off Cherbourg, France;
a remote-sensing survey of the military wrecks at Utah and Omaha
Beaches at Normandy; and a protection and management plan for the
recently discovered Benedict Arnold gunboat in Lake Champlain.
Since 1998, the Legacy Program has provided approximately $4
million to fund the Underwater Archaeology Branch. This figure includes
salaries for four full-time archaeologists, as well as funding for
conservation, state partnerships, equipment, travel and other operating
costs.
In past years, the Legacy program has also funded archaeology
projects outside the Naval Historic Center, including terrestrial
archaeology. These projects covered a variety of archaeological issues,
including curatorial needs assessments, artifact retrieval and
conservation, and Historic and Archaeological Resource Protection
Plans. These projects were completed by contract labor and overseen by
cultural resource professionals employed by the Navy.
Funding for Legacy programs over the past several years follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nat'l Resources Prjts Cultural Resources
------------------------ Prjts
-----------------------
Amount Projects Amount Projects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................................ $575,000 4 $1,680,968 15
1998............................................................ 350,000 5 1,151,000 6
1999............................................................ 771,000 5 1,552,760 7
2000............................................................ \1\ 706,56 6 \1\ 2,487, 6
2 976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOD has not yet released all funding for fiscal year 2000.
The number of projects funded in years 1997-2000 is relatively
small when compared with the number of projects funded in previous
years, 1991-1996. There are two reasons for this. Initially, Legacy
funds were applied to a wide range of installation-specific projects,
such as individual building rehabilitations or curation of an
installation's artifacts. Over time, the Legacy program's emphasis has
changed; it now seeks projects that have a broader scope, such as
regional historic context studies or curation needs assessment for a
region. In addition, the overall DOD Legacy program budget from 1997
through 2000 was $10-15 million per year, whereas, for years 1993-1995,
the total annual appropriation for Legacy projects was approximately
$50 million.
______
Questions Submitted to Adm. Jay L. Johnson
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
navy theater wide
Last week, Navy officials briefed Congressional staff on a plan
that would put the Navy Theater Wide system into the field with a
contingency capability--as a few missiles on one cruiser--by fiscal
year 2006.
Question. Is that date determined by the projected pace of
technological progress or by funding constraints.
Answer. The Navy Theater Wide (NTW) program of record, baselined
last year in May, had an initial capability with First Unit Equipped
(FUE) as one cruiser and five missiles in fiscal year 2007. That
program was never funded at an adequate level to meet the date
specified.
The Upper Tier Strategy at the time, split funding between the Army
Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system and NTW. Upon
Congressional direction the Department revised the Upper Tier Strategy
in December 1999 in an effort to move THAAD into an Engineering
Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase, and position NTW to complete
the AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) series. As this testing proves out
technology the Department will make a decision to go forward with an
incremental development and deployment of NTW. The revised Upper Tier
Strategy NTW System deployment option is currently funded only for
AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) through fiscal year 2002 with some program
development through fiscal year 2005. The current funding profile in
the fiscal year 2001 President's budget only funds the following:
--Program Definition Risk Reduction (PDRR) Flight Testing
--Aegis LEAP Intercept (ALI) Flight Test Round series (FTR-1
through FTR-7) will complete in fiscal year 2001
--Threat Representative Testing (TRT) (FTR-8 through FTR-10) will
complete in fiscal year 2004
--TRT (FTR-11 through FTR-13) not fully funded
--Minimally sustains industrial base capability through fiscal year
2005
--No funding for deployment capability
The NTW Spiral Evolution ``block within a block'' development, when
appropriately funded in fiscal year 2001 and out, can provide the
following incremental capabilities:
Block IA: Contingency Capability (fiscal year 2006)
--Initiate Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) work in
fiscal year 2003
--Single test Cruiser and remaining SM-3 test missiles (approximately
4 to 6)
Block IB: Single Mission Capability NTW (fiscal year 2008)
--Deploys 2 single mission cruisers with 50 SM-3 missiles
Block IC: Multi Mission Capability NTW (fiscal year 2010)
--Deploys 4 multi mission cruisers with 80 SM-3 missiles
Question. How much sooner could the system be fielded with adequate
funding?
Answer. As stated earlier the directed program requires additional
resources to meet the development and deployment schedule as delineated
in the revised upper tier strategy.
With further resources there is a possibility that some amount of
acceleration could be accomplished above the directed program
capability introduction. The potential to accelerate development of NTW
Block IA/IB/IC would move deployment of the increments from fiscal year
2006/08/10 to fiscal year 2005/07/08, respectively.
Question. Does the President's Budget contain sufficient funds to
field Navy Theater Wide system by fiscal year 2006?
Answer. No, as stated earlier the directed program requires
additional resources in fiscal year 2001 and out. The current funding
profile does not fund deployment of capability.
Question. Are you concerned that there is not?
Answer. Yes, but as indicated previously, the revised Upper Tier
Strategy positions the Navy Theater Wide program to move from
successful AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) flight series testing to
continued system development, when appropriately funded.
Question. Given the current funding in the President's Budget, when
will this system be deployed in a substantial way?
Answer. With the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget there is not
sufficient funding past AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) testing. The fiscal
year 2001 President's Budget funding provides for the following:
--Program Definition Risk Reduction (PDRR) Flight Testing
--AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) Flight Test Round series (FTR-1
through FTR-7) will complete in fiscal year 2001
--Threat Representative Testing (TRT) (FTR-8 through FTR-10) will
complete in fiscal year 2004
--TRT (FTR-11 through FTR-13) not fully funded
--Minimally sustains industrial base capability through fiscal year
2005
--No funding for deployment.
Question. I'm told that interceptor missile being developed for
Navy Theater Wide system will have capability that cannot be fully
utilized because of the limitations in the AEGIS radar.
Can you explain why the Cooperative Engagement Capability is
important to getting the most out of this system?
Answer. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is not required for
the Navy Theater Wide system. The threshold requirement for
interoperability is the joint LINK-16 data link.
Only modest improvements to the radar are necessary because in most
scenarios our ships are within a few hundred kilometers of potential
enemy launch points, well within radar detection and tracking
capability. That is why Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is not
a requirement for the BLK I NTW system. However, CEC has the potential
to provide high quality data for NTW, since it provides fire control
quality data to participating units as the threat ranges increase. For
example, a ship that is deployed forward near an enemy launch position
can detect and track a hostile TBM and pass accurate track data over
CEC to assist a down range ship that cannot yet see the target. NTW
Block IB (Single Mission Capability (SMC)) and NTW Block IC (Multi
Mission Capability (MMC)) will both be capable of engaging the full set
of anticipated Block I threats utilizing the operational requirement of
Link 16. We are looking at possible upgrades in NTW Block II which
include advanced radar, next generation SM-3s and command and control
improvements as well as CEC, to meet an even more stressing family of
threats.
Question. Can you also explain what benefits the SBIRS-Low system
will have for Navy Theater Wide?
Answer. We are at present undergoing a thorough requirements
analysis and definition process for SBIRS-Low and Navy Theater Wide.
The planned introduction date for SBIRS-Low is scheduled to be very
close to our development and deployment of NTW Block II. We are
conducting our requirements analysis with preliminary Block II concepts
and architecture in mind. Both the Block II Minimum Technical Data Set
(MTDS) description and the SBIRS-Low Requirements Review (RR) process
will be further defined in Summer 2000. In many scenarios, we expect
SBIRS-Low to potentially provide track data necessary to engage longer
range threats.
Question. Is the Navy fully participating in the process by which
SBIRS-Low operational requirements are being determined, so that Navy
ballistic missile defense systems can be as effective as possible?
Answer. Yes, we have Requirements Officers and technical program
support personnel assigned and as participants in the Requirements
Review (RR) process.
sea-based nmd
According to an article in the Washington Post earlier this week,
you asked the Secretary of Defense to consider using sea-based
interceptors as part of the National Missile Defense architecture.
Question. Do you propose a sea-based element in lieu of a ground-
based system, or in addition to ground based elements?
Answer. A sea-based element to NMD would be complementary in nature
to supplement the land-based system, not as in lieu of planned land-
based elements.
The Navy supports deployment of the initial land-based, single site
C-1 system. Recently the Department of Defense has begun to consider
broader NMD concepts, including different sites and more robust
capabilities. If NMD postures beyond the original single land based
site are under active consideration, then policy alternatives, which
include providing a portion of our defense from ships at sea should
also be considered.
Decisions taken in the coming months are likely to have a profound
impact on the course of choices made in fielding an NMD system for our
nation. For that reason, I recommended consideration of a sea-based
Navy adjunct be included in any policy and/or architectural designs
under development. Clearly, much work remains before any NMD system is
fielded. Foreclosing a Navy contribution at the front end of NMD
development would not be in the best long-term interests of our nation.
I believe the potential future naval contributions to National Missile
Defense are as a complement to the land-based NMD system.
Three different studies concerning Naval NMD have been completed
over the past two years: a NMD Joint Program Office (JPO)--led
Independent Assessment Panel, the DOD (BMDO) Report to Congress of May
1998 on the ``Utility of Sea-Based Assets to NMD,'' and the Navy
assessment. In each case, the conclusions included the following:
--Naval forces could enhance NMD operational and technical
effectiveness.
--Land and sea based integrated NMD architecture is superior to a
land only system.
--Navy capability could protect against sea-based NMD threats.
The fiscal year 2000 Authorization Act directed an in-depth study
to explore more fully options for NMD, which include NMD configured
ships for supplementing the initial land-based National Missile Defense
(NMD) architecture. The overall objective is to define and evaluate
sea-based NMD systems, and to assess their relative merits. The first
Part of this study is nearing completion and potential Navy
alternatives will be better defined upon completion of the study.
Placing a portion of our NMD capability at sea allows us to
position interceptors, or sensors, or both forward, where they can take
advantage of a greater portion of a threat missile's flight path, and
where they can contribute to early discrimination of warheads amidst
debris and/or penetration aids. As a result of this forward placement,
you have the opportunity to see the threat earlier in flight, from a
different look angle, and for a longer period of time, providing you
with the potential to engage that threat earlier and/or more often.
Question. Is it your view that a sea-based element could be
deployed before the ground-based elements, currently scheduled to be
deployed in 2005?
Answer. Today, the Navy has no NMD program in progress and has no
assigned NMD mission. The fiscal year 2000 Authorization Act directed
an in-depth study concerning options for supplementing the initial
land-based National Missile Defense (NMD) architecture with ships at
sea. The overall objective is to define and evaluate the feasibility of
sea-based NMD concepts and to assess their relative merits. The first
Part of this study is nearing completion.
Deploying a sea-based NMD component, capable of complementing our
planned land-based capability, will require development of an
interceptor, sensors and BMC\4\I systems capable of working in concert
with developing land-based hardware and software. Development of the
interceptor, evolving from the proven STANDARD Missile family
technology and capitalizing on our ongoing Navy Theater Wide Kinetic
Warhead development, along with supporting BMC\4\I systems to provide
essential connectivity, is certainly feasible in time to support C-1
deployment. Sensor development could also pace the threat, and could be
deployed during the C-1 fielding period. Sensor development would be
done through radar improvements and depending on the threat, could be
ready to support C-1, moving to C-3. Development of the connectivity
and sensor netting needed to support integrating sea-based systems into
land-based capability in time to support C-1 deployment is also
feasible.
A Naval adjunct NMD component is feasible and no major technical
hurdles exist. Risks are similar to land-based design and development
in the areas of missile and battle management concepts. Deployment and
delivery schedules for this and other potential alternatives will be
better defined upon completion of the study.
Question. The ABM Treaty prohibits not only sea-based defenses
against long-range ballistic missiles, but any National Missile Defense
system, whatever the basing mode.
Given the fact the administration is making formal proposals to
modify the ABM Treaty to accommodate National Missile Defense, would
you also like to see attempts made to modify the Treaty's prohibition
on sea-based defenses?
Answer. The Navy does not currently have an NMD mission, nor is it
part of the current NMD program. If NMD's requirements expand beyond
the original land-based sites under consideration, then alternatives
that include providing a portion of our NMD defense from ships at sea
should be considered. The Navy supports deployment of the initial land-
based, single site system. It is important however, to begin Navy NMD
analysis and research in a forthright and deliberate manner as
permitted under the ABM Treaty.
Question. If sea-based interceptors were to be made part of the
National Missile Defense system, how important will it be to have the
SBIRS-Low system in place to get the most out of sea-based interceptor
missiles?
Answer. Various naval components for a Naval NMD complementary role
are being examined in-depth in the ongoing Navy/BMDO study. We are
currently conducting a thorough requirements analysis and definition
process for SBIRS-Low and Navy Theater Wide. The SBIRS-Low Requirements
Review (RR) process is looking at both National Missile Defense and
Theater Missile Defense requirements. The analysis and requirements
definition, which will result from the combination of these two
factors, will provide us with more insight to the warfighting value and
robustness of SBIRS-Low support to Navy ballistic missile defense
systems. We expect SBIRS-Low to be an integral part of any NMD system,
on land or at sea.
Question. Do you agree that the Navy's current and projected
procurement rates do not meet the Administration's stated goal of
sustaining a 300 ship Navy?
Answer. Over a 30 year period the Navy would need to build on
average 8 to 10 ships per year to sustain a 300 ship Navy. Inconsistent
build rates over the last two decades have caused peaks and valleys in
demands for replacements, as a result, the immediate needs happen to be
slightly less than the 8 to 10 ship sustaining rate. Large numbers of
destroyers and submarines were authorized in the late 1980's and
delivered to the Navy in the early 1990's. These ships are therefore
still relatively young. Replacing these ships to sustain a constant
sized Navy, of any size, is going to be a large challenge requiring
renewed industrial capacity and a significant increase in resources in
the 2010 to 2020 time period. Desired options to maintain or increase
loading of the current industrial base to more economically efficient
levels have been unaffordable. Therefore, although inventory
requirements are adequately met with current shipbuilding requests,
pulling forward future requirements would make sense if additional
resources were available.
Question. Is 300 ships the right answer?
Answer. The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) force structure
of approximately 300 ships fully manned, properly trained, and
adequately resourced was assessed to be the minimum acceptable to
satisfy the Navy's warfighting and forward presence requirements. Since
that time, operational demands have increased somewhat, reducing
scheduling flexibility and increasing demands on personnel, ship's
equipment and aircraft. To meet current Unified Commanders-in-Chief
global presence requirements, without gaps in coverage now being
experienced, a 10 to 20 percent larger force that includes up to 15
Carrier Battle Groups and 14 Amphibious Ready Groups would be required.
Given the considerable financial challenges to sustain the current
force structure of approximately 300 ships in the future, such a larger
force could not be considered without additional resources. The next
QDR would likely be the best forum to evaluate any change in the
projected size or composition of the Navy.
Question. What is your view of the Navy's combatant ship
requirements, as you look down the road and try to envision the Navy's
role and missions over the next few decades?
Answer. The Chief of Naval Operations noted in June 1999 that, ``we
must analyze our experience in the years since the last Quadrennial
Defense Review; specifically, in terms of how the force has been and
will be used, to arrive at a credible, confident and coherent plan to
make sure we have the force sized and shaped correctly for the
future.'' In addition to capturing the lessons of recent experience, we
must anticipate new or altered missions brought about by the evolution
of national security strategy as well as opportunities arising from new
technology such as ballistic missile defense and sea-based land attack.
Such changes will require continued study and debate as part of the
process of determining how these will ultimately affect Navy force
structure.
Question. Admiral Johnson, Recent testimony by high-ranking Navy
officials emphasizes the need to meet the warfighting CINC's
requirements for 15 carrier battle groups (CVBGs) and 14 amphibious
ready groups (ARGs). This force structure includes more than 130
surface combatants, a greater number than the current target of 116
ships. This greater number would not appear to take account of possible
future mission needs for surface combatants beyond escorting CVBGs/ARGs
in current missions. Testimony also emphasizes the importance of
retaining a production rate of at least three surface combatants per
year to meet the more immediate needs of replacing older surface
combatants--primarily DD-963s and FFG-7s--that are going out of
service, and to maintain the surface combatant industrial base.
(1) In light of these facts, what, in your view, should be the Navy
requirement for DDG-51s?
(2) In addition, what should the build rate for these ships be over
the next several years?
Answer. The DDG 51 program was established as a 57 ship program on
02 Feb 94 by Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) for DDG 51 Destroyer
Program Milestone IV. In light of the recent programmatic decision to
delay the start of DD 21 production from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal
year 2005, the DDG 51 program was extended to fiscal year 2005 and
expanded to include an additional ship, for a total of 58.
The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) established 116 as the
minimum number of surface combatants required to meet the CINC's
warfighting requirements. The Navy has recently completed a study, now
under review within the Department of Defense, which is expected to
recommend a force structure greater than the QDR level of 116 surface
combatants. Depending on the construction plan for DD 21, a portion of
the additional ships called for by this draft study could be comprised
of DDG 51 variants.
The DDG 51 shipbuilding rate has averaged just over three ships per
year since 1994. The surface combatant shipbuilders, Bath Iron Works
and Ingalls Shipbuilding, have sized their workforce and facilities to
most efficiently produce destroyers at this stable production rate. The
President's Budget request for fiscal year 2001 slows the surface
combatant build rate to two ships per year in fiscal year 2002-fiscal
year 2004 with a single DDG proposed in fiscal year 2005. This reduced
surface combatant shipbuilding rate, though not most efficient (i.e.,
not ``best price for the taxpayer''), strikes a necessary balance
between the Navy's overall shipbuilding program requirements,
resources, affordability and industrial base considerations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
f/a-18e/f
Question. Admiral Johnson, would you discuss your unfunded
requirement for 3 additional F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2001?
Could you discuss your views on the Super Hornet and its recent
completion of its Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL)? I understand it
received the highest possible rating from the Navy's test community?
Answer. The Navy was forced to remove three aircraft from the
fiscal year 2002 budget due to rising costs in maintaining current
readiness within our top line. Procurement of three aircraft in fiscal
year 2001 for a fiscal year 2003 delivery would put the Navy back on
track to reach our procurement objective of 548 aircraft as validated
by our most recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Our aging fleet of
F-14s and older F/A-18s requires replacement in order to sustain
overall strike fighter inventory to support CINC warfighting
requirements. These aircraft would ensure the timely activation of the
East Coast Fleet Readiness Squadron and mitigate risk to the current
transition plan due to aircraft quantity shortfalls. If the present
shortfall of aircraft is realized, non-deployed readiness will decrease
because squadrons will have less than Primary Aircraft Authorized (PAA)
when attrition rates and modification pipelines are considered,
requiring them to accomplish their mission with less aircraft. The
funding requested also includes provisions for spares and ancillary
equipment that was also absorbed by the reduction of three aircraft.
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be the centerpiece of Naval
Aviation's power projection capability in the littoral battle space and
strike arena. During its operational evaluation, it demonstrated the
capabilities that are vitally important to our battle groups,
specifically: increased range, payload and payload flexibility, carrier
recovery payload bring back, survivability and provisions for growth.
The F/A-18E/F has undergone exhaustive scrutiny and has been subject to
rigorous DOD procurement, acquisition and evaluation standards. The
Navy's independent test activity certified that the aircraft was
operationally suitable and operationally effective which was the
highest possible ``grade'' in this test. In addition, the Super Hornet
achieved all Key Performance Parameters that were established in 1992.
The Navy expects to enter a multi-year contract for the production of
222 aircraft that covers procurement in fiscal year 2000-fiscal year
2004. All full rate production criteria has been met which included:
operationally effective and operationally suitable OPEVAL, achievement
of all KPPs and certification of a multi-year contract savings of 7.4
percent over single year contracts for the same number of aircraft. The
F/A-18E/F will be a tremendous warfighting asset to our Naval forces
and a value to taxpayers.
t-45
Question. The Navy and Marine Corps Pilot Training program has been
improved by the incorporation of the T-45 Training System into
Meridian, MS and Kingsville, TX. It's my understanding that the T-45,
produced in St. Louis, is performing above standards. The three
additional T-45s that you have listed very high in your Unfunded
Requirements list could benefit further your pilot training program.
What is the future procurement plans for this aircraft?
Answer. Fiscal year 2001 President's Budget shows a procurement of
12 aircraft in fiscal year 2001 and 4 aircraft in fiscal year 2002 for
a total program procurement of 169 T-45 aircraft. USN is refining
requirements and will use the fiscal year 2002 budget development
process to define the FYDP procurement profile.
joint direct attack munition
Question. The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) has proven itself
in the air war in Kosovo. You have requested 1,500 additional kits in
your Unfunded Requirements list and placed it very high on the
priorities. Could you comment on the Navy's need for this weapon?
Answer. JDAM is a kit that upgrades existing general purpose bombs
and provides the DON with a new accurate through-the-weather strike
capability. Kosovo lessons learned highlighted the need for this all-
weather capability. Following Kosovo, Sixth Fleet identified GPS-guided
munitions as one of their two highest priority desired weapon
improvements. Recently, the Navy has used JDAM with great success in
Iraq, reinforcing the tactical significance of this weapon. JDAM has
revolutionized Strike Warfare and is providing the warfighter with a
true force multiplier.
slam-er
Question. CNO--SLAM-ER is currently operationally deployed in
critical hot spots in the world. Additional follow-on operational
testing was recently completed with five outstanding missile shots. The
results verify that the weapon is a significant improvement over the
baseline SLAM. The budget drops the number of missiles procured to 30
in fiscal year 2001. Your Unfunded Requirements asks for 60 additional
missiles, bringing SLAM-ER production into a very cost effective rate.
Could you comment on the need for additional SLAM-ERs in the Navy
inventory?
Answer. We are extremely gratified by the recent test results of
the SLAM-ER and confident it will fill an increasingly important role
in our weapons inventory. The budget, reflecting a balanced warfighting
approach within the available resources, precludes procuring everything
needed in the desired quantities. Moreover, we are continually updating
our inventory requirements for all weapons to ensure we have the proper
mix for the anticipated needs. With this in mind, an increase in
required inventory, particularly with a weapon providing the standoff
and precision of SLAM-ER, can be expected.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. As experienced military leaders who deal with missile
defense issues every day, I would like to hear your personal views on
National Missile Defense. Do you think that it embodies that right
strategy to deal with the possible threat from so-called rogue states?
Based on your knowledge of the test program, would you be willing to
share with us your thoughts on a possible recommendation to the
President that he deploy a National Missile Defense in June?
Answer. A decision to go forward with National Missile Defense
deployment has to be made with a clear goal in mind and the benefit of
test results not yet available. The Navy will support the Deployment
Readiness Review (DRR) decision when determined.
Our greatest operational interest is of course, in the potential
role of sea-based systems. The Department of Defense has been
considering broader NMD concepts including different sites and more
robust capabilities.
As the technologies mature, we will assume that consideration of a
sea-based Navy adjunct be included in any policy and/or architectural
designs for a NMD system.
Clearly, much work remains before any NMD system is fielded. I
believe the potential future Naval contributions to National Missile
Defense are as a complement to the land-based NMD system. As the
technology develops, we may find that in same situations, they could be
more desirable.
Question. Mr. Secretary and Admiral Johnson, would you provide for
the record an estimate of the cost of building, deploying, and
maintaining a sea-based national missile defense? When could the first
interceptors be operational, and when could a sea-based system be fully
operational? Also, what would the architecture of such a system look
like? How many interceptors would initially be put at sea, and what
might be an ultimate number? Would the sea-based interceptors be part
of an integrated system with land-based interceptors, or could it stand
on its own?
Answer. Today, the Navy has no NMD program in progress and has no
assigned NMD mission. The fiscal year 2000 Authorization Act directed
an in-depth study concerning options for supplementing the initial
land-based National Missile Defense (NMD) architecture with ships at
sea. The overall objective is to define and evaluate the feasibility of
sea-based NMD concepts and to assess their relative merits. The first
Part of this study is nearing completion. The second Part of this
study, scheduled to begin this summer, will address the cost and
schedule in more detail.
Deploying a sea-based NMD component, capable of complementing our
planned land-based capability, will require development of an
interceptor, sensors and BMC\4\I systems capable of working in concert
with developing land-based hardware and software. Development of the
interceptor, evolving from the proven STANDARD Missile family
technology and capitalizing on our ongoing Navy Theater Wide Kinetic
Warhead development, along with supporting BMC\4\I systems to provide
essential connectivity, is feasible in time to support C-1 deployment.
Sensor development could also pace the threat, and could be deployed
during the C-1 fielding period. Sensor development would be done
through radar improvements and depending on the threat, could be ready
to support C-1, moving to C-3. Development of the connectivity and
sensor netting needed to support integrating sea-based systems into
land-based capability in time to support C-1 deployment is also
feasible.
I conclude that a Naval NMD component is feasible because all the
technical challenges we have identified seem to resolvable. Deployment
and delivery schedules for this and other potential alternatives will
be better defined upon completion of the study.
______
Questions Submitted to Gen. James L. Jones
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Last year Secretary Danzig, Admiral Johnson, and General Krulak
testified that the Navy had a requirement for a new LHD sooner rather
than later. As you know, $45 million in advanced procurement was
appropriated in fiscal year 1999, and $375 million and language
authorizing the Navy to contract for the ship was included in last
year's bill. Hopefully the Defense Comptroller will favorably respond
to the Navy's recent request for release of these funds, in order that
the Navy can go ahead and contract for LHD-8.
Question. Looking at a Marine Expeditionary Unit's (MEU)
requirements to carry out its mission, what advantages, in terms of
warfighting capability, does a more modern and better equipped LHD-8
provide compared to an older LHA?
Answer. The current plan is to decommission the five LHA-1 TARAWA
class ships at the end of their 35-year Expected Service Life starting
in the year 2012. The LHA-1 ship class replacement plan shows one ship
funded approximately every 3-5 years with the last LHA-1 replacement
ship funded in 2015. In replacing the LHAs, an LHD-8 Transition Ship
and follow on LHX class ship will better serve and meet Marine Corps
requirements.
LHD-8 is a good transition ship for the USMC, providing increased
reliability and support capabilities over the LHA-1 TARAWA class ships.
The enhanced capabilities of the current LHD ships include the
following:
--Expanded C\4\I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and
Intelligence) Capabilities.
--Larger flight deck with enhanced aviation support facilities and
expanded aviation fuel storage facilities specifically designed
to support an Aviation Combat Element that includes a fix wing
detachment of AV-8s.
--Greatly expanded and redesigned well deck capable of landing/
launching and supporting the LCAC, our primary over-the-horizon
landing craft.
--Designed with an enhanced damage stability capability by
incorporating the Fuel Compensating System that corrects
stability concerns identified with the LHAs.
Question. Can the older LHA class ships accommodate the number of
MV-22's required to support a Marine Expeditionary Unit?
Answer. The LHA class ships as currently configured cannot
accommodate 12 MV-22s required to support a Marine Expeditionary Unit.
Deploying without a full complement of MV-22s, CH-53s, and AV-8Bs is
unacceptable. The LHA ship class must be capable of safely deploying
with our current/projected aircraft and equipment.
In order for the LHAs to accommodate the MV-22s, the Navy plan is
to install the Fuel Compensating System ship alteration to correct the
LHA-1 TARAWA class ships' stability concerns. This initiative is not
currently funded. Additional alterations to the flight deck,
superstructure, and support facilities are also required. These
alterations consist of the removal of a bridge wing and countermeasure
washdown piping to ensure proper rotor tip clearance, modifying the
flight deck markings to accommodate the MV-22, and enhancing the
Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Department's capability to provide
nitrogen gas in support of aircraft operations and maintenance. These
alterations are funded.
Question. What is the plan to support the Marine Expeditionary Unit
with the MV-22s and when will you need a new LHD to accommodate the
plan?
Answer. The MV-22s are scheduled to begin shipboard deployments
with the Marine Expeditionary Units from the East Coast in fiscal year
2003 and from the West Coast during fiscal year 2006. Once V-22s begin
deploying, the Marine Corps plans to maintain continuous V-22
deployments from the respective coasts. The Marine Corps and Navy have
been working together to ensure all requirements are met to support
continuous MV-22 shipboard deployments.
A separate but related issue is the need for an LHD-8 transition
ship that will improve the Marine Corps' ability to respond to
worldwide crises. Currently, the LHD-8 transition ship is partially
funded with the balance of required funding scheduled in fiscal year
2005.
The centerpieces for Marine forces afloat are our Big Deck
amphibious assault ships. These focal points of our Amphibious Task
Force consist of five LHAs and six LHDs with a seventh LHD presently
under construction with scheduled delivery during fiscal year 2001.
These ships are critical to maintaining our amphibious lift and crisis
response capability. The five LHA class ships reach the end of their
35-year extended service life between 2011 and 2015. The LHD-8 is the
transition ship to the LHA Replacement ship that will replace the aging
LHA ship class.
The LHD-8 transition ship will incorporate numerous and significant
improvements over its predecessor. The ship will have a gas turbine
propulsion system and a new robust electrical system, thereby
eliminating steam service that is present on all existing Big Deck
amphibious ships. These engineering advantages equate to improved
reliability and maintainability that ensures the Marine Corps' ability
to quickly respond to worldwide crises.
In replacing the LHAs, the LHD-8 transition ship and follow-on LHA
Replacement ships will better serve and meet Marine Corps requirements.
The LHA Replacement ship class would be either of two options: continue
to redesign the LHD to a modified variant or a new design LHX. This
LHD-8 transition ship/LHA Replacement shipbuilding plan makes good
warfighting sense.
Question. Given the capability the MV-22 Osprey brings to a Marine
Expeditionary Unit, please explain, the importance of replacing the
older LHAs with the newer more modern LHD-8.
Answer. The MV-22 is the future centerpiece of the Marine Corps'
vertical assault capability. The MV-22 will enable us to provide faster
force closure with reduced strategic airlift through self-deployment,
increased operational reach, greater operational tempo, combat
effectiveness and efficiency, and increased combat survivability. The
Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), Landing Craft Air Cushion
(LCAC), and ``Osprey'' will comprise the mobility triad that enables
Operational Maneuver From the Sea (OMFTS).
The centerpieces for Marine forces afloat are our Big Deck
amphibious assault ships. These focal points of our Amphibious Task
Force consist of five LHAs and six LHDs with a seventh LHD presently
under construction with scheduled delivery during fiscal year 2001.
These ships are critical to maintaining our amphibious lift and crisis
response capability. The five LHA class ships reach the end of their
35-year extended service life between 2011 and 2015. The LHD-8 is the
transition ship to the LHA Replacement ship.
The five LHA TARAWA class ships no longer meet designed damage
stability criteria. LHA stability is a weight/growth issue with
increasing higher topside weights over the life of the ship class
compounding the situation. Newer and heavier equipment (antennas,
radars, tanks, trucks, and aircraft, e.g., the MV-22) has contributed
extensively to the stability problem. The Navy plans to correct the
stability problem on four or five LHAs (depending on LHD 8 delivery) by
installing a Fuel Compensating System to allow for the full complement
of MV-22s to begin deploying in fiscal year 2003. However, this
initiative is presently not funded. In addition, LHAs will require
specific ship alterations to properly integrate the MV-22 onboard.
These ship alterations include removing a bridge wing, adding a
nitrogen plant, moving washdown piping, and remarking the flight deck.
These alterations are funded.
The current plan is to decommission the five LHA-1 TARAWA class
ships at the end of their 35-year Expected Service Life starting in the
year 2012. The LHA-1 ship class replacement plan shows one ship funded
approximately every 3-5 years with the last LHA-1 replacement ship
funded in 2015. In replacing the LHAs, an LHD-8 Transition Ship and
follow on LHX class ship will better serve and meet Marine Corps
requirements.
LHD-8 is a good transition ship for the USMC, providing increased
reliability and support capabilities over the LHA-1 TARAWA class ships.
The enhanced capabilities of the current LHD ships include the
following:
--Expanded C\4\I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and
Intelligence) Capabilities.
--Larger flight deck with enhanced aviation support facilities and
expanded aviation fuel storage facilities specifically designed
to support an Aviation Combat Element that includes a fixed
wing detachment of AV-8s.
--Greatly expanded and redesigned well deck capable of landing/
launching and supporting the LCAC, our primary over-the-horizon
landing craft.
--Designed with an enhanced damage stability capability by
incorporating the Fuel Compensating System that corrects
stability concerns identified with the LHAs.
Question. General Jones, in your prepared statement, you support
achievement of 3 Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEB), but point out
that current budget plans will only support a 2.5 MEB lift capability
by fiscal year 2008.
Can you elaborate on what this shortfall means and how the Nation's
war fighting capability will be effected?
Answer. A global superpower must possess an ability to execute
unilateral action. The key requirement for unilateral action is the
ability to project combat power ashore in a theater without forward
bases and in the face of armed opposition. The current Navy Long Range
Shipbuilding plan meets the fiscally-constrained, programmatic
capability established for the Marine Corps in the Quadrennial Defense
Review resulting in an amphibious force structure capable of lifting
2.5 MEB assault echelon-equivalents by forming 12 Amphibious Ready
Groups. Cutting, delaying, or inadequately funding amphibious ship
procurement, will adversely effect our ability to conduct forcible
entry operations and hinder our ability to comply with the current
Secretary of Defense Global Naval Forces Presence Policy.
Question. What does the Marine Corps require to reach the desired
3.0 MEB Lift capability?
Answer. Amphibious forces are the nation's most flexible and
adaptive combined arms crisis response capability. The requirement for
an amphibious ship force structure that supports 3.0 Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault echelon-equivalents of lift, as
originally stated in the Department of the Navy Integrated Amphibious
Operations and USMC Air Support Requirements (DoN Lift II) and later in
the Mobility Requirements Study, is based on five fingerprints of
amphibious lift. Those fingerprints are: personnel, vehicle square
feet, cubic feet of cargo, vertical takeoff and landing spots, and
landing craft, air cushioned (LCAC) spots. Achieving the required
fingerprint remains a priority requirement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
Question. The Marine Corps doctrine Operational Maneuver From the
Sea is based on the triad of V-22, the Advanced Amphibious Assault
Vehicle (AAAV), and the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC). Is the Marine
Corps making enough progress on the procurement of these three
programs?
Answer. Yes, the Marine Corps is making progress.
The current MV-22 procurement plan provides a continuous Marine
Expeditionary Unit ``Osprey'' capability in fiscal year 2003. This is
followed by a projected Marine Expeditionary Brigade MV-22 ``Osprey''
capability in fiscal year 2007. The complete tactical fielding of the
MV-22 will occur around fiscal year 2013 with the transition of the
last Reserve MV-22 Osprey squadron. Final deliveries of the MV-22 to
the training squadron will continue through the beginning of fiscal
year 2015.
The Marine Corps desires to increase procurement to 36 MV-22s per
year. This would allow the Marine Corps to increase the progress toward
full Operational Maneuver from the Sea capability and to shorten the
fielding plans by 2-3 years.
The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) Program is currently
nearing the completion of the Program Definition and Risk Reduction
(PDRR) phase of development. The Government accepted the first of three
PDRR prototypes for Developmental Testing in January 2000. The Program
will enter the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase in
fiscal year 2001 during which ten prototypes will be fabricated and
tested. Low Rate Initial Production for 101 vehicles begins in fiscal
year 2004 with Full Rate Production starting in fiscal year 2006 and
continuing through full operational capability in fiscal year 2013. The
projected procurement plan will provide an initial and continuous
Marine Expeditionary Unit AAAV operational capability beginning in
fiscal year 2006.
Delivery of the final LCAC (total of 91) in December 2000 completes
this procurement program. Currently, LCACs are scheduled to undergo a
Service Life Extension Program (LCAC SLEP) that extends the useful
service life of these craft an additional 20 years. LCAC SLEP
encompasses the following:
--Replacement of obsolete electronics with a new command module
introducing open architecture to facilitate low cost commercial
off-the-shelf insertion as technology continues to evolve.
--Replacement of the buoyancy box solving corrosion problems while
incorporating hull improvements.
--Incorporating Enhanced Engines providing additional power capable
of lifting all required Marine Corps loads.
--Replaces current skirt design with Deep Skirt increasing craft
performance under all operational conditions.
LCAC SLEP is critical to the Marine Corps' expeditionary
warfighting capability as part of projecting combat power ashore. To
support the MAGTF of the next 20 years the LCAC must be able to operate
with heavier loads, at faster speeds and further distances, under
adverse conditions, and with higher reliability.
Question. What level of funding is needed for the Marine Corps to
satisfy the goal of 36 MV-22's per year?
Answer. To ramp up to 36 aircraft in fiscal year 2006, $1,066
million is required across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
This would reduce procurement in the outyears and achieve an overall
savings of approximately $280 million. The following cost and profile
adjustments are required to execute the desired 36 per year procurement
of MV-22s by fiscal year 2006:
[Dollar amounts in million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Quantity -------------------------------------------------- Total
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Profile...................................... 16 19 28 28 28 119
Revised Profile...................................... 16 24 30 32 34 136
Delta................................................ ........ 5 2 4 6 17
==========================================================
Current WpnSys Cost.................................. $1,208 $1,345 $1,746 $1,698 $1,637 $7,634
Revised WpnSys Cost.................................. 1,228 1,634 1,909 1,944 1,985 8,700
Delta................................................ 20 289 163 246 348 1,066
Tooling Delta........................................ (+10) (+25) (+32) ........ ........ .......
Adv. Procurement Delta............................... (+10) ........ (+5) (+10) (+20) .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tooling and Advance Procurement Deltas are included in the Weapons
System Cost Delta.
The earliest that the MV-22 ramp could be increased to 36 a year is
fiscal year 2003. Increasing the MV-22 in fiscal year 2003 will result
in an estimated $500 million Weapons System Cost savings and reduces
procurement by two years. The following cost and profile adjustments
are required to execute the desired 36 per year procurement of MV-22s
by fiscal year 2003:
[Dollar amounts in million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Quantity -------------------------------------------------- Total
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Profile...................................... 16 19 28 28 28 119
Revised Profile...................................... 16 27 36 36 36 151
Delta................................................ ........ 8 8 8 8 32
==========================================================
Current WpnSys Cost.................................. $1,208 $1,345 $1,746 $1,698 $1,637 $7,634
Revised WpnSys Cost.................................. 1,238 1,820 2,172 2,129 2,126 9,485
Delta................................................ 30 475 426 431 489 1,851
Tooling Delta........................................ (+10) (+25) (+32) ........ ........ .......
Adv. Proc. Delta..................................... (+20) ........ ........ ........ ........ .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tooling and Advance Procurement deltas are included in the Weapons
System Cost delta.
Total funding required across the FYDP to increase the ramp rate to
36 per year in fiscal year 2003 is $1,851 million.
The procurement ramp can be adjusted to go to 36 aircraft per year
anytime after fiscal year 2003. However, total program savings are
highest if we reach the 36 aircraft annual procurement rate in fiscal
year 2003. Projected savings streams lessen each year we delay getting
to the 36 aircraft annual rate.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
av-8b
In your fiscal year 2001 Unfunded Requirements List, you
established a need for 4 additional Remanufactured Harriers. However,
no mention was made of advance procurement for procurement beyond
fiscal year 2001.
Question. Do you have a need to remanufacture the remaining 30 or
so Day Attack AV-8B's in your Harrier inventory? Would additional
advance procurement in fiscal year 2001 be appropriate to support the
remanufacture of the remaining Day Attack aircraft? How does this tie
up with the future procurement of Joint Strike Fighter?
Answer. Yes; the USMC is requesting a total of 16 additional Reman
aircraft, 4 in fiscal year 2001 and 12 in fiscal year 2002. Yes; $18
million in advance procurement in fiscal year 2001 is required to
support the procurement of the additional 12 Reman aircraft in fiscal
year 2002. These 16 additional Remanufactured aircraft will allow us to
maintain the temporarily reduced PAA of 16 (desired 20) in our 7 Attack
Squadrons until JSF IOC of 2010 (desired JSF PAA of 20 aircraft in 7
squadrons).
usmc ecp-583
The Marine inventory of F/A-18A aircraft requires upgrades to bring
them up to F/A-18C capabilities. You have identified funding for 20
additional ECP-583 upgrades (10 Active and 10 Reserve) in your Unfunded
Requirements List.
Question. How important is this upgrade in modernizing your fighter
attack capabilities?
Answer. The primary factor driving the F/A-18A upgrade is the
mitigation of the current F/A-18C/D inventory shortfall that becomes
almost unmanageable beyond fiscal year 2006. The 28 active and 48
reserve F/A-18A's represent 51 percent of the total single seat strike
fighters in the USMC inventory. The F/A-18C/D is running out of service
life faster than the F/A-18A due to operational demand. The F/A-18C/D
is in higher demand for use by the CINCs and Marine Air Ground Task
Force (MAGTF) than the F/A-18A because of its enhanced operational
capability; mainly its ability to employ precision guided weapons.
ECP-583 consist primarily of avionics and hardware upgrades that
allow the F/A-18A to process and utilize the updated versions of the F/
A-18C software and accessories. The modified ``A'' aircraft will have
comparable capabilities to a Lot 17 F/A-18C aircraft; an aircraft 8
years newer. ECP-583 will allow the ``A'' aircraft to employ all
current and future POMed weapons available to the F/A-18C/D.
ECP-583 will allow the Marine Corps to spread operational demand
over its full inventory of F/A-18s. This will help to slow the rate of
accumulated service life on the F/A-18C/D. The modification also
enhances commonality between the ``A'' and ``C'' aircraft, which
reduces logistical footprints, pilot and maintenance training.
ECP-583 is the most cost effective means to bridge the warfighting
capability required of Marine tactical aviation from present until the
arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter in 2010.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
roles and missions
General Jones, as we continue to maximize the resources we allocate
to the military, it seems to me that we need to ensure that the roles
and missions of the Armed Services do not overlap substantially. Right
now, the Army is refining its new vision for the future. The general
outlines of the vision indicate the Army is going to be a lighter force
that is much more deployable. This process of transformation raises a
number of questions in regard to the roles and missions of the
services. I would like to know whether the Army is taking advantage of
the Marine Corps' expertise as in its development of doctrine and force
structure plans.
Question. Do you believe that this new force will duplicate the
capabilities you can already provide? Speaking from experience, can the
Army balance this new role with its historical role as a heavy,
sustained-fighting force?
Answer. Your Marine Corps and the Army have many professional
commonalties; which includes shared types of equipment, training
resources and requirements, and warfighting skills, tactics and
techniques. Both of our services work diligently to ensure that we
maximize economies of scale in obtaining common resources. To this end,
we maintain liaison offices and cooperate on experimentation and
acquisition programs to ensure that our doctrines and requirements
complement one-another whenever possible. The development of
redundancies cannot be ruled out and would not prove a major challenge
to address so long as each of our services focuses on its core
competencies.
Secretary Cohen has been very deeply involved in working with the
Chief of Staff of the Army and making sure that the Army is focused in
the right direction. In the long term, the Army's modernization will
benefit your Marine Corps. The exact extent to which the Army is
leveraging off of the Marine Corps experiences for developing its
future doctrine and force structure is an issue that I will have to
defer to Secretary Cohen and the Chief of Staff of the Army.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Despite Congressional concerns about the cost viability of the
LW155, the Marine Corps keeps telling us that the LW155 program has
sufficient funding. I'm told that the Marine Corps budgets which fund
the ceiling priced development contract, that includes the first two
production years, are the basis for your conclusion that the program
has sufficient funding. One contractor has already walked away from
this ceiling priced contract and I understand that the current
contractor does not have the ability to live up to the requirements of
the contract.
Question. Have you had a ``should cost'' study done on this effort
to determine if you are being overly optimistic on this critically
needed system due to your ceiling priced contract?
Answer. The previous prime contractor Cadillac Gage Textron would
not honor the ceiling price options originally negotiated and was
unable to perform prime contractor responsibilities for the LW155. That
contract was novated to Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering, LTD
(VSEL) (now British Aerospace (BAE) Systems) who was the developer of
the weapon. The new contract with VSEL (signed Dec. 1998) established
ceiling price options for the first two years of production which BAE
has every intention of meeting. The USMC has fully funded the LW155
program consistent with the ceiling price renegotiated with VSEL. BAE's
corporate commitment to meeting the ceiling prices was reiterated to
the GAO by BAE during GAO's visit to the Joint Program Office on March
9th, 2000. There have been several Government cost studies conducted
which supported the ceiling prices negotiated with VSEL. It is our
intent to try and negotiate those prices down from their current
ceiling levels. To support this, the contract requires BAE to submit
revised numbers two more times prior to option award. Based on the
previous cost estimates and BAE Systems commitment to meeting the
negotiated ceiling price options, we do not feel another ``should
cost'' study is prudent at this time.
Question. Maintaining a viable U.S. howitzer industrial base should
be a goal of all of us responsible for our National Defense. I agree
with the current contractor's intent to subcontract 70 percent of this
contract to U.S. sources. I am concerned, however, that this 70 percent
intent has been abandoned due to the current contractor's cost
problems.
Is the Army and Marine Corps ready to accept having this critically
needed howitzer system produced offshore? If not, when is the Marine
Corps going to stop giving Congress the same ceiling priced contract
answer and take the necessary steps to ensure maintenance of a viable
U.S. howitzer industrial base?
Answer. The Marine Corps is fully committed to maintaining a viable
U.S. industrial base for howitzers. The contractor's intent to produce
up to 70 percent of the weapon in the U.S. has not been abandoned and
there are no contractor cost problems influencing this matter. It is
still British Aerospace (BAE) Systems' intent to procure material,
fabricate parts, weld and machine assemblies, integrate assemblies into
a complete weapon and test the end item in the U.S. They believe the
sum total of this work will equate to 70 percent of the total weapon
cost minus the GFE cannon and fire control. In fact, this intent was
reinforced only last week when representatives from the General
Accounting Office discussed this very issue with BAE Systems. There are
numerous commercial activities that are capable and qualified to
accomplish this work to include Army Arsenals. The national industrial
defense sector is fully capable of producing the LW155 and of
maintaining the U.S. howitzer industrial base. The Marine Corps
understands the Senator's concern for maintaining the expertise
resident at the Army Arsenals. The Army Arsenals do possess a wealth of
experience in the area of howitzer development and production and they
will be given every opportunity to compete with U.S. industry for the
work.
subcommittee recess
Senator Stevens. We will have Secretary Hamre here on
Monday, March 6 at 2 p.m.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., Wednesday, March 1, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Monday,
March 6.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 3:12 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Domenici, Inouye, and Harkin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Deputy Secretary of Defense
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN J. HAMRE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Dr. Hamre, I apologize for being late, and
this is a sad occasion for us.
Dr. Hamre. Me, too.
Senator Stevens. As a matter of fact, it has been a long
time, my friend, since I recognized you at a committee meeting,
and you were what I called the spy of the Armed Services
Committee at the appropriations process.
Do you remember those days?
Dr. Hamre. I do, indeed.
Senator Stevens. I think you have appeared before us more
than any other person in the last 7 years representing the
Department of Defense (DOD), and you have provided us an
unfailingly candid, honest, and really meaningful testimony,
and we thank you very much.
As a matter of fact, we just could not have you leave
without having a meeting and putting it on the record how much
we have appreciated your service for our Government, whether
you have discussed overseas contingencies, improving the
Department's financial and accounting systems, or sparring with
us over base closures. Things we still do not like, but beyond
that, your service in the Department, your assistance to
Congress, and your absolute devotion to the men and women of
our Armed Forces has not gone unnoticed. John, we really do
thank you. You have served with great distinction.
I think the committee is aware, all the members of this
committee are aware you will now become the chief executive
officer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies
here in Washington. Despite the fact they interviewed all of
us, you got the job.
We do wish you well. You have a tough job in the year 2001.
You and the Secretary have presented us a budget much different
from last year's. There are no gaping holes in the 2001
request, no unspecified rescissions, no split funding of
military construction, and the early assessments from the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) indicate that they are very close. I cannot
say the same thing about the rest of the budget, but this
year's defense budget is one we can work with easily.
However, that does not mean we have an easy year, and it is
going to be very difficult for us to go forward. The House will
report their supplemental bill, I am told, and provide more
than the $2 billion in emergency funds for the Kosovo
contingency operations, and these are matters covered also by
the 2001 budget.
It is no secret that around here some people think we ought
to just move into the 2001 budget and forget the supplemental.
The request for the first time since 1994 for DOD exceeds the
estimate forecast by Congress in last year's budget resolution,
and there are some problems as we will go ahead, but I do think
that everyone should know that the resources available to the
Department of Defense because of your work on this bill as a
swan song really has been very excellent, and one that we can
look forward to dealing with.
We would welcome comments on the unfunded priorities
presented by the service chiefs, as well as your assessment of
how the Department is doing on financial management reform,
defense reform initiative, and the Y2K effort. If you do not
wish to make comments on those we will call you back as a
witness from one of those other entities later, but I think it
will be a very pleasant afternoon.
Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF Senator DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish
to echo your sadness in noting the departure of John Hamre. We
really hate to see you go. You have been extremely helpful to
all of us. Your wise counsel and your innovative suggestions I
think have helped all of us immensely, but, as noted by the
chairman, you are going to be just a few blocks away from us,
so you can be expecting us to call on you quite often for your
advice and counsel.
Dr. Hamre. I will come any time.
Senator Inouye. And, as noted by the chairman, we are very
pleased with the budget and also the fact that it is an
increase for the past 2 years now, 2 fiscal years, but there
are a few things we have discussed in the past, and I suppose
we will continue to discuss.
The chairman and I have been traveling to visit our forces
overseas, and we have come to the following conclusions. These
are old hat to you. Retention, recruiting, readiness remain
serious concerns. Overseas deployments continue at historically
high levels. Spare part shortfalls and cannibalized equipment
problems persist. Military departments are beginning to lower
the standards for recruiting purposes.
Military families and retirees are concerned about the
state of military health care. Some of the families have
expressed concern about being relocated in the middle of the
school year. Our military and civilians are concerned about the
prospects for careers in an institution that is still talking
about downsizing. When is the ax going to fall? And if these
were not enough, our military live and work in buildings that
are literally crumbling.
Simply put, we are still not doing enough, although we are
trying our very best to resolve these matters, so as we begin
our hearings this year these are a few of the concerns that
some of us in the Congress have and I for one believe we need
to redouble our efforts to improve the living and working
conditions of our men and women in uniform.
Yours has been a difficult challenge, I know, but you have
done your best, and we are grateful for all you have done. In
many ways, the fault lies with us here. You have consistently
over the years shared with us your concerns, your concerns with
world affairs, and we are the ones who decide how much you can
spend.
I think something has to be done to further educate us. I
discussed this just a few minutes ago with the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO), and maybe I will do that with others also,
but as you prepare to depart we welcome the opportunity to hear
your final thoughts, and was this statement cleared by OMB, or
since this is going to be the last one----
Dr. Hamre. I always clear the written statement with them.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and we
hate to see you go, John.
[The statement follows]:
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Thank you Mr. Chairman and welcome again to you Mr. Secretary. As
the chairman noted, we expect this will be your last appearance before
this subcommittee. I think I speak for all the members of the committee
when I say that we are sorry to see you go.
We have come to rely heavily on your counsel over the past several
years.
Mr. Chairman I would like to add that Dr. Hamre has been a true
friend of this subcommittee. His willingness, in fact eagerness, to
assist the committee in finding solutions to very difficult problems
has made him a great asset both to DOD and to those of us in the
legislative branch.
John, thank you for all you have done during your many years of
public service. We are very grateful for your dedication and tireless
efforts on behalf of our nation.
I understand that you will be staying in the Washington D.C. area.
Let me assure you we will continue to seek your counsel and assistance
in finding creative solutions to difficult problems. Dr. Hamre, we
salute you.
Mr. Chairman, today we continue our review of the fiscal year 2001
budget for the Department of Defense. I want to congratulate the
administration for requesting a significant increase in funding for the
Department of Defense for the second straight year.
The DOD request is $12.2 billion higher than this year's funding.
It is obvious to us on this subcommittee that an increase is sorely
needed.
Mr. Secretary, as we visited our troops in the field during the
past year and spoke with our military leadership, we have come to the
following conclusions:
--Recruiting, retention, and readiness remain serious concerns.
--Overseas deployments continue at historically high levels.
--Spare parts shortfalls and cannibalized equipment problems persist.
--The military departments are changing (lowering) their standards
for military recruits.
--Too many troops are still voting with their feet and leaving the
military in large numbers.
--Our families are disturbed about health care, but little has been
done to achieve meaningful improvement.
--Our military and civilians are worried about the prospects for
careers in an institution that is perpetually talking about
downsizing.
--Our families worry about being relocated in the middle of the
school year.
--And, if these were not enough, our military live and work in
buildings that are crumbling. Simply put, we are still not
doing enough to repair and modernize our bases.
As we begin our hearings this year, these are a few of the concerns
that some of us here in the Congress have. I, for one, believe we need
to redouble our efforts to improve the living and working conditions of
our men and women in uniform.
Dr. Hamre, yours has been a difficult challenge to help manage this
immense agency. We are grateful for all that you have done and continue
to do.
As you prepare to depart the government we would welcome the
opportunity to hear your final thoughts on the challenges that face our
military and their families and your personal views on what we need to
do to ensure that our nation's security remains intact.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici.
STATEMENT OF Senator PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I have some questions about some of the
research aspects of the budget, in particular with research on
directed energy, laser energy, and laser hardware. But first, I
wanted to come particularly to thank you for the time you
served here. One of my best friends in this place, as you well
remember, was Sam Nunn, whose success in military matters we
all understand. I remember you back when both you and I were a
little bit younger, and looking back on it, there is no
question that part of Sam Nunn's success was because he had you
around. There is no question about that.
He had a few other critical staff members, but you were
number 1. I look at the military and what you have done since
you have been there, and I cannot imagine doing the job you
did. We changed things. The world changed. Technology changed
so rapidly in such a short time. You never would have expected
it when you took the job.
The missions of the military are still in the process of
evolution. I am not sure we have defined yet what we expect of
you and them, and as a consequence, some things are going very
well and some things are not. As well, I am not sure that we
are capable of defining exactly what we expect of the military,
because any time something happens in the world that is
untoward, something that strikes at our principles or our
common sense of humanity, the first people we think of as
having an impact are the military.
I am not sure that we yet understand the impact and
frequency on our military of these long episodes overseas which
are totally disruptive to their lives.
In addition, it seems to me we never expected the all-
volunteer Army to come into competition with an economy like
this one. If anybody would have ever said your ability to
recruit and maintain will come into focus with an economy
growing at 4 percent a year, where many States have 2 percent
unemployment, you would not have believed them. And if anybody
told you to continue to get young men and women in abundance to
come and sign up for the military, and then, after we have
given them great education, stay in, obviously you would have
said it would be a tough, tough job. So, you danced to very
different tunes than you expected when you came in, and I do
not know that anybody could have done it much better. I thank
you as one Senator, and my questions will be very focused and
brief.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Dr. Hamre, we would
be happy to have your statement. The lights are not on today.
There is no limit.
dr. hamre's opening statement
Dr. Hamre. Thank you so much, Chairman Stevens, Senator
Inouye, Senator Domenici. I am very grateful to be here and,
frankly, I find myself surprisingly emotional about coming. I
have enjoyed being before this committee more than anything I
have done, and I am just very grateful for it, and I thought
about preparing some words about how I felt, but someone beat
me to the punch and, if I may, I would like to share these
words. It only takes about 90 seconds.
It was, I think, the best little speech that has been given
in 25 years, and it was given by Bob Dole when he was awarded
the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and he had a very brief
acceptance speech and it says absolutely everything that I am
feeling right now, so if I may I would just like to read it. I
think this speech has not gotten the attention or the credit
that it deserves, so if I may, I would just like to read it. It
is how I feel about being here today.
At every stage of my life I have been a witness to the
greatness of this country. I have seen American soldiers bring
hope and leave graves in every corner of the world. I have seen
this Nation overcome depression and segregation and communism,
turning back mortal terrorists to human freedom, and I have
stood in awe of American courage and decency, virtues so rare
in history and so common in this precious place.
I can vividly remember the first time I walked into the
Capitol as a Member of Congress. It was an honor beyond the
dreams of a small town. I felt part of something great and
noble. Even playing a small role seemed like a high calling,
because America was the hope of history. I have never
questioned that faith in victory or in honest defeat, and the
day I left office it was undiminished.
I know there are some who doubt these ideals, and I suspect
there are young men and women who have not been adequately
taught them, so let me leave a message to the future. I have
found honor in the profession of politics. I have found
vitality in the American experiment. Our challenge is not to
question American ideals or to replace them, but to act worthy
of them.
I have been in Government at moments when politics was
elevated by courage into history, when the Civil Rights Act was
passed, when the Americans With Disabilities Act became law. No
one who took part in those honorable causes can doubt that
public service at its best is noble.
The moral challenges of our time can seem less clear, but
they still demand conviction and courage and character. They
still require young men and women with faith in our process.
They still demand idealists captured by the honor and the
adventure of service. They still demand citizens who accept
responsibility and who defy cynicism, affirming the American
faith and renewing her hope. They still demand the President
and the Congress to find real unity in the public good.
If we remember this, then America will always be the
country of tomorrow, where every day is a new beginning, and
every life an instrument of God's justice.
I think that is the best little speech in 25 years, and it
says absolutely everything I feel about you, about this
committee, about what it means to have served this country
either in the Department of Defense, or especially here in the
Senate, and I would thank all of you for what you are doing and
for giving me a chance to be here, and I would also thank the
remarkable staff that serves with you.
They do not get the credit, frankly, that they deserve
working the countless hours that make it happen around here,
and I know that because I was lucky enough to be one of the
staff members for the United States Senate, the proudest time
of my life, and I will always think back with gratitude for
having had that kind of an opportunity, and to have had an
opportunity to work and to serve with people like you who have
done what too few Americans are willing to do, and that is now
serve in elected office, and I thank you for that, and I thank
you for letting me come today.
Mr. Chairman, if I might turn----
Senator Stevens. You could have just given the statement
that you made the day that you were sworn in in your present
position and have matched Bob Dole's statement. I was there. It
was a marvelous statement.
What do you want to do now?
Dr. Hamre. I want to go through a few charts to introduce
our budget and use it more as a basis to highlight some of the
strengths and some of the weaknesses in the budget we have
given you, and to point out some of the things, especially as
you are coming up on preparing the supplemental, and if I might
ask, Captain, if you would start.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye wants a copy of that
speech.
Dr. Hamre. Absolutely. I frankly think this is the kind of
speech that should be carved on a wall some place.
Senator Stevens. Give us your statement you made when you
were sworn in and we will put it in the record and let other
people see it.
[The information follows:]
DOD News Briefing, Monday, September 8, 1997, Acceptance Speech
Deputy Secretary Hamre: Secretary Cohen, General Shalikashvili, I
thank you for your remarkably generous words. I'm so pleased my
parents, Mel and Ruth Hamre, are here because at least two people
believe what you just said.
I'm very honored to be here today, and I'm very honored especially
to have so many very, very fine leaders of Congress to join us here
today. You honor the Department by coming. I'm so very grateful. And my
colleagues especially from other Departments of the Executive Branch.
It's a great honor that you've given the Department of Defense that you
would come today. Thank you.
The German philosopher Goethe once said that if you discard what he
owed to others, there wouldn't be much left of him. I am indebted to so
many people who are here today, and I'm fortunate to have them here to
share the joy of my time with you.
I start, again, with my parents, Melvin and Ruth Hamre, and I'm so
delighted they're here. My brother, sisters; my larger family; and I'm
especially happy to have my large church family who's here with me
today. I'm very grateful that you're all here.
I also would have to say thank you to my friend and my partner in
life, Julie--my wife. I thank you for joining me on this latest leg in
our journey through life together.
The great humanitarian Albert Schweitzer once told a group of his
friends, ``I do not know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do
know, the only ones among you who will really be happy are those who
have sought and found how to serve.'' I stand here before you today as
the happiest man in America. Words cannot capture what an honor it is
for me to be here today.
As Secretary Cohen said, I grew up in a very small town in South
Dakota where none of the houses had numbers and none of the streets had
names, and to think that someone like me could end up being the Deputy
Secretary of Defense really speaks volumes about the greatness of this
country and its unbounded opportunities for all.
I'm grateful to my country for this opportunity to serve. I'm
grateful to you, Mr. Secretary, and to the President for the confidence
that you have placed in me. I'm very grateful to the Congress, to the
leaders of the Congress, who have extended to me their trust and their
willingness to work with me. Finally, I'm very thankful to all the
members of the armed services for this opportunity to lead them, and
I'm very grateful, indeed.
I pledge to all of you my complete loyalty, my honesty, and every
ounce of my energy as we, together, set about the process of defending
America.
This month marks the Golden Anniversary of the Department of
Defense. We celebrate 50 years of guarding America--a half a century of
excellence. Created at the dawn of the Cold War, this remarkable
Department has protected America during its darkest hours, and saw us
through to the dawn of a new and brighter era. Today, in the twilight
of the 20th Century, this nation is blessed with unprecedented
opportunities to build peace and a better tomorrow.
Secretary Cohen, on behalf of the President, has set us on a clear
path for our nation's defense today and in the future. Working with the
Congress, the Department will retain the ability to meet all
conceivable challenges to America and to our allies today and in the
future. We will give America a Department that is ready in the future
to meet the demands for defense that we think will emerge. We will
emphasize and promote the innovation inherent in the American spirit so
that the Department can adapt to unforeseen challenges that lie ahead.
We will give highest priority to our greatest natural resource--our
talented men and women who comprise this remarkable force. We will
eliminate needless spending by streamlining and reengineering the
Department, especially in the areas of support and administration. And
we will emphasize the values that constitute the foundation of this
great country and of this Department--duty, honor, integrity, honesty,
faithfulness.
As President Clinton has said, ``America is the indispensable
nation.'' You, the men and women of the armed forces--and I include all
civilians here in that--are the indispensable people of this
indispensable nation. Because of your willingness to serve and
sacrifice, America will accomplish much in coming years. I pledge that
I will seek with every fiber of my being to support you and to live up
to your trust.
As I begin this challenge, I'm inspired by the words of a very
great American who is also a fellow Mid-Westerner, and that is Senator
Bob Dole. Last January, President Clinton honored Bob Dole by
presenting him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Senator Dole, in
turn, gave America a great gift with a lovely little speech that he
used to acknowledge that gift. I would like to read to you a few
portions of it because it says everything that I feel today.
Senator Dole said, ``I have seen American soldiers bring hope and
leave (inaudible) in every corner of the world. I have seen this nation
overcome depression and segregation and communism, turning back mortal
threats to human freedom. And I have stood in awe of American courage
and decency, virtues so rare in history and so common in this precious
place.
``I have been in government at moments when politics was elevated
by courage into history. When the Civil Rights Act was passed; when the
Americans with Disability Act became law. No one who took part in those
honorable causes can doubt that public service at its best is noble.
``The moral challenges of our time can seem less clear, but they
still demand conviction and courage and character. They still require
young men and women with faith in our process. They still demand
idealists captured by the honor and adventure of service. They still
demand citizens who accept responsibility and who defy cynicism--
affirming the American faith and renewing her hope. They still demand
the President and Congress to find real unity in public good.
``If we remember this, then America will always be the country of
tomorrow where every day is a new beginning and every life an
instrument of God's justice.''
Thank you all very much for coming today.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA06.000
dod funding increased
Dr. Hamre. The budget we are submitting to you builds on
last year's initiative by the Secretary, with the President, to
get an increase, the $112 billion that was added, and you can
see that is the difference between the shaded portion, the
adjusted 1999 budget, and the dashed line that says the $112
billion increase.
Now, you can see the solid top line is the budget we have
submitted, and it is slightly higher. Of course it is higher in
2000 because you added funds with the supplemental, and it is
because of that it was a significant increase that made it
possible for us not only to pay for the Kosovo operation but
also, frankly, to patch some other holes, and you did that last
year. It is higher in 2001, and I will show you--why don't we
go to the next chart to show the actual numbers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
FINANCING THE DOD INCREASE
[Budget Authority in billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2001-05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget................. 267.2 286.4 288.3 298.7 307.6 318.9 1,499.8
Contingenies........................ ........ 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.2
Fuel Costs.......................... ........ 1.4 .6 .4 .5 .5 3.4
Other Increases..................... ........ 1.2 .4 .2 .2 .2 2.2
Re-phasing.......................... ........ ........ 4.5 .6 (.9) (4.2) ........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget................. 277.6 291.1 294.8 300.9 308.3 316.4 1,511.6
Supplemental Request................ 2.3 ........ ........ ........ ......... ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, in the 2001 column we have
added about $4\1/2\ billion compared to where we said we would
be last year. Now, that is in the three areas, the
contingencies, and I will talk about the contingencies in just
a moment. It is very important, if we can, to get early action
on the supplemental request, because we for all practical
purposes were borrowing our funds against our readiness
accounts in the final quarter of the year.
The fuel cost--and you will remember last year, when we
submitted the budget, we said we are really getting $12
billion, but we only asked for $4 billion, and there were all
the kind of funny financing things that got everybody so ticked
off at us. Well, part of that was that we had lower fuel cost,
and we assumed lower fuel cost.
Well, of course, fuel costs have gone up, and one of the
arguments we made to OMB, and they honored it, was that we
needed to increase it above our top line if the fuel prices
went up, and so we added the $1.4 billion in 2001, $3.4 billion
across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). Now, we will
still have to take a look at that to see if that is right,
because fuel prices are high, as you know, and it is going to
be a big bite on us.
Senator Stevens. I understand that is not only the case for
2001, but we also have to go back and readjust this current
year because at least half of this year will be at this
enormous cost of over $30 a barrel. What was your dollar-a-
barrel fuel cost in your projection for 2001, do you know?
Dr. Hamre. Our projection in preparing the fiscal year 2001
budget was $18.62 a barrel during fiscal year 2001. And then we
had some other minor increases, but as you can see the budget
is up a bit. It is not a dramatic amount. There was this
important thing, rephasing. As you see, we moved up about $5
billion from 2004 and 2005 and moved it up, and of course that
let us get the aircraft carrier, and that is why we were able
to have it earlier in the FYDP.
Fiscal Year 2000 Emergency Supplementals
[Dollars in millions]
Contingency Operations............................................$2,123
Colombia Supplemental............................................. 137
Storm Damage...................................................... 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total Fiscal Year 2000 Request.............................. 2,288
fiscal year 2000 supplementals
Now, the contingency operations, we are asking for $2.3
billion, and we do need this as an emergency. We have submitted
it, and we would ask for your help in passing this
supplemental. As you know, we are borrowing from our Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) dollars, and it really is hitting the
Army very heavily. The Army for all practical purposes has
given out to the field the dollars that it requires to execute
the full year, but if we do not get the funds they are going to
pull them back and we are going to have a readiness crisis in
the Army unless we get the supplemental passed, so I would ask
for your help in any way for that.
There is, of course, some money in our budget for Colombia,
the Colombia supplemental. The Colombia supplemental, of
course, is much bigger, but this is just the portion that is
DOD, and it is relatively modest, and then we had some storm
damage, and it does not cover all of it, but it covers the
essential things, about $27 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------
How the Budget Supports the QDR Strategy
Budget increases supported each element of shape-respond-prepared
strategy
Highest priorities
--Readiness requirements funded
--Quality of life programs enhanced
--Procurement goal achieved
--Efforts to reshape the force supported
--Defense reform initiatives continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quadrennial defense Review (qdr) priorities
Very briefly, I am just going to talk about these highest
priorities, or really in essence the following charts. We talk
about readiness, quality of life, procurement, et cetera. Let's
go to the next one.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA06.001
current readiness
O&M has been going up consistently each year. You see that
very bottom line, where that is the 1998 budget, and that was
the O&M funding level, and then it went up in 1999, up in 2000,
and up again in 2001, and we have been underbudgeting for
operations. I mean, I think we had been incorporating some
hopeful assumptions that we thought would come to pass, and
some of them have and some of them have not, and as a result
each year we have had to go back and add additional funding to
cover O&M.
I have said many times the main reason that we have slipped
procurement is because every year we have to go back and cut
something in procurement in order to put it back into O&M, and
the best way to fully fund your procurement program is do not
underfund your O&M accounts.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA06.002
o&m funding trends
If I could show you the next chart, which shows you what we
are doing in trends is a very steady increase from over the
last 15 years in O&M dollars per soldier.
Now, there is a study that was done by the Center for
Strategic and International Studies that talks about needing
another $100 billion a year. I am caught in a pretty awkward
spot talking about that. I do not think we need another $100
billion a year, but we certainly need more because of exactly
this phenomena.
You see the cost of doing business in real terms increases
every year, and if you do not budget for that increase, you cut
out procurement in order to pay for it, and that is one of the
reasons our modernization program has been lagging. We have had
this procurement holiday period which has gone on quite a
while, and I will show you some charts subsequently that
indicate the impact of that, but we really are putting a good
deal more money into O&M on a per-soldier basis to reflect the
higher cost of doing business.
----------------------------------------------------------------
People Come First
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) plan will eliminate out-of-pocket
expenses by fiscal year 2005
Fiscal year 2001 pay raise equal to ECI +\1/2\ percent
Military retirement restored
TRICARE reforms proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------
putting people first
These are some of the bumper stickers about people and
Senator Inouye, you said this. We place such a premium on
getting good people, and we cannot afford to lose them. I mean,
that is America's true secret weapon. It is the quality of the
people that are willing to serve right now, but that means you
do have to take care of them when they come in, and these are
some of the things we have done. I will talk about the basic
allowance for housing in just a second. The pay raise, I think
we have charts on each of these. Let's go to the next chart.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING INCREASED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAH Absorption (percent).................................. 18.8 15.0 11.3 7.5 3.5 .......
Additional Costs (millions)............................... ....... $160 $350 $600 $885 $1,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3 billion initiative to lower average out-of-pocket costs from
18.8 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 15 percent in fiscal year 2001, and
to zero by fiscal year 2005
Three-part plan benefit:
--Increases tax-free allowances for service members
--Reduces demand for base housing
--Improves prospects for privatization
----------------------------------------------------------------
housing increases
This is the housing increase. Now, we have two ways in
which we house people. One is on base, military housing, and
where we build houses, and we are only able to house about a
third of our population. The other two-thirds of the population
lives on the economy. By custom and actually by law we do not
fully pay them the cost of living on the economy. As a matter
of fact, there is a legal restriction. We cannot pay more than
85 percent of what it costs to live on the economy.
Well, that is an incredible disincentive for someone. No
wonder people want to get on-base and live in substandard
housing, if you only get paid 85 percent of what it costs to
live off-base and you have to pay your utilities on top of it,
so the Secretary said, we really need to tackle that both as a
kind of equity issue, but also this is the most important thing
we can do to rejuvenate the private sector housing initiative
that we are trying to promote.
Mr. Chairman, you recall how we almost lost the housing
project up in Alaska, and that is because the basic allowance
for housing was too low, and so if we can get this number up,
then builders are able to count on a healthier cash flow in
order to subsidize the construction of housing. This is an
enormously important initiative.
Next chart.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAY RAISES
[Annual Percent Change]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Raises.......................... 3.6 4.8 \1\ 3.7
Employment Cost Index............... 3.6 4.3 3.2
Consumer Price Index................ 1.9 2.6 2.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2001 Pay raises exceed inflation and ECI.
----------------------------------------------------------------
pay raises
You see the pay raises, and we thank you for the pay raise
last year. It made a big difference. As you can see, in the
2000 column we had asked--the employment cost index is only 4.3
percent, and you provided 4.8 percent, and you should compare
that with the cost of living, which is at the bottom chart, so
finally we are getting on the positive side of paying people
more than the cost of living, and it is showing up here in this
year and then 2001, and again we are one-half percent above the
cost of living adjustment for employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Care
$80 million added in fiscal year 2001 to improve access to health
care
--Lower out-of-pocket costs for active duty families who do not live
near military treatment facilities
--Eliminate co-pays for all active duty families
$369 million added in fiscal year 2000 and $348 million added in
fiscal year 2001 to Defense Health Program for:
--In-house pharmacy
--Managed care support contract costs
--Newly legislated custodial care benefits
DHP issues:
--New contractor claims
--Health care coverage for over-65 retirees
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is probably the weak spot in our budget. I will be
honest. We certainly did a couple of things, and these
highlight positive things we tried to do with the budget. We
have added funds so that we can improve access to the managed
care program. We have taken care of the underfunding in the
current contracts. That is for the Defense Health Program
(DHP), and that is where we added about $400 million to do
that, and we have got to try to improve the quality of the
service, the face that appears to the service personnel.
Nothing is more irritating when you call to the medical
center and you just get into one of those endless holds, you
know, on the phone, or for this dial 1, for this, dial 2, that
sort of stuff, and too much of that has been going on in our
world, and the service members and their personnel are ticked
off. They do not feel like the system is responsive to their
needs. We need to change that.
One of the problems, for example, is if a service member
was leaving one of the regions in the West Coast and moving to
Norfolk, segueing from San Diego to Norfolk, they were going
out of one contract into another contract, and we made them
reenroll. When you think about it, that does not make any
sense. They ought to have total transportability of their
benefits without having to reenroll at another location. That
is obviously something we need to change.
We need to change the way that we are paying people when
they make out-of-pocket expenses, and we are slow in
reimbursing them, and we actually have members that have debt
collectors hounding them to make payments when we have not
reimbursed them, and that is a shame. We have got to do better
than that, so this is a major priority for the Secretary and
for the chairman.
I know you are going to have a hearing next week. I think
you have Mr. Lynn and Mr. de Leon coming up next week, and of
course the big problem and the big hole in this budget is that
we have only fully funded the health care program for 2001 and
2002. In the out-years we underfunded, and we underfunded by a
significant amount of money, and that is before we changed the
benefit package.
We tried to get our arms around it, and we could not. It
was too big of a problem to try to do it in the last months of
this fiscal year, and I am not pleased to tell you, but we did
get at least this year properly priced and next year properly
priced, but we are going to have to do something about the out-
years, and I think you will go into that in greater detail at
the hearing later this week.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA06.003
Sir, we are very proud that we were able to meet the target
of getting to $60 billion for our procurement budget, and that
was a target that was put in front of all of us by General
Shalikashvili 3 or 4 years ago. There is nothing magic abut $60
billion and, indeed, what you will see just shortly, $60
billion does not provide enough money to actually capitalize or
recapitalize the force.
Let me go to the next chart, just to show you what I mean.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MA06.004
recapitalization progress
In this case, I am showing you ships, helicopters, TACAIR
fighters and armored vehicles, and in every case you see a
vertical bar which represents the numbers of things we are
buying, and then a horizontal bar or band. Any time that you
fall below the horizontal band, we are falling behind, because
you need to be in that horizontal band if you are going to be
buying things roughly on the basis that you are wearing them
out in terms of age.
And so any time that you are below it--and so let us take
helicopters. In 2003 and 2004 and 2005 we are submitting to you
a budget that buys enough helicopters to keep the force current
on a steady state basis, but look at the bow wave from the
past.
Every time--that white space between the vertical bars and
that horizontal space, it means we took an IOU out. We were not
buying enough to stay current with our current level of force
structure, so we have gotten in a deeper hole, so at some point
to make up for that the vertical bars have to go above that
horizontal band, and as you can see we do not have any in that
category, so we continue to have a problem.
Even though we got to $60 billion in our modernization
budget we are still not really making up for the hole that we
dug for ourselves during the nineties, and that is just the
reality, actually the second half of the eighties and the
nineties, and we are going to have to do a better job later on.
This is where--people said, well, what will it cost to do that?
I again do not believe it is $100 billion a year to do that,
but I think it is in the $10 to $15 billion a year more for
procurement in order to start getting out of that hole.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MISSILE DEFENSE
[In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMD............................................................ 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.6 2.1 2.0 1.8
Upper Tier:
THAAD...................................................... .4 .6 .5 .7 .8 .8 .8
Navy Theater-wide.......................................... .3 .4 .4 .3 .2 .2 .4
Lower Tier..................................................... .7 1.0 .8 .6 .6 .8 .8
All Other \1\.................................................. 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 3.8 5.0 4.7 5.3 4.7 4.9 5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Air Force funding for Airborne and Space-based Laser program.
----------------------------------------------------------------
missile defense
I wanted to show you where we are on missile defense. We
have funded a missile defense program that presumes the
deployment at some point when the President authorizes it of a
national missile defense system. That decision still is going
to be made sometime this summer whether or not we go at this
time, but we have put it into the budget, and over the 5-year
period the resources that it takes to deploy a national missile
defense system.
As you know, it will be in two phases. The initial phase,
which is funded, is the phase that would put the fire control
system in place, move the interceptor field to Alaska and put
the fire control radars in place in order to have the command
and control of that system, and that is in the budget.
What you also see are the upper tier and lower tier
systems. We were able roughly to keep the Theater High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) program and the Navy upper tier program in
roughly the same time cycle within a couple of years of each
other. A year ago, when we had so much trouble with THAAD, we
had proposed that we combine the funding for THAAD and Navy
upper tier into a single account in order to put pressure on
the system. A little competition, we thought they would do
better. They did. Congress did not like that we put it
together, and so you gave us instructions to split it apart,
and we have done that, and that is the way the budget appears
at this stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Reform Initiative
Complete and reengineer to ensure that functions are performed in
the most efficient organization
Reengineer processes and business practices
--New travel system, reformed financial management, purchase card,
paper free procedures
Eliminate unnecessary infrastructure
--2 new BRAC rounds
Excess overhead threatens readiness and force structure
----------------------------------------------------------------
defense reform
I will be very brief on defense reform. The Secretary was
adamant that we really do try to adopt more modern business
practices, and I think we have a mixed bag on how we have done.
I think it has been good in certain areas. Let me give you an
example. We tried to commit to buying many more of our goods
and services with commercial credit cards. We make about 10
million purchases a year, and 70 percent of those purchases are
for less than $2,500.
Now, in the old days we used to write contracts for every
one of them, and it cost us about $250 to write a contract for
$2,500. That did not make a lot of sense. We have now shifted
over and about 5 million of the 10 million actions this year
will be with a credit card, so I think we are making good
progress. I think we have made good progress on trying to get
to a paper-free acquisition environment and we set a goal of
trying to be paper free by this year. We missed that, but we
are about 90 percent paper-free in this environment.
We have got a new travel system. We are about 1 year behind
schedule, but we are going to have it in place, that will be
state-of-the art. It will be as good as anything in the world.
We have done, I think, a fairly good job on moving the A-76
process to get competition into public-private competitions for
work. When we started this we had some people that said you
should just privatize everything and we said no, we think that
Government employees have a right to compete for it.
Up until 1995 there had been a total of about 13,000 jobs
that had been competed through the A-76 process. We have now
done over 100,000, and we will commit to do almost 200,000
before it is over, so a major commitment to get efficiencies
through competition, and it looks like it is working. We are
getting between 25 and 30 percent savings on the average across
the entire inventory, and so I think that has been good. I am
not going to dwell on base closures. Everybody knows where we
are, and we will await the will of the Congress on whether we
are going to do base closures or not, and I think that is our
last chart.
Sir, again, if I may say something about Y2K. First, it was
unusual in that this was one of those problems where the
Government and the private sector saw a shared problem and
worked together.
Now, it took your passing legislation that took the
liability ax away from everybody's head, and once that happened
the world opened up and we were able to get information and
insight, and share information. It was very powerful. I hope we
think of this as a model for how the Government and the private
sector ought to work together on the complex, cross-cutting
issues of the future.
Almost all of the problems we face are really horizontal in
nature, and cut across individual departments. The Department
of Defense has only a part of the problem, and we have to
cooperate with others, and it frankly was the reason you
created a standing committee just for purposes of looking at
Y2K. I thought it was a great success, and I think it probably
is one of those models we should think about for Government in
the future.
Sir, let me end with this and open up to questions. Again,
I would tell you how grateful I am for having a chance to come
here, how much I value having been a part, a small part of this
very great activity, which is the way in which this country
every year puts its priorities together through you that are
elected representatives who give them the priorities for the
future, and I think you have always struggled with the hard
problem of how do you invest in the future, and how do you
support what exists today, and I do not know anyone who has
worked at it more hard or more diligently than have you, and I
just thank you for having let us be a partner to you in this,
and I am gratified that I could do that, and I am gratified
that you will let me be a participant maybe in the future in a
different way.
Thank you so much, sir.
Senator Stevens. We look forward to those days, Mr.
Secretary. I am going to yield to my good friend from New
Mexico and the Senator from Hawaii, because I know the Senator
from New Mexico has an appointment, and I will come third, and
we are not running a clock, but if we just think of each other
when we are asking our questions.
release of kirtland afb funds
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first
raise two questions. One is very parochial, one is semi. Last
year, we earmarked some Air Force O&M funding for the theater
air command and control simulation facility at Kirtland Air
Force Base. These have not been released, and contractors on
the ground are going to start laying off people. I wonder if
you would take a look at that.
Dr. Hamre. I will call you before the day is out.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
science and technology funding
Now let me talk a minute about science and technology in
this budget. Frankly, I think you are well aware one of the
real problems we have, looking at the past few years, is that
science and technology budgets have fluctuated over the past
decade from a 17 percent increase, to a 21 percent increase.
Then it drops to a 7 percent decrease, to end at the $1 billion
we appropriated last year.
As I look at this budget I wonder if my analysis is even
close to correct, but it does not appear to me there are any
patterns in the science and technology (S&T) funding. Or is
this simply a question of money?
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I think the variability from year to year
usually reflects a different base. Congress usually gives us
more money in this area, and then the budget we submit is
usually off of our previous year's plans and not Congress'
previous year's action, so this year, for example, we are $1
billion less than Congress appropriated last year, but we are
$250 million more than we said we were going to submit in the
budget this year, than we said we were going to ask for this
year last year.
So I think the difficulty is we did not have enough money
to meet the goal. Congress had been saying we ought to be
putting more money into it, and we protected these accounts for
inflation, and it is the only area of the budget that gets a
kind of a guaranteed protection, but it looks like it is less
because you added additional funds last year and we were not
able to use that as a starting point.
Senator Domenici. Well, I note that the bill, which we
called the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act,
could not bind everybody in the future, but it said sound
policy would require at least 12 percent a year increase in the
S&T budget. I assume when that was passed you thought it to be
sound policy, if we could achieve it.
Dr. Hamre. Yes. We would love to have more money if we
could do it, but in the case we just ran out of dollars before
we ran out of things that were worth spending it on, but we
were balancing it across a range of things we had to do.
military construction funding
Senator Domenici. One further question before I get to
lasers and directed energy is, as we look at the budget for
this year, the military construction request has gone down from
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation level. Now, part of the
reason for this decrease appears to be the absence of
contingency funding included for unforeseen construction cost.
Will the Department be able to execute all the military
construction projects appropriated without contingency funding?
Dr. Hamre. Well, we hope so. In the past we had budgeted
for contingencies, and I believe we took it out this year
because Congress 1 year ago took out the contingency money and
we thought we were putting it at risk if we left it in the
budget, so that was part of how we got the additional $250
million for S&T, for example, but I do not think--I think there
is some risk of not having contingency funds in. You know what
construction is like. There are always cost increases, and you
would like to be able to have some cushion to be able to
accommodate that rather than have to cancel projects to
accommodate it, so there is some risk, I think, with that.
directed energy programs
Senator Domenici. My last question to the Secretary, I
think, is a very important one. The Department of Defense is
considering centralizing and consolidating its directed energy
programs. I would be interested in hearing from you the most
recent ideas and plans regarding directed energy within the
Department. Do we currently desire to create a centralized
function for all its efforts in directed energy, and what sort
of synergies would be leveraged, or advantages could be derived
from this? I believe you know what I'm talking about.
Dr. Hamre. I sure do, and you gave me a heads-up on this
issue, and unfortunately I was only able to get part of the
information for you. There is a study that was underway inside
the Department. Dr. Etter had been conducting the study, and I
am told had reported it up to her chain of command, and it is
now with Dave Oliver or with Jack Gansler, that looks at what
should be our prioritization and how should we resource it. Do
we need to make any organizational changes?
Unfortunately, I have just now told you everything I know
about the subject. I do not know anything about the content of
it, and what I will do is go back and learn more about it,
share it with you, and then we will find out are we on the
right path or not on this issue.
Senator Domenici. Do you know enough to tell me whether it
is time to centralize because of the diffused nature of these
programs?
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I probably should not say what I am going
to, but the problem we have had is, we have tended to have
projects that get started and then, for whatever reason, they
do not get funded in subsequent years by a service, and so the
lab directors go off and sometimes come up here to ask for
money for that, and then that gets added.
Then, of course, the services tend to say, well, if
Congress is going to add money let's not put it in ourselves,
so then we tend to have programs that are not kind of
rationally constructed, because we have intended to integrate
them into the priorities of the Department and they tend to go
off on their own.
I do not think that is healthy. I think it would be a lot
better for us to get our arms around it, find out what we
really need to do, are we doing it the most efficient way, and
then present you a coherent plan. I do not think we have
probably done that. I think what we have tended to do is to let
1,000 bloom, and when all of a sudden there gets to be a dry
spell the people go off and try to find resources where they
can, and in the long run I do not think that is as effective or
as efficient as it should be.
Now, that reflects my personal view about it, and let me
study it and find out what we should be saying more
constructively about organizational changes.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank
you for yielding. I very much appreciate it. I have no further
questions.
army transformation
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I have a whole flock of
questions, but I will submit them, but if I may ask just one.
Before I do I must admit my Army bias, having had some service
in that service. There is a new program in the Army
transformation.
Dr. Hamre. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. You worked with the Armed Services
Committee in the Senate. You have been with the CBO. You have
been Comptroller, and now the number 2 Secretary, so the word
modernization and streamlining, they are all common to you.
I have been told by some that the bureaucracy in the Army
and those who feel some of their activities are being
downgraded, such as those in the heavy armor, just do not want
to see this go through, but I for one believe that our Army has
to be streamlined. We have to be able to respond as fast as we
can. It has to be lightened. It has to be fast and mean.
Now, with your background and your involvement in
modernization, I would like to know what you think about this
transformation program.
Dr. Hamre. Senator, I think General Shinsecki and Secretary
Caldera deserve great credit for having tackled a problem that
most people said was too big and was impossible. I think the
Secretary, the Secretary asked General Shinsecki to make this a
priority, and to General Shinsecki's great credit he did that.
It is enormously hard, because he is telling the culture of an
Army that feels so proud about how they did in Desert Storm--
and they should be proud. They did a wonderful job, but to say
you are too big, you are too heavy, it takes you too long to
get you to the combat theater and it takes too big a footprint
logistically to sustain you when you get there. We have got to
get lighter and more quickly deployable, and I think in theory
everybody in the Army agrees with that. It is the practical
problem which you next meet, which is to say, well, if I am
going to do that, does that mean I do not build a new artillery
piece, I go into combat with a tank that cannot go 40 miles an
hour over rough terrain and shoot 2 kilometers and hit a bull's
eye? It is when you start getting into the engineering details
that the consensus starts to get questioned as to whether that
is something that you want to do.
The Army has laid out a very complicated transformation
program which really is going to take multiple years, and I
think it is so important that they enjoy your confidence,
because it is going to take the continuing part of the
Government--that is, the Congress--that overrides the changes
from one administration to the next, or one chief of staff to
the next to put a priority on this, and to make sure that this
remains a priority for the Army to stay on the modernization
plan.
Part of it is to upgrade what they currently have so that
they can still field the best heavy forces in the world and
beat anybody if they have to go out tank-to-tank, but in the
long run they have got to develop new equipments and a new
approach to warfare, because the lethality of armor and
missiles today is so great that you cannot do it with the
lightly armored vehicles unless you can afford being hit, and
that takes a whole new approach to going into combat, ground
combat.
The Army needs to have this transition period where they
experiment with new types of equipment and new doctrinal
concepts, and some people will say, well, that sounds like it
is just an experiment. We do not know that we need to
experiment, but I think the Army needs the time to get it
right, to design the right sort of equipment for the future.
This is unprecedented, to see such a fundamental, major
change. I have not seen one in the 25 years that I have been
working on military issues. This is unprecedented, and there is
going to be a lot of challenge to the Army both inside and out.
People are going to say they do not have this completely wired
together.
I do not know, maybe we should just wait 1 year. That would
really be the wrong thing to do for the Army. They need to step
up. They need to get going on this, and they need your support
to give them encouragement to do it. I think they are doing the
right thing.
Senator Inouye. From that, can I assume that it is of the
highest priority in your Department?
Dr. Hamre. For the Army. I cannot place it at a higher
priority than missile defense or health care or F-22. I mean,
those, that gets complicated, but for the Army it is the
absolute highest priority.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir.
overseas u.s. commitments
Senator Stevens. Dr. Hamre, we all have our little
occasions where we have explored new things. I have been
reading a lot about Hannibal lately, and one of the things that
struck me about Hannibal was, he kept losing support at home
because he was keeping so many forces overseas, and he
gradually lost complete support at home because he was overseas
so long.
Are we not getting to the point now where we are going to
lose support here at home if we do not start keeping our
commitments, the length of time of these deployments? Bosnia
was supposed to be home by Christmas. They are still there.
Kosovo was supposed to be just a year. We have not even
initiated the civilian side of it within a year.
And again I am asking you to get a little philosophical
here on your last day with us, but how can we keep support for
the American people of our programs for modernization for this
military if they do not see us keeping our promises about how
long we keep their sons and daughters deployed overseas?
Dr. Hamre. Sir, that is a very hard question, and to give
you my personal view here, I was just in Kosovo last week, and
talking to our senior officers who are there. They are very
frustrated, because they have done their job and they have
brought a security structure to the theater, but I was talking
to General Sanchez. He is supposed to have 350 policemen
provided by the international community in his sector, and
altogether he has got 100.
It is very hard for us to get out if the structure of
replacing our forces does not show up, and Secretary Cohen has
said very specifically that the civil implementation side is
our exit strategy, and when that does not happen, when we only
get a third of the policemen that the international community
has promised, we only get a third of them into the theater, we
are caught for a longer period.
Now, so far I think the American public has been tolerant
because the troops have done so well. They have done a good
job, but we do worry that we are going to be caught in a long
period of time if we cannot get the civil reconstruction effort
going, and that means we have to stay for a longer period than
we think is appropriate.
We will do our best to scale back the size of the
deployment, as we have in Bosnia, and we have done a good job
of getting the numbers down in Bosnia without accepting undue
risk to the troops that are there, but in the long run we all
have to put a priority on getting the civil reconstruction side
going more effectively earlier in the process, and I think that
is a priority for us in the Department as well.
police operations in kosovo
Senator Stevens. Well, we were there just before you were
there, Mr. Secretary, and we saw American soldiers on foot
patrol, and they were guarding individual civilian residences,
directing traffic at corners, and guarding people who went from
one country to another, literally to shop.
Now, they were the people we have trained to be the
toughest, most well-equipped, and most fearsome force in the
history of the world, and they were doing what the local police
do in almost every city in the country. In addition to that,
our American soldiers were assaulted when they went to help the
French forces.
We have just been lucky so far we have not had any body
bags come home from over there. I do not know how we can keep
our support for our modernization program if the people are
getting so disturbed about the policies of these deployments. I
do hope that somehow or another in your new job you can help us
think over those issues.
I worry about the lack of support. Our forces are down in
number. They are out of the country. One of the things that is
for the military to be seen, whether it is on holiday or some
place else, in some patriotic activity. Even that is being cut
back now to an absolute minimum. I do hope we can get a hold of
that and do something about the concept of how do you maintain
support from the civilian community if they do not really have
some real vision of it. You do not have daily coverage on the
nightly news with young men and women just standing guard or
walking with children as they go to school. That is just not
something we have in our American vision of what you do in
uniform, military uniform.
Dr. Hamre. That is exactly what there are supposed to be
civil police forces to be doing, and that is why we all have to
demand that the international community honor their commitments
to put those policemen on the ground. That is holding us and
making our troops do things that really are police activity.
funding army transformation
Senator Inouye. Senator Inouye asked you about the
transformation of the Army called the New Vision. General
Shinsecki I think rightly has taken off on that, but we have a
difficulty fitting this new concept into our national military
strategy in view of the funds that you have just outlined. Did
the Department really review what the chief of staff of the
Army was doing and plan to fund it accordingly?
Dr. Hamre. Sir, as a matter of fact this was one of the
large issues we had when we were closing out the budget, and we
moved about $1 billion a year around to cover these costs. Some
of them came from outside of the Army's resources, and some of
them came from inside the Army's resources by reprioritizing
them. They canceled a couple of programs they would rather not
have canceled. In some cases we were able to bring them dollars
when we got to keep the inflation dividend that showed up
again, so there were very significant resources that were
added.
Now, the budget justification material is going to look
thin to you this year because they were running so fast and so
hard at trying to get it together that it does not have the
same richness that we do for normal programs that have been
around for years, and you are going to have to give them the
benefit of the doubt, I think, this year on a fair amount of
the program that they really do have their act together. It is
going to take a little while for us to be able to demonstrate
that in the field.
They would like to have more money than we had for them,
and we had fairly blunt conversations, should we take dollars
away from another service in order to put it into those
accounts, and we decided that we could not do that, that we
were able to give them additional resources from outside
without taking it away from anybody else.
But this ultimately has to be the Army transitioning
itself, or its own future, and that does mean they are going to
have the reprioritize some of their resources.
air transportability and army transformation
Senator Stevens. Well, this morning I was talking to some
people about the transformation in the Air Force. The
transformation in the Air Force in terms of its functioning
with the Army is something that worries us also, because if you
look ahead a few years, our 141's will be gone. Our C-5's will
be ready to retire. We have just a few C-17's.
Some people here put limits on the construction of the C-
17's, which I did not think was very good news then, and it is
worse news now, and I do not see how we can get along with a
deployment strategy unless we do go through the Army's New
Vision. That's the only way it can fit together, by using the
C-17's to take our people, along with the Civil Air Reserve
Fleet, to distant locations, and then using the 130's within
the theater to transport them around. There is not enough long
distance transportation to initiate them all from here, or to
lift heavy divisions.
I do not think we will have deployment capability unless we
go through the New Vision, but I really do not see the support
for it yet that is needed. I think Shinsecki is one of the most
distinguished soldiers we have had in that position. He is a
Hawaiian, by the way, and he has really got the bit in his
mouth, but I am afraid that there is going to be a real deep
disappointment and disenchantment with the whole service if we
do not find a way to carry out that vision.
Dr. Hamre. Sir, if I may, I think we all agree with you. I
think that it is very clear that right now the footprint of the
Army is too big and too heavy, and it needs to be lightened up
for these sorts of deployments. You are still going to need a
heavy, very capable Army to go into a Desert Storm in the
future, and so we are always going to keep a heavy corps, but
the deployment part has got to get lighter.
Sir, you mentioned the airlift, and one of the real
problems that we and, frankly, the next administration is going
to have to wrestle with is what do we do about modernizing the
C-5 versus replacing the C-5? This is a major question, because
it will be very expensive to update and modernize the C-5. On
the other hand, replacing the C-5 inventory capability with C-
17's will be expensive, too.
You rightly pointed out it is not just a case of military
airlift. It is also about Civil Reserve Air Fleet aircraft. At
the very time that we are going to try to replace the current
airlift capacity of the C-5's the commercial sector is going to
expand by about fivefold the number of aircraft in the
freighter business. We are not going to be able to take
advantage of that unless we get lighter equipment so that we
can get on commercial aircraft, and that is why it is so
important for the Army to go through this.
Senator Stevens. Absolutely, and General Shinsecki sees
that, and I think he sees the limitations on the Air Force as
far as being able to transport his people as rapidly as they
must be taken to destinations throughout the world.
C-17 production and costs
I am worried about the C-17, and this will be my last
question, Senator Harkin. We have reached a full rate of
production now. We have had delivery of 34 airplanes on an
average of 35 days early, and it is below the cost. Now we are
getting into real stride with the C-17, but I am told now the
British are considering canceling their orders, which had
something to do with the overall full production line.
If Great Britain does not purchase its three C-17's, have
you figured out, can anyone tell us what is the effect on the
cost of our production line? What will it do to that production
line?
Dr. Hamre. Well, it would drive it up if we do not buy
replacement aircraft.
Senator Stevens. By how much?
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I do not, but I will find out, but I have
not heard that they were thinking of doing that. Originally,
the plan was that they were going to lease the aircraft with an
intention to buy them, and we would like to encourage them to
buy them.
[The information follows:]
C-17
If Great Britain does not purchase or lease three C-17s in
fiscal year 2001, USAF production line costs for airframes
remains the same. The USAF and Boeing have taken steps to
ensure the production rate, contract delivery schedule, and
total airframe costs over the remaining 35 aircraft of the 80-
aircraft multi-year contract remain unchanged. These steps
include protecting the advance procurement to the original 15-
15-5 buy profile and rephasing $60 million of fiscal year 2003
aircraft procurement into fiscal year 2002 advance procurement,
to protect the vendor base and ensure no break in the original
aircraft delivery schedule.
Dr. Hamre. We think it is exactly the right airplane for
them, and they have a plan to buy--I forget the number, 17, or
something of that nature. It is exactly the right airplane for
them, and this was the way to start, but if they do not do it,
we will probably ask you to consider plugging that hole for us,
or at least we will have to come up and talk to you about how
we would realign dollars to plug that hole.
Senator Stevens. Well, they have got their A-400. We all
know that, and there is a little bit of intracontinental
rivalry here in terms of the aircraft producers, but I would
hope we all realize the C-17 is our only hope for the future in
terms of the deployment of forces by air, and we have got to
keep that on schedule.
Dr. Hamre. Sir, that A-400 cost them $600 billion to get
the first one. You could buy C-17's, a lot of C-17's for that
kind of money.
Senator Stevens. It sounds like some of the cost--I heard
the other day about some of the--I am not getting into the
latest procurement stories. We will get into that with someone
else, John, but I am sure you all heard that, and that is not
something that is music to my ears.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
iowa army ammunition plant
I have a couple of items I want to go over with Dr. Hamre,
and the first has to do with the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
near Burlington, Iowa.
This is a plant at which nuclear weapons were assembled
back in the forties and fifties and sixties. It has been closed
now for 25 years. Well, the nuclear line has been closed. It is
still an ammunition plant. The Defense Department has a policy
to ``neither confirm nor deny'' that nuclear weapons were ever
at any site, including this one.
Well, we know they were there. The Department of Energy
(DOE) is quite clear about that, and they have got the records
from the old Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to help us on that.
Quite frankly this has to do with exposure of workers who were
exposed to beryllium and things like that, at Paducah and
places like that.
When I first wrote a letter on this about 1 year ago I was
told also by the Department of Energy that nuclear weapons were
never assembled there. Well, we found out that is not right. I
recently had a town meeting there with Secretary of Energy
Richardson to talk about the weapons work that occurred there.
The Energy Department is dealing with this openly, and trying
to get people tested and all of that, but the Defense
Department is still basically denying, or they say they will
not confirm or deny that that work ever went on there.
Now, the Army, as I understand it, even petitioned the
Pentagon to lift the restriction in a similar case, but the
petition was denied by the Department of Defense. I hope you
will before you leave get something going to review this
policy.
I understand you have got to strictly enforce secrecy when
it is necessary for protection, but something that has been
closed for 25 years? We know full well what was done there. I
mean, I took a tour of the place. The Department of Energy has
all the records, so they are on the one hand saying all this
happened, and the Defense Department is saying, well, we do not
know. We do not confirm, we do not deny.
What implications does that have? Well, good, hardworking
people that worked there took an oath of secrecy and signed it,
that they would never during their lifetimes talk about what
they did there. This was top secret stuff, and a lot of them
being patriots and good citizens still wonder whether or not
they can talk about it. They want to go to the doctor, and they
want to describe what they were doing, and yet they do not know
if the Army or the Defense Department will let them do that,
and so they are caught in a kind of a cross-fire here.
The Department of Energy has been very open. They are
talking about it, trying to get people checked and tested. And
I get the question from Iowans, well, here is one Federal
agency that is openly talking about it, that was in charge of
this, the Atomic Energy Commission, now DOE, but the Defense
Department that was in charge of the place and is still in
charge down there through a private contractor it is a GOCO,
Government-owned, contractor-operated--the Defense Department
will not talk about it. And so it sends out really confusing
signals.
Anyway, my question is, should a worker who worked there,
who took an oath of secrecy, be able to talk about what they
did there with a doctor or anybody else, maybe family members,
discuss it among themselves? It just seems to me once it has
been closed for 25 years the Department of Defense ought to say
yes, we did assemble nuclear weapons there. I mean, everybody
knows it. It is no secret any longer, and the Department should
at least let these workers know that whatever oath of secrecy
they took does not apply any longer.
Dr. Hamre. Sir, in this case, when I say neither confirm or
deny it, what it really means is, I do not have a clue. I have
never heard of this before.
Senator Harkin. I am sure you have not, but some of your
people have.
Dr. Hamre. I have never heard about it, but I will look
right into it, and I will call you.
Senator Harkin. It has been going on for about, well, a
little over 1 year now, about 1 year.
Dr. Hamre. I was totally unaware until you just raised the
issue. I am sorry about that. I will get on top of it.
Senator Harkin. It is just, I would like to get the policy
changed.
Dr. Hamre. I understand. I understand very clearly what you
want.
Senator Harkin. It just does not seem to make sense, and it
is causing problems in terms of letting these workers know they
can openly go ahead and discuss what they did.
Dr. Hamre. Sir, I will find out.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that, and you do not have to
get back to me personally.
Dr. Hamre. I will.
army trailers
Senator Harkin. The other issue I have is one that I have
been on now for some time, and it has to do with trailers.
There is a recent report by the General Accounting Office
(GAO)--and I asked for this study to be done. We purchased
6,550 trailers for the Army over the next 5 years for $50
million. They are sitting in storage because they are unsafe.
They cannot be used. Some TV show did a show about it sometime
last year.
Now they say they may have to modify every Humvee to pull
them, all 100,000 of them. A letter from Paul Hoeper of the
Army to me stated the Army needs at least 18,412 more trailers,
but there is no money to purchase these in this year's budget
or in future years' plans, so we are sitting there with--the
initial buy was supposed to be 10,000. I think they got 6,550.
They are sitting there. They cannot be used. They need 18,000
more, and there is nothing in the budget to do anything about
it.
So again, you do not have to respond here. I do not mean to
catch you flat-footed on this, but I will send you a letter on
it and see what you can do.
Dr. Hamre. This has not been our finest hour, I know.
Senator Harkin. That whole trailer thing is a mess, and I
just would like to know what you are going to do in the future
on the 18,000.
Dr. Hamre. That is a fair question, and I will find out.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Dr. Hamre. Thank you
for your service.
Senator Stevens. Dr. Hamre, because of the timing of the
last scheduled hearing and this one, there are many of our
members who could not be here. There is a little
extracurricular activity taking place in the country, I am sure
you know, so I have been asked by many of your friends to say
they were sorry they could not be here, but they look forward
to seeing you at one or more of your events that are held here
in this city.
But we do thank you, and in deep sincerity, for the very,
very great help you have given us, and for the feeling you give
us that what we do is worthwhile in connection with what you
are doing.
The mutual admiration society here is obvious, but there is
a lot of hours that go into a job like you have held here both
in the Senate and over in the Department of Defense. The public
does not know about those hours. We all know about the hours
that you spend, and you know about the ones we spend, so we
thank you for working with us.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond
Good morning Dr. Hamre. Welcome to what appears to be your
last appearance before this committee. I would like to take
this opportunity to make a brief statement on the Defense
Budget and what should be our priorities.
First, we must improve readiness, recruiting and retention,
and the state of our equipment. This requires an investment.
That investment should include the best equipment we can design
and build consistent with budget realities, a pay raise, and
improvements in our training and readiness accounts.
Second, we must continue to plus-up our full-time manning
accounts for the National Guard. The threat from rogue nations
and others with potential serious conflicts with the United
States is real and growing. Consequently I am confident our
reliance on the Guard and Reserve will continue to grow
unabated. Therefore it is imperative we continue to increase
the number of full-time support personnel who serve our
National Guard and Reserve forces.
Dr. Hamre, I look forward to discussing these and other
important defense issues with you and your staff as our hearing
process continues. Again, welcome sir. You have served our
nation's Defense Department faithfully for over seven years and
I wish you well in your new endeavors.
------
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
Good morning Dr. Hamre. It is a pleasure to see you here
before the Committee. I am sorry that it will be your final
appearance in your current position. As you prepare to move on,
I would like to commend you on your past seven years of service
as Comptroller and Deputy Secretary of Defense. It has been a
pleasure to work and travel with you to ensure that our armed
forces remain the finest in the world. You have always been
professional and responsive to requests and questions from me
and my staff. Your knowledge of national security issues and
dedication to this country are second to none. The Center for
Strategic and International Studies is very fortunate to be
acquiring your expertise. I wish you the best of luck in your
future endeavors and I look forward to your continued insights
on issues affecting national security. Congratulations on a job
well done.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief comments concerning the
defense budget and the state of our military. While there is
some improvement in this year's defense budget, I remain very
concerned about this nation's military readiness and our
spending priorities.
First, the decreased defense budgets of the past ten years
coupled with an increased number of missions of questionable
national interest, have had a corrosive effect upon our
military readiness. I believe that we are fast approaching the
hollow military of the 1970s. Recently, it has come to light
that two of the Army's ten divisions are unprepared for war.
The Air Force continues to have a shortage of pilots and spare
parts. The Navy does not have enough attack submarines to
execute basic contingency plans nor to conduct vital
intelligence collection missions. Additionally, the recruitment
and retention of trained personnel have become problematic.
This difficulty affects active duty, guard and reserve.
Second, I am concerned about a number of the budget
priorities in this year's request. While I am pleased that the
Administration made National Missile Defense a priority I am
concerned about the continuing need to increase investment in
support technologies. These technologies are essential to
ensure that our missile defense systems and other weapons
systems are effective against future and as yet unknown
threats. Additionally, I will be closely scrutinizing the
Army's transformation to a lighter medium force. I am concerned
that the Army is rushing to procure equipment for this as yet
undefined medium force, at the expense of readiness for the
forces needed to fight the wars of today and in the immediate
future.
Dr. Hamre, I look forward to discussing these and other
important defense issues with you and your staff as our hearing
process continues. Again, welcome sir.
additional committee questions
Senator Stevens. There will be some additional questions
which we will be submitting to you for your response.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
airborne laser
Question. According to senior Air Force officials, for reasons of
``affordability'' the Air Force submitted a budget request to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense cutting $256.7 million from the
Airborne Laser (ABL) for the period covering fiscal years 2001 through
2005. Is it correct that OSD then increased the Air Force cut by $638.7
million in PBD 743, which you signed, for a total cut to the program of
$895.4 million over the 2001 through 2005 period?
Answer. The Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2001-2005
contained many unfunded requirements. At our request, Air Force
provided several different options for resolving these budget problems.
Through deliberations with the Air Force it was decided that ABL would
be reduced to fund higher priority Air Force requirements.
Question. Was your additional cut of $638.7 million also for
``affordability'' reasons?
Answer. Yes. As mentioned above the Air Force had significant
funding shortfalls and provided a viable solution to support their
highest priority requirements. Several major Air Force acquisition
programs that had funding shortfalls that were fixed during the budget
review were the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), the Joint Direct Attach
Munition (JDAM), the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS), and the
Joint Surveillance, Targeting, and Reconnaissance (JSTARS) aircraft.
On December 6, 1999, the Secretary of the Air Force signed a
certification to Congress stating, ``the ABL program continues to meet
or exceed every technical and programmatic milestone and remains on-
cost and on-schedule.''
Question. Are you aware of any technological problems with this
program that the Secretary of the Air Force was not aware of?
Answer. No. ABL reductions were not based on technical problems.
The current fiscal environment drove difficult decisions and ABL was
used to partially offset higher Air Force requirements.
Question. Can you explain why the Air Force's proposed cut of
$256.7 million was more than tripled by OSD?
Answer. The Air Force recommended using the additional ABL
reduction as an offset to fund higher priority requirements. The
Department used this recommendation so that Air Force could fund higher
priority requirements.
Question. Of the approximately 100 programs designated by the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense as Major Defense
Acquisition Programs, in addition to ABL, how many others are on
schedule and budget?
Answer. At the time when we prepared the budget, which was nearly
six months ago, most of our MDAPs were on schedule and budget. Of
course, estimates and schedules change over time, and when an MDAP
breaches cost, schedule or performance parameters, we provide the
required notifications to the Congress as required by the Nunn-McCurdy
legislation. The ABL program, although on track, was offered as a
proposal to support higher priority Air Force programs. It was
discussed and decided that using ABL funding to offset other
requirements would have the smallest impact to the Air Force and the
Department.
Question. The proposed $895 million cut to ABL over the fiscal year
2001-2005 period amounts to 52 percent of its budget over that period.
Are there any other MDAPs for which you have proposed a budget cut of
over 50 percent?
Answer. We have not proposed budget reductions of over 50 percent
to any other MDAPs.
Question. Can you explain why you propose ABL for the greatest
funding cut--in percentage terms--of any MDAP when it is on schedule
and budget?
Answer. As mentioned earlier it was due to current fiscal
constraints to support higher priority requirements.
Question. Do these budget cuts in any way reflect you questioning
the requirement for this program?
Answer. Nobody is denying the fact that there is a valid
requirement for this futuristic program and that it would be a great
asset to our theater missile defense arsenal--particularly to support
boost phase intercept. However, with ABL being an unproven technology,
it made more sense to use those resources for higher priority Air Force
requirements and still maintain a robust theater missile defense
capability through Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3, Navy Area
Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (NATBMD), Theater High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) and Navy Theater Wide (NTW).
theater high altitude area defense (thaad)
Question. The unclassified summary of the National Intelligence
Estimate on the ballistic missile threat to the United States states,
``The proliferation of MRBMs [Medium Range Ballistic Missiles] driven
primarily by North Korean No Dong ales has created an immediate,
serious, and growing threat to U.S. forces, interests, and allies in
the Middle East and Asia, and has significantly altered the strategic
balances in the regions.''
Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. Yes; North Korea's development of the No Dong and Taepo
Dong-1 enable it to threaten U.S. forces, interests, and allies not
only throughout Korea, but also Japan, to include Okinawa. Likewise,
Iran has used ballistic missiles against Iraq as a punitive measure,
and its development of the No Dong-based Shahab-3 gives it a capability
to threaten U.S. forces, interests, and allies throughout the Gulf.
Question. Do you also agree that more capable theater range
threats, like Iran's Shahab-3, are becoming available sooner than had
been projected by the Administration only a few years ago?
Answer. More capable theater range threats are available for use
sooner than previously expected, because countries such as Iran and
North Korea are not following traditional (i.e., Russian and U.S.)
development timelines.
Question. The current schedule for THAAD has the ``First Unit
Equipped'' in fiscal year 2007. But my understanding is that by adding
$400 million to THAAD over the fiscal year 2001-04 period--money that
was previously removed from the program by OSD--the ``First Unit
Equipped'' date can be moved forward by two years, to fiscal year 2005,
with no increase in the program's level of technological risk. Is that
your understanding, too?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $150 million could accelerate the
first unit equipped/early operational capability (FUE/EOC) by
approximately 9 months. However, with continued added funding in fiscal
year 2002/03, it is conceivable you could accelerate the FUE/EOC by 12-
18 months.
national missile defense (nmd)
Question. Mr. Secretary, I note that the budget request for
National Missile Defense has increased significantly this year, but
this represents both the need to catch up after chronic underfunding,
and the funds required to begin deployment of the system. If more
funding were provided, are there additional activities that could be
undertaken to reduce technical risk in this program?
Answer. As you know, the Department has already added an extra $285
million to the National Missile Defense program in response to the
recommendations of the second Welch Report. Our measures included
adding two more risk-reduction flights and a second target launcher.
Budget enhancements would provide further risk reduction in a variety
of efforts aimed at maintaining schedule should problems appear in the
execution of our program plan.
Question. Is it correct that a single site system based in Alaska,
supported by one X-band radar, does not meet the full approved
operational requirement for National Missile Defense?
Answer. No, that is not correct. Our detailed analysis shows that
the NMD C1 architecture, which consists of a single weapon site in
Alaska, one X-Band radar, five Upgraded Early Warning Radars, and DSP/
SBIRS-High, will meet the approved Operational Requirements Document
(ORD) threshold performance requirement. Future evolutions of this
architecture are designed to meet the ORD objective performance
requirement (same level of protection against a larger more
sophisticated threat).
Question. If our NMD system were to be deployed at a second site in
addition to Alaska, what are the advantages of putting that site in the
Northeast--for example, at Loring Air Force Base in Maine--instead of
at Grand Forks?
Answer. The single site in Alaska will meet the User requirements
for all 50 states. An additional site in the northeast U.S. will add
robustness to the system by increasing the opportunities for shoot look
shoot, which allows for reducing the number of interceptors fired
against each threat. Also, an additional site allows for protecting
against some variations in the threat launch trajectories which could
be outside the current design envelope.
Question. Secretary Hamre, do you agree that there is a potential
long-range ballistic missile threat from both North Korea and Iran
between now and 2005, when the National Missile Defense system could
first achieve operational capability?
Answer. During the 2001-2005 period: North Korea, Iran, Iraq could
test ICBMs of varying capabilities--some capable of delivering several
hundred kilogram payloads to the United States.
--Most believe that non-flight-testing aspects of the Taepo Dong-2
program are continuing and that North Korea is likely to test
the system as a space launch vehicle unless it continues the
freeze. If flight-testing resumes, the capabilities would
increase.
--Some believe Iran is likely to test some ICBM capabilities in the
next few years, most likely as a Taepo Dong-type space launch
vehicle.
Question. Assuming both of these countries develop long-range
ballistic missiles, is there any reason to believe that one of these
countries would deploy these missiles in lower quantities than the
other?
Answer. There is no data to suggest that one state will deploy a
larger ICBM force than the other. Neither state would be expected to
field a force greater than a few to tens of missiles by 2015.
Question. If there is, what is the evidence supporting this belief?
Answer. There is no data to suggest that one state will deploy a
larger ICBM force than the other. Neither state would be expected to
field a force greater than a few to tens of missiles by 2015.
rd-180 rocket engine
Question. Can you explain why it is important to the Defense
Department to have Lockheed-Martin competing in the EELV program?
Answer. It is important for the United States to maintain two
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) contractors. If Lockheed-
Martin were no longer competing, then once DOD finishes launching the
last of the heritage Delta, Atlas, and Titan vehicles, the United
States would be left with only a single launch provider. This is a
situation similar to the one the nation faces today with Titan where a
single launch failure can shut down the United States' heavy lift
access to space for months for accident investigation/recovery efforts.
And if the results of these efforts should call for a major redesign,
it could be years before the United States would be ready to launch
again. Further, two EELV competitors assure the United States a healthy
industrial base as well as competitive pricing.
Question. How important is the approval of this manufacturing
license to Lockheed-Martin's continued viability in this competition?
Answer. The potential damage to Lockheed-Martin's viability is
significant. The Lockheed Martin program has already experienced
serious delays and cost impacts in obtaining the licenses they
currently require. Their U.S. RD-180 engine production facility,
required so that U.S. access to space cannot be denied by a foreign
supplier, is already more than one year behind schedule due to delays
in obtaining the brokering license. Other related licenses, that are
also part of the Congressional notification package submitted on 20
March, have been held up awaiting notification, causing Lockheed-Martin
to develop work-arounds, resulting in an additional six month delay.
Question. Why was it necessary for you to send a memorandum to the
Secretary of State urging her to issue this license?
Answer. As stated in the memorandum, it was clear we had come to
the end of a process, agreed to in December, of working to address the
concerns of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) and House
International Relations Committee (HIRC) staffs about the proposed
licenses. Further delays would not have changed the minds of the
program opponents, but would have added additional risk to the
viability of the Lockheed-Martin/Pratt & Whitney RD-180 co-production
program for the reasons stated above.
lhd-8
Question. Dr. Hamre, I am advised that the Navy has formally
submitted a request to Comptroller Lynn for release of funds previously
appropriated for LHD-8. $45 million was provided in fiscal year 1999
for Advanced Procurement items and another $375 million was provided in
last year's bill--along with language that would allow the Navy to
contract for the construction of this important ship on an incremental
basis.
When will these funds be released to allow the Navy to put the ship
under contract?
Answer. The Navy's request for release of the funding is still
under review. The Department's shipbuilding plan, as outlined in the
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 President's Budget submissions,
includes $1.5 billion for the construction of LHD-8 in fiscal year
2005. Although Congress provided approximately $400 million to the Navy
to begin construction of the ship sooner, the Department has not yet
determined how modernization requirements can be reprioritized to
finance the more than $1 billion in follow-on costs to ensure an
executable and efficient construction program. Once this review is
completed, I will inform you soonest of the Department's execution
plan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
science and technology
Question. Science and technology budgets have fluctuated over the
past decade. After a 17.4 percent increase in 1992 over 1991, the S&T
budget changes have ranged from positive 21.1 percent in 1994 to
negative 7.7 in 1997. The DOD budget for 2001 is $1 billion below what
Congress appropriated last year, even though it reflects a 2 percent
increase over the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal.
There does not appear to be any pattern to S&T funding. Can you
explain these fluctuations? Or is this simply a question of money?
Answer. Successful businesses, intending to stay in business,
invest in the future. Our downsized military needs its technological
edge now, more than ever, and we place high priority on our S&T
investment as a hedge against future uncertainties. As you know, the
Department has several important objectives including: high readiness;
forces adequate in size to sustain our strategy of global engagement;
and increased resources for procurement to underwrite our modernization
program--as well as a robust science and technology program. The
fluctuations you cited in S&T funding are not, ``simply a question of
money'' but are the result of balancing the Department's competing
resource requirements within a constrained fiscal environment.
Question. The 1999 Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
Act called for the DOD to increase S&T budgets by at least 2 percent a
year above the rate of inflation.
Would you agree that this is a sound policy?
Answer. Determining a sufficient level of S&T investment is not a
precise science, rather I believe it is a strategic decision. Our
downsized military needs its technological edge more now than ever. It
has always been our goal to fund S&T at a level adequate to ensure the
technological superiority of our armed forces. However, we also need to
ensure that the funding levels of the various components in the
Department are balanced based on our assessment of the most urgent
requirements at any given time. The S&T funding in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget reflects a program that maintains its buying power
and continues to explore new technologies and applications, but has
been balanced against our compelling desire to increase the
modernization budget while sustaining readiness at a high level.
Question. As I mentioned, I am concerned about the loss of
scientific expertise due to inadequate budgets.
Do you believe that you can maintain the scientists and
infrastructure required for success at the present level of resources?
Answer. Yes. The resources are adequate to sustain our current
scientific workforce. The more serious threat to our having sufficient
scientific expertise is the same problem facing all technical
organizations today--how to successfully compete for technical talent
in this booming economy. A number of initiatives are underway to
improve the Department's competitiveness, but the scarcity of national
technical personnel suggests this problem will persist for the
foreseeable future. Resources for the infrastructure are also
considered adequate. However, the Department's position is that further
BRACs are required to eliminate unwarranted excess capacity. The
current technical infrastructure footprint is larger than we need and
this results in unnecessary expenses that could otherwise be used for
infrastructure revitalization.
directed energy
Question. As you know, the DOD is now considering its plans to
centralize and consolidate its directed energy programs. At present, I
believe that Albuquerque is viewed as the best location for this
initiative in light of the resources, assets, and capabilities already
at Kirtland and White Sands.
I would be interested in hearing from you the most recent plans for
directed energy within the Department of Defense.
Does the Defense Department currently desire to create a
centralized administration for all of its efforts in directed energy?
Answer. Currently the Department of Defense (DOD) has no plans to
consolidate all of its efforts in directed energy. Both High Power
Microwave (HPM) and High Energy Laser (HEL) efforts are underway within
the DOD, but each of these technology areas has its own unique
problems. We have separate management constructs for dealing with HPM
and electronic warfare, and we see no immediate benefit in combining
these development efforts with HEL efforts. HPM and electronic warfare
programs are well defined. The needed focus, as discussed in the High
Energy Laser Master Plan (HELMP) report that was presented to Congress
on March 24, 2000, is on HEL technologies. The HELMP report recommended
that the Defense Department implement a new DOD-wide coordinated
investment and execution strategy and a new management structure for
HEL technologies which centralizes and consolidates leadership in a new
Joint Technology Office (JTO). The office will be tasked with
developing and managing a join-services-program for revitalizing HEL
Science and Technology (S&T) and serving as a clearinghouse for new S&T
initiatives proposed by DOD components. The office will not be
responsible for either HPM or electronic warfare activities.
Question. What sort of synergies could be leveraged or advantages
could be derived for directed energy programs?
Answer. This question presumably speaks to the synergies among
specific topics that fall under the more general designation of
``Directed Energy'' programs. The directed energy investments within
the Department fall primarily into one of two topical areas--High
Energy Lasers (HEL) or High Power Microwaves (HPM). Grouping these two
together in the past has provided scant synergistic advantage or
opportunities that were enabled from doing so. The HEL and HPM
technical communities are distinctly different with minimal crossover.
HEL and HPM are vastly different in terms of device technology,
propagation effects and target lethality. HPM weapons are designed to
induce damage to electronics; HEL weapons impart material or structural
damage through thermo-mechanical effects. We currently treat these
programs separately and we see little advantage to be derived from
combining HEL and HPM under a single management or program structure.
Question. What weaknesses or strengths does Albuquerque provide as
a location for an OSD-led National Energy Center?
Answer. Albuquerque is geographically well suited to be a national
center for high energy laser technology. Kirtland Air Force Base is the
location of several key Air Force laboratory and test range facilities.
Also, the Army HELSTF facility and the Air Force North Oscura Peak
facility, both located on the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), are
within reasonable driving distances from Albuquerque. However, as we
embark on a new Department-wide coordinated investment and execution
strategy to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by high
energy laser weapon technologies, we believe it is important, at least
initially, to centralize the new OSD management structure. This will
convey neutrality that will assure the active participation by all
stakeholders and will hopefully lead to a more balanced investment
strategy for the Department.
Question. What role can the DOE laboratories play in achieving the
military objectives of our directed energy efforts?
Answer. The DOE laboratories are developing solid state laser
devices and beam diagnostics that, properly leveraged, may be highly
relevant to future DOD High Energy Laser (HEL) weapon systems.
Additionally, the DOE laboratories have conducted experiments that
suggest the presence of new lethality mechanisms that require much
lower laser power than more conventional approaches. There is no
question that both Departments could benefit from a closer,
collaborative technical relationship in these areas. Developing such a
relationship would be greatly facilitated by the ability to cost-share
joint new initiatives.
release of $14 million for taccsf
Question. Would you see to it that the O&M funds for this facility
are released as soon as possible?
Answer. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funds are used in the
Theater Air Command and Control Simulation Facility (TACCSF) only for
Civilian Pay and those funds have been issued and are executing.
Congress added $14.0 million in R&D funds for TACCSF which were
released on 10 March 2000.
military construction
Question. Since this is the first defense budget request since 1985
to request real growth in the defense budget I am disappointed to see
that the Military Construction request has gone down from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation level. Part of the reason for this decrease
appears to be the absence of contingency funding, included for
unforseen construction costs, in your military construction projects.
Will the Department of Defense be able to execute all the Military
Construction projects appropriated without contingency funding?
Answer. Yes. Removing funds for contingency will provide an
incentive for Department of Defense Components to improve their cost
estimating techniques and monitoring procedures. However, there is some
element of increased programmatic risk associated with eliminating
contingency, but this risk is more than offset by the greater good
gained by using the funds elsewhere.
Question. My staff has identified almost $90 million in mission
critical, worthwhile projects.
Why, for the second year in a row, is there no military
construction for New Mexico in the President's budget?
Answer. For fiscal year 2000, Congress authorized and appropriated
$41.1 million for four construction projects for installations in New
Mexico. While these projects are of value to defense and were added by
Congress, they were not high enough in the Department's overall
priority requirements to have been included in the fiscal year 2000
President's budget request because of current year budget constraints.
The Department's Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) includes $67.8
million of military construction projects for installations in New
Mexico programmed throughout fiscal year 2002-2005 that could not be
funded in the fiscal year 2001 budget request due to current year
budget constraints. There are simply not enough dollars to fit all our
valid requirements in the budget year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
manning the force initiatives
Question. What is the Department going to do to ensure that TRADOC
units--that is non-deployable units--do not serve as the sole bill-
payer in the effort to fully staff TO&E units?
Answer. The manning task force initiative is a four-year plan to
fill all Army organizations to 100 percent of their authorizations.
This year for instance, only the 10 divisions, 2 Armored Cavalry
Regiments and Separate Brigades will be filled to 100 percent. All
other units, to include both the TOE and TDA Army will fair share the
remaining inventory. TRADOC and the rest of the TDA Army (non-
deployable units) will fair no worse this year than the rest of the
Army that is not part of the group of units that will be filled to 100
percent. Next year, the early deploying units will be added to the 100
percent fill with the rest of the TOE and TDA sharing the remaining
inventory. The year after (fiscal year 2002) the rest of the TOE Army
will be brought to 100 percent and then by the end of fiscal year 2003
the HQDA approved TDA, which includes TRADOC, will be manned at 100
percent. Spreading this transition out over four years was designed to
ensure that we had sufficient time to grow the inventory necessary to
man all of our forces to 100 percent. It is not the intent to break any
unit during this transition period.
Question. Is there a breakout of how these reductions will impact
TRADOC posts?
Answer. The most significant impact throughout TRADOC during this
transition period will be at skill level one (E1-E4). This is due to
our inability over the past couple of years to recruit enough soldiers
to fill our skill level one requirements. For the non commissioned
officer grades, TRADOC will continue to be filled between 96-98
percent, with drill sergeants, classroom instructors and recruiters
manned at 100 percent.
Question. Isn't part of the answer that we need to increase our
overall end strength?
Answer. That option is certainly being considered, along with
several other initiatives to drive down the requirements throughout the
Army. At present there are several task forces studying the issue of
turbulence, well being, perstempo and manning and how they impact on
our ability to sustain the force. There are a certain percentage of
faces that must exceed the structure in order to fully man our units.
The task at hand is to find the right number.
army vision
Question. The Army is having to reduce funding on a number of
programs in order to pay for its proposed new vision, it is also
standing up two medium brigades in Fort Lewis--brigades which will now
be unavailable for potential deployment. What does the Department view
as acceptable risk as this vision is implemented?
Answer. Army recognizes that there will be additional risk
associated with conducting Transformation. The additional risk is,
however, manageable and the Army, in close coordination with the Joint
Staff and the geographic Commander's in Chief (CINCs), has developed a
number of strategies designed to accommodate and reduce the risk
associated with Transformation. These strategies encompass, but are not
limited to, greater integration and use of the Reserve Component (RC)
and more flexible, dynamic management of wartime force flows to war
theaters. Regarding the two brigades at Fort Lewis, only one brigade
will transition at a time. The armor brigade (3d Brigade, 2d Infantry
Division) is first followed by the light infantry brigade (1st Brigade,
25th Infantry Division).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
national missile defense (nmd)
Question. Dr. Hamre, the National Missile Defense Program had its
ups and downs over the past few months. A successful test in the fall
was followed by a failed intercept in January. I have been told that
the recent failure was probably caused by a simple mechanical failure
in the kill vehicle, one that can be rectified. I have also been
briefed that the primary objective of the test, the integration of the
varied and complex segments that constitute the NMD system, was deemed
to be successful. I believe that the successes of our testing programs
are many times lost on the public when a target is not destroyed.
Dr. Hamre, would you please comment on the successes, as you view
them, of the recent NMD test.
What is your prognosis for the system's next test in May?
Answer. Integrated Flight Test 5 is now scheduled for not earlier
than 26 June 2000 and will be the third intercept attempt. (The first
succeeded and the second failed.) This is a two month delay from the
previous target date of 27 April 2000. This two month period has
involved comprehensive efforts to analyze the failure, determine
corrective action, bring to bear the best experts on the subject to
review the results and implement the corrective action. We fully expect
IFT-5 to meet all of its' objectives including intercept. This
expectation is based upon both the corrective action to eliminate the
IFT-4 mechanical failure as well as the extensive pre-flight analysis,
testing, and check out currently under way.
Question. Dr. Hamre, assuming that there is a successful test and
intercept in May, what is your assessment of the Administration's
readiness to order the deployment of the National Missile Defense
system?
Answer. The data from this test will be a significant contributor
to the criteria used in determining a deployment readiness decision.
technology
Question. Dr. Hamre, I have repeatedly expressed my concern about
this nation's lack of investment in BMD related support technologies. I
believe that we must invest more robustly in technology today so that
our defensive systems can meet the emerging missile threats in the
future.
Do you agree that during the development of the fiscal year 2002-
2007 future year defense plan, the Pentagon should consider increasing
the overall missile defense technology budget?
Answer. Robust technology investment is our hedge against potential
surprises that the evolving and dynamic threat might pose. While
research and development remains a critical component of the overall
BMD program, it continues to be difficult to maintain an aggressive
technology program in the face of competing demands presented by our
BMD acquisition programs. The Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO), Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, is addressing the issue by
implementing a new management structure for BMD Science and Technology
in order to revitalize the program. BMDO's Chief Scientist and his
staff will concentrate on planning an integrated technology program, in
collaboration with the Services and other government agencies.
Execution of the approved program will be decentralized and performed
by the Services and other appropriate Executing Agents. We are also
strengthening the BMDO Chief Architect's and System Engineer's roles in
the process, to better focus our technology development on our most
critical future needs. This new management structure will allow the
technology program to better compete for increased resources within the
Department.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
unutilized plant capacity (upc)
Question. The fiscal year 2001 Defense Budget includes funding for
unutilized plant capacity (UPC). UPC allows facilities like the Rock
Island Arsenal, Illinois to be more price competitive. Specifically,
the budget includes $4.3 million for Rock Island Arsenal and $25.2 for
the Watervliet Arsenal in New York under UPC. The Illinois, Iowa, and
New York congressional delegations asked the Administration in December
1999 to include $50 million in the fiscal year 2001 budget for UPC,
divided equally between Rock Island and Watervliet Arsenals. Why is
there such a significant difference between Rock Island and Watervliet
UPC funding? What is the UPC funding need at both arsenals?
Answer. In recent years, both Watervliet Arsenal and Rock Island
Arsenal (RIA) have been faced with dwindling workload that has strained
their ability to pay for unutilized/underutilized capacity thereby
increasing their composite labor rates. This situation will reach a
critical point at Watervliet in fiscal year 2001. Without additional
Industrial Mobilization Capacity (IMC) (formerly UPC) funding,
Watervliet would have to charge over $5,600 per Direct Labor Hour to
recover its costs in fiscal year 2001. With the additional funding, the
rate at Watervliet is $197.11 per hour. The budgeted rate at RIA for
fiscal year 2001 is $158.29 per hour. Subsequent to developing the
fiscal year 2001 budget, it became apparent that RIA is expected to
reach a similar critical point within the next 12-18 months. The Army
is currently conducting a study on the rightsizing of its ordnance
facilities to determine the required capacity for mobilization and to
recommend options regarding excess capacity, such that unutilized
capacity is reduced to minimum essential levels. For fiscal year 2001
Rock Island's required IMC funding is $11.670 million and Watervliet's
is $30.137 million.
subcommittee recess
Senator Stevens. The hearing will be in recess until
Wednesday at 10 a.m.
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., Monday, March 6, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 8.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Hutchison, Inouye, Leahy, and
Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Medical Programs
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. RUDY DE LEON, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND
READINESS
HON. WILLIAM LYNN, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
ADM. DONALD L. PILLING, U.S. NAVY, VICE CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS AND CHAIRMAN, DEFENSE MEDICAL OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE
OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. My apologies. I am pleased this morning to
have a chance to, with my colleagues, to review the Department
of Defense (DOD) medical programs, the defense health program.
We have three panels today, allowing for a full and deliberate
review of DOD medical programs. We welcome the gentlemen of our
first panel: Rudy de Leon, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel Readiness; Bill Lynn, the Under Secretary of Defense
and Comptroller; and Admiral Donald Pilling, the Vice Chief of
Naval Operations, who is appearing here today in his capacity
as Chair of the Defense Medical Oversight Committee.
We do appreciate your coming here today. You are here as
you are going on to something new, right, Bill? Rudy, you are
the one, Rudy?
Mr. de Leon. Yes.
Senator Stevens. Pardon me, yes.
Senator Inouye. He is going up.
Senator Stevens. Going up.
We look forward to working with you in your new capacity,
and this is twice for you in 1 week. That is service above and
beyond the call, Bill.
We welcome you, Admiral. It is your first appearance before
the committee, I believe. I hope I have pronounced your name
right. I am bad at that. You represent the uniformed military
leadership and this hands-on active involvement in medical
issues by the leadership is absolutely vital to what we are all
trying to do, and we thank you for your efforts.
The President's request for the defense health program is
$11.6 billion, a 4 percent increase over this year's enacted
level. The request provides health care for about 6 million
beneficiaries and for the operation of 81 military hospitals
and 500 military clinics. In this year of housing and health
care, there are many challenges facing the defense health
program, the foremost of which is full and robust funding for
the current program and current benefits.
Your request is $446 million more than this year's
appropriation, but it is our understanding that that may be
insufficient and we want to ask you questions about that.
Looking down, or really ahead, beyond fiscal year 2002, there
are reports of shortfalls that we may face out there that we
ought to explore now. We are aware of unpaid and unfunded
liabilities from previous years in TRICARE contract claims.
Senator Inouye and I know first-hand the value of military
medicine, he more than I, and we intend to honor the commitment
that our Nation made to our service members, their families,
and our veterans. We are committed to working with you to find
sound solutions to the challenges we face and make them on our
watch.
Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF Senator DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join
you in welcoming Secretaries de Leon and Lynn and Admiral
Pilling.
Mr. de Leon, I understand you are going to be the number
two man in DOD and congratulations, sir.
I wish to echo what the chairman has stated, but put my
word in to suggest that it is very important that we provide
the finest medical care because we have noted that it plays a
major role in the retention and recruiting of quality
personnel. With that, I look forward to receiving your
testimony.
Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy, do you have a comment?
STATEMENT OF Senator PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
I think you put together a great panel here discussing
military health care. I think the panel reflects what both you
and Senator Inouye and all of us feel about ensuring that the
men and women in uniform are receiving the highest quality
health care possible. I completely agree with what both of you
have said.
There are a number of important issues I want to discuss. I
will wait either to ask questions or, if I have to go to
another committee meeting, to submit them. There are a couple
of areas we should be looking at, though. One is the rising
cost each year to give servicemembers the same level of care. I
would hope that in the military health care system that somehow
we could build up some immunity from the pressures that drive
up costs in the private sector because of quantities of scale
and so forth. That is something I think everybody is going to
have to look into, that issue of scale.
The other is a troubling trend that we are seeing both in
private areas but also in the military, and that is the
persistence of medical errors. I know that the military is not
immune to mistaken diagnosis and misunderstood prescription
requests that plague the U.S. medical systems. We hear it
everywhere and I know it is a great concern of hospital
administrators, both in the private sector and in the
Government sector.
There are a number of innovative technologies that can be
used to reduce these errors and we should be looking at what
alternatives are used. My wife is a nurse and I know she tells
me that reading the handwriting of doctors who leave
prescriptions for nurses is worse than trying to read notes
that I leave around the house. Also, sometimes the resistance
of medical personnel to use computers and all, we might want to
look at that.
On the second panel, General Blanck is going to be on that.
I do want to encourage you, General, even though your daughter
has graduated now from the University of Vermont, that you will
continue to visit our State. You do not have to during mud
season, but the rest of the year feel free.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
The subcommittee has also received a statement from Senator
Bond which he asked be included in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond
Mr. de Leon, Mr. Lynn, and distinguished military leaders,
thank you for joining us today. It is a pleasure to offer a
brief statement on the Military Health Care Program and what I
believe should be our primary focus as we address health care
requirements for the military. Above all, we must improve the
quality of health care for all military beneficiaries--
retirees, service members and families. Quality healthcare is
essential to military readiness. It affects not only recruiting
and retention but also morale. Our service members cannot focus
on their missions if they are concerned about the quality of
care their family members are receiving at home.
We must improve military health care with a program that is
responsive and reasonable. There is a limited amount of money
to spend on health care, so we must be very prudent in our
approach. As you know, we have moved military health care to
the top of the legislative agenda. Recently, several
legislative initiatives were introduced to address health care
for the military. This hearing will assist the committee in
finding the right combination of provisions to formulate the
best final product. It will also help us ensure the right
amount of funding in the fiscal year 2001 budget so that you
will have the tools you need to conserve the fighting strength.
Mr. de Leon, Mr. Lynn, and distinguished military leaders,
I look forward to discussing these and other important military
medical issues with you and your staff as the hearing process
continues.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, we would like to have you
present your statement as you wish and then the other two
gentlemen make such statements as you wish. We will not
interrupt you until you all three have finished.
Mr. de Leon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make a
few brief comments. First, as the personnel chief this is my
first opportunity to testify before the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee and I would like to thank the committee for all
the work on pay and benefits, the retirement fix, and the pay
raise and the pay table reform that were incorporated into last
year's bill.
Those are extremely important. We see the retention in the
Army being particularly strong right now, retention in the
Marine Corps being strong. We see retention in the Navy
improving. We are working with the Air Force to improve both
recruiting and retention. But first I would like to thank you
for that work last year.
military medicine
Second, I would like to thank you and the other committees
of Congress for work that they did more than a decade ago when
they created the medical health care scholarship programs for
our doctors and nurses. This is potentially the single most
important piece of recruiting and attracting quality medical
professionals to our force. When you look at the young doctors
and nurses that we are producing, coming from the best medical
schools in America, this is a program that has strengthened
military medicine greatly, and we are in the debt of the
committee for their work in the past.
Military medicine, as Senator Leahy raised and as the
chairman and Senator Inouye raised, in many respects reflects
the civilian community. Health care costs are rising and
managing health care costs in the Department is becoming an
increasing challenge.
One of the critical decisions I think we have made in the
last 2 years is that we want to very much maintain the existing
medical infrastructure that we have, not that we will not be
making minor modifications at one location or another. The
heart of our medical system are the military treatment
facilities (MTF's). They have great doctors, great nurses. They
are really the heart of our system.
So, starting with that, that brings us into other aspects
of the health care program. But one area where we are trying
not to mirror the commercial sector is that the commercial
sector and many private health care plans are cutting benefits
and they are increasing enrollment and deductibles. We are
working to keep faith with our military men and women,
including one of the provisions that Secretary Cohen and
General Shelton included in this bill to make sure that our
active duty family members that use the TRICARE system have no
out of pocket expenses.
The second piece included in the Secretary's budget is to
make sure that our service members that serve in remote
locations, whether they are recruiters or on a remote
assignment, have adequate medical care. We have an initiative
that would construct and create a fee for service type benefit
for them when they do not have an MTF that they are able to go
to.
Second, we have an executable and funded 2000 and 2001
program. There are some bid price adjustments that we are
working with the TRICARE contractors right now in terms of the
negotiations of claims. We are expecting to maintain a very
close dialog with the committee on this as work on resolving
these issues continues and comes to a conclusion.
In terms of the general state of military medicine today, I
think we all know that our service members face frustrations
with the business side of health care. When our military
members actually deal with our doctors and nurses, all of our
surveys indicate that the quality of care that they receive is
very good. But they are frustrated in terms of dealing with the
business side of health care delivery--scheduling appointments
and then reimbursement from the TRICARE system if they have to
see a personal physician outside the MTF.
There are a number of initiatives that are ongoing in the
Department to make sure that the business side of TRICARE is a
seamless effort for our military men and women.
One additional piece that we are working on is utilization.
One morning I went with the Sergeant Major of the Army, to Fort
Belvoir to sit in the waiting area as the morning patients were
received. One of the elements of our initiative that the
surgeon generals are working on (and will be discussing) is
utilization, to make sure that our MTF's are seeing the maximum
number of patients possible and that we have given each of our
doctors the right set of tools so that doctors can see multiple
patients and do not get bogged down with paperwork and
administrative activities.
pharmacy costs
Additionally, as is the private sector, we are coming to
grips with the increasing cost of pharmacy. Pharmacy is now the
leading cost driver of civilian medical. We are facing the same
set of issues in military medicine. Pharmacy is improving and
it is improving dramatically. I use in my discussion with the
surgeons a high school football coach that I knew died of what
was then called hardening of the arteries in the 1960's. In the
seventies and the eighties, that person would have had bypass
surgery, and in the nineties that person might be prescribed
Lipitor or Zokor as a way to preemptively treat the underlying
problems. With these tremendous gains in pharmacy are coming
great additional costs.
So all of these are factors that are impacting the defense
medical program that we present to you. We are trying to keep
the defense budget cycle in sync with the medical marketplace
for our civilian society.
One additional piece that is critical was the creation of
the DMOC, or the Defense Medical Oversight Committee. From my
perspective, I need the support of the vice chiefs as we work
medical budget issues and also as we oversee and deliver health
care to our military members. We have created a mechanism, with
the support of Dr. Hamre and Secretary Cohen, that put the vice
chiefs at the table in terms of critical budget decisions on
military medicine as well as a critical oversight
responsibility to make sure that we have an efficient and
effective program.
prepared statement
So Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we look
forward to a dialog with you. Also, I am pleased to be backed
up by the surgeon generals and the chiefs of our military
nursing programs, and would also note that, in terms of this
hearing, this is probably the last time that General Blanck and
I believe Admiral Nelson will be testifying to this
subcommittee. They have had a tremendous impact in their roles
as Surgeon General of the Navy and Surgeon General of the Army.
So I just wanted to acknowledge that in my testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rudy de Leon and Hon. William J. Lynn, III
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is our
distinct honor to appear before your Committee today at the start of
the ``Year of Health Care'' to provide for you an overview of the
Military Health System.
The Military Health System is a vast and extraordinary health
system with just under 100 hospitals and over 500 clinics worldwide
serving an eligible population of 8.2 million. There is no other health
system like it in the world. We ensure the health of our forces and
care for them when ill or injured anywhere around the globe. Further,
we provide comprehensive health coverage to the families of our service
members, our retirees and their families, and the surviving family
members of those who have died in service to our country. Our attention
to the health of our forces involves research, health promotion, and
appropriate care whether deployed or at home stations. It demands
timely, supportive, and quality care for family members; and it relies
on fully trained and militarily prepared healthcare personnel. The
support for deployed forces is inextricably linked to the operation of
hospitals and clinics. We cannot provide Force Health Protection in
wartime without a robust peacetime healthcare system.
Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Health Program Budget
For fiscal year 2001, we are seeking funding for the Defense Health
Program in the amount of $11.6 billion. Under the President's budget
request, the total proposed budget for the Military Health System is
$17.2 billion. Our proposed funding for military personnel is $5.4
billion, and $202 million for military construction.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request:
--Continues and increases funding for the numerous Force Health
Protection measures designed to promote health, prevent
injuries and disease, care for casualties, and have a viable
automated record system for all service members detailing their
health status, plus possible exposures to health hazards
--Supports increased medical readiness training
--Contributes funds to the Global Emerging Infectious Disease
Surveillance initiative
--Requires management efficiencies within the military treatment
facility operations while providing increased funding for
additional services and new benefits
--Funds the managed care support contracts
--Provides funding for quality initiatives and advances in medical
practice
--Funds demonstration programs for providing healthcare coverage to
our beneficiaries age 65 and older. These demonstrations
include TRICARE Senior Prime, Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program, TRICARE supplemental benefit to Medicare, and
expanding the national mail order pharmacy program to include
Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries.
Force Health Protection
The Department is deeply committed to protecting the health of all
service members while at home and during deployments. FHP is our
unified strategy that protects service men and women from health and
environmental hazards associated with military service through their
continuum of service from accession, training and deployment(s), to
separation or retirement, and beyond. The number and scope of current
military operations, the variety of deployment environments and
hazards, and our expectations of men and women in uniform all have
increased as the Nation responds to changing global threats.
Force Health Protection reflects a commitment to: Promote and
sustain wellness to ensure that we can deploy a fit and healthy
military force; implement medical countermeasures to prevent casualties
from occurring in the deployed environment; and provide high quality
casualty care.
The Department has many activities underway to improve monitoring
of individual health status and the continual medical monitoring and
recording of hazards that might affect the health of service members.
Medical Surveillance has been in effect for recent deployments to
Southwest Asia, as well as for deployments to Bosnia, Croatia, and
Hungary. Included are pre- and post-deployment medical briefings and
individual health assessments, extensive environmental hazard
monitoring in the theater of operations, plus increased preventive and
mental health resources in the theater.
We face a new era in our efforts to prevent casualties. In the
battlefield of the future, rogue nations, extremist groups, or
terrorists could use weapons of mass destruction against our forces. To
counter these threats, ongoing application of the latest technology for
Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) detection, prevention, and
immunization (pre-treatment) are now employed to assure the protection
of our forces. The Department's Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program is
one example. The Department has identified anthrax as a known threat, a
weapon at least 10 enemy countries are capable of using. Anthrax
presents a clear and present danger to our service personnel. The
anthrax vaccine is highly effective against this dangerous threat. On
the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary
of Defense directed implementation of the total force vaccination
program. To date, over a million vaccinations have been given to nearly
400,000 service members.
The U.S. Armed Forces of the 21st Century will become the highly
mobile, technologically advanced forces envisioned by the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Medical support units can be no less mobile,
no less agile, no less advanced if they are to discharge their Force
Health Protection responsibilities. We have several initiatives
underway that will afford us greater flexibility and improved patient
care in conflict and wartime scenarios. Computerized patient records,
deployed preventive medicine resources, and combat stress control
measures are just a few examples of these initiatives.
The Reserve Components are participating more frequently in our
operational missions. Consequently, we have taken steps to facilitate
their meeting their medical readiness requirements. Through agreements
with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), Reserve Component
members now may obtain examinations and immunizations at DVA
facilities. Both Reserve Component members and their families will be
able to participate in the Department's family dental program beginning
in February 2001. Finally, we have developed a dental health
documentation form that will allow Reserve Component members to have
their personal dentists conduct their annual dental health
examinations.
Further, FHP acknowledges that the service member cannot focus on
the mission at hand if he or she is concerned about the healthcare that
his or her family is receiving at home. Therefore, we must have a high
quality, patient-focused healthcare program to care for family members
and, in turn, give confidence to our troops about their families' care.
TRICARE
TRICARE is an integrated health care delivery system that has
enabled the Department to provide better access to high quality care
for more of our beneficiaries more cost-effectively than the previous
health care delivery modalities available in the Military Health
System. As a health plan, TRICARE offers a triple-option health benefit
package providing beneficiaries a choice of: TRICARE Prime, an enrolled
HMO-like option; TRICARE Extra, a preferred provider option; and
TRICARE Standard, the previous standard CHAMPUS option. All active duty
service members are enrolled in TRICARE Prime.
TRICARE implementation began in 1995, and in three short years the
new system has become operational throughout the United States and in
our overseas locations. While the quality of health care in our system
is consistently rated very high by our beneficiaries, we have
experienced problems with the business practices of TRICARE, in such
areas as making appointments, telephone services to our beneficiaries,
enrollment in TRICARE, and payment of claims. Problems in these areas
have reduced customer satisfaction with TRICARE and made the program at
times difficult for our customers to access and use. Over the past
year, senior Department and Service leadership have visited each
TRICARE region to listen to our beneficiaries, health care providers,
and MTF personnel to identify problem areas in both our direct care and
managed care support contracts. We have developed an aggressive action
plan to correct problems with access, enrollment, and claims
processing. We are working closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
members of the Defense Medical Oversight Committee, and the Services,
to ensure these improvements will make TRICARE more accessible and
customer-friendly, simpler, and more uniform throughout the country.
The following access improvement initiatives are underway:
--Optimize TRICARE Prime Enrollment--defining our beneficiary
population and encouraging increased enrollment in TRICARE
Prime.
--Improve telephone access--deploying uniform standards for both
military treatment facilities and civilian networks.
--Improve and standardize appointing processes--accelerating
deployment of the standardized system, and integrating demand
management and appointing.
--Improve primary care management--implementing a standard definition
of Primary Care Manager by Name/Team for TRICARE Prime
enrollees.
--Improve case management--identifying patients who require case
management and those who need case management services but do
not meet the current definition.
--Implement DEERS 3.0 on schedule--facilitating continuity of care
and improving portability.
--Improving TRICARE Claims Processing through such reforms as:
--Claims Processing Cycle Time.--The TRICARE Program has adopted
claims processing timeliness standards compatible with
industry standards, requiring contractors to process 95
percent of retained claims within 30 days/100 percent of
retained claims within 60 days. Implementation of this
process began on 1 September 1999.
--Ease Provider Authorization.--With this change, when a contract
is awarded, the new contractor is required to re-certify
only TRICARE network providers and will depend on existing
state licensing and credentialing records for all non-
network providers. All contractors completed implementation
of this process in 1999.
--Better Explanation of Why Claims Returned to Providers.--If a
problem claim is submitted, the contractor returns the
claim to the submitting party with an explanation as to why
the claim is being returned. All contractors completed
implementation of this process in summer 1999.
--Third-Party Liability.--Contractors will be permitted to process
claims to completion and not defer them until all third-
party liability issues are resolved. Implementation is
expected in spring 2000.
--Comprehensive Evaluation of Claims Processing System.--The
Department has contracted with an expert-consulting firm to
assess the claims processing system. Initiatives identified
through this review include proposals to increase
electronic claim submission; increase auto-adjudication;
improve customer service, provider and beneficiary
education, improve program-wide data quality; improve
enrollment and eligibility process; and enhance fraud and
abuse mitigation capabilities.
The Military Health Care Benefit
Secretary Cohen and General Shelton have identified healthcare,
along with housing, as a key quality of life issue for our service
members and their families that must be addressed this year. The
President's budget adds funding for two important expansions of the
TRICARE benefit that will lower out-of-pocket medical costs for service
members and their families. First, the budget proposal includes $30
million to expand TRICARE Prime Remote to cover family members. In
October of last year, the Department launched TRICARE Prime Remote to
reduce out-of-pocket co-payments for service members living and working
in areas far from Military Treatment Facilities. The President's budget
proposal would now extend this benefit to health care obtained by these
service members' families. The budget request also includes $50 million
to eliminate co-pays for all active duty family members enrolled in
TRICARE Prime when they receive care from civilian health care
providers. This proposal will stop service members from having to pay
out of their own pocket for health care simply because there is no
appointment available for them in a military hospital or clinic.
Among our beneficiaries are those who have extraordinary or very
costly medical needs. Our healthcare providers and military treatment
facilities have developed dynamic case management programs to help
these families identify all available resources in both the civilian
and military communities. Our individual case management program, which
we implemented in March 1999, now gives us an opportunity under many
circumstances to provide for services, such as custodial care, that we
previously were unable to provide for our former CHAMPUS-eligible
beneficiaries. While we do not have a definitive projection of what
this individual case management program will cost, President's budget
includes $20 million for implementation of this new benefit.
Secretary Cohen and the Chairman have expressed their strong
commitment to expand health care access to our military retirees. The
President's budget includes funding for the demonstrations we currently
have underway, or will soon begin, to test alternative means of
expanding health care benefits to our Medicare-eligible retirees, their
spouses, and survivors. The Department is conducting several
demonstration programs to test the best means to expand health care to
Medicare-eligible retirees. Over 130,000 retirees are eligible to
participate in these demonstrations. These demonstrations are:
--TRICARE Senior Prime: 28,000 enrollees.--Now being tested in a
three-year demonstration period at eight military treatment
facilities. Under this program, Medicare-eligible retirees
enroll with an MTF which serves as their Medicare+Choice plan,
and Medicare reimburses DOD at a capitated rate for care
provided to these enrollees beyond the level of effort already
provided by DOD.
--Federal Employee Health Plan: 70,000 eligibles.--Under this
demonstration, Medicare-eligible retirees at eight
demonstration sites can enroll in the FEHBP. The DOD and
beneficiaries will pay the same premium cost shares of other
participants in the FEHBP and receive the same benefits as all
other federal employees and annuitants under this program.
--Expanded Pharmacy Benefit: 6,000 eligible enrollees.--Effective
spring 2000, DOD will offer an expanded pharmacy benefit for
Medicare-eligible retirees at two sites. Retirees will be
offered a pharmacy benefit equivalent to the TRICARE Extra
pharmacy benefit with an enrollment fee plus applicable co-
payments.
--TRICARE Senior Supplement: 11,000 eligible enrollees.--In spring
2000, DOD will test offering a TRICARE Senior Supplement to
military retirees at 2 sites. Under this program, TRICARE will
cover Medicare cost sharing as well as services not now covered
by Medicare.
We currently partner with seven managed care support contractors
(MCSC) covering twelve geographic regions that include the continental
United States and Alaska to deliver the TRICARE benefit. Each MCS
contract covers five, one-year option periods and they range in price
from $600 million to $3.6 billion for the anticipated contract life. As
is normal with contracts of this magnitude there are unforeseen changes
that create costs that result in bid price adjustments, change orders,
and equitable adjustments. We have funded our known managed care
contract requirements, and are committed to expeditiously resolving
future contract changes and other claims.
As advocates for military medicine and our beneficiary population,
we would like to be able to care for all of our beneficiaries,
providing them the care they need when they need it. But we are also
public servants entrusted with the responsibility to manage the health
requirements of the Department within the budget. Based on the current
definition of our benefit and our level of usage, we can tell you that
we have adequately budgeted for patient care in this fiscal year 2001
request.
Quality and Performance in the Military Health System
Military medicine has always aimed to provide the very best, the
highest quality healthcare possible. That goal continues today with our
efforts toward ensuring patient safety, examining our quality programs,
and gaining maximum efficiency of the Military Health System.
Since the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued its report, To Err Is
Human, in December 1999, the nation has expressed increased interest in
patient safety. In fact the Military Health System has had a number of
programs underway prior to the IOM report that serve to improve patient
safety. Among them are numerous computer systems, medication bar-
coding, participation in the National Patient Safety Partnership, and
concerted efforts to reduce errors in high hazard environments such as
Emergency Rooms and Intensive Care Units. We have joined with other
federal agencies in accepting the challenge of the IOM report to do
more. We participate as a member of the Quality Interagency Task Force
and use their recommendations to implement measures that will reduce
errors and improve patient safety within military medicine.
Additionally, responding to this Committee's direction, we
established the Department of Defense Healthcare Quality Initiatives
Review Panel (HQIRP), to look into and report on the Military Health
System quality initiatives begun in 1998. The HQIRP, which includes 5
medical professionals and 4 MHS beneficiaries, is well into its
assessment of whether all reasonable measures have been taken to ensure
that the Military Health System delivers health care services in
accordance with consistently high professional standards. The members
have met four times, attended our annual TRICARE conference, and plans
to visit military medical facilities in Tidewater, Puget Sound,
Albuquerque, and Quantico. In their final report to the Secretary of
Defense and Congress later this spring, the HQIRP will offer their
assessment, conclusions, and recommendations.
In the past year we have identified needed policy and created the
tools necessary for our military medical facilities to begin
implementing this strategy for a High Performance Military Health
System. These changes are brought together through the MHS Optimization
program. The focus of MHS Optimization is to shift from providing
periodic medical services to better serving our beneficiaries by
preventing injuries and illness and improving health. The underlying
tenets include:
--Effective use of readiness-required personnel and equipment to
support the peacetime health service delivery mission.
--Equitably align resources to provide as much health service
delivery as possible in the most cost-effective manner--within
the MTF.
--Use the best, evidence-based clinical practices and a population
health approach to ensure consistency.
Through full implementation of this plan, we will ensure adequate
staffing and resourcing. A pivotal component of the MHS Optimization
Plan is an increase in MTF utilization management. MTFs continually
deliver quality health care services at lower costs than civilian
counterparts. The prototype for the optimization plan began in Region
11 (Oregon and Washington) in January 2000.
Optimization of the Military Health System will be more successful
with the implementation of TRICARE 3.0, the new generation of the
TRICARE managed care support contract. TRICARE 3.0 moves away from
highly prescriptive, government-developed requirements and processes;
identifies government required outcomes and invites bidders to propose
their best commercial practices to meet or achieve government outcomes;
reduces cost for separately designed contractor systems and practices
to meet requirements unique to the government; and gives government
more effective, more immediate authority to enforce performance of
MCSCs in such areas as claims processing, appointments, and access
standards.
Mr. Chairman, this statement has addressed the highlights of our
fiscal year 2001 budget request, our strategy of Force Health
Protection, progress in our TRICARE program, new benefit proposals, and
our comprehensive reengineering initiatives. These are vitally
important aspects of the system of military healthcare. Together they
provide the resources and organizational improvements that cause men
and women to want to be physicians in the military. They cause
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to want to stay in the service of
their country; and they cause the American people to have great
confidence in those who run the military.
We are very proud of the Military Health System, its people, and
the many courageous missions they undertake. We are deeply committed to
do whatever is necessary to take care of our people, in both wartime
and peacetime. Again, we thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the members of
this committee for your continued strong support of the Military Health
System.
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, Mr. Secretary, do you have any
comments?
Mr. Lynn. Just a couple of brief ones, Mr. Chairman. When
we were here on Monday, I think you and Dr. Hamre noted this
was a generally strong budget. I think that is true, although I
think this area that we are discussing today is the major
challenge that we face.
We sought to give you a fully funded budget, but I am
afraid we have to time-date stamp ``fully funded.'' We added
resources for medical claims and pharmacy costs as we knew
them, but we are in a very dynamic period and they are
continuing to grow. I think in the near term we will face
serious challenges with bid price adjustments for the contracts
we have for TRICARE now and we are going to have to discuss
with you how we are going to find a way to address those.
Over the longer term, I think we are returning to a period
we saw--from the mid-eighties to the early nineties, medical
inflation was running 7, 8, 9, 10 percent a year and the
portion of the defense budget that was devoted to health care
doubled in that time. I think we are in a similar period of
dynamic growth and over the long term we are going to face a
serious choice between restricting benefits, shifting resources
from other areas of defense into health care costs, and
shifting resources from other areas of the Government into
defense.
All of those have serious problems with them. They all have
serious challenges. This hearing is not going to end this
story. This year is not going to end this story. Indeed, we are
going to I think be facing this over the next years and
probably a decade.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral.
military health system
Admiral Pilling. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
military health system with you today.
With the chairman's permission, I have a written statement
I would like to submit for the record.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
Admiral Pilling. I appreciate the opportunity to address
you in my capacity as Chairman of the Defense Medical Oversight
Committee. I want to personally assure you that the senior line
leadership of the Department of Defense strongly believes that
maximizing the health and wellness of our service members and
their families is a vital component of readiness. We are
acutely aware of the problems our medical system and our
beneficiaries face and we are committed to working with the
Congress to improve the military health system.
Let me also assure you we are committed to keeping the
promise of providing quality medical care to our retiree
population.
Last year the Deputy Secretary of Defense convened a
medical summit to discuss problems faced by the military health
care system. The summit concluded that greater service
oversight in the operation of the health program, in
establishment of health care benefits and budget priorities was
required. As Chairman of the DMOC, I am committed to ensuring
that the military health system delivers a consistent equitable
benefit for all beneficiaries.
In the past few months the DMOC directed a thorough budget
review of the defense health program to determine the scope of
current and projected funding requirements. This resulted in
over $250 million being added to the defense health program in
the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2001.
The results of this review also highlighted a shortfall of
over $6 billion across the future years defense plan (FYDP).
Since this $6 billion shortfall cannot be managed away, our
first priority is to fix the bottom line without breaking the
system.
The DMOC also directed an analysis of the TRICARE 3.0
request for proposal (RFP). The Center for Naval Analysis
completed a preliminary review of the RFP, making several
recommendations regarding financing and performance criteria
that were incorporated into the recently released RFP for
TRICARE Region 11.
Another, longer-term and more rigorous evaluation will be
conducted by an outside consulting firm to ensure that we have
the best possible vehicle for contractor health care delivery,
especially from the standpoint of our beneficiaries.
The DMOC leadership is also concerned that many older
military retirees do not have full access to the military
health care system and we have been working with the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to evaluate alternatives for
enhancing and financing the health benefit for older retirees.
We support the demonstration programs funded in the
President's budget and will continue to pursue the definition
and financing of a stable long-term benefit for retirees.
prepared statement
The challenges we face are substantial, but the senior line
leadership within the Department is committed to ensuring that
our military health care system remains the best in the world.
In closing, I would like to again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
all the members of this subcommittee for your continued strong
support of the military health system.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adm. Donald L. Pilling
I appreciate the opportunity to address you in my capacity as
Chairman of the Defense Medical Oversight Committee. I want to
personally assure you that the senior leadership of the Department of
Defense strongly believes that maximizing the health and wellness of
our service members--and their families--is a vital component of
readiness. We are acutely aware of the problems our medical system and
our beneficiaries face, and we are committed to working with the
Congress to improve the Military Health System. Let me also assure you,
we are committed to keeping the promise of providing quality medical
care to our retiree population.
DMOC
Last year, the Deputy Secretary of Defense convened a Medical
Summit to discuss problems faced by the military health care system.
The summit concluded that greater Service oversight in the operation of
the health program and in establishment of health care benefits and
budget priorities was required. The Defense Medical Oversight Committee
(DMOC) was formed in August, with membership consisting of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the ASD(HA) the four
service Vice Chiefs, the military department Under Secretaries, the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Director for Logistics
from the Joint Staff, and the Surgeons General.
Since its inception, the DMOC has engaged senior military and
civilian leadership in discussions and review of the health care
benefit, Defense Health Program (DHP) funding requirements in the
context of other service decisions, and management and reengineering
initiatives. As Chairman of the DMOC, I am committed to ensuring that
the Military Health System delivers a consistent, equitable benefit for
all beneficiaries. The DMOC has two primary responsibilities: ensuring
adequate funding for a high quality military health care system, and
strengthening the benefit we offer our military families.
Funding
In the past few months, the DMOC directed a thorough Budget Review
of the Defense Health Program to determine the scope of current and
projected funding requirements. This resulted in over $250 million
being added to the Defense Health Program in the President's Budget
proposal for fiscal year 2001.
The results of this review also highlighted a shortfall across the
Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP). Since this shortfall cannot be managed
away, our first priority is to fix the bottom line--without breaking
the system.
One of the options the DMOC has discussed for financing retired
military healthcare involves conversion from a pay-as-you-go system to
an accrual financing system. The healthcare costs for retirees would be
funded using the same system that DOD uses to fund their retirement
pension. The healthcare retirement cost would be included in active
duty programming rates based on actuarial estimates and would accrue to
a new trust fund. This trust fund would then be used to finance retiree
health benefits.
TRICARE Contracts
The DMOC also directed an analysis of the TRICARE 3.0 Request For
Proposal (RFP). The Center for Naval Analysis completed a preliminary
review of the RFP, making several recommendations regarding financing
and performance criteria that were incorporated into the recently
released RFP for TRICARE Region 11. Another, longer term and more
rigorous evaluation will be conducted by an outside consulting firm, to
ensure that we have the best possible vehicle for Contractor health
care delivery--especially from the standpoint of our beneficiaries.
Readiness
In its role of integrating Service priorities with those of the
health program, the DMOC also recently evaluated a Theater Medical
Readiness strategy designed to integrate successful deployment of the
supporting Theater Medical Information Programs, to include a patient
movement module, a defense medical logistics system, and a composite
health care system used to track patient information within the
military treatment facility.
Health Benefit
Secretary Cohen and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
expressed their strong commitment towards expanding health care access
to all our beneficiaries--active duty, retirees, and members of their
families. The DMOC has been working to identify ways to improve the
health benefit, both the nature of the benefit and the manner in which
it is delivered.
Included in the President's Budget proposal for fiscal year 2001
are two initiatives to improve the health care benefit for Active Duty
Family Members. First, TRICARE Prime Remote would be extended to
military families living in areas not serviced by TRICARE Prime, so
these family members can enjoy the same benefit as that experienced by
families living in Prime areas. Second, the DMOC supported elimination
of copays for all Active Duty Family Members enrolled in TRICARE Prime,
so that family members receiving care in the network have the same
benefit as those receiving care in our Military Treatment Facilities.
Retiree Health Care
The DMOC leadership is also concerned that many older military
retirees do not have full access to the Military Health Care System,
and has been working with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
evaluate alternatives for enhancing and financing the health benefit
for older retirees.
The President's budget includes funding for the demonstration
programs for our Medicare-eligible retirees, their spouses, and
survivors. To date, over 130,000 medicare-eligible retirees are
qualified to participate in demonstrations, including TRICARE Senior
Prime, the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP), TRICARE Senior
Supplement, and an Expanded Pharmacy Benefit. The DMOC supports these
demonstration programs, and will continue to pursue the definition and
financing of a stable, long term benefit for these retirees.
Best Business Practices
The DMOC also supports adoption of business practices that will
improve billing and claims payment, telephone access, timely
appointing, and provider network development. Our service members say
they are very satisfied with the healthcare they receive, but they are
often frustrated by administrative and customer service issues. The
DMOC is committed to fixing these problems to ensure the well being of
our Service members and their families.
Conclusion
The challenges we face are substantial, but the senior line
leadership within the Department is committed to ensuring that our
Military Health Care System remains the best in the world. In closing,
I would like to again thank you Mr. Chairman and all the members of
this subcommittee for your continued strong support of the Military
Health System.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
We will go on a 5-minute rule. I would urge you to make
your responses as short as possible. We have three panels. We
will all submit questions to you, if others desire. I have some
here. We would urge you to answer them as they come to you, so
we will just print them in the record as though they are a
dialog here.
Pharmaceuticals
I do appreciate the fact that we are all here today and it
is a chance for everyone involved in this total system to be
part of the dialog we want to have with you.
Let me open up on one thing. Yesterday Senator Gorton
pointed out to Secretary Shalala that it is now possible to
build U.S.-produced pharmaceuticals abroad, Canada or Europe,
substantially lower than we buy them here because of the
policies of our pharmaceutical companies in selling drugs here
to put the costs of research and development on American
consumers about their not exporting them because of competition
abroad. Of course, the people abroad have not participated in
the development costs and those who might produce drugs abroad
using our systems would produce them at less cost.
I do not know why we should continue to buy drugs through
your system under this approach. We are looking at the concept
of trying to require that Government-purchased pharmaceuticals,
that we cannot pay less for them here--pay more for them here
than we would pay for the same manufactured, U.S.-manufactured
drugs abroad.
I would like to have you look at that and see what it would
do. Perhaps you are one of the major purchasers of
pharmaceuticals and we ought to just put a shot right across
the bow of those companies. If we are paying these costs, the
people who enjoy those drugs abroad should pay part of the
costs of development and the research. It certainly should not
be borne by our people like our retirees and others.
We have asked Secretary Shalala to look at it. I am asking
you. I am not asking for a comment today.
Telemedicine
Second, my question is this. We are putting a lot of money
now in the development of telemedicine, and it is working up in
my State. I think it is working in Hawaii. Why should we not
explore that for the retirement communities? Why should people
have to drive 50, 100 miles in some of our States to go and
have an interview with a physician? Why can we not have some
sort of a drugstore, storefront, or a contract with some clinic
in these small areas and put in a telemedicine concept with
some of our physician's assistants in those places and have
them each have a time-frame for calling in to centralized areas
in the military system, in the nearest military hospital or
something like that?
That is working in Alaska with the Public Health Service
and there is no reason why it could not work with you. I get
more complaints in Alaska that people have to drive 200 miles
to go have their pulse taken to see if they can continue to
take the same pharmaceutical. Somehow we have got to adapt. And
that would save costs if we did something like that.
Would you gentlemen mind looking into that to see if it is
possible? The rampup cost for such a program should not be too
much, and certainly there is incentive for the system to
develop many more physician's assistants. I am told that there
are a lot of people that like that kind of occupation. It is an
officer, it is a commissioned position, and it has great
dignity as far as small towns are concerned. I urge you to
think of that system. We would like to work with you.
Last, and I will take my 5 minutes, I want to tell you if
we do get to a supplemental--and I am not sure we will get to
them yet because of the time-frame and everything that is going
on around here--if we do, I want your counsel, because we want
to take care of part of the shortfall in this year's
supplemental. Let us go out and eliminate that as quickly as we
can so it does not hang over our heads out into the future.
Now, it may be we cannot do it all in one year, but we can
certainly pick up some of it in 2000 and some in 2001, and by
2002 if it is really as big as it looks like today it will not
be a wall; we might run into a high hurdle instead.
I would like your help to tell us what should we fund in
the supplemental, what should we fund in 2001, as far as the
shortfall is concerned, all right? You do not have to answer
here unless you want to, Mr. Secretary. But you can give us a
report on that, because I do not want to have us making guesses
as to what you need. You know your needs better than we do. But
if you do not tell us we are going to give you something, and
it is liable to be in the wrong place.
Mr. Lynn. We will be happy to work with your staff and
provide the detail as we have it.
[The information follows:]
The Department has been developing for submission a
reprogramming action for fiscal year 2000 to address any
unforeseen DHP funding requirements. We are still evaluating
the impact of fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act language
directing the development of a Bid Price Adjustment process for
Managed Care Support contractor pharmacy adjustments. This
process may affect the funding levels for fiscal year 2000 and
fiscal year 2001. As our evaluation continues we will develop
the appropriate resourcing strategy i.e., reprogramming or
supplemental request.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Inouye.
TRICARE Senior
Senator Inouye. I would like to follow up where my chairman
left off. In 1997 we passed the Balanced Budget Act and in that
Act we authorized the demonstration of the TRICARE Senior. The
program will end on December 31. Can you give us some advanced
report as to how it is coming along, so when we prepare our
budget we will know what we are headed for?
Mr. de Leon. Certainly. The program is currently scheduled
to end in December 2000. It has been a very important program
and I think we are learning much from it. We have started
discussions with HCFA, the Health Care Finance Agency, in terms
of how we might continue the demonstration program, because
there are some phenomena that we are still studying and trying
to understand.
Generally what we are finding is where we have a larger
medical facility we are able to bring in additional retirees.
They are very satisfied with the health care. We think it is a
win-win for our retirees as well as the American taxpayers.
There are two issues with HCFA, business issues, that we
need to resolve. One is the rate of reimbursement. HCFA has
established a ceiling at about 80 percent. That is probably--
that is too low for us to completely recover our costs. We have
pledged that we can do it less expensive than a Medicare health
maintenance organization (HMO), but 80 percent is too low, and
we are negotiating that with HCFA.
The second issue is level of effort. Whether there is a
Medicare demonstration program or not, we are doing our best,
whether it is Space A care or through the subvention program,
we are doing our best to see as many retirees as we can. HCFA
is looking at this as an existing level of effort: If you are
already seeing retirees, then you should receive no
reimbursement under Medicare for seeing those retirees.
But we think that there is potential, that we are learning
things, and that it is an important test that we are interested
in continuing past December 2000.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Anthrax
Admiral, as anticipated, we get a lot of letters from
military personnel. In the past 6 months, the past year, I
would say, one of the heaviest involved anthrax. I gather that
DMOC has provided recommendations for DOD. Can you tell us
about your recommendations?
Admiral Pilling. Well, actually DMOC has not addressed the
anthrax issue. We have been primarily focused on the military
health system. On anthrax itself, all of the service chiefs are
supportive of the program we have right now and it is a force
protection issue for us. But it has not been specifically
addressed by the DMOC.
Senator Inouye. I was under the impression that you were
making recommendations, but you haven't.
Admiral Pilling. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. Are we making any alternative programs for
anthrax or are we still going through with the program?
Mr. de Leon. If there is an issue, the advice is coming
from the Joint Chiefs, and then the Surgeon Generals, of which
the leading expert is Dr. Blanck, General Blanck of the Army.
We are looking at research and development (R&D) dollars for
other types of vaccines to deal with the anthrax threat, just
as there is an Army program that potentially is looking at
creating a stockpile for smallpox vaccine.
Here we have a disease that is eradicated, but we know that
it exists in certain labs around the world, and we are working
in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to make sure that we have a smallpox stockpile of vaccine
there.
But I know that the Surgeon Generals and the Joint Chiefs
are very much engaged on anthrax vaccine and the immunization
program. It is one part of medical force protection. Making
sure that our military members have the right biological
protective gear, making sure that we improve our ability to
detect chemical and biological attack, and the prepositioning
of antibiotic drugs in a theater--the highest threat theaters
were anthrax is an immediate threat--are also part of our
program.
We have an extensive education program that we are
continuing on the anthrax immunization. Right now our program
is to essentially restrict the vaccine to those troops that are
deploying to either the Persian Gulf area or to Korea, and to
work with the rest of our troops in terms of education, we
know, Senator, that you are receiving a number of letters, and
this is one that Secretary Cohen, Dr. Hamre, General Shelton,
and all of the other Chiefs, as well as the Surgeon General,
stay very, very much engaged in.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to submit my questions.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note that the
Department of Defense is integrating these so-called--let me
make sure I got it right, knowledge couplers into the second
phase of the composite health care system to improve their
review of patient history and the providers with greater
knowledge, move them directly to the point of service. That
point of service might be in the hospital, or it could be in
the field.
Medical errors
Now, last November there was an Institute of Medicine
report that concluded that more people may die from medical
errors than from any major diseases, and I mentioned earlier
that I hear these things from my wife, I hear these things when
I go back home from the medical people, and I am wondering if
the civilian sector may have something to learn from the
Defense Department in this.
If you integrate the knowledge couplers into the DOD
clinical system, would that improve the quality of care, might
it reduce medical errors, and I am thinking obviously if the
answer is yes to that, of having something that might help out
in the civilian area.
Mr. de Leon.
Mr. de Leon. Absolutely. The state of the art system is
being demonstrated right now at Tripler Army Hospital, and that
is our Composite Health Care System II (CHCS-2) information
technologies. What that allows is the physician to have
complete access to a person's medical record. We are making
sure that we have all of the privacy protections in place with
such a computerized data system, but it would allow a
physician, whether it is at the Tripler Hospital in Hawaii, or
whether it is in a mobile medical hospital in Bosnia, to have
access to a military member's records.
We are also moving in the direction of making sure that
pharmacy is bar-coded, so that we are essentially using the
information technologies to help us reduce errors.
Additionally, the Surgeons have a number of initiatives along
this line that they can elaborate more fully than I. We have
put a premium on information technologies in this decade of the
nineties in terms of integrating our medical system both in
terms of health care to beneficiaries, but also the medical
readiness piece.
Senator Leahy. And I hope you keep us posted on this,
especially if there are problems in funding or anything else,
because I think, Mr. Chairman, this is something that concerns
the wide diversity of military medicine. You mentioned the
hospital in Hawaii, a field hospital in Bosnia, and training
facilities somewhere else.
Mr. de Leon. Plus the telemedicine, I might add, which is
another key element.
Senator Leahy. Plus the telemedicine. There may well be
some significant civilian spin-off in this with the--you talk
about large-scale experimentation. The civilian application may
be a great deal.
Senator Stevens. Would the Senator yield right there?
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Senator Stevens. This is not new. It is 10 years ago in
this room right here that we witnessed a mammogram conducted in
Montana and reviewed in Minnesota and Arizona, and within 20
minutes the woman had her diagnosis.
Senator Leahy. Yes, but I am talking about the couplers
that give the doctors the kind of treatment choices that they
might have. This builds on what we have already done. You and I
have been as strong supporters, I think, of telemedicine as
anybody.
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Senator Leahy. All three of us have. Now, to add in these
in effect a coupler, where a doctor says, okay, I can see what
they have got, but now here are a whole lot of the choices that
I have, that I can pull up. I find that very exciting.
I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the
support that this subcommittee has given to the Department of
Defense for breast cancer research. I do not think any other
program could claim the kind of agility and effectiveness that
it has, and I appreciate the fact that you have also in a--I
was going to say in a bipartisan effort, but actually a
nonpartisan effort in that.
Senator Stevens. This committee started research, basic
research on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), breast
cancer, prostate cancer research on a contract basis, as
opposed to in-house, and I think it is a worthwhile project. We
intend to continue it. I am not sure we are going to continue
to increase it every year, but we are going to continue.
Senator Leahy. I have always supported that. I appreciate
that. Thank you. I will submit my other questions for the
record.
Senator Stevens. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panel. Let me say at the outset I was so encouraged last week
to receive word that the Navy has decided to go forward in a
joint effort with the Veterans Administration at the Great
Lakes Naval Training Station in the North Chicago Veterans
Hospital. This to me could be a big winner not only for the
naval personnel and the tens of thousands of veterans in the
region, but for taxpayers ultimately. I hope that we can
encourage this kind of cooperative effort to utilize existing
facilities to the betterment of all that are served, and I
thank you for your leadership in that regard.
I have three questions, and I hope to be able to get all
three in before Senator Stevens gives me the signal. First, on
the anthrax question, in last year's appropriations we included
language calling on the military to make certain that all
military personnel who are vaccinated with this vaccine for
anthrax understand and receive if requested what is
characterized as the vaccine adverse events reporting system
form, so that we can keep track of actual adverse events, and
have reliable information.
There was a feeling at the time that not enough was being
done to reach out to the actual military personnel and let them
know that if something happened that was worth reporting, there
was a way to do it. Can you tell me what has occurred since
that bill was passed?
Mr. de Leon. I believe we have implemented that. I would
ask General Blanck on the next panel to respond to you in more
detail, but we want to make sure that any person who wants to
report has a mechanism to do it.
Senator Durbin. That will give us the information to
understand the dangers that may be associated with this, and I
certainly understand your dilemma in trying to protect all the
military personnel, but we want to be as fully informed as
possible.
Let me also ask you, before I have a question on the
TRICARE system, I read this story in The Washington Post about
this Atsugi air facility in Japan where some 6,500 or 7,000 of
our personnel, our service men and women and naval personnel in
particular, are being exposed to dioxin levels from a nearby
incinerator 65 times what is considered to be safe and
acceptable, and it appears from what I have read that we have
really reached in impasse where the Japanese Government cannot
even solve this problem.
We certainly do not want our personnel to be subjected to
this. What is being done, or what should be done to protect
them from this health hazard?
Mr. de Leon. This is an issue that our Secretary of Defense
has engaged with his Japanese counterpart on directly. It is a
critical Navy quality-of-life issue. It has been well-
documented from Navy reviews as well as the Dacowits panel was
asked to go and meet with families so that we have a full
record, but I know that the Secretary has raised this directly
with his counterpart in Japan.
Senator Durbin. Well, I do not know what it will take, but
I hope during the course of this appropriations process that we
will look into this, because to subject our personnel to that
sort of a health danger is just absolutely unacceptable, and
certainly the family members, innocent people who are there
trying to help protect Japan, and in the process having their
own lives put at risk because of the failure to deal with this
outrageous health hazard.
TRICARE
The third area which I would like to note involves a case
that came from Illinois where a naval commander's daughter was
struck by a car and was in a coma for a long period of time and
needed rehabilitative services, and it turned out under the
TRICARE system there were limited opportunities for these
rehabilitative services, and we appealed directly to the
Secretary of the Navy, and they intervened and had to make a
personal intervention so that she was able to be treated, and
treated successfully, I might add.
And I just wondered, as you review the TRICARE policy
manual, can you tell me whether you are finding similar gaps in
service for military personnel, where they frankly need certain
medical care but, because of the paucity of providers or the
limitation on services, cannot receive it?
Mr. de Leon. I think there are some cases where TRICARE is
very innovative. In doing a focus group down at Norfolk with
military families, I found that at one end of the spectrum a
young child that had a very complicated chromosome problem was
getting state-of-the-art treatment at a university medical
center. On the other hand, the limitations occur when we get
into rehabilitative care, things like that.
You gave us a provision last year dealing with
reimbursements on various types of custodial care. We are
trying to work through the implementation of that program right
now, but we want to make sure that a dependent is covered if
there is a medical emergency like that.
Senator Durbin. Well, this was an outrageous case, where a
father and mother came to me, and this man had dedicated his
life in service to the country, in the United States Navy, and
they came across a true health emergency in their family, and
found TRICARE to be unresponsive.
Mr. de Leon. I would agree that--you know, I view myself as
Under Secretary as ultimately the chief case worker on these,
and I would agree, Senator Durbin, that there is much too much
case work required in terms of adjudicating the financial
aspects of this, and that that is part of the TRICARE 3.0 and a
number of the other improvements on the business side that we
are in the process of trying to make.
Senator Durbin. Well, I will close by echoing the
chairman's comments as well as Senator Inouye about the cost of
pharmaceuticals as well, and I hope that we can allow our
military personnel to have the same bargaining power as many
insurance companies have in this country today, as well as
foreign governments have, to make sure that we get these drugs
that are developed in the United States available at the most
reasonable price to protect our people in uniform.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, I did not use all my time, and
Mr. Lynn, I have sort of a disagreeable thing to discuss with
you. I am not blaming you, but I want you to know, last year,
as part of the compromise on the final bill, Congress
specifically refused to put up the $10 million for the Justice
Department to conduct tobacco litigation, and I am one who
happened to vote contrary to that here in the Senate, but the
decision of the Congress was, no money for that litigation.
Now I understand that Justice has collected some of that
from the Department of Defense, that you have made payments to
the Department of Justice to conduct tobacco litigation. Now,
how can that be justified in view of the shortfalls we are
talking about here in the first place, but second, what is your
authority to do that?
Justice was specifically denied that by votes in the House
and the Senate. I disagreed with that, as I said, but it was
denied, and now we are going to face problems as this bill gets
to the floor, because of that action that you have taken,
probably some restrictive language we will have to deal with
when we get to the floor. Why did you do that?
Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I think you have stated the facts
correctly. We have provided about $2\1/2\ million, as has the
Veterans Administration (VA) and HHS.
Senator Stevens. By what authority?
Mr. Lynn. There was a provision I believe in the 1995
Commerce-State-Justice appropriation which allowed Justice to
collect funds to support litigation that was supporting the
Government generally. In other words, other agencies who had
beneficiaries who would be part of the----
Senator Stevens. Yes, but that was before all of the
decisions on the tobacco case, and before the States were
allowed to keep their money.
Mr. Lynn. Absolutely true.
Senator Stevens. And they were--I really think we are going
to run into a hailstorm when the people who disagree with--when
we, in terms of a back issue, find out what has happened. Not
only this bill, the head bill, they are all going to be in
trouble. That is a back-door way to reverse a--an agreement was
made with the administration. It is bad faith, and you cannot
handle bills like this on bad faith, so I urge you to go back
and tell them, give you back your money, because if you do not
get it back, it is going to cost you a hell of a lot more than
that when this bill comes out.
Mr. Lynn. I certainly understand what you are saying, Mr.
Chairman. I will take it back and discuss it. I regret I was
not familiar with the discussions on the bill last year with
regard to that.
Senator Stevens. I understand you were not involved in
that, but we were involved in some of this. I do not know how
these guys voted, but I know how I voted, and I do not like the
decision of Congress, but we still live by it.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
We will call the next panel. We appreciate your courtesy
and look forward to working with you.
Surgeons General
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD R. BLANCK, SURGEON
GENERAL, U.S. ARMY
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, we thank you very much. We are
pleased to have the service Surgeon Generals here with us, and
we greatly value your views. You are the people who make the
programs work. We just heard serious funding concerns with the
overall defense health program, and we would like to see you
all put that in context. What will the funding shortfalls
predicted do to you at the operational level?
General Carlton, this is your first appearance. We welcome
you and look forward to a series of appointments during your
service. Admiral Nelson, delighted to have you back again, sir,
and General Blanck. I think this may be your last time before
you go to Fort Worth. You are going to be president of the
University of North Texas, we understand, and we honor you for
what you have done, sir, and the things that you have worked
with this committee on. All of us have very fond memories of
our contacts with you, not only here but out at Walter Reed,
and we wish you and your family well, and know you will enjoy
your future. It is a great university.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye do you have a statement?
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my full statement
be made a part of the record
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir it will be.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Good morning. I join my Chairman in welcoming General
Blanck, General Carleton, and Admiral Nelson to discuss
Military Medical Programs.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge
General Blanck who is appearing before this Committee for the
last time as the Surgeon General of the Army.
I thank you, and commend you, for your long service to the
Army, the nation, and your assistance to this committee. Your
efforts over the past four years have been especially
noteworthy and I wish you success in your future endeavors.
I would also like to welcome General Carleton who is
appearing for the first time before this Committee as the Air
Force Surgeon General. I hope you find this hearing to be a
worthwhile experience and that it will be the first of many
productive discussions.
This year Congress has focused on many health care issues
including medical errors and patient safety, the expansion of
the TRICARE program, and the redesign of the pharmacy benefit.
While I have always believed that this nation provides a far
superior quality of life for our service members and their
families, we must continue to build on our successes.
Our service members and their families deserve the best
that we can provide and that certainly includes quality health
care and uncomplicated access to it.
During my visits to my home state, one of the enduring
concerns of current and former military members is the future
of military health care.
Those on active duty are concerned about access to health
care services for their family members, while our retired
military members often perceive a decline in their medical
benefit. We must ensure that the men and women who commit to a
career of service to our nation have a health care benefit
worthy of their sacrifice.
Our current fiscal environment presents a challenge for all
of us to make the best use of our resources while maintaining
quality. I am particularly pleased with the continued
advancements made in telemedicine. I commend DOD for being a
leader on the cutting edge of medical technology.
The Akamai project in Hawaii continues to mature and
represents the outstanding talents and creativity of our
military and civilian personnel. General Blanck, I thank you
for your enduring support of the Akamai project and for our
talented nursing leaders like Major General Adams.
Today, as we address many of the issues facing our military
health system, I would like to focus on beneficiary access to
military health care services, improvements to the TRICARE
benefit, new technology initiatives, and the President's fiscal
year 2001 budget request. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Senator Stevens. We would like to hear your statements
before we ask any questions, all of the statements, please. Who
would like to go first? Admiral Nelson? Who is senior?
You are senior.
General Blanck. It is tough to get old. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Inouye----
Senator Stevens. You have got a long way to go, man.
General Blanck (continuing). Senator Durbin, thank you
very, very much. The statements made before I think really
capture what I have to say, and so I will be very brief. I have
provided a written statement for the record.
Senator Stevens. Let me clarify that. All of these
statements are already in the record. We will put them on the
Internet, as a matter of fact, before the day is over, but they
are all printed. You do not have to ask that. Thank you.
General Blanck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think this is a time of great excitement for military
medicine. I personally would like to thank you, Senator Inouye,
and all the other distinguished members of this committee with
whom we have all worked, for your interest in and support of
military medicine. We do have significant challenges,
challenges of deployment, challenges of funding, as you have
alluded to, force protection aspects that indeed are both
frightening and challenging, and rather than take a great deal
of time with an opening statement I will just stop there but
add one thing, and that is, one of the exciting things, and you
have heard from the chairman, is the DMOC, the Defense Medical
Oversight Committee. The involvement in the services are line
leadership, the civilian leadership, and the Department at all
levels has never been greater, and I think that only with that
kind of interest, involvement, and support are we going to be
able to meet all the challenges that we face.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lt. Gen. Ronald R. Blanck
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Lieutenant General
Ronald R. Blanck and I appreciate the opportunity to address this
committee once again. I consider it an honor to have served as the Army
Surgeon General for the past three-and-one-half years and to lead the
Army Medical Department into the twenty-first century. I have seen
tremendous changes in the delivery of healthcare since my first years
of providing care to sick and wounded soldiers some thirty years ago in
Vietnam.
It is a privilege to serve with the Army Medical Department team
and I am extremely proud of our ability to keep our focus on providing
quality healthcare to soldiers, retired and active, and their family
members.
The Army Medical Department has demonstrated its capability to
support the Army on the battlefield and in garrison. I would like to
highlight these capabilities and the challenges that Army Medicine
faces today and in the future, in the context of five initiatives I
actively promoted during my tenure as the Surgeon General--Readiness,
Organization, Valuing people, Technology and TRICARE. Two additional
areas I will also discuss in detail are the Quality of healthcare and
Congressionally directed research.
Readiness
The Army Medical Department has developed a mission statement that
stands on three legs; Protect and sustain a healthy and medically
protected force, train, equip and deploy the medical force, and manage
and promote the health of the soldier and the military family. These
provide a convenient way to organize an overview of our current status
and future plans. When not in combat, the Army Medical Department
strives to keep soldiers ``fit to fight'' and to keep medical units and
personnel ready for combat and demanding operations other than war,
both humanitarian and peacekeeping. These missions mesh seamlessly with
the Army Medical Department's day-to-day work.
Hands-on, real-life experiences with a variety of people and with a
variety of illnesses and injuries in real patient-care environments
enhances our ability to provide our soldiers top-quality care in active
operations. On a typical day in the Army Medical Department, we see:
1,764 patient occupied beds; 40,386 clinic visits; 41,400 dental
procedures; 476 admissions; 6,012 immunizations; 68 births; 41,693 x-
rays exposed; 57,577 laboratory procedures; 5,577 veterinary outpatient
visits; 66,942 pharmacy procedures; and $21 million worth of food
inspected.
When our field hospitals deploy, most clinical professionals and
support personnel come from the Army Medical Department's fixed
facilities. Typically, our deployments are not in support of
traditional combat scenarios, but rather for humanitarian assistance,
peacekeeping and other stability and support operations. All the while,
we must maintain day-to-day health care for soldiers, retired soldiers
and their families. Under our Professional Officer Filler System, we
send up to 26 percent of our physicians and 43 percent of our nurses to
field units during a full deployment. To replace Professional Officer
Filler System losses, Reserve units and many Individual Mobilization
Augmentees (non-unit Reservists) are mobilized to work in our Army
Medical Department facilities.
Many National Guard and Army Reserve units deploy in support of the
Army Medical Department. The Army depends heavily on its Reserve
Components for medical support. About 65 percent of the Army's medical
forces are in the Army Reserve. We are truly an integrated healthcare
system that deploys to war. Executing and sustaining these complex
missions without loss or interruption of service to our soldiers,
families and retirees is a challenge we address on a daily basis.
The success of the Active Component to Reserve Component
Professional Officer Filler System Program initiative is essential to
support deployment of Reserve Medical Units. This initiative provides
temporary active component Professional Officer Filler System personnel
to fill vacant, critical Reserve Component positions. To alleviate
critical Reserve Component personnel shortfalls, the United States Army
Medical Command, in conjunction with United States Army Forces Command
and United States Army Reserve Command, is in the process of developing
and implementing this initiative, which will temporarily sustain
Reserve Component units until critical shortages are filled. This
initiative will improve the readiness level of more than half Reserve
Component units.
Recruiting and retention are my continuing areas of concern. From
late 1995 to early 1998, the Army Reserve lost 34.2 percent of
physicians assigned to units sent to the Balkans. Two physicians
departed for every new one recruited. To augment the excellent work of
the Recruiting Command, the Army Medical Department began using Reserve
recruiters, under contract, in certain locations to recruit the health
professionals we need.
Surveys showed us that 81 percent of physicians could serve up to
90 days without incurring serious harm to their medical practices back
home. Beyond 90 days, economic consequences to their practices begin to
show a negative impact. Because this caused an erosion of Reserve
medical capability, the Army allowed the Army Medical Department to
test a 90-day deployment policy for three years. The 90-day policy
applies to physicians, dentists and nurse anesthetists who are
involuntarily called up under a Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up.
This policy does not apply to a partial, total or full mobilization.
The first unit deployment under the 90-day plan will occur next
September. In September 2002, the Army Medical Department will provide
a final report to the Army on the policy's effect on recruiting and
retention with recommendations.
Medical readiness tracking was a concern of mine, therefore, I
directed the development of a centralized, automated medical readiness
tracking system. This hugely successful, Army-wide Medical Protection
System, tracks immunization data. The readiness module incorporates the
already existing dental readiness classification system and collects
all relevant factors of medical readiness identified by commanders and
tri-service medical panels. This web-based system, accessible to the
Army chain of command, provides commanders and supervisors with an
invaluable tool to assess and manage unit medical readiness. No other
health service in the world can replicate this capability.
Clearing the battlefield continues to be one of my highest
priorities. Rapid transport of injured soldiers to definitive trauma
care saves lives. The air and ground platforms designed to evacuate our
wounded from the battlefield have not kept pace with the modernized
force and can no longer guarantee rapid, modern day, battlefield
evacuation. Studies conducted on combat injuries clearly indicate
prompt treatment and evacuation significantly reduce mortality rate.
Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on the battlefield
significantly delay evacuation and require altering the mix of
battlefield evacuation resources. To meet this prospective challenge,
we are working to modernize evacuation platforms.
The UH-60Q is the number one near-term medical evacuation
modernization issue for the Army Medical Department. It improves the
medical, navigation, communication and treatment platform capabilities
of our current UH-60A aircraft. With the UH-60Q, we significantly
improve our capability to evacuate casualties from as far forward as
the tactical situation permits, conduct combat search and rescue,
transport medical material and teams on an emergency basis, and perform
the shore-to-ship evacuation missions.
The UH-60Q program received partial funding in the 1999 Program
Objective Memorandum, with funding starting in 2002. Additionally, we
have a coordinated effort with the Army aviation community to align the
UH-60Q production with the UH-60 Service Life Extension Program. As a
result, we will gain a better performing aircraft; have commonality
across the utility fleet; and save Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation dollars.
The total objective force requirement is 387 medevac aircraft--357
for the warfight and 30 for the operational readiness float count. Of
the warfight 357, 192 go to the active component and 165 to the
reserves. Current modernization funding projections for the UH-60Q
complete the 132 aircraft requirement for Force Package One by 2010 and
the 150 aircraft in Force Package Two by 2020.
Organization
We are continuing to refine our organizational structure to perform
our mission in the most efficient and effective manner. The merger of
the Medical Command Headquarters and the Office of The Surgeon General,
in 1997, to create one staff under the authority and command of The
Surgeon General, dual-hatted as the Medical Command Commander, is an
undeniable success. It eliminates duplication, streamlines the process,
and improves productivity and outcomes.
Our commitment to continuous quality improvement continues as we
examine the feasibility of mirroring our Regional Medical Command
structure with TRICARE Lead Agents. The Lead Agents are increasingly
important organizations for coordinating health care throughout the
Army, Navy and Air Force.
One way we are operating more efficiently is through closer
cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Army and
Department of Veterans Affairs are benefiting from more than 130
Resource Sharing Agreements, at least 35 Memoranda of Agreement or
Understanding and nine Interagency Support Agreements. These various
kinds of agreements have different administrative and funding details,
but all involve using resources of both departments more efficiently.
The Army must maintain a number of deployable, fully staffed,
combat support hospitals to meet the early bed requirement to support
two nearly simultaneous Major Theater Wars as required by the National
Military Strategy. Other Combat Support Hospitals are given
``Caretaker'' status and must be able to rapidly deploy within 30 days
to round out the required number of beds needed to support the
warfighting force. This helps maintain clinical skills and makes the
best use of personnel to meet the daily demand for healthcare. Each
Caretaker Hospital, with the staff working in the fixed facility,
provides approximately $24 million worth of healthcare per year to our
beneficiaries. Reserve personnel will mobilize to staff the fixed
hospital when its active personnel deploy with their Caretaker
Hospital. Reserve personnel train with the hospital during their annual
training period.
In 1998, we organized an array of Special Medical Augmentation
Response Teams (SMART) Teams in our regional medical commands and major
subordinate commands. These functional teams provide small, rapid-
deployment capabilities and provide global coverage to Department of
Defense, local, state and federal agencies responding to Weapons of
Mass Destruction, terrorist, natural disaster and other complex
emergencies. Special Medical Augmentation Response Teams provide
expertise in the areas of trauma, burn injuries, chemical/biological
casualties, stress management, communications, telemedicine, preventive
medicine, disease surveillance, veterinary care and health facility
planning.
Valuing people
The Army Medical Department strives to provide an atmosphere for
people to reach their potential, and to have opportunities for personal
and professional satisfaction. We endeavor to give our people just
rewards and continually promote training challenges for our soldiers
and civilians.
Three years ago, the Secretary of the Army approved my request to
change restrictive Army regulations pertaining to the command of
medical treatment facilities. Although veterinary, dental, aviation,
garrison and logistics commands generally remained corps specific,
virtually all other commands became Army Medical Department corps
immaterial. The implementation of corps immaterial commands within the
Army Medical Department presented the first opportunity for Army
Medical Department officers to compete for commands designated as corps
immaterial. Results of these boards yielded increased command
opportunities for highly qualified Medical Service, Army Medical
Specialists Corps, and Army Nurse Corps officers. In addition, the Army
Medical Department identified and opened appropriate non-command senior
leadership positions to the best-qualified officers of each Army
Medical Department Corps.
A phased implementation of new standards to train all medical
soldiers for combat support began October 1, 1998. These new standards
are not intended to revolutionize the substance of training, but rather
to ensure wider understanding of requirements and greater consistency
in implementation. The eight standards relate to survival skills,
weapons training (for selected personnel), collective training,
competency-based orientation, Deployable Medical Systems training, job-
specific medical training, job-specific readiness training and Medical
Force Doctrine.
The Army is the executive agent for the Department of Defense
program to immunize all United States military personnel against the
grave and urgent threat of ``weaponized'' anthrax. The Anthrax Vaccine
Immunization Program began in March of 1998 for all military personnel
assigned, attached or scheduled to deploy to the 10 designated high-
threat countries within the Arabian and Korean peninsula. Our Anthrax
Vaccine Immunization Program Agency provided execution and management
oversight of over 1.4 million immunizations delivered safely to over
391,540 Service Members worldwide. Less than 500 adverse events, mostly
local, temporary reactions, have been formally reported since March
1998. This represents a safety profile similar to most common vaccines.
Each adverse event is reviewed by an independent committee of
national experts commissioned by our Anthrax Vaccine Immunization
Program Agency and represents an unprecedented level of effort to
ensure the health of our soldiers is protected.
Through our direct efforts, we successfully coordinated, staffed
and synchronized the Federal Strategic Force Health Protection
Initiative with the Army, Veterans Affairs, and Department of Health
and Human Services. This nationwide network of Department of Defense,
Veterans Affairs and Federal Occupational Health clinics allows us to
provide not only the anthrax vaccination, but also medical and dental
support to the Reserve components within reasonable distances of
individual members.
The Army tracks all immunizations, to include the anthrax
immunizations, through the Medical Protection System. Medical
Protection System is an internet based, automated immunization tracking
system allowing the Army to track all immunizations by name, location,
dose, route, provider and lot number. There is literally no health
organization in the world matching this accomplishment.
We provided numerous tools and media to the Army to meet their
Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program leadership and healthcare provider
educational goals. We are confident that every soldier receiving the
anthrax immunization receives information materials, has opportunities
to ask questions and is informed on the process for reporting adverse
reactions. Our comprehensive education initiatives include an internet
web site, www.anthrax.osd.mil, a toll-free information hot line; and an
effective speakers bureau.
Technology
We are enthusiastically incorporating advanced technology into the
way we provide world-class care to our patients. Some of our
initiatives are:
--The Medical Personal Information Carrier will store Service Member
medical and personal information. It facilitates seamless,
permanent recording and transfer of information in peacetime
and on the battlefield. A demonstration of the Personal
Information Carrier was conducted in a field environment in
December 1999. The demonstration clearly showed the ability of
the Personal Information Carrier to accept, store, and transfer
battlefield medical care information. The next step is to
incorporate this technology into our doctrine and practice both
in deployed settings as well as home station. Further
demonstrations are planned for this year.
--A dry fibrin sealant bandage was developed by the United States
Army Medical Research and Materiel Command in cooperation with
the American Red Cross. The bandage is made from the last two
proteins in the human blood coagulation cascade, and freeze-
dried on absorbable packing. The bandage will set a clot within
two minutes and research shows it can reduce blood loss by 50
to 85 percent. The United States Army Medical Research and
Materiel Command is working multiple protocols, with several
potential manufacturers, to determine the ultimate capabilities
of this novel product.
--A high-tech litter with resuscitative and life-sustaining
capabilities, which allows field surgery and care en route
during evacuation. The Life Support for Trauma and Transport
prototype was approved for human use by the United States Food
and Drug Administration. This approval permits greater
evaluation in actual hands-on treatment situations in both a
forward deployed environment, such as Kosovo support, as well
as civilian trauma centers under the control of patient
informed consent guidelines. These evaluations follow
Department of Defense acquisition demonstration methodologies
to gather user feedback and design considerations early,
quickly, and effectively.
--Telemedicine is a technology to efficiently leverage healthcare
delivery over long distances. The aims of this technology are
to improve quality, improve access, enhance provider and
patient satisfaction, and reduce cost. Most of Army Medical
Department telemedicine is store-and-forward technology usually
sent over the internet; this involves the capture of still
images via digital camera attached to a personal computer.
Tertiary care physicians can review the images, render a
diagnosis and return the diagnosis back to the referring
physician via the internet. There are more than 50 projects
being done in the Army Medical Department. The majority of
projects are in the areas of radiology, dermatology, and
psychiatry and teledentistry. The projects can be reviewed at
the following website: http://www.tatrc.org/paaes/projects/
armypoi.html.
--As I previously mentioned, the Medical Protection System, a Medical
Occupational Data System application, has been a highly
successful centralized system to record, report, and archive
soldier and unit readiness.
--The Ambulatory Data System captures diagnosis and procedure
information on outpatient visits. Capturing this more detailed
clinical information is critical for decision-making and to
support our new costing methodology.
TRICARE
TRICARE, the Department of Defense's managed-care initiative, is
now fully operational worldwide. Implementation has been a challenging
journey since the first TRICARE contract became operational in March
1995 at Madigan Army Medical Center, in the Northwest Region.
This program is gaining momentum and we want TRICARE Prime to be
the number one choice of beneficiaries. To reach that goal, we will
continue to stress quality of care, ease of access and customer-focused
service.
A study of the Northwest Region, where TRICARE is most mature,
revealed increases in the use of preventive care, obtaining care when
needed and satisfaction in making an appointment. There was a decrease
in use of the emergency room as a walk-in clinic, keeping it free for
true emergencies. Most beneficiaries surveyed reported they were
satisfied with the quality of their care.
We are forging closer relationships between the services and the
TRICARE Lead Agents to ensure issues requiring immediate action are
handled without delay. And, as TRICARE continues to mature over the
coming years, I am confident it will produce the desired benefits in
terms of healthier military beneficiaries.
One excellent example of increased cooperation is the many Veterans
Administration (Veterans Affairs) facilities participating as TRICARE
providers. Veterans Affairs is treating outpatients in community-based
clinics at Fort Belvoir, VA., and Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Tripler Army
Medical Center provides care for most veterans in the Pacific region. A
Joint Venture there includes a renovated wing for administrative
services, an ambulatory care center and a 60-bed ``Center for the
Aging'' facility. Veterans Affairs patients receive easier access to
care, and both agencies benefit by expanding training and research
opportunities. This is truly a ``win-win'' partnership.
Another highlight of 1999 was the full implementation of the
TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration (sometimes known as ``Medicare
subvention''), which began in selected locations throughout the
Department of Defense. Army medical treatment facilities participating
are at Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington; Brooke Army
Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas; Fort Sill, Oklahoma; and Fort
Carson, Colorado.
Medical treatment facilities in the six participating TRICARE
regional sites phased into the test as each site received Health Care
Financing Agency approval as a Medicare+Choice plan. Healthcare
delivery for TRICARE Senior Prime, began on September 1, 1998. The last
site phased into the program on January 1, 1999. The demonstration is
scheduled to end December 31, 2000. The collective target enrollment
was 27,800 persons; currently 29,325 persons are enrolled, including
some who have ``aged'' into the program.
The purpose of this three-year program is to deliver accessible,
high-quality care to people eligible for both Medicare and military
medical benefits, without increasing the total federal cost to either
Medicare or the Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense continues to provide the level of care it
has historically provided for these ``dual-eligible'' patients, as a
precursor to retention of Medicare interim payments. The General
Accounting Office and DOD evaluations will shed more light on the
financial methodology and reimbursement mechanisms supporting the
demonstration.
The Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act authorized
several demonstration projects for the Military Health System. The
first is three-year demonstration of Federal Employee Health Benefits
Program from 2000-2002. The Department of Defense/Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program demonstration will include a maximum of 66,000
Medicare-eligible military retirees and family members in the following
geographical areas: Dover, Delaware; Fort Knox, Kentucky; Dallas,
Texas; Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, North Carolina; Puerto
Rico; Camp Pendleton, California; Humboldt County, California area; and
New Orleans, Louisiana.
The Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act specifies
separate risk pools for Department of Defense/Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program demonstration from other Federal Employees Health
Benefits programs. Therefore, premiums may be higher for fee-for-
service plans and experience-rated Health Maintenance Organizations in
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program demonstration than those
in the Federal Employees Health Benefit program. The rates will
probably equal that of community-rated Health Maintenance
Organizations. Government contributions for demonstration premiums may
not exceed the amount of contributions payable if the beneficiary were
an employee enrolled in the same Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program. Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Demonstration
Program Premium Rates for Year 2000 rates can be found at
www.tricare.osd.mil/fehbp. Mailings announcing the program were
provided to beneficiaries in early October 1999.
Open season for enrollment that opened in November was extended to
January 2000. Additional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
enrollment/information fairs will be conducted in demonstration sites.
Current enrollment as of February 2000 is approximately 2,200. The
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-Military demonstration began
on January 1, 2000. A toll-free call center to answer questions and
provide information was activated in September 7, 1999 (1-877-DOD-
FEHB).
The minimum period of enrollment in the Department of Defense/
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is three years. Participants
need not be enrolled in part B of Medicare. Beneficiaries covered under
the Department of Defense/Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
demo are not eligible to receive care at a medical treatment facility
or through the TRICARE program, including mail-order pharmacy. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 also authorized
a three-year demonstration of a TRICARE Senior Supplement Demonstration
Program. Medicare will be the first payer for payment of care and
services received by the eligible individuals. TRICARE will be the
second payer. The pilot program will be located in Cherokee, Texas and
Santa Clara, California.
Finally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999 authorized a TRICARE Pilot Pharmacy Benefit. The pharmacy
demonstration program will provide Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who
enroll in the program access to network retail and mail order pharmacy
benefits. The pilot program will be located in two counties:
Okeechobee, Florida; and Fleming, Kentucky.
In 1999 there were important improvements in the process of health
care delivery for remotely assigned active duty service members within
CONUS. The TRICARE Prime Remote program began in October 1999.
TRICARE Prime Remote is the new healthcare delivery program
designed to improve access to healthcare for active duty service
members who reside and work more than 50 miles, or one-hour drive time,
from a military medical treatment facility.
The regional managed care support contractors are currently
enrolling remote active duty service members into TRICARE Prime Remote.
The enrollment process is not automatic. An enrollment form must be
completed by the soldiers and submitted to the managed care support
contractors. The regional Lead Agents and unit commanders play a
critical role in identifying eligible members, and facilitating the
enrollment process.
Enrolled active duty service members are provided access to
civilian providers for primary care where contractor primary care
networks exist. In places where there are no networks, service members
may get primary care services from any TRICARE authorized provider.
Pre-authorization for primary care is not required. Primary care
includes services for acute care (for example, colds, sinus
infections), management of stable, chronic problems (high blood
pressure), preventive care (for example, wellness examinations), and
acute injury (for example, cuts, ankle sprains).
Pre-authorization is required for specialty care (for example,
referrals for orthopedics, surgery, mental health, obstetrics, etc.).
When specialty care is needed, the primary care provider or the service
member contacts the managed care support contractor's Health Care
Finder via a 1-800 number. Before authorizing the specialty care, the
Health Care Finder will contact the Military Medical Support Office.
The Military Medical Support Office is a tri-service staffed central
office that provides military oversight for all remote active duty
service members health care. If the soldier has an illness/condition
that has fitness for duty implications, the Military Medical Support
Office will direct the Health Care Finder to authorize the care at a
medical treatment facility only. If the illness/condition is not a
fitness for duty issue, the Health Care Finder is directed to authorize
that care be provided locally. Care is automatically authorized if the
process takes more than 48 hours. If specialty care is clinically
required in less than 48 hours, the active duty service member may
proceed with the care and a retrospective review will be done to
determine potential fitness for duty implication.
Medical and dental care are covered along with prescription drugs
and there are no cost shares or deductibles. In cases where up-front
payment is required, the active duty service member submits a claim to
the managed care support contractors (for medical claims) or the
Military Medical Support Office (for dental claims) for full
reimbursement.
A program that includes the family members where network providers
exist (the Geographically Separated Unit program) is already in place
in Regions 1, 2, 5, and 11. Expansion of the program for family members
in the other Regions is projected for late fiscal year 2000 pending
enactment of necessary legislative authority. The proposal would
provide eligibility for the program and enhanced access, even in areas
where there are not network providers. The Administration will present
a legislative proposal to this effect this spring.
Better financial decisions will be made with an accurate count of
beneficiaries enrolled in TRICARE Prime through each facility, and with
the ability of the Corporate Executive Information System to keep
``score'' of resources expended. However, there is a bottom below which
we cannot responsibly go. Our priorities must be to provide quality
medical care, to keep faith with our service members and to invest in
the future so the quality of our medical program will keep pace with
advances in medical science.
In 1999, I whole-heartedly participated in a senior level
cooperative effort with my fellow Surgeons General and the Department
of Defense to develop a more integrated health services delivery system
that emphasizes effective use of medical treatment facilities, focusing
on beneficiary expectations and satisfaction. The result was the
Military Health System Optimization Plan. We all agreed to implement
the critical components of the plan as quickly as possible.
With the first generation of managed care contracts in place and
current versions of the managed care support contracts beginning to
elapse, the Military Health System Optimization Plan supports the next
generation of TRICARE 3.0 support contracts that put in place needed
TRICARE improvements. TRICARE 3.0 is a three and one half-year
evolution to move away from highly prescriptive government requirements
and processes. The beneficiary's satisfaction is at the forefront with
mandatory performance outcomes. The contracts will include a more
effective mechanism for holding contractors to contract terms. The
elaborate and complex funding mechanisms of current Military Health
System contracts are simplified under TRICARE 3.0.
The goal of TRICARE 3.0 is to migrate to a contract vehicle that
has appropriate financial incentives to support the military direct
care system in the recapture of purchased care. Specifically, TRICARE
3.0 strives to streamline the funding mechanism to better focus risks
and financial incentives between the direct care system and contractor
so that overall cost is reduced. TRICARE 3.0 provides the contractor
bonus incentives for superior performance linked to beneficiary
satisfaction. The new contract vehicle moves away from prescriptive
government requirements and allows the use of best business practices.
Although much thought and energy has been invested in TRICARE 3.0
development, there are some key concerns. The objectives-based contract
methodology chosen for TRICARE 3.0 works well for building aircraft,
but has never been tried in a large medical service contract such as
this one. Managed care commercial best practices are not standardized
and may produce confusion for beneficiaries as they move from region to
region. TRICARE 3.0 is anticipated to live up to the expectation that
it will really fix the problems encountered in the execution of past
contracts and produce a more cost effective and patient friendly
healthcare system.
Quality of health care
I would like to discuss the issue of quality of health care. Two
years ago, we collectively agreed to improve healthcare by implementing
thirteen quality points. I would like to report that the Army Medical
Department continues to make improvements in the delivery of quality
health care in the following areas:
Phase out accessions and deployment of general medical officers.--
To ensure clarity, a general medical officer was defined as a physician
who has completed one year of graduate medical education and is serving
in a non-training status. In 1998 there were 476 general medical
officers in the Army. In 1999 there are 291. They serve as brigade
surgeons, flight surgeons, and in clinics and hospital. At this time
about 60 percent of these billets have been converted. A detailed study
of all current general medical officer billets will be done, by the
Medical Corps Branch at United States Army Personnel Command, to
determine by site which positions still require conversion. Changes
have also been made in graduate medical education to decrease the
number of individuals in nonspecific internships. This decreases the
numbers available to serve as general medical officers. A complete
elimination of general medical officers is not necessary as long as
adequate oversight and opportunity for consultation and continuing
education is available.
Establish centers of excellence to provide improved patient
outcomes for complicated surgical procedures.--The Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Health Affairs established policy in 1995 for the
implementation of the Specialized Treatment Program. The goal is to
promote the highest standard of care throughout the Military Health
System. A medical treatment facility could be designated as a national
or regional Specialized Treatment Services facility. Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs established policy in 1997 that
only medical treatment facilities designated as Specialized Treatment
Services facility could continue providing health care in one or more
20 designated Diagnostic Related Groups. In 1998, Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Health Affairs expanded the Specialized Treatment
Services policy to include Center of Excellence designation. This
enabled non-Specialized Treatment Services facilities to continue
providing clinical care in one or more of the designated Diagnostic
Related Groups.
Immediately resolve all malpractice and adverse action cases
pending and file complete reports to the National Practitioner Data
Bank where required.--The Headquarters, United States Army Medical
Command is responsible for the administrative processing of the medical
malpractice claims backlog. The Command conducted an analysis of the
claims management process. Process design changes specifically
identified to eliminate and prevent the case backlog were implemented
over the past year. The United States Army Medical Command allows
ninety days for processing the case upon receipt of legal settlement/
judgment and a standard of care determination by the Consultation Case
Review Branch. All cases not processed within that time limit
constitute the backlog and are prioritized for completion. There is
currently no adverse action backlog. Reports were submitted to the
National Practitioner Data Bank in cases where moneys were paid, the
standard of care was deemed not met and a provider was identified.
Seventy-three were filed during fiscal year 1999. There are currently
ninety medical malpractice cases undergoing administrative processing
at Quality Management-United States Army Medical Command.
All military providers must have a valid, unrestricted and current
license.--The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs issued
a memorandum dated January 29, 1999 that required all physicians to
hold a full-scope license by October 1, 1999. All providers engaged in
the independent practice of medicine are now required to possess a
current valid and unrestricted license. There are no physicians with an
Oklahoma Special license engaged in the independent practice of
medicine in the Army. The United States Army Medical Command Quality
Management Directorate began site visits to medical treatment
facilities in January to assess organizational management of compliance
with licensure, and the process for dealing with the impaired
practitioner.
Provide Service input for the Annual Quality Management Report.--
The Department of Defense Quality Management Report is an annual
requirement in which Department of Defense specified service data from
each Army medical treatment facility (military treatment facility) is
consolidated and provided to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs. This data is integrated with input from the other
Services to complete the report. The anticipated date for the most
recent draft to be ready for review by the Services is April 2000. When
the draft has been approved by the Services the final report will be
published.
Fully implement TRICARE by assigning all enrollees a primary care
manager or team.--All TRICARE Prime enrollees must be assigned to a
specific individual care manager.
Generate a public report card at each facility sharing information
concerning our Military Health System.--The minimum elements that are
required to be included are waiting times for major services, patient
satisfaction at the medical treatment facility (overall satisfaction
with clinics and overall satisfaction with medical care), Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations Summary Grid
Score and the selected Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations Grid Elements in the areas of credentialing, assessing
competence, infection control, and nursing. All Army medical treatment
facilities have reported that they are in 100 percent compliance with
the requirement for the development of and displaying of the report
card in their facilities.
Establish a healthcare council at each facility.--The requirements
for the healthcare council are that it be chaired by the medical
treatment facility commander, include consumers from the military
community, solicit and address concerns of the enlisted service member
and their families and meet quarterly. The most recent update for the
Department of Defense Healthcare Quality Initiatives Report indicated
that 100 percent of the Army medical treatment facilities had fully
implemented the requirements for the council.
Implement a directory of providers in a medical treatment facility
specific patient information handbook that will be updated annually.--
The requirements for the directory are that the contents include
medical treatment facility providers who are primary care managers as
well as providers in specialty referral clinics who are most likely to
receive consults from primary care managers. The design must conform to
the template created by the TRICARE Marketing Office and be available
to all prime enrollees. The most recent report on implementation of
Department of Defense Healthcare Quality Initiatives indicated that 100
percent of the Army medical treatment facilities were in total
compliance.
Place greater emphasis on the best clinical practices identified
through our National Quality Management Program.--National Quality
Management Program initiatives to identify best clinical practices
continue. The National Quality Management Program completed baseline
studies in fiscal year 1999, determining the extent of compliance with
Department of Defense/Veterans Affairs and/or other national clinical
practice guidelines so that the impact of implementing evidence-based
disease management practice guidelines system-wide can be determined.
The program will facilitate the benchmarking of Department of Defense
facilities against their federal and civilian peer facilities on
Department of Defense/Veterans Affairs Practice Guidelines and
Department of Defense Putting Prevention into Practice evidence-based
process and outcome quality indicators. The Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations ORYX measurement program,
Special Studies and the annual Quality Management Reviews continue to
be utilized to benchmark Department of Defense facilities and identify
best practices.
Place greater emphasis on direct use of clinical guidelines
wherever appropriate.--The Department of Defense's partnership with
Veterans Affairs, to adapt and monitor the implementation of practice
guidelines, continues to flourish. The Army Medical Department leads in
the development of guideline ``tool-kits'' which facilitate provider
implementation of adapted guidelines by ``making the best way the
easiest way.'' Tool kits incorporate provider point of care, patient
self-management and process/system tools to support guideline
utilization. Three tool kits have been developed through the
coordinated efforts of Department of Defense/Veterans Affairs
providers, with another under development. The tool-kit supported
Department of Defense/Veterans Affairs Acute Low Back Pain Clinical
Practice Guidelines have been piloted in two Army Regional Medical
Commands. The Army Medical Department implementing a system-wide
deployment of the Department of Defense/Veterans Affairs Acute Low Back
Pain Guidelines based on preliminary results from a pilot study
conducted by the Army Medical Department and the RAND Corporation
demonstrating improvements in access and quality. Early results include
increased access to care due to efficiencies in Primary Care and Troop
Medical Clinics and a decrease in inappropriate referrals to specialty
care. From the quality perspective, there has been an increase in the
quality of documentation of the care of patients with low back pain and
identification of clusters of injuries so that primary preventive
efforts can be targeted at identified work sites.
Honestly evaluate our weaknesses and immediately improve them.--
There is an ongoing quality improvement/reengineering effort to
analyze, review and make recommendations on 29 initiatives that have
been identified by Department of Defense for improving the Military
Health System. The Reengineering Coordination Team published the
Military Health System Optimization Plan to address these initiatives
in February 1999. This Plan has been sanctioned by the Surgeons General
in a memorandum for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs dated November 1999. The Optimization Plan provides the
strategy for improving the efficiencies of the Military Health System
and improving the responsiveness to the line and the health of all the
beneficiary population. Policy guidelines are being developed to
support many of the critical reengineering components, including
assignment of primary care manager by name; standardized enrollment,
Health Enrollment Assessment Review survey implementation, and
appointment processes; and improved data quality and clinic management.
Clinical optimization has been addressed specifically in the
Reengineering Coordination Team-chartered Population Health Improvement
Plan, which is currently under review. The Reengineering Coordination
Team has approved the Population Health Improvement Plan. This plan
includes process elements covering the reengineering components noted
above throughout the spectrum of care. Processes necessary to assure
optimal population health and quality of life are addressed beginning
with population needs assessment at enrollment, continuing through
prevention and education, to efficient and timely intervention
strategies. Implementation of the Population Health Improvement Plan in
a demonstration project is forthcoming early in 2000. Lessons learned
from this demonstration will serve to define a tri-service Military
Health System Support Center to sustain optimal strategies, and develop
and update relevant strategies and policies over time.
Work to improve our patient satisfaction through communication and
education.--This area is a part of TRICARE Operational Performance
Statement and is tracked by region, facility and clinic at the
Department of Defense level via the annual and monthly Customer
Satisfaction Surveys. Initiatives to improve customer satisfaction with
quality include increased customer informational efforts and employee
hospitality training initiatives. Customer informational handbooks,
briefings, computerized presentations and a variety of other media
mechanisms are used to inform beneficiaries of available services. Data
is also solicited from each beneficiary regarding their satisfaction
with services offered and access to care. One product that has been
developed as a result of the focus groups is the TRICARE Personal
Profile Program, an interactive CD-ROM that simplifies and personalizes
the TRICARE message. The prime focus of customer service and thus of
patient satisfaction must remain the provision of timely, efficient,
high-quality care. These communication processes are also vital because
they reassure beneficiaries who are not currently under care and
provide specific, detailed, up-to-date guidance on how to use the
system when care is needed.
The rate of medical errors has recently gained national attention.
The Army Medical Department has implemented a wide variety of
initiatives to prevent medical errors:
--The Unit Dose Drug Distribution System automated drug dispensing
technologies, and the use of specially trained and certified
Registered Pharmacists certified for preparation of IV
admixtures and specialty drugs (such as chemotherapy) are
safeguards against medication errors. These have long been the
standard of care in Army medical treatment facilities.
--All Adverse Drug Events are reviewed locally by the medical
treatment facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee with
significant drug events reported to the Food and Drug
Administration. The Department of Defense is currently working
to implement the Pharmacy Data Transaction System, which will
integrate all Department of Defense pharmacies, civilian retail
pharmacies, and the National Mail Order Pharmacy in an all-out
effort to prevent adverse drug events.
--Several ``models of excellence'' have been studied by the
Department of Defense Pharmacy Board of Directors and adapted
by the Army Medical Department to safeguard patients against
medication errors. The Composite Health Care System provider
order entry gets the right drug to the right patient by
eliminating the errors inherent in hand-written prescriptions.
Barcoding, and robotic technology for drug selection and
labeling also decrease human error.
--Many of the safeguards generated by Composite Health Care System
order entry system are also applicable in the clinical
laboratory. In addition, the bi-directional interface of
clinical analyzers (downloads orders from Composite Health Care
System to the analyzer and uploads results back to Composite
Health Care System) also significantly reduces transcription
errors. Presently, the Department of Defense Laboratory Joint
Working Group has an initiative to standardize laboratory data
and gain interoperability between Composite Health Care System
host computers.
--In the Blood Bank arena, the use of barcodes has been one method of
improving specimen identification processes. This has been
emphasized throughout the entire laboratory. The sites with
donor and/or transfusion functions have installed the Defense
Blood Standard System supported computers to assist in the
issue of blood products.
--Risk management assessment by the Quality Management Division
focuses special attention on high volume, high risk, or problem
prone procedures. Trends are analyzed for lessons learned and
performance improvement. All medical treatment facilities use a
systematic process (root cause analysis) to assess and evaluate
significant events.
--Peer review process is a mechanism used in all medical treatment
facilities to determine if standards of care were met when
there is a question about appropriateness of practice. Findings
from the process are used to educate staff, improve practice
and implement changes to prevent further occurrences.
--A Congressionally funded pilot project to evaluate the MedTeam
concept is underway at three medical treatment facilities. The
MedTeam concept was modeled after the successful error
prevention initiative in the aviator community and uses a team
based approach to reduce errors in the Emergency Department.
Early results indicate as much as an 84 percent reduction in
errors in those Emergency Rooms studied.
Congressionally directed research
The Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act applauded the
medical research and development efforts and accomplishments of the
Department of Defense. I would like to discuss the highlights of
several of these programs.
As you know, the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel
Command (USAMRMC) has been entrusted by Congress with the management of
congressional special interest research programs. The appropriations
have totaled almost $2.5 billion since fiscal year 1990. The Command's
vision is to ensure the sponsorship of good science that can also
benefit the DOD and fulfill the mission of the USAMRMC. When
appropriate, the research results have been mined for application
within the DOD as well as the civilian sector. Examples of these
programs are the Breast Cancer Research Program, the Prostate Cancer
Research Program, and the Volume AngioCAT project.
Since the inception of the Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP),
1,806 proposals have been awarded with fiscal year 1992-98 funds
totaling approximately $629.1 million. The following products have been
reported by investigators and represent a measure of the program's
success: over 2,300 publications in scientific journals, 1,800
presentations at professional meetings, and 30 patent/license
applications. Tangible program accomplishments and outcomes directly
resulting from this funding have been in the areas of infrastructure
enhancement, training, HER-2/neu oncogene research, angiogenesis,
mammographic imaging, environmental carcinogenesis and quality of life.
Since the inception of the Prostate Cancer Research Program, the
program has received over 1,200 proposals and approximately 300
proposals will be awarded with fiscal year 1997-99 funds. Research
funds awarded to date total approximately $105 million. The PCRP is a
young program, with the first research proposals beginning research in
May, 1998. This funded research is novel and innovative, and is
expected to provide exciting outcomes and to provide a solid framework/
foundation for contemporary and future scientific discoveries.
The Volume AngioCAT project is envisioned as a newly conceived
medical device that could employ, simultaneously and in real time,
several imaging technologies that might provide physicians with a new
level of anatomic and physiologic data about their patients. Advanced
detection, before the onset of symptoms, might be provided for such
important disorders as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (which
leads to heart attack and stroke), orthopedic disorders (arthritis,
osteoporosis affecting a variety of structures), or even infection and
cancer. Such information might allow for aggressive new preventive
interventions in patients that were ``missed'' on routine physical
examinations, thus maintaining a healthier active duty and retired
population. The first prototypes of a Volume AngioCAT will function in
fixed facilities, however, the research may be central to the
development of units that could function in deployed environments for
rapid diagnosis of the injured warfighter.
I would like to close this discussion by expressing my concern that
past and future funding challenges facing medical facilities have the
potential to contribute to reduced quality of care. The full support of
maintenance, repair, renovation and replacement of aging inventory is
the only way to avoid systems failures that disrupt the normal delivery
of healthcare services and significantly increase future repair
requirements and costs. Historical MILCON funding trends have shifted
the burden to an already stretched Repair and Maintenance program to
maintain facilities.
In conclusion, I believe today's Army Medical Department is more
flexible and better prepared to meet diverse missions than ever before.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and for your
continued support of our efforts to provide the finest quality of
medical support to America's Army.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Admiral.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. RICHARD A. NELSON, MEDICAL
CORPS, SURGEON GENERAL, U.S. NAVY
Admiral Nelson. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the opportunity to
come before you, and I also have a written statement that
really talks about the positive issues going on in Navy
medicine, and a couple of the issues, problem areas that we
have, and I will not dwell on that here.
Senator Stevens. I like them, Admiral.
health care
Admiral Nelson. Well, these have been an interesting couple
of years for me as the Navy's Surgeon General as we wrestle the
issues of delivering health care and keeping the promises we
have made to our beneficiaries. Health care is very important
to our active duty and our retirees. In fact, it is one of the
key quality-of-life factors that affects the morale and the
retention of our active duty.
But the benefits that we afford the retirees are viewed as
an indicator of the extent to which we honor our commitments,
and just a couple of days ago I had a letter from a retiree who
wrote and talked to me about the health care he had been
receiving. I will read to you just the last sentence of what he
had to say.
He says, ``the health care that I have received in military
hospitals during active duty and retirement has been the most
outstanding benefit I have received in my military career.''
This is an individual who is reaching 65. He is having medical
problems, and he has the good fortune to have access to our
facilities and has appreciated that. Too many do not have that
access. That is the crowd that I worry about.
We in the military and in the Navy medical system are
working hard to optimize access to our system. We are working
to do the things that will make us more capable and allow us to
increase the capacity in our own direct care facilities, but we
need assets to be able to do that.
Our beneficiary population had some disappointments in the
inconsistencies and the cumbersome administrative processes
that TRICARE has projected at times. The access problems to our
own direct care systems are the things that we are working to
try to overcome.
Several of the health care proposals that are before the
Congress this year are a step in the right direction towards
correction of some of these issues. Health care is very
expensive, and reform is necessary for our active duty members
and our retirees. However, one thing that I would like to
stress, and that is, as you look at benefits and possible
changes and the like, the first thing that I think you must do
is fully fund the services' medical treatment facilities. We
must be able to do as much in-house and be able to make these
facilities as productive as they can be, and we have not been
able to do that in recent times.
I thank you for the opportunity to come before you. I look
forward to your questions. Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Adm. Richard A. Nelson
Good morning! I am Vice Admiral Richard A. Nelson, the U.S. Navy
Surgeon General. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens,
and members of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before
you to testify on the status of Navy Medicine. In April 1999, I
submitted testimony to this committee on Navy Medicine's strategic plan
and goals. I would like to share with you our accomplishments over the
last year. As we move into a new century, the Navy Medical Department
is well prepared to meet the challenges ahead. We are in an era of
unprecedented change for medicine, and the military health system must
be flexible enough to embrace new technologies, new clinical practices
and new business practices as they evolve. Navy Medicine has been
working hard to ensure continued excellence in health services to keep
our uniformed services ready.
The past year has been a busy and rewarding one for the Navy
Medical Department. One significant milestone is the opening of a new
facility at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Virginia. The Charette
Medical Center, named in honor of a Korean War Hospital Corps Medal of
Honor recipient, is a state-of-the-art facility that has significantly
improved our ability to serve our beneficiaries in the Tidewater area.
The medical center also recently opened two new TRICARE outpatient
clinics at Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, which will greatly improve
access to military care for beneficiaries.
We've also been providing care in response to natural disasters,
such as Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd, Typhoon Bart, earthquakes in
Turkey and closer to home at 29 Palms, California. At 29 Palms, Navy
Medicine responded superbly in assessing damages in the affected areas,
prioritizing concerns and coordinating emergency repairs while ensuring
patient care was not compromised.
For the devastating earthquake in Turkey, a Surgical Response Team
from U.S. Naval Hospital Naples deployed to support the victims. 22
medical and dental specialists were on the ground setting up camp
within 48 hours of the earthquake. Despite extremely hot temperatures
and challenges of working in the field, the team performed superbly.
The experience provided a valuable opportunity for them to hone their
skills and test their readiness while providing relief to people in
need.
We are making strides in improving TRICARE and doing so with the
full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our Chief and Vice Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO, VCNO) have a great appreciation for Navy
Medicine and the need for leadership to be involved in making TRICARE
work. The VCNO, Admiral Donald L. Pilling, volunteered to chair the
newly created Defense Medical Oversight Committee (DMOC). The DMOC
engages senior military and civilian leadership in discussions and
review of the health care benefit, Defense Health Program (DHP) funding
requirements in the context of other service decisions, and management
and reengineering initiatives.
Focus areas
Much of our preparation for the future has required an
introspective look at our organization, our people and the way we do
business. During my first year as Surgeon General I identified five key
focus points for Navy Medicine: Service to the Fleet; Manage Health Not
Illness; TRICARE and Readiness are Inseparable; Make TRICARE Work; and
Embrace Best Business Practices.
Strategic plan
These focus points complement our corporate strategic plan. The
Navy Medical Department's strategic planning process has been evolving
continually in an effort to align and increase accountability
throughout our worldwide health delivery system. Our aim has been to
accomplish two major objectives--reassess the Mission, Vision and
Guiding Principles for Navy Medicine and develop true strategic goals
that will move us toward sustained, higher levels of performance. These
goals must be translated into objectives that are applicable to our
commands, activities, and customers on a daily basis. In addition, they
must lend themselves to measurement so that we can assess the
improvement in Navy Medicine's performance at the local and corporate
levels. We are confident that our current plan reflects our
organizational growth as well as the changing health care environment.
Our mission--to support the combat readiness of the uniformed
services and to promote, protect and maintain the health of all those
entrusted to our care, anytime, anywhere--was reworked to resolve the
perennial question about our ``dual'' readiness and peacetime roles. We
are trained for our readiness mission through our peacetime health care
delivery. Thus, we streamlined our vision statement to ``Superior
Readiness Through Excellence in Health Services.''
Our current strategic plan has four major themes--Force Health
Protection, Health Benefit, People, and Best Business Practices. The
overarching message of this plan is very simple--our ability to support
combat readiness is directly linked to our ability to provide superior
health services to our 2.5 million beneficiaries worldwide, every hour
of every day.
The challenge for current and future leaders of Navy Medicine is to
maintain focus on the accomplishment of these goals and their
supporting objectives while simultaneously solving the myriad day-to-
day issues they face. Our leadership can and will meet this challenge.
Force Health Protection
As outlined in the DOD Medical Readiness Strategic Plan (MRSP), the
military medical departments exist to support the combat forces in war;
and in peacetime, to maintain and sustain the well being of the
fighting forces. The medical departments must be prepared to respond
effectively and rapidly to the entire spectrum of potential military
operations--from Major Theater Wars (MTWs) to Military Operations Other
Than War (MOOTW).
Readiness to support wartime/contingency operations will require us
to successfully accomplish several missions. We must be able to
identify the medical threat; develop medical organizations and systems
to support potential combat scenarios; and train medical units and
personnel for their wartime roles. We must train and educate non-
medical personnel; conduct research to discover new techniques and
materiel to conserve fighting strength; and provide both preventive and
restorative health care to the military force.
Force Health Protection is a strategy that maintains readiness by
promoting a system of comprehensive quality health services that
ensures our people are fit and healthy; that they are protected from
hazards during deployment; and that when illness or injury intervenes,
they are afforded state of the art care.
We can protect our people better by emphasizing prevention and
health promotion to keep them fit and healthy as opposed to giving them
treatment once injuries or illness occurs. Stronger, fitter and
healthier military members are less likely to be accidentally injured,
heal better and faster, and are more readily able to handle diseases
and stress.
In keeping with this culture shift, we have strengthened programs
to promote healthy diets, exercise and tobacco cessation as well as
prevent and minimize injuries. Our efforts are proving successful and
are reducing injuries, curbing attrition and saving money for the Navy
and Marine Corps.
The Navy Environmental Health Center runs a training program for
health promotion coordinators in conjunction with the Cooper Institute,
training both medical and line personnel in methods of changing health
behaviors. These coordinators are then qualified to establish programs
at their home units. Our surface forces have actively embraced this
concept, granting the ``Green H'' award to ships and other units
meeting specified criteria. Areas included in this program are fitness,
nutrition, stress management, occupational health issues, hypertension
screening, tobacco cessation programs, and STD prevention.
Disease and illness among any population is an unavoidable fact of
life despite our emphasis on prevention. To provide further
intervention, Navy Medicine initiated a Disease Management program in
partnership with Lovelace Health Innovations at our medical centers in
Bethesda, San Diego and Portsmouth with a focus on diabetes at the
first two facilities and asthma at the latter. All three sites have
made significant inroads in identifying their diabetic or asthmatic
population, giving their providers tools to better manage their
patients' disease, integrating health care for diabetic and asthmatic
patients and developing health promotion programs specifically
targeting these diseases.
Musculoskeletal injuries also pose a significant challenge to the
readiness and retention of Sailors and Marines and are the number one
medical reason for first term separations. The Naval Health Research
Center in San Diego has been involved with the Marines and the Naval
Training Centers to decrease stress fractures in personnel by adjusting
the frequency, intensity and speed of progression of physical training.
As a result, fewer Sailors and Marines are seeking costly medical
intervention for sprains, stress fractures, shin splints, dislocations
and other injuries sustained during training. Lost training days are
down and personnel are back on the job sooner, helping to support the
Navy's mission-readiness.
Our mission in military medicine is to support warfighters and all
our TRICARE beneficiaries. The war fighters support mission is the
reason for our existence and drives our requirements, endstrength and
mission. Training and sustaining a ready force which has significant
operational and peacetime responsibilities and commitments is a major
challenge.
During the past several months, we have been working diligently to
ensure the readiness of our medical department personnel charged with
manning our Fleet Hospitals, Hospital Ships, Casualty Receiving and
Treatment Ships, and Marine Force augment. Just as ships of the line
returning from deployment enter a lesser readiness phase while
receiving needed upkeep and crew training, so do our medical platforms.
As units are reconstituted and become more likely to deploy, their
readiness status is increased. We are testing this concept with the 84-
man augmentation elements assigned to each of our Fleet Surgical Teams
on the large deck amphibious ships. So far, we have every indication
this model is meeting our readiness requirements while reducing the
training demands on our hospital-based medical personnel. We can thus
provide the maximum peacetime care possible to our Sailors, Marines,
and their family members, and still keep our units in a high readiness
status.
By performing priority tiering of medical platforms in line with
the Fleet's Inter-Deployment Training Cycle (IDTC), Navy Medicine will
have achieved an alignment of our deployable assets with our line
constituents. This approach allows some predictability on the
operational schedules of deploying platforms, promotes unit integrity
by training, deploying and preparing as a cohesive force, and makes the
most productive use of our medical manpower in support of both our
readiness and peacetime roles.
As you can imagine we are concerned about chemical/biological
incidents and have formulated various initiatives to address the
threat. Navy Medicine has developed a three-day Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Environmental (CBRE) Casualty Care Management Course.
So far over 250 providers have received training in 1999. In addition
to providing the necessary CBRE training to medical personnel, our
Naval Environmental and Preventive Medicine Units (NEPMUs) have
designated specific staff members as primary responders to requirements
for CBRE medical surveillance. Deployable biological laboratory
equipment is also available in each of our NEPMUs and staff members are
developing expertise and protocols for use.
The Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) is one of our
highest priorities for Force Health Protection. Navy Medicine began
vaccinating service members in March 1998 and as of 6 December 1999 has
completed the immunization series on approximately 78.2 thousand Navy
and 67 thousand Marine Corps personnel. The Naval Medical Information
Management Center (NMIMC) consolidates DON data for entry into DEERS.
The DON has an ongoing education/training program within the fleet,
Marine Forces and MTFs. The Navy Lifelines and the Navy Environmental
Health Center Web sites provide links, briefings and forums for both
medical and non-medical personnel and a toll-free number staffed by
AVIP agency staff is also available. Several messages have been
released by Navy Fleet CINCs, and myself reiterating AVIP guidance.
Refusals to take the vaccine within DoN have not had an impact on unit
effectiveness from the readiness standpoint. Navy and Marine Corps have
issued guidance to commanding officers regarding courses of action
available to manage refusals.
In order to help us enhance our understanding of the types and
magnitude of reactions experienced by our personnel, Navy health care
providers are encouraged to submit Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
System (VAERS-1) forms and to assist members desiring to submit VAERS-1
forms for reactions experienced. Submission of a VAERS-1 form does not
establish a causal relationship between the reaction and vaccination.
The Anthrax Expert Committee, under the auspices of the FDA reviews
each VAERS-1 for determination of causal relationship. As of 21 January
2000, a total of 52 VAERS-1 forms have been submitted on Navy/USMC
personnel. All members have returned to duty.
One other important point to mention under the Force Health
Protection strategy is that we recently revised our corneal refractive
surgery physical standards and waiver policies for the Navy and Marine
Corps. Our new policy directly addresses general accessions, as well as
active duty personnel currently serving in undersea/diving/special
warfare, surface warfare and air warfare communities. The most
significant contribution the surgery offers our active duty forces is
its ability to enhance human performance in operational environments
where glasses or contact lenses may compromise the ability to safely
perform required duties. Laser vision correction will be an important
contribution to improving operational readiness.
Health Benefit (TRICARE)
The complementary partner to Navy Medicine's readiness mission is
the health benefit mission. Fundamental changes are ongoing in the way
health services are organized, delivered, and paid for, in both
civilian and military sectors. Today, all health plans are competing on
the traditional bases of access, quality and cost. An intrinsic element
that distinguishes the truly outstanding programs from the rest is the
health outcomes the system achieves for its beneficiaries. Thus, just
as health and fitness are critical barometers of the readiness of our
Navy and Marine Corps forces, so too is the health and fitness of our
extended military family. This family includes the spouses and children
of our active members, and our retirees, their family members or
survivors.
I want to take this opportunity to share with you an update on the
state of TRICARE as I see it today. TRICARE is the tangible tool that
supports readiness by offering a uniform benefit, with guaranteed
access and specialty care when needed whether forward deployed, near an
MTF, remotely stationed in CONUS or overseas. Managed health care keeps
Sailors and Marines fit for duty and directly contributes to optimal
readiness. TRICARE provides that managed health. It's a good program
that was fully implemented last year and has already made a very
positive impact. However, nationwide implementation also revealed areas
for improvement that we will need to address as quickly and
aggressively as possible. The initial TRICARE contracts are only
partially successful. Difficulties have been experienced in areas of
billing and claims payment, telephone access, timely appointing, and
provider network development. Stricter requirements have been
implemented, and as the contracts begin to expire over the next two
years further improvements will need to be made.
We also need to address leadership education and beneficiary
education. The TRICARE options while offering a choice, can lead to
confusion and indecision on part of some of our beneficiaries. While
TRICARE Prime is clearly the most beneficial program for the majority
of our population, our efforts to communicate this message have been
complicated by numerous program changes as TRICARE has grown and
matured.
Along this marketing and education journey, we need to improve on
administrative and customer service concerns. Extensive patient
satisfaction surveys have shown that patients are very satisfied with
the healthcare they receive, but are often frustrated by administrative
and customer service issues. In time, the sum total of our education
and customer service initiatives will directly contribute to our
steadily improving enrollment rates.
Customer satisfaction will be greatly enhanced by the new MHS
optimization initiative of ``PCM by Name.'' Linking beneficiaries to a
specific Primary Care Manager will not only give them the personal
touch they seek in health care, but also improve accountability for the
proper management of their health. I'm confident Navy medical treatment
facilities will work hard to implement this policy promptly and
smoothly.
We may not have reached our goal, but are well on our way to a more
solid, dependable system for providing quality health services to our
beneficiaries. We must maintain high quality health care, improve
customer service and access, while monitoring costs.
TRICARE 3.0 and other TRICARE improvements are designed to address
many of current problems, including improved business practices, making
regional boundaries transparent and focusing on the MTF as the
centerpiece of healthcare delivery. Region 11 has been selected to
serve as a demonstration site for TRICARE 3.0 and will provide valuable
insight for program improvements.
Senior leadership and I remain concerned that many older military
retirees do not have full access to the Military Health Care System. In
an effort to better serve the medical needs of military beneficiaries
who are 65 and over, DOD is testing several programs, including TRICARE
Senior Prime, a managed care demonstration program, at selected sites
across the country. It provides enrollees with all of the benefits
available under Medicare, plus additional benefits under TRICARE Prime.
I fully support the demonstration programs designed to evaluate the
incorporation of these beneficiaries into our system. I am pleased to
report that Naval Medical Center San Diego, the single Navy site, has
enrolled 95 percent of its capacity of 4,000. Indications are that
enrollees have greater access and improved satisfaction with the
delivery of their health care.
The implementation of TRICARE Prime Remote for active duty members
will significantly enhance healthcare quality and access to our
beneficiaries attached to geographically separated units within the
regions. This initiative is a great benefit to our active-duty service
members--by delivering the uniform benefit through the civilian
provider network, and needs to be extended to their family members. An
extension of this program to active duty family members is included in
the President's Budget proposal for fiscal year 2001. A key component
of the MHS Optimization Plan is to initiate a beneficiary shift back to
the direct care system to ensure optimal use of our military treatment
facilities (MTFs). The optimization plan is designed to change the
focus of care from the contract provider network to the direct care
system, resulting in additional cost savings. The main aspects of this
plan are population health improvements, with additional emphasis on
optimal use of the MTF. This plan will shift the emphasis of providing
primarily episodic and costly intervention services to better serving
our beneficiaries by preventing injuries and illness. Instead of
waiting for our beneficiaries to become ill or injured, we will deliver
preventive services and anticipate their health care needs. Our
beneficiaries will be healthier and operational readiness will improve.
People
Our people are the critical resource in accomplishing Navy
Medicine's mission. Their professional needs must be satisfied for Navy
Medicine to compete. Their work environment must be challenging and
supportive, providing clear objectives and valuing the contributions of
all. Their commitment must be reinforced by effective communication,
teamwork, respect, and outstanding leadership. Job satisfaction is an
essential element in recruiting, retention and development of a
professional, career-oriented Medical Department. In addition, Navy
Medicine must align and train its military, civilian and contract
partners to support the mission.
Over the past year, we have been focusing attention on our General
Medical Officer (GMO) Program to see how best to conform to a
congressionally supported GMO-conversion plan. GMOs are highly suited
to the Navy's operational environment and the benefits are mutual for
the line and Navy Medicine. GMO tours help broaden our physicians'
perspectives on life in the Navy and Marine Corps. GMOs constitute a
significant source of high quality primary, urgent and emergency care
in operational and clinical settings around the world. Customer
satisfaction surveys rate GMOs equal to specialists. In addition,
quality reviews demonstrate that GMOs practice excellent medicine with
a very low rate of adverse events.
A Task Force recently convened to conduct a review of our GMO
billets and to address which should remain GMOs and which are suited
for fully trained specialists, nurse practitioners, physician's
assistants or independent duty hospital corpsmen. We need to preserve
the GMO where their skills are well matched to patient needs.
We have also placed a renewed emphasis on the health of the
Hospital Corpsman (HM) and Dental Technician (DT) enlisted communities.
We are looking at new methods and innovations in education, reviewing
curricula, and focusing on training to real needs. We have increased
the specialty school (C school) quotas in many of our HM schools to
improve our community manning. In order to keep our pipeline for career
development and the corpsman ``C'' school seats filled, we have
promoted career fairs at many of our medical and dental treatment
facilities. Utilizing the Enlisted Technical Leaders and the Detailers,
we are able to recruit hospital corpsmen and dental technicians into
``C'' schools and write orders on the spot.
As the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) corpsman is such an integral part
of our enlisted community, a special advocate for the FMF hospital
corpsman has been placed on our BUMED staff to better align us to the
issues and concerns of those corpsmen and dental technicians serving
with the Marine Corps. And in further support of fleet marine force
corpsmen, an FMF warfare device is being proposed as an outward
recognition of this important and unique duty.
Of course our Reservists also play an integral role in supporting
our mission. Our Reserve Utilization Plan will optimize our use of
reservists during peacetime and contingencies. At the recent AMSUS
meeting Reserve Component (RC) and Active Component (AC) leaders sat
down and negotiated the fiscal year 2001 personnel needs of Navy
Medicine to support both operational forces and military treatment
facilities. Additionally, they laid out a plan to integrate RC and AC
to attain those needs. This will allow long-term budgeting and
personnel management. It is another way of saying ``The right
reservist, at the right place, at the right time'' but adding ``planned
for and funded'' to the equation.
Best Business Practices
Navy Medicine must carry out our mission as a business, recognizing
the readiness, social, personal, professional and economic impacts of
our decisions. The resources required to improve health vary greatly
depending upon the environment, beneficiary mix, duration of support,
echelon of care and alternatives available.
A key to our long-term success is the employment of sound business
practices throughout Navy Medicine. They will cross the entire spectrum
of our activities--clinical care, forward-deployed medical care,
education and training, research and development. The successful use of
business case analyses will provide documentary support in our
decision-making. We've published a BUMED Guide to Business Case
Analysis (BCA) for use as a reference.
The fundamental base of a BCA is the use of quality data. The guide
will help local commands transform the raw data into useful
information. It will standardize the analysis process and help identify
opportunities that will best benefit the organization.
The integrity of our data and our analytical process has never been
more important than right now. Our ability to finance additional
programs will continue to be constrained by resources. We must do a
better job in Navy Medicine of fostering innovative solutions, managing
risk, and anticipating resource requirements.
To this end, BUMED participated in drafting a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) combining the strengths and buying
power of the DVA with those of the DOD. The objective of the MOA is to
combine the contracting requirements from both agencies and leverage
that volume to negotiate better pricing. This business initiative will
allow the customers of both agencies to select the product and pricing
that best meets their needs, thus lower pharmaceutical and medical
materiel costs.
Research and Development (R&D) initiatives are another aspect of
improving our business practices. In order to prioritize the Science
and Technology Account applications, the Department of the Navy has
developed an Integrated Product Team (IPT) process for 12 discrete
Future Naval Capability (FNC) areas. Navy Medicine's focus is on the
FNC ``Warfighter Protection''. To achieve this FNC, the following
enabling capabilities have been developed:
1. Combat Casualty Care and Management: Maximize as far forward as
possible with reduced infrastructure and logistics,
2. Enhance Warfighter situation awareness and counter threats from
disease, battle and non-battle injuries, and
3. Preserve health and enhance fitness of ready forces.
I feel we have already made significant strides towards achieving
some of these capabilities:
Recent tuberculosis (TB) outbreaks among the crew of a Navy ship
have underscored the importance of testing operational units for
exposure to TB. The skin test for TB may no longer be necessary thanks
to the ground breaking work of scientists at the Naval Dental Research
Institute (NDRI). NDRI researchers have developed a technology for
testing oral fluids for immunogenic proteins, and believe they will be
able to develop a rapid, inexpensive, screening test for exposure to
tuberculosis. Salivary diagnostics present tremendous readiness
possibilities for the military. This technology holds potential for
rapid detection of antibodies signaling exposure to diseases and
environmental toxins.
Last October, Captain Stephen Hoffman, Medical Corps received the
Robert Dexter Conrad Award, the Navy's highest honor for scientific
achievement, for his contributions to malaria vaccine research. As
Director of the Malaria Program at the Naval Medical Research Center,
Hoffman led the effort to sequence the first malaria chromosome
(Plasmodium falciparum), thereby elucidating numerous new targets for
vaccine and drug development. His work has paved the way for a future
multi-gene DNA vaccine against malaria and other infectious diseases as
well as biological threats. Hoffman's other accomplishments involve
creating the world's leading malaria vaccine program, internationally
acclaimed in the pursuit of one of nature's most challenging biological
problems.
One last aspect of best business practices that I would like to
touch on is exploiting Information Technology and Information
Management. I have already mentioned that information management and
data integrity are vital to improving our business practices. Navy
Medicine is also involved in some very innovative ways of utilizing
Information Technology to assist us in meeting our mission
requirements:
As you are aware, telemedicine has been instrumental in improving
medical care fleet wide by increasing patient/provider access to
specialized medical facilities and services across time and distance.
Shipboard use of this technology has seen a significant decrease in
medevacs which is not only keeping our sailors on the job, but
according to the Center for Naval Analyses, realizes a cost savings of
$4,400 per avoided medevac. Telemedicine is also being utilized by U.S.
Forces in locations such as Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, and Southwest
Asia and has proven useful during exercises involving both land and
naval forces. Current telemedicine projects include teledermatology,
rapid transmission and receipt of medical data, as well as expanded
efforts in teledentistry, teleradiology, and home health care. The
technologies and lessons learned from these projects are the foundation
for formulating convergent strategies for research, education, and
clinical practice. These strategies will ultimately change the way DOD
uses information and technology to provide health care.
The use of Smart Card technology is also improving on the way Navy
Medicine does business. About the size of a credit card, the Smart Card
contains an embedded integrated circuit which contains both memory
storage capability and a central processing unit. The cards enable
quick expedient tracking and recording of immunizations and episodes of
care, which saves time, improves access to health care information by
authorized providers, and reduces redundant data entry and
transcription errors. Although not fully implemented, the program is a
glimpse into the future and has seen success with the recruit
population at Great Lakes, Illinois. In the future the card will
contain not only medical information, but a Sailor's service record as
well.
Conclusion
With a strong viable strategic plan in place, Navy Medicine looks
to the future with excitement. As we work together to reach our
corporate objectives in our goal areas of force health protection, the
health benefit, people, and best business practices, we are confident
that the entire Navy and Marine Corps team will reap the benefits.
However, a major distraction to our initiatives are budget challenges
and unexpected reprogramming events. A stable fiscal environment is
essential for planning to be successful. Operating on a mere
sustainable budget also limits the amount of reengineering we can
undertake and reduces investments in efforts that have long term cost
savings and benefits. Our ideas are promising, our people are bright,
talented and motivated. I am privileged to be a part of such a vibrant
and evolving organization during this historical time.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Thank you.
General, nice to have you on board.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. PAUL K. CARLTON, JR., AIR FORCE
SURGEON GENERAL
General Carlton. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, members of
the committee, thank you for this opportunity to address the
important issues that are facing the Air Force Medical Service.
The times have never been more exciting for the Air Force
Medical Service. We divide our thoughts into our privilege and
our pleasure. Our privilege is to serve this great country in
the arena that we call readiness. Our pleasure is to take care
of the great American patriots who have earned the right to our
health care.
Initiatives under our privilege are readiness in support of
the Expeditionary Aerospace Force. We have made great strides
in ensuring that our medics have state-of-the-art training and
readiness capabilities. This is vital as we prepare for our
tripartite missions of war-winning, disaster relief, and
support for humanitarian operations. We have an international
training program for disaster response that allows us to help
other countries around the world deal with the challenges of
disasters. It premiered in United States Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM), and is now headed for other theaters.
We are fielding new expeditionary medical support
platforms. They will replace the air transportable hospital
with an even more flexible and modular arrangement. We have
reduced the lift profile as much as 94 percent, and we can now
provide theater commanders medical arrangements within hours
instead of weeks. We are working on weapons of mass destruction
issues. Project Yorktown, complete with knowledge couplers, is
an integrated suite of early warning and identification
capabilities for biological and chemical attack, and it has
been fielded and is operational. Our National Guard partners
are building civilian exercise scenarios in Texas and in
Missouri that are templates for the future, and exciting for us
to participate in.
In our pleasure, peacetime health care, we remain committed
to optimizing our peacetime health care system. Our product is
now health instead of medicine or surgery or dentistry. We have
established metrics to assure that our game plan is working. We
have just finished a comprehensive program called primary care
optimization, which teaches our primary care providers around
the world leading edge techniques in primary care and
population-based health care.
These methods have been successfully utilized in the United
States Air Forces in Europe for the last 2 years. We are
optimizing Veterans Affairs (VA) relationships with three fully
integrated hospitals in Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, and one in
transition in California, win-win in every case.
Our demonstration programs to keep the promise to our over-
65's are popular with our enrollees, but we need to carefully
examine the lessons learned. The anticipated revenue streams
have simply been dry.
The bedrock of our quality care for all beneficiaries is
population-based health care. Our most notable achievement
among the many population-based health care efforts has been
the suicide prevention program. This has dramatically reduced
the number of suicides in the Air Force, because it involves
the entire community in the process. It is the national
benchmark recognized by the White House and the national media.
It is being used as a model by the Department of Health and
Human Services.
In conclusion, the Air Force is committed to optimizing our
entire system with an unrelenting focus on our many different
customers in both our privilege and our pleasure. Thank you for
your tremendous support in helping us achieve that commitment.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lt. Gen. Paul K. Carlton, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to address the goals and accomplishments of the Air Force
Medical Service (AFMS). I consider it a privilege to appear before this
committee who has worked so hard on our behalf.
As I begin my tenure as the Air Force Surgeon General, I am honored
to lead the finest young health care professionals in the world into
the 21st Century. The Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) will continue to
execute our successful ``Parthenon'' strategy, centered on medical
readiness, employing TRICARE, tailoring the force, building healthy
communities, and customer satisfaction. However, we will expand the
horizons of the strategy to focus on population-based health care and
global support of the Expeditionary Aerospace Force.
Reengineering Medical Readiness
The AFMS is well positioned to support our new Expeditionary
Aerospace Force doctrine. We must be able to respond to major theater
wars with a power projection force, while also being able to support
small-scale contingency operations. Our nation's commitment to global
engagement has meant unprecedented peacekeeping, humanitarian and civic
action deployments since the Persian Gulf War. The AFMS has made
significant strides in ensuring the 21st Century aerospace warrior will
have new, modular, and flexible medical readiness capabilities to
support these operations.
The AFMS operational support capability must address three major
functional areas: war-winning, disaster relief, and support for
humanitarian operations. Each of these functional areas is critical to
supporting our National Security Strategy. I have directed my staff to
optimize operational health support to provide this full spectrum
support. We are working with the Air National Guard to optimize and
enable their forces to provide military support to civil authorities. I
have also directed my staff, in conjunction with regional CINCs, DOD,
and the Department of State, to develop a comprehensive AFMS medical
theater engagement support plan. Our reengineering efforts will be
vital to achieving these operational goals.
By the end of this fiscal year, we will have replaced our
contingency hospitals with Air Force Theater Hospitals (AFTHs), which
provide a modular, incrementally deployable capability to provide
essential care. They use existing Air Transportable Hospital (ATH) and
specialty teams, along with pre-positioned (buildings) and deployable
(tents) AFTHs. Future force commanders will dial up or dial down Air
Force clinical and technical capability, easily permitting the
deployment of hospitals from 10- to 114-bed capability. The Form, Fit,
and Function Follow-on Test conducted last February at Nellis AFB
proved that our concepts of operations, manpower force listings and
allowance standards will meet operational requirements.
Also in fiscal year 2000, we will begin fielding our new
Expeditionary Medical Support/Air Force Theater Hospital (EMEDS/AFTH),
which will replace the ATH. We will have a very clinically capable,
light, flexible, modular package that leverages man-portable assets
such as the Mobile Field Surgical Team, Critical Care Air Transport
Team, Squadron Medical Element and our specialty sets. The increments
are EMEDS Basic, EMEDS + 10-bed AFTH, and EMEDS + 25-bed AFTH. The
beauty of this new capability is that we can append specialty sets and
wards at the 25-bed level, thereby sustaining up to the 114-bed AFTH,
should we require this capability. More importantly, we have reduced
the lift profile three-fold (from 55 to an estimated 18 pallets for 25-
bed AFTHs). This new field hospital package can provide the theater
commander exactly the level and mix of medical services he or she
requires in as little as 12 hours post-arrival for the basic increment.
To support EMEDS/AFTH, we are planning field training using
clinical, technical and readiness field experts to develop bold and
decisive medical leadership to respond to the rigors of Air
Expeditionary Forces (AEF) deployments. Beginning in February, and
ramping up over two years, training will include all team members and
will be prioritized based on the AEF rotation schedule.
The AFMS has answered the call of the CINCs in one other vital
area. The Air Force now has a well proven capability to care and manage
the critical care patient in the Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) System.
Through the use of Critical Care Air Transport Teams--or CCATTs--we
augment AE crews to evacuate newly stabilized patients to CONUS for
definitive care. We have trained more than 151 CCATTs and have 51
equipment sets on hand, with plans to field 25 sets in fiscal year
2000.
As part of Mirror Force, the AFMS initiative to bring together
active duty, Guard and Reserve components into a seamless force, Air
Education and Training Command developed the Aeromedical Evacuation
Contingency Operations Course to provide critical training for Total
Force ground-based AE units. This course became operational in May
1999. In addition, we developed the Top Sustainment Training to Advance
Readiness (TopSTAR) course to regionalize refresher training for all
components. The first TopSTAR site became operational at the 59th
Medical Wing, Lackland AFB, Texas, in February 1998.
Force health protection continues to be on the forefront of our
efforts. Though far from completion, we are accomplishing a great deal
in response to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) requirements. The Air
Force Medical NBC Defense program achievements over the past year have
been in identifying requirements, codifying doctrine, approving
equipment, and executing training. To support requirements, we added
medical-related items as high leverage in the Air Force
Counterproliferation Roadmap. To support doctrine, we participated on
the team that produced the first-ever joint publication on the care and
treatment of biological warfare casualties, and this team is now
working on a similar publication on medical operations in an NBC
environment, to be completed this year. We also helped to develop a
``Response Guide for Commanders and First Responders,'' which addresses
biological, incendiary, chemical, and explosives threats on Air Force
installations.
The rapidly expanding potential for NBC warfare makes necessary the
capability to continue medical operations even in toxic environments.
The objective of the Chemically Hardened Air Transportable Hospital
(CHATH) program is to provide the equipment necessary for such a
capability. Our medics at Air Combat Command worked in the true spirit
of ``jointness'' with the Army on this system, and both Army and Air
Force requirements are incorporated in the Joint Operational
Requirements Document for a CHATH/Chemically Protected Deployable
Medical System. The CHATH completed Initial Operational Test and
Evaluation in December 1997. The Milestone III production decision was
achieved in March 1998, and initial operational capability was declared
in October 1998. Fielding should be completed in September. The CHATH
represents the culmination of an approximate 10-year joint effort to
provide collective protection capability for patients treated in the
field in a chemical warfare environment.
To support the warfighters, we recently finalized the Biological
Augmentation Team contingency operations (CONOPs), which provides
diagnostic identification capability for naturally occurring or induced
biologic agents at a deployed location. With this new team, we can now
analyze samples and interpret results using complementary
microbiological techniques, primarily a nucleic acid-based testing
platform. The team deploys based on threat assessments and will usually
deploy with the EMEDS/AFTH. We will field several teams in this year.
Further, Air Combat Command's development of ``Project Yorktown''
will change the way we respond to terrorism forever. Project Yorktown
was developed as an integrated suite of early warning and
identification capabilities for biological and chemical attack. It is
composed of a clinical encounter system that collects standardized
medical signs, symptoms, diagnoses and procedures. These are
encapsulated and sent immediately to a location in the United States
where they are electronically analyzed for abnormalities. If something
suspicious is indicated, laboratory identification systems pre-
positioned at high threat areas are utilized to determine if a
biological or chemical agent was present that may have been covertly
introduced to members at the location through food or environmental
vectors. Should an incident be confirmed, Yorktown is linked with a
sophisticated network of command and control agencies to help mitigate
the effects.
Our medics in Europe have also aggressively prepared for WMD. To
meet in-place force health protection requirements, United States Air
Forces, Europe (USAFE), medical personnel developed a new in-place
patient decontamination team for each of their five bases. This team is
a non-deployable organic medical asset for patient decon at USAFE
medical treatment facilities (MTFs). The approved CONOPs includes
capability to decontaminate patients outside the MTF. Fielding will be
completed this fiscal year.
Finally, our WMD training focus has been through distance learning.
During this past year, 8,000 Air Force medics, including active duty,
Guard and Reserve, participated in the NBC Satellite Broadcast
Training.
Despite these serious efforts to protect the force, we are not yet
fully prepared to counter WMD, specifically chemical and biological
weapons, on the battlefield. In all likelihood, our foes will not meet
us force on force--asymmetrical attacks, including those on the
homeland, represent huge challenges in which the AFMS can be expected
to play a crucial role. With the support of our sister services, DOD
and our leadership at all levels, the AFMS is committed to helping our
nation prepare for this very real and lethal threat.
Employing TRICARE
Another way we protect the troops is by reassuring them that their
families are well cared for while they are deployed. TRICARE has been
fully operational for more than a year now, and we have come a long way
toward resolving problematic issues, such as improving access to care
and payment of claims. We recognize that access continues to be a
problem, and that, once in the door, our patients are, for the most
part, highly satisfied customers.
We are committed to achieving five metrics across the AFMS that
will ensure improved patient access to primary care: (1) measured
progress toward maximum allowable enrollment; (2) 1,500 patients
enrolled per primary care manager (PCM); (3) 25 patients per day per
provider (4) 3.5/1 support staff/provider ratio; and (5) two exam rooms
per provider. We are closely monitoring how our facilities are meeting
these metrics and holding them accountable. Our ultimate goals are that
every patient will know his PCM by name and enjoy guaranteed access
standards for primary care.
Certainly, a key factor in the success of these five metrics is
educating our PCMs to understand, accept, and deliver the expectations
of leading edge primary care and population-based health care. We are
developing an aggressive, exciting education program to optimize AFMS
primary care. The program's objectives are to prepare our primary care
teams to deliver the health care benefit effectively and efficiently;
develop programs that execute the population health improvement policy;
and develop criteria that will assist in the effective distribution of
resources. We are implementing the ``Quickstart'' phase of the program
in early 2000, with follow-on sustainment activities through the next
year. In the long term, we are seeking a culture change through a
primary care course and other formal education programs.
One of our greatest remaining TRICARE challenges across the AFMS is
to provide care to those who are not being fully served. For example,
we are on the threshold of programs that will provide TRICARE to our
geographically separated units, and we're working on solutions for
their family members as well.
We are also trying very hard to fulfill the promise made to our
older retirees that they would have health care for life. I am happy to
say that our participation in the TRICARE Senior Prime demonstrations
for the over-65 retiree has been well received. However, the unique
needs of this population place some very stringent demands on the
Military Health System, such as benefits mandated by Medicare that
differ from those provided by DOD. And to put it simply, our older
beneficiaries require more health care. We will continue to address
those issues.
The good news is that utilization rates and customer satisfaction
are high. And with access to the National Mail Order Pharmacy, TRICARE
Senior Prime enrollees have better prescription coverage than ever
before. This year, we will embark on the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP)-65 demonstrations, giving us insight into
another possible means of meeting our beneficiaries' health care needs.
Another way we are working to create viable alternatives for our
beneficiaries is through sharing arrangements with the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA). Today we have more than 100 agreements with the
DVA, sharing more than 270 services. Our new $164 million joint venture
facility in Alaska at Elmendorf AFB opened in May 1999. The DVA staffs
and operates the intensive care unit, saving the Air Force $1.4 million
annually in referrals to downtown facilities. The Air Force staffs and
operates the multi-service medical/surgical unit. Both organizations
staff the emergency room, internal medicine, and surgery sections. Our
other two joint ventures continue successfully at Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and Las Vegas, Nevada.
We're also pursuing numerous joint initiatives with the DVA to
improve mutual efficiencies. For example,
--Clinical guidelines improving the standards of care are being
shared across the Services and DVA, enhancing continuity and
outcomes
--Discharge physicals are now ``one-stop shopping'' through one
organization
--One computerized patient record for both organizations will be beta
tested at the new joint venture facility in Alaska this spring,
allowing one computerized record that could be used during and
after active duty service
--DVA representatives are participating on the DOD pharmacy redesign
working group to establish standardization between agencies
where feasible
--Combined purchasing of pharmaceuticals is saving $57 million for
both DOD and DVA.
The AFMS is also seeking to improve health care for our
beneficiaries by better educating our own. As a large employer
providing health care services for their employees, the Air Force has
stressed the involvement of line leadership. At our Chief of Staff's
urging, we have developed a program we call ``Command Champion'' that
takes TRICARE to the unit commanders, providing tools to help them
ensure their people are receiving the best possible care. Personal
involvement by senior staff at our MTFs and Major Commands offers clear
guidance on how TRICARE works at the local level and where assistance
is available. I am delighted with the returns on this effort! Senior
MTF representatives met initially with 2,400 commanders; made 1,258
follow-up visits; and hosted more than 1,600 commanders at a
culminating Hot Wash. Program success is perhaps best summarized by the
60th Medical Group, who said, ``Virtually 100 percent of the commanders
expressed appreciation for the caring way in which the medical group
presented Operation Command Champion and the outreach provided to
them.'' One commander stated, ``The growing pains are over; we're going
the right way and getting a good news story.'' Further, we are pleased
that the Army and Navy have adopted our program in educating their own
leadership. Our proposed sustainment program is anticipated to begin in
May.
We are also encouraged by the efforts of the Defense Medical
Oversight Committee (DMOC), which has been formed to ensure optimum
Service participation in the military health care agenda. This board
consists of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness),
Service undersecretaries, Service vice chiefs, and the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) as voting members. The Service
surgeons general participate, but are non-voting members. The main
purpose of this board is to define the medical benefits and establish
budget priorities.
Tailoring the Force
The focal point of our system remains the military MTF. We're
stressing that the care provided in our MTFs be the best available and
the most efficiently provided. Toward that end, we are emphasizing
performance and optimization of our system. We are sizing our MTF
staffs to specifically meet the needs of the local population,
including our over-65 beneficiaries. I have asked the MAJCOM surgeons
to meet specific staffing levels and arrangements to optimize the
health care delivery process.
Our vision of population-based health care management is driving
the methods used to plan for and allocate resources to our MTFs, and is
therefore vital to our Tailoring the Force pillar. The primary
objective of Tailoring the Force is to develop a long-term resourcing
process that will optimize overall force size, increase MTF
productivity and effectively manage patient care through a focus on
health awareness and prevention. We are developing and implementing
various tools to properly size and resource our MTFs to meet mission
requirements and population health care needs.
One of these tools, Stratified Enrollment-Based Capitation (EBC),
allocates funds to each MTF based on the direct health care cost of an
enrolled population. We are using EBC as a metric for MTF commanders to
build an awareness of all resources used in providing service to
TRICARE Prime enrollees. Ultimately, this data will ensure future MTF
commanders have the data to know who their TRICARE Prime patients are
and the cost of caring for these patients.
Another tool is the Enrollment-Based Reengineering Model (EBRM).
The traditional method of using historical workload of an unenrolled
population to determine staffing requirements is outmoded. The EBRM
determines manpower requirements for a managed care delivery system
with an enrolled population. Consistent with changes in the civilian
sector's delivery of health care, the model shows more primary care
physicians are required than specialists. It also suggests the
``ideal'' provider/support staff ratios. EBRM is akin to what our line
counterparts call ``Primary Aircraft Authorized''--PAA--meaning there
is consistency in the numbers and specialties of personnel manning
comparable units. Unless there is an extenuating requirement, Air Force
MTFs with similar patient populations should have the same manning
profile.
The ultimate outcome of a system reengineered in these ways is a
system in which the MTF's enrolled population drives money and
manpower. As noted previously, we have put metrics into place that
measure our progress toward this goal, and we're reviewing our progress
monthly, base by base. The majority of health services will be
delivered through prevention programs and well supported primary care
managers. SEBC and EBRM encourage MTF commanders to enroll their
beneficiaries and retain them as satisfied customers while emphasizing
preventive and primary care as the preferred delivery setting.
Building Healthy Communities
The prevention paradigm of our fourth pillar, Building Healthy
Communities, is the cornerstone of the population-based health care
management system. Previously we concentrated on individual prevention
initiatives through clinical intervention, but now we are using the
community-approach, population-based initiatives. The community
approach has already been tested and proven by the Air Force. For
example, in response to a community problem, suicide, we established an
Integrated Product Team (IPT), comprised of members from various
functional specialties--such as chaplains, security police, family
advocacy, legal services, and mental health--and chaired by the AFMS.
As a result of the efforts of the IPT, suicide rates have declined from
16 per 100,000 to 5.6 per 100,000 within the Air Force during the past
five years. The suicide prevention program has been applauded as a
benchmark for both the public and private sector.
Following this success, the IPT concept was expanded to our
Integrated Delivery System (IDS), which links the synergy among base
agencies to promote help-seeking behavior and integrate prevention
programs. The IDS addresses risk factors through a collaborative,
integrated, customer-focused prevention effort designed to offer
programs such as stress and anger management, personal financial
management, and effective parenting. These programs support readiness
by reducing risk factors and building the performance-enhancing life
skills of our Air Force community members.
The concepts of a healthy community involve more than just medical
interventions. They include local environmental quality and hazards;
quality of housing, education and transportation; spiritual, cultural
and recreational opportunities; social support services; diversity and
stability of employment opportunities; and effective local government.
Impacting these elements requires long-term, dedicated planning and
cooperation between local Air Force commanders and civilian community
leaders.
Three major areas we have initially targeted at the community level
are decreases in tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and injuries. The Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness chartered the
Prevention, Safety and Health Promotion Council (PSHPC), with the Air
Force as executive agent, to address these and other areas. We have now
developed additional committees to focus on Putting Prevention Into
Practice, which provides tools and training to providers to ensure they
use each encounter with a patient as an opportunity for preventive
interventions; Joint Preventive Medicine Policy Group; self-reporting
tools, such as the Health Enrollment Assessment Review; and Sexually
Transmitted Disease Prevention. These efforts are critical, when we
consider that more than 70 percent of preventable deaths are due to
life-style factors.
We are also stressing prevention at the individual level--readiness
begins with each individual, each human weapons system. Our tool to
assure individual readiness for any contingency is the Preventive
Health Assessment (PHA). The PHA changes the way the Air Force performs
periodic physical examinations from a system based on intervention to a
system that stresses prevention. The goal is to identify risk factors
from a person's life-style--such as whether a person smokes, how
frequently he exercises, and his diet--as well as his genetic
background, individual health history and occupational exposure. Then,
through proper prevention practices, we assist the member to moderate
those risks.
PHA data, along with data on medically related lost duty days,
immunizations status, dental readiness and fitness status, are
available to the unit commander to provide vital information about the
readiness of his or her unit. Our line commanders have reported high
satisfaction with the PHA, and were especially pleased when their units
were prepared to go to the field for deployment exercises without any
medical discrepancies.
To support our goals in population health, the Air Force Medical
Operations Agency stood up our Population Health Support Office (PHSO)
in May 1999. The PHSO will focus on three primary activities. First,
they will provide a centralized help desk and resource center,
accessible through a toll-free number (1-800-298-0230), e-mail (phso-
[email protected]), and a web site (www.phso.brooks.af.mil).
Second, they will offer program management assistance for our various
prevention programs, such as the HEAR, the PHA, and Put Prevention Into
Practice. They will also be available to assist in areas such as
condition management, clinical reengineering, patient education, and
metrics. Third, the PHSO will be responsible for health data
identification, analysis and reporting. We are excited about the PHSO
and all our efforts to make population-based health care a reality in
the Air Force.
Customer Satisfaction
These are all examples of how we are striving to meet our customers
needs, and thus achieve Customer Satisfaction, the capstone of our
Parthenon strategy. It all comes down to satisfying our customers.
Whether our customers are active duty, family members or retirees, our
AFMS stands ready to provide world-class deployed and home-station
medical support.
We recognize that, as the AFMS evolves into a worldwide competitive
health plan, it is essential that all AFMS personnel adopt a total
customer service philosophy that transcends our current business
practices. To do this, we have implemented a strategy to create a
climate and culture where customer focus and service permeates the
AFMS, leading to customer satisfaction and loyalty. Our competitors
know that customer satisfaction is the key to retaining and recapturing
patients--we know it too. Our customer satisfaction task force, known
as the ``Skunkworks,'' has completed its first two phases of
development and deployment, and is now well on its way to executing the
third phase, sustainment and partnering.
In 1999, we completed five customer satisfaction model site visits,
conducted eight deployment roll-outs for all AFMS organizations and
higher headquarters, and began the sustainment/partnering phase for
AFMS organizations in collaboration with the MAJCOMs through five
sustainment summit meetings. We are also working to actively involve
our reserve components in the customer satisfaction strategy as a part
of our Mirror Force endeavors to achieve a seamless, ready Air Force
health service.
This year, we will continue ongoing sustainment and partnering
endeavors with the Major Commands, our AFMS organizations and the
reserve components. In addition, we will be inserting customer
satisfaction priorities in the TRICARE 3.0 contracts to help ensure
contractors are held to the same standard as our AFMS personnel. To
monitor and measure our sustainment success, we will use ``report
card'' data and the AFMS customer satisfaction metrics that are part of
the AFMS Performance Measurement Tool (PMT).
Quality care continues to be our hallmark. With all of our
facilities surveyed by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), the Air Force continues to meet or
exceed civilian scores. The average Air Force clinic accreditation
score has risen from 97.0 percent in 1998 to 97.4 in 1999, with an
impressive 73 percent accredited with Commendation.
Many of our facilities continue to participate in the Maryland
Hospital Association (MHA) Quality Indicator Project. Air Force
performance has been commendable and is consistently better than the
overall MHA national average for several indicators. Our total cesarean
section rate has been approximately 20 percent less than the national
rate. Air Force rates for returns to the Operating Room and Intensive
Care Unit are continually less than the national rate. Also, our
mortality rates for overall inpatient, as well as neonates and
perioperative patients, are far below the national norm. These rates
indicate a sustained quality of care for these areas in AF inpatient
facilities.
Air Force personnel are also participating in the Quality
Interagency Coordination Task Force's Patient Safety Working Group to
improve health care through the prevention of medical errors and
enhancement of patient safety. The Air Force is promoting its Medical
Incident Investigation review process where an external professional
investigation team reviews medical incidents for causes and identified
lessons learned for prevention of future similar incidents. The lessons
learned are then widely disseminated throughout the medical community
as NOTAMs (notes to airmen). The Air Force is also using the Composite
Health Care System (CHCS) electronic order entry of prescriptions to
eliminate illegibility' as a cause of medication errors. In addition,
we are piloting pharmacy robotic technology with excellent initial
reports on decreasing dispensing errors. These are all ways we are
striving to put our patients first.
Conclusion
The ``Parthenon'' has been and continues to be an effective
strategy for moving the AFMS to a population-based health care system.
Our outstanding PMT metrics will continue to monitor successful
implementation of necessary changes and ensure we satisfy our customers
to the best of our ability. The ultimate goal of our strategy is a
healthy, fit fighting force that can effectively support the greatest
Expeditionary Aerospace Force in the world.
Senator Stevens. General, thank you very much.
General, I hope you will be around long enough to go up and
participate in the dedication of the new Bassett Memorial
Hospital at Fort Wainwright. I am really indebted to you for
your consideration of that proposal. It will be a massive new
facility for interior Alaska, where it has an enormous retired
military presence as well as active duty presence. Now that the
national missile defense system appears to be headed for
Alaska, it was far-sighted to put it there, so I hope you can
join us.
General Blanck. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. I have just one general question for all
of you for my time. I will submit the rest of them, but I
understand that our staffs have met with you and your staffs
concerning the exceedingly tight budget. We have unexpected
bills, and we have reduced budget for real property
maintenance. That is not good in hospitals, and you have
reduced travel, and it looks to me like you have reduced the
budget for the information technologies vital to reducing
future costs.
So I should tell you, right after I became a Senator, as a
new Senator I took eight Senators to Alaska to show them the
hospitals in Alaska. When we went into Bethel we found an
operating room with mold on the walls. We found that because of
the fire codes they had in each patient's rooms back doors to
get out of the old buildings, and a series of women had been
raped in their hospital beds. You know, that sort of thing gets
into your brain and into your soul, and I think it is essential
that you really look at the facilities and make sure they are
modernized to meet tomorrow's needs, not just today's, so you
have done it in Bassett, and I thank you for that.
My questions are these. For each of you, just to go across
the table, if you will, what is your budget shortfall for this
year, 2000? Does your direct care system need supplemental
funds now, and what is the 2001 budget submitted here, as far
as your requirements are concerned?
If you want to do some of these things for the record, be
my guest, but I think people here ought to know from you, what
is the situation as far as these budgets are concerned, 2000
and 2001, and what is that wall that is out there in 2002,
okay? General Blanck.
General Blanck. We have additional moneys that have been
provided us based on the analysis you heard Admiral Pilling
describe for 2000 and 2001. That gave us the money necessary to
do the day-to-day health care with the provision that we are
suppressed as far as repair and maintenance, and I worry about
that a great deal, because we have been suppressed on and off
for the past several years, and even at the 2.4 percent funding
that we hope to get to next year, it is inadequate, in my view,
to deal with the kinds of issues that you described.
We are suppressing travel and information management/
information technology (IMIT) locally this year, which is a
problem. It is one of the reasons that we have not been able to
do all of the telemedicine that we have talked about nearly as
much as we want to, teleradiology, telepathology.
Senator Stevens. What has that got to do with travel?
General Blanck. That is the IMIT suppression as opposed to
the travel suppression. I beg your pardon.
We also, of course, are waiting for the reprogramming
action to give us some of the funds. We do not have them in
hand yet, though I believe that we will get them, so that is
yet another qualifier.
Finally, we have a serious problem in my estimation with
TRICARE Senior Prime, in that--and I believe General Carlton
mentioned it--the anticipated funding stream has not
materialized as we deal with what our level of effort is in
what the reimbursement rate is and try to get the data to
Health and Human Services in such a way that we can agree on
what that reimbursement should be, so I am short, I believe my
colleagues are short in that arena.
Again, we have been plussed-up for pharmaceuticals. We have
been plussed-up in other areas. We have the money to do the day
to day. We are short in the areas that I described.
Senator Stevens. Okay. I am going to yield to the others,
and then I will come back to you.
On the supplemental, we will take care of that amount that
you are talking about, I think, on reprogramming. I would urge
you not to pursue that supplement, that reprogram right now,
and give us a chance to put the money up. Otherwise, if you
reprogram it now, then we will have to figure out where we put
the money. We know where that goes, and that is $257 million I
think is it not? Yes.
General Blanck. Excellent. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Senator Inouye, go ahead, and I
will come back.
Senator Inouye. I would like to join you, Mr. Chairman, in
thanking General Blanck for all the years of service to our
Nation, and welcome to General Carlton.
General Carlton. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inouye. And Admiral Nelson, you will be the senior
one next time.
For the past 55 years, Mr. Chairman, I have been a
beneficiary of the military medical system and, if I may,
through these gentlemen I would like to thank all those who
have been helpful and generous to me. I thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I have many questions that I would like to
submit, and they all relate to quality of life. They relate to
the impact the system will have on readiness, retention, and
also some of the other concerns on the programs.
I am glad that General Carlton brought up the Air Force's
involvement in terrorism. Whenever we pick up the newspaper or
listen to radio or television, there is always some report on
terrorism today. Manholes explode, and we call them in to check
to see if this is a terrorist act. We have called upon the
National Guard to be the point agency to set up a system to
counter terrorism and to help the populace of the United
States.
I am certain that the medical community will be called. I
would like to know what, if anything they are doing, because I
have the sense that if something should happen tomorrow, we are
just not ready.
General.
General Blanck. We have all participated in a seminar at
the American Medical Association, and we will participate in a
weapons of mass destruction medical response conference
cosponsored by the Department of Defense and the American
Medical Association with other health care organizations next
month here in Washington. We are all heavily involved in
working through our systems with not only other parts of the
Government but with our local communities.
And I would make a distinction between the first responders
for chemical, which would be police and fire, with whom we work
on recognition and decontamination, and bioterrorism, which
generally there would be no warning for early, because we have
no real time detectors, and so we have to prepare the emergency
rooms, the medical communities, the nursing personnel, the
doctors, the technicians about this threat, and thus the
conference, the working through these other organizations.
Admiral Nelson. I would concur with that. We are working,
along with our research folks, on much faster detection, and
actually have ability to detect within 15 minutes or less about
15 different agents now, so we are working these, but I think
the conference in April will really bring more clarity to our
relationship with the communities in the continental United
States, within the United States, not just the continental, but
I think we are very much tuned to our responsibilities in
supporting the private sector in this.
Senator Inouye. General.
General Carlton. Yes, sir. I spent the weekend with the
National Guard in Missouri, specifically addressing the
question, what have we done, show it to me, and I am happy to
tell you that the National Guard in Missouri has done a superb
job. They combine Army and Air Force National Guard. They have
teams on the ground. They are going actively to the first
responders. They are actively selling that capability. Senator
Inouye, I would suggest that that was a superb choice, and a
superb investment.
From the other parts of the military we are pressing
aggressively to form partnerships with the American Medical
Association (AMA) and the Association of Military Surgeons of
the United States (AMSUS) to sponsor education programs,
seminars. As General Blanck discussed with you, we have the
equivalency that we did for heart called advanced cardiac life
support. We now have that course for weapons of mass
destruction. Our goal is to give that opportunity to every
medical school curriculum in the country.
We are training with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
all of our Project Yorktown activities where we have a
sophisticated net out in Southwest Asia, making sure that our
people are protected. We put the knowledge couplers in. We can,
as we recently did, stop an outbreak of a dire, real illness,
and made it work very, very well, aborted that in a matter of
an hour instead of a traditional number of days. We are getting
back to the Centers for Disease Control as quickly as we can.
We are literally training together, because this is a clear and
present danger, and getting that word out is extremely
important.
I am happy to tell you that, after looking at that, I am
sleeping better at night knowing that our Guard colleagues are
doing a superb job.
Senator Inouye. So you believe that we are moving in the
right path?
General Carlton. Yes, sir. We are moving in the right
direction, and we are focused on the first responders. We are
doing this with our fire protection agencies, with our
emergency medical response, with our police academies. We have
wonderful Army training, the programs that are focusing on
these first responders, so we are making leaps that are not
baby steps. They are leaps into the future.
General Blanck. If I may even add to that, Senator, we now
do twice-yearly distance learning courses for medical response
to chemical and biological weapons that has 60,000, 70,000
registrants, goes worldwide, and the estimation is that we may
have as many as 2 million viewers throughout many nations.
In addition to the United States we also, by the way, have
a group from Japan here as we speak at the Armed Forces
Radiobiologic Research Institute training on radiation, the
effects of radiation terrorism, how to respond, and of course
to accidents such as they recently suffered. We are doing
exchanges with them at Fort Dietrich as well.
Admiral Nelson. One of the things we have done across DOD
is take a look, facility by facility, at our capability, and
also at our interagency agreements. One of the things that we,
the Navy, has, is forward-deployed preventive medicine units
that are being equipped to look particularly at biological
agents. In fact, one of our units in Hawaii assisted the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with a particular issue
that they had just a few months ago.
Senator Inouye. Gentlemen, I thank you very much. Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Senator.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Blanck,
you raised a point here in your testimony that I would like
each of the members of this panel to respond to. It relates to
the recruiting and retention of doctors. You noted that from
late 1995 to early 1998 the Army Reserve lost 34.2 percent of
physicians assigned to units sent to the Balkans. Two
physicians departed for every new one recruited. In the next
panel the ladies who represent the nursing profession are going
to tell us a similar story about the difficulty in filling
their needs for professional medical personnel.
This is not unique to the military. When I spoke to the
Administrator of the largest hospital in Springfield, Illinois
over the weekend, he tells me, I am facing the same thing when
it comes to nurses and therapists and pharmacists and the like.
Is this something that we need to address with new and
innovative approaches by legislation or program to attract the
men and women, the medical professionals, so that those who are
in service to our country have the very best care?
General Blanck. I will speak only for the Army and respond
to that, because I may well ask for your help, and I will tell
you how. First, we have put three programs into place that have
made a great difference in the issue that you have just raised,
that is, the loss of reserve personnel, not active. This has to
do with the reserve medical personnel.
The three programs are, first, we have increased the loan
repayment program so we have been able to recruit physicians,
nurse anesthetists, dentists and others, far more successfully
than we have in the past.
Second, we actually have been able to start a scholarship
program similar to that that we have for active duty physicians
and dentists that allow us to pay medical school costs and then
obligate graduate physicians for service in the reserves.
Third, and I think the biggest win, is we have reduced
rotation times from the 180 to 270 days down to 90 days for
nurse anesthetists, dentists, and physicians. That has made an
enormous difference, and I can tell you both anecdotally and
looking at the numbers. People come up and tell me, I was going
to leave, but now I will stay, because I can take a 90-day
rotation. Anything more than that, unless there is a general
call-up, I cannot.
Now, where I may ask your help is one that we are actually
going through a staffing process right now, and that has to do
with a practice plan coverage program. If someone is
involuntarily extended past that 90-day point, we would pay a
bonus that would allow them to cover their practice expenses in
the case of a physician or a dentist, so that we would not
bankrupt them, as we did to many during the gulf war. If it
goes through the staffing, and is approved as I anticipate, it
will be submitted legislatively next year, and I will certainly
be in touch with you or your office.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, and because I have limited time,
I am going to invite the other members of the panel if they
will please respond to that general question about the
availability of medical professionals and any innovative ways
that we might approach this in terms of increasing the supply.
I hope we can find ways to help you in doing that.
If I might, if I could ask Admiral Nelson another question,
each of you has pointed out some of the amazing breakthroughs
that you have found in medical research through each of your
services. General Blanck points to a new bandage that can
dramatically reduce bleeding from wounds. I believe, Admiral
Nelson, that you point to a tuberculosis test that may be a
breakthrough that the Navy has come up with.
My basic question to you--I am glad to hear all of these--
how is this translated into a commercial undertaking? Once we
have discovered this technology, do we retain any rights of
licensing or the like, so that the taxpayers receive some
benefit from these medical breakthroughs? Admiral Nelson.
Admiral Nelson. Most all these we transition to the private
sector, and we also work in collaboration with the private
sector to bring them to market, but I think there are a lot of
important things that we get involved in that probably have
more application to the military, or to communities other than
within the United States. One of the ones we are working on is
a malaria vaccine, extremely important for the world, but as
far as its application within the United States at the current
time, there is not the breadth of interest there, but yet we
clearly have collaborators to work with.
I think you may want to comment more on that.
Senator Durbin. But I might say to you that, despite the
AIDS epidemic in Africa, which is an overwhelming moral
challenge to the world, the number one killer of children under
5 in Africa is malaria, and if we can find something along
these lines, believe me, it will leave a legacy which we will
be proud of for generations to come.
Tobacco problem
Admiral Nelson. I think we are well underway.
Senator Durbin. General Carlton, you made a point about
quality of life and preventive health care, and you made a
special note in here of problems with tobacco and alcohol among
the military. Can you tell me, I assume that each branch is
facing the same sorts of challenge with the uniformed
personnel, but have you identified tobacco in particular as a
problem cause, a cause of problems, I should say, in terms of
the health care of active personnel?
General Carlton. Yes, sir. We have just completed a study
about what does tobacco smoking cost us on the active duty
population, not in the future years, not in retired years. The
answer is, in lost duty time and lost work, it costs us more
than $100 million a year.
Senator Durbin. I want to make sure that that is a matter
of record here. We lose $100 million a year in lost time of
active military personnel because of tobacco----
General Carlton. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin (continuing). And smoking.
General Carlton. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. $100 million a year.
General Carlton. Yes, sir. It is $101 million to be exact,
but it is $100 million in round numbers, and we are targeting
that with a tremendous effort on the smoking cessation and
preventing people from getting into the habit of smoking, and I
believe you can see in the future where we will not support bad
habits with our health care, that when we do screens we will
say, if you have bad habits, we cannot afford to have you in
our service.
Alcohol problems
Senator Durbin. And I would like to ask each of you on the
panel as a matter of record to report what your service is
doing in response to--and I do not want to diminish the
concerns over alcohol, which I am sure are equal if not greater
in terms of their impact, but if you could share that with me,
and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Medical Service
The information provided by the Air Force Surgeon General
regarding the short-term costs of smoking cessation for Air
Force personnel was based on a study conducted by: Robbins AS,
Chao SY, Goil GA, Fonseca VP. Cost of smoking among active duty
U.S. Air Force personnel, 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, In press.
This investigation found that among a sample of young Air
Force personnel who smoked, there were annual medical costs
(directly attributable to smoking) of $20,098,339 and annual
productivity costs (directly attributable to smoking) of
$87,142,716. This is a total annual cost for smoking alone of
$100,724,105. The authors go on to calculate the impact of this
additional health care and productivity loss in terms of full
time equivalents (FTEs). They determined that every year we
lose 3,573 FTEs due to smoking.
DOD is actively engaged in addressing the problems of
tobacco use. Mr. Rudy de Leon, Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)), requested the development
of a Department of Defense (DOD) Prevention Plan. We are
actively addressing the problems of tobacco use in the DOD.
As part of this prevention initiative a senior level
Prevention, Safety and Health Promotion Council was formed to
address alcohol abuse, injury prevention, and tobacco use
reduction. This council is chartered by the Secretary of
Defense and provides an integrated forum for a diverse, multi-
functional group of DOD, Service Secretariat and Service
leaders. The council approved action plans to reduce the health
care and productivity burden of tobacco. These plans target
system-wide changes aimed at cultural aspects of tobacco use,
availability of tobacco products on military installations,
medical issues and effective smoking cessation programs.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Senator Hutchison. We
are on a 5-minute rule, unfortunately.
TRICARE improvements
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first
say I am very pleased that General Blanck is going to be my
constituent very soon, and that is a great university that you
are going to be associated with, and we look forward to having
you there.
I want to ask a general question to any and all of you.
Last year, in the bill in which we increased salaries for our
military personnel, I included an amendment that would have
allowed the Pentagon to go forward with some improvements in
TRICARE and medical service that could be done without
legislation.
It permitted the increased reimbursement levels for
TRICARE, particularly in areas where our military personnel
could not get a provider to see them. It would expedite and
reduce the cost of the TRICARE claims process, required
portability among TRICARE regions, brought the TRICARE fee
structure in line with comparable civilian HMO's, and an idea
that I got when I visited Brooke Army Medical Center in San
Antonio from General Timbo, who was saying that the military
hospitals provide services to outsiders and have a hard time
getting the payments for that, which they are certainly
entitled to, so I added an amendment in my amendment that would
provide for standardized reimbursement rates to make it easier
to recover third party payments to military hospitals.
My question to you is, have any of those measures been
taken by the Pentagon to give the better TRICARE service?
General Blanck. Every one of them. Every one of them has,
and I will take it upon myself to speak for all of us, and
everyone in our Departments but all of our patients, to say
thank you for wonderful legislation that has allowed us to--
now, in many cases we are in the process of implementing it, so
we have not begun to fully realize the benefits, but from third
party payment to portability to increasing, having the ability
to increase payments in Alaska, where health care costs are
such that we just were not competitive, nobody would see our
patients, and we are able to increase those costs, and in
remote areas where there may be few physicians.
Senator Hutchison. Even places like Abilene.
General Blanck. Absolutely.
Senator Hutchison. We were having trouble getting our
providers to see our military patients, where there would be
one heart specialist in town.
General Blanck. So we have begun doing all of these kinds
of innovative ways to improve the ability that we have to
provide those services.
Admiral Nelson. I think that you will see a dramatic change
in processing claims. The three of us were reviewing that
yesterday, along with Dr. Bailey, and it looks like we have
made a major turnaround in the rapidity with which claims are
dealt with outside the direct care system.
Senator Hutchison. Good. General Carlton.
General Carlton. Yes, ma'am. When we say we have done that,
it is exactly true. When you ask a beneficiary, have they seen
it, there is a contractual lag that may be several months in
length, and so all of the things that you enabled us to do, we
have done through the contract or through our direct care
system.
Have the customers seen it yet? It may be in some stage of
implementation, but we certainly appreciate that support, and
we now are in the 95 percent goal for payment within 30 days.
We pay first, and if there is some question we chase it down,
instead of the converse. Your legislation helped us a great
deal.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I just want to thank you. I am
very pleased to hear that, because, as you know, TRICARE has
mixed results. In Corpus Christi they love it. In Abilene and
San Antonio there are complaints, and certainly when I learned
that we were having a hard time getting the reimbursements to
the military hospitals, which do so much in San Antonio for the
civilian population, I wanted to get the income in, because
that supports the system for everyone.
That is exactly the answer that I wanted to hear, and I, of
course, will be visiting and hearing from my constituents in
the military, and I hope that I can get those same reports, and
I do thank you for making the emphasis be put where it needs to
be.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Budget shortfall
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Gentlemen, in just 5 minutes,
if you can, Admiral Nelson, General Carlton, could you tell me
the answers to my question, what is the budget shortfall this
year? What supplemental funds do you think you need to take
care of this year, and what about 2001? And I know that you are
supposed to defend the budget. I am asking you beyond the
budget.
Admiral Nelson. Yes, sir. Last year I thought I had a tight
budget. This year I am between $70 and $75 million shy of where
I was last year with my budget.
Senator Stevens. What was your request?
Admiral Nelson. I would have to take the exact request for
the record.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget submission for Navy
consisted of the following:
Direct Care............................................. $1,573,938,000
Private Sector Care..................................... 1,416,491,000
USUHS................................................... 65,461,000
The level of funding for direct care was approximately $72 million
below the previous fiscal year funding level of $1.64 billion.
Admiral Nelson. But I can tell you--well, I can tell you
what it was.
Senator Stevens. Put it in the record. It was higher than
what you got?
Admiral Nelson. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. I want each of the three of you to tell us
what you asked for. Maybe we can go a little bit further to
meeting it using the 2000 funds, all right, and what is the
shortfall?
Admiral Nelson. I can tell you that as I stand this week I
am about $135 million short of being able to do everything you
have tasked me to do for 2000.
Senator Stevens. All right.
Admiral Nelson. Now, how does 2001 look? We at this point
feel fairly comfortable about 2001, but 1 year ago I would have
told you I felt fairly comfortable with where we were going in
agreements on 2000, so I am a little hesitant to tell you,
other than at this point 2000--that 2001 looks doable.
Senator Stevens. Airlines people told us the other day that
we should expect to pay $70 more a ticket for a round-trip
ticket to the coast by September. You are going to run into a
lot more things coming out of this fuel cost as far as I can
see.
Admiral Nelson. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. But give us that for the record. General,
have you got any?
General Carlton. Yes, sir. We are executable for 2000 and
2001, but you must define your terms. Executable in terms of
the law, we are certainly executable, but in terms of saving
the taxpayer money, because we are not getting money for the
65's and over, we are having to buy that at full rate downtown.
And so I think we could save a tremendous amount of money
as taxpayers if we forged a better partnership with our
Medicare partners, because for lack of the operations and
maintenance costs, which is traditionally regarded as 20 to 25
percent of a total health care cost, we are turning that great
group of American patriots away that we call the over-65 group,
and instead Medicare is having to pay full price, both part A
and part B.
When we talk about a participated rate at 82 percent, that
is of part A. In a traditional medical experience, in a
hospital, half the cost will be part B, and so it is 82 percent
of half the cost. It is a great deal for Medicare, and that
partnership is critical for us.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Senator Inouye has
got a question that, you know, I was visiting with people about
rural health care the other day, and the lack of doctors. We
used to have a pretty good supply of doctors when we had an
incentive because of the draft, and then we had another one
that was an incentive because of the assistance we were giving
to some people to go to medical school.
We need something else now. We need something that gets a
commitment from young doctors to go spend a year or two in
rural America. I wish the three of you would think about that.
What kind of incentive would it be? I do not know. Maybe we
would expand the Montgomery program, or replace it with an
Inouye program of some kind, but he is Mr. Defense Medical Man.
I am just his--I am Charlie McCarthy, you know.
But I do hope that you will give us some help on that.
My last comment to you, General Blanck, would be, we know
where you are. We hope we will hear from you. You helped us get
started on that AIDS research. Some day we ought to have an
update of what is going on. I still think it holds the best
promise of all the research in the country, if not the world.
Your research in AIDS has got the best promise. We ought to
have a hearing on that alone.
Senator Inouye.
Nursing standards
Senator Inouye. In preparation for the next panel, I would
just like to express some concern to this panel here. I have
been hearing rumbles that a recommendation may be made to lower
the standards for our military nurses. If the nurses are going
to be considered to be professional, as they are, then I do not
think you should lower the standard below baccalaureate, and I
gather that some of you are suggesting maybe we should lower it
below the baccalaureate, the grade.
Second, I have been told that there are some who are
suggesting that certified registered nurse-anesthetists should
always have physician supervision. Over the years, over 85
percent of all anesthesia administered is done so by nurse-
anesthetists. In fact, you know, I have been on the table
countless times now. I know that on some occasions the
anesthesia was administered by a nurse-anesthetist, and I have
got no squawks. They have done a good job. They are
professional.
I hope that we will not lower the standards. Are you
thinking of lowering the standards, gentlemen?
General Carlton. Sir, we are specifically looking at how to
optimize so we can get more of our retirees in our system. It
is not a lowering of standards. It is doing things in different
ways. Our sister service, the Army, for example, civilianized
half of their nursing force almost 10 years ago, at a
considerable cost savings. Likewise, they have a licensed
vocational nurse that provides superb health care on the ward
as a separate enlisted military operating specialty.
And so what we are trying to do is say, how can we do the
best for our people, given our dollar limitations, and pull
more of our retirees back in by looking at ourselves in the
mirror and saying, have we optimized our system? It has nothing
to do with lowering our standards. You are correct, that would
be an error to do.
Admiral Nelson. We are not contemplating any changes in our
nurse educational level at this point. We did that several
years ago and had difficulties with it and we reversed our
position at that time, but I would address the CRNA issue. You,
Senator, sent us a letter 1\1/2\ years ago. It was one of the
first that I received as Surgeon General, that asked the
question about how we dealt with the CRNA, not issue, but
rather their privileges, and I assure you at that time that we
had a requirement, that we had a set of expectations,
directives that clearly defined their role and did not require
specific oversight by a physician.
I found that one activity I had still practiced that way.
We have since changed that. We are in line with what I told you
1\1/2\ years ago, and I think it works quite well.
The only surgery that I have ever had, the anesthesia was
given by a nurse. My wife is in surgery this morning, as we
speak, and for all I know she has a nurse giving that.
So we are in line, I think, with what you expect, and it is
not a quality issue at all. The quality is excellent.
General Blanck. We are contemplating no changes in the
standards as you describe. We are looking to remove the
requirement for the direct or immediate supervision of
certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA's). It seems to be
unnecessary. Clearly, complicated cases require
anesthesiologists. Those that are not, do not.
Senator Inouye. One last question. Are you all in favor of
continuing USUHS (Uniformed Services University of Health
Services)?
General Blanck. Yes, sir.
Admiral Nelson. Yes, sir.
General Carlton. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We will now
transition to the nurses' panel. Thank you very much, and we
look forward to hearing from you.
General, we would like to continue to ride herd on that.
Maybe before you leave we can talk about that.
General Blanck. Certainly. Perhaps on the trip to Alaska
maybe we can get together.
Senator Stevens. Good. Good. Thank you.
Nurse Corps
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. KAREN A. HARMEYER, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, NAVY NURSE CORPS, RESERVE
COMPONENT, AND DIRECTOR, NAVAL RESERVE
MEDICAL PROGRAM 32, BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND
SURGERY
Senator Stevens. We are going to hear from the chiefs of
the Nursing Corps. We all know that you are very vital to the
success of the military medical system. General Brannon,
Admiral Harmeyer, Colonel Gustke, this is your first appearance
before the committee, I understand, each of you. Perhaps you
have been in the audience before, but I want to turn to my
friend, and I also want to apologize. I am scheduled to speak
to a meeting conducted under the auspices of the Office of
Naval Research in another building in just 7 minutes, so I will
leave before you probably have completed your statements, but I
know that Senator Inouye will be your godfather, as always.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Let's hear those statements while you are
here.
Senator Stevens. All right, fine. Go ahead and give your
opening statements, and I will remain, and Senator Inouye will
take over from there.
Senator Inouye. I want to hear, I want the chairman to hear
your statements.
Senator Stevens. Admiral.
Admiral Harmeyer. I will start. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the committee. I am
Rear Admiral Karen Harmeyer, Deputy Director of Navy Nurse
Corps Reserve Component. On behalf of Rear Admiral Kathleen
Martin, I am honored to attend, and appreciate this
opportunity. I will focus my remarks on four key areas that
serve as a framework for accomplishing our mission: leadership,
TRICARE, reserve support, and nursing research.
Nurse Corps
The number of nurses in commanding officer and executive
officer billets has tripled in recent years. Nurse Corps
officers are in command at two of the Navy's residency
treatment facilities, two active duty fleet hospitals, and
three of the eight large Naval Reserve hospital augment units.
Nurses hold critical positions at health affairs, OPNAV,
and lead agent offices. Navy nurses play key roles in the
implementation of TRICARE, to include direct health care
delivery, triage, utilization and quality management,
marketing, education, case management, and policy development.
Nurse practitioners, midwives, and nurse anesthetists
provide services to the fullest extent of their scope of
practice and competency. By increasing the enrollment
capabilities at all MTF's, we maximize our provider assets
while maintaining critical competencies needed for wartime
roles.
Through nurse-managed clinics, numerous commands have
improved patient compliance, decreased outpatient and emergency
department visits, and reduced hospitalization rates. Nurses
assess patients for health promotion and maintenance needs,
thus allowing the MTF to tailor health care delivery to the
user population.
Total force integration allows us to meet our mission, and
make the strides that I have mentioned. We are one force,
active, reserve, civilian, contractor, all pulling together to
accomplish the work of Navy medicine.
Nursing research is central to our practice. Research is
key to establishing and keeping a scientific basis for
professional nursing. We must continually evaluate our actions
to ensure that advances in the health sciences are translated
into cost-effective, high-quality health care. The tri-service
nursing research program assists these efforts through funding
of both short and long-term studies. We greatly appreciate your
support in our research efforts.
Having focused on our accomplishments, I will mention two
of our challenges, the predicted nursing shortage, and our
commitment to a bachelor's degree education. Indicators point
to a developing nursing shortage. We are working with our
recruiting commands to attract both new graduate and
experienced nurses. The competition is keen, with signing
bonuses and higher salaries in the civilian sector. For these
reasons, Nurse Corps accession bonuses and stipend programs are
crucial to our recruiting efforts.
Second, as with other officers, all commissioned officers
in the military service, nurses need to have a baccalaureate
degree. Despite the growing nursing shortage, the answer is not
to lower our accession requirements, but to remain steadfast to
our entry standards.
In conclusion, as we collaborate with our military and
civilian colleagues to achieve high-quality, cost-effective
care, the health and safety of all our beneficiaries are our
highest priorities.
On behalf of Admiral Martin, I sincerely appreciate your
support and the opportunity to address you today. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rear Adm. Karen Harmeyer
Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Committee, I am Rear Admiral Karen Harmeyer, Deputy Director, Navy
Nurse Corps, Reserve Component and Director, Naval Reserve Medical
Program 32. On behalf of Rear Admiral Kathleen Martin, who regretfully
could not be here today, I am honored to attend and excited about this
opportunity. I am immensely proud of the Navy health care team and the
Navy Nurse Corps. It is a pleasure to be with you this morning
representing the Director of a group of incredibly talented Nurse Corps
officers. The opportunities that face us in Navy Medicine are
challenging ones, but the Navy Nurse Corps, with our focus on creating
teams and developing partnerships for optimal health promotion and
organizational performance is ready for the challenge.
I would like to center my remarks on several key areas that shall
serve as a framework on which to describe our mission accomplishment
and future challenges. These focus areas are leadership roles and
responsibilities, Navy nurses' role in support of TRICARE initiatives,
population health and health promotion, and nursing research.
leadership roles and responsibilities
Leadership is one of the strongest attributes of the Navy Nurse
Corps. There is both an implicit and explicit expectation that Navy
nurses apply their experience, education and training to be both
military and healthcare leaders. When commissioned, they assume an
additional role as Naval officers, which mandates the successful
integration of compassion with discipline, individuality with
conformity, and wellness with wartime readiness. Our charge is to
develop recognized leaders in the health care arena who create best
business and clinical practices through partnership, collaboration, and
teamwork.
This vital importance of leadership is truly exemplified in the
Surgeon General's support of the concept that leadership positions in
Navy Medicine should go to the ``best qualified'' officer regardless of
corps specialty. Doors are open to nurses that have never been open
before. In recent years, the number of nurses in commanding officer and
executive officer positions has tripled and we placed nurses in
critical positions at Health Affairs, OPNAV, and Lead Agent staffs. For
the first time, we have Nurse Corps officers serving as commanding
officers of two of the Navy's residency training facilities: National
Naval Medical Center (NNMC), Bethesda and Naval Hospital (NH)
Jacksonville. Their expertise as superior senior healthcare executives
transcends traditional Nurse Corps roles. Additionally there are 24
active and reserve component nurses serving in command, executive
officer roles, or as deputies or chiefs of staff at military medical
treatment facilities, lead agent staffs, or education commands. Nurse
Corps officers command two of our active duty Fleet Hospitals; Reserve
Nurse Corps officers command three of the eight casualty receiving
hospital units. Reserve and active duty officers also serve throughout
the entire breadth of headquarters commands.
Some of the most exciting leadership initiatives are occurring as
we continue major organizational changes within our hospitals and at
commands around the world. In numerous hospitals, nurses are assuming
roles as department heads or directors of clinical services and product
lines. Nurse anesthetists and nurse practitioners at USNH Yokosuka, NH
Cherry Point, NH Corpus Christi, Naval Medical Clinic (NMCL) Pearl
Harbor, USNH Naples, Branch Medical Clinic Sasebo, USNS Mercy, and NH
Beaufort are serving in dual roles as health care administrators, while
maintaining an active clinical practice.
In addition to leadership roles in traditional fixed treatment
facilities, we have over 70 active duty and many reserve nurses serving
in a broad range of operational assignments that include:
--shipboard assignments on aircraft carriers, hospital ships, and
with the fleet surgical teams;
--assignments with the Marine Corps Medical Battalions;
--flight nurse assignments at Diego Garcia and Scott Air Force Base;
--operational staff assignments with Commander, Amphibious Group 2 &
3 and Marine Forces Pacific; and
--training assignments at Fleet Hospital Operations/Training Command,
Field Medical Service Schools, Marine Corps Combat Development
Command, Naval Operational Medicine Institute, Surface Warfare
Medicine Institute, C-4 Staff, Academy of Health Sciences Fort
Sam Houston, Camp Lejeune Chem-Bio Response Force, and the
Joint Trauma Training Center.
I see multiple examples of strong nursing leadership at every
command I visit. I see our vision of being the leaders in creating
teams and developing partnerships for optimal health promotion and
organizational performance becoming reality.
navy nurses role in support of tricare initiatives
As highlighted by our senior leadership, TRICARE and Readiness are
inseparable. As we work to improve TRICARE, so we are maintaining our
readiness skills. Navy Nurse Corps officers are valued and active
members of the TRICARE team. They serve in a variety of roles; direct
health care provider and triage nurse, utilization/quality management,
marketing & education roles, and policy development roles at every
level of the organization. We are proud to serve in many TRICARE
leadership positions including Lead Agent Director, Heads of Managed
Care Departments and business case analysts. There are four nurses
serving at the TRICARE Management Activity, two of them in director
roles.
At the Military Treatment Facility level (MTF), active and reserve
Navy nurses are uniquely positioned to ensure TRICARE is meeting the
needs of our beneficiaries by focusing on prevention, health promotion,
case management, education and serving as leaders of special
demonstration projects. Our Navy Nurse Corps strategic plan focuses on
the professional development of all Nurse Corps officers, with specific
strategies for educating nurses on the TRICARE program and managed care
practices. I would like to highlight just a few of the specific TRICARE
initiatives in which Navy nurses play a pivotal role.
Navy nursing has been instrumental in the successful implementation
of the TRICARE Senior Prime (TSP) demonstration project at NMC San
Diego. As project manager, a Navy nurse led the planning,
implementation, and administration of the program. He and his staff
partnered with the managed care support contractor, Foundation Health
Federal Services (FHFS), and developed a comprehensive plan to
effectively include San Diego as a TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration
site. Based on historical MTF utilization data (number of admissions,
average lengths of stay, occupied bed days, etc), it was determined
that 4,000 beneficiaries could be enrolled without unduly affecting the
quality of care and TRICARE Prime beneficiary access to NMC San Diego.
Health care delivery for TSP began 1 November 1999 and the external
reviews of the program to date by the RAND Corporation and the
Government Accounting Office found a high degree of satisfaction in the
quality of, and access to, care provided by both beneficiary and
provider focus groups. Monitoring of utilization data has resulted in
practice patterns that are beginning to mirror the ``best practices''
of health plans in the civilian community.
Another San Diego nurse performs the pivotal role of Compliance
Officer and MTF Liaison for the TRICARE Senior program. In this role,
she ensures compliance with HCFA regulations, performs audits, and
develops provider and beneficiary training programs. She developed
relationships with other MTF TSP/Compliance Officers across all
demonstration sites to help ensure uniformity in how business is
conducted. Furthermore, Navy Nurse Corps case managers interact with
FHFS case managers to track and monitor TSP beneficiaries that are
referred to skilled nursing or rehabilitation facilities.
Case management of administratively, medically, or socially complex
patients has been identified as a major asset in controlling costs and
improving the quality of care these patients receive. Nurse Corps
officers with in-depth clinical and military system knowledge guide
providers and patients through the complex processes and connect them
to vital community resources. Coordinating the multiple care needs of
these patients is a major contributor to the satisfaction of patients
and providers with TRICARE. Nurses at numerous Navy treatment
facilities perform utilization and quality management oversight of both
ambulatory visits and inpatient admissions.
Our advanced practice nurses--nurse practitioners, certified nurse
midwives and certified nurse anesthetists--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. As integral members of provider teams, nurse
practitioners and certified nurse midwives greatly increase the
enrollment capabilities at all MTFs.
Nurse-managed clinics are operating at numerous commands around the
country. The primary aim of these clinics is to encourage patients'
involvement in their care and provide individualized education to
patients regarding their diseases or complications. The goals are to
improve patient compliance with medical regimens, decrease the number
of outpatient visits to emergency departments and primary care
managers, and decrease inpatient hospitalization rates.
An example of this is Naval Ambulatory Care Clinic, Groton, where
the nurses can manage beneficiaries requiring education or initial
screening for conditions such as sore throats, chicken pox, or
pregnancy. Additionally, nurses begin preliminary screening for school
physicals. Nurses see approximately 20 to 25 patients per day,
enhancing access to care and increasing the number of patients enrolled
to providers.
In the mental health arena, NH Great Lakes provides critical
programs to screen all incoming recruits, and triage recruits with
psychopathology and alcohol related disorders. Acute care and
stabilization is provided and case management is rendered for high-risk
recruits pending separation. The NH Great Lakes staff members also
provide an outreach program focusing on life skills support to sailors
in the service schools. Similarly, at NMC Portsmouth, the nurse-run
outpatient case management program provides stabilization and
transition support for service members with severe mental illness who
are pending separation and are too symptomatic to maintain self care in
a transition barracks. NMC Portsmouth also has a nurse managed
outpatient crisis intervention program that replaced services that were
previously provided by a five to ten day inpatient stay.
NNMC Bethesda has started a ``Parents Expecting Multiples'' birth
support program that addresses concerns unique to those who will soon
be parents of twins, triplets or more. A Nurse Corps reservist who is
the mother of triplets started the program to help new parents with
issues such as preterm labor, breastfeeding, proper nutrition and
delivery. As an added support gesture, the soon-to-be mothers of
multiple births gladly exchanged names and phone numbers creating an
informal parent support group.
population health and health promotion
As we educate our patients regarding healthcare services, access
and referral we must also assess the healthcare needs of our various
populations and provide specific health prevention and promotion
initiatives. Patients with diseases that generate high utilization and/
or costly services can be best managed if needs are identified and
coordinated over the entire continuum of care. At NMC San Diego, Nurse
Corps officers have taken the lead in managing this process in the
Diabetes and Asthma Disease Management projects begun with Lovelace
Health Innovations, Inc. By systematic patient population
identification and numerous process improvement initiatives, patients
are showing greater compliance with established medical practice.
Future return-on-investment strategies, such as health promotion
programs targeted specifically to these diseases are being developed
with systematic data retrieval to ensure the long-term success of these
programs.
Health promotion activities provide a medical benefit to the non-
ill population, as well as to those already diagnosed with a medical
condition. Nurse Corps officers have provided the leadership and
coordination in these departments that focus on programs to reinforce
beneficiary healthy life-style behaviors, which should lead to
reduction of demand for more invasive procedures. Additionally, through
patient education programs and nurse triage services, patients are
taught appropriate self-care measures and better uses of the health
care available.
One example of this is the new Putting Prevention into Practice
(PPIP) Center, which opened last September in Yokosuka, Japan. The
center is a first in that it is a joint comprehensive hospital and
dental partnership which focuses on pre and post-deployment medical
examinations for active duty members as well as a joint, integrated
medical surveillance system to collect, analyze and disseminate data
related to military preventive medicine support. At a myriad of other
sites, including NMCL Pearl Harbor and USNH Rota, the nurses have been
very successful in implementing PPIP initiatives by interviewing each
family as they report aboard; conducting these health-screening
interviews allows the nurse to assess the family's specific health care
needs such as immunizations, screening mammograms, well-baby physicals,
stress management and tobacco cessation interventions. This further
assists the MTF in planning for their resource requirements and
tailoring their healthcare delivery to the needs of their user
population.
In an effort to address one of the fastest growing drug problems in
the United States, USNH Okinawa and the Armed Forces Network Okinawa
produced a video titled ``Last Breath.'' The documentary provides an
unsettling look at the allure and popularity of inhalant abuse as well
as its potentially lethal effects. A nurse and physician led the
project that promotes awareness of ``huffing,'' the deadly practice of
inhaling fumes from household chemicals such as edge dressing, solvents
and aerosol room deodorizers. The documentary was researched, written
and produced by a multidisciplinary team of nurses, physicians,
corpsmen and military public affairs specialists, and will be
distributed throughout Okinawa to the Department of Defense Dependent
Schools and Navy and Marine Corps commands.
nursing research
Central to our practice is our commitment to nursing research. As
stated in our strategic plan, Nurse Corps officers will use research
strategies to promote and develop evidenced-based practice, and conduct
and disseminate research. This dedication to research is key to
establishing a scientific basis for professional nursing practice. Much
of our current nursing practice is based on historical and anecdotal
information that has not been scientifically validated. Our profession
has the obligation to continually evaluate our practice to ensure that
advances in the health sciences are translated into cost-effective,
high-quality health care. This focus on research is manifested in
multiple ways. Clinical staff nurses at a MTF, seeking ways to improve
patient outcomes, conduct studies that seek to answer the ``why'' of a
particular care modality. In more extensive studies, active and reserve
component Nurse Corps officers do qualitative and quantitative studies
as part of their doctoral dissertations. The TriService Nursing
Research Program (TSNRP) provides funding for both short and long term
studies, all seeking to base nursing practice on solid research. Let me
describe a few of the many studies in which nurses are involved:
Nurses in San Diego initiated several research studies on methods
to decrease patient anxiety. They validated the effectiveness of non-
invasive techniques such as distraction and music therapy as proven
methods to reduce pain and decrease anxiety. With such validation of
the success of these interventions, they can be incorporated as
discrete steps in a protocol, thus changing practice based on research.
Such seemingly simple interventions directly affect patients' quality
of life and reduce costs by reducing medication needs.
At NNMC Bethesda, nurses initiated a research project that
evaluated the effects of patient positioning on discharge readiness
following diagnostic laparoscopies. This procedure is the most common
gynecological procedure performed in an ambulatory setting. The
research revealed that women who recovered in recliner-chairs following
this type of laparoscopic surgery were ready for discharge faster and
experienced greater comfort levels than women who recovered in
traditional hospital beds. This led to an increase in patient
satisfaction, improved outcomes and shorter length of stays. In
addition, there is a measurable cost savings attributed to the faster
recovery period and more timely discharge associated with women who
recovered in the recliner-chairs.
Nurses at NH Camp Pendleton, evaluated the functions of the Patient
and Family Education Program in relation to other program offerings and
the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations'
patient and family education program standards. This study resulted in
the formation of a Department of Population Health, which will start
operations this month. The department will be multidisciplinary in
structure and will take a proactive, evidence-based, collaborative
approach to continuously assessing, improving and documenting the
general health and well being of NH Camp Pendleton's population. This
will be done in conjunction with the hospital's healthcare team, by
utilizing population-based and prevention-oriented strategies, measures
and outcomes.
Utilizing TSNRP funding, another Nurse Corps researcher
scientifically validated the safe use of resistance exercise training
in patients with advanced heart failure. As a result, the use of hand-
held weights may be incorporated into the cardiac rehabilitation
program for these patients.
Without a doubt as a group, the nurse anesthesia community is in
the forefront in terms of the numbers and types of research conducted
and application of results to direct anesthesia practice. Research
conducted by nurses in the Navy Nurse Corps Anesthesia Program (NCAP)
is the backbone of the ``Research in Action'' presentations presented
annually at the national meeting of the American Association of Nurse
Anesthetists (AANA). Over one-half of all the 1999 presentations were
from Navy NCAP students. Together with their clinical instructors and
research directors at the school headquarters in Bethesda and at the
three clinical sites at NMC Portsmouth, NMC San Diego and NH
Jacksonville, the students look at all facets of nurse anesthesia
practice. Studies include topics such as validating the need for
certain types of anesthetic agents, determining the best doses for a
desired patient outcome, testing equipment to be used in a new way,
nurse anesthetist productivity, how a given type of anesthesia
contributes to a patient's quality of life and ability to return to
their normal state of health after release from the hospital. NCAP
students also received FDA approval and funding for a study in which a
specific drug was evaluated for a new use. In recognition of their
superlative program, the NCAP program became one of the first nurse
anesthesia programs in the country to attain 10-year accreditation
status.
reserve support
Our current accomplishments would not be possible without the
dedicated, educated, and motivated Nurse Corps officers who demonstrate
excellence in nursing practice on a daily basis and the Reserve Nurse
Corps officers who bring their civilian experiences to military medical
facilities during drills and annual training. At the Naval Reserve 84th
Birthday Ball, Secretary Danzig said that reservists ``bring something
precious that frequently (active duty members) do not have, that you
cannot get simply by being a Sailor; but you can get by being a citizen
and a Sailor and engaged in civilian occupations.'' We could not meet
our mission nor make the strides that I have mentioned were it not for
the concept of Total Force Integration. This concept, endorsed at all
levels of our organization, envisions us as one force--active
component, reserve component, civilians, contractors, and others--
pulling together to accomplish the work of Navy Medicine. Reserve
nurses have become fully integrated into the daily activities in many
of our commands and likewise have key roles on operational platforms.
Reserve medical support plays a vital role each year at NH Great
Lakes during ``summer surge'' when thousands of new recruits process
through boot camp. The flawless integration of active and reserve
components during these peak times allows this training command to
process and provide healthcare to three times the usual recruit
throughput. Total Force Integration is achieved through collaborative
relationships between active and reserve components to effectively
utilize all resources and maximize readiness. This synergistic approach
allows reservists to keep their medical and military skills sharp and
fulfill their drill requirements, while the hospital benefits from much
needed medical support from July to October.
NMC Portsmouth recently opened a ``state of the art'' Pediatric
Intensive Care Unit (PICU). This would have not been accomplished
without the support of several PICU qualified reserve nurses from San
Diego as well as the local Portsmouth area. Their presence was critical
and due to their educational and professional support the NMC
Portsmouth PICU opened on schedule.
Furthermore, while serving on the National Naval Reserve Policy
Board, my efforts focused on ferreting out the impediments and barriers
to full integration of our reserve and active components. The
personification of these efforts is the collaboration our reserve
nurses share with active component Nurse Corps officers at every level
of Navy Medicine. I am seeing this at medical treatment facilities,
BUMED headquarters, and all other activities where Navy nurses perform
their duties. Our Nurse Corps strategic plan, with leadership,
operational readiness and professional practice goals, is a road map
for all Navy nurses. I see total force integration daily. We have come
a long way and must continue to work together as one successful team.
challenges
Having focused on our accomplishments in leadership, TRICARE,
population health and research, I would also like to briefly mention
two of our challenges. The nation-wide developing nursing shortage has
been well publicized in numerous professional journals, the press and
at national conferences. Two of the major factors continue to be an
aging RN workforce and a drop in enrollment numbers at nursing schools
around the country. According to a new survey by the American
Association of Colleges of Nursing, the overall enrollment in entry-
level bachelor's degree programs dropped 4.6 percent last year--the
fifth consecutive decrease in as many years. The overall enrollment in
master's and doctoral programs also fell. Of note in this survey is the
strong emphasis on current trends such as increasing technology, an
aging population, and an increasing breadth and scope of nursing
practice that is demanding a need for well-educated nurses.
Specifically, demand is high for baccalaureate prepared nurses, from
programs that give them leadership, case management training and
experience in a variety of care settings. This is exactly the same
preparation we require as an entry level for our Navy nurses. We are
working with our recruiting command to attract both new graduate and
experienced nurses. The Navy Recruiting Command must compete with large
``signing bonuses'' from civilian healthcare organizations and pay that
exceeds beginning Navy salaries. For these reasons, our Nurse Corps
accession bonuses and our pipeline stipend programs continue to be
critically important to us; we are extremely appreciative of your
support for them.
Secondly, the broad scope of professional practice expected of a
Navy nurse in a variety of practice settings, hopefully borne out in my
testimony today, requires that our Nurse Corps officers be educated to
meet patient care needs in our increasingly complex healthcare delivery
system. Nurses must have critical thinking skills, effective
communication skills, and proficient clinical talents. As with all
other officers commissioned for military service, nurses need to have a
baccalaureate degree. As nurses work with various healthcare providers
and line officers to meet the numerous and unique needs of active duty
members and their families, they must have the educational preparation
to meet these challenges. Despite the growing nursing shortage, the
answer is not to lower our baseline entry requirements, but to remain
steadfast in our entry standards. We truly are most appreciative of
your support in this area.
I would like to close on a positive note: the following excerpt is
taken form the web-site of the Gallup Poll, in December 1999.
A century and a half after Florence Nightingale's heroic
efforts in the Crimean War first brought attention, and
adulation, to the nursing profession, public esteem for this
profession is extremely high. In Gallup's annual Honesty and
Ethics poll, expanded this year to include nurses and 19
additional occupations not previously rated, nearly three-
quarters of Americans, 73 percent, deem nurses' honesty and
ethics as either very high or high, putting them at the top of
the list.
In an article given to me on the same subject, much was written
about how much the public trusts nurses. In many cases, the person they
prefer to get their healthcare advice from is the nurse. This trust of
the American public is something we should cherish and carefully
nurture. In a time when there is so much mistrust of the healthcare
system, we should continue to capitalize on this trust and continue to
provide caring, honest and trustworthy care to all that come to us for
help. The Navy Nurse Corps is committed to the success of the military
health care system, and we are extremely proud to be part of the Navy
Medicine team.
As we collaborate with our colleagues in all the services to
achieve high quality, cost effective care, we will continue to keep the
health and safety of our beneficiaries as our highest priority. On
behalf of Admiral Martin, I sincerely thank you for your support and
for the opportunity to address you today; I know she looks forward to
your continued association during her tenure as Director.
Senator Stevens. General.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. BARBARA C. BRANNON, DIRECTOR OF
MEDICAL READINESS AND NURSING SERVICES,
OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF THE AIR FORCE
General Brannon. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, it is an
honor to present my first testimony on the achievements of Air
Force Nursing Services. Let me begin by saying thank you for
your continued advocacy and support, and for the opportunity to
highlight some of our challenges and our successes.
Command opportunities
Command opportunities for nurses have grown tremendously
over the past several years. Each year, nurses have been
selected for group command in ever-increasing numbers, peaking
at 14 in 1998. On the 1999 Medical Group Commanders Screening
Board, for the first time, we saw a decrease in the number of
nurses selected, 28 percent fewer than the previous year. This
is the first decrease, and I have no reason to expect that this
represents a trend.
Recruiting
I am very concerned about Air Force nurse recruiting. Last
year, for the first time in many years, we had a recruiting
shortfall of 85 nurses, which was nearly 30 percent of our
requirement. One of the biggest recruiting challenges is our
need for fully qualified nurses, those who have 1 year of basic
medical-surgical experience. I believe experienced nurses are
necessary because Air Force right-sizing efforts have decreased
our clinical training opportunities. Our remaining in-patient
facilities cannot absorb larger numbers of new, inexperienced
accessions.
We are using many incentives to attract experienced nurses,
such as bonuses, and additional constructive service credit. We
have also proposed loan repayment programs and shorter initial
active duty service commitments, and we will continue to
explore other options to ensure Recruiting Services has the
tools they need to achieve our accession goals.
As we sculpt our nursing force, it is also imperative that
we optimize the contributions of our enlisted nursing
personnel. An initiative is underway to train and license
enlisted medics at the licensed practical nurse level. We are
also examining the feasibility of expanding our nursing skill
mix to include civilian or enlisted associate degree nurses.
Readiness
The primary mission of Air Force Nursing Service is
readiness. Our active duty, Reserve, and Guard nursing
personnel continue to be heavily engaged in global contingency
operations, humanitarian support, and also in disaster relief.
As examples, this past year we deployed to the Balkans, we
continued our Hurricane Mitch disaster relief, and we provided
medical support to Native Americans in Alaska.
Advances in telemedicine continue, and have specific
applications for Air Force nursing. The use of in-flight e-mail
to transfer patient information has brought a new dimension to
nursing care in the air. Army and Air Force nursing personnel
in Hawaii are also testing and evaluating a telemedicine
program that is aimed at improving DOD patient access and the
quality of care. An Air Force nurse will be the next Deputy
Director of this $40 million project.
Air Force nursing continues to partner with our sister
services to achieve professional goals. The Federal nursing
chiefs were successful this year in establishing a Federal
Nurses Association as a constituency of the American Nurses
Association. This landmark means that Federal nurses now have a
place at the table where national standards of care and
practice are made for nursing.
Congressional funding has provided vital support to Air
Force nursing research, and we are exploring measures to fund
our triservice nursing research program through the DOD. Active
duty, Reserve, and Guard nursing personnel currently have 60
research projects underway. Our topics range from post
deployment nursing care needs to air medical evacuation nursing
procedures, and to other issues that are specific to military
nursing.
Air Force nursing plays a major role as we transition to
population health. Nurse triage and nurse-managed clinics
address two areas where nurses are providing critical
professional support and improving the health care to our
people. Facilities that have implemented these programs have
seen a significant increase in both access and patient
satisfaction, with a decrease in cost, and the focus squarely
on prevention, as it should be.
In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to share the
challenges and the tremendous accomplishments of Air Force
Nursing Services. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and other
members present, on behalf of the patients we serve, the Air
Force Medical Service, and the Department of Defense, we
appreciate your strong continuing support of military nursing.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brig. Gen. Barbara C. Brannon
Mister Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to
present my first testimony on the achievements and challenges of Air
Force Nursing Services. Let me begin by thanking you for your continued
advocacy and support of our many endeavors.
command opportunities
Leadership and command opportunities for Air Force Nurse Corps
(AFNC) officers have increased steadily over the past 13 years. Our
nurses, because of their superb blend of educational preparation,
clinical expertise, and management experience, have been very
successful in leadership positions within the Air Force Medical Service
(AFMS).
I proudly report that nurses have made steady progress in selection
for command; active duty nurses currently command 32 percent of our
medical groups and 18 percent of our squadrons. The first nurse to
serve as a Command Surgeon, a Reserve nurse at the Air Force Reserve
Personnel Center, was appointed last year. Nurses also command 29
percent of the Air Reserve medical squadrons and 15 percent of Air
National Guard medical squadrons.
However, the number of nurses commanding medical groups will
decline in the future. The selection rate for the CY 1999 Medical
Commander Selection Board was only 30 percent for nurses, and of those
candidates, only 54 percent were assigned to group commander positions.
In comparison, 50 percent of nurses eligible for command were selected
as candidates in CY 1998 with 82 percent of the selects assigned to
medical group command positions. The CY 1999 nurse selection and
subsequent placement rates were lower than the percentages for the
Medical, Dental, and Medical Service Corps.
readiness accomplishments
The primary mission of the Air Force Medical Service, and hence
Nursing Services, is readiness. To meet readiness requirements, we must
ensure that we are appropriately staffed, trained, and equipped to
respond to wartime contingencies, humanitarian and civic assistance
missions, and disaster relief operations.
The Expeditionary Medical Support (EMEDS) concept was fully
developed this past year to support the Air Expeditionary Force. EMEDS
units are mobile and modular and can be tailored to support any type or
size of military operation. The most basic unit consists of small,
surgical and intensive care teams of physicians, nurses, and enlisted
specialists who can respond quickly to contingencies around the world.
Nursing resources assigned to each team were revised to provide the
right combination of general and specialty nursing staff and equipment.
As the AFMS continues to rightsize, the number of clinical training
platforms is steadily decreasing, making maintenance of clinical skills
and meeting readiness training requirements a significant challenge.
Air Force Nursing Services is committed to creating efficient and
effective programs for nursing personnel to gain and maintain critical
readiness skills. Air Force nursing consultants recently revised
Readiness Competency Skills lists to reflect tasks nurses perform in
contingency environments. Active duty, reserve, and guard nursing
personnel will use these lists to assess their clinical capabilities
and training requirements. Programs are already being developed to meet
identified needs.
TopSTAR, Sustainment Training to Advance Readiness, expanded to a
second location last year. Travis Air Force Base opened a TopSTAR unit
in addition to the original site at Wilford Hall Medical Center.
TopSTAR is currently used to validate clinical skills and it is also
being evaluated as a training platform for nursing personnel to update
their skills prior to assignment overseas.
Exceptional training opportunities also occur during medical
exercises and real-world contingencies. Medical exercises in Asia and
within the Continental United States, and contingency operations in
Central America, Asia, and Europe, allowed active duty, reserve, and
guard personnel to test their skills. These deployments were also
particularly helpful in identifying tasks that required follow-on
training.
Two other training success stories were the Joint Military Trauma
Training program at Ben Taub General Hospital in Houston, Texas, and
the Jefferson Barracks Trauma Training pilot program in St. Louis,
Missouri. The Ben Taub clinical rotation for military teams provided
four times the patient admissions, blunt trauma cases, and penetrating
trauma cases than experienced by teams at Wilford Hall Medical Center
during the same time frame. At the Jefferson Barracks pilot program,
similar training opportunities are potentially available to provide our
medics excellent experience in trauma management.
All readiness training is focused on ensuring our nursing personnel
can provide care under highly stressful conditions in deployed
locations. Nursing personnel have had many opportunities to support
contingency operations this past year and demonstrate their capability.
Operation Southern Watch/Joint Guard.--The ongoing support to
Southwest Asia (SWA) is a total force commitment. There are currently
47 nursing personnel serving at Prince Sultan Air Base and Riyadh,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Kuwait; United Arab Emirates; and Oman.
Nursing personnel on 120-day rotational deployments work in clinics,
small hospitals, and aeromedical evacuation (AE) settings in support of
the continued SWA mission.
Operation Joint Forge/Noble Anvil.--Nine nursing personnel are
assigned in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Italy, Hungary, and Germany
where AE liaison teams, mobile aeromedical staging flights, aeromedical
evacuation control centers, and aeromedical evacuation support cells
provide medical support to the theater of operation.
Operation Northern Watch.--Currently six nursing personnel are
deployed to Incirlik, Turkey, to augment nursing care available for
deployed forces.
In addition to the sustainment operations already listed, nursing
personnel were also primary responders to several humanitarian
operations and disaster relief actions. For example, active, reserve,
and guard nurses and technicians provided humanitarian assistance in
South America and continued recovery efforts following Hurricane Mitch
which devastated Central America in 1998. We also provided nursing care
in Alaska to Native Americans, where medical teams were able to test
their ability to care for cold-weather injuries.
In addition to nursing's total force engagement in readiness
training and actual deployments, senior nursing personnel also have a
strong presence in leading readiness programs at command level. Nurses
currently hold the senior readiness position at the Air National Guard,
Air Mobility Command, and Pacific Air Forces Command. Several nurses
are also assigned to the readiness staffs at the major command, Air
Staff, and Joint Staff levels. Nursing Services personnel are clearly
at the tip of the spear in medical readiness.
To meet our medical readiness support requirements, the Air Force
Medical Service continues to pursue the insertion of telemedicine into
the aeromedical environment--a concept critical to providing nursing
``care in the air.'' The success of transmitting patient and
operational data via e-mail on ``live'' AE missions within Europe has
already been validated. A similar advanced telemedicine demonstration
is currently underway in the Pacific.
Another great accomplishment in telemedicine is a joint venture at
Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii. Nursing personnel assigned to
this program test, validate, and evaluate new technology to improve DOD
patient access and quality of care. An Air Force nurse will be the next
deputy director of this $40 million project.
peacetime accomplishments
While readiness remains our priority, Nursing Services has had
numerous successes in the peacetime healthcare arena as well. As
mentioned earlier, the Air Force Medical Service is transitioning to a
population health model of care delivery. Population health
standardizes beneficiary healthcare management, promotes effective
prevention and clinical intervention, and, in the long run, drives down
costs. It also facilitates using clinical nurses in expanded roles such
as nurse triage, nurse-managed clinics, condition management, demand
management, case management, and informatics. Our nurses have the broad
knowledge base and right qualifications to fulfill these crucial
functions.
Air Force Nursing Services has been instrumental in the transition
to population health. Nurses and medical technicians assisted in
planning the ``Primary Care Optimization'' course attended by 861 AFMS
members over a four-week period. As key faculty for the training
sessions, nursing personnel taught primary care management teams
composed of physicians, nurses, and technicians the principles and
practice of demand management, case management, nurse triage, and new
roles and responsibilities.
Nursing also supports population health by ensuring services are
provided at the right time, in the right place, and by the right member
of the healthcare team. Aviano Air Base provides a wonderful example of
a nurse triage program that enhanced patient access and dramatically
decreased the need for primary care appointments. Triage nurses at
Aviano successfully determine the appropriate level of care based on
the patients' symptoms and then, using triage principles and protocols,
refer them for routine, acute, or emergency appointments, or provide
self-care options. The patients report a high degree of satisfaction,
and it was found that eighty percent of the patients triaged by nurses
did not require a medical appointment. Scott and Keesler Air Force
Bases have similar success stories using nurse triage to greatly
streamline patient access to care.
Nurse-managed clinics have also proven highly effective in
achieving the goals of population health. Using clinical guidelines or
approved nursing protocols, nurses manage patients with chronic
conditions, conduct follow-up visits, provide patient education, and
coordinate care among the primary care managers, referral services, and
specialists. Nurses provide patients and family members the long-term
support needed to promote life-style changes that enhance their ability
to manage their health and healthcare.
Little Rock, Hill, and Keesler Air Force Base hospitals have very
successful nurse-managed clinics. Nurses educate the patient and
family, assist the patients in setting their own realistic goals,
encourage optimal use of local resources such as the base health and
wellness center, and monitor long-term progress. Implementation of
nurse-managed clinics has decreased readmissions and length of hospital
stays. As a result of these nursing initiatives, we have also seen a
significant increase in customer satisfaction, a decrease in cost, and
a focus squarely on prevention, as it should be.
A new role for military nurses under population health is the
health care integrator (HCI), a liaison between primary care team
members, our beneficiaries, and the local community. The HCI collects
and analyzes data to assess individual and group characteristics and
health practices. With definitive information about the population
served, the HCI is better able to match and coordinate the needs of the
patients with the capabilities of the military and civilian healthcare
system.
The increased emphasis on clinical nursing in the transition to
population health prompted a review of our AF nursing career path. In
the past, promotion to lieutenant colonel and colonel was more easily
achieved by nurses in administrative roles. Senior nursing leadership
recently began emphasizing the the importance of the clinical nursing
career path to ensure we have the clinical focus needed in our company
grade and junior field grade nurses. The recently revised NC career
path clearly delineates both a clinical and administrative career track
through the rank of lieutenant colonel for most Air Force specialty
codes (AFSC) and to colonel for a few specialty AFSCs. We will continue
to stress the importance of the clinical nursing career path to our
nurses and our non-nursing colleagues. In addition, the Secretary of
the Air Force's instructions to promotion boards charge board members
to ``consider clinical proficiency and skill as a health
professional.'' This helps to emphasize the importance of a strong
clinical presence in our field grade ranks.
The sustainment of Air Force Nursing Services is dependent on
successful accession programs. The Nurse Corps has three sources of
accessions: direct commissioning, Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC), and the Enlisted Commissioning Program. We had a recruiting
shortfall of almost 30 percent, or 83 ``fully qualified'' nurses, last
year. This problem stems from the decreasing pool of fully qualified
nurses in the civilian sector and the decline in nursing school
enrollments on a national level. Recruiting Service is finding it
increasingly difficult to attract the ``fully qualified'' nurses we
need to sustain our nursing force.
A ``fully qualified'' nurse is one who has one year of experience
in medical-surgical nursing. Basic inpatient medical-surgical nursing
is the foundation for our readiness skill competencies. Since the
majority of Air Force medical facilities now provide only ambulatory
care services, training opportunities for novice nurses in basic
inpatient care have decreased. Our remaining inpatient facilities
cannot absorb a large volume of new, inexperienced nurses. Because of
our concern over the degree of preparation of our new nurses, the AFNC
is exploring new training programs at our larger facilities, which, in
turn, would potentially allow an increase in recruitment of new nurse
graduates.
To attract the right nurses with the right skills, recruiting
incentives are essential. Up to 12 months additional constructive
credit has been authorized for nurses in critical specialties,
providing them earlier promotion opportunities. The bonus for nurses
with one-year experience is now $5,000 for a four-year commitment.
Prior to 1999, only nurses with three years of experience qualified for
the bonus.
Another potential incentive is a specialty bonus, in addition to
the accession bonus, for nurses with critically needed skills. We are
also investigating a two-year active duty service commitment option in
addition to the current three-year and four-year options. Furthermore,
we are studying the feasibility of a delayed entry program in which
nurses would be commissioned after completing their baccalaureate
degree. As a commissioned officer without pay, the novice nurse would
be required to gain one year of civilian experience and then would
enter the Air Force with one year time in grade for pay purposes.
Air Force nurses are also accessed through ROTC and enlisted
commissioning programs. The ROTC goal for fiscal year 2003-04 was
doubled from 25 to 50. To facilitate the commissioning of enlisted
members, the accession cap on those programs has been lifted. For prior
active duty enlisted personnel currently enrolled in baccalaureate
nursing programs, the one-year experience requirement was recently
waived.
As we take action to address the recruiting shortfalls, the Nurse
Corps must continue to sculpt our force in support of the fiscal year
2001 drawdown requirements. The AFNC, currently 4,335 nurses strong,
initiated several measures in an effort to reach our fiscal year 2001
targeted end strength of 3,978 nurses. Almost three hundred nurses
voluntarily separated from the Air Force during the last 18 months
through temporary early retirement authority, voluntary separation
incentives, special separation benefits, and waiver programs. However,
continued authorization for and funding of these drawdown incentives
are required to achieve our targeted end strength.
As mentioned earlier, Air Force Nursing Services must have the
``right size'' and ``right mix'' of nursing personnel as the AFMS
transitions from inpatient to ambulatory care. We are reviewing the
efficacy of several models of nursing care delivery. Most healthcare
organizations employ a blend of skill levels in their nursing workforce
that includes unlicensed nursing assistants, licensed practical/
vocational nurses (LPN/LVN), and registered nurses (RN) prepared at the
associate degree, diploma, or bachelors degree level. Using an
appropriate mix of skilled healthcare workers provides a more cost-
effective system without adversely impacting the quality of services.
The Army has adopted a nursing force model that includes a robust
number of LPN/LVNs. The majority of these are active duty personnel who
are trained in an Army program. Our goal is to balance the size, mix,
and skills of nursing personnel to meet our peacetime and readiness
requirements while ensuring high quality care to our beneficiaries.
An important strategy to obtain this goal is to optimize the skills
and practice of our enlisted force. The scope of practice for our
enlisted members is defined in the career field education and training
plan (CFETP). The CFETP permits our medical technicians to practice at
a level equivalent to the civilian LPN model, with minor exceptions.
Despite their educational preparation, our enlisted medics presently
function, for the most part, at the unlicensed assistive personnel, or
nurses' aide, level. Our goal is to implement a program that will
provide selected enlisted members licensure as practical nurses.
Another skill mix initiative revolves around the associate degree
nurse (ADN). The AFNC is currently examining options to add the ADN
nurse to our inventory. One alternative is to contract or hire civilian
ADN nurses. Another is to educate our enlisted LPNs to the ADN level.
Currently, our research indicates that it might be more fiscally
advantageous to hire civilian ADNs rather than to ``grow our own.''
However, we will proceed in contacting educational institutions for ADN
program criteria and costs to use in our planning.
The Tri-Service Nursing Research Program continues to provide
important benefits to the practice of Air Force nursing. Congressional
funding has been pivotal to the implementation of many vital nursing
research projects. We are currently exploring funding for this program
within the DOD budget.
There are 34 Air Force nursing research projects in progress
sponsored by the Tri-Service Program. Air Force nursing personnel are
investigating topics targeted at clinical practice and readiness.
Subjects range from post-deployment nursing care and aeromedical
evacuation nursing procedures to other issues specific to military
nursing. Many completed studies were published in professional journals
and presented at federal, national, and specialty meetings this past
year. I firmly believe that nursing research will continue to improve
health care in the inpatient, outpatient, and contingency environment.
Again, the AFNC thanks you for your continued support.
As in tri-service research, we frequently partner with our sister
services to achieve our professional goals. For the past four years,
the federal nursing chiefs collaborated with the American Nurses
Association (ANA) to establish a federal constituency within that
organization. In June 1999, the Federal Nursing Association, or FedNA,
became a reality. This landmark achievement means federal nurses now
have a place at the table where decisions on national nursing standards
of care and practice are made.
conclusion
In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to share the many
challenges and tremendous accomplishments of Air Force Nursing
Services. Mr. Chairman and committee members, on behalf of the
Department of Defense, the Air Force Medical Service, and the patients
we serve, we appreciate your strong and continuing support of military
nursing.
Senator Inouye (presiding). Thank you very much, General
Brannon. Now may I call upon Colonel Gustke.
STATEMENT OF COL. DEBORAH GUSTKE, ASSISTANT CHIEF, ARMY
NURSE CORPS, U.S. ARMY
Colonel Gustke. Yes, sir. Senator Inouye, distinguished
members of the committee, I am Colonel Deborah Gustke,
Assistant Chief of the Army Nurse Corps. It is indeed an honor
and a privilege to speak to you today, this being my first time
before the committee. I would like to tell you a few stories
about how Army nurses are making a difference for America's
soldiers and their families. I would like to highlight three
primary areas, deployments, TRICARE, nursing research, and then
I will conclude with some of the challenges we are facing
today.
With regard to deployments, when the First Med Group
started the Bosnia support mission in September of 1998, at
Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia, Army nurses have been critical to
the success of these deployments and the multiple deployments
thereafter. Not only have they done their health care mission
well, but they have expended significant energy in being
ambassadors in the region and providing valuable training
opportunities to multinational personnel.
Some examples are when the 212th Mobile Surgical Army
Hospital designed a contingency medical force package that was
both air-deployable, compact, and could provide surgical
resuscitative care to patients for 72 hours without requiring
resupply. When nursing was given the word to go, they were able
to pack, palletize, and be ready to go in less than 14 hours,
but most importantly, when they hit the ground running they
were able to set up the facility in less than 6 hours.
Again, when the 212th had to move to Macedonia to support
operations there, they were able to be fully operational and
accepting casualties again under 6 hours.
Nurses at Task Force Med Falcon at Kosovo packed mil vans,
trained medics, and cared for patients ranging in ages from 2
to 75 years of age.
Still another initiative was the development of a program
called Fit Eagle Wellness, which provided chaplain support,
psychiatric nursing services, nutrition services, physical
therapy, to all the soldiers at all the base camps. As a matter
of fact, twice a month these nurses made the rounds to assess
the soldiers' needs.
Deployed Army nurses have the skills, the training and,
most importantly, the critical thinking skills to do whatever
is necessary at hand to provide soldier care without
compromising quality in any environment. Captain Teresa
Duquette, head nurse of the 212th emergency medical team, sums
it best when she says, this is what Army nursing is all about.
Working in austere conditions, setting up field hospitals,
training young troops to step up a level in any situation, and
building systems which are the foundation for medical care.
In the area of TRICARE, Army nurses continue to develop and
implement initiatives that are driving down health care costs,
expanding access, and improving quality. I would like to cite
two of these initiatives.
The first is a nurse at Fort Drum Hospital in New York
noticed that there was a shortage in obstetrics and gynecology
facilities at Fort Drum. She took the initiative and enlisted
the aid of the Corps of Engineers, who contracted for a
civilian space at a local hospital.
As a result of this initiative, Fort Drum was able to see
800 additional gynecology appointments per year, and saw an
increase in deliveries from 30 to 45. We are planning on
assigning an additional midwife to Fort Drum, which will bring
an additional 15 deliveries to the facility. This move will
save an estimated $383,000 per year, but most importantly it
provides care to 120 additional families to the Tenth Mountain
Division.
In regards to TRICARE, the nurse-managed central triage
center located at Martin Army Hospital in Fort Benning,
Georgia, combined an advice line for hospital beneficiaries
with a 24-hour emergency authorization service. This was
instrumental in allowing patients who travel to access
emergency authorization care 24 hours a day, and a secondary
effect was that it helped decrease unnecessary emergency room
visits. As you can see, today's Army nurses have responded with
creativity and results in the TRICARE environment.
In the area of nursing research, we definitely appreciate
your support in the funding of the TRISERVICE nursing research
program. Our researchers have responded to the challenge by
examining ways to optimize nursing care by leveraging
technology and the best business practices that are in our
facilities today. Army nursing research studies funded by the
triservice nursing research program this year run the gamut
from a study examining ways to prevent the hospitalization of
older military retirees, to studies that incorporate the latest
exercise and diet strategies to improve soldier readiness.
A previously funded study that will be completed this fall
found significant links between levels of stress and delayed
wound healing. Results of the study will be used to develop
methods for alleviating soldiers' stress to accelerate wound
healing.
army nurse corps
Senator Inouye, the main challenge to us in the Army Nurse
Corps today, in the coming months, is the projected national
nursing shortage. According to a Sigma Theta Tau report that
was issued in July of last year, there are three factors that
are causing this problem. During the Nation's economic slump,
many patients have neglected their care because of the cost.
With the robust economy, now there is even greater demand for
nurses, and especially nursing specialties.
Second, registered nurse enrollments are decreasing for the
third year in a row. Of particular concern is the baccalaureate
enrollment, at a 6.6 reduction rate for this year.
Third, due to higher hospital census and greater patient
acuities, there is an increased demand for specialized nurses.
Nationally, the baccalaureate of science nurse is in huge
demand, based on their ability to contribute to the health care
team as they lead multidisciplinary teams, function as patient
educators, and manage patients across the age continuum.
Similarly, Army nursing requires officers who can combine
these skills, the right knowledge base, to deploy and rapidly
adapt to any environment, and we are very much pleased with
your position on maintaining the baccalaureate level as our
entry level, just as our Surgeon General supports that
initiative and is steadfast and states that it is a
nonnegotiable issue. We again appreciate your support.
We thank you for your support for the nurse accession
bonus. Currently, we are using this bonus to recruit top-notch
nurses from the Nation's talent pool, a very difficult task. We
will need your continued support of this bonus to guarantee
that we maintain the right number in the right specialty.
Your continued support for the nurse specialty pay has been
most helpful in both recruiting and retaining practitioners as
well as nurse-anesthetists in this competitive hiring
environment. Again, we thank you.
In conclusion, sir, next year, February 2, Army nurses
worldwide will celebrate 100 years of maintaining the highest
standards of professionalism in nursing in the military
service. As we meet to honor and reflect on our achievements,
we also renew our commitment to meet the challenge of change
and our efforts to support the health needs of soldiers and the
beneficiary population. Our past has prepared us to meet the
challenges of today, and ensures our ability to meet those of
tomorrow.
Senator Inouye, Army nurses remain, now and always, ready,
caring, and proud. Thank you for this opportunity to tell you
about Army nursing, and we will be happy to entertain your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Col. Deborah Gustke
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am
Colonel Deborah Gustke, Assistant Chief, Army Nurse Corps. This morning
I'd like to highlight three areas where Army nurses are making a
difference for America's soldiers and their families. These three areas
are deployments, TRICARE and nursing research. I'll conclude with the
challenges facing the Army Nurse Corps in the next few years.
Deployments.--Beginning in September 1998 when the 1st Medical
Group started the Bosnia support mission at Eagle Base in Tuzla,
Bosnia, Army nurses have been critical in the success of these
deployments. Not only have they done their health care mission well,
but they have put significant time and energy into being United States
``ambassadors'' in the region and providing valuable training
opportunities to multi-national medical personnel. Army nurses are
adept at combining expert knowledge with care and concern in
unstructured deployed environments to provide the very best care to our
soldiers. For example; nurses of the 212th Mobile Army Surgical
Hospital, the last remaining Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Army,
designed a Contingency Medical Force package that is air-deployable,
compact and can provide surgical resuscitative care to 36 major
surgical patients for 72 hours before requiring re-supply. The system
was battle-tested when components of the 212th were deployed to support
initial entry operations in the Balkans. The Contingency Medical Force
was packed, palletized and ready to go in less than 14 hours. After
landing in the Balkans, the hospital staff set up the hospital and were
treating patients in less than 6 hours. Three months later, the 212th
moved to Macedonia to support operations there and again, had the
hospital set up in under 6 hours when they received four gunshot
victims a few hours later. Even with the rapid re-deployments and
austere conditions, the compassionate care that highlights Army nursing
is never left behind. Captain Mike Rizzo of the 212th intensive care
unit says, ``Even a lifetime of television reruns of Mobile Army
Surgical Hospital could never prepare me for facing an injured fellow
United States soldier lying on a litter. I continually returned to the
thought that the patient lying in front of me has a family that has
entrusted him to my care and they are depending on me to keep him from
making the ultimate sacrifice for his country.'' Nurses at Eagle Base
in Bosnia saw over 700 patients in their first month there--the
majority of the patients requiring immediate surgical intervention.
During Operation Forge, emergency room nurses at Eagle Base implemented
an emergency support line. Anyone on Eagle Base could call ``2-HELP''
and be connected to emergency care 24 hours a day. Nurses at Task Force
Med Falcon in Kosovo packed milvans, trained medics and cared for
patients ranging in age from 2-75 years old. Nurses remembered to pack
crucial life-saving equipment not standard to the field packs such as
electorcardiogram machines, blood infusors and cardiac defibrillators.
They cross-leveled supplies from different hospital sections to stay
afloat when supply channels into Kosovo were cut due to security
restrictions. Army nurses implemented cross-training programs so nurses
could assist on different units when increases in patient acuities
occurred. Another nurse developed a program called ``Fit Eagle Wellness
Program'' that provided chaplain support, psychiatric nursing support,
nutrition services and physical therapy to soldiers at all the base
camps. Twice a month, they convoyed as a team to address soldiers'
individual healthcare needs. Nurses deployed with Operation Provide
Hope in the Ukraine. One of these nurses, Captain Pabliot Gahol was
sent to provide training on intensive care unit equipment but found he
spent most of his time training the nurses on simple skills such as how
to use a stethoscope to listen to a patient's heart and lungs.
Deployed Army nurses have the skills, the training and most
importantly, the critical thinking skills to use whatever resources are
at hand to provide soldier care without compromising quality. Captain
Teresa Duquette, Head Nurse of the 212th Emergency Medical Team says it
best; ``This is what Army nursing is all about--working in austere
conditions, setting up field hospitals, training young troops to step
up a level in any situation and building systems which are the
foundation for the medical care. Deployment allows me to make a
difference in the lives of my patients.''
TRICARE.--Army nurses continue to develop and implement initiatives
that are driving down healthcare costs, expanding access and improving
quality.
After co-implementing a ``MedTeams'' concept at the Madigan Army
Hospital emergency room in Fort Lewis, Washington, the Army nursing
Emergency Consultant found there was a 94 percent reduction in observed
clinical errors, 80 percent reduction in risk management cases and a 5
percent improvement in the quality of preparation for patients admitted
through the emergency department. The MedTeams concept, developed in
the civilian sector, is a medical error reduction tool that uses
principles learned in Army Aviation Safety to improve performance,
decrease errors and decrease costs. The highly successful program is
being tested with the 47th Combat Support Hospital and the 44th Medical
Brigade.
A nurse at the Fort Drum hospital facilitated the first Army
satellite Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic at a civilian hospital. In
response to a shortage of Obstetrics and Gynecology facilities at Fort
Drum, New York, she enlisted the aid of the Corps of Engineers who
contracted space from a local civilian hospital. This initiative allows
an additional 1,800 Gynecology appointments per year and an increase in
deliveries from 30 to 45 per month. The move will save $382,797 per
year while providing military medical care to an additional 120
families of the 10 Mountain Division (Light Infantry).
A nurse-managed Central Triage Center recently instituted at Martin
Army Hospital in Fort Benning, Georgia serves as an advice line for the
hospital's beneficiaries, a triage area for the emergency room and a 24
hour contact for soldiers and their families such that they can receive
emergency authorization to seek care at civilian facilities while
traveling. The Center maximizes access while decreasing unnecessary
emergency room visits.
Today's military healthcare system mandates quality, efficiency and
cost effective care that promotes patient satisfaction. Army nurses are
responding by implementing innovative solutions that remove barriers to
quality care.
Nursing Research.--Thanks to your support of the Triservice Nursing
Research Program, our nurse researchers are pioneering new technology
and new concepts that promise better outcomes for our patients. Nursing
practice has changed dramatically with the need to examine current
delivery models and to re-engineer delivery of nursing services. Our
researchers have responded to this challenge by examining ways to
optimize nursing care by leveraging technology and best practices. Army
nursing research studies funded by the Triservice Nursing Research
Program this year run the gamut from a study examining ways to prevent
hospitalization of older military retirees to a study that incorporates
the latest exercise and diet science into strategies to improve soldier
readiness. A previously funded study that will be completed this Fall
found significant links between levels of stress and delayed wound
healing. Results of this study will be used to develop methods for
alleviating soldier stress to accelerate and improve wound healing.
The Triservice Nursing Research Program continues to evolve and we
are getting better and better at using nursing research to address
issues of quality, access and cost in the military healthcare system.
Your continued advocacy and support for this program will insure
military nurses can harness technology and science to improve care for
our patients.
A major challenge for quality healthcare in the coming months is a
projected national nursing shortage. According to a Sigma Theta Tau
nursing report released in July of last year, the shortage is being
driven by three factors: (1) During the nation's economic slump, many
people neglected their health care--now that the economy is up, so is
the demand for healthcare; (2) Registered Nurses enrollments in schools
of nursing are down; and (3) higher hospital census and greater patient
acuity are causing a demand for experienced Registered Nurses in
specialized areas such as intensive care unit, emergency room or the
operating room. Nationally, the baccalaureate of science nurse is in
huge demand based on their ability to contribute to healthcare by
leading multi-disciplinary teams, serving as patient educators and
managing care across the age continuum. Similarly, Army nursing
requires officers who can combine expert skills with the right
knowledge base to deploy and rapidly adapt to any global healthcare
mission; nurses who can integrate multi-faceted problems in a managed
care environment and keep doors to healthcare access open; nurses who
have the research skills to build better patient outcomes from
hypotheses and ``what-if'' ideas; in short--nurses who have the depth
and breadth of experience and education that a Bachelor's of Science
degree in nursing provides. This standard has helped Army medicine
maintain its edge as a world class healthcare system. The baccalaureate
prepares nurses who can manage and lead the delivery of healthcare in a
wellness model. In fact, how we are able to contribute as nurses is
tied to our educational preparation. Our education enables us to see
the possibilities in science and use those possibilities to improve
care for our patients. The proven success of military nurses, to a
great extent, is linked to the commitment of the military healthcare
system to require and maintain the highest standards for military
nursing. As cost-cutting methods are sought to reduce the price tag
associated with military health care, our use of the Bachelor of
Science prepared nurse continues to be scrutinized. We appreciate your
continued support of the Bachelor's of Science degree in nursing
criterion for entry into active duty nursing.
Thank you for your support of the nurse accession bonus. Currently,
we are using the bonus to recruit top-notch nurses from the nation's
talent pool. We'll need your continued support of this bonus to
guarantee the right nurses for future deployments, humanitarian
missions and beneficiary care. Your support of nursing specialty pay is
enabling us to recruit specialty nurses in a competitive hiring
environment. Thank you.
Next year, on the second of February, Army nurses will celebrate
100 years of maintaining the highest standards for professionalism in
nursing and in military service. While meeting the challenge of change
we have maintained our commitment of supporting the health care needs
of soldiers and our beneficiary population. Our past has prepared us to
meet the challenges of today and ensures our ability to meet tomorrow's
challenges. Army nurses remain Ready, Caring and Proud. Thank you for
this opportunity to tell you about Army nursing.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Colonel Gustke.
Before I proceed, I would like to note that for the past 12
years the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has been
privileged to have the services of an executive nurse intern
from the three services. This year, we are assisted by
Commander Cathy Wilson of the Navy, and we rotate among the
services, as you know. We are very fortunate to have Commander
Wilson with us, and if anything is wrong with my questions or
statements--no, seriously, we are very fortunate.
Colonel Gustke, I gather that you are here speaking on
behalf of Brigadier General Promotable Bester.
Colonel Gustke. Yes, sir, I am.
Senator Inouye. He is the first male nurse to become Chief
of the Army Nurse Corps, is that correct?
General Gustke. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Inouye. Well, it is about time, I think.
Where is Colonel Bester?
Colonel Gustke. Sir, Colonel Bester is right behind me.
Senator Inouye. Oh, please. Congratulations, sir.
Colonel Bester. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Senator Inouye. We look forward to your services, and one
of these days you will be sitting here.
Anyway, as I noted to the panel that appeared before you, I
have been a beneficiary of the military medical system for 55
years, and during that period it became very clear to me that
nurses were professionals, that they were capable of being
autonomous, independent health providers, and accordingly I
have tried my best to convince my colleagues of that
conclusion, and I am glad that my colleagues have agreed.
I am concerned about what I indicated to the panel, and I
am pleased that your service chiefs have indicated that they
were bad rumors. I hope they continue to be bad rumors.
Nurse anesthetists
I have a few questions, if I may. What would be the
implication if the certified registered nurse anesthetists were
required to have direct physician supervision on all surgical
cases? What would be the effect?
Admiral Harmeyer. Sir, I will start with that question. We
rely on our certified, registered nurse anesthetists to
function in a broad scope of operational as well as health
benefit arenas, and because of that, they need to have critical
thinking ability. They need to have advanced decision-making
skills.
Those tools in their tool bag are accomplished by making
decisions that are sometimes hard, and to impose supervision of
that process would degrade their ability in those areas of
critical thinking and decision-making, and also if a direct
supervisor were required to be with them during things that
would definitely make a big impact on their productivity and
the productivity of the organization overall. It would not be a
good thing.
General Brannon. We currently have 25 certified registered
nurse anesthetists practicing at facilities where there is no
anesthesiologist, and were that requirement to be levied that
they have one there over their shoulder, we would either need
to recruit more anesthesiologists, or we would probably need to
close some of those surgical units at the smaller facilities.
Senator Inouye. Colonel.
Colonel Gustke. Sir, I will preface my remarks by saying
that we, too, in the military have several facilities where
nurse-anesthetists are practicing without direct supervision.
Problems would arise if we had to have that supervision. Like
the Air Force, we would have to procure an inordinate amount of
anesthesiologists for that supervision.
It would have a severe impact of our recruitment and
retention of our nurse-anesthetists today. They came into the
Army and they applied to the nurse-anesthetist program because
it is the best in the country, number 1. Number 2, it provides
autonomous practice, and by using this intensive supervision it
would definitely affect our numbers and then, of course, impact
on all the services provided to our beneficiaries.
Senator Inouye. Thank you. I have been told that whenever a
very important person (VIP) gets surgery the anesthesia is
administered by an anesthesiologist. Is there any truth to
that, because unless I am not a VIP, I have had a nurse do the
work.
Admiral Harmeyer. Sir, I will jump right in here. Again,
VIP's do not receive a different standard of care. There is one
standard of care in our facilities, and that is the very, very
best that we possibly can provide. All patients in our
facilities are assigned based upon the patient's medical
history and the complexity of the anesthesiology plan.
General Brannon. It would only be based on the patient's
condition, sir, not on their VIP status. If they required a
higher level of skill, it would potentially be an
anesthesiologist.
Senator Inouye. I am glad to know that.
Colonel Gustke. Sir, I would echo those comments and say it
is a resounding no. As a matter of fact, yesterday at Madigan
Army Medical Center a Navy admiral underwent anesthesia for a
procedure, and it was provided by a nurse anesthetist and he
recovered very well.
Senator Inouye. Was he aware of that?
Colonel Gustke. Yes, sir, and proud of it.
Senator Inouye. What would be the impact if we did not have
a permanently funded triservice nursing research program?
General, let us start with you.
Triservice nursing research program
General Brannon. Fine. Thank you. I think, frankly, we
would be decreasing the amount of nursing research that was
going to be conducted in our facilities. Research dollars are
very competitive, and were we to seek dollars in the civilian
sector, since many of the issues we want to explore in nursing
research in the military are military-specific, they may not
rate as high with our civilian counterparts.
We have about six full-time nurse researchers in the Air
Force, with the grant proposal-writing, and conducting of
research, I think it would overwhelm them if we did not have
those dollars more readily available.
Senator Inouye. Colonel.
Colonel Gustke. Sir, I would say that having the funds to
continue the triservice research program has enabled us in the
military to prioritize into military-unique research. It has
been very instrumental in us looking at cost-effective ways to
provide care, as well as to provide the most efficient means to
access care and make our soldiers well.
We have done considerable research in lung injuries, wound
healing, diet, and exercise, which are critical for our
soldiers, and eliminating this funding would impact our ability
to address these critical issues that are related to soldier
readiness and beneficiary care, and I would echo General
Brannon's comments that it is extremely important, because many
times civilian institutions do not understand the military
uniqueness of much of our research, so it is imperative that we
continue this.
Senator Inouye. Does it make sense to have a School of
Nursing in USUHS?
Colonel Gustke. Sir, I would say that USUHS has been very
supportive to the Army Nurse Corps in three venues. One is, we
do educate some of our nurse-anesthetists in USUHS, and it is
very important, because we only have a limited number of slots
in our other military programs, and because they have been very
vital in family nurse practitioner completion programs, because
in the last few years we have seen the need for family nurse
practitioners to be involved in primary care, and third, we now
have full-time programs for our family nurse practitioners in
USUSH, so it is very critical to us in primary care and in
providing nursing anesthesia.
General Brannon. I agree, but I would also add that having
it at USUHS enables us to have some military-specific things in
the curriculum, and we work very closely with the faculty there
to make sure that the current needs are addressed.
Admiral Harmeyer. And I agree, sir, that the military
health care environment, as the actual practice area for them,
is very, very important, and getting the operational picture at
the same time is crucial.
Senator Inouye. I think at this juncture I should note that
the graduates of USUHS have a greater retention record than
graduates of West Point, Annapolis, or Colorado Springs. I
believe that 90 percent of the graduates of USUHS are still in
the service. That is much, much higher than the Air Force,
Navy, or Army special schools.
I have a couple of other questions, if I may ask.
Nurse shortages
Colonel Gustke noted that there is a shortage of nurses in
the United States, and that has been a concern to all of us on
this committee. Do you have any suggestions you can make as to
how we can cope with that problem in the military? What do we
need to recruit or retain nurses now? Are we doing the right
thing? Should we do something else?
Colonel Gustke. Senator Inouye, I would say we are doing
the right thing, but I think we have to continue the accession
bonuses. It is very necessary that we continue the specialty
pay. It is the accession bonuses that allow us to attract
nurses in the specialty areas and, coupled with that, in the
Army we are engaging our new nurses in sending them into
specialty courses, which is what they want to do, so we have a
very robust program, but without that accession bonus it is
very difficult to attract them away from some high-paying jobs
in the civilian community.
Our specialty pay is extremely important, especially for
our nurse anesthetists, and I would say that for the first time
in many years we have gotten near 100 percent to fill all of
our positions in nursing anesthesia, and it is the specialty
bonus that has done that.
When you look at the pay for a nurse anesthetist coming out
of a civilian program, their pay in the civilian community is
$85,000 a year, very hard to equate that with a captain's pay,
but the specialty pay goes a long way in doing that, so we have
to have a need to continue those programs and I would say, if
anything, that would be what we would ask this committee.
Senator Inouye. Admiral.
Admiral Harmeyer. I agree that having the incentive
programs and those in place are very important. What is also an
advantage for us has been our Reserve Officers' Training Corps
(ROTC) graduates, our medical enlisted commissioning programs.
Those are very effective in preparing for good nurses to come
into our organization, and the interest in those areas has been
very high.
General Brannon. I would echo the comments of both my
colleagues. We have a couple--one unique challenge in Air Force
nursing, in that the majority of our new recruits need to have
some experience, so they are much more difficult to attract.
Oftentimes new nurses coming out of school have difficulty with
their first placement because they do not have experience, and
if they come into the military for that, it is an advantage.
So I do not know that there is any one answer. We have
several initiatives, very flexible things, working to try to
attract those nurses. We are looking at loan repayment
programs. We wrote the program objective memorandum (POM) for
that in 2002. We are looking potentially at an early
commissioning program where we could actually sign them up
while they were still in school, still with that requirement
for them to get the year's experience, but then give them
credit for that year of service while they are in their
educational program. Recruiting is a complicated issue.
I also agree that one of the best ways I think we can get
nurses for our active forces is by sending our enlisted members
back for baccalaureate training. I think that is a wonderful
source of good experience; people who are dedicated, committed,
and know the ways of the military. I would like to see
opportunities to robust that.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General.
When I became a member of this committee, I do not believe
there were any flag rank officers among the nurses. I still
think that we do not have enough in the Nurse Corps. They are
still fussing around and not giving you proper recognition.
For example, your nurses do a good job. Recently, an Army
nurse, Major General Nancy Adams, was given the assignment of
being commander of Tripler. In her first year, in the
certification tests, Tripler got 100 percent. Now, you cannot
go beyond 100, and before then all commanders were men, and
they never achieved 100. Once again, she is getting another
100, so I hope you men will note that, please.
Finally, as I call this hearing to a recess, some of my
physician friends hate to hear this, but during my time in the
military I think I saw a physician at the most twice a week.
The rest of the time I was helped by nurses that did minor
surgery, IV's, everything, and so when people tell me that
nurses are not professional, I tell them to join the military
and get injured, and you will find out.
Additional committee questions
But once again, I thank you all for your testimony this
morning.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Secretary Rudy de Leon
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
Question. Do you have a Defense Health Program (DHP) budget
shortfall in fiscal year 2000? What is the magnitude of the shortfall?
What caused the shortfall?
Answer. Yes. In addition to the fiscal year 2000 $228 million
reprogramming included in the President's Budget, there is an
additional requirement of approximately $626 million for contractor
claims that the Department was not able to validate in time for the
President's Budget submission. These include the pharmacy bid price
adjustment directed by the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act
and additional contractor claims that will require funding in fiscal
years 1998-2001.
Question. Did you adequately budget for fiscal year 2000? Were
these shortfalls avoidable?
Answer. The Department adequately budgeted for known requirements.
However, increased contractor costs have significantly impacted the
DHP. The primary reason for several of the most recent contractor
claims is that contractor costs are higher than expected. Additionally,
the costs of pharmaceuticals have been rising in both the private
sector (as reflected in part by increased contractor costs) and in the
medical treatment facilities. Additionally, the DHP cannot react to
cost increases by reducing benefits or raising costs, thus leaving no
way, other than increased funding, to respond to changing market
conditions. If all of the Managed Care Support Contract (MCSC) claims
are adjudicated in favor of the contractor, the DHP would most likely
exceed its appropriation for prior years. The amounts cannot be
determined until the claims are adjudicated.
Question. Do you need supplemental funds to fully execute the
fiscal year 2000 Defense Health Program?
Answer. Yes. As indicated in the President's budget, the Department
requires additional funding to execute fiscal year 2000. This includes
$228.2 million reprogrammed from the Services and $8.5 million
reprogrammed from DHP, procurement to DHP, O&M. The reprogramming will
fund additional requirements including pharmacy, validated contractor
costs, and custodial care. In addition to these reprogramming actions,
there is an additional requirement of approximately $626 million for
contractor claims that the Department was not able to validate in time
for the President's Budget submission. These include the pharmacy bid
price adjustment directed by the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization
Act and additional contractor claims that will require funding in
fiscal years 1998-2001.
Question. Is your fiscal year 2001 medical request fully funded?
Answer. Yes. The Department addressed all requirements for fiscal
year 2001 in the President's Budget except those that would be included
in a potential fiscal year 2001 budget amendment. The potential fiscal
year 2001 budget amendment would include requirements for $626.5
million to cover the pharmacy bid price adjustment directed by the
Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act and additional contract
claims from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001. The amount may
change as a result of on going negotiations and validations of
additional contract claims by the Department over the next few months.
Question. When he testified before this Subcommittee, Deputy
Secretary Hamre said the medical budget was an area of great concern to
him. If you are confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense, will defense
health care issues continue to be at the top of your priorities?
Answer. Yes, improving military health care will continue to be
among my highest priorities, since it is critical to improving the
quality of life for our service men and women.
Question. Some have advanced proposals to greatly expand defense
medical benefits at a cost up to $6 billion per year. Can DOD afford
these proposals?
Clearly, some of the more expensive ideas, did not make it in our
budget request. Why were they not included?
Some would say that we should fully fund the current benefit and
medical program first, before we greatly expand the benefit. Do you
agree?
Answer. To help improve access and affordability of care for our
beneficiaries, the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget adds two new
funded initiatives proposed by the JCS for Active Duty Family members:
(1) expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote to include family member
coverage, which will improve access to health care and lower out-of-
pocket costs for active duty families who do not live near military
treatment facilities; and (2) the elimination of co-pays for all active
duty family members enrolled in TRICARE Prime. The Department has
provided $30 million and $50 million, respectively, in fiscal year 2001
for these new initiatives. Additionally, the Department is committed to
working closely with Congress on its efforts to review the health care
benefits for retirees 65 and over to determine what, if any, new
benefits can be accommodated within the Department's topline.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
Question. Mr. De Leon, although we have discussed healthcare
challenges with respect to beneficiaries, there has been little
discussion of the challenges with respect to health care providers. I
am particularly concerned by reports of projected personnel shortages.
Certainly, the socioeconomic factors outlined in Colonel Gustke's
statement apply to the physician population as well. I am also
concerned by reports that our military providers are getting frustrated
with the new constraints imposed by managed care and that they are
subsequently opting out of patient care into alternative specialties,
such as Occupational Medicine and Preventive Medicine. Although you
outlined the effects that various factors have had on beneficiaries, we
have had little discussion of the effects on our health care providers.
Please comment on the recruiting and retention of military
physicians and nurses inpatient care arenas.
As you know, Congress worked hard to include the Federal Employees
Health Benefit Program-65 (FEHBP-65) in the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense
Authorization Act. However, we were disappointed to learn that of the
66,000 potential candidates, fewer than 2,000 signed up for the test. I
have heard various explanations for this low enrollment figure,
including a lack of education and high enrollment costs.
What are the reasons for this low initial enrollment in the FEHBP
test program and what is being done to enhance enrollment?
Answer. Based on past estimates from the Congressional Budget
Office, the General Accounting Office, and others, the Department
expected many more responses. As of mid-March, about 2,500 of the
70,000 eligible beneficiaries have enrolled. This represents an
enrollment rate of about 3.5 percent.
GAO is surveying eligible individuals to determine why they
enrolled or not. There are several possibilities why enrollment has
been so low. First, some beneficiaries may have had inadequate
information, or not enough time to decide on whether to enroll. This
possibility was the principal factor in our decision to work with OPM
to mail additional information to all beneficiaries in late December,
and conduct additional marketing activities in each site in early
January. The number of additional enrollees since January 1 (nearly
1,000) suggests that time and information may have played some part in
the low participation. However, most of the more recent enrollees are
from Puerto Rico, where we are aware of communications problems, rather
than from all the sites. On balance, it does not appear that lack of
information or time is the main reason for low participation.
Second, there are clear patterns of enrollment response across the
sites. Enrollment response has been best in those sites with very
limited access to military health care--Puerto Rico, Greensboro, and
Northern California. In locations with a military facility, or where
beneficiaries have access to military pharmacy coverage, enrollment has
been much lower--suggesting that access to military health care
services may play a big role in beneficiary decision making.
Third, beneficiaries may have made their health care arrangements,
and be unwilling to change them for a limited-term demonstration. The
Department's experience with the TRICARE Senior (Medicare Subvention)
demonstration was similar, in that initial enrollment demand was
considerably below early projections. In part, this can be attributed
to the beneficiary education and marketing process, but beneficiary
resistance to disrupting their lives to enroll in a temporary program
is likely a factor also. GAO's review should shed light on the
significance of this.
Fourth, there may be a variety of other factors at work, and GAO's
survey and evaluation may help uncover them. For example, age, health
status, existing insurance coverage, financial status, and retired rank
are some of the variables that may affect an individual's decision to
enroll.
The Department did four separate direct mailings to all eligible
beneficiaries, providing a postcard, brochure, a guide to health plans
in the program, and additional information after initial enrollment
response was low. In addition, the Department conducted two waves of
health fairs and town meetings in the demonstration sites, to educate
beneficiaries about the program, and operated a toll-free call center
to answer their question about the program.
We undertook a very extensive educational effort, but acknowledge
that this is a complicated subject. The information that the Department
provided was clear and accurate, but the decision facing the
beneficiary is complicated. In large measure, this is because of the
complexity of FEHB and its relationship to a beneficiary's Medicare
coverage: rather than a single benefit plan, FEHB is made up of
numerous individual plans, each with its own benefit package, cost
sharing requirements, and Medicare interaction. GAO is surveying
beneficiaries to determine how well they understand the program. The
temporary nature of a demonstration program, and the ability to
reacquire former coverage may have had an effect on enrollment levels.
Part of the problem is the complexity of this coverage issue--
beneficiaries are protected if they have Medigap, but many have
supplemental coverage that predates or is otherwise not under the
Medigap rules, and thus they lack repurchase protections.
______
Questions Submitted to William Lynn
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
Question. I've read reports that your fiscal year 2000 shortfall is
up to $500 million. Will you have a shortfall even after you reprogram
funds?
Answer. Yes. In addition to the fiscal year 2000 $228 million
reprogramming included in the President's Budget, there is an
additional requirement of approximately $626 million for contractor
claims that the Department was not able to validate in time for the
President's Budget submission. These include the pharmacy bid price
adjustment directed by the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act
and additional contractor claims that will require funding in fiscal
years 1998-2001.
Question. You have stated that the Defense Health Program is ``the
biggest trouble area in the budget, in my view.'' That is an alarming
statement. Please fully explain.
Answer. The Defense Health Program presents a unique challenge in
providing health care to the eight million eligible beneficiaries and
six million users. Due to the unique dynamics of a number of factors
such as: the rising cost of health care, estimating inflation in
advance of actual execution, increasing non-active duty population, an
aging population, and escalating retiree health care requirements all
contribute to create a very difficult process of budgeting for the
Military Health System. This concern has led to the effort to improving
military health care as the Department's highest priority in fiscal
year 2000.
Question. Do you have large TRICARE liabilities without sufficient
appropriated funds to pay them?
If so, what is the total amount of the liability? How will you pay
these bills?
Answer. There is no shortfall for validated contractor claims in
the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget. However, we anticipate that
once new contractor claims are validated, the Department will submit an
amended budget totaling an estimated $626.5 million for fiscal year
1998-2001.
The Department addressed all requirements for fiscal year 2001 in
the President's Budget except those that would be included in a
potential fiscal year 2001 budget amendment. The potential fiscal year
2001 budget amendment would include requirements for $626.5 million to
cover the pharmacy bid price adjustment directed by the Fiscal Year
2000 Defense Authorization Act and additional contractor claims from
fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001. This amount may change as a
result of ongoing negotiations and validations of additional contract
claims by the Department over the next few months.
Question. How did you get into this situation? Do you face a
possible ``Anti-Deficiency Act'' violation?
Answer. The primary reason for several of the most recent
contractor claims is that contractor costs are higher than expected.
Additionally, the costs of pharmaceuticals have been rising in both the
private sector (as reflected in part by increased contractor costs) and
in the medical treatment facilities. Additionally, the DHP cannot react
to cost increases by reducing benefits or raising costs, thus leaving
no way, other than increased funding, to respond to changing market
conditions. If all of the Managed Care Support Contract (MCSC) claims
are adjudicated in favor of the contractor, the DHP would most likely
exceed its appropriation for prior years. The amounts cannot be
determined until the claims are adjudicated.
Question. I understand that DOD is making payments to Justice to
pay for tobacco litigation, contrary to the expressed will of this
Congress. Can you explain?
Answer. The Department of Defense provided funds to the Department
of Justice to support the tobacco litigation in response to a request
from the Office of Management and Budget at the end of February. On
March 8, the Department of Defense completed action to reimburse the
Department of Justice $2.65 million from the Defense Health Program.
The authority used by the Department of Defense to provide funds to
the Department of Justice to support the tobacco litigation was Public
Law 103-317, Title I, section 109 (August 26, 1994) which provides:
``Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 or any other law, in litigation
involving unusually high costs, the Department of Justice may receive
and retain reimbursement for salaries and expenses, for fiscal year
1995 and thereafter, from any other governmental component being
represented in the litigation [28 U.S.C. 509 note].'' The Department of
Defense has incurred large health care costs attributable to tobacco
use. The litigation will attempt to recover these costs.
Question. How do you justify making this payment from Defense
Health Program funds and taking away from medical readiness for troops?
Answer. The Department of Defense strongly supports the Federal
government's effort--similar to the successful efforts of State
governments--to recover enormous government health care costs
attributable to use of tobacco products. In addition, from a strictly
budgetary standpoint, if funds are recovered based on DOD health care
costs attributable to tobacco use, we expect such recoveries to be
credited to the Defense Health Program, under the Medical Care Recovery
Act (42 U.S.C. 2651), one of the statutory bases for this litigation,
and 10 U.S.C. 1095(g). The investment by the Defense Health Program in
this litigation is quite reasonable in relation to the potential
recovery for that program account. Finally, this expenditure will not
adversely affect medical readiness for military personnel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. As you may know, the costs of some of the proposed
legislation intended to address serious problems in the DOD health care
system is quite expensive: Senator Johnson's S. 2003 will be estimated
by CBO to cost $9 billion per year, or more over 10 years; Senator
McCain's S. 2013 is variously estimated to cost between $2 billion and
$5 billion per year; Senator Warner's S. 2087 is estimated to cost
about $1 billion per year.
What is your position on each of these bills?
Answer. While the Department is committed to improving access to
health care for our beneficiaries the benefit expansions proposed in
these bills are not affordable within the Department's current funding.
We generally agree with the estimated costs provided by CBO. For
example, no cost FEHBP for retirees who enlisted prior to July 1956 is
estimated to cost $4.5 billion per year. FEHBP for all other retirees
is estimated to cost $5 billion, expansion of TRICARE Senior Prime is
estimated to cost $350 million per year. The one-year extension of
FEHBP-65 demonstration and indefinite continuation for demonstration
enrollees is estimated to cost $75 million per year. The expansion of
the pharmacy benefit is estimated to cost $455 million annually.
Reduction in Catastrophic cap costs $40 million per year. Nonetheless,
we are willing to work with the Congress and the Administration to find
solutions to improving access to health care for all eligible DOD
beneficiaries.
Question. If enacted what would be their impact on other defense
programs in the DOD budget?
Answer. It is impossible to predict specific impacts but with
estimated costs of these magnitudes and the current DOD budget there
would most likely be a negative effect on readiness capabilities.
Question. Are these bills affordable?
Answer. Not within the DOD's current budget.
Question. When will DOD submit a health care plan that addresses
current problems and that you consider both comprehensive and
affordable?
Answer. We believe the current benefit we offer is a very
comprehensive benefit that is a better deal with less out of pocket
costs for our beneficiaries than many other options. It is necessarily
constrained as the principal mission of the DOD is readiness and there
is a limited amount of funding available.
Question. Some have suggested that the Defense Health Program
should be moved out of the DOD budget. What is your position on such
proposals? Who in the Executive Branch would exercise oversight over a
Defense Health Program not in the Department of Defense or its budget?
Answer. The inextricable linkage of health care and combat
readiness would strongly argue against placing the Defense Health
Program outside the DOD. The majority of DHP manpower assets are
related to the readiness mission. It would not be feasible to
efficiently manage this program from outside the DOD.
Question. Some have suggested that major parts of the Defense
Health Program (DHP) should be moved to mandatory spending. How would
this alleviate cost issues, either in the DHP or the overall DOD
budget?
Answer. If the mandatory spending portion remained in the DOD it
would not alleviate cost issues. If the funding were to come from
outside the DOD, it would still be subject to the upward pressures of
health care in general but impact on the DOD would be reduced. A number
of bills this year propose evaluating accrual funding for retiree
health care to address the longer term funding issues for retiree
health care.
Question. Why should the Congress put the Defense Health Program on
``Automatic Pilot'' where cost growth would inevitably come out of
other defense programs--when the on-budget surplus is limited?
Answer. As a health program, the Defense Health Program is subject
to many of the same pressures that are causing rapid rises in costs of
private health plans and the FEHBP program. The Department is working
closely with the Military Departments to determine how to fund the
medical benefit, and the sources of such funding, in order to ensure
that our Service men and women are provided the high quality health
care they deserve.
Question. Accrual financing for the Defense health program has also
been suggested. How would this work? Would part of the costs be shifted
to other parts of the federal government, as in the case of the
military retirement system? What would be the costs to DOD and to the
rest of the government?
Answer. The health care liability for current retirees and the
portion related to service completed by current active duty would be
assumed by an agency outside of DOD. This would be similar to Treasury
taking over responsibility for the retired pay accrual beginning in
1985. The DOD would make periodic payments for current and future
active duty based similarly to the retired pay contributions currently
being made. Specific cost estimates are under development, but the
liability currently is about $200 billion. The required future annual
cost to DOD of active duty currently serving would be about $5 billion
per year.
Question. To exercise oversight, to control costs, and to maintain
DOD jurisdiction over its own programs, why should the Defense Heath
Program not continue to be paid for by annual appropriations in the DOD
budget as overseen by this subcommittee and the Armed Services
committee?
Answer. Even with the accrual funding mentioned in the previous
question, a major portion of the Defense Health Program Appropriation
(related to Active Duty and Active Duty Family member care), would
still be derived from annual appropriation through the DOD budget.
Question. Will the Department of Defense prepare a plan for its own
health care programs that comprehensively addresses the problems we
have discussed today and that is affordable? When will such a plan be
submitted under the current Administration?
Answer. We believe the current benefit offered is a very
comprehensive benefit that is a better deal for our beneficiaries than
many other options. It is necessarily constrained as the principal
mission of the DOD is readiness and there is a limited amount of
funding available. Within the President's Budget there is a proposal to
reduce out-of-pocket costs for Active Duty family members and to reduce
the cost of care for family members assigned to remote locations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
medicare subvention
Question. From a finance perspective, what is your opinion about
expanding the TRICARE Senior Program to our teaching facilities that
support Graduate Medical and Nursing Education programs?
Answer. TRICARE Senior Prime provides an opportunity to meet our
commitment to beneficiaries while also supporting our graduate medical
education programs in conjunction with comprehensive medical readiness
training missions. Medical centers are also well positioned to provide
both comprehensive and multidisciplinary specialty health care,
important for an aging population. However, the Department believes
that evaluating the existing demonstration, capturing the lessons
learned and identifying the financial implications of expansion are
crucial steps prior to recommending expansion.
Question. Mr. Secretary, today we have current and former military
members unhappy with the status of DOD medical programs. What, if any,
actions do you see as affordable in the current budget environment?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request essentially represents
the same level of service as provided in fiscal year 2000. The fiscal
year 2001 President's Budget restores some deferrals made in fiscal
year 2000, adjusts for inflation, and adds new benefit additions for
expansion of the TRICARE Prime Remote for active duty family members
and the elimination of co-pays for active duty family members enrolled
in TRICARE Prime. These proposals are intended to help improve access
and affordability of care for our beneficiaries. The Department is
committed to working closely with Congress on their efforts to review
the health care benefits for retirees over 65 to determine what, if
any, new benefits can be accommodated within the Department's topline.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
patient medical information
Question. There has been a lot in the news recently about medical
treatment errors. Would not an electronic data system, capable of
sharing patient medical information among DOD, the Veterans Affairs
Department (VA), and their contractors help reduce medical errors?
Answer. Implementation of the Military Computerized Patient Record
(CPR) (CHCS II) will provide more accurate patient data through the use
of standardized terminology, data sets and structure and will implement
decision support; alerts, reminders, and access to knowledge bases. All
orders entered will be checked for interactions or contraindications
(drug--drug interactions, allergies, etc.). These alerts will be fed
back to the provider during the ordering process. The Government
Computerized Patient Record (GCPR), used as a translation and exchange
mechanism, could provide more complete information by bringing together
information residing in multiple agencies computer-based patient
records.
Question. It is my understanding that the primary rationale for the
Government Computer-Based Patient Record (GCPR) program is to allow
information to flow among DOD's health information systems, those of
the (VA) Department and various private contractors. When are you
projecting that you will achieve the capacity for this information
exchange?
Answer. Phase I, the development of a prototype framework that
would facilitate access to information residing within each agency's
computer-based patient record, will be complete in April 2000. Phase II
(beginning in April) will pilot test this framework. The results of
Phase II will influence the date that information exchange occurs.
Question. How much has DOD included in its budget request for the
Government Computer-Based Patient Record (GCPR) program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill report
language (p 253) identified ``Computer based patient records (Note:
$4,200,000 is only for the further development of the Government
Computer-based Patient Record).'' Congress also mandated a 0.38 percent
reduction to all fiscal year 2000 appropriations. To protect patient
care, a 1.752 percent reduction was applied to all non-patient care DHP
programs, including GCPR which reduced its funding to $4.126 million.
Question. In December 1999, President Clinton signed into law the
Veterans Millennium Health Care Act allowing DOD health care
beneficiaries to use VA facilities and VA patients to use DOD
facilities. Has DOD begun negotiations to implement that law? Do those
negotiations assume sharing patient medical data via GCPR?
Answer. The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act (Public Law 106-
117) requires DOD to enter into a reimbursement agreement with VA for
medical care provided to VA Priority Seven (the lowest priority)
veterans who are TRICARE-eligible and who enroll for care with the VA.
In fact the two Departments have had initial meetings on the Act. The
VA/DOD Executive Council has included it as an initiative to monitor
and is creating a work group to manage its development. OMB is also
involved in the agreement development.
Because the reimbursement model, fee-for-service or capitation, has
not yet been determined there is no assumption being made concerning
the use of the Government-Computerized Patient Record (GCPR) in the
agreement. If the reimbursement model selected were a fee-for-service
option, the GCPR might be a valuable source of patient-level
information.
______
Questions Submitted to Adm. Donald L. Pilling
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
Question. Why was the Defense Medical Oversight Committee formed?
How does it function?
Answer. The Department of Defense senior leadership strongly
believes maximizing the health and wellness of our service members--and
their families--is vital to readiness. DOD is acutely aware of the
problems our medical system and our beneficiaries face, and is
committed to working with Congress to improve the Military Health
System. The Deputy Secretary of Defense convened a Medical Summit to
discuss the Military Health System (MHS) and concluded that greater
Service oversight was required in the operation of the health program
and establishment of health care benefits and budget priorities.
The Defense Medical Oversight Committee (DMOC) was formed in August
1999, with membership consisting of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs, the military department Under Secretaries, the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the four service Vice Chiefs, the
Director for Logistics from the Joint Staff and the Surgeons General.
Since its inception, the DMOC has engaged senior military and
civilian leadership in discussions and review of the health care
benefit, Defense Health Program (DHP) funding requirements in the
context of other service decisions, and management and reengineering
initiatives. The group is committed to ensuring the MHS delivers a
consistent, equitable benefit for all beneficiaries.
The DMOC has two primary responsibilities: ensuring adequate
funding for a high quality MHS, and strengthening the benefit offered
our military families.
Question. Explain the role of the DMOC in identifying and
resourcing fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 DHP shortfalls.
Answer. Since its inception, the DMOC has engaged senior military
and civilian leadership in discussions and review of the health care
benefit, Defense Health Program (DHP) funding requirements in the
context of other service decisions, and management and reengineering
initiatives. The group is committed to ensuring the Military Health
System delivers a consistent, equitable benefit for all beneficiaries.
In the past few months, the DMOC directed a thorough Budget Review
of the DHP to determine the scope of current and projected funding
requirements. Based on this analysis, the Department has reprogrammed
funds in fiscal year 2000, reallocated resources to medical care in
fiscal year 2001, and has made future years defense plan (FYDP)
adjustments to increase medical support.
Question. The Subcommittee is aware of alarming reports about
shortfalls of $6 billion in the Defense Health Program across fiscal
year 2002-fiscal year 2005; or about $1.5 billion per year. Is the
Defense Health Program seriously underfunded in the outyears? Are these
reports true?
Answer. The DMOC is committed to improving access, satisfaction and
health care delivery in the Military Health System (MHS), and keeping
the promise of providing quality medical care to our retiree
population. As such, last year we directed a thorough Budget Review of
the health program to determine the scope of current and projected
funding requirements. The results of this review highlighted a
significant shortfall in the Defense Health Program.
The DMOC responded by adding to the health program approximately
$250 million in the President's Budget proposal for fiscal year 2001,
and another $6 billion across the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP).
The DMOC has also taken actions to ensure that the MHS is not only
on sound financial footing, but is structured to deliver care in an
efficient manner. We have endorsed the MHS Optimization Plan, which
will increase utilization of Military Treatment Facilities and improve
access to care. To provide the necessary oversight of this plan, we
will establish and regularly monitor metrics for the plan's
implementation and the overall performance of the MHS.
We also recognize that our current Managed Care Support contracts
do not work as well as they should. Since it is critical that the next
generation contract, the TRICARE 3.0 version, represents an improvement
over the current system, we have arranged for an independent evaluation
of the contract to ensure we achieve the most cost effective and
efficient vehicle for health care delivery--especially from the
standpoint of our beneficiaries.
The DMOC believes it is essential for the MHS to have consistent
and predictable funding, in order to effectively plan for and operate
the health program. One means of achieving greater stability in the
health program's funding could be to convert retired military
healthcare from a pay-as-you-go system to an accrual financing system.
We support the study of accrual financing of retiree health care.
In summary, we are aware of the problems facing the health program
and we are committed to solving them to improve health care for our
beneficiaries.
Question. What would be the benefits of using a full enrollment
system?
Answer. First and foremost, a full enrollment system enhances the
quality of clinical services to the patient; it is truly good medicine.
Only through enrollment can a patient have an ongoing relationship with
a primary care manager (PCM), a provider who is familiar with the
patient's history and treatment and who provides all routine care and
referrals. Important, current issues in medicine, such as health and
wellness promotion, disease management and population health, require
consistent patient-provider relationships for success, and are
attainable only through enrollment. Without enrolled populations,
healthcare delivery risks becoming fragmented, episodic, and
interventional rather than focused on prevention and wellness.
Secondly, enrollment reduces health care costs for both the
beneficiaries and the health care system. The patients enjoy lower out-
of-pocket costs as opposed to the potential for annual deductible costs
and significant cost-sharing requirements for non-enrolled
beneficiaries. The overall cost to the system is decreased with an
enrolled population due to better management of disease and the focus
on wellness, as well as an increased ability to plan and structure the
health care delivery system for a known number of enrollees.
Question. In addition to improved access, better claims processing
and a stronger network, what changes in the Military Health System
could be implemented to improve the health benefit?
Answer. The DMOC believes it is essential for the MHS to have
consistent and predictable funding, in order to effectively plan for
and operate the health program. Stable funding would allow facilities
to invest in programs and technology to improve health care access and
delivery. One means of achieving greater stability in the health
program's funding could be to convert retired military healthcare from
a pay-as-you-go system to an accrual financing system. We support the
study of accrual financing of retiree health care.
A full enrollment system would also contribute to stabilization of
the benefit. If the population served by an MTF could be defined by
enrollment, resources could be directed more effectively and
efficiently. The population and its health status would be a known
entity and facilities and providers could plan appropriate services.
This would allow for true population health management, including
timely preventive services to reduce the morbidity and cost of disease
and injury.
Question. What changes do you recommend to increase retiree
enrollment in TRICARE Prime?
Answer. Reduction or elimination of the enrollment fee would
provide an incentive for increased enrollment in TRICARE Prime.
Expansion of TRICARE Prime eligibility to those retirees over 65 would
create an added enrollment incentive.
The annual TRICARE prime enrollment fee of $230 for a single
retired member or $460 for a retiree's family is seen as cost
prohibitive to some retirees who spent much less on health care while
on active duty. Findings in a 1999 congressionally mandated study of
TRICARE by the Center for Naval Analyses have also indicated that out
of pocket health care costs for retired members have increased since
the implementation of TRICARE.
The costs associated with reduced enrollment fees must be offset
either by increased appropriations or by increased cost sharing by
beneficiaries who chose to remain in TRICARE Standard. This
restructured fee schedule would more closely mirror private insurance
plans in which HMO options are the least costly for the beneficiary and
fee for service plans are priced higher.
Question. What initiatives has the DMOC undertaken to support the
health care optimization plan?
Answer. Since its formation last August, the DMOC has taken a
critical look at the Department's strategy for improving TRICARE,
focusing efforts in the following three areas: (1) optimizing the
direct care system, (2) improving the Managed Care Support Contracts
(MCSCs), and (3) appropriately shaping the benefit. The consensus of
the DMOC membership is that optimizing the capacity of our military
hospitals and clinics will decrease costs if workload shifts from the
managed care support contracts back to the direct care system. Given
existing medical manpower and facility resources required to support
the Department's readiness mission, the direct care system is
positioned to deliver additional care at a marginal cost rather than
buying health care at full cost through the contracts.
The DMOC has taken a number of specific actions designed to support
optimization.
First, to be effective, the military health system requires a
stable funding stream. OSD (Comptroller) staff, at the request of the
DMOC, completed a bottom up review of MHS requirements late last year.
Based on their analysis, the Department has reprogrammed funds in
fiscal year 2000, reallocated resources to medical care in fiscal year
2001, and has made future year defense plan (FYDP) adjustments to
increase medical support.
Second, the contractual relationship between the Department and the
managed care support contractors must be structured in such a way as to
optimize care provided in our military facilities. To ensure that the
new managed care support contracts, known as TRICARE 3.0, contained the
appropriate incentives the DMOC directed two contract reviews. The
initial review, conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses in,
concluded that TRICARE 3.0 has the necessary financial incentives to
support the in-house system in the recapture of purchased care. Based
on that analysis, the Request for Proposal was issued on 18 February
2000 for TRICARE Region 11, which is serving as the Department's
prototype for the optimization plan. The DMOC has also directed a
second TRICARE 3.0 contract review by an independent contractor to
determine if additional refinements are needed. The contractor's report
to the DMOC is scheduled for late-spring.
Third, the DMOC is investigating the feasibility of accrual
financing to pay for the costs of retired care in the future. We
envision a program similar to the accrual financing system put in place
in 1984 for military retirement pay, with payment through revised
manpower programming rates in the Services. Stable financing for
retiree medical care will support optimization by providing a
predictable health care benefit for our beneficiaries as well as our
health care providers. The DMOC plans to oversee the MHS progress
towards optimization through regular briefings and metrics review.
Question. Has the DMOC considered any alternatives for financing
retiree medical health care?
Answer. Yes, finding a long-term financial solution to Defense
Health Program funding shortfalls will provide a strong foundation to
meeting future challenges. One option discussed by the DMOC for
financing retired military healthcare involves conversion from a pay-
as-you-go system to an accrual financing system. In our current pay-as-
you-go system, funding for retiree health care must compete with other
Departmental priorities. Greater stability in the health program's
funding could be achieved by converting to an accrual financing system.
It is especially important to address this issue now, as retiree health
care costs will continue to increase due to changes in life expectancy,
a growing retiree population and medical inflation.
In an accrual system, the healthcare costs for retirees would be
funded in a fashion similar to that which the Department of Defense
uses to fund retirement pensions. An accrued military health benefit
liability recognizes the Department of Defense has an obligation to
current and future military retirees to provide for their health care.
In an accrual based accounting system, the post-retirement liability is
an estimate of the total future costs of the health benefits earned
during a member's service. Recognizing these costs in advance provides
greater benefit security over the long term.
The future healthcare cost for retirees would be included in active
duty programming rates based on actuarial estimates and would accrue to
a new trust fund.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. I understand that the Defense Medical Oversight Committee
directed an analysis of the TRICARE 3.0 Request for Proposal (RFP) and
that another more rigorous study is to be conducted. What is your
opinion of testing TRICARE 3.0 in Region 11 prior to implementation
world-wide?
Answer. TRICARE 3.0 is significantly different from current managed
care support contracts. We are shifting from prescriptive detailed
requirements to outcomes based requirements with the bidders
determining the best business practices to meet our goals.
The financing and risk sharing are also different in 3.0, and it is
believed these new mechanisms give greater opportunity to manage our
resources. The TRICARE 3.0 demonstration has been started in Region 11.
Timelines are tight, but lessons learned from both the demonstration
and in-depth contract review can be incorporated into the RFPs for
subsequent regions.
______
Questions Submitted to Lt. Gen. Ronald R. Blanck
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
fiscal year 2000 budget shortfall
Question. Do you have a budget shortfall in fiscal year 2000? How
much?
Answer. Yes. The Army Defense Health Program (DHP) has a total
projected shortfall in fiscal year 2000 of $174.1 million. The
shortfall can be broken down into two distinctive groups. They are
items that we will not do this year (suppressed) and items, which must
be funded, which are not funded in the base. Suppressed items include
equipment purchases, IM/IT investment, and Repair and Maintenance and
total approximately $76 million. Must fund items include TRICARE Senior
Prime demonstration project, base operations, restore government wide
rescission and a pharmacy efficiency decrement and total $98.1 million.
The above shortfall is in addition to any shortfall identified by
Health Affairs related to the Managed Care Support Contract and in
addition to $228 million required to preclude a reprogramming action
currently pending at DOD level.
supplemental funding for fiscal year 2000
Question. Does your ``direct care'' system need supplemental funds
to be fully funded in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Yes. The $174.1 million shortfall identified above is for
the ``direct care'' shortfall. TRICARE Management Activity is
addressing the shortfall associated with private sector care.
fiscal year 2001 budget
Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget as submitted reflect
your full requirements?
Answer. No. The Army Defense Health Program has a total projected
shortfall in fiscal year 2001 of $85.9 million. The shortfall can be
broken down into two distinctive groups. They are items that we will
not do next year (suppressed) and items, which must be funded that are
not funded in the base. In addition to these two critical areas, two
additional areas, though not included in the above figure, should be
considered to address our full requirements. The first is a long-
standing backlog of Real Property Maintenance (RPM/MRP) projects that
total $200 million. The second has been the annual erosion of our base
funding predicated on a failed efficiency for anticipated Utilization
Management (UM) ``savings''. Similar to the experience in the civilian
health care environment, our annual, anticipated savings in UM have not
materialized to the extent that dollars have been decremented in years
past ($283 million). Some reinvestment of these dollars would enhance
the productivity of the existing MTF infrastructure. The immediate
shortfall includes: Suppressed for fiscal year 2001 (Equipment
Purchases and RPM (restoration to 3 percent))--$25.2 million; and Must
Fund--not in base (TRICARE Senior Prime and BASOPS)--$60.7 million.
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 unfunded requirements
Question. Please provide a list of your fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 ``unfunded requirements.''
Answer.
In millions
Fiscal year 2000:
Suppressed Equipment Purchases................................$4.086
Suppressed Travel............................................. 5.200
Suppressed IM/IT..............................................11.000
Suppressed RPM................................................17.838
Restore RPM to 3 percent......................................37.900
Restore PDM Pharmacy Decrement................................ 4.015
TRICARE Senior Prime Network..................................16.800
TRICARE Senior Prime MTF......................................25.200
Restore government wide rescission............................21.242
Base Operations:
AFIP......................................................10.000
Womack Army Medical Center................................ 3.000
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.................... 1.605
Newborn Claims (estimate as of 27 Mar 00) (final amount yet to
be determined)..............................................16.200
Fiscal year 2001:
Suppressed Equipment Purchases................................10.600
Suppressed RPM to 2.63 percent................................ 9.400
Restore RPM to 3 percent...................................... 7.700
TRICARE Senior Prime..........................................45.000
BASOPS (new mission).......................................... 7.900
BASOPS (suppressed)........................................... 5.300
cost of medicare subvention
Question. Regarding the Medicare subvention demonstrations, the
Subcommittee is aware that the current negotiation with HCFA may
actually cost DOD money. Can you please explain?
Answer. Four issues have combined to create this situation. First,
Health Care Financing Agency (HCFA) reimbursement is not dollar for
dollar but only 95 percent of DOD expenditures; secondly, level of
effort was based upon fiscal year 1996 funding level, which was prior
to utilization management reductions to the Defense Health Program
(most robust funding levels); third, HCFA requires the provision of
services not previously offered or available from DOD facilities, such
as home health care and rehabilitation services; fourth, since Medicare
eligibles were seen on only a space available basis, DOD was not
providing the full spectrum of care that is now being required. This
last point highlights the point that Medicare previously paid for the
more resource intensive portions of over-65 healthcare.
Based on the joint agreement between DOD and HCFA, the Department
receives monthly interim payments from HCFA's Medicare Trust Fund based
on the enrollment level at each demonstration site. However, DOD is not
entitled to keep these HCFA payments until DOD shows that its ``level-
of-effort'' funding in the direct budget has exceeded the historical
LOE, in accordance with the terms of the joint agreement. A
reconciliation process is conducted annually (after completion of each
calendar year demonstration period) to assess (1) if DOD is entitled to
receive funding from HCFA and (2) how much of the interim payments
received during the demonstration period DOD can retain.
A preliminary calculation of CY 1999 reconciliation indicates DOD
is entitled to receive HCFA reimbursement, but will only be able to
retain an estimated 14 percent of interim payments received. The joint
agreement terms requires DOD to exceed historic LOE spending for both
its enrolled and non-enrolled Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. While
the Department is exceeding its historic LOE spending to the total
Medicare-eligible population, it is not meeting the historical LOE
spending on its non-enrolled-Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.
Based on this calculation, the Medicare Senior Prime (TSP)
Demonstration is running at a loss. The capitation rates HCFA provide
DOD do not cover the incremental costs of providing care. The payments
DOD will be entitled to retain after the CY 1999 reconciliation will
not even cover the cost of care purchased from civilian providers for
its TSP enrollees. As a result, the funding received as interim
payments does not augment the sites' budgets enough to break even. It
is estimated the Army will require $42 million in fiscal year 2000
above its current funding level to cover the costs for civilian
purchased care and incremental costs at our demonstration sites.
breast and prostate cancer research programs
Question. Can you give the Subcommittee a brief update on the
breast cancer and prostate cancer research programs?
Answer. The Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act provides
$175 million to the BCRP to support innovative research directed toward
the eradication of breast cancer. Additional funds are anticipated as a
result of the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act. A Program Announcement was
released March 10, 2000 soliciting proposals in three categories:
Research, Infrastructure, and Training/Recruitment. Submissions are due
April 19, June 7, and August 2, 2000, depending upon the award
category. Peer Review is scheduled for August and September 2000, and
Programmatic Review is scheduled for early November 2000. Investigators
will be notified in December regarding the status of their funding.
The fiscal year 1999 Prostate Cancer Research Program (PCRP)
Congressional appropriation of $50 million has enabled 106 proposals to
be recommended for funding. Through this appropriation, the PCRP
initiated four new Prostate Cancer Research Centers, each consisting of
experts from multiple disciplines engaged in an integrated effort to
study prostate cancer and to develop treatments. The PCRP also
recruited 23 new trainees into prostate cancer research through 2
different training award categories and supported 79 new research
projects through 2 different research award categories. Negotiations
are currently in progress for all awards.
The Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act provides $75
million to the PCRP to support innovative research directed toward the
eradication of prostate cancer. The Program Announcement was released
February 23, 2000 soliciting proposals for two mechanisms in the
Research category, New Investigator and Idea Development awards and
three mechanisms in the Training/Recruitment category, Postdoctoral
Traineeships, Minority Population Focused Collaborative Training
Awards, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority
Institutions Academic Development Awards. In addition, Phase II of the
Dual Phase mechanism, first introduced in the fiscal year 1997 program,
will be executed using the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Dual Phase
Awards are intended to invigorate the prostate cancer research
community by providing continued support to the most productive
research identified in fiscal year 1997 Phase I awards. A total of 168
investigators were invited to compete for Phase II funds. Proposals are
due April 5 and May 17, 2000, depending upon the award group. Peer
Review is scheduled for May and July 2000. Programmatic Review is
scheduled for June and October 2000. Investigators will be notified of
their funding status in July and November, and award negotiations will
begin immediately.
overhead of research programs
Question. How much overhead is required to carry out these research
programs?
Answer. The costs of the United States Army Medical Research and
Material Command (USAMRMC) Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP, fiscal
year 1992-2000) and Prostate Cancer Research Program (PCRP, fiscal year
1997-2000) consist of the following:
1. Congressional and DOD Withholds (mean of 4.9 percent and 5.5
percent of original appropriation, respectively): SBIR, STTR,
inflation, etc., withheld prior to release of funds to the USAMRMC.
2. USAMRMC HQ and Command Support (mean of 1.8 percent and 3.7
percent of funds released to the USAMRMC, respectively): Personnel
actions, budget management, legal services, contracting, logistics
services, regulatory compliance (animal use, human use, environmental
compliance, safety, etc.), building space and associated costs (water,
electricity, upkeep, etc.), frequent information requests, and frequent
visitors and requests for visits by key leadership and staff, including
the Commanding General.
3. Program Costs (100 percent of funds provided to managing
office):
L 3a. Management Costs (mean of 7.7 percent and 8.8 percent of
funds released to management office, respectively): Expenses for the
daily administration of the programs, to include building space and
associated costs not covered by HQ, civil service personnel, other
Government personnel, support contracts, proposal review and approval,
contracting, regulatory compliance (animal use, human use,
environmental compliance, safety, etc. not covered by HQ), travel,
supplies, automation equipment, information management, etc.
3b. Research Awards (mean of 89.6 percent and 88.8 percent of
funds released to management office, respectively): Funds provided to
award recipients.
Item 1 is an overhead cost subtracted prior to release of funds to
the USAMRMC. Items 2 and 3a are the USAMRMC overhead costs.
Question. How does this overhead figure compare to other research
programs?
Answer. For the funds released to the sponsoring agency, the
USAMRMC overhead is less than half that of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH). The NIH uses the ``Taps'' Program whereby every Institute
is ``tapped'' a percentage of its budget to pay for central services.
1. Central Services (minimum of 20 percent of funds for
Institutes):
L The Management Fund.--This fund, which was established June 29,
1957 by Public Law 85-67, pays for the Office of the Director, the
Clinical Center, the Center for Scientific Review, as well as for
computer sciences support, security, vehicles, maintenance, utilities,
engineering maintenance, space management, safety and environmental
protection, housekeeping, mail, sanitation and general administrative
support services. Each Institute is ``tapped'' for funds ranging upward
from 20 percent of their budget according to a formula developed for
that Institute. With the exception of the Clinical Center and its
Center for Scientific Review, the services provided by this fund are
analogous to the USAMRMC HQ and Command Support services.
Service and Supply Fund.--This fund charges each Institute
according to its usage of the services or need for special purchases.
Examples are the purchase of special glassware, the repair of
scientific equipment, and special library searches or translations.
Services provided are charged according to an established hourly rate
based on an activity based cost accounting system.
Membership Fees.--These fees are for shared services such as
basic services from the NIH Library.
2. Institute Costs (100 percent of funds provided to Institutes):
In addition to the minimum of 20 percent NIH withholds for central
services, each Institute has its own management costs. For example, NCI
published its budget in ``The Nation's Investment in Cancer Research--A
Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2000'', as follows:
L 2a. Management Costs (4 percent of funds released to management
office): 4 percent for administration and management.
2b. Public Service (3 percent of funds released to management
office): 3 percent for communications regarding cancer issues.
2c. Research Awards (93 percent of funds released to management
office): 4 percent for training and education; 16 percent for
intramural research; and 73 percent for extramural research.
The NIH overhead consists of items 1, 2a and 2b.
For the funds released to each agency, the USAMRMC BCRP overhead is
a mean of 10.4 percent, the USAMRMC PCRP overhead is a mean of 11.2
percent, and the NIH overhead is a minimum of 23.2 percent (more than
double the USAMRMC rate).
Question. Have they become more efficient over time?
Answer. The overhead costs have increased since inception of the
programs but is now stabilizing. Since fiscal year 1990, the USAMRMC
has received almost $2.5 billion in special appropriations to fund
research programs specified by Congress. The early requests from
Congress were few and of low dollar value; therefore, they could be
accommodated under the existing USAMRMC infrastructure and managed by
existing USAMRMC personnel. The number of requests and the dollar value
have escalated significantly--in fiscal year 2000, the USAMRMC received
over $540 million in special appropriations for 73 special programs.
This dollar amount more than triples the research being sponsored by
the USAMRMC. Although the Command has the expertise to execute and
manage these special programs, the significant and increasing workload
has necessitated the use of a portion of the special appropriations to
cover the headquarters support and program management costs, as is done
with the other Defense and Army appropriations managed by the USAMRMC.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
quality of care
Question. We are all concerned over the quality of care our
military beneficiaries receive. As we move to ensure greater access, we
must balance this with quality of care. For example Lieutenant General
Carlton mentioned in his statement that the Air Force is committed to
25 patients per day per provider. This metric seems overly optimistic
and will force physicians to see approximately 3 patients per hour.
This severely reduces the doctors' time for completing administrative
requirements, and, more important, it eliminates critical time for
building the doctor-patient relationship. How will you maintain quality
while increasing access?
Answer. The imperative to maintain quality while increasing access
will indeed be a challenge, but a challenge that can be met. We will
continue to adhere to our quality improvement, quality assurance, and
risk management policies and procedures irrespective of the number of
patients seen per provider.
The key to increasing access while maintaining quality is to ensure
that we remove all the obstacles providers face which contribute to
inefficient practice. Our basic assumption is that our providers desire
an efficient practice environment in which they can maximize the number
of patients they care for each day! In order to create an efficient
practice environment we will remove the current impediments to
efficiency. Some of these impediments include inadequate numbers of
exam rooms per provider, insufficient support personnel per provider,
cumbersome computerized medical information systems, and lack of
standardization of practice patterns.
We fully support Dr. Bailey's recent policy memorandum setting
forth guidelines for the number of exam rooms and support personnel per
provider and mandating by name enrollment of patients to primary care
providers. We are drafting a battle plan to meet these challenges and
will provide our clinicians with 2 exam rooms per provider and 3.25
support personnel per primary care provider as the policy mandates. We
are convinced that the by name enrollment policy will result in
increased continuity of care with a resultant increased quality of care
and enhanced provider-patient relationships.
We believe that the CHCS II, a computerized medical information
system, will enhance productivity by eliminating or minimizing much of
the paperwork associated with the healthcare encounter. CHCS II will
enable the clinician to rapidly search the patient's record for data
related to the visit and will facilitate data entry which in turn
should reduce medical errors associated with illegible handwriting.
CHCS II will also provide the clinician reminders when clinical
preventive service interventions (e.g., mammograms) are due.
Our strong support of clinical practice guidelines is based on our
belief that a more systematic approach to diseases will lead to
increased efficiency. Guidelines address the process of care for a
specific disease. Guidelines are developed to ensure that only those
portions of the process of care that require a clinician are done by
the clinician, thus enabling the clinician to devote her/his attention
to the actions that demand her/his expertise. The remaining portions of
the process become the responsibility of the support personnel.
Guidelines promote quality as well as efficiency. Quality will increase
as anecdotal practice is replaced by evidence based practice and
variation in practice among providers and between patients is reduced.
The guideline metrics provide quality benchmarks and facilitate
monitoring of guideline implementation.
department of defense/department of veterans affairs partnerships
Question. While I am encouraged by the numerous references to
partnerships with the Department of Veterans Affairs, contracting
challenges are a continuing concern. For example, VA budget
justifications and resources may not account for joint ventures. We
must ensure that these agreements clearly outline responsibilities in
order to maximize efficiencies without limiting flexibility. What
impact will these agreements have on the VA's requirements and how will
these partnerships be managed to ensure efficiency?
Answer. Under the ``big'' umbrella of the VA/DOD Health Care
Resources Sharing Program, the terms ``partnerships,'' ``joint
ventures,'' and ``agreements'' are being used interchange-ably, and
require separate definition .
1. Partnering and Partnership: These terms are not defined under
the scope and functions of the VA/DOD Health Care Resources Sharing
Program. However, under this Program, the terms ``partnering'' and
``partnership'' are being used to refer to an ``informal working
relationship'' between the DVA and DOD. The terms as used have no
authority or legal consequences in that there is no legal documentation
within the Program, known as or called a ``Partnership.''
(2). Agreements: The term ``agreement'' under the VA/DOD Health
Care Resources Sharing Program, does have a legal connotation in that
there is a formal document, known as or called an ``Agreement.'' Under
this Program, there are three types of, or specific agreements, that
describe the legal, operational, and working relationships between the
DVA and DOD. These three specific types of agreements as used in this
Program are: ``joint venture agreements,'' ``resources support
agreements,'' and ``resources sharing agreements.''
(a). Joint Venture Agreements: This term refers to a VA/DOD
Agreement funding mechanism, whereby each Agency (Partner) provides 50
percent of the funding requirements of a capital expenditure
investment. The capital expenditure may be either funding for the
construction of a new facility, or the remodeling or renovation of an
existing facility for joint VA/DOD occupancy or use. This type of joint
funding may also be used for the purchase for capital equipment, that
will be available for joint use by the two Agencies.
At the present time, the AMEDD has three (3) joint venture funded
construction projects, where new jointly occupied Outpatient Clinic
facilities were constructed at TAMC in Honolulu, HI, at WBAMC in El
Paso, TX, and at Reynolds ACH at Fort Sill, OK.
An example, of a capital equipment funded joint venture expenditure
for the purchase of capital equipment is the joint purchase project at
Moncrief ACH, at Fort Jackson, SC, where each Agency provided 50
percent of the capital funds for the joint purchase and use of
$3,000,000 in MRI equipment.
Funding for VA/DOD joint ventures is usually pre-approved
Congressional funding for the specific joint venture project,
therefore, it is the responsibility of both Agencies to make the
project a win-win situation.
Functional and operational management and responsibility of a joint
venture in an effective and efficient manner is dependent upon both
Agencies (Partners) working together to make the joint venture workable
and satisfactory. Oversight responsibility for the success of the joint
venture lies with the Veterans Integrated Systems Network (VISN) for
the VA MTF, and with the Regional Medical Command for the Army MTF.
(b). TRICARE Managed Care Support (MCS) Contractor Agreements:
While this type of agreements are called ``support agreements,'' they
are really ``contracts'' in that the VA MTF, as a Network Preferred
Provider (NPP), is really a subcontractor to a MCS Contractor. As a
Network Preferred Provider, the VA MTF is reimbursed for services
provided at a discounted CHAMPUS maximum allowable charge, or as it is
usually called, the CMAC rate. Again the success of this type of an
agreement (contract) is dependent upon the effective working
relationship between the MCS Contractor (the TRICARE MCS Contractor)
and the NPP subcontractor (the VA MTF).
The immediate management responsibility for the effective and
efficient management of this type of agreement falls within the purvue
of the TRICARE MCS Contractor. Oversight responsibility for this type
of agreement lies with the Regional Lead Agent. The Army MTF and the
Regional Medical Command have no direct management responsibility for
this type of agreement because of the contractual agreement and
relationship between the TRICARE MCS Contractor and the NPP
subcontractor.
(c). Resources Sharing Agreements: The third type of VA/DOD
agreements, i.e., resources sharing agreements, are the VA/DOD Health
Care Resources Sharing Agreement. VA/DOD Health Care Resources Sharing
Agreements are usually locally negotiated between a local VA MTF and a
local DOD MTF. These local VA/DOD Health Care Resources Sharing
Agreements are usually entered into for one of the following reasons:
cost avoidance through shared services, cost savings through reduction
in duplication of services, or to obtain a service that either the VA
or the DOD MTF is not able to provide itself because of lack of
funding, or because of the non-availability of personnel to provide
that service.
Under the latter type of sharing agreements, reimbursement for the
provided service may be by a negotiated rate not to exceed actual cost,
usually based upon the MTF's MEPRS data, or by using the current fiscal
year interagency rates for the provided service. The VA/DOD interagency
rates are established and published annually by Congress. Again, the
success and efficiency of the locally negotiated VA/DOD Health Care
resources Sharing Agreements is determined by the cooperative working
relationship between the two participating MTFs.
Because this category of sharing agreement are negotiated at cost,
or not to exceed actual cost, they are ``cost saving'' by their very
nature. The direct management responsibility for the effective and
efficient manner in which the agreement is carried out is the
responsibility of the participating VA and Army MTFs at the local
level. Oversight responsibility lies with their respective next level
chain of command organizations, i.e, the VISNs for the VA MTFs and the
RMCs for the Army MTFs.
(3). Whether the VA and the DOD are participating together in a
Joint Venture Agreement, a TRICARE Managed Care Support Agreement
(Contract), or a VA/DOD Health Care Resources Sharing Agreement,
participation by the two Agencies is voluntary. Once in an agreement,
either party to the agreement has the option of ``opting'' out of the
agreement at any time during the life term of the agreement, upon
thirty (30) days written notice to the other party to the agreement.
(4). The duties and responsibilities of each party to the agreement
are generally spelled out in the joint general provisions of the
agreement. Both parties are required to sign the agreement, indicating
that they are in agreement with the terms and/or provisions of the
formal agreement. By their signature to the agreement, they are
expected to abide by same.
(5). At any given time during the life term of the agreement, they
have the following available options, i.e., either to: (a) ``opt out''
of the agreement, or (b) amend the agreement, or (c) renegotiate the
agreement.
pharmacy formularies
Question. Military beneficiaries and health care providers have
complained of pharmacy restrictions and inconsistencies. As you strive
for greater uniformity across TRICARE regions, please comment on how
you will correct inadequate and inconsistent formularies.
Answer. The pharmacy benefit within the Department of Defense is a
Triservice versus service specific issue. Significant improvements have
been made since the implementation of TRICARE with the goal of
providing a uniform, consistent, and cost effective pharmacy benefit to
all eligible beneficiaries. The pharmacy benefit program is now
centrally managed by the TRICARE Management Activity, the DOD Pharmacy
Board of Directors, and the DOD Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee.
All corporate formulary decisions relating to the three points of
service for the benefit (MTF pharmacy, National Mail Order Pharmacy
(NMOP), and the Retail Pharmacy Network) reside with the DOD Pharmacy
and Therapeutics Committee (P&T).
The Basic Core Formulary (BCF) is the nucleus for all MTF
formularies, with BCF policy established by Health Affairs Policy 98-
034, dated April 27, 1998. The BCF is managed and updated by the DOD
Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. The BCF is not a closed formulary,
but rather is the listing of ``core'' formulary drugs that must be
uniformly available as the primary care formulary at all MTF
pharmacies, and available to all eligible beneficiaries independent of
beneficiary category. Primary selection criteria by the DOD P&T
Committee for inclusion on the BCF includes the drugs' clinical
appropriateness and cost-effectiveness to meet the primary care needs
of a majority eligible beneficiaries. Any restrictions on BCF drugs are
permitted only for valid clinical reasons or based on evidenced based
medicine protocols published by the DOD P&T Committee. Restrictions on
any non-formulary medications are permitted only for valid clinical
reasons or based on evidenced based medicine protocols approved by the
local MTF P&T committee. Restrictions on any formulary or non-formulary
drug may not be imposed solely as a cost reduction strategy, which
could negatively impact patient care.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2000 has mandated the
establishment of a ``Uniform Formulary'' for DOD. It is anticipated
that this legislation coupled with additional funding for
pharmaceuticals in the Medical Treatment Facilities will significantly
improve the access to appropriate, cost-effective drug therapy for a
majority of eligible beneficiaries.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
excess capacity in the mhs
Question. As I understand, the MHS optimization plan will increase
access to primary care is by using best business practices to increase
the overall capacity and efficiency of the military direct care system.
Currently, how much excess capacity, if any, do you currently have in
your hospitals and clinics?
Answer. The military treatment facility's capacity to enroll its
beneficiaries is affected by the number of Primary Care Managers (PCM)
at the MTF. Their availability to see patients, readiness
considerations, patient demand for visits, and their productivity will
be determined by the availability of sufficient clinic support
personnel, facility redesign, and management actions that emphasize
improved access.
We are currently in the process of identifying our baseline.
Health Affairs developed with Service input a uniform enrollment-
capacity planning model that we are currently utilizing to determine
our capacity. This model identified a framework to optimize MTFs and
recapture appropriate network workload. Using the model provided, each
MTF was tasked to identify its baseline enrollment capacity and to
develop a plan to move toward an enrollment objective of 1,500
enrollees per PCM. This is a critical component of meeting our MTF
baseline optimization objectives. The Services are conducting their
initial assessment of each MTF's present enrollment, availability of
examination rooms and support staff and are expected to provide their
input by 14 April 2000. A phased comprehensive capacity plan for
achievable enrollment targets is scheduled for completion by 30 June
2000.
To reach 1,500 enrollees per PCM, significant reductions will be
required in the average number of primary care visits per enrollee. The
number of reduced visits will be offset by increasing their health and
appropriate utilization of resources through demand management, e.g.,
the use of nurse advice lines and nurse triage systems, self-help
pamphlets, and prevention measures. The model requires greater
productivity through the use of appropriate support staff, examination
rooms, scheduling techniques and practice patterns. It will also
require the availability of assigned PCMs to staff primary care
clinics.
We are committed to meeting our beneficiaries' expectations by
providing more care in our MTFs.
care sent to managed care support contractors
Question. In the facilities where you have excess capacity, how
much care is being sent to the Managed Care Support contractors?
Answer. In March, 2000 we began tracking the amount of care going
to contractors. With the launching of the new MHS Optimization
initiative, the enrollment capacity planning model, we are just
beginning to analyze primary care access and timeliness of care data in
a centralized, systematic way. Prior to now, MTFs developed and
monitored their own metrics. As a starting point, we are currently
monitoring average visits/provider/day and reporting on a monthly
basis. Once we have a firm understanding of the baseline numbers, we
can begin to examine barriers to productivity (lack of adequate space,
lack of adequate support persons, etc.) and address them directly. The
goal is to recapture workload from the contractor to the greatest
extent possible.
medical errors and patient safety
Question. The prevalence of medical errors has commanded the
attention of this Congress and the nation. What initiatives do you now
use that address the issue of patient safety?
Answer. The AMEDD enthusiastically supports the Military Health
System's (MHS) commitment to improving health care delivery processes
and systems to minimize the chances of preventable medical errors. We
are pleased to share the numerous innovative patient safety related
initiatives which have been implemented throughout the AMEDD:
DOD Pharmacy Technology Initiatives:
Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS).--PDTS creates a central
data repository for all prescriptions filled throughout the MHS to
include: the direct care system (MTF), managed care contractor's retail
pharmacy network, and the DOD national mail order pharmacy (NMOP).
Aggregating prescription data from these disparate system enables PDTS
to conduct prospective (real time) drug reviews of a patient's
prescription against their total medication profile to identify drug-
drug interactions, and duplication of therapy regardless of where they
may have obtained their previous medications. The architecture of the
process is unprecedented, and extends beyond the current technologies
where these clinical screening processes are host or single system
based.
Outpatient Prescription Bar-Coding.--The DOD Composite Health Care
System (CHCS) was enhanced this past year with an added feature to
produce a bar code on the outpatient prescription label. To use this
option, pharmacies must first obtain bar code printers, bar code
readers, and appropriate labels. This option can be used to prevent
dispensing a prescription to the incorrect patient as follows:
--Patient ID card scanned at the pharmacy's dispensing window to
identify the patient.
--The prescription bar code is then scanned using the CHCS dispensing
option that links these independent events to assure that the
correct patient is receiving the intended medications. The
dispensing option also documents the time of dispensing and the
individual performing the dispensing.
Status: The number of DOD pharmacies with bar code prescriptions
are small, but continues to grow. Additional funding, to obtain the
necessary equipment, is needed to fully implement bar option. Use of
the dispensing option can become standard policy, once the appropriate
equipment is operational.
Robotics.--Several facilities have implemented Outpatient Pharmacy
Robotic Systems that completely process a prescription order. These
systems select, fill, and label the container to include any
precautionary auxiliary labels. Some of these robotic systems will also
cap the container and provide digital imaging of the contents for a
final check of the preparation. These robotic systems incorporate bar
coding and other proven technologies that remove humanistic
opportunities for process errors. Process errors that can potentially
be avoided include selecting and placing the wrong medication in a
container, counting errors, and incorrectly labeling a container.
MTF Medication Safety Initiatives:
The Unit Dose Drug Distribution System, automated drug dispensing
technologies, and the use of specially trained and certified Registered
Pharmacists certified for preparation of IV admixtures and specialty
drugs (such as chemotherapy) are safeguards against medication errors
which have long been the standard of care in Army MTF's.
All Adverse Drug Events are reviewed locally by the MTF Pharmacy
and Therapeutics Committee with significant drug events reported to the
FDA.
Concentrations of intravenous infusions (such as pressors) are
standardized for adults in the ICUs so as to eliminate calculation
errors associated with varying strengths and infusion rates.
Pharmacists accompany physician teams on rounds in the intensive
care unit, advising on drug interactions and safety.
Several MTF's use of the Omnicell dispensing system on the
inpatient units to ensure the right patient gets the right medication
by linking the computer order with the proper medication with the
patient's name before it will allow the nurse to withdraw the
medication. The use of Omnicell has greatly reduced the number of drugs
openly stocked on the wards.
High-risk medications are closely controlled:
--Concentrated KCl solution is not allowed on stocked on units/
clinics and all KCl containing intravenous solutions are
prepared in the pharmacy.
--Heparin and insulin are stored in separate areas.
--Sodium Chloride is not available in concentrations greater than 0.9
percent.
Clindamycin, a commonly used peri-operative antibiotic, is no
longer supplied to the OR in concentrated form, thereby obviating the
risk of cardiac reaction from rapid infusion.
Organizations administering chemotherapy ensure preparation in a
specialized pharmacy under the direction of an oncologically trained
pharmacist thereby reducing the risk of miscalculation of doses.
Adverse drug reactions are broadcast on the hospital e-mail system
thereby increasing physician awareness of common and uncommon problems
and creating an opportunity for education and feedback. This has also
increased the regular reporting of ADRs.
Critical drug information can be provided in the comment fields of
CHCS so that a prescriber is reminded of important information at the
time a medication is ordered. For example, metformin is used to treat
diabetes but can worsen renal failure. When the doctor initiates a
prescription for metformin, he is reminded to check a creatinine.
Pharmacy personnel regularly inspect stock medications including
emergency carts for expiration dates, as well as proper storage.
The Composite Health Care System (CHCS) automates the patients'
records and performs an automatic crosscheck looking for drug-to-drug
and drug-allergy contraindications. The system also requires the
provider to enter in the height and weight of pediatric patients before
a prescription can be written. The prescription is recalculated by the
Pharmacist prior to it being filled.
AMEDD Clinical Laboratory Initiatives:
Many of the safeguards generated through CHCS, which ensure order
accuracy, are applicable for the clinical laboratory. An additional
safeguard is the bi-directional interface of clinical analyzers
(downloads orders from CHCS to the analyzer and uploads results to
CHCS). Presently, the DOD Laboratory Joint Working Group has an
initiative to standardize laboratory data and gain interoperability
between CHCS host computers.
In the Blood Bank arena, the use of barcode has been one method of
improving specimen identification processes. The sites with donor and/
or transfusion functions have installed the Defense Blood Standard
System (DBSS) supported computers to assist in the issue of blood
products.
Use of barcodes to register specimens. This has been emphasized
throughout the entire laboratory and not just with Blood Banks. Machine
readable (barcoded) labels reduce clerical errors associated with
manual data entry of human readable labels.
Use of automatic pipettes and other more fully automated analyzers.
Minimization of operator intervention improves analytic accuracy.
Unbundling of test panels. Not only is this more cost effective
because it reduces unnecessary testing, but fewer tests mean fewer
chances for error.
Introduction of more sensitive and more specific tests. This
provides clinicians with more accurate information on which to base
diagnoses and influence more favorable patient outcomes. Examples
include gene probes and DNA amplification assays as well as liquid-
based cytology.
Implementation of the FDA's current Good Laboratory Practices for
improved process control.
Increased emphasis on training and competency assessment for
laboratory personnel.
Panic/Critical Values are identified on lab studies to assure that
healthcare providers are notified quickly and can institute
appropriate, timely care.
Centers of Excellence:
The AMEDD has established Centers of Excellence as a means to
improve patient outcomes for complicated surgical procedures by
concentrating specialized medical expertise at one site.
Evidenced-based Clinical Practice Guidelines:
National Quality Management Program (NQMP) initiatives to identify
best clinical practice continue. The NQMP has completed baseline
studies determining the extent of compliance with DOD/VA and/or other
national clinical practice guidelines so that the impact of
implementing evidence-based disease management practice guidelines
system-wide can be determined. The program will facilitate the
benchmarking of DOD facilities against their federal and civilian
peers' facilities on DOD/VA Practice Guideline and DOD Putting
Prevention into Practice evidence-based process and outcome quality
indicators. The JCAHO performance measurement program (ORYX), Special
Studies and the annual Quality Management Reviews continue to be
utilized to benchmark DOD facilities and identify best practices.
MEDCOM Quality Management Directorate (QMD) Site Visits:
In January 2000 the QMD implemented staff assistance visits to
facilitate improving the communication and decreasing related risks
within the AMEDD through the dissemination of risk trends and analysis
and lessons learned. The current focus on improving patient safety
through the elimination of medical errors requires a collaborative
approach to collectively demonstrate our success in this arena.
Information gathered from sharing lessons learned and best practices
will position the AMEDD to proactively demonstrate our contributions to
quality care.
MedTeams Project:
A pilot project to evaluate the role of human factors in adverse
medical outcomes was implemented using the concept of Medical Team
Management. The goal of MedTeams is to change the medical culture from
one which is individually focused to one that is team focused, from a
culture that often creates barriers to communication to a culture that
fosters it. Ultimately, this will enhance safe and efficient
accomplishment of good patient care while reducing the adverse medical
outcome rate.
Institute of Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Breakthrough Series (BTS)
Collaborative:
The AMEDD will be funding 4 MTF Teams and 1 Leadership Team to
participate in the High Hazard Area BTS. IHI defines a Breakthrough
Collaborative as ``an effort to bring together teams of healthcare
providers with experts in the field in rapid cycle quality improvement
projects''. They use the best information that research has to offer
about what can be done to improve performance. IHI's experience in
running such collaborative efforts suggests it is possible for health
care sites to achieve improvement in performance of 25 percent or more
within 12 to 15 months! Two MTF Teams each will evaluate ICU Practice
(WRAMC & TAMC) and Labor & Delivery Practice (LARMC & WAMC). Each team
will focus on an area of particular importance to their organization.
Team members will work together on a frequent basis to execute ``small
scale changes''. The focus of the ``learning sessions'' is to identify
stretch goals, an action plan to implement the goals (recommended
changes) and metrics to measure the effectiveness of the ``small scale
changes'' immediately. There will be monthly ``coaching'' calls from
the IHI Faculty.
MTF Surgical Suite Initiatives:
Procedures for conscious sedation have been standardized throughout
each organization.
Multiple level system of checks to validate surgery location--
patient, record, nurse, anesthesiologist, and surgeon must all
independently confirm that the proper surgery is planned. This further
reduces the already small risk of wrong site surgery.
Infant Security Program:
Several MTF's have implemented electronic Infant Abduction Security
Systems. Staffs assigned to Mother-Baby Units wear color-coded badges
for easy patient identification of staff members authorized to take an
infant from the mother's room.
Radiology Initiatives:
CHCS prompts questions regarding pregnancy. It is a ``must fill''
block to draw attention to the importance of knowing the patient's
status.
Laboratory results of patient BUN and Creatinine levels attained
prior to IV Contrast administration.
Limit amount of radiation exposure through the mandatory use of
lead body and gonadal shielding.
Other Safety Related Initiatives:
Each MTF widely disseminates and quickly implements all patient
safety related lessons learned.
Patients are educated on their medication and provided written
instructions to ensure optimal understanding and compliance with their
drug therapy.
Facilities Managers/Safety Officers and Clinical Supervisors
perform risk assessment surveys for hazards in patient areas on an
established scheduled basis.
Very proactive staff education and awareness programs impact
positively on patient safety.
Inpatients, with a history of falls, are put on a special falls
alert status where the extra measures and visibility attempt to reduce
their chances of falling again.
Tamper-proof electrical outlets and covers have been installed in
every area where pediatric patients or visitors spend any amount of
time.
______
Questions Submitted to Vice Adm. Richard A. Nelson
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
Question. Do you have a budget shortfall in fiscal year 2000? How
much?
Answer. Navy Medicine is short funded in the direct care system by
approximately $140.4 million. This includes $4.8 million required for
the Uniformed Services University for Health Sciences. The Navy is
executive agent for the university.
In addition, the Navy Surgeon General needs to make an initial
investment in support of the Military Health System Optimization (MHS).
This multifaceted plan is designed to optimize the use of readiness
required military personnel in the delivery of peacetime health care.
It employs the principles of Population Health to begin to focus our
efforts on preventive care, to avert illness and injury, thus
decreasing overall healthcare costs. MHS Optimization is strongly
aligned with the overall concept of Force Health Protection. Analysis
of our direct care system indicates that in many cases, Military
Treatment Facilities are not optimally staffed and 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. If provided with the industry standard of 3.5 support
personnel, that same provider can assume responsibility for 1,500-2,000
adults. The Optimization Plan requires that the cost of the additional
support staff be recouped via the higher throughput. In addition to
increasing our marketshare, return on investment is generated as the
actual cost of care is lower when that care is performed at marginal
cost in the direct care system.
To begin this process, we must make an initial investment in staff.
The following are our estimated costs:
Clinical support staff.--Clinical support staff to clinical
provider ratio is presently 1.81. The MHS Optimization target is 3.50.
The annual requirement for increase in staffing is estimated at 2,525
workyears priced at $117.2 million per year (fiscal year 2000 rate). As
it is anticipated that we could make these staff available in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2000 the cost is $29.3 million. These
staff are our highest priority.
--Additional staff in the following categories:
--Case Managers to coordinate care for the top 1 percent of
medically complex cases, freeing clinical providers to do
more direct patient care. (estimated full requirement 180,
anticipate 50 could be brought on board for the 4th quarter
of fiscal year 2000).
--Utilization Managers to analyze trends in ambulatory care usage
by diagnostic and patient category, and develop plans for
population health interventions. (estimate 30 in fiscal
year 2000).
--Medical Record Coders to perform accurate and detailed ICD9 and
CPT coding to account for workload and performance, thus
ensuring marketshare is accounted for in comparison with
contractor performed work. (estimated full requirement is
80, 20 in fiscal year 2000).
--The above categories are trained professionals ranging from GS9
to 14. They have been priced at an aggregate GS11 rate for
a fourth quarter fiscal year 2000 requirement of $1.52
million.
--Pharmacy technicians to support increased prescription volume
with workload recapture (estimate 20 in fiscal year 2000).
Priced at the GS 7 rate, this equates to a fourth quarter
fiscal year 2000 requirement of $216,000.
The Navy Surgeon General is aware that investments of this nature
carry the inherent risk that return must be earned quickly enough to
pay for the salary tails that will be created. He is firmly committed
to changing the business practices and culture of Navy Medicine to
recapture workload currently being done in the private sector.
Summary
In millions
Budget Shortfall..................................................$140.4
Optimization Initiatives.......................................... 31.0
______
Total Unfunded Requirement.................................. 171.4
Question. Does your ``direct care'' system need supplemental funds
to be fully funded in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The entire $140 million is the amount required in the
direct care system. Amounts required for managed care support contracts
would be in addition to the Navy $140 million shortfall.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget as submitted reflect
your full requirements?
Answer. No, in fiscal year 2001 the amount necessary to fund our
full requirement is $62 million. If we were to initiate Navy medical
optimization initiatives, the amount required would increase by $122
million, for a total of $184 million. (Please refer to the answer to
question #1 for further detail).
Question. Please provide a list of your fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 ``unfunded requirements.''
Answer. The following is a table that contains Navy medicine
unfunded requirements:
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
year year
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Programmatic Cash Reductions:
Program Impact:
Healthcare Contracts........................ 25.1 ........
MRP......................................... 4.3 ........
Initial Outfitting.......................... 22.1 ........
-------------------
Subtotal.................................. \1\ 51.5 ........
===================
Program Budget Unfunded Items:
Medical Equipment............................... 20.0 20.3
MRP to 3 percent................................ 35.6 24.7
Travel.......................................... 8.2 1.4
TRICARE 3.0 Support............................. 7.1 \2\ 3.5
IM/IT........................................... 6.8 ........
Family Practice Residency, CL................... 3.5 \3\ 3.0
Dental Aux. Training............................ 0.5 \4\ 0.5
Ergonomics Program.............................. 0.3 0.3
Injury Rehabilitation Clinics................... 1.1 1.1
IM/IT Data Quality.............................. 1.0 \5\ 1.0
-------------------
Subtotal...................................... 84.1 55.8
===================
USUHS Issues........................................ 4.8 6.8
-------------------
Budget Shortfall.............................. 140.4 62.5
===================
Navy Medicine Optimization Initiatives.............. 31.0 122.0
-------------------
Total Unfunded Requirement.................... 171.4 184.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relates to Congressional budget execution reduction, TMA 1 percent
withhold and Congressional directed rescission package (0.53 percent).
\2\ Data validation to implement cross billing required for TRICARE 3.0
in Regions 11 and 6.
\3\ Implements family practice residency program to train additional
primary care physicians.
\4\ Training for additional dental technicians.
\5\ Additional coding and certification of record keeping requirements
associated with the ambulatory data system.
Question. Regarding the Medicare subvention demonstrations, the
Subcommittee is aware that the current negotiation with HCFA may
actually cost DOD money. Can you please explain.
Answer. The Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) generally
negotiates a reimbursement rate of 95 percent of the local adjusted
annual per capita cost with Health Maintenance Organizations. The
reimbursement rate negotiated between HCFA and the Department of
Defense resulted in an effective reimbursement rate of 87 percent. In
addition, the initial start up and overhead costs were not considered
in calculating the cost of the subvention programs.
The Defense Health Program must also provide Rehabilitative and
skilled nursing facility care for TRICARE Senior Prime beneficiaries.
Historically, military facilities have not provided this type of care
and it must be purchased from civilian sources adding a significant
cost to the overall program. In addition, utilization rates in the
demonstration program are far above the national norms for Medicare
HMOs. It is not yet clear whether utilization will decrease as
neglected health care needs are addressed or whether the enrolled
population has a unique risk profile. Collectively, the total costs of
direct care and purchased care for enrollees has exceeded projections.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
Question. We are all concerned over the quality of care our
military beneficiaries receive. As we move to ensure greater access, we
must balance this with quality of care. For example Lieutenant General
Carlton mentioned in his statement that the Air Force is committed to
25 patients per day per provider. This metric seems overly optimistic
and will force physicians to see approximately 3 patients per hour.
This severely reduces the doctors' time for completing administrative
requirements, and, more important, it eliminates critical time for
building the doctor-patient relationship.
How will you maintain quality while increasing access?
Answer. Navy Medicine's goal is to increase the number of support
staff to more efficiently and effectively assist our providers. These
steps will minimize the time providers currently spend performing
administrative duties; enabling the provider to spend more quality time
with their patients while increasing their overall productivity.
Assigning patients to a personal Primary Care Manager, who will be
familiar with his/her patients, thus decreasing the time required for
the physician to review the patient's history, will further improve
continuity of care and customer satisfaction. The Military Health
System (MHS) Optimization Plan will play a key role in allowing
enrollee assignment to a PCM by name. This will be accomplished by
determining demand, productivity, and capacity of our military
treatment facilities to achieve optimum results in terms of quality,
access, and cost. Once fully implemented, the MHS Optimization Plan
will facilitate the ability of Navy Medicine and the MHS to enroll each
of our beneficiaries to a personal PCM, with a 1:1,500 ratio as the
eventual goal.
Deployment of the Computerized Patient Record (CPR) will also
increase quality and access. The CPR has been fully funded for
worldwide implementation by the end of fiscal year 2002. When deployed,
the CPR will provide a comprehensive life-long medical record of
illnesses, hazardous exposures, injuries suffered, and the care and
immunizations received by our beneficiaries. The CPR will also provide
clinical decision support and gives military health care providers
instant access to the health care history of each patient.
Question. While I am encouraged by the numerous references to
partnerships with the Department of Veterans Affairs, contracting
challenges are a continuing concern. For example, VA budget
justifications and resources may not account for joint ventures. We
must ensure that these agreements clearly outline responsibilities in
order to maximize efficiencies without limiting flexibility.
What impact will these agreements have on the VA's requirements and
how will these partnerships be managed to ensure efficiency?
Answer. From the initial implementation of the DOD/VA Memorandum of
Understanding for Health Resources Sharing for Joint Venture
Construction, the intent of the agreements has been to share resources
to maximize health facility utilization, improve health care delivery,
and optimize cost effectiveness for both agencies. The DOD and VA plan,
program, and execute joint venture construction projects only when it
is in the best interest of the government to do so. Each agency must
maintain a primary commitment to its own mission--providing health care
services to its beneficiaries.
The Joint Venture Agreements allow the VA to stretch their dollars
to cover more veteran care. When VA medical facilities share excess
capacity, they are reimbursed with DOD dollars which are then spent on
health care delivery to veterans. VA is able to hire additional
providers with DOD reimbursements which expands capability and
flexibility in health care delivery. The VA also preserves resources by
utilizing DOD services through Joint Venture Agreements. Cost benefit
analyses of specific agreements have shown that both DOD and VA spend
less than they would in procuring services from other sources.
Partners in Joint Venture Agreements form a Joint Venture Planning
Team which prepares a detailed Concept of Operations document for each
specific agreement. This details a framework for the joint venture,
expectations of the parties and the functional relationships. The
Concept of Operations is reviewed and approved by the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) and the Undersecretary for
Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, but ongoing management rests
with the local partners, as delineated in the Concept of Operations.
This allows those who are most familiar with the requirements inherent
in a particular agreement to ensure the partnership remains effective
and efficient.
Question. Military beneficiaries and health care providers have
complained of pharmacy restrictions and inconsistencies.
As you strive for greater uniformity across TRICARE regions, please
comment on how you will correct inadequate and inconsistent
formularies.
Answer. Virtually all patients seen at a Military Treatment
Facility (MTF) receive all medications prescribed by MTF providers at
the MTF pharmacy. Often, patients who are seen in the community and
present at the MTF with civilian prescriptions are the most concerned
with perceived inequities because the MTF formulary may not list every
medication prescribed by the civilian provider. To avoid this
situation, every attempt is made to contact the prescribing physician
to encourage them to prescribe alternatives that are on the MTF
formulary. Patients who are retired and under the age of 65 also have
access to the retail pharmacy network and the National Mail Order
Pharmacy (MOP). Medicare eligible retirees and beneficiaries may have a
significant problem in obtaining needed medications because they may
only be seen by an MTF provider on a space available basis, are
ineligible for the contracted retail pharmacy network, and may be
ineligible to use the NMOP. Certain exceptions are made for Medicare
eligibles living in Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) areas, allowing
NMOP privileges.
In order to insure a more consistent and adequate formulary at all
MTFs, a basic core formulary was developed and is maintained by the DOD
Triservice Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Drugs are added to the
formulary based on the needs of the majority of the beneficiaries and
cost/efficacy considerations.
A Pharmacy Pilot Program has been established for the over 65
Medicare-eligible patient under the Military Health Care Improvement
Act of 2000. Pilot Program participants in Kentucky and Florida, will
have access to the NMOP and the Retail Pharmacy Network. Results should
be influential in shaping a more permanent and much needed pharmacy
benefit for the retired military Medicare-eligible population.
Program Budget Decision number 041 provides some funds to directly
support MTF formularies and the addition of new drugs to those
formularies.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Please provide me with an update on acute lung injury
research, which has been identified by the Committee as a focus area
for the DOD Medical Research programs.
Answer. Current Navy research is focused on preventing acute lung
injury in casualties by improving the initial resuscitation. In
particular, anti-inflammatory agents are being examined that block the
activation of inflammatory cells and their migration into the lung. It
is too soon to tell whether such strategies will prove effective,
however early results are promising.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. As I understand, the MHS optimization plan will increase
access to primary care is by using best business practices to increase
the overall capacity and efficiency of the military direct care system.
Currently, how much excess capacity, if any, do you currently have in
your hospitals and clinics?
Answer. Presently there are no specific estimates on the amount of
excess capacity at our MTFs. Even so, we do know there are facilities
that could provide additional care for our beneficiaries with
utilization of the MHS optimization concept.
A critical point to make is that excess capacity is not typically
idle capacity. The potential increased capacity can only be gained
through efficiencies and better use of providers. For example, a
provider with limited support may struggle through two patients an
hour, if additional ancillary support is added the number can increase
to 3 to 3.5. The provider is currently working as hard as he or she
can, but with additional support, a 50 percent or greater increase in
capacity is created.
In another example, a provider now spends 5-10 minutes on each
patient looking up data and performing administrative functions. An
effective computerized patient record would reduce this to 3-5 minutes.
In a 20 minute appointment, this represents a 25 percent gain that can
be given back in quality time spent with the patient.
MHS Optimization is designed to improve access and enhance capacity
by increasing the overall efficiency of the direct care system in
delivering ambulatory care. This will be accomplished by optimizing
facility design and the alignment of support staff to ensure provider
productivity, by focusing on continuity of care with an assigned
Primary Care Manager, by streamlining appointment templates so that
greater scheduling flexibility is achieved, and through an emphasis on
preventive care that will ultimately decrease utilization rates.
Question. In the facilities where you have excess capacity, how
much care is being sent to the Managed Care Support contractors?
Answer. We do not have idle capacity. The Military Health System
(MHS) Optimization Plan will make more effective use of our assets to
achieve recoupment of workload from the Managed Care Support
Contractors (MCSC). MHS Optimization is designed to improve access and
enhance capacity by increasing the overall efficiency of the direct
care system and reducing reliance on the MCSCs. Modeling efforts are
currently underway to quantify where each Military Treatment Facility
(MTF) is today and where they could be if fully optimized. Each
facility will then develop specific plans to reacquire workload from
the MCSC.
Question. The prevalence of medical errors has commanded the
attention of this Congress and the nation. What initiatives do you now
use that address the issue of patient safety?
Answer. Navy Medicine has critically examined opportunities for
improving patient safety. The following initiatives have been
undertaken to improve quality of care:
--A systems approach to improvement using a root cause analysis tool
has been implemented at all of our facilities. This tool is
used to analyze all adverse events and certain close calls and
requires the involvement of a multidisciplinary analysis team.
Information regarding common themes is reported back to our
facilities for appropriate preventive action.
--Participation in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI)
Breakthrough Series to identify opportunities to implement best
practices in four hospital high hazard areas: the Operating
Room, Obstetrics, the Intensive Care Unit, and the Emergency
Department.
--Establishment of a Birth Product Line to address the delivery of
our largest patient service and implement refined clinical
practices across Navy Medicine. This will include a focus on
reducing variation in access to anesthesia and pain control,
and a standardized approach to perinatal education.
--Promoting the use of Evidence Based Medicine with active
involvement in the DOD/VA Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG).
Navy Medicine is sponsoring an evidence based CPG addressing
urinary tract infections.
--Implementation of Composite Health Care II System of computerized
patient records to improve documentation of care provided
including the follow up of laboratory, radiology exams, and
pharmacy orders.
--Deployment of the Pharmacy Data Transaction system to prevent
prescription and allergy errors in a mobile population.
Collaborative efforts to take advantage of lessons learned:
--National Patient Safety Partnership Forum for Health Care Quality
Measurement and Reporting Collaborative Work with the VA.
--TRISERVICE DOD Patient Safety Subcommittee recently completed the
DOD Instruction, ``Patient Safety Program in the Military
Health System''. This instruction establishes a central MHS
reporting system for adverse events through the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology (AFIP) with the goal of sharing lessons
learned throughout the MHS. Projected implementation date is
August 2000.
______
Questions Submitted to Lt. Gen. Paul K. Carlton, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
medical programs
Question. Do you have a budget shortfall in fiscal year 2000? How
much?
Answer. Yes. Air Force Medical Service core program is short by
$235 million. In addition, there are a number of outstanding contract
issues in the Private Sector Care that continue to be defined. These
may generate additional significant bills for the Air Force Medical
Service.
Question. Does your ``direct care'' system need supplemental funds
to be fully funded in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Yes. The Air Force Medical Service direct care system is
$139 million short of being fully funded.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget as submitted reflect
your full requirements?
Answer. No. Fiscal year 2001 budget is $79 million short of full
funding of core requirements. In addition, there are a number of
outstanding contract issues in the Private Sector Care that continue to
be defined. These may generate additional significant bills for the Air
Force Medical Service.
Question. Please provide a list of your fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 ``unfunded requirements.''
Answer.
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
year year
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Care Operation............................... $20 ........
Real Property Maintenance........................... 72 $15
Equipment........................................... 23 23
Base Operating Support.............................. ........ 17
Education & Training................................ ........ 15
TRICARE Senior Prime................................ 15 4
Info Mgmt/Info Tech................................. 7 ........
Dental Readiness.................................... ........ 5
Primary Care Training............................... 2 ........
Known Private Sector Care........................... 96 ........
Ill-Defined Private Sector Care..................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
-------------------
Total......................................... 235 79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be determined.
medicare subvention
Question. Regarding the Medicare subvention demonstrations, the
Subcommittee is aware that the current negotiation with HCFA may
actually cost DOD money. Can you please explain?
Answer. Under this demonstration, DOD is paid a lump-sum annual
amount, called a capitated rate, for each enrollee to provide medical
care. This rate is approximately 83 percent of the amount HCFA pays the
average civilian Medicare+Choice health maintenance organization (HMO)
for a comparable beneficiary. This reduced figure was derived from a
variety of factors based on pre-existing DOD programs and resources as
well as HCFA's intent for this program to be cost-neutral to HCFA for
these enrollees.
DOD receives capitated payments based strictly on enrollment. Even
though our sites are nearly at 100 percent enrollment capacity, DOD is
still not breaking even. Certain benefits, such as skilled nursing
care, durable medical equipment and home health care, are Medicare
requirements which are not normally covered under TRICARE. Payments to
DOD by HCFA are first used to cover these expenses as well as the cost
of civilian care obtained by demonstration participants. This has left
no money to pass on to the MTFs to cover their in-house costs of
providing care to these patients.
The primary reason DOD is losing money on this demonstration is the
higher-than-anticipated cost of providing civilian medical care for
enrollees. There are several causes for this problem. First, enrollees
appear to be using more medical services than anticipated. The reasons
for this are unclear but are likely related to the lower cost of
obtaining care under this demonstration than under traditional
Medicare, including most Medicare+Choice plans. In addition, it is
likely the space-available care they obtained in our MTFs only
represented a portion of the care they received; many beneficiaries who
could not receive care consistently from the MTF and needed to rely on
civilian care to fill the gaps are now afforded consistent access to
the MTF at no cost.
The second reason for the high cost of civilian care is under my
control. Frankly, it appears we are paying for civilian care we could
provide in-house in too many cases. I'm pressing hard to re-engineer
our direct care system to optimize how we use our resources.
Specifically, by improving the support for my providers, I expect they
will be able to provide care for more patients in a timely manner. This
will allow us to recapture much of the work currently sent to the
civilian sector, including care for TRICARE Senior Prime enrollees. In
addition, these efforts will help us provide the right care at the
right time, reducing enrollees' needs for medical services in general.
Finally, the general shift of our MTFs to smaller, outpatient-
focused facilities means more care must be obtained from the civilian
sector than in the past. While a less significant issue at our medical
centers (where the majority of care can still be provided in-house),
this shift is definitely a concern at our smaller facilities. The
discounted reimbursement from HCFA is lower than what the facilities
must pay for civilian care.
Even with our planned improvements in efficiency, I expect the
current arrangement with HCFA to continue to cost DOD money. The
absence of cost shares in the direct care system combined with broader
benefits under TRICARE will continue to mean that we cannot operate
this program in the black under the current arrangements. I would
anticipate any expansion of this demonstration into more sites with
small MTFs will operate at a substantial loss unless the reimbursement
arrangements are changed.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
clovis and cannon--medical facility
Question. It seems that there is real potential for another joint
facility at this location. I wanted to ask for your assistance
investigating this possibility. Should it prove a viable concept, I
would ask for your support getting a cooperative arrangement underway
as soon as possible.
Answer. The AFMS is eager to explore novel arrangements with local
civilian communities to provide medical care for our beneficiaries. In
the case of Cannon and the Clovis/Portales communities, it appears
there is adequate inpatient care capability at the 106-bed Plains
Regional Hospital in Clovis, about ten miles from Cannon. Plains
Regional Hospital averages 60-70 beds occupied at any given time with
approximately 20 of those beds occupied by Cannon military
beneficiaries. The impact of a new medical facility in Portales and the
resulting changes in referral patterns on Cannon, Clovis, and Portales
would need careful evaluation. The Air Combat Command Surgeon and
Cannon Hospital Commander agree that more study and data will be needed
to determine the most appropriate sharing agreement in the Clovis/
Portales area.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
quality care for military beneficiaries
Question. How will you maintain quality while increasing access?
Answer. This is one of our main foci. Our civilian counterparts in
primary care have been seeing 4-6 patients per hour without problems or
quality-of-care concerns. We have investigated this and agree with your
assessment that we cannot reach beyond 2-3 patients seen per hour,
given the administrative responsibilities we have placed on our
providers. Our new system is focused on Population Health and
Prevention. The system is being restructured to form primary care
teams, ensuring that primary care providers are appropriately supported
by nurses, medical technicians, and health service managers. In
addition to this restructuring, we have begun the training of these
teams to function more effectively and efficiently. Realigning
structure without changing process will not produce success. The
beginning of process change is education. The Air Force Medical Service
has trained over 900 primary care personnel from over 75 medical
treatment facilities (MTFs) in methods to function more effectively.
This training included nurse triage, technicians providing prevention
counseling, and health service managers retrieving data to make the
system more effective. This will free up the providers to do what they
do best: provide high-quality medical care with continuity. This has
initially been very successful, judged by feedback from front-line
providers. There is also a monitoring plan in place to ensure this
supportive effort is sustained. MTFs which have implemented the
training have surpassed 25 appointments per day while improving
customer satisfaction.
partnerships
Question. What impact will these agreements have on the VA's
requirements and how will these partnerships be managed to ensure
efficiency?
Answer. I cannot speak for the Department of Veteran's Affairs
regarding the impact of partnering agreements on their requirements.
Our Air Force/DVA joint venture facilities are long-term commitments on
the part of both partners. Both organizations preserve their overall
organizational autonomy as appropriate at each location. As each of the
three joint ventures developed, decisions were made about the
appropriate organizational arrangement to meet the mission requirements
of the Air Force and the VA. At the facility in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, the medical group commander works closely with the VA Medical
Center administrator to ensure efficient use of resources to provide
beneficiaries of both organizations quality care in a timely manner. At
Nellis AFB in Las Vegas, the medical group commander is dual hatted as
the Mike O'Callaghan Federal Hospital Chief Executive Officer. At our
newest venture in Alaska, there is a central Executive Management Team
that directs and manages development and execution of the joint
venture. Each joint venture is designed to meet specific local needs,
mission requirements, and avoid costs.
In addition to joint ventures, the Air Force actively supports
combined DOD and VA programs. One example is the joint development of
clinical guidelines. Working together, representatives from the VA and
DOD have used their unique skills and talents to establish a program
dealing with selected high cost, high volume diseases. The group worked
jointly to select guidelines that will enhance continuity of care,
reduce variability and facilitate cost effective practices for both
agencies. The joint group selected the guidelines, worked on
educational materials for providers, and is evaluating the new
guidelines. Implementation of the guidelines will be Service specific.
Each clinical guideline will be deployed with complementary ``tool
kits'' and corresponding metrics.
With your support, we will continue to work with the VA to identify
and implement additional sharing opportunities in the future.
pharmacy restrictions and inconsistencies
Question. As you strive for greater uniformity across TRICARE
regions, please comment on how you will correct inadequate and
inconsistent formularies.
Answer. This is a triservice issue and is being addressed through
TMA in conjunction with the DOD Pharmacy Board of Directors. Several
specific steps have been taken to correct the inconsistencies among
direct care (Military Treatment Facility) formularies and among sources
of the pharmacy benefit: National Mail Order Pharmacy, retail network
pharmacies and direct care pharmacies. Items under review for approval
are:
1. Establish policy where medications requiring prior authorization
are consistent across the MHS (both purchased and direct care).
2. Establish policy where any quantity limits on medications are in
effect and consistent across the MHS.
3. Expand the basic core formulary (BCF) for direct care pharmacies
to provide more consistent availability of medication. The DOD Pharmacy
and Therapeutics Committee approved twelve additional high use
medications to the BCF January 26, 2000. The DOD Pharmacy and
Therapeutics Committee in conjunction with the DOD Pharmacoeconomic
Center will continue to review the over 200 classes and subclasses of
medication and recommend expansion of the BCF on a bimonthly basis as
additional direct care funding becomes available.
4. Advances in Medical Practice (AMP). Approval of disbursement of
funding for 32 high cost, unique medications through AMP is pending.
Direct care facilities have begun providing these medications in
anticipation of reimbursement through AMP.
The point of contact for the Uniform Pharmacy Benefit is Captain
Charlie Hostettler, TMA, 703-681-1740, ext. 5620. Captain Hostettler
can provide additional information on specific actions being taken to
ensure a consistent, uniform pharmacy benefit.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
medical facilities
Question. As I understand, the MHS optimization plan will increase
access to primary care is by using best business practices to increase
the overall capacity and efficiency of the military direct care system.
Currently, how much excess capacity, if any, do you currently have in
your hospitals and clinics?
Answer. Since the beginning of the Managed Care Support Contracts,
the Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) have been trying to work
within the parameters of access, core proficiencies and contractor
relationships. As a result, the emphasis was in making the contracts
work, and understanding the impacts of each outsourcing decision. As we
have now matured, we find that a portion of the care being provided by
the contractors is for the type of services offered within the MTFs; in
fact is directly competing with our MTF service lines. This is the
workload we are targeting to recapture through our optimization
efforts.
We have not had an adequate view of excess capacity in our
facilities. The Air Force Medical Service has recently constructed a
data capture file that displays the type of services by catchment area
being accomplished by the contractors and the MTFs. This data, along
with our optimization strategies, will identify the excess capacity of
facilities and provide the basis for decisions about the type and
quantity of care to recapture into the MTFs.
Question. In the facilities where you have excess capacity, how
much care is being sent to the Managed Care Support contractors?
Answer. The amount of contractor care in catchment areas is not
effectively measured as yet. The Air Force Medical Service has recently
constructed a data capture file that displays the type of services by
catchment area being accomplished by the contractors and the MTFs. This
is a service-wide coordinated effort to obtain and analyze appropriate
data to make decisions about the type and quantity of care to recapture
into the MTFs.
Question. The prevalence of medical errors has commanded the
attention of this Congress and the nation. What initiatives do you now
use that address the issue of patient safety?
Answer. The AFMS is working on a number of fronts to maximize
patient safety. There are several initiatives in pharmacy and
medication-dispensing processes. Medical treatment facilities (MTF) use
the Composite Health Care System (CHCS) computerized pharmacy order-
entry system that eliminates illegible handwriting. The pharmacy staff
reviews each patient's electronic profile for allergies, drug
interactions, therapeutic overlaps, and duplicate medication therapies
before dispensing any prescription. The Pharmacy Data Transaction
Service (PDTS), that integrates MTF patient data with TRICARE network
retail pharmacies, and the National Mail Order Pharmacy (NMOP) will be
deployed soon. The PDTS ensures patients' full medication histories are
available wherever they receive their medications.
Two Air Force pharmacies, Patrick AFB and MacDill AFB, were
designated test sites to evaluate pharmacy robotics for outpatient
dispensing. These systems are designed to assist in filling and
checking new and refill prescriptions. The prescription is entered into
the CHCS computer system where unique identification numbers are
assigned and a bar code is generated to track prescriptions. The
computerized robotic system automatically counts, labels, and fills the
prescription. Medications are verified before dispensing at a checking
station. At pickup, the patient receives drug information sheets and
may request pharmacist counseling.
The computerized systems have totally streamlined the prescription
process and freed pharmacy personnel for additional patient-focused
activities. Patients' waiting times show a documented decrease by as
much as 60 percent, while prescription volumes continue to increase.
The safety features of these systems represent the latest technological
advances in pharmacy dispensing. Before implementation at Patrick AFB,
over 50 percent of medication errors involved refills; now they have
dispensed over 250,000 refills with a remarkable ``zero errors.''
On our inpatient units, decreasing the stock medication
administration system has reduced medication administration errors in
our facilities. The unit-dose system has been widely implemented
throughout our facilities.
Each MTF has a Safety Committee with facility-wide membership. This
committee analyzes key metrics such as medication errors, patient
falls, and other unusual incidents for trends. Monthly environmental
safety checklists are conducted in every unit and reports sent to the
facility's safety officer and reviewed by the safety committee.
Identified trends and discrepancies are corrected as soon as possible.
The Safety Committee is accountable to the MTF's Executive Committee.
When an event occurs, the Air Force fully complies with the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)
Sentinel Event reporting to include Root Cause Analysis (RCA) of each
event. Copies of the RCAs are sent to the AF Quality Division where
lessons learned are shared with other AF facilities.
In addition to the above reporting, the Air Force initiates its
Medical Incident Investigation (MII) process when a sentinel event
occurs. The MII multidisciplinary team is composed of clinical experts
not assigned to the MTF where the event occurred. Its purpose is to
promote patient safety and to improve care at the MTF and throughout
the AF. Team members review human factors (training, competency,
fatigue) as well as operational and system factors (communications,
equipment, supervision). The team briefs the facility commander prior
to leaving and sends a report to the Surgeon General via the respective
MAJCOM. Lessons learned in this process are also shared with other
facilities via Notice to Airmen (NOTAMS)
The Air Force is fully engaged with members participating in the
DOD Patient Safety Working Group sponsored by the Quality Interagency
Coordination Task Force (QuIC). This multidisciplinary group is
reviewing patient safety issues in the military health system and
creating the confidential error reporting system requested by President
Clinton. Our Air Force team members have taken the initiative to
develop a pilot project to track errors within the Air Force Material
Command.
In addition to the above, the Air Force is funding three teams from
its medical centers to participate in the QuIC Breakthrough Series. The
Institute on Health Improvement (IHI) is facilitating these teams as
they review our current systems for opportunities to reduce errors in
high hazard areas such as the emergency departments, operating rooms
and intensive care units.
______
Questions Submitted to Col. Deborah Gustke
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
nurse corps skill sustainment
Question. How have the three Nurse Corps (active and reserve
components) worked together on skill sustainment necessary to meet
peacetime and contingency requirements?
Answer. There are multiple Triservice and AC/RC initiatives to meet
this challenge. The AMEDD Center and School at Fort Sam Houston, TX
sponsors triservice classes preparing officers in nuclear and chemical
casualty management and trauma care. Multiple exercises are held each
year at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Fort Polk, LA and
reserve training sites (Fort Parks, CA, Fort McCoy, WI and Fort Gordon,
GA) which test the reserve ability to backfill critical medical active
duty shortfalls, and the active and reserve ability to provide care,
evacuate patients, and coordinate command and control procedures.
Exercise Roving Sands at Fort Bliss, TX each year combines the efforts
of medical units in the Army, Navy, NATO Forces, USAR, and NG in
providing patient care in combat situations, evacuating patients, and
testing command and control interoperability. Golden Medic exercises
are conducted at three reserve sites each year and combine triservice
elements in testing patient evacuation and command and control
procedures. In the overseas areas, Operation Bright Star in Egypt, and
Operation Team Spirit in Korea, test our joint readiness capability.
Furthermore, in all of these exercises we test the ability of our
reserve forces to mobilize and backfill our medical treatment
facilities.
nurses in executive or command positions
Question. How many nurses do you have in executive or command
positions?
Answer. Currently, there are 4 Army Nurses serving as Commanders of
Level 1 Medical Treatment Facilities: Moncrief Army Community Hospital,
Fort Jackson, SC, USA MEDDAC, Fort Drum, NY, Reynolds Army Community
Hospital, Fort Sill, OK, and Heidelburg MEDDAC, Heidelburg, Germany.
There are 6 additional Army Nurses slated to take command of Level 1
MTF's in the summer of 2000. With regard to executive positions within
the AMEDD, Army Nurses are and have been in the past assigned to
various DOD, DA, OTSG, and MACOM staff positions.
leadership training programs for nurses
Question. What types of leadership training programs are available
or are being planned?
Answer. Currently, there are several leadership training programs
within the AMEDD and programs specific to the Army Nurse Corps. AMEDD
Leadership programs attended by Army Nurses include: Physicians in
Management, Executive Skills Conference and the Interagency Healthcare
Executive Course. Courses specifically for the Army Nurse Corps
include, the Head Nurse Leader Development Course, the Advanced Nurse
Leader Development Course, and the Wharton School of Business
Executive's Course.
______
Questions Submitted to Rear Adm. Kathleen Martin
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. How have the three Nurse Corps (active and reserve
components) worked together on skill sustainment necessary to meet
peacetime and contingency requirements?
Answer. The following are examples of Tri-Service efforts within
the Nurse Corps to sustain the skills necessary to meet peacetime and
contingency requirements:
--The Joint Trauma Training Center (JTTC) initiative at Ben Taub
General Hospital in Houston is an example of Tri-Service
cooperation in trauma training. The JTTC provides Military
Trauma Training Teams (MTT's) with high volume, real trauma
treatment experience that can only be gained at an inner-city,
Level 1 Trauma Center, in order to enhance combat trauma skills
and medical readiness.
--An Army Reserve unit drills at Naval Hospital Great Lakes and Navy
Hospital Corpsmen drill with the Army unit.
--The Navy and Army rotate nursing staff between National Naval
Medical Center Bethesda, Maryland and Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, Washington D.C.
--The Navy and Air Force Nurse Corps are currently involved in a
cooperative effort to provide increased opportunities for
obstetrical nurse training for both services.
--The Navy sends nurses to the Army's Colonel C.J. Ready course, an
annual Joint Readiness Course for military nurses.
--Fleet Hospital training sets at Naval Hospitals Camp Lejeune,
Pensacola and Bremerton provide ongoing opportunities for
active and reserve nurses to deliver patient care in the actual
Fleet Hospital setting in order to sustain critical patient
care skills.
--Ongoing exercises occur on the hospital ships USNS COMFORT (T-AH
19) and USNS MERCY (T-AH 20) in the form of formal exercises
such as Kernel Blitz and Roving Sands as well as ``dock
trials''.
Question. How many nurses do you have in executive or command
positions?
Answer. 24 active and reserve component nurses serve as commanding
officers, executive officers, or as deputies or chiefs of staff at
military medical treatment facilities, lead agent staffs, and education
commands. Nurse Corps officers command two of our active duty Fleet
Hospitals. Reserve Nurse Corps officers command three of the eight
casualty receiving hospital units. Reserve and active duty officers
serve throughout the entire breadth of headquarters commands.
Question. What types of leadership training programs are available
or are being planned?
Answer. The following leadership programs are available to Navy
Nurse Corps officers: Navy Leadership Development continuum;
Interagency Institute for Federal Healthcare Executives; Flag Officer
CAPSTONE course; TRICARE CAPSTONE Course; Management Development
Course; Shore Station Management Course; Prospective CO/XO Course in
Newport, RI; Strategic Medical Readiness Contingency Course; Wharton
School-Johnson and Johnson Leadership program; Annual Surgeon General's
Leaders Conference; Annual Navy Nurse Corps Leadership Conference; and
Executive Medical Education (EME).
______
Questions Submitted to Brig. Gen. Barbara C. Brannon
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
nurse corps
Question. How have the three Nurse Corps (active and reserve
components) worked together on skill sustainment necessary to meet
peacetime and contingency requirements?
Answer. As the AFMS continues to rightsize, the number of clinical
training platforms is steadily decreasing, making maintenance of
clinical skills and meeting readiness training requirements a
significant challenge. Air Force Nursing Services is committed to
creating efficient and effective programs for nursing personnel to gain
and maintain critical readiness skills. Air Force nursing consultants
recently revised Readiness Competency Skills lists to reflect tasks
nurses perform in contingency environments. Active duty, reserve, and
guard nursing personnel will use these lists to assess their clinical
capabilities and training requirements. Programs are already being
developed to meet identified needs.
TopSTAR, Sustainment Training to Advance Readiness, expanded to a
second location last year. Travis Air Force Base opened a TopSTAR unit
in addition to the original site at Wilford Hall Medical Center.
TopSTAR is currently used by active, reserve and guard personnel to
validate clinical skills and it is also being evaluated as a training
platform for nursing personnel to update their skills prior to
assignment overseas.
Exceptional training opportunities also occur during medical
exercises and real-world contingencies. Medical exercises in Asia and
within the Continental United States, and contingency operations in
Central America, Asia, and Europe, allowed active duty, reserve, and
guard personnel to test their skills. These deployments were also
particularly helpful in identifying tasks that required follow-on
training.
Two other training success stories were the Joint Military Trauma
Training program at Ben Taub General Hospital in Houston, Texas, and
the Jefferson Barracks Trauma Training pilot program in St. Louis,
Missouri. The Ben Taub clinical rotation for tri-service military teams
provided four times the patient admissions, blunt trauma cases, and
penetrating trauma cases than experienced by teams at Wilford Hall
Medical Center during the same time frame. At the Jefferson Barracks
pilot program, similar training opportunities are potentially available
to provide our active, reserve, and guard medics excellent experience
in trauma management.
Question. How many nurses do you have in executive or command
positions?
Answer. Active duty Air Force nurses currently command 32 percent
(24 of 75) of our medical groups and 18 percent (50 of 271) of our
squadrons. In addition, 9 percent (7 of 75) of our deputy medical group
commanders are nurses. The first nurse to serve as a Command Surgeon, a
Reserve nurse at the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center, was appointed
last year. Nurses also command 29 percent (21 of 72) of the Air Reserve
medical squadrons and 15 percent (15 of 101) of Air National Guard
medical squadrons.
There is a chief nurse assigned to every facility who is a member
of the executive team. A senior nurse is also assigned to each of the
nine Major Commands on the medical leadership team.
Question. What types of leadership training programs are available
or are being planned?
Answer. Nurses attend a Squadron Commander's Course sponsored by
the gaining MAJCOM and the Group Commander's Course upon selection to
those positions. Nurses are also eligible to attend Physicians in
Management seminars, the annual Air Force Medical Service Senior
Leadership Symposium, the Interagency Institute for Federal Healthcare
Executives, and Medical Capstone.
In addition, the annual Nursing Executive Leadership Symposium
targets Chief Nurses and enlisted nursing superintendents for
attendance. To provide more formalized training, the Air Education and
Training Command was recently tasked to explore the feasibility of an
intermediate executive skills course that would include break-out
sessions for newly appointed Chief Nurses.
subcommittee recess
Senator Inouye. The subcommittee will meet in 3 weeks, on
Wednesday, March 29, at 10 o'clock to review Air Force
programs.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., Wednesday, March 8, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
March 29.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:39 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Bond, Hutchison,
Inouye, Leahy, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. F. WHITTEN PETERS, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
GEN. MICHAEL E. RYAN, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE
OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. We are sorry for the delay. We appreciate
your courtesy. We have had an interesting morning here going
through some of the background in our closed session.
First, General Ryan, let me thank you for taking the trip
to Alaska this last weekend. Reports of your presentation are
just overwhelming and we are delighted you were up there. That
is a tradition we have had and you, in your position, really
made a great impression on our people. Thank you. We thank you
very much.
General Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. In this open session, we want to welcome
your assessment of the progress made to fix the retention
challenges in the Air Force, and we are also looking at the
threats faced by our tactical forces and the development of the
F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter programs. We would like to
see if we can get a report from you on the substantial funds
that we have already made available to reconstitute the Air
Force following the war in Kosovo. It is really our feeling
that we should get an across the board sort of estimate of
where you are now.
I do thank you, Secretary Peters, for appearing here also.
Senator Inouye, you have an opening statement? I will just
put the balance of mine in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Let me begin by welcoming both Gen. Ryan and Sec. Peters
back before the subcommittee.
Earlier this morning, members of the committee were
provided an update, in closed session, on Air Force tactical
aircraft programs.
That presentation addressed both the threats faced by our
tactical forces, and development of the F-22 and Joint Strike
Fighter programs.
As we shift to open session, the committee welcomes your
assessment of progress made to fix the retention challenges
facing the Air Force.
In addition, the Congress add substantial funds to
reconstitute the force following the air war in Kosovo, and
reverse the downward trend in mission capable rates. We would
appreciate a status report on these efforts.
Finally, I want to thank Gen. Ryan for appearing at the
annual military appreciation dinner in Fairbanks on Saturday.
Your appearance was a great boost to the Air Force and Army
communities in Fairbanks, and your remarks were extremely well
received by everyone.
Mr. Secretary, Gen. Ryan, your prepared statements will be
made part of the record.
Sen. Inouye, would you care to make an opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. I wish to join you in
welcoming Secretary Peters and General Ryan.
I note that the budget request increases the fiscal year
2001 by $4 billion, but I am certain all of my colleagues will
agree that, though it is significant, it is not as much as we
would like to see. I note that you have problems in, well,
recruiting and retention. Pilots are still leaving the force
and we must continue to do everything we can to turn these
indicators around. So I can assure you that I will do my best
to work with my colleagues to bring this about.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the full statement be made part of
the record.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Mr. Chairman I want to join you in welcoming our Air Force
leaders here today.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Air Force would
increase funding for the service by approximately $4 billion.
This increase in funding is significant, but not as much as
many of us would like to see.
While I understand you are seeing some positive results in
retention, unfortunately, many problems remain.
Mission capability rates remain down.
Recruiting goals are going unmet.
Pilots are still leaving the force in large numbers.
We simply must do all that we can to turn these indicators
around.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure you agree with this sentiment. We
need the support from our colleagues to keep funding levels up
to be successful.
Again, General Ryan, Mr. Secretary, we welcome you back
before the committee today and look forward to your testimony
on these and other important matters.
Senator Stevens. Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF Senator CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning, Mr. Secretary, General Ryan.
I would just make a brief statement. You might never guess
what it is about, but I am very encouraged by your statements
that you intend to put people first, and I understand the
support this Congress has given in the area of pilot retention
shows signs of turning around what was not a good trend in this
area.
While pay and benefits help, they are very important, I
feel it is also vitally important that we have a clear strategy
for the employment and deployment of our forces overseas. A
lack of a clear entry and exit strategy has had a detrimental
effect on the number and length of deployments and the
resultant stress that is placed on the active and reserve
forces and their families.
I also understand lack of adequate funding of contingency
operations is placing undue burdens on our forces as we raid
accounts to support ongoing operations for which we have not
had adequate budgets.
I also know and support your priorities, the F-22, the C-
17, but I do want to put in a word for the F-15E. Let me remind
you that our most recent overseas engagement, Operation Allied
Force, was a major theater conflict, assets deployed to Europe
from all over the world. At its conclusion you determined that
our efforts had a profound impact on people and equipment that
would enable the Air Force to be relieved from normal
deployment rotations for 6 months to be able to reconstitute.
The work horses were the F-15C's and F-15E's from
Lakenheath. Four of six enemy aircraft encountered were downed
by F-15's and the F-15E was the only fighter able to operate
around the clock in all weather conditions, using the AGM-130
precisely to target and destroy high-value enemy targets. No
other fighter in history as far as I know has turned in this
kind of remarkable performance with associated readiness and
safety.
Because of higher utilization rates of our assets, it
appears to me to be sound judgment to maintain F-15E production
at a very slow rate in order to maintain and to replace an
adequate number of front-line strike fighter aircraft until we
have in production the next generation strike fighter in
significant numbers.
We also need to pursue foreign military sales and, while we
had a setback in Greece, we understand and appreciate your
support in moving forward to at least explore the possibilities
that Israel and Saudi Arabia may be purchasing. We need to make
sure that we have a good industrial base to support the men and
women who are risking their lives.
I have a longer statement that I will submit for the
record. I look forward to discussing some of these issues with
you further during the question and answer period.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond
Good morning Secretary Peters and General Ryan. Thank you
for coming today. Please allow me to make a brief statement
before addressing the questions I have for both of you.
I am encouraged by your statement that you intend to put
people first and I understand that the support this Congress
has given in the area of pilot retention shows signs of turning
around what was not a good trend in this area. While pay and
benefits help I fear it is also vitally important we have a
clear strategy for employment of our forces overseas. Our lack
of clear entry and exit strategies has had a detrimental affect
on the number and length of deployments and the resultant
stress that is placed both on our active and reserve forces and
their families.
I also understand the lack of adequate funding for
contingency operations is placing undue burdens on our forces
as we raid accounts to support ongoing operations for which we
have inadequately budgeted.
This must not continue if we are to adequately address our
training and modernization needs and I stand ready to assist
you in getting the necessary support.
The F-22 is clearly one of your highest priorities along
with increasing our logistical airlift capacity with
acquisition of the C-17, and I support you in your efforts to
field the best equipment available. As you know we have
differed on the issue of priorities in one area, and that is
the F-15E and its continued production.
First let me remind you our most recent overseas
engagement, Operation Allied Force, was a major theater
conflict. Assets deployed to Europe from all over the world to
support our efforts. At its conclusion you determined that our
efforts had such a profound impact on people and equipment that
the Air Force should be relieved from normal deployment
rotations for six months to be able to reconstitute. The
fighter workhorses of the conflict were the F-15Cs and F-15Es
from the 48th Fighter Wing, Lakenheath Air Base, England.
Four, of six, enemy aircraft encountered were downed by F-
15s, and the F-15E was the only fighter able to operate around
the clock in all weather conditions using the AGM-130 to
precisely target and destroy high value enemy targets on the
ground. No other fighter in history has turned in this kind of
remarkable performance with its associated readiness and safety
record.
Because of the higher utilization rates of our assets as
evidenced by the operational tempo of recent years it has been
my intention to maintain F-15E production at a snails pace in
order to maintain an adequate number of frontline strike
fighter aircraft until we produce the next generation strike
fighter in significant numbers.
Our nation's interests are also well served by the pursuit
of Foreign Military Sales to Allied Nations. While we endured
some setbacks with the decision on the part of Israel and
Greece not to pursue FMS we were aware of credible evidence to
suggest Saudi Arabia and South Korea might yet purchase the F-
15.
We understand that F-15 production cannot continue
indefinitely but we also understand that FMS will help maintain
our critical industrial base and its highly skilled workforce.
As our defense industries continue to consolidate it is
critical that we maintain as much of our remaining skilled
workforce as possible because we will not be able to
reconstitute these assets at a moments notice, just as we
cannot rapidly recreate our pilot base once it is threatened or
lost.
We are both accountable for maintaining a core of skilled
pilots and personnel so that when needed our forces can respond
with devastating precision. You take this responsibility
seriously and I commend you for it.
Likewise, we both have a profound responsibility to protect
our manufacturing base so that when called upon our two sole
tactical fighter companies, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, will be
ready to quickly and reliably respond to our equipment needs.
How much is enough? That is a question that is difficult to
answer in these uncertain times but one thing is clear. If we
have the potential to support our critical manufacturing base
with Foreign Military Sales we are remiss if we do not do all
we can to secure them. With the real potential to secure FMS we
moved to continue F-15 production in fiscal year 2000 and will
continue to try and secure funding for fiscal year 2001.
In the meantime we are doing all we can to determine the
viability of FMS to Saudi Arabia and South Korea. Your support
of our efforts is essential!
It is not always possible for us to agree. That is the
nature of our form of government and in part what our founding
fathers intended when they designed this great nation. But in
the case of continued F-15E production I believe we both share
a common responsibility to ensure our two remaining
manufacturing bases, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, remain as
strong as possible, just as we both share a common
responsibility to ensure we have sufficient numbers of pilots
and other skilled personnel to field the best Air Force
possible.
I assure you that I am as committed as any of my colleagues
in ensuring the next battle we face will not be a fair fight.
Your programs are of great interest to me, and the men and
women whom you serve can count on my support.
Secretary Peters, General Ryan I look forward to discussing
these and other important defense issues with you and your
staff as our hearing process continues. Again, welcome!. You
serve our nation's defense department faithfully and I wish you
well in your continued endeavors.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF Senator BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, let me thank
the Secretary and General Ryan for being here again. I will not
provide a lengthy statement except to say that, while I support
the F-22 and the Airborne Laser (ABL) and a range of other
programs that I think we should fund adequately, I am concerned
about a couple of issues that I will ask about during the
questioning round.
One is the F-16 aircraft that are virtually out of time in
the 119th Fighter Wing. The estimate is to replace them in
2007. I do not think that is going to work. The underfunding of
the B-52 bomber and the stretch-out of the ABL--there are a
series of difficulties that I want to ask about, but I will do
that during the question round. I am anxious to hear the
testimony.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Thank you.
prepared statement of senator craig
Senator Craig has also submitted a statement which we will
include in the record at this point.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to submit this
statement and question for the record to the Air Force during
this subcommittee hearing. I would like to thank Secretary
Peters and General Ryan for the support the Air Force has given
Mountain Home Air Force Base and the men and women, who day-in,
day-out are prepared to lay their lives on the line for our
country.
The 366th Wing is the Air Force's premier air expeditionary
wing. The wing blends the firepower of various weapons systems
to form a single, cohesive aerial strike force. As you know,
the Gunfighters are a composite force already built and
trained, ready to fight, at a moments notice, anytime,
anywhere.
Mountain Home is also home to the Aerospace Expeditionary
Forces Battlelab, which identifies and rapidly proves the value
of innovative ideas for the Commander In Chiefs' employment of
Aerospace Expeditionary Forces throughout the spectrum of
warfare. With all of this in mind, Mountain Home Air Force Base
is key to the Air Force being able to implement the
Expeditionary Aerospace Force structure.
I would also like to thank you for your support of the
Enhanced Training Range in Idaho. This range will provide
realistic, flexible, and efficient training scenarios while
minimizing environmental impacts associated with readiness
training. Not only will the Air Force save approximately $30
million in the first three years of operation, but it will
allow the men and women of the 366th Wing to prepare to fight
the next war, not the last, with fewer combat losses through
improved training. I commend the Air Force in working
diligently with the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Federal Department of Transportation, the Bureau of Land
Management, Idaho State officials, and local land users to
ensure that all concerns were addressed and effectively
handled. I would encourage you to let me know if I can be of
assistance to the Air Force with any other issues relating to
the final stages of implementation.
I was pleased to see the announcement by the Air Force that
Mountain Home Air Force Base was being considered for bed down
of the F-22 Raptor. I hope that the Air Force would seriously
consider this option. As I understand the Expeditionary
Aerospace Force implementation, Mountain Home Air Force Base
would be the most logical choice for bedding down the first
operational F-22 units. Not only is the 366th one of the first
to deploy anywhere in the world when a conflict erupts, it is
also home to the Aerospace Expeditionary Forces Battlelab, and
will have the newest and best day-to-day training ranges in the
United States.
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, proceed as you wish. Thank you.
Mr. Peters. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for the
opportunity to be here this morning. We have submitted a
lengthy posture statement that we would ask to be put in the
record.
Senator Stevens. They are both in the record to start with.
Mr. Peters. And if I may, just to give then a very short
opening. Our goal in developing the fiscal year 2001 budget was
to provide a balanced, integrated, and time-phased plan that
supports our evolution into an Expeditionary Aerospace Force
and which also implements key lessons learned from Kosovo. Over
the last 18 months, the Air Force has shown that its
investments in stealth, precision munitions, unmanned vehicles,
and improved intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
systems have matured into really unparalleled combat power.
Expeditionary Aerospace Force
For the first time in history, we have deployed a
significant number of Global Positioning System (GPS)-guided
munitions in combat and demonstrated an all-weather, day-night
precision strike capability far more lethal and accurate than
ever before possible. We also have deployed our new
Expeditionary Aerospace Force. Each of these 10 forces
represents a fundamental restructuring of the way the Air Force
does its business.
By structuring our people and assets as 10 rotational
forces, we ensure that the majority of our forces are trained
to meet our obligation to be ready on very short notice to
fight and win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. At
the same time, we have two very highly capable forces deployed
or trained and ready to deploy at any time for contingency
operations and to support the increasing need for a persistent
forward presence in the aftermath of regional contingency
operations.
We are, as we speak, fielding forces five and six. Each of
these is made up of combined active duty, reserve, and guard
units. By rotating our forces this way, the Air Force has
provided a stable and predictable deployment schedule for all
of its forces, addressing one of the most serious complaints
from our airmen, namely the high operational tempo. This
structure has, in turn, allowed the guard and reserve to
participate in deployments in larger numbers, cutting the work
load on the active force.
As we continue to implement the Expeditionary Aerospace
Force concept, we should be able to reduce the time all of our
airmen are deployed, as well as the workload at home when units
are deployed.
Recruiting and retention
Last but certainly not least, with the help of this
committee and Congress we are addressing serious pay,
personnel, modernization, and readiness challenges. Let me just
touch on a few highlights. First, we are, in fact, seeing
increasing retention in our enlisted force. In the month of
February, for example, we retained almost 60 percent of our
first-term airmen against a goal of 55 percent. This is still
early, but we are doing better and we hope it continues.
Thanks to the new pilot bonus program, our pilot shortage,
once predicted to be about 2,000 pilots short this year, will,
we think, bottom out at about 1,200 pilots and should go back
up to about 600 pilots short at the end of fiscal year 2001.
But again, this is based on early trends which will have to
continue.
Spare parts
We do, in fact, have an increasing inventory of spare
parts, thanks to the funding that we have received from this
committee and the rest of the Congress. Our back orders for
spare parts are down by over 50 percent from just 1 year ago
and our mission capable rates appear to be stabilizing.
On the other hand, on our recruiting programs, we are still
not doing as well as we hoped. We plan to have a major blitz
here at the end of the fiscal year, but it looks like we are
going to have great difficulty meeting our requirements on
recruiting.
Modernization
Finally, in this budget we have in place modernization
programs to refurbish or replace virtually all of our aircraft
and space systems, and we are also making investments in new
capabilities, such as Global Hawk, the Unmanned Combat Air
Vehicle, and increased numbers of joint direct attack munition
(JDAM).
This budget is also guided by our recent Kosovo experience,
which has underscored the fact that the Air Force must remain
ready to respond to a full range of missions, from humanitarian
and peacekeeping operations to cyber terrorism, weapons of mass
destruction, and major theater wars. To do this, we have placed
renewed emphasis on upgrading our intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance assets and also our space assets, and we
continue to fund significant improvements in our
communications, network defense, and command and control
infrastructure.
prepared statement
Working together with this committee, we are taking the
best, most potent aerospace force in the world and making it
even lighter, leaner, more lethal and more flexible to meet the
national security challenges of the next century.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to taking your
questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. F. Whitten Peters and Gen. Michael E. Ryan
af posture statement 2000
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Air Force fiscal
year 2001 budget, though constrained, is a balanced, integrated,
carefully crafted plan that supports our transformation as an
Expeditionary Aerospace Force. With your continued support, it will:
Put our people first.--We can never lose sight of the fact that it
is our great people--active-duty, guard, reserve and civilian--who make
the Air Force the world's premier aerospace force. This budget
continues our commitment to improving pay, benefits, and quality of
life. It also contains increased emphasis on improving recruiting and
retention to ensure that we are growing the force of the future.
Emphasize readiness.--The Air Force has been in a constant state of
high operations tempo since the end of the Cold War. We are smaller
than we have ever been, yet tasked at a level many times the Cold War
pace. The stress is showing. By committing to better organization, more
money for spare parts, and increased training, we will halt the
downward readiness trends of the late 1990s.
Continue our carefully balanced, time-phased modernization
program.--There is no single modernization program that is a ``silver
bullet'' for the Air Force. Instead, we are committed to modernizing
existing systems, where it makes sense and provides the needed
capability. Likewise, we must purchase new systems to ensure we
maintain our ability to provide the full spectrum of aerospace
capability. We continue to believe that the key to success is an
integrated system of systems. That will provide the global reach,
global power, and global vigilance that make the Air Force a premier
instrument of national defense and national security. Our fiscal year
2001 modernization plan touches every part of the Air Force, including
space, mobility, surveillance, power projection and information
superiority, just to mention a few.
Without the steadfast support of the President and Congress, the
stunning successes of the last several years would not have been
possible. We are a combat-proven, mission-focused, decisive fighting
force for America. With your support we will remain so.
introduction
The United States Air Force enters the 21st Century as the most
powerful, swift and flexible military force in the world. Aerospace
power was born in America with the Wright brothers and was proven
decisive in combat by American commanders who understood the imperative
of dominating the skies: Mitchell, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Nimitz,
Arnold, and many more. Aerospace power became America's unique
asymmetric advantage.
For more than fifty years, the Air Force has been the nation's
primary provider of aerospace power. Today, aerospace power gives the
nation a strategic advantage and is its most rapid instrument of
military choice. It is aerospace power that has made it possible for
our nation to lead critical security commitments, while remaining ready
to engage rapidly anywhere on the globe.
Everything we do in joint military operations requires control of
air and space. Without aerospace power, our joint forces could not
effectively deploy, fight, or win. With aerospace power, joint forces
can secure our objectives quickly with minimum loss of life. We are a
combat-proven, mission-focused, decisive fighting force. The following
paragraphs outline how your Air Force, with continued support from
Congress, will organize, train, equip, and operate in the coming years.
Aerospace Power in the Geostrategic Environment
World events over the past decade have highlighted the value of
aerospace forces. They were the conclusive instruments of military
power in the three major conflicts of the last decade--the Gulf War,
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. Throughout the 1990s, aerospace power
delivered results not only in combat but in many different types of
operations: providing presence around the world to shape the security
environment; flying relief supplies into areas struck by disaster;
delivering aid to nations and peoples in need; patrolling no-fly zones
over Iraq and Bosnia-Herzegovina; providing awareness with space
assets; and standing nuclear alert. These are just a few of the
examples of how America has used its aerospace power.
Today, our national security policy relies on the steady engagement
of air forces in several regions. While the other services use their
aviation arms primarily to assist their principal forces, the Air Force
provides the essence of our nation's aerospace power.
The Air Force is preparing for a range of potential threats that
will vary in character and intensity as the 21st century unfolds. A
hostile state actor, weapons of mass destruction, cyberterrorism and a
heightened need for defense of the American homeland: all are possible
challenges in the future. Security can be fragile. Tomorrow's weapons
have the potential to be devious and destructive. New threats can
emerge quickly, and our ability to counter them must never be taken for
granted.
Given the uncertainty and diversity of these threats, aerospace
power, with its unique capabilities, will be more important than ever
in carrying out America's security goals. First, aerospace power is
far-reaching. Our aircraft can reach any point on the globe within
hours, with the flexibility to supply relief or to produce combat
effects. Second, it is a lethal fighting force. We can control enemy
maneuver in the battlespace and find and destroy targets with great
precision. Third, aerospace power is vigilant. Airmen link aircraft,
satellites and information systems to create global situational
awareness. Vigilance takes many forms, from security forces patrolling
the base perimeter to nuclear forces on alert. These three
characteristics combine to make aerospace power a highly flexible,
powerful military force--indispensable to our nation.
Our Focus
The United States Air Force defends the United States and protects
its interests through aerospace power. Our fundamental capability is to
dominate the aerospace realm to ensure freedom from attack, freedom to
maneuver and freedom to attack. This capability stems from our core
competencies: aerospace superiority, global attack, precision
engagement, information superiority, rapid global mobility, and agile
combat support. Our heading stays constant: the Air Force vision of
global reach, global power and global vigilance is the guiding
principle behind our strategic plan and budget programs for aerospace
power.
Aerospace power cannot be defined just as fighters, bombers or
satellites. Aerospace power comes from talented, trained people
employing a combination of systems and capabilities. It starts with our
ability to operate out of austere bases--and that requires constant
attention to the fundamentals of food, shelter, force protection,
communications, airfield and mobility operations, and civil
engineering. It includes the world's most capable air mobility assets
and infrastructure, empowering the global reach capability without
which forces and equipment could not move onto forward bases. At the
next level, aerospace power requires Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR) assets in space and in the air that are
interoperable and that can communicate information back to centers
where data can be fused and commanders can use that fused information
to command their forces and the battlespace. The constant requirement
for data, communications, and systems that turn data into information,
in turn, requires capabilities that run the gamut from prediction of
solar weather to satellite command and control to computer network
defense. What makes the Air Force such a flexible and effective tool is
our focus on maintaining a balanced aerospace force that provides the
full range of capabilities required to put bombs on target or to
rapidly deliver humanitarian supplies.
In one contingency, our primary contribution may be C-17s
delivering relief supplies. But as important as the C-17 is to this
operation, it would be of little use without the material handling
equipment that allows it to be loaded and unloaded. Moreover, relief
missions depend on layers of support from information systems,
communication satellites, weather, navigation, and air refueling that
come together to form an Air Force unique capability: an air bridge.
Similarly, the B-2 dropping the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is
an outstanding capability. But the B-2 cannot perform that mission
without targeting data, which depends on our ISR and communications
infrastructure, as well as the Global Positioning System (GPS) which,
in turn, requires a supporting infrastructure of space launch ranges
and launch vehicles.
Our fiscal year 2001 budget program is based on sustaining our
decisive fighting force through a balanced program that pays attention
to all the systems required to perform our mission, modernizes our
systems, takes advantage of innovation, and prepares for the challenges
of the future. Most importantly, we are providing better support for
our most valuable assets--our people.
The Air Force Leads Defense Transformation
The Air Force's legacy of organizational and operational
flexibility leave it prepared for the challenges of the 21st Century.
As security goals shifted in the 1990s, we vaulted ahead with two major
transformations that greatly increased our decisive power projection
capabilities. These transformations--one organizational, the other a
result of the ongoing revolution in military affairs, form the
foundation of our strategic plan.
The Air Force has always been an expeditionary force: going ``over
there,'' to Europe, the Pacific, Southeast Asia, or the Persian Gulf
region to join with allies and defeat adversaries. Since the early
1990s, the Air Force has downsized by more than one-third and cut
overseas basing by two-thirds. We retired older Cold War force
structure and emerged as a lighter, leaner, and more lethal force.
Bombers designed to carry nuclear weapons now carry precision-guided
conventional munitions. A tanker force designed to support nuclear
operations became the backbone of overseas force deployment. Never in
history have aerospace forces demonstrated their flexibility with
greater clarity.
But during the downsizing, contingency operations multiplied and
organizational strain emerged. Soon the Air Force was engaged in many
times as many operations as during the Cold War--we were 40 percent
smaller than our 1987 levels, but much busier. Like marathon runners,
we had to find the right pace. First, the Air Force transformed itself
into an expeditionary aerospace force configured for the full spectrum
of global operations. In response to seemingly irreconcilable stresses,
the Air Force increased its expeditionary capabilities so that we could
both deploy forces faster, and be able to keep up a constant presence,
for years when necessary, to fulfill long-term multi-national
commitments. We did this using forces that were structured to fight and
win two major theater wars.
The new Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) concept enables the Air
Force to meet the Nation's increased demand for deployed forces.
Without this reorganization, we could not sustain that demand with the
force levels we have today. EAF allows us to provide tailored forces to
regional commanders, while keeping the force trained and ready to meet
major commitments. But most importantly, it gives our people more
predictable deployment schedules, adding needed stability to their
family lives and career paths. Equally important, EAF allows us to make
more effective use of the Guard and Reserve, reducing the operations
tempo for all our forces. The new concept works by designating ten
packages of our forces--known as Aerospace Expeditionary Forces
(AEFs)--and rotating two at a time to be on call or deploy to regional
hotspots. It also provides for five rotating mobility headquarters
units, to meet demands for airlift. The reorganization required for
this transition is largely complete. However, we must continue
exercises and initiatives to improve our expeditionary capability by
reducing deployment times, improving communications and en route
planning, streamlining equipment loads and honing our ability to
operate from austere locations.
The second major transformation emerged in the last decade when the
Air Force became a stealth-enhanced, all-weather, day/night, precision
force. In the 1990s, Americans became accustomed to seeing gun camera
video of precision-guided bombs hitting buildings, bridges and tanks.
Laser-guided bombs debuted in the early 1970s, but in 1991 just 9
percent of the weapons delivered by aircraft in Desert Storm were
precision weapons, and only the F-117, with two bombs on board, was
able to penetrate heavy air defenses to drop these weapons. Just four
years later, in 1995, more than 90 percent of the bombs dropped during
Operation Deliberate Force were precision-guided weapons. In 1999, the
stealthy B-2, flying from the United States, with 16 JDAMs on board hit
multiple targets at night, in all kinds of weather in its combat debut
over Kosovo and Serbia. In addition, B-52s fired GPS-guided
Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles (CALCMs) hundreds of miles
with great accuracy. Our fighter aircraft also dropped precision laser-
guided bombs when weather permitted, and we were prepared to use laser
designators from the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to enable
laser-guided bombs to be dropped through the clouds onto intended
targets. In short, during Kosovo, all our attack platforms were able to
hit multiple targets per sortie with great precision and much-reduced
collateral damage. Past air commanders could only dream of the level of
accuracy and reduced collateral damage that we achieved in Kosovo.
But the precision revolution also has costs. First, is the cost of
integrating our new precision weapons onto our existing platforms--in
many cases this requires extensive modifications. Now that we can bomb
at night, we must also be able to fly safely at night, and that means
installing night vision goggles and related lighting into all our
combat aircraft. Precision weapons also require precise data on the
location of targets--data that today must come from operations centers,
satellites, UAVs, and supporting aircraft. This in turn drives a
requirement for linking our aircraft together through high-speed
digital networks and for better on-board targeting systems. We must
also complete the integration of precision weapons into our Guard and
Reserve aircraft--for EAF and precision to work, every strike aircraft
must be capable of dropping precision ordnance. Finally, we must also
invest in a suite of capabilities and training to shorten the time it
takes to identify and strike targets from hours to minutes.
Your Air Force is funding the programs required to move these two
critical transformations to the next level. As we move forward, we will
continue to define the next steps in this revolution, and we will
ensure that this transformation has many more cycles. Making our force
stealthy will allow us to protect the force from evolving counter-air
systems. New munitions, like the Small Smart Bomb and Low Cost
Autonomous Attack Systems (LOCAAS) on stealthy platforms, will extend
all-weather, day/night, and stand-off capabilities and will provide
better capability against moving targets. They will also further
minimize collateral damage and enable many more targets to be destroyed
with a single sortie. Real time, adaptive targeting will combine with
stealth and precision to take this revolution to a new level of combat
power.
Both of these major transformations depend on increased aerospace
integration. Air and space are seamless. We operate aircraft and
spacecraft optimized for different environments, but the art of
commanding aerospace power lies in integrating systems to produce the
exact effects the joint force commander needs. To meet this need, we
have changed our command organization, established a Space Warfare
Center and an Aerospace Basic Course, and added space training to the
air combat training given at our Weapons School. Most importantly, we
are putting air and space operators into all our key commands and
training courses. We are also investing in the information
infrastructure to further link air and space platforms and testing
those links in exercises and experiments. This year, we formed an
Aerospace Integration Center at Nellis AFB, NV, where younger officers
will learn how to employ and command the totality of aerospace forces.
Today, our innovations are bearing fruit--the Air Force is an
integrated expeditionary aerospace force.
Operation Allied Force: Total Success . . . and Forging the Way Ahead
Expeditionary operations and precision, all-weather strike
converged in the spring of 1999 when NATO airpower compelled Yugoslavia
to remove military forces from Kosovo. For the Air Force, Operation
Allied Force was equivalent to a major theater war.
We proved expeditionary aerospace power was decisive. From the
operational perspective, airmen damaged over 85 percent of critical
infrastructure targets and attacked more than 850 Yugoslav army ground
mobile targets (such as tanks, artillery pieces and trucks.) From the
strategic perspective, aerospace power demonstrated NATO's might and
resolve to Serbian leaders and in the end, Serbia complied with NATO
demands.
The success of Operation Allied Force stemmed from our long-term
investment in aircraft modernization and stealth, as well as a range of
precision, near-precision and stand-off weapons; real-time
communications; UAVs, space systems and ISR aircraft. We gleaned many
insights from this conflict, and they are reflected in the budget and
program now before the Congress.
--Expeditionary operations worked. With seeming ease, our airmen
deployed to more than 20 expeditionary bases, bringing with
them the force protection, logistics, sustainment, and
communications systems that supported expeditionary combat
operations.
--Reachback worked. Satellite communications enabled warfighters to
reach back to the United States for real-time information and
analysis, while avoiding the need to deploy such systems. By
reaching back to CONUS for real-time support, theater forces
were both leaner and better supported than if we had deployed
CONUS forces and their equipment to Europe.
--Logistics worked. Depots surged and provided some 500,000
additional hours of work. With Air Mobility Command's worldwide
express package delivery system, 93 percent of replacement
parts got to forward expeditionary bases in Europe in an
average of just 3.7 days. The engaged force averaged a 92
percent mission capable rate, much better than the peacetime
average, because it had adequate parts and a full complement of
experienced maintenance personnel.
--Technology worked. The many areas where technology gave us great
advantages are the same areas that offer us the chance to
modernize and improve our forces, gaining greater capability
and saving dollars. The most promising of these are high
priorities in this year's budget submission.
While individual weapons systems were hailed in the press for their
capabilities, it was the successful integration of a broad range of
weapons systems and supporting aircraft and space systems that won the
day over Kosovo. While the world marveled at JDAM, the war could not
have been won without the use of proven precision munitions guided by
laser, electro-optical, and inertial guidance systems. Success came
from understanding how our weapons systems complemented each other and
blended together into a balanced fighting force with capabilities that
matched requirements. The synergy that resulted from combining air,
space, and information operations allowed NATO to attack strategic,
operational, and tactical targets, day and night, and often in adverse
weather conditions, within hours of being identified. Having said all
that, the greatest advantage we have is our outstanding people.
Decisive Fighting Force
Our airmen are a national treasure--they are a combat-proven,
decisive, fighting force. They perform superbly wherever they are,
whoever they are: the crew chief maintaining an F-16 for combat
operations from Aviano AB, Italy; the C-17 loadmaster flying all over
the world from Charleston, South Carolina; the captain and his wingman
deploying from Alaska to Korea; the lieutenant flying satellites at
Schriever AFB, Colorado; or officers standing alert at a Minuteman
missile launch control center near Minot, North Dakota. Airmen are
motivated, trained and ready to serve their country.
But their jobs are not easy. The uniformed Air Force of the year
2000 is the smallest in history: 358,000 active-duty members, plus
107,000 in the Air National Guard and 74,000 in the Air Force Reserve
for a total of 539,000. On any given day, 90,000 airmen--almost one-
sixth of the Total Force--are operating forward at 12 overseas bases
and 16 forward operating locations.
The personal commitment of our men and women deserves an equal
commitment from the Air Force, the Congress, and the American people.
People are the key to the Expeditionary Aerospace Force, and we must do
all we can to give our fighting forces what they need to carry out
their mission.
People
People are our top priority. Because multiple deployments, crisis
responses and aging equipment are stressing our manpower levels, we
know we need to move additional manpower into the forces directly
supporting the EAF. We moved 2,640 positions into the EAF in fiscal
year 2000, and this budget will move 3,180 additional authorizations in
fiscal year 2001. In addition, we recognize that unfilled manpower
authorizations are of no use, so we have requested 300 new manpower
positions for recruiters in fiscal year 2001. We have also commissioned
a major study of our end strength requirement and are prepared to
request additional end strength, if needed.
Recruiting and retaining the highest quality men and women are
among our greatest challenges in the current economic environment. To
date, we have been able to recruit men and women of extremely high
caliber--99 percent have high-school diplomas. However, during fiscal
year 1999, the Air Force fell short of its recruiting goal for the
first time in 20 years. To meet this year's goal, we are increasing our
recruiter force and launching new efforts in paid advertising.
Retention has also declined. The Air Force needs to retain highly
trained people; but the high operations tempo, the strong civilian job
market, and previous dissatisfaction with pay and retirement benefits
have hurt both enlisted and officer retention.
The bottom-line for retention is that quality of life counts. The
pay and compensation package Congress and the administration approved
in 1999 and the restoration of 50 percent retirement benefits sent the
right message. In addition, quality of life initiatives at the base
level are essential. We realize that while we recruit individuals, we
retain families. Especially with so many military members deployed, our
programs in spouse employment, personal financial management
assistance, childcare and youth centers, and commissaries and military
exchanges are tangible commitments that make a difference in quality of
life every day. Our Dormitory Master Plan to improve facilities is well
underway, and we have also funded improvements to family housing
through our Housing Master Plan. Additional DOD support for market-
based basic allowance for housing (BAH) will reduce out-of-pocket
expenses for our families assigned to high cost areas. TRICARE, which
was fully implemented in June 1998, continues to receive our constant
attention, with focus on customer satisfaction. While surveys indicate
that satisfaction is increasing, we are a long way from complete
success. Congress' continued support for our budget will sustain
efforts in all of these areas.
Training
Several new programs are in place to train our force for 21st
Century expeditionary and integrated aerospace operations. Deploying is
now a way of life. The vast majority of our force never knew the
garrison-style life of the Cold War Air Force. Accordingly, airmen
recruits confront the real world during the new Warrior Week encampment
at Lackland AFB, Texas, where they learn to operate from a bare-base
site. At Maxwell AFB, Alabama, the Aerospace Basic Course extends to
new officers and selected civilians a working knowledge of how the Air
Force fights. As air, space and information systems become more
sophisticated, the Air Force views ongoing training and education as
the key to successful command and employment of aerospace power. New
training systems like Distributed Mission Training place airmen in a
synthetic battlespace, connected electronically to other airmen joining
the simulation from bases in other states.
Readiness
Today's global environment demands that we be ready for operations
from Kosovo to the South Pole. Our people are ready to meet this
demand, but years of ongoing operations and difficult funding choices
pose a threat to near-term readiness. Keeping that threat at bay is one
of our major concerns and a major focus of this year's budget.
The average Air Force aircraft is 20 years old and even with the
introduction of new airframes, the average age will be 30 years by
2015. Supply systems are pushed to their limits as Air Force units
deploy continually. Overall, average mission capable rates for aircraft
have declined due to the high operations tempo and shortages in parts,
equipment, and skilled manpower. With the help of the administration
and Congress, we provided obligation authority of $382 million in
fiscal year 1999 for more spare parts inventory, and 100 percent
funding for spares should reverse the shortage in 2000. We have put the
brakes on declining engine readiness, but are still 25 percent short in
some war readiness spares. Readiness remains an area of vital concern.
Modernization
The Air Force's modernization strategy has three aims: to maximize
combat performance, build the force of tomorrow and exploit new
technologies that enhance warfighting capability. The Air Force is
sized and shaped to be flexible enough to perform several basic
missions with the same force: sustaining deterrence, winning two major
theater wars in close succession, rapidly responding to small scale
contingencies, deploying for sustained peace enforcement operations,
and conducting humanitarian operations. That places a premium on
modern, flexible forces and people who know how to do their jobs in a
variety of operations.
Our continued innovation begins with basic technological research
and program integration. Today's nascent programs are tomorrow's joint
warfighting capabilities. Our successes in Kosovo have demonstrated
that great military value can come from integration of air and space
systems. For this reason, we are doubling our current budgetary
expenditures for space science and technology between fiscal year 1999-
2005. This will further enhance our integrated capabilities and lower
the cost of space support. For this reason too, we have established the
Aerospace Command, Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance Center (ASC\2\ISRC) charged with integrating our
multiple data, intelligence, and analysis systems into a comprehensive
Aerospace Operations Center, and the Space Battle Lab charged with
finding innovative ways to combine space and air systems.
As we look to our future integrated aerospace force, however, we
cannot forget that aerospace power is complex and is built on a broad
infrastructure that must also be modernized in parallel with combat
systems. To meet Commander In Chief (CINC) requirements, for example,
our budget includes capabilities ranging from satellites to smart cards
to the Red Horse civil engineers to new forms of combat rations. Tested
and proven over time, this phased, balanced modernization program will
ensure the future of your Air Force as the most powerful aerospace
force in the world.
As the Air Force modernizes its capabilities, we are mindful that
they must be interoperable with the other services and contribute to a
wide range of capabilities for Joint Operations. For example, the Air
Force provides strategic airlift for all ground forces, long-range
aerial refueling for naval and allied aircraft in combat operations,
and assured access to space for a range of Department of Defense
missions. The array of systems and capabilities we supply is broader
and more diverse than that required of other military forces. This is
not because of the importance of the Air Force as an institution. It is
because of the growing importance of aerospace power in our Nation's
joint military operations.
Finally, we must always analyze emerging requirements. We face a
mixture of threats, and our budget seeks funding to improve our
capabilities against emerging threats, such as chemical and biological
weapons, terrorism, and efforts to deny or exploit our mastery of
space. We also have a program of experimentation that will show us how
to improve our capabilities now and to stay aware of potential
technology synergies and operational concepts that could be important
in this new century.
Investing in the Core Competencies of Aerospace Power
It takes the full set of competencies--aerospace superiority,
global attack, precision engagement, information superiority, rapid
global mobility, and agile combat support--to create aerospace power.
These core competencies are operational capabilities that exploit the
advantages of aerospace operations and enable many other types of joint
operations. We cannot let down in any of these areas or we will put at
risk our nation's ability to prevail in conflict. Therefore, we have
taken a balanced approach to sustaining these core competencies in the
fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Aerospace Superiority is the control of air and space and the
foundation of joint force, full spectrum dominance. From our nation's
geographic position in the Western Hemisphere, we rely on aerospace
superiority to protect our homeland and to enable us to deploy and to
communicate to and from overseas theaters. Through aerospace
superiority operations, we establish freedom from attack, freedom to
maneuver and freedom to attack for all joint forces. Not since the
Korean War have American soldiers been attacked by enemy aircraft. The
Air Force is committed to ensuring that it never happens again so we
are investing in modified systems, new systems and ISR platforms which
support the core competencies, like upgrades to the F-15 and F-16 and
the development of the F-22, as well as systems like the Space Based
Infrared System (SBIRS), Airborne Laser (ABL), and Space Based Laser
(SBL), to name a few.
Global Attack assets allow our nation to deter war and to strike
any point on the earth's surface within hours of the decision to do so.
Improvements to the B-2's low observability and integration of advanced
weapons in the B-2, B-1 and B-52, as well as phased upgrades to the F-
15, F-16, and F-117 aircraft and the development of the Joint Strike
Fighter, will significantly enhance our global attack capabilities.
Looking to the future, we are funding an experimental unmanned combat
vehicle (UCAV) program.
Precision Engagement means precision strike of targets, in all
weather, day or night. Beyond these combat applications, precision
engagement also refers to our ability to get supplies and people to the
right place at the right time to further policy goals. In our budget,
new families of weapons are in the spotlight, including the Joint Air-
to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), JDAM
and the Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD). These programs have
joint application and are the promise of a new transformation in power
projection and decisive attack operations. In the area of precision
support, we continue to fund all aspects of our mobility systems.
Information Superiority is the collection, control and exploitation
of the information domain. An uninterrupted flow of data and knowledge
of the battlespace are critical to success in current and future
military operations. The Air Force meets many service and joint
requirements with an information superiority architecture that is at
the cutting edge of technology. This truly unique asset is a collection
of ground, airborne and space platforms, sensors and systems that
represents a key contribution to joint operations. Our evolutionary
modernization plan focuses on support to the expeditionary warfighter
and includes upgrades to many of these systems. Key among them are the
Joint Surveillance Targeting And Reconnaissance System (JSTARS), AWACS
and U-2 aircraft, as well as the Predator and Global Hawk UAVs. We're
also taking a step toward migrating some capabilities to space with the
National Reconnaissance Office and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency in our joint investment on the Discoverer II space-
based radar.
Rapid Global Mobility is the ability to quickly position forces--
from our own forces to those of our sister services or coalition
partners--on or near any spot on the globe. Whether employing on-scene
Aerospace Expeditionary Wings or deploying contingency forces in
response to a crisis, mobility assets make the difference in speed and
stamina. Procurement of the full complement of C-17s, development of
the CV-22, aggressive C-130 and KC-135 modernization and C-5 upgrade
programs, as well as development of the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV) will ensure there are no gaps in our global mobility for
the early 21st Century.
Agile Combat Support is the flexible and efficient sustainment of
combat forces. As an expeditionary force, we are aiming for continued
progress in reducing the deployment footprint, and speeding the
delivery of the right supplies to the warfighter. To meet those needs,
the Air Force is revamping its combat support systems. New logistics
decision support tools and the Global Combat Support System are key
enablers that will improve global logistics support.
Air Force Fiscal Year 2001 President's Budget Submission
Overall, the Air Force Budget continues to carefully integrate and
balance competing priorities. The budget puts people first, emphasizes
readiness, and continues to sustain relevant time-phased modernization
and infrastructure programs. This plan continues our transformation and
improvement as an Expeditionary Aerospace Force.
The fiscal year 2001 Air Force Budget sustains the people,
readiness and modernization gains included in last year's Budget. In
addition, we made some key investments that target specific
capabilities or issues. For example, we've added funds for Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH), recruiting, and advertising to increase
retention and ensure we have the people needed to improve historic
mission readiness trends. Other additions such as Large Aircraft
Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) and JSTARS address specific
operational requirements, while additional modest increases for Science
and Technology help underpin our future core capabilities. We've also
added resources to cover ``fact of life'' cost increases for
Peacekeeper and Minuteman missiles, fuel, and consumption of spare
parts.
However, our budget is filled with many of the same challenges as
last year. This budget continues to provide resources to hold readiness
levels at the fiscal year 2000 mission capable level. We need
Congressional support for the fiscal year 2001 budget to reverse losses
to our mission capable levels that we endured in fiscal years 1998-
1999. We are hopeful that the adds for BAH, recruiting, and advertising
will help improve personnel readiness. Finally, the Air Force still
faces a low infrastructure re-capitalization rate. Our backlog of
infrastructure maintenance and repair continues to grow and total
facility replacement remains on a 200 year cycle.
summary
That is why we have crafted a carefully balanced plan that
addresses the broad range of mission-critical needs of the service.
The security challenges of the 21st Century are difficult to
predict. What we do know is that America will meet those challenges
through joint operations built around decisive power projection with
aerospace forces. The United States Air Force has a unique and broad
set of responsibilities to defend the United States, protect its
interests, project power, extend a helping hand, and enable joint
forces to carry out a full spectrum of operations. The fundamentals of
aerospace power--fast, flexible air, space and information systems,
skillfully commanded by aerospace warriors--will be the building blocks
of 21st Century security. With Congressional support, the Air Force
will maintain strategic deterrence, meet regional security challenges
through expeditionary operations, support global information exchange,
and engage with allies to reinforce multinational security measures.
The inherent flexibility of aerospace power and the capabilities
achieved through the synergism of aircraft, spacecraft and information
systems will be the key components of national security against
emerging threats. The United States is an aerospace nation, and your
United States Air Force is now prepared and poised to meet the demands
of ongoing global security commitments and must be in the future.
Security in the 21st Century depends in no small part on continuing
to provide aerospace power that gives this nation its rapid global
reach, decisive power and constant vigilance. Our world-class people
make it work--they will always be our first priority. We are an
expeditionary aerospace force configured for the long haul. We are
continuing cycles of revolution as we transform into an information-
rich, precision force and as we integrate aerospace systems ever closer
together. We are an aerospace force that will grow ever more accustomed
to operating in and from space. Our budget balances today's commitments
with tomorrow's opportunities. We are prepared for the future and
committed to serving the nation. We are a combat-proven, mission-
focused, decisive fighting force. With your support, we will remain
that way.
combat proven
The United States Air Force in 1999
Since the dawn of flight, America's airmen have answered the
nation's calls. Last year was no different. Despite a huge drawdown
over the past decade and a surge in contingency responses, last year
was a time when the active duty Air Force was tasked more heavily (by
percentage of force) than in either Desert Storm or Vietnam. The B-2
saw combat for the first time and the B-1 for the second. We fought an
air war with the greatest degree of precision and integration ever seen
in the history of aerospace power, while at the same time patrolling
the air over Iraq and keeping the peace in Korea.
The Air Force played a dominant role in NATO's air war against
Serbia. Operation Allied Force was the equivalent of a major theater
war for the Air Force. We had over 500 aircraft and 44,000 people from
our active and reserve components committed to this significant combat
operation. Some of our airmen fought from home bases in the U.S. or
overseas, but many deployed into 1 of the 21 expeditionary operating
locations we created during the crisis.
For example, the international airport at Tirana, Albania was
turned from a remote airfield into both a major humanitarian relief
center and a combat location for Task Force Hawk in less than 12 days.
Five C-130s arrived from Ramstein AB, Germany on March 30th and by
April 4th, the first C-17 was offloading outsized cargo for the Army's
Apache helicopter unit. From the time our expeditionary airmen landed
at the airport to the time combat helicopters landed in Tirana was only
9 days. By mid-April the airfield was fully operational, flying
approximately 25 airlift sorties per day--carrying supplies and
equipment for Task Force Hawk and humanitarian relief for Joint Task
Force Shining Hope. Throughout this short time period, Air Force civil
engineering units steadily improved airfield operations and living
conditions by setting up water, sewer, electricity, roads, and critical
runway repairs and upgrades. By the end of operations, 1,240 sorties
would fly into Tirana.
During the 78 days of combat, 14 NATO nations flew 38,000 sorties
and dropped 27,000 munitions against a wide range of Serbian targets in
a small battlespace. Our Air Force provided nearly 50 percent of the
coalition aircraft, dropped 70 percent of the munitions, and provided a
large portion of the support aircraft. These support aircraft flew
critical intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and mobility
missions which were key ingredients to the operation's success. During
combat missions, hundreds of aircraft from many countries flew in close
proximity over the Balkans; at some times, as many as five aerial
refueling tracks were operational over the Adriatic at one time,
competing for airspace with the tracks for ISR and command and control
aircraft. The fact that none of our sorties resulted in a friendly
mishap is testimony to the great leadership of our Air Component
Commanders, the plans and operations skills of our Air Operations
Centers, and the tremendous professionalism of United States and NATO
airmen.
As in other conflicts, a key consideration during Allied Force was
the minimization of both combat losses and collateral damage. Because
the Air Force continued its legacy of innovation, most joint and
coalition strike aircraft were able to employ precision weapons while
staying above much of the ground threat. And because of the Air Force's
investments in stealth and precision weapons, the B-2 and F-117 were
able to strike safely at heavily defended, strategic centers of gravity
far inside Serbia. In all cases, multiple targets could be hit with a
single sortie. Our goal in this fight was no combat losses and no
avoidable collateral damage--we achieved both. We had no combat losses
and our actual collateral damage rate per sortie was .0005.
This incredibly low collateral damage rate resulted from the
dedicated effort over several years to incorporate precision munitions
across our fighting force and NATO's. More than 90 percent of the
combat sorties delivered precision-guided munitions: B-2s used JDAM; F-
15s, F-16s, and F-117s used laser-guided and stand-off precision
munitions; B-52s fired Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles
(CALCMs). Additionally, B-1 and B-52 aircraft dropped 10,000 non-
precision munitions to close airfields and strike concentrations of
opposing forces. These strike sorties were highly effective and
successful because of our well-trained people and our unquestioned
ability to control the air above the fight.
It wasn't just precision munitions, however, that made the outcome
of Operation Allied Force so successful. The integration of manned and
unmanned air and space weapon systems were truly merged in one
aerospace domain where intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
from air or space platforms were step-for-step synchronized with our
combat operations at all levels of warfare--from the strategic level to
the tactical level. While much of the world watched the battle unfold
through the lens of our precision munitions, it was the integration of
weapon systems in the aerospace domain that was the force multiplier.
From communications and weather to navigation and combat assessment,
this integration was pivotal to the successful outcome and validated
our balanced investment strategy over the years.
Kosovo was such an overwhelming display of the capabilities of
aerospace power that even our staunchest critics were heard to
grudgingly admit that airpower could single-handedly win a war. While
Allied Force was our single greatest combat achievement in 1999, it was
not our only combat operation. Before the conflict in Kosovo, we built
up our forces in the Persian Gulf to respond to increased Iraqi
violations of United Nations resolutions. After that build-up, we
unleashed that potent force during Operation Desert Fox. It wasn't long
after Desert Fox that Allied Force began. Simultaneously, we've
continued to respond to Iraqi aggression on almost a daily basis as we
enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq. In Korea, our airmen stand ready to
provide critical aerospace power on a moment's notice if required.
As you can see, 1999 was a very busy year for our expeditionary
airmen as they've answered the nation's calls. But we're not just
resting now, we're busily honing our warfighting operations and
refining investment strategies given our lessons learned from the many
combat operations.
mission focused
Our Role in National Security
The Air Force works with other governmental agencies to meet the
national security challenges and the objectives laid out in the
National Military Strategy. This requires us to shape and respond to
today's security challenges and stand prepared for those of the 21st
century.
Today's global security environment demands that the Air Force
maintain a mission-ready force necessary to deter aggression, conduct
ongoing contingency operations at a very high pace, meet a wide range
of peacetime missions, and support two nearly simultaneous major
theater wars. In addition, the Air Force must be ready to counter
potential enemies who are increasingly likely to attack American
interests asymmetrically. In 1999, the Air Force was continually
tested, and each time, vigorously supported the national strategy by
shaping and responding with its mission-ready forces while preparing
for the challenging and complex future ahead.
shaping
The Air Force continues to help shape the international security
environment by deterring would-be aggressors with our formidable
aerospace power, our global intelligence and surveillance operations,
our forward presence, and our ability to reach any place on the globe
within hours. Air Force people enhance regional stability through
numerous exercises and training programs, which build confidence with
our allies and coalition partners.
Deterrence
While the nuclear threat has diminished, the requirement to
demonstrate our national resolve to defeat any potential aggressor
remains at the heart of our nation's security. Air Force watch officers
maintain constant global vigilance over events on the ground, in the
air, and in space. From the high ground of space, and from manned and
unmanned airborne reconnaissance platforms, data streams back to
command centers from Greenland to Guam and from Saudi Arabia to South
Korea. Air Force airmen also maintained around-the-clock alert with
Peacekeeper and Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile forces
in the U.S., and flew B-1, B-2, and B-52 ``global power'' missions
staged from the U.S. to distant locations, demonstrating to the
international community our capability, commitment and resolve to
respond anywhere on the globe within hours of an alert.
Promoting Stability
The Air Force seeks to promote international stability by building
broad relationships with the militaries of other nations and promoting
regional security through our presence. These ties increase mutual
understanding and enhance interoperability. Air Force engagement
programs facilitate cooperation and access during contingencies and
enable future coalitions of willing and capable allies.
Recently, Air Force international engagement and stability efforts
have focused on support of Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and
international exercises, the Partnership for Peace Program, Military
Contact Programs, Operator-to-Operator talks, International Armaments
Cooperation Programs, and Security Assistance efforts. Last year, the
Air Force was engaged in 84 international exercises in 95 locations
throughout the world. These included 15 exercises with 34 Partnership
for Peace countries and nearly 300 focused Military Contact Program
events.
Last year we also conducted a series of seven Operator-to-Operator
talks, continuing a tradition spanning 17 years. These talks allow for
open discussion of key interest issues such as doctrine, employment of
airpower, tactics, coalition relationships, exchange of operational
information, and training. The program currently involves active
participation with several nations and is designed to provide direct
interface with our allies. Under the International Armaments
Cooperation Program, the Air Force has more than 300 agreements with
allies and coalition partners to share the cost of developing and
producing robust, interoperable systems and technologies. These
programs involve cooperative research, development, production,
scientist and engineer exchanges, equipment loans, and scientific and
technical information exchanges.
In a very successful effort to promote stability and
interoperability among allies and potential coalition partners, the Air
Force Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program managed more than 3,900
contracts for aircraft, spare parts, munitions, and training in excess
of $108 billion. Meanwhile, the International Military Education and
Training (IMET) Program continued to emphasize management training and
professional military education. Under IMET, the Air Force trained
1,298 students from 95 countries. These efforts have enhanced stability
and promoted improved relationships with the U.S.
Threat-Reduction Efforts
Not all threats to the national security of our nation are
conventional in nature. Potential adversaries will increasingly rely on
unconventional tactics to offset our superiority in conventional forces
and technology. The Department of Defense as a whole must counter these
asymmetric threats, and the Air Force is heavily engaged in this joint
effort. As identified by the National Defense Panel, the key emerging
threats are those that seek to deny us forward bases, disrupt our
supply lines, and inflict casualties both within the United States and
abroad. The Air Force is heavily engaged in both offensive and
defensive strategies to defeat the capabilities that support these
threats: information warfare, chemical and biological warfare, force
protection, and counter-drug operations.
Information Superiority and Network Defense
The Air Force has become increasingly dependent on information
networks and information systems, and in the future will become even
more dependent on a secure, timely, and accurate flow of information.
Indeed, a key enabler for expeditionary operations is the ability to
leave a large number of combat support personnel at home base, linking
them to engaged commanders through our information systems. Moving
information rather than people and equipment reduces airlift
requirements and limits the exposure of our forces to terrorism and
chemical and biological attack. Robust information networks also enable
the key concepts of modern logistics systems: time-definite resupply;
in-transit visibility; and the reliance on support outside the engaged
theater to minimize people, equipment, and supplies that must be moved
to theater. The war in Kosovo tested this vision in combat and proved
the validity of our reachback concept--through which we used
communications to CONUS-based support elements for the processing of
intelligence and targeting data and sustained some two dozen forward
expeditionary bases.
In 1999, we worked across the board on the fundamentals of
information superiority. Our logistics, financial management, and audit
communities continued their efforts to ensure the trustworthiness of
the data flowing through our systems by ensuring the accuracy,
timeliness, and ``auditability'' of our key data systems. Our
communications and computers community continued its efforts to protect
all base data networks by routing all traffic through a central base
Network Control Center (NCC) and protecting that traffic with
appropriate firewalls and intrusion detection systems. In 1999,
firewalls and NCCs were installed in all of our major bases at home and
abroad. Similar equipment and procedures will be deployed to all Air
Force installations--Active and Reserve--in the near future. In
addition, we deployed a robust suite of tools to all of our bases to
allow commanders to check for security holes in their information
systems, and network protection was made a special interest item in all
Inspector General inspections and a high priority audit issue for our
Auditor General. Finally, the Air Force Computer Emergency Response
Team continuously monitors all Air Force systems to identify computer
intrusions and forwards advisories to all bases as new forms of
intrusion are detected.
We are full partners in the recently established Joint Task Force
for Computer Network Defense through our base network control centers,
major command network operations security centers, Air Force Network
Operations Center, Air Force Information Warfare Center, and Air Force
Computer Emergency Response Team. We have made substantial progress in
our Operationalizing and Professionalizing the Network (OPTN)
initiative. Our objective is to organize, train, equip, operate, and
protect our essential information networks just like our other mission-
critical weapons systems.
Building on this foundation of trustworthy, protected data, the Air
Force is designing a standardized Aerospace Operations Center for its
theater and deployed commanders, drawing on our state-of-the-art
theater and wing-level operations centers at Vicenza and Aviano, Italy.
Through our Joint Expeditionary Force Experiments (JEFX 98 and 99), we
are also trying revolutionary ways of using existing data to support
Air Force, joint, and coalition commanders. In 1999, we fielded several
``stars'' of JEFX 98, including ``NIMA in a Box,'' which provides
expanded access to geospatial and mapping data, and the Joint Targeting
Workstation, which permits the fusion of national and tactical
intelligence data--including Predator video feeds--for rapid targeting.
Early versions of these systems were used with spectacular success in
Kosovo.
The Air Force fully supports the Global Command and Control System
(GCCS) through its C\4\ISR Center and will shortly field the Theater
Battle Management Control System (TBMCS), which is the core of the Air
Force GCCS system. At the end of 1999, the Air Force also established a
key headquarters element to monitor and coordinate the development and
fielding of the Global Combat Support System (GCSS) within the Air
Force. Over the next year, we plan to continue to strengthen our Chief
Information Officer structure to ensure that we move toward
interoperability of all Air Force information systems and that network
defense remains a very high priority.
In the immediate future, improved network defense will require the
fielding of the DOD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). We have budgeted
funds for PKI for several years, and intend to embrace PKI as it
becomes a technical reality. Within the next two years, all personnel
will have smart cards to support digital signatures in software
applications, data encryption, and facility and system access control.
It is our intent to certify all active-duty, civilian, Guard, and
Reserve personnel in PKI as smart cards and associated equipment and
software become available. We also intend to deploy PKI throughout our
communication architecture to support user identity, access control,
non-repudiation, data confidentiality, and data integrity.
Our defense-in-depth approach is paying off. The growing malicious
software threat has had little if any impact on our network operations.
Intense efforts by hackers and organized groups to disrupt networks
during Operation Allied Force were of little or no consequence. We are
blocking an increasing number of daily hacker intrusion attempts and
the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, teamed with the FBI and
other federal law enforcement agencies, has identified, caught and
prosecuted a number of hackers.
While our network defenses are improving, so is the threat; it is
real and dangerous. We will continue to shore up our defenses through a
well-funded and rigorous defense-in-depth program that will deliver the
information and mission assurance vital to our expeditionary
operations.
Countering Chemical and Biological Weapons
The threat or use of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) is
likely in future armed conflicts and poses a genuine danger to global
stability and security. The Air Force continues to improve its C\4\ISR
capabilities to identify and locate CBW weapons, storage, and
production facilities. We are seeking to advance our counterforce
capabilities to destroy CBW weapons, including those in hardened and
deeply buried facilities and improve our ability to actively defend
against and effectively manage the consequences of CBW if they are
used. On the first point, the Air Force has just incorporated a
penetrator warhead in the CALCM missile. The Air Force has moved
decisively to prepare and protect its first responders and combat
aerospace forces around the globe from the CBW terrorist threat. We
have developed counter-Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) doctrine
and concepts of operation, incorporating CBW issues into our training
programs, to prepare our men and women to effectively counter the
threat posed by CBW.
Force Protection
Protecting our people is a major part of our threat reduction
efforts and continues to be a top priority at all command levels. The
Air Force has institutionalized force protection by training our
people, equipping and reorganizing our security forces, and exploiting
technology.
Throughout their careers, airmen are taught the fundamentals of
force protection. Our goal is to create a force protection mindset
within the service. In 1999, the Air Force incorporated force
protection academics as a part of Warrior Week during basic training
and provided antiterrorism awareness training to personnel who deployed
or moved to overseas locations.
In support of the EAF, the Air Force organized and equipped the
820th Security Forces Group (SFG), to provide stand-alone, rapidly
deployable forces with a wide range of force protection skills to
secure operations at forward locations. These skills include security,
intelligence, medical, communications and engineering. The 820th SFG
was developed at the Air Force Security Force Center, Lackland AFB.
Upon maturity it will be transferred to Air Combat Command (ACC) and
relocated to Moody AFB, GA. This process has begun with an initial
small cadre assigned with duties to stand up the first squadron of 325
with an additional 215 military positions arriving during fiscal year
2001. In 1999, the 820th deployed to Tirana, Albania in support of
Allied Force and flawlessly demonstrated this dynamic capability.
Technology continues to provide force protection options to our
troops. The Force Protection Battlelab at Lackland AFB, Texas, conducts
research on new procedures and technologies to enhance our force
protection posture. The lab's success stories for 1999 include the
testing of a Remote Visual Assessment Strategy permitting rapid
assessment of security situations and alarms at remote locations such
as ICBM launch facilities and the perimeters of our forward located air
bases. The lab also conducted a successful Proof of Concept
Demonstration of the Sub-Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Surveillance
System which can support deployed forces in hostile locations with an
``eye in the sky'' to assess beyond the detection zone of our forward
air bases. Yet another example of the lab's success in 1999 was the
development of the Vehicle Entry Explosive Search Strategy to improve
our ability to safely screen vehicles for explosives and thus increase
entry point protection and security of our deployed AEF forces.
Implementation guidance was published in a Vehicle Bomb Mitigation
Guide which presents ready reference material associated with planning
and executing programs and operations for protecting Air Force
personnel and assets against the threat of vehicle bombs.
The Air Force also conducted extensive vulnerability assessments to
improve security at permanent and expeditionary locations. In 1999,
Joint Service, Air Force, and MAJCOM teams conducted 53 assessments of
Air Force installations. The Service is mitigating identified
deficiencies and aggressively pursuing permanent solutions. These
assessments continue to improve our force security at home and abroad.
Counter-Drug Operations
The Air Force continues its role in assisting drug enforcement
agencies in deterring the influx of illegal drugs. Air Force airborne
and ground-based radars along with sophisticated intelligence and
collection platforms work around the clock to identify suspected drug
traffickers long before they enter U.S. airspace. Working together as a
Total Force, our active and reserve airmen track, intercept and
identify drug smugglers far from our borders. Within the U.S., Air
Force working dogs stop significant quantities of illegal drugs at U.S.
ports. In addition, the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) supports law enforcement
agencies through aerial reconnaissance, airlift, and communications
support.
responding
The Air Force is prepared to respond with a wide range of options,
should deterrence and promoting stability fail to meet national
security objectives. From major theater wars to contingency operations
to peace-keeping and humanitarian efforts, the Air Force's ability to
rapidly respond anywhere on the globe made it the force of choice in
1999.
Operation Allied Force
As discussed previously, the benchmark for military responses to
national security comes in the form of combat operations. Operations
Desert Fox, Allied Force, and Northern and Southern Watch were four
combat responses we participated in during the past year. Our airmen
responded with great skill and courage.
Contingency Operations
Despite our heavy commitment to operations in Kosovo, the Air Force
provided support to contingency operations around the world throughout
all of 1999. In Southwest Asia, we participated in simultaneous air
campaigns--Operations Northern and Southern Watch. In 1999 we flew over
18,400 sorties over Iraq, employing over 1,200 munitions at a cost of
$64.7 million. We contributed 73 percent of the air assets patrolling
the northern no-fly zone, produced 75 percent of the total sorties
flown, and delivered 95 percent of the precision weapons dropped in
response to Iraqi violations and aggressions. In the southern no-fly
zone, the Air Force provided 35 percent of the total air assets and
flew 68 percent of the sorties. In the Balkans we flew 25 percent of
the missions in support of the Dayton Peace Accords and continued our
successes utilizing state-of-the-art reconnaissance platforms to
monitor compliance during Operation Eagle Eye. At the same time, the
Air Force continued to support operations on the Korean peninsula out
of permanent bases at Osan and Kunsan and through expeditionary forces
deployed from Alaska into Taegu. Finally, when violence erupted in East
Timor, the Air Force provided planning, airlift and security forces for
Operation Stabilise.
Humanitarian Operations
With global power and global reach comes the ability to extend a
helping hand for humanitarian relief operations, whether they are in
the far reaches of the globe or right here in our back yard. The Air
Force provided more than 900 personnel and flew more than 700 airlift
sorties in support of Operation Shining Hope, which provided civil
engineering, logistics, and security for some of the more than 1.3
million Kosovars displaced in the region. When massive earthquakes
devastated Turkey and Taiwan, the Air Force provided airlift for much-
needed supplies and provided transportation for crucial search and
rescue teams. In July 1999, the Air Force demonstrated its quick global
reach and versatility by flying to the South Pole to airdrop medical
supplies to a U.S. researcher. In October, we returned again, this time
to pick up a doctor who needed urgent medical attention. At home, the
Air Force provided expertise in the fields of fire-fighting,
environmental leadership, explosive ordnance disposal, emergency
medical response, and search and rescue. During Hurricane Floyd, the
Air Force flew more than 40 search and rescue missions, saving more
than 200 lives. And, as in every other year, the Air Guard, acting in
state status, responded to scores of civil emergencies throughout the
United States.
preparing
To stand prepared to meet national security demands, the Air Force
must maintain its superiority in the face of evolving threats, high
operations tempo, and reduced funding. To help us better meet these
challenges, we implemented the EAF concept, focusing our Total Force
team to further our aerospace integration efforts and to explore
innovative ways to meet tomorrow's security requirements.
Expeditionary Aerospace Force
Since the Gulf War, America's Air Force has been asked to engage on
a continuous basis in contingency operations across the spectrum of
peace and conflict, frequently in austere locations, yet all the while
remaining ready to fight in two major theater wars. To meet these
requirements, we revamped our concept of operations to become an
Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF)--changing how we organize, train,
equip, and sustain our forces to meet the challenges of today's global
security environment. The EAF concept represents an evolutionary
transition from our Cold War operations and organization.
Prior to 1989, the Air Force was postured against one primary
threat, the Soviet Union. Much of our force was forward deployed and if
called to fight, would do so from home base or would deploy to a well-
established, permanently manned facility. While our mobility forces
deployed in support of humanitarian operations, our combat forces
generally did not deploy away from well-established bases. Since the
Gulf War, however, deployments of both combat and mobility forces to
austere forward locations has become a way of life for the Air Force.
The consequences of this change are far-reaching. To name a few:
--Our men and women are separated from their home bases and families
for unpredictable and extended periods every year--with a
significant negative impact on retention;
--Our home-station manning has become inadequate--and workload has
increased--because forces are frequently deployed even though
home-station operations must continue at near-normal pace;
--Our units deploying forward must carry much more infrastructure to
expeditionary bases;
--Force protection and critical mission security for forward-deployed
forces is a major consideration;
--The demands on our smaller units, such as ISR and combat search and
rescue units, have dramatically increased--they are properly
sized for two major theater wars, but some are inadequately
sized for multiple, extended contingency operations;
--Due to the unpredictable nature of contingencies, training
requirements have been expanded, and training cannot always be
fully accomplished while deployed supporting contingencies; and
--Because contingencies are unpredictable, it is much more difficult
to use Reserve Component forces, many of whom need time to
coordinate absences with civilian employers before they are
free to take up their Air Force jobs.
The EAF structure is a revolutionary transition intended to respond
to all of these problems. First, we have created a rotational structure
by reorganizing our Active and Reserve Component deployable forces into
10 Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEFs). These AEFs are employed two
at a time for 90 days over a 15-month rotation cycle. During every
cycle, the two engaged AEFs have enough equipment and forces to address
steady-state contingency requirements, such as Operations Southern and
Northern Watch, the Balkans, and counter-drug operations, as well as
significant contingency operations short of major theater war. In
addition, there are five lead mobility wings responsible for opening
and operating airfields and assisting in humanitarian relief
operations; each wing is on call for 90 days every 15 months. Finally,
there are also two contingency response wings held in reserve to
satisfy unplanned requirements above steady-state commitments. These
wings will alternate on-call every 90 days and will eventually become
part of the 10 AEFs as the EAF concept matures.
Second, we have added manpower to the primary bases that support
each EAF component, so that there will be sufficient manpower on a base
to support both home station and deployed operations. In fiscal year
2000 we will move 2,640 authorizations from predominately ``tail'' to
``tooth'' to support the EAF. We have programmed some 3,180 additional
positions for fiscal year 2001, and will need to continue to address
the resourcing needs of some of our career fields, such as security
forces, to fill base operating support requirements at contingency
bases.
Third, we are working on making all of our deploying units lighter
and leaner so that they can deploy in 72 hours or less. This effort has
many dimensions. For example, we must use our space systems to allow us
to ``reach back'' to CONUS for combat support. We must reduce the
amount of equipment and spares that move forward, which requires us to
perfect two-level maintenance, time-definite resupply, in-transit
visibility, and a host of modern logistics improvements. We must also
perfect our deployable support equipment, which provides food, tents,
beds, power, communications, sanitation, and all of the basic
requirements of life. And we must augment the equipment that is
necessary to run operations from austere fields, such as radar approach
control equipment, maintenance equipment, fire fighting equipment, and
special purpose vehicles.
Fourth, we must organize and train our deploying forces, especially
our expeditionary combat support, and tailor them to the requirements
of the contingency operation they will perform. This task includes
major innovation to prepare and employ teams in unit type codes (UTCs)
within the joint warfighting planning systems. This effort allows us to
present our total force capabilities more effectively while providing
the predictability and stability our people need in their lives.
The EAF concept is revolutionary as it helps balance the aerospace
challenges of the future, the conflicting demands of broad engagement
operations, diverse CINC requirements, while providing a clear response
to our people's needs--offering them more reason to stay with the
greatest aerospace power team ever fielded.
On October 1, 1999, the Air Force began the AEF rotation cycle
transition period and expects to be fully operational by March 2000.
Building on EAF concepts in Kosovo, in which we were able to open,
equip, man, and operate some 21 expeditionary bases in Europe, we
expect early AEF rotations to be successful. Our initial deployments
have in fact been very successful; however, challenges remain as we
fully implement the EAF concept. Global taskings for our low-density/
high-demand (LD/HD) platforms--intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance, command and control, and search and rescue assets--
continue to strain our people and equipment. Similarly, we have
identified shortfalls in some capabilities, such as suppression of
enemy air defenses (SEAD), which will require us to add new aircraft to
make all of our AEFs roughly equivalent. We will continue to hone and
improve the EAF concept as we implement it, incorporating lessons
learned from ongoing AEF deployments.
Total Force Integration
The U.S. Air Force is an integrated Total Force that relies on
critical contributions from active-duty members, Guardsmen, Reservists,
civilians, and contractors. Each brings unique and complementary
characteristics to produce a strong and versatile team. The active
component drawdown, in concert with a shortage of trained aircrews on
active duty and the increase in operations tempo, has dramatically
increased our reliance on the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
For example, in EAF, the Air National Guard will rotate 25,000 airmen
through contingency assignments in the first 15 months, and combined
with the Reserve, will supply 10 percent of the deployed forces in each
rotation. The Guard and Reserve are also actively moving into less
traditional roles at home. The Air National Guard is transitioning to
F-16 training missions at Kelly AFB, Texas, and Springfield Air
National Guard Base, Ohio, and to F-15 training at Tyndall AFB,
Florida. The Reserve is also transitioning to the F-16 training mission
at Luke AFB, Arizona, and is conducting test support at Edwards Test
Center, California; flight check functions at Air Force depots; and
instructor duties at primary pilot-training bases. We continue to
increase the number of reserve associate units established alongside
active F-16, F-15, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), KC-135,
C-5, C-141, C-17, Special Operations C-130 units, and space operations
units. Associate units have no assigned aircraft and use active-duty
aircraft for training and mission accomplishment.
Aerospace Integration
Since its inception, the Air Force has made great strides in
gaining air superiority and exploiting space. We view the flight
domains of air and space as a seamless operational medium. Their
integration is essential to advancing our warfighting capabilities in
support of the nation's security obligations. We are committed to
providing effective and interoperable aerospace capabilities for the
nation.
The merger of air and space operations is a continuing journey. For
the past decade, the barriers between air and space planning and
operations have diminished substantially. Through further integration,
we seek to produce the most efficient military effects for the joint
force commander without regard to where platforms reside.
The Air Force is not America's only operator in air and space, but
we do account for over 85 percent of DOD's personnel, budget, assets
and infrastructure for space-related activities. On a daily basis, U.S.
military forces depend on the full set of space assets acquired and
operated by the Air Force. In addition, our nation's investment in and
reliance on space-based capabilities to support the national
information and commercial infrastructure is increasing. As more
countries enter the space domain, potential threats will increase, and
space control will become a more important capability of the Air Force.
Over the past two decades, the Air Force has developed a number of
key capabilities that demonstrate the further potential of integrating
air and space competencies. For example, to facilitate the timely
development of space forces, the Air Force has placed an emphasis on
space control in the requirements generation process. The Counterspace
Oversight Council (CSOC) has been created to validate Air Force
counterspace requirements and ensure space control priorities are
adequately considered. Furthermore, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) systems, which combine air, space, and ground
sensors, are becoming the standard for global ISR capabilities. In
Operation Allied Force, our U-2s flying over Kosovo and Serbia relayed
their data via satellite in real time to CONUS, where that data was
analyzed and sent back to the theater. Real-Time-Into-Cockpit (RTIC)
information capabilities have taken intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance a step further. RTIC conveys perishable battlespace
information directly to the cockpit, enabling aircrews to take
advantage of new target opportunities while avoiding new threats. This
concept became a reality with the Multi-Source Tactical System (MSTS)
and Track II systems that provide satellite communications links to
strike aircraft already en route to the target area.
Integration of air and space systems also requires integration of
education and training. The Air Force has initiated a number of new
programs to accomplish such training. The Aerospace Basic Course at Air
University lays the foundation for understanding aerospace concepts
that will shape the culture of tomorrow's Air Force. All new officers
must attend this course, in which they will learn how to defend an
expeditionary force and how to plan and execute an integrated aerospace
tasking order (ATO), which is the gameplan for modern combat
operations. In addition, we established the Space Warfare Center and,
in conjunction with the Air Warfare Center, are developing tactics,
techniques, and procedures for better warfighting capabilities.
Finally, we established the USAF Weapons School Space Division at
Nellis AFB, Nevada, to provide intensive, graduate-level education for
space and missile operations officers alongside fellow officers from
the fighter, bomber, command and control, rescue, intelligence, and
tactical airlift communities.
In an effort to improve the effectiveness of Aerospace Operations
Centers (AOCs), we also established the Aerospace Integration Center at
Nellis AFB, Nevada. This is a fully equipped, state-of-the-art AOC,
where airmen can learn the basics of battle management and test new
theories in conjunction with real and simulated operations on the
Nellis ranges. The integration center is a significant step toward
normalizing the AOCs like any other weapon system, with the goal of
ensuring proper training, certification, and management for personnel
with air, space, and information credentials for assignment to AOCs.
We have identified a number of goals over the next few years to
further integrate our air and space capabilities. We will:
--Provide career-broadening opportunities for our people to develop
an aerospace mindset throughout the Air Force;
--Expand education and training for our enlisted members to ensure
they can appreciate their contribution to the aerospace force;
--Normalize Air Operations Centers as weapon systems;
--Broaden the training of our joint force aerospace component
commanders (JFACC) to include specific aerospace education and
field experience;
--Exploit data-fusion capabilities to support AOC functions by fusing
aerospace ISR data, exploiting distributed networks, building a
comprehensive view of the battlespace, and providing near real-
time inputs for existing battle management systems;
--Develop dynamic space scenarios for exercises and wargames to train
our personnel in the use and limitations of existing and future
aerospace capabilities; and
--Improve the ability of our acquisition community to evaluate
ground, air, information, and space options based on military
performance, cost, and effectiveness.
Innovation
Innovation has always been the key to ensuring today's Air Force
will meet the challenges of tomorrow. Innovation has played a crucial
role in our aviation heritage, and it will enable the Air Force to
continue to apply and upgrade its capabilities to meet the future
security needs of the nation. The Air Force is committed to a vigorous
program of researching, experimenting, testing, exercising, and
evaluating new operational concepts and future systems for aerospace
power.
Battlelabs
The Air Force continues to reap the benefits of the six battlelabs
created in 1997. The six battlelabs--Air Expeditionary Force, Space,
Information Warfare, Force Protection, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and
Command and Control--are small, focused groups of operators developing
high-payoff concepts as we seek to support DOD's missions. The
battlelabs help us to develop superior ways to organize, train, equip,
plan, command, and employ aerospace forces. Some early benefits of the
labs include development of the Enhance Linked Virtual Informations
System (ELVIS), Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
Battlespace Imaging, Network Attack Visualization, Ground Based Radar
Site Protection, Expeditionary Operations Centers, and Space
Surveillance Network Optical Augmentation. Each of these innovations
allows us to provide cost-effective capabilities for combatant
commanders and enhanced joint operations.
Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment
Last year's Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment was the second in
a series of Air Force experiments designed to explore new operational
concepts and advanced technologies. JEFX 99 expanded the command and
control experimentation developed in JEFX 98, enhancing the integration
of space capabilities into the integrated command and control system
distributed architecture and incorporating coalition forces into the
Air Operations Center. In JEFX 00, we will focus on agile combat
support while continuing our efforts in expeditionary operations,
information operations, common operational picture, and medical
readiness.
Wargaming
The Air Force conducts two major wargames to explore new
strategies, concepts, capabilities, and doctrine. Each wargame is held
biannually on a rotating basis. The first, Global Engagement, explores
emerging aerospace concepts set approximately 10-15 years into the
future. The second, Aerospace Future Capabilities Wargame, evaluates
strengths and weaknesses of future forces and operational concepts 20-
25 years from now by comparing them against our Vision and Strategic
Plan. The outputs from these wargames provide insights and suggest
additional analyses that eventually feed into research, experiments,
exercises, and the operational Air Force.
Headquarters Air Force 2002
Headquarters Air Force (HAF) 2002 will bring us into the new
millennium in a manner consistent with our Vision. It will create a
military headquarters that is more effective, more efficient, and a
better place to work. HAF 2002 is a response to the changing dynamics
of our expeditionary aerospace force, which necessitate a headquarters
that is equally agile in providing the appropriate plans, policies, and
resources our forces need. Early initiatives have included
reorganization of information networks and support offices to permit
electronic transmission of tasks and documents throughout the
headquarters and the creation of a single executive secretariat to
manage work flow. We are also reorganizing our public affairs and
legislative affairs offices in an effort to permit better coordination
of information flowing to Congress, the media, and the public. HAF 2002
seeks to rethink and redesign processes to achieve dramatic performance
improvements and to leverage the talents and improve the quality of
life for all Air Force members assigned to the headquarters. It will
focus on cutting costs, eliminating redundancies, reducing work of
little value, and creating the agility to better adapt to a constrained
resource environment.
Defense Reform Initiative/Air Force Management Reform
The Office of the Secretary of Defense has established the Defense
Reform Initiative (DRI) to improve the way DOD works by reallocating
resources from support areas to fighting forces. The ultimate goal is
to balance the demands of meeting current requirements with the
imperative to invest for the future. In today's era of tight budgets,
the Air Force is committed to reducing overhead functions and moving
maximum capability to its combat units.
We continue to aggressively scrutinize management headquarters
levels to ensure they are the absolute minimum to execute the
operational mission. In fact, reductions in management headquarters
have outpaced those of overall force structure since the drawdown began
in 1987. However, recent significant shifts in how and where we deploy
our forces in response to worldwide contingencies caused dramatic
increases in the demands on our staffs. In particular, to make
expeditionary operations work, our forward forces must reach back to
CONUS-based staffs for combat support functions. We must therefore,
maintain adequate management headquarters staff capable of the
tremendous logistical and planning efforts necessary to execute our
military objectives. We are already at the limit of staff reductions we
can take and still support assigned missions.
We continue to execute the public/private manpower competitions
that have become a DRI success story. The Air Force fully executed its
1999 plan for announcement of OMB Circular A-76 studies, with 9,083
positions added to the study pool. We concluded 15 cost comparison
initiatives, covering 1,205 positions which resulted in 60 percent of
work being contracted and the remainder going to the government's most
efficient organizations. Additionally, we completed 31 initiatives to
contract via the direct conversion process, covering 646 positions. The
average savings was 35 percent. We conducted a top-to-bottom
``commercial activity'' review of our manpower authorizations, yielding
additional competition candidates. This continues to be a promising
initiative and will be completed annually. Our efforts to incorporate
better business practices and efficiencies are not limited solely to
commercial activities. By utilizing a strategic sourcing approach, we
will continue to find better ways to do business in areas that are not
commercial in nature. Establishing an overarching strategic sourcing
program that complements OMB Circular A-76 competitions with other
efficiency tools such as reengineering extends our opportunities for
improvement into inherently governmental functions as well.
In support of the DRI and Defense Reform Initiative Directive
(DRID) #49 which addresses specific goals for utilities privatization,
we are tracking the status of 640 utility systems (water, wastewater,
electrical, and natural gas) in the Air Force inventory. We have
determined 78 utility systems were already privatized prior to the DRI;
23 systems are owned by others (for example, owned by host nations at
overseas locations); 98 utility systems are exempted due to readiness
requirements; leaving 441 systems as candidates for privatization. We
have awarded contracts for analysis of 288 systems to determine the
feasibility for privatization. We are also applying these same goals to
military housing. Since fiscal year 1998, we have added eight projects
to our family housing privatization efforts. This gives the Air Force a
total of ten pilot housing privatization projects for fiscal year 1998-
2000. The privatization effort is critical to our overall housing
revitalization program as outlined in our Family Housing Master Plan,
approved in August 1999.
Financial Management Reform
The Air Force, as a prudent steward of public funds, is working
diligently to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act. We have already
begun incorporating key GPRA measures into our financial statements.
Last year the Air Force passed audit tests on some of the most
important portions of its CFO financial statements, including
disbursements and budgetary resources provided. We have instituted
specific organizational and training changes aimed at improving
internal controls to help prevent fraud and improve confidence in our
financial performance. The Air Force also has an ongoing program to fix
its financial systems, a key step in moving toward unqualified audit
opinions on all its financial statements. As we improve our financial
systems, the Service will focus first on those improvements that help
commanders make better decisions.
decisive fighting force
The Air Force meets the nation's challenges because of our world-
class people, readiness, modernization, and infrastructure. However, we
must continue to address challenges that threaten to undermine our
status as a decisive fighting force. We work hard to ensure we recruit
and retain quality people, meet our near-term readiness goals with the
proper equipment and training, and meet our long-term readiness
objectives with a time-phased modernization effort. We are extremely
grateful to Congress, the President, and the nation for the historic
gains in compensation and benefits made in fiscal year 2000. These
recent gains positively impact retention and quality of life for all
our personnel and puts us on the road to recovery.
people
The cornerstone of our Air Force is our airmen who get the job
done, whether maintaining a fighter for combat operations over the
Balkans, serving as a loadmaster on a C-17, controlling satellites from
Colorado, or standing alert at a missile launch control center in
Wyoming. Our airmen are well-trained, fit, motivated, and ready to
serve their country. They are our most valuable resource and our top
priority.
Because our people are the key to accomplishing our mission, we
continually review our personnel end strength levels and size these
levels to support evolving mission requirements and fact-of-life
personnel dynamics. We determine our military and civilian manpower
needs programmatically through a requirements-based process linked to
the National Military Strategy. The Air Force continues to capitalize
on technology, modernization, and Total Force integration, as well as
aggressively pursuing opportunities to achieve best value by
commercially competing non-military essential support functions. We
have recently commissioned an independent study of Air Force manpower
requirements, focusing on the needs of the EAF at a time when our aging
aircraft fleet is also driving increased maintenance manpower
requirements. This study, to be performed by RAND with outside
reviewers, will seek to define required manning levels and also provide
sourcing strategies for required manpower, including using the best
combination of Guard, Reserve, civilian, and contract manpower.
Recruiting
Even in the competitive job market of the 1990s, the Air Force has
continued to recruit men and women of extremely high caliber. We are
committed to building and maintaining a decisive fighting force and to
do this we must continue to access high quality people despite the
current recruiting challenges. Over 99 percent of our accessions have
high school diplomas, and 76 percent rate in the upper half for test
scores achieved on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Because we
depend heavily on highly technical skills honed over years of
experience, we seek to recruit the very best, and then retain them for
a career.
Although we are proud of our recruiting record, we must improve.
Our recruiting environment faces the most intense hurdles we have
experienced in our history. Interest in military service among
America's youth was relatively low, but stable in the late 1990s (13
percent for men and about 7 percent for women) after declines in the
early 1990s. At the same time, the job market is strong, especially in
the high-tech industries--the Air Force's biggest competitor.
Unemployment in 1998 was at its lowest level in a generation at 4.5
percent. Preliminary data shows that the unemployment rate for 1999 was
4.2 percent. These factors coupled with the increase in the percent of
college-bound high school youths, now over 65 percent, have further
reduced the number of potential recruits.
We need to be aggressive and creative in meeting the challenges of
today's recruiting environment. During 1999, for the first time in 20
years the Air Force missed its recruiting goal. We actually accessed
more recruits in 1999 than in 1998, but our recruiting goal was raised
in 1999 because of our retention declines. Compared to the 1998
recruiting goal of 31,300, our 1999 goal grew to 33,800, and the 2000
goal is 34,000. To help meet this growing challenge for new recruits
and proactively frame our future recruiting efforts, we conducted a
Recruiting Summit (a top-to-bottom recruiting and accession review). As
a result of this review, we have developed a multi-faceted strategic
plan including more than 120 initiatives we are now considering for
implementation to combat the recruiting shortfall. Reprogrammed funds
of $8 million in fiscal year 2000 and $20 million in fiscal year 2001
will target: expanding our recruiting force; stepping up marketing and
advertising; broadening awareness of the Air Force; and fielding more
enlistment incentives.
--Expanding our recruiting force. Although they enjoy exceptionally
high productivity, Air Force recruiters are currently
outnumbered by our sister services by a ratio of 13 to 1. A
single Air Force recruiter is expected to produce over 2.5
recruits per month compared to the DOD-wide average of
approximately one per month. Recognizing the importance of our
``front line'' ambassadors, we have increased recruiter
production to fill 100 percent of our existing authorized
billets. As a result, production recruiter manning has
increased from 985 in fiscal year 1999 to over 1,140 today and
is projected to increase to 1,209 by March 2000. We will
continue our ``full court press'' through March 2001 to
increase recruiters by an additional 300 to 1,509 total. In
order to support this increase, we will also invest
approximately $8 million in fiscal year 2001 in new facilities
and support equipment for these recruiters.
--Energizing new, creative, and innovative marketing and advertising
efforts. In the past, we have successfully attracted enough
recruits without focussed market strategies. However, in
today's strong economy, many other attractive options are
available to the high quality person we are attempting to
recruit. For the first time in our history, we have budgeted
for prime time television advertising. We are also expanding
our marketing and advertising to include new technology venues:
in-system high school television advertising; theater;
Internet; and interactive CD-ROMs. In addition, we have refined
our advertising efforts in radio, magazines, newspapers and
targeted base-level and regional influencer tours. For fiscal
year 2000, we have allocated over $65.4 million to these
efforts and plan to invest $59.2 million in fiscal year 2001 to
continue to project our Air Force image to America's youth,
sending a message that highlights a healthy mix of intrinsic
and incentive benefits.
In a parallel effort, we are establishing a centralized Air Force
Marketing Office to direct all Air Force marketing and
advertising efforts. Its charter will include consolidating all
marketing and advertising funding and research, expanding
marketing and advertising expertise, and developing an
integrated, comprehensive multi-media program for the Total
Force. We recognize we must leverage our marketing and
advertising efforts and associated resources to optimize our
ability to specifically attract our target audience and
increase our visibility at all levels, from the broad national
perspective to the local community.
--Broadening awareness of the Air Force by increasing our presence in
America's local communities. We are opening new high school
Junior ROTC (JROTC) units and adding a college Senior ROTC
detachment. Although JROTC is a citizenship and leadership
development program, nearly 45 percent of all JROTC graduates
historically affiliate with the military. Therefore, with
reprogrammed funds and support from Congress and DOD, the Air
Force is expanding the number of high school JROTC units from
609 today to 945 by fiscal year 2005. And although ROTC
enrollments have been down, in fiscal year 2001 we will open a
new Senior ROTC detachment in Alaska.
--Developing and expanding accession incentives. Competition for
high-quality candidates is at an all-time high. To continue to
attract America's best and brightest and maintain our technical
edge, we are committed to developing and expanding accession
incentives. As a result of our Recruiting Summit, the Air Force
is investing $5 million in a pilot College Loan Repayment
Program in fiscal year 2001. We have also expanded our
Enlistment Bonus Program to include over 100 skills and
increased the maximum bonus amount to $12,000 for selective
six-year enlistments for combat controller and pararescue
specialties. These increases have met with great success--68
percent of our bonus eligible accessions selected a six-year
initial enlistment in fiscal year 1999. Expanded funding for
critical skill enlistment bonuses was also included in our
fiscal year 2000 budget. In addition, a six-month test to award
$3,000 enlistment bonuses to members enlisting for four years
in the mechanical area (a mechanical aptitude index of 44 and
higher) is included in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
We also plan to expand our Prior Service Enlistment Program,
which accessed 605 prior service members in fiscal year 1999
compared to 196 in fiscal year 1998, and develop a pilot
program to test a new Prior Service Enlistment incentive. We
have developed an Enhanced Prior Service Program that expands
the number of career fields for former Air Force members who
honorably served in any specialty, possess the necessary
aptitude and are willing to retrain into any critically manned
career field. In addition, we have also expanded the
opportunities for former sister service members who meet our
entrance criteria. Paralleling these efforts, we are investing
$2 million in fiscal year 2001 to develop and field a prototype
Prior Service Enlistment Bonus Program targeted at former Air
Force members who can move into hard-to-fill or critical career
fields.
We believe these four targeted efforts, in addition to the
compensation gains provided in the fiscal year 2000, will have
a significant impact in our ability to make choosing an Air
Force career a viable and realistic option, as well as restore
our competitive recruiting edge.
Retention
Our need to retain a highly skilled force remains a top priority.
The Air Force's high level of concern has increased because of
continued declines in enlisted and officer retention as well as an
unbalanced civilian workforce. From fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year
1999, first-term enlisted retention dropped from 54 percent to 49
percent, short of our goal of 55 percent. Likewise, career airmen
retention fell from 93 percent to 91 percent, below our goal of 95
percent. Although second-term airmen retention stabilized at 69
percent, it is below our goal of 75 percent.
Officer retention is also challenging, especially among our pilots.
Last year, pilot retention fell from 46 percent to 41 percent. However,
the fiscal year 1999 long-term pilot bonus take rate, a forward-looking
measure of pilot retention, rose to 42 percent, up 15 points from
fiscal year 1998's long-term rate of 27 percent, permitting a measure
of guarded optimism. Navigator retention remained steady at 62 percent.
On the mission support officer side, retention rates actually improved
from 43 percent to 44 percent, while retention rates for non-rated
operations officers dropped from 57 percent to 56 percent.
Many factors affect the decision to stay in or leave the Air Force.
Our quality of life and exit surveys over the last three years have
surfaced reasons our members are dissatisfied. High operations tempo
has consistently been a leading motivator to separate, along with the
ready availability of well paid civilian jobs, existing wage gaps, and
dissatisfaction with the Redux retirement plan. Additionally, reduced
quality of life and job security concerns due to competitive sourcing
and privatization initiatives are also key influencers for personnel
who have separated from the Air Force.
The Air Force greatly appreciates Congressional support for our
fiscal year 2000 compensation initiatives that will help combat
declining retention rates. Our men and women seeking tangible
incentives which might influence them to remain a part of the Air Force
Family are experiencing the largest pay raise in almost 18 years (4.8
percent--effective January 2000). These initiatives coupled with the
ongoing efforts to close the pay gap with the civilian sector, display
sincere gratitude for the daily sacrifices of our service men and
women. All of these efforts will make continued service more
attractive. Although too early to assess the full retention impact, we
believe the benefits gained through fiscal year 2000 legislation will
have a positive impact on Air Force personnel contemplating a ``stay or
go'' career decision.
Several other key programs were also in fiscal year 2000
legislation. Enactment of the Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay
(CEFIP) will encourage enlisted aircrew members to join and remain in
the aviation career field. Reducing out of pocket expenses for first-
term airmen assigned to their first duty station through the enactment
and implementation of a Temporary Lodging Expense (TLE), which did not
exist before, as well as an adjustment to the Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH), will help improve retention.
The authority provided in fiscal year 2000 to expand the Aviation
Continuation Pay (ACP) Program is a significant part of the multi-
faceted approach designed to improve pilot retention in fiscal year
2000 and beyond. Mid-career and senior pilots have been separating in
unprecedented numbers in recent years. In fiscal year 1999 for every
two pilots that we trained, three walked out the door. However, we are
optimistic that pilot retention will improve due to changes to the ACP
program. The restructured program takes full advantage of the authority
the Service has been given by increasing the annual amount of the bonus
to $25,000 per year and extending the length of the bonus out to 25
years of aviation service. This compensation package is designed to
retain pilots through a full military career. As we witnessed the long-
term pilot bonus take rate increase from 27 percent in fiscal year 1998
to 42 percent in fiscal year 1999, we believe that this leading
indicator of pilot retention will continue to reflect an improved
retention environment as we implement the fiscal year 2000 program.
The Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) Program was enacted and
implemented in 1989 to influence rated retention and stabilize the
rated force. In exchange for additional commitment to service, ACP is
offered to a targeted group of pilots to arrest declining retention due
to the significant ``pull'' of airline hiring and ``push'' of
operations tempo. The Air Force is capitalizing on this increased
authority by restructuring its ACP Program and expanding the eligible
population of aviators.
We have implemented other ideas and incentives to eliminate the
reasons our people leave the Air Force. We implemented the
Expeditionary Aerospace Force concept, which will give our people more
stability and predictability in their deployment schedules. Whenever
possible, we minimized our participation in exercises, and lowered the
frequency of our operational readiness inspections, yet still ensuring
combat readiness. In an effort to encourage the number of reenlistments
needed in certain skills to sustain the specialty career force
objectives, we have more than tripled the number of specialties
eligible for Selective Reenlistment Bonuses since 1995. Now,
approximately two-thirds of all specialties qualify for a bonus in one,
some, or all of the three bonus zones. Also, as part of our multi-
faceted approach to abate our pilot exodus, we increased Aviation
Career Incentive Pay (flight pay) from $650 to $840 at 14 years of
service, prioritized our requirements, reviewed alternative staff
manning, and increased our pilot production and service commitment.
Air Force civilians are an integral part of our aerospace team. In
an effort to provide commanders with a state-of-the-art, sustainable
civilian workforce capable of meeting tomorrow's challenges, we are
working on the following solutions: managing our accessions with
properly sized force renewal programs; expanded and targeted training
and retraining; and separations management through the use of buyouts
(incentives) for force shaping.
To sustain a civilian workforce, we need the right mix of new, mid-
level, and senior employees. In the last nine years we have seen a 62
percent drop in employees with less than eight years of service and a
10 percent increase in the number of our employees who are eligible for
retirement. In five years, over half of our civilian work force will be
eligible for optional or early retirement. This imbalance occurred
through a combination of loss programs and constrained accessions. Loss
programs included early retirements and separation incentives that
trimmed the more senior year groups while minimizing involuntary
actions, such as reductions in force. Constrained accessions limited
the number of new hires while the force was reduced over the last nine
years. These factors are leading to sustainment problems and a shortage
of mid-level managers and administrators from which to select future
Senior Executives. ``Currency of skills,'' particularly in our high-
tech area, is another issue related to civilian retention. Without an
adequate influx of new employees with current, state-of-the-art skills,
our acquisition, scientific, and technical workforce is not
sustainable.
Air Force senior leadership is committed to developing a plan to
better manage and further improve our Total Force retention. We have
scheduled a Retention Summit, similar to the Recruiting Summit, to
review retention issues covering the full range of concerns to include
operations tempo management, quality of life (medical care, education,
etc.), assignment system, mentoring, and leadership. Field focus group
visits will validate findings and initiatives resulting from the
Retention Summit. We remain optimistic that these changes and
improvements will renew our people's faith in our ability to provide
the quality of life they deserve and reaffirm our commitment to recruit
and retain a dedicated quality Air Force into the 21st Century.
Quality of Life
Our most valuable resource is our people and we are committed to
taking care of them and their families. Quality of life initiatives
acknowledge the increasing sacrifices our people make in support of our
national objectives and are pivotal to recruiting and retaining our
people. Quality of life for our people occupies a prominent position in
Air Force strategic planning and ranks with modernization and readiness
as Air Force's top priorities. The welfare of the men and women serving
our nation is a critical factor to our overall readiness. Therefore,
the Air Force will continue to place people and quality of life
investments in a balanced funding priority with readiness and
modernization. We will continue, with your support, to pursue quality
of life priorities such as fair and competitive compensation and
retirement systems; balanced PERSTEMPO; safe, affordable, adequate
housing; increased support of community and family programs; expanded
education programs; and improved access to quality health care.
The fiscal year 2000 compensation initiative recognizes our people
as a valuable asset, acknowledges their contributions, and provides
superb quality of life enhancements. We are greatly encouraged by the
improved compensation strategy and increased benefits--full restoration
of the military retirement system; a 4.8 percent pay raise; future pay
raises set at Employment Cost Index plus 0.5 percent; pay table reform;
Career Enlisted Flight Incentive Pay approval; Basic Allowance for
Housing increase; Aviation Continuation Pay enhancements; Temporary
Lodging Expenses for first term airmen; and the Air Battle Managers
save pay provision--and its potential to affect recruiting and
retention.
In addition to these gains presented by fiscal year 2000
legislation, the Air Force is making every effort to further enhance
our airmen's quality of life. To help arrest the increasing operations
tempo levied on our people, we implemented the Expeditionary Aerospace
Force concept, which will give our people more stability and
predictability in their deployment schedules. Additionally, the need
for sustained investment levels, coupled with cost-based housing
allowances and the ability to competitively source and privatize ailing
infrastructure will go a long way to provide access to safe,
affordable, and adequate housing. Our infrastructure bears the brunt of
funding pressures in a budget-constrained environment and sustained
deferment of maintenance over many years further complicates the
problem. Even within these pressures, we have applied $91.6 million on
this budget submission toward our Dormitory Master Plan to eliminate a
deficit of dormitory rooms and replace the worst facilities. We have
adopted a 1 + 1 (one airman living in a room sharing a bath) plan to
house unaccompanied airmen and currently 75 percent of our
unaccompanied airmen housed on base have a private room with a shared
bath. We have also funded $223 million for our Family Housing Master
Plan, which improves and renovates military provided housing. In
addition, DOD has introduced a proposal to adjust basic allowance for
housing (BAH) to reduce out-of-pocket expenses to 15 percent by fiscal
year 2001 and potentially eliminate out-of-pocket expenses within five
years. Finally, personal fitness contributes to Air Force readiness by
increasing productivity, providing preventive health benefits, and
long-term medical cost savings. As such, we dedicated $33.4 million for
fitness facilities and an additional $3.5 million for in-theater
fitness, sports, and recreational equipment.
In the Air Force, we realize that while we recruit individuals, we
retain families. In addition, as large parts of our force deploy for
extended periods, our ability to care for their families becomes
increasingly important. Consequently, we continue to demonstrate our
commitment to our airmen and their families through programs such as
chaplain services, spouse employment, personal financial management
assistance, childcare and youth centers, surviving spouse casualty
support, relocation and transition assistance, commissaries, and
military exchanges. Also, for our junior airmen, we offer a Personal
Financial Management Program to help deal successfully with today's
heavily credit-based society. In order to expand and enhance our
childcare and youth activities, we have dedicated $4.5 million for
child care center construction. We further dedicated $2.9 million to
our deployed spouse outreach programs, which increases Internet
capability at deployed locations to provide worldwide connectivity
between deployed troops and their families. Our family readiness staff
members at each Air Force base provide a wealth of information and
support for families of deployed airmen.
An important quality of life factor that significantly impacts
recruiting and retention is expanded educational opportunities. For
airmen working toward attaining their initial college degree, the
Community College of the Air Force allows them to combine college
credits and military education and experience to earn an associate
degree. For both undergraduate and graduate education, the Air Force
Tuition Assistance Program pays up to 75 percent of tuition costs for
accredited colleges and universities, and the Air Force Civilian
Tuition Program supports self-development for civilian employees.
Although educational pursuits are difficult given our high operations
tempo, our current distance learning initiatives offer our deployed
personnel distributed learning through CD-ROM and interactive
television (paper-based). We are developing an advanced distributed
learning initiative through web-based education for the future. The Air
Force supports elimination of the $1,200 payment required to receive
the education benefit of the Montgomery GI Bill. In addition, we
support expanding enrollment opportunities for those not currently
covered by the bill. These Air Force educational programs give our
people valuable motivational benefits.
Perhaps the biggest quality of life issue facing the Air Force
today and in the coming years is medical care. Access to quality health
care is crucial to the quality of life of our airmen (active duty and
retirees) and their families and greatly affects our recruiting and
retention efforts and, ultimately, our readiness. TRICARE, the DOD
program to ensure health care at a reasonable cost, is designed to
provide a quality health care benefit, improve beneficiary access,
preserve choices for our beneficiaries, and contain costs, all while
providing a structure to support the military medical forces needed to
deter and fight the nation's wars. TRICARE was fully implemented as of
June 1998 and is a good start to providing quality health care.
However, there have been problems, such as access to care, claims
processing, reimbursement levels, and TRICARE management requires
constant attention. Several of these issues have been resolved, and the
rest are being worked aggressively. Our latest Air Force Inspection
Agency audit concluded customer satisfaction with TRICARE is
increasing.
The Air Force Medical Service initiated bold reengineering efforts
to increase access to Military Treatment Facility (MTF) medical care
and provide a much stronger emphasis on preventive services. The goal
is to enable all TRICARE Prime beneficiaries to be assigned to an MTF
Primary Care Manager by name, as well as to be guaranteed access for
acute, routine and preventive appointments. At the direction of the
Secretary and the Chief of Staff, the Air Force Surgeon General (SG)
developed a campaign plan to ensure line commanders understand TRICARE
and know how to help subordinates with problems. Preliminary results
from this program, Operation Command Champion, have been very
encouraging.
Also, numerous demonstration projects to improve the quality of
TRICARE are under way, especially for retirees and Medicare-eligible
beneficiaries. For example, a Medicare Subvention program called
TRICARE Senior Prime is currently active at five Air Force locations;
the MacDill 65 subvention program cares for up to 2,000 enrollees in
the Tampa, Florida region; and the Federal Employee Health Benefit
Program (FEHBP) 65 test, a nationwide program at eight selected
locations, is slated to begin in spring 2000.
We are now working TRICARE and health care issues through the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Medical Oversight Committee (DMOC),
which has been formed to ensure optimum Service participation in the
health care agenda and improve health care for active and retired
members. This board consists of USD (P&R), Service undersecretaries,
Service vice chiefs, and ASD (HA) as voting members. The Service SGs
participate but are non-voting members. The main purpose of this board
is to define the medical benefits and establish budget priorities.
Equal Opportunity
The strength of the Air Force is in its talented, dedicated, and
diverse men and women working together as professionals to accomplish
the Air Force mission. Creating and sustaining an environment that is
free from unlawful discrimination and harassment is therefore a vital
part of the Air Force readiness equation. And the commitment to fully
utilize the talents and capabilities of a diverse workforce is critical
to achieving the Air Force mission. Every Air Force member and civilian
employee deserves the opportunity to realize his or her full potential
and to work and live in an atmosphere that respects and values human
dignity and each has concomitant obligation to treat co-workers and
subordinates in the same manner.
Air Force policy on unlawful discrimination and harassment is very
clear: zero tolerance for such behavior in any form. Harassment,
threats or ridicule of individuals or groups based upon their real or
perceived differences have no place in the Air Force and will not be
tolerated. We will provide equal opportunity and treatment for all
members and employees regardless of race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, and in the case of civilian employees, disability and age.
The Air Force is also committed to eliminating behavior and
unintended barriers that hinder successful performance, and to creating
an environment where every person has an opportunity to serve. We are
committed to providing our Total Force with strong leadership,
effective policies and programs, training and education opportunities,
enforcement and resolution tools. We will continue to strive for
improvement through an ongoing program of evaluation and assessment.
Commanders and supervisors have a responsibility to combat the
effects of unlawful discrimination and harassment and to promote a
healthy environment and human relations climate. Equal Opportunity is a
critical performance factor for all military and civilian leaders,
supervisors and managers.
readiness
The Air Force must be ready to respond rapidly anywhere in the
world on very short notice. We are ready to meet this demand every day,
as we demonstrated this past year in operations from Kosovo to the
South Pole. However, too many years of high operations tempo, aging
equipment, lack of spare parts and engines, and the cumulative effect
of chronic underfunding threaten the Air Force's near-term readiness
levels.
Our aggregate readiness levels are tied to upkeep of equipment,
training and ranges, and mission-related infrastructure. We are making
progress in all these areas, but challenges remain.
Upkeep of Equipment
Greatly increased deployments since 1990, aging aircraft, problems
in funding spares through most of the 1990s, and low retention of
maintenance technicians in recent years have combined to cause a 9.9
percent drop in mission capable rates over the Air Force fleet since
1994. As discussed below, since 1997, the Air Force has addressed a
number of issues relating to spare parts. As a result, non-mission
capable rates relating to spares (NMCS) appear to be stabilizing.
Unfortunately, low retention of maintenance manpower caused by very
heavy workloads and deployments has caused a 2.1 percent increase in
non-mission capable for maintenance (NMCM) rates since 1994. For
example, maintenance manning at the journeyman Senior Airman level has
decreased from 100 percent in fiscal year 1994 to 71 percent in fiscal
year 1999. In addition to the retention initiatives that apply
throughout the Air Force, we are working to increase maintenance
manning through both retention and recruiting incentives and ultimately
by increasing the manning throughout our maintenance career fields.
We have a multi-faceted strategy to improve the materiel system
that supports equipment readiness. First, we have fully funded ``depot
level repairables'' accounts, which are used by operating units to
``buy'' spare parts from DOD and Air Force sources. Second, we
increased inventory levels of critical spares by increasing the
obligation authority of certain Working Capital Funds, and we are
programming budget authority to pay for these spares as they are
delivered. Third, we are working to consolidate Air Force depots and to
make the parts system more efficient, to keep down the cost of spare
parts. Unfortunately, the consolidation is itself causing near-term
spares problems. Fourth, we are modernizing critical subsystems in our
older aircraft where it is no longer cost effective to make repairs on
individual components, or where manufacturing sources for component
repair are no longer available.
Spares Funding
Adequate spare parts are essential for ensuring our equipment
remains combat ready. Spare parts shortages, arising from funding
problems in the 1990s, were a major contributor to the Air Force's
readiness decline over the past several years. Downsizing of the Air
Force spare parts inventory went too far. Supply systems were pushed to
the limits as Air Force units deployed more often. As a result, the
non-mission capable rate attributed directly to supply shortfalls
increased from 8.6 percent in fiscal year 1991 to 14 percent in fiscal
year 1999.
In fiscal year 1999-2001, Congress, DOD, and Air Force took
specific actions to address shortfalls in spare parts funding. In
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, Congress supported the spare
parts recovery with an increase of $194 million and $85 million,
respectively. Additionally, the Kosovo Emergency Supplemental added
$387 million to spares for surge and reconstitution efforts.
Consistently, DOD and Air Force committed to the obligation authority
to match these resources, and to the $382 million required to resolve
the bow wave shortfall that had accumulated over the past several
years. Also in the Air Force fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
President's Budget, we fully funded the spare parts validated
requirement. Currently, we are completing an analysis of Kosovo lessons
learned and thorough review of RSP kit levels, and other spare part
levels, to ascertain the criticality of increases in this area.
Anecdotal evidence indicates progress is being made in availability
of spare parts, although masked to some extent by increased
requirements due to Kosovo and disruptions in parts supply due to BRAC-
directed workload transitions. The Air Force supply business area, for
example, saw an upward turn in almost all its fiscal year 1999
performance metrics when compared to its fiscal year 1998 results.
Backorders fell from a peak of 615,000 in December 1998 to 374,000 by
the end of fiscal year 1999 (39 percent reduction). We are now working
hard with major vendors to cut the elapsed time between the date a part
is ordered and the date it is delivered, so we can turn dollars into
parts in less than the historic 18-24 months.
We have also seen a trend toward stabilization in total NMCS rates.
The overall Air Force rate increased only 0.1 percent from fiscal year
1998 to the end of fiscal year 1999, even though we fought a major
theater war in Kosovo in the middle of fiscal year 1999. Monthly NMCS
rates also held fairly steady over the past 12 months. Unfortunately,
there continue to be ``technical surprises'' that dramatically reduce
mission capable rates in individual weapons systems. For example, late
in 1998, all C-5 aircraft were inspected and some were grounded because
of a crack found in a major structural member in the tail. In September
and October 1999, C-5 mission capable rates dropped because of problems
with the newly fielded FMS-800 modification/upgrade to avionics. At the
same time, inspections of KC-135 aircraft disclosed problems with
stabilizer trim brakes, which caused inspections, groundings, and
ultimately a shortage of KC-135 stabilizer trim assemblies.
We anticipate that the improved spare parts funding in the
remainder of the FYDP will arrest the decline in NMCS rates.
Spares Inventory
In the early 1990s, the Air Force changed from three-level
maintenance to two-level maintenance in an effort to cut operating
costs. Under two-level maintenance, operating units no longer make
repairs at the base level. Instead, spares parts are sent back to
depots for repair, receiving a repaired part in return for a defective
part. Theoretically, the combination of fewer inventory points and
better transportation would reduce the requirement for spare
inventories. In fact, efficiency gains were much lower than projected,
with the result that the Air Force inventory system has been short of
spare parts for some time. To rectify this, the Air Force received
approval from DOD in fiscal year 1999 to add to spare parts inventories
through an increase in working capital fund obligation authority of
$381.8 million. These funds were put on contract in fiscal year 1999,
with anticipated deliveries through fiscal year 2002. At the same time,
$135 million was added for the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (ALC)
because of increased sales at that center.
During Kosovo, depots and contractors surged to provide increased
parts support to the units flying Operation Allied Force. When that
operation ended, Air Force senior leadership made a decision to keep
the depots in surge until the end of fiscal year 1999 to ensure that
there were enough parts to take care of maintenance that was deferred
during the war. The depot surge was funded with $387.3 million fiscal
year 1999 obligation authority, pending the release of Kosovo
supplemental funding.
The result of these three efforts is to increase depot level
repairable item inventories by $904 million, which should lead to an
improvement in stockage effectiveness and a reduction in repair times
in Air Force depots as parts are delivered against these funds.
Consumable spare parts have also caused mission outages.
Consumables are managed by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) in
support of all the Services. While DLA has an average stockage
effectiveness level of 85 percent, that level has been much lower for
aviation spares which tend to be high cost, low demand items. This
situation has resulted in operational aviation units and depots in both
the Air Force and Navy receiving increasingly lower rates of support,
resulting in a devastating impact particularly on engine readiness. DOD
has recognized this situation and directed DLA to take immediate
corrective action. In response, DLA added $500 million for consumable
aviation spares across the FYDP, including $100 million in fiscal year
2001. Action was also taken to accelerate the ordering process, through
the working capital fund, in order to guarantee more rapid deliveries
in fiscal year 2001.
Depot Consolidation
Fiscal years 1998-2001 are a time of transition for Air Force depot
maintenance, as two of our five principal depots complete the process
of BRAC-directed closure and their workloads are transferred to our
remaining depots and commercial sources of repair. The C-5, Sacramento,
and Propulsion Business Area public-private workload competitions,
which were a part of this process, resulted in estimated savings of
over $2.6 billion over the life of the contracts.
In 1998, we began the move of competed workloads from our Air Force
depots. The C-5 workload has now largely stabilized at Warner Robins
ALC. The transition of A-10 and KC-135 heavy maintenance to Ogden ALC
is essentially complete. However, significant challenges remain in
moving the F100 engine workload to Oklahoma City ALC and the
``commodities'' workload (hydraulics, instruments, and a wide range of
aircraft components) to Ogden ALC. At Oklahoma City, shortages of
skilled workers, the sheer number of processes that must be transferred
and proved, difficulties posed by proprietary technical processes, and
the requirements of Kosovo have combined to slow the transition from
original plans. At Ogden, shortages of skilled workers coupled with the
need to move, reconstitute, and calibrate complex and sometimes
delicate equipment has caused major disruptions in the ramp-up of
production of commodities parts. In addition, the Kosovo conflict
resulted in unusually high spares consumption rates, using up the
spares that Sacramento had stockpiled for the transition period. The
result has been shortfalls for many Ogden-repaired items.
The Air Force has taken aggressive action to correct technical data
deficiencies, install and calibrate specialized support equipment,
train the workforce, and streamline the production processes for the
commodity workloads. By December 1999, the commodity production at
Ogden ALC had reached a level almost equal to the previous Sacramento
ALC production output. Ogden has established a ``get well'' target of
summer 2000 to produce commodities in sufficient quantities to
significantly reduce customer backorders and satisfy mission capable
requisitions. In the interim, ``bridge contracts'' with commercial
suppliers have been put in place to mitigate production shortfalls.
We believe that the consolidation of workloads will ultimately
lower costs by increasing efficiencies in the remaining three Air Force
depots. With the turmoil of the BRAC years behind us, we are beginning
to see the promised gains. All Air Force depots performed remarkably
well in fiscal year 1999, considering that over 35 percent of the total
workload was in transition and that the remaining depots were engaged
in extensive hiring and training of new personnel while meeting the
surge demands of Kosovo.
Schedule performance improved in fiscal year 1999, as the time
needed for aircraft repair dropped for the second consecutive year. The
elapsed time for aircraft to move through the entire depot repair
process, measured in flow days, was reduced by an average of more than
30 percent. For example, flow days per aircraft for the F-15, C-5, C-
130, and C-141 were reduced ranging from 15 to 82 days. F-16 and B-1
flow days were cut by 22 and 24 days, respectively. Depot Maintenance
financial management also improved in fiscal year 1999. Revenue was
higher than expected primarily due to increased Kosovo commodity repair
requirements. Due to prudent management, expenses, which were only
slightly higher than planned, were more than offset by increased
revenue. As a result, the fiscal year 1999 profit objective was
exceeded by over $60 million, where there had been losses in the
hundreds of millions of dollars in many prior years.
Finally, a word must be said about the work of the depots during
Kosovo. The Air Force responded to Kosovo by surging its depots. The
depots implemented temporary duty recalls, scheduled additional shifts,
weekend hours, and accelerated contractor and depot repair operations.
These extraordinary actions increased depot production of commodities,
engines, and aircraft by 500,000 hours and ensured support to units
performing peacetime missions while satisfying operational requirements
of the conflict. The Air Force continued the surge through the end of
fiscal year 1999 to support reconstitution and recovery of our combat
units and to reduce existing backorders. We are extremely proud of the
men and women who worked weekends and evenings to support the
warfighters in the field.
Equipment Modifications
The age of Air Force weapons systems is unprecedented. This year
the average age of our aircraft is 20 years. Under current
modernization plans, the average age will increase to 30 years by 2015.
The cost of maintaining this older equipment is growing. Fatigue,
corrosion, and parts obsolescence are driving up the costs of
maintaining older planes and reducing overall equipment readiness.
Worse, the industrial base that supports older aircraft is drying up,
as aerospace companies leave niche markets, particularly in
electronics, where commercial systems have long ago abandoned
technology still in use in the Air Force. If the Air Force is to
continue making readiness affordable--indeed, possible--we must balance
the cost of maintaining weapons systems against the cost of replacing
major subsystems or the weapon system itself. With our large transport
aircraft and bombers, it has proven both feasible and cost-effective to
replace subsystems rather than complete aircraft. What we have
attempted to do is to group related modernization efforts into
``campaigns'' where the work on many systems will be performed during
one maintenance cycle. This reduces overall costs, while limiting the
number of aircraft out of service at any one time. Modernization
programs of this type include:
--The Pacer CRAG program which replaces or modifies radar components,
provides a GPS-based navigation system, and adds the Traffic
Collision and Avoidance System (TCAS), as well as navigation
modifications required to meet the Global Air Traffic
Management (GATM) system standards;
--The C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), to go on contract
in 2000, incorporates navigation safety, GATM, and expanded
TCAS systems into a completely revamped ``glass'' cockpit; it
also replaces the APN-59 radar system with a more capable and
cost-effective radar;
--The C-5 AMP, which has already begun, provides a modern ``glass''
cockpit and replaces the avionics, radios, and flight
computers; and
--The C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining program, scheduled
to begin engineering design in fiscal year 2000, includes
upgrades for engines, hydraulic, pressurization, airframe,
electrical, and landing gear systems.
In the bomber fleet, the B-52 and B-1 have modernization efforts
planned. Both are experiencing aging aircraft problems, and require
extensive upgrade programs, particularly in the avionics arena. The
following are the major planned modification efforts for the bomber
fleet:
--The B-52 Avionics Midlife Improvement (AMI) program will upgrade
the aircraft's offensive avionics system (OAS) while preserving
all current B-52 combat capability. Because the current
offensive avionics system is based on 1970's technology, it is
suffering from obsolescence and supportability problems. The
AMI program will upgrade the OAS by replacing three line
replaceable units (LRUs) and developing new aircraft software;
--B-1 mission capable (MC) rates have steadily declined since fiscal
year 1996. The ``MC Rate Red Team'' has been established to
determine the reasons for the decline and develop a program to
improve B-1 performance;
--In addition, programs are currently in place to fix problems on the
B-1. The Defensive Systems Upgrade Program will replace aging
components with a newly developed, joint Navy/Air Force
Integrated Defensive Electronic Counter Measures (IDECM)
system, scheduled for initial qualification in the spring of
2000. The communication system on the Block D models will be
upgraded this year to correct a problem with bleed over in both
plain and encrypted text. Finally, a study is being conducted
to look into a problem with unacceptably high numbers of
retained weapons, or ``hung stores''.
In the fighter fleet, there are two kinds of modernization efforts.
The first is service life extension programs for the A-10 and F-16
fleets. These include avionics and structures modifications. The second
type of program involves capability improvements, which not only
provide improved lethality, but frequently have the added benefit of
reliability and maintainability improvements through more modern
avionics components. Continued funding for these and other modification
programs is critical to ensure our weapons systems are ready and able
to meet future contingency tasking. Examples of major modifications for
both the A-10 and F-16 fleets, as well as a cost-of-ownership reduction
plan for the F-117, are as follows:
--The F-16 Falcon Flex program replaces the most unreliable and
obsolete radar components while significantly reducing the
ownership costs;
--F-16 electronic countermeasure and navigation systems are also
receiving upgrades;
--Falcon UP and the planned Falcon STAR programs include numerous
depot level structural modifications required to extend the
service life of all F-16 aircraft to 8,000 hours;
--The F-16 CUPID program is bringing our older F-16s (Blocks 25-32)
new life by adding night vision equipment, enhanced avionics,
and the ability to carry an infrared targeting pod and laser-
guided munitions. Ultimately, CUPID-modified aircraft will have
the capability to carry JDAM and other GPS-guided munitions;
--The A-10 Hog Up program will inspect, repair, replace and overhaul
many structural and mechanical systems; it is the first step to
enable the aircraft to remain viable until the year 2028. The
Hog Up configuration is the required baseline for the Aircraft
Structural Integrity Program, which will allow the A-10 to
reach a service life of 16,000 hours; and
--The F-117, the world's first operational low-observable (LO) combat
aircraft, is participating in the Single Configuration Fleet
(SCF) program. The goal is to reduce the total ownership costs
of the F-117 by standardizing the fleet to a single optimized
spray/sheet coating and edge configuration. This will reduce LO
maintenance requirements and take advantage of state-of-the-art
robotic technology.
Engines: A Special Case
The Air Force has made significant progress to stop the decline in
engine readiness. Improved engine funding, engine life management
planning, and better partnering with vendors have contributed to slow
but steady readiness improvements in most of the Air Force engine
fleet. However, technical surprises, forecasting, spare parts problems,
and a lack of experienced manpower still prevent us from meeting our
wartime spare requirements for approximately 25 percent of our systems.
The Air Force is taking action to rectify this situation. Ongoing
F-16 engine safety upgrades and modifications have been accelerated by
two years to correct six of the most serious technical problems and
reduce the risk of engine-related accidents. In addition to the F-16
safety upgrades/modifications, we have been working several other
initiatives to upgrade and modernize aircraft engines. The TF39 engine,
which powers the C-5 aircraft, is currently undergoing a high-pressure
turbine modification which greatly improves reliability. Approximately
$31 million will be spent to upgrade the T56-7 to the -15 configuration
on the C-130 aircraft. Nine additional KC-135s are programmed for
reengining starting in fiscal year 2002 and beyond, funded at
approximately $263 million. Over $225 million in the FYDP is programmed
for modernization of the oldest (F100-100 & -200) F-15 engines.
Finally, the engine problems in the T-38 aircraft are being addressed
with almost $289 million in the FYDP for J85 engine modernization and
other propulsion upgrades.
Improvements have been made in partnering with vendors to reduce
the spare parts acquisition lead time. For example, the GE engine
contract reduces acquisition lead time from more than two years to 90
days on catalog items. In addition, the Air Force has identified the
need for additional engine manning requirements and will address these
in future Air Force budgets.
Training
Training a quality force is instrumental to our readiness. From the
day airmen and civilians join our team, we invest in their education
and training to prepare them for today's demanding operational
environment and tomorrow's challenges. Over the past few years, we have
introduced several new programs to further hone our military skills and
understanding.
For our new airmen, Warrior Week at Basic Military Training
provides a realistic, weeklong exercise at a bare-base site. This
program introduces airmen to the expeditionary nature of today's Air
Force and serves as a transition from a classroom environment to the
real-world, high-stakes environment typical to our deployed forces.
Participants experience, first hand, the challenges associated with
deploying to a bare-base location, setting up an operating base,
implementing force protection measures, and commencing operations, all
under austere living conditions. Similarly, Air Force Academy cadets
are introduced to the expeditionary nature of today's Air Force by
participating in Global Engagement week at the United States Air Force
Academy. Initial skills training for the enlisted corps is also
essential for mission accomplishment in an Expeditionary Aerospace
Force. Upon completion of basic military training, all enlisted
personnel attend initial skills training and receive their copy of the
Airman's Manual, an operational handbook. The Mission Ready Airmen and
Mission Ready Technician programs are designed to prepare an apprentice
to accomplish the basic technical skills necessary to perform in his or
her specialty.
The Aerospace Basic Course (ABC) provides new officers and
civilians a foundation in the profession of arms and a working
knowledge of the unique contributions of aerospace power. Through this
entry-level professional military education program (PME), Air Force
lieutenants and key civilians gain a deep appreciation of Air Force
values, history, doctrine, and the skills required to operate and fight
from austere, forward bases, fully exploiting the medium of aerospace
for the joint force.
The Air Force develops its leaders deliberately, using a proven
process that exposes them to Air Force and joint operations, PME, and
increasing command and staff responsibilities. The depth of an airman's
expertise is developed through a series of operational assignments that
make him or her an aerospace power authority. Having always placed a
premium on education for officers, enlisted members, and civilians, our
PME system prepares leaders for the challenges they will face in their
immediate future. As airmen progress through their careers, the Air
Force competitively selects the very best to command and lead its
squadrons, groups, and wings. The Air Force relies on a comprehensive
series of additional leadership and command courses to supplement
continuous mentoring that produces leaders who are able to make the
right decision, whether in peace or war.
Operationally, the Air Force continues to train its aircrews and
support personnel by participating in numerous joint and combined
exercises around the world. These training opportunities encompass both
field exercises and simulations. Distributed Mission Training (DMT)
holds great promise. Using state-of-the-art simulation technology, DMT
permits aircrews to train in synthetic battlespace, connected
electronically to other aircrews at distant air bases. Importantly, DMT
delivers this enhanced training from the home station, helping the Air
Force limit the amount of time airmen spend deployed and facilitating
the training of AEFs as they prepare for deployment. Multiple aircraft
Mission Design Series (MDS) are currently under development for DMT. An
initial delivery of F-15C Mission Training Centers (MTC) has been
configured at Langley AFB, VA, and Eglin AFB, FL, and will reach full
operational capability in mid 2000. Contracts for new F-16 and AWACS
DMT simulators have been awarded and are expected to be delivered this
year.
Air Force civilians are an integral part of the aerospace team.
They work side-by-side with airmen in some operational roles, as well
as most support roles. They play an essential part in the development
and acquisition of the aerospace and information technologies that will
maintain the Air Force's dominance. The active component drawdown will
increase their presence in non-military essential functions and senior
leadership positions across the Air Force. To prepare them for the 21st
century, the Air Force is making a concerted effort to integrate
military and civilian training, to the greatest extent possible, and to
streamline human resource development services to simplify and speed
delivery of cost-effective training to the Total Force. In addition,
the Air Force is engaged in a top-to-bottom review of professional
development, training, and education for managers and executives;
general work force proficiency, specialized, and career progression
training and education to maintain minimum skill and currency; and the
development of wage grade supervisors and employees in the trade,
craft, and technical maintenance fields. We have increased
opportunities for professional development through PME, developmental
assignments with increasing command and staff responsibilities, and
through participation in the Defense Leadership and Management Program
(DLAMP). The goal is to produce technically proficient civilians who
are well versed in Air Force missions, structures, and doctrine.
modernization
At the beginning of the last century, a relative few shared a
vision and dream of flight. Today at the dawn of a new century, the men
and women of the Air Force share a common vision of becoming a light,
lean, and lethal Expeditionary Aerospace Force. The Air Force
Modernization Program is a critical enabler of that vision. We will
leverage technology to improve combat effectiveness through upgrades of
legacy systems, selective new starts, and investment in critical
technology programs for advanced systems. This revolution in military
affairs we are undertaking requires a revolution in business affairs.
The Air Force will continue to lead the way in acquisition reform,
using proven commercial and industry practices. We will develop and
deliver new technologies and weapon systems more quickly and cheaper
than traditional DOD methods have allowed in the past.
Our challenge in formulating the modernization strategy is how best
to balance our sustainment and modernization efforts given the
constraints we face and the needs of the warfighter. Currently 60
percent of Air Force Total Obligation Authority is spent on sustainment
and 40 percent on modernization. We have funded both modifications and
procurement as highlighted in the tables on page 57.
The Air Force's long range vision to become a light, lean, and
lethal Expeditionary Aerospace Force complements Joint Vision 2010--the
conceptual template for how America's Armed Forces will channel the
vitality and innovation of our people and leverage technological
opportunities to achieve new levels of effectiveness in joint
warfighting. Thus, our modernization focus is synchronized with Joint
Vision 2010. Now we must carefully execute our modernization plan to
extend our position as the world's preeminent aerospace power.
Full Spectrum Dominance
Full Spectrum Dominance is required to provide the joint force
freedom from attack, freedom to maneuver, and freedom to attack at a
time and place of our choosing regardless of weather. Key to this is
the Air Force's current high-low mix fighter force structure. This
high/low fighter force structure is based on a high capability fighter,
the F-15 now and the F-22 in the future, to provide air superiority and
a low cost fighter, the F-16 now and the JSF in the future, in large
numbers for attack capability. Another key is the heavy bomber force,
adding prompt global reach independent of theater basing constraints
and high-mass precision engagement capability. America displayed its
current aerospace dominance with the success of Operation Allied Force
in Kosovo. Maintaining and improving the Air Force's ability to achieve
future Full Spectrum Dominance is a primary objective of the Air Force
Modernization Program.
Aerospace Superiority
The ability to control the vertical dimension so the joint force is
both free from attack and free to attack is the key to achieving Full
Spectrum Dominance. In the 21st Century, aerospace superiority will
depend on the F-22 Raptor to defeat enemy aircraft; the Space-Based
Infrared System (SBIRS) to provide early warning of long range hostile
missile threats; and the Airborne Laser (ABL) to provide a credible
defense against theater ballistic missiles.
The F-22 Raptor is the replacement for the F-15. The F-22 will
dominate the vertical battlespace of the 21st Century with its
revolutionary combination of stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, and
integrated avionics. The F-22, armed with the AIM-9X infrared short
range air-to-air missile, an improved AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, and the
Joint Direct Attack Munition will be able to destroy threats to our
forces in the air and on the ground when it enters service in December
2005. In 1999, the F-22 logged its 500th flight test hour, continuing
flight envelope expansion, successfully demonstrating supercruise and
high angle of attack post-stall flight with thrust vectoring. The F-22
avionics program also made major strides with the early delivery of the
Block 1 software to the manufacturing line for installation in the
first avionics test aircraft. Testing of future versions of F-22
software was also initiated in the one-of-a-kind F-22 flying test bed
with the delivery of Block 2 in October. The unique capabilities of the
flying test bed to check out, modify, and verify software performance
prior to F-22 flight testing will enable the rapid introduction and
check out of Block 2 and Block 3 avionics in CY00 and the initiation of
F-22 Block 3 fight testing.
The F-15C/D will remain the Air Force's lead air superiority
fighter until the F-22 is operational. It is being upgraded to add
increased reliability and enhanced capabilities. These upgrades include
the APG-63(V)1 radar providing greatly improved reliability; the APG-
63(V)2 Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar providing
improved performance; the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X
missile providing a first shot/first kill capability in the within-
visual-range arena; enhanced combat identification for beyond visual
range identification of airborne targets. Forty-eight F-15C/Ds deployed
in support of Operation Allied Force and shot down four MiGs.
The Air Force is a major contributor to DOD's tiered architecture
to counter the ever-growing theater ballistic missile and cruise
missile threats. This architecture is based on an integrated capability
to detect, classify, intercept, and destroy or negate the effectiveness
of enemy missiles prior to launch or while in flight. This capability
is vital to protect U.S. and coalition forces, high-value assets, and
population centers within an assigned theater of operations. Numerous
Air Force programs and systems discussed throughout this document
contribute to this architecture. The SBIRS and the ABL programs are
critical in addressing the theater ballistic missile threat. The Air
Force is aggressively pursuing new technologies within our laboratories
to counter the emerging cruise missile threat. Many of these
technologies have been transitioned to current weapon systems. The
Radar System Improvement Program (RSIP) for the E-3 Sentry Airborne
Warning and Control System is one example, and the F-22 with its
advanced radar and sensor fusion capabilities will capitalize on the
newest technologies for cruise missile defense.
The SBIRS includes both high and low components that will provide
missile warning to national and theater commanders. It will improve our
capability to detect and track theater missile launches, cue missile
defense systems, and contribute to the characterization of the theater
battlespace and the technical intelligence missions.
The integrated SBIRS architecture incorporates a ``systems of
systems'' concept that provides information for target acquisition,
cueing and track data to interceptor systems, and a defense battle
manager. This cueing effectively extends an interceptor's range and
effectiveness over autonomous radars alone. The SBIRS constellation
consists of highly elliptical orbit (HEO), geosynchronous orbit (GEO),
and low earth orbit (LEO) spacecraft that receive and transmit data to
an integrated ground system.
The SBIRS program has four associated increments. Increment 1
consolidates Defense Support Program (DSP) ground processing into a
master control station located at Buckley ANG Base in CO. Increment 2
consists of two HEO sensors and four GEO satellites with first launch
in fiscal year 2004. Increment 3 will be comprised of 24 LEO satellites
with first launch in fiscal year 2006. Increment 4 will optimize the
entire system and define requirements for further deployment.
The ABL will be a key Air Force contributor to the Nation's multi-
layered theater missile defense architecture. It is DOD's only boost
phase intercept system--with a planned fleet of seven operational
aircraft. Last year, the Air Force successfully tested an improved
version of its flight-weighted laser module and also demonstrated the
baseline version of the battle management software. Just this past
January, ABL accepted delivery of its first 747 aircraft, with
modifications set to take place through early 2002. ABL is on track for
a lethal demonstration against a theater ballistic missile in fiscal
year 2005.
Global Attack
Global Attack assets allow our Nation to successfully conduct
military operations across the spectrum of conflict. Global Attack
programs include modernization of the Minuteman III intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs), B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers, and F-15E, F-
16, and F-117 fighters. Coupled with precision-guided munitions, these
platforms produce a potent force for deterrence of both nuclear and
conventional conflict.
The Air Force is continuing to fund several ICBM modernization
programs designed to extend the operational life of the Minuteman ICBM
weapon system beyond 2020. The Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) is
replacing failing Minuteman guidance system electronics, while the
Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP) is remanufacturing all three
Minuteman solid fuel stages to correct age-related degradations and
maintain weapon system reliability. A GRP full rate production contract
was awarded in December 1999, with a full rate production decision on
PRP scheduled for September 2000. The PRP first asset delivery to Air
Force Space Command is scheduled for March 2001.
The current bomber inventory includes 94 B-52s (built 1960-1962),
93 B-1s (built 1980-1986), and 21 B-2s (built 1988-1999). The B-1s are
assigned to five main operating bases, including the two Air National
Guard at McConnell AFB, KS and Robins AFB, GA. This mix of bombers
provides the capabilities required to meet Air Force commitments--each
can attack from the U.S. The B-2 can penetrate against high-value,
heavily defended targets; the B-1 is the conventional interdiction
workhorse and can penetrate for high volume direct attack in a medium
threat environment; and the B-52 equipped with CALCMs provides long
range standoff precision and direct attack in a low threat environment.
The B-2 can meet any global power projection mission, anytime,
anywhere. The Air Force continues to make improvements to the
maintainability of the B-2's low-observable coatings and integrate
advanced weapon systems beyond the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)
used successfully by the B-2 over Kosovo, to include the Joint Standoff
Weapon (JSOW), Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), and EGBU-
28. The B-1 and B-52 continue to provide firepower to the joint force.
Upgrades to the B-1 include the capability to carry JDAM and improved
defensive systems; a small number of B-1s are already JDAM capable. The
B-52H is now operationally capable of employing JDAM; communications
and navigation system upgrades will keep it viable through 2040. An Air
Force Reserve (AFR) unit operates and trains in the B-52H, providing
significant value to wartime mission readiness. The Reserve is
evaluating upgrades to improve the B-52H bomb bay camera that will
allow crew members to effectively perform safety inspection for unspent
munitions after bombing operations. Both the B-1 and B-52 are being
upgraded to carry JSOW and JASSM.
The bomber force made significant contributions to Operation Allied
Force. It delivered over 6 million pounds of ordnance and struck over
50 percent of all Allied Force targets. The B-2 destroyed 11 percent of
the total targets while flying only 1 percent of the total sorties. The
B-1 flew 100 percent of sorties assigned and proved the performance of
the ALE-50 towed decoy to negate the effects of enemy fired surface-to-
air missiles. The B-52 maintained a 98 percent mission capable rate and
led the attack with CALCMs. The use of data links will greatly enhance
flexible targeting capabilities, and coupled with the sustained use of
precision-guided munitions, will increase the lethality of these EAF
forces.
The F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon, the Air Force's legacy fighters
which entered the service in 1975 and 1980 respectively, provide a
potent mix of air-to-air and air-to-surface capability. Operation
Allied Force reinforced the Air Force's need to ensure a viable fighter
force structure until legacy systems are replaced. While the F-15E
provides significant air-to-air capability, it is optimized for the
air-to-ground mission. Future planning calls for a replacement for the
F-15E to be procured in the 2015 timeframe. In the interim, the Air
Force continues F-15E modernization activities. Improvements are
planned for electronic defenses, computers, and the addition of a
fighter data link. Twenty-four F-15Es deployed in support of Operation
Allied Force, and expended more than 2.7 million pounds of bombs and
missiles in target destruction.
One hundred F-16 Block 40/50 aircraft participated in Operation
Allied Force and delivered over 4,000 bombs on target. The principal
lessons learned were the need for Night Vision Goggle (NVG)-compatible
aircraft lighting, improved precision targeting pod capability, and an
air-to-air interrogator. Kosovo also reconfirmed the need for the
present major modernization programs for the Block 40 and 50 aircraft
covered under the Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP).
CCIP includes a new aircraft computer, color displays, Joint Helmet
Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), AIM-9X, Link-16, and NVG-compatible
aircraft lighting. The new aircraft computer increases capacity and
throughput and solves diminishing manufacturing source problems while
enabling the use of future weapons systems. Color displays will present
aircraft and combat information to the pilot more effectively for
easier interpretation as compared to the present monochrome displays.
The JHMCS provides the off-boresight missile targeting capability to
employ the AIM-9X, the future high off-boresight air-to-air missile.
Link-16 will provide the pilot improved combat situational awareness
and NVG-compatible aircraft lighting will provide a permanent
modification to the aircraft to allow the unencumbered use of NVGs.
Additionally, the Block 50s will receive an air-to-air interrogator
capability and the ability to carry both a targeting pod and the HARM
targeting system pod to better conduct the suppression and destruction
of enemy air defense (SEAD/DEAD) missions. One of the major
modification programs for the F-16 Block 25-32 aircraft, principally
flown by Air National Guard (ANG) and Reserve, is known as Combat
Upgrade Plan Integration Details (CUPID). CUPID consists of four
separate upgrade programs: Global Positioning System integration,
countermeasure systems mechanization, Situation Awareness Data Link
(SADL), and NVG-compatible aircraft lighting. Global Positioning System
integration will provide the ability to accurately deliver smart
munitions. The improved Counter-Measure System mechanization will
enhance the self-protection capability. Situation Awareness Data Link
(SADL) will provide the pilot improved combat situational awareness.
NVG-compatible aircraft lighting will enhance the aircraft's night
combat role.
The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the ``low end'' of our high/low
affordable fighter mix philosophy--ensuring sufficient quantities of
very capable attack aircraft to give the U.S. dominant force across the
spectrum of conflicts. The JSF program will develop and field a highly-
common family of next-generation strike fighter aircraft for the Air
Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and our allies. Current program emphasis is
on facilitating the evolution of fully validated and affordable joint
operational requirements, demonstrating cost-leveraging technologies
and concepts, and completing the Concept Demonstration Phase. First
flights of the contractor demonstration aircraft are scheduled for the
spring of 2000. The Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase
will begin in fiscal year 2001.
The F-117 Nighthawk plays a key role in global attack as it
penetrates dense threat environments and delivers precision weapons
against high-value, highly defended, and time-critical targets. The Air
Force continues to modernize this weapon system to improve capability,
survivability, and sustainability in the 21st Century. The top
modernization program is Single Configuration Fleet (SCF), which
provides the fleet with a single radar absorbent material
configuration, reducing maintenance man-hours by 50 percent. The need
to employ precision, all-weather, GPS/INS weapons was reinforced during
Operation Allied Force; this capability is included in Block Cycles 1
and 2 upgrades. The smart weapons program will incorporate all-weather
JDAM, WCMD, and the EGBU-27. Operation Allied Force highlighted the
need for smart weapons on the F-117 as over 50 percent of the F-117
sorties were cancelled for weather, impacting the ability to deliver
ordnance.
Modern warfare has led to an increase in airborne combat under the
cover of darkness. To ``Own the Night,'' the Air Force is pursuing a
multi-faceted strategy. First, we are upgrading our F-16 aircraft with
the Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS). This upgrade ensures the
aircraft internal and external lighting is compatible with night vision
devices. Second, we are procuring and fielding F-4949 and AN/PVS-7
Night Vision Goggles for our air and ground personnel. Third, we are
developing the next-generation of NVGs called Panoramic Night Vision
Goggles (PNVGs). For the Block 25-32 F-16 aircraft, the LITENING II Pod
procurement is the number one priority program undertaken by the
Reserve and Guard from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2004. In
addition to LITENING II Pods, the Reserve is planning to procure more
advanced Multi-Function Displays for its F-16 fleet starting in fiscal
year 2001. These efforts will effectively enable the Reserve to meet
modern combat standards and better serve as a member of the Total
Force. All of these modernization activities will significantly improve
personnel safety, operational tactics, and mission effectiveness.
The Air Force is also actively upgrading laser eye protection for
aircrew and ground personnel from a wide range of lasers. The Air Force
initiated a three-phase Engineering and Manufacturing Development
program in fiscal year 1999 to counter this emerging threat. The threat
includes military lasers, commercial lasers, and foreign lasers
specifically developed to damage the eyes or cause temporary vision
loss. The ultimate goal in developing laser eye protection is to
provide full retinal coverage at any angle, while allowing visibility
of the aircraft cockpit displays and good light transmission for use in
night operations. The fiscal year 2001 President's Budget includes
$13.8 million to procure over 26,000 devices.
Precision Engagement
As shown in Operation Allied Force, theater commanders must have
the ability to strike targets precisely in adverse weather conditions
while minimizing risk and collateral damage. The Air Force's new
generation of guided weapons uses the Global Positioning System (GPS),
coupled with an inertial navigation system (INS), to put bombs on
targets precisely, night or day, in all weather conditions. Because our
legacy precision-guided munitions (GBUs/LGBs) can generally be employed
successfully only in clear weather, the Air Force is upgrading limited
quantities with GPS/INS guidance units giving them an immediate all-
weather capability. The Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile
(CALCM), Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), Joint Standoff
Weapon (JSOW), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), and the Wind-
Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) are among the Air Force's high-
priority precision engagement programs.
CALCM is a long-range, large payload cruise missile employed by the
B-52 against high priority and heavily defended targets. CALCM
continues to be the CINC's first strike weapon of choice during
contingency operations, as demonstrated by its superb performance
during Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force. Current replenishment
programs will convert an additional 322 ALCMs to CALCMs by July 2001.
Future plans call for the initiation of an extended range CALCM (CALCM-
ER) program to fill mid-term long-range cruise missile needs.
JASSM is a highly accurate, stealthy, standoff missile employed by
both fighters and bombers to destroy heavily defended, hard, fixed, and
relocatable targets with virtual impunity. As a result of acquisition
reform, the JASSM price is one quarter of the cost, and its development
schedule is half the time, of similar missile programs. JASSM is
currently undergoing flight tests during Engineering and Manufacturing
Development and is scheduled to begin production deliveries in 2003
with 768 JASSMs purchased by the end of the FYDP.
JSOW is an accurate, adverse-weather, glide munition, which was
successfully employed in Kosovo and Iraq in 1999. The Air Force will
use it to deliver cluster munitions that seek and destroy armored and
soft targets at ranges up to 40 nautical miles. We are buying two
variants: the JSOW/A delivers 145 Combined Effects Bomblets and the
JSOW/B delivers 6 BLU-108 anti-armor submunitions. We will procure
3,000 of the A variant and 3,114 of the Bs. We took our first JSOW
deliveries in November 1999.
JDAM provides the Air Force the capability to deliver 1,000- and
2,000-pound, general-purpose and penetrator warheads in adverse weather
with precision accuracy. We will use JDAM to destroy high-priority,
fixed, and relocatable targets from multiple platforms. The first
operational use of JDAM was from a B-2 during the first night of
Operation Allied Force. The B-2/JDAM combination was 96 percent
effective and targets attacked using JDAMs were damaged or destroyed 87
percent of the time. The current plan is to buy more than 40,000 JDAM
kits from fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2005, with a total program buy
of approximately 62,000 kits.
The Miniaturized Munitions Capability (MMC) program is in the
Concept Exploration phase with supporting work on-going in the
laboratories. Two laboratory technology demonstrations being evaluated
in the MMC program are the Small Smart Bomb (SSB) and Low Cost
Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS). SSB is a 250-pound to 500-pound
class penetrator with GPS/INS and a terminal seeker. LOCAAS is a 95-
pound mini-cruise missile with a LADAR seeker, a 3-mode warhead, and a
miniature turbojet engine enabling a 100-km range and 30 minutes of
search for mobile targets. The objective is to field adverse-weather
precision munitions that are significantly smaller in size and provide
increased combat effectiveness against fixed, relocatable, and mobile
targets. This would enable carrying more weapons per sortie and
increase sortie effectiveness, key to such aircraft as the B-2, F-22,
F-117, and JSF where carriage is limited to the internal bay for
stealth reasons. Interim results from the on-going Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA) points to the MK-82 (500-pound) JDAM as a near-term
low risk solution against fixed targets. With internal weapons rack
modifications, B-2s and B-1s would be able to carry approximately 80
Mk-82 JDAMs per sortie, significantly increasing target kills per
sortie.
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) is an INS-guided tail kit
that enables us to accurately deliver dispenser weapons from medium to
high altitudes. WCMD tail kit-equipped weapons are expected to be
available in late 2000. We will buy 40,000 tail kits for integration
with Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW), Combined Effects Munition, and the
Gator mine dispenser.
The Sensor Fuzed Weapon, when mated with a WCMD, will provide a
first time capability to accurately engage armored targets from medium
to high altitudes. We plan to buy 5,000 SFWs, all of which will be
mated with the WCMD.
This combination of next generation weapons provides a balanced
force structure enabling our warfighting CINCs an unprecedented ability
to attack targets with highly accurate weapons at any time of the day
or night in adverse weather and survive the hostile environment well
into the 21st Century.
Information Superiority
The capability to collect, process, and disseminate an
uninterrupted information flow while exploiting or denying the
adversary's ability to do the same, will be critical to success in
future military operations. Integrating Command and Control,
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C\2\ISR) assets enables
the Air Force to leverage combat capabilities to the maximum extent.
Our evolutionary modernization plan to support the EAF includes
upgrades to many systems within the information superiority core
competency.
A robust C\2\ISR infrastructure is key to providing an
uninterrupted and timely flow of information. The Air Force has
embarked on a study to analyze end-to-end bandwidth requirements, with
the goal to ensure sufficient funding is programmed to meet warfighter
requirements.
The Aerospace Command and Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance Center (AC\2\ISRC) is the Air Force organization tasked
to standardize and integrate Air Force C\2\ and ISR systems across
joint and coalition systems and create a C\2\ISR investment plan that
meets future challenges. AC\2\ISRC is working to rapidly identify,
through joint experimentation, advanced capabilities to transition to
the theater commanders that will enable them to get inside an
adversary's operating cycle and use information against the enemy.
AC\2\ISRC's key thrust is creating a ``reach back'' air operations
center that provides modernized command and control through the Global
Combat Support System (GCSS-AF) and the Theater Battle Management Core
System (TBMCS) program.
JSTARS and AWACS provide theater commanders real-time, wide-area
surveillance of enemy ground and air movements. The delivery of three
aircraft in fiscal year 2000 will increase the JSTARS fleet to eight
aircraft. In addition, we are developing enhanced JSTARS capabilities
through the Radar Technology Insertion Program (RTIP), which will
significantly improve situational awareness and real-time processing of
fixed and mobile targets. Air surveillance will also be improved when
the AWACS fleet achieves initial operational capability with the Radar
System Improvement Program (RSIP) in June 2000. RSIP provides increased
detection range for low radar cross section targets.
The Air Force's Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) programs, Predator
and Global Hawk, are maturing rapidly to support intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance operations. During Operation Allied
Force in Kosovo, we took real-time video imagery from Predator and
fused it with digital terrain data on the ground in Italy to produce
highly precise target coordinates for our precision-guided munitions.
These coordinates were then relayed to attack aircraft, typically in
minutes. The potential for JSTARS-Predator integration was demonstrated
by manually correlating data from both platforms--laying the ground
work for future automated correlation and exploitation of the data. We
also took Predator beyond its normal ISR mission and into the realm of
attack operations by equipping it with a laser target designator.
Although the laser designator has not been used in combat, it has been
tested, and has the capability to allow laser-guided bombs to be
dropped through weather. Air Combat Command is in the process of
developing a long-range plan to incorporate a laser designator into the
sensor package on all Predators.
The Air Force will continue to exploit the technological promise of
UAVs and explore their potential uses over the full range of combat
missions. At present, the Air Force has committed $80 million across
the FYDP to support the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) Phase II Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Advanced Technology
Demonstration (ATD), which is designed to answer multiple questions
regarding the potential application of UCAVs throughout the spectrum of
conflict, with emphasis on C\2\ISR feasibility.
Global Hawk is approaching the end of its Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration (ACTD). It is in the user demonstration phase
and has achieved over 27 hours endurance on a single flight, reached
over 66,000 ft. altitude and totaled nearly 500 hours of flight time.
It has participated in several joint exercises, including an over-water
flight to and from Alaska and transmitting imagery to ANG, Air Force,
Navy and Marine Corps units. Following a Milestone II acquisition
decision in late 2000, the Air Force will begin a one-year design
update period and produce two post-ACTD air vehicles. The Global Hawk
program will provide a cost-effective and useful system to the user at
the earliest possible date through spiral development of platform,
sensors, and other capabilities.
Global Hawk's first Outside Continental United States (OCONUS)
deployment will occur March 2001 when it deploys to Australia under a
50/50 cost-share agreement with the Australian government. This will be
Global Hawk's first opportunity to demonstrate its interoperability
with a coalition ground exploitation system. Other nations have also
expressed interest in Global Hawk and its capabilities.
When Global Hawk begins operations with Block 5 aircraft in fiscal
year 2003, it will be used to augment the U-2 fleet, enhancing the Air
Force's overall ISR capabilities. In the long-term, the Air Force
expects to improve Global Hawk payload capabilities to the point where
it could fulfill many missions now executed by U-2 and JSTARS.
The U-2 and RC-135 Rivet Joint continue to be the primary DOD
aircraft for ISR data collection to support the joint forces commander.
The Air Force is currently upgrading the U-2's defensive system
capabilities and synthetic aperture radar to provide near-real-time
targeting capability for precision-guided munitions. The first
reengined Rivet Joint is undergoing flight testing and will provide
improved battlefield coverage as a result of higher altitude and longer
loiter times.
Discoverer II is seeding the transformation to global space-based
surveillance. The Air Force's Discoverer II partnership with the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and DARPA will develop and
demonstrate space-based radar capabilities against time-critical moving
ground targets in fiscal year 2005. Discoverer II is a two-satellite
R&D program that will demonstrate affordable satellite manufacturing by
leveraging commercial processes, provide key enabling technologies for
advanced radar payloads, and show the operational benefit of the deep-
look, continuous, broad-area coverage space provides against an
adversary's ground moving targets. Satellite design trade studies are
ongoing by three competing contractor teams: Lockheed-Martin; TRW and
Spectrum Astro; and Northrop-Grumman and Raytheon. Each team has
successfully completed initial hardware tests for competing radar
payload designs.
As the developer and operator of the Global Positioning System
(GPS), the Air Force provides the world continuous position, velocity,
and timing data in all weather, to an unlimited number of users, free
of charge. For the Joint warfighter, GPS navigation information is
being integrated into nearly all facets of the modern battlefield. The
Air Force is modernizing GPS systems and fielding GPS navigation
warfare upgrades that will ensure continued U.S. and allied military
access to GPS while preventing adversarial use and preserving civil use
outside of an area of operations.
Modernization also includes transitioning the ground control
segment from a legacy system to a distributed architecture that will
facilitate full utilization of the increased capabilities being
incorporated into the next generation of space vehicles. In order to
address the evolving and expanding threats to GPS, the fiscal year 2001
budget provides funding for the addition of a new military code and a
high power spot beam on future satellites. The fiscal year 2001 budget
request expands the program from last year, providing additional power
to military users in a region of conflict and providing military and
civil signals on earlier satellites. This modernization program
provides the warfighter with significant increases in protection of
military GPS signals from intentional and unintentional interference,
beginning with initial deployment of satellites and receivers equipped
to process new military signals in the last half of this decade and
growing to provide a worldwide robust system about 10 years later. Once
fielding of the new equipment is complete, we will have a secure
worldwide navigation and timing source for all our weapon systems,
augmented by higher power signals in one or more theaters of operation
simultaneously as required by senior unified commanders.
MILSATCOM systems, notably the Defense Satellite Communications
System (DSCS) and Milstar, continually support contingency and current
operations. These systems place powerful communication tools in the
hands of battlefield commanders and warfighters around the world,
enabling information reachback to CONUS, continuity with the National
Command Authority, and intra-theater communications. Global Broadcast
Service will replace DSCS. Advanced Extremely High Frequency (EHF) will
replace Milstar in fiscal year 2006.
Rapid Global Mobility
Modernization of the Air Force's mobility assets is integral to the
daily execution of our National Security Strategy (NSS) and is integral
to supporting the EAF concept. Acquisition of the C-17 Globemaster III
through 2005 remains the flagship of airlift modernization. The C-17
will replace the C-141 Starlifter force. The Air Force has fielded 57
C-17s and key mobility studies could result in additional buys beyond
the currently planned force of 135. The Mobility Requirements Study
Fiscal Year 2005 (MRS-05), an update to the 1995 Mobility Requirements
Study/Bottom-Up Review Update, will determine the ultimate mix of end-
to-end mobility assets. MRS-05 results are scheduled to be released in
spring 2000. Using MRS-05 data, Air Mobility Command's Oversize and
Outsize Analysis of Alternatives will determine the most cost-effective
strategic airlift fleet mix to achieve our National Military Strategy
from various postures of engagement. The Tanker Requirements Study for
fiscal year 2005, baselined from MRS-05, will determine the number of
tankers needed to carry out the NSS.
The C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) and procurement of
the C-130J will consolidate 20 C-130 aircraft configurations into two
supportable configurations. AMP will install a state-of-the-art
avionics suite to increase reliability, maintainability and
sustainability of the C-130 fleet well into future, and eliminate the
navigator and simplify training and operational employment. The program
will make the aircraft Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) compliant
and meet identified navigation and safety mandates.
The Air Force plans to procure the C-130J to replace its oldest
1960's vintage C-130Es. The C-130J will provide increased range,
performance, and cargo capacity over the current C-130E/Hs. The Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard C-130 fleet will undergo an
extensive AMP that will be followed by a structural, engines, and
environmental improvement program. The tactical airlift mission will
continue its modernization transformation with the addition of C-130Js.
Four C-130Js are being delivered to Reserve units this year while
several more are on contract for future delivery.
The Air Force has begun a Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures
(LAIRCM) initiative to counter increasingly prolific Man-Portable Air
Defense Systems (MANPADS). LAIRCM will use state-of-the-art technology
to provide active defenses for airlift- and tanker-sized aircraft
against widely deployed shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles.
LAIRCM will build on existing systems designed for helicopters and
small fixed-wing aircraft. It will add new missile warning and tracking
systems to locate and direct the laser at an incoming missile. The
laser will jam the missile, driving it away from its target.
Operational capability is expected on the first C-17s in fiscal year
2003, with C-130s receiving LAIRCM beginning in fiscal year 2004.
Additional airlift and tanker aircraft will be outfitted with this
system later in the FYDP.
Equipping a limited number of aircraft with LAIRCM gives the Air
Force an initial capability to support a small-scale contingency or
other missions that require this additional IR missile protection. A
major advantage of LAIRCM over traditional IR countermeasures is the
ability to counter an incoming IR missile without deploying self-
protection flares as currently used. This greatly reduces the
complicated logistics and political sensitivities associated with the
use of flares.
Whether employing on-scene Aerospace Expeditionary Wings or
deploying contingency forces in response to a crisis, mobility assets
make the difference in speed and stamina. Procurement of the 60,000-
pound capacity (60K) Tunner aircraft loader and Next Generation Small
Loader (NGSL) will replace aging equipment and significantly increase
throughput and our ability to rapidly offload cargo from both military
and commercial aircraft. We are moving forward with the application of
space assets to enhance mobility operations via ``In-Transit
Visibility,'' a satellite linked worldwide identification and tracking
system.
KC-135 Pacer CRAG (Compass, Radar, and Global Positioning System)
upgrades are replacing 1950's technology compass and radar systems.
Pacer CRAG eliminates the navigator on most missions, improves
operational capability and reduces maintenance-related costs. The KC-
135 is also being upgraded with TCAS (Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance System) and TAWS (Terrain Avoidance Warning System), systems
vital in today's crowded skies. Pacer CRAG serves as the foundation for
the Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) modification, ensuring
unrestricted access to global airspace and will meet FAA and ICAO
requirements.
C-5 Galaxy modernization continues to be a top mobility airlift
priority to improve our global rapid response and delivery of outsize
and oversize cargo. Improving C-5 reliability, maintainability, and
availability while reducing operating costs are the cornerstone
objectives to improving fleet capability. The Air Force has in place a
multiphase modernization plan for the C-5. It includes an ongoing high-
pressure turbine upgrade to the engines, an avionics modernization
program to comply with new GATM requirements of the 21st Century, and a
reliability enhancement and re-engining program.
Our procurement of the full complement of required C-17s and CV-
22s; aggressive C-5, C-130, and KC-135 modernization programs;
procurement of new ground handling equipment; and global access,
navigation, safety, and avionics upgrades to the entire mobility fleet
will ensure Global Reach well into the 21st Century.
Likewise, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) will provide
the Nation rapid access to space. EELV will institutionalize payload
processing with a fleet-wide standard payload interface specification
and standard launch pads. Key benefits include 24-month payload to
booster build integration timelines (reduction of 50 percent over
today's systems) and common mating procedures. EELV standard launch
pads and pad operations will reduce on-pad cycle time to 1-9 days
versus 60-180 days for current launch systems.
Boeing will develop a Delta IV family of launchers around a common
core booster which will be powered by a new Boeing/Rocketdyne liquid
hydrogen/liquid oxygen RS-68 engine. This 650,000-pound thrust engine
is the first new liquid propulsion engine developed in the U.S. since
Rocketdyne developed the space shuttle main engine in the early 1970s.
Lockheed Martin's family of launchers is also developed around a
common core, which will be powered by the Energomash RD-180 liquid
oxygen/kerosene engine. This 860,000-pound thrust engine is derived
from the RD-170 engine currently used in the Russian space programs.
The RD-180 is the world's highest specific thrust liquid oxygen/
kerosene engine. It is reliable, demonstrated, and currently ready for
its first launch of a commercial payload in a Lockheed Atlas III. To
ensure a foreign supplier cannot deny the U.S. access to space, it is
DOD policy that former Soviet Union propulsion systems must be
converted to U.S. production prior to use for national security
missions. The use of the Energomash RD-180 engine leverages Russian
investment in developing over 50 new engines in the past 40 years,
transfers unique Russian technology to U.S. manufactures, and provides
a path for cooperative ventures between Russia and the United States.
Agile Combat Support
Through Agile Combat Support (ACS), the logistics and combat
support communities create, deploy, sustain, and protect personnel,
assets, and capabilities across the spectrum of operations. A strong
and robust ACS is key to the success of the EAF concept and supports
the Air Force core competency of Rapid Global Mobility. Effective
beddown support and sustainment allow deploying forces to downsize the
amount of equipment to start up and sustain base operations. This
reduced deployment footprint lowers the need for prepositioned assets
and airlift requirements.
To meet these needs, the Air Force is revamping its combat support
systems in many areas. Time-definite delivery provides users with
reliable, predictable delivery of mission-critical parts and reduces
inventory investments. Reachback provides ready access to rear or U.S.
based organizations for support, reducing the deployment footprint, and
saving associated costs. Logistics Command and Control (C\2\) and other
logistics decision support tools leverage information technology,
improve base support planning, and enhance tailoring deployment
packages for specific locations and scenarios. Global Combat Support
System-Air Force (GCSS-AF) is a key enabler of ACS and provides a
framework for integrating our critical combat support information
systems and processes across functional areas. It will provide the
warfighter and supporting elements with timely, accurate, and trusted
ACS information to execute the full spectrum of military operations.
Leading edge technologies, such as Survey Tool for Employment Planning,
will continue to enhance ACS in the future.
Science and Technology
The Air Force is committed to a strong science and technology (S&T)
program that will enable a fully integrated aerospace force to meet the
challenges of the 21st Century. The Air Force S&T investment strategy
has been focused through a series of six integrated technology
thrusts--Space Superiority, Information Dominance, Agile Combat
Support, Aircraft Sustainment, Training for Warfighting, and Precision
Strike--that directly correlate to and will fully enable the Air
Force's six core competencies. These six integrated technology thrusts
are multidisciplinary and are distributed across the majority of the
ten technology areas in which the Air Force invests. The portion of the
Air Force S&T budget relating to space will be doubled by fiscal year
2005 relative to fiscal year 1999, in recognition of the growing
importance of space to all facets of Air Force operations. Topline
funding for Air Force S&T has improved over last year's President's
Budget request. The additional funding has, for the most part, gone
into two areas: Basic Research (Budget Activity 1) and Propulsion.
Indeed, one result of the changes has been to make Propulsion (i.e.,
air- and space-related propulsion technologies) the single largest
investment area in Air Force S&T (approximately 16 percent of the
total.) Moreover, special emphasis is being placed on technologies that
will make both current and future weapon systems ``lighter, leaner, and
more lethal,'' thereby directly supporting the Expeditionary Aerospace
Force concept. Also, detailed planning efforts have been completed that
identify high payoff investments in directed energy technologies for
the full spectrum of operations.
In recognition of the importance of an agile, highly competent
workforce to our future success, the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL) has instituted major personnel initiatives under the Laboratory
Demonstration Program. Additionally, AFRL is now building new
collaborative arrangements with universities and industries under the
auspices of the S&T Workforce for the 21st Century (STW-21) Study. This
government-operated, collaborator-assisted approach will consist of a
team of career civil servants, military scientists, and engineers, and
collaborators from the top academic and industrial research groups and
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). The
objective is to engage a small number of non-government collaborators
with high national repute to augment the AFRL's on-site government
technical workforce.
Several new civilian personnel initiatives are also being explored
under STW-21 that should enhance AFRL's ability to attract the best and
brightest cadre of civilian scientists and engineers. A contingent
appointment authority would provide the ability to immediately hire
civilian scientists and engineers for up to 5 years (with a 1-year
extension). A second initiative allows appointment of up to 50 eminent
civilian scientists and engineers for up to 4 years (with an option to
extend 2 years) at salaries up to Level 1 of the Executive Schedule.
Another initiative we pursued is high-grade relief to allow AFRL to
manage grade/salary levels without artificial constraints. Fiscal year
2000 legislation has already provided AFRL with this exemption, and we
thank Congress for this relief.
Through a carefully balanced investment portfolio of basic
research, applied research, and advanced technology development, the AF
S&T program will both protect the future and transition focused
technologies to current and planned weapon systems to improve their
performance, supportability, and affordability. The end result is the
assurance our warfighters will have the tools they need to remain
technologically superior in the new millennium.
Acquisition Reform
The criticality of the revolution in business affairs demands our
commitment to continuous acquisition reform. We have taken major steps
toward commercial off-the-shelf solutions, migration from military
specifications to commercial standards, and increased commitment to
cooperative development programs. We are institutionalizing acquisition
reform initiatives such as Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV), and
Reduction of Total Ownership Cost (R-TOC) to improve affordability. Our
R-TOC program establishes a comprehensive, long-term, cradle to grave
process for Air Force cost reductions.
We will continue to look for new areas in which we can improve our
ability to deliver systems and capabilities faster and smarter.
Promising areas include the integration of the requirements and
acquisition processes, cycle-time reduction initiatives, contractor
incentive programs, evolutionary acquisition guidance, commercial
services, streamlining of the modification management process, and
further improvements in electronic business/electronic commerce with
such initiatives as the Automated Business Services System and
Electronic Posting System.
The Air Force fiscal year 2001 Modernization Program is a balanced
approach to securing the required capabilities for Joint Vision 2010
and the Expeditionary Aerospace Force. We are upgrading existing
equipment that is still viable and procuring revolutionary new weapon
systems where they are needed.
infrastructure
Combat support provides the foundation that enables global
engagement and is a linchpin that ties together Air Force core
competencies. It includes those actions taken to create, deploy,
employ, generate, sustain, maintain, protect, and redeploy aerospace
personnel, assets, and capabilities through all peacetime and wartime
military operations. The fundamental mission for infrastructure
incorporates the unique contributions and capabilities of aerospace
power: speed, flexibility, versatility, and global reach. It is a
collection of physical elements, such as squadron operations buildings,
and processes, such as the military personnel flight operations.
Infrastructure supports operations across the spectrum of conflict in
both garrison and expeditionary environments. Some infrastructure areas
of concern are mission and base property related. Some areas of
advancement are in flight ranges, environment, and space
infrastructure.
Mission Related Infrastructure
Getting our forces there safely and ready to fight has become more
crucial than ever in the rapid response environment we now live in. Our
en route petroleum infrastructure equipment and reserves stand ready to
support airlift operations worldwide. However, antiquated fuel systems
are a major impediment to air mobility and their timely support to the
warfighter. As the airlift fleet modernizes, these old fuel systems
will be the number one reason why we cannot meet the theater CINC's
delivery schedule of combat troops and equipment. Especially hard-hit
is the Pacific theater which suffers from a 50-year-old system that
constantly fights corrosion in the humidity of the tropics. We have
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Military Construction (MILCON) projects
valued at $275 million from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005
to both upgrade and increase that support. Other en route
infrastructure has experienced a severe funding shortfall over the past
decade. An air mobility survey team identified over $1 billion of en
route infrastructure deficiencies. Inadequate infrastructure has a
drastic negative effect on cargo throughput supporting geographical
CINCs. Worldwide air mobility en route system infrastructure has
downsized and is deteriorating. In 1992 we supported 40 locations--
today we support just 12. The Air Force needs continued strong
congressional funding support for mission related infrastructure, most
notably in the European and Pacific theaters. Host-nation funding
helps; however, that support can be limited and/or unpredictable. In
addition, because today's changing strategic environment will involve
the Air Force in numerous contingencies in unpredictable locations,
access agreements to strategic locations are becoming more critical.
The Air Force is working very hard to ensure continued access to these
``gateways'' which allow air power to be applied anywhere in the world,
anytime, while we have reduced the U.S. footprint abroad. Significantly
increased infrastructure investment and access agreements will be key
as the Air Force continues to maintain global power projection across
the spectrum of conflict.
Military Construction and Real Property Maintenance
In the competition for funds, military construction (MILCON), and
real property maintenance (RPM) often lose out to more pressing
requirements. In addition, funding available for MILCON and RPM could
be better spent if the Air Force base infrastructure were properly
sized for the force structure it supports.
In the past decade, reductions in Air Force manpower and force
structure have outpaced those in infrastructure. As a result, the
Service is spending scarce resources on unneeded facilities, spreading
its airmen too thin, and struggling to maintain readiness and its
modernization program. The need to fund higher priority programs has
caused the Air Force to invest less in base operating support, real
property maintenance, family housing, and MILCON than it otherwise
would have. For fiscal year 2001 our MILCON request is approximately
one-third of our validated need. To enhance readiness the Air Force
must be allowed to reduce its base structure. Consequently, the Air
Force fully supports Defense Secretary Cohen's proposal for two
additional BRAC rounds.
The fiscal year 2001 Air Force MILCON budget request is $596
million, which funds the Air Force's highest priority MILCON projects.
Congressional support for this budget request is appreciated,
especially for overseas infrastructure. Host nation support alone is
insufficient to preserve the infrastructure and quality of life
initiatives in Europe, the Pacific, and elsewhere. The emergency
funding the Congress provided in fiscal year 1999 for overseas MILCON
projects was much needed. If the Congress decides to provide the Air
Force additional MILCON funding, consideration should be given to
overseas MILCON projects to address readiness and quality of life
requirements for our airmen on the front lines.
RPM is funded at a minimum sustainment level intended to accomplish
only the day-to-day maintenance required to sustain real property
facilities and infrastructure. It does not provide the resources
necessary to reduce the backlog of repair and maintenance. As a result,
our backlog of repair and minor construction is over $4 billion and
will continue to grow.
Ranges and Environment
Maintaining continued access to Air Force land, ranges, and
airspace is vital to sustaining mission readiness. The Air Force
recognizes the need to balance its test, training, and readiness
requirements with responsible environmental stewardship. Over two-
thirds of Federal lands are accessible for various public uses. The
Service actively participates in collaborative processes and regulatory
partnering initiatives that enhance our military operations, address
public interests in compatible uses (such as hunting, grazing, etc.),
and safeguard the natural and cultural resources on our test and
training ranges. This year we started construction of a new training
range in Idaho which will significantly enhance local training for our
Air Expeditionary Wing at Mountain Home AFB. The success of this range
initiative was the result of extensive cooperation between the Air
Force and State and Federal agencies, dialogue with Native Americans,
active public involvement, and strong Congressional support. We were
able to find common ground which allowed us to not only enhance our
operations but also end 10 years of conflict and enter a new era of
cooperation.
Additionally, this year Congress renewed the withdrawal of public
lands which comprise the Barry M. Goldwater Range in AZ and the Nellis
Air Force Range in NV. These two ranges have been used to train
America's airmen since World War II and represent over 60 percent of
all Air Force lands. The Service worked closely with the Department of
the Interior, State agencies, interested citizens in both states, and
the Congressional delegations for over five years. The extension of the
withdrawal of the Nellis Range for 20 years and the Goldwater Range for
25 years will assure the Service the stability it needs to address its
test and training needs for the future and to implement successful
resource management and public interaction programs necessary for long
term sustainment of these two vital ranges.
We continue to look at our training airspace and ranges to provide
the Service the operational flexibility, efficiency, and realism we
need to continuously enhance our readiness and still minimize, to the
extent possible, the impacts associated with our testing and training.
Currently, we have a proposal to consolidate some of our bomber
training infrastructure and rearrange some existing airspace closer to
our bomber units in Texas and Louisiana. This proposal will allow our
bomber crews to convert the time they currently spend flying to remote
ranges into effective and efficient integrated training. We are
committed to working with all stakeholders to improve training
capability for our bomber crews while addressing citizen concerns to
the maximum extent possible. The Service is committed to prudent
integrated range and airspace management to sustain operations, sustain
the environment, and sustain community support.
Similar to its commitment to protect rangelands, the Service
promotes pollution prevention programs to help reduce or eliminate
existing and future environmental compliance burden. Where past
practices have disturbed the environment, the Air Force is now more
focused on pollution prevention, and also continues to implement clean-
up programs and make progress towards clean-up completion.
Space Launch Infrastructure
Assured access to space is vital to U.S. national security and
important to our economic well being. Mission success will be enhanced
through the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) and
spacelift range modernization programs.
The introduction of EELV system will provide modernized launch and
processing facilities which will improve on-pad processing time from
months to days. The Air Force has partnered with industry to develop a
national launch capability that satisfies government requirements,
reduces the cost of space launch by 25 percent, and improves
operability. This equates to a $5 to $10 billion savings through 2020.
EELV will reduce on-pad processing time, due in part to the standard
configuration of each booster. Launch operations times are reduced
through the use of a new standard payload interface, standard launch
pads, common components across each family of launch vehicles, and off-
pad payload processing (to include encapsulating the payload off-pad.)
The reduction in processing time will free up range resources, launch
property and services currently occupied by tasks unique to each
booster configuration, thereby realizing efficiencies to effectively
increase spacelift range capacity.
The Air Force's innovative contract for EELV launch services will
develop the launch vehicles and associated launch infrastructure to
support commercial launches beginning in fiscal year 2001 and national
defense launches beginning in fiscal year 2002. This acquisition
approach should enable U.S. commercial launch service providers to
become more competitive, not only from a cost position, but also from
vehicle availability and flexibility standpoints.
The Eastern and Western Spacelift Ranges, headquartered at Patrick
AFB, FL and Vandenberg AFB, CA, respectively, provide tracking,
telemetry, communications, flight analysis, and other capabilities
necessary to conduct DOD, civil, and commercial spacelift operations
and DOD ballistic missile test launches. Much of the range
infrastructure is outdated, inefficient, unreliable, and costly to
operate and maintain. To better support the evolving spacelift mission,
the AF has undertaken a phased modernization program, emphasizing
standardization and automation of the ranges, to produce a Spacelift
Range System (SLRS). Key objectives include reducing reconfiguration
times from days to hours and reducing operations and maintenance costs
by 20 percent.
Over the past year, the Air Force has sponsored numerous meetings
with industry, NASA, FAA, and other interested federal, state and local
agencies to ensure that we understand the needs of the civilian space
industry. We will continue to work in partnership with industry and
civilian agencies as we modernize our ranges for the future.
conclusion
America is an aerospace nation. Its aerospace forces are the
military instruments of choice for rapid, tailored, and effective
response for a wide range of contingencies. Air Force strengths--
quality people, Total Force participation, expeditionary capabilities,
and advanced technology systems--allow us to offer military options
that meet national objectives, save American lives, and conserve
resources in crisis or conflict. We are a combat-proven, mission-
focused, decisive fighting force for America.
In this millennium, we are faced with new challenges and critical
choices. Limited resources and the increased likelihood of encountering
non-traditional threats will require us to reassess our program and
make minor adjustments as required. However, steady and unchanged are
our commitments to combat readiness, our people, and providing this
nation those aerospace tools required to meet America's interests
around the world. We are organized to win, preparing for the future,
and committed to the security needs of the nation.
Senator Stevens. General Ryan.
General Ryan. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, and members
of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you on behalf of the dedicated men and women of the United
States Air Force.
Readiness
I want to again thank the administration, Congress, and
particularly this committee for responding to our most critical
readiness needs described over the last several years. With
your support, the increase in funding we received in 1999 and
2000 helped to address some of our most immediate concerns, but
I am optimistic that if we continue to sustain funding for
readiness we can turn around our readiness problems.
I can report to you, Mr. Chairman, that while our readiness
trend has not yet turned the corner, our airmen continue to
perform their worldwide missions with great pride and
professionalism. As you know, 1999 was a very busy year for the
Air Force. Our airmen put forth a tremendous effort in the air
war over Serbia. We opened 21 expeditionary locations, employed
over 500 aircraft and, together with our sister services and
our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, air power
played a key role in forcing Milosevic to cease his tyranny in
Kosovo and to withdraw his forces.
Our airmen performed superbly in a just and righteous cause
and they did it in the face of great danger, and we are all
very proud of them.
During and following that operation, we continued a
marathon effort, flying sustained air combat throughout the
year in Iraq and responding on short notice to multiple
humanitarian crises such as earthquakes in Turkey and Taiwan
and hurricanes and floods in the United States and Latin
America, and we are just wrapping up an operation in
Mozambique.
Recruiting and retention
Despite these successes, we have had many challenges. As
the Secretary said, we are losing too many of our experienced
people, both enlisted and officers. And last year, though we
recruited more airmen than we had in the previous years, we
missed our goal, which we had reset, by 1,700. We are behind
again for this year's goals, but we are putting forth a great
effort to turn that around.
Regarding retention, I am particularly concerned about our
midcareer non-commission officers (NCOs) and, though we have
seen a turnaround in the last several months, I am hopeful that
that will be sustained, that the increased pay, benefits, and
retirement that were approved last year by this committee,
along with the stability provided by our Aerospace
Expeditionary Force (AEF) concept, will begin to help us retain
more of these airmen we so value.
Last year I testified that pilot retention was again a
major concern and we ended the year about 1,200 short. We are
still about 1,200 short. The good news is that the indicators
are positive, though we have a very small sample size on this.
The new bonus system approved last year in the legislation is
helping influence many of our folks to stay for a career.
Aircraft maintenance
With a progressively aging aircraft fleet, our people are
working harder to maintain readiness. We have addressed most of
our critical readiness requirements in this budget by funding
the needed spares and by trying to revitalize some of our older
aircraft, like our airlift force and our bomber force, and by
beginning to replace systems that are approaching the end of
their operational life, such as the F-15, with the much needed
revolutionary capability of the F-22 Raptor.
Real property maintenance
Unfortunately, current funding levels do not allow us to
address the infrastructure shortfalls we have across the Air
Force, such as construction and real property maintenance. So
our infrastructure will continue to deteriorate and will
ultimately impact long-term readiness if we do not adequately
fund these in the years ahead.
Health care
Finally, I remain concerned about health care provided for
the Air Force people, both active duty and retired. And
although the amount of funds required to address that issue is
uncertain, it is certain that our active duty and retirees and
their families deserve our support to keep the health care
promise.
I look forward to working with the committee as we tackle
these challenges and strive for a full recovery of our force
readiness levels today and build our needed capabilities for
tomorrow.
Thank you for inviting me to speak on behalf of the men and
women of the Air Force. We are so proud of them. They
selflessly serve for all of us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
F-22
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
Let me start with you, Secretary Peters. It is my
understanding that the Department of Defense (DOD) Cost
Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) has reviewed the F-22 costs
and restated its belief that those costs, the engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) costs, will exceed the cap that
was established. Now, this is worrisome to us, particularly in
view of this 40-day labor strike at Boeing. Could you tell us
first what will be the impact on that strike now, have you
analyzed that, on the program and its costs? And how will the
Air Force handle this $200 million increase in estimate of F-22
development that we have heard based on both the CAIG group and
Lockheed's estimate?
Mr. Peters. Let me start with the cost estimate, Mr.
Chairman. As the General Accounting Office (GAO) has found in a
recent report, we are actually on track to meet our EMD
requirements. We said 1 year ago that we were going to save x
number of millions of dollars. We have had an ongoing dispute
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)-CAIG about
whether we would meet those goals or not. We already have met
them. We have met them and we are on track actually to do
slightly better than predicted, and the recent GAO study found
that we would, in fact, finish within the cap based on where we
are today.
In fact, our belief is----
Senator Stevens. Including the strike?
Mr. Peters. Including the strike. We do not think the
strike is going to have a major impact on costs. Let me talk
about schedule in just a minute. We had our most recent Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) conference, where all of the major
vendors, Boeing, Lockheed and Pratt, as well as the Air Force,
sat down and went through the analysis of the estimate to
complete EMD, and we think we are going to be several tens of
millions below the EMD cap if we stay on the course we are
currently on.
Now, the difficulty we are going to have is that the strike
is, in fact, going to put in high risk our ability to get the
so-called Block 3 software--that is the first level of software
which has the full integrated sensors with it--into Aircraft
No. 5 and fly it by the end of the year. If you recall, last
year there was an exit criterion that we had to have that
avionics block actually in one of the F-22's as an exit
criterion to go into low rate initial production.
At that time, that was probably a moderate risk item. But
the effect of the Boeing slip from the Boeing strike, is
essentially a day-to-day slip in the dates, which we are trying
to recover from. I think it is now fair to say it is high risk
as to whether we will have the software actually flying on an
F-22.
We will have that block of software out of the integration
laboratory. We will have it in the flying testbed, but we will
not actually--we may not have it in the actual airplane. Our
experience to date has been that the software in the lab, in
the integration lab, and in the flying testbed, in those
settings we catch about 97 percent to 98 percent of the
problems. So, we may be in a position to urge this committee
not to include that exit criterion, but to allow us to meet the
normal testing on the flying testbed.
But at this point it looks like we will be very close to
where we thought we would be last year, but it is high risk.
Senator Stevens. General Ryan, what does this Block 3
software really mean to the functions of this airplane?
General Ryan. The Block 3 software will be the software
that integrates the avionics system and some of the defensive
systems and communications systems on the airplane into the
displays that are part of the revolutionary capability of this
airplane. Being able to use different antennas and receive
different wave forms and then display that in terms of things
that the pilot can use in combat is the important part of the
Block 3 software.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, are you indicating you
think that there could be a catch-up now despite the 39, 40 day
delay at Boeing? As I understand it now, this initial
production contract is conditioned upon that Block 3 software.
Mr. Peters. It is so conditioned in last year's
appropriation act. It is conditioned on the Block 3 software
actually being in the aircraft. We are going to make an effort
to try to catch up and get to that point, but the experts think
that that is a high risk area and we may not make it.
Now, our view would be that low rate initial production
(LRIP) is still appropriate so long as the software has been
successfully demonstrated in the integration laboratory, which
is a ground-based, full-up mockup of the F-22, and also has
been demonstrated to work in the flying testbed, which is a 757
aircraft that has been modified to have many, but not all, of
the F-22's sensor systems on it. It is an asset we have been
using for some time.
As I said, we think those two demonstrations would show
that we are very close to having workable software on the
aircraft. We will have, between now and then, additional
software upgrades on the aircraft and we anticipate that we
will have quite a few additional hours of test on the basic
aircraft in some of the earlier versions of the software. But
at this point it is high risk that we will actually have Block
3 in an airplane by the end of December of this year.
Senator Stevens. I want to get back to it later.
Senator Inouye.
F-22 testing program
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up on your
questions, which talked about the cap. What is the status of
your testing program on the F-22?
Mr. Peters. The F-22 testing program is a pyramidal
program. It starts with hundreds of thousands of hours of tests
in wind tunnels and individual component tests. We now have
three aircraft at Edwards. Two have flown in test activity out
there. One has just been ferried from Marietta to Edwards. We
have about 580 flight hours on the aircraft.
We have had no major glitches. There has been some concern
expressed by Mr. Coyle, the head of Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), about whether we will make up some
months that we are behind. As you may recall, about 1\1/2\
years ago we had trouble with the aft booms on the aircraft,
the way they have been manufactured, and that has slowed the
test program by several months.
We are about 450 test points short of where we thought we
would be at this point, and as we increase aircraft we actually
could surge and our belief is we could make that up. Our belief
right now is that if we were as much as a 1,000 or even 2,000
test points short, if we were at this point a year from now we
would have five or six flying assets and we could make those
test points up in a matter of approximately 1 month at a cost
of roughly $20 million.
So while we are behind where we had thought we would be, we
are not in a position where we are not going to be able to
test. We are going to be able to get those test points done and
we will get them done pretty close to where we had originally
thought we would be. As I say, if we had to we could extend the
tests and delay initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E)
by perhaps 1 month and probably make up all the ground we have
lost to date.
So our plan is to try to get back on schedule, probably to
do some surge on the aircraft. We have not, for example, by and
large been flying on weekends, which we could do. And once we
get more assets out there, we will assess the situation. Our
hope is that with additional tankers and longer flights we will
increase the number of test points that we get done per flying
hour and we will get back on track.
Senator Inouye. Are you ready to make the decision in
December, the production decision?
Mr. Peters. I think we are ready to make the decision,
based on where we estimate we will be at that time. Whether or
not the Block 3 software is actually in the airplane, I think
we will have enough risk reduced to know that it would be a
prudent decision.
Senator Inouye. Are you satisfied with the testing program
so far?
Mr. Peters. I am, and I actually spent an hour with Dr.
Coyle last week one on one to go over this. I am convinced that
we are still fine. His main concern is whether we will be able
to pick up the test point production. I think we will. I think
we have a robust and smart program to do that, and at this
point I think the EMD cap is appropriate. It is an important
management tool, and I think we are going to get where we need
to be.
General Ryan. Senator Inouye, just one point also. By the
time we come to the decision in December, we will have tested
this airplane airborne more than we have tested any other
aircraft when we made a production decision for low rate
production, including the F-15, the F-16, and the F-18. We have
put substantial amount of testing into this airplane, not just
airborne, which is high, but we have done things in the lab and
in the flying testbed that give us great confidence that this
is going to be a great airplane.
Senator Inouye. You are satisfied with the flight testing.
What about other testings?
Mr. Peters. At this point, Senator Inouye, all of the
testing has gone well. There have been no major problems. As
was reported in the press, we did have a structural member, an
element called a flaperon, break at 143 percent of design load.
It is a composite item. It has been rapidly and correctly
repaired. We can use titanium for the time being and it is not
a major issue.
So at this point all of the loads testing, all the flying
testing, all the avionics testing to date, has shown that we
have a very, very good design and one that is performing in the
way that we had predicted when we did all the computer modeling
and simulation years to decades ago.
Senator Inouye. If I may, I would like to submit for the
record technical questions on the F-22. I am doing this because
we may have need of such information as we get into conference.
C-17
I have just one other question: C-17, multi-year
procurement program, the contract; are the costs going to stay
down?
Mr. Peters. Yes. With the adjustment we made. There is,
however, one requirement to keep the costs essentially where
they are, and that is that the advanced procurement money that
was appropriated last year for 15 aircraft remains available to
us even though we are only going to buy 12 in the coming fiscal
year. Three are slipped by approximately 90 days into the
following fiscal year. We need to keep that, all the advance
appropriation money, to keep the parts line flowing to make
that happen.
Given that, we will have no cost increase at all on the
basic airplane. There is about an $880,000 financing change on
the engines. But we had anticipated when we entered into the
multiyear that we could slip aircraft. And I would suggest it
does look positive that the United Kingdom may pick up the
three we slipped.
In addition to that, it is becoming apparent to us that we
need a bit of time to catch up things like pilot training and
infrastructure construction with the airplane delivery. I was
out at McChord about 1 month ago and literally the concrete is
not drying by the time the planes get there. So a 90-day slip
to let us train more air crews and load masters and to get the
infrastructure built would synchronize the delivery of aircraft
with our ability to actually use them.
So I think we are on a very prudent course and would
suggest we stay where we are.
Senator Inouye. Thank you. I will come back again.
Senator Stevens. Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following up on that, Mr. Secretary, we have been hearing
from the Commander in Chief (CINC's) that they think they are
going to need more C-17's, and this committee recommended last
year an additional buy of 60 additional aircraft. Is it your
intention to get back up at least to 15 aircraft in the next
budget submission?
Mr. Peters. Yes, it is. We intend to keep the same profile
through 2002 and 2003 as we have in the 2001 budget, which gets
us back to 15 and then the remainder in 2003.
With respect to the additional aircraft beyond that, we are
waiting for the Mobility Requirements Study 2005 to come out of
the Joint Staff. It was originally on track for about now. It
has now slipped to the summer time. Until we have a chance to
look at that and then do the analysis of alternatives between
C-17 and C-5, we are really not in a position to make an
intelligent decision on what to do with the C-17 line.
But we should begin making those decisions in late summer
time to the end of this year.
Senator Bond. Well, I would think the sooner you can make
it, because if there is a need, as has been suggested, I would
think that possibly with a multiyear contract you could bring
the price down on most of these things. If you know where you
want to go and you are willing to make a commitment, you can
get a lot more, you can get a lot more power for your dollars.
We will await with interest your recommendations on that.
F-15E
You and I have had the opportunity to discuss and I have
mentioned before the F-15E production. It was the intention of
the committee and the conference committee to provide for the
procurement of five aircraft. Because of requirements and
different things, we know that the cost is definitely above $55
million. And while we do not know what the status is of the
supplemental and there are efforts going under way, we do not
know when we can have an answer on that.
I wonder if it is possible for you to conclude with the
manufacturer your requirements for what can be done with the
money available now so that they can begin the planning and get
into the business of producing at least the four that could be
produced.
Mr. Peters. We have been talking with Boeing. Our current
plan is to try to get them on contract by the end of April. We
are looking at a fixed contract for three aircraft, which is
all the available money allows us to buy, with two options each
to buy one additional airplane. We would need to reprogram
procurement money or get about a $25 million add in the
supplemental to buy the fourth aircraft, and we need $90
million above what was appropriated to buy all five aircraft.
My understanding is the $90 million figure is in the
supplemental at the moment. So that is where we are.
Senator Bond. Well, we will wait and see how that works
out. The House has obviously its views and the Senate will work
its views. But I hope that you are at least able to get the
work started on the three, and certainly I will do my best to
see that there are the funds for the additional, for the
additional aircraft that were originally envisioned.
One of the questions--and I guess I direct this question to
General Ryan. From the Air National Guard standpoint, one of
the things they are concerned about in the Air Guard is funding
equipment upgrades. Every year we have had to add funds for
modernization. Now, I understand that the number one issue for
the F-15 community both in Air Combat Command and the Air
National Guard (ANG) is the Bofors Launchers Infrared (BOLIR)
countermeasures system that has been highly effective on the
Navy's F-14 fleet.
The ANG fleet of 126 F-15's is tasked for increasingly
sophisticated threats throughout the world as a part of the
Expeditionary Aerospace Force, and the lack of robust
protection affects its combat capability. I believe that we
should consider very seriously adding funding for this
important upgrade, and I would appreciate your thoughts on the
importance of this particular upgrade and what you think about
the need for the upgrade.
General Ryan. We have looked at the BOL capability as a
countermeasure to help the survivability of the aircraft in the
end game of a missile shot at it and we do believe it has
merit. We have not put money against it to upgrade the aircraft
to put that kind of capability on. We currently have chaff and
flares that also perform that mission and have a fairly
substantial stock of those to do it.
I think that BOL has some significant capabilities. It is
an affordability issue for us.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Retention
Again, Secretary and General Ryan, thank you for being
here. Let me ask about retention. Can you describe what kind of
experience you have had on retention since last year, when we
increased some of the compensation and also adjusted some of
the retirement benefits?
Mr. Peters. Let me start off, and the Chief probably would
like to add some words as well.
The increased compensation, of course, did not actually
take hold until January 1. The retirement benefits happened
immediately. The pay table reform does not take effect yet, I
think, until July 1. But my sense from talking with airmen in
the field is that they are extremely grateful that their needs
have been met. They feel that the Air Force leadership, the
administration, and this Congress have all gotten the word and
are out to try to really make sure that they can afford to stay
in the military, which many of them like very much.
I think the impact has been seen earliest on the enlisted
side. On the enlisted side, we are doing better on first term
and second term retention and have been doing that for the last
several months. In the month of February alone, we reached
almost 60 percent first term and almost 75 percent second term
retention, both of which are excellent. We are still in the low
90's with what we call career retention, which is third term
and after, and that's probably about right. We have a metric of
95 percent, but we are at 91 to 92 percent--and it looks like
it is stable, so that is not a major issue.
On the enlisted side, specific career fields are still a
problem. In computer communications, we still have a situation
where staff sergeants leave the Air Force and come back and
work for contractors at $80,000 a year rather than what we pay
them as a staff sergeant. We still have some critical career
fields, because of Operations Tempo (OPSTEMPO); the maintenance
area in particular is one that comes to mind.
On the officer side, while the pilot bonus looks like it is
having a major impact and will ultimately get us out of our
pilot shortage several years earlier--that is based on early
returns--we still have specific career fields, again computer/
communications is one that jumps out, where the market is so
strong we are having a great deal of trouble keeping our junior
officers. And there are several of those career fields.
So while I think the overall picture is positive on our
first and second term enlisted side, it is very much a mix on
the other side.
General Ryan. Just a couple of issues. Though we have some
indications in these first few months of turnaround, most of
the people who were going to leave had made their decision
probably 1 year ago and had started to divest themselves of the
things that would allow them to reverse their decision. So we
are not quite sure yet what the dynamic is. I do not think we
will know until probably this summer if we really are on a
trend or whether this is just a seasonal change.
Anecdotally, talking to our young people in the field, they
are very appreciative of the fact that Congress has taken that
step. We in the Air Force are a family Air Force. Almost 70
percent of our folks are married. What they are looking for is
stability, stability in their home life and stability in their
family life and stability in their pay. In this booming
economy, there are lots of alternatives for our very highly
technical folks that serve in our Air Force.
I think that the follow-through has to be that we stay the
course on bringing back pay to an equitable level, particularly
for those who are affected by the employment opportunities that
these people have as an alternative. So I see it is too early
to call the current positive signs a success. We must sustain
the proposed employment cost index (ECI) plus .5 raises on out
through the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP).
Senator Dorgan. I appreciate the answer. It is an important
issue because all of the other plans we have for our armed
forces do not mean very much if we cannot retain our key
people.
Let me ask briefly about the F-16, the ABL, and the B-52. I
will not have time to get all of them because I know Senator
Cochran has some questions.
F-16
The F-16, you propose ordering no new F-16's. Yet in my
judgment we need some. I have written you a letter about the
119th Fighter Wing. As you know, that is an Air National Guard
wing that has twice won the William Tell Award. They are the
best fighter pilots in the world. In fact they won it with the
wrong airplane. They are flying some of the oldest F-16's
around and so obsolete they are incompatible with active duty
units and cannot be effectively employed, I am told, in certain
combat situations.
I have written you a letter about that. We really need to
address that equipment problem for the Happy Hooligans. I hope
it is not a source of embarrassment to other pilots anywhere
else in the world, but these are druggists and farmers and
mechanics and professors, and they won the title of the best
pilots in the world twice in recent years. So we need to
address that.
General Ryan. Yes, sir. You know we are committed to
upgrading the equipment there. It is an issue of affordability
for us right now and sequencing when they come in the sequence.
What we are doing is trying to buy 30 additional Block 50 F-
16's for the active duty and that will allow us to modernize
our A model F-16's throughout the force up to the C model
capability.
Senator Dorgan. But that is another 7 years or so.
General Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. We need to talk more about that.
My time is up. I would like to just make one comment. I
hope--I have toured the ABL project. I am very impressed with
what they are doing and impressed with the technology there,
and I hope that the slippage that was envisioned in some of the
funding issues, that we can try to restore some of that and get
back on track. I think that is an impressive program.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in
welcoming the Secretary of the Air Force and General Ryan to
our committee hearing today reviewing the budget request for
the next fiscal year.
We are very proud in Mississippi to have a close connection
with the Air Force. We are very pleased that at Keesler Air
Force Base we have the headquarters of the Second Air Force,
the Education and Training Command, and a training wing. We
also have in our State at Columbus Air Force Base a pilot
training facility that we are very proud of and which was
designated by the Air Force in the last base closure round as
its number one pilot training facility in the country.
We also have Air National Guard units at Jackson, Meridian,
and Gulfport. We have the famous hurricane hunters that are
located down on the gulf coast as well, flying the C-130J's.
So we are very interested in the budget request that you
submitted. We notice that you have some requests for a training
facility for construction at Keesler Air Force Base. I think it
is a $15 million item. We are pleased to see that included.
C-17
We also hear in connection with the C-17's that are under
construction and are being delivered to units around the
country that the facility in Jackson, the Air National Guard
unit there, is the first Air National Guard unit in the country
that will receive C-17's. When Secretary Peters was down there
just recently, he was brought up to date on the preparations
that are being made to receive those aircraft and we know that
there are going to have to be some MILCON projects approved,
some training undertaken, so that we will be able to manage the
hosting requirements for the C-17's.
There has been a review underway to be sure this is a good
decision that is being made. I wonder if Secretary Peters can
tell us about the status of that review.
Mr. Peters. Our current plan is certainly to stay the
course with getting C-17's into Jackson. In fact, one of the
reasons I went down there a couple of weeks ago was to make
sure that I understood the planning, and also the contingency
planning, in the likely event that C-17's are delivered early,
which they may well be.
We do in fact, if recollection serves, have the
construction projects in the FYDP where we think they need to
be. A simulator was purchased in the fiscal year 2000 budget to
get into Jackson, so we will have that capability. We need to
continue to review where we are in light of the actual delivery
schedule of C-17's, which at the moment is 5 months early. The
unit told me that they could, in fact, probably take aircraft
early with their current facilities. Obviously, they would not
be able to get a C-17 into their hangars because the doors are
not high enough, but some of that could follow on.
I think the major concern we have is the training pipeline
is now pretty full. The real issue is going to be getting
pilots through the pipeline. I think the simulator at Jackson
will help a lot with that, and we are going to have to review
the ramp-up schedule. As things stand now, we are actually
behind on both pilot and air crew production versus the
delivery of the airplanes because they are so early. So we are
going to have to work that some more.
Senator Cochran. Last year we were concerned that, because
the delivery schedule was running behind by 180 days, I think
was the testimony last year, that this could cause some
difficulties with related military construction (MILCON)
projects, one of which involves a corrosion control and
maintenance hangar. Last year we asked if we should move that
up because of the slippage of the schedule. The original
project cost was estimated at $12.8 million. The 2001 budget
contains $10.5 million for the corrosion control and
maintenance hangar.
Can the project be completed at this reduced amount and
would it help to accelerate the construction?
Mr. Peters. You are taxing the limits of my memory on that
one. If I may get back to you for the record on that, I could
provide an answer.
Senator Cochran. That would be good to have for the record.
Mr. Peters. I will get that for you.
[The information follows:]
Military Construction in Connection With C-17
The C-17 Corrosion Control and Maintenance Hangar is in the
fiscal year 2001 President's Budget, which is the correct year
for executing the project. The significant cost reduction made
to this project during the budget process does present
contracting and execution challenges. The Air National Guard
will have to apply cost-cutting measures to execute this
project.
Senator Cochran. We want to be sure that everything is done
to receive these aircraft and that the projects that are on
schedule are kept on schedule.
Let me ask you also about the housing situation. We had
some people come up to the office the other day expressing
concerns about the lack of adequate housing. This was
particularly true of the Columbus Air Force Base. There does
not seem to be any plan for improving the housing there for the
next several years.
They expressed concern also that the plans the Air Force
has for building two-bedroom housing facilities are beginning
to be unpopular and they are concerned because, with the pilot
retention problem, we know that the airlines are attracting Air
Force pilots and the difficulties with scheduling family life
in general is putting a lot of pressure on pilot retention.
What is the situation, General Ryan? Would building some
more modern and better designed housing facilities be indicated
to you to help with the pilot retention problem and general
morale on our Air Force bases around the country?
General Ryan. Absolutely, sir. We have over 110,000 family
housing units, about half of which ought to be completely
rehabbed or plowed under and started all over again. We are
looking at innovative ways to try and finance the
recapitalization of our housing. It is very, very important to
our people that their families are in safe locations,
particularly at the high OPSTEMPO that we run when the members
are away from home a great deal. So yes, sir, it is very high
on our priority list.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions, but I will wait
for the second round, on missile defense.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Well, we will get back on
another round, I hope.
I am interested in continuing the discussion of the C-17.
Last year Senator Inouye and I, joined by our colleagues,
increased that buy by 60 and we are now up to 134, as I
understand it. I do not know whether the administration has
agreed to that yet, but I assume they have.
I am concerned and I think my colleague from Hawaii is
about the deployment plan for C-17's. Forces in our two States
are semi-forward deployed, both offshore, and yet those forces
are going to have to wait for C-17's to come from enormous
distances in order to project the forces stationed in our
States out into the area of possible crisis in the Pacific.
Now, General Ryan, the lift requirements and distance in
the Pacific theater are well-suited--the C-17 is well-suited
for those distances, is it not?
General Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Have you made the decision yet as to--I
know Secretary Peters said there is a study being made. Maybe
we cannot forejudge that, prejudge that. But it seems to me
that in the long term we need more 17's and we need to
recognize that the C-5 cannot fulfill that requirement out
there. Has that been assessed yet in the Air Force?
General Ryan. Sir, the mobility requirements study, which
is a look at our two nearly simultaneous major theater war
contingencies, will be completed this summer. Indications are
that it is going to come forward and say we do not have enough
lift in our current configuration.
Senator Stevens. It does not take a rocket scientist to
figure that out right now, General.
General Ryan. I do not think so, sir, but I think we need
to document it, and that is what that study is going to do.
Then the question is, ``what is the solution?'' As you know,
the C-5 does not achieve a very high in-commission rate. In
fact, it is at 60 percent right now. And our plans call for it
to be at 75 percent when we have one of these major
contingencies. So we are 15 percent short of where we need to
be with the C-5's just to begin with.
So I think when we finish this study this summer we will
have some insight into whether we want to continue on with C-5
upgrades or whether we want to balance that in some way against
an additional C-17 buy.
Senator Stevens. I am worried, and I think I have expressed
this to you and others before, I am worried that the current
plan for stationing the C-17 is going to result in the Army
deciding that they want to have their deployable troops
stationed within a few miles of those three bases in the
continental United States, so they can be rapidly moved by the
airlift. There would be less time involved in deployment, and
the net result will be, because of the decision on the
stationing of the C-17, we will alter the total alignment of
bases within the contiguous 48 States.
Meanwhile, forces that are stationed in our two States will
really just be sitting there waiting for others to be airlifted
over them and we are going to lose the whole concept of the
advanced deployment out into the Pacific of the forces
stationed in Hawaii and Alaska.
Does anyone else share that fear?
General Ryan. I do not share the fear that they would be
jumped over. I think that the forces in Alaska, the ground
forces both in Alaska and Hawaii, are very important to the
stability in the Pacific region. I do not see them being pulled
back in any way. I know of no plan to do that.
Senator Stevens. I do not see them being pulled back. I
just do not see them being able to respond to crises in the
timeframe they could if they have to wait for airlift from the
State of Washington or Nebraska or maybe even South Carolina.
It just does not make much sense.
Beyond that, I also think that the 134 we have now, if that
is going to be our one aircraft that we primarily rely upon to
have deployability to prevent crises from developing, that that
is not enough. Now, I am happy that I can say that. I do not
have any production in my State. I have no provincial interest
in it other than looking at it from the point of view of how do
the forces in our States get deployed in order to prevent
crises from developing in the Pacific.
I urge that that study be completed as soon as possible.
And I think it is going to affect that chart that shows the
allotment of funds out into the future. We have to take into
account the additional numbers of C-17's we will need or if you
decide to do the C-5.
I have got to tell you, I voted for the C-5, but it has
been a disappointment to me as a pilot. I just do not think it
has performed as we thought it would, and it does not have the
endurance in the long run that we thought it would have.
I do hope that we will get some information hopefully
before--when is that decision going to be made, Secretary
Peters?
Mr. Peters. I think it is currently in the July timeframe
for the Mobility Requirements Study (MRS) 2005. We have done
preliminary work on an analysis of alternatives for what we
call outsized and oversized cargo, which is the issue, the mix
of C-5's and C-17. Our analysis, which has been done primarily
by Mobility Command and United States Transportation Command
(USTRANSCOM), is that C-17 overall is likely to be a very cost
effective fleet.
The issue arises whether you want to have only a single
strategic airlifter and that is the very difficult judgmental
decision that has not been made yet. The difficulty is we
recently had to ground 200 of our 550 tankers, for example,
because of a single parts failure, and if you put all your eggs
in one basket like C-17 and you have a similar part failure,
you could find yourself very, very short of lift very quickly.
So the logisticians believe and are urging that we keep
both C-17 and C-5, and we are going to have to look at what it
really takes to keep C-5's. There are different alternatives,
from at the high end, reengining and doing other systems, to at
the low end, going through the avionics modernization program
which we have done, and perhaps putting the C-5's in the
Reserve and Guard where greater maintenance experience might
bring them back to life or at least sustain them at the
mission-capable rates they have.
So there are a number of those basing alternatives and
force structure alternatives that we really need to try to
resolve. Hopefully they will be resolved in time for the fiscal
year 2003 cycle or possibly for fiscal year 2002, depending on
how quickly it is done.
Senator Stevens. Well, we will go into that later in
another hearing. I would like to know what that transfusion for
the C-5's is going to cost compared to increasing the C-17's.
Have you got another one on the boards? Are we looking for
a replacement for the C-5, or is the C-17 the only replacement?
Mr. Peters. The C-17 is the only one at this point.
General Ryan. And the C-17 quite honestly can do the work
that the C-5 does. It does not have the capacity that the C-5
does, but it can carry the outsized and oversized cargo with
the exception of just a few pieces of equipment.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Sorry to take so much
time. Senator Inouye.
Oh, by the way, I am going to put in some questions for the
record that, like Senator Inouye, we do need some information
as we prepare. And I will state for the committee it is my
intention to try and get us an airplane to take the committee
down to Marietta, Georgia, and have a full briefing there where
we are talking to people who are involved in the F-22 and see
to it that the questions that anyone has here are answered. We
hope to be able to do that on either a Friday or a Monday
morning, depending upon the schedule. We will try to work it
out with you all.
But I think it is highly important that more people go and
see F-22 and talk to the people who are doing this testing and
get an understanding of where we are and what the holdup is. We
have done that and I am convinced in my mind that none of them
are serious enough to warrant any hiatus as far as the
procurement rate or the appropriations for procurement during
this coming year.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to associate myself with your statement and
question on the C-17 and just underscore that by suggesting
what others have suggested to us, that we should be carefully
considering the potential impact of the recent Taiwan
elections. The instability that exists in the Korean peninsula
is still there. There is instability in India-Pakistan. The
Southeast Asia-Indonesia problems are still not resolved. I
would think that the concerns expressed by the chairman should
be taken very seriously.
If I may ask a question, General, we added about $2 billion
to your readiness budget. Is that enough?
General Ryan. No, sir. We still have readiness shortfalls
in terms of spares, in terms of engines, reliability and
maintainability modifications that we can do, in terms of
training shortfall for munitions. We are still short in the
readiness account.
Senator Inouye. What amount do you think would do it?
Another 500?
General Ryan. On the readiness side, I'd have to answer--I
can give you the answer for the record. But we submitted along
with our testimony, along with our posture statement, an
unfunded priority list which lists in detail about $3.5 billion
that we think we are short in the budget this year to be able
to execute and turn around our readiness and our modernization.
Senator Inouye. Would you share that with us for the
record?
General Ryan. Yes, sir, I will answer that on the readiness
side for the record.
[The information follows:]
Readiness Budget
Our unfunded readiness priorities include 19 separate
requirements totaling $1 billion. Without funding for these
requirements, we can only sustain readiness gains made in last
year's budget. No significant improvement can be made to Air
Force readiness without this additional investment. Specific
readiness requirements were provided to you on 8 February.
Pilot shortage
Senator Inouye. General, on the matter of pilot shortage,
we have been advised that you have placed in headquarters
nonpilots to make certain that the pilot requirement is
maintained.
General Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. But at the same time, one would think that
you need pilots in the headquarters, men who have had
experience, the know-how. What do you think about that?
General Ryan. What we have done, Senator, is at the wing
level and below protect the pilot manning, and we have taken
the shortfall in the headquarters above, which means that we
are short about 40 percent of the pilots that we need in the
headquarters to do the work that we have laid out.
We have put some nonpilots into some of those positions,
and then we are working our pilot force very hard at the
headquarters level, very, very hard. We had some relief in the
legislation that was helpful. It allowed us to hire back, at
full rate, retirees who had pilot experience to help us in
those headquarters jobs. But those retirees are only, quite
honestly, good for 2 or 3 years because they lose their
currency then, and you need to bring in fresh and more current
people.
So we have tried to protect our fighting force at the wing
and below level and it has been at the expense and on the backs
of the pilots who serve in headquarters.
Senator Inouye. Well, that situation is not desirable, is
it?
General Ryan. No, sir, not at all.
Senator Inouye. What do we have to do here to bring about
some resolution of that problem?
General Ryan. Sir, I would say that we need to wait just
about 6 months to see whether this turnaround in pilot
retention as a result of pilot bonuses, some of the things we
have done in AEF, the retirement, the pay raises, et cetera,
will convince enough of our pilots to stay for a career.
These are wonderful people who are leaving us at the 9, 10-
year point. They have served their country. They have done
everything we have asked them to do. We have sent them to war
for the most part. Most of them served in the desert. It is our
fault that they do not want to stay for a career.
But I think the incentives are there right now to turn
around the pilot shortage and if we sustain what we have seen
in the first 4 months of this year, we should cut the pilot
deficit in half in about 2 or 3 years. So we see some positive
trends there.
So we will give a report back to you here in about 6 months
on where we think the real trend is.
[The information follows:]
Pilot Shortage
Last fall, the Secretary of the Air Force approved a white
paper entitled ``The Pilot Shortage: USAF's Integrated Plan,''
which was widely distributed to Congress. This white paper
provided a comprehensive overview of the issues associated with
the pilot shortage, and what the Air Force was doing to address
them. This paper is due to be updated by 31 October 2000, which
closely coincides with the timeframe that the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force promised to report back to the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee. The Air Force
will provide an update of the pilot white paper in October,
which will include a summary of the results of the fiscal year
2000 Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) Program.
Mr. Peters. If I may add one thing, one of the other ways
we have alleviated the shortage is to make very good use of our
Guard and Reserve. Now the Guard and Reserve are beginning to
see some of the same strains in their full-time forces as well
as their part-time forces that we have had because of OPSTEMPO
and the pay level. I think one of the things that is very
important is to make sure we continue toward pay and benefit
parity for the Guard and Reserve forces that serve with us so
often.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Airlift
With respect to the questions about the C-17, I have
supported the C-17. But I think the chairman asked questions
about what about beyond, what about in circumstances where a
contingency lift is needed. I know the Air Force at one point
kicked around the notion of commercial lift capability, the
acquisition of 747's, for example, as backstop. Where are you
in that discussion?
Mr. Peters. We have a robust and funded civil reserve air
fleet program. In fact, we do not have another airlifter on the
books, but 747 space has been available and actually has been
used heavily. We also are using a lot of charter air for
personnel movements.
We also have been working with industry to look to see if
there is a commercial market for C-17, which we think is a
business case that may be there if we have a multiyear
contract. We have been working with some very experienced
people in industry and the financial world in New York to look
to see whether some of the larger freight carriers might take a
commercial version of C-17 in circumstances under which we
would have early call on those if we needed them for a
contingency operation.
I will tell you the business case has not been there in the
past. We think we are getting close to it. It requires more
work. But we have asked the task force we have working with,
which includes General Walt Cross, the former Commander of
Transportation Command, and a number of other retirees and
businessmen, to keep going and to try to see whether there is,
in fact, a case that can be made to American transportation
companies that they should buy C-17's.
So that is the immediate course we are following.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
Airborne Laser
On Airborne Laser, I note that the restoration of the $92
million is high on the Air Force list of unfunded priorities.
If Congress were to restore the $92 million in the ABL for
fiscal year 2001, would the Air Force restore the $800 million
that is now missing in the out years? What is your impression
of where we go with ABL?
Mr. Peters. We would try hard. The numbers that are in this
year's budget represent a compromise between the Air Force,
which like you, thinks the ABL is a fabulous project, and
several folks outside the Air Force but inside the Government
who still have doubts that they raise every time we come around
to a budget question about the effectiveness of ABL. So what we
have reached is a compromise. We have kept the program on track
in fiscal year 2000 so money could be added.
Our view is the program is very well managed, it is very
capable, it is meeting its technical hurdles. And we did make a
major milestone, which was to convince Dr. Gansler to agree
that we could start the modification of the first ABL aircraft.
So that is ongoing. There was a minor impact from the Boeing
strike, but that is ongoing.
So the program is preserved so that we could add the money
and keep it going on track, and we would try hard to do that.
Senator Dorgan. The ABL I assume when deployed under
certain circumstances has National Missile Defense
capabilities, is that correct?
Mr. Peters. We think it could. We certainly think its
sensor suite could be very important in terms of locating
missiles and doing target analysis, and it may also help us
actually roll in a B-1 or a B-2 to hit the missile launchers.
But we believe it does have capability beyond theater missiles.
Senator Dorgan. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, submit some
questions on the B-52 and also National Missile Defense. I will
just submit them for the record and ask if I can get responses
to them.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Let me again thank General Ryan for your
service. We have two bases in North Dakota we are very proud
of. One is a core tanker base, the other is a Minuteman missile
and B-52 base. I know Secretary Peters has been there a number
of times, as has General Ryan.
Anyway, thank you for your service.
Mr. Peters. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Airborne Laser Program
Following up on Senator Dorgan's questions on the ABL, let
me ask you. In last year's budget the request was for $308.6
million, which you received, for the Airborne Laser Program.
The plan accompanying the request included $1.71 billion for
the fiscal year 2001 through 2005 period, with a first
intercept attempt in fiscal year 2003 and an initial operating
capability in fiscal year 2007.
Last year you certified to the Congress that the ABL
program was making satisfactory progress in reducing risk in
five key areas and it was indicated was on schedule, on budget,
meeting or exceeding its technical requirements.
In last year's budget submission, the Air Force had all the
money it needed for ABL in its out-years plan. In the fiscal
year 2001 budget request, $895 million or 52 percent is cut
from ABL over the fiscal years 2001-05 period. You testified
before the House Appropriations Committee that this was due to
affordability concerns.
How is it that the ABL was affordable and fully funded in
last year's plan, but this year it is now deemed to be
unaffordable despite its remaining within the budget?
Mr. Peters. It is unaffordable because of the higher
priority other items have had. It is still on budget, it is
still on schedule, it is still, in my view, meeting all
technical requirements. There are still some who worry about
the technical requirements point, but in the wake of Kosovo a
number of items became more important. One of the things,
Global Hawk for example, which we really felt we needed, and we
have accelerated that. Another, Joint Surveillance Target
Attack Radar System (JSTARS).
So, there are other items which we think are more pressing.
As General Ryan said, we think we have a $3.5 billion deficit
in the fiscal year 2001 budget of hard items that we could
execute today, and part of that is Airborne Laser.
Senator Cochran. The ABL system program office and the
prime contractor agree that cutting the program by $895 million
will delay the intercept attempt by at least 3 years and delay
the initial operating capability for the system by 5 to 7 years
and add $1 to $1.2 billion to the cost of the program. You also
testified to the House Appropriations Committee that cutting
the program by more than half would have no effect on the
initial operating capability of fiscal year 2007.
How is it possible to cut over 50 percent of the program's
budget over the next 5 years and have no impact on its
deployment date?
Mr. Peters. I do not remember testifying to that, except to
say at the time we made the decision we knew we were cutting
the intercept date from fiscal year 2003 to 2005, which I think
is still actually the position of the program office. The
contractor has said that the sky falls when we do that. My own
view is if the system works as planned in fiscal year 2005,
that people will want to accelerate its introduction, because
it, in fact, would be a very important capability.
Obviously, if it does not work in fiscal year 2005 we would
take the money for something else. But the state of the debate
is that the intercept is a critical issue in the program, and
if, in fact, it works as we hope it does in fiscal year 2005 it
will be an extremely effective theater missile defense (TMD)
system that will be available or could potentially be available
and deployed earlier than other theater missile defense systems
that are on the books.
So my belief is that if it meets its requirements
throughout, it is highly likely that it would be funded at a
higher and more rapid rate after it demonstrates capability.
Senator Cochran. The unclassified summary of the current
national intelligence estimate on ballistic missile threats to
the United States makes three key points. First is the theater
ballistic missile threat to deployed U.S. forces exists now;
second, that the United States will face a long-range ballistic
missile threat from states like North Korea and Iran in the
near future; and third, that the ballistic missile threat will
continue to become more severe for the foreseeable future.
I am advised that the ABL aircraft now being modified in
Wichita will be the first capability the United States has
against North Korean missiles of all ranges if the fiscal year
2000 schedule is maintained.
Given the fact that in August 1998 North Korea tested an
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), why do you believe
it prudent to delay the capability presented by the first ABL
aircraft?
Mr. Peters. Because, Senator, the theater missile defense
is one of a series of threats and problems that we have. We are
short on money and, as I have said before, there are others who
doubt the technical capability of the aircraft. This was a
compromise between many people and many other programs to try
to come up with a budget which met all of the needs we have
while being $3.5 billion short in the 2001 fiscal year.
So it is not a problem with the airplane. It is that we
have so many other systems which so desperately need money and
attention.
Senator Stevens. Could I interrupt?
Senator Cochran. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. What is the total amount needed, Mr.
Secretary?
Mr. Peters. It is on our unfunded priority list.
To restore the Airborne Laser, it is $92 million in fiscal
year 2001. It is a total of about $850 million, I think,
throughout the FYDP. But it is $92 million in fiscal year 2001,
$74 million in fiscal year 2002, and it ramps up from there.
Space based infrared system (SBIRS)
Senator Cochran. My last question, Mr. Chairman. I see you
cut off the light. That means I ask one more question?
Senator Stevens. You can have all the time in the world.
Senator Cochran. On SBIRS Low, this is another program that
I think is very important. It is the program definition risk
reduction (PDRR) program for SBIRS Low. The 38-month program
began in fiscal year 1999. It was recently described to Senate
staff by Air Force officials as a classic PDRR program for a
space system.
After spending 5 years and $1.2 billion on the
demonstration and validation phase of the SBIRS Low program,
the Air Force still has not set the requirements for the
program and does not know how many satellites will be part of
the objective system.
Given this record, why should we be confident the Air Force
intends to pursue this system aggressively, at a time when we
think it is of crucial importance to the ballistic missile
defense programs?
Mr. Peters. Let me address that. First of all, the
requirements are not being set by the Air Force. They are set
by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and by
OSD. So the requirements are not within our control, number
one.
Number two, a decision was made by Secretary Cohen some
months ago that we need to do spiral development on this
program because it is a high-risk program in terms of schedule
and that the priority ought to be to support the National
Missile Defense (NMD) and TMD mission. When that decision was
made, General Ryan and I urged that the program actually be
taken back into BMDO because that is where the requirements are
actually coming from and where the technical integration has to
occur, not in the Air Force.
So at the moment where we are on it is trying to get all
affected players, which is BMDO, the Joint Staff, Navy, and
Army, all of whom play in these systems, together. One of our
greatest difficulties is that this system supports the so-
called C-2 capability of NMD and there is no definition for
exactly what C-2 is, nor is there today a contract out for a C-
2 system.
So it goes beyond simply deciding what SBIRS Low needs to
be. We have to decide what the C-2 capability is, what the
technical requirements are, and where those technical
requirements are met between SBIRS High, SBIRS Low, and
indigenous and NMD systems. So we are in the process of trying
to sort this out. I have discussed this at some length with Dr.
Gansler, and the need for a better forum to try to tighten up
these requirements and make this prediction.
But this is a hard problem because we are trying to make a
SBIRS Low design today that is going to match a system that we
have not actually designed in the 2010 period. So we need to
move along on several different fronts, only one of which is
under our control.
Senator Cochran. It seems that after spending 5 years and
$1.2 billion, now we are being told that we are starting over
with a classic PDRR phase. It makes you wonder what the Air
Force was doing with all the money and the time preceding the
beginning of this phase in fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Peters. Senator, this has been a high-risk program
technically, and now from the schedule standpoint, for some
time, as confirmed by the Defense Science Board. The
difficulty, as you know, is that the NMD system itself has been
a moving program. It is very difficult to define requirements
and reduce risk when you do not know what this system
integrates into, and that is the continuing problem.
Senator Cochran. In the defense authorization bill in
fiscal year 1996 there was this provision: ``Although Space and
Missile Tracking System (SMTS)''--meaning SBIRS Low at the
time--``Although SMTS can over time become a multifunctional
sensor system capable of fulfilling missions such as technical
intelligence and battle station characterization, the conferees
direct the Air Force to ensure the SMTS flight demonstration
system (FDS) and block one system be designed primarily to
satisfy the missile defense mission. Missions not related to
theater and-or national ballistic missile defense should not be
allowed to add significant cost, weight, or delay to the SMTS,
FDS, or block one system.''
That is the quote, and to my knowledge this requirement has
not changed since this 1996 defense authorization bill was
passed.
Mr. Peters. We would agree with you, Senator. But that is
not the view of some of the other services who have to use
this, nor at the moment is it clear it is the view of the Joint
Staff. So again, this is a problem that we are an integral
participant in trying to resolve, but it is one that requires
all of the players to get focused on this.
The ultimate problem, as you know, those early systems on
SBIRS Low proved to be so cost prohibitive that we had to
cancel them, and that, of course, has been a setback as well.
But the difficulty now, as I say, is trying to predict exactly
what the technical requirements are overall for NMD and which
system in the system of systems provides those requirements. It
is, in fact, the Air Force view that we ought to be focusing on
NMD and TMD, but that is not the view of others in the
Department. That is what we are trying to sort out at this
point.
Senator Cochran. You are saying you have basically been
overruled in your effort to comply with this provision by the
higher-ups in OSD?
Mr. Peters. No, it is simply unresolved at this point. Let
me put it this way. We have proposed, and others feel, that
there needs to be earlier capability, for example TMD
capability, as well as NMD capability. And now the difficulty,
as you know, is the NMD system has been evolving. So we do not
have the C-2 capability on contract. My understanding is it is
not designed. And yet this satellite system has to feed
information into the C-2 configuration.
So we are trying to work the baseline for what is the C-2
configuration as well as SBIRS Low all at the same time.
Senator Stevens. Senator, if I could interrupt just a
minute. Senator Inouye and I have to go meet our old friend the
president of Egypt. So would you mind chairing now?
The next hearing for this committee will be next Wednesday
at 10 a.m., when the Army will appear before us. But if you and
Senator Hutchison would continue the questioning, I would
appreciate that.
Senator Cochran. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. So you are basically saying your hands are
tied and that you are not going to be able to ensure that the
requirements for other mission areas do not encroach on SBIRS
Low ballistic missile defense missions?
Mr. Peters. We are certainly urging the position that you
just read, that they should not, and that is what I have urged
as recently as last week to Dr. Gansler. But the difficulty is
to get a consensus on exactly what that means, and also then,
as I say, the further technical problem of trying to design
this, what is essentially a subsystem of a missile defense
system, to marry up with the other pieces, which are BMDO,
Navy, and Army systems. So that is the difficulty, trying to
get everybody on the same page, and it is a difficult problem.
Senator Cochran [presiding]. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Cochran. And I
appreciate your questions on the Airborne Laser because I am in
agreement with your position.
Base closure and realignment (BRAC)
I understand a lot of the issues have already been taken up
and I want to just ask one question. It is on the Brooks Air
Force Base issue that you have certainly been forward thinking
about. That is the city base pilot program that is getting
ready to be put in place so that you can have more of a sharing
of infrastructure costs on bases. I want to say first that I
appreciate very much your willingness to think beyond the box
in looking at ways to make our bases more efficient while we do
not have a BRAC in place. I am one who does not support a BRAC
right now because I do not think we have absorbed the last
ones.
But having said that, I wanted to ask you how you think the
pilot program is going, what you think will be usable in other
bases, and if you think that we can do enough efficiencies with
this kind of sharing that perhaps it would alleviate the need
for future BRAC's or even one less future BRAC?
Mr. Peters. Let me say, Senator, that when I have traveled
around the country talking about BRAC issues, State and local
government officials everywhere I have gone have said that: If
you would let us start the renewal and the reengineering before
you kill the base, it sure would help us out.
As you know, Kelly Air Force Base was subject to a BRAC and
is now doing fairly well. But the point that many officials
have made, if you would let us start the reuse before you shut
the whole base, then we would have an economic base. Then even
if you decided to shut it, it would not be such an impact on
the local community.
So what we are trying to do with the Brooks city base
concept is build on a significant interest from the city of San
Antonio and the State of Texas to try to demonstrate that
underutilized areas of the base can be reutilized in advance of
a BRAC, with the idea that space which is today kind of vacant
land would actually be able to be used for facilities perhaps
similar to what we have there, which is medical research, or
alternatively for innovative concepts such as a tourist mecca
in an area of the city which is part of urban renewal.
Brooks Air Force Base
So we are using all of our tools, actually including things
like historically underutilized business (HUB) zones, to try to
work to build the city and the base closer together. As I have
talked to Members in the other House about this concept, which
has been an area which has had some concern, I think there is
now agreement that the Brooks concept is a very, very good one
in many areas where we have bases. Many of our bases are
located next or near to urban environments where there is a
strong demand for business. We think there is a synergy, for
example, between the medical research we are doing at Brooks
and things that the university system in Texas may want to do.
Similarly, we have other tenants on bases. For example in
Albuquerque we have Department of Energy (DOE) and others on
the base. It seems to me that one could easily see universities
and others being interested in being on the base and utilizing
property that is underutilized today and sharing some of the
costs of the base. So I think this is potentially exportable to
many of our bases and perhaps many of the other services' bases
which are located in areas of the country which are enjoying
economic expansion, as San Antonio is, indeed, as much of the
country is today.
So our hope would be that this will be a success. Right now
there are some, what I would call tweaks, that several Members
of the House would like to see in the bill. My understanding is
we have worked out a fairly good compromise on what that needs
to be. The environmental impact statement is the next step, as
it always is. It is funded and is under way.
So I think as soon as we have a final version of
legislation, whenever that would be, in the next several
months, even as late as late summer, we would be prepared to
move out. We would have done the environmental work. And we are
actively talking with the city of San Antonio about their
plans. I know they are actively talking to both industry and
academia about various plans that work on the site.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I know I was speaking to a border
health conference a couple of weeks ago in San Antonio and I
think some of the research on some of the diseases that are
particularly prevalent on the border may be done at Brooks.
That is just one more area where I think there could be a
really good base of operation for research facilities.
But let me ask the second part of my question again, and
that is if you see this not as necessarily a transition to
closing a base, but if there could be enough efficiencies by
this kind of sharing that it might make the base more desirable
and also be a substitute for a future BRAC?
Mr. Peters. I think the economic studies that we and the
city of San Antonio have done show that if we are successful
with what is left there, the part of Brooks we actually use
today, would, in fact, be a very economically efficient base
and would be one that would be advantageous probably to keep,
given the sharing of costs and things that would go on.
We have looked around Air Force bases and believe this
would provide a model in a number of other areas which would
allow us to get rid of excess space without actually shutting
down the base. Now, we do not really have a good handle yet on
how many places that would be, but I think it might be a
significant number. How exactly it would play into BRAC I am
not sure. We have some bases, which I think are not readily
adaptable to reuse in this way and some of those I believe
would still be excess.
Senator Hutchison. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
letting me ask those questions.
Once again, I want to thank you, Secretary Peters and
General Ryan. I know I came to the earlier briefing on the F-22
and I thought it was an excellent briefing about the strategic
need for the F-22. I appreciate having that and hope others
will be able to get the benefit of that information.
I just want to thank you for working with us in Texas.
Certainly we have a number of bases and a number of issues, and
we appreciate the cooperation and the good working relationship
that we have had.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Additional committee questions
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chief of Staff. We appreciate
very much your cooperation with our committee and your
responsiveness to our questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you.
General Ryan. Thank you, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. F. Whitten Peters
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
f-22 block 3.0 software development
Question. Are we adding excessive risk and cost to the F-22 program
by trying to accelerate the first flight of the Block 3.0 software?
Answer. The delivery date of Block 3.0 software was accelerated
from December 2000 to October 2000 to ensure enough schedule margin to
meet the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) criteria of Block 3.0 first
flight prior to Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract award in
December 2000. Once Block 3.0 has been loaded, flight testing of unique
Block 3 functionality will commence and continue until Block 3.1 is
delivered. Accelerating the Block 3.0 delivery date does increase risk,
but we do not believe the risk is excessive. The acceleration should
not increase cost, because the program has been restructured.
Flight testing of the Block 3.0 software remains one of the most
challenging of this year's F-22 program criteria. The recent 38-day
strike by the software engineers and technicians at Boeing and Lockheed
only made this challenge more significant. As schedule risk mitigation,
the Air Force recently decided not to certify Block 3S for flight in an
actual F-22, although Block 3S will still be extensively tested in the
Avionics Integration Laboratory (AIL) and on the Flying Test Bed (FTB).
This rescission mitigates some of the schedule risk incurred during the
Boeing strike and enables us to start Block 3.0 integration in the AIL
on 15 May as previously planned. Block 3.0 software encompasses all of
the capabilities of Block 3S, as well as adding additional
capabilities.
Currently, the program does not foresee any technical or non-
technical issues which would delay the start of Block 3.0 flight
testing past December 2000. The F-22 avionics team will continue to
take a disciplined development approach to deliver a mature Block 3.0
software capability to the test aircraft without adding risk and/or
cost to the F-22 program.
Question. If there were problems with the Block 3.0 software, would
we be likely to slow F-22 production or look to fix problems in the
Block 3.1 software?
Answer. A specific solution to any software problem would be
dependent on the magnitude of the potential impacts. For most problems,
the production programs would continue as planned, and the problem(s)
would be fixed in a subsequent software release. With all development
programs, the possibility does exist for a solution that would involve
both software and hardware changes which could impact the production
program. However, any problem/solution will be addressed when it is
discovered. The F-22 team does not know of, or anticipate problems with
the software performance or schedule which would impact the current
production schedule.
f-22-strike impact and cost growth
Question. What other Air Force programs were affected by the Boeing
strike and what the consequences are?
Answer. Boeing and the Society of Professional Engineering
Employees in America (SPEEA) settled the strike after 38 days. The
strike had an impact on numerous Air Force Programs which include the
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Airborne Laser (ABL), B-1, B-2,
Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM), C-17, USAF AWACS,
NATO AWACS, and the E-4B, NAOC Aircraft programs.
JSF:
The strike will have some impact to the JSF program. Specific
program impacts are currently being assessed. There may be some impact
to the first flight of the CTOL variant scheduled for late Spring 2000.
However, source selection is still scheduled for March 2001 and at this
time there has been no impact to the overall program schedule.
ABL:
The ABL program experienced only a minor impact in the area of
software development, but will recover schedule by the end of the year.
No major milestones were impacted, and the system Critical Design
Review (CDR) is still scheduled for 25-27 April 2000.
B-1:
The strike delayed the B-1 Conventional Mission Upgrade Program;
both Block E (Computer upgrade) and Block F (Defensive System Upgrade
Program) slipped approximately two months.
B-2:
Northrop Grumman and Boeing are evaluating the strike's impact on
the B-2 program. The B-2 Program Office is anticipating the following
impacts: potential reduction in the number of Boeing software fixes
that can be incorporated in the next developmental software version;
late delivery of the Long Term Software Support (LTSS) Avionics
Simulator by up to 12 weeks; late development of an improved JSOW
Launch Acceptability Region (LAR) capability; and late delivery of the
JASSM Mission Independent Data (MID) file. The late delivery of the
JASSM MID file is not anticipated to impact the JASSM integration
schedule. A Northrop Grumman-Boeing team will convene at the end of
April 2000 to definitize these schedule impacts, as well as assess any
associated cost increases.
Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM):
The CALCM program has been affected by the strike. There is no
affect on the replenishment of the AGM-86C Block 1 missiles. However,
the AGM-86C Block 1A ALCM to CALCM conversion is estimated to be one
month behind the original contract schedule and the AGM-86D Penetrator
program is estimated to be two months behind.
C-17:
The C-17 program experienced two minor impacts as a result of the
Boeing engineer's strike. One was a delay in a current Material
Improvement Program investigation on avionics cooling fans. The other
was a delay in lightning testing and subsequent test reports on
component parts. At this time, the Air Force believes that these delays
will not financially impact the C-17 program.
USAF AWACS:
Even though the Boeing engineering strike has caused some interim
delays, there will be no impact to any fielding of capability. AWACS
production and install support efforts were unaffected by the strike.
The major RSIP follow-on production effort was not yet on contract.
An example of interim delays is the loss of specific software
personnel on the Data Link Infrastructure (DLI) team. Boeing plans to
move people with the necessary skills from elsewhere in the company or
hire additional people. No long-term impact is projected.
NATO AWACS:
The one substantial full-up EMD AWACS program is NATO Mid-Term
(NMT). The Boeing engineering strike played a role in the 8-month slip
in this program. Additional manpower is being added to overcome delays
in the program. NMT had been encountering schedule problems prior to
the strike due to software progress and vendor deliveries. Current year
budgetary impact is minimal since this EMD effort is a Firm Fixed Price
Contract.
E-4B, NAOC Aircraft:
The E-4B program was minimally affected by the Boeing engineering
strike. The affect was to delay E-4B work related to commercial
aircraft issues, such as deviations to standard aircraft repairs. These
instances arose during Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) activity on
the one E-4B, # -677, but did not result in a delay of the PDM
completion date.
c-17 requirements and pricing
Question. Starting in 2003, the Air Force rate for C-17's changes
to 9, then 5, and finally 8 aircraft in 2005. How can the C-17
production line remain efficient under such a plan?
Answer. The outyear C-17 buy profile is currently not structured
for production efficiency. These additional 14 aircraft (1 in fiscal
year 2003, 5 in fiscal year 2004 and 8 in fiscal year 2005) were added
into the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget subject to fiscal
constraints, and assume a procurement rate of 15 aircraft per year. The
Air Force plans to adjust production rate and funding after the total
C-17 follow-on requirement is determined, and the possibility of
foreign or commercial sales is better understood. The Air Force expects
a firm follow-on requirement after the results of the Mobility
Requirements Study 2005 and the Outsize and Oversize Analysis of
Alternatives are released this Fall. In addition, the Air Force will
consider potential commercial and foreign military sales with Air Force
buys to smooth the production rate and gain production line
efficiencies.
Question. What rationale supports the Air Force's pricing of the
outyear C-17's at a 15 aircraft per year price?
Answer. Currently, the Air Force is reexamining the C-17
requirements. Mobility study results (Mobility Requirements Study 2005
(MRS-05) and Oversize and Outsize Analysis of Alternatives) are due to
be published in Fall 2000. Based on our expected force structure and
basing in 2005, we believe MRS-05 will show that the requirement for
strategic lift and the C-17 is growing. Additionally, the Air Force is
considering potential direct commercial and foreign military sales with
Air Force buys to smooth the production rate and gain production line
efficiencies. To accommodate these emerging requirements, the Air Force
is examining the contractual, programmatic and budgeting issues
associated with purchasing additional C-17s in the outyears. Once the
total C-17 follow-on requirement is determined, the Air Force plans to
adjust production rate and funding.
joint strike fighter (jsf) acquisition strategy
Question. Would you agree that taking an industrial base approach
to JSF acquisition will add cost to the program?
Answer. A cost increase is possible should there be a change in the
acquisition strategy. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is
reviewing all options. Short term cost increases due to split
production would be weighed against potential long term procurement
savings.
As a part of acquisition reform,the Under Secretary of Defense
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has commissioned a review of the
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) acquisition strategy to include looking at
potential alternatives. The review is not limited to specific options;
rather, any potential option with merit will be considered. The review
is not related to the source selection process and will not make
specific recommendations. It will only present options for
consideration; the current acquisition strategy has not changed.
Currently, the winning contractor will be free to subcontract any work
under his control as necessary to provide the best value.
Dr. Gansler directed that three industry consultants offer a set of
top level, potential acquisition strategy options. A senior government
team is reviewing the options and will provide recommendations to him.
One of the options will be maintaining the current winner-take-all
strategy. Very importantly, the options should have virtually no impact
on international industry participation. There are no new factors
driving the decision to examine potential alternatives. This is a
proper and responsible action to take at this time in light of the fact
the program is approaching the down-select to the engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) phase in Spring 2001.
The senior government team is reviewing the implications of these
alternatives on the supporting industries to understand the long-term
industrial base implications. Maintaining at least two industrial
sources for sophisticated weapons systems and subsystems has become a
priority in recent years after the defense-industry consolidation of
the 1990s. Ensuring future competition and maintaining the military
aircraft industrial base is in the best interests of the United States.
Dr. Gansler has stated: ``We believe special efforts are required to
ensure both firms remain healthy and competitive after'' the contract
is awarded, ``and yet we have to declare a sure winner.''
The senior government team's outbrief is due within a month. DOD's
decision on the JSF acquisition strategy should be made to support the
release of the draft solicitation to the JSF prime contractors in June.
uae f-16/air force f-16 derivatives
Question. Has the Air Force looked at whether a ``Block 70'' F-16
would provide an affordable option for replacing aging F-16's?
Answer. Response below refers to F-16 Block 60; there is no Block
70.
The USAF remains committed to procuring F-16 Block 50 aircraft to
build force structure required for the Expeditionary Aerospace Force
and for the attrition reserve. The Air Force will also modernize
existing F-16s.
F-16 Block 60 aircraft are very capable but very expensive. These
aircraft are an improved version of the current F-16 and are equipped
with the following upgraded systems: Agile Beam Radar, Enhanced
Improved Performance Engine, Conformal Fuel Tanks, Advanced
Architecture Avionics, and 57 Color Displays.
Recent briefings to the SECAF and CSAF presented ROM costs of
between $44 million and $48 million per copy, in fiscal year 1999
dollars. These prices include Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) and
Support (ILS) costs. The ``Basic'' Block 60 could be procured for
approximately $44.4 million; the more advanced F-16X (U.S. version of
UAE F-16) would cost approximately $48.5 million. At these price
levels, we believe it would be more advantageous to buy the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF), which provides many more capabilities than the
Block 60.
Current USAF F-16 inventory are selectively scheduled to undergo
the Falcon STAR (Structural Augmentation Roadmap) modification. This
program increases service life to 8,000 hours for all F-16 C/D models
and is considerably less expensive overall than ``wholesale''
replacement of airframes. A subsequent upgrade program might use some
Block 60 components to upgrade earlier F-16s.
In summary, ongoing structural and capabilities modifications will
enhance the current F-16 fleet until the JSF enters the inventory.
air force exercises and readiness training
Question. Can you explain the Air Force decision to absorb
contingency costs for 2001 from within your fiscal year 2001 O&M
program budget? I understand that this will allow you to execute all of
the flying hour resources requested in this budget.
Answer. In the past, the active Air Force requested additional
funding for incremental flying hours to support contingency operations.
The decision to absorb flying hour contingency costs within the fiscal
year 2001 O&M budget was based on previous years' experience. That
experience indicated that, at current operation levels, flying hours
required to support contingency operation taskings could be
accomplished within the O&M budgeted flying hours and related funding.
This policy change promotes full execution of the requested President's
Budget resources.
sbirs high cost increase
Question. So you believe that gapping the SBIRS High production
line for a year and completing limited additional testing is worth the
program cost increase of $130 million?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Conference restricted
obligation of program funds until ``program concurrency risk has been
reduced relative to the acquisition strategy proposed by the Joint
Estimating Team (JET).'' In response to this, the Air Force delayed the
Geosynchronous (GEO) 3-5 advanced procurement by one year to fiscal
year 2002 and the full-funding to fiscal year 2003. The government
estimates this delay will cost an additional $98 million over the JET,
but allows for some additional risk reduction before GEO 3-5 advanced
procurement. The selected approach minimized production gap costs by
maintaining the production schedules at the payload and satellite
integration levels, but could not avoid gapping the subcontractor and
vendor production lines at the lower piece-part and component levels.
During a 13 January 2000 meeting in Sunnyvale, the contractor briefed
you that this revised strategy would cost an additional $127 million
above the JET. The final price will be known when negotiations are
completed this May.
The Air Force did not recommend the revised strategy, but accepted
it as a reasonable balance between reduced concurrency risk and
increased cost. We participated in the strategy reviews with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and
agreed that the additional testing had merit. Although we concurred in
the revised strategy for SBIRS High, we acknowledge that many
successful space programs have levels of concurrency as great as the
original JET program. Therefore, we do not believe that the reduced
concurrency decisions on SBIRS High should have a general application
to future space programs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
joint strike fighter--open systems
Question. What is JSF doing to achieve a truly open system that
delivers on the promise of lower cost, better supportability, and being
able to cope with rapidly changing technology?
Answer. Beginning in 1994, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program
has evolved a definition of open systems architecture, and open
architecture attributes, with our weapon system contractors (WSCs) and
the involvement of the DOD Open System Joint Task Force (OS-JTF).
Additionally, we have consulted with numerous industry and academic
representatives in this area. We have documented this evolving
definition of open systems in the JSF Avionics Architecture Definition
Document (JAAD), to which each of our WSCs have responded with a JAAD
Annex during the Concept Demonstration Phase (CDP) that depicts their
detailed response to the JAAD precepts. Both WSCs are currently in the
process of transferring their open architecture design into their
specification hierarchy.
Fundamentally, the JAAD is consistent with the Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) Architecture Framework (CAF) and defines a
complete representation of an open architecture as a series of views:
operational, system and technical. Critically, the system view is
comprised of five models: hardware, software, functional, information
and dynamic. In total, the views and models define a complete,
internally consistent architecture that employs a layered software
architecture, modular hardware and software, commercially-based
hardware and software products that meet the tactical timeline
requirements of the JSF missions. Layered, modular software and
modular, commercial-off-the-shelf based hardware are key to functional
growth, tailorability for foreign military sales (FMS) customers and
international partners, achieving and sustaining an interoperable
platform, and mitigation of diminishing manufacturing source (DMS)
issues throughout the system lifecycle.
Question. What lessons has JSF learned from earlier programs like
F-22 and Commanche that use integrated avionics, and what are you doing
to benefit from their experience?
Answer. The JSF program has remained involved with many previous
programs in order to understand and incorporate lessons learned. For
JSF, the key lessons learned regarding open systems are as follows:
--Open systems design without requisite business practices will not
work.
--Technical standards alone define neither open-ness nor architecture
and do not guarantee interoperability.
--Architecture is about systems engineering process and organizing
system structure; functional block diagrams do not define
architecture.
--Selection of implementing technologies (e.g., a specific processor
type) can occur, and must occur, just prior to production.
--Subcontractors must be completely involved up front and early in
Concept Demonstration Phase (CDP); evidence to the contrary is
a key indicator that the architecture is undefined.
--Open systems architecture is critical to technology obsolescence
mitigation, interoperability, and minimization of regression
test requirements.
--Benchmarking of implementing technologies (e.g., installed
processor and network performance) prior to Engineering and
Manufacturing Development (EMD) is critical.
--Attributes of an open architecture must be viewed as a legitimate
system requirement in a performance-based specification.
air force plans for directed energy
Question. What aspects of the High Energy Laser Master Plan would
the Air Force underscore in particular?
Answer. The Air Force sees the Department of Defense Laser Maser
Plan as a positive step. For many years, the Air Force has been the
only Service funding a significant laser program in its budget. The Air
Force has supported the Airborne Laser program since 1994, plus a
strong Science and Technology program in this area since the 1960s,
with its unique major facility at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.
In addition, the Air Force and the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization have jointly funded the Space Based Laser technology
program. This master plan will bring the other Services and Defense
Agencies into this key area.
The Air Force will work with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Science and Technology in implementing this plan. Implementation
details are currently being worked and have not yet been provided to
the Air Force, however, we have been assured the new four-level
organization outlined in the plan will deal only with new funding and
will not make unilateral changes to the Air Force's strong laser
program. The Air Force laser program is designed to meet specific Air
Force needs and is a key part of the Air Force's Directed Energy Master
Plan currently in final coordination within the Air Force.
The Air Force agrees funding increases in this area will be
beneficial and should be aligned with the Department's priorities.
Thus, we strongly support the development of Departmental laser
roadmaps. We also strongly agree the industrial base in this area needs
to be strengthened, but caution that the Science and Technology Program
is not the best way to build and maintain a strong industrial base in
any area. Our master plan also calls for increased interactions with
the national laboratories and we agree with the recommendation that
these interactions be based on a cost-sharing arrangement.
Question. What sort of synergies could be leveraged or advantages
could be derived for directed energy programs through the recommended
type of defense-wide administration and decision-making structure?
Answer. Since the details of the implementation of this decision-
making structure have not yet been provided to the Air Force, it is
difficult to predict exactly what advantages will be realized from the
planned four-level management structure within the Office of the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology. Since almost all
of the laser funding requested in the current President's Budget is in
support of Air Force programs, synergies will depend on new sources of
funding for laser technology being made available. With new funding, we
should see both existing technologies and new technologies being made
available for a much wider range of defense applications. This
management structure should be able to ensure any new programs will
make maximum use of existing resources such as the world-class
laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.
kirtland's space vehicles directorate
Question. There have been some rumors circulating regarding the
Space Vehicles Directorate at Kirtland AFB being dissolved and these
functions being relocated to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. I have no
official confirmation of any such plans on the part of the Air Force.
Can you verify for me that these are nothing but rumors? Does the
Air Force have any short- or long-term plans to radically change the
operations of the Space Vehicles Directorate at Kirtland Air Force
Base?
Answer. The Air Force has no information regarding any potential
relocation of Space Vehicles Directorate functions from Kirtland Air
Force Base, New Mexico.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
c-17
Question. Regarding our airlift capability, as we pull back from
overseas bases and expect our military forces to respond quickly to any
situation anywhere in the world we have seen the C-17 used over and
over again with great success. It appears to me we should be talking
about increasing C-17 production and not decreasing it. Will you please
confirm for us that next year's budget submission will restore funding
to 15 aircraft per year?
Answer. The current multi-year procurement contract remains in
place with the procurement of the remaining 35 aircraft complete by
fiscal year 2003 (12 aircraft in fiscal year 2001, 15 aircraft in
fiscal year 2002 and 8 aircraft in fiscal year 2003). Additionally, the
original delivery schedule remains intact ensuring no loss of planned
airlift capability.
For future buys, the Air Force is reexamining the C-17
requirements. Mobility study results (Mobility Requirements Study 2005
(MRS-05) and Oversize and Outsize Analysis of Alternatives) are due for
publication in Fall 2000. Based on our expected force structure and
basing in 2005, we believe MRS-05 will show the requirement for
strategic lift and the C-17 is growing. To accommodate these emerging
requirements, the Air Force is examining the contractual, programmatic
and budgeting issues associated with purchasing additional C-17s in the
outyears.
f-15 foreign military sales (fms)
Question. The Administration is supportive of our Foreign Military
Sales programs, including such programs as the F-16 and F-15 which help
support our critical and dwindling tactical aircraft manufacturing
base, am I correct? That is why I am looking for continued support for
F-15 FMS to Saudi Arabia and South Korea to ensure we clearly
communicate to both these countries the need to make a substantive
decision as soon as possible.
Let me update you then on my most recent efforts. I have asked
General Zinni, Commander-in-Chief, Central Command, to assist me in
determining the status of potential F-15 Foreign Military Sales to
Saudi Arabia. His staff told us that Monday morning (27 MAR) the CINC
had a conversation with our U.S. Chief of Training in Saudi Arabia. The
feedback is that although Saudi Arabia has made no commitment, they are
considering the offer of a package of six to 12 F-15s made by Boeing.
I have also asked Admiral Blair and General Gamble to assist me in
F-15 Foreign Military Sales to South Korea and I hope to meet with
General Gamble next week when he is here in Washington. On April 6,
Senator Ashcroft will meet with Lee Hong-Koo, Ambassador of South Korea
to discuss F-15 FMS, and he plans to meet with the Saudi Ambassador as
soon as the Ambassador is back in country. While our efforts to secure
FMS continue, I look forward to working with you and your staff and ask
that you be available to assist General Zinni, Admiral Blair, and
General Gamble as they work with us in securing FMS for the F-15.
Answer. The Air Force is working closely with the Chief, United
States Military Training Mission (USMTM) and the Boeing company to
develop a proposal to transfer up to 24 F-15 aircraft through an
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) letter of acceptance (LOA), with initial
deliveries beginning in October 2003. The LOA is part of a
comprehensive Boeing proposal to assist the Saudis in developing an
aerospace support industry. A key facet of this assistance will be
provision of tooling and training, through the FMS LOA, to perform
final assembly of kits in kingdom. This initial training will support
other offset programs with Boeing's current joint venture partners.
The proposal is being evaluated by senior levels of both our
governments, primarily from the standpoint of affordability. As this
assessment continues, we are working closely with USMTM and the Royal
Saudi Air Force (RSAF) to encourage the Saudi government to submit a
formal letter of request for this program soon enough to allow us to
notify the sale to Congress and have the Saudi government accept the
LOA before 31 December 2000. These milestones protect the current price
and delivery schedule, based on the U.S. Air Force buy of F-15 aircraft
this year.
Answer. (South Korea Interest in F-15E): On 8 April 2000, the
Republic of Korea Ministry of National Defense (ROK MND) issued a
Request for Proposal (RFP) to foreign competitors for the Future
Fighter (F-X) program. The Republic of Korea Government (ROKG) selected
competitors are the Boeing F-15E, French Rafael, Spain's Eurofighter
2000, and the Russian SU-35. At this time, the ROK MND is pursuing the
procurement of forty (40) F-X aircraft via Direct Commercial Sale (DCS)
channels. The RFP requests the contractors submit proposals for both
direct purchase and in-country licensed production by 30 June 2000. The
ROKG expects the final weapon system selection to occur in July 2001
and to be on contract by December 2001. The ROKG requires delivery of
the jets in increments of ten (10) from CY 2004-2007. Boeing has
requested the U.S. Air Force (USAF) support the upcoming Test and
Evaluation (T&E) phase of the F-X program and to expedite release of
classified portions of the proposal. The ROKG requested the F-15E T&E
segment occur during the 17 September-13 October 2000 timeframe. USAF
support will be needed in October 2000 to satisfy the requirement for
approximately twenty flight sorties; site is TBD. Other parts of the
T&E include detailed briefings and simulator time at Boeing/St. Louis
and tours of USAF depot maintenance facilities and flight-line
operations.
The Air Force International Affairs Office will continue to work
closely with Gen. Gamble's office (Headquarters Pacific Air Forces),
Boeing, and the U.S. security assistance representatives in Korea to
support the potential future sale of F-15Es to the Republic of Korea.
f-15e fiscal year 2000 appropriation
Question. Fiscal year 2000 Appropriations for F-15E production
originally called for procurement of 5 aircraft. It is my understanding
a tentative agreement between Air Force and Boeing would allow for
procurement of 4 aircraft by using both fiscal year 2000 Appropriations
and Advance Procurement F-15E funds for fiscal year 2001. While I
understand there is some concern about reprogramming fiscal year 2001
Advance Procurement funds, are you prepared to do all you can to get a
contract signed between Boeing and Air Force so that we can obligate
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations and get our skilled Boeing workforce
back to work while we continue to pursue Foreign Military Sales?
Answer. The Air Force awarded a contract on 3 May 2000 to the
Boeing Company for three F-15Es with options for a fourth and a fifth
aircraft. This action allows the Service to avoid the immediate effects
of contractor-identified cost growth associated with the existing
production line break at the Boeing St Louis facility.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
global command support system (gcss)
Question. Mr. Secretary, could you please reiterate to the
Committee, the overall importance of GCSS to the Air Force's future
ability to maintain its warfighting logistics chain and to efficiently
operate its bases.
Answer. I would like to recount the words published in the USAF's
2000 Posture Statement: ``Global Combat Support System--Air Force
(GCSS-AF) is a key enabler of Agile Combat Support (ACS) and provides a
framework for integrating our critical combat support information
systems and process across functional areas. It will provide the
warfighter and supporting elements with timely, accurate, and trusted
ACS information to execute the full spectrum of military operations.''
GCSS-AF is the means by which ACS Automated Information Systems
(AISs) will be modernized and integrated to improve business processes.
This will allow Joint Commanders, their staffs, and ACS functional
personnel at all ranks and echelons to successfully carry out their
assigned missions with the greatest effectiveness and efficiency with
the least amount of exposure of our forces to enemy action.
The Air Force has made several specific financial and
organizational changes that demonstrate the importance the AF puts on
GCSS-AF:
First, the Air Force provided additional funding ($21 million) in
the GCSS-AF fiscal year 2001 budget request, more than doubling the
fiscal year 2000 funding level. For fiscal year 2002-fiscal year 2007,
additional funding of $25 million/year plus inflation has been approved
by the Secretary of the Air Force.
Second, a separate Directorate for GCSS-AF was created on 1
November 1999 under the leadership of Brig. Gen. Anthony Bell reporting
directly to the AF Chief Information Officer, Dr. Delaney. Also, the
Director for Information Dominance Programs under Dr. Delaney has
established a Global Combat Support Division to provide acquisition
staff support to the GCSS-AF effort.
Third, within the Department of Defense, we have partnered with the
Defense Information System Agency to ensure our Air Force initiative is
consistent with the technical architecture being developed for the DOD.
officer shortages
Question. Would you agree that an additional way to combat the
officer shortage is to provide officer candidates with the best and
most efficient training facilities available?
Answer. An efficient, safe, and professional training environment
is indeed a major factor in motivation and retention for new USAF
officer trainees and cadets. These accessions and newly commissioned
lieutenants draw their first impression of the world's finest Air Force
from their training facilities. Therefore, these training facilities,
the first stop on their service path, should be at their finest--first
class and top-notch. We believe a quality training installation is an
investment in the future that will pay intangible dividends in improved
retention of Air Force officers. By building and maintaining high
quality training facilities, supporting technology readiness
initiatives and infrastructure (including furniture), the Air Force:
(1) invests early in talented people by strengthening their service
commitment and pride and (2) achieves excellence in training mission
capability and accomplishment. We appreciate the $42.1 million in
appropriation dollars we have already received to begin building an
Officer Training School (OTS) campus. We need your continued support to
meet our expanded officer production requirement of 3,700 officer
accessions per year through OTS and Air Force Reserve Officer Training
Corps (AFROTC). Your support will further emphasize that providing
officer candidates with the best and most efficient training facilities
available is a very good way to combat our officer shortages.
officer training
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have been told that the number of
officer candidates scheduled to train at Maxwell Air Force Base will
continue to rise. In light of that fact, would you agree that the Air
Force should continue to place a priority on the completion of the
Officer Training School's campus?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, we will commission approximately 1,200
officers through Officer Training School (OTS). We hope to increase
this number to a minimum of 1,700 officers per year beginning in fiscal
year 2001. Many of the OTS construction projects are either complete or
under construction including: new academic facilities, a fitness
center, dining facility, and dormitories. These projects have been
added at a cost of $46 million. We believe a quality training
installation is an investment in the future that will pay tangible
dividends in improved retention of Air Force officers. By building and
maintaining high quality training facilities, supporting technology
readiness initiatives and infrastructure (including furniture), the Air
Force: (1) invests early in talented people by strengthening their
service commitment and pride and (2) achieves excellence in training
mission capability and accomplishment. We need your continued support
to meet our expanded officer production requirement of 3,700 officer
accessions per year through OTS and Air Force Reserve Officer Training
Corps (AFROTC). Your support will further emphasize that providing
officer candidates with the best and most efficient training facilities
available is critical to combat our officer shortages.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
recruiting concerns
Question. Mr. Secretary, I understand the Air Force failed to meet
its recruiting goals last year and in the first quarter of this fiscal
year as well. Can you tell us how you are addressing this problem, and
whether you are seeing any improvement?
Answer. The Air Force entered fiscal year 2000 with only 32 percent
of our accession goal in the bank, compared to the target of 43
percent. Therefore, we started the year behind the power curve in an
already demanding environment. As of 30 April 2000, we are 3,366
accessions behind for the fiscal year; however, we are committed to
achieving our fiscal year 2000 accession goal of 34,000. Through our
newly formed Recruiting and Retention Task Force, we are evaluating and
have started implementing 120 initiatives to help meet the fiscal year
2000 goal. We have aggressively worked to increase the number of Air
Force recruiters in the field; we began the year at 1,085 total
production recruiters, are currently at 1,199, will have 1,450 in the
field by September 2000, and 2,000 by the end of calendar year 2001. In
the meantime, we deployed 169 former recruiters and 101 recruiters
serving on the recruiting staff to the field for 120 days of temporary
duty during April, May, June, and July.
We are also increasing our advertising efforts. The recruiting
advertising budget in fiscal year 1999 was $76 million, which included
$54 million to launch our paid TV campaign--$17 million for the fiscal
year 1999 campaign and $37 million to pre-buy fiscal year 2000
advertising spots. The fiscal year 2000 recruiting advertising budget
is $65 million. This includes a steady state funding line of
approximately $37 million for television advertising (including the Air
Force Identity Program) and approximately $28 million for other
advertising programs. The recruiting advertising budget remains
constant, without reduction, near the $60 million level through fiscal
year 2001.
Additionally, we increased the number of career fields eligible for
an enlistment bonus, as well as raised the maximum potential bonus to
$12,000. For the period of 13 April through 31 May 2000, we added a
$5,000 ``kicker'' to anyone leaving for Basic Military Training during
this time frame (these are two of our most difficult months).
Another way we are aggressively addressing this issue is through
college loan repayments. For the first time in our history, we are
offering eligible new recruits up to $10,000 toward repaying their
college loans. We will continue our full court press toward doing
everything we can to make our recruiting goal this year.
Question. Mr. Peters, is the Air Force anticipating a decline in
quality as it struggles to meet its recruiting goals, and, if so, what
will be the expected impact?
Answer. The Air Force is committed to maintaining quality accession
standards. Our standard is 99 percent high school graduates and we have
not fallen below this standard since fiscal year 1984. In the past 10
years, high school graduates attrit from Basic Military Training at 8.2
percent versus non-high school graduated attrition of 16.1 percent.
Also, 54.37 percent of high school graduates complete initial
enlistment compared to 37.18 percent of non-high school graduates. So,
it makes good economic sense to keep our standards up.
The Air Force recruiting challenges stem from declining retention
rates; we must continue to maintain high entrance standards in order to
sustain a high quality force. Therefore, we are not anticipating a
decline in the quality of our recruits. The Air Force goal of
recruiting 99 percent high school graduates remains unchanged.
jstars
Question. Mister Secretary, I know we are in agreement that we
believe the JSTARS is a wonderful system. Can you tell us what your
plans are for future production of this program?
Answer. The JROC-validated Joint STARS requirement of 19 aircraft
to support the two nearly simultanious Major Theater War (MTW) scenario
has not changed. However, due to fiscal constraints the Air Force
supports the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget for fifteen aircraft.
The Air Force is also presently evaluating other Ground Moving Target
Indicator platforms to augment the JSTARS capability and meet our goal
of dominant awareness of the battlefield.
Question. Mr. Secretary, what is your priority for the purchase of
more JSTARS aircraft?
Answer. Theater CINCs agree that Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System (JSTARS) plays a crucial role in both peacetime and
wartime military operations and most recently the platform proved its
worth during Operation Allied Force. JSTARS is also considered a low
density/high demand asset as its small fleet size is heavily tasked.
The Air Force continues to support additional funding and additional
aircraft, and supports the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget request
for a 15th aircraft. In addition, the Air Force is reviewing other
platforms to augment the JSTARS Moving Target Indicator (MTI)
capability. Specifically, the Air Force is interested in migrating
Ground MTI capability to the Global Hawk High Altitude UAV.
b-2 bomber
Question. Mr. Secretary, if it were affordable would you advocate
restarting B-2 production?
Answer. Renewed B-2 production would be less cost-effective than
improving the capabilities of the existing bombers. The Air Force
provided the White Paper on Long-Range Bombers to Congress in March
1999. This White Paper, or Bomber Roadmap, outlines the Air Force plan
for improving the combat capability of the existing bomber force
structure. The plan includes upgrades to the avionics and
communications subsystems and integration of precision gravity and
standoff munitions. The Bomber Roadmap modernization plan is supported
by the recommendations of the Congressionally directed Report of the
Panel to Review Long-Range Air Power, LRAP. The LRAP report made the
following recommendations: (1) Use the additional funding for B-2s to
improve its deployability, survivability, and maintainability; (2)
Fully exploit the potential of the current B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber
force through more operational attention and additional investment in
support and upgrades; (3) Develop a plan to upgrade and sustain the
bomber force structure for the longer term to include eventual
replacement aircraft. Affordability constraints have precluded full
implementation of the Bomber Roadmap in the President's Budget for
fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The upgrades outlined in the Bomber
Roadmap and the LRAP report will be reconsidered during the process for
building the President's Budget for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
f-22
Question. Mr. Secretary, there have been some hiccoughs in the
testing phase on this program including stress tests on the wings. Can
you give us a status update on the testing program?
Answer. The F-22 continues to pursue a disciplined testing approach
to validate the capabilities of the weapon system. Technical results to
date have been exceptional and matched or exceeded model predictions in
many areas. Key elements of the test program and their status are:
Flight testing.--Testing at Edwards AFB continues to progress with
more than 600 total flight test hours on 3 test aircraft. Capabilities
demonstrated thus far include supercruise, high angle of attack flight,
and flight testing with both weapons bays open.
Avionics Testing.--In calendar year 2000 the avionics test program
moves from the laboratory to flight-testing. Block 1 software, which
has been flying on the F-22 Flying Test Bed (FTB) since November 1998,
is installed in aircraft 4004 and is being prepared for first flight in
June 2000. Block 2 software began flying in the FTB in October 1999.
Block 3S software began testing in the FTB in April 2000. Block 3.0
software is currently being tested in the Avionics Integration
Laboratory, Boeing, Seattle WA. Block 3.0 software encompasses all of
the capabilities of Block 3S as well as adding additional capabilities.
Block 3.0 testing in the FTB begins August 2000, and on an F-22 in
November 2000.
Static Testing.--Post-test evaluation from static testing of F-22
test article 3999 revealed a failure in Rib #4 of the left hand
Flaperon following the 150 percent load testing of the adjacent
aileron. Further investigation revealed a delamination of an internal
composite structure member. Analysis determined that the failed part
lacked sufficient strength for the predicted load. The composite part
was replaced with a titanium part with sufficient strength. This fix
has since been incorporated into all of the test aircraft and will be
part of the production design. Testing resumed on 11 April 2000 and
should complete by early November 2000.
Fatigue Testing.--Full-scale fatigue test planning is continuing in
preparation for a late August 2000 initiation in fulfillment of the
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) criteria. This planning effort is
subject to the same rigorous methodology employed in defining and
executing the static test program. The test article (A/C 4000) was
moved to the test facility on 1 April 2000 and is currently being
equipped with test fixtures. The Durability and Damage Tolerance
Analysis (DaDTA) of the Block II design configuration is on-going with
an estimated completion date of mid-July 2000.
Question. Secretary Peters, what is the impact of the recently
ended strike at Boeing on the F-22, specifically on avionics
development?
Answer. The 38 day strike by the Boeing engineering and technical
staff was predicted to impact four of the ten program criteria for the
low-rate initial production decision. The affected criteria are first
flight with block 3.0 software, completion of critical design review of
block 3.1 software, completion of static structural testing, and
completion of 40 percent first fatigue life test. The following are the
status of each of these criteria and our latest assessment of
completion this year.
First flight with Block 3.0 Software.--The current program plan is
to fly Block 3.0 on aircraft 4004 by December 2000. Flight testing of
the Block 3.0 software remains one of the most challenging of the
calendar year 2000 program criteria. The recent strike only made this
challenge more significant. As schedule risk mitigation, the Air Force
recently decided not to certify Block 3S for flight in an actual F-22,
although Block 3S will still be extensively tested in the Avionics
Integration Laboratory (AIL) and on the Flying Test Bed (FTB). This
rescission mitigates some of the schedule risk incurred during the
strike and enables us to start Block 3.0 integration in the AIL on 15
May as previously planned.
Completion of Block 3.1 CDR.--The completion of the Block 3.1 CDR
is no longer at risk with the settlement of the strike. The Block 3.1
Mission Software (MSW) Critical Design Review (CDR) was originally
scheduled for 18 April 2000. Due to the strike, development work was
delayed and the Avionics Team is currently working to select a new CDR
date. Boeing has done a preliminary review of remaining work to go and
has estimated that CDR will occur in late June 2000 or early July 2000.
Static Structural Testing.--The best available planning data for
static test execution indicates that calendar year 2000 DAB criteria
for static test remains achievable; however, static testing is the most
challenging of the calendar year 2000 program criteria. Five ultimate
test conditions have been approved for execution subject to pre-test
readiness reviews. Another 10-12 conditions are being evaluated for
sequencing and content. Testing resumed on 11 April 2000 and two
criteria have already been completed. To ensure that the testing
remains on schedule we have directed the contractor to apply increased
manpower and use available overtime for test conduct, data analysis,
and issue resolution.
Completion of 40 percent first fatigue life test.--The best
available planning data for fatigue test execution indicates the
calendar year 2000 DAB criteria to initiate fatigue tests, and the goal
of 40 percent of the first life cycle testing remains achievable. Full-
scale fatigue test planning is continuing in preparation for a late
August 2000 initiation in fulfillment of the DAB criteria. This
planning effort is subject to the same rigorous methodology employed in
defining and executing the static test program. The test article (A/C
4000) was moved to the test facility on 1 April 2000 and is currently
being equipped with test fixtures. The Durability and Damage Tolerance
Analysis (DaDTA) of the Block II design configuration is on-going with
an estimated completion date of mid-July 2000. The status of the
analytical effort supporting start of fatigue testing is being
monitored on a daily basis (completion of key static test analysis is a
precursor to the start of fatigue testing). A series of test readiness
reviews to be held over the next two months will also definitize the
test execution criteria, planning and culminate in an evaluation of
analysis results.
supplemental requirements
Question. Secretary Peters, the supplemental bill would provide
funding for your forward operating locations in support of drug
interdiction. What would be the impact if you failed to get this
funding prior to fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in support of drug
interdiction are not included in the Air Force's supplemental request,
nor are they included in the Air Force's program. As FOL Executive
Agent, the Air Force is responsible for administering the operation and
maintenance of the sites for the Department of Defense and U.S. law
enforcement agencies. However, all counterdrug funding and policy
coordination is provided by the Department of Defense Coordinator for
Drug Enforcement Policy and Support (OSD/DEP&S).
The impact of delaying the fiscal year 2001 supplemental request on
continued drug interdiction operations in the southern hemisphere can
be addressed more appropriately by OSD/DEP&S and U.S. Southern Command
(USSOUTHCOM), through the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
b-52 force structure
Question. Last year, Section 8107 of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense
Appropriations Act instructed the Air Force to provide funding for 94
B-52 bombers in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Why aren't you following
these instructions?
Answer. The Air Force is complying with Congressional language and
maintaining the fiscal year 2000 B-52 inventory at 94 fully funded
aircraft. We are operating and maintaining a force of 44 primary
mission, 12 primary training, 6 back-up, 31 attrition reserve and 1
test aircraft. The Congressionally added funds allow us to operate,
maintain and modify the 18 excess attrition aircraft throughout fiscal
year 2000.
These 18 B-52 aircraft are excess to our need. The Air Force
requires 76 B-52 aircraft to support the full range of mission
taskings. This requirement is documented in the U.S. Air Force White
Paper on Long Range Bombers, dated 1 March 1999, and is based on the
May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review and the 1998 Report of the Panel to
Review Long Range Air Power. In light of today's tight fiscal
constraints and potential START III force structure changes, we must
ensure the required force is capable and prepared to support all
wartime taskings. In fiscal year 2001, the Air Force plans to fund 76
aircraft based on operational requirements and place 18 attrition
reserve aircraft in inviolate storage at Davis Monthan AFB, AZ.
airborne laser
Question. Please give me your thoughts on the capability of the ABL
system to provide ballistic missile defense against the long range
missiles that North Korea may be developing. Would such a capability be
compliant with the ABM Treaty?
Answer. ABL is a theater missile defense system. Thus, ABL is not
being designed to counter strategic ballistic missiles, either from
North Korea or any other state, nor will it be tested against strategic
ballistic missiles. The Air Force believes that ABL will be compliant
with U.S. arms control obligations, but the program is not yet
sufficiently mature for an ABM treaty compliance certification.
military construction and real property maintenance
Question. Your unfunded priorities list includes $437 million in
fiscal year 2001 to help relieve Air Force's real property maintenance
backlog and $378 million for military construction in fiscal year 2001
to reduce the facilities recapitalization rate from over 200 years to
150 years. The unfunded five-year bill for these efforts totals almost
$3.4 billion.
I would like your thoughts on why you seem to consider the
maintenance of your infrastructure unaffordable. Aren't you creating an
unfunded infrastructure ``bow wave'' that will cost tens of billions of
dollars to fix in the future?
Answer. Military construction, real property maintenance, other
base support and family housing are very important to the Air Force.
However, due to fiscal constraints and affordability, the Air Force's
fiscal year 2001 budget request demonstrates that we have assumed risk
in our infrastructure accounts. We are prepared to meet our security
commitments and execute national military strategy but are funding our
infrastructure accounts at less than optimal rates. Unfortunately we
are, in fact, driving a bow-wave of infrastructure requirements to the
future.
The Air Force's fiscal year 2001 budget is our best balance of
funding people, readiness, modernization, and infrastructure programs
within fiscal constraints. However, when focusing on our real property
and military construction accounts, our budget request is about $3.5
billion short of what is needed to sufficiently fund the required
maintenance and modernization of our physical plant. Across the Future
Years Defense Program, this shortfall is $11.7 billion. Bottom line, we
have had to assume some risk in our infrastructure in order to fund
higher priority modernization and people programs.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
bed down priorities of the f-22
Question. What factors will the Air Force use in determining bed
down priorities of the F-22?
Answer. In 1995, Commander Air Combat Command (COMACC) directed an
F-22 Process Action Team (PAT) to study basing options for the
operational F-22s. Representatives from HQ USAF, F-22 Systems Program
Office (SPO), and Air Combat Command (ACC) evaluated bases for their
suitability in hosting the F-22 mission and local training. The
analysis concentrated on quality and availability of training airspace.
In 1997, the Air Force focused on factors beyond the earlier study
to narrow the list of potential bases into a non-ordered basing
candidate plan. The factors used in this determination focused on the
mission and infrastructure of hosting the F-22 squadrons. Central to
the issue is the similarity of the F-15's and F-22's primary mission.
The F-22 will replace three of the four Fighter Wing Equivalents (FWEs)
of F-15s on a one-for-one basis. To preclude displacing existing force
structure, capitalize on existing infrastructure, and minimize costs,
existing F-15 bases were considered the most likely candidates.
Working toward F-22 Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in fiscal
year 2005, ACC began work on the Description of Proposed Action and
Alternatives (DOPAA) required under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Langley AFB, VA, was identified as the preferred
alternative for the first operational F-22 wing. However, the final
basing decision will be contingent upon completion of the Environmental
Impact Analysis Process actions. This analysis will include a look at
reasonable alternatives to Langley. These include: Eglin AFB, FL;
Tyndall AFB, FL; Elmendorf AFB, AK; Mountain Home AFB, ID; and the
``no-action'' alternative. Starting in 2000, and estimating two years
to complete, the environmental impact analysis will examine issues such
as land use, airspace and safety, air and water quality, noise,
socioeconomic impacts, biological and cultural resources, quality of
training, and cumulative impacts.
______
Questions Submitted to Gen. Michael E. Ryan
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
joint strike fighter (jsf) acquisition strategy
Question. Are you concerned that the weight of requirements on JSF,
such as vertical takeoff, will force design compromises in the Air
Force JSF variant?
Answer. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have coordinated to
produce a set of operational requirements for a family of affordable
and capable aircraft that will meet each individual user's needs. Each
service brought individual desires to the program when it started.
However, the services understood that the aircraft must be affordable
if it was going to be produced. The Cost and Operational Performance
Trade (COPT) process occurred in tandem with requirements development.
The result was that with each successive cost and performance trade,
the design trade space was reduced.
While compromises were made by each service, the users have
established Key Performance Parameters (KPP) in the JSF Joint
Operational Requirements Document (JORD) that ensure the design will
meet the warfighters' needs. The Joint Requirements Oversight Committee
(JROC) approved the JORD on March 13, 2000, thereby fixing the
requirements. This six-year process produced an achievable set of
requirements for a family of highly common, affordable aircraft that
meet the warfighters' needs for the 21st century.
uae f-16/air force f-16 derivatives
Question. Can you outline for the Committee the capabilities of the
F-16 being developed for sale to the United Arab Emirates?
Answer. In comparison to current USAF F-16s:
Radar.--The UAE Block 60 F-16 will use an active electronically
scanned array (AESA) radar similar (but much less capable) than the F-
22 radar. It replaces the older technology mechanically scanned radar
in the USAF F-16. Radar detection range will be almost twice that of
USAF F-16s but less than current USAF F-15s.
Infra-red Detection/Targeting.--The Block 60 uses an internal focal
plane array forward looking infra-red (FLIR) for night navigation that
is similar in capability to the USAF external FLIR pod. The Block 60
uses an external laser targeting pod similar to the USAF F-16s, with
slightly better resolution.
Electronic Warfare.--The Block 60 has an internal EW passive and
active jamming system with a fiber optic towed decoy. Advanced digital
processing enables this EW system to detect, characterize and
accurately locate most radar frequency emmiters and employ advanced
jamming techniques, if needed. The USAF F-16 has a less capable passive
system (radar warning receiver), carries an external jamming pod, and
uses a repeater towed decoy. The USAF F-16 carries the external high
speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) targeting system (HTS) pod to
locate radar emmiters.
Engines.--The UAE Block 60 F-16 uses the new GE F110-132 engines
that produce about 3,000 more pounds of thrust than the current USAF GE
engines. With conformal fuel tanks, the block 60 is almost 5,000 pounds
heavier than USAF F-16s at takeoff.
Range.--The Block 60 can fly about 40 percent further than a USAF
F-16 with the same bomb/missile load. Conformal above wing and 600
gallon below wing fuel tanks plus a centerline 300 gallon tank
(centerline used by USAF F-16s for EW pod) give the block 60 about
9,000 more pounds of fuel.
Cockpit.--Three Israeli built 5 7 inch color displays
give the UAE pilot a better information display than the two 4
4 inch displays in the USAF F-16.
Weapons Capability.--The UAE F-16 has the capability to carry and
deliver all current export USAF missiles and bombs.
Question. Does the Air Force have any plans to modify Air Force
inventory F-16's to add systems or capabilities being developed under
the UAE program?
Answer. There are no current plans to modify existing F-16's in the
Active/Guard/Reserve fleet with capabilities developed for the UAE F-16
Block 60. While the USAF recognizes the inherent value and combat-
enhancing capabilities resident in the Block 60, the Air Force is
committed to a modernization schedule that pre-dated the UAE/Lockheed
agreement. However, ongoing modernization will not preclude the USAF
from leveraging the F-16 Block 60 capabilities in the future if a need
arises.
air force exercises and readiness training
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget makes great strides in
focusing the Air Force on aircrew training. Have you completed the
training backlog of air crews that resulted from the bombing campaign
in Kosovo?
Answer. Training backlogs were created in the Combat and Mobility
Air Forces as a result of the Kosovo campaign due to the deployment of
aircraft and aircrew to, and within, the United States Air Force in
Europe (USAFE) area of responsibility. Reconstitution efforts have
successfully eliminated the training backlog caused by the Kosovo
campaign, with field training unit (FTU) and operational training now
at normal (pre-Kosovo) levels.
air force pilot retention
Question. Last year, Congress greatly expanded Aviation
Continuation Pay, and added $100 million to retain Air Force pilots.
This is a very generous bonus program. Have you seen the increase in
pilot retention that you expected?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) Program
is still ongoing; however, we now have enough returns to make initial
projections. We are seeing a positive, upward swing in our pilot
inventory. Given current bonus take rates and retention patterns, we
can expect to reduce the pilot shortfall to manageable levels within
three years. This will go a long way toward helping us ``hold the
line'' until we benefit from the positive effects of the 10-year ADSC
in fiscal year 2009 and beyond.
However, we must temper this optimism with caution. First, these
are initial projections and we will refine the fidelity as we gather
additional data. Second, the current retention environment, especially
the unprecedented and sustained airline hiring we are currently
experiencing, has the Air Force concerned about the long-term health of
our pilot force. The hiring influence is particularly evident in the
take rates for our youngest eligible pilots--those just coming off
their pilot training commitment. The rate among these pilots is the
lowest of our bonus-eligible pilot populations. We are watching this
very closely. Finally, ACP is not the only factor driving the decisions
of pilots to leave the Air Force; we believe it is a combination of
factors. As such, we developed and are pursuing a comprehensive and
integrated plan to address pilot retention.
One component of the Air Force's multi-faceted approach to
arresting the pilot retention decline is the Expeditionary Aerospace
Force (EAF) concept. We are working hard to give some relief to our
pilots, as well as other specialties, who are deployed, spending a
great deal of time away from home. The EAF kicked off in October 1999
and thus far, input from the field has been positive. The EAF helps
manage TEMPO through planning, stability, and predictability. The
predictability of the EAF will allow better utilization of our Air
Reserve Forces and may result in TEMPO relief for our Active Force.
Personnel assigned to our Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEF) will
know far in advance when their AEF is on call for deployment. We will
also continue our postdeployment stand-down programs to ensure deployed
members have time to get reacquainted with their families and take care
of personal matters. And, whenever possible, we minimized our
participation in exercises, and lowered the frequency of our
operational readiness inspections so that personnel serve 15-20 percent
fewer days in Joint and Air Force exercises.
Additionally, in fiscal year 1998 we increased Aviation
Continuation Pay (pilot bonus) rates from $12,000 to $22,000. Then in
fiscal year 1999 we raised Aviation Career Incentive Pay (flight pay)
for 14-year aviators from $650 to $840 per month. The Fiscal Year 2000
National Defense Authorization Act allowed us to increase annual
payments to $25,000 and expand eligibility for ACP, permitting payment
through 25 years aviation service.
We have taken other steps to help work through the pilot shortfall
as well. We increased pilot production from 650 in fiscal year 1997 to
1,100 in fiscal year 2000 and expanded production throughout the Total
Force. We also increased the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training
commitment to 10 years. The Air Force prioritized requirements,
reviewed alternate staff manning, and, with your legislative relief
from dual compensation limits in the fiscal year 2000 legislation, we
now have vital incentive tools to draw valuable retired rated expertise
back to augment our undermanned staffs with retired rated expertise. We
are optimistic that the combination of all these efforts will have a
significant impact on pilot retention.
Question. Of course, much of pilot retention can't be solved by
money alone. What else are you doing to improve pilot retention? How
are you easing OPTEMPO for pilots? Are you increasing pilot production?
Answer. The Air Force has developed a multi-faceted plan for
dealing with the pilot shortage. The plan focuses on scrutinizing our
pilot requirements; increasing pilot production and the commitment for
pilot training; managing TEMPO; enhancing quality of life; and
improving compensation and personnel programs.
To better manage our TEMPO and improve quality of life for our
members and their families, we have changed the way we organize and
deploy our combat forces through the creation of the Expeditionary
Aerospace Force (EAF) concept. Transitioning to the EAF will improve
stability, predictability, and allow a more complete integration of our
active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian members. We are also reducing
Joint and Air Force exercises, including smaller and/or shorter
deployments; restructuring our inspection system; and increasing some
weapon system crew ratios.
We have also increased our active duty pilot production from 650 in
fiscal year 1997 to 1,100 in fiscal year 2000, which is the maximum
sustainable level consistent with proven quality and safety standards.
Also, on 1 October 1999, the Air Force pilot training active duty
service commitment increased from eight to ten years. These measures
should help us begin to close the gap on our pilot shortfall; however,
it is still vitally important that we continue to address the retention
of our more senior pilots. The increased production creates stresses on
the training pipeline and reduces the experience level of units as they
absorb more inexperienced pilots. We must maintain experienced pilots
to provide the leadership and experience necessary to grow the new
pilots into a combat ready force, while at the same time providing
immediate operational capability.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
decreases in rdt&e and science and technology budgets
Question. Does the Air Force have any official response regarding
the findings and conclusions of that report?
Answer. The Air Force has no official response with regard to the
findings and conclusions of the Air Force Association (AFA) report on
Air Force Science and Technology (S&T) entitled, ``Shortchanging the
Future: Air Force Research and Development Demands Investment.''
However, the Air Force recognizes the historical value of S&T to
superior warfighting capabilities and shares some of the AFA's
concerns. The Air Force has several ongoing activities that address
concerns associated with the S&T Program. Most importantly, the fiscal
year 2001 President's Budget (PB) submission represents an increased
investment in Air Force S&T of $211 million across fiscal years 2001-
2005 over the fiscal year 2000 PB request. The Air Force continues to
assess the health of the S&T Program and recently held a ``summit'' of
senior Air Force leaders that addressed future funding levels for the
S&T Program. This provided an excellent forum to discuss the need to
maintain an effective balance between Basic Research (6.1), Applied
Research (6.2), and Advanced Technology Development (6.3), and to
better understand the constraints on S&T funding flexibility imposed by
Congressional language, Office of the Secretary of Defense direction,
and prior program commitments.
Question. Given the long-lead time to develop new weapons and
information systems, how does the Air Force plan to maintain U.S.
technological supremacy while reducing defense-wide RDT&E budgets?
Answer. The Air Force has structured its budget to maintain a
balance between the different investment accounts, with Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), specifically Science and
Technology (S&T), being only one of the many important investment
areas. While the Air Force could wisely invest additional funding in
all accounts if the topline budget were increased, the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget (PB) represents optimal investment levels across all
accounts and is balanced to meet both near-term operational capability
needs and far-term technology needs. Although there may be the
perception the Air Force S&T Program is underfunded, the Air Force
fiscal year 2001 PB is structured to maintain the technological
supremacy essential to supporting the Air Force vision of a 21st
Century Expeditionary Aerospace Force.
Question. Do you believe that you can maintain the scientists and
infrastructure required for success at the present level of resources?
Answer. The Air Force is investigating several initiatives that are
focused on maintaining the scientists, engineers, and supporting
infrastructure required for a successful Science and Technology (S&T)
Program. In response to recommendations contained in the Science and
Technology Workforce for the 21st Century (STW-21) study, the Air Force
examined S&T personnel management with the vision to enhance/maintain
the excellence and relevance of S&T into the 21st Century. One result
was the decision to implement a Government-Owned, Collaborator-Assisted
(GOCA) concept of personnel management within the Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL). GOCA will provide an integrated team of permanent
government civilian and military personnel, augmented by a more agile,
non-permanent collaborator component. The goal is to provide
synergistic benefits neither component can effectively provide alone.
Another initiative pursued was high-grade relief to allow AFRL to
manage grade/salary levels without artificial constraints. Fiscal year
2000 legislation has already provided AFRL with this exemption and the
Air Force thanks Congress for this relief. The Air Force is optimistic
these and other potential initiatives will ensure the foundation
necessary for the continued success of the S&T Program.
Question. What criteria did the Air Force use to make decisions
regarding its funding of specific research programs within its research
laboratories?
Answer. The Air Force fiscal year 2001 President's Budget request
for Science and Technology (S&T) contains the technology development
essential for the Air Force Vision of an Expeditionary Aerospace Force
(EAF). In support of this vision, the Air Force committed to
restructure/concentrate its S&T investment with a strong focus on
aerospace efforts (i.e., integrating air with space) and this shaped
the criteria used to make decisions regarding funding of specific
efforts within the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The Air Force
reoriented technology areas and eliminated areas that were not
supportive of the long-range EAF vision. In fiscal year 2001, this Air
Force shift in emphasis to Space S&T included efforts like small
satellites and space control, while reductions were taken in non-space
technology areas. The Air Force shifted away from S&T already being
worked by others, such as weather, aircrew physiology, and
environmental remediation. These actions have enabled AFRL to more
effectively address future technology needs. The Air Force plans to
maintain the core technology areas and technical expertise considered
essential for future air and space operations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
f-15
Question. The Air National Guard Fleet consisting of 126 F-15
aircraft is being tasked for increasingly sophisticated threat areas
throughout the world as part of the Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF)
employment concept. Lack of robust protection directly affects the
combat capability and survivability of these aircraft. I believe it is
important that this committee add funding to the fiscal year 2001
budget for this very important upgrade. What are your personal thoughts
on this?
Answer. Certainly aircrew survivability is of the utmost priority,
and the ANG F-15A/Bs are currently equipped with an electronic
protection suite that includes the ALR-56A Pacer Turbo radar warning
receiver (RWR), the ALQ-135 electronic jamming system, the ALQ-128
Electronic Warfare Warning System, and the ALE-45 Countermeasures
Dispenser (CMD). The ALE-45 CMD gives a ``reactive'' capability to
dispense chaff and flares against radar and infrared (IR) threats.
Active duty F-15C/D/Es are equipped with the same electronic suite,
with the exception of the more capable ALR-56C RWR.
We realize the unique capabilities the BOL countermeasures
dispenser will give our F-15 crews. While our F-15s already possess an
effective reactive countermeasures system against a majority of IR
missiles; the BOL dispenser, with its associated IR flare, is a
preemptive countermeasures system, and augments the ALE-45. It is
capable of preventing the lock-on of advanced IR missiles. The
synergistic effects of both systems significantly enhance our existing
countermeasures capability and increases survivability during a hostile
engagement. The testing of this system is ongoing and results have been
favorable.
We are continuing to explore long-term funding options among highly
competitive modernization programs. Our fiscal year 2001 Unfunded
Priority List includes a line item for BOL IR. If funded, it would add
resources to expand current integration efforts to include ANG F-15A/Bs
and Active AF F-15C/D/E aircraft.
c-17
Question. This committee has supported your C-17 requests in the
past. Now more than ever, we think it's the best solution for airlift
modernization, but I am concerned that slipping funding to fiscal year
2003 portends some sort of down trend. Do you intend to complete the
current multi-year program for 120 C-17s?
Answer. Yes, the C-17 aircraft is critical to meeting our nation's
strategic airlift requirements. As such, the Air Force is committed to
purchasing the remaining aircraft of the original 120 planned C-17s
with this multi-year contract. The current multi-year procurement
contract remains in place with no change to production rate or delivery
schedule. In addition, the Air Force has a requirement for 15
additional C-17s to ensure our nation has sufficient strategic lift for
a nearly simultaneous two major theater war scenario with concurrent
special operations requirements. The Air Force intends to include these
required aircraft, and any additional aircraft which may be identified
in the emerging mobility studies, as part of the fiscal year 2003
budget submission.
Question. Are 120 aircraft enough for your requirements? The CINCs
tell us of the real need for additional C-17s and this committee
recommended an additional buy of 60 additional aircraft last year. What
are your plans for additional C-17s?
Answer. To ensure our nation has sufficient strategic lift capacity
for a nearly simultaneous two major theater war, our existing
requirement study dictated a need for 120 aircraft. We programmed an
additional 14 of 15 C-17 aircraft for fiscal year 2003 through fiscal
year 2005 to accommodate Special Operations missions concurrent with
the nearly simultaneous two major theater war scenario. Thus, the
current Air Force C-17 program is for 134 out of 135 required aircraft.
We are currently re-examining C-17 requirements. Mobility
Requirements Study 2005 (MRS-05) is underway and publication is due
this fall. Based on expected force structure and basing in 2005, we
believe MRS-05 will show a requirement for strategic lift, and
specifically the C-17, is growing. To accommodate these emerging
requirements, the Air Force is examining contractual, programmatic, and
budgeting issues associated with additional C-17s in anticipation of
the MRS-05 release.
suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses (sead)
Question. General Ryan, I am told that the Suppression and
Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) mission in the Air Force is one
of the most overtaxed. Do you support an initiative to procure new F-
16s for the Air Force which would then cascade some older F-16 aircraft
into the Air National Guard and enable the Air Guard to help with the
SEAD mission?
Answer. The F-16 Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD)/
Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (DEAD) units are indeed in high demand
around the world and are one of the first units to be deployed in
crisis situations. The current Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) construct
identifies a requirement for 10 SEAD/DEAD capable squadrons. Presently,
there are nine active duty F-16-CJ squadrons that are programmed for
these AEF rotations, leaving a requirement for one additional squadron.
In order to alleviate the high operation tempo (OPTEMPO) currently
being experienced with these units, the Air Force has already budgeted
for the procurement of additional F-16CJs allowing for a stand-up of a
10th active duty SEAD/DEAD squadron. This would also cascade the older
block 30 aircraft (currently in the Active Duty squadrons) to the Air
National Guard. However, this 10th squadron will not be activated until
fiscal year 2007 under current planning. The USAF fiscal year 2001
Unfunded Priority List (UPL) identifies a requirement to accelerate the
planned block 50 procurement and the stand up of a 10th SEAD/DEAD
squadron which would cascade block 30s to the ANG.
While the procurement of a 10th F-16CJ squadron will have an
immediate effect on the OPTEMPO of the current SEAD/DEAD units, it will
not be due to the fact that the Guard will receive ``cascaded''
aircraft. F-16CJ block 50/52 aircraft are preferred for the SEAD/DEAD
mission as opposed to older block 30 aircraft. The F-16C Block 30's
they will replace, while able to provide some measure of SEAD support,
are not sufficiently capable to completely replace the F-16CJ. The F-
16C Block 30's will be able to reduce OPTEMPO in the Precision Attack
AEF mission area. With the addition of the LITENING II targeting pod
and Combat Upgrade Plan Integration Details (CUPID) modification, the
Block 30 will achieve a dramatic increase in warfighting lethality.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
recruiting concerns
Question. General Ryan, we have heard a lot about your pilot
retention problem and the impact this is having on your recruiting
difficulties as well. Can you tell us what is the current shortage, has
it affected the flying units or simply headquarters activities, and are
you seeing any improvement in the trend?
Answer. Our end of fiscal year 2000 shortfall is projected to be
1,190 out of a requirement of 13,570. This represents a 9 percent
shortfall. In terms of the readiness of the force, we have made a
conscious effort to fully man our operational cockpits at the expense
of our pilot staff positions. Fully manning our cockpits minimizes the
impact of the pilot shortage on the operational readiness of our
warfighting units. Therefore, it is our warfighting staffs who are
experiencing the tremendous pilot manning shortages. We are pursuing
rated staff manning alternatives to relieve workload pressures caused
by the pilot shortage. Your repeal of the dual compensation law has
helped us to exercise options such as the hiring of civilians with
aviation experience into rated staff positions. We also are permitting
active duty recall of reserve and retired rated officer volunteers.
We have instituted an aggressive and integrated set of initiatives
to address pilot retention. In the compensation arena, in fiscal year
1998 we increased Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) rates from $12,000 to
$22,000. Then in fiscal year 1999 we raised Aviation Career Incentive
Pay (flight pay) for 14-year aviators from $650 to $840 per month. The
Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act allowed us to
expand eligibility for the ACP and increase annual payments to $25,000,
permitting payment through 25 years aviation service. We plan to
continue utilizing the full ACP authority and have $157 million
budgeted for this program in 2001. As a result of these and other
initiatives, we project the pilot shortage to fall to within manageable
levels by 2003. From that point on, shortfalls will be approximately 5
percent or less of requirements. We do not expect to meet aggregate
pilot requirements until approximately 2010.
readiness
Question. General Ryan, I understand approximately $2 billion was
added to your readiness budget for fiscal year 2001, including an
increase of $500 million for fuel, spare parts and supplies. Is this
enough?
Answer. With the help of Congress, the Air Force has made
considerable progress in funding spare parts requirements. The fiscal
year 2001 President's Budget (PB) fully funds the flying hour program
for consumption based spare parts requirements; however, additional
funds would further enhance spare parts support for contingency
operations. The fiscal year 2001 Unfunded Priority List (UPL) addresses
two Readiness Spares Packages (RSP) initiatives. The first requires $75
million for RSP demand adjustments for fiscal year 2001. These changes
occur each year in response to mission and inventory changes. The
second requires $115.7 million to increase the fighter Direct Support
Objective (DSO) from 63 percent to 83 percent availability and ``right-
sizes'' RSP kits to better support the mobility airlift enroute
structure. The DSO increase reflects lessons learned in Kosovo and will
reduce aircraft cannibalization actions for deployed units during
contingencies.
Question. General Ryan, in previous testimony you have indicated
that you are unable to fix serious infrastructure shortfalls in your
budgets. What is the shortfall this year and how much would be required
to turn this around?
Answer. The Air Force fiscal year 2001 total force backlog of real
property maintenance is $4.3 billion. In our Unfunded Priority List
(UPL), we have asked for $437.7 million to fund the most critical of
these real property maintenance requirements.
We also have asked for $349.5 million to arrest the backlog of
deferred housing maintenance and repair requirements and to improve or
replace failing infrastructure systems and support facilities essential
to maintaining viable housing communities.
To address only the most serious infrastructure problems in the
MILCON program, we must attain a 150-year recapitalization rate by
funding MILCON at $974 million per year. The fiscal year 2001 request
is $378 million short of that level, as identified in the UPL.
Question. I understand you fully funded spares in order to turn the
corner on aircraft and engine readiness. Is this accurate?
Answer. Yes, we fully funded the validated requirement in the
fiscal year 2001 President's Budget (PB). This action continued our
earlier efforts, along with those of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) and Congress, to mitigate the impacts of constrained
funding from earlier years. Funding fluctuated from fiscal year 1991 to
fiscal year 1999; the low point was 70 percent, the high point was 94
percent. Over the same period, mission capable rates declined from 83.4
percent to 71.9 percent. However, fiscal year 1999 was a turning point,
declining trends had to be reversed--Air Force funded the validated
spare parts requirement at 95 percent, unfortunately a bow wave of $382
million had accumulated over the lean years, with $279 million related
to engine shortfalls. The bow wave was addressed with OSD, they
approved obligation authority, and orders were placed to put spares on
the shelves and arrest the decline in readiness. Acquisition lead time
is 18-24 months, but anecdotal evidence indicates spares are slowly
arriving and improvements are underway--total non-mission capable for
supply (TNMCS) metric decreased (improved) from 16.1 percent in
September 1999 to 13.5 percent in February. We're optimistic, however
continue to watch engines closely as they have a history of pop-up
technical surprises that can be expensive and difficult to support.
Also, while Air Force fully funded the validated requirement in the
fiscal year 2001 PB, we have since assessed our lessons learned from
Kosovo and determined there are updates to Readiness Spares Kits that
need to be funded. In the fiscal year 2001 unfunded priority list
(UPL), we have included an unfunded requirement for RSP Kit Updates for
$75 million. Air Force appreciates past and continued Congressional
plus-ups to ensure the Readiness momentum for spare parts.
Question. General, DOD and the Congress have both indicated that
fixing readiness is required. What has been the impact on modernization
and research with the emphasis on readiness?
Answer. Overall, the Air Force is about $3.5 billion short in
fiscal year 2001 of what we believe is a good mix between people,
readiness, modernization and infrastructure. As we emphasize today's
people and readiness requirements, we only fund the minimum
infrastructure support and find ourselves modernizing at less than
optimal rates. Without a sustained across-the-board increase in funding
over the Future Years Defense Plan, we cannot substantially improve on
the readiness gains made in last year's budget. This means that
infrastructure and modernization will continue to suffer.
jstars
Question. General Ryan, what is your total requirement for JSTARS
aircraft, and how many will you have purchased after fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)-validated
Joint STARS requirement of 19 aircraft to support a two Major Theater
War (MTW) scenario has not changed. The Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) reduced the programmed Joint STARS force structure from 19 to 13
due to fiscal constraints. The Air Force supports the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget (PB) for 15 aircraft. There are currently 7
operational aircraft located at Robins, AFB, GA. The 8th aircraft is
scheduled for delivery on 31 August 2000. After fiscal year 2000, the
15th aircraft is in the fiscal year 2001 budget and is scheduled for
delivery in fiscal year 2003.
b-2 bomber
Question. General Ryan, I have long advocated the B-2 bomber and
would like to see a way that we could purchase more bombers. What is
your view of the B-2 following its performance in Kosovo?
Answer. The B-2 and the Air Force men and women who fly and
maintain the aircraft performed superbly. The B-2 flew 49 combat
missions, dropping 652 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) with 83
percent of targets hit. B-2 reliability and stealth maintainability
were excellent throughout the operations with 100 percent on-time
takeoffs. B-2 operations demonstrated a shift in operational thinking
from ``number of sorties per target'' to ``number of targets per
sortie.''
Question. General Ryan what is your priority for enhancing the
capability of the B-2 Bomber?
Answer. The Air Force is committed to enhancing the capabilities of
the B-2 bomber as outlined in the Bomber Roadmap. This plan, also known
as the USAF White paper on Long-Range Bombers, includes upgrades to B-2
avionics and communications subsystems and integration of precision
gravity and standoff munitions. In addition to budgeted upgrades, the
Air Force has placed Mk-82 JDAM, EGBU-28, LINK 16/Center Instrument
Display and EHF connectivity risk reduction upgrades on the Unfunded
Priority List (UPL) due to limited Air Force Total Obligation
Authority.
f-22
Question. General Ryan, last year there was some strong
disagreement within the Congress regarding the advisability of
proceeding with the purchase of the F-22 program. In your opinion, is
the F-22 ready for production?
Answer. Yes, the F-22 will be ready for a production decision in
December 2000. Its development continues to meet my expectations. The
F-22 weapons system meets or exceeds each of its Key Performance
Parameters. The F-22 test program continues to demonstrate increased
levels of technical performance and the required operational
capabilities. Following the completion of the calendar year 2000
program criteria, the F-22 will have demonstrated the maturity required
for a low rate initial production (LRIP) decision. In fact, by the
December 2000 production decision, the F-22 test program will have
flown more test hours than any other fighter development program prior
to an LRIP decision.
supplemental requirements
Question. General Ryan, I understand the Air Force has more than
$200 million pending in the supplemental request. There are some who
believe we don't need to take action on this until we enact the
appropriations bills for fiscal year 2001. What is your view on this
matter?
Answer. ``Cash flowing'' contingency requirements does not place
significant strain on readiness, training, infrastructure, and overall
combat capability in the early parts of the fiscal year. Not having
full supplemental funding in the third and fourth quarter of the year
drives decisions to defer critical training and infrastructure
programs. Deferring budgeted programs reduces readiness and exacerbates
shortfalls within the Operations and Maintenance budget. Having
supplemental funds by early June should minimize the impact to on-going
Air Force activities.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses (sead)
Question. With little likelihood that the Joint Strike Fighter will
replace the F-16s in the Air National Guard for at least the next ten
years, I would like to know what the Air Force is doing to deal with
both the immediate need for Suppression of Enemy Air Defense assets for
its Air Expeditionary Forces, and the longer-term possibility of the
block obsolescence of the F-16 inventory.
Answer. In order to ensure the fundamental combat task of
Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) remains robust, the USAF is
proactively pursuing various avenues in this mission area. The Air
Force's primary weapon system in the fight against Enemy Integrated Air
Defenses (IADs) is the F-16CJ Block 50/52 fighter. The aircraft is
specifically designed to employ the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation
Missile (HARM). In the fiscal year 2000 Defense Budget the Air Force
included 30 additional F-16CJ's. We plan to procure 10 in fiscal year
2000 with delivery two years later in fiscal year 2002. The remaining
20 aircraft will be procured on the following schedule: fiscal year
2003--6; fiscal year 2004--7; fiscal year 2005--7 with delivery coming
two years following each buy. The USAF has determined the next step in
the battle against enemy IADs is a mission known as Destruction of
Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD). In order to facilitate this, the USAF has
begun a program to equip the F-16CJ with an Advanced Targeting Pod
(ATP) that will further increase lethality with a broad range of
precision weapons. Furthermore, the F-16CJ is undergoing a series of
modifications known as the Common Configuration Implementation Program
(CCIP) that will give the aircraft additional capabilities. CCIP
includes the following individual modifications: Color Multi-Function
Displays (CMFDs); Link-16 Digital Data Link; Modular Mission Computer
(MMC); Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS); APX-113 Air-to-Air
Interrogator. The USAF is placing strong emphasis and positively
enhancing the SEAD mission. Through a combination of extensive
modifications and procurement of additional equipment, the Air Force
has made its SEAD platforms much more lethal.
subcommittee recess
Senator Cochran. As Senator Stevens stated earlier, the
next hearing for the subcommittee will be next Wednesday at 10
a.m.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., Wednesday, March 29, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
April 12.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:55 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Shelby,
Inouye, and Byrd.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD T. KADISH, USAF, DIRECTOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. General Kadish, it is nice to see you here
this morning. We are actually getting started a little early,
which is nice. We welcome you to your first appearance here in
this new role, and we will welcome your assessment of the
status of tactical theater and national missile defense
programs.
As you know, Senator Inouye and I recently went out to the
Pacific missile range. We look forward to other members joining
us here very soon.
Under your leadership and that of General Lyles, the past
year has demonstrated outstanding success, in my judgment, for
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The record
speaks for itself. The first intercept of a national missile
defense (NMD) target, two successful theater high altitude area
defense (THAAD) interceptions, and three successful Patriot
advanced capability-3 (PAC-3) intercepts.
I will not read my whole statement, because we want to
listen to you, but I do think that the Department, the key
industry partners, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and TRW,
have demonstrated how the science and technology of national
missile defense works, and I believe that we must continue on
the course that whatever system we perfect will be able to
defend all 50 States as effectively as we protect our deployed
forces overseas.
I know that you realize we look forward to working with
you, and your complete statement will be made part of the
record. I will ask Senator Inouye if he has any opening remarks
to make before we start.
STATEMENT OF Senator DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to join you in welcoming General Kadish to discuss this very
important topic.
We all know that our military forces in the field are
increasingly within the range of adversarial ballistic
missiles. It is also likely that rogue nations may soon be
capable of targeting the United States with these missiles. As
of this moment, none of the systems sponsored by the
Organization are in the field, but I hope that they will be in
the field soon, so a lot of things that have to be done, and as
the chairman indicated to you, we are with you. We want to see
you succeed. After all, the best interest of our Nation is at
stake.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I join you in your statement,
and welcome the witness.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming our witness,
General Kadish, here today to discuss this very important
topic.
We know that our forces in the field are increasingly in
range of ballistic missiles held by adversaries.
It is also likely that rogue nations may soon be capable of
targeting the United States with ballistic missiles.
As of today, none of the systems sponsored by the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization--THAAD, PAC-3, ME-ADS, and Navy
ballistic missile defense programs--are in the field.
Today we are likely to hear about problems with the Patriot
program and the latest failure in national missile defense
testing.
General, I know you are doing everything you can to get
these programs under control.
And, we sincerely appreciate your efforts.
However, it is hard not to get frustrated by the continued
delays and failures.
General, in light of these facts, and the billions of
dollars annually invested in missile defense, we really need to
hear your candid views today on the status of our nation's
missile defense programs.
We need to know what we can do to help improve the
situation to ensure that our defense dollars are being spent
wisely and to assist in whatever way we can in getting these
new capabilities fielded.
I look forward to hearing your responses to these critical
issues.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We will be pleased to
have your statement, General.
General Kadish. I am absolutely delighted to come here this
morning, Mr. Chairman, and explain the ballistic missile
defense program and its status, and if I might I would like to
summarize my prepared statement and request that it be entered
into the record.
Senator Stevens. It has been, yes, sir.
General Kadish. Mr. Chairman, it is helpful to view the
ballistic missile defense as one program made up of several
interdependent elements. As you will see, this interdependence
is essential to our success, and one of my most important
challenges.
First, let me describe the whole program that is ballistic
missile defense. First, national missile defense for our
homeland, upper tier systems for theater and regional defense,
and those are THAAD and Navy theater-wide, lower tier systems
for the local or area defense, and those are PAC-3 and Navy
area, our international programs to share the burden, programs
to achieve interoperability for layered defense effectiveness,
and the technology investment for the future-evolving threats.
Layered defense
This BMDO program structure is built on the concept of a
layered defense. A layered defense in depth is preferable to a
simple perimeter defense wherever possible. The consequences of
allowing a single weapon of mass destruction through a
defensive system would be catastrophic. Let me explain.
Two layers, for example, each with a theoretical 80-percent
effectiveness would provide a 96 percent confidence of a
successful defense. Three such layers would provide over 99
percent confidence. I know that last month the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) testified before Congress
that, quote, over the next 15 years our cities will face
ballistic missile threats from a variety of actors.
As alarming as a long-range missile threat is, it should
not overshadow the immediacy and the seriousness of the threats
that U.S. forces, interests, and allies already face from short
and medium-range missiles. You are well aware of the challenges
we face in the development of ballistic missile defense systems
to counter that growing threat in recent years.
I am pleased to report, however, that last year was a good
year. Since March 1999 we have had seven successful intercepts,
with six of them using the hit-to-kill technology. One national
missile defense intercept, two THAAD intercepts, three PAC-3
intercepts, and one using focused warhead technology, the Arrow
system that the Israelis produce.
Our testing program has convinced me that the hit-to-kill
technologies can work. We have made significant progress, but I
do not wish to minimize the immense challenges that are before
us. In the months ahead, there are several more tests scheduled
in our national and theater missile defense programs that will
involve increasing levels of system complexity and integration.
Lots of hard work is ahead.
Now I would like to briefly describe the budget request for
our program. Our total request for ballistic missile defense
over the future years defense program is $23.5 billion, up from
$19.8 billion last year. We request $4.5 billion in fiscal year
2001, an 18-percent increase over last year's $3.8 billion.
This includes $3.9 billion for research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E), $444 million for procurement, and $103.5
million for military construction activities. This increase
reflects our heightened recognition of the growing threat and
the considerable progress we have made in our test development
efforts.
National missile defense
Mr. Chairman, let me discuss our national missile defense
program and the changes we have made. Initial operational
capability, consisting of 20 interceptors, still occurs in
fiscal year 2005. In light of the fact that we expect some
States to acquire capability to launch more missiles with
simple countermeasures in the 2005 timeframe, we will enhance
the initial system to what we call an expanded C-1
architecture, having 100 interceptors.
The expanded C-1 deployment option builds on the revised
program announced last year by the Secretary of Defense. The
full 100 interceptors can be deployed by fiscal year 2007.
Consequently, we have added $1.9 billion to the future years
defense program to support this change.
In addition, we added funds to our test program to reduce
schedule risk. Last summer, we asked General Larry Welsh to
conduct a second independent review of our program. He did so,
and I found his recommendations to be most valuable, so we
added some $285 million across the future years defense plan
(FYDP) in response to those recommendations. I also might add
that we have asked him to come back to the program and be
involved in evaluating our progress as we speak.
Now I would like to discuss how our national missile
defense program is designed to reach the 2005 initial
capability. Our greatest challenge continues to be to make sure
that all the national missile defense elements work together as
an integrated system so they can defeat the projected threat to
our homeland. A successful test program and timely execution of
the system element schedules will provide the answer to the
question of greatest interest to us this year: are we
technically ready to deploy a national missile defense program?
Deployment readiness review (DRR)
We now plan to conduct a deployment readiness review, or
DRR, in July of this year. We recently adjusted the schedule
for the DRR, delaying this technology readiness assessment of
NMD by approximately 1 month. We believe the delay is prudent,
given our rescheduling of our next integrated flight test,
number 5, for the 26th, or late June of this year. We do not
believe that a July review will materially affect the time
available to the President to make a decision later this summer
or fall. We can still meet the current schedule to field an
initial capability in fiscal year 2005.
Although the DRR starts a key decision process, it is the
first of at least three major decision milestones in the
program over the next 5 years. Each decision will be based on
the progress of the program at that time, and will give
authority to proceed on key activities. This DRR will take
place at the defense acquisition executive level, with full
participation from all the DOD stakeholders.
The DRR will not constitute the actual decision to deploy
the NMD system. Rather, it will assess the technological
progress to support a deployment decision. A deployment is a
Presidential decision that may occur sometime this summer.
The administration will assess the current state of the
program, the threat, the affordability of the system, and take
into account the implications for the overall strategic
environment and our arms control objectives. If a decision is
made to proceed, we will simultaneously seek approval of our
recommended NMD site and the award of the construction
contracts for those sites.
In fiscal year 2001, we will conduct a Defense Acquisition
Review Board to again assess the status of the program. Based
on program performance, we would seek approval to initiate
upgrades to the early warning radars, begin building the X-Band
ground-based radar and missile site, and start integrating the
battle management command and control and communications
system.
In fiscal year 2003, we will conduct a second Defense
Acquisition Board review to seek approval to procure and deploy
the ground-based interceptors as well as the necessary spares
and test rounds. All of these decisions will depend on an
assessment of our technical and programmatic progress.
Although I continue to be optimistic about the system's
eventual capabilities, we should guard against being either
overly optimistic or unduly pessimistic about the deployment
readiness of the NMD system. The NMD program is still a high-
risk program. The schedule is so compressed that a significant
setback in one element can delay the entire program. To date,
however, we have been able to meet our commitments, but it
requires aggressive management and constant attention. We
recognize there is a long road ahead.
Intercept flight tests
So far, we have had two intercept flight tests (IFT) to
support the DRR decision process. The October 2, 1999 test
demonstrated the ability of the kill vehicle to locate,
discriminate, engage, and destroy a reentry vehicle above the
atmosphere.
As you know, IFT-3 had a remarkable finish, one which
helped convey the technical complexity of colliding directly
with a missile warhead traveling in space at a closing velocity
of more than 15,000 miles per hour. The ability to do this
becomes even more awe-inspiring when one considers a target
warhead may be less than 5 feet long and surrounded by decoys
and debris.
We accomplished all of our test objectives in flight test
3. The physical destruction of the target warhead speaks for
itself. We now know our interceptor concept works. It worked
the very first time we tried, a fact that has helped build our
confidence that we can maintain our aggressive schedule.
Much attention has been given to integrated flight test 4,
which occurred on January 18 of this year. It was the second
time we attempted an intercept, but IFT-4 is one in a long line
of testing events we have planned through 2005. While many have
called that flight test a failure, I take exception to that
characterization of this very valuable test event.
Viewed in a mission context, IFT-4 failed to hit the
target. We missed the reentry vehicle, and the miss speaks for
itself. However, in the context of testing, IFT-4 was a
successful developmental test that proved under stressful
conditions the X-Band radar, the upgraded early warning radar,
and the battle management command and control and
communications capability of our proposed system architecture
worked.
We wanted to have two successful intercepts early in the
test program to support a Presidential deployment decision. To
date, we have had one successful out of the first two flight
attempts. One more integrated flight test, our third attempt at
a successful intercept, is now scheduled for the end of June.
We decided to delay this test by 2 months in order to deal
satisfactorily with the problems we encountered with the
krypton cooling system in our last flight test.
In the 2 months that followed the flight test, we worked to
understand why the failure occurred. In the end, we decided
that our kill vehicle systems did not require design changes,
but nevertheless we wanted to ensure that we thoroughly
reviewed all the test hardware and processes prior to
proceeding with IFT-5. A test delay at this point in our
program is prudent from a technical standpoint.
The NMD system is one of the most complex systems our
country has ever attempted to develop and produce. The
interception phase of the mission is clearly the most visible
phase, and it is key to our success, yet we must not lose sight
of the fact that successful integration of the highly
interdependent elements is no less critical. The integration
and support aspects of our testing events are transparent to
most people but I assure you we could not do the job without
them.
We will continue to test our NMD system based upon strict,
proven, and scientific methods learned over the last four
decades of missile development, deployment, and operations. Our
tests are designed to weed out flaws. While we strive for
success on every test, we do not expect that we will always
have it. Very often problems occur and elements of our tests
fail, yet we learn a lot from our testing successes as well as
failures before they go into deployed weapons systems. We must
ensure that the NMD system we eventually deploy will work with
a very high level of confidence, and our testing program is
designed to do just that.
Upper tier programs
Now let me turn to the upper tier programs that will
provide us important theater defense capabilities. The Army
THAAD and the Navy theater-wide systems are aggressively moving
from demonstration to development phases. THAAD is now fully
funded in the FYDP. The Navy theater-wide is fully funded
through fiscal year 2002 with further funding to be reviewed
after an important series of upcoming flight tests.
Last year, many in Congress were dissatisfied with the
proposed upper tier acquisition strategy. Indeed, 1 year ago we
were in a very different position regarding our upper tier
programs. THAAD had no intercepts, and the Navy theater-wide
program was not well-defined. We were proceeding along a
leader-follower path to choose one upper tier system over the
other.
Since then, THAAD has had two successful intercepts, which
will allow us to move that program into the engineering and
manufacturing development phase. Navy theater-wide is now
progressing towards an important series of ground and sea-based
flight tests. In light of these very positive results, we have
followed congressional direction and put in place a strategy
that takes advantage of this progress. Our goal today is to
deliver both programs as soon as practical.
Lower tier programs
The PAC-3 and the Navy area systems are the backbone of our
lower tier systems, and will provide local and area defense. We
request $2.9 billion across the FYDP for these systems, with
three-quarters of this amount going to procurement. This plan
reflects how much these systems have matured, and our
commitment to move smartly from development into production.
PAC-3 will initially be deployed in fiscal year 2001, and Navy
area under fiscal year 2003 under current schedules.
International programs
Our international programs will foster important missile
defense cooperation, interoperability, and burdensharing. We
have made significant commitments to these programs this year.
Most of the funds we request were for the medium extended air
defense system (MEADS) program, which we are developing
cooperatively with Germany and Italy. MEADS has now been fully
funded in the future years defense program by adding $714
million from fiscal year 2001 to 2005. The program has been
restructured beyond the 3-year risk reduction effort, with
first unit equipped now planned for fiscal year 2012.
The Arrow program with Israel has made much progress, a
fact highlighted by last November's successful intercept. Our
funding request for $124 million from fiscal year 2001 to 2005
will allow Israel to procure components for a third Arrow
battery and help us ensure that Arrow is interoperable with
U.S. systems.
Cooperation with Russia remains an important objective.
Accordingly, we have fully funded the Russian American
observational satellites (RAMOS) program in the future years
defense program, and $317 million to support a revised two-
satellite project should the United States and Russia agree to
proceed.
Technology program
We also signed a memorandum of understanding with Japan
last August to help develop critical interceptor technologies
that we expect will enhance our Navy theater-wide capabilities.
A key element of our technology program is a spaced-based laser
(SBL). This SBL program, which we share with the Air Force,
currently is funded at $138 million in fiscal year 2001. BMDO
assumes more than half of the total funding.
In the near term, the SBL work will focus on ground-based
efforts to demonstrate component and subsystem technologies. In
full operation, we envision an interdependent system that works
with ground, sea, and air-based missile defenses where boost-
phase intercepts could thin out missile attacks and reduce the
burden on midcourse and terminal phase defenses. As I reported
earlier, the more layers of defense, the more likely we are to
succeed.
Our fiscal year 2001 request of $206 million for our
technology program will go into applied research and advanced
development. These programs will enhance the effectiveness of
our current and future systems, and reduce the cost of our
acquisition programs. Although we programmed $1 billion over
the FYDP for this important area, it has become increasingly
difficult to maintain an aggressive technology program in the
face of the competing demands of our major BMDO programs.
Most of our financial resources are focused on development,
production, and deployment of our family of systems. We
continue to examine ways to ensure we focus our future
technology funding to pace the threat.
I want to assure the committee that we are continuing to
study ways to improve our management and stewardship of the
ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems under our development.
Therefore, I am taking action to restructure BMDO to face the
challenges we have ahead of us.
This budget has no requested transfer of research and
development (R&D) or procurement funds to the services for
execution of BMDO programs. My recent reorganization reflects
our transition from an organization oriented towards early R&D
technology and demonstrations to an acquisition-focused agency
responsible for balancing early R&D management with introducing
advanced technology and proven systems to our combat forces.
As we look forward to the deployment readiness review, we
have achieved several notable and reassuring successes in our
NMD testing program, and we are making substantial progress in
our upper tier systems, moving them from development towards
production, and we are on the verge of achieving major
milestones leading to the deployment of our lower tier systems.
Our international commitments are adequately funded, and our
technology program is focused with the resources we have
available.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, in my short tenure as Director of BMDO, I am
more convinced than ever that an effective missile defense is
crucial to the defense of this Nation and our Armed Forces. The
missile threats facing our country, our Armed Forces, and our
allies are immediate and growing and, while I expect
significant conflicts, technical, and management challenges in
our program, we are demonstrating increasing success. I am
confident that we are aggressively addressing the right issues
at the right time, and am funding our program accordingly, and
I look forward to working with the committee and its members in
this important mission area.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks and I would be
happy to answer questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish
Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my
pleasure to appear before you today to present the Department of
Defense's fiscal year 2001 missile defense program and budget.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) is chartered
within the Department of Defense to manage, direct, and execute the BMD
program in order to achieve the following objectives: develop options
for, and deploy when directed, an anti-ballistic missile system to
defend the United States; develop effective, rapidly relocatable
Theater Missile Defenses to protect forward deployed and expeditionary
U.S. armed forces as well as friends and allies; demonstrate advanced
technologies to enhance missile defense systems; and continue basic and
applied research to develop follow-on technologies.
As the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, I
have identified five major priorities. My first priority is the
National Missile Defense (NMD) Deployment Readiness Review (DRR), now
scheduled for July of this year. This review will assess the technical
progress on National Missile Defense in support of a subsequent
Administration decision on whether and when to deploy the system. The
DRR will assess whether enough technical progress has been made to
enable the Administration to proceed with the deployment of the
National Missile Defense system.
The second priority is the development of the Theater Missile
Defense (TMD) Upper-Tier Strategy. Working with the U.S. Army and U.S.
Navy, we have restructured the Theater High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) and the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) programs to posture them for
deployment upon demonstrating continued success.
Third, we must contain production costs of the Lower-Tier TMD
systems. While PAC-3 is making significant progress, technical problems
and weather conditions at the test range have contributed to delays and
increased costs. Navy Area systems are approaching scheduled flight
tests, but are experiencing technical problems. I remain committed to
finding ways to reduce and contain the costs of delivering these
systems.
Fourth, our research and development is crucial to the continued
health of our missile defense programs. I see the need to focus and
intensify efforts in this area. Every scarce dollar in the technology
budget must be optimized to meet future requirements of missile
defense.
Finally, I am focusing on the reduction of decision- and action-
cycle times within BMDO. I want to ensure that we are organized in a
way that minimizes the layers of communication and authority so we can
focus on our core responsibilities. Toward that end, I have reorganized
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization by eliminating layers of
management to flatten the organization.
This past year we demonstrated considerable progress. Since March
1999, missile defense has had seven successful intercepts, with six of
them using hit-to-kill technology-one National Missile Defense
intercept, two THAAD intercepts, three PAC-3 intercepts--and one using
focused-warhead technology, the Israeli Arrow system. Based on these
tests, we know that hit-to-kill technologies can work. We have,
however, many more steps to take as we move towards fielding effective
missile defense systems. In the months ahead, we have several more TMD
and NMD tests scheduled that will involve increasing levels of system
complexity and integration.
Because of this progress in our test program in 1999, the
Department of Defense has significantly increased funding for the
missile defense program. As a result of this increase, we are better
able to reduce program risk and take advantage of cost-reduction
opportunities and move our programs to the next stage of development
and production.
Fiscal Year 2001 Program and Budget
The total fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization is $4.5 billion. This includes $3.9 billion for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), $444 million for
procurement, and $103.5 million for military construction (MILCON)
activities. Combining these three budget categories, National Missile
Defense represents $1.92 billion, or 43 percent of the budget. Theater
Air and Missile Defense programs account for $1.95 billion, also
roughly 43 percent of the budget. We request $37.7 million for Applied
Research and $93.2 million for Advanced Technologies, which together
represent about 2.9 percent of the budget. BMD Technical Operations
accounts for $272.6 million and is about 6 percent of the budget. We
request $22.6 million for Threat and Countermeasures efforts and $117
million for International Cooperative Programs, which together
represent 3 percent of our overall budget. The following chart breaks
out the fiscal year 2001 budget request by program element for BMDO-
managed programs.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Then Year 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Missile Defense:
NMD Dem/Val \1\..................... 950.248 1,740.238
NMD Procurement..................... .............. 74.530
NMD MILCON.......................... 15.000 101.595
Theater Air and Missile Defense:
PAC-3 EMD........................... 179.139 81.016
PAC-3 Procurement................... 343.773 365.457
Navy Area EMD....................... 307.274 274.234
Navy Area Procurement............... 18.143 ..............
THAAD Dem/Val....................... 523.525 ..............
THAAD EMD........................... 79.462 549.945
Navy Theater Wide Dem/Val........... 375.764 382.671
TMD BM/C\3\ Procurement............. .............. 3.975
Joint TAMD Dem/Val.................. 196.566 ..............
FoS E&I............................. 145.657 231.248
MEADS Dem/Val....................... 48.594 63.175
Support Technologies:
Applied Research.................... 88.365 37.747
Advanced Technology Dev............. 212.837 93.249
Boost-Phase Intercept............... 4.961 ..............
Space Based Laser \2\................... .............. 74.537
BMD Technical Operations:
BMD Tech Ops........................ 214.445 270.718
BMD Tech Ops MILCON................. 1.372 1.923
International Coop Programs............. 81.560 116.992
Threat & Countermeasures................ 19.343 22.621
Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Fund... .............. 4.775
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $590 million in fiscal year 1999 funding is being applied to fiscal
year 2000 requirements.
\2\ SBL (included under Advanced Tech Development in fiscal year 2000),
which has a separate PE in the fiscal year 2001 PB, represents $74
million or 1.7 percent of the budget and represents more than half of
the total required funding in partnership with the U.S. Air Force.
National Missile Defense
Based on recent threat assessments, my program guidance is to be in
a position, technologically, to support a decision later this year on
whether to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) system capable of
defending all 50 states against limited ballistic missile attack from
states that threaten international peace and security. Recent
intelligence estimates indicate that we must be concerned about the
possibility that ballistic missile threats from states that threaten
international peace and security will increase as they acquire a
capability to launch more and longer range missiles with simple
countermeasures in the 2005 to 2010 timeframe. As a result, we are
enhancing the NMD program beyond the original Capability 1, or ``C1,''
architecture by developing an ``Expanded C1'' architecture to meet this
expanded threat. The Expanded C1 architecture will be capable of
defending all 50 states against expected near-term threats larger than
the initial C1 architecture was designed to handle.
The Expanded C1 deployment option builds on revised program
guidance announced last year by the Secretary of Defense. For planning
purposes, the Expanded C1 system will incorporate 100 ground-based
interceptors based in Alaska and an advanced X-Band radar based at
Shemya Island, also in Alaska. Our NMD architecture plans incorporate
upgrades to the existing ballistic missile early warning radars and,
for the purposes of initial launch detection, use the Space Based
Infrared System (SBIRS) High, which eventually will replace the
existing Defense Support Program satellite constellation. Initial
Operational Capability (IOC) for the C1 architecture, consisting of 20
interceptors, still can take place in 2005. The full 100 can be
deployed by fiscal year 2007. Since the President submitted the fiscal
year 2000 budget to Congress, the NMD program has been increased by
$2.3 billion over fiscal year 2001-05. Between fiscal years 2001
through 2005, we have programmed $10.375 billion (in then year dollars)
for the NMD program.
In 1999, BMDO commissioned a second independent panel headed by
retired General Larry Welch to review the National Missile Defense
(NMD) program in light of the program's new structure. The panel's
charter was to determine the effects of extending the NMD program by
two years and to review the adequacy of the resulting test program. The
panel concluded that, although the revised NMD program reduced program
risk, it remains a high-risk program. The panel made 18 specific
recommendations to reduce program risk further. I support the panel's
recommendations and have added $285 million across fiscal year 2001-05
to augment the NMD testing program. This funding will pay for
additional hardware for the NMD Kill Vehicle, additional test equipment
and testing.
Our greatest challenge continues to be to make sure all NMD
elements work together as an integrated system so that it can defeat
the postulated threat to our homeland. A successful test program and
the timely execution of system-element schedules will provide the
answer to the question of greatest interest to us this year: Are we
technically ready to deploy an NMD system?
NMD Decision Time Line
We plan to conduct a Deployment Readiness Review (DRR) in July of
this year. We recently adjusted the schedule for the DRR, delaying this
technology readiness assessment of the NMD program by approximately one
month. The DRR is a review internal to the Defense Department that will
be led by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology &
Logistics. We think the delay is prudent given our rescheduling of
Integrated Flight Test 5 (IFT-5) to take place on June 26 of this year.
We do not believe moving the DRR to July will materially affect the
current schedule which supports fielding an initial capability in
fiscal year 2005.
Although the DRR starts a key decision process, it is the first of
at least three decision milestones in the program over the next five
years. The technological assessment of the NMD program will take place
at the Defense acquisition executive level--with full participation
from all Department of Defense stakeholders. The DRR will not
constitute the actual decision to deploy the NMD system. Rather, it
will assess the technological progress to support a deployment
decision. The Administration's decision will be based on an assessment
of four factors: (1) the nature of the threat; (2) the status of the
technology based on an initial series of rigorous flight tests, and
assessment of the proposed system's operational effectiveness; (3)
system affordability; and (4) assessments of the impact of NMD
deployment on the overall strategic environment and U.S. arms control
objectives, including efforts to achieve further reductions in
strategic nuclear arms under START II and START III.
If a decision is made to deploy, we will simultaneously seek
approval for our recommended NMD site and award of the construction
contract for that site. A decision to deploy would lead us to conduct a
Defense Acquisition Board review to assess the status of the program in
late fiscal year 2001. Based on program performance, we would seek
approval to initiate upgrades to the current early warning radars,
begin building the missile site, and start integrating the Battle
Management/Command, Control and Communications (BM/C\3\). In fiscal
year 2003, we would conduct a second Defense Acquisition Board review
to seek approval to procure and deploy the ground-based interceptors as
well as the necessary spares and test rounds. All of these decisions
will depend on an assessment of our technical and programmatic
progress.
NMD System Description
I would like to take a moment to explain how we envision the
individual NMD system elements will operate when combined as a fully
operational and integrated system. Let us assume a hostile launch to
begin the engagement process. Space-based sensors make the initial
detection and report a threat launch. DSP, and eventually SBIRS-High,
will alert the entire system of a potential ballistic missile attack,
cue the radars to erect ``search fences'' to detect the incoming
missile, and start evaluation of engagement options at battle-
management centers. When the threat missile crosses into the range of
ground-based early warning radars, these radars confirm target missile
flight and tracking information. Upon data confirmation, the BM/C\3\
center cues the X-Band Radar and directs the launch of a ground-based
interceptor. The ground-based X-band radar provides high-resolution
target tracking data to the BM/C\3\ system, which sends an update to
the interceptor in flight through an In-Flight Interceptor
Communications System. This data will be used by the interceptor to
maneuver close enough to the target missile for the on-board kill
vehicle sensor to discriminate the warheads from decoys and debris.
Sensors on the kill vehicle provide final, precise course corrections
to enable the kill vehicle to destroy the target. Multiple interceptors
launched at each incoming reentry vehicle, either in salvo or in waves
(a ``shoot-look-shoot'' scenario), are expected to increase
dramatically the probability of a successful intercept.
NMD Flight Testing
In June 1997 and January 1998, we conducted two very successful
seeker ``fly-by'' tests that allowed us to demonstrate key elements of
the kill vehicle. Last October, we also successfully conducted the
first of our interceptor tests--destroying a target vehicle in space
over the Pacific Ocean. On January 18, 2000, we conducted a second
intercept test. Though our Kill Vehicle did not intercept the target
warhead, the test successfully demonstrated the compatibility of
critical system elements. There are 17 developmental flight tests
remaining, all of which will incorporate intercept attempts, in
addition to other very important integrated system tests designed to
unite the NMD elements into an operational ``system of systems.'' We
also will conduct extensive ground testing of hardware and demonstrate
the integration of system elements.
The October 1999 integrated flight test, IFT-3, culminated in a
remarkable finish. It conveyed to the public the technical complexity
of colliding directly with a missile warhead traveling in space at more
than 15,000 miles per hour. The ability to do this becomes even more
awe-inspiring when one considers the target warhead may be less than
five feet long and surrounded by decoys and debris. We accomplished all
of our test objectives in IFT-3--the physical destruction of the target
warhead speaks for itself. We now know our interceptor concept works
technically, and that one test helped to build our confidence that we
can maintain our schedule.
A great deal of attention has been given to the integrated flight
test that occurred on January 18 of this year. It was one in a long-
line of testing events we have planned through 2005. While many have
called IFT-4 a failed test, I take exception to this characterization
of this very important and valuable test event.
Viewed in a mission context, IFT-4 was a failure--we missed the RV.
The miss speaks for itself. However, in the context of testing, IFT-4
was a successful developmental test that proved under very stressful
conditions the X-Band Radar, the Upgraded Early Warning Radar, and the
BM/C\3\ capability of our proposed architecture. The NMD system is one
of the most complex systems our country ever has attempted to develop
and produce. The interception part of the NMD mission is clearly the
most visible and highly regarded phase, yet we must not lose sight of
the fact that the successful integration of the system elements is no
less critical. The integration and support aspects of our testing
events are transparent to most people, but I assure you that we could
not do the job without them.
We will continue to test our national missile defense system based
upon strict, proven scientific methods learned over more than four
decades of missile development, deployment, and operations. Our tests
are designed to weed out flaws. While we strive for success on every
test, we do not expect that we will always have it. Very often problems
occur and elements of our tests fail. Indeed, we should expect failure
from time to time, sometimes spectacular failure, as the price of
ultimate success in this highly challenging endeavor. We learn a lot
from our testing successes and failures. We gain knowledge and pick up
important information from problems and mistakes discovered during
testing and incorporate the necessary changes into our systems before
they go into our deployed weapon systems. We must ensure that the NMD
system we eventually deploy will work with a very high level of
confidence--our testing program is designed to do just that.
One more Integrated Flight Test, our third attempt at a successful
intercept, is scheduled before the DRR in July. IFT-5, now scheduled
for June 26, will meet the requirements of an integrated system test in
which all the elements of the NMD system will participate together in
the engagement and destruction of the target. We decided to delay this
test by two months in order to deal satisfactorily with the problem we
encountered with the krypton cooling system in IFT-4. In the two months
that followed this anomaly, which caused the EKV to lose track of the
target cluster six seconds prior to impact, we examined the failure
options comprehensively. In the end, we decided that our EKV systems
did not require design changes, but nevertheless we wanted to ensure
that we thoroughly reviewed all test hardware and processes prior to
proceeding with the IFT-5. A testing delay at this point in our program
was prudent from a technical standpoint. We believe that we will have
enough technical data from this test in order to move forward with the
DRR in July.
From fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005, we will conduct
three intercept flight tests each year. This will allow us to
demonstrate the increasing sophistication of the kill vehicle and
integrated system. Flight Test 7, scheduled to take place in fiscal
year 2001, will be the first flight test to incorporate both the exo-
atmospheric kill vehicle and the proposed operational booster. Flight
Test 13, scheduled for fiscal year 2003, will fly the production-
configuration ground-based interceptor--including the kill vehicle and
booster.
The NMD Flight Test Program follows a very specific path to allow
an initial operational capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2005. This path
includes a number of milestones that, in effect, postpone the need to
freeze the interceptor design until the latest possible time dictated
by lead-time to the 2005 deployment date. The interceptor remains the
element with the highest risk within the NMD architecture. Therefore,
by waiting to lock in the interceptor design until after we have tested
the production-configuration ``round,'' we can be more confident in the
system we will deploy.
The NMD program has been executed along a high-risk schedule. High-
risk has a very specific meaning--we are executing this program at such
an accelerated pace, that significant failure in any of the program
elements may well cause us to slip our development timelines. Our
recommended approach, however, is designed to handle this schedule risk
by phasing our decisions based on test and programmatic performance,
allowing more time to develop, demonstrate and, ultimately, deploy the
system elements in a prudent manner. We have a demanding challenge and
we are managing aggressively to meet it.
Deployment Planning Activities
While we have been developing and testing the system elements, we
also have been proceeding vigorously on deployment planning activities.
We have conducted fact-finding and siting studies for two potential
site locations--Alaska and North Dakota. We have initiated site designs
for the X-band radar, weapon sites, and BM/C\3\ facilities. On October
1, 1999, we published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability
of the NMD Program's Deployment Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), inviting the public to review and comment on that document. The
public comment period ended on January 19, 2000. In October and
November of last year, over 650 people attended public hearings on the
draft EIS in Alaska, North Dakota, and Washington, D.C. We are
considering the input received as we prepare the Program's Final
Environmental Impact Statement, which we have scheduled for completion
later this spring. As required by law, the results of the EIS will
represent one of many inputs into the deployment decision process.
We initiated ground-based element facility planning and design in
fiscal year 1999 and have completed the 65 percent design for the
weapon system and X-band radar facilities. We will start the design of
the BM/C\3\ facilities later this year. For fiscal year 2001, we are
submitting a request for construction of the tactical and support
facilities for an Expanded C1 capability. This will consist of an X-
Band Radar Complex, a Ground-Based Interceptor Missile Launch Complex,
and a series of dispersed facilities for Battle Management/Command,
Control, and Communication. We request a fiscal year 2001 MILCON
appropriation of $101.6 million to begin construction of the X-band
radar, conduct site preparation of the interceptor site, and continue
planning and design work.
In accordance with budget guidance, we will further define the
facility and systems requirements associated with potential deployment
of 100 interceptors in an Expanded C1 architecture by fiscal year 2007,
including the installation of 80 additional missile silos and non-
tactical facilities. In order to remain on schedule for the deployment
of the first 20 missiles in fiscal year 2005, we plan to issue a
Request for Proposal this summer and award the contract(s) this fall,
if approval for deployment is given.
We have made important technical progress in many areas in the
National Missile Defense program. Nevertheless, this is an extremely
complex program and we still have many significant challenges ahead of
us.
Theater Missile Defense--the Family of Systems
The Family of Systems (FoS) concept is a flexible configuration of
highly interoperable theater missile defense systems capable of joint
and combined operations that allows the joint force commander to tailor
the right mix of systems and capabilities according to resources,
situation, and threat. We request $231.2 million in fiscal year 2001 to
enhance the effectiveness of our FoS. FoS seeks to link the TMD core
programs so that they fight as one system and obtain a force multiplier
advantage. The program builds interoperability by conducting
assessments to identify weaknesses, define architectural and
engineering solutions, and integrate and test those solutions. BMDO has
a disciplined acquisition approach for addressing warfighter
interoperability requirements that builds on a foundation of legacy and
developmental systems acquired by the Services. The near-term FoS
effort is more of a development and integration effort than a
traditional acquisition program insofar as it is expected to define
software and hardware changes to existing systems to enable them to
interoperate effectively.
Upper-Tier TMD Strategy
The medium- and long-range theater ballistic missile threat is
emerging very rapidly. More countries are acquiring ballistic missiles
with ranges between 1,000 and 1,300 kilometers. North Korea has
developed the No Dong-1 missile. In July 1998, Iran conducted a
partially successful flight test of its Shahab-3 missile, which could
significantly alter the military equation in the Middle East by giving
Iran the capability to strike targets in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and most
of Turkey.
DOD studies have consistently validated the need for two Upper-Tier
systems. The Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program
provides endo- and exo-atmospheric capabilities to engage a full
spectrum of Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBMs). It is able to provide
inland area defense for those scenarios where this is required. The
Navy Theater Wide (NTW) program enhances these capabilities by
providing early exo-atmospheric engagement opportunities in the ascent
phase (i.e., the portion of the ballistic missile trajectory after
boost and prior to apogee), which increases battle space and area
covered, and negates weapons of mass destruction at greater distances
from the intended target.
Late in fiscal year 1999, the Department of Defense (DOD) embarked
on an intensive review of the THAAD and NTW programs, two programs
that, once deployed, are intended to defeat the growing medium- and
long-range theater ballistic missile threat. The purpose of this review
was to meet Congressional guidance and to reduce risks and costs.
The Upper-Tier Strategy complies with the law. THAAD was fully
funded in the FYDP based on the successful completion of the
demonstration phase. NTW was fully funded through fiscal year 2002. The
decision to provide full outyear funding for an fiscal year 2006
contingency capability has not been made pending results of AEGIS LEAP
Interceptor (ALI), flight-testing. The decision to fund, and at what
level, will be made on performance. Embedded in the acquisition
strategy for both programs are opportunities to add funding or
accelerate the release of an early capability based on success.
Based on two successful THAAD intercepts, we revised the Upper-Tier
guidance during the summer of 1999 to cancel the remaining THAAD
Program Definition/Risk Reduction (PD/RR) flight tests and shift
emphasis from flight-test execution to missile redesign and planning
for the Engineering, Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase of the
program. Additionally, we developed an alternative acquisition approach
to provide a phased introduction of capability rather than initially
fielding the objective system.
Prior to this review, the THAAD program was pursuing a standard
acquisition approach to field an objective capability by defining
requirements, designing and fabricating hardware, conducting ground-
and flight-testing and eventually fielding a capability to meet
threshold operational requirements. In order to pace the threat and
obtain early capability with reduced risk, an evolutionary approach was
proposed in accordance with current DOD policy. This resulted in a
First Unit Equipped (FUE) for an initial configuration (or C1) in
fiscal year 2007. C1 will include the capability to defeat all Upper-
Tier threats expected by 2007, and it will meet the key performance
parameters outlined in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD).
Sophisticated countermeasures and battalion operational software are
deferred to the next configuration (termed C2) that is planned for
fielding in 2011.
We are reviewing options for reaching the objective NTW capability.
NTW has consistently pursued a block upgrade approach to acquisition,
meaning that a Block II objective system, which has yet to be fully
defined, may follow a Block I initial capability. The Navy will
continue this evolutionary approach, through an initial system flight
test program (ALI), followed by three developmental increments of the
Block I system. These increments, Block IA, 1B, and 1C, provide the
warfighter with ascent-phase TBMD capability that evolves toward the
Block II objective system using a ``block-within-a-block'' (BWB)
methodology.
Since the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) missile will mature more
quickly than the AEGIS Weapons System software, the NTW program can
deliver a warfighting capability earlier through the use of a
reconfigurable ship. Such a ship, which can shift computer programs to
accomplish either the Upper-Tier TBMD mission or conventional missions
in accordance with the tactical situation, will reduce the development
complexity of the software. Under the revised Upper-Tier Strategy, we
will be positioned to pursue an NTW contingency capability (Block IA)
in the 2006 timeframe, with a Block I reconfigurable ship (Block IB)
FUE in the 2008 timeframe. The Block IB capability is designed to pace
the threat expected at that time. The FUE for the fully ORD-compliant
Block IC multi-mission ship could occur in 2010. We are also
considering going straight to Block II.
Complementing this program is our cooperation with Japan on
research aimed at improving four key components of the SM-3 missile.
This cooperation was initiated when we signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with Japan in August 1999 to govern the first phase of
this collaborative activity. Preliminary planning is already underway
for follow-on work with Japan to demonstrate and validate the products
of the initial research. We will integrate this cooperative work into
NTW program planning.
Current NTW funding allows the program to complete ALI flight-
testing through fiscal year 2002 that is key to determining whether the
system works, continuing the U.S./Japan cooperative project noted
above, and assuring an industrial capability throughout the FYDP that
continues to advance key technologies required to field an NTW
capability.
When we initiated the review of its Upper-Tier Strategy, there were
not sufficient funds to enable both programs to field a capability in
2007. In a fiscally constrained environment, we had to balance
requirements, benefits, and risks in order to provide a highly
effective layered-defense against emerging threats. The revised Upper-
Tier Strategy conforms to the three tenets of the Fiscal Year 2000
Defense Authorization Act, Section 232. The current strategy also
provides opportunities for accelerating each program later should the
programs demonstrate success. This is a key feature of our strategy.
Both Upper-Tier programs should proceed based on demonstrated success.
Although we have funded THAAD adequately in the FYDP, outyear funding
for the NTW baseline program will be reviewed on successful ALI flight-
testing.
Theater High Altitude Area Defense.--In June and August 1999, the
THAAD system conducted two very successful intercepts. These successes
were a welcome development after a series of disappointing failures.
The THAAD and PATRIOT PAC-3 intercepts gave us very strong confirmation
of the hit-to-kill technologies we have been pursuing. We reported last
year that we were confident that the basic THAAD system and missile
designs were sound, and that the failures resulted from poor quality
control during production of the original Program Definition/Risk
Reduction (PD/RR) missiles. Based on all THAAD testing, to include the
success of those two hit-to-kill intercepts, the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) determined that the key
exit criteria for the PD/RR phase were met and waived the requirement
for three intercepts before entering EMD. As required by the Fiscal
Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act, we are providing the Report to
Congress on the rationale for waiving the third intercept.
Consequently, we have shifted the THAAD program's emphasis from
flight test execution in the demonstration phase, and we are now
preparing to enter the EMD phase using lessons from PD/RR. The
Milestone II decision to enter the EMD is currently planned for April
of this year. As we prepare to enter EMD, we are making use of the
lessons learned during the Program PD/RR phase, and expect to avoid
problems encountered with the PD/RR missiles.
The $549.94 million in fiscal year 2001 for the THAAD program will
continue the design and development of the C1 hardware and software.
System Preliminary Design and segment Critical Design Reviews will be
conducted. Part of this development will include lethality studies and
advanced algorithm development. Key test facilities such as the System
Integration Laboratory will be prepared for system-level testing.
Integration activities with the Air and Missile Defense Command and
Control System will be continued. Finally, preparations begin for EMD
flight-testing.
Navy Theater Wide.--The NTW program has experienced several
successes over the past year. In September 1999, the Navy Theater Wide
program successfully demonstrated the first shipboard launch of a
Control Test Vehicle. Follow-on flight tests are scheduled for later
this year leading up to the first Navy Theater Wide intercept attempt
during the first quarter of fiscal year 2001. Additionally, the Navy
Theater Wide Program has successfully completed significant
developmental ground-testing of the third stage rocket motor, full-
scale and sub-scale lethality testing, and demonstration of significant
interoperability potential through data exchange with THAAD and PAC-3
during recent missile test events.
Over the next few years, a significant amount of testing is
planned. These tests will mitigate the higher risk in many areas and
obtain valuable data to support system-engineering requirements. The
$382.67 million in fiscal year 2001 for NTW will continue ALI flight-
test activities as well as the Block I system engineering, program
management, risk reduction, and test planning efforts. Lethality
requirement definition and performance testing also continue. Funds are
included to procure target assets to support flight-testing. Finally,
funding will continue research, analysis and development efforts with
the Government of Japan on selected NTW Block II technologies.
Lower-Tier TMD Strategy
The Lower-Tier strategy focuses on enhancing currently fielded
systems (PATRIOT, AEGIS) to provide capability as soon as possible. The
strategy also exploits emerging technologies to develop a highly mobile
defense for maneuver forces under the Medium Extended Air Defense
System (MEADS) program. The overarching goal of the near-term Lower-
Tier systems is to deploy an effective and affordable TBM capability as
soon as technically possible.
Increasing costs, driven primarily by technical challenges, have
been a problem for the Lower-Tier systems. The delivery dates for the
PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) and Navy Area systems have moved
to fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2003, respectively. The PAC-3 and
Navy Area programs still require further development and testing, and
still have challenges to face to meet the dates we have set for them.
In order to optimize resources and coalition forces effectiveness,
we are aggressively pursuing international cooperative participation in
the Lower-Tier programs. This will include the MEADS program and the
potential for extensive foreign military sales of PATRIOT and,
possibly, Navy Area systems. We must, of course, balance the sharing of
the systems and technical capability with safeguarding of critical
technologies.
Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3).--This has been a busy and
successful year of activity on the PAC-3 program. Every time the system
has been tested, it has been successful--all five of the PAC-3 tests
have met their goals, including intercepts on the last three: March 15,
1999; September 16, 1999; and February 5, 2000.
The majority of the flight test program still lies ahead. The
remaining PAC-3 missions will consist of 14 PAC-3 missiles intercepting
different classes of targets. Follow-on tests include developmental and
operational tests, which are designed to test the incremental hardware
and software upgrades to the PAC-3 system using increasingly complex
scenarios.
On October 12, 1999, we conducted a review and verified that all
the exit criteria for entering low-rate initial production were met.
The ensuing Acquisition Decision Memorandum officially authorized the
award of a contract for the assembly of the first 20 PAC-3 missiles. On
December 3, 1999, this contract was awarded to Lockheed-Martin. In
parallel to this, a second contract to build three additional missiles
for Air-Directed Surface-to-Air Missile (ADSAM) testing and conduct of
an engagement against a long-range target was awarded on December 8,
1999.
I remain fully committed to reducing production costs of the PAC-3
missile. My goals for the overall program are to reduce costs, procure
as many missiles as possible, deliver an operational capability on
time, and live within the current budget estimate.
In October 1999, we established a joint government-industry
missile-production cost-review team. This team focused on government
and contractor costs related to missile production. The team
established the baseline missile cost, developed a prioritized set of
cost reduction initiatives, and produced an implementation plan to
execute the cost reduction initiatives. The results of this work look
promising. In the next few months, I will be adjusting our PAC-3
strategy to incorporate the team recommendations, which have the
potential to substantially increase missile quantity for the same
funding. I have commitment from Lockheed-Martin to make it work, and I
look forward to telling you more about our progress in coming months.
The PAC-3 program request for fiscal year 2001 is $81 million in
EMD and $365 million in procurement. This funding will complete the
engineering, manufacturing, and development and testing of the PAC-3
Configuration-3 system, including the PAC-3 missile. The procurement
funding will buy up to 40 PAC-3 missiles and spares and upgrade six
Configuration-3 ground systems.
Navy Area.--The Navy Area sea-based missile defense capability
consists of modifications to the AEGIS combat systems and the SPY-1
radar to enable the ship to detect, track, and engage theater ballistic
missiles using an updated version of the Navy's Standard Missile. The
Navy Area program is currently in the EMD phase and is nearing the
first series of 8 flight tests. These tests are scheduled to begin in
May at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). The program recently
completed a rebaselining effort to field the system within the
available funding. First Unit Equipped will occur in December of 2002.
This program still has challenges. I had an independent review group
examine the program cost risk. We understand these risks better, but I
will not feel confident until the technical risks are retired by
successful intercepts.
In the Fall of 1998, two AEGIS cruisers, the U.S.S. Port Royal, and
the U.S.S. Lake Erie were augmented with TBM software and the ability
to test-fire the new TBM missile using their new LINEBACKER User
Operational Evaluation System. These ships are now providing critical
feedback to influence the tactical design improvements and
modifications to the AEGIS combat system. They will conduct a variety
of at-sea tests, develop core doctrine and tactics, and support our
flight-testing activities.
The Navy Area program request for fiscal year 2001 is for $274.2
million in EMD funding. This will permit completion of the White Sands
Missile Range and Linebacker, at-sea, flight-test events. Successful
WSMR flight intercepts provide the technical basis to begin low-rate
initial production using the Navy's weapons procurement funding. This
funding also pays for continued development of the Aegis ship systems,
including software development.
Medium Extended Air Defense System.--We recognize the need for
maneuver force protection, added mobility, and the value of
international cooperation. We previously had restructured the MEADS
program to include a three-year Risk Reduction Effort for the design
and development phase ending in 2002. We have now augmented the 3-year
risk reduction effort and fully funded the MEADS program by adding $714
million from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005. MEADS is currently
scheduled to achieve FUE in fiscal year 2012.
The MEADS request for fiscal year 2001 is for $63.2 million in Dem/
Val funding. This funding, combined with funding from our international
partners, Germany and Italy, will enable continued development of
prototype launcher, mobile fire control radar, and BMC\4\I hardware and
associated software and digital end-to-end simulation of the MEADS
system.
Integrated Technology Program
Technology development has played a crucial role in the recent
successful trials of the BMD systems. Today's missile defense systems
rely heavily on technology matured and demonstrated by BMDO and the
Services. Our Integrated Technology Program continues to focus on
enhancing the effectiveness of our current major defense acquisition
programs (MDAPs) and reducing associated costs while also strategically
investing in advanced concepts and capabilities to defend our nation
against future missile threats.
Our spiral development strategy relies on an integrated technology
program to demonstrate and mature technology for insertion into the
MDAPs. We are accomplishing this integrated approach through increased
communication between our technology developers and our MDAP program
managers and the development of coordinated transition plans. These
transition plans detail the development, transition, and insertion
strategies for all component technologies supporting spiral
development.
While seeking to develop technologies to counter future threats,
our Advanced Interceptor Technology program, along with our other
technology programs, are developing cost-saving components for some of
our acquisition programs. These near-term cost-saving technology
programs should allow us to reduce per unit costs, thereby enabling us
to procure increased numbers of interceptors and other ballistic
missile defense system components within available fiscal resources.
It has become increasingly difficult to maintain an aggressive
technology program in the face of competing demands presented by the
MDAPs. In the past, we were able to fund more robust technology
programs, such as the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP),
which is now the basis for the Navy Theater Wide and NMD interceptors.
At current funding levels, we are able to fund far fewer programs for
next-generation weapon systems. Since most of our financial resources
are focused on development, production, and deployment of our family of
systems, we need to invest in technology development if we are to keep
pace with the emerging threat. We will continue to examine ways to
insure technology funding in the future.
Space-based Laser Project
The key focus of our Advanced Technology directed energy program
remains the chemical Space-Based Laser (SBL). The SBL project is
designed to investigate whether, at some point, it would be possible to
provide the United States with a highly effective, continuous boost-
phase intercept capability for both theater and national missile
defense missions. Working with ground-, sea-, and air-based missile
defenses, boost-phase intercepts by the SBL could ``thin out'' missile
attacks and reduce the burden on mid-course and terminal-phase
defenses.
In the near-term, the SBL project will focus on ground-based
efforts to develop and demonstrate the component and subsystem
technologies required for an operational space-based laser system and
the design and development of an Integrated Flight Experiment (IFX)
vehicle that could be tested in space in 2012.
The SBL project is jointly managed by BMDO and the U.S. Air Force,
and is executed by the U.S. Air Force on our behalf. Both BMDO and the
Air Force request funds in the fiscal year 2001 budget for the SBL
project. We are working jointly, pooling resources and ensuring the
program is following a clear direction. The BMDO budget contains $74.5
million and the Air Force budget has $63.2 million, for a combined
request of $137.7 million.
Ballistic Missile Defense Technical Operations
The BMD Technical Operations program manages capabilities to assure
the execution of the NMD, TMD and FoS, and Technology programs. This
includes BMD systems architecture and engineering analysis, test
resources and facilities, modeling and simulation, and phenomenology
data collection and analysis. Although it provides this foundation for
the entire missile defense program, Technical Operations represents
only 6 percent of the budget.
International Cooperative Programs
I have touched on some of our international activities with allies.
The Department fully funded the MEADS program and added $714 million
from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005 towards the design and
development of the system. Our collaborative work with Japan has been
funded at $36 million through fiscal year 2001. Now let me look at two
other International Cooperative Programs--one with Israel and the other
with Russia.
Cooperative Programs with Israel
The U.S.-Israeli Arrow Program has made significant progress toward
the deployment early this year of a contingency-capable Arrow Weapon
System. On November 1, 1999, Israel successfully conducted a fully
integrated system intercept test against a ballistic missile target.
The Arrow II interceptor was controlled to a successful intercept by
the other elements of the Arrow Weapon System--the surveillance/fire
control radar (Green Pine), fire control center (Citron Tree), and
launcher control center (Hazel Nut Tree). The successful test satisfied
Israeli Air Force requirements for initial operational capability. Once
training and equipment inventory requirements are met, I expect the
Israeli Air Force to declare the system operational as a contingency
capability. Additional funds were provided to allow Israel to complete
the procurement of a third battery of the Arrow system.
Bilateral activities continue toward development of an Arrow Weapon
System that is interoperable with U.S. TMD systems. Interoperability
initiatives will result in the Arrow Weapon System having a
demonstrated capability to interoperate with U.S. PATRIOT and Navy Area
TMD systems. We are continuing efforts to use the Israeli Test Bed
(ITB) and the Israeli Systems Architecture and Integration (ISA&I)
analysis capabilities to assist with the deployment and future upgrades
of the Arrow Weapon System.
The $81.2 million in fiscal year 2001 for the Israeli Cooperative
Project continues the Arrow Deployability Program, which includes
funding to adjust the U.S. cost share of development so that Israel can
procure components for a third Arrow battery. On-going Arrow flight
tests will continue to validate and expand the Arrow battlespace.
Improved threat models and an Arrow II update are incorporated in the
ITB that support U.S. and Israeli standard operating procedure
development and CINC EUCOM exercise requirements. Finally, evaluation
of Arrow performance continues in conjunction with future emerging
threats.
Cooperative Programs with Russia
The Russian-American Observation Satellites (RAMOS) program
currently is my agency's most significant cooperative effort with
Russia. The program originated in 1992 to develop and test space-based
surveillance technologies jointly. Early in 1999, the associated
technology objectives were assessed to be lower in priority than other
critical technologies needed to address future ballistic missile
threats. We then proposed an alternative aircraft-based cooperative
program, which the Russians did not accept as a substitute for the two-
satellite concept.
In 1999 we reviewed the program and determined that continuing the
development of a space-based experiment would better support our
proposed program of cooperation with Russia. Therefore, we are
proposing a revised two-satellite project, similar to the original
RAMOS concept. If the United States and Russia agree to proceed, we
envision that the revised RAMOS program will cost about $347 million
over fiscal years 2000-2006.
Threat and Countermeasures
Our threat and countermeasures program provides us with
intelligence data on current and evolving foreign missile threats. This
information is critical to the planning and execution of the TMD and
NMD programs and serves as the basis for the threat specifications
against which current and future defensive systems are designed. The
program produces a series of carefully constructed illustrative missile
attack scenarios reflecting adversaries' systems and operating
concepts--including simulated flight trajectory information--for use in
missile warfare engagement modeling and simulations. Wargames using
this information are conducted at the Joint National Test Facility in
Colorado Springs, Colorado. We request $22.6 million for this activity
in fiscal year 2001.
BMDO Charter and Reorganization
While I am accountable for providing for the procurement and
fielding of TMD, NMD, and other antiballistic missile systems as they
may be assigned to me, I am also responsible for the transition of BMD
systems to the Military Departments and ultimately to the Combatant
Commands for operational use. Interest has been raised recently about
how we are implementing guidelines in our charter provided by DOD to
transfer procurement funds for major defense acquisition programs, in
this instance our lower-tier systems, from BMDO to the military
services. The challenge before me is to strike the right balance of
oversight. We are continuing to study ways to determine the appropriate
timeline for the transition of responsibilities for each system to the
Services in light of my obligation to maintain a robust acquisition
strategy within our Family of Systems architecture. There is no request
to transfer these programs in this year's request.
Recognizing that ballistic missile defense systems soon will enter
limited production and be delivered to the operating forces, we are
reorganizing to meet the challenge of managing both the R&D and the
acquisition responsibilities spelled out in our charter. I share the
concern of the Congress about technology management and have begun
instituting significant changes in our technology programs. My
reorganization initiative reflects a transition from an organization
oriented towards early technology R&D and demonstrations to an
acquisition-focused agency responsible for introducing advanced
technology and complex proven weapon systems to combatant forces.
Moreover, I have flattened the BMDO management structure in order to
reduce decision and action cycle times, which I believe is necessary if
I am going to achieve my goal of delivering what we promise.
Summary
As we look forward to the DRR, we have achieved several notable and
reassuring successes in our NMD testing program. We are making
substantial progress in our Upper-Tier systems, moving them towards
development and production. And we are on the verge of achieving major
milestones leading to deployment of our Lower-Tier systems. I believe
our missile defense programs can and will contribute significantly in
the very near future to our national security, and that we are funding
them accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, I am more convinced than ever that effective missile
defense is crucial to the defense of the nation and its armed forces.
The missile threats facing our nation, our armed forces, and our allies
are immediate and growing. While I expect significant complex technical
and management challenges in our program, it is demonstrating
increasing success, and I am confident that we are aggressively
addressing the right issues at the right time.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be delighted to
address the Committee's questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. That is a very full
statement.
Gentlemen, Senator Inouye and I made short statements. I
would like to see if anyone who has come in later would like
to.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity.
Ballistic missile defense programs
I want to commend General Kadish and also General Nantce
for the very strong efforts you are making to move forward on
the development of our ballistic missile defense programs. I
think in spite of the very slow start by this administration,
dating back to 1993, when it returned completed proposals for
the national missile defense ground-based interceptor, for
example, to the contractors unopened, we are seeing at least a
higher rate of funding being requested as reflected in this
year's budget.
But in the past the administration has been notoriously
culpable in slowing down the progress that has been authorized
by the Congress on these programs. Just look at the
overwhelming support reflected in the passage of the National
Missile Defense Act, for example. It shows that Congress wants
to move forward with a robust effort to develop not only a
national missile defense program, but theater missile systems
as well.
And it looks like every key program in this budget request
is underfunded. If you look in the THAAD program, the
deployment schedule has slowed down because of a lack of funds,
same thing for Navy theater-wide and others. In the airborne
laser (ABL) program, even though that is an Air Force funded
program, there is not enough money. That has been cut by this
administration's budget.
But as you observed, the funding request is also low for
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's work on future
technology programs, so we have got our work cut out for us if
we are going to keep on track and fulfill the goals that you
just said you shared, and that is the development and
deployment of these theater and national missile defense
systems.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici, do you have an opening
statement?
Cost
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure
that I am on record saying that I support this effort, but I
remain rather skeptical as to whether you really know how much
national missile defense is going to cost. I believe the costs
are going to continue to escalate. I do not think we are going
to be able to rely on the estimates that have been given so
far.
That has been the case for this program from the beginning,
and I close with the hope that as we proceed, that you will
still, even while moving ahead, have some stopover points when
you take a real look at the technical parts of the system. See
whether the system works, and honestly evaluate it for us. That
way, we do not wait until we have spent a great sum of money,
and then discover it is not going to work unless we double or
triple the funding.
Now, I may be the only one saying this, but I believe what
I have just described is a real probability. Until we started
this debate the American people assumed we had some defense
against intercontinental ballistic missiles, and now as this
debate becomes more public they are very shocked to discover we
have none. America may be enthusiastic about building a
national missile defense system, but it does not mean we know
how to do it within a reasonable cost line.
You are nodding. I hope you are nodding to indicate that
you will keep us apprised of the costs on a regular basis and
not wait until it is too late to tell us the system is not
going to work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. General, I have got a whole series of
questions. I am going to wait and see if others have basic
questions.
National missile defense testing
I am concerned about one thing, and that is, if I
understand what you have just told us, you believe that this
next test scheduled for June 26, I believe, is really the
keystone of whether we should proceed with the national missile
defense as currently anticipated, is that right? If that test
is a failure, are you saying we should do what Senator Domenici
says, review the whole program before going further?
General Kadish. Well, Senator, no one test should be that
critical to a decision in my view, from a developmental
standpoint, and IFT-5 gives us another opportunity early in the
program to get more test data, and for those of us who develop
systems, more test data is always better, but we have an awful
lot already in our ground testing, and the flight tests we have
already done, to do the initial assessments that we are going
to be asked to do on this program.
What IFT-5 gives us is another opportunity to add to that
data base and give us as much confidence as we can have, given
the early nature of this program. So I would caution against
IFT-5 begin a binary event, if you will, either for or against.
Senator Stevens. But would you disagree with the statement
that we have the technology base? The problem is integrating
the systems that are to be portions of this total national
defense program.
General Kadish. I would agree with that statement. Our
challenge is the integration, to make it work.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I would like to give you an opportunity to
respond to some of the criticism that we have been receiving
here, that first, your testing program is not realistic enough,
and second, some have further suggested that testing may be
rigged to improve the chances of success.
I need not tell you, because we all know that testing data
is very important, you will have to make a recommendation to
the President this summer. Now, do you have any response to
that?
General Kadish. Yes, Senator. Let me take it one at a time,
and if you bear with me, these become complicated in
explanation. I will try to simplify it.
Realistic testing
First, the idea that our testing is not realistic, let me
say a few things about that. If you look at our program, where
we are asked to deploy 20 missiles by 2005 and have this system
effective by then, we laid out a test program that includes
early testing to prove the elements of our system, and
demonstrate the integration capability. That is happening now,
and in the last year especially.
We laid our operational testing as we understand it,
against more realistic threats and combinations of those later
in the program, and this is not unusual. This is what is done
in most development programs.
What is difficult for us now is that in the early phases of
this program, were we are trying to demonstrate the
fundamentals of the system, where we can only demonstrate the
fundamentals, people are sometimes asking us to go a bridge too
far, and ask us to test against an operational set of
conditions that we are just not ready to test against, but what
we are able to do is to demonstrate the functionality of the
system early on in the maturity of the program.
Let me give you an example of why we do that, and it comes
from aircraft testing, if you will. Early on in a program, and
for many decades now on aircraft testing, the first thing you
do with a brand-new aircraft is, you do a high-speed taxi test.
You do not even take off. The next thing you do, when you take
off you do not even raise the landing gear, and the reasons why
you do not do that is to go through a fundamental test program
to prove the basics. Can it fly, and can it safely return to
Earth, and that is the reason why you do not put out the
landing gear.
In the national missile defense program, early on what we
are trying to do is to demonstrate basically two things. One
is, can we hit a target going 15,000 miles per hour at closing
speed, and do it in a circle about that big, on a 5-foot ice
cream cone.
Discrimination
The second thing we are trying to prove is that the
different radar elements and software command and control
systems that allow us to do the hit to kill can discriminate
generally what it ought to hit, out of a complex of debris and
potentially some decoys.
So the program is a stepping-stone, if you will, set of
criteria on a test program to get increasingly complex over the
years, and in the early stages we are walking before we run.
Test scripting
In response to the second issue that the tests are rigged
in some way, shape, or form, the tests are scripted to get what
we need to know, as I just described, walking before we run:
the fundamentals of hitting the target, which has been very
difficult to do, and major technological leap ahead, and the
fundamentals of making sure we hit the right target out of a
narrowly developmental set of target suites, and we script the
test to do and come up with those kinds of test objectives.
That does not mean to say that these things are arranged
such that we can actually hit these targets because we have
rigged the test, if you will.
Now, when you put that all together, where we are in this
program is that early on in our tests, we are walking before we
run in our major technologies. The test results out of this
part of the program will give us confidence that we can do the
engineering later on in the program to make it work reliably,
and be operationally effective, and our program is designed
that way.
And as we move from the early tests, where we have a few
objects to go after in our threat constellations, to the latter
phases, where we will have many, and threat representative, we
believe we have the right test program put together to make it
happen.
I hope that helps, Senator.
Senator Inouye. Are you satisfied that test data that you
are acquiring now would be appropriate and sufficient to make
recommendations to the President?
General Kadish. Yes, Senator.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
General Kadish. For the phase of the program we are in
right now. Now, I cannot guarantee you operational
effectiveness determinations to the degree we will have 4 or 5
years from now. We are just not there, not with two or three
flight tests, but as we gain more flight test data and move
into the operational testing, at that point we will prove what
we suspect to be the case now on the operational effectiveness.
Senator Inouye. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. General, I, too, would like to compliment
you on your hard work on the national missile defense program.
It is a difficult assignment, to say the least.
We all know that there are people who question this
program. There are a lot of nay-sayers in the media, in the
Government, in this body, who pointed to the failed intercept
that you mentioned as proof that this system is not a viable
missile defense program. If you could talk to them, and you
have the chance, what would you say to these people?
General Kadish. Well, as I said earlier, no one test ought
to be the keystone of judging whether a particular system ought
to work, but what I would say to them is that the very first
time we tried to do an intercept--and that is all we tried to
do the very first time we put this weapons system up in an
intercontinental challenge--we were able to successfully
destroy the target.
That does not happen very often, and it does not happen by
accident. There is an awful lot of technology at work, and
American capability that went into making that happen, and the
point at which we are at right now is that we could--I guess
the best way to say it is that we do not have to invent things
at this point to make this system effective.
What we have to do is engineer it, and we are in the very
early stages of putting this system together, with just a few
flight tests, an awful lot of data and technology work that has
already gone into it and as we progress, on a very aggressive
schedule, to do the engineering, we are getting increasingly
confident that we are going to be able to make this work the
way we designed it.
Senator Shelby. But integration is the key to it, or the
dynamic, is that correct?
General Kadish. The integration is the key.
BMD acquisition management steamlining
Senator Shelby. General, I understand that the Department
of Defense (DOD) has directed that the service program managers
and program executive officers who are responsible for the
execution of BMDO acquisition programs will report directly to
you. What prompted these changes, and how has the Army
responded to that?
General Kadish. Well, I think what we are looking at is
this idea that we need to continuously improve how we do our
management of these very important systems, and I think that
across a broad front we have come to realize, especially in the
last year or so with the test results that we have, that we are
moving these programs into very different phases from
demonstration, if you will, into development, and from
development into production, and it requires us to relook at
how we actually manage these programs on a day-to-day basis.
And what we are trying to do now is to do streamline
activities so that the people doing what I call real work in
the field have less oversight, if you will, and are able to do
their jobs more effectively by cutting down decision cycle
times, and provide the proper amount of oversight rather than
intrusive oversight, and what we are trying to do now is to
cooperatively make the services and BMDO cut out duplicative
efforts----
Senator Shelby. Make it work better.
General Kadish. Make it work better, streamline, and quite
frankly make the program manager's life a lot better, and let
them concentrate on managing the program as opposed to talking
with us, and it has been very difficult to do this, because
BMDO is a different kind of organization in the sense of
bringing together a very disparate set of programs, so it does
not fit the culture very well, and we are trying to make it
better for the program, and I think we are making some pretty
good progress.
Technology investment
Senator Shelby. General, are we short-changing our future,
as far as investment in technology development? Has it been
underfunded?
General Kadish. A lot of the success we have enjoyed in the
last year results directly from the investments that have been
made over the past 15 or 20 years. I think we can say that with
great confidence.
Where we are today, as I alluded to in my opening
statement, is that in order to fund the programs into the
development from technology and into production, we are
spending less resources on our technology base, and so although
it may not threaten us today in terms of discoveries in a
technology sense, we will probably begin paying the price later
on, many years downstream.
Senator Shelby. I understand you are in the process of
continuing your evaluation of sites for the space-based laser
test facility. That is an ongoing deal, is it not, and where
are you there?
General Kadish. We have just completed our site visits. I
went out personally to look at all the sites under
consideration, and right now I am asking some fundamental
questions that are driving the analysts basically crazy at this
point.
Senator Shelby. Good.
General Kadish. But I want to make sure that we have a
clear idea of how to proceed here, and I am not confident
enough right now that we do, so we may be a little bit more
delayed by a month or two, or even longer, to make sure I get
the right answers to the questions.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd.
NMD tests
Senator Byrd. General, I voted for the National Missile
Defense Act of 1999. I believe it may be a prudent necessity to
deploy a national missile defense.
I share the concerns that were ably expressed by the
chairman of our Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. I am
concerned about the cost increases, but before I get into that,
I want to discuss the two interceptor tests. Only one missile
has been a kill. The test in January was a miss. Another test
is scheduled for June. What if the June test is a miss?
General Kadish. Well, Senator, it depends on why it missed,
and if I might, let me speculate for a minute. I do not often
have the luxury of doing that in my business.
But it could be a failure because the target did not show
up, which would have nothing to do with the system. It could be
a failure internal to the test apparatus that we use, because
of the range restrictions, or it could be a fundamental failure
in the design of the system, which we do not expect right now.
So it depends on why we failed, and what effect that would
have to our overall technological evaluation, and again, that
is why I caution against having the flight test, any single
flight test be the touchstone of whether we should proceed in
any program, whether it is this program or others.
Senator Byrd. Which of these failures would concern you
most?
General Kadish. What would concern me most is if we had a
fundamental design failure.
Senator Byrd. What if we have a fundamental design failure?
General Kadish. If we have a fundamental design failure, we
have to do basically what we did after the last failure of the
flight test. We went in an intensive evaluation of the system
to find out what the problem was.
Once we concluded that effort, we would decide what to do
about it, and that could range anywhere from a temporary design
change that we could effect in our next flight test, to a
longer term design change that we would have to stop and
remanufacture some parts of the system.
So there is a whole series of disciplined activities that
we would have to undertake to fix the problem, and depending on
how long it took, it may delay our test program, and if it
delays our test program, we would have to evaluate whether or
not we could meet the end date that we are asked to meet.
Senator Byrd. There are 17 developmental flight tests
remaining, all of which will incorporate intercept attempts.
What is your view of making a decision to proceed or not
proceed after only three intercept tests?
General Kadish. Well, as I said earlier, Senator, the three
tests--and by the way, we have done a lot of ground testing
that is added to this. What we can tell you is whether or not
the technology exists to take the risk of proceeding on our
program requirements, but I cannot tell you that we are doing
operational testing, as some would ask us to do.
Since we are running what we call a concurrent program, and
that is a program to do things simultaneously in order to meet
an end date in 2005, we are constructing sites, we are building
hardware, all at the same time that we are testing, I cannot
design a program to get operational testing any time sooner
than what we already have planned in the program, which is
2003, 2004, 2005 timeframe.
If the country wants to wait until we get that level of
testing, after many more flight tests, then we would have to
extend the deployment schedule accordingly from 5 to
potentially 10 years, and that has to be judged in relationship
to the threat.
So early on in the testing, what we can tell you is whether
or not there are any inventions that present such a high risk
to the program that we cannot make it happen on schedule, and
that is about all we can say.
Senator Byrd. How early on would that be?
General Kadish. We are able to do that this summer.
NMD cost estimate
Senator Byrd. This summer. Does the official estimate of
cost include the 100 interceptors planned for 2007, or does it
stop at the 20 antimissile interceptors planned for 2005?
General Kadish. We include the cost of 100 interceptors in
our program selected acquisition reports to the Congress. Now,
I have to say that we added the 100 interceptors late in the
budget cycle last year, and the cost estimating process, if you
will, is not as scientific as we would like it to be in the
timeframes that we are talking about, so we are redoing the
cost estimate for the summer's review process, and I would
expect the numbers to change to reflect our better
understanding of what we are delivering, but the cost of what
we are submitting in the budget today, as well as in our
reports, reflect the 100 missile program.
Senator Byrd. Does the official estimate include the $4.6
billion planned for 2005 through 2010?
General Kadish. If I understand the question correctly,
yes.
Senator Byrd. Well, the question was, does the official
estimate include the $4.6 billion planned for 2005 through
2010?
General Kadish. Oh, 2005-2010. Yes. We planned a life cycle
estimate for this program for 20 years, to include the missiles
that will be in the program from 2005 to 2007, the 100-missile
program.
If you have the cost of that 100-missile program for a 20-
year cycle from, I believe, 2001 to 20 years later, the cost in
our reports is for about $36 billion in then-year dollars, and
that equates to a $30.2 billion program in constant year
dollars, so the answer is yes.
Senator Byrd. Does the statement of cost include the $3
billion spent between 1991 and 1998?
General Kadish. Yes, I believe it does.
Senator Byrd. One final question. The same report, which
was a news report, that put the cost at $20.2 billion, almost
60 percent more than has been publicly stated, that same report
indicates that the Pentagon has done nothing to dissuade the
press from calling NMD a $12.7 billion system, even though that
is just the cost between fiscal year 1999 and 2005. What about
that?
General Kadish. It is an unfortunate situation. It depends
on whether you talk about what the cost parameters are.
We could talk about it in the future years defense program
sense, we could talk about it in acquisition dollars, or we
could talk about it in life cycle dollars. Those numbers are
all different, and then when we give you those numbers, we can
either give them in then-year dollars with inflation, or with
constant-year dollars.
So my view is, it is not an attempt to misrepresent the
cost of this program, but we have to be precise in what
question is being asked, and we have all those numbers, and I
would be more than happy to provide them in any format to the
committee for the record.
But the idea that the cost increase, because we went from
20 to 100 missiles, is a factor of the fact that we changed the
program to 100 missiles, and--we are not trying to attempt to
misrepresent the cost, but we have to be precise, what we are
asked to give in terms of numbers.
[The information follows:]
Data displayed is extracted from the Selected Acquisition
Report to Congress, and arrayed in the various groupings of
years, type costs, and dollars as described above.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year
Then Year (fiscal
year 1999)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future year's defense program (fiscal year
2001-fiscal year 2005):
RDT&E..................................... 4,751.7 4,465.1
Procurement............................... 5,149.3 4,724.2
Milcon.................................... 473.7 438.1
O&S....................................... ........... ...........
-------------------------
Total FYDP.............................. 10,374.7 9,627.4
=========================
Program Costs (fiscal year 1991-2026):
RDT&E..................................... 11,961.5 11,502.1
Procurement............................... 7,792.3 6,770.4
Milcon.................................... 498.4 462.0
-------------------------
Total Acquisition....................... 20,252.2 18,734.5
=========================
O&S....................................... 15,993.0 11,492.0
-------------------------
Total Life Cycle........................ 36,245.2 30,226.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I have gone well beyond my
time. I thank the chairman and the committee for its
indulgence.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. General Kadish, in today's New York Times,
Elizabeth Becker writes an article describing a group of
scientists, some at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), that call themselves the Union of Concerned Scientists,
who criticize the national missile defense program. This is the
same crowd that in October said that the intercept, the hit-to-
kill was a lucky result that was achieved in the test of the
program, the system under development.
Do you agree that that intercept was lucky? They say it was
lucky because it wouldn't have occurred if a balloon decoy had
not alerted the kill vehicle to the target's location. Do you
agree that this intercept was lucky?
General Kadish. No, I do not, Senator.
Countermeasures
Senator Cochran. Well, this same group in today's paper go
on to say that any nation capable of fielding a long-range
ballistic missile will also be able to equip it with
countermeasures that will overcome the NMD system. Is that a
valid argument against the system under development?
General Kadish. If I might take a little bit of time to
discuss this issue, I think it is important to frame the debate
properly.
I think it is fair to say that countermeasures concern us.
They do. We have been working at it for many years. We have a
lot of technology associated with it. But let me say three
things about this. First, even though we are concerned about
countermeasures, the idea that those that can do missile
technology can--which is a fundamental assumption, those that
can do missile technology can therefore do countermeasures, I
would say on the surface is true.
But you have to say, what is the rest of the story? Even
though those technicians are capable of doing these types of
things, you have to ask the question whether or not they will
be effective once invented, and this country has much
experience in developing countermeasures that I cannot go into
here, and it is not a trivial exercise to make them effective,
so from a scientific basis you can invent, using scientific
principles, almost any kind of countermeasure you want to
invent to defeat a particular system.
The real question is, can they make them effective, and in
order to make it effective, it brings me to my second point.
You have to do a lot of testing. Recognize, there have been
many questions this morning that, how much testing have we done
to assure ourselves this system would work.
We could ask that question about any system in our
inventory, and those that ask us those types of questions ought
to be asking whether or not the rogue nations, if you will, as
capable as they might be, even if they are primitive, how
effective will those countermeasures be, and that is the rest
of the story from the second point.
The third point is a more macro issue that I would point
out, without getting into classified information. The
challenges of the discrimination problem have been evident for
many years, and from a technology standpoint there are
basically three things that affect our countermeasure
capability.
One is the quality of our sensors to pick out different
features of the countermeasure. The second is the size of our
weapons, miniaturization, if you will, and the third, which is
controlling in my view, is computers. We have made advances
across a broad front in all of those efforts in this country,
and American technology has given us computer systems today we
only dreamed about 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago, and what
happens in countermeasures in regard to these technologies is,
if you have high numbers of incoming warheads, all of the
Soviet Union, if you will, during the cold war, combined with
countermeasures that are postulated by our critics, you can
overwhelm our systems and eventually be defeated.
We do not have that case, in my view, with national missile
defense, because right now we are designing this against a
limited threat, a few tens of warheads, and when accompanied by
simple, or what we call complex countermeasures, the
technologies that we have in these systems I believe is able to
handle that problem very well.
And so the rest of the story is that the issue is valid,
but we have ways of getting into the counter-countermeasure
activity that we believe will be very effective.
NMD technology demonstration
Senator Cochran. Have you successfully demonstrated the
technology necessary for an effective limited national missile
defense system?
General Kadish. Senator, that is what the deployment
readiness review is designed to assess, and we are well on our
way to putting that review together this summer, compiling all
our flight test results, so I am confident that this summer we
will be able to answer that question formally.
Senator Cochran. Do you have any doubt about the
technological feasibility of your approach to national missile
defense?
General Kadish. At this point we are gaining great
confidence in our ability to assess this technology.
Senator Cochran. Do you have any reason to believe that the
testing program may yet show that building this system is not
technologically, or technically possible?
General Kadish. Our test program is proceeding very well to
build the evidence.
Senator Cochran. There is a part of the Welch panel--which
the Department got to examine the national missile defense
program, saying that this was a program that was hardware-poor
and lacked sufficient spares and components for ground and
laboratory testing. Do you have sufficient resources in this
budget request to ensure adequate hardware for your test
program?
General Kadish. As a developer, more is always better, but
we have a responsibility to balance out the cost of our
programs, so the simple answer to your question is yes, because
we added about $285 million to handle the Welch
recommendations, and we took them in total.
We are continuing to evaluate the needs for our test
program as we learn more about our challenges, and I would
expect that we would have to balance that out in the future
budget request as well, but right now our current assessment is
we have adequate resources in the present program to do what we
are asked to do.
Senator Cochran. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. First let me say to you, General, I have
seen a number of Generals that run technical programs and I
believe you are one of the best managers that I have read about
and listened to in my years in the U.S. Senate. Whenever there
were big problems in managing a big program, they called on
you. For example, there was the C-17. You do an admiral job.
General Kadish. Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. You are very skilled at taking a program
that was kind of confused and not on target and fixing it. I
think those in the Senate, led by Thad Cochran, who have pushed
very hard for us to move expeditiously with this defense
system, are on the right track, and I wholeheartedly support
what they are trying to do.
NMD testing criticism
I believe we have to utilize whatever resources we can to
fairly analyze this program. We hear from you, but make sure
that others who have science and technological knowledge in
this field are listened to also. Along those lines, I want to
talk for a little bit about what the Director of the
Operational Test and Evaluation, Dr. Coyle, has written. He has
been a critic of NMD in terms of the quickness of these tests,
and last year he stated that the tests are too close together
to learn from each one to the next.
He stated that the proposed tests lacked realism. BMDO has
been using targets that are not realistic, and there has been
no use of multiple simultaneous targets.
I guess I would first ask, am I correct in assuming you are
familiar with the critique?
General Kadish. Yes, Senator.
Senator Domenici. It would seem to me that most of the
criticism that is being levied by the Department of Defense's
own Director of Operational Test and Evaluation is not being
followed by you. Therefore, you must see another side to it,
and believe that what Coyle is recommending should not control
this program. Is that a fair statement, and if so, why?
General Kadish. Well, if I could change the character of
the statement a little bit for explanation, the issues that Mr.
Coyle raises are legitimate issues. In any program that we
monitor, operational effectiveness is key to our success in the
long run, and they do a good job of holding our feet to the
fire on that, and we should not ask that this program be exempt
from the same type of intense testing and looking at it.
The problem we have right now that you alluded to, the
closeness of the testing, the realism issues, and the test
geometries, are problems stated as if we could do something
about them, and we are not doing it. The issue here is, that is
not the case.
As I explained earlier, when we set the date of 2005 there
is no way we can physically construct a program to do
operational testing in the first two tests, or three tests of
the program. That comes later. So the issues that we bring up
on multiple simultaneous launches, and those types of issues,
are later in the program, in 2003, 2004, 2005 and beyond, as we
have this program fielded.
We cannot transport that forward in time to 2000, the year
2000. We just do not have that capability. So if we wait to do
those type of realistic tests that we would all want to do, and
stretch our program to do that, then we miss the 2005 date. If
that is the assessment against the threat, and acceptable, we
can certainly do that. That is not what we are asked to do
today.
The other charges about the way we are doing our tests, the
geometry, how the missiles come in, are a function of the fact
that this problem is intercontinental in range. We have to
launch our targets out of Vandenburg Air Force Base,
California, over Hawaii, into the Kwajawlan Range, 4,300
nautical miles away.
We have range restrictions for safety issues. We have
placement of our assets in the test geometry. They are very
expensive to change, so to do the full-up operational testing
of this that we would like to do at the system level, we run
into some very real stops to do that, and we end up doing it by
simulation.
So I guess to summarize it is that the concerns that Mr.
Coyle and the operational testers have are valid, and we will
address those as the program progresses, but in the framework
we are in today we cannot do those types of things that we are
being asked to do in this area as if we were a mature program,
ready to go into massive deployment and production tomorrow.
NMD system integration
Senator Domenici. I have two questions, and I will tie them
together. Would you explain briefly to us what it means when
you say this is a matter of integrating systems and you are not
having to start from scratch with a new series of technologies?
Does that mean that we are now using some of the strategic
defense initiative (SDI) expertise that was garnered over the
years, or does it mean something different?
And second, you just explained that you are motivated in
your scheme of activities by a 2005 deadline. I am not one that
wants to change the deadline, but I think I would like to ask
you, if the deadline was not 2005, would you be doing some of
the things that Dr. Coyle has suggested before you reach the
decision points that are scheduled for a 2005 deployment?
General Kadish. Let me take the integrating the system, and
what does it mean, and it may be helpful to describe the tool
kit that we are using to make this system work, and why we
think it is up to the challenge.
In order to do an effective missile defense, even the
limited numbers we are talking about, you have to have a
detection system that detects the launch, you have to have a
radar or a sensor system that tracks this vehicle, and can tell
the interceptor where it is, and you have to have a vehicle, an
interceptor fast enough to go out and get it, and then you have
to have a kill vehicle that can discriminate, using all that
other data provided to it, to actually hit the thing without a
nuclear explosion of some sort, and then you need a very
complex set of software to do this almost automatically,
because this war is over in 20 to 30 minutes, and so launching
100 interceptors in 20 minutes against a broad range of reentry
vehicles (RV's) measured in tens, to get our performance up is
a very complex set of integrations.
Now, when you put all these things together, where the
Commander in Chief of Space Command out in Colorado says rules
of engagement have been met, launch the missiles, it has to
happen very rapidly, and the communications, the software
decisions, the missile launches, the in-flight communications
activity that is almost global in nature, have to work
together, so our challenge, then, is to integrate these system
elements so that they can work together in an operationally
effective way, eventually, and not just in a scientific way.
Now, having said that, we have demonstrated in many
different forums pieces of these things, the radars, the X-Band
radars, the ultra high frequency (UHF) radars, and specifically
the kill vehicles that we are using, and in fact the kill
vehicle that we are using that is 121 pounds and 54 inches
long, that destroys these warheads just by the force of impact,
has been under development for over 10 years, and we have taken
these tools and put them together in a system that we believe,
given that the elements have been tested individually, can be
put together to work as a whole, and that is our challenge, and
we are well on our way to showing that we can do that.
NMD 2005 deadline
Now, in regard to being motivated by 2005, we intend, at
least in our planning purposes, to do what Mr. Coyle wants to
do even within the restriction of 2005 deployment. We will do
operational testing later on in the program, in 2003, 2004,
2005. If we should lengthen that schedule and take on less risk
by doing so, that is less risk meeting our date, it gives us
more time to do that, and as a developer, just like more
resources is always better, more testing is always better for
us, but that has to be balanced with what we are asked to do,
and that is the art of program management.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, General.
Senator Stevens. General, my mind goes back to I think
1996, when we were first presented--only Senator Inouye and I
were here. We were presented with testimony concerning a new
concept of national missile defense that would cover 48 States,
the contiguous States. I do not want to repeat that
conversation we had with one of your predecessors, but it was
obvious, Senator Inouye from Hawaii and me from Alaska, that
was not an acceptable proposal.
We later had Dr. Perry come and tell us he had a new
scheme, and that was the three-plus-three. It was 1997 then,
and we were going to deploy in 2003. We have subsequently
slipped that by 2 years to 2005. I think as we go into these
questions we ought to keep that in mind. We have already
adjusted this twice now, and the procedure and the timeframe
has been lengthened.
NMD military construction
I do have a question to ask you about the military
construction aspect. Senator Byrd asked you about the billions
of dollars involved. As I understand it, we have before us now
for 2001 a request for $103.5 million for military
construction, primarily to start with the X-Band radar at
Shemya. I further understand from your previous answer to my
question that even that is contingent upon the next test. That
does not seem to me to be really very wise, because of
construction time out on the Aleutian Chain and other things.
Part of this system is going to be at Shemya and part of it
probably at Fort Greeley. That is like starting in Baltimore--
or let us put it around--a relay starting in Alameda with the
X-Band and having the system located in Baltimore. Most people
do not realize the distance between Greeley and Shemya.
Why would we delay the military construction aspect of this
relatively--I am not here saying $103.5 million is not a lot of
money. It is a lot of money. But compared to the overall
program, it is not a lot of money. But that one facility there
is going to be essential no matter what you do, as I understand
it, to the future planning for missile defense. Why would we
delay Shemya based upon the test in June?
General Kadish. Well, Senator, it may be helpful to explain
why we have to do military construction next year. Given that
we have 2005, and you correctly pointed out we went from 2003
to 2005 in our current plan last year, I believe it was, if you
back up the things we need to do because of construction
seasons in Alaska and Shemya, or for that matter even North
Dakota, it turns out that the first thing we need to do to
build this system is not to build the boosters, it is not to
build the communications systems, so much as it is to start
construction of the X-Band radar in Shemya, Alaska, in the
Aleutians.
Senator Stevens. You do agree, then, we should proceed with
the military construction aspect of this program as requested
for 2001, without regard to the success of the June test?
General Kadish. If we do not start the construction in the
spring of next year, as currently planned, I cannot guarantee
that we will meet the 2005 date.
Now, the decision on whether to award those contracts for
spring of next year, given the construction seasons and how we
intend to build that very big radar at Shemya, is in the fall
of this year, so given that there are treaty issues associated
with the construction of that radar, and the legal community is
trying to tell us what that definition really is of when we
actually break the treaty legally, we have to have a decision
to do that by the administration sometime this summer or fall
to meet our time lines.
If we do not meet our time lines, then we cannot guarantee
that we can have this ready by 2005.
Senator Stevens. I thought the decision to construct is one
thing, the decision to make it operational in Shemya would be a
violation of the treaty.
General Kadish. We have been using for planning purposes on
the treaty side the fact that when we do construction other
than earthworks, which can be interpreted many different ways,
from a planning standpoint when we actually dig a hole in
Shemya it could be the earliest time we would break the treaty.
There are other discussions on how that fits into the legal
framework past that date, and that would happen next year under
those conditions.
Senator Stevens. Well, there is a radar at Shemya now. It
is not an X-Band, but there is a radar there now. That never
violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. I do not
quite see dancing on that legal pin. I hope that we will
proceed with that construction because of the timeframe and
because of the delays that could be encountered in construction
at Shemya of that new radar.
General Kadish. Our current plan, Senator, is to press
ahead aggressively on building that radar, but we do need
authority to proceed to do it.
Senator Stevens. Yes. Senator Inouye.
Navy testing of Pacific missile test range
Senator Inouye. General, you are planning to conduct six
tests of the Navy's missile defense program at the Navy's
Pacific missile range. Is that achievable?
General Kadish. To the best of my knowledge it is, yes,
Senator. It is achievable to do it in the Pacific out there.
Senator Inouye. So you will proceed late this year to begin
the program?
General Kadish. We have an important series of tests coming
up on both the Navy area and the Navy theater-wide programs,
and we are watching those extremely carefully, and they are
really important to our ability to proceed on those programs. I
am hopeful that the results will be successful later this year.
THAAD
Senator Inouye. The next question is one of those that came
up as a result of criticisms that you have received about some
of your testing programs. THAAD has had seven misses, and you
have had two successes, and as a result of the two successes
you have been approved to go to the next developmental step in
engineering.
Two years ago, General Lyles, your predecessor, warned this
committee against random success. That is the word he used, and
that is the possibility of approving a system that has a
fundamental flaw because of one or two successful tests. With
all the setbacks that THAAD has experienced, do you think that
we should have more tests before you proceed to take the next
step, or would the two successes be sufficient?
General Kadish. We need to recognize where THAAD was in
this test program, and rather than go into the lengthy history,
let me oversimplify it by saying it was in a demonstration
phase--that is, could we actually make it work--and then there
was an excursion, if we could make it work, we would have an
initial very limited capability we could deploy off of that.
What these two successes out of the nine attempts I think
we ended up having told us was that we did not need to invent
anything any more, if you will, to make the demonstration work,
and that provided us confidence, with those two successes, to
move it into what we call the development phase. The
engineering and the manufacturing development phases take out
the flaws that we found in the demonstration phase, because it
tended to be a scientific project as opposed to an engineering
project at that time, and we intend to do that with the program
we have structured coming up.
So in the next few months it is my intention to take to the
Department a decision to enter into that next phase, the
development engineering manufacturing phase, based on the data
we got out of the demonstration phase.
Now, this phase that we go into, we will commit to an
initial operational capability, what we call first unit
equipped, in 2007, so we will have a redesign of many elements
of that system to make them more reliable. We will do an
extensive set of testing on the system in an operational sense,
getting to Mr. Coyle's type of concerns, and then we will
deploy it in 2007.
It is disappointing to all of us that we cannot deploy a
system of this nature like we intended to with THAAD on the
demonstration phase, but we have a very rigorous program, now,
that we have laid out to take care of those concerns and those
two successes give us confidence that we are not inventing
anything. We have made it now an engineering problem, so we can
make it reliable and operationally effective and deploy it in
the timeframe I talked about.
Senator Inouye. So you move into the next phase with great
confidence?
General Kadish. Yes, sir, and that testing program we have
laid out should prove that confidence, and bear the fruit of
that confidence.
Senator Inouye. General, I would like to submit for your
responses questions on the Arrow system.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman.
NATO concerns
General Kadish, you mentioned in your testimony that the
budget requests funding for the MEADS theater missile program
that involves Germany and Italy. Some of our North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies have expressed concern that
our national missile defense program might make European
countries more vulnerable because it would destabilize our
relationship with Russia, and for other reasons.
Would the construction of a ground-based interceptor site
in Europe protect our NATO allies from missile threats and
contribute to the defense of the United States from Middle
Eastern threats?
General Kadish. Senator, we do an awful lot of studies on
how to protect both theater-and national-level requirements,
and your question inherently indicates that we blur the
distinction sometimes. What is national to us, or what is
theater to us is national to other people, and especially our
allies.
We have done an awful lot of work in analysis to see what
we could do to contribute to the defense of our allies, and
have made a lot of strides in that area, and one of the
excursions that we do is how we would be able to protect our
allies in Europe, specifically NATO countries, from threats to
themselves as well as use their facilities for our national
side, and those are definitely feasible alternatives, given
what we understand the technology to be today of what we are
developing in both theater and national level, and I could take
answers for the record, because some of it does get classified,
and I would rather be precise in answering that question.
[The information follows:]
High speed, exo-atmospheric interceptors such as the
Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) design currently being developed
under the National Missile Defense (NMD) program are inherently
capable of defending very large geographic areas against long
range ballistic missile threats. This broad area defensive
coverage from a GBI site is central to our current NMD plans to
provide defensive coverage for all of the United States,
initially from one site and potentially expanding subsequently
to a second site. Therefore, by analogy, one or two GBI-class
interceptor sites with appropriate sensor support could
theoretically provide some defensive coverage against long
range missile threats over a geographic area the size of NATO
Europe.
South Korea and Japan
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
On another theater missile defense subject, according to
the unclassified summary of the current national intelligence
estimate the North Korean No Dong missile has a range of about
1,300 kilometers, sufficient to reach U.S. forces throughout
South Korea and Japan, and it has been deployed for several
years.
Does the United States currently have any theater missile
defense systems capable of reliably intercepting this missile?
General Kadish. Those systems are currently in development,
and we hope to have PAC-3 out in 2001, as I said, to deal with
those types of threats coming up, but the answer at this point
in time, with our lower and upper tier, they are still in
development.
Senator Cochran. What are the systems, can you tell us,
that are in development now that will be capable of
intercepting the No Dong?
General Kadish. The THAAD and the Navy theater-wide
systems.
Senator Cochran. According to the Army, the first unit-
equipped date for THAAD could be moved up from 2007 to 2005, if
$400 million in additional funding were provided in fiscal year
2001, 2002, and 2003, with $150 million of that in 2001. Do you
agree with that assessment?
General Kadish. I would agree that with additional dollars
from a schedule standpoint, with the addition of about $150
million in 2001, I would say that we could accelerate our first
unit equipped (FUE) by 9 months or thereabouts.
I would caution, however, that, given the answer I gave to
Senator Inouye, that we need to be careful about making sure
that we do the right types of things in developing this
particular program and THAAD, and capitalize on our success but
plan for difficulties in the program, and I think that is what
we have done right now, and putting additional risk into the
program by accelerating schedules, we have to take very good
counsel of our previous experience here and make sure we do not
repeat past mistakes.
Senator Cochran. In the semantics of the word risk, to some
that means risk of failure of the program, or risk that the
program, once it is deployed, will not work. That is not what
that means, though. You are talking about risk in meeting a
predetermined target in the program schedule, are you not?
General Kadish. That is correct.
Navy theater-wide
Senator Cochran. What is the soonest the Navy theater-wide
could reach the field, and what funding is required to
accomplish that?
General Kadish. Right now we have not fully funded, as you
know, in our budget the Navy theater-wide program, primarily
because we have an important series of tests coming up later
this year and next year to prove the concepts properly. We have
not fully funded that program.
Our current projects are that we are going to have what we
call capability, single mission capability on the Aegis vessels
in 2008, and that is what we are planning, too, and if we want
to accelerate that it would depend on the test successes that
we have in what we call our Aegis leap integration (ALI) test
program over the next year to 18 months, so to define that in
any greater detail, I would like to take it for the record,
because we would have to show you the excursions off of a
successful test program that would give us confidence to
proceed rapidly with that program.
[The information follows:]
Using an evolutionary acquisition approach, the Navy Wide
(NTW) system capable against the full Block I threat set could
be deployed using the spiral development (Block IA, IB, IC)
process. Our spiral evolutionary strategy allows the sequential
fielding of capability, with new capabilities being phased in
over time. The intent would be to get an initial NTW capability
to the fleet as soon as possible and then upgrade the system to
pace the threat. The Block IB capability includes 50 SM-3
missiles deployed in 2 AEGIS cruisers with an FUE in fiscal
year 2008. The full multi-mission capability of 4 cruisers and
80 missiles FUE is fiscal year 2010. Depending on the pace and
success of initial flight tests, some contingency capability
might be available before 2008. The objective NTW Block II
system is not yet fully defined, but given full and stable
funding, it would likely be available between fiscal year 2112
and fiscal year 2114. Adopting a spiral evolution approach for
NTW Block II could yield some increased capability (notionally
NTW Block IIA) over Block I a few years earlier. Assuming
successful completion of primary test objectives in the first
two ALI intercept attempts (i.e. kinetic warhead hits the
target), the current NTW program could be accelerated by one
year given $160 million in fiscal year 2001, and fully funding
the program in fiscal year 2002 and beyond.
Senator Cochran. Does the administration's out-year budget
contain sufficient funds to deploy Navy theater-wide?
General Kadish. No, it does not Senator. It depends on the
testing results that we expect over the next 18 months as to
what we are going to do with that program.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. General, this is a question which is outside
your direct responsibility, but I would like your views. I am
very, very concerned about defending against other types of
weapons of mass destruction. I think especially of biological
weapons that could be targeted at U.S. agriculture, the largest
agricultural market in the world.
Attacks on U.S. agriculture would offer huge financial
rewards to terrorists through international future markets
manipulations. They would be risk-free as far as the terrorists
are concerned. I am advised that Iraq had large stocks of
biological weapons that cause severe disease in humans and
animals and that these agents have been made into weapons by
Iraq.
Genetic engineering technologies allow creation of new
pathogens with enhanced toxicity that may cause a biological
weapons surprise to agriculture. I am concerned about our water
supply, very concerned about it. I do not know what our
Government is really doing about such weapons of mass
destruction. There are great elements of surprise involved in
these.
I do not know what is being spent by our Government in this
respect. I am concerned that as we concentrate on national
missile defense--I am not implying that I am not concerned
about that also--I wonder if we may be blinded to other,
perhaps even greater, more imminent threats of sabotage, and we
may be short-changing other necessary initiatives to protect
our national security.
As I say, that is outside your area, but do you have any
thoughts on this?
General Kadish. Well, Senator, to the broader issues, I
think all of us in the national security business are concerned
about those types of threats, but let me focus my response on
NMD, and even our theater missile defenses.
One of the great advantages of this hit-to-kill technology,
this idea that we have kinetic energy destroying the warhead
rather than explosive forces by chemical or even nuclear means
such as the Russians use in their defensive systems, is that we
are concerned about the chemical and biological warheads that
are there.
With hit-to-kill technology, especially in the
exoatmosphere outside 100 kilometers and above, where we do
these intercepts, or try to do these intercepts on the national
side in outer space, we believe that these chemical and
biological submunitions, should they be present, versus not
only a nuclear warhead but a chemical or biological warhead,
can be destroyed by the force of that impact, so we are not
disregarding this threat from a ballistic missiles standpoint.
Quite the contrary. It is part of our overall threat space, and
challenging from a hit-to-kill standpoint, and the reason why
it is challenging to us, and useful in hit-to-kill, is again we
want to hit within this kind of a target space, mass on mass,
if you will, to make sure that we destroy that chemical and
biological agent, or render it useless in outer space, and that
is one of the major objectives of this program. So we are not
ignoring it at all.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Airborne laser
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question.
General, the ABL measure is one of the very good examples of
technology in a missile defense system. I wonder, is it not
true that the ABL has been on-schedule and performing as it
should, and if that is the case, why is that reduced by $92
million this year and over 5 years by $900 million. I
understand this is going to delay the shoot-down tests by 2
full years. People around here thought that was a very exciting
system and we voted for it. We have increased the President
before to keep it on schedule. Can you explain why there is a
$92 million reduction in this program.
General Kadish. Senator, that is a little bit of an awkward
question for me to answer, because that program is not within
my purview.
Senator Domenici. All right.
General Kadish. It is an Air Force program. However, I will
say this. The ABL has continued to be a part of our layered
defense architecture, as I explained in my opening statement,
and we have analyzed the goodness of that weapons contribution
to our overall architecture, and very much support the ABL
program from that standpoint, and let me tell you why. The ABL
system, the airborne laser system, would be our only boost-
phase-capable system in our architecture.
If you look at our systems, they tend to be in what I call
the catcher's mitt mode, where in the terminal or mid-course
phases we are trying to stop the warheads. In the missile
defense business, it is always better to get them as far
forward as possible, but the problems become very difficult,
even more difficult than the catcher's mitt approach to the
problem.
So the ABL, using the speed of light, if you will, laser
activity, and being in boost phase, is very useful in our
architecture of layered defense, and it is disappointing when
any program is slipped, and we support the program, but they
have their challenges, and the Air Force had to make trade-offs
against other systems.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. General, I am going to submit--some of the
questions that I have relate to materials we might need for the
markup, but I do have two concepts. I want to congratulate you
on articulating the layered concept of these systems we are
working on.
I know that there are some proponents of one as opposed to
another that would like to hold up one and move the other
forward. This committee has taken the point of view that we
ought to try and move them all forward as they can make
progress, but not to try and set one aside to accelerate the
other.
And I do share the feelings, however, of Senator Byrd about
the chemical and biological warheads that we face. That is why
we continue to support the hit-to-kill concept. Although on
that last test, if you had an explosive type of contact rather
than a hit-to-kill, that would have been a success, so I think
people ought to keep that in mind.
Patriot II and Patriot Gem
I do want to ask one thing, though, and that is, you know,
we have had press reports about the problems of Patriot II and
the Patriot Gem missiles. This subcommittee at one time urged
the Department to utilize the Patriot as an antimissile rather
than an antiair-breathing aircraft system. What would you do if
we asked you now to accelerate PAC-3 so it could be an option
in the arsenal to deal with not only air defense but
antimissile requirements that might develop in this time before
we can deploy any one of these layered systems? Is that
possible, now, to accelerate and boot that up to another
generation?
General Kadish. Yes, Senator, it is. The PAC-3 missile
primarily focused on the theater ballistic missile problem, and
I think from the test results we have seen so far is doing that
very well. It also has----
Senator Stevens. Pardon me. Would you give us the funding
requirement that would be necessary to put that on an
accelerated course and pull it out? I do not think this is a
system, part of the layered system. I think it may be an
operational concept that could be brought into a new phase
sooner than all these other systems we have been discussing
today.
General Kadish. Yes, Senator. We can give you those
numbers. I would provide them for the record and make sure that
we got it right.
[The information follows:]
As I understand your question, Senator Stevens--how much additional
funding is required to accelerate fielding of PAC-3 missiles and to
correct the PATRIOT reliability/GEM+ upgrade issue? I will address the
PAC-3 acceleration requirement in detail, but the PATRIOT reliability/
GEM+ conversion is an Army program that I will cover summarily but
would be most appropriately be addressed in detail by the Army.
A recent reliability discovery in some fielded PATRIOT missiles
drastically reduces the quantity of available missiles well into the
next decade. Under current procurement schedules there will be a window
of vulnerability for a considerable time. The Army and the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization have worked together to develop an
integrated solution through enhancements to both the PAC-2 and PAC-3
missile programs. The solution fixes some of the older PAC-2 missiles,
accelerates the upgrades of PAC-2s to the Guidance Enhanced Missile
Plus (GEM+) configuration, and accelerates the PAC-3 procurement.
Initial funding is required in fiscal year 2000/01 to jumpstart this
solution. Since the PAC-2 issue surfaced after the publishing of the
Defense Planning Guidance and Fiscal Guidance, the solution is not part
of the Department's Program Objective Memorandum. BMDO is discussing
options with OSD.
To cover current program shortfalls and properly position the PAC-3
program for accelerated missile fielding requires an increase of $156
million in fiscal year 2001 to produce 32 missiles, or an increase of
up to $341 million in fiscal year 2001 for 72 missiles. Such
enhancements position the program to achieve the Initial Operational
Capability of the first battalion up to one year earlier, given
additional out-year funding.
Production line enhancements to allow procuring more missiles per
year in the future have a lead-time of a year and a half, so we cannot
have an instant fix. An increased production rate capability is more
cost efficient, so we should establish a higher production rate
capability, of up to 20 missiles per month. We recognize that our
allies using the PAC-2 missile are also affected by the recent
developments, and thus have potential requirements. Foreign Military
Sales (FMS) purchases concurrent with U.S. procurement provide economic
benefits to both the U.S. and our allies through reduced unit costs
during those years. This offers potential for allowing larger
quantities to be procured, or a lower price for the baseline quantity.
A limited production capacity will limit the U.S. fielding rate and FMS
opportunities.
The PATRIOT system provides an effective defense against Aircraft,
Cruise Missiles and Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM). To accomplish
this mission, the PATRIOT force must have a combination of PAC-2
missiles that provide robust anti-air and anti-cruise missile
capability, and PAC-3 missiles that provide antiballistic missile and
anti-cruise missile capability, especially against weapons of mass
destruction and future threats.
The Army has a variety of PATRIOT missiles to meet various threats.
The older PAC-2 missile configurations counter the aircraft and basic
cruise missile threats. But, these older PATRIOT missiles are well into
their service life. While that life can be extended through the Service
Life Extension Program, their age and reliability leave them less than
pristine. The GEM and GEM+ provide an upgrade to the older PAC-2 design
with increased capability against slower TBM threat and the cruise
missile threat. These PAC-2 missiles all use blast fragmentation
warheads--with associated limitations against certain TBM warheads. TBM
warheads span from simple unitary high explosive warheads to
submunition warheads with chemical or biological weapons. The TBM
threats are best defeated with Hit-To-Kill warheads. The PAC-3 missile
provides the best capability against TBMs, and sophisticated cruise
missiles. PAC-3 provides a significant increase in the probability of
warhead kill for TBMs over the GEM missile.
short term (fiscal year 2000/01) proposed enhancements
PAC-2 Component:
To address the immediate capability shortfall, 724 PAC-2 missiles
need to be immediately repaired. The remaining two-thirds of the PAC-2
missile fleet will be demilitarized at the end of their life, or
converted to the PAC-2 GEM+ configuration. To help alleviate the near-
term capability shortfall, this GEM+ conversion should be accelerated
one year. This acceleration will provide out-year savings that can help
accelerate PAC-3 procurement. The PAC-2 family of missiles will remain
the primary Anti-Air Breathing Threat missile. The fiscal year 2000/01
requirement for the PAC-2 component of this solution is $134 million.
[TY$, Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------- Total
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAC-2 retrofit........................... 50 40 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 90
Accelerate GEM+ Upgrade.................. 16 28 14 21 (46) (6) (5) (43) (42) (63)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAC-3 Component:
To accelerate the PAC-3 procurement at the lowest risk, both the
R&D and Procurement programs will require a series of enhancements,
ranging between a minimum and maximum as shown in the table:
[TY$, Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min Max
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMD................................................... 47 47
Launcher Procurement.................................. 35 35
Facilitization........................................ 30 85
Missile Procurement................................... 44 174
-----------------
Total........................................... 156 341
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)
Expeditiously.--The EMD program will focus on the most critical
capabilities of the system, maintain the fielding schedule, and defer
future needs, if necessary, for later development and insertion into
the PATRIOT system. The missile hardware is in its final design, but
the software still requires some development. A significant aspect of
the software still to be developed and tested is Electronic Counter-
Counter Measures (ECCM) against future threats. This capability can be
logically deferred into a future upgrade to the system. The EMD flight
test program must be completed and should provide a demonstration of
the warfighter's needs of Anti-TBM, Anti-Cruise Missile defense and
Anti-Air capability. Expeditiously completing the EMD and flight test
program at low risk will require an increase of $47 million RDT&E
funding.
Maintain launcher procurement.--In addition, $35 million ($11
million in RDT&E plus $24 million procurement) is required to replace
funds realigned within the program to maintain the launcher procurement
in fiscal year 2000.
Invest in Initial Production Facilitization.--A facilitization
investment of $30 million is needed to provide a production capability
of 12 missiles per month. But, the most effective and efficient way to
accelerate production rates is to invest in production line at all
production facilities. This provides the least recurring cost option
and provides surge capacity for non-forecasted requirements. It is also
important that we be able to respond to our Allies needs for a PAC-3
missile. Investment of an additional $55 million of procurement funding
will result in a production capability of 20 missiles per month. Thus,
a sum of $85 million additional facilitization funding will result in
an efficient high production capability sufficient to meet any foreseen
needs.
Increase missile procurement quantity.--The PAC-3 program is
currently in Low Rate Initial Production for 52 missiles (fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 2000 buys). The current Baseline plan procures
only sixteen PAC-3 missiles in fiscal year 2001. Fielding can be
accelerated by providing an additional $44 million for 32 missiles,
thus, maintaining the fiscal year 2000 production level. The fiscal
year 2001 production could be increased to a level of 72 missiles for
an increase of $174 million vice $44 million.
Summary
A minimum funding increase of $156 million ($58 million in RDT&E
plus $98 million in procurement) in fiscal year 2001 results in a solid
base program with accelerated PAC-3 production to 32 missiles. To
maximize the first year accelerated production to a level of 72
missiles, a funding increase of $341 million ($58 million in RDT&E plus
$283 million in Procurement) is needed in fiscal year 2001.
long term (fiscal year 2002 and beyond)
BMDO is pursuing out-year funding options as part of the
Department's ongoing discussions.
Summary of Near Term PATRIOT requirements:
[TY$, Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAC-2............................................. 66 68
PAC-3............................................. ....... 156 to 34.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Stevens. We do not want to push you to do something
you do not want to do. Would you agree with that strategy?
General Kadish. Yes, Senator. In fact, we are ready to move
PAC-3 into production, and we have constraints from facilities
and other areas that if they were lifted we could move much
more rapidly into production.
Senator Stevens. It would be helpful to us if you could
detail those restrictions, see if there is anything else we can
do to accelerate that. I think particularly from the point of
view of the increasing fear of the biological and chemical
theater-type missiles, we probably could move into sort of a
stop-gap system that might be rapidly deployable in an area of
conflict, potential conflict. I think we would like to help you
with that, if you would give us the information as to what do
you need us to do to be able to achieve the goal.
General Kadish. I would be happy to, Senator.
[The information follows:]
A facilitization investment of $30 million is needed to
provide a production capability of 12 missiles per month. But,
the most effective and efficient way to accelerate production
rates is to invest in production line at all production
facilities. This provides the least recurring cost option and
provides surge capacity for non-forecasted requirements. It is
also important that we be able to respond to our Allies needs
for a PAC-3 missile. Investment of an additional $55 million of
procurement funding will result in a production capability of
20 missiles per month. Thus, a sum of $85 million additional
facilitization funding will result in an efficient high
production capability sufficient to meet any foreseen needs.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye, do you have----
Space-based infrared system
Senator Cochran. May I ask one more question? I know I have
asked a lot of questions, and I will submit a few, if it is all
right, Mr. Chairman, for the record. The other day we had
before our committee the Air Force Secretary. He said he
believed that management of the space-based infrared program
should be transferred to the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization.
Congress had suggested that a few years ago. The Air Force
opposed it at that time. What is your view? Do you think this
would be a wise move at this point, and are there advantages to
moving the responsibility for the program to BMDO?
General Kadish. Senator, the answer to that question is
probably yes, but there is more work to do, and let me explain
why things have changed in our thinking about the space-based
infrared system (SBIRS) program, especially what we are talking
about is SBIRS low, which is a low constellation of sites that
help us with discrimination and tracking of our targets.
The situation we have had in previous years is that SBIRS
has always been an important part of what I call the tool kit
of missile defense, just like our X-Band radars and other
sensors. Up until the point at which we moved NMD from a
technology effort into a real program effort that we have
discussed today, having SBIRS managed by the Air Force, being
requirements-based, made a lot of sense.
Now that we are moving into actually constructing the
architecture for our national missile defense program, SBIRS
becomes a very real, programmatic element to our program,
especially as we move beyond the expanded C-1 architecture, so
having it totally requirements-based, that the Air Force would
manage separately, presents us some integration problems with
our other elements within the NMD system, and what we are
trying to decide now is how best to manage that interface,
because it becomes complicated to keep it a separate service
management process, although we followed the direction of
Congress and set up some management arrangements that bridge
that gap, at least initially.
So the idea now that we have changed the emphasis causes us
to reevaluate the management of this particular program, and
that is why the Secretary I believe said what he said.
Airborne laser
Senator Cochran. As a follow-on to Senator Domenici's
question about the airborne laser, it is pretty clear that the
laser would be capable of taking down a missile of any range
launched from North Korea. Is that a correct assessment of the
capability of that system?
General Kadish. That is what our assessment is.
Senator Cochran. Therefore, if we could keep that on track,
on schedule, which means that it would be ready for testing by
2003, given the fact that NMD is not going to be even
programmed for deployment until 2005, there would at least be a
contingency capability against a North Korean threat if we keep
the ABL on schedule.
In that connection, would you support that, or would you
agree that it would be a good idea for this committee to be
sure that we provide the funds necessary to accomplish that
goal?
General Kadish. If the program is executable that way, that
would lend a lot to our architecture and keep that program
stable. They have their challenges, however, technically.
Senator Cochran. I know. I heard you say that a while ago.
General Kadish. They have the same integration challenge on
the aircraft that we do on some of our systems to get that
laser pointed right, but everything is pointing in the right
direction on that program.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, General. We do
appreciate your candid response to our questions. Coming from
where I do, with the potential that is developing in North
Korea, that is a very serious subject for us.
I would not want to indicate any reluctance to state that
if they ever fired a missile at us, that would be the last
thing that North Korea would do, but I do not think that threat
is really something that should drive a change in our program,
but it is a substantial threat to us, and I think the threat of
our instant retaliation ought to be reasserted again and again,
if they ever fire one of those at our country.
Additional committee questions
We do appreciate your cooperation and look forward to
working with you, particularly on the PAC-3 initiative. We
would like very much to help you on that. Thank you very much.
General Kadish. Thank you, Senator.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
patriot pac-3 capabilities
Question. Can you outline for the committee the PAC-3 missiles'
capability against aircraft and cruise missiles and any associated
flight test plans?
Answer. The performance charts (2) for the PATRIOT PAC-3 SYSTEM
versus aircraft and cruise missiles are classified and will be provided
as a separate attachment. The DOT&E approved Test and Evaluation Master
Plan (TEMP) will demonstrate the capability of the interceptor against
aircraft and cruise missiles as represented by the QF-4 and MQM-107,
respectively. There are four flight tests planned against full-scale
aircraft and cruise missiles targets. Two tests involve engaging low
altitude cruise missiles in background clutter environments. Two flight
tests are planned against aircraft in an electronic countermeasure
environment. The cruise missile tests are scheduled for July 2000 and
March 2001. The aircraft flight tests are scheduled for January and
June 2001.
Question. As we look to the future and the possibility of modifying
and upgrading Patriot missiles, is the Defense Department considering
procurement of greater quantities of PAC-3 missiles to meet its needs?
Answer. Yes, recent reliability discoveries in some fielded PATRIOT
missiles drastically reduces the quantity of available missiles well
into the next decade. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has
developed a missile acceleration option to augment the production
program and build a capability as rapidly as possible. This option
requires an investment in both facilities and hardware. To accelerate
the PAC-3 procurement at the lowest risk, both the R&D and Procurement
programs will require a series of enhancements:
--Complete the Engineering and Manufacturing Development as
expeditiously as possible (+$47 million RDT&E)
--Maintain launcher procurement (+$11 million in RDT&E plus $24
million in procurement)
--Invest in Initial Production Facilitization (+$30 million to $85
million in procurement)
--Increase in missile procurement quantity (+$44 million to $174
million in procurement).
Implementing the production enhancements will enable not only a
PAC-2 solution, but will also position the program to be more
acceptable to Foreign Military Sales.
navy theater wide for nmd
Question. Secretary Danzig has indicated that Navy Theater Wide is
a long term development effort. Would you agree that Navy Theater Wide
is not a near term NMD option?
Answer. The Navy Theater Wide system is not a near term option for
obtaining an NMD capability. A significant development effort remains
to be accomplished in order to deploy a single mission system by 2008
which can intercept theater ballistic missiles, with a multimission
capability following in 2010. Given a significant increase in program
funding, a more robust Navy Theater Wide Block II system could be
fielded some time after that date, but significant upgrades would be
required to the radar, missile and kinetic warhead to provide the
system with the capability to intercept ICBMs. These upgrades are
neither currently defined from a systems engineering point of view, nor
currently funded.
Question. What is your estimate of the time and funding required to
develop and procure a sea-based NMD system?
Answer. The Report to Congress delivered in June 1998 made a rough
order of magnitude cost estimate of $16 billion to $19 billion (in
fiscal year 1997 dollars) for a stand-alone (i.e., no land-based NMD
interceptors) sea-based NMD architecture. Within that estimate, BMDO
included the cost of procuring 3 to 6 additional AEGIS ships and the
cost of the land-based radars (upgraded early warning radars and the X-
band radars) and the battle management/command, control and
communications systems (BM/C\3\). BMDO and the Navy are currently
studying how a sea-based NMD system could complement, not replace, the
planned land-based NMD architecture. Cost and development schedule
estimates are going through a more detailed review in this study and
are not yet available.
Question. Would you agree that the cost to operate and maintain a
sea-based NMD system would be substantially higher than the cost of a
land-based NMD system? Does BMDO have an estimate of the O&M cost for a
Navy Theater Wide NMD system?
Answer. The cost to operate and maintain a sea-based NMD system is
subject to a number of variables. The most critical cost driver is
whether a sea-based NMD system would be employed in a full-time, 365
days per year mode, or in a crisis surge mode. A second cost driver
would be whether the sea-based NMD capability would be incorporated on
a current multi-mission Naval combatant or on a new ship dedicated to
the NMD mission.
For an equivalent capability to the land-based NMD architecture,
where a force of new dedicated NMD ships would be employed to a full-
time NMD mission, one would expect the costs to be somewhat higher than
the land-based NMD architecture. However, if an NMD capability were
incorporated on a current multi-mission Naval combatant, and employed
in a crisis surge mode, one would expect the operating and maintenance
costs of the sea-based NMD force to be lower than the dedicated land-
based NMD architecture operating and maintenance costs.
BMDO does not currently have an estimate of the O&M costs of a sea-
based NMD architecture.
navy area program options
Question. Will the Navy Area program's interceptor be as effective
against chemical and biological submunitions as the PAC-3 interceptor?
Answer. There is not an absolute answer to this question since the
answer depends on the engagement scenario and the requirements for each
of the systems. PAC-3 has a higher effectiveness against these targets
in its required area of protection than Navy Area for this same area of
protection. The Navy Area provides a larger area of protection.
Recent live-fire testing and performance analysis indicates that
the Navy Area interceptor, SM-2 Block IVA, design will result in high
percentage of direct hits and a very robust lethality with a
fragmenting warhead in near hits, including good capability against
submunitions.
Question. Has BMDO evaluated the potential for the Navy to use the
PAC-3 interceptor for the Navy Area Defense mission?
Answer. Yes, DOD policy requires an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)
prior to entering Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). For
the Navy Area program, the AOA study evaluated the cost-performance-
schedule benefits and risks of Navy Area SM-2 Block IVA missile against
an Enhanced-Hit-Capability SM-2 Block IV missile and a marinized PAC-3
missile. The analysis concluded that, when considering the entire
mission requirement for the ship and missile, the SM-2 Block IVA
missile is the preferred alternative as the Navy Area TBMD interceptor.
Selection of a Navy Area TBMD interceptor design is driven by
operational requirements. These requirements have driven the approach
to continue with the evolution of STANDARD Missile to provide the
earliest TBMD capability, while maintaining anti-ship cruise missile
capability. This also required that the Navy Area interceptor design
employ a blast fragmentation warhead.
Question. In most scenarios, would the Navy Area program protection
be augmented by the deployment of Patriot or THAAD as soon as those
systems could be deployed?
Answer. In most scenarios involving Navy Area program protection,
the Navy Area TBMD system would be the only available protective system
to defend critical assets against ballistic missiles as forces move
ashore during the crucial first days of a forced entry operation or at
an undeveloped point of entry. As the theater of operation matures,
deployment of Patriot and THAAD would augment the Navy Area TBMD
system, eventually taking over the protective mission. This
augmentation supports a layered defense and would be beneficial in
allowing for the Navy ships the flexibility to respond to other CINC
requirements once the land based systems are in place.
nmd military construction
Question. Assuming the President makes a deployment decision this
summer, what is the largest concern regarding the military construction
schedule for National Missile Defense?
Answer. The largest concern regarding the military construction
schedule for the National Missile Defense system is the X-Band Radar.
The deployment construction schedule was developed based on achieving
the NMD System Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of twenty Ground
Based Interceptors (GBIs) by the end of fiscal year 2005. The X-Band
Radar facility takes the longest to construct and test and therefore
drives the construction schedule. The X-Band Radar construction
timeline requires contract award in November 2000 with the Notice to
Proceed (NTP) for construction start in April 2001 in order to achieve
our directed initial NMD capability in fiscal year 2005.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
arrow program
Question. How would you assess the status of the Arrow program?
Answer. The Arrow program is proceeding well. Integration of the
cooperatively developed Arrow missile and launcher with the other,
Israeli-developed components of the Arrow Weapon System (Green Pine
fire control radar, Citron Tree battle management center, and Hazelnut
Tree Launcher Control Center), is largely complete. The Arrow Weapon
System has performed successfully in its last two flight tests. On
November 1, 1999, Israel conducted a successful Arrow Weapon System
intercept test in which, for the first time, the Arrow interceptor was
launched, tracked, and controlled to a successful intercept by the
other system elements of the Arrow Weapon System. A follow-on test is
planned for summer 2000 and an initial operational capability is
expected to be announced by Israel before the end of the year.
Question. What do you see as the next steps in the program?
Answer. Once the U.S./Israel cooperative Arrow Deployability
Program is completed in fiscal year 2002, Israel is planning block
upgrades to provide intercept capability at higher altitudes and
against longer-range threats. In addition, approximately two flight
tests per year will be conducted to verify and extend the current Arrow
battle space.
Question. Is the United States considering undertaking an Arrow
Systems Improvement program with Israel?
Answer. Israel has identified a requirement to upgrade the Arrow
Weapon System in response to the potential emergence of longer-range
threats and of countermeasures. At Israel's request, the United States
has helped Israel evaluate some of the preliminary concepts and
improvements that could be introduced into the Arrow missile to enhance
its effectiveness against the emerging regional threats. There are
areas of technical interest to the United States, but BMDO's other TMD
programs are higher priority and no funds are available to support a
follow-on effort with Israel.
Question. Apart from our undertaking to help Israel procure a third
Arrow battery, has the Defense Department included any funds for future
missile defense cooperation in your future budget plans? If not, why?
Answer. The Arrow Deployability Program will be completed in fiscal
year 2002. The fiscal year 2002 program includes funding for completing
our obligation under the Arrow Deployability Program agreement and
completing funding the Israeli requirement for the third Arrow battery.
At this point, the Department of Defense has not included any new
funding other than funds to complete the Arrow Deployability Program
and funding for the third Arrow Battery. Since the United States has no
plans to deploy Arrow, or any of its components, we have chosen to fund
systems planned for deployment with U.S. forces as a higher priority.
Question. Hasn't Israel been a significant partner with the United
States in pursuing missile defense cooperation for more than a decade?
Answer. Israel has been and will continue to be a significant
partner with the United States. We continue to conduct exercises with
Israeli missile defense forces to work on concepts for combined missile
defense operations. We will also continue to maintain an active
technical dialog with the missile defense community in Israel.
Question. Won't we get real value from further international
cooperation?
Answer. Israel has been and will continue to be a significant
partner with the United States. We continue to conduct exercises with
Israeli missile defense forces to work on concepts for combined missile
defense operations. We will also continue to maintain an active
technical dialog with the missile defense community in Israel.
Question. In 1997, the United States and Israel negotiated an
Enhanced Arrow Deployability Program which I am told is not funded in
your budget request. This program was supposed to further
interoperability between the United States and Israel. Do you believe
it would be beneficial if the Congress were to add funds for this
purpose?
Answer. Work continues with Israel to insure theater missile
defense interoperability between deploying U.S. forces and Israeli
forces. Initial work concentrated on interoperability between PATRIOT
systems employed by both nations. At this time, with the introduction
of Arrow and the impending introduction of missile defense capability
to U.S. Navy Forces, more needs to be done to ensure effective
interoperability.
Question. Israel has proposed undertaking a new cooperative program
with the United States, the Boost Phase Launch Intercept program. I
understand you will be reporting to us your views about this program
this spring. Do you have any preliminary assessment at this time?
Answer. We will present the details of our assessment in a report.
We can say that from a technical and operational point of view, this
Israeli concept appears to be feasible.
Question. What are the prospects that the United States will be
interested in undertaking this program?
Answer. There is interest in several aspects of this program,
however, at this time, other funding shortfalls preclude a DOD
investment in this concept.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
national missile defense
Question. In response to concerns about the lack of testing of the
NMD system against realistic countermeasures before the decision on
deployment, you stated that we have to walk before we run. I agree that
it makes sense to determine if the system can hit a sitting duck before
trying to hit an evasive target. However, the NMD deployment decision
is scheduled to take place this fall, before the NMD system has really
begun to crawl. Is it prudent to start pouring concrete and deploying a
system before we know whether it can run, or even walk?
Answer. Yes, it is prudent to start pouring concrete and deploying
a system because the NMD system has proven its ability to ``crawl'' and
is beginning to demonstrate the potential to ``walk.'' Earlier NMD
system test results proved that we could acquire, distinguish, and
intercept the right target from a set of our early development target
sweeps. We plan to progress from earlier tests with few objects to more
complicated tests with threat representative target sets. This ongoing
and additive test feedback gives us confidence that we can do required
engineering later on in the program to make the system work reliably
and operationally effective.
Question. The 1999 Annual Report of the Pentagon's Director of
Operational Testing and Evaluation states, in reference to the October
1999 flight test, IFT-3, ``The large balloon aided in acquisition of
the target. It is uncertain whether the EKV could have achieved an
intercept in the absence of the balloon.'' In light of the uncertainty
whether the intercept would have been achieved had it not been helped
by the proximity of the decoy balloon, on what basis do you call the
test a success? Should we rely on a defense system that may need a
large shiny object to guide it to its target?
Answer. The EKV would have intercepted the target without the decoy
balloon being present. When the EKV did not acquire the target complex
after a preset amount of time had passed it automatically transitioned
to a step stare operation to continue searching. The step stare
sequence is a pre-programmed maneuver intended to enlarge the EKV's
field of view if for some reason the target complex does not appear
within it. The step stare examines a 22 grid around the
original field of view, effectively quadrupling it. During the step
stare operation in IFT-3, the EKV noted the balloon in the lower, left-
hand image, established a track file on it, and used its discrimination
algorithms to classify the balloon correctly. The EKV continued its
search and observed the Multi Service Launch System (MSLS) target
deployment front section, established a track file on it, and correctly
classified it. The EKV then transitioned to track and intercepted the
target. Had the balloon decoy not been there, the EKV would still have
executed the step stare, acquired the MSLS target deployment front
section and reentry vehicle, and completed the intercept. It did not
rely on the decoy balloon for its success.
Furthermore, the test was a success on many levels. The other test
elements--the target vehicle, the surveillance sensors, the BMC\3\, and
the payload launch vehicle--all functioned properly to form the
framework for the EKV's intercept attempt. The EKV successfully
performed every function needed to accomplish the intercept, despite an
unexpected amount of error that accumulated during the planned star
sightings. The step stare function overcame the error, exactly as
intended by the software designers, enabling the EKV to acquire and
track all of its targets. The discrimination algorithms correctly
selected the reentry vehicle and discarded the decoy balloon and MSLS
target deployment front section. The guidance and propulsion systems
worked together correctly to home the EKV on the reentry vehicle. And
the aimpoint selection algorithms worked correctly to guide the EKV to
impact within the correct region of the reentry vehicle. The successful
intercept was confirmed by various radars and airborne sensor
platforms, as well as by loss of telemetry signals from the EKV and
reentry vehicle.
Question. I am concerned that the NMD system could be deployed
based on tests against one kind of threat, but then have to face a very
different threat with effective countermeasures once it is deployed.
Given that the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission Report states that biological
weapons delivered by submunitions are within the technological reach of
emerging missile states, and the 1999 National Intelligence Estimate
states that such states could develop countermeasures such as decoy
balloons by the time they test flight their first long-range missiles,
what is the basis for BMDO's assumption that the emerging missile
threat will not include such countermeasures before 2005?
Answer. [Deleted.] BMDO has not made a threat assessment. BMDO is
designing NMD to meet the DIA-validated threat.
Question. I would like to establish more clearly what threats the
planned NMD system would effectively defeat. I am referring now to the
final deployed system, what I think you call the C-3 system, with 250
interceptors. Would the NMD system be effective against an attack with
a few warheads and hundreds of decoys, if the warheads and decoys were
disguised to present a range of temperatures, wobbles, and other
characteristics such that the warheads could not be clearly
distinguished?
Answer. The NMD System has looked at a number of large
countermeasure suites which are in the current Capability 3 Threat
Scenarios and consistent with that described above. This C-3 capability
does address a range of temperatures, wobbles and other threat
characteristics consistent with what the Intelligence Community
considers being plausible limits. These characterizations are provided
in the NMD Threat Description Document.
Question. Would the kill vehicle, guided by infrared sensors, be
effective against a warhead that was cooled to liquid nitrogen
temperatures?
Answer. [Deleted.]
Question. I understand that biological or chemical agents would be
most effectively distributed not by a single warhead, but by dozens or
hundreds of submunitions or bomblets. Would the NMD system be effective
against a missile that subdivided into hundreds of bomblets?
Answer. We don't believe that our initial system will face the
threat of submunitions and thus the NMD C1 to C3 systems haven't been
designed to counter them. Technology to support boost phase negation
capability such as space-based lasers is currently being developed to
support systems beyond C3 which would be capable of destroying boosters
containing submunition payloads prior to submunition deployment.
Question. Would the NMD system be effective against land or sea-
launched cruise missiles?
Answer. No, the National Missile Defense System is designed to
intercept intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) warheads in space.
Land and sea-launched cruise missiles fly slowly (relative to an ICBM
warhead) at very low altitudes.
Question. Would the NMD system be effective against a nuclear
weapon hidden as cargo on a ship that sailed into a U.S. harbor?
Answer. No, the National Missile Defense System is designed to
track and intercept intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) warheads
in space. As you already know, the United States maintains significant
defenses against this scenario, such as you describe. The Central
Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Coast
Guard, and the Customs Service along with a number of other federal
agencies constitute the United States' first line of defense from a
nuclear weapon hidden aboard a cargo ship.
Question. The Pentagon has recently estimated that the total life-
cycle cost of a 100 interceptor system would be $30.2 billion in fiscal
year 1999 dollars, an increase of $6.4 billion from the previous
internal estimate of system cost, and more than twice the widely
reported estimate of $12.7 billion. In your written testimony you point
out that the program is on a ``high-risk schedule'' that may well slip.
If deployment is delayed, would that raise the program cost?
Answer. The NMD Program is a high-risk effort with a highly
compressed schedule. Despite some minor delays in test flights, the
overall developmental effort remains on track with capability to have
20 interceptors fielded by the end of fiscal year 2005, and a 100
interceptors fielded by the end of fiscal year 1907. The Deployment
Readiness Review (DRR) scheduled for summer 2000 will take place at the
Defense Acquisition Executive Level and with the full participation of
all stakeholders. With the information presented at the DRR senior
leadership will be able to assess technological progress to support a
possible deployment decision later in 2000. No plans are in place to
delay or slip the program. If the NMD Program was directed, in the near
term, to delay events that hinge on a deployment decision for some
period of time, e.g. for a year, the main impact on total life cycle
costs would be extending the developmental (RDT&E) effort for that
year, at approximately the fiscal year 2001 requested level of $1.7
billion to $1.8 billion. Key procurement, deployment and construction
events would slip to the right, and, as production and construction
have not begun, these would, therefore, not substantially increase.
Question. You also state that you very reasonably try to phase your
decisions--I believe that means to delay final design decisions as long
as possible. If some design elements change, would that be likely to
increase the program cost?
Answer. Design element changes could increase program cost.
Reconfiguring hardware or software will very likely require testing,
verification and validation. Any reconfiguring that increases
complexity, requires higher performance parameters, adds redundancy,
hardens the system or improves performance is likely to increase
program cost. NMD remains a high-risk and highly concurrent program.
Tremendous effort has been devoted to estimating the cost of the
Expanded C1 and an effort is underway to develop an estimate for
possible follow-on increments in preparation for the Deployment
Readiness Review (DRR) in the summer of 2000. Program confidence in
cost estimates has grown as the developmental effort has progressed,
hardware has been fabricated, integrated test flights have been
executed, and more aspects of the program have migrated and been
definitized under the Lead System Integrator contract. If following a
favorable technology assessment at DRR the program receives direction
to proceed toward deployment, program testing, including lethality
testing, will continue concurrently with production of a significant
number of interceptors for initial fielding. Some changes in production
and deployment are possible, and would in all probability impact system
cost.
Question. Do you have an estimate of the total life-cycle cost of
the desired final 250 interceptor system?
Answer. An estimate of the cost of the objective 250 interceptor
system has not been made. To support a Deployment Readiness Review
(DRR) in summer 2000, BMDO anticipates doing cost excursions on
alternative architectures. The objective 250-interceptor system
architecture will be one of the cost excursions.
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes some initial money
for procurement. Given the phasing of decisions, do you think that,
when procurement begins, we will have firm knowledge of the final cost
of the system?
Answer. NMD remains a high-risk and highly concurrent program.
Tremendous effort has been devoted to estimating the cost of the
Expanded C1 and an effort is underway to develop an estimate for
possible follow-on increments in preparation for the Deployment
Readiness Review (DRR) in the summer of 2000. Program confidence in
cost estimates has grown as the developmental effort has progressed,
hardware has been fabricated, integrated test flights have been
executed, and more aspects of the program have migrated and been
definitized under the Lead System Integrator contract. If following a
favorable technology assessment at DRR the program receives direction
to proceed toward deployment, program testing, including lethality
testing, will continue concurrently with production of a significant
number of interceptors for initial fielding. Some changes in production
and deployment are possible, and would in all probability impact system
cost.
subcommittee recess
Senator Stevens. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Wednesday, April 12, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:45 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison,
Inouye, Dorgan, and Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENTS OF:
LOUIS CALDERA, SECRETARY
GEN. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, CHIEF OF STAFF
OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning. This morning our
subcommittee will receive testimony from the Secretary of the
Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army on the fiscal year 2001
budget request.
General Shinseki, we welcome you to your first time to
testify before us as the Chief of Staff. I thank you very much
for your visit to Alaska. I enjoyed traveling with you.
General Shinseki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. As you know, you were very well received
in our State, and the comments you made were very appropriate
for the night.
There are many issues facing the Army. I think the most
critical decision Congress will make this year will be on the
direction we go on Army Transformation. The Transformation
concept is not simply a new weapon system but a new doctrine
and an organizational concept for the Army. I am going to put
my full statement in the record at this point and ask Senator
Inouye if he has a statement to make.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
This morning the subcommittee will receive testimony from
the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army on
their fiscal year 2001 budget request.
General Shinseki, welcome to you. This is your first time
testifying before the subcommittee.
I want to thank you again for your visit to Alaska in
February. It sent a very powerful signal to the Army in Alaska,
and the residents of my state, of the direction you intend to
lead the Army in the years ahead.
While there are many important issues facing the Army, I
believe the most critical decision Congress will make this year
will be the direction we go on Army Transformation.
The Transformation concept is not simply a new weapons
system, but a new doctrine and organizational concept for the
Army.
Like any dramatic change, Transformation challenges
entrenched interests, and those who prefer ``business as
usual''.
Unless significant steps are made this year, and during
fiscal year 2001, it will be difficult to realize the full
impact you have articulated for the Army.
General Shinseki, in November of last year, in the final
fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, Sen. Inouye and I added
$100 million in special funding to augment the fielding and
equipping of the initial Transformation brigade combat team.
You provided this subcommittee with a report detailing the
manner which you will spend that money, and we appreciate your
specific plan.
We look forward to working with you to implement
Transformation, and the opportunity to work with you during
your tenure as Chief of Staff of the Army.
In addition, I would welcome any comments you might have on
current funding requirements for the Army for fiscal year 2000,
and your views on the scope and timing of any needed
supplemental appropriations for this fiscal year.
Let me now turn to our mutual friend, and partner, the
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Sen. Inouye.
STATEMENT OF Senator DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. I would like to join
you in welcoming Secretary Caldera and General Shinseki, and to
publicly say that I am inspired by the ideas that are coming
out of the Army on Transformation. And I, for one, support
that. It is about time we began looking at changes in the
military during peacetime. We are always somehow reacting to
some adversary. And whenever we do that, we are never prepared.
I am old enough to remember World War II and the Korean
conflict. And I remember, in the Korean conflict, we had
occupation forces to face the combat-seasoned troops of North
Korea and the Chinese. And in World War I, I still remember the
story of General Patton, when he was assigned to Fort Benning
to begin the tank corps. He had 250 tanks, half of them then
moved. And he went to Sears Roebuck to buy parts, because we
could not afford it. I do not want to see this happen again. So
I not only wish you the best, but you have my support, sir.
Thank you very much. May I have my full statement made a
part of the record.
Senator Stevens. Yes, it will be.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure for me to have the
opportunity to join you today in hearing from our Army
representatives.
Secretary Caldera, General Shinseki we want to thank you
for coming today.
Mr. Chairman, as the Army enters the new millennium, it is
a time of great challenges.
I for one have been inspired by the ideas coming from the
Army about transforming our land forces from a cold war force
to a force for the 21st century.
I can only say to our leaders here that you have my
support.
To those that believe we should slow down, I would say that
we have never prepared for change in our Army during peacetime,
but only when we were forced to do so by an adversary. We have
the opportunity to do so now. Mr. Secretary, General Shinseki,
I say to you don't slow down. The time to act is now, and you
are the ones to achieve this goal.
To retain our status as the world's only superpower, we
must maintain our Army as a force second to none.
Transformation will help us to accomplish that objective.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today how the Army's request for fiscal year 2001 will lead our
Army into the future.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF Senator KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in my opening statement, I just want to say
that I spent Easter weekend in Kosovo and Bosnia. And I was so
very proud of the troops that you have trained, General
Shinseki. They are upbeat and they are very tough. But,
definitely, in Kosovo, they have a tough job. And there is no
question that they are on very high alert there. And I am
really proud of the job they are doing and I am proud of the
military construction that is supporting them.
And from the first time I met you, which was on the runway
in Tuzla, things have changed very much at that base--and for
the better, I might say. As you know, the 49th Armored Division
is now in charge of the Eagle Base in Tuzla. And they are doing
a great job. And having the Easter sunrise service with them
was probably the best Easter I will ever have in my life. And I
wanted you to know that they are all very, very excited to be
there and doing the job they are doing, and you should be proud
to say that they are our U.S. Army.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have questions later.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF Senator BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me thank Secretary Caldera for his service. I have had
the opportunity to work with him on a couple of issues, and I
have appreciated very much his response. And, General Shinseki,
thank you for your service to our country.
I will not give an opening statement except to say that we
are proud of the men and women who serve in the Army. And
Senator Hutchison mentioned the construction that is going on
in Kosovo. Some of that is by the 142nd Engineers of the North
Dakota National Guard, who are over there doing a lot of
construction work. Also, I join Senator Inouye in being
intrigued by the Transformation that is going on and some of
the plans that you are presenting today. I have to speak on the
floor of the Senate at 11 o'clock, so I will not be able to be
here for your entire testimony, but thank you very much for
appearing.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, should we hear from you first?
Fiscal year 2001 funding
Mr. Caldera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have
a prepared statement that I would like to submit for the
record. If I may, just to begin, I wanted to start by thanking
you and this committee for your support of our soldiers in this
past year, and in particular to thank you for what you did last
year in providing us some critical support to enhance our
readiness of our Army, including the package of pay increase,
restoring retirement benefits, pay table reform, that you
supported last year, that sent exactly the right message to our
soldiers, that our Nation honors their service and their
sacrifice.
We had record reenlistment in the Army last year, I think
in large part because soldiers were looking for that signal and
got that signal. And we are continuing to work to enhance their
quality of life and their training in order to be able to
continue to recruit and retain the soldiers that we need.
We also appreciate very much the $100 million that this
committee provided to the Army to begin the Transformation
process last year. General Shinseki will talk more specifically
about the Transformation process, and I would like to say just
a couple more things about that. But I do want to note that I
know that this committee supports the Army's need to obtain the
supplemental funding for the mission in Kosovo. That is
reaching a critical point for us.
We have already spent about $750 million of operation and
maintenance (O&M) money that would have otherwise gone for Army
training throughout the course of the rest of the year in
supporting the mission in Kosovo. And we are at the point where
we are beginning to, first of all, with support from the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), we can continue to operate
without changing our program for a couple of more weeks. But at
some point we will begin to do some of the kinds of things that
we need to do to husband resources, both to pay for the Kosovo
mission and to ensure that we operate this year within our
appropriations.
The supplemental is important, not just in terms of full
funding, but also in terms of its timeliness, so that we do not
have to take action such as curtailing training, deferring
personnel actions, like promotions, hiring, permanent change of
station (PCS) moves. Those are some of the kinds of things that
we will begin to do--cut back on procurement of spare parts,
slow down depot missions. Those are some of the actions that we
will begin to take. We understand that this committee
appreciates the importance of that supplemental, and we urge
that, at the earliest moment, that that could be provided. It
would be of great benefit in order not to impact our training
and our readiness.
Mr. Chairman, in terms of Transformation, as General
Shinseki was coming aboard last year, one of the challenges
that Secretary Cohen laid before us was to better articulate
the direction that the Army was going in the 21st century, the
kind of Armed Forces that we would have that would be able to
meet the threats and the challenges that our Nation will face
in the 21st century. The need to have an Army that is more
deployable, more responsive, capable of being dominant at every
point on the spectrum, from high-intensity conflict through
peacekeeping, peace enforcement, stability and support
operations, right down to humanitarian assistance and
engagement missions that we perform every single day all over
the world.
As a consequence of that challenge, General Shinseki and I
articulated this vision for the Army, the Army Vision, Soldiers
On Point for the Nation . . . Persuasive in Peace, Invincible
in War, that lays out the tenets of Transformation. It is about
more than changing our formations and our equipment.
It is about investing in the preparation, training and
leader development of our soldiers, maintaining high readiness,
manning our units at 100 percent by grade and military
occupation speciality, and about transforming the Army so that
it would be a more deployable, responsive force, looking out
and seeing that our heavy forces are too heavy and take too
long to deploy and are difficult to operate in certain parts of
the world, where the 70-ton tanks are too heavy for the
bridges, too wide for narrow urban areas, too difficult to
employ, that our light forces lack staying power, in terms of
their ability, if they faced an armored threat at the time of
arrival, of being able to survive and win in that kind of
environment without quick reinforcement, and of the need to be
able to get the right force to the hot spots faster in the
world in order to be effective, and to give the Nation more
capabilities.
Transformation provides the Nation with increased
capabilities immediately. Because the interim forces that we
have begun to stand up, starting with the initial brigades at
Fort Lewis, are forces that the Nation can begin to use today
that are more deployable and have more lethality, more
versatility in the kinds of missions that they will be sent to.
It also, as we begin to procure the off-the-shelf interim
armored vehicle that will be the weapon system that they will
use, begins to take us down the road of driving our heavy
forces and our lighter forces closer together, moving toward
the concept of an Objective Force that has the deployability of
our light forces, but the lethality of our heavy forces. And we
begin to make today the science and technology investments that
will give us the answer to the questions of whether we can
technologically deliver that kind of force for the Nation.
Funding requirements
In order to jump start Transformation, to make it more than
just a program, but to make it a reality, we used the
assistance that this committee provided to begin standing up
those initial brigades, and to begin those investments. And we
reprioritized about $1 billion within the Army budget in order
to make the kinds of investments that are necessary to deliver
on Transformation for the Nation and to be able to deliver,
within the Army's own budget authority, one brigade per year
for the next 6 years, and to give us a force that will also
provide sufficient forces that it can be employed by the
Nation, that it can be put into a rotation, that both allows
you to learn as you are developing the operational concepts,
the doctrine, but also gives the Nation that capability that
our country can already begin to draw on.
This Transformation is an exciting process for the Nation.
We are very committed to what it can yield the country in terms
of increased capabilities and where it will take us. The
decisions we had to make in terms of reprioritizing within the
Army budget were difficult decisions because there were valid
requirements for some of the programs that we had to terminate
in order to reprioritize, including the Grizzly and the
Wolverine programs and the reduced buy for Crusader. But we
thought those were the right tradeoffs to make in order to move
Transformation forward within the Army's budget, and
recapitalizing our equipment for the future, replacing our
aging equipment. Being able to make those investments will
continue to be a challenge for the Army if we are to deliver
the benefits of technology for our soldiers so that they can
have the best equipment that will be available to them not only
today but going into the future.
We thank you for your support. We stand ready to answer and
work with this committee to make sure that we have a common
picture of the kinds of increased capabilities that
Transformation will provide for the Nation and that we are
working together to deliver those benefits for the Nation.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Louis Caldera
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is an honor and a
pleasure to testify once again before you. I am very pleased to report
to you on the state of the U.S. Army and to explain where we are trying
to lead it for the future.
Let me first express my great appreciation, however, to this
Subcommittee for its role in developing and passing the fiscal year
2000 budget for the Army. This funding, together with the fiscal year
1999 Supplemental for Kosovo, is helping address many of the Army's
most immediate needs, from training, to maintenance, to modernization.
The military compensation and retirement improvements Congress
enacted this past year are particularly noteworthy. Your adoption of
the benefits package sent a strong message of support to our troops; it
has had a positive impact in attracting new soldiers and retaining
experienced ones. No doubt in large measure because of these
initiatives, last year was one of the most successful years ever for
Army retention.
This year, I respectfully request your continued support for the
Army's programs. Our budget carefully balances near-term readiness and
quality of life with long-term modernization. It provides needed
funding for contingency operations, training, base operations, housing
and barracks initiatives, depot maintenance, research and development,
and many other priorities.
Most importantly, the budget includes jump-start funding for our
Transformation initiative, the most important organizational
development for the Army in a generation. This initiative will help the
Army remain a strategically relevant force well into this new century.
In Part I of my testimony, I will describe some of what the Army
accomplished in the last year to meet the needs of our Nation's current
security requirements and how, through the Transformation process, we
will be better prepared to meet future requirements. In Part II, I will
briefly describe how the budget request supports Army programs,
including Transformation.
As always, I welcome your comments on every aspect of how the Army
is doing. I also respectfully urge this Committee to move expeditiously
on our budget request for fiscal year 2001 as well as the fiscal year
2000 supplemental for Kosovo. Expeditious adoption of the Kosovo
measure will help us sustain the readiness investments that Congress
approved in the fiscal year 2000 budget by reimbursing the Army for
funds needed to execute our fourth quarter training and maintenance
plans.
part i
The Army and the Current Environment
Mr. Chairman, today's Army is a complex enterprise comprising some
1.3 million people, including, in round numbers, 480,000 active duty
soldiers, 565,000 Guard and Reserve personnel, and 225,000 civilians.
The Army is the largest service component of the Nation's armed forces,
with 40 percent of all Department of Defense personnel. In terms of
force structure, we field no fewer than 10 active component divisions,
with another 8 divisions and 18 separate brigades available in reserve.
The Army is the most powerful conventional force on Earth. Trained
to the most exacting standards and armed with lethal and efficient
weapons, our soldiers are feared by our enemies and trusted by our
allies--and respected by all. The Army is the decisive landpower
element of our Nation's military, the only service able to conduct
coordinated, sustained, offensive and defensive operations on land to
seize and maintain control of territory, people, and resources for as
long as our country's interests warrant.
Men and women of the U.S. Army serve our Nation throughout the
world, from Kosovo to Korea, Bangkok to Bahrain. More than 110,000
soldiers are permanently forward stationed to deter aggression and to
be on hand in the event of a crisis; approximately 30,000 are deployed
in scores of contingency operations and training in 70 to 80 different
countries on any given day. Hundreds of thousands more are stationed at
posts around the Nation, training hard, developing and testing new
weapons systems, and providing the administrative, planning, and
logistical support necessary to prepare our soldiers for battle and
maintain them in the field. And everywhere our soldiers serve, they do
so with spirit, dedication and resolve, and in the best traditions of
the Nation's most venerable military service.
The Army supports our national interests by maintaining a force
capable of responding to the full spectrum of operations, ranging from
humanitarian missions on the low end to the capability to fight two
nearly simultaneous major theater wars on the high end. Meeting this
requirement entails a force of high quality people, with modern
equipment, trained in the broad range of skills (more than 500
specialties) demanded of modern military operations. The nature of this
force, in turn, enables the Army to provide support for the three major
pillars of our National Military Strategy--shaping the international
environment, responding to the full spectrum of crises, and preparing
for an uncertain future.
Shaping the International Environment
Throughout 1999, the Army conducted a wide range of shaping
operations that enhanced regional stability and reassured our allies.
In Bosnia, nearly 4,000 Army soldiers comprise a substantial part
of the NATO force that supports implementation of the Dayton Peace
Accords, monitors crossing points on the Bosnia-Herzogovina and
Yugoslavia borders, and provides security for displaced persons and
refugees. In Kosovo, the Army also assumed the principal responsibility
for U.S. participation in the NATO peace implementation mission at the
completion of Operation Allied Force in June 1999. Today, more than ten
thousand soldiers overall are currently serving in the Balkans, doing
the hard and dangerous work necessary to achieve our Nation's goals of
bringing stability and progress to this troubled region.
In Southwest Asia, the continuous presence of an Army task force
that includes attack helicopters, Patriot missile units, and other
forces helped deter aggression, reassured regional allies, and
supported implementation of U.N. resolutions against Saddam Hussein.
Forward positioning of Patriot missile units by Operations Desert
Falcon and Desert Focus forces maintained our ability to respond to
crises in the region. Army forces deployed in support of Operation
Southern Watch worked with the other Services and allied forces to
enforce U.N. sanctions against Iraq. In the Middle East, the Army also
maintained an infantry battalion and headquarters group in the Sinai as
part of the Multinational Force and Observers.
In Korea, 25,000 soldiers served as a major bulwark of stability in
this critical region, which includes some of our largest trading
partners. Their presence underscored our commitment to the defense of
South Korea, strengthened the United States/Republic of Korea position
in talks with North Korea, and deterred adventurism by the North Korean
regime. U.S. Army forces in Japan also contributed to regional
stability and participated closely in combined exercises with Japan
Self Defense Forces.
In Colombia, the critical single-source nation for illicit
narcotics entering the United States, the Army helped establish a
counter narcotics battalion to fight drug criminals in the narcotics
producing areas of the country. In my recent visit there, I observed
first-hand how critical our aid has been in this effort. The military
assistance proposed as part of the President's recently-announced $1.6
billion Colombian aid package will significantly enhance Colombian
security forces' ability to eradicate drugs over a wider area of
cultivation by improving their intelligence capability, airlift
mobility, and ability to plan and execute larger scale counterdrug
operations, among other things. The aid will allow the U.S. Army to
provide training for two new Colombian Army counter narcotics
battalions. The improved operational capabilities of the Colombian
military and police forces are key to reducing the massive increase in
the acreage under coca and poppy cultivation that has occurred over the
last three years. The Army is prepared to do its part in this stepped-
up campaign to address the drug scourge at its source, once Congress
passes this vital package.
Training of foreign military personnel constituted a significant
portion of U.S. military engagement activities. Special Operations
Forces deployed to 22 nations to conduct humanitarian demining
training. They also trained several African armies for peacekeeping
operations and humanitarian response under the African Crisis Response
Initiative. The Army Guard and Reserve, the Corps of Engineers, and the
Army Surgeon General also participated in various endeavors in Africa
designed to support democratic transition and to improve infrastructure
and health.
The International Military Education and Training (IMET) program
served as an outstanding vehicle for promoting cooperation and
democratic values by training over 7,600 students from 134 countries.
Most of this training took place in the United States, fostering
personal and professional ties between American sponsors and foreign
students.
An especially valuable IMET program is the U.S. Army School of the
Americas, an institution that has trained tens of thousands of Latin
American military personnel over the last 54 years. In addition to
traditional military professional development courses, the School
offers instruction in natural disaster response, peacekeeping, human
rights, and the role of the military in a democracy. Several
investigations by outside agencies have confirmed that the School's
curriculum is consistent with U.S. human rights policy. Nevertheless,
our goal is to have a training environment that permits us to
accomplish our engagement mission while garnering the full support of
Congress and the American people. I will recommend changes this year
that will ensure all such professional development training for foreign
officers and soldiers supports our national security goals in Latin
America, promotes respect for human rights and the rule of law, and
strengthens the development of democratic institutions and civil
society.
In addition to these activities, the Army helped shape the
international environment in ways favorable to U.S. interests by
combining training with civic assistance projects. For example, last
year Army engineers fixed a hospital roof in Mongolia and repaired
roads and schools in the Marshall Islands. In Ukraine, a medical
brigade provided surplus Army medical equipment to civilian hospitals.
These types of initiatives enhance American credibility and goodwill
abroad and provide important training opportunities for selected Army
units.
Responding to the Full Spectrum of Crises
While engagement and training activities prevent and deter wars,
the Army's core function is to remain ready to fight and win our
Nation's wars. The Army's ability to respond to the full spectrum of
crises is evident in several recent operations the Army led or in which
it played a significant role.
The Army employed forces in support of the NATO bombing campaign
against Serbia last spring. In addition to augmenting Joint Task Force
Noble Anvil, the U.S. component of the NATO force that conducted the
bombing campaign, the Army deployed the 5,000 strong Task Force Hawk to
Albania to provide attack helicopter capabilities within striking range
of Yugoslavia. This deployment reflected the Army's ability to send
warfighting units anywhere in the world, in the most difficult weather
and terrain conditions. Although never employed in the fighting, Task
Force Hawk gave the national command authorities unique additional
capabilities for prosecuting the war in Kosovo.
Two other Army deployments provided critical support to U.S. policy
in the Balkans. In Europe, Army personnel expanded the base camp that
would later prove indispensable as a staging base for the U.S.
contingent of the Kosovo Force or KFOR, the NATO force underwriting
peace in Kosovo. Closer to home, a unit from Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, formed the nucleus of a joint task force assisting in caring
for more than 4,000 displaced Kosovars at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
When U.S. forces crossed into Kosovo to begin the difficult task of
bringing stability to that troubled region, elements of the Army's 1st
Infantry Division led the way. This division has provided the bulk of
the U.S. contingent (Task Force Falcon) since implementation of the
treaty last June. On a daily basis, soldiers are working face to face
with the people of Kosovo, conducting the dangerous work of disarming
former combatants, resettling refugees, protecting minority populations
from retribution, and establishing fertile conditions in which civil
society can take root and thrive.
In Central America, the Army led efforts to assist victims of
Hurricanes Georges and Mitch throughout most of fiscal year 1999 via
initiatives that entailed massive logistical assistance. In Asia,
American soldiers performed critical medical, intelligence,
communications, and civil affairs tasks as part of the U.S. contingent
supporting Operation Stabilize in East Timor, in response to the
violence that occurred after the people of East Timor voted
overwhelmingly for independence from Indonesia. These and similar
operations underscored the Army's continued responsiveness and utility
to national policy.
Preparing for an Uncertain Future
The 21st century holds great promise, but also potential menace,
for our Nation. The dream of information age prosperity will also see
an array of potential dangers to our national security interests. These
include regional challenges of the kind we see in the Balkans, in
Southwest Asia, and on the Korean Peninsula; threats that cut across
geographical and ideological boundaries, including the drug trade,
ethnic, tribal, and religious strife, and organized crime; and
``asymmetric'' dangers, such as terrorism, the threatened use of
weapons of mass destruction, and information warfare.
The Army has prepared for this uncertain future by developing a
bold new Vision for the 21st century. The Vision calls for our
Transformation to a force that is more responsive, deployable, agile,
versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable. The force will be more
strategically dominant across the entire spectrum of operations, and
will be capable of reversing the conditions of human suffering rapidly
and resolving conflicts decisively. The Army's deployment is the surest
sign of America's commitment to accomplishing any mission that occurs
on land.
The new force must be responsive to allow the Army to meet frequent
contingency requirements with any element of the force. To be
responsive requires the ability to put forces where needed on the
ground, to affect directly the outcome of the situation or crisis at
hand within hours of a decision. The forces must be prepared to
accomplish their mission regardless of the environment, the nature or
scope of the proposed operation, or other commitments. They should also
have the ability to employ force from low to high intensity.
To achieve this responsiveness, the force must be more deployable--
capable of rapid strategic movement to create the opportunity to avert
conflict through deterrence and confront potential adversaries before
they can achieve their goals. The Vision calls for a capability to put
a brigade on the ground within 96 hours after liftoff, a division
within 120 hours, and five divisions in 30 days.
The new force will be more mentally and physically agile, to move
forces from stability and support operations to warfighting and back
again. Our organizational structures will be redesigned, so that our
force is more versatile--able to generate formations which can dominate
at any point on the spectrum of operations, with minimal adjustment and
minimum time. It will be lethal--every element in the warfighting
formation will be capable of generating combat power and contributing
decisively to the fight. We will retain today's light force
deployability while providing it the lethality and mobility for
decisive outcomes that our heavy forces currently enjoy. The force will
be survivable, by employing technology that provides maximum protection
to our forces at the individual soldier level, whether that soldier is
dismounted or mounted.
Finally, the force must be more sustainable. We will aggressively
reduce our logistics footprint and replenishment demand. This will
require us to control the numbers of vehicles we deploy, leverage reach
back capabilities, invest in a systems approach to the weapons and
equipment we design, and revolutionize the manner in which we transport
and sustain our people and materiel.
The Army's Transformation strategy envisions the development of
initial and Interim Forces on the way to achieving the Objective Force
capabilities that are called for in the Vision. The initial forces will
include a brigade combat team whose purpose is to validate the
operational and organizational model of future tactical units and to
generate insights for further Transformation of the force. As I speak,
this brigade is being formed at Fort Lewis, Washington. This initial
brigade combat team will equip itself with surrogate and loaned
hardware, even as we begin to identify the best ``off the shelf''
platforms for the Interim Force. At the same time we are beginning to
make, along with DARPA, the Science and Technology investments that
will lead to development of the main Objective Force platform, known as
the Future Combat System. This system will be delivered around 2012.
The initial brigade combat team will serve as the lead-in to, and
eventually comprise the first element of, an Interim Force that will
seek the characteristics of the Objective Force within the constraints
of available and emerging technology. The Interim Force will be
organized as a rapidly-deployable, full-spectrum force that is highly
mobile at the strategic and tactical levels. Current plans call for the
Interim Force to be C-130-transportable and equipped with a family of
Interim Armored Vehicles, lightweight artillery, and other available
technology.
Throughout the Initial and Interim Capability phases, the Army will
revise key concepts, doctrine, and strategic plans as well as begin the
Transformation of the Institutional Army. This Transformation will
address the systems, organizations, and processes by which the Army
supports training, leader development, infrastructure, management,
combat and materiel development, and well-being.
Even as we push the Transformation process to develop Objective
Force capabilities, we must continue to recapitalize some of our legacy
systems, such as the Abrams tank and Apache helicopter, and bring on-
line new systems like the Comanche helicopter and Crusader howitzer
that we are counting on to have as part of our warfighting capability
through at least the year 2025. At each stage of the Transformation
process, we have the right mix of weapons systems and force structure
to be able to respond to the full spectrum of operations, including
high-intensity conflict. Until the Objective Force is fielded
throughout the Army, it is likely that we will need to maintain heavy,
digitized divisions with the capacity to win against Soviet-era armor
that may be employed against us in places like Korea or Southwest Asia.
To improve responsiveness for the full spectrum of operations, the
Army will also attempt to fill all operational and institutional
organizations to 100 percent of authorizations, by grade and skill, by
the end of fiscal year 2003. Matching skills with responsibilities will
improve our readiness to respond during the Transformation period.
Transformation is and will be the central activity of the Army for
the foreseeable future. All our energies are directed to the task of
fielding an Objective Force whose capabilities will give the Nation the
land force options and responsiveness needed to meet the challenges of
an uncertain era. But getting there, to the Objective Force, requires
that we begin here, now, with our current Army. Transformation cannot
occur, and the Nation cannot reap its benefits, if we do not continue
to sustain and build on the Army of today.
part ii
Supporting Today's Army
The fiscal year 2001 budget achieves three ends: it includes
funding for programs that safeguard America and its allies, including
selected smaller scale contingency operations; it advances
Transformation of the Army into a more strategically responsive force;
and it balances near-term readiness and quality of life with long-term
modernization. A quick glance at some major areas of interest offers a
broad sense of the Army's priorities.
Smaller Scale Contingency Operations
Our engagement abroad is a source of pride and valuable experience
for our soldiers. The Army is proud of its work in shaping the
international environment in the interests of peace and democracy. As
previously described, approximately 30,000 soldiers are deployed every
day around the world in support of America's interests. Our ability to
respond quickly and effectively when these unforeseen crises develop
depends on the continued timely support of Congress in funding such
deployments.
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $1.0 billion to support
operations in Bosnia. Operation Joint Forge not only continues to
provide the security necessary to allow time for that country to become
self sufficient, but it is also providing The Army with the opportunity
to hone the skills of our active and reserve units. We have just
deployed elements of a National Guard division, the 49th Infantry
Division (Texas ARNG), for a six-month tour of duty. For the first
time, this ARNG unit is providing the command and control for the U.S.-
led Multinational Division North in Bosnia.
We fully expect to achieve the same results in Operation Joint
Guardian in Kosovo. At this point in the operation, we are still
establishing the infrastructure and training base to support our
presence. The timely passage of the fiscal year 2000 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations request for Kosovo, which includes $1.5
billion for the Army, is critical not only to the success of that
operation, but to ensuring the execution of planned training events
throughout the rest of the Army. Early passage of the Supplemental will
enable our commanders to confidently keep on track planned fourth
quarter training.
Our commanders and soldiers have demonstrated unprecedented
flexibility and resourcefulness in preparing for unplanned operations
while maintaining the fighting edge required for combat. During the
past three years, the Overseas Contingency Transfer Account has been
instrumental to our ability to conduct unplanned operations without
interrupting funded training.
Transformation
This budget provides nearly $1 billion for the Army to pursue its
Transformation initiative. The $100 million Congress provided for
Transformation at the end of last year, together with the savings
generated through the hard choices we made to cancel or cutback
important programs in order to fund Transformation, will enable us to
stand up the initial Brigade Combat Team. We will use loaned and leased
equipment for this initial brigade while we begin acquisition of the
off-the-shelf vehicles for the Interim Force brigades. A few weeks ago,
we conducted a vehicle demonstration at Fort Knox, Kentucky, to
evaluate these potential Interim Force vehicles.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2001 appropriations will make it
possible for us to make the initial science and technology investments
in the Future Combat System as the weapons platform for the Objective
Force around 2012. We intend to bring the new system on-line as soon as
technology allows.
Even as we fund the new bills created by the Transformation
process, we must continue to recapitalize our aging equipment and
modernize our forces through our investments in digitization and
procurement of new platforms for warfighting. The Army will continue to
find ways to help itself, as we have already demonstrated in the short
months since we announced our Vision. However, a critical component of
funding shortages in the out years is the savings that can be accrued
by eliminating excess infrastructure. I strongly encourage another
round of base closures as a means of supporting our Transformation
efforts.
Modernization
As the Army implements its Transformation strategy, development and
funding of an affordable, fully integrated modernization program is an
essential element of that plan. Two key components of our modernization
strategy are worthy of note here because of their impact on the budget:
recapitalization and digitization.
Recapitalization.--Recapitalizing our legacy systems is of equal
importance with the development of the Future Combat System. We must
increase the service life of key existing systems while we move to the
Objective Force. Recapitalization also reduces maintenance requirements
and streamlines logistics support.
Recapitalization is one area in which we will need the continued
assistance of Congress as we anticipate sustaining many of these legacy
systems through 2025. This budget will help us make the critical
investments in weapons systems necessary to sustain our ability to meet
current security obligations, including fighting and winning major
theater wars, even as we transform our force. A few examples will
suffice to illustrate our programs.
Critical to modernization of legacy forces are the upgrades for the
Abrams Tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle. We need to replace the
Abrams' engine to reduce fuel consumption by about 30 percent, to make
it easier to maintain and less costly to operate, as well as equip it
with new electronics. We will modify our Bradley's to make them more
lethal and survivable through digitization, night vision capabilities,
and other improvements.
Support for the continued development of the Comanche helicopter
and Crusader howitzer are also critical to our modernization program.
The Crusader program was restructured to gain vital improvements in
indirect fire support capability and to reduce the weight of the system
while maintaining key performance parameters. The Army generated $11.2
billion for Transformation between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2014 by reducing the number of Crusaders from 1,138 to 480. The
restructure strategy partially satisfied the Army howitzer requirement
for warfighting by continuing the use of Paladin and incorporating the
Lightweight 155 mm howitzer.
The Comanche (RAH-66) helicopter will provide the Army with a new
capability to conduct armed reconnaissance during both day and night
and in adverse weather conditions. It will significantly expand the
Army's capability to conduct operations in a wider range of scenarios.
The fiscal year 2001 budget supports testing of two prototypes and the
development of the advanced T801 engine, composite air vehicle, and
mission equipment package.
Digitization.--We have not slowed our efforts to digitize our
forces; we remain committed to incorporating digital capabilities to
support our soldiers, our units, and our ability to communicate
securely. The process of applying information technologies to allow
warfighters to share a constantly updated common view of the
battlefield is an ongoing modernization priority that is separate from
but related to Transformation. Digitization involves across-the-board
software and hardware improvements to weapons and communications
systems that will vastly improve the capabilities of our forces. We
will incorporate digital features in the more responsive, lethal, and
agile forces of the future; digital advances are already being used to
modify the structure of selected divisions. This budget continues our
commitment to digitize the first corps by the end of 2004.
These modernization initiatives will require the long-term
commitment of the Administration and Congress. Army modernization
accounts for only $9.4 billion of the Department of Defense's $60
billion modernization budget. Indeed, modernization funding has
decreased more than 40 percent in the period fiscal year 1989 to fiscal
year 1999. But even adjusting for decreases in the size of the Army, we
will spend about $5,000 less per soldier for modernization this year
than we did only a decade ago (in constant fiscal year 2000 dollars).
We need to reverse this alarming trend, if the Army is to remain
the premier force the Nation requires for influencing events and
maintaining peace. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget makes the
necessary investments in critical modernization initiatives that are
central to the Army's modernization and Transformation initiatives.
Readiness
The fiscal year 2001 budget supports our most pressing readiness
requirements. The budget protects critical areas including training,
operations tempo (OPTEMPO), and infrastructure requirements. Resources
have been maximized to ensure our forces are trained, equipped, and
ready to fight.
Training.--Training is the heartbeat of the Army and a major
component of readiness. The Army's training management system allows
units to conduct training on key tasks with enough frequency to sustain
their ability to perform, in spite of personnel turnover. A function of
this system is to identify the resources necessary to conduct live and
simulated training on mission-essential tasks. Operations tempo
(OPTEMPO) is one measure of these needed training resources.
OPTEMPO.--The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request assumes
funding to permit all active units and most reserve units to achieve
100 percent of our OPTEMPO training standards. Force Package 1 through
3 units are funded at 100 percent OPTEMPO and Force Package 4 units at
100 percent for individual and crew training. We have also funded
adequate Combat Training Center rotations, Battle Command Training
Program rotations, and flying hours for both active and reserve
component units. Passage of the Kosovo Supplemental is important to
preserving the benefits of this funding.
Infrastructure.--The Army is maintaining its base operations
support at minimum essential levels this year. However, Real Property
Maintenance (RPM) funding for the active Army is only 69 percent of
known requirements and our aging infrastructure continues to
deteriorate. The fiscal year 2001 budget assumes some risk to, yet
sustains the real property inventory. We continue to reduce excess
infrastructure by using RPM funds to resource the Facilities Reduction
Program, while focusing Military Construction investments on specific
priorities such as barracks and strategic mobility projects.
The President's Military Construction request of $1 billion focuses
on upgrading all permanent party barracks to the 1 plus 1 standard by
fiscal year 2008. Using fiscal year 2001 funds, we will build barracks
that will house 5,000 active duty soldiers at facilities in the U.S. as
well as in Korea and Germany. The requested funds would also be used to
improve rail yards and other facilities to enhance our strategic
mobility program, another important building block in our
Transformation architecture. If the Army is not able to mobilize our
troops and supplies, we cannot respond to our designated missions as
quickly or effectively as we would like.
Finally, the budget will allow us to continue our efforts to
provide high quality family housing, an element of military life that
will certainly affect the morale and readiness of the future force. We
do not have enough housing to meet current needs, and much of what we
do have is in need of revitalization. The President's request of $1.1
billion for family housing will give us some of the resources necessary
to meet our shortfalls in this area.
The Army is also continuing apace with efforts to privatize family
housing, but at the direction of Congress, we are moving with prudence
and deliberation. Reauthorization of the privatization program, which
expires next February, is critical to meeting our housing needs.
Quality of Life
The fiscal year 2001 budget maintains historic funding levels for
base operations support services. Our soldiers and their families
continue to affirm the importance of this course of action. Frequent
deployments and training exercises mandate that we provide the best
services to sustain morale. Army installations continue to seek new
efficiencies through A-76 studies, outsourcing, and adopting most
efficient organization practices. Critical to maintaining high quality
of life in the Army are fully manning the force through recruiting and
retention and adequate health care. We especially appreciate the Office
of the Secretary of Defense's and Congress' efforts to eliminate the
basic allowance for housing differential, improve health care, and
improve benefits.
Recruiting and Retention.--The bedrock of the Army remains its
people. Without quality people, it does not matter how lethal our
weapons are or how strategically responsive our formations are. But
today's growth economy and high employment market have challenged us to
attract and keep individuals who possess the knowledge and skills to
run the machinery of the modern Army, especially as we move toward
Transformation.
In fiscal year 1999, the Army essentially met (within a 1 percent
tolerance factor) its required endstrength of 480,000, thanks to a
vigorous retention effort that exceeded our goals by more than 6,100
soldiers. This success can be attributed to an enhanced bonus program
we recently implemented, as well as to the compensation and benefits
improvements that Congress adopted last year.
On the recruiting front, we are aggressively restructuring our
operations, including reviewing our advertising strategy and improving
recruiter training. We are also implementing two new innovative
programs that hold great promise. The College First program offers
college-bound candidates up-front education benefits in exchange for a
promise to serve. The Army High School Completion program, which we
launched last month, helps highly qualified young people who are
interested in serving to obtain their GED, so that they can meet the
Army's quality standards for entry.
The Army will continue to develop and employ creative solutions
like these to ensure that as Transformation takes place, our ranks are
regularly replenished with qualified, motivated individuals. We hope
that Congress will continue to support these efforts as well as the
additional initiatives to improve compensation, benefits, and quality
of life for our soldiers that are addressed in our budget and that are
key to the Army's enlistment and reenlistment strategies.
Health Care.--A key quality of life issue with our soldiers and
family members is health care. TRICARE, the Department of Defense
healthcare program, has been implemented worldwide. TRICARE was
designed to make quality healthcare more accessible and easier to use,
and to lower costs for those who use it. We have many dedicated people
in our military treatment facilities across the globe who are working
to make these objectives a daily reality. Most of our beneficiaries
report satisfaction with the quality of care they receive.
We are measuring the performance of various aspects of the TRICARE
program to ensure it remains the health plan of choice. We are working
collaboratively with the Department of Defense and the Joint Staff to
address improvements in areas such as access, claims processing,
portability, and the management of complex medical cases. Additionally,
we are fully supportive of some key enhancements for our soldiers and
family members, like the TRICARE Prime Remote Program for family
members, throughout the continental United States. Accordingly, we
encourage the necessary legislative changes needed to facilitate making
these enhancements a reality.
Chemical Demilitarization
I would urge the Committee to provide the full funding for the
Chemical Weapons Demilitarization program requested in the President's
budget ($1.003 billion for the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction account in the Defense Appropriations bill and $175.4
million in Army military construction funds). This program is a
priority to the Army, the Department of Defense, and the
Administration. We owe it to public safety of the military and civilian
families living near the chemical weapons storage sites to ensure that
these aging weapons are safely destroyed as quickly as possible. The
United States has committed to meeting the 2007 deadline in the
Chemical Weapons Convention for the destruction of these weapons.
Failure to meet our international treaty obligations would damage U.S.
credibility in fighting the proliferation of chemical weapons. The Army
will do what it takes to meet the 2007 deadline if the Congress
provides us the funds to do the job. Finally, these chemical weapons no
longer have any military utility, but their continued storage consumes
valuable Army resources that could be better utilized to improve
readiness and modernize the Army. Therefore, I urge the Appropriations
Committee to provide the funds requested in the President's budget so
that we can complete this important national program.
Conclusion
The Army's Transformation will provide the National Command
Authority increased capabilities to meet 21st century threats to our
national interests. As we stated in our Vision, The Army will be
responsive and dominant at every point on the spectrum of operations,
from humanitarian assistance to major theater wars. We solicit your
support of our Transformation efforts and look forward to working with
you to ensure that we remain the world's finest land force for the next
crisis, the next war, and an uncertain future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
General Shinseki.
Army posture
General Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye and
distinguished members of the committee, good morning. Thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the Army's current posture and
its Transformation initiative.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask your consent to make a brief
opening statement and then submit a written version for the
record.
Senator Stevens. All of our statements that have been
mentioned will be printed in the record in full.
General Shinseki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. General, before you start, Senator
Cochran, did you have a statement to make?
Senator Cochran. No, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to defer
my comments until later.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. I have nothing.
Senator Stevens. General.
General Shinseki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me assure you and all the members of the committee
here, in follow-up to Senator Hutchison's recent visit, there
is a magnificent Army out there, soldiers on point, doing heavy
lifting for this Nation. Today there are 140,000 American
soldiers overseas, 30,000 of them on deployment, away from
their home stations. Since the end of the Cold War, the United
States Army has deployed 35 times, in the last 10 years, to
places like Panama and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Haiti,
Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and even East Timor. And compared to
the 40 years of the Cold War, when we deployed those forces
only 10 times, you can appreciate the increase in operating
tempo (OPTEMPO).
All of these deployments do not change the Army's
fundamental purpose. And that is to fight and win our Nation's
wars. The Cold War Army performed magnificently this past
decade, but it is challenged, much as the Secretary has
outlined, challenging today to maintain that pace, especially
as contingency missions stretch into long-term commitments:
Kosovo, 10 months; Bosnia, going on 5 years; the Sinai, 18
years; Korea, 40 years.
The Army has begun transforming itself to better meet all
of these requirements. To do this in the midst of such a
demanding OPTEMPO does require a longer-term vision. And last
October, as the Secretary has outlined, the Army laid out a
vision that talked about three things. It talked first about
people. The vision statement opened talking about soldiers and
it closed talking about soldiers.
Second, it talked about readiness. Third, it talked about
the Army's need to transform itself. And while Transformation
has received much of the attention, the vision did talk about
people, about readiness and then Transformation. People,
because the Army is people, and taking care of their concerns
is fundamental. Readiness, because the Army has that
nonnegotiable contract with the American people to fight and to
win our Nation's war. We cannot neglect our people or our
responsibilities for readiness.
Let me now address the Army's Transformation. We are
preparing to meet our future warfighting responsibilities
technologically, materially, and professionally. We must
possess force characteristics that will enable us to initiate
combat on our terms--on our terms, not someone else's. On our
terms means at a time, at a place, with the method of our
choosing, not someone else's. And once we have done that, to
seize and retain the initiative in that warfight, to build
momentum quickly, and then to go for a decisive win as soon as
possible. And that is the way we intend to continue the
business that our profession is about. And that is decisiveness
and warfighting.
Unfortunately, our force does not have all of those
characteristics today. Yet, we intend to take advantage of a
window of opportunity--some say it is narrower than we think--
to embark on the most significant and comprehensive effort to
change this Army in a century. Our aim is to achieve strategic
responsiveness and dominance at every point on the military
spectrum of operations, from winning wars to deterring them,
and winning them if deterrence fails, to stability operations.
Our capabilities must complement those of our sister
services, so that there is no loss in momentum as we transition
from one point on that spectrum of operations to another. We
must develop not only equipment but capabilities the Nation
will need and our future Objective Force. We must give the
National Command Authorities strategic options to deter crisis
before it becomes armed conflict, and then to fight and win
should that effort to deter fail.
A force with these capabilities, which we call the
Objective Force--if you will look at the chart that I have
provided to you, the Objective Force is that force at the right
side of the chart--a force with these capabilities will be able
to place a combat-capable brigade anyplace in the world in 96
hours, a division on the ground in 120 hours, five divisions in
theater in 30 days.
Now let me try to explain how we intend to get to that
Objective Force. First, we must sustain our Legacy Force. And
that is that top arrow. Sustain and recapitalize selected
Legacy Forces, both active and reserve components, both ground
and air formations. These Legacy Forces will be with us
longest, and perhaps as long as two decades. And we cannot
neglect warfighting readiness during this Transformation
period.
Now, let us look at the technological effort to get to the
Objective Force. And that is the center axis. The President's
budget requests $1.3 billion in science and technology for
fiscal year 2001. These resources will build on your initiative
last year to gain congressional support for $100 million in
seed money for the Army's Transformation. The fiscal year 2001
science and technology (S&T) budget will focus $500 million on
developing future combat systems technologies. We expect the
S&T community to come back to us in about the year 2003-2004,
with options that will allow us to make decisions and begin
research and development, as you can see along that center
axis.
Every dollar that we put into S&T, science and technology,
today, will speed the scientific process and enhance the
quality and the quantity of the solutions we eventually
achieve. We must address today's operational demands. To do so,
we will invest in an interim capability, the bottom axis, to do
what we cannot do well today. This interim capability, a select
number of brigades, employing off-the-shelf equipment, will
allow us to respond to immediate operational challenges. We
will begin at Fort Lewis this year with one brigade combat
team, and we have set aside sufficient funding for an
additional Interim Brigade Combat Team for the next 5 years.
Many of you have urged us to change over the last 10 years.
And the Army is changing. The Army has had to make some tough
decisions, some not of our own choosing, to get to a delicately
balanced funding structure, submitted to you in the President's
budget. We know that there is more work to be done in the 2002-
2007 program objective memorandum (POM) cycle, but for now, we
need your help in the fiscal year 2001 budget to establish the
science and technology effort, to sustain our legacy
formations, to build an interim capability, and to begin
movement toward realizing that Objective Force.
When we accepted the responsibility for transforming the
Army, we were cautioned that nay sayers would essentially try
to slow us down. Well, there has been some of that. But I will
report to you that we are resolute. We have developed the
momentum needed to transform the Army. Your help and support in
retaining maximum flexibility is crucial to maintaining that
momentum over the long term. And with your advice and
assistance, we will transform this Army into a land component
with capabilities necessary to achieve strategic dominance in
the decades to come.
We are grateful for the 1999 budget that reversed a 13-year
decline in real Army buying power. Last year's pay triad and
your attention this year to the defense health bill has sent
clear signals to our soldiers and their families that you value
their service and their well-being. However, in reinforcement
of what the Secretary has pointed out, we are rapidly spending
this year our fourth quarter training dollars to fund our
contingency missions.
Your efforts, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, your efforts
in April to secure supplemental funding, and OSD's recent
commitment of another $220 million to the Army to extend our
buying power, give me assurance that we will have dollars on
hand by late July to fund our operations in Kosovo. We look
forward to quick approval of that funding to keep readiness
from unravelling and undoing all the good work that Congress
has helped us to accomplish last year. We appreciate your
concerted efforts and ask for your continued support and
vigilance in seeing these measures through as soon as possible.
Today, proud soldiers around the world are on point for
this Nation. Their dedication, teamwork and commitment
guarantee the freedoms we enjoy. I thank them for their
selfless service and unparalleled professionalism. And I thank
this committee for your leadership initiatives which have
demonstrated your support and commitment to our soldiers and
their families.
Mr. Chairman, this vision, this Army vision, is about an
investment in future American leadership and security at home
and abroad. Thank you for your invitation to appear before this
distinguished committee, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for this opportunity to report to you today on the United States
Army's Vision and its plan to transform itself into a force that is
strategically responsive and dominant across the spectrum of
operations.
The support of the Administration and Congress has helped immensely
over the past months, charting a new direction for the Armed Forces and
for The Army, in particular. The fiscal year 1999 budget reversed a
thirteen-year trend of declining Army buying power. And the support for
increasing compensation and fixing military retirement in the fiscal
year 2000 defense legislation sent a strong message to our soldiers and
their families that their service is appreciated. In combination with
the hard work of noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and officers across
The Army, your support contributed to making fiscal year 1999 one of
the most successful years ever for Army retention.
But there is much work yet to be done. The number and scope of
missions that The Army must perform has grown significantly since the
end of the Cold War. The Army must minimize the vulnerabilities
associated with frequent contingencies, long-term commitments, and
global power projection. It must train soldiers and grow leaders to
adapt readily to conditions across the spectrum of military operations
and build organizations capable of attaining dominance at every point
on that spectrum. The new Army Vision charts a course to better align
the capabilities of the Army with the challenges it is likely to face
in the years ahead. The Army has already begun to help itself, but we
will need your sustained assistance to achieve our goals.
I want to talk to you today about The Army's Vision for the future.
In my testimony today, I will describe the magnificent work The Army
has done in recent months and identify the challenges we still face. I
will then discuss The Army Vision under three broad themes--People,
Readiness, and Transformation--and request your continued support as we
work together to keep The Army, Soldiers on Point for the Nation,
persuasive in peace and invincible in war.
Secretary Caldera and I unveiled The Army Vision here in Washington
last October at the annual convention of the Association of the United
States Army. This Vision is not just an investment in future readiness,
but an investment in American security in broadest sense.
Our Vision addresses three things: people, readiness, and
Transformation. Let me touch on the first two briefly before turning to
my main topic today, which is Transformation.
People
The Army is people, and the soldier remains the centerpiece of our
formation. It is the soldier who enables America to meet its leadership
responsibilities worldwide. Soldiers are our investment in America.
Soldiers in our formations, from all components, are deploying overseas
and showing America how real that investment is.
We are also about leadership--it is our stock in trade. Every day
in The Army is an immersion experience in leadership. Some of the
finest leaders in our country, military and civilian, public sector and
private, learned what they know about leadership in our ranks.
The Army remains a values-based institution, where loyalty, duty,
respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage are
the cornerstones of all that we do.
American soldiers are busy and engaged around the world. As many of
you who have visited them have seen, almost 5,500 American soldiers of
Task Force Falcon remain in Kosovo, with another 670 in Macedonia, ten
months after the air campaign ended and refugees began returning home.
Soldiers of the 49th Armored Division, Texas Army National Guard, and
the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Carson, Colorado have
assumed the Task Force Eagle mission in Bosnia, four years after the
Dayton Peace Accords were signed. Nine years after the Gulf War ended,
we routinely deploy battalion task forces on extended exercises in
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with hundreds more soldiers permanently
stationed there. Eighteen years into the Sinai mission, the 1st
Battalion, 5th Infantry from Fort Lewis, Washington recently became the
38th Multinational Force and Observers unit in that rotation. And we
will soon mark the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the war in
Korea, where the Eighth U.S. Army and 2d Infantry Division still remain
on point for the Nation in that most dangerous theater. The Army's job
is to fight and win the Nation's wars. But, our soldiers also maintain
the peace--robust, ready, disciplined forces deployed around the world,
and often long after the shooting has stopped.
At the end of the day, I'll still be talking to you about American
soldiers and how well we have done at equipping them and caring for
their families. In taking care of our people last year we focused on
pay and retirement. This year we must build on that successful effort
by focusing on health care and the well-being of soldiers and their
families.
Readiness
The Army has a non-negotiable contract with the American people to
fight and win our Nation's wars. Warfighting is job #1. But in addition
to the requirement to be trained and ready for the warfight, The Army
is globally engaged, heavily committed to meeting the daily
requirements of the National Security Strategy (NSS) and National
Military Strategy (NMS). On any given day, more than 140,000 Army
personnel are forward stationed or deployed around the world. Soldiers
and civilians stationed in the United States perform other critical
roles, from keeping warfighting organizations ready for worldwide
employment today to building the tools necessary to maintain readiness
tomorrow.
The Army is the force the Nation relies on most heavily to perform
the full spectrum of military operations. Since 1989, the average
frequency of Army contingency deployments has increased from one every
four years to one every fourteen weeks. Some of these operations have
been brief; others have evolved into ongoing commitments for our
forces. While executing these missions, The Army has remained ready at
all times to meet the warfighting requirements of the NMS: to fight and
win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars (MTWs). We are able
today to meet the requirements of the NMS, but there is moderate risk
associated with fighting the first MTW and higher levels of risk
associated with the second MTW. In this context, risk does not mean
that U.S. Forces would not prevail; however, achieving our objectives
could require a larger expenditure of our national treasure.
As Chief of Staff, Army, I provide forces to the unified combatant
commands. Indeed, it could be said that I work for the geographical
commanders-in-chief, the CINCs. When North Korean fishing boats are
bumping into South Korean naval vessels, Tom Schwartz gives me a call.
When Saddam rattles his saber, Tony Zinni expects The Army, on short
notice, to provide robust, ready, disciplined formations with which he
can fight and win a major theater war in his region. On days when
concerns about a warfight are not quite so nagging, Charlie Wilhelm,
Denny Blair, and Wes Clark expect Army forces to engage in partnership
exercises and military-to-military contacts within their assigned areas
of responsibility. Those two demands--on-call warfighting readiness and
day-to-day engagement and leadership abroad--are in tension with each
other; doing one well detracts from the other. To do both well requires
a fully ready, C-1 kind of Army--in our readiness parlance. And we have
traditionally been a C-1 Army, but we are not fully C-1 today. Our
soldiers are working hard to be that C-1 Army, and measures we have
implemented, such as increasing the manning of our warfighting
organizations, will help those efforts. With the help of the
Administration and Congress, the momentum we started last year to
improve our readiness condition was important. That momentum needs to
continue, and with your continued support and vigilance, it will.
I have testified before various committees and subcommittees in
recent months, stating that, as smaller-scale contingencies become
long-term national commitments, The Army, like our sister services,
becomes more and more of a rotational force. Our ``carrier groups,''
the U.S.S. Korea, the U.S.S. Bosnia, and the U.S.S. Kosovo, are
likewise teaching us the ``rule of threes'': for every formation on the
ground, another is returning and recovering from the mission and a
third is preparing to go.
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation helps us to mitigate the risk
associated with these missions and to meet our readiness obligations.
But, we are spending 4th quarter training dollars to fund contingency
missions. We look for quick approval of a non-offset Kosovo
supplemental to keep us from unravelling readiness in the 4th quarter.
Four Rules of Thumb
Now, allow me to address the third part of The Army Vision,
probably the most talked about aspect of vision, the Transformation.
To begin, it is necessary to talk about the complex business of
warfighting. The history of the military art, the principles of war,
the tenets of AirLand Battle, and tactics, techniques, and procedures
all boil down to four rules of thumb that are applicable at every level
of war:
--We want to initiate combat on our own terms--at a time and place
and with a method of our choosing.
--We want to gain the initiative and never surrender it.
--We want to build momentum quickly.
--And we want to win decisively.
But military forces that would achieve those conditions must beware
of the transitions in war that can sap operational momentum--
transitions from peacekeeping to warfighting, from the defensive to the
offensive, from the sea to the beachhead. Negotiating those transitions
is key to fighting within those four rules of thumb.
Military forces that can do so provide strategic flexibility to the
national command authority, which must have flexibility in a crisis.
The Army has historically provided those capabilities to its
formations. For forty-five years of the Cold War, we followed those
principles in preparing for war in central Europe against a formidable
enemy--with well-trained and properly equipped forces, prepositioned
equipment for follow-on troops, and infrastructure to support those
formations. In Southwest Asia, we were fortunate during Desert Storm
that our enemy afforded us a six-month delay that allowed repositioning
that Cold War force and re-equipping it for a decisive win. A scenario
absent that pause might have had other outcomes. And our adversaries
have learned those lessons as well. In today's strategic environment,
we must possess force characteristics that enable us to initiate combat
on our terms, to retain the initiative, to build momentum quickly, and
to win decisively. The Army must transform in order to develop and
field a force that possesses these characteristics more fully today and
into the future.
Transformation
That is why the third piece of The Army Vision addressed
Transformation.
The Army Vision is ``Soldiers on point for the Nation . . .
Persuasive in Peace, Invincible in War.'' The Vision's goal is to
ensure that The Army fulfills its Title 10 responsibilities,
continuously meeting the requirements of the NMS. To do this will
require The Army to transform itself into a full spectrum force capable
of dominating at every point on the spectrum of operations. At present,
in some instances, we face strategic deployment challenges that inhibit
our ability to negotiate rapidly the transitions from peacetime
operations in one part of the world to small-scale contingencies or
warfights in another. We must provide more flexibility. We have heavy
forces that have no peer in the world, but they are challenged to
deploy rapidly. The Army has the world's finest light infantry, but it
lacks adequate lethality, survivability, and mobility once in theater
in some scenarios. We must change. The Army's Transformation Strategy
will result in an Objective Force that is more responsive, deployable,
agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable than the present
force. Thus, The Army has determined to transform itself to gain
strategic flexibility and to become strategically dominant at every
point on the spectrum of operations.
A force with these characteristics will have the ability to place a
combat capable brigade anywhere in the world, regardless of ports or
airfields, in 96 hours. It will put a division on the ground in 120
hours. And it will put 5 divisions in theater in 30 days.
These are operational imperatives, and to accomplish them, we have
embarked on a search for technologies that will give us answers in
about 3 years that we will use to design a future objective force 8-10
years down the road. Candidly, we don't have all the answers today; but
we are asking the right technological questions, and we will go where
the answers are. The Army has moved out.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02AP25.000
The Transformation Strategy
Throughout this Transformation The Army must maintain its non-
negotiable contract with the American people to fight and win the
Nation's wars. Thus, implementing these profound changes will require
careful planning, sustained support, and periodic reassessments and
adjustments. A Transformation Campaign Plan will enable The Army to
complete its evolution into the Objective Force while remaining trained
and ready to meet NMS requirements at all times. The strategy
synchronizes the Transformation by establishing intermediate objectives
and conditions that must be met before implementing subsequent changes.
Changes to the operational forces will be the most visible aspects of
the strategy. Less obvious will be the simultaneous Transformation of
the Institutional Army, along with The Army's concepts and doctrine,
which will be essential to developing and sustaining the requisite
capabilities of the Objective Force. In general, The Army's
Transformation strategy will go forward along three major paths, as
depicted on the attached chart: the Legacy Force, the Interim Force,
and the Objective Force.
Interim Force
The Army will begin fielding a Brigade Combat Team (BCT) at Fort
Lewis, Washington this fiscal year. This initial BCT, the first step
toward the Interim Force, will accomplish two goals. First, it will
give The Army an enhanced capability for operational deployment to meet
worldwide requirements. Second, the initial BCT will validate an
organizational and operational model for the Interim Force. Based on
this validation, The Army will field the Interim Force. As a follow-on
to the initial BCT, we have set aside funding for an additional Interim
BCT each fiscal year through the Five Year Defense Plan (FYDP). These
Interim BCTs--including the Reserve Components--will employ an Interim
Armored Vehicle (IAV)--a yet-to-be-selected, off-the-shelf system that
The Army will begin procuring in fiscal year 2000. With the IAV and a
new operational and organizational structure, the Interim Force will
possess some Objective Force characteristics, those that are available
within the constraints of current and emerging technology. The Interim
Force will allow us to respond to the immediate operational
requirements that currently challenge us. It will allow us to train
soldiers and grow leaders in the doctrine and organization of these new
formations. These Interim Brigades will be the vanguard of the future
Objective Force.
Legacy Force
As we do this, we must sustain portions of The Army as we know it
today--a Legacy Force--to guarantee our warfighting readiness in the
event that an adversary miscalculates. We will recapitalize selected
formations--from the active and reserve components--of key armored and
aviation systems, as well as enhance light force lethality and
survivability. We will continue to insert digital technologies with
advanced systems such as Crusader and Comanche. Thus, the Legacy Force
will maintain the capabilities we currently have and add others that
are soon becoming available. We cannot neglect our ability to meet our
non-negotiable contract as The Army begins its Transformation, and
continues to transform over the decades to come.
Institutional Army
Not shown on the chart is the Transformation of the Institutional
Army, which will begin immediately. This Transformation will address
the systems, organizations, and processes by which the Institutional
Army supports training, leader development, infrastructure management,
sustainment, combat and materiel development, and well-being. The
Transformation of the Institutional Army is essential to sustain
readiness while developing and fielding the Objective Force.
Interim Capability
Taken together, the Interim Force, the Legacy Force, and the
transforming Institutional Army will give us interim capabilities, more
advanced than today's Army, especially in terms of greater
responsiveness, agility, versatility, and deployability. These interim
capabilities will enhance readiness as well as allowing us to develop
doctrine, training, and organizational structures for the Objective
Force.
Objective Force
The critical path of the Transformation leads to the Objective
Force. Today, the science and technology community is working hard to
develop answers to questions we have asked. How do we reduce armored
volume in combat vehicles while increasing survivability? How do we
increase deployability without sacrificing survivability and lethality?
How do we reduce in-theater support needs, and thereby reduce strategic
lift requirements? These and other questions guide a major science and
technology (S&T) effort to develop technologies that will give the
Objective Force its desired characteristics--responsiveness, agility,
versatility, deployability, lethality, survivability, and
sustainability. The President's Budget calls for $1.3 billion in fiscal
year 2001 for this endeavor. $500 million of that will focus on
developing future combat systems technologies. Our challenge to the
science and technology community is to come back with a comprehensive
set of technological recommendations and R&D plans by 2003. On that
basis, The Army will make technology readiness decisions, and we
anticipate eight to ten years of development before the new
technologies are produced. When the technologies are mature and when
the production lines are ready, we will begin to field the Objective
Force in unit sets. Organizations will field complete suites of new
equipment, thoroughly integrated systems; the whole designed to give us
all of the capabilities outlined in The Army Vision. Transformation to
the Objective Force will encompass the entire Army. The Legacy Force
will transform directly to the Objective Force, and the Interim Force
will follow. Over the course of ten to fifteen years The Army will
transform itself into the Objective Force.
The budget request provides sufficient funds to support
continuation of The Army's Transformation in fiscal year 2001. Since
the announcement of the Vision in October 1999, The Army has worked
closely with OSD to resource this requirement. We have restructured the
fiscal year 2001 budget to fund the Transformation. The $100 million
provided by Congress to assist with our initial efforts is greatly
appreciated. It provides The Army with important flexibility as we move
forward with this critical endeavor. Fielding the Objective Force while
sustaining decisive capabilities will require significant resources
throughout this Transformation. Given current funding trends, we
estimate that The Army has identified funding for approximately half of
the additional costs associated with Transformation. We will continue
to work with the Administration and Congress to request the necessary
support.
Historic Opportunity
This is the most significant effort to change The Army in 100
years. Our aim is not a single platform swapout, but a systemic change
and full integration of multi-dimensional capabilities--space, air,
sea, land.
Not since the beginning of the last century has such a
comprehensive Transformation been attempted. Then, the new weaponry--
aircraft, machine guns, rapid-fire artillery, motorized vehicles--were
all being developed and tested in relative isolation. There was no
shortage of ideas, but no one was sure what warfare would look like
when all the pieces came together. The potential for that
Transformation failed due to lack of funding and a lack of support
outside the Army. When the First World War came, we were not ready. We
integrated all those systems into the Army of necessity under the
stresses of imminent combat.
Indeed, most opportunities for armies to change are forced by war.
The major conflicts of this century--World War I, World War II, Korea,
Vietnam, and even Desert Storm--provide myriad examples of military
innovation under the pressure of combat. This effort is almost
historically unprecedented--to change in time of peace because we know
our condition, we are informed about our future environment, and we
know what capabilities we will need.
Our Nation is at peace. Our economy is prosperous. We have
strategic perspective and technological potential. This time is a
window of historic opportunity that will grow narrower with each
passing day.
We can transform today in a time of peace and prosperity. Or we can
try to change tomorrow on the eve of the next war, when the window has
closed, our perspective has narrowed, and our potential is limited by
the press of time and the constraints of resources.
The Army is building support for this Transformation. We have been
talking to the defense industry. We know that this Vision entails risk,
but it promises great reward for our national security. We need to
continue our long tradition of partnership between the Army and
Industry.
The Army is transforming. The Army Reserve and Army National Guard
are seamlessly integrated in this process, from the development of the
Army Vision to the final fielding of the last Objective Force unit.
We're gaining support in Congress. For years, Members of Congress
have counseled The Army to change--we're changing. Now, we need your
help, but more than that we need your ideas, your criticism, your
energy, and your enthusiasm. We need your approval and fiscal support.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, your
Army is on the move. The Nation can't afford to miss this opportunity.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to report to you today on the
Transformation of your Army. I look forward to discussing these issues
with you.
Army Transformation
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, both of you. We
appreciate your courtesy, and we are very pleased to see
General Plewes behind you, representing the Reserves. We know
that you have a great interest in this also, General.
Let me ask you this, General Shinseki. And we will use the
5-minute time clock if that is agreeable, so that everyone gets
a chance to have some questions. What is the time line for this
new armored brigade at Fort Lewis, Washington?
General Shinseki. We will begin to stand up the first
brigade in fiscal year 2001. It is our intent that by December
2001-January 2002 we will see an operational capability in that
first brigade. Again, that time line is driven by decisions yet
to be made this summer on selecting the equipment platforms
that will be acquired in order to stand up that brigade.
Senator Stevens. That was my next question. What are those
milestones, and what do you see for them in timing before you
make that final decision about Transformation to Fort Lewis?
General Shinseki. This decision on platforms will occur
during the fourth quarter of this year, sometime in the July-
August timeframe. We hope, by no later than September, to have
contracted acquisition of the interim armored vehicle systems
that will then go into production and, beginning in 2001, late
spring, summer of 2001, we look to be arriving at Fort Lewis to
begin to fill out that formation. Such that by December 2001,
we will have had the chance to organize, to have done some
training, and have gotten the leadership ready to operate that
brigade.
So December 2001 and January 2002, we look for that kind of
operational capability, which we intend sometime thereafter to
exercise and demonstrate its capabilities.
Senator Stevens. Is there a hurdle out there with regard to
tracked or wheeled vehicles? Has that decision been made?
General Shinseki. No, sir, it has not. And frankly, there
has been a good bit of debate about tracked versus wheels. And
I will admit that I am probably partially guilty for having
raised the issue. Frankly, for this interim capability, whether
it is tracked, whether it is wheeled, whether it is a mixture
of track and wheels, I do not think the Army has any
preconceived decision on that. We just want whatever is best
available on the shelf that we can take very quickly, fill out
our formations, bring them up to an operational capability, so
we can meet a shortfall that we currently have today in the
force.
Senator Stevens. I may show my ignorance, but I do not know
of any light tracked vehicles that are on the shelf, General.
The only thing I know of that is on the shelf really is wheeled
vehicles. Is it your intent to try and see if we can procure
some wheeled vehicles and some tracked vehicles and try them
out in the same brigade, or are we going to try one wheeled
brigade and one tracked brigade and see what happens? It is
sort of confusing. Because as I understand it, you are only
going to go forward with one, and then you are going to go
forward with a second one each year as I understand it.
General Shinseki. That is correct. The first brigade in
2001, and then what we have laid aside is a brigade each year
thereafter, 2002 to 2006. We would like to accelerate that
process, one brigade in 2001 and hopefully go to two brigades
in 2002. But this is the matter of building the POM for the
2002-2007 timeframe.
Senator Stevens. Does that depend upon money or upon the
availability of the equipment that you are speaking about, or
the decision as to tracked or wheeled vehicles?
General Shinseki. It is primarily availability of money.
But I will also tell you that we will not frankly know what the
production schedule is until we make that decision on which
systems we will get sometime later this summer. But our intent
here is, whatever we select, for that system to be able to go
into production and to see systems begin arriving in the field
here early in 2001.
Senator Stevens. I am still nebulous about the wheels and
tracks, so I will be back to you on that.
Senator Inouye.
Objective Force
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
In your statement, you said Transformation to the Objective
Force will encompass the entire Army. Does that mean that you
will eventually phase out your heavy divisions in favor of
medium-weight units?
General Shinseki. Eventually, Senator, that is correct. The
long-term intent is that Objective Force will have systems that
are not as heavy as our heavy forces today, not as heavy as the
M-1 and the Bradley, which are magnificent warfighting systems,
but our challenge is to be able to deploy them and then sustain
them in all the places we are asked to go. But the intent is,
in the long term, to have Objective Forces that have weapon
systems in them that are deployable, but have the same
lethality and the same survivability, if not better, than our
heavy systems have today.
And it is based on the recognition that we designed the M-1
and the Bradley for the European environment, the Cold War
European environment, which we understood what the environment
demanded. It was a relatively shallow operational battle space.
We expected to face a large Warsaw Pact initial attack. We
understood that we had to survive that. We would take hits. And
then we had to be capable of mounting a counterattack to
reestablish the boundaries.
To do that, you have to design equipment that is going to
survive in that environment. And so we designed equipment that
would take hits and continue to fight. Under those principles,
we ended up with systems such as 70-ton tanks. They are
magnificent tanks. Still the best tank in the world. But less
capable in lots of other areas where we are asked to go today.
If we were discussing a similar scenario like we had for
the Cold War in Europe, I think we would end up with the same
kind of solution. But, frankly, we need to move on and find
systems that will fight as well, survive, and be as lethal, but
are capable of being deployed to the places we are asked to go,
and where the infrastructure does not necessarily support 70-
ton systems--bridges, roads, the ability to distribute fuel and
repair parts. And it is understanding our future environment
that is causing the Army to embark on this Transformation.
Legacy Force
But the answer to your question is, ultimately, in the
Objective Force, which we see in the 2008-2010 timeframe, where
we will begin transforming to that future system, we do intend
to transform all of our formations, that Legacy Force, that is
described on the top arrow, to a more rapid and more capable
formation.
Senator Inouye. I gather, at this moment, you are not
getting all the resources that are necessary to bring about
this Transformation. If that is the case, where would you put
your priorities, modernizing your Legacy Forces or fielding an
interim brigade or investing in science and technology?
General Shinseki. That is a good question, Senator, and it
is a tough one. Our responsibilities to the Legacy Force is we
have to sustain the force we have and do modest
recapitalization to that force, because it is the force that we
will go to war with in the next 10 years. If miscalculations
occur and this Army is called upon again to fight a war for
this Nation, that is the force that will go.
Keeping that Legacy Force ready to fight allows us the
opportunity to go and invest in the S&T work that will define a
future warfighting formation with new systems. Even as we do
those two things, there is a shortfall today in our formation.
And the shortfall I can best describe to you as, in Desert
Storm 10 years ago, as Saddam began to move south and overran
Kuwait City and moved toward the Kuwaiti border, and this Army
deployed what it had, and it was a brigade out of the 82nd
Airborne Division. We flew them in there and put them astride a
high-speed avenue of approach that moved south into Saudi
Arabia.
We got them in there and, frankly, all of us held our
breath. Because if the movement south by Saddam's forces
continued, we knew that the arrangement of warfighting was not
one we would have chosen, heavy formations fighting light
infantry. For reasons we do not know, Saddam stopped. He
stopped at the border and he stayed there for 6 months. And
that gave us time to reposition our heavy forces out of the
continental United States and out of Europe, and the rest of it
is history.
My operational requirement in describing the need for the
interim brigades is to fix the problem that occurred 10 years
ago. Today, if we were to go anywhere else other than Kuwait,
where we have prepositioned significant resources, or Korea,
where we have also prepositioned significant resources, if we
were called upon to go to a crisis anyplace else, we would be
in the same situation in a breakaway crisis. And that is, we
would fly the 82nd light infantry assets in, and then we would
wait for the first heavies to arrive.
These interim brigades are the bridge between the light
infantry and the arrival of those heavy forces, to provide what
the 82nd does not have today, mounted weapons platforms, the
ability to move infantry tactically. One of our problems when
we put the 82nd in, they were in. We could not move them in or
out. And also to provide them a modest amount of assault
weaponry, assault guns mounted on vehicles. And this interim
brigade will provide to the 82nd Division, or any light
division that goes in first, that added warfighting capability
that fills the gap between the initial light infantry going in
and the arrival about 30 days later of the first heavy
elements. That is the pressure on getting an interim force
stood up.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few other
questions, but I will wait.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator Hutchison.
OPTEMPO/retention
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Shinseki and Secretary Caldera, one of the areas
that is making the biggest impact on retention problems is
deployment and overdeployment. I certainly talked to people
this week in Bosnia and Kosovo, but it is not isolated. I have
talked to troops on the ground in many other foreign countries,
and the OPTEMPO is clearly a problem.
The Air Force and the Navy have been addressing this issue.
The expeditionary Air Force is trying to give people the
ability to plan ahead, know when they are subject to
deployment. And this seems to give a good comfort level to the
members of the Air Force with whom I have talked. And the Navy,
secondarily, not as much so because there are other
encroachments that have occurred in the Navy program.
My question is this. What is the Army doing to try to
address the overdeployment issue and as it affects retention?
Mr. Caldera. Senator, we are trying to do some of the same
kinds of things in terms of building in more predictability for
soldiers, identifying units far out ahead of time, when they
are going to rotate to one of these contingency missions. The
initiative to man units at 100 percent means that you do not
have to fill units as you are getting ready to deploy. Whenever
you do that, it causes turbulence in other units and it is more
likely that you are going to tap someone who may have already
come back from an overseas tour or some kind of deployment when
you end up moving them to the unit in order to be able to
deploy them.
We have tried to add to that predictability by also, as you
have noted, tapping more of our Guard and Reserve units who
today are helping us perform all the missions that we perform
all over the world, but also working some of the Guard and
Reserve units into the rotation picture to spread out the
burdens of the contingency missions and add to the
predictability, as well. And of course we are in uncharted
territory there in terms of maintaining employer support for
the Guard and Reserve and the goodwill among the men and women
who are committed to being citizen soldiers.
One of the benefits of Transformation is that if you move
your heavy and light forces closer together, you can also build
in more predictability. Today, all Army divisions are expected
to be at the highest state of readiness, and so we do not have
a built-in rotation where some are at the highest state of
readiness and others in more of a stand-down phase with more
family time and attention to other kinds of efforts to
regenerate the force. So all of those efforts will help.
One challenge, of course, is when we set the glide path for
the size of the military we would have, at the end of the Cold
War, we did not anticipate that our Army would be as busy as it
is today. And so we set the end strength goals for the Army
based on predictions about how busy we would be. And if we are
going to continue to be as busy as we are, performing the
engagement missions that the Commander in Chiefs (CINC's) look
to the Army to perform all over the world and the contingency
missions that we are involved in, then I think it may be
appropriate to look at what the end strength of the Army is.
Clearly, if we had additional soldiers it would be easier
to do all of the things we need to do in terms of the
schoolhouse and the sustainment piece of what the Army has to
do in theater operations in wartime, as well as be able to
support these contingency missions.
Senator Hutchison. Let me follow up with two questions.
General Shinseki, did you want to speak to that?
General Shinseki. I was just going to add, Senator, I think
you got to experience what our great youngsters on deployment
think about their contributions. They think that they are
making a difference. They think that they are appreciated.
Frankly, they are charged up by these missions. So this is the
great dilemma for us, that morale is pretty good on deployment,
and yet we understand that this also places pressures on
families and places pressure on us to take better care of them
when they do come home from those operations.
The Secretary and I, in order to address some of these
other issues, even as we were creating the study effort to
undertake Transformation, looked at the Army War College, up at
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, as a repository of talent for helping
us understand some of these other issues. And we asked that the
War College create a student study group to do a couple of
things. One was to look at turbulence. What were the causes?
What could we do about it. Understanding we could not
necessarily take it to zero, but then how do we get
predictability into this? If you have turbulence,
predictability becomes more important.
The second study group was designed to look at well-being
in the Army, to look at all the kinds of support that we
provide soldiers, families, civilians, veterans, retirees, and
try to help us better understand how to quantify the importance
of these programs so we can make a better case when we bring
them here for articulation.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, let me just throw out the
other two questions. My red light is on, so if you want to move
on, that is fine. But I just want to make the point that an 8-
month time for a Reserve and Guard unit is a whale of a
request. And I hope that you are talking to employers very
realistically about how long these deployments are. And if it
is in your mission, Mr. Secretary, that you are going to use
Guard units routinely to fill in, I think you better look at
the length of time very carefully. I know you have gone back to
6 months; I still think that is unrealistic, especially if you
are talking about small business people. You just cannot overdo
your Guard unit, or you really are going to be fraying at the
edges.
Second, I just would ask, perhaps for the written record,
what is your timetable for looking at your force strength?
Because it seems to me that you are due an increase in force
strength. And talking about it as if you are going to think
about it in the future I think is probably not very realistic.
I think it should be sooner rather than later.
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, we will take that as a comment
and a question for the record.
[The information follows:]
Force Strength
The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the
Transformation are the vehicles that we will use to review our
force strength and make force-sizing recommendations. Based on
the geopolitical strategic environment, the 480,000 active Army
force may not be adequate to meet the demands of the current
National Military Strategy. The QDR will confirm or deny this.
The multiple, simultaneous, and long-term contingency
operations in which we are involved stress our operational
tempo (OPTEMPO) and deployment tempo (DEPTEMPO). The worldwide
challenges to the Nation's security means ensuring geographic
commander-in-chief (CINC) warfight requirements are satisfied
and we maintain constant unit readiness. The Transformation
will address this. Increasing Army end strength would help
mitigate OPTEMPO and DEPTEMPO challenges, address high-demand,
low-density military occupational specialty shortfalls, meet
early deployment CINC warfight requirements, improve unit
readiness, and better support the Transformation vision. We
will review alternative force-sizing constructs and be fully
prepared to respond to the questions posed in the QDR 2001
legislation.
We have been challenged in meeting our manpower goals over
the past several years as the Army concluded its drawdown.
Despite these challenges, we have met our end strength targets.
The Army has made significant progress over the past several
years in the three critical manning areas: retention,
attrition, and recruiting. Continued success in the retention
program, combined with improved attrition, has reduced future
recruiting requirements. Recruiting in a tight labor market
remains a challenge. However, we have significantly improved
recruiting production over last fiscal year, and we will again
meet our end strength target in fiscal year 2000. Anticipated
success in these areas over the next two years will position
the Army to continue to meet end strength targets and fully
meet near-term Transformation and manning goals.
High energy lasers
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take very
much time. I am late myself for another appointment. I am going
to submit a number of questions for the record. If you would
just permit me to indicate to the two witnesses what they are,
as well as my genuine interest.
Secretary Caldera, I have a brief statement with reference
to the United States military, particularly the Army, working
on tactical high energy lasers and airborne lasers. I ask for
some of your observations regarding centralizing that and where
that centralization might be, considering that General Costello
is very, very interested in this area. I would like for you to
comment in the record on that if you would.
To both of you, on this same issue, I have five questions
regarding White Sands Missile Range and high-energy laser
weapons for each of you. These questions are in reference to
developing and fielding laser weapon systems and what each of
you see as the short-term future as to where we go.
My next question has to do with information operations
vulnerability. I understand that the vulnerability analysis at
the Army research laboratories is underfunded. And I have two
or three questions to ask you about that underfunding. It is
not a lot of money, but if it is important to getting to where
the United States ought to be in this vulnerability assessment,
with recommendations on how America can minimize it, I think it
would be important that we know.
And the same with reference to tests and evaluation. I am
going to ask you to discuss the Army's current state of testing
and evaluation programs, and that you elaborate on major needs.
If you would do that at your convenience, I would appreciate
it.
Food stamps
I want to close up by submitting a question with reference
to food stamps. We have been on this issue so long and it
continues to be in the limelight today. I have some specific
questions about food stamps and the military. But first, I
would just ask both of you, there is not an Army policy with
reference to trying to limit the size of families in order to
minimize the food stamp problem, is there?
Mr. Caldera. None whatsoever.
General Shinseki. No, sir.
Senator Domenici. I note that both of them say there is
not. I have heard rumors of this started by someone in the
military. But there was never put a name alongside of it. I
would not think the Congress would be very interested in saying
to our military: You are going to have to be on food stamps
because you have five kids; you would be better off if you only
had two. We are trying to retain our military personnel for a
long time. And it is not our job, nor in our best interest, to
family plan for these military people. Are we in concurrence on
that?
Mr. Caldera. There is none of that whatsoever, Senator. At
the time that you enlist a soldier, as they go through basic
training, they are not supposed to have responsibility for
other family members. But sometimes what they do is they just
leave the kid with mom or dad or grandma or somewhere, and
then, after they go to their unit, children rejoin them. And as
long as they have a family plan for, if they get deployed, who
is going to be responsible for that child, then they are
soldiers in good standing.
Leader development
Senator Domenici. My last observation, and it may be the
only one I would ask you to answer today. It has to do with The
Washington Post story which reported the results of a survey of
junior officers. I think, General Shinseki, you are aware of
the results and are trying to do something about the concerns
raised. Are you going to consider the survey criticism
seriously, and what do you plan to do about it?
General Shinseki. Without responding to that particular
article, because there were several and I am not quite familiar
with what that article measured as the bottom line, let me just
explain that as we began this Transformation initiative in the
Army, and much as described by Senator Hutchison, both the
Secretary and I walk the terrain and talk to youngsters. And
besides turbulence and employee concerns, we hear other things
from our young officers. There were some issues regarding
leadership and focus on training. And so the Army began
planning to stand up two, what we would call for lack of a
better description, blue ribbon panels to look at how we train
in the Army and think about how we might want to change that in
the future.
The second panel had to do with leadership and leader
development. And we thought these were both appropriate panels,
because it is the business of the Army every day to do those
two things. We train soldiers every day and we grow them into
leaders. Our leaders of tomorrow are today's soldiers. We do
not hire out 20 years from now. Whatever inventory we have 10
to 15 to 20 years down the road from which to select our
leaders comes out of our inventory today of youngsters. And so
we thought that training and leadership was an appropriate
focus for the Army at large.
In response to these panels that had been described out at
Leavenworth, where we have some of our brightest young officers
in attendance for a year of schooling, some preliminary work
was anticipated, where youngsters were called in and asked, the
Army is standing up these two panels, if you had something to
contribute, what would you say is wrong, what should be fixed?
And those questions are unfortunately focused on the negative.
If the question had been, what do you think is going right
and what do you think is going wrong, I think you would have
had a different outcome. But the focus of the question was, if
you are going to help the panels out, where would you like to
focus the Chief and the Secretary? So, as a result, with non-
attribution, these questions were answered. And unfortunately,
and somewhat to the disappointment of those students, it ended
up being on the front page of The Washington Post.
These are great youngsters. Some of our future leaders are
there. And we are going to stand up these panels and we are
going to go take a look at what they have asked us to focus on.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Reserve component deployment
Senator Cochran. Already there has been some discussion
about the deployment experiences of the Army in recent years.
That has obviously become more extensive and more expensive.
The fact that we have National Guard and Reserve units now
making up part of the rotation in Bosnia is a matter of some
concern. Because, if what I am hearing is true--it may be
anecdotal or there may be other evidence--there are some
members of the Guard and Reserve units who are resigning or
dropping out because of these deployment orders that are coming
down and the fear that there will be more of the same.
What are the statistics on this? Do you have any
information you can share with the committee, Mr. Secretary or
General Shinseki, on this issue?
General Shinseki. I am not aware of any statistics that I
could provide. I will try to see what we have in terms of how
these deployments are specifically affecting retention. In the
Reserve component units, retention in Reserve component units
has a certain level of turbulence. To say that we have been
able to measure what the deployments have done above and beyond
that normal retention factor, I do not know that we have the
analytics quite yet.
This deployment of a major unit to Bosnia, the 49th Armored
Division, Texas National Guard, is the first large deployment
like this. We have had other smaller deployments of individuals
and detachments. Let me see what we have, and I will try to
provide a better answer.
[The information follows:]
Reserve Component Deployment and Retention
From December 1995 to February 2000, the ARNG has deployed
more than 5,400 soldiers in support of operations in Bosnia.
The post-deployment attrition rate for returning soldiers from
September 1996 to March 1999 is averaging 20 percent. The
average attrition rate for the ARNG during this period is 18.1
percent to 19.4 percent. ARNG soldiers are leaving primarily
because of completion of their service obligation, followed
next by completion 20 years of service. The attrition rate for
ARNG soldiers who demobilized from the first two Bosnia
rotations, from September 1996 to July 1997, was 15.9 percent.
The corresponding ARNG attrition rate was 18.6 percent.
We have mobilized USAR soldiers to support Bosnia
operations for a fifth year. Additionally, we have deployed
USAR soldiers and units, not as part of that Presidential call-
up, for support missions to 63 other countries. During this
period of increased deployments, the USAR, using expanded
entitlement programs and improved management processes, has
achieved great success in reducing enlisted attrition to 26.6
percent in fiscal year 1999. For fiscal year 2000, we expect
attrition rates to continue to improve and have projected a
year-end attrition rate of 27.4 percent.
A more in-depth study of attrition losses is required to
determine if the duration or frequency of deployments has
influenced reserve component retention. We are concerned about
the environment created as increasing numbers of reservists
have to serve more than the traditional one weekend per month
and two weeks per year training. We believe the frequent
deployments and escalating competition from employers and
educational institutions, intensified by a robust economy, will
continue to challenge our best retention and recruiting efforts
and may require more resources to counter.
Science and technology
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
In your Transformation plans, I noticed that science and
technology is highlighted as an important asset. I know that
composite materials research provides lighter and more
durability possibilities for equipment and weapons. Is research
and development (R&D) funding included in this budget at a
level that meets the needs of the Army for such composite
materials research and specific development programs such as
the Advanced Army Medium Brigade Bridge?
General Shinseki. I would have to go and consult what the
level of funding is, but I would say, Senator, probably not.
The fact is that the amount of money we have been able to
invest for 2001, put in the budget, for S&T investments is $500
million a year each year for the next 5 years. And I would say
that more investments need to be made there in order to get the
momentum in technologies up, so that in about 2003-2004, we get
back real answers, quality and quantity real answers, on future
technologies that allow us to then design those future
platforms 8 to 10 years out.
Specifically, things we are looking for are low-observable
technology, better armor protection, long-range acquisition. We
want the range overmatch. We want to shoot first every time.
And we want to kill every time we pull the trigger. So
precision counts here. And we want to do it at smaller
calibers. Off the top of my head, those kinds of technologies,
along with microtechnology, fuel efficiency to drive down the
cost of operating our systems, are the kinds of technologies we
are looking at.
Senator Cochran. One of the things I noticed in your plan
for the future is to have a more digitized Army, that you have
a network of data, information, integrated command and control
to commanders at all echelon levels. You are planning to have
the first digitized corps in fiscal year 2000, but the funds
are not here in this budget to make that come true. At least
that is my impression. Will the currently planned procurement
of such systems as enhanced position location and reporting
system provide the first digitized corps with its radios in
time to meet operational requirements?
General Shinseki. That is a level of specificity on time
line I would like to comment for the record, Senator.
Senator Cochran. I have some other specific questions about
these systems, and I would be glad to submit them and give you
an opportunity to review them and give us answers for the
record.
General Shinseki. Thank you, Senator. I would like to be
precise here and I would like to provide it to you for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Digitized Corps Fielding
The digitization strategy is on track to equip the 4th
Infantry Division--the first digitized division--by the end of
2000 and the III Corps--the first digitized corps--by the end
of 2004. Both are adequately funded for procurement of required
systems to achieve operational requirements on time.
Digitization remains a critical enabler in the new Army Vision
by significantly enhancing our warfighting capabilities of the
Transformation forces. Digitization exploits advances in
information technology to achieve full spectrum dominance and
improve battlefield organizational effectiveness by allowing
systems to operate synergistically. The Army will not slow
efforts to digitize the force and remains committed to fielding
digital capabilities to support our soldiers, our units, and
our ability to communicate securely.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Durbin.
School of the Americas
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For Secretary Caldera and General Shinseki and all of the
staff that have joined you, let me express my gratitude for
your service to our country. And I think it goes without saying
that every member of this subcommittee and every Member of
Congress appreciates the sacrifices you have made for our
country and continue to make. Though I may raise some questions
here that may be critical in nature, they do not in any way
reflect on my lack of respect for all that you have given to
this country and continue to give.
First, I would like to ask the Secretary, on a very
contentious and hot issue about the School of the Americas.
This is an institution which has been in place for a long time
now. It has been swirling in controversy certainly on Capitol
Hill, with contentious votes on a regular basis in the House of
Representatives and a lot of debate as to the history of this
institution and its future.
I think it is well documented that in the past the School
of the Americas has included among its graduates some army
personnel who have gone back to Central and South America and
been engaged in some of the most outrageous conduct; certainly
conduct which none of us would want to be associated with--
human rights abuses, torture, murder of innocents civilians,
and the like.
Mr. Secretary, there are two questions I would like to ask
of you. I believe that you have made a personal commitment to
changing the climate around the School of the Americas and have
really sought out ways to change the image of this institution.
There are two things that still concern me. That is the
unwillingness of the Army at any point to acknowledge what were
clearly abuses in the past associated with the School of the
Americas. I think an honest acknowledgement of those abuses
would go a long way to at least beginning a dialogue to
reassure us that the School of the Americas or some successor
institution in the future would really have a much different
philosophy and a much different approach.
My first question of you then is, why will not the Army
just flat out acknowledge the fact that there have been men and
women graduated from that institution who have done things that
are a great embarrassment to the United States and that some of
the practices and policies of the School of the Americas were
just plain wrong?
Second, in a more topical context, we are being asked to
appropriate massive sums of money for the efforts in Colombia
to deal with the drug problem. It is a drug problem of great
concern to every American. And it should be, when we find that
the country has now become a major source of cocaine and heroin
exported to the United States, causing untold damage in our
society.
We know that the military in Colombia is dreadfully
unprepared to deal with the situation. Press accounts suggest
that they are only one-third operational at this moment. We
also know that concessions have been made to paramilitaries and
other groups in the country, which have surrendered almost 48
percent of the geography of that country to groups not under
the control of the government.
I have now learned that the School of the Americas
continues to train the Colombian military. I am concerned about
what appears to be a cross-pollination of civilian paramilitary
and military groups, human rights abuses in Colombia, and the
fact that we are talking about a massive commitment of military
resources into a country that is rife with civil war and
discord. I am concerned about whether or not we have a clear
and specific strategy and whether the curriculum at the School
of the Americas is consistent with a strategy that we can
defend to the American people.
Those are my two initial questions.
Mr. Caldera. Thank you, Senator. First of all, Senator, I
looked at the debate that occurred in the House last year on
the School of the Americas, and we have put together a
legislative proposal that I think furthers our ability to
provide the kind of training and engagement that we want our
Nation to do with the militaries in Latin America.
What I heard a lot of the members saying is they wanted a
school that strengthens democracy, that teaches protection of
human rights, that works on the fundamental challenges that the
countries in Latin America are facing today in the 21st
century, not the Cold War challenges that they faced when
threatened by communists and Marxists and insurgencies in the
eighties as the Cold War played itself out. And this
legislative proposal I believe will do that, because it will
put into place those goals--disaster assistance, counterdrug
operations, strengthening democracy, the appropriate role of a
military in a democratic society as subordinate to the civilian
elected officials.
I hope you will take a close look at that proposal, because
I think it is a way for us to continue to provide a training
that I think we want Americans training the militaries of Latin
America, helping them become more professional military bodies
and more responsive to societies we serve. And we do not want
anyone else doing that kind of training and having that kind of
influence here in our own hemisphere.
Senator, the question of willingness to acknowledge, that
very specifically you asked, wrongdoing, I think there is a
fundamental difference about whether violations of human rights
were because of training at the School of the Americas or in
spite of training at the School of the Americas. We do not
teach American soldiers to torture or rape or murder or be
human rights violators. And we do not teach that to other
countries. And those who have done that, there is a little bit
of causation being attributed here that I think is not there.
That because they went to the School of the Americas, they were
human rights violators.
For some, their association was ages ago, in very tenuous
capacities, in courses that lasted but a few days or weeks. For
others, more recently. So that whole causation, about whether
the School of the Americas or the United States Army should be
fingered as having responsibility, when we do not teach those
things, and in fact when what we teach is exactly the opposite,
I think that there is a fundamental fairness to that issue.
I think a lot of the concerns that people have raised about
the School of the Americas they could substitute the United
States Army or the United States military, the United States
Armed Forces, or the United States as easily in many of the
kinds of charges that have been levelled about whether our
country was right in terms of its involvement in Latin America
during those critical years in the eighties as the Cold War
played itself out there.
As you know, President Clinton last year went down there
and said he felt sometimes our involvement went too far. But
even throughout the eighties, we took our support away from
nations that had bad human rights records, of countries that we
supported. And then, when they cleaned up their records, we
would support them again. Today at the School of the Americas,
we vet soldiers and we vet units that come to the school there
so that they are not known human rights violators, including
soldiers from Colombia.
I went down to Colombia. I spoke to their war college
specifically about the importance of human rights, and not just
with respect to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC), which they are human rights violators, but with respect
to the paramilitaries as well. I believe the Colombian military
is as focused on opposing paramilitaries as they are the
guerrillas, both of whom are human rights violators, both of
whom are involved in drug trafficking, both of whom enslave
that population that they turn into either producers of drugs
or guerrillas defending the drug cultivation.
This plan in Colombia has an ability to stem the acreage
that is being dedicated to cultivation of the drug, because
they do not control, as you said, many large segments of the
country, and they cannot control it, just by presence. That is
how they get overrun, and that is how the guerrillas appear to
be defeating the government.
They will operate out of a base camp where they will use
the airlift that the Blackhawks provide to go out into the
area, to take down the areas where the drug is being produced,
to eliminate the precursor chemicals that are really wreaking
environmental damage, to arrest the individuals who are there,
and then go back to their base camp. And from that base camp,
they can operate and control larger areas and begin to reduce
the amount of acreage that is being devoted to drug
cultivation. I think that will work.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, I am sorry to interrupt you,
because my time has expired. I will wait until the second round
for a follow-up question, but I will just close by saying that
if we are ever going to have a constructive conversation
about----
Senator Stevens. Senator, we have gone 12 minutes into this
right now.
Armored gun system
General Shinseki, I forgot to ask you about the armored gun
system and how that fits into this Transformation. We have
spent a lot of money developing that system. Are you going to
utilize it now as we go into this new concept in
Transformation?
General Shinseki. Senator, the armored gun system is one of
those platforms that showed up in December for the side-by-side
demonstration. And I expect it will be one of the candidate
models that will show up in the July timeframe for this final
decision to downselect. And if it meets the requirements best,
it has a very good chance of being contracted for production.
Infrastructure
Senator Stevens. I note that Transformation is a very
important subject as far as you are both concerned, but some of
us are concerned about the infrastructure needs at existing
bases and whether or not this process we are going into now is
going to postpone further some of the modernization and upkeep,
the deferred maintenance on the bases. I am particularly
concerned of course with those in my State, and I think Senator
Inouye and others, those in their own States. But what are we
going to do about the requirements of existing bases during
this period of time and catching up on some of the funding that
is necessary?
I am concerned about the quality of life issues that are
being affected by the failure to maintain some of our bases.
What is going to happen during this Transformation in regard to
those concerns?
General Shinseki. For the interim brigades specifically,
which is what you have asked about, let me just say that in the
larger budget, base ops is, as I recall, being funded at about
the 96 percent mark. In terms of real property maintenance
(RPM), where we have been challenged, we are around the 80
percent mark.
Mr. Caldera. Sixty-nine percent.
General Shinseki. Sixty-nine percent. And it is always an
effort on our part to get more dollars into this.
When we talk about the cost of fielding an Interim Brigade
Combat Team, part of that cost does look at the requirement to
have a location into which that brigade can move and have the
kinds of support requirements that go along with it--motor
pools, ranges, training areas.
Senator Stevens. Let me get just a little more specific if
I can. The two of us, Senator Inouye and I, live offshore. And
people in our State are semi-forward deployed. We have the
forward deployed in Korea when we have the OCONUS operations.
It just seems to us that those of us that are in between
neither get the priority for forward deployment or the priority
now for modernization for Transformation. What is going to
happen to our facilities in Alaska and Hawaii as far as the
Army is concerned?
General Shinseki. Senator, we are in the process of now
identifying where these future brigade combat teams, beyond the
first two that we have identified to go into Fort Lewis, where
likely sites might also accommodate those remaining brigades
that follow on. And I would just say that both Hawaii and
Alaska are being looked at as potential sites. And I think this
would also acknowledge that there is a requirement to do some
preparation work in both those locations.
Senator Stevens. I would hope so. We sort of feel left out
right now. And I do not know what is going to happen to our
facilities. If we do not get selected and our people are not
selected to be the next two, then that means that we are going
to be 4 or 5 years behind before we are through.
I do believe that the semi-forward deployment that our two
areas offer the military is very strategic. But we will talk to
you about that later. I do not want to go over the time here.
Senator Hutchison, you had some questions. Do you want them
answered now or do you want to ask more questions?
Senator Hutchison. I just want to ask one other question. I
do think, Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize enough the impact of
overdeployment on retention. And I do hope that you are going
to address that by really talking to employers of Reserve units
and listening to their answers. Because there is a disconnect
that I am seeing between what I hear and what I hear many of
the Army personnel saying. So that is very important.
Military housing
I wanted to ask you one other question on the budget. And
that is that your budget has an overall increase of
approximately $800 million. And I understand and agree with
your priorities for the kind of Army that you are trying to
produce. However, what you have had to cut back on is military
construction and family housing. My question is, are those cuts
of muscle and bone or are they areas where you feel that our
housing is now up to what it ought to be? I am concerned about
that, as we are talking about retention and quality of life,
that this is an area that you are having to cut back on.
Mr. Caldera. Senator, as we try to put together the Army
budget, of course we are trying to balance a lot of priorities
in terms of maintaining the readiness that our country is
counting on: quality of life, the needs of soldiers, as well as
modernization and investment for the future. And we are not
able to do all of the things that we would like to do, neither
for the active forces nor for our Reserve components.
Our housing is not where we would like it to be. We have
been working with the Congress in terms of implementing the
residential communities initiative, to leverage private capital
to invest in family housing. We have three projects that we are
working on at Fort Hood, Fort Meade, and Fort Lewis that I
think have great potential in terms of getting out of a
business that is not really a core business for the military,
building and managing housing. We are privatizing it, giving it
to the private sector who can do a much better job of providing
the kind of housing with the amenities that we want our
soldiers to have and can use their capital and their expertise
as homebuilders. And we think that that has great potential.
There are many other things in the military construction
that we should do. Much as Senator Stevens pointed out,
technology gives you a chance to upgrade your ranges, with much
better instrumentation that can give you much better feedback
in terms of the exercises that you perform, of how the leaders
are doing, how the units are fighting and how effective and
accurate they are in their maneuver, their rates of fire. And
we want to be able to make those kinds of investments to use
technology in that kind of way.
So there is modernization that ought to occur at all Army
installations that we will program through future POM's and get
to it as quickly as we can and certainly at those early
deploying, high priority installations, places where we are
doing Transformation, perhaps earlier than other places.
Unfunded requirements
Senator Hutchison. If we were to restore some of the cuts
that you have made in order to address your other priorities,
would it go into family housing, or barracks housing for that
matter, improvement or are there other priorities that you have
cut that you think are even more urgent?
Mr. Caldera. Our top unfunded requirements are restoring
some of the readiness plus-up that we were not able to get to
because we did not get all of the readiness plus-up for other
Department of Defense priorities. And some of those did include
our real property maintenance. And our top unfunded priorities
programmatically are the Grizzly and Wolverine systems that we
had to kill to fund Transformation, but which we continue to
have valid requirements for.
General, did you want to add to that?
General Shinseki. I would say that the three areas that we
are looking for help on is to improve or increase the S&T
investments. As I indicated, if we are going to get quality and
quantity answers in 3 to 4 years, we have put as much energy as
the Army can afford right now--$500 million into S&T--
additional resources would go there.
The second priority here is the Wolverine and Grizzly
investments. And third is the readiness issues, the shortfalls
that we have had for years now, and it is a compendium of
requirements.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Inouye.
fiscal year 2000 Supplemental
Senator Inouye. I believe that the greatest risk among all
the Department of Defense (DOD) activities in regards to the
fiscal year 2000 supplemental is the Army. In fact, you are
spending about $1.5 billion out of your existing funds to
support Kosovo. The Secretary of Defense just set aside $200
million. And as a result, you will be able to keep the National
Training Center (NTC) going.
Now, many of us here are quite concerned as to what is
going to happen to the supplemental in fiscal year 2000? The
question I would like to ask is, what impact will the delay on
the supplemental currently is having on you and when will you
have to take drastic actions if the funding is not forthcoming?
And it would appear at this stage, unless we move within the
next few weeks, it may not be timely.
Mr. Caldera. Senator, both the issue of full reimbursement
and timely reimbursement are critical. Because once you lose
the training opportunities, you never get that time back for
training, and it disrupts the training cycle that goes from
individual squad level training to platoon/company level,
higher echelon level, up to those National Training Center
rotations. We of course do not want to do that.
One concern is, even when you issue the guidance that says
to begin to think about how to cut back on expenditures, many
people will throttle back on their training plans, and the
impacts will be felt even if the supplemental is passed shortly
thereafter. The kind of things that we do early on is stop some
of our capital fund expenditures, some of our payments to other
defense agencies, start planning for things like cutting back
on some of the civilian hiring, promotions, PCS moves, all ways
of trying to conserve resources.
We would begin to cut back at lower level echelon training
at first rather than affecting the larger-scale NTC rotations,
which are so critical to maintaining readiness. You start
cutting back on the ordering of spare parts or on sending work
to a depot, so as not to have to expend those resources. But if
you start cutting back on ordering spare parts, it means, as
you are pulling it off the shelf, that may be the last one. And
so that is an impact that, even when the supplemental is passed
later, will take months and months, if not 1 year or more, to
catch up to the work that you should have been doing in terms
of your maintenance at different levels.
So those are some of the kinds of actions that we would
need to begin to take in order to begin to both shift the
dollars that we need to continue to pay for the Kosovo mission
and then to start to husband those resources, both so that we
can live within our appropriation and for supporting that
mission.
Senator Inouye. General Shinseki, if these supplemental
funds are not available by Memorial Day, by the end of May,
what impact would it have on your readiness?
General Shinseki. Senator, what we would need to have is
the assurance in May that the funds are coming. And if the
assurance is provided, then we can make decisions about fourth
quarter training. If that assurance is not provided, and it is
possible that funds may not be coming or the question is left
unanswered, then we would have to begin looking at fourth
quarter training, because the long lead time that goes along
with training in the fourth quarter requires us to order things
in order for that training to happen. And once ordered, beyond
a certain point we have to pay for it. And to ensure that we do
not exceed our available funds in that fourth quarter, we may
have to make decisions earlier--for example, in June.
There is an indication in May that the funds will be
provided and the funds physically arrive in July will allow us
to stay on track. But the decision or the indication in May
would be helpful about whether or not a supplemental is going
to be provided. And that is why, in my opening comments, I did
point out that the chairman's efforts to move on the
supplemental and your support was an indication to the Army
that it could count that it was going to get the funds. It is
just a question of when. May, it would be helpful for us to
know, in May. And that will put off having to make these
decisions about cancelling long lead time requirements for
fourth quarter training.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, when would you have to take
drastic actions, such as furloughing civilians or invoking feed
and forage?
Mr. Caldera. I think by July, if we do not have the
supplemental, the money in hand.
Senator Inouye. In other words, by the end of June, if you
do not have it in your pocket, this is going to happen?
Mr. Caldera. By the end of June, if the measure has been
passed and it is really just getting through DOD to actually
get money in hand and through the process that that has to go
through, we could survive for a couple of more weeks. But if by
the end of June it had not been passed, then we would have to
start taking those kinds of measures. And of course, invoking
feed and forage is one option that is an option where we will
be living outside, beyond what our appropriated support is. And
of course that is a drastic step that we would prefer not to
have to take obviously.
Senator Inouye. I have a few more questions, but my time is
up.
Senator Stevens. At some point we are going to go into the
question of what is your authority to use the money we
appropriated for specific purposes in Kosovo without it being
specifically appropriated for Kosovo. That is background to
what the Senator is asking, too.
Senator Durbin.
``Black Hawk Down''
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. I have two questions.
I do not know if I can get them in this turn or if I will need
another turn, but I will try to be very brief.
General Shinseki, one of the most popular books in America
today and one that I recently finished is a book entitled
``Black Hawk Down,'' which tells the story of Mogadishu and
what happened in that tragic situation. The lessons that I have
learned from that as a Member of the United States Senate were
first the obvious and extraordinary heroism of the men who were
involved in that mission. Second, the questions that really
relate directly to the whole question of Transformation.
Because I believe that what we were attempting to do there was
to use this more flexible and mobile and lethal and survivable
force to deal with the situation.
I think you are on the right track, and the Army is on the
right track in this Transformation. If you have read this book
or if you were familiar with the circumstances there, the two
things that struck me was, first, the vulnerability of the
Blackhawk helicopter, which apparently was not appreciated
until we actually saw the helicopter shot down. And, second,
the breakdown in radio communications between the various
resources available to the troops on the ground, the fact that
they did not have direct communication. Those were the two
things that jumped out at me as a civilian, making this
analysis.
If you have read the book or if you are familiar with this,
reflecting on what it had to say and this whole Transformation,
can you make some observations for the committee?
General Shinseki. It has been a while since I went through
the book, but I think, for me, what ``Black Hawk Down'' pointed
out was the importance of understanding how we ought to think
about organizing and equipping and training our military
forces. What ``Black Hawk Down'' pointed out first for me was
you can easily go into a situation thinking that you are in one
kind of an environment and, in a matter of minutes, because
someone else chose to raise the ante, that you are in a hot
fire fight.
And if you are going to be in that situation where the
parameters can change very quickly beyond your control, then
you better go in organized for the hot end of this, because
that is where you will end up. And you need to have
capabilities, you need to have the equipment, the
communications gear, the training at that very high level of
rigor and precision, because that is where all of those
capabilities get called into focus.
But I think what we experienced there was a quick change in
environment. I think we understood there was a risk. It changed
faster than any of us could have appreciated. And what we
relied upon was the great valor of those soldiers to operate in
that environment. And I think what you will see is, even though
there were some significant losses, the soldiers who continued
the mission and extracted themselves did magnificently.
Senator Durbin. No question about that. Would you address
the specific question of communications? I was stunned to learn
that the planes overhead and the information overhead could not
be directly communicated on the ground so that they could
extricate themselves from this dangerous situation. Has that
changed?
General Shinseki. I would have to go back and see exactly
what kind of communications gear they had available and what
they were trying to link. I think there is a better answer than
I could give you today. It did not capture my attention as it
did yours, but I will give you a better answer.
Senator Durbin. Perhaps if you would for the record, I
would appreciate that very much.
General Shinseki. I will do that.
[The information follows:]
``Black Hawk Down''
Mark Bowden's book, Black Hawk Down, cited the inability of
P-3 Orion Navy pilots to talk to Army ground commanders during
the October 3, 1993, battle in Mogadishu. Mr. Bowden infers
that had the pilots been able to talk directly to the
commanders, they may have been able to provide information to
facilitate the ground forces' extrication from a dangerous
situation.
The equipment on hand was capable of communication between
the Navy aircraft and Army ground forces. However, pre-
configured communications nets did not allow individual Navy
aircraft to talk directly to Army commanders on the ground.
Communications nets are developed for each mission based on
anticipated requirements to distribute information, share
reporting, and provide tactical direction. Normally, component
commanders talk to other component commanders on command nets,
and individual aircraft talk to their unit commanders on their
internal unit command nets. The Navy component commander always
has the ability of communicating with the Army component
commander in any joint task force. Individual elements, like
aircraft, would report to their commanders who, in turn, would
pass the information.
Current technology can provide real-time air-to-ground
communications to commanders at most levels. However, the
feasibility of doing this is carefully assessed before each
mission. The necessity and usefulness of the information must
be balanced with the adequacy of existing intelligence
reporting and the ability of the commander to rapidly acquire
and distribute the information. Having too many subscribers in
one command net can seriously degrade the ability of commanders
to command and control their units.
The primary problem during the Mogadishu mission was that
the events rapidly evolved into an unanticipated situation.
Previous missions did not require extensive communications
between airborne and ground force assets. Commanders opted for
pre-configured communications nets that were not encumbered
with all assets trying to talk to each other while commanders
attempted to control the mission.
Arsenal utilization
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, one last question on the
lightweight howitzer program. The General Accounting Office has
come back with an interim report which suggests that Vickers
has at least fallen 2 years behind in some of their contract
requirements. This is a contract which is not moving as we had
hoped. I do not believe the Army can be satisfied with the
results. You know that my perspective is from the arsenal side,
that believes it has been shortchanged in opportunities to
provide, as they have traditionally, good equipment on a timely
basis for the military to use.
Is there a resistance within the Army to using our arsenal
resources even in the face of what appears to be a breakdown on
the private side in the lightweight howitzer program?
Mr. Caldera. Senator, there is not a resistance to using
the arsenal. There is a belief, and of course this is a Marine
Corps program that the Army is helping to manage, that we ought
to use the best and lowest cost way of producing this weapon
and getting it into the hands of our soldiers and our marines
and that we ought to let the benefit of competition determine
who the contractors and who the subcontractors ought to be in
that proposal.
With respect to Rock Island Arsenal, our challenge with
arsenals is frankly that we have not had enough work to go
around to the arsenals in order to utilize the capabilities
that exist there. And so we have been looking for the kind of
work that we might be able to direct to the arsenals in order
to use that capability. We have been looking at trying to right
size the arsenals in terms of lowering the overhead in the
unused capacity so that their labor rates are in line with
something that would allow them to be competitive for work.
And we are currently doing a study of that kind of capacity
and what our need is for that kind of capacity both for
sustainment and replenishment after wartime. And answering the
question which I have posed to our folks, which is if we need
this capability and this capacity, how will we fund it so that
the only way of funding it is not just by forcing program
managers to make uneconomic decisions within the context of
programs in which they are measured by trying to stay within
budget as a way of paying for it? Is there a better way for us
to pay for the capabilities that we do in fact need as a
Nation?
Some of that may involve things like going to government
owned or privately contracted or privately owned arsenals. That
study will be completed some time this year. But I think it is
an effort to try to look at how we look at this capability that
the arsenals represent to make sure that we do have the
capability that the Nation needs and that we are not always in
this spiral of being unable to attract work because the labor
rates are so high and then that just feeding into itself.
Senator Durbin. If the Senator from Hawaii will allow me to
make one closing comment.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for that. I agree with the
concept of competition. I certainly believe that the arsenals
should compete. And if they can provide the best equipment at
the best price, they should be given a chance to compete. I
think the lightweight howitzer program shows what happens when
there appears to be a bent toward the private side. We had a
breakdown, where the original contractor, Textron, had to have
the contract taken away from it. Vickers stepped in, and now
they have fallen behind.
It appears from the arsenal side that every excuse is being
made when it comes to the private sector competition and no
opportunity is being given to the arsenal to prove that it can
do the job effectively at a low-cost option. I am heartened by
your comments, and I hope that we can follow through on those.
And the last comment I will make is just very brief. I
support the effort, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS) in Africa effort, which I believe is going to be
included in this appropriation. I think it is a very thoughtful
approach by our military to make certain that if we are ever
called on to deal with the military forces in Africa, that we
have done our level best to make sure that they are disease
free and can be part of an effective combined force, including
the United States.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Caldera. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inouye [presiding]. Thank you.
Power projection
General Shinseki, your stated goal is to be able to deploy
one brigade within 96 hours to anywhere on the planet.
General Shinseki. That is correct.
Senator Inouye. One division in 120 hours and five
divisions in 30 days.
General Shinseki. Those are stretched goals for the
Objective Force, Senator.
Senator Inouye. It would appear that if you are going to
carry out this plan, you would need immediate air transport.
Now we have two active bases at this time, one in South
Carolina, the other in the State of Washington. There is a
National Guard unit in Mississippi, a training unit in
Oklahoma. Under your plan, it would appear that in order to
carry out this threshold, as you say, units will have to
gravitate to South Carolina and Washington.
General Shinseki. Frankly, Senator, you are a little bit
further in your analysis than I am. I am looking at it
primarily right now, along with the Secretary, from the Army's
perspective, where is it strategically that we can place this
capability and then be able to employ it. And it then talks
about deployment airfields, clearly, installations that can
accept these brigade combat teams, and then have the physical
space in terms of training land to be able to exercise and
train and maintain their proficiencies.
I had not looked at where aircraft are located, but
certainly looking at airfields that could accommodate that kind
of aircraft, was as far as our very cursory analysis had gone.
We had started with looking at Army installations, and then
ensuring--part of the reason that we are at Lewis is that
Lewis, from an Army perspective, had training grounds, had the
kinds of ranges that could support mounted training. It is
adjacent to a deployment airfield, McCord Air Force Base, that
has the capability to deploy.
And then, from the Army's own perspective, there is a
history of mounted units at Fort Lewis that would accommodate
doing this at that location. And having one heavy and one light
brigade at Lewis also gave us the opportunity to learn what it
takes to do each kind of unit for our purposes.
As we continue to look at other locations, we will be
essentially following the same format. We had not looked at
where aircraft were located, but I take your point that we
should. And we will include that. But, ultimately, that will
not be the decider. It will be the strategic requirements that
the Army sees for itself.
Mr. Caldera. Senator, if I could just add to that answer.
One of our top priorities in the military construction has been
the power projection improvements at many of our installations,
not just those that are collocated near Air Force bases, but to
improve the railheads in order to more rapidly move the weapons
platforms to a seaport where they might deploy from or to
improve the airstrips in order to take larger lift
capabilities. And part of the goal of Transformation is also to
reduce the logistical footprint of the forces when they move
into the theater so you do not have to take as many things with
you and you do not have to rely on as much airlift for the
sorties that will get you there.
So those improvements for power projection to rapidly
deploy forces means that those forces could come from any one
of our installations around the Nation.
Senator Inouye. Well, if you want it to be rapid deployment
or rapid response, then Alaska, for example, is closer to
places like Bosnia than South Carolina is. And the same can be
said about Hawaii as compared to other places. So I am very
pleased, General Shinseki, that you are considering both Alaska
and Hawaii as possible areas. Because they are the closest to
the scene of the actions or the potential actions.
Additional committee questions
Gentlemen, we have kept you here long enough. We would like
to thank you very much for your testimony.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Louis Caldera
Question Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
wolverine and grizzly program cancellation
Question. Secretary Caldera, the current Army budget restructures
procurement in the fiscal year 2001-2005 timeframe by providing $4.5
billion for selection and procurement of a medium armored vehicle to
equip the Army's newly redesigned combat units. However, the cost of
the Army's new initiatives has meant the termination of several major
programs and the restructuring of others. The terminated programs
include United Defense's Grizzly obstacle breaching system, General
Dynamic's Wolverine heavy assault bridge, and others. Recently, Chief
of Staff General Eric Shinseki has stated that he had sought to retain
the Grizzly and Wolverine programs as part of the ongoing
recapitalization effort for the service's heavy forces. Please comment
on this situation and explain why the Army now wants to retain these
important programs, but did not budget for them.
Answer. The Army's heavy forces require responsive mobility support
for commanders to conduct decisive operations and to fight and win our
nation's wars. The Grizzly and Wolverine are designed to fix shortfalls
in combat force mobility. These systems could fulfill the Army's gap
crossing and obstacle breaching needs well into the 21st Century. By
providing the ability to negotiate obstacles wherever and whenever
encountered, the Grizzly breacher and Wolverine heavy assault bridge
provide commanders the flexibility of maneuver to decisively engage
threats. The Army budgeted for Grizzly and Wolverine by fully funding
research, development, test, and evaluation, and included procurement
funding to buy systems for a reinforced heavy armored corps. However,
the Office of the Secretary of Defense directed termination of the
Grizzly and Wolverine program in program budget decision 745. An
overall increase to Army funding levels is necessary to ensure full
funding of the Grizzly and Wolverine programs.
army heritage center and national army museum
Question. Secretary Caldera, we spoke in March 1999 and again on
April 4th of this year about the construction of the Army Heritage
Center and Museum in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. On both of those
occasions, you voiced the Army's full support for the project. However,
recent Army statements regarding the construction of the national Army
museum in the Washington area have raised serious concerns about the
Army's commitment to the Carlisle site. Do you maintain your commitment
to ensure the Carlisle site becomes ``the finest Army museum in
existence in the world?'' To that end, what active steps has the Army
taken in the last six months to provide assistance in planning and
coordinating the project with the Military Heritage Foundation and
others in Carlisle?
Answer. We remain fully committed to building the best possible
Army Heritage Center at Carlisle Barracks, to include the Military
History Institute and the Army Heritage Museum, both intended to be
world-class facilities. The President's budget for fiscal year 2001
includes funding for the Academic Research Facility, the new home of
the Military History Institute. This success represents a great effort
on the behalf of the Army Staff during the last six months to identify,
justify, and secure funding.
The Department of the Army has provided more professional and
technical support to the planning process for the Army Heritage Museum
than has ever been provided to any museum in the Army museum system. To
facilitate the best possible plan and design, the most senior curators
in the Army, engineers from the Baltimore District, and members from
several Army Staff directorates have teamed up with Army personnel from
Carlisle Barracks, members of the Military Heritage Foundation,
representatives of the local and commonwealth governments, and private
contractors. Preliminary negotiations with respect to story lines seem
promising. The Center of Military History (CMH), as it continues its
ongoing program to fully catalog over 700,000 artifacts not yet on
display, has agreed to apportion an impressive fraction of them to the
Carlisle facility. During the last six months, CMH and the Army museum
system have catalogued approximately 70,000 such artifacts. Detailed
choices will be made as the museum design matures.
The Army does not view the museum proposed for Carlisle and the
museum proposed for the Washington area as competitors, but rather as
members of the same team synergistically working together to tell the
Army story to the American public. Each will have its themes
independently developed, and each will play to a different audience,
but they will both have the same goal: to foster a closer relationship
between the U.S. Army and the public it serves.
biometrics initiative
Question. Secretary Caldera, I am interested in the subject of
biometrics and its application to ``information assurance'' in the
Department of the Army and throughout the Department of Defense. I am
advised that one of the lessons learned regarding the conflict in
Kosovo is the need for increased ``information assurance.''
Mr. Secretary, the Army has an important leading role in biometrics
testing and evaluation. Last August, Army Under Secretary Dr. Bernard
Rostker and Lieutenant General William Campbell, Chief Information
Officer of the Army, accompanied me to West Virginia to visit the
3,000-person FBI identification facility, which--I am told--is the
largest biometrics facility in the world. Both have been enthusiastic
supporters of my biometrics initiative. Do you share this enthusiasm?
The fiscal year 2000 Defense appropriation included, at my request, $15
million for fiscal year 2000 for the biometrics initiative. How much
has been released and obligated? When will the remainder be released?
In his latest report on the Army's biometrics initiative, General
Campbell indicated that the Army plans to open a biometrics office soon
somewhere in the Military District of Washington, and is also planning
to open a test and evaluation facility in north central West Virginia
within the next 90 days. How are these plans progressing?
Answer. We are optimistic about integrating biometrics into all
facets of our military operations. Our information assurance and
technologists agree that biometrics will significantly enhance the
security of access to our systems as well as play a significant role in
protecting ourselves from viruses and other malicious code attacks. We
are committed to the establishment of a biometrics fusion center test
and evaluation facility, and we have appointed a director for Army
biometrics. We look forward to your continued support of this
technology for the Army.
In regard to the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and the $15 million
you provided, $5 million has been released and obligated. This money
was used to conduct legal, sociological, and cultural assessments of
biometrics. It was also used to execute a major feasibility study to
develop biometrics technology into the Department of the Army with
further integration of this technology DOD wide. The remaining $10
million is expected to be released to the Army in the next few weeks.
We are in the process of opening a local office in the Military
District of Washington for biometrics. The Director for Army Biometrics
recently approved the final design and specifications for an office in
northern Virginia. The office will soon be ready for occupancy. The
Army intends to acquire a 3,000 to 6,000 square foot facility to begin
development of the Biometrics Fusion Center (test and evaluation
facility). The Director for Army Biometrics also visited Clarksburg,
West Virginia, on May 15 with a senior GSA representative to survey
temporary office space for the housing of the Biometrics Fusion Center.
However, of the five locations presented, none were deemed acceptable
for either security or convenience reasons. Another trip to the
Clarksburg/Bridgeport area is planned, and we will keep you informed on
our accomplishments and status.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
armament retooling and manufacturing support program
Question. Secretary Caldera, the Office of Army General Counsel and
the Executive Advisory Committee of the Armament Retooling and
Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Public-Private Task Force support
clarification in the statute of a number of administrative procedures
now permitted in regulation. An amendment to the original ARMS Act is
currently pending before Congress that would accomplish this goal.
These procedures, involving the program's innovative real estate and
financial techniques, are vital if ARMS is to continue to realize its
great potential. Without the amendment, the ARMS program could be
terminated, along with over $38 million a year in supplemental revenue
to the Army. Will you confirm for the Congress the Army's continuing
support for the proposed ARMS amendment as well as your personal desire
to see the amendment enacted this year?
Answer. The Army continues to support the ARMS program as recently
endorsed by a senior Defense and Army general officer level panel that
reviewed the accomplishments and continuation of this program. In
reference to proposed ARMS amendments, the Army reported to Congress on
January 15, 2000, that after evaluating five areas, two areas required
improvement. The reports asked for legislative clarification for other
consideration and contract length as written in current the ARMS Act.
Congress' proposed amendment provides clarification for these two
areas, as the Army requested.
plan colombia
Question. Secretary Caldera, I was severely disappointed to hear
that Colonel Hiett contributed to his wife's drug smuggling crimes
through his money laundering activities. While I support counterdrug
operations in theory, events like this call into question the
appropriate level of U.S. military involvement. Does the Army support a
cap on U.S. military involvement?
Answer. The Army is working hard along with the entire Department
of Defense (DOD) to support the efforts of the commander-in-chief,
United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), to coordinate our military
and counterdrug programs with Colombia. The Army shares the view of
both SOUTHCOM and DOD that a troop cap would impair the flexibility of
the operational commander to respond with adequate resources to the
challenges as they develop in Colombia. However, if Congress determines
that it is necessary to establish a cap, we would allow other non-
counterdrug programs to continue. These exceptions should allow for
non-combatant evacuation operations, assignment of military personnel
for embassy duty, disaster relief operations, and non-operational
transit of personnel such as port-calls, and other routine and
recurring engagement activities.
school of the americas
Question. Secretary Caldera, the School of the Americas continues
to attract controversy over human rights abuses in South America. A
recent report claims that, despite the efforts you mentioned to promote
human rights and the role of the military in a democracy, this new
curriculum exists on paper only. Of the 31 courses available at the
school, only five are related to human rights, democracy, or
humanitarian issues, and less than 18 percent of the students took
these courses in 1999. Further, although the School of the Americas
offers a ``Train the Trainer'' course on human rights, no students
attended the course in 1997, 1998, or 1999. What is the Army doing to
ensure participants get balanced training with sufficient focus on
human rights, democracy, and humanitarian issues?
Answer. First, let me reiterate that there is no evidence that
supports a causal relationship between attending a course at the School
of the Americas and subsequent criminal or illegal activity. What is
taught at the School of the Americas is the same instruction and
doctrine that are given to U.S. soldiers. We do not teach our soldiers
criminal behavior, and we do not teach this to anyone else.
I also want to stress that every student attending every course
presented at the School will receive mandatory human rights instruction
that covers international humanitarian law, ethics, rule of law, the
role of a military in a democratic society, the just war theory, and a
human rights case study. That is the price of admission to the School.
Minimum instruction is eight hours for courses less than four weeks, 12
hours for courses between four and 24 weeks, and 40 hours for courses
longer than 24 weeks. This classroom instruction is reinforced by
situational exercises in field training, which in the case of the 49-
week command and general staff officer course totals more than 210
hours. The human rights training curriculum is overseen by a special
committee which meets quarterly and includes a prominent human rights
lawyer and human rights experts from the Department of State. This is
the most comprehensive human rights instruction in any Department of
Defense institution.
The widely circulated comment about the human rights train-the-
trainer course is often used to imply that there is no human rights
training at the School of the Americas. I hope my previous comments
will put this myth to rest. In the case of the human rights train-the-
trainer course, it was designed in 1997 at the request of the U.S.
Southern Command. The class program of instruction was developed in
1998, and it was placed into the 1998-1999 course catalogue. The normal
security assistance resource cycle requires almost two years between
course offering to initial attendance in order to advertise a new
course and program students. In 1999, there were no students scheduled
for the course at the School, so the School took the course to the
students. Courses were conducted in Colombia, Venezuela, and Paraguay.
The statistics used by critics do not reflect this fact. This year, 25
students attended the course at the School of the Americas at Fort
Benning, Georgia.
Finally, the comment that only five of 31 courses are related to
human rights, democracy, and humanitarian issues, and only 18 percent
of students took these courses is incorrect. As stated above, every
student in every course receives instruction in human rights and the
role of a military in a democratic society. The quoted statistics do
not reflect this key fact. Instruction related to humanitarian
operations and counterdrug operations are embedded in the command and
general staff officer course, officer basic courses, and Joint
operations course, among others. All of the helicopter courses are
closely related to our counterdrug programs. These courses are also
conducted at a more senior level where we are training selected
military, law enforcement, and civilian leaders. The School of the
Americas remains a professional military training and education
facility whose curriculum responds to the needs of the Commander-in-
Chief, U.S. Southern Command, who reviews every course every year. He
continues to ask the School to expand into new areas where he sees
needs, and the growth will come in new courses in disaster relief
operations, international operational law, counter-drug
interoperability, and transnational security threats. These courses
should be expanded international military education and training and
will bring in greater numbers of civilian, law enforcement, as well as
military personnel.
Again, let me assure you that America's sons and daughters serving
in uniform at this School are the examples we want teaching and
instilling our nation's ethics and values to others. We believe that
the U.S. Army is a valuable role model in teaching military
professionalism as well as the role of a military in a democratic
society to the militaries of Latin America and the Caribbean.
management reforms regarding the u.s. army corps of engineers
Question. Secretary Caldera, as I recently discussed with you and
General Shinseki, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides a vitally
important role to Americans throughout the nation. We sincerely
appreciate the noble efforts of the Corps and regret that this issue
has become so politicized. One of my remaining concerns, however, is
the damage to the reputations of our military leaders in the Corps of
Engineers. These honorable soldiers made huge sacrifices in order to
protection our nation, but their careers were severely damaged by the
tremendously unfair attacks in the media. What is your view of the
character and service of the Corps' leaders?
Answer. I agree that the Corps of Engineers plays an invaluable
role in the protection and development of our nation's critical water
resources and am confident that the Corps' strong tradition of service
to our nation in these areas will continue. You have expressed concern
that the recent allegations concerning the Corps may have damaged the
reputations of its military leaders. For the most part, the issues that
have surfaced have not been directed at individual Corps leaders. To
the extent that specific allegations of impropriety have been made
against individuals, the Army Inspector General and other appropriate
entities are analyzing those allegations. I am confident that these
individuals will be fairly treated by these processes, which are
designed to be objective and unbiased.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
management reforms regarding the u.s. army corps of engineers
Question. Mr. Secretary, I was very disappointed with your March 30
memorandum in which you implemented management reforms in the civil
works program of the Army Corps of Engineers, despite the strongly
stated Congressional interest in any management changes of the Army
Corps of Engineers and, specifically, a letter from Chairman Stevens,
Senators Domenici, Reid, Cochran, Inouye, and me to Secretary of
Defense William Cohen. I was also particularly surprised that the Army
took such dramatic steps without the benefit of learning the outcome of
any of the myriad investigations that are being conducted on the Corps
and its activities.
However, I was pleased to learn of your April 7 notification
announcing that you, after consulting with the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, have ``. . . decided to suspend the implementation of these
reforms for a reasonable period of time in order to allow for a broader
discussion with Members of Congress on the need for these reforms.''
Would you please share with me the definition of ``a reasonable
period of time'' in context of the April 7 notification? How and when
will Members of Congress be given the opportunity to participate in a
broader discussion of the need for these reforms?
Answer. As you know, I announced these management clarifications in
an effort to improve the Army Civil Works program. These clarifications
are grounded in Title 10 of the U.S. Code and are intended to clarify
responsibilities, improve communications, and strengthen accountability
within the Civil Works program. These clarifications are in no way
related to the inspector general's investigation regarding the Upper
Mississippi River Study.
At the request of Senators Stevens, Warner, and Smith, I agreed to
suspend the reforms for a reasonable period of time pending further
consultation. In making this decision, I did not envision that the
reforms would be suspended for a specific period of time. I believed
that, instead, through our discussions, we would agree on a path
forward. As I continue these discussions, I remain optimistic that this
will prove true because we all share a common goal of improving the
Civil Works program.
Question. The June 2000 retirement of General Joseph N. Ballard,
Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers causes me some concern in view
of the Army's reaction to the recent attention the Corps has been
receiving. When will a new Chief of Engineers be put into place? What
are the agency's plans for a smooth, seamless, and timely transition
between Chiefs of Engineers?
Answer. As with all major Army commands that rotate leadership, the
Chief of Engineers will change command this summer. I am confident that
this will be a timely and smooth transition. In addition, our strong
civilian leadership of the Civil Works program will continue to provide
executive and policy leadership over this important program.
______
Questions Submitted to Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
apache problems
Question. Can you provide us with an update on the Apache fleets
flying status and technical problems? A recent report suggested that
there are 45 outstanding Apache safety issues. Can you identify some of
these problems and give us a sense of what steps the Army is taking to
correct the deficiencies? What are the Army's highest priorities for
the Apache program as we begin work on the fiscal year 2001 defense
spending bill?
Answer. All Apache aircraft are operational today; however, the AH-
64D Longbow Apache is operating on a flight limitation for night
operations due to generator and electrical anomalies. The Longbow is
cleared for day flight and limited to 100 feet above the highest
obstacle at night until a qualified materiel solution is implemented.
It is expected to take approximately two months to implement the fix.
There are a total of 40 open system safety risk assessments on the
Apache fleet. These assessments are rated from low to high, where high
is the most risk we assume before grounding the fleet. The Longbow
conversion eliminates the one high and 14 of the 25 medium risk
assessments. We specifically looked at how to eliminate all of the
medium and high-risk assessments from the Apache fleet. In the near
term, we are looking at a reliability enhancement program to ensure the
fleet is reliable and cost effective. Long term, we are looking to
redesign the drive train and rotor system to meet the additional weight
demands anticipated for this aircraft and reduce the operation and
support costs for these subsystems.
The highest priority for the Apache is to address readiness and
sustainment issues. These readiness and sustainment fixes will be
incorporated into all multiyear II AH-64D aircraft. We will also begin
reliability improvements to the remaining AH-64A Apache fleet and the
multiyear I Longbow aircraft beginning in fiscal year 2002.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
transformation and biometrics
Question. General Shinseki, I was pleased to have you visit my
office on February 24, 2000, and to have received your briefing on the
need to transform the Army. Please explain how the role of biometrics
fits into plans for the Transformation and modernization of the U.S.
Army.
Answer. Information superiority remains a key enabler for the
Army's Transformation. The Army's reliance on command, control,
communications, computers, and information technology to achieve
information superiority dictates that the Army have a robust
information assurance program to secure its networks. Biometrics is a
key element of our information assurance program. Biometrics is a
readily available commercial technology that can ensure continuous user
identification and authentication within our military information and
information-based networks. The focus of the transformed Army is to be
strategically responsive and dominant across the full spectrum of
operations and not be burdened by cumbersome overhead requirements like
conventional logons, user IDs, and passwords. Biometrics will allow
soldiers to be validated as an authorized user by their mere presence,
thereby reducing the insider threat and reducing unauthorized access
and penetration. The enormous potential biometrics technology offers
the transformed Army is a key reason why we are moving forward on
biometrics initiatives.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
white sands/high energy laser weapons
Question. The DOD is now considering its plans to centralize and
consolidate its directed energy programs. As you know, I am a strong
proponent of lasers and directed energy weapons.
General Flohr at White Sands is developing a plan to address the
test and evaluation capabilities for laser weapons systems at the
Range.
General Costello approved the Army's Directed Energy Master Plan
(DEMP) earlier this year. General Costello is a big supporter of laser
technologies and foresees the Army playing an important role in
developing and fielding laser weapons systems.
Would each of you comment on the Army's plan and any future plans
to commit Army funds to support laser weapons programs?
Answer. The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) DEMP
provides the strategy for near-term and far-term directed energy
technology development and integration into air and missile defense
forces. The strategy is to pursue directed energy technologies, which
offer the potential for leap-ahead capabilities for future warfighters.
The DEMP summarizes potential directed energy threats and achievable
technology development programs that could lead to fielded systems. As
technology development programs contained within the DEMP are presented
for resourcing consideration, they will compete within our normal
program objective memorandum (POM) and budget development process, with
priority given to those programs that directly support the Army
Transformation and Objective Force.
The Army recently reprogrammed $500,000 of its fiscal year 2000
science and technology funds for SMDC to begin exploring technologies
that are the key drivers for application of high-energy, solid-state
lasers on the tactical battlefield. For fiscal year 2001, the Army has
created a new applied research program element to investigate the
applicability and utility of solid-state lasers to perform a counter-
air munitions defense mission and to support the survivability of the
Future Combat System. In fiscal year 2002 and beyond, the Army plans to
fund a robust solid-state laser science and technology program. Initial
efforts will focus on development of a prototype device, lethality
studies, and evaluation of techniques to enhance laser beam
propagation.
tactical high energy laser
Question. General, could you give me an update on the progress of
the testing of the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) program at White
Sands Missile Range? What are the plans for the Army after completion
of the current run of testing at White Sands? (THEL has a $5.7 million
shortfall to complete testing in fiscal year 2000).
Answer. Currently, the THEL demonstrator is undergoing field
testing against live Katyusha rockets in flight at the high energy
laser systems test facility (HELSTF) at White Sands. The system has
already demonstrated the capability to detect, acquire, track, and
point the high power laser against operational Katyusha rockets in
flight. It is anticipated that the system will demonstrate the ability
to shoot down a single rocket with its high power laser beam in June
2000. After single rocket shoot down, the demonstration test and
evaluation (DT&E) phase of the program begins at HELSTF to engage a
series of salvo launches representative of the operational requirements
for the system.
After the completion of the THEL DT&E testing, the Army plans to
evaluate the results as it applies to Army requirements to decide
whether to participate in further development of the THEL system with
Israel. Israel has expressed an interest in jointly developing a
follow-on version of the THEL that is mobile, which would begin to
address more of the operational issues of interest to the Army
associated with fielding a high power laser based weapon system. With
regard to the $5.7 million shortfall to complete the THEL testing, the
Army has not been able to identify a funding source within the Army or
the Office of the Secretary of Defense to cover the United States'
share of the shortfall. However, Israel has committed to providing
their share of the shortfall in fiscal year 2000, possibly allowing
continuation of the DT&E phase at a reduced level until additional
funding becomes available.
solid state laser
Question. General, as you know, I have been interested for quite
some time in the development of the solid state laser, a program which
will deliver lethal kills, without the use of chemicals on the
battlefield that could pose dangers to our soldiers and civilians. What
is the current status of this program in the Army?
Answer. The Army recently reprogrammed $500,000 of its fiscal year
2000 science and technology funds for SMDC to begin exploring
technologies that are the key drivers for application of high-energy,
solid-state lasers on the tactical battlefield. For fiscal year 2001,
the Army has created a new applied research program element to
investigate the applicability and utility of solid-state lasers to
perform a counter-air munitions defense mission and to support the
survivability of the Future Combat System. In fiscal year 2002 and
beyond, the Army plans to fund a robust solid-state laser science and
technology program. Initial efforts will focus on development of a
prototype device, lethality studies, and evaluation of techniques to
enhance laser beam propagation.
directed energy master plan
Question. General, what is the Army's position on the coordinated
Directed Energy Master Plan (DEMP) and its funding requirements in
future years?
Answer. The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command DEMP
provides the strategy for near-term and far-term directed energy
technology development and integration into air and missile defense
forces. The strategy is to pursue directed energy technologies, which
offer the potential for leap-ahead capabilities for future warfighters.
The DEMP summarizes potential directed energy threats and achievable
technology development programs that could lead to fielded systems. As
technology development programs contained within the DEMP are presented
for resourcing consideration, they will compete within our normal
program objective memorandum (POM) and budget development process, with
priority given to those programs that directly support the Army
Transformation and Objective Force.
food stamps
Question. How many active duty Army personnel currently live in
families that receive food stamps? How many in the Army Reserve? Army
National Guard? How many of these families are in on-base housing? Off
base housing? What is your estimate of the likely increase in Army food
stamp recipients based on Secretary Cohen's recent announcement.
Answer. We estimate that 3,590 active Army personnel receive food
stamps. Sixty percent receive food stamps and live on post while the
remaining 40 percent receive food stamps and live off post. The likely
increase in Army food stamp recipients based on Secretary Cohen's
recent announcement is estimated to be approximately 4,050. As you
know, however, the Department of Agriculture determines eligibility
criteria for the food stamp program.
The Army Reserve and Army National Guard do not track food stamp
data. However, based on military base pay, plus housing and subsistence
allowances, no Active Guard/Reserve soldier would qualify for food
stamps under today's eligibility guidelines. If eligibility were based
on military base pay only, 828 Active Guard/Reserve soldiers would
qualify for food stamps.
Question. Do you believe that Army personnel being on food stamps
is a problem? Why has it been acceptable up to this point? What actions
do you recommend the Army take to eliminate the problem?
Answer. Military pay is intended to be sufficient to meet the basic
needs of all members--this is a fundamental premise of the all-
volunteer force. To find some members eligible for the food stamp
program is surprising to some and raises the question of the adequacy
of military pay. Since we prefer that no soldier require food stamps,
we applaud the Congress' aggressive approval of increasing military pay
and ask that you continue to provide robust annual pay raises.
Soldiering is an affair of the heart. However, soldiers must be able to
afford to go where their hearts lead them.
pay raise
Question. Quite obviously, last year's pay raises and repeal of
past pension reform did not solve the Army's retention problems. Do you
believe that the gap between the compensation for senior leadership and
enlisted personnel is a factor? By this I do not mean the basic pay
level of enlisted personnel; I do mean the size of the gap between the
bottom and the top.
Answer. We believe the pay raise of this past year and the repeal
of past pension reform had a positive impact on our retention program.
Last year, the Army exceeded its retention mission by 7,147 soldiers.
This year, we are on a path to again exceed our mission, which was
increased over last year's, by nearly 2,000 soldiers. We have no
evidence to suggest that the gap between the compensation for our
senior leaders and the enlisted force has impacted our retention
program. Pay is certainly a key factor to soldiers making long-term
commitments to the Army, but not the only factor. Because of the great
support from Congress, we also have a very robust retention bonus
program that has been a major factor in retaining the types of soldiers
we need to meet our future readiness needs. Quality of life programs
and reducing operational tempo also play into the equation, and we
continue to work those issues hard.
information operations vulnerability
Question. The Army's Vision calls for Transformation to a force
that is more responsive, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and
sustainable. The survivability of the force is going to be accomplished
by employing technology that provides maximum protection to forces at
the individual soldier level.
Many of these systems rely on the ability to transmit and receive
digitized information. No matter how versatile and successful these
weapons become, they could easily be rendered useless with the
technology available today. Despite this, I understand that
vulnerability analysis of the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) is
underfunded.
What effect will the shortfalls have on the Army's ability to
provide field support for information operations vulnerability analyses
of these tactical systems? Absent additional funding, can the Army
address the funding issues raised by the GAO report which identified
specific funding requirements to ensure implementation of the Army's
information protection plan?
Answer. In today's information intensive environment, the
information warfare threat can come in many forms, from simple mischief
makers, to sophisticated tactical countermeasures targeted at U.S.
military weapons or command, control, and computer systems. As the pace
of information technology (IT) has increased, so has the proliferation
of threats to IT based Army tactical systems. Threats to Army tactical
systems vary greatly in terms of intent, sophistication, technical
means, and potential impact, yet they all must be considered.
Traditionally, validated threat documents have been used to identify
specific threats to tactical systems. These documents have proven
inadequate because the information operations (IO) threat is dynamic--
literally changing in real time.
The ARL, when conducting IO vulnerability analyses, identifies
current relevant threats, as well as their likelihood of occurrence by
working with the intelligence community. ARL's IO analyses directly
address vulnerabilities to IO threats. Their risk analysis studies
concurrently support DOD certification and accreditation requirements
that are mandatory for the operation of Army tactical systems while
being a key component of the acquisition process for new tactical
systems. For fiscal year 2001, the Army has programmed as much funding
as affordable under the current budget. Continuous and rigorous IO
threat definition cannot be maintained with current funding shortfalls,
resulting in the Army not understanding or being able to mitigate a
significant portion of the evolving threat.
The findings of GAO Report Number NSIAD-99-166 ``Battlefield
Automation: Opportunities to Improve the Army's Information Protection
Effort,'' dated August 11, 1999, are consistent with the Army position
that information operations vulnerability analysis (IOVA) is important
to the protection of digitized forces. For fiscal year 2001, the Army
has programmed as much funding as affordable under the current budget.
However, IOVA remains underfunded. The Army has identified and
prioritized this shortfall on the fiscal year 2001 unfunded
requirements list. Additionally, the Army has taken steps to ensure
IOVA is integrated into system development and fielding beyond fiscal
year 2001. No system will proceed to a milestone III procurement
decision without first having undergone a thorough information
assurance vulnerability assessment and incorporating appropriate
solutions.
test and evaluation
Question. General, as you are well aware, I have been interested
for quite some time in the Army's progress in making instrumentation
upgrades at White Sands Missile Range--the Army's premier testing
facility. A new state-of-the-art communications control center will
open at White Sands late next month. This control center provides new
communications and instrumentation for the day-to-day operations at the
Range. With your help, and the Army's help, we were able to get this
new facility completed within the last three years. Would you discuss
for the Committee the Army's current state of testing and evaluation
programs and elaborate on your major needs and unfunded requirements?
Answer. The Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) was established
in October 1999 and is responsible for operational testing,
developmental testing, live-fire testing, and all evaluation within the
Army. The Army is required to adequately resource test and evaluation
in the following areas:
Acquisition Category (ACAT) II-IV Operational Testing.--Operational
testing for ACAT II-IV systems is resourced by funds provided to ATEC.
Acquisition program managers fund operational testing for ACAT I
systems. The minimum acceptable level of funding for ACAT II-IV program
testing is 65 percent of anticipated testing requirements. ATEC will be
required to plan, execute, and report on over 80 operational tests of
ACAT II-IV systems over the program objective memorandum (POM) period
in support of acquisition program milestone decisions. This number will
increase over time as program manager projections solidify. The purpose
of operational testing is to ensure a unit equipped with a weapons
system can accomplish assigned missions and that the weapons system is
operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and lethal. Fiscal year
2001 funding provides 46 percent of the funding necessary to conduct
required operational testing of ACAT II-IV systems. Over 30 operational
tests will not be funded by ATEC, and program fielding and production
will be delayed, or the program manager will be required to pay
unprogrammed costs for testing. The fiscal year 2001 bill is $8.9
million. Unfunded requirement is $56 million over the POM years.
Continuous Evaluation of Testing.--The Army Evaluation Center (AEC)
conducts operational, live-fire, and technical evaluation for all Army
acquisition programs. AEC provides integrated technical, operational,
and live-fire evaluations to support major acquisition program
milestone decisions. The minimum acceptable level of AEC funding is 70
percent of anticipated evaluation requirements. Fiscal year 2001
funding provides 68 percent which drops over the POM to 59 percent of
required funding for integrated operational, technical and live-fire
evaluation of over 500 acquisition programs necessary to meet
acquisition milestone decisions that are intended to support the
Transformation. The fiscal year 2001 bill is $725,000. Unfunded
requirement is $28 million over the POM years.
Test Capability and Test Facility Modernization.--The Developmental
Test Command (DTC) conducts technical testing of all Army acquisition
programs, ensures national test capabilities are available to program
developers, and ensures developmental test workforce and facilities are
responsive to program schedules. In order to ensure efficiency of the
test workforce and remain responsive to the dynamics of program
executive office and program milestone schedules, DTC must be funded to
accomplish 80 percent of the customer workload. DTC must also modernize
and upgrade essential test ranges and test facility infrastructure. DTC
is responsible for Aberdeen Test Center, White Sands Missile Range,
Yuma Proving Ground, Aviation Technical Test Center, Redstone Technical
Test Center, Cold Regions Test Center, and the Electronic Proving
Ground. Current funding provides for a 64 percent testing capability in
fiscal year 2002 to 2004 and 75 percent in fiscal year 2005 to 2007 to
support known testing requirements of key weapons systems and technical
insertions necessary to meet acquisition milestone decisions that are
intended to support the Transformation. The Army submitted a fiscal
year 2001 unfunded requirement (UFR) for $14 million. This UFR provides
minimum level of test capability to support testing requirements for
critical Army systems. Additionally, a test facility modernization
objective of $10 million per year is required to begin to stem
deterioration of Army test facilities. Fiscal year 2001 to 2007 funding
does not provide for any required test facility modernization. Overall,
unfunded requirement is $130 million over the POM years. In addition to
Army-funded requirements discussed above, DTC is also responsible for
Dugway Proving Ground (DPG). In fiscal year 1997, DPG's test funding
was transferred to the Office of the Secretary of Defense Chemical/
Biological Defense Program (CBDP) in compliance with Public Law 103-
160. DPG's funding posture is more dire than the other DTC test ranges,
averaging 43 percent test capability with zero modernization since
fiscal year 1996. The CBDP POM has recognized a $5 million per fiscal
year modernization requirement; however, the UFR for test capability is
$32 million over the POM years.
Instrumentation for Developmental Testing.--Programmed resources
fund only minimal technological advancement and sustainment of DTC
range instrumentation, perpetuating a backlog of test instrumentation
requirements. The backlog of requirements impacts technology
advancement and creates test costs and inefficiencies that could be
avoided. This lack of technology development and modern instrumentation
increases the risk that the ranges will be unable to collect required
test data, and that test results will be inaccurate, allowing
inadequate equipment to enter the Army inventory. These requirements
represent instrumentation shortfalls in chemical and biological
modeling, on-board miniaturized vehicle instrumentation, advanced
technology laboratory testing of multi-sensor guided missiles, pre-
launch missile flight safety prediction, low-cost bridge testing
capability, cost reduction in acoustic scoring, modernization of
airborne video and automated time, space, and position information data
analysis. If additional funding is not provided, testing high-
performance, digital, sensor dependent weapons and support systems with
manual, intrusive, low bandwidth, obsolete instrumentation will result
in lost or incomplete test data, inefficiencies and test delays, and
increased cost and risk to Army program managers and program executive
offices.
Digitization of instrumentation and real-time data collection and
processing capabilities are essential. Lack of modernization of
instrumentation will eventually result in the deterioration of test
capabilities to the point where testing can no longer be safely
conducted and required data parameters necessary to evaluate the
performance and effectiveness of Army weapon systems will not be
collected. The Army submitted an fiscal year 2001 UFR for $27.56
million. This UFR provides funds for upgrade and replacement of test
instrumentation. Current funding provides 56 percent of the
requirements from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2007.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
fort leonard wood and army transformation
Question. General Shinseki, while I applaud your effort to fill
combat units at 100 percent, I'm concerned of the impact this may have
to the institutional training and development base. Earlier you said
drill sergeants and instructors would be manned at 100 percent also,
but there are other functions at institutional training bases such as
mechanics, soldiers who process new soldiers, equipment operators,
doctrine writers, concept developers, etc. where military are required
as well. I'm concerned we may be mortgaging our future. How do you plan
to handle the functions I just listed?
Answer. Maintaining the highest level of proficiency in the
institutional training base is as important as our objective to fill
combat units at 100 percent. Providing the best training and
professional development for our soldiers is a key component to
ensuring the Army's full-spectrum capability. However, to implement our
initiative to fill combat units at 100 percent, we will take some risk
in the fill of our institutional base generating force structure. To
mitigate this risk, I have directed the staff to work with our major
command headquarters to minimize this risk in functions critical to
training and garrison operations, such as those at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri. Through the recent Defense Reform Initiatives Directive and
Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act policies, we have identified
the manpower associated with all functions in our base generating force
structure. We have developed procedures to monitor the resourcing of
these functions in our total army analysis (TAA) process. We are also
conducting a study of missions and functions in our base generating
force to determine where we can re-engineer organizations to more
efficiently use the military manpower in those essential functions. We
will use TAA to effectively allocate our force structure personnel
resources to ensure the appropriate fill of all our manning
requirements as we implement the Army's Transformation initiatives.
Question. General Shinseki, on my recent visit to Fort Leonard
Wood, I was impressed by the prevalence of multi-service training
there. I think our taxpayers would be pleased to know that all the
Services have come together to lower the total cost of training
engineers, military police, and truck drivers, for example. However, I
was disappointed by the lack of investment into these facilities. I
understand the Army and Marines teach employment of non-lethal weapons,
a subject that appears to be very relevant to the Army Vision and
Transformation. I think non-lethal weapons will help provide the array
of versatile, affordable assets needed, particularly as you deploy for
peace operations. What provisions are being made to support this course
and the increased requirements it may have placed on it? Do you and the
other service chiefs think you can come together to support improving
these facilities--not just for the growing demand in such areas as non-
lethal individual weapons, but for engineers and truck drivers as well?
Answer. The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) is the Department of Defense
proponent for non-lethal weapons (NLW). The USMC conducts the only
existing NLW instructor course (NLWIC) at Fort Leonard Wood. A board
has recommended that the NLWIC be consolidated among the Services
beginning fiscal year 2001. A cost analysis identified an initial one-
time cost of $434,200 for new construction at Fort Leonard Wood to
support the NLWIC. The Army student input will earn two Army instructor
positions for the course. The USMC has requested funding from the Joint
non-lethal weapons directorate for the initial one-time cost. The
planning and development for the initial construction is complete and
will be put into action as soon as the funding is received. The Army is
considering implementation options, pending the outcome of the USMC
funding request.
The Services can come together to support improving these
facilities as evidenced by the recent funding of two of eleven
facilities projects required to support non-lethal weapons training,
joint engineer, and truck driver training in fiscal year 2000. The
Marines funded $350,000 to construct a NLW training facility at range
17. The Army funded $617,000 for various improvement projects for truck
driver training at 11 training sites. The remaining requirements will
compete for funding in future year programs for operations and
maintenance or military construction funds.
full-time support
Question. General Shinseki, the National Guard's number one
legislative priority is full-time support. Last year, the Army Guard
identified 49,000 as the minimum number needed to put the Army Guard
back onto the road to recovery. This past month, a full-time support
requirements study was completed by the Army Guard and approved by
Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and
Director, Force Programs, which identified a high-risk requirement of
nearly 60,000 for the Army Guard. Please discuss the Army's plan to
assist the Guard in meeting these requirements.
Answer. The study you noted was the culmination of the Army's
extensive review of its full-time support (FTS) requirement
determination process. The study validated the total level of FTS
manpower required to meet Department of Defense deployment standards.
Realizing that it is cost prohibitive to satisfy 100 percent of the
total manpower requirement, the Army formalized a criteria-based
methodology based on Office of the Secretary of Defense readiness
metrics to determine acceptable risk. With respect to current force
structure and deployment scenarios, the Army National Guard will
require nearly 60,000 Active Guard and Reserve and military technicians
to achieve levels required to meet identified high-risk readiness
levels.
The Army quantified high-risk levels as a percentage of the total
manpower required. Levels of FTS should, as a minimum, be 90 percent
for units deploying in less than 30 days; 80 percent for units
deploying between 30 to 75 days; 70 percent for units deploying between
75 to 180 days; and 65 percent for those units deploying after 180
days. As a point of reference, these units today are resourced
respectively at only 65 to 70 percent, 60 percent, 55 percent, and 35
to 40 percent.
Resourcing to these levels is a matter of affordability within the
Army. We cannot do it from our current projected total obligation
authority, and thus will need outside support. Our plan is to
incrementally increase our FTS program over an 11-year period beginning
in fiscal year 2002 and continue through fiscal year 2012, keeping in
mind that changes in force structure and deployment criteria will
impact our requirements.
aviation modernization--blackhawk helicopter
Question. General Shinseki, as we discussed last month, the Army
National Guard currently has more than 390 Hueys grounded due to safety
concerns. The Army National Guard's (ARNG) utility fleet of Hueys is
more than 29 years old, and its aging Blackhawk fleet is about 19 years
old. I understand that the ARNG comprises nearly 50 percent of the
Total Army's aviation force and a majority of that is made up of
utility helicopters. While you've recognized that aviation
modernization is a serious readiness problem Army-wide, it seems that
the bulk of the problem lies within the ARNG's utility fleet. The Army
Guard's current unfunded requirement for Blackhawk helicopters is
$148.8 million for 16 additional Blackhawks, but the requirement is
even greater. States and communities rely on this resource in times of
crisis and the nation relies on it for its defense. What is the plan to
rectify this dreadful situation, and can it be addressed by funding
only a few Blackhawks per year?
Answer. The Army aviation modernization plan submitted to Congress
on March 31 presented a concept that fields a more modernized and
relevant aviation force. This is particularly true for the ARNG utility
helicopter units where our goal is to divest of all UH-1 Huey aircraft
by fiscal year 2004 and equip those units with a more capable and
deployable UH-60 Blackhawk. The modernized force calls for the ARNG
aviation units to reflect the same structure as the active component.
Over the next four years, our challenge is to move aircraft within the
ARNG and from the active component to resource the new structure and
facilitate the divestiture of the UH-1. The Army Staff has begun
planning to achieve this result. Also, we have continued to recognize
the requirement for additional procurement and fund the procurement of
UH-60s throughout the program objective memorandum period of fiscal
year 2002 to 2007.
To address the immediate problem of UH-1 readiness, the Army has
placed on contract the procurement of additional engines for the UH-1s.
Though we do not intend to return all grounded UH-1s to service, our
goal is to sustain a fleet of sufficient quantity to act as a bridge to
the modernized force. State mutual support agreements will ensure
resources are available for emergency situations.
The path ahead for the utility helicopter fleet is continued
procurement of the UH-60 to support UH-1 divestiture and modernization,
and focus on the recapitalization and sustainment of those UH-60s in
the force.
bradley m2a2 ods
Question. General Shinseki, the Army has stated that after it
upgrades all its active Bradley Fighting Vehicles any outdated Bradleys
will reside in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and will not be fit for
combat because they are not capable of keeping up with the improved,
digitized force. As I understand it, the Army Guard's current unfunded
requirement for Bradleys in fiscal year 2001 is $81.3 million for the
upgrade of 65 Bradleys. Would you please discuss the plan to modernize
the National Guard's Bradley force?
Answer. The ARNG Bradley force is modernized through both the
cascading of active component Bradley A2 versions and the procurement
of Operation Desert Storm (ODS) versions through Congressional
adjustments to the President's budget. The enhanced brigades of ARNG
Bradley force will be equipped with the A2 or A2 ODS version of the
Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Army fought Operation Desert Storm with
the A2 version and it will remain fit for combat in the years to come.
Unfortunately, funding limitations have forced the Army to limit active
component modernization to utilizing the Bradley A2 as the baseline
vehicle from which to upgrade. This means less Bradley A2's are
available to cascade to the ARNG. The Army would clearly prefer to
remove older version Bradleys from the ARNG, but fundamentally cannot
afford to do so. Consequently, Bradley A0's and the M113 family of
vehicles will remain in the ARNG's legacy force combat units. With
constrained funding, our focus remains on upgrading the maximum amount
of Bradleys to the most current version--the Bradley A3--and fielding
these systems in brigade sets with the M1A2 system enhancement program
tank and developing a viable Bradley A2 recapitalization program.
Through Congressional adjustments from fiscal year 1997 to 2000, the
Army is upgrading 193 Bradley A0's to Bradley ODS versions for the
ARNG. The 218th South Carolina ARNG will be fielded 133 vehicles in
fiscal year 2001. The 30th North Carolina ARNG will be fielded an
additional 60 vehicles in fiscal year 2002. A potential fiscal year
2001 adjustment of $81.3 million will provide the Army the ability to
upgrade further Bradley A0's to the ODS configuration as well as
procure artillery and air defense variants for the ARNG. Procuring
modification kits for Bradley ODS fire support vehicle variants would
reduce the total procurement, but would ensure greater combat variant
compatibility with their associated active component units.
armament retooling and manufacturing support program
Question. General Shinseki, I understand that
PriceWaterhouseCoopers recently evaluated the success of the Armament
Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) program and concluded that
it is meeting or exceeding all of the goals laid out in the original
enabling Act and by the Army. Do you believe the ARMS program is a
worthwhile program that should be continued? Should Congress provide
additional funding for the program?
Answer. For the last several years and currently, the Army has
continued to support the ARMS program during the budgeting process
within available total obligation authority (TOA). Realizing limited
TOA does not fully support the ARMS program commercialization efforts,
the Army listed the ARMS program as a fiscal year 2001 unfunded
requirement. Thus, additional funds provided by Congress would be
executable.
In addition to PriceWaterhouseCoopers' evaluation, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
convened a senior Defense and Army general officer level panel to
review the accomplishments and continuation of the ARMS program. This
panel agreed that the Department should continue the ARMS program
within affordable funding authority.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
mounted urban combat training facility
Question. Where does the Army conduct training for mounted forces
in urban terrain? Is Fort Knox's Mounted Urban Combat Training Facility
adequate to assist in training future medium brigades in urban warfare?
Answer. The Army has not designated a specific location dedicated
to train mounted forces in urban terrain. However, the Army does train
its light forces to fight with mounted units in urban terrain during
training rotations at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at
Fort Polk, Louisiana. The Army has six large military operations on
urban terrain (MOUT) collective training facilities located at Fort
Polk, Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Knox, Fort Drum, and Fort Benning.
Two new facilities are under construction at Fort Campbell and Fort
Wainwright. However, units do not typically train with mounted forces
inside these facilities. The Army is taking the necessary action to
update our MOUT doctrine, training procedures, and training facilities
necessary to support the new doctrine. The Army's combined arms MOUT
task force (CAMTF), spearheaded by the infantry center, is updating the
Army's doctrine to include mounted forces, artillery, aviation, combat
support, and combat service support units. The CAMTF is also working
with the other services, particularly the Marine Corps, to coordinate
doctrine and identify common training requirements that will maximize
the use of our new and existing MOUT training facilities. When the
doctrine and facilities update is complete, the Army will be able to
train with dismounted and mounted forces at several installations. The
Fort Knox Mounted Urban Combat Training Facility is one of the Army's
most modern urban warfare training facilities. Although the Army
continues to build the training strategies for the medium brigades,
this facility appears to be adequate to facilitate training the medium
brigades in urban warfare. MOUT is not just a light infantryman's
fight--it takes the entire combined arms team to win. No opponent can
beat us in an open fight, and we must ensure that we can defeat any
adversary that thinks they can challenge us inside cities.
forces command staffing impact on training and doctrine command
Question. You have announced your intention to fully staff all
Forces Command (FORSCOM) units. Where will these extra soldiers come
from, and specifically, what will the impact on the Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) units be?
Answer. Our initiative to man the force has four phases. The first
phase, which will be accomplished by the end of this fiscal year, is to
fill the 10 active divisions, separate brigades, and our armored
cavalry regiments to 100 percent of their authorized fill. The rest of
the Army will drop slightly in strength as we redistribute soldiers to
these units. Next year, we will fill those table of organization and
equipment (TOE) units that are identified to deploy within the first 30
to 45 days of a major theater war (MTW) to 100 percent, and again the
remainder of the Army will share the remaining inventory. During fiscal
year 2002, the rest of the TOE Army will be manned to 100 percent, with
the remaining inventory shared among the institutional Army. In fiscal
year 2003, the institutional Army will be manned to 100 percent of
their authorizations. At this point, the entire Army is to be manned at
100 percent, thus eliminating all remaining Army-wide shortages.
For us to be successful throughout the duration of this process, we
will have to continue to reduce attrition and meet our recruiting and
retention missions. Additionally, we have developed a plan to reduce
the size of the table of distribution and allowance (TDA) Army, while
minimizing the impact on those affected installations. TRADOC has been
a key player in that process. With regards to the impact on TRADOC, we
will continue to man those key components of the training base, such as
drill sergeants, recruiters, and classroom instructors, at 100 percent
throughout this period. The biggest impact on TRADOC will be with
skill-level one soldiers--private to specialist--because we did not
meet recruiting goals over the past three years. Noncommissioned
officer strengths will decline slightly but will remain sufficient to
meet our training missions.
fiscal year 2000 recruiting and retention goals
Question. Has the Army met recruiting and retention goals to date
in 2000? Are you satisfied with the results thus far?
Answer. As of the end of the recruiting ship month of April, the
Army has a recruiting shortfall of 2,233. An additional 5,000
contracting opportunities are being made available in August and
September to give us the opportunity to make up this shortfall. We
remain cautiously optimistic that the recruiting initiatives we have
put in place will help us to achieve our fiscal year 2000 accession
requirements by year's end.
The Army has exceeded its fiscal year 2000 retention mission
through the second quarter of this year in all three categories:
initial term, mid-career, and career. We fully expect this success to
continue throughout the remainder of the year and could not be more
pleased with the great work that is being done by commanders and their
career counselors.
green to grad program
Question. Can you explain your Green to Grad proposal?
Answer. What has been commonly referred to as the Army's Green to
Grad Program is a program in development which is designed to position
the Army as an institution to which highly motivated young people are
attracted because it is a place where one can earn a degree while
serving the country. The program is being designed to allow eligible
soldiers the opportunity to obtain higher education degrees by
maximizing the use of technology-based distance learning opportunities.
Currently, proposed features for a soldier include tuition assistance,
a laptop computer, printer, and an internet service provider account.
interim brigade locations
Question. What is the Army's timetable for deciding on where future
interim brigades will be stationed? If decisions have already been
made, what are they?
Answer. We have not made any final decisions regarding which
specific brigades will be converted to the interim brigade design. Our
analysis will consider both active component and reserve component unit
candidates. Our timetable will be driven by our ability to achieve
prerequisite conditions in a number of functional areas to ensure
successful transition from the Initial Brigade Combat Teams--the two
brigades at Fort Lewis--to an Interim Brigade Combat Team organization.
We are finalizing a management plan to help us synchronize the many
actions that must occur. Our analysis of which brigades to convert will
also consider how to best meet the requirements of the geographic
commanders-in-chief.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
transformation and army aviation
Question. General Shinseki, you and I have talked at some length
about the Army's Transformation. It presents a difficult but not
insurmountable challenge. Would you please comment on Army aviation
programs which will assist in transforming the Army into a lighter more
lethal force?
Answer. Army aviation is a key enabler for both the Army Vision and
the Army strategy to implement the Vision. Army aviation is uniquely
suited to enhance the Transformation of the Army into a lighter, more
lethal force that is strategically responsive and dominant across the
full spectrum of operations. Army aviation exhibits the characteristics
of this new force with the capability of being responsive, deployable,
agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable. From an
organizational perspective, the Army aviation force will transform from
the current pure organizations into a multifunctional battalion
organization, with reconnaissance, attack, and utility assets that will
allow the force to be easily task-organized for specific operations
without sacrificing capability. From an aircraft perspective, the RAH-
66 Comanche is the centerpiece for the Transformation of Army aviation.
Comanche provides a state-of-the-art helicopter capable of performing
armed reconnaissance and light attack missions across the entire
spectrum of operations. The enhanced survivability, digital
versatility, increased lethality, self deployability, and field
sustainability makes the Comanche the embodiment of the Army Vision.
Army aviation will maintain warfighting capability by sustaining,
recapitalizing, and modernizing the fielded aviation systems by
accomplishing those readiness and sustainment actions necessary to
ensure they maintain their combat overmatch. The aviation force will
also divest the legacy fleets of UH-1 and AH-1 aircraft. These aircraft
are experiencing ever rising support costs and ever decreasing
operational readiness, and the Army supports continued procurement of
the UH-60 to divest UH-1s and modernize the force. Lastly, aviation
training methods must also be transformed. The Training and Doctrine
Command has taken the initiative to meet the requirement to divest
itself of UH-1s, invest in more modern training aircraft, and improve
the quality of training through a program known as Flight School XXI.
The investment by Army aviation in people, organization, materiel, and
doctrine will all contribute to a more capable, lethal force, and
fulfillment of the Army Vision.
technology investments
Question. General Shinseki, investment in technology is a serious
issue to me. I am concerned that the Army is eating its technological
seed corn. I have been informed that $90 million was removed from
missile technology lines for fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2003,
reportedly to pay for procurement. I believe that as the Army gets
leaner and more mobile it will need smaller, more lethal and affordable
multi-mission missiles. General, how can we maintain our technological
edge without a sufficient investment? What are your thoughts on
reversing this trend?
Answer. The Army's top priority is the Transformation to the
Objective Force. The results from our science and technology (S&T)
program over the next few years are key to its success. To keep our
combat overmatch edge, missile technology is one of the major thrusts
in our fiscal year 2000 S&T investment strategy. Army programs are
focused on developing smaller, more lethal and affordable multi-mission
missiles. The Army has increased, not decreased, its S&T investment in
missile technology during the past few years. In the fiscal year 1998
budget, we requested $426 million for missile S&T. In fiscal year 1999
and 2000, we requested $432 million and $436 million, respectively.
This year's budget request was $455 million for missile S&T. It is
clear that the total missile technology funding for the period of
fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2003 is increasing each budget cycle.
We believe that this is the proper funding level for missile technology
and is sufficient to keep our technological edge.
ballistic missile defense acquisition
Question. General Shinseki, I understand that the Department of
Defense has directed that Service program managers and program
executive officers, who are responsible for the execution of Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) acquisition programs, will report
directly to General Kadish. How has the Army responded to this change
in acquisition alignment? What are your thoughts on the proper role of
the Army in the acquisition and operation of ballistic missile defense
systems?
Answer. We are still working with BMDO to finalize the details of
this arrangement. We want to ensure we do this right, as it could have
a profound impact on our ability to develop the Army's future
acquisition leadership. We also want to ensure that missile defense
programs are balanced and maintain the focus on fielding systems to the
warfighters.
As the user of missile defense systems and force provider for the
geographic commander-in-chiefs (CINC), our responsibility is to field
the best equipment on time to meet warfighter needs. This makes for a
tough challenge in working through the trade-offs between research and
development, procurement, operations, support, and sustainment. We face
this challenge in all our programs; however, missile defense requires
coordination with BMDO throughout system development. As the user of
the equipment, the Army must stay involved throughout the development
process to ensure the fielded product is supportable and meets Army and
CINC requirements.
theater high altitude area defense system fielding
Question. General, the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system is scheduled to be fielded in fiscal year 2007. With the ever-
increasing threat posed to our troops and installations by the
proliferation and possible use of theater ballistic missiles, I am
concerned that we are not fielding systems sooner. Can THAAD be fielded
sooner than fiscal year 2007?
Answer. We think THAAD can be fielded sooner. THAAD is currently
funding constrained and could be fielded almost two years sooner if it
received additional funding of $150 million in fiscal year 2001, $190
million in fiscal year 2002, and $80 million in fiscal year 2003. This
acceleration would also maintain the program at low risk. THAAD is on
track for its milestone II decision in the next few weeks. Fielding
sooner will provide our deployed forces unprecedented levels of
protection from tactical ballistic missiles, as well as their only
protection from numerous fielded medium range ballistic missiles like
the no dong and shahab-3.
high energy laser technologies
Question. The Committee continues to strongly support the
development and exploitation of the potential for high-energy laser
technologies in revolutionary, leap-ahead applications for military
weapons. These technologies offer the potential for speed-of-light,
highly lethal engagements; high kill probabilities at long ranges; and
reduced logistics support. These capabilities appear to have
particularly appropriate application to support your vision for the
Army of the future. What is your vision for the development of these
technologies and the subsequent exploitation of these capabilities in
future Army applications? How does the Army plan to support this work
with budget and programming priorities in this year's budget and in the
future? Where do you envision these efforts being centralized?
Answer. High-energy laser technologies, particularly the emerging
solid-state devices, clearly offer significant potential to current
forces as well as both Interim and Objective Forces. These devices
offer the potential to provide the force with a capability to defeat a
wide variety of advanced threats in a relatively small configuration
that is easily transportable by the means envisioned for the Objective
Force. Solid-state technologies could greatly simplify logistics
support to a rapidly deployable force. We must provide the investment
necessary to mature these technologies and verify the lethality
predictions in time to support force structure issues in the middle of
this decade.
The Army recently reprogrammed $500,000 of fiscal year 2000 science
and technology (S&T) funding for directed energy efforts at the Space
and Missile Defense Command. These funds will be used to begin
exploring areas that are the key drivers for application of high-
energy, solid state lasers for advanced weapon systems. A new applied
research program element was created in fiscal year 2001 in the S&T
program to investigate the application of high-energy, solid state
lasers for counter air munitions defense on the tactical battlefield
and support the survivability of the Future Combat System.
We agree with the position stated in the Department of Defense
laser master plan. This report, produced by the high energy laser
executive review panel, offers a new management approach by creating a
Joint technology office to be located with the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (S&T)). Oversight for
this office will be provided by a board of directors consisting of
senior acquisition executives and advice will be provided by a
technology council of senior science and technology executives. We
believe this will ensure a well-coordinated program, visible at the
highest levels, appropriately funded, reflecting the priorities of all
the services.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
joint stars (jstars)
Question. We have watched with interest your efforts to transform
the Army, particularly the introduction of the new Interim Brigade
Combat Team (IBCT) into the force structure. How do you see Joint Stars
(JSTARS) supporting this new concept?
Answer. The JSTARS common ground station (CGS) will continue to
provide near real-time continuous correlated view of the commander's
battle space for the IBCTs just as it does for today's brigade
commanders. The JSTARS CGS will provide every brigade and IBCT
commander with the capability to receive, process, and display near
real-time moving target and synthetic aperture radar imagery, broadcast
signals intelligence, near-real time tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
video, as well as access to high-quality secondary imagery from theater
and national sensors. This capability provides each brigade and IBCT an
unprecedented level of information to conduct indications and warning,
situational awareness, force protection, correlated targeting, and
battle damage assessment operations. The result is that all brigade and
IBCT commanders will have the critical knowledge of who, what, when,
and where throughout their battle space as well as the capability to
precisely target and engage high-value, high-payoff targets with
organic and supporting weapons systems. Brigade and IBCT commanders'
ability to view moving target and synthetic aperture radar imagery is
crucial for the Army's vision of a light, mobile, lethal, and
survivable combat team.
subcommittee recess
Senator Inouye. We will meet again tomorrow, Wednesday,
April 26, at 10 o'clock in the morning, to receive testimony
from the Secretary of Defense and from the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs.
Thank you very much. The subcommittee stands in recess.
General Shinseki. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Caldera. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., Tuesday, April 25, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
April 26.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Bond, Shelby,
Inouye, Hollings, Leahy, Lautenberg, Harkin, Dorgan, and
Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary of Defense
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. COHEN, SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman.
It is nice to have you before us again today. Let me start off
by saying how much we appreciate what you have been doing. Mr.
Secretary--Bill--you do not mind if I call you Bill. You were
one of us, and you have distinguished yourself in this position
as Secretary of Defense, and you have been very active in
keeping us informed, so that we would not be critical based on
ignorance anyway.
But Mr. Chairman, this has been a tough period so far, and
it is not going to be any easier with regards to money. We want
to thank you for coming here.
There are a series of priorities we want to discuss with
you, Plan Colombia, health care, missile defense. We have had a
series of hearings, as you know, that have dealt with our total
national security, and considering the men and women under your
Department and your command, General.
We have tried to keep these on track, despite some rather
strange budgets we have had to deal with, and circumstances
that have led to using funds we have appropriated for purposes
other than we originally intended them to be used for. But
through it all I think we have kept a very good relationship
with the two of you and I do want to commend you for presenting
to us a budget that calls for a real increase.
We have, it is no secret, decided to increase beyond that.
I do think that this budget will go a long way towards meeting
the needs of the men and women of the Armed Services. There is
a provision for National Guard and Reserves here that we
commend you for. We are very appreciative of your action in
making that available.
I have a series of questions, of course. We all do, and I
have a long statement that I do not intend to give. I will put
it in the record, and we will put in the record all the
statements that have been prepared by you and everyone at the
table, with the hopes that we will all try to shorten it so we
can get down to your statements.
I do want to emphasize the fact that there are still some
problems here before us jointly, problems of retirees and the
problems basically of how to catch up with this deferred
maintenance that I think will plague us if we do not find a way
to deal with them to the maximum extent possible this year. We
are going to call on you once again to work with us in a
partnership for the benefit of the total defense of our
country, and particularly the men and women that volunteer to
serve us. Again, I thank you for coming here. This may be--I do
not know, Bill, it may be your last trip down the aisle here,
but we are pleased to be able to visit with you this morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, let me welcome you again
before the subcommittee, to discuss the Department's fiscal
year 2001 budget.
As you know, we have undertaken a series of hearings this
year with the military services, and to review several specific
programs advocated by the Department.
These priorities include the ``Plan Colombia'' initiative,
health care, and missile defense.
Through these hearings, the committee has received
testimony that indicates the increased funding provided by
Congress during each of the past five years has had a real
impact on our national security.
Funding added by Congress has kept the missile defense
program on track for deployment of the national missile defense
system in 2005.
Increased modernization funding made possible achieving the
$60 billion target for procurement reached in the fiscal year
2001 request.
Finally, the congressionally mandated pay and retirement
benefit changes appear to have stemmed the downward trends on
recruiting and retention.
Even these successes leave us much work to do this year,
and in the year's ahead.
Mr. Secretary, I want to commend you for presenting to the
Congress the first real increase in the budget for many years.
Your efforts demonstrate to the men and women of the Armed
Forces the determination we all share to provide an adequate
quality of life for them, and their families, and the tools and
training to do their jobs right.
In particular, this budget goes a long way to meet the
needs of the National Guard and the Reserves. They are an
integral and essential part of the force, and this budget
recognizes their needs.
Even with the enhanced funds requested in the budget, and
an additional $4 billion made available under the budget
resolution, there are many challenges facing us this year.
Gen. Shelton, you have focused attention on the
inadequacies in the current healthcare system for military
personnel and retirees.
Your concerns about these matters sends a powerful signal
to all these communities of the recognition by the Joint Chiefs
that efforts must be made now to remedy the lack of access to
care for our retirees.
We look forward to working with you on this initiative this
year, in partnership with the Armed Services Committee and the
House.
In the end, we must fit all these needs under the fiscal
cap set for fiscal year 2001.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure yet how we will get the job
done.
The first step must be to get the supplemental bill for
fiscal year 2000 done, and ensure you can get through the
remainder of this year. I welcome any comments you might have
on that.
As always, we will get the job done here on this committee
through the wise counsel and hard work of our distinguished
ranking member, Sen. Inouye. Let me now recognize Sen. Inouye
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you. I wanted to join you in
expressing our gratitude to the leadership team here. Mr.
Secretary and Mr. Chairman, you have been very helpful to this
committee, I need not say, and I have watched the improvements
that have come forth as a result of your leadership. For
example, I believe we had about the highest level on readiness,
recruiting, and retention. You have done well in procurement.
You have got $60 billion for each now to replace aging weapons
systems. You have got an increase of $12 billion in overall
budget, but we do have problems.
For example, we do not have the supplemental before us, and
if it is not brought forth in a timely fashion, then the Army
is going to really take it in the neck, and we also have
infrastructure problems of replacing and rebuilding old
buildings, but I am not too worried, because under your
guidance we are going to do well.
I can assure you that we are prepared to do whatever we can
to be of assistance. Thank you very much, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Good morning, I want to join my Chairman in welcoming you,
Mr. Secretary and General Shelton.
Based on the testimony we have received this year, I would
offer that the Defense Department is better off on readiness,
recruiting and retention than in the past few years.
I would also note that the administration has finally
reached its goal of $60 billion for procurement to replace our
aging weapons systems.
With the budget $12 billion more than last year, it appears
that we may be on the right track.
However, we cannot rest easy.
We have not yet provided you with a supplemental
appropriations bill to cover your costs in Kosovo for this
year.
We know that our forces are still stretched thin around the
globe with some missions simply not being done.
And the one area with the greatest shortfall remains
infrastructure.
We simply are not doing enough to repair, rebuild, and
replace our facilities, here at home.
Mr. Secretary, General Shelton we do appreciate all that
you do to safeguard our defenses and the progress that you have
made in the past couple of years to address many of the
critical issues that we faced. We thank you for that and look
forward to your statements today on these and other issues.
Senator Stevens. Unless there is objection, we will follow
the normal early bird routine and recognize members in the
order in which they came into the room. I was the exception. I
am sorry.
And we will use a 5-minute clock, and I would ask you
gentlemen to help us observe the 5-minute clock so we can all
be fair in the allocation of time here this morning, and we
will stay as long as the two of you wish to continue to answer
questions.
The next Senator on the list is Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I will defer my time and hope
to listen to the Secretary.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS
Senator Hollings. I will put my statement in the record. We
are already being recognized for questions?
Senator Stevens. No. Just for opening statements.
Senator Hollings. I will put my statement in the record. I
thank Secretary Cohen and General Shelton for their outstanding
job. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Secretary and
General Shelton, distinguished Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Let me begin by congratulating you Mr. Secretary for
submitting to us a balanced, robust budget this year. There are
many exciting initiatives in this year's budget as well as
clear headway on military health care and quality of life for
our soldiers. Military health care is of particular interest to
me and the men and women in uniform that I visit in South
Carolina. If we do not take care of the soldiers and their
families we will not be able to carry out our National Security
Strategy. Likewise if we do not provide adequate health care
and benefits for our retirees, we cannot call upon them to help
us to recruit new candidates for the armed services. I look
forward to working with you to ensure that our men and women in
uniform receive the support they deserve as they respond to the
high frequency of strenuous international conflicts.
It was widely believed that as a result of the end of the
Cold War that the United States would be able to reap the
benefits of the so-called ``peace dividend''--that is buy fewer
guns and more butter. If one looks at the chart of U.S.
government spending on defense over the period since the fall
of the Berlin Wall it is true--spending on defense has been
ramped down. The Congress, in conjunction with the White House,
shifted resources away from Defense largely in an effort to
reduce overall government spending. We all remember the dreaded
BRAC rounds. As painful as they were--and I know personally
with the closing of the Charleston Navy Base--the reduction in
DOD infrastructure provided windfall efficiencies inside the
military complex.
Moreover, the Pentagon began to pay closer attention to
fiscal responsibilities and embodied the efficient financial
management that would make the CFO of a Fortune 500 company
proud. Gone are the days of the $500 hammer. In part the
efficiencies that were wrung from the excesses of a Cold War
force structure have helped create the fertile conditions that
fostered the unprecedented economic boom that this country has
enjoyed over the last eight years. In a sense we have reaped
``the peace dividend''.
However, with the frenzied pace of deployments to unstable
regions in the world, the lasting infrastructure build-ups, and
the over-stretch of our force structure globally, it appears
that the days of apple pie and ice cream are over, the check
has come due. Since the end of the Cold War in 1989,
procurement spending has declined 59 percent in real terms yet
the armed forces have been sent into over 25 different
countries to serve in differing capacities. These divergent
forces, decreases in defense spending and a corresponding
increase in engagement has caused great strains on our men and
women in uniform who are called upon to carry out these
missions.
Essentially we have two options: provide more funding to
support our men and women in uniform or curtail the number of
overseas missions that we support. I am a firm believer in
providing our troops with the most advanced weapons and systems
possible to help them achieve the assignments given to them,
but I am careful to point out that the United States as a
global superpower, cannot police the world over. We must
operate within the framework of our National Security Strategy,
and this doctrine must be paramount. We should lend our support
to multinational and unified interagency conflict resolution
efforts. We should lead by example yet encourage our allies to
play a greater role in their own regional defense.
I look forward to the testimony that both our distinguished
witnesses will give today and look forward to working with them
and my colleagues this year to ensure that we provide a robust
and comprehensive national defense.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me just echo my thanks to
Secretary Cohen and General Shelton for their service to our
country.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of
provisions in the budget request that concern me, and I hope
the Secretary will be able to address them this morning. One is
the assumptions for base closure rounds in 2003 and 2005.
My concern is whether or not there is any realistic
expectation that that is going to occur, and whether or not the
administration is going to make any specific request of
Congress to close bases, and what information you can provide
to us on that count, and also the stretching out of the
shipbuilding construction program. The reality is death, if not
the serious economic squeeze on the industrial base and vendors
who are involved. I am talking specifically about the DDG-51
ship construction plans, the LHD-8 construction plan, and
whether or not funds are going to be made available to keep the
construction on schedule, or extend it out to a point where we
are really going to see a serious decline in our capacity to
build ships in the future.
Senator Stevens. Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER ``KIT'' BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Cohen,
General Shelton, first our sincere thanks to you and the men
and women of the Armed Forces who every day are making great
contributions around the globe. Their patriotism and
professionalism is something of which we are all proud, and we
hope you will convey that to the members of the Department of
Defense, and a special thanks to our old friend and former
colleague Bill Cohen for the great job you have done, and if
this is your last hearing here we have appreciated your
leadership, and I recall very explicitly your frankness in
dealing with us in this committee, and acknowledging that we
needed more money, as the chairman has already referred to, for
the missions that have been assigned, and I think we are
scrambling to catch up.
But I appreciate your standing up for these things. I
understand that you all have challenges funding for Kosovo,
your main concern about operating tempo, recruiting retention
shortfalls, aging equipment, insufficient budgets. We have
already mentioned, I believe--there have already been mentioned
here the concerns we have on health care for the military and
the retirees. We will have questions about that, and also a
question or two about the National Guard, and we thank you for
being here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Harkin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
join you in welcoming Secretary Cohen and General Shelton.
Again, we thank you for your great service to our country. As a
veteran myself, I strongly support the needs of military
readiness and pay increases and improvements in the quality of
life of our soldiers. That is why I am always concerned about
items that pop up that look like elements of waste and abuse.
For the last 10 years, I have waged an effort against waste
and abuse in the Medicare program. First it was said, well, it
is not that big a deal. Well, then the General Accounting
Office (GAO) said, well, it is about $23 billion, which is not
chump change. That is just in Medicare, but we have been going
after it and ferreting it out, and so I have taken that also to
the military, and when I see things like the procurement budget
up to $60 billion, I want to make sure that it is money well-
spent.
Last year we found out there were Army trailers sitting in
storage, 6,550 of them sitting in storage because they are
unsafe, that cost more than $50 million. And now I have got a
new report saying it is going to cost $22 million more just to
fix them up at a minimum. There are a lot of examples. We are
paying millions of dollars extra for simple brand-name items
like boxes of cereal. We are paying $714 for a $47 electrical
bell, $76 for a 57-cents screw. We have all heard these stories
before.
I guess what I am saying is that this is an ongoing
problem. The Navy last year wrote off $3 billion in inventory,
wrote it off, $3 billion. It was shipped between facilities and
never recorded as received. The GAO concluded the system was
highly susceptible to fraud and abuse because receipts for
items, including classified and guided missile launchers, were
never filled out or never required, and the GAO was not able to
find out about some items because no records of the shipments
existed at all; $3 billion just written off. Well, again, we
need ongoing efforts to ferret out this kind of waste and
abuse.
One last item of a more parochial nature, perhaps. In the
State of Iowa, Mr. Secretary, we had an Army ammunition plant
in Eastern Iowa that had been assembling nuclear weapons for a
number of years. We recently found out that a lot of these
workers were exposed, like they were at Paducah. The Department
of Energy is doing a great job in helping us to work with them,
to inform them about what they were exposed to, but the
Department of Defense still will neither confirm nor deny that
nuclear weapons were assembled there.
Well, they have not been assembled there in over--about 25
years now, I guess, but it seems to me not only silly but
inconsistent. Here we have the Department of Energy (DOE)
saying yes, the Department of Defense saying, well, we will not
confirm or deny it. This has left a lot of the people that
worked there who took oaths, signed oaths saying they would not
reveal what they did there, concerned that if they were to talk
about this openly, that they might fall under the purview of
the law, and of the oaths that they took to not discuss what
they were doing at that plant.
I would hope the Department of Defense could work with the
Department of Energy to get over this hurdle and let people
know that yes, we did assemble nuclear weapons there. Everyone
knows it, DOE knows it, and we can move ahead and let these
people know that they can indeed come forward and talk about
what they did there.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I would like to
welcome warmly our former colleague, Secretary Cohen, as well
as General Shelton. Both of you have provided strong leadership
for the Department.
This year is a landmark of sorts in the defense budget. The
Defense Budget Authority is passing the $300 billion mark for
the first time in fiscal year 2001, with $306.3 billion in the
President's request, and $310.8 billion in the budget
resolution. And while the stock market indices may be bouncing
around, the graphs of projected defense spending head straight
for the stratosphere. As a veteran myself, I strongly support
the real needs of military readiness as well as pay increases
and other improvements in the quality of life of our soldiers.
That's why I am incensed when I see so much money continuing to
be wasted rather than meeting the real needs of our troops. And
with an $18.2 billion increase in the budget resolution, what
we have here is the Regis Philbin budget--it hands out millions
to everyone without asking any of the hard questions.
And there are so many important questions to be asked. With
the procurement budget shooting up to $60 billion, we need to
ask if it's being spent well. Last year I found out that there
are 6,550 trailers sitting in storage because they are unsafe
to use. These are basic trailers for hauling loads behind
trucks, but the Army took them and paid for them without
adequate testing. The Army can't buy a trailer that works, but
we're asked to go ahead and pay for a National Missile Defense
system that isn't adequately tested either.
There are many more examples I could give. Chemical weapons
protection suits may have been distributed to our troops even
though they have holes in them. The Defense Department paid
millions too much for simple brand-name items like boxes of
cereal. And after reforms that were supposed to end the era of
$640 toilet seats, it turns out we're paying $714 for a $47
electric bell and $76 for a 57 cent screw.
The record on items and money already owned by the Pentagon
is no more encouraging. The Navy wrote off $3 billion in
inventory that was shipped between facilities but that was
never recorded as received. The General Accounting Office
concluded the system was highly susceptible to fraud and abuse
because receipts for items, including classified guided missile
launchers, were never filled out or were not even required, or
the GAO was unable to find out because no records of the
shipment existed at all.
As we look at giving the Pentagon extra billions, we also
should note that at the end of 1998 there was a $9.6 billion
difference between the Defense Department's records and the
U.S. Treasury's records.
The Pentagon doesn't know what it has in stock or how much
money it has; it buys things that don't work and pays too much
for them. Are they ready for a large increase in funds? We have
critical needs in this country for school construction, better-
paid teachers, universal health insurance, prescription drug
coverage for seniors, and on and on. We cannot afford to
continue throwing money at the Pentagon when so much leaks out
in waste and fraud.
There is one other issue I would like to bring up. The
Defense Department has a policy to ``neither confirm nor deny''
that nuclear weapons were ever at any site. We know that there
were nuclear weapons at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant because
the Department of Energy now tells us that the old Atomic
Energy Commission assembled the weapons there until 1975. But
because of the ``neither confirm nor deny'' policy, the Army
can't talk about it. The Department of Energy can, but the Army
can't.
This inconsistency is not just silly; it's a serious
problem. The Department of Energy just announced a major
initiative to help former workers who have health problems that
may have been caused by chemical and radioactive exposures at
nuclear weapons plants. We are now trying to get the former
workers at the Iowa plant, who were trained never to talk about
their work, to come forward and talk about what they did so
they can get help. But while I, and the Energy Department,
encourage openness, the Army can ``neither confirm nor deny''
that nuclear weapons were even there. For the former workers,
many of whom also worked for the Army at the same site, this
silence sends the wrong message. The Army even petitioned the
Pentagon to lift the restriction in a similar case, but the
petition was denied. I greatly appreciate the Army's
cooperation in reviewing records of the nuclear weapons work
and cleaning up the site, but this secrecy about work that
ended 25 years ago makes no sense. I hope you will review this
policy and strictly enforce secrecy when it is necessary for
our protection, but practice openness when it benefits your
workers and the Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from
Secretary Cohen and General Shelton.
Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I will have some questions for
the record, and I note for the Secretary of Defense that I
wrote back in February to Deputy Secretary of Defense, John
Hamre about the new alternative to nonself-destructive land
mines. I understand today that a draft, or response is coming
up to me.
I want both you and General Shelton to know this is a
matter that I am going to take great personal interest in. I am
concerned about the so-called battle override feature on the
system. I would like to get us closer to the Ottawa convention,
rather than further away, and so I will look forward to that
draft. I will have some follow-ups, Mr. Chairman, once I have
received the response, but it is something that I will want to
follow up with both of you later on on.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put my
full statement in the record, but I want to add my compliments
and my commendation for the service Secretary Cohen and General
Shelton have given the country.
I know for Secretary Cohen the question was whether the
objectivity that was required in the job would be there, and
without a shred of doubt he has passed the partisan business
and gone right ahead with his job in such a good fashion that I
think his mark will be indelible in the history of Secretaries.
I also commend General Shelton, for his fine job.
Mr. Chairman, I support the increased spending for defense
in this budget, but I am struggling with what may have to be
done in terms of making adjustments with the other accounts
also so vitally important. Also, Mr. Chairman, I am
disappointed that we are not able to be looking at a
supplemental that would take care of current serious needs in
defense and other places, and I hope there is something we can
do about it, and again I would close with a commendation to
both of the distinguished people sitting at the desk.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Thank you Mr. Chairman and good morning and welcome to
Secretary Cohen and General Shelton.
Let me say first that I want to thank and recognize the
military for the outstanding job it has done in Kosovo and in
many other places throughout the world. The country should be
proud of the job our soldiers, sailors, marines and Air Force
men and women, along with their civilian colleagues, have done
to make the world less dangerous to the United States and our
allies.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration proposed an overall
defense discretionary budget of about $306 billion for fiscal
year 2001 and $1.6 trillion over the next five years. This
includes defense funding that is handled by other
subcommittees, though the bulk is handled by this subcommittee.
This is a significant amount of money and represents about
half of total discretionary funding. This fiscal year 2001
level would represent an increase of about $12 billion over the
current fiscal year 2000 level and would be almost $2 billion
more than what was assumed for fiscal year 2001 in last year's
Budget Resolution.
On top of the President's requested increase for the
military, the recently passed fiscal year 2001 Budget
Resolution raised Function 050 by an additional $4 billion for
fiscal year 2001. We also probably will be appropriating
additional funding in some type of supplemental for defense for
fiscal year 2000.
Mr. Chairman, I support having a strong defense and have
generally supported the Administration's proposed increases for
defense. Providing for national security is a critical
responsibility of the federal government and it would be
reckless to provide less than what is needed for defense. But I
also believe it would be wasteful and counterproductive to
spend more than necessary on the military, given all the other
demands on federal resources--especially at a time when the
United States has strong allies and no peer adversary when it
comes to national security.
The United States spends more than double what Russia,
China, and the so called ``rogue states'' spend on defense
combined. And that does not include the defense spending of our
allies, which if included would make this defense spending
comparison even more in our favor.
I have some burden sharing concerns also. Many of our
allies are large economically strong nations that could and
should do more in defense but spend significantly less as a
percentage of their GDP on defense than we do. Shortfalls in
the military capabilities of some of our allies were apparent
in Kosovo. It is imperative that our allies increase their
defense spending to eliminate these shortfalls.
Some justify huge spending increases for the military by
pointing to estimates of large budget surpluses in future
years. But those projections generally are based on highly
questionable assumptions about Congress' willingness to make
cuts in other programs. Actual surplus levels could be much
smaller.
We must also realize that our national security is based on
more than just how much we spend on defense. These funds must
be spent efficiently and effectively. Spending money on the
diplomacy and foreign assistance accounts, areas that have been
severely constrained for many years, can also contribute to
national security. We must also adequately fund our domestic
needs and infrastructure because we know that the foundation of
national security is a strong economy.
So, Mr. Chairman while I believe it is imperative that we
provide the funds necessary for defense, the defense budget
should also be subject to intense review to ensure that we are
properly balancing the numerous and varied spending needs of
the nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator, it is our intention to be marking
up the military construction (MILCON) bill and the agriculture
bill the week of the 8th, and we will split that supplemental.
The defense portion on the MILCON annual bill, the bill for
fiscal year 2001 and the nondefense portion on the agricultural
and it is our hope that we would be able to get both of those
through conference and to the President as quickly as possible.
We do have a plan now that I think we can pursue. I hope all
Members will help us do that.
Last but not least is, the chairman of the Budget
Committee, who was successful in getting us this additional
money this year for defense, Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, might I just ask of you how
long you think we will be here this morning? Do you have kind
of a guess? Will we be here another hour, or hour and a half?
Senator Stevens. The head can absorb what the seat can
endure, Senator. It depends upon how long these two gentlemen
wish to stay seated there.
Secretary Cohen. That would be another half-an-hour,
Senator Domenici.
Senator Stevens. We will be going under the 5-minute
allocation of time.
Senator Domenici. I will not make a statement at this
point. I will return from another meeting, and I hope you are
still here, at which time I will ask questions. Thank you very
much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Gentlemen, as I said, your statements will appear in the
record as though read. We will be pleased to have your
comments, and then we will go through the routine for our
questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Cohen's opening remarks
Secretary Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye
and members of the committee. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated,
this is my last appearance before this committee, and I want
you to know how important it has been for me to have your
support.
This is one of the most demanding jobs. I have had the
wonderful experience of having served 24 years in both the
House and in the Senate combined, and to go from the world's
greatest deliberative body to be the civilian head of the
world's greatest military is more than one can ever expect
during their lifetime, and I will tell you that as much as I
enjoyed my time here in this body, and I did truly enjoy those
18 years, nothing can compare to being the Secretary of Defense
of the world's greatest military.
Every day that I go out and see the men and women who are
serving us, and seeing how good they are, and how disciplined
and patriotic and selfless, and to see, aside from the morning
headlines to go out in the field, and to see how well they are
performing and how enthusiastic they are about their work and
what they are doing, and how gratified they are, you cannot
help but come back totally optimistic about the future of this
country.
So I want to take this occasion publicly to thank President
Clinton, because he did something that is virtually
unprecedented by asking me to serve in his administration, to
send a signal that national security should wear no political
label, no party label. I think was a very courageous act on his
part, to be willing to offer one of the most important
positions in the Cabinet to a member of the opposite party, and
I have been grateful to him ever since for giving me this
opportunity.
And I might point out that the chairman and I and before
him General Shalikashvili, we have had the extraordinary
privilege of working through some very difficult times, but I
wanted, too, to thank both you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye,
and all the members of the committee, and another farewell I
suppose is in order for Senator Lautenberg. I believe this is
Senator Lautenberg's final year in this body, and to commend
him for his service not only during wartime, but also in the
wars up here on Capitol Hill. We may have disagreed from time
to time on issues, but we worked together on many more.
Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement. I will submit it
for the record. I looked at the chairman's submission for the
record. It is 61 pages. Senator Domenici, he has agreed to read
every word so you can get back in time.
fiscal year 2000 Supplemental appropriations
I will simply summarize a couple of the key points here. I
think you have all expressed the disappointment that we feel in
not having a supplemental passed by this time. I know that you,
Mr. Chairman, worked very hard, and I thank you also for the
4.5 increase in the budget resolution, Senator Domenici, for
achieving that, but the fact that we do not have a supplemental
does put extraordinary pressure on the services, particularly
the Army.
I used the authority I have to shift some $200 million from
the Navy and the Air Force. It was not exactly an easy thing
for them to agree to, but to shift those funds over to the Army
to cover the operating expenses that we currently have with the
Kosovo operation.
And if we are unable to get the funding by the end of May,
then I think you all are aware that the Secretary of the Army
has already testified, and General Shinsecki have testified
what that will mean in terms of the final quarter, so I do not
need to belabor that point, but it will have serious
consequences as far as training and readiness, real property
maintenance, and the potential to affect personnel and other
matters.
So hopefully we can receive that funding by the end of May,
but beyond that I think some other draconian measures will be
in order.
We have achieved some of the peak effectiveness as far as
our operations and our sustainment. I also want to take this
occasion to emphasize the importance of the full and prompt
approval of the supplemental appropriations request for
international affairs, the 150. I know that perhaps it is not a
strong sentiment for the funding of that account, but I must
tell you, unless we get the civilian side of things right in
Kosovo, it is going to make it that much more difficult and
that much longer before we can depart, so I did want to express
my strong support for the full funding of the function 150.
priorities in fiscal year 2001 President's budget
Mr. Chairman, I will just touch quickly on a couple of
things I wanted to focus on this year. For the first 2 years I
tried to focus on how do we balance this need of maintaining
operational readiness and then start to get the accounts up for
the procurement.
Senator Inouye pointed out we finally achieved the $60
billion mark that was set so many years ago but always proved
elusive. Every year we used to see the situation where the $60
billion mark was at a desired level of spending for
procurement, but it was always just off into the future. Well,
we now have achieved that, and over the future years defense
plan (FYDP) in the next 5 years we will go up, calculated to go
to $70 billion.
Now, that will mark roughly a 46 percent increase in
procurement during that timeframe, and that is going to be a
tremendous benefit to all who are serving this country, so I
thank you for your support of that.
So we have dealt with pay raise last year. Thank you for
increasing even what we requested. That has had a major impact.
That plus the retirement change and pay table reforms had a
major impact in the field.
I have been out to reenlist soldiers and sailors, and I ask
them each time, why are you doing this? Well, you are listening
to us. You heard us on the need for pay increases and changing
retirement benefits, and we have had a turn-around in sentiment
on retention.
Two other areas that have been of most concern to me have
been the housing and the health care. On housing, we in this
budget, as you know, included some $3.1, as I recall, billion
in the budget for the 5-year period to eliminate the inequity
that currently exists, and that is that those that live off-
base are required to pay on an average almost 19 percent out of
their pocket for their housing cost. That is completely unfair,
and so we put the $3-plus billion into the budget to eliminate
that inequity.
It is going to require a change in law, and hopefully that
will have the strong endorsement of all concerned, but we
should not have a situation where people are required or forced
to live off base because we do not have on-base housing
adequate for them, and say but you have got to pay almost 20
percent out of your pocket, that plus transportation cost, and
all that is associated with the inconvenience of being off-base
comes directly out of their pockets, and so one thing I have
tried to do is address that in this final budget.
And just as we are addressing that in the budget, of course
there was a new study that came out that imposed changes in
reimbursement rates. Some went higher, some went lower, and we
found a great inequity, and the moment we spotted that we
changed it as well, so we are trying to deal very seriously
with the housing situation as you all are aware. We have got a
long way to go in terms of rehabing and replacing much of the
housing that currently exists to make sure that we provide
adequate housing for the men and women who are serving us.
On the operations and maintenance (O&M) funding it is fully
sufficient. I will tell you there is no margin for major cuts,
and I know that from my own experience in this body that at the
end of the year usually we find ourselves in a situation making
undistributed O&M cuts.
I will tell you that I have dedicated myself, Senator
Harkin, to looking for ways in which we can eliminate fraud and
waste. I worked with you very closely while I was here, and
especially on the Aging Committee in trying to make changes in
our health care field in terms of fraud and abuse, and we were
successful, and I have tried to dedicate myself to finding ways
in which we can do that in the Department of Defense as well. I
will tell you there is not any margin for us to absorb further
cuts in the operation and maintenance funding.
I have already touched upon the $60 billion, and a final
priority requiring special mention is full funding for the
chemical weapons demilitarization program. That is going to be
critical to have full funding for that if we are going to meet
our obligations under the chemical weapons convention and to
assure that those aging munitions are safely destroyed as
quickly as possible.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the sum, and I will answer the
questions as they come. I know that base closures and other
types of issues have been raised in the opening statements, but
let me just conclude by saying that I look at our position
around the world and I know that we are overstretched. We are
engaged in many, many operations, but I would also say that we
are looked upon by virtually everyone as a stabilizing force in
the world, and to our great credit our presence in all the
regions that we are currently deployed is having an important
and salutary impact in promoting stability, and when there is
stability, investment usually follows, and where there is
investment there is an opportunity for prosperity and promoting
our common ideals.
prepared statement
I think we have made and continue to make and will continue
to make an enormous contribution to the security not only of
this country but to that of our allies and friends, and
hopefully each Congress in the future will support the
Department, then the Department will work, as we have worked,
with you. As you have indicated, it is a partnership. There
should be no dividing line. We should not be firing across the
Potomac at each other. This is something we all have a common
interest in, and it is incumbent upon those who succeed me to
work with you as a full partner in this great cause of
promoting our national security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William S. Cohen
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here
for this wrap-up hearing on President Clinton's fiscal year 2001
Department of Defense (DOD) budget request. You previously received my
full statement detailing our fiscal year 2001 request and had a
productive hearing with John Hamre shortly before he completed his
brilliant tenure as Deputy Secretary. So today I will highlight only a
few budget issues and leave plenty of time for your questions and
comments.
fiscal year 2000 kosovo supplemental appropriations
Before getting to fiscal year 2001, I want to emphasize the
escalating criticality of President Clinton's fiscal year 2000 Kosovo
supplemental appropriations request. Further delays in approval
threaten to weaken our force readiness and undermine NATO efforts to
foster stability in this critical region.
I am very disappointed that final passage will not occur by the end
of April. This delay has required me to take steps to try to prevent it
from damaging Army readiness, which is our most serious concern. Most
notably, I am shifting over $200 million from Navy and Air Force
accounts to the Army--using the flexibility Congress granted the
Secretary of Defense for managing the Overseas Contingency Operations
Transfer Fund. This shift will be disruptive for the Navy and Air
Force, but it will enable the Army to fulfill its planned unit
rotations to the National Training Center for the rest of the fiscal
year.
Now, the Department is running out of options. If the requested
fiscal year 2000 Kosovo supplemental appropriations are not available
by the end of May, the Military Services will have to initiate very
disruptive actions and move toward cancellation of major fourth quarter
activities that would damage the readiness, military capabilities, and
troop morale of our armed forces.
Hardest hit would be the Army, which would have little choice but
to curtail or postpone major training, operations, maintenance,
personnel actions, procurement, and other activities that it has
authority to control. The Army's initial actions in June would likely
include decisions to defer all minor construction and real property
maintenance and to eliminate overtime and delay promotions for its
civilian personnel for the rest of the fiscal year. By July, the Army
would likely have to severely cut back maintenance, home station
training, and supply purchases.
America's armed forces work exceedingly hard to operate at peak
effectiveness and sustain high readiness. They need our resolute
support. I urge you and your colleagues to move quickly to complete
work on our shared objective: to provide our military men and women the
funds needed to sustain their unparalleled excellence and to fulfill
the missions assigned them.
I also want to emphasize the importance of full and prompt approval
of the fiscal year 2000 supplemental appropriations request for
International Affairs (Function 150) Kosovo and Southeast Europe
programs. The requested funds will support essential civilian programs
and peace implementation efforts vital to a prudent exit strategy for
Kosovo and achievement of long-term stability in the Balkans.
president clinton's fiscal year 2001 budget
Turning now to next year's budget, the President's request is a
strong plan for sustaining America's military excellence and continuing
the transformation of our defense posture for the post-Cold War era.
The new budget protects President Clinton's commitment to preserving
the high readiness and quality of U.S. forces in the years ahead.
I am pleased that the Congress' fiscal year 2001 budget resolution
includes a sufficient defense topline to support all the programs and
priorities in the President's request. Working with you and our other
defense committees to achieve that support now becomes the Department's
primary focus. To that end, let me briefly comment on some of my key
spending priorities.
Our new budget seeks to continue to put people first with strong
pay and benefits proposals. I especially want to highlight our Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) plan to eliminate by 2005 the out-of-pocket
housing costs of our military members. I also want to emphasize the
Department's resolve to continue to make much-needed improvements to
military health care--which is increasingly expensive, but more
important than ever. Recruiting and retention constitute a huge
challenge for the Department. Pay and benefits alone cannot overcome
this challenge, but they need to be seen by our servicemen and women as
sufficient compensation for the sacrifices of military life.
Regarding our other top priority of readiness, the new budget fully
funds the Military Services' Operation and Maintenance budgets so that
their training, maintenance, and other key goals can be met. The budget
will ensure that U.S. forces will continue to be fully capable of
executing the National Military Strategy and that the readiness of
first-to-fight forces will remain high.
Our proposed O&M funding is fully sufficient, but it includes no
margin to absorb major cuts. Therefore I want to caution against
undistributed O&M cuts that are made on the basis that they will compel
the Pentagon to cut waste or bureaucracy. The ultimate effect of these
undistributed cuts is to impair and reduce force readiness. I want to
assure this committee that I am doing everything I can to streamline
DOD infrastructure and prevent waste. We are making progress, and I
urge your support so we can do much more. But achieving greater savings
will take more than legislative provisions mandating such savings. And
as I have stressed repeatedly, by far the best way to achieve greater
streamlining is for Congress to approve two additional base closure
rounds.
Another critical priority in our proposed budget is the
modernization of our weapons and supporting systems. For fiscal year
2001, we are proud to have reached our goal of $60 billion for
procurement. But this is a beginning, not an end. The President's
Budget calls for procurement to climb to over $70 billion by 2005. And
even higher levels will be needed in the years beyond 2005--as many of
our new-generation systems enter full production. Achieving these
procurement spending levels will be one of the major challenges for my
successors and for future Congresses.
For now, in the fiscal year 2001 budget our challenge is to invest
our modernization dollars most wisely. I am convinced that the
President's request does that, with an allocation of procurement and
RDT&E spending resulting from rigorous scrutiny by the Department's
civilian and military leadership. As you approach your decisions on our
spending priorities, please let the Department know where we need to
justify our modernization plans more convincingly. The Department of
Defense and Congress need to continue to work together closely to
modernize and ensure the future combat dominance of U.S. forces.
A final priority requiring special mention is full funding of our
Chemical Weapons Demilitarization program, which is critical to ensure
compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and to ensure that
these aging munitions are safely destroyed as quickly as possible.
closing
I want to close by thanking members of this committee for
maintaining such a highly productive and cooperative relationship with
the Department and our civilian and military leaders. This hearing
seems likely to be my final one with this committee, so I want to
publicly salute your hard work and support on behalf of our national
security. You should feel very proud of your substantial contributions
to the unparalleled excellence of America's armed forces.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I mentioned we
would mark up the MILCON bill and the agriculture bill on the
9th. We will also mark up the foreign assistance bill. We will
cover the 150 accounts that you have mentioned, in the hopes
that they can move rapidly, too.
General.
STATEMENT OF GEN. HENRY H. SHELTON, CHAIRMAN, JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Shelton. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, other
distinguished members of the committee, let me first of all say
it is an honor to be with you here again and to report on the
state of America's Armed Forces. Chairman Stevens, up front let
me also thank each member of this committee for their very
staunch support that our men and women in uniform have received
from you during this past year, and I speak for the Active, the
Guard, and the Reserve.
You have got my rather lengthy written statement that was
referred to by Secretary Cohen and so I will ask that that be
included in the record and just make a few comments to address
the priorities and concerns I have, and then move on to your
questions.
First of all, since appearing before this committee last
year, I have had the opportunity to visit our troops in the
Middle East and in the Balkans and Asia and in many other
places around the globe, as I know many of you have and, as
always, I came away, as I am sure you do, impressed not only by
what they are doing, but also by the enthusiasm with which they
carry out their somewhat tough missions on many occasions that
we give them.
I can tell you the troops are fully aware of the great
support they have received from you, the Members of Congress,
and also from the administration, and also in particular in the
increased budget last year and the improvement in procurement
and operations and pay and retirement, and the other things
that affect their quality of life.
Your efforts have sent a very powerful signal to our troops
in the field, and I have no doubt, have been very instrumental
in helping us turn around some of the recruiting and retention
challenges that we have faced.
Today, I think the force is relatively healthy, although it
is stretched, and I would also tell you that unit personnel
shortages continue to plague many of the units in the field.
Our men and women in uniform continue to do a great job
safeguarding America's interest around the globe and helping
keep the peace in what you know is a very complex and dangerous
world that we live in, and our people in uniform are the very
best in the world, as I am sure you have observed as you went
out to visit with them.
However, the current operating tempo (OPTEMPO), the current
tempo of operations, if you will, is having an effect on them
and also on the family members. We still encounter frequent,
often unexpected and persistent deployments, and that, of
course, produces stress. Ultimately, if we are not careful, too
many protracted deployments will inevitably disrupt our
operating budgets and cause lost training opportunities and, of
course, that always accelerates the wear and the tear on the
equipment, which then leads to additional recapitalization
requirements.
But most importantly, I think a high pace of operations
impacts quality of life, and it could, if we are not careful,
jeopardize our capability to retain the great quality force
that we have worked so hard to build, and I can tell you that
the Joint Chiefs are tackling the personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO)
with the great support, I might add, of Secretary Cohen, to try
to tackle this PERSTEMPO issue and lower that in as many areas
as can.
Of course, we have got some great help from the members of
this committee and from the Congress and the administration in
terms of increasing the assets in some of our low density, high
demand units. As I reported last year, we continue to seek
innovative ways to help us lower that, and we will continue to
do that, but at the same time we also are very cognizant of the
fact that we must work very hard to try to use all the tools in
our kit bag to solve our problems for the United States before
we commit our troops to extended deployments.
This year, of course, with the help of the Secretary the
Joint Chiefs and I are focusing on another key issue that was
raised by Senator Bond, and that is TRICARE, our military
health care system. As we are all aware, TRICARE, which is
America's largest health care provider, and the one that is
tasked to provide health services both in peacetime as well as
in war, is simply not user-friendly.
While many service members and their families are normally
very pleased with the care that they receive once they have
entered into the system, and I say that normally it is rated as
outstanding care by our doctors and our nurses and by other
health care providers, they are frustrated with the system as a
whole.
It is, quite frankly, immensely complex, as you might
imagine. It is administratively confusing, and it is not very
customer-oriented and, of course, we all agree that our service
men and women deserve better, and we in fact are working that
issue very hard, particularly in some of those areas that deal
with the administration and the management of the system, and
we have gotten great support out of the Secretary and out of
Dr. Bailey in improving that.
Likewise, those who have served in the Armed Service for a
career, those retirees who gave the very best years of their
life in the defense of America, also deserve quality health
care. TRICARE from our perspective must be fixed, and the
overall military health care system must be improved if we are
to sustain the quality of force that we have today, and also if
we are to keep faith with those who have served with honor.
Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, fixing TRICARE is not
only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do, as it
sends a strong signal to all those that are serving today, but
also to those that are considering a career in our Armed
Forces, and it keeps a commitment that we have made to our
retirees.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to shift from that to some other
dimensions of our readiness issue. In my testimony to the
committee last year, I noted that our forward-deployed and
first-to-fight forces remain capable of carrying out and
executing our national military strategy, and that remains true
today.
I also spoke of the difficulties we have experienced in
maintaining readiness, and a number of reasons for these
readiness problems, including higher-than-anticipated OPTEMPO,
increased wear and tear on aging and overused equipment systems
and personnel issues and again, thanks to the great support of
the Congress and the administration, this readiness picture has
started moving in the right direction.
Last year's budget, Secretary Cohen commented on the
additional support that was received from Congress arrested the
very steep decline in purchasing power we had experienced over
the previous several years, and also enabled us to fund our
most critical readiness requirements. It enabled us to fund the
Bosnia operation, and our efforts to increase the
recapitalization of equipment and facilities.
Most importantly, Congress' timely approval of the 1999
emergency nonoffset supplemental last May enabled us to meet
the unprogrammed costs that we had encountered as a result of
the Kosovo operation without negatively impacting our other
programs. We must sustain the momentum that we have gotten
started.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, the package of initiatives that
are proposed in the President's 2001 budget is so important to
not only the Joint Chiefs but to our uniformed commanders as
well. This forward-looking budget we think addresses and helps
us obtain our quadrennial defense review (QDR) goals and also
helps us to reshape our forces to reflect the changing threats
we face. It funds a broad array of programs that are designed
to protect America's interest and our forces against terrorism,
against chemical-biological attacks, as well as other
asymmetrical threats.
It also funds some of the Kosovo lessons learned, and
allows us to improve some of the low density, high demand
elements of the force, specifically the additional squadron of
the EA-6B electronic aircraft, increased funding for precision
munitions to bring those accounts back up to where they should
be, our unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and our intelligence and
surveillance capabilities which also are another low density,
very high demand part of our war-fighting capabilities.
Overall, this budget will fund our critical readiness
requirements. It supports the quality of life initiatives that
we have initiated. It meets our QDR procurement goals, and it
supports the reshaping of our forces while it continues to
allow us to streamline and reform within.
Prompt congressional action to provide the requested
emergency nonoffset supplemental to replace the dollars that
are already obligated, as addressed by Secretary Cohen and you,
Mr. Chairman, are necessary to protect our readiness for the
remainder of the year.
And let me also add my support for the 150 account, which
is critical in terms of fulfilling our obligations to reach the
long-term solution in Kosovo, and it allows us to get those
elements of the rule of law and civil implementation in place
that would be critical so that we can, in fact, reduce our
long-term troop commitments into that area.
And while there are many important measures proposed for
funding in the current supplemental, including such things as
resources to help Colombia carry out the fight against
narcotraffickers, by far the critical aspect to the service
chiefs and me is the provision to reimburse the Department of
Defense (DOD) for the money already spent in Kosovo, and
without rapid approval of this funding we are going to be
forced to divert sources, as you heard General Shinseki and
Secretary Caldera testify to yesterday, and as Secretary Cohen
mentioned. But the impact will also be felt by the Army, the
Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps.
Mr. Chairman, let me turn for just a few minutes to the
threats and challenges that we face from abroad. As I said
earlier, although the United States enjoys relative peace now,
the international security environment remains complex and
dangerous. As a worldwide power, a global power, we have global
security commitments and, of course, our interests in many
cases are challenged almost on a daily basis.
My written statement goes into some detail about our
challenges in the Balkans, the Middle East, Korea, and East
Timor, but I would like to spend just a few minutes on the
situation that we see happening in the Balkans.
As you know, today we have a sizeable force committed in
the Balkans, in Bosnia and in Kosovo, and while some violence
continues, U.S. forces, along with our NATO allies and our
coalition partners have been successful in establishing a
relatively safe and secure environment. While the North
Atlantic treaty organization (NATO) may need to make some minor
adjustments to the size of Kosovo protection force (KFOR) in
the near term to meet current security requirements, including
the increased threats that have been identified in the Prezevo
Valley, the southern region of Serbia, we must remain wary of
taking on new missions in Kosovo.
KFOR's mission today is clear, and any extension of that
mission would require approval of the North Atlantic Council.
At the end of the day, however, I am less concerned with
mission expansion than with mission extension, and though I
would support some short-term increases to KFOR to secure the
gains that we have made thus far, soldiers, of course, are not
the long-term answer to what we face in Kosovo in terms of
achieving self-sustaining peace.
American soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo are just that. They
are soldiers first and foremost. They are not policemen, and
they lack the training and the experience to effectively police
the large civil societies that we find in the Balkans. As this
committee well knows, in Kosovo and in Bosnia achieving a
lasting solution is going to require us to successfully
accomplish a host of civil, political, and economic tasks not
the last of which is the establishment of a rule of law, a
functioning court system, and an effective police force. I
remain concerned today about the slow progress in civil
implementation in Bosnia, and the glacial pace that we see
occurring in Kosovo.
For long-term success, it is incumbent upon the United
Nations and Organization for security and cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) and other governmental and nongovernmental organizations
to move in and fill the void that has been created by the lack
of effective civil institutions. It is not enough to say that
KFOR will perform missions until UNMIK, the United Nations
Mission in Kosovo, is able to take over.
We must determine how much smaller KFOR can become and
still allow UNMIK to operate successfully, and we must continue
to press the international community and the donor nations to
meet their obligations. While the U.N. administration is
putting forth a good effort, they are often handicapped by a
lack of resources and personnel.
Mr. Chairman, I have talked about how the force is being
employed today and what our priorities are for the coming year.
I would like to spend just a few minutes in closing about what
we are doing to meet future threats and to ensure that our
forces are ready for tomorrow. We of course want to ensure that
we have forces that are not only trained and ready, but also
are as versatile and as capable as they are today.
Today's forces benefit from the tough decisions made by my
predecessors and yours. We, too, have an obligation, I think,
to make the right choices now to ensure that our successors
inherit the best possible military to defend our Nation's
interests in the future. Balancing our current readiness and
sustaining the quality of our people against modernization for
the future will often conflict, but all are very important. As
all of you are aware, today America spends about 3 percent of
its GDP on defense, where as late as 1987 we were spending
approximately 6 percent.
America has been the beneficiary of a great peace dividend,
the result of having won the cold war. But if we are to sustain
the world class force that we have today, a world class but
very heavily used, I might add, it is critical that we continue
to work on the quality of life issues that are faced by this
force, and also continue to provide appropriate funding to
ensure that we continue to modernize the force and recapitalize
the equipment that we are using very heavily.
For our part, to ensure tomorrow's joint force remains the
world's best, we have been moving forward to turn our
conceptual framework for transforming the U.S. military into
reality. We are engaged in updating and refining our Joint
Vision to build on the solid foundation of Joint Vision 2010,
and to meet the challenges of the 21st century and maintain
forward momentum.
One of the principal mechanisms that we are using to turn
Joint Vision into a reality is Joint Experimentation. The
Secretary has assigned the Commander in Chief of U.S. Joint
Forces Command as the executive agent for this very important
process for the Department, a process that, I might add,
complements, not replaces, the existing experimentation efforts
that are being carried out by our Services.
Ultimately, the Joint Experimentation process will play a
vital role in key decisions on how to build the joint force of
the future, including systems, strategy, force structure, and
doctrine. We have also refined our Joint Requirements Oversight
Council procedures to better accommodate a review of the war-
fighting requirements on the front end of the process, when it
is easier and less expensive.
We are already beginning to see the first fruits of this
effort. This year, U.S. Joint Forces Command will begin
experimenting with its first integrating concept, which is
rapid, decisive operations, how a Joint Force Commander can
determine and employ the right balance of air, land, sea,
amphibious, space, and information-based capabilities to defeat
any adversary.
Rapid, decisive operations emphasizes critical functional
concepts, including attack against critical mobile targets,
which focuses on near simultaneous sensor-to-shooter data flow
and high speed, long-range weapons; common operational picture,
fusing information from multiple sources into a common picture
of the battle space to enable commanders to move rapidly and
confidently based on maximum knowledge of enemy, neutral, and
friendly positions: joint interactive planning, a virtual
collaborative system enabling planners to assess wide spectrum
information and commanders to react quickly to changing events:
and adapted Joint Command and Control which will leverage
advances and information technologies to revolutionize the
structure of the Joint Task Force Headquarters, ultimately
providing the warfighter with the most effective and efficient
operational command and control.
The objective of this massive effort is nothing less than a
Joint Force that will be persuasive in peace and decisive in
war, and I believe that we are off to a good start under the
leadership of Admiral Hal Gehman at U.S. Joint Forces Command.
Mr. Chairman, let me close with one important observation
that parallels Secretary Cohen's closing comments. As all of
you are aware, in a very troubled world today many people turn
to America for hope and for resurrection. They turn to America
for a bedrock of values, democracy, liberty, and the rule of
law. They unabashedly seek the very freedoms for which we
stand. If they do not turn to us as a first option, they
normally will turn to us as a last resort. This tells me that
the light that is America burns brighter than ever, and that
the light that is fueled by America's sons and daughters who
wear their country's uniform in times of peace and war is very
important.
I think that America's forces today remain fundamentally
sound, and are capable of fulfilling their role of executing
our national military strategy. Together with the Congress and
the administration, we are transforming our military forces to
ensure that they remain ready to meet the threats to America's
security in the 21st century, just as we have in the past.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity of
appearing here today, and for the opportunity to make a
statement, and now Secretary Cohen and I are prepared to take
your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gen. Henry H. Shelton
It is an honor to report to the Congress today on the state of the
United States Armed Forces. At the outset, I would like to pay tribute
to our men and women in uniform. As always, they serve our country
selflessly, often far from home and loved ones, defending our Nation
and its interests and helping to keep the peace in a still dangerous
world. America can--and should--take great pride in its soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines. They represent the United States at its
very best.
I intend to discuss three broad categories of concern in this
statement: (1) Sustaining a Quality Force, concentrating on those
programs that benefit our people and are critical to maintaining the
health of the force; (2) Supporting the National Security Strategy,
specifically the readiness of the force to meet often-competing demands
of this strategy; and (3) Building Tomorrow's Joint Force--what we are
doing today to prepare for tomorrow's challenges.
sustaining a quality force
America's military strength is built on a foundation of quality
people, trained and ready forces, and an effective modernization
program. While each of these elements is absolutely essential, one is
first among equals--people! Without motivated, skilled, and committed
people, we cannot exploit the full potential of our advanced weapons
systems on the battlefield. Further, without the support of strong
military families, we cannot sustain a force capable of meeting the
demands of this new century. To preserve a high quality, professional
military we must provide the quality of life that our service members
and their families expect--and deserve.
As I have in the past, allow me to express my appreciation of
Congress' strong support of America's uniformed men and women through
the passage of several significant pieces of legislation in 1999. The
first systematic reform of pay tables in half a century; the almost
$14.0 billion in military pay increases--the highest in 18 years; and
the $5.9 billion in retirement reform were bold steps that recognized
the value of our high-quality, hard-working personnel, especially our
experienced mid-career service members. I hear a lot of favorable
remarks from the troops when I visit them, as I'm sure you do. Taken
together, this pay and retirement reform package was an essential step
in sustaining a viable All Volunteer Force. We must continue to meet
this challenge in the future.
Military Health Care
Last year, I testified that we were in the midst of a long-term
program to restructure the military medical community's ability to
better support its wartime mission and assess whether our managed
health care system--TRICARE--was meeting its twin goals of improving
access and holding down costs. We ask our service members to be ready
to serve anywhere; they and their families deserve no less than an
adequate health care system.
In survey after survey, we have learned that TRICARE simply is not
user-friendly. While service members and their families are normally
pleased with the care they receive from doctors, nurses, and other
health care providers, they are frustrated by other aspects of TRICARE.
It is, quite frankly, immensely complex, administratively confusing,
and not customer-friendly. Due to the region-based structure of
TRICARE, there is no consistency or standardization for appointments,
benefits, claims, and enrollments across duty stations.
To significantly improve how we meet the health needs of both our
active duty and retired service members, and their families, we are
recommending a phased approach. In the near term, we would include
implementing business practice improvements and fully funding the
Defense Health Program. Several of these improvements are already
underway and include: automatic enrollment for all Active Duty Family
Members into TRICARE Prime and making easy-to-understand enrollment
materials available across all TRICARE regions. To ensure that all of
our members know who is responsible for their care, those enrolled in
TRICARE Prime will know who their Primary Care Manager (PCM) is by
name. Active duty members and their families assigned to remote areas
need to have the peace of mind that the same benefit will be provided
to them regardless of where they are located. Additionally, members
with complex illnesses and extensive treatment plans require clinical
case management experts to help the patient successfully navigate the
system, reducing delay and frustration while ensuring quality and
continuity of care. Finally, TRICARE requires that members re-enroll
every time they transfer from region to region. Enrollment in one
region must be honored in all regions.
The claims process is another major source of frustration for our
Active Duty members and their families. We must have a system that
ensures the government, not the beneficiary, receives the bills.
Additionally, the protracted time it takes contractors to pay provider
bills creates a disincentive for providers to remain in the network. My
staff is working closely with Dr. Sue Bailey, ASD (Health Affairs), to
fix or remove these major irritants.
In the near-term, the Joint Chiefs would like to see improvements
in the overall health care benefit. For years our recruiters have
promised health care for life for career members and their families. As
we all know, that is not what they receive. To honor this promise, the
President's budget includes the expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for
active duty family members and the elimination of co-pays for all
active duty family members enrolled in the TRICARE Prime network.
The Chiefs and I recognize the compelling need, to provide more
comprehensive coverage for our retirees and their family members. Where
specific TRICARE coverage is not available, we must offer them other
benefits. Our intent is to reduce out-of-pocket expenses.
Let me stress that the Joint Chiefs' commitment to quality
healthcare for all military members, including retirees, remains firm.
Keeping our promise of ensuring quality healthcare for military
retirees is not only the right thing to do, it also is a pragmatic
decision because it sends a strong signal to all those considering a
career in uniform.
Housing
Housing has an obvious and immediate impact on the quality of life
for our servicemembers, making it an important priority. Thanks in
large measure to Congress' targeted funding to improve quality-of-life
of the force, the Services have established plans to eliminate
inadequate housing for our unaccompanied enlisted personnel by 2008.
At the same time, almost two-thirds of all military housing, or
approximately 180,000 units, are considered inadequate. The Services
are preparing family housing masterplans to meet the Defense Planning
Guidance requirement to revitalize, divest through privatization, or
demolish inadequate housing by 2010.
The Services will be working closely with the Congress this year on
a three-pronged strategy to improve family housing. These measures
include the Secretary's initiative to raise allowances for off-post
housing, continued funding for revitalization and construction of new
units on-post, and privatization in areas where that approach is cost-
effective. Congress' support of the budget request and the request to
extend privatization authority for another 5 years will help improve
the housing outlook for our service members and their families.
Recruiting
The need to recruit and retain quality people is the bedrock for
the force and remains a significant challenge for all the Services. As
the Congress well knows, recruiting and retention are often related--
but they present very different sets of challenges. Let me first
address recruiting.
The current recruiting challenge is complex and affected by a
number of factors including a robust, job-rich economy, a reduced
willingness on the part of young Americans to volunteer for military
service, the much larger number of high school graduates pursuing
college degrees, and the smallest cohort of 18-to-23 year olds to
recruit from in the history of the All-Volunteer Force.
The Navy and Marine Corps met their recruiting objectives in 1999,
while the Army fell short about 6,300 soldiers, achieving 92 percent of
its recruiting goals. The Air Force, meanwhile, achieved 95 percent of
its goal, falling short by about 1,700 airmen.
Building on the tremendous support of the Congress and the
Administration, the Services are taking aggressive steps to recruit
enough quality men and women for a vital All-Volunteer Force. For
example, the Services have significantly increased their recruiter
force and budgets to continue to achieve the quality of accessions that
fall in line with DOD guidelines. The Services are also offering larger
enlistment bonuses and college fund incentives, as well as pursuing new
advertising strategies.
Retention
Because of the quality of the people we recruit, and the
significant training they receive, the private sector is anxious to
outbid us for their services. The perception of a more stable and
predictable lifestyle in the private sector also presents an attractive
alternative to military service, given the increasing demands we are
placing on a much smaller force. Long duty hours, frequent moves,
disruptions in a spouse's employment, and extended family separations--
separations that could include the risk of death, injury, or capture--
are all burdens borne by our service members and their loved ones.
Though the jury is still out and we continue to walk a personnel
tightrope, it appears we may be turning the corner on retention, thanks
in large measure to the Congress' support of our efforts to improve pay
and the military retirement system. We must sustain the momentum. This
year we need your support on improving the military health care system.
I am pleased to report that the Army exceeded its aggregate
retention goals by 5,000 personnel in 1999, which helped to overcome
recruiting shortfalls and meet end strength requirements.
While the Navy met its end-strength numbers, retention of first
term sailors fell short of requirements, which could spell danger for
effective management of future petty officer needs. Retention of Naval
Aviators, Surface Warfare Officers and SEALS also remains a continuing
concern.
The Marine Corps met all of its goals, with retention concerns
limited to aviators and chronic shortages in specific high-demand, low-
density specialties, such as intelligence, electronic maintenance, and
logistics.
The Air Force missed its retention goals in all enlisted
categories, causing it to fall short of the adjusted fiscal year 1999
end-strength requirement by about 5,000 personnel. On a positive note,
while the Air Force pilot continuation rate struggled to reach 41
percent, aviator bonus ``take rates'' jumped to 62 percent overall,
underscoring the importance of targeted bonuses and incentives, in
addition to general improvements in military compensation across-the-
board.
In today's Total Force, concerns about recruiting and retention in
the Reserve Component must also be addressed. While the Army National
Guard, Air National Guard, and Marine Corps Reserve substantially met
their recruiting goals, the Army, Naval, and Air Force Reserves fell
considerably short. Additionally, the Navy and Air Force Reserves
failed to meet their end strength requirements, reflecting continuing
retention challenges.
Equal Opportunity
America's Armed Forces reflect American society, with its diverse
experiences, goals, and expectations. Our task is to transform these
young men and women into a cohesive, well-trained force, always
cognizant of the right of our service members to be treated with
dignity and respect. America's sons and daughters deserve the
opportunity to succeed and work in an environment free of
discrimination and harassment. Nonetheless, equal opportunity is more
of a journey than a destination and there will always be room for
improvement. The Armed Forces remain committed to providing equal
opportunity and fair treatment as core values for all its members. This
commitment reflects the very best of what our country offers.
supporting the national security strategy
At the beginning of the 21st Century, the United States currently
enjoys relative peace and security. The international security
environment, however, remains complex, dangerous, and unpredictable.
Even as the threat of global war recedes and former enemies now
cooperate with us on some issues, very real threats to our citizens and
interests remain. Though we currently face no peer competitor, openly
hostile regional adversaries fielding potent forces have both the
desire and the means to challenge the United States militarily.
Transnational organizations and forces threaten our interests, our
values, and even our physical security at home and abroad. And, while
our military strength remains unmatched, both state and non-state
actors may attempt to circumvent our strengths and exploit our
weaknesses using methods that differ significantly from our own.
Attacks on our information systems, the use of weapons of mass
destruction, domestic and international terrorism, and even man-made
environmental disasters are all examples of asymmetric threats that
could be employed against us. Indeed, some already have.
To deal successfully with these challenges, the 1999 National
Security Strategy stresses the fundamental need for U.S. leadership and
engagement abroad to shape the international environment and position
our military to respond rapidly to a full spectrum of emerging crises.
If the United States were to withdraw from international commitments,
forsake its leadership responsibilities, or relinquish military
superiority, the world would surely become more dangerous and the
threats to American citizens and interests would increase. Within their
capabilities, therefore, our Armed Forces are committed to peacetime
military engagement as the best way of reducing the sources of
conflict, preventing local crises from escalating, and shaping the
international environment.
The National Security Strategy also recognizes that countering the
wide range of threats that we face requires an integrated approach
involving both interagency and multinational cooperation. An integrated
approach brings to bear all instruments of national power--military,
economic, information, and diplomatic--to achieve our national
objectives, unilaterally if necessary. And, whenever possible, it makes
optimum use of the skills, resources, and political support provided by
multinational military forces, regional and international
organizations, and non-governmental organizations. We will continue to
improve our abilities to effectively operate as one element of unified
interagency and multinational efforts, while encouraging other
organizations to do likewise. At the same time, we are also improving
our capabilities to support state and local civil authorities in
response to growing threats to the US homeland, such as terrorism and
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Peacetime military engagement (PME) can help ameliorate potential
sources of conflict, promote more efficient operations among
participating nations, and ensure access to key infrastructures.
Through these means, PME assists in reducing response requirements
while supporting the fundamental, overarching purpose of the U.S.
military--to fight and win our Nation's wars.
The Theater Engagement Plan (TEP) process brings this ``shaping''
element of our National Military Strategy fully into the arena of
deliberate planning and national-level oversight. We are continuing to
evolve and refine the TEP process and philosophy. A standardized
automated database, the Theater Engagement Planning Management
Information System (TEPMIS), is being developed to provide a tool for
all CINC engagement managers to use in planning, analyzing, executing,
and assessing engagement programs and activities. Additionally, the
regional engagement and presence joint warfighting capabilities
assessment (REPJWCA) team is planning a study that will ultimately be
used to identify engagement requirements, shortfalls, and resource
implications.
Peacetime military engagement, however, does not supplant the core
requirement to have a military capable of deterring and, if necessary,
defeating nearly simultaneous large-scale, cross-border aggression in
more than one theater, in overlapping time frames. The defense of
America's lives, territories, and interests is, and must remain, a
cornerstone mission of our Armed Forces. This capability defines the
U.S. as a global power, ensuring that our Nation will be able to
protect its vital interests or fulfill its international commitments
with military power when confronted with more than one crisis. It also
deters opportunistic aggression against our interests or those of our
friends elsewhere in the world if we become involved in a major
conflict. Furthermore, this capability provides needed flexibility and
responsiveness against the possibility that we might encounter unknown
threats, or threats larger or more difficult than expected.
Overall Readiness Assessment
The starting point for any assessment of the readiness of the Armed
Forces must be our ability to execute this National Security Strategy,
including the most demanding scenario--fighting and winning two nearly
simultaneous major theater wars in overlapping time frames.
Though military readiness has been challenged in many ways over the
past year, our Armed Forces remain capable of executing our military
strategy. The combat operations conducted against the Milosevic regime
in Serbia last year--Operation ALLIED FORCE--demonstrated once again
that our deployed and first-to-fight units remain very capable. Well-
trained and armed with the best equipment in the world, our forward-
deployed forces in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf, and the Western
Pacific executed a demanding range of missions superbly. Although we
remain capable of executing our current strategy, the risks associated
with the most demanding scenario have increased. We assess the risk
factors for fighting and winning the 1st Major Theater War as moderate,
but lower readiness levels of later-deploying forces combined with
capability shortfalls in our lift and other critical force enablers
result in high risk for the 2nd MTW.
As I have explained in the past, this does not mean that U.S.
forces would not prevail in either contingency. We eventually would
win, but longer timelines increase the potential for higher casualties.
Readiness of the Force
In my prior testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, I
spoke of the difficulties we experienced maintaining current readiness.
At that time, we identified problems that, if left unchecked, would
have eroded the readiness of our Armed Forces.
We also identified a number of reasons for these readiness issues
including the higher than anticipated OPTEMPO, increased wear and tear
on our aging and overused equipment, as well as personnel and quality
of life issues.
Thanks to the great support of the Congress and the Administration,
the readiness picture is starting to move in the right direction. The
$112 billion increase in the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget (PB)
across the FYDP, and the additional funding support from Congress,
arrested the steep decline in purchasing power we had experienced over
the last several years. This increased buying power enabled us to fund
military compensation improvements, operations in Bosnia, our most
critical readiness requirements, and our efforts to increase
recapitalization of our equipment and facilities.
The fiscal year 2001 PB protects this $112 billion commitment to
current and future readiness. Specifically, it provides $1.4 billion in
fiscal year 2001 for increases in fuel prices above those in last
year's request ($3.3 billion total in fiscal year 2001-05). It also
provides $2.2 billion more for on-going operations in Bosnia, Kosovo,
and Southwest Asia ($6.2 billion of new funding in fiscal year 2001-
05).
The fiscal year 2001 PB also builds on last year's substantial
quality of life initiatives. It fully funds a military base pay raise
of 3.7 percent (ECI plus 0.5 percent) in fiscal year 2001, as well as
the Congressional changes to our military retirement reform initiative.
Equally important, it requests and adds resources necessary to reduce
off-base housing out-of-pocket costs for our soldiers, airmen, sailors,
and marines from about 18.8 to 15 percent in fiscal year 2001. By
fiscal year 2005, these housing-related out-of-pocket expenses should
be eliminated. Finally, the importance of military health care is
reflected in significant increases to the Defense Health Program (DHP)
in fiscal year 2001. Although this budget addresses most of our health
care problems, there is more that we need to do in this area, as I have
discussed earlier. I look forward to working with you as we tackle
these problems over the next year.
Notwithstanding all these funding increases, we still face
challenges primarily due to excess infrastructure, unbudgeted
contingency operations, and higher than expected maintenance costs for
our aging equipment and infrastructure.
We continue to have excess infrastructure, and any funds applied
toward maintaining unneeded facilities diminishes our capacity to
redirect those funds toward higher priority modernization programs.
Closing bases is painful, but it provides the opportunity to
significantly reduce excess capacity and reinvest the resultant savings
in modernization and readiness accounts. Accordingly, our fiscal year
2001 PB proposes and funds new base closure and realignment (BRAC)
rounds in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2005. We look forward to the
Congressional support essential for BRAC to achieve needed savings.
Continued timely funding for contingency operations is also crucial
to preserving the readiness of our Armed Forces. Almost a year ago, we
embarked on a major buildup of forces in the Balkans in support of
Operation ALLIED FORCE. The cost of this response totaled nearly $2
billion in unforeseen fiscal year 1999 expenses.
Additionally, the follow-on mission sending U.S. forces into Kosovo
as part of KFOR resulted in an additional $1 billion of unprogrammed
fiscal year 1999 expenses. These costs could not have been met within
the existing defense budget without impacting readiness. However,
thanks to Congress' timely approval of an emergency supplemental
appropriations in May 1999, we avoided having a negative impact on
other programs.
We are currently involved in peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and
East Timor, and have forwarded an fiscal year 2000 supplemental request
seeking additional funding to meet these requirements. Prompt
Congressional action to provide emergency non-offset funding to replace
dollars already obligated is essential to protect readiness in the
latter half of this fiscal year.
Current Readiness vs. Modernizing the Force
The fiscal year 2001 PB has nearly a 2 percent real growth compared
to the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level. This is the first time in
over eight years that we have submitted a budget request with real
growth.
This forward-looking budget continues us on the path of achieving
our Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) procurement goals. Specifically,
our fiscal year 2001 procurement request is $6.1 billion above the
fiscal year 2000 appropriated level. This funding allowed us to achieve
the QDR procurement goal of $60 billion in fiscal year 2001. This is
now the fourth year of significant real growth in our procurement
funding. Ultimately, these funding increases will go a long way toward
fielding replacements for aging systems and gaining the new
capabilities essential to continued U.S. battlefield supremacy.
The fiscal year 2001 budget seeks to reshape our forces to reflect
changing threats and lessons learned. It supports the Army's new vision
that stresses lighter, more lethal/agile/deployable forces that have a
smaller logistical footprint. It funds a broad array of programs to
protect U.S. forces and interests against terrorism, chemical-
biological attack, and other asymmetric threats. It adds over $2
billion for National Missile Defense.
The fiscal year 2001 PB also funds Kosovo lessons learned.
Specifically, the budget supports the formation of an additional
squadron of EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft to be operational in
fiscal year 2003. It also provides strong funding for munitions, UAVs,
and communications-intelligence-surveillance capabilities.
The budget reflects the Department's expanding efforts to improve
and streamline its support activities so they function better and cost
less. Under the umbrella of the Defense Reform Initiative (DRI), our
efforts are showing positive results, and the substantial savings
achieved or identified are being allocated to readiness, modernization,
and other priorities.
In a nutshell, the fiscal year 2001 PB funds key readiness
indicators, supports quality of life initiatives, meets the procurement
goal of $60 billion in fiscal year 2001, supports the reshaping of U.S.
forces to reflect changing threats and lessons learned, and continues
streamlining and reform initiatives.
Despite these efforts, I am not convinced that we have turned the
corner yet. Many units continue to be plagued with personnel shortages.
History tells us that readiness is fragile and that, once it starts
down, it requires considerable resources, time, and attention to
regain. There is still much that needs to be done in order to sustain
the momentum. To avoid mortgaging future readiness, we must have
sustained funding to meet the competing demands of maintaining current
readiness, sustaining the quality force, and funding modernization.
We look forward to fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization and
Appropriations Bills that are a powerful endorsement on behalf of our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and their families, and
sustains the readiness enhancements provided in the fiscal year 2000
bills. Doing so will allow us to keep our current readiness posture
high while preparing for tomorrow's challenges.
OPTEMPO Concerns and Readiness Reporting Improvements
It is clear that the current tempo of operations, or OPTEMPO,
continues to have a significant impact on service members and their
families, and therefore remains a concern for the Joint Chiefs and the
CINCs. Frequent, often unexpected, and persistent deployments stress
the force and stretch scarce mobility assets, ultimately degrading
readiness and increasing the risk to our ability to execute the most
demanding MTW scenarios. In the long run, too many protracted
deployments will inevitably disrupt operating budgets, cause lost
training opportunities, and accelerate wear and tear on equipment. Most
importantly, unchecked OPTEMPO impacts quality of life and could
jeopardize our ability to retain the high-quality people we need for
tomorrow's force.
Measuring readiness is an ongoing process and we continue to assess
how Operation ALLIED FORCE and the long-term deployments to both Bosnia
and Kosovo affect the force. In the aggregate, ALLIED FORCE may delay
readiness improvements we sought through the emergency supplemental and
top line increases. For example, though the supplemental budget request
was fully funded this year, it will take up to two years to manufacture
replacements for certain types of munitions. In addition, long-term
deployments to the region represent a major force commitment that will
be with us for some time to come.
Our experience in the Balkans underscores the reality that
multiple, persistent commitments place a significant strain on our
people and can erode warfighting readiness. Rapidly withdrawing from a
commitment like Bosnia or Kosovo to support a major theater war would
require a quick decision by the National Command Authorities to allow
time for units to withdraw, retrain, redeploy, and be used effectively.
This could mean the late arrival of some forces for MTW employment.
While operational tempo is often a function of unpredictable world
events and our global commitments, the Services, Joint Staff and CINCs
are all taking steps to reduce its impact on the force.
First, we have increased our global sourcing of units to fill
deployment commitments, and more equitably distribute the workload
across the force. This includes substituting units with similar
capabilities and increasing the use of the Reserve Component,
contractor support, and coalition or host nation support.
Second, we have expanded our Global Military Force Policy, or GMFP,
to improve worldwide management of Low Density/High Demand (LD/HD)
assets. These include U-2 and RC-135 surveillance aircraft and crews,
Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) and Civil Affairs specialists, EA-6B
electronic warfare aircraft, and other units and platforms with unique
or preferred capabilities. GMFP ensures senior level visibility into
LD/HD allocation and provides top-down direction to prioritize
requirements and balance them against available resources in order to
preserve the long-term readiness of these critical assets. The Joint
Staff, in conjunction with the Services, is assessing each of our LD/HD
capabilities to determine which force structure increases will best
meet CINCs' requirements. For some of our most overworked assets, we
have already acted through the POM process to increase our numbers.
Third, as we closely monitor current overall readiness, we continue
to refine the tools and procedures to improve our readiness reporting
and assessment process. We have developed, in conjunction with the
Services, an improved Tempo Management process that provides senior
level visibility into how we are using the force. Tempo thresholds and
metrics are regularly briefed within our Joint Monthly Readiness Review
(JMRR) forum. The focus of our readiness reporting system remains
assessing and managing risk in executing the National Military Strategy
by placing resources where they are needed most. We have increased the
level of detail available within our readiness assessment systems and
reports to Congress to ensure problem areas are highlighted to senior
leadership within the Services, my staff, OSD, and Congress.
In consonance with new Congressional reporting requirements
outlined in the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act, we will
assess readiness over three broad areas: unit readiness, institutional
training, and defense installations. This will be accomplished by: (1)
enhancing the existing Global Status of Resources and Training System,
or GSORTS; (2) providing an annual assessment of the readiness of DOD's
individual training establishments to provide qualified personnel to
operational units; and (3) establishing a common installation reporting
methodology that annually assesses the effect of facility readiness on
operational missions. These reporting requirements were implemented as
part of DOD's Readiness Reporting System on 1 April, 2000.
Capability Concerns
Joint Staff, CINC, and Service assessments have confirmed that much
of the risk in executing MTW scenarios is driven by significant
capability shortfalls. These fall into six areas: (1) intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance; (2) logistics sustainment; (3)
command, control, communications and computers; (4) mobility and en
route infrastructure; (5) defense against terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction; and (6) information vulnerabilities.
For each of these areas, where possible, we have implemented
measures that will reduce the impact of these capability shortfalls.
For the most part, long-term fixes in these areas are funded within the
FYDP, but will not be fully implemented until fiscal year 2009. A
continued commitment to increased resourcing will help alleviate these
capability deficiencies. While recent funding increases should prevent
further deterioration of current readiness, they will not guarantee the
levels of readiness needed to significantly reduce risk in executing
the National Military Strategy.
Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, & Reconnaissance (ISR)
Over the past year, many theater CINCs have consistently raised
concerns about ISR asset shortages, specifically, the availability of
airborne reconnaissance platforms, trained aircrews, pilots, linguists,
and sensors.
Many ISR assets are categorized as Low Density/High Demand (LD/HD)
because demands for these assets continue to outpace the current
inventory. To more efficiently and effectively use current airborne ISR
assets, the Joint Staff developed a peacetime airborne ISR reallocation
plan that responded to CINC peacetime requirements. In addition, a more
detailed requirements-based request process was put in place to better
assess and prioritize CINC needs. This new process should ensure the
most critical CINC information needs are met while managing tasking on
limited ISR resources. We are also evaluating alternate collection
means such as allied or non-airborne ISR capabilities to reduce demand
on LD/HD ISR systems. Finally, an ongoing effort to increase the
numbers of airborne ISR assets will increase their availability.
For the longer-term, my staff is assessing ISR deficiencies as the
basis for my recommendations to the Secretary of Defense. We will
continue to closely monitor and manage these crucial warfighting
enhancement assets to ensure we can meet our most pressing needs.
CJCS Exercise Program Reductions
An important component of joint readiness and the CINCs' theater
engagement strategies is the CJCS Exercise Program. This is the
principal tool for achieving joint and multinational training. It
provides combatant commanders with their primary means to train battle
staffs and forces in joint and combined operations, to evaluate war
plans, and to execute their engagement strategies. This critical
program also provides a vehicle for DOD to assess the military's
ability to satisfy joint national security requirements and to enhance
and evaluate interoperability between the Services.
To reduce the impact of OPTEMPO on people, I directed an overall 30
percent reduction in joint exercise man-days between fiscal year 1996
and fiscal year 2001--a goal that has already been met. Additionally,
this directive resulted in reducing the number of joint exercises from
277 in fiscal year 1996 to 189 in fiscal year 2000.
The additional fiscal year 2000 Congressional reductions in the
CJCS Exercise Program Service Incremental Funding make it more
difficult for this important program to match essential training with
the need to reduce OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO. The CINCs are unanimous in their
concerns about the impact that these further reductions will have on
the readiness of the first-to-fight forces. We seek Congressional
support in restoring this program to its former level.
Headquarters Reductions
The Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act, as
continued for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, mandated
headquarters reductions. The current language requires an additional 15
percent cut over three years. While reductions in headquarters staffs
are generally a good idea, there are compelling reasons why we seek
relief for the Joint Staff and the combatant commander staffs from this
mandate.
Specifically, the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and subsequent
legislation, and implemented accommodations of the Packard Commission
greatly increased my responsibilities and those of my staff, as well as
the combatant commanders. The Joint Staff, for instance, assumed
significant additional responsibilities for force integration and
budgeting.
Each succeeding Unified Command Plan also added commands and
missions, to include theater engagement, space planning/operations, and
joint force integration and training. For example, the Strategic Air
Command was transformed from a specified command into a new unified
command, STRATCOM. TRANSCOM was activated to assume global airlift,
sealift, and traffic management responsibilities.
Additionally, continued joint mission increases, as well as
emerging missions, typically come with a need for a high degree of
combatant commander headquarters support. Mission area increases
include counter-drug, theater engagement, force protection, missile
defense, computer network defense/attack, and development of joint
warfare concepts, capabilities, and doctrine.
The combination of increased responsibilities, more mission areas,
and the cuts already taken mean that further reductions come with
serious risk, and will impede our ability to provide effective
management and oversight of readiness, force development, and
operations.
AC/RC Integration
In coping with an increasingly demanding security environment, the
role of our Reserve Components has grown markedly as the active force
has drawn down. In virtually every domestic and overseas mission, from
disaster relief in the continental U.S. to humanitarian assistance in
Central America to ongoing operations in Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo, our
Reservists and National Guardsmen have performed magnificently in
important and, in many cases, indispensable roles. Since the beginning
of operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, a total of more than 19,000 Reserve
Component personnel have been activated for duty in the Balkans.
Another 5,600 were activated for NATO's Operation ALLIED FORCE against
Milosevic's forces under the authority of a Presidential Reserve Call-
up (PRC). Almost 10,000 Reservists and National Guardsmen have served
throughout Southwest Asia since the end of the Gulf War.
Effective integration and utilization of the men and women in our
Reserve Component will continue to be key elements of Joint Personnel
Readiness and are critical to the success of the Total Force. Often the
capabilities they provide--such as civil affairs, psychological
operations, and civil support--are found predominantly in the Reserve
Components. We have made a number of steps in creating a true Total
Force, and I am enthusiastic about the opportunities inherent in the
``Chairman's Ten''--the Reserve Flag and General officers provided by
the Congress for assignment to the CINCs. This program will allow us to
tap the tremendous skill and expertise in our Reserve and Guard
officers, and aid the CINCs in the full range of their
responsibilities. The first assignment--Commander, Joint Task Force
Civil Support--has already been made. We will have the rest in place by
the end of this calendar year, including such key positions as Deputy
Director for Operations, Plans, and Policy at SOCOM, Chief of Staff to
TRANSCOM, and the Director for Logistics for STRATCOM.
Clearly, the wide range of contributions by the Reserve Components
continues to be a bright spot as we strive to match available resources
to a demanding mission load. Their service also demonstrates the
enduring value and relevance of the citizen-soldier. We will continue
to look for innovative ways to capitalize upon the strengths of our
Reserve Components, our trump card for maintaining high readiness
levels in these challenging times.
Force Protection
Whether the units deployed are Reserve or Active, wherever our
troops go force protection is a top priority for commanders. The tragic
bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 reminded us
again that terrorists can strike anywhere, at any time. During my
testimony last year, I noted that our adversaries--unable to confront
or compete with the United States militarily--spend millions of dollars
each year to finance terrorist organizations that target U.S. citizens,
property, and interests. Consequently, our Combatant Commanders and the
Services continue to focus on force protection issues as a first order
priority.
Six important force protection initiatives have increased our
antiterrorism efforts. First, the Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability
Assessment Teams and CINC and Service Vulnerability Assessment Teams
assist installation commanders and force protection officers in
refining existing plans and providing assessment lessons learned which
are made available to all commands.
Second, we continue to improve our Antiterrorism Force Protection
Training Program which provides antiterrorism awareness training to all
DOD military and civilian personnel and their families, specialized
training to Antiterrorism Force Protection Officers, ``pre-command
training'' to prospective Commanders, and operational level seminars to
our most senior officers.
Third, the Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund provides
an important means for our Combatant Commanders to fund time-critical,
emergent requirements that cannot wait for the normal budget or
acquisition processes.
Fourth, the Operations and Intelligence Fusion Initiative
recognizes the importance of timely dissemination of terrorist threat
information from the intelligence community to the operators in the
field. We are making progress toward the goal of having fully
coordinated Joint Operations and Intelligence Fusion Cells at all
levels.
Fifth, we have embarked on a major effort to provide minimum force
protection standards for Military Construction (MILCON) projects. DOD
has recently approved prescriptive standards for construction of new
high occupancy buildings, including barracks, dining halls, and
recreation facilities. The additional cost involved depends upon such
things as construction location, required vehicle standoff distance,
and the threat level, but is not expected to significantly increase the
overall construction cost.
Finally, during the past year we completed an Antiterrorism Best
Practices Study that examined some of our allies' best efforts to
combat terrorism at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. We
discovered several different approaches that merit closer evaluation.
For example, several of our allies' antiterrorism strategies include
more proactive engagement with local communities in higher threat
areas. They found that gaining the trust and confidence of local
citizens makes it far more difficult for terrorist organizations to
effectively operate within their communities. As we consider the
lessons from this study, we must continue to carefully balance any
potential increased risk to our men and women against expected force
protection benefits.
Key technology enablers, such as threat analysis and warning,
explosive device detection, and early detection of WMD, also enhance
our ability to counter terrorism.
Our best efforts notwithstanding, we know that terrorism will
remain a serious threat as we move further into the 21st century. We
cannot afford to subscribe to a ``zero casualty'' mentality. Our
enemies will continue to test our resolve, both at home and abroad.
While we cannot prevent every attack, we can lower both the threat and
the consequences of terrorist incidents. Therefore, it is imperative
that we have the resources and training needed to put appropriate
procedures in place.
Counterdrug Forward Operating Locations
Progress continues on U.S. Southern Command's Forward Operating
Locations (FOLs) to replace counterdrug aerial detection and monitoring
missions formerly flown by DOD and interagency aircraft from Howard Air
Force Base in Panama. Since the first of May, we have staged air
operations from Curacao and Aruba, and Manta, Ecuador. Additionally, we
recently signed a long-term access agreement for a third FOL in Central
America. Thus far, our total numbers of hours on station are equal to
or greater than when we flew from Howard. However, we need to increase
our operations in the ``source zone'' (SZ): Colombia, Peru, and
Bolivia.
The SZ is our number one counterdrug (CD) priority and we are
taking several steps to increase our presence there. Our detection and
monitoring coverage shortfall was mainly driven by the physical
condition of FOL Manta, Ecuador, which restricts our forces to single
plane, Day Visual Flight Rules operations. The result has been fewer
hours flown over southern Colombia and the rest of the SZ than desired.
USCINCSO has directed his Air Force component commander to develop a
plan to increase the capability of the airfield as soon as possible. As
of 1 April of this year, we have the capability to fly 3 aircraft from
Manta at night and in any weather. This will go a long way toward
overcoming the current coverage shortfall. Longer-term, we will need to
address some other infrastructure deficiencies at the FOLs, such as
ramp space and support, operations, and maintenance facilities.
USCINCSO's implementation concept is a phased approach. He
recognizes the requirement to operate from the FOLs in an expeditionary
manner, but also believes that such operations are not sustainable in
the long term. Certain safety and infrastructure improvements will need
to be completed before commencing full-scale operations to maximize our
use of these airfields, but construction is planned only where existing
host-nation facilities are unavailable. For example, we are planning
for ``expeditionary construction'' of structures using concrete
foundations and metal skin siding exteriors. All of this is designed to
meet minimum requirements while minimizing costs. When the projects are
completed, we fully expect to replicate the level of detection and
monitoring flown from Howard Air Force Base, without increasing costs
or OPTEMPO of the Services.
The Department of State (DOS), which has the lead on securing long-
term access agreements, concluded a 10-year agreement with Ecuador in
November, 1999 and a Curacao/Aruba agreement with the Dutch in March,
2000. Official negotiations for a FOL in El Salvador resulted in a
draft agreement that was signed on 31 March 2000.
FOLs are not bases, but staging airfields, owned and operated by
the host nation as part of our collective efforts to stem the flow of
illegal narcotics into the United States. Without these FOLs, we would
be unable to effectively carry out our detection and monitoring mission
and would fall well short--50 percent--of the historical source zone
coverage provided from Howard AFB. Coverage in the deep source zone,
the area identified as ``critical'' in the President's National Drug
Control Strategy, would be severely degraded.
Personnel Recovery
Recovery of our personnel behind enemy lines, or in the vicinity of
enemy forces, is one of our most important tasks. And it is one we take
very seriously. To consolidate personnel recovery responsibilities
under one agency, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency was established
as an entity under U.S. Joint Forces Command on 1 October 1999.
In addition to organizational changes, we are working to field a
new-generation handheld survival radios with integrated communications
and GPS capability to increase the probability of survival and
successful recovery. Additionally, the V-22 Osprey holds great
potential for combat search and rescue operations, and the Air Force is
exploring its utility in this area. Finally, we are looking into some
areas that merit increasing interaction between DOD and the
interagency, such as standardized survival, evasion, resistance and
escape training for non-DOD personnel at risk of capture.
Global Hot Spots
While there are many areas of interest around the world, three
specific regions continue to occupy much of our attention and
resources: the Korean peninsula, the Balkans, and Southwest Asia.
Instability and tension in these areas pose the greatest potential
threats to U.S. interests, and consume more energy and resources than
any others. Additionally, East Timor bears some discussion, since U.S.
forces remain involved in the peacekeeping effort there.
Korea
Despite a collapsed economy and an ongoing struggle to feed its own
population, the North Korean government continues to pour its limited
resources into the military and to pursue a policy of confrontation
with South Korea and neighbors in the region. Additionally, it
represents a nation capable of launching a significant conventional
attack on U.S. forces with minimal warning.
More than one million North Korean troops serve on active duty, the
vast majority deployed within hours of the DMZ and South Korea's
capital city, Seoul. Infiltration by North Korean special forces and
provocations such as last year's Yellow Sea clash over fishing rights
continue to exacerbate tensions between the two governments, while
ongoing development of long-range ballistic missile technology worries
all countries in the region. Finally, North Korea's repeated threats to
walk away from the Agreed Framework that curtailed their nuclear
production program have been unsettling to the international community.
The North Korean challenge remains one that we must--and do--take
very seriously. We have pursued a number of initiatives in recent years
to enhance the capabilities of both our forces forward deployed on the
peninsula and our reinforcing elements, as well as the forces of our
South Korean Allies. As I testified last year, we now have better U.S.
tanks, better infantry fighting vehicles and better artillery, as well
as improved attack helicopters and aircraft, on hand in Korea. We have
also deployed Patriot missile defense systems, improved surveillance
capabilities, and assisted with a number of upgrades to South Korean
forces. Our naval forces have greatly stepped up their anti-SOF
activities, while forward-deployed Marine forces stand ready to
reinforce the peninsula on short notice. We have upgraded our
prepositioned stocks as well, substantially improving our ability to
reinforce the peninsula with ground troops from the continental United
States.
These measures are particularly important to support the dramatic
shift in U.S. policy toward Pyongyang proposed by former Secretary of
Defense William Perry following his visit to North Korea in May of last
year. He concluded that North Korea's development of long-range
missiles and the capability to build nuclear weapons created an
instability that compromised previous policies. Mr. Perry advocated a
new, dual-track strategy: a positive path, called Mutual Threat
Reduction, designed to improve relations leading ultimately to
normalization; and a negative path, called Threat Containment,
consisting of increasing containment, isolation, and military
readiness. The U.S. is currently pursuing the Mutual Threat Reduction
path, which promises improved bilateral relations in exchange for a
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea commitment to continue
negotiations to eliminate their long-range missile program and enter
into discussions about their nuclear weapons program. If this approach
fails, then the Threat Containment path will be pursued.
While this strategy holds promise, our defensive posture in Korea
must remain both viable and strong as long as the threat remains. North
Korea's substantial chemical and biological weapons capability, coupled
with its continued pursuit of ballistic missile technology, will demand
our attention for the foreseeable future.
Southwest Asia
Long-term U.S. interests and the potential for instability combine
to focus our attention and concern in Southwest Asia as well. Saddam
Hussein's continuing disregard for the United Nations and the
agreements he previously signed, his belligerent actions to challenge
enforcement of U.N. sanctions, and the military threat he poses to the
neighboring states all require that the U.S. and our allies maintain a
substantial, capable, and ready military force in Southwest Asia.
Additionally, powerful reinforcing units in the U.S. are prepared to
move quickly should conditions warrant a rapid deployment of any
additional assets.
Our resolve and the ability of our forces in Southwest Asia have
been tested throughout 1999. In the wake of Operation DESERT FOX at the
end of 1998, Saddam Hussein has increased his belligerence against U.S.
and coalition forces enforcing the Iraqi No-Fly-Zones. On a regular
basis, Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air
missiles against U.S. and coalition aircraft, forcing them to act in
self-defense.
The U.S. military presence in the region includes land-based
fighter and bomber forces, an aircraft carrier battle group with strike
aircraft and cruise missiles, and substantial ground forces that can be
reinforced within days. In recent years we have built up our pre-
positioned stocks of weapons and supplies, considerably improved our
strategic lift, and developed a crisis response force in the United
States that can deploy to the Gulf region on very short notice.
The current posture of our deployed forces in the Persian Gulf is
one example of our efforts to reduce the number of soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines deployed overseas on contingency operations, while
still maintaining sufficient capability to meet our security
responsibilities and commitments around the world.
Balkans
The Balkan region continues to be a key area of interest and
involvement, and U.S. forces remain committed throughout the area. In
Bosnia-Herzegovina, up to 4,600 U.S. servicemen and women are
supporting the NATO multi-national Stabilization Force, or SFOR.
Approximately 5,500 personnel are deployed to Kosovo, and another 600
are deployed to the Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and
Greece, all in support of NATO's Kosovo Force, or KFOR.
In Bosnia, while NATO military units continue to maintain a safe
and secure environment, progress in civil implementation remains slow,
but steady. A restructuring of SFOR has reduced the U.S. contribution
by about 25 percent, from 6,200 to 4,600 personnel, this year.
The KFOR mission in Kosovo has significantly increased the U.S.
presence in the region, not just in Kosovo, but in the FYROM as well.
While some violence continues, U.S. forces--along with NATO allies and
coalition partners--have contributed to establishing a safe and secure
environment in Kosovo, and enhanced regional stability. To create a
lasting and durable solution, however, a host of civil, political, and
economic tasks still must be accomplished to build a better future. The
United Nations Mission in Kosovo is helping in this recovery process
and one of the next challenges for the international community will be
to properly fund, organize, equip, and train the new Kosovo Protection
Corps.
The Milosevic regime in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia remains
a source of tension throughout Southeastern Europe. The ability of the
United States to use all the instruments of national power--political,
economic, as well as military--while convincing our Allies to do the
same, may help prevent another conflict in the region. Positive
developments in regional stability, democratization, and economic
revitalization include NATO's Southeastern Europe Initiative--initiated
at the Washington Summit--and the European Union-sponsored Stability
Pact for Southeastern Europe. Both initiatives look toward regional
integration and cooperation in finding regional solutions to the
challenges in the Balkans.
East Timor
Following cessation of open hostilities in East Timor, the
challenge for the international community is to help rebuild a civil
structure, essentially from scratch. The United Nations Transitional
Administration for East Timor (UNTAET) has this responsibility. The
U.N. mandate for the peacekeeping component of UNTAET calls for a force
of up to 8,950 troops plus 200 military observers. The U.S.
contribution to the UNTAET mission consists of a small number of U.S.
military officers serving as observers. Also, as part of normal
regional exercises from the U.S. Pacific Command, other U.S. personnel
contribute to humanitarian and civic action efforts through exercises
configured to assist in building infrastructure and restoring some
social services. These activities are coordinated by the U.S. Support
Group East Timor (USGET), consisting of staff and support personnel.
The central security issue for East Timor remains the maintenance
and security of the border with West Timor. We remain cautiously
optimistic of eventual stability in light of the Wahid government of
Indonesia's expressed intentions to disarm and sever relations with the
militias.
Mozambique
In response to heavy rainfall and cyclone-induced flooding across
the southeastern Africa region, the Secretary of Defense authorized
Operation ATLAS RESPONSE to support humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief efforts in South Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and
Botswana. Over 700 military personnel from all U.S. Services
participated in Joint Task Force ATLAS RESPONSE, providing a unique
capability to the relief effort. A U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue
controller team worked with USAID and local agencies to provide
immediate lifesaving services. The Civil Military Operations Center
(CMOC) staff coordinated the multinational relief effort and trained IO
and NGO personnel to perform this duty when the joint task force
redeployed. Helicopter and airlift crews flew nearly 1,050 tons of
relief supplies to villages in southern and central Mozambique. C-130s
equipped with KEEN SAGE imaging capabilities provided near real-time
data to the Government of Mozambique--information that helped officials
prioritize road and bridge repair projects. After three weeks, the
situation in southeastern Africa had stabilized and allowed for the
transition of these responsibilities back to local and international
relief organizations.
building tomorrow's joint force
Even as we focus on the present we must look to the future to
ensure that tomorrow's force is as ready, and even more capable and
versatile than today's. Today's force benefits from some of the tough
decisions made by my predecessors and yours. We have an equal
obligation to make the right choices today to pave the way for our
successors. Given finite resources, balancing current readiness and
taking care of our quality people against modernization for the future
will often conflict--but all are equally important. To ensure that
tomorrow's Joint Force remains the world's best, we are moving forward
to make Joint Vision 2010--our conceptual framework for future joint
operations--a reality. Additionally, we are engaged in developing the
next Joint Vision document that builds on the JV2010 foundation and
maintains the momentum forward toward the future.
Joint Experimentation
The Secretary of Defense has assigned the Commander-In-Chief, U.S.
Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) to serve as the executive agent for joint
warfighting experimentation. Joint Experimentation is the principal
mechanism for translating JV2010 into reality. The Joint
Experimentation Program will complement--not replace--existing Service
experimentation efforts. Experimentation will also include efforts to
improve our interoperability and effectiveness with multinational
partners.
To facilitate joint, service-leveraged, and multinational
experimentation efforts, JFCOM has developed and published a
cornerstone document depicting the way ahead. Campaign Plan 00, a
comprehensive six-year effort covering the years 2000-2005, is designed
to identify new concepts, processes, organizations, capabilities, and
technologies that will enable dramatic improvements in our joint
warfighting. The results of these experiments will be captured within
an interdependent package of doctrine, organization, training,
materiel, leadership and education, people, and facilities
recommendations. Following the completion of each series of
experiments, a package of recommendations will be delivered to me for
approval and follow-on implementation, where applicable, within the
joint force.
The annual JFCOM campaign plans are bold approaches to joint force
and operational concept development. The plans emphasize
experimentation in two areas: (1) integrating concepts and (2)
functional concepts. Integrating concepts describe an overarching
warfighting approach and provide the context and focus for the
functional concepts. The functional concepts are critical to achieving
the overarching integrating concept capability.
In the near term, JFCOM will be experimenting with its first
integrating concept: Rapid Decisive Operations. This concept focuses on
the joint force at the operational level. It describes how a Joint
Force Commander can determine and employ the right balance of air,
land, sea, amphibious, space, and information-based capabilities in an
intense non-linear campaign to defeat an adversary's strategic and
operational centers of gravity. The Rapid Decisive Operations
Integrating Concept emphasizes the following four functional concepts
considered critical for the future:
--Attack Operations Against Critical Mobile Targets.--A system with
advanced sensors, near-instantaneous sensor-to-shooter data
flow, and high speed, long range accurate weapons that allows
rapid identification and engagement of armor, Surface-to-Air
Missiles, Theater Ballistic Missiles, and other mobile targets
to enhance offensive operations and improve force protection.
--Common Relevant Operational Picture.--Provide timely, fused,
accurate, consistent, and relevant information from multiple
sources into a readily understandable, scalable, and
interactive depiction of the joint battlespace. This picture
depicts information on friendly and enemy force dispositions
while enhancing attack operations and minimizing fratricide.
--Joint Interactive Planning.--A virtual, collaborative system which
enables planners to access a wide array of information and
planning efforts from numerous sources to improve decisions,
enable faster response time and allow commanders to react
quickly to changing events.
--Adaptive Joint Command and Control.--Leverages advances in
information technologies to revolutionize the structure of the
Joint Task Force Headquarters and the dissemination of
information to the Joint Force, as well as provide the joint
warfighter with the most effective and efficient operational
command and control.
The capstone event within the joint experimentation program for
this year will be Millennium Challenge 00. This joint experiment
provides an overarching joint context and scenario for the integration
of four Service-based experiments into a single joint event. The
Service events are the Army's Joint Contingency Force Advanced
Warfighting Experiment, the Navy's Fleet Battle Experiment Hotel, the
Air Force's Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment 00, and the Marine
Corps' Millennium Dragon.
Ultimately, the joint experimentation process will influence
everything about the Joint Force of 2010 including strategy, doctrine,
organizations, training, materiel, leadership and education,
facilities, and recruiting. By examining our assumptions and refining
our future warfighting concepts in the crucible of joint and
multinational experimentation, we can best achieve the full potential
of JV2010. Our objective remains the same: a Joint Force that is
persuasive in peace, decisive in war, and preeminent in any form of
conflict.
Military Transformation
Department of Defense transformation will result from the
Revolution in Business Affairs (RBA), which modernizes Department-wide
business practices, and the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), which
profoundly changes military forces and capabilities. As reported to the
President and Congress, this military transformation relies upon
progress and change within six critical areas. Development and
experimentation by the Services, CINCs, and JFCOM will eventually
enable the Services to provide a truly interoperable and compatible
joint force with Joint Vision 2010 operational capabilities. These
critical areas include:
--Science & Technology.--We will exploit the information revolution
and our Nation's dynamic and innovative technological
capabilities to achieve new levels of force integration and
force effectiveness.
--Service Concept Development.--We will work closely with the
Services to provide a compatible joint force framework that
maximizes Service core competencies, while maintaining a highly
effective, interoperable and compatible joint and combined
force in execution.
--Joint Concept Development.--We will strive for joint
interoperability and compatibility through Service-based and
joint-leveraged experimentation designed to produce
interdependent initiatives.
--Robust Implementation.--Service, joint, and multinational
experimentation is a long-term investment that will yield
recommended breakthrough capabilities and force enhancements
for military transformation. The specific processes for the
recommendation and approval of experimentation results are
currently under development. We seek the means to thoughtfully,
but rapidly, institute a package of recommended changes within
our forces in the areas of doctrine, organizations, training,
materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities.
--Multinational Transformation Activities.--We seek to encourage and
support multinational transformation activities among our
potential partners. We will develop the means to interface with
and enhance the interoperability of combined forces.
--Exceptional People.--Our people are the key to lasting
institutional change. We will continue to invest heavily in
leading, educating, training, and caring for our military and
civilian personnel and their family members in every affordable
way.
Additionally, I am undertaking initiatives that will further
institutionalize military transformation through:
--Metrics Development.--We are in the process of developing metrics
for military transformation. Metrics are the key measures to
judge the overall progress of transformation in so many inter-
related and interdependent areas. In this effort, we will be
supported by a 21st Century information and decision center
known as the Joint Vision Integration Cell.
--Joint Doctrine Process Improvement.--Joint doctrine is the engine
of change and is key to the transformation effort--it wins
wars, saves lives, saves money, and is the foundation of all
military operations. We are transforming the joint doctrine
development program to ensure that we get doctrine into
warfighters' hands in a timely manner. We are in the process of
modifying the development process by leveraging information
technologies to reduce the development timeline for a joint
publication. In the area of joint doctrine development, we are
working hard to include the contributions of our interagency
and multinational partners to ensure that our joint forces are
capable of operating as part of combined joint task forces
within an interagency environment.
--Joint Doctrine Training and Education.--Technology will play a
leading role in transforming joint doctrine. The emerging
capability to distribute information and apply doctrine
knowledge heralds a new era of opportunity in the military. The
Internet and CD-ROM based distributed learning methodology
employed to enhance doctrine awareness promises quality
doctrine education to every member of the U.S. military.
Information and hands-on training formerly available only to
those people able to participate in resident education now will
be available to all participants. The critical elements of
efforts to achieve these objectives are already under
development. These include the Joint Electronic Library (JEL)
and Joint Doctrine Electronic Information System (JDEIS)--
repositories of joint doctrine information, Doctrine Networked
Education and Training (DOCNET)--on-line multimedia joint
doctrine instructional modules, and the Joint Doctrine
Interactive Practical Application--a CD-ROM based doctrine war
game.
--War Planning.--Comprehensive plans that allow for employment of
forces across the full spectrum of military operations are
critical to support our National Security Strategy and
Engagement Objectives. As we prepare our Armed Forces for a
challenging future we will continue to refine and improve our
planning process to leverage technological advances and achieve
new levels of integration and effectiveness by: (1) conducting
a quality review of all plans to ensure synchronization with
strategic documents; (2) integrating all elements of National
Power into the DOD deliberate planning process; (3)
participating with the Contingency Planning Interagency Working
Group (CP IWG) in the production of politico-military plans;
(4) conducting thorough reviews of operation plans submitted by
international treaty organizations; and (5) incorporating
emerging technologies to achieve real-time information flow for
collaborative planning.
Intelligence Interoperability
Intelligence interoperability is the linchpin of our efforts to
achieve the goal of Information Superiority--a key enabler of the four
operational concepts of Joint Vision 2010--and the foundation for
providing the commander with dominant battlespace awareness.
To be fully interoperable in the context of Joint Vision 2010,
intelligence must be produced and delivered in a fashion that
immediately supports command decision making and mission execution.
Barriers to interoperability between intelligence and operations
systems and environments are being eliminated to ensure we are able to
provide a Common Operational Picture--which will tremendously enhance
the Joint Task Force commander's ability to exercise command and
control.
As interoperability requirements expand, we are aggressively
working through a wide-range of opportunities. Today, I can report that
we are on the cusp of a significant leap forward in redressing
interoperability shortfalls with the fielding of the Global Command and
Control System, or GCCS, which will provide integrated imagery and
intelligence to the Common Operational Picture.
Intelligence Support for Precision Engagement
Successful employment of modern weapons systems, new operational
concepts, and innovative combat techniques--particularly those
involving forces that are lighter, faster, more agile, and more
lethal--also depends on rapid, precise, accurate, and detailed
intelligence. The persistent demand for very-high-resolution
intelligence data is driven by a combination of factors: the inventory
of increasingly precise weaponry; a mission mix that requires the
``surgical'' application of force; and the growing use of high-fidelity
modeling to support mission planning. In addition, future trends--such
as the weaponization of information technologies or the increased
probability of combat operations in urban terrain--foreshadow a
dramatic growth in requirements for fine-grained, time sensitive
intelligence collection and analysis.
This evolving focus on pinpoint accuracy extends beyond precisely
striking a target with explosive ordnance. The JTF commander must be
able to understand the situation, select an appropriate course of
action and the forces to execute it, accurately assess the effects of
that action, and re-engage as necessary. Such situations and actions
encompass the full range of military operations--from full-scale combat
to humanitarian relief missions. Detailed intelligence is needed to
expand the options available not only to the operator but also to the
policymaker or peacekeeper. Achieving this degree of granularity will
require continued investment in, and modernization of, intelligence
collection and analysis capabilities. The defense intelligence
community is working to reshape its workforce, reform its processes,
and refine its capabilities to improve both precision and efficiency.
We will need the continued help of the Congress as we shepherd the
resources necessary to ensure that intelligence keeps pace with the
demands of modernized military capabilities.
Information Operations
Emerging threats and increasing dependence on information systems
make Information Operations (IO) an area of intense interest for DOD.
Information Operations consist of actions taken to affect adversary
information and information systems while defending one's own
information and information systems. A significant force multiplier,
both offensively and defensively, IO offers great potential across the
spectrum of conflict from peace to war. In a noncombat or ambiguous
situation, IO includes the actions taken to preserve one's own
information and information systems, as well as those taken to
influence a target's systems. Focusing on the decision-maker and/or
decision making process, IO integrates traditional military activities
and capabilities; such as Electronic Warfare (EW), Psychological
Operations, Operations Security, Physical Destruction, and others, with
the newer mission of Computer Network Defense/Attack (CND/CNA). The
emergence of this new realm of conflict brings significant
vulnerabilities as well. An adversary using CNA techniques could gain a
significant advantage by attacking portions of the U.S. military and/or
commercial information infrastructure.
To avert such a scenario, DOD has focused a great deal of attention
on Information Assurance (IA): measures aimed at protecting and
defending information and information systems. Effective IA transcends
DOD and requires coordination throughout the government as well as a
rational approach to integrating commercial sector efforts. The nature
of modern information technology makes identification of adversary
actors and motives difficult. Joint Task Force--Computer Network
Defense was established in 1999 to address this threat. Assigned to
SPACECOM, it works in concert with the National Infrastructure
Protection Center (NIPC) to ensure the security of vital DOD
Information systems.
The role of the DOD and other agencies, as well as the role of the
federal government in general in protecting our country's information
and information systems while preserving individual rights, needs
further study and clarification. We are involved in several senior
level venues to shape DOD IO efforts. The DOD IO concept white paper,
when completed, will provide a framework for future DOD IO policy and a
stimulus for greater interagency coordination.
Global Information Grid
An important aspect of future operations will be the development of
a Global Information Grid, or GIG, to provide the network-centric
environment required to achieve information superiority. The GIG is the
globally interconnected, end-to-end set of information capabilities,
associated processes, and personnel to manage and provide information
on demand to warfighters, policy makers, and supporting personnel. It
will enhance combat power through greatly increased battlespace
awareness, improved ability to employ weapons beyond line-of-sight,
employment of massed effects instead of massed forces, and reduced
decision cycles. It will contribute to the success of non-combat
military operations as well.
Though the GIG is not yet a reality, the way ahead is clear. For
example, JFCOM has been given the lead and is currently writing the GIG
Capstone Requirements Document. This is the first time a single,
overarching document will drive all future C\4\ requirements and
provide the framework for increasing numbers of new capabilities to be
``conceived and born joint.''
Global Positioning System
To preserve our ability to prosecute military operations with
precision at standoff ranges in all weather conditions, we are
embarking on a Global Positioning System (GPS) modernization program.
This modernization effort will include a new military navigation signal
from space that will increase the performance of weapons systems in the
presence of enemy jamming. In our role as the stewards of the GPS
constellation, these modernized satellites will also include additional
civil signals to meet the national goal of enhancing the utility of GPS
across commercial, scientific, and aviation communities.
Unified Command Plan
A major part of our transformation effort is our long-range vision
of how to organize for the future. Last October, Joint Forces Command
was established to focus on joint training, experimentation,
interoperability, and doctrine. At the same time, we also established
the Computer Network Defense Joint Task Force to help protect our
critical defense information systems, as well as the Joint Task Force
for Civil Support (JTF-CS) which will become fully operational by April
2000.
JTF-CS, located in Norfolk, Virginia, has a staff of 36 and is led
by an Army National Guard Brigadier General. JTF-CS will assume overall
responsibility for coordinating DOD's Consequence Management (CM)
support efforts to civil authorities for WMD incidents within the U.S.,
its territories, and possessions. It will also train forces, develop
doctrine, and serve as a command and control headquarters for military
units deployed in support of consequence management efforts. During
routine, day-to-day operations, JTF-CS will act as JFCOM's primary
point of contact for all WMD consequence management matters.
This DOD organizational change will provide the best possible
military support to our country's WMD consequence management effort. I
want to underscore, however, that this action in no way alters our
relationship with the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) during a CM operation.
JTF-CS will always be in a supporting role to the LFA, and civilian
control will always be firmly maintained.
As part of the Unified Command Plan (UCP) review cycle, my staff
also worked with the CINCs and Services to study a wide range of
options for the future. The results of this review, called UCP 21,
provide a flexible, evolutionary path designed to improve jointness and
protect our national interests against evolving threats well into the
early part of this new century.
Ballistic Missile Proliferation
The global proliferation of technology and the ballistic missile
programs underway in many nations mean that we must take steps now to
counter emerging threats to the U.S., our forward deployed forces, and
our allies. Future strategic and regional threats are characterized by
the increasing potential for an opponent's use of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) across the spectrum of conflict. Counterproliferation
(CP) refers to DOD efforts to combat proliferation, including: (1) the
application of military power to protect U.S. forces and interests; (2)
intelligence collection and analysis; and (3) support to diplomacy,
arms control, and export controls. We must be fully prepared to counter
the military threats posed by WMD. CP helps shape the international
environment by deterring proliferation and use of WMD. Nuclear
capabilities serve as a hedge against an uncertain future, a guarantee
of security commitments to allies, and a disincentive to those who
would contemplate employment of WMD. While the U.S. may not be
successful in preventing proliferation all the time and in all places,
when proliferation does occur and national interests and commitments
are threatened, we must be in a position to respond and prevail during
a crisis or on the battlefield.
To prepare now for an uncertain future, our CP strategy focuses on:
(1) preventing proliferation from occurring; (2) protecting U.S.
forces, interests, and citizens against WMD; and, (3) being able to
respond against those who would use WMD against the U.S. or its allies.
This strategy is characterized by a set of mutually supporting
capabilities: counterforce, active defense, passive defense, and
consequence management.
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) and National Missile Defense (NMD)
are important components of the active defense capability mentioned
above. TMD is designed to protect U.S. and allied forces against
ballistic missile threats within theaters. The CINCs require a family
of systems for Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD) consisting of a
mix of interoperable air, land, and sea-based capabilities. This
architecture is both complementary and flexible, allowing the CINCs to
adequately defend assets across the continuum of peacetime operations,
through crisis response to a major theater conflict. The Department's
priorities for TBMD remain unchanged--lower tier capability (Patriot
Advanced Capability-3 and Navy Area Defense System) is still our
highest priority, followed by upper tier capability (Theater High
Altitude Area Defense System and Navy Theater Wide Defense System).
However, the development and deployment of an upper tier capability by
fiscal year 2007 is operationally critical to ensure protection against
the projected Medium Range Ballistic Missile threat, to provide wide-
area coverage, and to enhance theater air and missile defense
protection.
Moreover, TMD enhances regional stability. As part of broader
efforts, the U.S. is actively engaged in cooperative programs with
Japan, NATO, Israel, and Russia. Cooperation with Japan is presently
limited to Shared Early Warning (SEW) information on theater ballistic
missile launches and the Navy Theater Wide Block II cooperative
research effort. NATO and Israeli cooperation includes SEW. Additional
cooperative programs include the co-development of the Medium Extended
Air Defense System (MEADS) with Germany and Italy, and the ARROW
weapons system with Israel. Finally, cooperation with Russia includes a
TMD exercise program and discussions on strategic and theater SEW.
The NMD program will continue to develop and maintain the option to
deploy an anti-ballistic missile defense to protect all 50 states
against limited strategic ballistic missile threats from rogue states.
This will also provide some capability against a small accidental or
unauthorized launch from a nuclear-capable state. The objectives of the
NMD program are threefold: (1) to develop and demonstrate a system
capable of protecting against small-scale ballistic missile attacks;
(2) to complete system development and, if directed, field an initial
capability system by 2005; and (3) to maintain a system development
path that allows evolutionary upgrading of system capabilities
commensurate with the threat. The NMD program is progressing toward the
July 2000 Deployment Readiness Review and a subsequent deployment
decision by the President. The decision to deploy will be based on an
assessment of the system's technical maturity, status of the threat,
operational effectiveness, cost, and international security
considerations.
Integrating Interagency Planning
In the ten years since the end of the Cold War, the United States
has been engaged in planning and executing a series of Complex
Contingency Operations (CCOs). During these operations, it has become
increasingly clear that an integrated approach for the application of
USG policy and assets must be made to optimize scarce resources and
ensure success. Several initiatives are currently being coordinated and
developed that will better integrate DOD with other agencies in
conducting complex, and small-scale contingencies, as well as Major
Theater War (MTW).
The first step in establishing dedicated mechanisms and integrated
planning processes needed to ensure rapid, effective, well-structured,
multi-agency efforts in response to crises was the publication of
Presidential Decision Directive 56 (PDD-56)--Managing Complex
Contingency Operations--in 1997.
Since then there have been four PDD-56 training events to link the
Interagency with the CINC. The most recent was done in conjunction with
EUCOM's ``Brave Knight'' exercise last spring. This event was exercised
at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level, and addressed a WMD crisis in
Europe. We have learned many lessons from these exercises, but among
the most important may be the need to have senior officials routinely
participate.
In November 1999, the President directed the Secretary of Defense
to forward to the National Security Council those politico-military
issues deemed necessary for interagency review and appropriate action.
This will be accomplished by the development of an Interagency
Coordination Annex (Annex V) to all CJCS-approved plans. Annex V does
not duplicate operations covered in other annexes, appendices, or tabs,
but, rather, provides a single source reference for the CINCs to
identify Interagency requirements and lays the groundwork for potential
coordination with international civilian organizations and private
voluntary organizations. These Annex Vs, when approved, will be
repackaged into politico-military strategic concepts and forwarded
through OSD to the NSC.
These politico-military strategic concepts are the mechanism to
facilitate the development of contingency politico-military plans.
Spelling out the CINCs' Interagency requirements enables other agencies
to conduct detailed advanced planning in concert with DOD. These
contingency politico-military plans can be maintained for use in a
future crisis. At the onset of a crisis, the PDD-56 process is
initiated. The starting point to conduct PDD-56 planning will be these
politico-military contingency plans. This advance planning will greatly
enhance our ability to rapidly resolve crises as they emerge.
In December 1999, the National Security Advisor established a new
standing Contingency Planning Interagency Working Group (CP IWG),
chaired by the NSC staff, whose goal is to improve the PDD-56 process
and receive these politico-military strategic concepts in order to do
advance interagency planning. This CP IWG will include Assistant
Secretary level representation from Departments within the Interagency.
The CP IWG will meet regularly to:
--Assess potential contingencies and make recommendations for the
development of political-military plans to manage them.
--Oversee political-military contingency planning and provide
reaction and comment to DOD regarding Interagency involvement
contained in CINC plans.
--Review and provide advice and recommendations to senior leaders on
possible follow-on efforts.
--Provide policy guidance on the implementation of the interagency
training and after-action review components of PDD-56.
Our experiences in Kosovo and elsewhere have demonstrated the
necessity to ensure that all concerned government agencies conduct
comprehensive planning to encompass the full range of instruments
available to decision-makers. We all must move forward with our efforts
to achieve increased levels of integrated interagency planning now. To
better support other agencies, DOD needs to give greater consideration
to political, diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, information, and
other non-military activities in defense planning. In addition, the
U.S. government must establish dedicated mechanisms and integrated
planning processes to ensure rapid, effective, well-structured, multi-
agency efforts in response to crises. Finally, we must continue to
emphasize that our senior officials routinely participate in
rehearsals, gaming, exercises, and simulations, as well as the CP/IWG--
which has become a genuine leap forward in the effort to establish a
sound system to incorporate crisis and deliberate planning across the
interagency.
Joint Officer Management
Arguably, one of the most important pieces of legislation that
affected not only the structure of the Department, but also the way we
execute our responsibilities and manage our personnel, was the
Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. I am convinced
that the many operational successes the military has enjoyed since its
passage, including Operations DESERT STORM and ALLIED FORCE, are
attributable to the remarkable vision inherent in this Act.
We have had 13 good years of experience in the joint arena under
this Act, and we have come a long way to achieving its original
intention. It is time to consider evolutionary changes to the joint
officer management process to ensure that our warfighting commanders-
in-chief have the best men and women possible to meet their daunting
responsibilities.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act originally presumed joint operations
would require an extensive joint bureaucracy and an associated cadre of
joint specialists to sustain it. What we have learned, however, is that
our joint warfighting CINCs need officers with fresh experience in
their area of functional expertise and a strong grounding in their
Service's core competencies. The joint officer management process, as
it exists today, is preoccupied with meeting quotas, not matching skill
sets to requirements. We have submitted several proposed changes, each
of which I believe will strengthen Goldwater-Nichols objectives by
changing the existing process to address joint requirements.
For example, we would like to match the joint tour length
requirement to the established DOD tour length for a particular
location, not the arbitrary 36 months that is established in current
law. As it exists today, officers who are posted to joint assignments
in remote, but nonetheless critical, locations such as Korea and
Southwest Asia do not typically receive joint credit.
Let me assure the Congress that we are not trying to circumvent or
weaken what has become a vitally important part of how we defend our
Nation's interests. To the contrary, we are working not only to improve
jointness, but to champion it, as well. For example, though permitted
by internal DOD policy, we are seeking to limit even more the number of
waivers for those officers promoted to Flag and General officer rank.
JPME 2010
In 1998, we conducted an extensive review of Joint Professional
Military Education (JPME) with a view toward defining requirements and
identifying better ways to prepare officers for current and future
challenges. The results of this study revealed a need to develop a JPME
continuum that would expand the JPME audience to include Active and
Reserve components, deepen and broaden JPME content, simplify joint
officer management, and make JPME more accessible through distance
learning and broader opportunities to receive JPME Phase II at
Intermediate and Senior Service Schools.
We intend to work closely with the Congress to enact these
important initiatives to improve joint education throughout the force.
Logistics Transformation
While the United States military continues to have the most
effective logistics system in the world, this is another area where we
are striving to become better. In the past, logistics information
systems were traditionally Service and function specific. These
``stovepiped'' systems are invaluable to the respective Service
component commander, but fragmented at the joint task force (JTF)
level. Today, CINCs, Components and JTF Commanders do not have an
integrated logistics information system that fully supports joint
operational requirements; nor is there a repository of accurate, real-
time, and seamless logistics information on which such a system can be
based.
We are developing a strategy, in conjunction with OSD, the
Services, and the appropriate Defense Agencies to: (1) adopt commercial
solutions reflecting best industry practices; (2) review and optimize
our logistics processes at all levels; and (3) arrive at a cohesive,
web-based, network-centric, real-time, integrated logistics information
environment by fiscal year 2004.
Our goal is to provide the joint warfighter real-time logistics
situational awareness by leveraging technology as we optimize our
logistics processes while minimizing disruptions. To achieve this aim,
we have recommended several intermediate steps:
--Implement Customer Wait Time as a new logistics metric.
--Establish a time-definite delivery based on a user established
required delivery date.
--Continue to integrate Automatic Identification Technology (AIT) and
Automated Information Systems (AIS) at all levels to capture
accurate and timely information thereby obtaining true joint
asset visibility.
--Develop and field a web-based, shared data environment providing
seamless, interoperable, real-time logistics information to
ensure the joint warfighter has the ability to make timely and
confident logistics decisions.
Implementing these measures will significantly enhance
modernization initiatives within the logistics community. I am
optimistic that we will be making significant progress in this
important area in the year ahead.
conclusion
The U.S. armed forces remain fundamentally sound and capable of
fulfilling their role in executing our national security strategy.
However, the combination of multiple, competing missions, recruiting
and retention shortfalls, aging equipment, and fixed defense budgets
has frayed the force. With the support of this Committee and the
Congress as a whole, we can continue to apply the right kind of
corrective action now and avoid a downward spiral that could take years
to overcome. As I have outlined above, we have a clear vision and a
plan for achieving that vision. Together with the Congress and the
Administration, the Department will transform our military forces to
ensure that we meet all threats to America's security in the 21st
Century--just as we have for the past two centuries. And as we move
forward, we do so with complete confidence in America's sons and
daughters in uniform. They represent the heart and soul of our Armed
Forces; it is incumbent upon us collectively to ensure that their
sacrifices are not in vain.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We will start the
clock, but let me start with just a comment and request. I
would ask that you each carry to your wives our expression of
gratitude. Bill, Janet, and you, Carolyn, your wives have a
role that nobody really understands and appreciates. They
travel with you. They are our hostesses in so many ways, and
they are the role models for the men and women, particularly
the women in the Armed Services. You are blessed with two great
wives, and we thank you very much for sharing them with us from
time to time.
European defense capabilities
I would like to ask you first, Mr. Secretary, about the
problems that some of us perceive to be developing in Europe as
the European Union creates its own military. Now, I know you
went to the Vercunda Conference and we did not--I did not,
anyway, but there was discussed there--can you tell us, is that
going to lead us to trouble now in terms of bifurcating our
support with the NATO forces and the European military?
Secretary Cohen. Mr. Chairman, the answer is, it depends.
It depends on how this European Security Defense Identity
(ESDI) proceeds. What I said at the conference was that we have
been for years banging on the European door saying, you must do
more, you are not carrying enough weight here, and that was
clearly evidenced during the Kosovo campaign with the
deficiencies that were highlighted and illuminated in terms of
what we have been talking about for years finally were revealed
during the course of that air campaign.
So we have been saying you have to do more. Now they are
saying, okay, we are prepared to do more. The question is, how
will it be structured?
To the extent that ESDI, the European Security Defense
Identity, means it is going to be a component of, or under the
umbrella of NATO, and to the extent that NATO determines it is
not prepared, does not want to take action, then this European
Defense Initiative or capability could take action under those
circumstances, calling upon certain assets of NATO in order to
conduct the missions, then I think that that is something we
are all are very strongly in favor.
The fear that I have at least had and voiced was that there
might be a tendency to create a separate bureaucracy, with
separate command and control elements, and that that would be
in competition with NATO rather than a complement to it.
We had something that all of the NATO countries signed up
to last year when we had the NATO summit meeting here in
Washington, and that was something called the Defense
Capabilities Initiative, and it essentially means that we have
identified those capabilities that we should have. It had to do
with what the chairman is talking about, precision guided
munitions, having air-to-air refueling, having secure
communications, having things that are fully integrated into
NATO's capabilities.
What would be of concern is if the Europeans start to
develop capabilities which do not measure up into their
obligations to NATO, they are separate and apart, not fully
integrated, and so then you have the worst of all worlds, where
you have a separate bureaucracy with countries who have perhaps
increased their defense spending, which is something I want to
talk about just for a moment, but it is not fully integrated
into NATO's obligations and capabilities. There you would have
a separate bureaucracy with less capability and not
complementary to NATO itself. That would be the thing we should
avoid.
As a matter of fact, I am going to be hosting a meeting in
June at the Wye River Plantation, or Estate, with Europeans who
want to come over, leading European defense ministers who want
to come over and to lay out their vision of ESDI.
So I think, again, it depends. Based on what the British
are saying, based upon the strong support of the Germans and
the Italians, I think that the concept of ESDI as it is
unfolding is something we should strongly support, but there
are some who have a different interpretation of what that means
and the way in which it should go, and I think we have to be
very careful, because otherwise I think you and all the Members
of Congress will rightfully look at what is taking place.
Here I am coming before you saying, we need at least $112
billion, and more than that, in order to modernize our forces
and make sure that we stay as capable as we are, and we look at
the comparable budgets amongst the European nations, and they
are going down.
Now, some of that is doing it so they can achieve some
efficiencies through their acquisition strategies and so forth.
That is true. They cannot achieve the kind of efficiencies
necessary in order to measure up to the capabilities required,
and that is the danger as we see budgets going down and ours
going up, and at some point in time, you are going to say, wait
a minute. We are not seeing an equitable sharing of the burden
here, and that will have political consequences to the European
nations.
So it is something that I talk about, have talked about,
will continue to do so, but it is something we need to keep our
focus on.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, the time is now--we are
hearing those comments now as to whether this is so bifurcating
the support of the Europeans and our joint efforts over there
that they will not be bearing their fair share of the expenses
in Kosovo. It is a real question, but I do thank you for your
answer. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, in your presentation you
spoke of how thin our troops are stretched out overseas. We
know that some of the pilots and specialists are repeatedly
called upon to serve overseas. In fact, we take out equipment
from potential trouble areas to meet emergency needs elsewhere.
Now, as you prepare to advise the President on the quadrennial
review, are you going to suggest that we increase our force
structure?
Force structure increases
Secretary Cohen. I have not recommended an increase in the
force structure at this point, Senator Inouye. What we have
tried to do and the chairman touched upon this in his opening
comments in terms of trying to find ways in which we can reduce
the operational tempo of our forces. I will give you one
example. In East Timor when that situation unfolded we had a
strong pressure coming from our Australian friends saying we
need you to take the leadership role, meaning the United States
in this effort and join with us in a partnership. The
Australians are our great friends. They have been with us in
every conflict, but we at that point had to point out that we
are stretched, we are in Bosnia, we are in Kosovo, we are in
the Gulf, we are throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
We have obligations which are stretching our force, and so
we will be supportive, but we cannot commit the kind of forces
that were required at that time, so we were able to help
organize a number of countries from the region to take the lead
in support of the Australians, and so we have tried to resist
what the chairman is talking about where we are the first ones
people want to call upon because of our capability and
sometimes they do it as a last resort, but we have to resist
not the temptation but the request of many countries who say
you are the only ones who can handle this.
So it is always a tough issue, and if it comes to the point
where we find that we can no longer carry out our mission and
we continue to see a depletion of our forces because of the
operational tempo, then we will have to go back and say we need
more. I would point out that we are having difficulty right now
achieving our target goals to fulfill the forces that are
required under the current force structure so that is another
element that we would have to look at, assuming we have higher
numbers. What would the cost be and could we achieve those
higher numbers under the current planning, but it is something
I have not recommended at this time.
START II and missile defense
Senator Inouye. The Russian Duma just approved START II,
and I suppose you will be called upon to make your
recommendations to the President on the deployment of our
national missile defense system. Can you tell us what you are
going to recommend?
Secretary Cohen. I think you should ask me that question
this summer when I will not be available to testify before you.
But let me just give you what I have tried to do today. First
of all, I commend the new President for getting the Duma to
ratify this. I understand, Senator Cochran, you met recently
with some of the Duma members, and I would commend this to all
of you whenever you have a chance to travel to Moscow, or visit
in Russia, try to arrange meeting your counterparts. It is very
important that you talk to them and you talk very straight with
them, and I found that every occasion that I have been there I
always try to meet with Duma members and to lay out our
strategy and what our goals are.
I believe the ratification under the circumstances tying it
to no deployment for national missile defense is simply
unacceptable. They should ratify START II based on the
agreement. And that we will negotiate with them and to see
whether or not we can amend the ABM Treaty to take into account
a national missile defense system if the President should
choose to go forward, and what I have tried to lay out to the
Russians is exactly what we contemplate, assuming that we
satisfy the four requirements the President has said, number
one, is there a threat that would justify a national missile
defense system? I believe the threat is real. It is here. I
believe it will increase.
Number 2, do we have the technology, we have not resolved
that issue just yet. We are close, but I think the tests that
are forthcoming will give us the ability to make that
determination.
Number 3, what are the costs? I saw in today's paper that
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has now pegged the cost
at some $60 billion. I have no way of knowing whether those
numbers are accurate or not or what they have included, whether
they have included the 15-year period as opposed to 5-year
period, how many satellites they have included, all of that is
open to resolution, assuming the cost factor that we satisfied
that.
The next question is, what is the impact upon our arms
reductions and stability in the world in terms of strategic
systems. Those four tests the President is going to apply.
After the test which is set for late June, early July there
will be about a 30-day period in which I will then have to
examine what the results of that test are and then make a
recommendation to the President, but it will be separate and
distinct from Russia's ratification of START II in my mind, and
I would not have the Duma be in a position to tie the two
together.
We have to look at what the threat is to our country, we
have to look in terms of the countries that are most critical
of the national missile defense (NMD) also have participated in
the spreading of that technology to some degree, and we have to
take that into account as well, but we will look at what our
national security interests are, and then see whether this
system as contemplated is designed to defeat a threat from a
rogue nation, but I cannot tell you that now. I will be in a
position this summer to make a recommendation to the President,
and I certainly will communicate with all of you prior to any
decision being made.
Senator Inouye. I am encouraged by your statement, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, just to follow up
on what Senator Inouye was talking about and you, too, on
national missile defense. We all know basically that today we
have no missile defense.
Secretary Cohen. That's right.
Senator Shelby. And so I appreciate your candor and I
appreciate your work in this respect because we are all
concerned about the big nations at times, but more so right
now, rogue nations, people that you cannot predict, that you
cannot reason with at times; is that correct?
Secretary Cohen. That's right.
duration of U.S. Balkan deployments
Senator Shelby. I want to jump over to the Balkans. General
Shelton, both of you talked about this. What timeframe, Mr.
Secretary, do you place on our presence in the Balkans, our
military presence starting with Bosnia and Kosovo? I was just
there last week, and you are absolutely right, General, about
the morale of our troops, the stability they are bringing in
there, but at a cost, how long will we be in Bosnia in your
judgment?
Bosnia/Kosovo
Secretary Cohen. Senator Shelby, I do not know. I really
cannot tell you. I can tell you there has been great progress.
You have seen it, I have seen it. The chairman has seen it. We
have seen our forces come from 20,000 in number down to roughly
4,300 or so. There has been dramatic reduction in the size of
our force. We are hopeful that they can reduce in the next
evaluation period, but it is going to take more time.
In Kosovo we have seen a rather significant change on the
ground from last year where we were in the middle of waging an
air campaign to where we are today. Again, identifying some of
the flash points we have seen, but it is going to take some
time I think. Anyone who tells you that they have a fixed
period in mind in which they can tell you that that is when the
job will be complete I think would be misleading you.
Senator Shelby. Are we about as drawn down, about as far in
Bosnia as we can at the moment?
Secretary Cohen. I think as far as the security situation
permits and the chairman I think would be in a better position
to give you a judgment on that, but our European commander
makes an assessment in terms of what is the security
environment and then tries to match our forces to that threat,
and I think the numbers we have there are adequate. To go below
that absent his recommendation would be a mistake, but the
chairman should perhaps comment on that.
General Shelton. Senator Shelby, I think the Secretary is
right on the mark. It gets tougher and tougher to reduce as you
get down to these lower numbers now. I think the last time I
was there, which was about 1 month ago talking to General Adams
there in Bosnia, he did not at that time see an ability to come
down significantly in the next look, we look at it every 6
months. So I think we will see it get tougher and tougher until
such time as the civil implementation piece kicks in and the
police start to become a more effective police, and the rule of
law is in effect, then those things allow you to reduce without
the risk going up to the troops you are leaving behind. So we
try to balance the risk with the number of troops, but I think
we are reaching kind of a stable point until such time as we
can get the civil implementation piece stood completely up.
Theater war capabilities
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, it has been the policy of
this country that we maintain a military capable of fighting
and winning two major theater wars (MTW) almost simultaneously.
Given the drawdown in forces, is this policy still executable?
Can we still execute this policy or does it depend upon the
intensity of the conflict?
Secretary Cohen. The answer to that is yes, but as the
chairman and I have pointed out, with much higher risk on the
second MTW than is desirable. We could, in fact, carry out one
major theater war capability and have that capability to wage
it, and then on the second one the risk goes up, meaning the
duration of the conflict and the amount of people, personnel
who would be lost as casualties would increase, and so the risk
is higher than it has been in the past on the second.
Senator Shelby. Have you had thoughts about reviewing that
policy in any way? I guess you review it at times anyway.
Secretary Cohen. Well, we always review it. We have the
quadrennial defense review, the next one will be coming up in
the next administration. As you know, I have been supportive of
the Hart-Rudman study group and composed of a number of
distinguished experts in the field. They have called into
question whether we have--that should be our strategy, and I
would point out it is not a strategy, it is a capability we are
talking about that we feel that we still need to maintain that
capability for the foreseeable future because we still have at
least two major theater war potentials that we have to address;
namely, the gulf region and also in the Korean peninsula.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, we
need more troops and we need more money to pay those troops to
attract them into the military because the opportunities with
the booming economy is otherwise, and right to the point, mark
me down as a 5 percent value-added tax in the Finance Committee
and bring in the $185 billion, and I will gladly get a hearing
on it and vote for it to pay for this thing. We are not paying
our way. We spent $127.4 billion more last year than we took
in. There is no surplus, and even with the wonderful returns we
got from income tax on April 15, we still have spent $71
billion more than we took in this year so far. The debt has
increased. The public debt to the penny, tap it out on your
computer, the Treasury puts it out every day to the penny.
Now, you have got the stretch of nine peacekeeping
operations at the moment. There are four additional ones asked
for in the emergency supplemental, and in fact there could be
one more if we get a peace agreement in the Mideast. I have
just come from Israel, and they are talking about some kind of
personnel there on the Golan Heights.
So let us get realistic with each other. Kosovo. I am
thinking today it was 25 years before Secretary McNamara
finally said Vietnam was a mistake. I am wondering how long the
Secretary of Defense is going to say that about Kosovo. I
understand it is Madeleine's war, do not worry, I am not
getting you, but do not give me that stuff, I have just gotten
back, and Secretary Albright said, now wait a minute, now we
will withdraw when we develop the infrastructure, the schools,
the highways, the hospitals are rebuilt. We put in a court
system, we have got security, we have got industry, we have got
opportunity. I think about 30 years ago when I met with Martin
Agronsky in London, and he had just spent 3 weeks in Northern
Ireland, and he said it would take 30 years before they get
together, and 30 years later we have still got the British
troops in Northern Ireland, and they have had for 30 years the
infrastructure, the schools, the opportunities, the industry,
the hospitals. They just do not get along.
And you folks are whistling Dixie. That thing is not going
to happen. Bosnia was supposed to be 1 year, that is 6 years,
and you talk like it is going to happen in your time. It is not
going to happen in your time, General Shelton, I can tell you,
I have been over there, and incidentally, the violence is 95
percent Albanian on Albanian. They do not get along with each
other right now.
So we look now at the emergency supplemental and the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Secretary Cohen has
got an amendment that he wanted me to cosponsor it saying the
United Nations, as you all have just testified, the European
Union, a tremendous shortfall, they have not put what they put
in there for General Reinhart or now General Ortuna. They are
way behind. The jails are overflowing, so they make arrests,
have to let them go and everything of that kind.
So it's not a pretty picture and there is no use to try to
finesse it and kid each other, and Senator Warner says if they
do not come forth we are going to cut the money and start
withdrawing troops. Now, that is where we are this minute, as
you are testifying. So let us have a realistic appraisal of
where we are headed there because you are asking for four,
perhaps five more peacekeeping. You do not have the money now
because you both have testified you are stretched and we ought
to quit kidding each other, and let us try to pull out of
Bosnia and Kosovo and let the Europeans take it over. That is
it right there. We have a peace as you all have described it
right now, and there's wonderful progress, so if you have
everything settled, are they going to go back at each other?
They are still up in Northern Ireland. Thank gosh we did
not send Secretary Albright to Northern Ireland. I mean, we
sent our good friend, Senator Mitchell, and he has done a
magnificent job, and that is the kind of job that is required.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What are you going to do about Senator
Warner's amendment?
Senator Warner's amendment on Kosovo
Secretary Cohen. Well, I am going to obviously have to meet
with Senator Warner to say that mandating a withdrawal at a
fixed time based upon a perception of what the Europeans are
doing is probably not the right way to proceed with this. The
Europeans, I might point out, as a result of congressional
pressure, as a result of what we are doing, they have, in fact,
been putting more money into the civilian side. They have been
responding not as much as we want yet, but I think it is
important to have pressure, but I think anytime you say okay,
we are pulling out and we will start withdrawing, that is not
the right way to set that in legislative concrete.
I think we can keep the pressure up, we are keeping the
pressure up, I would say Secretary Albright is trying to bring
about resolution of these tough issues, and they are not easy.
I give her credit. I mean, she is trying her best to deal with
very tough issues. You say it is not a pretty picture. It was
not a pretty picture last year, it was not a pretty picture to
see almost 1 million people pouring over the borders with
Milosevic and his troops out there rampaging, and so I think
the picture is prettier today than it was 1 year ago. How long
will it be? We are not trying to kid you. It is not going to be
during our time. It will not be perhaps during the time of our
successor, but I think great progress is being made, and we can
say we are out, let it all go back to a state of nature. Hatred
is a much more intense emotion than certainly respectability
and respect for others. We have given them.
We are giving them an opportunity for peace. They can
choose to embrace it or they can choose to reject it, but I
think our commitment has been that we recognize what the
potential is for instability in that region to spill over to
affect our NATO allies and us, as a result of it. We can give
them an opportunity, we are giving them that. It is costing us,
but the option of letting it just spread and saying we are not
involved I think is not one that we could accept, either,
Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Senator Dorgan.
U.S. national missile defense
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. In
response to a previous question I think by Senator Shelby who
asked we do not now have a missile defense, do we? You said no
we do not. It would also be true to say we have never had a
missile defense, is that not the case?
Secretary Cohen. That is correct.
Senator Dorgan. If we build whatever it is we are
suggesting, even those on this committee are suggesting we
build, it would be true or accurate to say that we will not
have a missile defense to defend against any kind of robust
attack from a Russia, for example. Would that be the case?
Secretary Cohen. That is correct. Nor was it ever intended
we would have that kind of system.
Senator Dorgan. I understand that. But in terms of the
response to the question, do we have a missile defense? The
answer is no. The answer was no 10 years ago and 20 years ago
and the answer will be no with respect to robust threats from a
nuclear superpower 10 years from now or 20 years from now.
Secretary Cohen. That is correct.
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask a couple of questions about this
because I think one way to respond is to build and another way
is through threat reduction, and you are familiar, of course,
and this subcommittee certainly is familiar with the Nunn-Lugar
program, which has, I think, been extraordinarily effective in
threat reduction. As I understand it, we spent about $2.5
billion on the Nunn-Lugar program, and I think the dismantling
of bombers, submarines, missiles, warheads in the old Soviet
Union and now Russia is somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 to
$40 billion. Is it your assessment that the Nunn-Lugar threat
reduction program has been fairly effective and a pretty wise
use of funds?
Secretary Cohen. It has been very effective. I had occasion
to go to northern Russia to see the dismantlement of some of
the submarines up there. The typhoon submarine, for those of
you who have not seen it is about two football fields in
length, and those are in the process under the START agreements
of being dismantled and cut up. We have seen the deactivation
of some 4,966 warheads as a result of the Nunn-Lugar
Cooperative Threat Reduction Act. I could go through and give
you all the numbers, but it is very impressive.
Senator Dorgan. The point is I think you have requested
$460 million, and that is an important piece that we need to be
attentive to because that program you say works. I believe it
works, I think it is a pretty remarkable program. Let me ask
with respect to the START agreements and the recent Russian
action, the Russians have recently ratified the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, they have ratified START II with some
provisos, and we are now engaged with the Russians on the
subject of modifying the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in
order to accommodate the potential national missile defense
program that is being discussed.
Today in The New York Times, there are a number of
articles, The Washington Times, New York Times that the United
Nations, Russia hardens its line on changes to missile treaty.
One of the prospects is that we may find in months ahead that
we are not able to negotiate agreements to modify the ABM
Treaty. What is the administration willing to do and what would
your recommendations be with respect to abrogating that treaty
or simply saying that NMD program to defend against a limited
threat ergo a rogue nation threat is more important than
retaining the centerpiece of arms control, how would you
proceed in that circumstance?
My guess is if you proceeded by saying the arms control
regime really is not as important as the NMD program we want to
build that you are going to be asking for a great deal more
money because that will reignite an appetite by the Chinese and
Russians and others to build offensive weapons. How are you
going to reconcile that?
Arms control, missile defense and deterrence
Secretary Cohen. They are both important. What I think we
have to do, and I have tried to do with the Russians, for
example, is to point out that over the years that we were very
critical of the Soviet Union in sponsoring and supporting
terrorism and terrorist groups. When I was in Russia the last
time a bomb went off, destroying an apartment building, and so
terrorism had come home to Russia itself, and they were
justifiably concerned about that.
I have indicated to them that because of the proliferation
of missile technology they will not be immune from this threat,
that what is taking place, be it in North Korea, in North
Korea's own transfer of technology, what is taking place with
Iran, trying to acquire long-range missile capability with the
help of a number of countries that they will be just as
vulnerable to such an attack as we, and therefore they should
take that into account in their opposition to this NMD program.
I think the President will have to make that determination.
Obviously, I cannot make it.
I can make a recommendation based upon the nature of the
threat which I think is real, and it is real in this sense,
Senator Dorgan. We have a retaliatory capability if anyone
should ever be foolhardy enough to launch a missile attack of a
limited or expanded nature against the United States, they
would be destroyed in the process. That ordinarily should be a
sufficient deterrent for the North Koreans, Iran, Iraq or Libya
or any other country that would seek to acquire this
capability. But what we never want to be subject to is what I
would say would be a nuclear blackmail situation where a Saddam
Hussein occupies Kuwait or possibly Saudi Arabia or there is
some other type of aggressive action, and you then say, well,
we are going to put half a million troops in Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia to drive Saddam out and he says, wait a minute, if you
seek to put troops in this region, you run the risk of me
launching an attack upon New York, Washington or some of your
major cities. That might force a change in our calculation as
to whether or not we are prepared to wage a conventional
campaign against such a dictator, and so it could change in
fact the way in which we conduct conventional operations.
We do not want to be in that position. We want to be able
to say to a Saddam or to an Iran or to a Libya or whomever that
you are not going to put us in that position, that we are going
to carry out our international responsibilities, protect our
national security interests and your possession of 5 or 10 or
20 or whatever the number of missiles is not going to deter us.
That I think is the principal benefit of having this capability
not against Russia, not against a superpower, but against those
nations who might otherwise try to impede us from carrying out
the protection of our national security interests.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a follow-
up on the question about the national missile defense and what
your intentions are with respect to recommending going forward
this summer.
In the budget request you have included $102 million for
national missile defense military construction. Most of this
would go toward the construction of the Shemya radar. I assume
you feel the testing program has been successful enough up to
this point that it justifies the budget request for these
military construction dollars.
Do you intend to go forward with the construction of the
radar site without regard to the consequences of this last
remaining test on the national missile defense system that is
scheduled for a couple of months from now?
preparing for NMD deployment
Secretary Cohen. The answer to that would be no. What I
will do is I have included the money in the budget because if I
did not include the money in the budget, it would indicate that
I do not have confidence in the system, that this is not a real
program.
My expectation would be to have the test completed and make
a recommendation to the President either to go forward or to
not go forward, depending upon what the results of that test
would be, to then have the President in a position to see
whether we have been successful with the Russians in agreeing
to a modification of the ABM Treaty.
Then if they have indicated that they are not and our
allies are adamantly opposed to it, then the President will
have to make a determination as to whether he wants to give
notice at that point and move forward, and so I have tried to
work from the 2005 timeframe back to the present, and that 2005
period has really been dictated by the threat, and so if there
is a delay beyond this year as far as a decision being made,
that will push that timeframe back, but I wanted to include the
money so that it would be real to you and to the other members
that this is a serious proposal, this is not simply words. We
have money in the budget for it in the event that the four
tests are met in the judgment of the President.
Senator Cochran. You were right. I did have a chance to
visit with some Russian Duma members and the Federation Council
members as well on the trip to Moscow with Senators Levin and
Dodd accompanying me. One thing became very clear to me during
that series of meetings that we had not only with the members
of the Duma but also with those who have high positions of
responsibility in the government of Russia, and that is that
somebody has forgotten to tell them that the cold war is over.
If you look at the language in the Duma ratification
legislation where they ratify START II--they did this in the
Duma the day before we arrived--the Federation Council took the
action of approving the Duma legislation while we were there.
But the overtones in the language are fairly ominous,
suggesting that if we insist on amending the ABM Treaty, then
they will not consider themselves bound by the provisions of
START II. And further, if we do not approve the demarcation
agreements that have already been negotiated by the
administration, if we, the Senate, do not ratify them, then
they will withdraw from all arms control agreements that they
have entered into with the United States.
Those are threatening suggestions. Those are threats, and
it hearkens back to the days of saber rattling and hitting your
shoe on the podium and the kind of behavior that we saw from
some Russian leaders that have no place now in this supposedly
new relationship between our two countries.
We are working to provide funds for building down and
destroying weapons systems that have been aimed at us and that
are fairly unsafe because of security and other reasons. We
have been working together on a number of programs.
I pointed out an exchange program I had helped start 15
years ago that is administered by the Department of Agriculture
to bridge gaps and create better understanding in the food
production and marketing industries. Over 500 students have
come from Russia to the United States under that program to
date. It is very successful.
People talked about how well it is going and what this has
meant in terms of new trade opportunities and economic progress
in Russia. It just seems to me that somebody is not getting the
word that this is a new day. They talk about a new Russia, but
we need to see it in terms of practice with these agreements on
arms control, and mutual security interests.
To me it sounds like we are entering a period of
brinksmanship, but I am glad to hear your comments and your
suggestion that we cannot accept those provisions, that they
are unacceptable to us, that we have to proceed to do what is
in our own national security interest. And Russia has to
understand that we are not trying to threaten them with these
missile defense capabilities, they are not aimed at Russia,
they are not designed to defeat a Russian military attack by
intercontinental ballistic missiles against us. They are
designed to protect ourselves and our citizens against a rogue
nation attack, a limited missile attack, a few missiles that
might be fired from North Korea or from Iran or some other
country.
We are not in the business of escalating tensions between
the United States and Russia. That is not our attitude, and we
say that but nobody seems to hear it or understand it. I hope
maybe that what we are seeing over there is just politics for
the moment, and that this was done to assuage some concerns of
some of the more militaristic cold warriors who are sorry that
the cold war is over. And maybe as time goes on the rhetoric
will cool down and there will be mutual trust and
understanding, which is what we are hoping for, which is what I
hope for, but I am not in favor of knuckling under and throwing
up our hands in holy horror over the actions that have been
taken by the Russian Duma.
I think we have got to proceed on course. I am glad you've
got this money in for construction. I hope we will approve it.
I am glad to hear your comments about the success that you
expect from the program as it proceeds because national missile
defense is something we need to deploy as soon as possible. The
2005 date is important, and I think you can count on us
providing the funds and the support to accomplish that
objective.
communicating with Russian leaders
Secretary Cohen. Mr. Chairman, can I just respond quickly?
Based upon what you have said, I think it is all the more
important that members of this committee, the Armed Services
Committee and others continue to have contact with the Russians
so that you can at least make very clear to them that these
types of bombastic statements or intimidation or attempts to
intimidate the United States into a position that is
unacceptable are not going to work, and to then lay out where
we can have mutual agreement.
Now, there is something of a split in this in terms of what
they say and what they do. On the one hand, you have some of
this language that has been used which is very aggressive and
perhaps a throwback to a different era.
On the other hand, you have Russian soldiers serving side
by side with us in Bosnia and Kosovo. You have the new
President who is now talking about reviving the PJC, the
Permanent Joint Council. It works with NATO in terms of
resolving some of the issues, and they have the Cooperative
Threat Reduction Act, which they want very much, as do we. So
there are levels of cooperation that are distinct from some of
the rhetoric that you hear from time to time.
I will tell you, based on my last two appearances at the
Wehrkunde conference, the Russians have sent delegates who have
used language reminiscent of the cold war, and they have been
resoundingly rejected by everyone in attendance, all of the
European nations, the Ukrainians, the Poles and others soundly
rejected, so they have isolated themselves with that kind of
rhetoric.
So I think it is important that we meet that and we talk to
them and that we deal very straightforward with them and lay
out what our security concerns are and how we intend to meet
it. We do not have a hidden agenda. This is what we intend to
do and then see if we cannot reconcile what their interests are
and ours but not yield to any kind of chest thumping or
chauvinistic types of displays on the part of any of the
members, the Duma members or others.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, the majority leaders
invited some of us to a meeting with the Russian foreign
minister this afternoon. I hope that will be a direct
conversation, as you have indicated. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Cohen. Who, by the way, is going to get a
briefing on the NMD program while he is here in Washington.
Senator Stevens. Well, I have got time coming.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you want to finish this colloquy
now?
Senator Stevens. Thank you. I do not know why we do not go
back to President Reagan's concept and share it with them. I do
not know why we would not share NMD with them. I would love to
see us have a joint session with the Duma to say let us build
it together. They have problems from rogue nations just as we
do. If you live where the two of us live in Hawaii and Alaska,
you would be very interested in this in view of what is going
on over there along the Asian coast, particularly in North
Korea.
Senator Hollings. Nobody is going to attack Hawaii or
Alaska, for God sakes.
Senator Stevens. Bill, tell him where World War II started,
will you, please?
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. One of the things I noted,
General Shelton, in your comments was the fact that generally
recruiting and retention is pretty good. There are a few weak
spots. It looks to me, and correct me if I am wrong here, that
the Reserve forces are being called on for ever longer periods
of service, time away from home, jobs, et cetera, and I worry
about a change in attitude about joining the Reserves.
I think the common concept is that you are away for
training periods and away for short spurts when necessary in
emergency situations. Has the deployment of the Reserves become
a different kind of a policy issue in recent years and what do
you find attitudinally of people who are asked to join the
Reserves? What do we have to do to maintain their morale and
retain their service?
National Guard and Reserves
Secretary Cohen. Well, I would yield to the Chairman in
terms of his perceptions. I will tell you, Senator Lautenberg,
what we have tried to do is say that we have a total force. For
many years both the Guard and the Reserve felt that they were
treated as poor cousins for the active forces, and we changed
that.
We have said we have one force, and the Guard and Reserve
today are performing missions that otherwise would have been
performed by the active forces. The impact I think overall has
been quite positive with also addressing the issue of
employers. We have had to go to employers and also have laws on
the books protecting the jobs of those who are called upon to
serve for limited periods of time. We have tried to balance the
requirement that we have now for this total force and not
overutilize the Reserve, but it has changed during the past
several years. I will let the Chairman talk about what the
impact has been in terms of whether we are having recruiting
problems in the Reserves. I think it has had some marginal
impact, but not a fundamental one.
General Shelton. Senator Lautenberg, first of all, let me
say that the Reserves are doing a fantastic job for us, as I am
sure you see when you go out to visit with our troops, both the
National Guard and the Reserves.
As a matter of fact, in Bosnia today we have the 49th
National Guard Division out of Texas that is actually leading
that force. General Halverson is in charge and again performing
outstandingly.
However, in a lot of cases, as a result of our downsizing,
we placed a lot of our capability in the Reserve. For example,
if you look at the civil affairs, which is being used heavily
today, 24 out of 25 battalions are in the Reserve, and so when
you get into long-term requirements for civil affairs, which
you have both in Bosnia and Kosovo as well as many other
regions of the world, you have to go to the Reserves in order
to fulfill it.
We have looked at that. We are bringing more of that
structure into the active component right now, but what we are
seeing as a result of some heavy use in certain areas are some
recruiting and retention challenges that we had not seen before
in our Reserve components.
The Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force, both of
whom are affected by this, to a lesser extent the Navy and
Marine Corps, are looking at what the implications of this are
and what the causative factors are, as to why they are and how
they might have to change in order to increase their recruiting
and their retention levels in both of those forces.
When I have talked to the Chiefs of the Services, they have
expressed some concern, but not an alarming concern at this
point, but they are interested in finding out what they have to
do in order to try to turn this around. So we are looking at it
because it is obviously going to be a challenge in the future
if we maintain the same structure we have now.
Senator Lautenberg. The issue has been written about in
very prominent places, national newspapers, particularly in
Texas, I think, where they are saying good-bye to their
families and going to be away for a long time, and I thought,
well, that is really tough. But I hope we can continue to
maintain the excellence that we have in our Reserve forces
which I have seen in lots of places, particularly coming out of
McGuire where they are carrying material and troops to far away
places. As we get further extended, the question that is always
raised is can we be the policemen of the world. I was very
pleased, Mr. Secretary and General Shelton when you talked
about the necessity for funding additional resources for budget
function 150 because to me very often the diplomatic thrust can
often thwart having to make a military thrust.
But when we talk about being in distant places for long
periods of time, one need only look back at a time when three
or four of us here wore uniforms in World War II. We are a very
young group considering that distance in time, but the fact is
that there are troops still in place where we fought, and I
think it has worked out to the benefit of America and the
world.
So I think it is an illusion that we cannot be in places
for a long time. We are in places, and I think we are going to
continue to be, and again seeing the Reserve forces in there
gives me some reassurance. However, when you say that they are
there and the morale seems to be good, I think you will have to
do some analysis to see what the long-term effect will be.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hollings, I have so little time, I do not want to get
into an argument as to whether we have a surplus or not, if
that is all right with you.
Senator Stevens. This is not the proper forum for that.
Senator Domenici. He raised the question. I just wanted to
tell everyone who is listening, we have a very big surplus. In
fact, we have a big enough surplus to put $171 billion back
into Social Security. He is using different numbers.
Senator Stevens. This is not a budget hearing.
Senator Domenici. In any event, I wanted to ask the
Secretary three or four questions. I clearly did not come to
discuss the surplus.
First, in your statements, Mr. Secretary, you indicate that
the highest priority is to take care of the men and women in
the service, and then you proceed to the military needs in your
second and third paragraph. Among those issues that are
obviously very, very difficult for you and the Department is
the health programs that we need, not only for our active
military but for those who are retired and who lay claim to the
proposition that they are not being given what they had been
promised.
I note that both of you, including the chief, indicate this
is a serious problem, the health situation. Are you preparing a
precise recommendation to address this, and if so, when will
that be ready?
Military retirees health care
Secretary Cohen. Well, Senator Domenici, the Chairman and I
are trying to work our way through this right now to have a
proposal to this Congress in terms of what needs to be done. We
have looked at for retirees, for example, of having a pharmacy
benefit and we have tried to factor that out in terms of what
the cost would be over a 5-year period. I believe it is--we
have looked at what the cost would be for fiscal year 2001 and
then we have tried to factor that out over the FYDP as well. It
is fairly expensive.
We are also examining proposals that would see whether or
not the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan should be made
available to retirees. That is a very big cost factor involved.
We hope to be able to get something to you during the course of
the next several months as we factor and analyze what the cost
would be.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I asked the question
because it is obvious that Senators are anxious to do something
with reference to the military health care system. We have
proposals around, but we have not heard from the Defense
Department yet. I think it's imperative that you give us your
proposals quickly because I do not know how long it will be
before somebody offers a plan. It is going to be very difficult
not to vote for a health plan reform, so I did not raise the
question just because it is one of the issues. It is one of the
most important ones in terms of what we are going to use our
money for this year and in the next 5 or 6 years.
maintaining U.S. nuclear deterrent
My second question has to do with the nuclear deterrent of
the United States. The Defense Department, through three
services, is in charge of the nuclear weapons after they leave
the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy at the
manufacturing centers and national laboratories.
I have some grave concern, and I just lay it on you today
because I do not quite have the answer. It seems to me that the
Defense Department makes a big strong case for things needed
for defense, but nobody is making the strong case for what is
needed for the nuclear deterrent that is our nuclear weapons
program, something in your vital interests. Take for example
the allocation in the United States House for the Energy
Subcommittee, which is a misnomer. It is energy, but it is
about half defense, and about half of that is for nuclear
weapons and stockpile stewardship and programs with Russia to
get rid of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. These are
pretty big ticket items.
If you look at what the House Energy Subcommittee on
Appropriations plans to spend, it was as if this was not part
of the defense program of the country. The rest of defense is
going up, yet they are dramatically cutting the programs which
have to do with maintenance of our stockpile.
Now, frankly, the Department of Energy is supposed to be in
charge of this. They have a general named Gioconda who is the
Energy liaison with your Department.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I would ask if you would, after this
session, go back and take a look as to who has oversight in
your Department. It used to be Dr. Hamre, and I do not know who
it is now. I want to let them know that I think we are in a
very serious bind. We have found that our production complexes
are not in order. After the Senate vote on the test ban treaty,
DOE went back and looked at five or six communities wherein the
nuclear weapons pieces are manufactured, called the production
complex.
Everybody should know we do not make new bombs, we have not
made any new bombs for a long time. Zero. We are setting about
a new strategy to maintain what we have through science-based
stockpile stewardship. This is a very complicated, and very
scientific approach to maintenance, and with it comes a lot of
needs.
Yet, we do not see anything from the Defense Department
that says maybe we ought to back some increases for our
stockpile stewardship program. It is as if it is sort of an
orphan in the Department of Energy. But I tell you, this is a
very important program. It is our so-called nuclear deterrent
capacity. I for one want to tell you that is why I came today,
because I do not get a chance to say to the defense
establishment--it is always DOE--that we need some very strong
support from you in analyzing the defense needs of the DOE
especially as it pertains to manufacturing new pits. We are way
behind schedule again and I am trying to find out why.
Do you know one of the principal components to a nuclear
weapon is a pit? And as of this moment Pakistan can manufacture
pits and the United States of America cannot. None. We do not
have any that we have manufactured in recent times. We are
supposed to have the first one ready in 2001, and then 10 more
as we continue to manufacture.
It looks like the Department of Energy has put the money
someplace else and we are not going to get any pit production.
I have to ask defense-minded Senators to be concerned about
this because it is just not an Energy Department issue. It is a
defense issue of high magnitude. If you will look at that and
tell me who I might meet within the Department of Defense, so I
would like to ask them if they know that we are not going to do
the pits on time. Can you tell me who that would be?
Secretary Cohen. Yes. Two people you would want to talk to
would be Jack Gansler and Rudy de Leon, the new Deputy
Secretary of Defense, the two cochair the Nuclear Weapons
Council.
Senator Stevens. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Cohen, General Shelton and to all who have gathered
with you today, civilian and active military component, our
gratitude for your service to our country.
Mr. Secretary, I will just make a note, and I can follow up
with you a little later. I am waiting on a decision by the Army
War Decorations Board in a case that I wrote to you about
several years ago concerning a Sergeant Smith, and I would like
to follow up with you afterwards and see if we might be able to
expedite that for some personal and family reasons related to
his family.
I would like to spend my time questioning on this national
missile defense system because if the Congressional Budget
Office estimates are accurate or nearly accurate, we have seen
a dramatic increase in the estimated cost of this system. At
the same time, we at best have mixed results from the tests
which have occurred.
We have had testimony as recently as a few weeks ago from
the Union of Concerned Scientists about the countermeasure
question. It is their position that if any country can develop
a long-range missile capacity, they can easily develop
countermeasure techniques that would defeat some of the
premises of our national missile defense system.
I know as I read your testimony and listen to it that you
are both in a very delicate and difficult position. You have to
allocate scarce dollars for our national defense in a way that
makes sense.
I read the Secretary's comments about Kosovo and what will
happen if we do not meet our congressional responsibility to
provide you the resources you need. What a dramatic impact that
will have on plans that you have made to defend our Nation, and
I read also General Shelton's testimony where he said, and I
couldn't agree more, that our highest priority is our people
and what we need to do to retain them and recruit them,
investments that have to be made.
I guess my first question to both of you is, you have to
make hard choices based on limited resources. If we know this
national missile defense system estimated cost is now growing
at such a dramatic pace that it is going to call into question
other national defense priorities, is cost a factor that has to
be taken into consideration about the viability of this system?
cost of National missile defense
Secretary Cohen. Senator Durbin, as a matter of fact, that
is one of the four factors the President will have to take into
account. Is there a threat? You will have to make a
determination on your own as to whether you think there is a
viable threat out there. I happen to believe that given the
spread of technology that if it is not here today that it will
be here tomorrow. Then you have to decide in your own mind
whether or not we have a deterrent capability that will
discourage anyone from ever launching such an attack. But
second, as to whether the technology is there, that is the
purpose of having the test we have had to date and the one we
will have this June or early July. And so we will make an
assessment.
The third factor is cost. And now the one that appeared in
today's news as far as CBO is concerned, they have included
some 250 missiles, two sites and SBRS-High. Under the
Pentagon's estimate we only factored in 100 missiles for the
first in one site and no satellite, so to the extent that you
add the second site, you add SBRS-High that is going to
obviously increase the cost.
You will then have to make a determination as to whether or
not this is a cost worth bearing. You could look at it and say,
well, what happens if you had an attack upon a city of the
United States; what would be the cost involved there? And that
is a debate that you will be involved with as well as other
members of this committee. We spend a good deal of money for F-
22s, Joint Strike Fighters, F-18 EF, Commanche, Crusader, et
cetera, because we believe it is in our national security
interest to do so. I personally believe that there is a threat
that needs to be addressed, but the cost obviously will be a
factor that we will have to take into account, and you as well.
Senator Durbin. Well, let me ask you about the testing
element here. Do you believe that with three tests under your
belt that you are prepared to answer that one question as to
whether the testing justifies the technological feasibility of
a national missile defense system to the point that we should
go forward?
testing a Missile defense system
Secretary Cohen. Under the program as it is structured, if
there are two successful tests, as far as the interceptor is
concerned, that that would be sufficient for me to make a
recommendation to the President to go forward. I have tried to
follow this very carefully, and I believe the so-called failure
of last test was not one of science, but one of mechanics. And
we will see whether or not that can be in fact corrected. But
if we have two successful interceptor tests, that would put me
in a position of making a recommendation to the President as to
whether I am satisfied that not only do we have the 5 tests,
there will be a total of 12 or 13 before there is any
deployment of a system as such. But I think that I would be in
a position to make a recommendation to the President based upon
the next test, yes.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Following up on what Senator Domenici
said, and Senator Cochran, I am disturbed slightly about the
information that came to us concerning the Russians still
manufacturing warheads and manufacturing nuclear ICBMs. And we
are trying through the Stewardship Stockpile Program to
maintain ones that are getting very old, and I am very worried
about this hiatus that has developed in the Department of
Energy as to whether or not that is jeopardizing our national
security.
I really believe that if that is not straightened out, I am
going to demand a hearing and really a hearing in public, to
tell the public how bad off we really are vis-a-vis the nuclear
weapons of the world, and how much we have been delayed in
trying to perfect the systems that will maintain the
Stewardship Program as it must be maintained. I will just tell
you, I think that is one of the worst things I have heard of in
recent years.
Let me ask you about this, General Shelton. The mobility
requirement studies have been delayed and I am sure you know
that Senator Inouye and I have been talking to everybody about
C-17s. We support the acquisition of 60 additional aircraft
under the multiyear procurement authority that Congress passed
last year. We continue to ask, however, about rewinging the C-5
and postponing the C-17. Will you give us your judgment what
should we do with regard to the C-17 and C-5?
General Shelton. Mr. Chairman, we are in the process right
now of taking a look at the long-term cost of the C-5 and doing
an analysis of alternatives in terms of whether or not we
should continue to pour money into an element of the C-5 fleet,
the C-5 Alpha, the older version of the C-5, or whether or not
it would be more cost-effective over the long term to start
converting, phasing them out and replacing them with C-17s.
That is an ongoing study right now. There is not an easy answer
to it, but we think----
Senator Stevens. Should we buy the new ones?
General Shelton. We have some tremendous challenges with
the C-5 Alpha right now. When we complete this analysis of
alternatives, we will be in a position, I think, to recommend
to the Secretary, and to be able to tell you, whether or not we
think it would be best to make a decision to stop pouring money
into the C-5 Alpha and come to you and say, we need to increase
the production on the C-17s or buy more, or whether or not we
should go ahead and fix the C-5 Alphas right now. The intuition
says that probably C-17s would be the right answer, but I would
defer on making a recommendation until we finish the analysis.
Senator Stevens. Senator Lautenberg pointed out the four of
us were World War II types and we remember some of those
commitments that were made to people back there who made a
career out of the military and are now retirees. And Senator
Domenici has already mentioned the problem of the defense
medical benefits. We already have legislation, Senator, that
has been introduced now to greatly expand that medical benefit.
Currently the program costs us about $11 billion. The bill
that was introduced as I understand it costs out to $9 billion
more. We do not have guidance yet from the Department as to
what you want us to do. Now, all of us are committed to doing
something, but the question is what should we do now? The
budget has a very small item for TRICARE, roughly $100 million.
That is like dotting the i of TRICARE; it is not enough. Now we
all know that, but are you going to give us a recommendation? I
think we should. I do not want this to turn into a partisan
battle here, who is going to put up the most money, for
particularly the retiree benefits, but we have got to do
something this year. I hope you agree. What do you want us to
do?
expanding Military health benefits
Secretary Cohen. I want you to wait just a little bit
longer until the Chairman and I work this out. Mr. Chairman,
you are right, the money in the budget we include was really to
try to reduce some of the cost for TRICARE prime on the
copayments TRICARE remote, to eliminate those copayments, and
that is what the money was in this budget for, to try to reduce
some of the burdens that are currently in the current system.
But the Chairman and I are looking at the pharmacy benefit
and that is something that we think we can recommend fairly
quickly. But we are still trying to work out what the price tag
is going to be if we go to alternatives that we have yet to
work out. We are looking at the possibility of using medical
treatment facilities, looking at the Veterans Administration
(VA) as one aspect of it. That is something we just have not
worked our way through, but I would say in the next few weeks
we should have some kind of recommendation coming to you.
Senator Stevens. We will have to mark up sometime next
month, I think. I hope we will have a recommendation by then. I
am sure that Chairman Young faces the same problem we do over
here on what to do. We want to do what is right, but we will
have to take money out of a lot of other places to get $9
billion. We have about a $4 billion increase in the overall
budget, and that will not even start funding that one, and the
other deferred maintenance and other things. We will now go
back. Senator Inouye, you have another question?
Senator, can we agree to cut this down to about 3 minutes
each?
importance of Pacific Asian theater
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, in your testimony and in our
questioning, East Timor was mentioned once, the Korean
Peninsula was mentioned twice, once by my chairman and in your
response. The rest of the time we spent on Bosnia, Kosovo, the
European security. Is the Defense Department less concerned
about the Pacific-Asian theater than Europe?
Secretary Cohen. Not at all, Senator Inouye. As a matter of
fact, I spend a good deal of my time traveling to the Asian-
Pacific region. Most recently having gone, not only to Hong
Kong, Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea, but I do this quite
frequently. It is because I believe that the Asian-Pacific
region is crucial to our national security interest.
Indonesia. We have not talked about Indonesia today. That
remains a great challenge to the security of all of Asia, not
just Southeast Asian countries, but all of the countries
throughout the Asian-Pacific region. A country of 210 million
people, and should there be instability that really takes root
and starts to spread in Indonesia, that could flood not only
the geography but also the economies of all the other countries
in the region, and so our interest there is of paramount
importance.
Singapore, we have not talked about Singapore, and as you
know, they are building a pier that will accommodate our
aircraft carriers, and they want them to come.
You also know that we have a visiting forces agreement that
was ratified by the Philippine Senate. And so we are actively
engaged with the Philippines again, and not to mention Thailand
and beyond. So no, the Asian-Pacific region is very important.
We have not even talked, only incidentally, about
Australia, which also is crucial to our security interest
throughout the Asia-Pacific region. I think that we have to put
additional focus upon it. The economy appears to be coming back
through that region, which is good news, but the security
interest--and we have not talked about Taiwan, either, in terms
of China and what China's relationship is going to be in the
future.
China-Taiwan
Senator Inouye. We are interested in that.
Secretary Cohen. We all should be interested in that. I
will tell you one of the reasons I made the trip to the Asia-
Pacific region last time was to send a message. Senator
Hollings and I made this trip, I think in 1996, the last time
we went, and there was also great controversy in terms of China
versus Taiwan at that time.
What I have said to all of the Chinese that I come into
contact with who visit or whom I visit in the region, when they
come here to visit with me--and I had a meeting just last week
with the equivalent of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) of
the Navy--was that we do recognize the One China policy; we
also have our obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, that
we expect that there will be reconciliation through peaceful
means, and that is the only way that can come about, that they
should not seek in any way to take a military action or
threaten Taiwan, taking military action. I have advocated that
the Taiwanese reduce their rhetoric about independence and a
movement toward independence which we do not support, and that
everybody back away from this abyss that started to develop.
Hopefully that calming influence of the elections and what has
been the words that have been emanating from the new president-
elect in Taiwan will help, will cause everybody to back away
from the rhetoric we have seen in the past, and not in any way
encourage the Chinese to think they can take military action.
So it is very important. I think it would have grave
consequences to all concerned, should China ever seek to
achieve reconciliation with Taiwan through the use of force--
economic, diplomatic, and potentially even military. That is
the message we have sent, and hopefully that will be
persuasive.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Well, I like the Secretary's answer. That
was a question I had. Let us be careful about grave
consequences. I think we learned something in Korea and
Vietnam, and I do not think we are ready to take on a billion
three hundred million with nuclear power. And that is enough
said. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Ship construction
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned in my opening
statement my concern that stretching the construction schedule
for ships is dangerously imperiling our ability to maintain an
industrial base and to do the things that are necessary to
maintain the goal of a 300-ship Navy, and also meet the
commitments we have already made in appropriations bills that
this committee has recommended and the Congress has approved
and the President signed, one of which authorized an
incremental basis for providing construction funds for an LHD-
8. We had $45 million in the 1999 bill, $375 million in last
year's bill. In February, the Navy suggested that you release
the entire $400 million to support this ship construction
program. To my knowledge you have not done that yet. Why not?
Base realignment and closure (BRAC) savings and LHD-8
Secretary Cohen. Senator Cochran, let me try to answer two
questions that you raised during your opening statement. First,
on the BRAC, we included the funding for two more rounds. You
asked whether it is realistic or not. I would hope that this
Congress would act on that in order to achieve the savings, so
that the money saved in future years would help pay for ships
like LHD-8.
I believe you had the Secretary of the Navy testify before
the committee. He pointed out we have roughly, we are funding
eight ships a year. We need to fund 8.6 ships per year in order
to sustain that 300-ship Navy. That is not going to come about
unless we have either an increase in the top line or a savings
from base closures that will in fact be able to be invested,
either in personnel or shipbuilding.
With respect to LHD-8, my understanding is that last year
you included some $380 million toward the LHD-8, and to
accelerate the ship to fiscal year 2001 you wanted us to put
money in that. The Navy, I am told, indicated that it would
have to come up with $1.2 billion, that they were unable to do
that. What we are doing now is now going back and looking at
that $400 million you had mentioned to see what kind of long
lead that we could invest in in working with the Navy to make
sure that the LHD-8 comes on line by fiscal year 2005.
Senator Cochran. The DDG-51 program is also misleading in
terms of the advertising used, that you got $60 billion in
procurement money; therefore we have met our goal. Well that
was the goal in fiscal year 1998, and what we are seeing now,
is stretching the construction schedules out in the out-years
so that instead of building, for example, six ships over 2
years, you are now planning to build seven ships over 4 years.
This is going to put the shipyards in a very difficult
position, and I know you are experienced personally with these
issues, and you have to be sympathetic with that problem. What
are you going to do about it?
increasing Procurement spending
Secretary Cohen. Well, I am sympathetic to it. When I took
over this position, the procurement levels were at $43 billion.
And now, 3\1/2\ years later, they are at $60 billion. And they
are scheduled to climb to $70 billion under our projections. In
my judgment, that is still not going to be enough, Senator
Cochran, and so we have got to find ways in which we can either
increase the top line to accommodate our shipbuilding needs,
because it will not achieve our goals, or we are going to have
to have the savings that I talked about from more closure and
more savings. But there is no easy way around this.
That is one of the reasons I say that the BRAC process,
tough as it is, will produce the kind of savings that we need
to invest in our shipbuilding and our other programs. But I do
not have a good answer for you, other than we need to do more
on the shipbuilding account if we are going to maintain that
300-ship Navy.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, might I first comment on
your observations regarding nuclear weapons and the Soviet
Union. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, they have a
completely different nuclear weapon than we do, which requires
that they produce them regularly because after about 10 years
they are ineffective. So the Russians produce a very simplistic
nuclear weapon compared to ours. Ours is much more complicated.
We try to preserve ours and make their utility spread over a
number of decades. Right now our effort in the United States is
to scientifically analyze everything about a nuclear weapon and
do replacements and repairs so we preserve it. The Russians
replace theirs every decade or so. They get rid of them and
they build new ones. So they have manufacturing going on to
this day to build new nuclear weapons to take the place of
their old ones. We do it a different way, and that is exactly
what frightens me. Our way is very scientific, and if people do
not diligently stay on top of it, our deterrent capability
could be weakened. Also, this process is our only way of
knowing that our weapons are viable and functioning; we do not
test anymore.
Air borne laser
My last question has to do with another phase of missile
defense, that is, the ABL, the air borne laser. The air borne
laser is the only missile defense system contemplated that
achieves what we call boost-phase intercept, and the testing
has been going along very, very successfully. It looks like it
is moving to enter the weapons inventory of the United States
in the not-too-distant future.
I am very concerned because this year, when we had some
very important tests to complete, their appropriations level
has been decreased by $92 million. I do not think we are going
to end up doing that. We have not done it the last two times
you have cut it but I just want to know why it is continuously
reduced so much when it has been praised by so many as being an
essential scientific breakthrough for us.
Secretary Cohen. Well, this is a recommendation that the
Air Force made. The Air Force made a determination, looking at
its capabilities and the demands that the Air Force had on
other parts of the budget, that they could afford to not fund
that $92 million account, that it would be delayed several
years as a result of that.
I know that it is a question of affordability for the Air
Force. They made the judgment and we supported that. I am also
aware that you have had testimony from General Kadish that by
putting funding in, you could in fact put that on a more
accelerated deployment schedule, and that is something the
committee will have to decide.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, General, we are pleased to
have you with us. I was just talking to our chief of staff, Mr.
Cortese, about the level of our procurement funding. You
mentioned it, Mr. Secretary, it is very low. When you consider
the amount of money we are putting into quality of life,
retirement benefits and pay for our volunteer service.
One of the things I have been thinking about, and so I
thought I would just think out loud, and see what your reaction
is. Why do we not have a recruitment program for peacekeepers
for a shorter period of time and bring them in to handle the
problems such as Bosnia and other places, once, an interim
peace has been established?
Yesterday we were told during the period of the whole cold
war, we deployed forces away from their permanent assignment.
Many were permanently assigned in Europe, but only 10 times.
Since the Wall has come down, it is almost 40 times that we
have deployed personnel away from their permanent duty
assignment, and often for 3, 4 and 5 years, such as we have
seen in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, and so many places
now. But it does seem that part of the strain that is being put
upon the war fighters is that they are being made into
peacekeepers. And I wonder, have you given any thought, Mr.
Secretary and Mr. Chairman, to a concept of shorter-term,
voluntary enlistment to be a peacekeeper? Is that a viable
concept?
dedicated Peacekeepers forces
Secretary Cohen. Mr. Chairman, let me just give you some
off the top of my head reactions to that proposal. The Hart-
Rudman study group, in fact, recently made a recommendation,
phase two of a three-phase study, and one of the
recommendations included something along these lines, that
perhaps we ought to segment--I would hesitate to use the word
``balkanize''--our forces in conjunction with this, but to
segment the capabilities so that you would have specialized
forces for different facets of a military operation.
The problem I have with this concept is, and I will go
back, when I was serving on the other side of this table, in
creating the Special Forces Command, you may recall what the
reaction was at that time. It was strongly opposed by the
Pentagon at that time, that we should set up a Special Forces
Command and create a SOLIC--a Special Operations Low Intensity
Civilian department as such, with leadership in the Pentagon.
I believed at that time that that was essential and we have
seen the validity of that concept prove itself out. I would
hesitate, the Chairman is in a much better position to comment
on this, but we expect our forces to have a full mission
capability. They can go all the way from humanitarian types of
missions, of unloading C-17s and delivering supplies, to people
who are either starving to death or flood victims, all the way
up to peacekeeping, to waging war against Milosevic and Saddam
Hussein. And I think it would be very difficult to say, we want
you and we are going to train you, but only for a peacekeeping
mission, which by the way can escalate very quickly to a full
wartime mission if they come under attack. So the notion that
you could just train people to be a peacekeeper, I think, is
quite different than saying you are going to have a capability
of responding as a military man or woman on the front lines
when the contingency evolves. But I would defer to the Chairman
to give you a much more professional judgment on that.
General Shelton. Mr. Chairman, I would second what
Secretary Cohen said. I am very wary of proposals that would
advocate specializing our force. I think that we have
demonstrated with the force that we have today, that we have
the flexibility to use that force in a full spectrum from
peacekeeping to war fighting. And I guess the best example I
could give you of why I think that is important, we were going
into Haiti in 1994 and we thought we would face 7,000 armed
personnel plus the remaining police force that was there. We
were invading basically by air and by sea.
That all changed in a matter of hours, and 8 hours later,
that same force that had war paint on is suddenly going in as a
peacekeeping force. And they did a magnificent job because of
the quality of force we have got today and being able to have
that kind of flexibility--young men and women that could
understand what the differences were and could go in and do
great as a peacekeeper. But even as they did their peacekeeping
job, if you recall, we had a contact up in the Cape Haitien
area in which our young marines on patrol were taken under
fire. And when the results were over, we had 10 Haitian
military that were dead, and we had zero marines that were
wounded. And so it had changed instantaneously.
I think that is the thing that makes us a pre-eminent war
fighting power today, we have that kind of flexibility, that
kind of force. I think that if we have got the group that the
Secretary referred to, the National Security Study Group (NSSG)
also talked about potentially a constabulary force. And that is
very similar I think to what you are talking about as a type of
force that would be trained on the lower end of the spectrum,
and would only deal with constabulary-type duties. We have got
a couple of historical examples, I think, that showed we ought
not to mix that with our war fighting forces or with our armed
forces.
If we look back in the fifties when the Army had basically
become somewhat of a constabulary army and then suddenly got
called on to go into Korea, we found that we were not very well
prepared to do that. We had Task Force Smith that responded,
and we all know the results that that bore out.
Of course, we also had an occupation army that was doing
constabulary type duty both in Germany as well as in Japan, and
we found out that we did not have the time with that type of
force to train them and keep them prepared for war fighting. So
while the idea has merit, I think, and it is something that
should be examined, I would not--I do not think that it should
be part of our active force, and I do not say that out of
parochialism or out of resistance to change. I think that we
look at the emotional and physical requirements for combat and
a force that can very quickly find themselves confronted with
that, we need to keep these two separated.
Senator Stevens. Well, gentlemen, I spent the last week
during the recess reading Michael Pillsbury's book on China. I
think you ought to send it to everyone, by the way, Mr.
Secretary. It is an Armed Forces Institute book, but everyone
in the Congress ought to have an opportunity to read it.
But clearly at the level of the procurement budget of $60
billion, we cannot meet the needs for modernization and the
development of new technology in the period ahead without some
sort of traumatic change. Now maybe it is going to have to be
the draft. I do not know what it is going to be, but clearly I
think, everywhere we have gone--and Senator Inouye, Senator
Hollings, Senator Cochran and I and Senator Domenici have
travelled extensively, as you have--we have been urged to keep
America strong. I have not heard anyone, even the Russians and
the Chinese, say that they want a weak America. Yet, we are on
the course of becoming less and less strong, let us put it that
way, in the years ahead, unless we modernize.
Ten years from now, I do not see someone sitting in this
seat, these seats that we have asking why we did not do
something differently, because the money is not there on a
sustained basis to meet the challenges of the future unless we
get some new military doctrine or we get a new bank, somehow
print new money somewhere.
The budget chairman is laughing, but I am serious. I did
not know that the Rudman group had made similar
recommendations. I will look into that, but I think we have got
to find some way to bring about an increased flow of money into
procurement. We now have retirement, we have medical benefits,
we have all of the retiree problems. We have a majority of our
people are married. When we served, the only person that was
married was the colonel and above.
When you look at this change today, if you push it out into
the future and the cost of keeping up a family that has five or
six kids and both of them are in the service, is staggering by
the time you get out to their retirement. I will tell you I
worry about not being innovative as far as the forces
concerned. I worry about not being innovative about what we are
going to replace with new technology, and one of my worst
worries is what is going to happen to the Joint Strike Fighter
during our own watch, to find the money for that.
Procurement funding
But I would urge you to help us, and let us think out loud
for the public to hear it, rather than behind closed doors. I
do not think the public knows how little the procurement budget
is, really, in terms of historical terms. It is very low. Yet
it is being asked to do a tremendous amount. President Reagan
wanted 600 ships. What have we got now, General, 270 ships?
General Shelton. We are on the way down to 315 ships,
roughly, right now.
Senator Stevens. And at the rate of replacement, it would
take 40 years to maintain them. We have to find some way to
build more ships; we know we have to build more planes. And we
have to find some way to meet these obligations abroad. I have
talked too long, Mr. Secretary, you can have the last word.
preserving U.S. military excellence
Secretary Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to communicate
the nature of this problem wherever I go. Most of us went
through that period following the end of the cold war when we
were all looking for quote, ``peace dividend.'' There is no
longer a peace dividend; it is over. And what we saw is that we
were living off the Reagan buildup.
When Ronald Reagan came in, we all remember what the state
of affairs was in the military, what the morale was. And Ronald
Reagan came in and said we need more, and we provided it. And
much of what we are using today, be it in Kosovo or Bosnia or
off the various coasts, is a result of that buildup. Well, that
buildup is over, and we have built down. We have cut the size
of our force by a third; we have cut procurement back 3 years
ago, to the point that it was two-thirds below that at the
height of the cold war. And that is what I mentioned when I
took over this job, we were at $43 billion. We are now at $60
billion; we need to go to $70 billion and higher. But I think
it is incumbent upon me and you and all the other Members of
the committee and the Members of Congress to remind the
American people of exactly what is at stake.
Now you were very kind in talking about General Shelton's
wife and mine. Janet and I have been out trying to talk about
reconnecting America to its military. The phrase basically is
to remind people of the crown jewel that we have in our
military, how good we are, the talent that we have in our
military, what they are doing day in and day out. And the
American public tends to see it in times of crisis. You and I
and all of us see it every day, and we go out and see the kind
of sacrifices being made by these young men and women and those
who have made a career in the military, and we have come to
take it for granted and we cannot continue to do so. We have to
give them a quality of life in the way of compensation, we have
to have their retirement benefits, the health care benefits,
the housing, and we need to give them the best technology
available.
So the $60 billion is not going to be enough. We are
modernizing. You mentioned, what are we doing? Well, we are
doing more in terms of Joint Strike Fighter, F-22, all of the
systems, the new destroyer, the new aircraft carrier, those
designs have come into being. In the years 2008 to 2015, we do
not have the money to pay for them. That is why I come back to
the point, well, can we make any savings?
Hopefully my successor will enjoy, if I cannot, the benefit
of saying we have another round or two of base closures that
will save us $20 billion over the course of the period between
fiscal years 2008 and 2015. That will save us $3 billion
annually, and we are looking at $5.5 billion in savings from
the four rounds we have had before. So we need to have savings
in terms of how we are doing business and the cost of doing
business, but we need to focus the American people in terms of
what we need to protect our national security interest. So we
have had our peace dividend, it is over, and now we have got to
pay.
So when people say, can we afford these three new systems?
The answer is yes. We are a rich country, and we need to spend
more for our national security and we ought to make that very
clear each and every time that we go out. We ought to go out
and thank the uniformed personnel that we have, saying, thank
you for what you are doing. You are making sacrifices that the
American people need to be reminded about, and not only say it
in time of going to war against Milosevic or Saddam Hussein,
but rather day in and day out. We need you; we thank you. Not
enough people are saying this, so every time you see somebody
in an airport, go over and thank them. But thank them, and then
say, and here, by the way, is what we are going to give you to
carry out your mission, the best technology that is available,
and it is going to cost money, and we need to pay it.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I said that was the
last word, but we do have an elder Senator here.
Senator Hollings. No. Senator Domenici and I sponsored that
5 percent increase at the very beginning of the Reagan term.
You remember that, Pete. But in all respect, what you are
hearing is the distinguished Secretary say, we do not have
enough money, and yet the Chairman of the Budget says that we
have got a surplus.
Senator Stevens. Here we go.
additional committee questions
There will be some additional questions that will be
submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. William S. Cohen
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
airborne laser (abl)
The Air Force, for affordability reasons, recommended removing $258
million from ABL over the fiscal year 2002-05 period. But OSD increased
that amount to about $900 million from fiscal year 2001-05.
Question. ABL is the only Major Defense Acquisition Program that is
on schedule, on budget, and meeting or exceeding its technical
requirements. Why did OSD increase the cut to ABL from $258 million to
$900 million?
Answer. In this year's budget development process, the Air Force
and OSD identified a number of tradeoffs to balance the Air Force's
portfolio of programs against priorities and available resources.
Despite the cuts, the ABL program was and remains on track technically.
The Department's reasons for submitting a budget that cut ABL funding
were financial.
Question. Given the progression of the North Korean threat, do you
think it is important to have the first ABL aircraft available in
fiscal year 2003 as the first capability able to deal with North Korean
missiles of any range?
Answer. The first ABL aircraft will be the Program Definition and
Risk Reduction aircraft. It will have roughly half the laser power of
an operational aircraft and will not have a mature combat system.
Alone, it could not sustain a combat air patrol because it would need
to land periodically. The Department does not assess that the
contingency capability gained from a near-term deployment of this lone
testbed aircraft would be sufficient to alter its investment
priorities.
strategic warhead levels
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed in 1997 on a START III goal
of 2,000-2,500 warheads. Senior Defense Department and military
officials have stated their belief that U.S. security requires force
levels no lower than 2,000 warheads.
Question. Do you forsee any circumstances in which the Defense
Department would agree to go below 2,000 warheads in a START III
agreement? If so, what are those circumstances?
Answer. The Department of Defense has completed a comprehensive
review of the START III agreement with respect to our ability to
maintain our policy of strategic deterrence, as outlined in the
President's decision directive issued in the fall of 1997, at lower
levels of warheads. We have concluded that START III negotiations
should proceed on the basis of the 2,000-2,500 accountable warheads as
agreed by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin at Helsinki in 1997.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
full-time support
Secretary Cohen, you and General Shelton mentioned that in spite of
an increasingly-demanding security environment, the active force has
been so drastically reduced, resulting in greater dependence upon our
Reserve Components. As the co-chair of the Senate Guard Caucus, I am
very proud of the tremendous work of our Army and Air National Guard as
they respond to a variety of missions throughout the world. General
Shelton stated that the effective integration and utilization of these
men and women will continue to be key elements of Joint Personnel
Readiness and are critical to the success of the Total Force. However,
you will not achieve these objectives unless you adequately resource
the Guard to meet these increasing demands. Year after year, the Army
Guard's requirements far outweigh the resources provided to it by the
Department of Defense. Accordingly, the National Guard's number one
legislative priority remains full-time support.
Question. What are the Department's plans to assist the Guard in
meeting these requirements?
Answer. Adequate full-time support for all of the Reserve
components is absolutely critical, especially in these times of
increased OPTEMPO. I will look to the Service Secretaries to
effectively balance their Reserve components' full-time resources to
handle these increased responsibilities. You are correct in your
statement that integration and effective use of the Reserve components
is critical to the Total Force. That is why I directed the Service
Chiefs to remove all barriers to integration, and included the Reserve
component Chiefs in our OSD-level deliberations on DOD-wide resourcing
issues. I can assure you of my commitment to Total Force integration,
and providing the necessary resources for our fighting forces.
plan colombia
Secretary Cohen, I applaud the many sacrifices made by members of
the military in the war against drugs and strongly support efforts to
increase efficiencies in counter-drug operations. However, I am
concerned by the military's statement that its priority is to increase
operations in Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia, the ``source zone.'' We need
not look far to see the devastating results of ``mission creep.''
Operations in Bosnia and Kosovo have expanded far beyond initial
estimates, and I fear the same form of expansion in South America. We
must ensure that counter-drug operations are addressed with an
appropriate, not excessive, level of military support.
Question. Does the Department of Defense support a cap on U.S.
military involvement for Plan Colombia?
Answer. As a matter of policy, the Department of Defense does not
support troop caps due to the impact that such restrictions can have on
military operations. However, in the case of Plan Colombia, where the
objectives are quite clear and of limited scope, the Department can
accept a troop cap on U.S. military personnel provided that the
language is properly structured and developed in coordination with the
Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
tricare
Question. Secretary Cohen, I have been advised of a TRICARE payment
policy which, on the surface, appears awkward and antiquated. According
to TRICARE, a professional service rendered a beneficiary by one class
of physicians (MD) is often compensated at a higher level than if the
same identical service were administered by another class of physicians
(DPM, OD, etc.). In the civilian world, I am told that most private
third party carriers, as well as Medicare, have adopted an ``equal pay
for equal work'' policy.
This is a budget year in which we will see long-needed reforms in
military health care. What is the justification for this TRICARE
payment plan?
Answer. Prior to the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC)
methodology, CHAMPUS set pricing based on the allowable charges for an
area, generally a state, at the 80th percentile. CHAMPUS has always had
at least two professional provider classes, physician class (MD, DO)
and non-physician class. Separate area allowable charges were
established for each class. The reasoning used for establishing two
separate classes and hence two payment amounts was twofold. First, each
payment amount was based on the allowable charges of the provider
group. Normally, the allowable charges of the physician class were
higher than those of the non-physician class; otherwise, the non-
physician class was limited to the payment amount of the physician
class. This meant the physician normally charged more for the same
service than the non-physician charged. To combine the charges of the
non-physician class with those of the physician class would have
resulted in a lower payment level to the physicians and a higher
payment level for the non-physicians. The other reason for not
combining the two provider classes was based on paying more to the
providers (physicians) who had more training and a broader knowledge
base than the providers (non-physicians) who had fewer years of formal
training and a smaller knowledge base.
When CHAMPUS implemented the CMAC methodology, some of the old
allowable charge reimbursement process remained, this being the
establishment of allowable charges based now on national allowable
charges instead of state allowable charges. The separate classes
remained under CMAC. As physician pricing under the CMAC system was
gradually brought in line with the Medicare Fee Scheduled amount, the
differences in pricing between the two classes of providers disappeared
for many of the care procedures. A few procedures still have pricing
higher for the physician class versus the non-physician class. When it
was found that Medicare does not make a pricing distinction for
physician and certain non-physician providers (podiatrists, oral
surgeons/dentists, psychologists, therapists including speech,
physical, occupational, and optometrists), the Department decided to
adjust the pricing for these providers equal to the physician payment
amount.
Question. Why is there no ``equal pay for equal work?''
Answer. We are currently in the process of updating our policy to
ensure consistency with Medicare, which will address the issue of equal
pay for equal work. Providers other than physicians will be raised to
the physician payment level when like services are provided. We are
hopeful that the change can be initiated by the end of this year
(Calendar Year 2000).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
defense tactical aircraft and carrier procurement
Mr. Secretary, in your opening statement, you emphasize several
priorities, as you called for transforming our nation's defense for the
post-Cold War era, including modernization of weapons and support and
investing modernization wisely.
Just two weeks ago, Congress approved, over my objections, a fiscal
year 2001 Budget Resolution that increases overall spending for defense
to $307 billion, an increase of $9 billion over the $298 billion that
CBO tells us is the amount necessary to maintain this year's level of
Defense spending, including an adjustment for inflation.
At the same time, this budget resolution cuts $19 billion in budget
authority from non-defense discretionary programs to a level of $290
billion. That's below the amount CBO estimates is necessary to maintain
domestic programs at a current services level. Where are these cuts
going to come from? Police officers? Community crime prevention? Coast
Guard drug interdictions? Less children in Head Start? Fewer teachers
in schools? Less for science education? Cuts at the National Institutes
of Health?
Mr. Secretary, this Congressional Budget is a throwback to voo-doo
economics. It cuts very real needs at home and proposes risky,
financially imprudent tax cuts.
Question. Critics say we are building duplicate air force and naval
aircraft wings at unprecedented cost against cold war enemies that
don't exist.
We have 3 major fighter aircraft procurement programs--the Air
Force's F-22, the Navy's F/A-18E/F, and the Joint Strike Fighter. When
are we going to make the hard decisions on these fighter procurement
programs, Mr. Secretary?
Answer. These three aircraft in the tactical aircraft modernization
plan bring various individual characteristics to the battle, and they
complement each other. In the grand scheme, the capability of our armed
forces to execute our military strategy depends upon the capabilities
that each of these aircraft will bring to the battle. The Defense
Resources Board (DRB) is required to review each weapons system on its
own merit and as part of an existing force structure to ensure the
capability brought to the table by the individual system merits the
resources being devoted to its procurement or modernization.
Specifically, the DRB is chartered to review the overall defense
program with a view toward balancing resources available against the
needs of the Services; the Commanders-in-Chief; and the Department as a
whole. Annually, the DRB reviews the long-term tactical aviation
modernization requirements, and they have validated the current
approach to proceed with the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the F/
A-18E/F. The plan is sound because it addresses the long-term core
needs of the Services and accomplishes the following three basic
objectives: (1) sustains platform modernization through new aircraft
development and procurement that supports long-term force structure
goals and protects U.S. qualitative advantages; (2) improves the
accurate guided weapons carried by increasing standoff-range, enhancing
all-weather capability, and reducing costs; and (3) develops a dominant
capability to exploit off-board, all-source intelligence information.
Question. The CBO has suggested the option of buying 219 F-15s to
allow modernization, while cutting F-22 production from the current
plans of 339 to 120 fighters at a savings of $10 billion. Is this a
hard decision you can support?
Answer. No, I cannot support the CBO's proposed approach. Such an
approach would leave our warfighters at a distinct disadvantage, and
that is unacceptable. The F-22 has been designed to replace the F-15
aircraft in the Air Superiority role to counter emerging threats
worldwide. By design, the F-22 will dominate the future air combat
arena--flying over 50 percent more sorties, with 40 percent fewer
military maintenance personnel, and using 50 percent less airlift than
the F-15. The F-22 is designed to penetrate enemy airspace and achieve
first look-shoot-kill capability through stealth, supercruise, and
integrated avionics. The F-22 is the first weapon system designed from
the outset with its principal focus on exploiting the ongoing
information revolution while simultaneously denying an enemy the
ability to do the same. While integrated avionics allow for dominant
battlespace awareness, stealth denies crucial information to the enemy.
Supercruise increases weapon performance, while reducing the enemy's
ability to make effective use of the small amount of information they
can gather.
submarine force structure
Question. The CBO has suggested we consider keeping Los Angeles
class submarines in service until the end of their 30-year life and
slowing procurement of the new Virginia class. This would save $13
billion over 10 years. Is this a hard decision you could support?
Answer. The option of refueling Los Angeles class submarines in
lieu of building new Virginia class submarines is being considered. A
funding wedge is included in the Presidents fiscal year 2001 budget to
support such an action.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget supports the potential
decision to increase attack submarine force levels. Refueling the
additional three Los Angeles class submarines, scheduled for early
inactivation outside of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), will
only address today's SSN force in the short-term.
For the longer-term, all refueled Los Angeles class submarines will
reach end of life by 2018. As a result, this option will not support an
increased force level in the longer-term.
The current low production rate was established, in part, to
sustain the submarine industrial base's capability. Any reduction in
the planned procurement rate would likely endanger portions of this
critical industrial base, place at risk industry's ability to increase
the production rate when necessary, and would result in increased unit
costs. Any near term savings in delaying Virginia class procurement
would be offset by these added risks and increased unit costs.
Refueling additional Los Angeles class submarines is not a suitable
substitute for building Virginia class submarines other than as a
short-term force level increase.
affordability
According to news reports, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, a Washington think tank, has indicated that the defense
program may be short as much as $50 billion a year. Another independent
group, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, claims that
the underfunding could be as high as $100 billion a year.
Question. Given probable constraints on defense spending in future
years, can we afford a tactical aircraft modernization program as
currently projected?
Answer. This is a question that has been repeatedly asked, and the
Department has been very consistent in its response. The Department
believes that the three aircraft (F/A-18E/F, F-22, and Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF)) in the tactical aircraft (TACAIR) modernization plan are
affordable so long as they are properly phased and scoped. The fiscal
requirements for the F/A-18E/F, F-22, and JSF programs do not exceed
historical spending norms for total aviation modernization (though
TACAIR will take a majority of the resources over the next decade or
so). The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) determined that all three
aircraft were important to meet warfighting needs with a prudent level
of risk, and also will sustain needed technology development and the
defense industrial base. The QDR adjusted the procurement quantities
for each aircraft in order to balance warfighting risk against the need
to use scarce modernization resources prudently, and support
acquisition stability by reducing overall costs to a level we can
afford.
capability required
Question. Mr. Cohen, in view of the demise of the Soviet Union, and
the changed international security environment, what capabilities are
required in U.S. tactical aircraft? Does the current modernization
program build in (an) excessive and expensive capability that is
unnecessary in the post-Cold War environment?
Answer. No. Potential future adversaries are projected to field
significant numbers of improved surface-to-air missile systems that
could restrict the rapid application of air power against key ground
targets at the outset of a conflict. As shown during the 1999
operations against Serbian air defenses, even older air defense
systems, adroitly employed, can limit the application of air power.
Aviation systems and weaponry currently being offered for sale
include fighter aircraft, air-to-air missiles, and air defense systems.
Properly employed, these advanced systems could pose a difficult
challenge to U.S. forces in combat. The further proliferation of such
weapon systems could drive up U.S. losses in a future conflict, making
continued improvements in the nation's air forces imperative.
The overall numbers of U.S. tactical aircraft reflect both possible
wartime needs and the force levels appropriate to support peacetime
forward deployments at an acceptable operational tempo. With the
existing basing arrangements and current forward presence levels, force
levels are not excessive to meet operational needs. In fact, the
services continue to adapt their force operations to mitigate personnel
operational tempo pressures. The Air Force Expeditionary Air Force
concept is an example of such initiatives to reduce operational tempo
pressures within existing force structure.
force structure
The Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, announced in September 1993
that the Administration projected a base force of twenty Air Force
fighter/attack wings (13 active, 7 reserve), eleven Navy carrier air
wings, and four Marine Corps air wings. The Quadrennial Defense Review
released by the current Defense Secretary William Cohen in May 1997,
recommended no major changes in this force structure, although the
twenty Air Force tactical wings would comprise twelve active and eight
reserve wings. A reduction in the number of air wings would lead to a
corresponding reduction in the number of aircraft to be procured.
Question. Looking ahead, how many wings of tactical aircraft does
the United States need in the post-Cold War era? Will the United States
still need thirty-five air wings in 2010, 2020, the time period for
which the new aircraft will be operational?
Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) struck a balance
between retaining sufficient force structure to meet the full range of
contemporary requirements while also investing in a future force
through a focused modernization plan. The forces provided in the QDR
were designed to ensure our superiority ``throughout the 1997-2015
period and beyond''.
The Quadrennial Defense Review reduced total planned procurement of
the Air Force's F-22 fighter from 438 to 339 aircraft, consistent with
its much greater capability compared to the current F-15, as well as
overall affordability concerns and force structure decisions. Navy and
Marine Corps tactical aviation force structure were not adjusted in the
QDR, although the planned quantity of Navy F/A-18E/Fs was reduced
significantly in favor of an increased number of the newer Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) aircraft. Further, the planned total quantities of Navy
F/A-18E/F and Navy/Marine JSF aircraft were reduced to reflect improved
efficiency in utilization of the supporting aircraft inventory.
Similarly, the planned inventory of Air Force JSFs was reduced to
reflect corresponding inventory efficiencies. Thus, the QDR program
provided a net reduction to the previous stated program plans of 677
fighter/attack aircraft: 99 F-22s, 452 F/A-18E/Fs, and 126 JSFs.
Recent operations, including the 1999 conflict in Kosovo, show that
the tactical air forces continue to be in high demand to meet current
operational needs. Consistent with this experience, the Department
maintains the QDR program as the basis for future tactical air force
structure and modernization.
unmanned aerial vehicles (uav)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) that can perform many surveillance
and other functions of manned aircraft are being developed and produced
by the United States.
Question. How does the role of UAVs fit into the Administration's
overall strategy for the procurement of tactical aircraft?
Answer. While Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been around for
quite a while, Operation ALLIED FORCE--the conflict over Kosovo in
1999--allowed for the most extensive use of UAVs in support of combat
operations. The experience validated our need for these types of
systems, and has broadened our understanding of how we might
incorporate UAVs into future combat. Based on our lessons learned, UAVs
are likely to be used in expanded applications beyond their traditional
reconnaissance and surveillance roles, including combat strike
functions. However, we need to proceed carefully and deliberately as we
expand the roles of UAVs, ensuring that the new missions are both
militarily effective and cost efficient.
To this end, several activities are being accomplished. The JROC-
sponsored UAV Special Study Group is currently updating the 1997 CINC-
generated UAV mission/payload prioritization list. This list will
provide a firm requirements base for future UAV roles. Additionally,
there are a number of Science & Technology efforts and experiments/
exercises underway to further develop and understand advanced UAV
technologies, payloads/sensors, and concept of operations that will
contribute to the evolution of UAVs. Both the AF and the Navy, in
conjunction with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), are
exploring Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) concepts.
As these activities come to fruition, we will be able to model
military effectiveness and cost, and we can make judgments on the most
probable UAV roles. The modeling will be the basis for adjustments to
the Department's overall procurement plans (i.e., increase the quantity
of specific types of UAVs, reduce the number of manned surveillance
aircraft or manned tactical aircraft, etc.) It would be premature to
make any adjustments without the requirements-based perspective and a
greater understanding the technology. It is essential that we complete
the on-going activities and the modeling first.
other threats
Secretary Cohen, some have raised concerns about other threats to
the United States, such as inadequate border security, suitcase bombs,
bombs smuggled into the United States by ship, and other weapons of
mass destruction, such as biological and chemical warfare and other
sabotage.
Question. What are your thoughts about this, Mr. Secretary? Are we
putting too many eggs into the conventional weapons basket, and
ignoring other threats at our own peril? Do you have any views on that
matter?
Answer. Just as the USG cannot focus on one area of the world, it
cannot focus on a single type U.S. forces must be able to respond to
the broad spectrum of threats anywhere in the world.
In the case of terrorism, no single department or agency possesses
all the capabilities needed to combat the problem. Cooperation within
the USG is essential. By supporting both the Department of State and
the Department of Justice or acting unilaterally as directed by the
National Command Authorities, the DOD is required to be ready to combat
terrorism throughout the globe. Our forces and their capabilities are
not specific to one region or another. The rigorous budget and
acquisition processes in place ensure that our military forces are
prepared to operate internationally in a variety of environments.
An emerging and significant threat is represented by the
proliferation of WMD, including improvised biological, chemical, and
nuclear devices that exploit technologies that once were the sole
preserve of world and regional powers. The potential to attack large
population centers and wreak havoc on an unprecedented scale has
devolved from nation states to groups and even individuals.
Given this threat to the United States and U.S. citizens at both
home and abroad, the Department in cooperation with the Department of
Justice, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other departments and
agencies has taken steps to prevent and deter terrorism and the use of
WMD. Additionally, we work to ensure that the USG can assist victims of
WMD terrorism if necessary. As in counterterrorism, the Department is
prepared to assist the lead Federal agencies for consequence management
as necessary.
threats against agriculture
Secretary Cohen, with regard to chemical and biological weapons
threats to the United States, I am concerned about biological weapons
that could be targeted against U.S. agriculture the largest
agricultural market in the world.
Attacks on U.S. agriculture would offer huge financial rewards to
terrorist through international future markets, or manipulations that
would be--for the terrorists risk free.
I am advised that Iraq had large stocks of biological weapons that
cause severe disease in humans and animals; and that these agents had
been made into weapons. Genetic engineering technologies allow creation
of new pathogens with enhanced toxicity that may cause a biological
weapons surprise to agriculture.
Question. I am concerned that as we concentrate on funding for new
weapons systems, we may be blinded to other, perhaps greater, threats
of sabotage and short change other necessary initiatives to protect our
national security. Do you have any comment on that Mr. Secretary?
Answer: The Department recognizes the need to address
unconventional as well as conventional threats, and is applying
resources to both. While we need to develop new weapons systems to
ensure that our war fighters are equipped with the best available
technology, we also recognize the need to address domestic
unconventional threats. The Department does this in an interagency
context, where Defense acts in a support role. The Department, in
cooperation with the Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and other departments and agencies, performs a
significant role to prevent, deter, and mitigate terrorist events.
As you know, in May 1998 President Clinton signed Presidential
Decision Directive 62, which is serving to fully incorporate all
Federal Agencies in a deliberate planning and coordination process for
domestic preparedness and within the structure of the National Security
Council (NSC). The NSC has chartered nine subcommittees to address
functional aspects of domestic preparedness with the general objectives
to assess preparedness status and to recommend appropriate federal
responses to emergent problem areas. The subgroup for Protection of
Food and Agriculture deals solely with food and agriculture protection
issues and is chaired by the Department of Agriculture. DOD is a member
of this subgroup and will continue to support its activities.
In addition to operational support for domestic preparedness, the
Department also provides research and development resources to the
interagency Technical Support Working Group (TSWG). Through the
Department's Combating Terrorism Technology Support Program and funding
provided by other agencies, the TSWG rapidly develops technologies and
equipment to meet the high-priority needs of the combating terrorism
community, and addresses joint international operational requirements
through cooperative R&D with major allies. The Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is the newest member of the TSWG, where solutions
are being sought with USDA scientists on promising biological agent
detection technologies for agriculture and food processing.
russian biological weapons program
I am advised that there is a continuing threat from undisclosed
Russian biological weapons programs. This involves proliferation of
biological weapons technologies to foreign countries, enhanced by
trained personnel, expertise and materials from the former Soviet
program. I am advised that one area of the Soviet program (BIOPEPARAT)
had 10,000 scientists working on agricultural biological weapons mostly
targeting U.S. agriculture. Our own Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service has only 2,000 scientists for all
research programs nationwide.
I am concerned that U.S. agriculture is uniquely vulnerable to
biological weapons attacks because of its size. (U.S. Agriculture is
13.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product and 16.9 percent of employment.)
These could take the form of highly infectious biological weapons
diseases and pests, particularly foreign diseases that do not now occur
in the U.S. This could adversely affect U.S. agricultural exports ($140
billion annually) which are the largest positive contribution to the
U.S. balance of trade.
Protecting U.S. agriculture equates to protecting one of the major
infrastructures of the U.S. economy.
Question. Mr. Secretary, at the same time, we are planning to spend
hundreds of billions of dollars on new weapons systems, we are woefully
underfunding efforts to counter biological weapons threats to
agriculture and the food-supply system. As a senior member of the
administration's Cabinet concerned with national security, what is your
response to my concerns?
It seems to me that little is being done to protect agriculture and
the food supply despite some recent increases in the budgets for
intelligence, law enforcement, the medical community, and the armed
forces in this area.
It also seems to me that policymakers have inadvertently overlooked
weapons targeting animal and plant agriculture in the urgent thrust to
establish a national security program in an unfamiliar area.
Question. What are your thoughts on this matter? What more can be
done?
Answer: The Department recognizes the need to address
unconventional as well as conventional threats, and is applying
resources to both. While we need to develop new weapons systems to
ensure that our war fighters are equipped with the best available
technology, we also recognize the need to address domestic
unconventional threats. The Department does this in an interagency
context, where Defense acts in a support role. The Department, in
cooperation with the Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and other departments and agencies, performs a
significant role to prevent, deter, and mitigate terrorist events.
As you know, in May 1998 President Clinton signed Presidential
Decision Directive 62, which is serving to fully incorporate all
Federal Agencies in a deliberate planning and coordination process for
domestic preparedness and within the structure of the National Security
Council (NSC). The NSC has chartered nine subcommittees to address
functional aspects of domestic preparedness with the general objectives
to assess preparedness status and to recommend appropriate federal
responses to emergent problem areas. The subgroup for Protection of
Food and Agriculture deals solely with food and agriculture protection
issues and is chaired by the Department of Agriculture. DOD is a member
of this subgroup and will continue to support its activities.
In addition to operational support for domestic preparedness, the
Department also provides research and development resources to the
interagency Technical Support Working Group (TSWG). Through the
Department's Combating Terrorism Technology Support Program and funding
provided by other agencies, the TSWG rapidly develops technologies and
equipment to meet the high-priority needs of the combating terrorism
community, and addresses joint international operational requirements
through cooperative R&D with major allies. The Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is the newest member of the TSWG, where solutions
are being sought with USDA scientists on promising biological agent
detection technologies for agriculture and food processing.
fiscal year 2000 kosovo supplemental
Mr. Secretary, Republican leadership made the recent unfortunate
decision to kill the fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental. I believe
that risks undermining our troops and commanders in the field. At the
same time, we need confidence in Congress that the United States has an
exit strategy. We learned from Somalia that standard doctrine cannot be
ignored even in peacekeeping missions. When commanders need
overwhelming force, we need to provide it and it has to be timely. The
alternative is we leave room open for mistakes and horrible images of
our troops being dragged through the streets.
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have stated that failure to pass a
timely supplemental will cut back on training, morale, capabilities,
and readiness. What have your commanders said will be the impact on
mission safety and pacification efforts for a prudent exit strategy?
Answer. Without supplemental funding to offset contingency
operation costs, the Department of Defense has no choice but to take
extremely disruptive actions that will have serious readiness
consequences. Since the estimated cost of contingency operations has
not changed, the reduction in funds will require that contingency
operations costs be absorbed within the Service's operating and
military personnel accounts. Absorbing these costs, especially this
late in the fiscal year, will dictate that core programs be canceled or
deferred. To preserve near-term readiness, the most likely actions
would include the deferral of depot maintenance, implementing supply
constraints, deferring civilian hires/change of stations, reduction of
home station training, and deferring equipment reconstitution of units
recently rotated from contingency operations. The bottom line is that
without full supplemental funding approval, fourth quarter activities
that will damage the readiness, military capabilities, and troop morale
of our armed forces will result.
kosovo
I am very concerned about the level of U.S. participation in the
Kosovo peacekeeping operation, and the anticipated duration of the U.S.
military deployment in that operation.
Question. How many military personnel are currently assigned to the
KFOR operation in Kosovo, and how many of those are U.S. personnel?
Answer. As of 27 April 2000, there were approximately 39,900
military personnel (NATO/non-NATO) deployed with the KFOR mission in
Kosovo itself. Of this total, the U.S. force contribution is
approximately 5,500, or 13.8 percent of the force structure. If we look
at total KFOR manning, which includes personnel not only in Kosovo but
also in FYROM, Albania, and Greece, the U.S. force contribution is
approximately 6,200, or 13.4 percent of a total force of approximately
46,100 (NATO/non-NATO).
Question. Which country has the single largest contingent of
military personnel stationed in Kosovo?
(If the answer is not the United States, then a follow up question:
How does the number of U.S. personnel compare to the number of troops
from other individual nations in Kosovo--is the U.S. the second or
third largest contingent?)
Answer. In Kosovo itself, the U.S. contribution is the largest at
approximately 5,500 (valid as of 27 April 2000). If we consider total
KFOR manning (which includes Kosovo, FYROM, Greece, and Albania), then
the Italian force contribution of approximately 6,500 is the largest
national element, with the U.S. contribution second at approximately
6,200. This is due to the large Italian contingent of approximately
1,000 personnel assigned to KFOR in Albania (the Italian contribution
to KFOR in Kosovo itself is approximately 5,100, second to the U.S.
force of 5,500). All force contributions are valid as of 27 April 2000.
Question. Congress authorized the air strikes against Yugoslavia
last year, but Congress has not authorized U.S. participation in the
Kosovo peacekeeping operation. Given the amount of tax dollars that the
Administration is requesting for this operation, and the dangerous
situation that U.S. service men and women are facing in Kosovo, do you
not think that a full discussion in Congress on the future of this
mission would be prudent?
Answer. I welcome appropriate congressional discussion of the
mission in Kosovo; however I oppose any legislation that would create
uncertainty about U.S. intentions in Kosovo, or would take the decision
making authority on the deployment of U.S. troops out of the hands of
Congress and the President.
Question. What types of peacekeeping activities are U.S. troops in
Kosovo typically involved in?
Answer. It is the continuing mission of KFOR to maintain a secure
environment throughout Kosovo. Within means and capabilities, KFOR will
also provide support to the Special Representative to the Secretary
General of the United Nations (SRSG) and to the United Nations Mission
in Kosovo (UNMIK). The United States continues to command Multinational
Brigade East (MNB-E), one of the five sectors of responsibility. To
accomplish their assigned mission, KFOR units carry out a number of
necessary military tasks. For example, U.S. forces conduct daily
patrols, man traffic control checkpoints, and provide security details
at selected sites of significance within their assigned sector. In
addition, KFOR units continue to support the U.N. International Police
(UNIP) in all five regions as they work to establish law and order in
the province.
Question. Would you describe the bulk of these activities as
military maneuvers or as law enforcement activities?
Answer. The activities that our forces are currently involved with
on a regular basis would best be characterized as typical military
tasks for a peacekeeping force. When KFOR first entered Kosovo, they
were filling an administrative and public security vacuum created
primarily by the departure of the Serb military and police units. In
addition to their key military tasks, our forces initially assumed a
number of additional responsibilities. For example, until the various
international organizations (IOs) and NGOs were ready to assume their
responsibilities, KFOR was tasked (within means and capabilities) to
provide initial public security operations and initial basic civil
administrative functions, as well as other essential non-military
functions. They were also tasked with providing initial humanitarian
assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs), returning refugees,
and other inhabitants of Kosovo. Over time, these initial
responsibilities have largely shifted back to their primary
organizations of responsibility.
Question. When do you anticipate that U.S. military forces will be
able to hand over their police and law enforcement duties to a civilian
police force?
Answer. As of 27 April 2000, the United Nations International
Police (UNIP) had 3,159 civilian police deployed in all five regions of
the province. As this force has grown, it has assumed increasing
responsibility for the tasks of ensuring public security and law
enforcement. An effective judicial system is also necessary to ensure a
fully functioning legal framework.
colombia
Secretary Cohen, Assistant Secretary of Defense Brian Sheridan
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month
during a hearing on the Administration's counter-narcotics proposal for
Columbia and neighboring countries. In response to a question from me,
Mr. Sheridan said that the Administration would not seek force caps for
the operation, but could work within a force cap.
Question. Do you agree with that statement?
Answer. Yes, the Department could work within a force cap while
providing counter-drug support to Colombia. However, as a matter of
policy, the Department of Defense does not support troop caps due to
the impact that such restrictions can have on military operations.
Nevertheless, in the case of Plan Colombia, where the objectives are
quite clear and of limited scope, the Department can accept a troop cap
on U.S. military personnel provided that the language is properly
structured and developed in coordination with the Commander in Chief of
U.S. Southern Command.
Question. The figures supplied by Mr. Sheridan and others
testifying at that hearing included an average U.S. military presence
in Colombia of 209 personnel, ranging from a low of 92 to a high of 309
over the past year. Would you please provide for this committee by the
end of the week specific recommendations on a troop cap for Colombia
counter-drug operations, including numbers for both military personnel
and civilian contractors working with the military?
Answer. General Wilhelm, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern
Command, has looked closely at the troop cap issue and has determined
that a limit of 500 personnel would provide sufficient operational
capability and flexibility to facilitate Department counter-drug
support to Colombia. The Department would require legislation that
provides exceptions in the case of noncombatant evacuations, search and
rescue operations, ship's company associated with U.S. Naval vessel
port visits, equipment salvage and recovery, as well as exclusions for
Department personnel involved in conferences, meetings and
investigations. Additionally, the Department would want to exclude
military personnel permanently assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Colombia
as well as members of units participating in relief efforts in response
to natural disasters or other humanitarian assistance. A rigorous
assessment of the number of civilian contractors has not been
completed. Historically to date, the maximum number of Department
civilian contractors in Colombia has been in the range of 40 to 50
personnel. However, this figure does not include additional DOD
contractors that will be needed to implement Plan Colombia, nor does it
include contractors presently in Colombia supporting the requirements
of the Department of State and other departments and agencies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
secrecy
Secretary Cohen, the nuclear weapons portion of the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant has been closed for 25 years, but the Army is not
allowed even to acknowledge that nuclear weapons were ever there. I
would like the Army to join with the Energy Department in encouraging
former workers to come forward, to discuss any exposures that occurred
at the plant, and to receive care for any medical problems that have
resulted. But the Pentagon's secrecy sends the opposite message.
Question. What is the harm in admitting that nuclear weapons once
were in a facility that has closed for twenty-five years?
I recently hosted Energy Secretary Richardson at a town meeting
near the plant to talk about the nuclear weapons work that occurred
there. When the Energy Department is publicly dealing with the nuclear
legacy, is it consistent for the Defense Department not to admit such a
legacy exists? How should I explain to Iowans why one federal agency
will talk about it but another federal agency won't?
The Defense Department has released a list of place where nuclear
weapons were deployed that named Alaska, Cuba, Guam, Hawaii, Johnston
Islands, Midway, Puerto Rico, United Kingdom, and West Germany. A
Department Official later said that Iceland was not on the list. Why
will the Department refer to nuclear weapons in Alaska or Puerto Rico
or German, but not in Iowa?
Answer. This is a complex issue with a history going back over 40
years. Its complexity is driven by evolving: classification policy,
physical security posture for nuclear weapons, and public safety, which
are all protected by an umbrella public affairs policy regarding
comment on nuclear weapons, i.e., the Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND)
policy. In response to public affairs questions about the general or
specific location of nuclear weapons, the response--NCND--will be given
even when such location is thought to be known or obvious. The purpose
of the 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
the threats of sabotage and terrorism. This policy applies to U.S.
weapons deployed within the United States and its territories or to
locations beyond our territorial boarders.
In the case you cite in your question, if the Army spokesperson
were to have responded--other than NCND--to questions regarding the
presence of weapons at the Iowa Ammunition Plant, for consistency, the
Army would also have an obligation to answer questions about any of
their facilities. The same obligation would apply to the U.S. Navy,
U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, or any other Department spokesperson. We
cannot answer questions about the location of nuclear weapons
selectively. There is, however, an exception to the NCND policy.
It is U.S. policy to confirm to the general public the presence or
absence of nuclear weapons or radioactive nuclear components, when
necessary, in the interest of public safety or to reduce or prevent
widespread public alarm. For example, in the unlikely event of an
accident involving a nuclear weapon, we make an exception to NCND
policy. Notification of public authorities is also required if the
public is, or may be, in danger of radiation exposure or other danger
posed by a weapon or its components.
The policy has a long history. It does not apply uniquely to this
Department. It was established by President Eisenhower in 1959.
``It is the policy of the U.S. Government to neither confirm
nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any
general or specific location. It is also U.S. policy not to
comment on request for information regarding the movement of
nuclear weapons, the capability to store weapons at U.S. or
foreign locations, or planning for any of these activities.''
In 1991, the National Security Council directed a review of the
NCND policy with regard to ships following the announcement by
President Bush that the U.S. Navy would remove certain tactical nuclear
weapons from some naval vessels. In 1992, the interagency community
agreed to a slight modification to the policy with regard to naval
vessels and aircraft.
``We will not discuss the presence or absence of nuclear
weapons aboard specific ships, submarines, or aircraft.
However, it is now U.S. practice not to deploy nuclear weapons
aboard surface ships, attack submarines, and naval aircraft.''
The deployment of U.S. weapons beyond our territorial borders also
adds complexity of harmonizing classification and NCND policies. The
United States must honor joint security agreements and consider the
wishes of other nations to have served as host to U.S. weapons in the
past, or continue to do so today.
While I share your concerns, we cannot, however, conduct a
comprehensive review of NCND policy taking into account only some
weapon locations, or former locations, without affecting the security
policies of current and former basing nations around the world. For
example, when a non-government organization published a false
conclusion reached from a redacted version of a classified report, our
comment was that their conclusion was in error with regard to missing
information. We do not confirm nor deny the presence of weapons in any
country, with the exceptions of the United Kingdom and Germany.
We have, nonetheless, begun informally to explore the prospects of
harmonizing the NCND policy and classification policy regarding the
deployment and movement of U.S. nuclear weapons with allies who serve
as hosts to U.S. nuclear weapons, or have done so in the past.
Developing a single exception to deal with Iowa would instantly raise
other exceptions, causing even more questions about the NCND policy,
which could have international implications.
trailers
Question. A recent report by the General Accounting Office found
that 6,550 trailers were purchased over the last five years for over
$50 million and are sitting in storage because they are unsafe. After
several rounds of tests and modifications, I understand that the Army
has proposed a fix to the trailers and the High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWVs) that pull them, but that it has yet to be
tested. What went wrong--why has this program been such a mess?
Answer. A market survey was conducted prior to contracting, the
results of that survey concluded that a commercial industry capability
and capacity existed to meet the High Mobility Trailer requirements.
Based upon the market survey results, a Non-Developmental Item
strategy, coupled with a performance specification and a First Article
Test to ensure compliance, seemed at the time to be a reasonable
procurement strategy. In hindsight, the Army and our contractors
underestimated the challenge of fielding a light trailer capable of
strenuous off-road speeds to be pulled by a vehicle that was never
supposed to pull a trailer. To save time and money, we procured a
slightly modified commercially off-the-shelf trailer without the
benefit of any research and development (R&D) effort. Perhaps, we
should have done things differently. I would like to state for the
record, that in all cases, the many program decisions that affected
this program over the years were made in the best interests of the Army
and soldiers and were based upon the best available information.
Question. An earlier letter from Mr. Hoeper stated that all Army
units ``are currently about 30 percent short of the authorized
inventory'' due to trailer problems, and stated that the Army needs at
least 18,412 trailers. But now I am told that future procurements will
abandon this flawed trailer and choose a new design. When do you expect
to complete testing of the fix and complete modifications of the
existing trailers and trucks? When do you expect to be ready to
purchase additional trailers?
Answer. The Army expects to complete all testing by the end of the
first quarter, fiscal year 2001 and complete all modifications to the
trailers and HMMWVs by the end of the fourth quarter, fiscal year 2002.
The initiation of any new trailer program will be contingent upon the
need to buy additional trailers weighted against the needs of other
modernization programs and the amount of funding available to effect
these purchases.
Question. A letter from Mr. Paul Hoeper of the Army gave me a
``conservative cost estimate'' of $22 million to fix the problems with
what started as a $51 million contract. The plan is to modify only one
truck per trailer. But the letter states that the Army is evaluating
modifying all the trucks in units with trailers, which comes to almost
20,000 trucks. How much extra would that cost?
Answer. The cost for the retrofit program entails the application
of 3 modifications, 2 to the trailer and 1 to the High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), prime mover. The modification
kits are as follows: Drawbar Modification Kit, Brake System Actuator
Kit, and HMMWV Cross Member Kit/HMMWV Bumper Modification Kit. The
conservative cost estimate provided by Mr. Hoeper was, in fact, the
worst case or most expensive option of modifying all the trucks in a
unit with trailers. For the record, the total estimated cost of
modifying only one truck per trailer is $6.1 million.
Question. I also understand that there is no money to fix or
purchase trailers in this year's budget or in the Future Years Plan. Is
that correct? If so, how do you plan to fund the repairs of old
trailers and the purchase of new ones?
Answer. The Army has current and prior years, unobligated dollars
in the program to effect the fixes. In addition, the Army plans to use
its below threshold reprogramming authority to add additional dollars
to the program. The funding for the purchase of additional trailers
will be presented to the Congress in future budget submissions as part
of the annual appropriation request.
Question. The first letter from Mr. Hoeper stated that some of the
program personnel have received merit increases or promotions recently.
Can you tell me which personnel received merit pay raises or
promotions, what their role in the trailer program was, and what
promotions or merit raises did they receive?
Answer. As Mr. Hoeper stated some individuals associated with the
program have received pay increases or promotions. The promotions and
pay increases were deserved. The many program decisions that affected
this program over the years were made in the best interests of the Army
and soldiers and were based upon the best available information. These
decisions were not made in a vacuum but with the approval of the
appropriate Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense officials
at all levels. All our employees are held accountable for their
actions, however, the many people involved in this effort made
decisions with the best possible intentions so that no individual
deserves to be held responsible for the program shortcomings. No
employees need to be singled out. Our focus has been fixing the trailer
not fixing any blame.
troops on welfare
I know that many of my colleagues join me in finding it outrageous
that some of our troops need welfare to get by, and even more
outrageous that some of our troops are excluded from welfare they need.
You recently released a statement that it ``is wrong'' that military
members in on-base housing can qualify for food stamps while those off
base who receive a housing allowance cannot. And you said you ``will
work vigorously'' to exclude the cash housing allowance from
consideration.
Question. Will you pay for the additional food stamps from Defense
Department funds, or do you expect the Agriculture Department to pay
for them?
Answer. Not counting the value of housing for those members
residing off-base in determining food stamp eligibility is a fairer way
of addressing the current inequities created by the governing food
stamp law. I fully recognize that this would result in an increase in
the number of people eligible for the benefit, but prefer that over
pursuing a course that would result in taking away a tangible benefit
some people are currently receiving. The Department has begun
discussions with the Department of Agriculture, but the answer to this
issue is very complex since any change in law regarding food stamp
eligibility determination affects a much larger population, nationwide,
than those Service members receiving food stamps. Counting the value of
housing creates inequity between military and civilian populations. I
am committed, however, to working this issue and would be glad to
report back to the Committee as we determine how we will accomplish
this, and how any proposal would be funded.
Question. Will you support measures to increase the pay of the
lowest income military members, whether they live on or off base, so
they no longer need food stamps?
Answer. I will always support paying our people more. As I have
stated in the past, we, as a nation, can never pay our people enough
for the sacrifices they make, but we can pay them more than they are
currently receiving. However, simply paying our most junior people more
money to address food stamp participation results in a compression of
the pay table. This compression could have the inadvertent result of
removing the incentive for promotion if there is not a significant
monetary recognition in future promotions. Thus, we need to be
examining the overall adequacy of pay for all our people, and we are
doing that. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation is
looking at pay issues at all levels on the enlisted pay table to assess
the adequacy of pay in providing the right standard of living as well
as the ability to attract and retain the quality force we currently
enjoy.
Last year, I'm sure you recall, Congress passed a provision to
provide WIC payments to troops overseas. That provision specifically
included on-base housing (not just housing allowances) in qualifying
for the payments.
Question. Will you support excluding on-base housing and cash
housing allowances from income in troops overseas qualifying for WIC,
as you do for food stamps here?
Answer. Philosophically, I support not counting the value of
housing in determining WIC eligibility. The programs we provide for our
people ought to be fair and equitable, and not counting the value of
housing errs on the side of the human, not the program. Most states do
not count the value of housing, and making this change would provide a
more equitable benefit for our Service members.
Question. I understand that troops overseas are not yet receiving
any WIC support, and that overseas service is not expected to begin
until mid-2001, almost two years after the provision passed. What is
your plan for implementing this provision, and when exactly do you
expect it will be implemented? Could you please provide me with a
detailed timeline for implementation that shows why it will take so
long for the Congressional directive to be implemented?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)/TRICARE
Management Activity (TMA) recently assumed responsibility for
implementing the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program for
military personnel stationed overseas. Official designation of this
responsibility was made April 13, 2000. Since then, the WIC Overseas
Program Manager has formed an Integrated Program Team (IPT) that will
oversee the development of the program and monitor its implementation.
Three meetings have been held, and the next meeting is scheduled for
July 13, 2000. Meetings will continue as frequently as necessary.
Because of the complex nature of this project, the IPT is composed
of members representing many diverse disciplines and organizational
components: DOD TRICARE Management Activity; Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Force Management Policy); Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller); Service Assistant Secretaries (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs); Service Surgeons General; Lead Agents in TRICARE Europe,
Pacific, and Latin America; Defense Commissary Agency; Navy Exchange
Command; and Defense Financing and Accounting Service. Additionally,
several civilians familiar with domestic WIC programs are providing the
team with expert consultation.
Among the issues requiring refinement and coordination are the
following: determining parameters for WIC eligibility, both in terms of
income and nutritional need; deciding on a range of supplemental food
packages and arranging for these products to be available in overseas
commissaries; developing an accounting system to handle the WIC
vouchers that will be used to ``purchase'' the supplemental food;
developing and providing training for medical, commissary, accounting,
and family center staffs on their roles in the program; and developing
and providing the required educational materials for WIC beneficiaries.
Clearly, this is a complex program with many moving parts, all of which
require careful development and coordination as implementation plans
are put into place. While having WIC operational overseas as soon as
possible is certainly a high priority, it will take time to do this
program right. Hasty execution of a poorly planned program will only
cause more delays in the long run and frustrate our beneficiaries even
further.
Funding for the program has been, and continues to be, a major
concern. To date, only $1 million has been programmed for start-up
activities. We estimate that start-up costs will approach $5 million,
with annual maintenance of the program to be approximately $12 million
to $16 million. Clearly, the magnitude, scope, and sophistication of
WIC overseas will be directly related to the funds appropriated for it.
A detailed timeline for WIC implementation overseas is being
developed; however, a rough timeline contains the following milestones:
July 15, 2000--identification of pilot sites--two in Europe, two in the
western Pacific, and one in Latin America; October 31, 2000--completion
of focus group interviews; December 15, 2000--completion of training
for commissary and NEXMART staffs at pilot sites; January 2001--begin
WIC services at pilot sites; July 2001--full implementation of WIC
overseas.
______
Questions Submitted to Gen. Henry H. Shelton
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
healthcare
Question. General Shelton, the credibility of our work at
maintaining morale and meeting recruiting and retention objectives is
tested by our ability to care for our veterans. While we debate who
promised what to whom and what to do about it, our veterans who paved
the way for the prosperity we enjoy today are asking for help. 1,000
World War II and Korean veterans are dying every day and they cannot
wait years for your program improvements. I am still waiting to hear
solutions from the Department of Defense. General Shelton, in your
testimony you recognize the compelling need to provide more
comprehensive health-care coverage for military retirees and their
family members. In addition, you say that where specific TRICARE
coverage is not available, you must offer them other benefits and that
your intent is to reduce out-of-pocket expenses. What are your specific
plans to expand these benefits and reduce expenses for military
retirees?
Answer. Simply stated, I would ask that Congress pass legislation
that addresses the health care needs of all beneficiaries who have
served 20 years or more in the Armed Forces.
Today, our retirees over the age of 65 pay on the average $4,500 a
year per family out of their own pockets. This cost varies depending on
the medical condition of the individual, the number and types of
medications he or she happens to be taking, and the type of Medicare
supplemental insurance carried. The Joint Chief's plan expands TRICARE
Senior Prime for this population from six to 15 sites, with the intent
to expand to all TRICARE Regions. Where TRICARE Senior Prime is not
available, we propose funding a robust pharmacy benefit and a Medigap-
like policy. These initiatives would go a long way in honoring the
promise made.
For retirees under the age of 65, we propose that they make a
binding decision on a regular basis to commit to either enroll in
TRICARE Prime or remain in TRICARE Standard. For those choosing TRICARE
Standard, use of the medical treatment facility would be authorized
only for pharmacy and catastrophic illness. Where TRICARE Prime is not
available, we propose offering a benefit similar to TRICARE Remote.
Question. General Shelton, most of the military retirees and
veterans I hear from complain that the rules are being changed in the
middle of the game. They were promised free health care for life, and
the military broke its promise. I share your concerns over increased
access and better care for military beneficiaries, however, we must
maintain the quality of care as we increase access. In your statement,
you refer to the implementation of ``business practice improvements''
to address the health needs of military beneficiaries. Having seen some
of the metrics that aim to increase productivity and access, I am
concerned that these ``business practice improvements: will mortgage
the future stability of military health-care. For example, the Army and
Air Force will force each doctor to see 25 patients per day. This
metric seems overly optimistic and will force physicians to see
approximately three patients per hour. This severely reduced the
doctor's time for training and administrative requirements, and, more
important, it eliminates critical time for building the doctor-patient
relationship. If not careful, you may so overburden health-care
providers that you exacerbate rather than solve problems with the
Defense Health Program. How will the military increase access while
maintaining the quality of health care?
Answer. Our commitment to high-quality health care for all military
members, including retirees, remains firm. I share your sensitivity to
overburdening our health care system and preserving the quality of the
provider-patient relationship. As validated by survey after survey,
Service members and their families are generally pleased with the care
they receive from doctors, nurses, and other health care providers.
However, they are frustrated by the administrative aspects of TRICARE.
It is these aspects of the program that our business practice
improvement initiatives are targeting.
Analysis of industry-wide healthcare standards has shown that we
have an opportunity to further optimize the use of our military
treatment facilities by increasing access to more beneficiaries. This
means each military treatment facility (MTF) commander must carefully
evaluate and, where under-utilization exists, implement policies that
encourage providers to increase the number of patients they see in a
day without sacrificing the quality our surveys are reflecting. Doing
so will open MTF access to more beneficiaries where they truly want to
be seen, enhances the readiness posture of our patient providers, and
optimizes our medical resource. It is a ``win-win'' for everybody.
plan colombia
Question. General Shelton, you mention several infrastructure
deficiencies at the Forward Operating Locations. Are funds for these
infrastructure requirements provided in Plan Colombia?
Answer. Yes, we have planned for the necessary infrastructure
requirements. The forward operating locations (FOLs) at Manta, Curacao,
and Aruba provide austere support to our counterdrug effort. We are
already operating from those locations, but some prudent infrastructure
improvements will be necessary before full operations can commence.
This work totals $116.5 million.
Manta is the most critical FOL, and the airfield deficiencies there
prevent us from meeting our strategic milestones. For those reasons, we
asked for $38.6 million for Manta airfield improvements in the fiscal
year 2000 Emergency Supplemental. The remaining funds required for
Manta, as well as funds for Aruba and Curacao, were included in DOD's
fiscal year 2001 counterdrug Budget request. Recent congressional
action in the House and Senate has brought all these funds forward to
fiscal year 2000.
Infrastructure improvements at the FOLs are critical to our support
of Plan Colombia. I am confident that we have correctly identified the
requirements and included them in our budget requests.
joint training at fort leonard wood
Question. General Shelton, on my recent visit to Fort Leonard Wood
I was impressed by the prevalence of multi-service training. I think
our taxpayers would be pleased to know that all the services have come
together to lower the total costs of training engineers, military
police, and truck drivers. However, I was disappointed by the lack of
investment into these facilities. I understand the Army and Marines
teach employment of non-lethal weapons, a subject that appears to be
very relevant to today's Joint Force, but I would like to know what
provisions are being made to support this training and the increased
requirements placed on it. I think non-lethal weapons will help provide
the array of versatile, affordable assets needed, particularly as you
deploy for Peace Operations. Will you and the service chiefs come
together to support improving these facilities--not just for the
growing demand in such areas as non-lethal individual weapons, but for
engineers and truck drivers as well?
Answer. I can assure you we are all working to provide the best
training, training facilities, and technology for our Armed Forces. The
Army and Marine Corps are collaborating in many training venues to
enhance their readiness while insuring their forces are interoperable.
Both Services are working together on Military Operations in Urban
Terrain training, advanced distributive and distance learning, and
common/linked military skills training. Active and Reserve Component
forces commonly use multi-Service use training facilities. The Services
have conducted interoperability training at Fort Leonard Wood and other
installations for several years. Fort Leonard Wood is currently
executing $617,000 for various improvement projects supporting multi-
Service use classrooms, restrooms, weather shelters, road paving,
covered eating areas, and observation towers. Additionally, a $350,000
Marine Corps project is scheduled for execution this year for a non-
lethal weapons training facility. Fort Leonard Wood's Interservice
Training Review Organization has also addressed seven additional
projects in the installation's master plan that will support joint
training facilities for our engineers and truck drivers.
______
Questions Submitted to Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
nmd radar construction
Lieutenant General Kadish testified to this committee a few weeks
ago that construction on the X-Band National Missile Defense radar at
Shemya must begin next year if the NMD system is to be deployed by
2005. He also testified that the results of the ongoing flight test
program would have little effect on the construction activities that
will take place next year. You have requested $102 million for NMD
military construction, most of which will go toward the Shemya radar.
Question. Given the challenges of building this facility in the
Alaskan climate, do you believe it is prudent to move ahead with
construction of the NMD radar next year, even if there are setbacks in
the NMD flight test program?
Answer. Yes, we believe it's not only prudent but essential. The
potential that the threat will mature sooner rather than later means
that we must make every attempt to minimize the time it will take to
deploy the NMD system. Because the NMD radar is difficult to build in
the face of typical Alaskan weather, it could well become the pacing
element. We therefore must make its construction a priority. We are
confident that any problems we may uncover with the flight tests will
be solvable, and that the deployment will not be delayed by them very
much if at all. But if we permit the construction of the radar to be
delayed until we have substantially demonstrated the rest of the
system, we could delay the deployment significantly. That would
needlessly risk a period during which we are undefended against a
ballistic missile threat from the rogue nations.
Question. General Kadish also testified that he was unsure what
portion of the radar construction--if any would constitute a violation
of the ABM Treaty.
At what point in the construction of the Shemya radar would the
U.S. be in violation of the ABM Treaty?
Answer. The Administration is reviewing this issue now and we are
awaiting the results of that review.
Question. If you do not know, when will you be able to tell us
whether this military construction for which you've requested $102
million will put us in violation of our arms control commitments?
Answer. The Administration is reviewing this issue now and we are
awaiting the results of that review.
options for a second nmd site
The Director of BMDO has testified that the ``Extended'' Capability
1 National Missile Defense System (the Phase I system) does not meet
the full operational requirements for NMD, but that Capability 3, with
two ground-based interceptor sites, X-band radars in various locations,
and SBIRS High and Low would meet the user's requirements.
Question. Are you convinced that a second ground-based interceptor
site would be more effective than a sea-based interceptor complement to
the first ground-based site?
Answer. Yes, in the near term at least. A second interceptor site
could be deployed and effective well before any sea based components
usable for a National Missile Defense could be deployed. Owing to
constraints such as the ABM treaty, budgets, and competing theater
defense requirements, no sea-based components usable for National
Missile Defense have been designed, developed, or demonstrated, and
they are therefore considerably further from maturity than their
corresponding NMD land-based components. Therefore, the initial
opportunity to meet full User requirements for National Missile Defense
is afforded via the deployment of ground based components.
In the longer term, there appear to be a number of important roles
for sea based assets, including intercepts during the boost phase or
early ascent phases of the missile flight. We plan to work with the
Navy to implement such capabilities as soon as feasible, assuming the
removal of constraints in the ABM treaty against the development of sea
based National Missile Defense components.
Question. With respect to protecting our NATO allies, which would
be preferable: a ground-based site in Europe or a sea-based component
to NMD?
Answer. The answer depends on the range of the missiles against
which the defense must be effective, on where the assets are that need
to be protected, and on competing missions for the naval vessels.
Against long range missiles (i.e., ICBMs), the same arguments used
above (answer 3) imply that the only available answer in the near term
is via a ground based site in Europe with the same types of components
used for the American National Missile Defense system. Against shorter-
range theater systems, both ground-based and sea based area defense
systems, such as Navy Theater Wide, could be effective. For sea based
defense, the ships would have to be able to take up positions in the
proper locations to make defense of particular NATO assets effective.
Also, the defending ships would have to be committed to the defense of
these NATO assets in lieu of other naval priorities.
All in all, we believe that a ground-based site in Europe provides
the best solution for the nearer term, and could be augmented by naval
assets, as they become available.
cbo estimate on nmd
The Congressional Budget Office recently released a cost estimate
on NMD. I understand that the CBO used different assumptions than the
Department of Defense, scored not only the Department of Defense plan,
but also what the CBO thought should be included as part of the plan,
and despite several requests from the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization, CBO failed to share the draft report for comment with
BMDO.
Question. Does the CBO's methodology for this report concern you?
Answer. The CBO estimated a program with content not yet directed
by DOD including an additional interceptor site, more interceptors,
higher operating costs, and additional flight tests. Whereas CBO
estimates appear largely accurate for the costs, estimates, and
assumptions they represent, they include costs for advanced
architectures that would not be incurred unless required by threat
advances.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
missile defense and arms control
A few months ago, the cost of the missile defense system was
generally given as $12.7 billion. A few weeks ago, the Pentagon
estimated that the cost of the initial system including 100
interceptors would be $30.2 billion. Lieutenant General Kadish told us
that is only a rough estimate. And now the CBO estimates that the full
250 interceptor system, with some needed satellites, comes to roughly
$60 billion. If we added sea-based or space-based interceptors for a
layered defense system, as some of my colleagues would like, the cost
would be much higher.
Question. Now most experts don't even think ballistic missiles are
the likely delivery system if anyone did want to attack us with a
nuclear weapon. So how much money should we be willing to spend for a
defense against an unlikely threat? At what point do we say enough,
it's not worth it?
Answer. We believe National Missile Defense is not only ``worth
it'' but essential. Admittedly, National Missile Defense is not the
only defense capability the nation must undertake, but it is one of the
most important and pressing. Ballistic missile threats to American
populations are uniquely valuable to rogue nations, in several ways.
First, ballistic missiles owned by a rogue nation could become an
important tool for coercion when it wants to constrain American
responses to aggression elsewhere in the world. Effective National
Missile Defense would permit America to ignore such coercion. Second,
ballistic missiles owned by a rogue nation are a way of implementing an
immediate attack, within a half hour of a decision, before calmer minds
can prevail. Effective National Missile Defense would preclude any
American deaths and damage if such a decision were made. Third, we
believe that the very presence of an effective American National
Missile Defense system would support counterproliferation and limit the
threat. An American National Missile Defense would likely persuade
rogue nations not to buy ballistic missile systems that they would have
to assume would be ineffective. These benefits of a National Missile
Defense are therefore well worth the investment.
Question. Governmental and outside panels of experts have suggested
that any nation that could launch ballistic missiles could include
effective countermeasures. This prediction seems to be supported by
official suggestions that Russian countermeasures could defeat the
planned U.S. missile defense system, and concerns that Russia would
likely sell its countermeasure technology to others. Yet planned tests
of the defense system before deployment seem to include only very
limited countermeasures. Will you support more realistic tests of the
system's ability to defeat all likely countermeasures before the system
is deployed? Who determined what countermeasures are included in the
planned tests?
Answer. We are preparing for the defense system to be fully
effective against the number and types of ballistic missiles, with or
without countermeasures, that a rogue nation could realistically
deploy. Even if the Russians share some of their countermeasure
technology, we can still expect National Missile Defense systems to
perform effectively against those threats when deployed by a rogue
nation. Our test program has already included representative
countermeasures, and it will continue to do so. The scope of this
testing is classified.
The conclusion that National Missile Defense will be effective
against a missile attack with countermeasures applies to rogue states,
but it does not apply to Russia. What makes the Russian threat able to
defeat the National Missile Defense system is not the presence of their
countermeasures; rather it is the relatively large number of missiles
and warheads the Russians could bring to bear. While a National Missile
Defense system could preclude damage from a small number of missiles,
the results of an attack to the United States by even a hundred
missiles would be devastating. We know that, and so do the Russians.
This truth preserves the viability of deterrence while permitting us to
defend against rogue states. It also preserves the viability of
offensive arms control: under any arms control regime even being
considered in the START environment, the Russian inventory would be
many times what is sufficient to ensure deterrence.
subcommittee recess
Senator Stevens. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Wednesday, April 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Domenici, Inouye, and Dorgan.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning. I apologize for being late
in starting. Maybe some of you got caught in the same traffic
jam I was in. It was 20 minutes before we moved.
I say good morning to my good friend from Hawaii here.
There will be 37 witnesses today who have indicated they
wanted to testify or submit statements to our committee. In
order to get this large number finished on time--we start on
the floor at 1 p.m.--I want to ask that you limit your oral
testimony to not more than 5 minutes. All of your statements
that you present will be printed in the record subject to the
question of how large they are, but we will negotiate that with
you if we think they are too long. We do appreciate your
interest, and I want you to know we do review these items that
you present. We are going to do our best to see to it that we
get a chance to ask some questions. So if you think you are
going to be provoking questions, leave a little bit of your 5
minutes for you to answer our questions.
Senator Inouye, do you have any opening comments?
STATEMENT OF Senator DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to underscore
your assurance that we do read and review these statements.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
We will follow the list of witnesses that has been prepared
by our staff. The first witness is Master Chief Joe Barnes,
Legislative Director for the Fleet Reserve Association. Good
morning.
STATEMENT OF JOE BARNES, MASTER CHIEF, USN (RETIRED),
DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS, FLEET
RESERVE ASSOCIATION
Master Chief Barnes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Inouye. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Fleet
Reserve Association's views on the fiscal year 2001 Defense
appropriations, especially as they related to personnel issues.
My name is Joe Barnes. I am Director of Legislative
Programs for the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA), and Co-Chair
of the Military Coalition's Personnel Committee. FRA and the
Military Coalition thank this distinguished subcommittee for
its leadership and strong support for the generous pay and
benefits improvements enacted last year. These enhancements are
important steps. However, more needs to be done.
The administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request is
inadequate and falls short of addressing essential personnel
readiness requirements. I will briefly summarize several key
personnel issues. The Association's top legislative priority is
improving health care for active duty, Reserve and retired
personnel, with special emphasis in Medicare-eligible retirees.
The TRICARE Senior Prime demonstrations should be expanded
nationwide and made permanent. The pharmacy benefits should
also be expanded to include all Medicare eligibles. And more of
these beneficiaries should be afforded the option of
participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.
Health care will also be addressed in more detail by another
witness on behalf of the entire Military Coalition.
These concerns and others are directly related to the
continuing recruiting, retention and overall readiness
challenges. Additional active duty and Reserve personnel are
required to sustain current deployments and long-term
commitments. Without relief, there will be additional strains
on service members and their families, thus exacerbating
retention problems.
Pay comparability remains a top priority, and both FRA and
the Military Coalition appreciate the incremental progress on
this issue through 2006. However, at the end of this period,
the gap between military and civilian pay will still be over 8
percent. Despite improvements, pay table revisions have
generated frustration within the mid-career enlisted ranks.
These personnel sense that they were misled into believing
their expectations would be addressed, and now view their
service as being undervalued compared to other pay grades with
regard to the pay table reform set to be implemented on 1 July
2000.
The Military Coalition and seven enlisted organizations
have endorsed FRA's study on pay reform for mid-career enlisted
grades. Legislation addressing this issue was recently
introduced in the House of Representatives.
Housing allowance improvements are a budget priority for
the Department of Defense (DOD), and we applaud this
initiative. Reducing out-of-pocket expenses is long overdue,
and eliminating the 15 percent out-of-pocket costs over 3 years
will ease financial pressures on service members and their
families.
Authorization of the Military Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
last year was a positive step toward improved financial
planning, and also essential to the reducts retirement choice.
However, there is concern that the TSP may be in jeopardy, and
we urge the subcommittee to help find a way to overcome budget
challenges on this program.
Finally, DOD is reneging on funding its fair share of the
Survivor Benefit Plan, and the Association and Coalition ask
for your support for reform of that program. Witnesses
regularly state that people are the Defense Department's most
important asset. However, the defense budget does not include
sufficient funding to back up these claims.
Again, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Fleet Reserve Association and
Military Coalition views, and I stand ready to answer any
questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Master Chief Joseph Barnes
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of this distinguished Subcommittee. On
behalf of the 153,000 members of the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA),
all active, reserve, or retired career enlisted uniformed personnel of
the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, their families and survivors;
I extend greetings and appreciation for the opportunity to present the
Association's views on the fiscal year 2001 National Defense budget
request. Additionally, the Association salutes you, Mr. Chairman, and
your colleagues for a job well done over the years. This is one of the
Congressional panels the military community can depend on to do its
utmost to secure the best of quality of life programs for the men and
women who serve in the Nation's Armed Forces.
the budget request
With the exception of improvements in housing allowance and modest
health care enhancements for active duty personnel, FRA is extremely
disappointed in the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request
for National Defense programs. Although there is minimal growth in the
proposed budget, it falls short of addressing the needs of the military
services; their people, infrastructure, weapons and modernization
programs, spare parts, training dollars, and--in short--overall
readiness.
The Association does not have the staff or resources to offer
expertise in matters of bullets and hardware, or how much money is
required to modernize and adequately equip the forces, but it does
understand the people issues and quality of life programs necessary to
keep the forces manned and at the ready. For example, from 1996 to
1999, FRA's advised this distinguished Subcommittee of warning signs
including a serious shortfall in unformed personnel necessary to meet
the extraordinary high operation tempos; the need for funds to offer
sea pay to junior enlisted sailors; that military personnel reaching
mid-career years were thinking of leaving the Services because of
Redux, the military's 1986 retirement program; and that and that the
Montgomery GI Bill needs ``pumping-up'' to make it a more valuable
recruiting and retention tool.
Thanks in large part to your strong support, the most generous pay
and benefit improvements in nearly 20 years have been enacted. Redux is
now a choice and no longer a mandatory system for non-disabled
retirees. Military end strengths are stabilized and even DOD's threat
to further ``downsize'' the Army National Guard has been overcome by
current events. The Navy is now working to enhance sea pay which is
strongly endorsed by FRA along with extending the benefit to junior
enlisted crew members.
FRA also is seeking equitable pay reform for NCOs and Petty
Officers, an initiative strongly endorsed by The Military Coalition
(TMC) the National Military Veterans' Alliance, and seven major
enlisted associations (Air Force Sergeants Association, Enlisted
Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Naval Enlisted Reserve
Association, Non Commissioned Officers Association, The Retired
Enlisted Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, and USCG
Enlisted Association). Additional comments on this issue are included
later in this statement.
priority personnel programs
(Health care enhancements noted below top FRA's priority list for
fiscal year 2001. Later today, The Military Coalition (TMC) will
present its priority health care goals in greater detail for the
Subcommittee's consideration which are fully endorsed by FRA.)
Health Care.--FRA seeks the Subcommittee's support for restoring
equity to Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries, improving Tricare,
and the redesign of the military's pharmacy program.
Tricare Senior Prime is one part of a comprehensive health care
delivery system for Medicare eligible military beneficiaries and their
dependents who reside near military treatment facilities (MTFs). Input
from several demonstration sites indicates that the program works, and
beneficiaries appreciate returning to the military healthcare system.
It should be expanded to all MTFs facilities nationwide and made
permanent.
Tricare does not provide a uniform health care benefit for all
military beneficiaries. In addition, Tricare Prime and Standard options
must be strengthened to make them more viable. Other problems and
recommended improvements include expanding Tricare Prime Remote to
family members which is addressed in the budget and ensuring adequate
reporting and quality control.
FRA believes the current pharmacy program design ignores the
government's commitment to provide lifetime health care for military
retirees. As retirees age, this aspect of health becomes increasingly
important. Medicare eligible retirees (apart from those detailed above
and those having Medigap coverage) are currently paying the full cost
of prescription drugs. The Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense
Authorization Act authorizes a pharmacy redesign with a report on plans
to accomplish this due to Congress by 15 April 2000. The enrollment fee
requirement will eliminate many potential participants which will skew
demonstration results making the program appear more costly than it is.
These health care concerns are discussed in greater detail in the
Coalition's statement.
As Co-chair of TMC's Personnel, Compensation and Commissary
Committee, I will briefly summarize recommendations on key military
personnel programs that are also endorsed by TMC.
Personnel Strengths and OPTEMPO.--FRA urges funding for the
restoration of end strength levels commensurate with the demanding
operations tempo and formidable long-term commitments. Retention and
readiness are adversely impacted by the stress of maintaining current
operations and the quality of life for service members and their
families suffer accordingly.
Pay Raise Comparability.--FRA is most grateful to Congress for
reversing the practice of capping military pay adjustments below the
Employment Cost Index (ECI). The comparability plus adjustments through
2006 send a much needed acknowledgment to service members that their
service is of great value to our Nation. However, given the recruiting,
retention and readiness crisis, further acceleration of projected pay
raises are recommended.
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--FRA is grateful for the
additional funds appropriated last year to reduce service members' out
of pocket housing expenses. However, the Association is concerned that
BAH is funded at barely 81 percent of the standard requiring members to
cover the remainder. FRA strongly supports the Administration's budget
request proposal to increase BAH funding to limit out of pocket
expenses to 15 percent of national median costs in fiscal year 2001,
with a goal of also eliminating this expense over several years.
Recruiting.--FRA is concerned that a number of high school
districts in the United States deny access to military recruiters. FRA
notes a situation in Portland, Oregon where access by recruiters is
denied. FRA Branch 55 officials and representatives of other veterans'
groups appeared before the district's school board seeking repeal of
the policy only to be informed that the state's governor supports the
school board policy. The Association endorses legislation recently
introduced (S. 2397) by Sen. Tim Hutchinson addressing this issue.
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).--A glaring omission from the
Administration budget is funding to offset the cost of implementing the
TSP which was authorized last year. The program was touted by DOD and
Congress to service personnel along with other pay and benefit
improvements. Hopefully this is not another empty promise.
Survivor Benefit Plan and Uniformed Services Former Spouses
Protection Act.--Your support is solicited for amending the Uniformed
Services Survivor Benefit Program (SBP) and the Uniformed Services
Former Spouses Protection Act (FSPA). The Association is aware that
this distinguished Subcommittee has control of the former's funding,
but no oversight of the latter program but, Mr. Chairman, the FRA
membership knows that you and your colleagues are most concerned with
military personnel programs and work diligently to make each as
equitable as possible for all hands. Currently, DOD is reneging on
funding its fair share of the SBP program, and the FSPA is weighted
heavily against our service members. Just recently, a Navy retiree
found that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) had
overpaid his ex-spouse $43,000. However, the DOD Claims Appeals Board
ruled that the government isn't liable--the law does not require DFAS
to ``police the former spouse's entitlements.''
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, please note that FRA
earlier provided under separate cover a report of its survey on the
effect the FSPA has had on respondents. Copies are available on
request.
Further, Mr. Chairman, a member of the FRA staff provides a monthly
briefing on legislative issues to groups of mid-career, senior active
duty and reserve personnel. It is apparent that the military fails to
inform its members of either the SBP or FSPA programs and how they may
affect career personnel. They are stunned to learn that the Federal
government isn't paying its fair share of the SBP program, and that
they can lose some, most, or all of their retired pay and veterans
compensation payments to a former spouse because of state court
interpretations of FSPA. The men and women in our uniformed services
need your help in ``fixing'' both programs.
The Association also directs the Subcommittee's attention to the
positions on other issues addressed in the full Coalition statement
including the importance of pay comparability and pay reform for mid-
career enlisted personnel. (Note FRA is not criticizing deserved pay
increases or pay reform for either commissioned officers, warrant
officers or junior enlisted members. It simply asks that Congress be as
generous to the Nation's NCOs and Petty Officers.)
Pay Reform for Mid-Career Enlisted Personnel.--The following has
been extracted from FRA's study on Pay Reform for Mid-Career Non-
Commissioned (NCOs) and Petty Officers (POs) of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Copies have been distributed to members of the House and Senate Defense
Appropriations Subcommittees, both Armed Services Committees and key
defense and military officials.
enter: the all volunteer force
``Before the draft ended, a senior Master Sergeant earned seven
times the pay of a private.''--Charles Moskos, Military Sociologist,
Northwestern University
Prior to the advent of the AVF, the basic pay of a 16-year veteran
Chief Petty Officer (CPO) in the Navy or Coast Guard, or a Gunnery
Sergeant (GYSGT) in the Marine Corps, was more than four (4) times that
of a recruit seaman or private. In less than one year the basic pay of
the two senior enlisted grades dropped nearly 50 percent of its
original value.
Other enlisted pay grades suffered similar decreases in value when
the AVF was inaugurated. Congress, acting on the recommendations of the
Gates Commission (1970), chose to raise the pay of the Armed Forces'
most junior members while ignoring the worth of experienced and
qualified senior enlisted personnel. It wasn't until essential POs/NCOs
began an exodus from military ranks in the mid-1970s that Congress
became concerned.
the lean years: 1973-1998
``When you get to be an E-5, E-6, or E-7, the gap between military
and civilian pay starts to widen''--Hon. John Hamre, Deputy Secretary
of Defense, 1998
In the years subsequent to the birth of the AVF and prior to the
late 1970s, DOD and Congress were suspect of holding the line in favor
of leaner basic pay increases for two reasons, high inflation and
adequate retention rates. As long as there were sufficient numbers of
POs/NCOs to man the necessary billets, there was no logic in increasing
basic pay.
With the exception of 1980 and 1981, the three decades following
the birth of the AVF were not kind to military personnel. After 1981
and through the 1990s, military pay raises fell behind comparable
civilian pay increases.
Further erosion in basic pay primarily affecting POs/NCOs occurred
in 1977 when Congress, at the urging of DOD, terminated payments for as
much as 60 days of unused leave at the end of each enlistment served.
The new statute (Public Law 94-361) restricted enlisted personnel to 60
days over a member's career. In addition, the payments would be limited
to basic pay only and would no longer include payments for basic
allowances for quarters (BAQ) and subsistence (BAS).
Public Law 94-361, the 1977 Appropriation Authorization Act,
authorized the President of the United States to reallocate
compensation increases among basic pay, BAQ and BAS by redirecting
increases normally allocated to basic pay. In turn, the Act had the
effect of reducing retired and retainer pay, drill pay, certain bonuses
and separation payments--all determined by the amount of basic pay
received by an affected member.
The USPA of 1981 was the culmination of a decade of effort to have
Congress address the devaluation of PO/NCO basic pay created by the
AVF. The issue gradually caught the attention of the Senate which
agreed that a ``targeted'' pay hike for POs and NCOs was necessary to
correct the problem. The Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee
found further justification for pursuing a larger increase in basic pay
for POs/NCOs when the Navy's CNO testified that he could not get his
ships to sea for the lack of qualified petty officers. Concurrently,
the Army's Chief of Staff complained that he did not have sufficient
numbers of sergeants to man the service's combat arms.
The Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee at
that time, also realized a need for an increase in basic pay for POs/
NCOs and introduced his own pay bill, eventually adopted by the full
House. On November 1, 1981, the senior enlisted grades realized a 17
percent hike in pay as opposed to an average increase of 14.3 percent
for other pay grades.
The authorization for an additional 2.7 percent for senior enlisted
grades, increased the CPO/GYSGT rate of pay by a mere 10 cents for each
dollar paid to seamen and privates. Further comparison of the November
1981 enlisted pay hike with that of the previous decade proves there
was a most definitive decline in the monetary value of the Nation's
senior enlisted personnel. Whereas there was a 225 percent hike in
monthly basic pay ($83 to $269) for the most junior enlisted pay grade,
the CPO/GYSGT, for example, realized less than a 74 percent monthly
increase, $360 to $627.
For the 1990s, Congress continued to limit increases in pay because
of ``budget constraints'' and ``the extraordinary pressure to reduce
defense spending.'' Both reasons were justifiable, but the suspicion
that there was a third reason--downsizing the military forces--was
extraordinarily strong. By keeping pay increases at lower percentage
rates, pay could and would act as a counter-incentive to the retention
of service members.
pay reform: july 2000
It's safe to say that today's Petty Officers and NCOs were elated
when reading that both uniformed and civilian Pentagon leaders were
discussing the possibility of targeting pay raises to POs/NCOs and mid-
level officers. ``Bigger raises for NCOs among ideas,'' headlined one
news item. Another read, ``And NCOs and mid-career officers are at the
heart of a plan now working its way through the Joint Chiefs in
Washington.'' Then it was the Chiefs of Staff and Congress promising
pay reform in the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act
(Fiscal Year 2000 NDAA). The reform, in addition to the 4.8 percent
increase on January 1, 2000, would ``provide enhanced pay raises for
mid-career officers and non-commissioned officers.''
The pay reform, as perceived by mid-career POs/NCOs never
materialized. According to a news item, the money earmarked for
enlisted pay increases was used to fix the REDUX retirement program.
Early elation soon turned to disappointment when proposed increases
were published in military-oriented newspapers.
Even the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Times discovered
that ``unhappiness is spreading so quickly that the defense officials
who drew up the plan are preparing an October (1999) campaign to
explain how the rates were determined.''
More disillusionment occurred when the latest offer of larger
enlistment bonuses and benefits were authorized for new accessions.
Certain non-service candidates can receive $12,000 for enlisting and as
much as $20,000 for choosing a critical skill. Another $50,000 in
scholarships may be added depending on the recruit's chosen
occupational skill and length of commitment. For the majority of POs/
NCOs, mid-career as well as seniors, no re-enlistment bonuses are in
the offering unless they have the critical skills needed by their
respective military service. Even the critical skilled PO/NCO cannot
receive a bonus once he or she attains 14 years of service.
Other frustrations have added to the dissatisfaction expressed
above and in the 1998-99 General Accounting Office survey among
enlisted grades. Of the top ten concerns, enlisted personnel named
basic pay and re-enlistment bonuses as numbers 4 and 6. (Basic pay was
no. 1 with Army enlisted personnel.)
FRA and others over the years have recognized the disparity in the
basic pay of POs/NCOs. FRA has addressed the issue with and before the
appropriate House and Senate committees for some years. A November 23,
1998 Army Times editorial opinion stated that raising the NCO pay ``is
key.' It called attention to the fact that ``even some of the most
junior commissioned officers are paid more than the senior non-
commissioned officers who train them and teach them the lay of the
land.''
Charles Moskos, a sociology professor specializing in military
personnel issues, and John Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense are among
the more prominent advocates for increasing PO/NCO pay. In an
appearance before the House Armed Services Military Personnel
Subcommittee, November 4, 1999 Moskos suggested pay scales may need
major modification to restore the pre-1972 ratio of pay for non-
commissioned officers. He reiterated his earlier charge that sergeants
(and petty officers) are underpaid. ``Eventually,'' he said, ``someone
has to come to the realization that we've overpaid recruits and
underpaid sergeants.''
``We have a retention problem,'' he warned. ``And part of this, I
think, is attributable to the way the pay scales have been arranged,
with the advent of the all-volunteer force. For example, an E-8--a
senior master sergeant in Army terminology--used to make seven times
the compensation of a private. Today that same E-8 makes three times
the compensation of a private.''
Hamre was more direct than Moskos. ``Our NCOs are significantly
underpaid--(W)hen you get to be an E-5, E-6, or E-7 the gap between
military and civilian pay starts to widen.''
comparison of enlisted vs officers pay rates
It was not the intent of this study to compare officer pay scales
with those in the PO/NCO ranks. But when service officials were queried
as to why the pay reform targeted mostly commissioned officer pay
grades of 0-4, 0-5, and 0-6, and not POs/NCOs, one source responded as
follows: the largest increases occurred where the pay table was most
deficient; officers only receive four or five promotions while enlisted
expect six or seven; enlisted are being promoted through more pay
tables faster than officers; enlisted on the average can expect
promotion every three to five years, a lieutenant can spend two tours
in that pay grade; and members should not look at one cell at a time;
the idea is to reward promotion, not longevity.
Three of the responses involve comparisons with enlisted personnel
where no such absolute exists. It appears there always has been a
definitive line between the officers' pay table and that of enlisted.
Each was established for a different purpose. In addition to providing
a pay and allowance system ``intended to be both equitable to military
personnel as well as to be responsive to the needs of the United States
in terms of attracting and retaining the numbers and types of personnel
needed;'' the officer pay table was developed to recognize a grade
distinction for both active duty and retired pay. Enlisted pay has the
goal of providing ``additional incentives to encourage enlisted
personnel and potential enlistees to undertake career enlisted
service.''
Other sources attributed the higher ``targeted'' pay increases to
mid-grade officers as ``a correction to past table distortions''; that
the pay table reform for July 2000 was to ``emphasize performance
rather than longevity.'' However, a review of DOD's history of military
compensation reflects that the same theory was used in developing pay
tables 41 years ago. The Pay Act of 1958 ``changed the longevity
configuration by precluding increases beyond the length-of-service
point in each pay grade at which individuals are normally promoted, so
as to maintain a closer relationship between performance and higher
pay.''
Pay increases under the fiscal year 2000 reform provision offer
minimal raises for most mid-grade Petty Officers and NCOs (a maximum of
3.5 percent but at only one E-5 pay cell) in comparison with what will
be provided mid-grade officers (as high as 5.5 percent for 10 mid-level
officer pay cells). (See Chart A below.) Whereas, only 7 of 33 mid-
career PO/NCO pay grades will be in receipt of increases above 2
percent, 15 of the 33 mid-career officer pay cells will realize
increases above 4 percent. (Note: POs/NCOs in pay grade E-4 will
receive pay increases of 2.5 percent for most year increments with two
early year increases above 4 percent. However, E-4 is the most junior
of PO/NCO pay grades and is not considered a mid-career grade.)
Others have noted the pay reform was weighted heavily toward
certain officer pay cells. The Washington Times, Oct. 6, 1999, noted it
``gave additional targeted salary increases of up to 5.5 percent for
mid-career officers. The 150 highest-ranking generals and admirals
would get even higher pay raises, increasing their salaries to as much
as $125,000 a year from the current top pay of $110,700.''
CHART A.--MID-GRADE PAY REFORM INCREASES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years of Service
Pay Grade ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officers:
O-6............................ ..... ..... ..... ( \1\ 4.9 5.5 5.5 5.4 1.8 1.8 4.6
)
O-5............................ ..... ..... 1.3 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.3 1.3 1.1
O-4............................ ..... ..... 1.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.8 3.5 2.3 0.5 0.5
POs/NCOs:
E-7............................ 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 0.5 0.7 0.9 2.5
E-6............................ 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.3 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.4
E-5............................ 3.1 3.1 3.5 1.4 1.7 1.8 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Denotes increase in the amount of 2 percent or less.
using pre-avf pay tables
There are those who suggest that comparing pre-AVF pay tables with
today's mid-grade (or senior) enlisted pay tables is inappropriate
justification for reform of certain enlisted pay cells and that a
comparison should begin after the AVF came into being. FRA disagrees.
The major damage was done at the beginning of the AVF and not
subsequent thereto.
Congress was sold on the AVF and the recommendation to increase
junior enlisted pay so prospective enlistees would have a greater
incentive to sign on the dotted line. Junior enlisted pay cells were
nearly doubled while the upper enlisted pay cells remained at their
January 1, 1971 rates. The most junior commissioned officer pay grade;
however, was only increased by 10 percent. The effect was nearly a 50
percent devaluation of the pay of more senior enlisted personnel but
only a marginal loss in ratio of pay for officers in pay grades 0-4 and
above. (See Graph A.)
The recommendation that this paper should not go back to 1971 to
justify pay reform for POs/NCOs flies in the face of the July 2000 pay
reform that revisits the Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1958 to justify
targeting certain officer grades for higher increases in pay.
conclusion
Again, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee,
FRA thanks you for the opportunity to present its views on important
personnel issues. The Association also appreciates your strong support
and leadership in the enactment last year of the most generous pay and
benefit package in nearly 20 years.
As indicated above, however, the reform of the military pay tables
missed the mark with regard to mid-career POs and NCOs and is the
subject of growing concern within the enlisted ranks. With a strong
economy and low unemployment, retaining key mid-career POs and NCOs
must be a priority.
These personnel are integral to training both enlisted and officers
and to providing advanced training. They are essential for providing
face-to-face leadership, to monitor, to guide, and to mentor. They are
well better educated and highly trained, and when there are
insufficient or no commissioned officers available, they are called
upon to assume command positions.
The Association salutes your untiring commitment to the men and
women serving our Nation in uniform and stands ready to be of
assistance to you and members of this distinguished Subcommittee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MY03.000
Senator Stevens. Senator, do you have any questions?
Senator Inouye. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. We still are working as hard as we can on
the pay structure and allowances, too. I do think we have to
take into account the allowances as being part of the total
compensation package. We are working with the Armed Services
Committee for those adjustments. I hope you are conveying your
views to them, too.
Master Chief Barnes. Yes, we are, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Chief.
Next is Dr. David Johnson, Executive Director, Federation
of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences. Good
morning.
STATEMENT OF DAVID JOHNSON, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FEDERATION OF BEHAVIORAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES
Dr. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye. I
am testifying today on the request for behavioral and social
science research in the Army, Navy and Air Force. But let me
first say a word about the overall defense research budget.
In adjusted terms, the buying power of that budget has
decreased about 25 percent in the last 10 years. The Congress
showed its discomfort with a research budget that is too low to
support medium- and long-term security by providing an increase
above the President's request in fiscal year 2000. Your
increase was in line with the Defense Science Board
recommendation that $8 billion was needed to fund 6.1, 6.2 and
6.3 research.
We are recommending a budget of $8.4 billion for fiscal
year 2001, an amount that maintains the buying power of the
budget you put in place last year. It represents a 3-percent
increase over current funding and a 12-percent increase over
the request.
While the overall research budget declined steadily during
the nineties, the behavioral and social science research budget
declined precipitously. The Army Research Institute budget, for
example, declined 70 percent in buying power. At the same time,
the services have encountered growing difficulty meeting
recruitment quotas and maintaining officers. The human-centered
research addresses many military relevant questions. But among
the most important questions it addresses is how to properly
prepare personnel to do their jobs.
As you know, the current difficulty in recruitment has
meant that enlistees are being accepted with less than a high
school education. At the same time, the technological
sophistication of modern defense grows every day, requiring
equal growth in the skill and proficiency of personnel. Given
these opposing realities, cutting research whose purpose is to
improve human performance makes little sense.
It has been argued that the military should cut costs by
purchasing commercial products originally developed for
civilian uses and adapting them to fit military needs. That is
hard enough to do with respect to specialized hardware; it is
impossible in human performance. Industry has invested little
research in improving human performance. Many of the selection
and training tools used in the private sector had their origin
in research supported by the military. This means the military
must generate its own science in this area or have nothing to
draw on to assure that its personnel will be able to perform
their jobs.
But the budget request does not reflect the growing need
for good, basic, and applied research and powerful
applications. In particular, the Air Force has made drastic
cuts in the past 2 years in its own behavioral research
laboratories. Last year, despite congressional efforts to
maintain funding, the Air Force essentially gutted the Brooks
Air Force Base testing and training laboratory. That was
followed by sizable personnel cuts at Wright Patterson Air
Force Base, which specializes in human/machine interface
research.
These, and the simulation research facility in Mesa,
Arizona, are what remain of an Air Force behavioral research
laboratory system that once contained as many as 17
laboratories, each focused on a specialized set of research
problems. If the military continues to divest itself of these
scientists who do human-focused research, the asset they
represent will be destroyed. The scientists possess such
military-specific research skills and knowledge that acquiring
replacements, once it is recognized what capabilities have been
lost, will be all but impossible.
We think it is important to the safety of the country that
human-centered research capabilities in the Army, Navy and Air
Force not be lost, and we ask you to do all you can to preserve
and rebuild those capabilities.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Johnson, Ph.D.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is David
Johnson. I am testifying today on behalf of the Federation of
Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society. The Federation is a coalition of 19 scientific
societies containing most of the scientists who carry out defense-
related behavioral research. Among those societies, the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society has the highest concentration of scientists
whose major research focus is the enhancement of national defense. My
comments will be directed at the President's request for behavioral
research in the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
the overall research budget is falling. and the behavioral research
budget is falling faster
Let me set the fiscal year 2001 request in context. Science has
made our security forces first in the world. Normally when we think of
science and the military, we think of science applied to technology,
and that is not an incorrect perception because the bulk of military
research is directed at improvements and innovations in the technology
of defense. Of the $37.8 billion requested for Research, Development,
Testing, and Evaluation, about $153 million is being requested for
research to improve human resource utilization. That works out to about
four dollars of every thousand dollars spent on military research being
devoted to the selection, training, placement, evaluation, safety, and
interfacing with technology of the 1.37 million people who are the
armed forces of the United States.
Despite the importance of research to the strength of our defense,
support for military research has been dwindling. Between 1989 and 1999
the military RDT&E budget lost about 25 percent of its buying power in
terms of constant dollars. The behavioral research budget has followed
the same downward slope, but at a much steeper angle. Between 1989 and
1999, for example, the buying power of the behavioral research budget
of the Army shrank by 70 percent. I pick the Army to show the shocking
decline in support because the Army is the most personnel-intensive of
the armed services. That is, the Army has the largest personnel
complement, about 478,000, of any of the services.
Both Overall Research Losses and Behavioral Research Losses Are
Weakening Preparedness. The Situation Needs to Be Turned
Around.
This reality leads me to emphasize two points: The overall research
budget has shrunk too much to guarantee both medium and long-term
military preparedness. And the behavioral and social science research
budget has shrunk to a point where it would be more accurate to say
that it guarantees unpreparedness than to say that it endangers
preparedness.
Scientists are not the only ones sounding the alarm about this
situation. As you know, sufficient concern has grown in Congress that a
group of House and Senate legislators has formed a military research
caucus in order to try to bring funding back to a prudent level.
Likewise, a group of scientific society, university, and industry
representatives has formed the Coalition for National Security Research
to work for a research budget that is sufficient to secure medium and
long-term national security. In concert with the other organizations in
that membership, we are asking this Subcommittee to recommend a funding
level of $8.4 billion for the combined 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 research
budget. That amount is based on the recommendation of the Defense
Science Board. It represents a three percent increase over the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2000 and a 12 percent increase over the
amount requested for 2001 by the President.
The Behavioral Research Budget
Let me turn more specifically to the behavioral and social science
budgets for the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is most often the case
that we come before you to ask your support for the basic research or
6.1 budget. Most of that budget is spent for research carried out in
universities by the scientists who are the members of our
organizations. We certainly do ask for that support again this year.
Fortunately, those budgets are not slated for cuts beyond those
inflicted by inflation. They are essentially frozen. Our deep concern
this year is for the applied research and advanced development, or 6.2
and 6.3, budgets. This is research that is normally carried out in the
defense research laboratories. It is the follow-on research to 6.1. It
is the research that produces the products that are the purpose of
military support of behavioral and social science research. And we are
particularly alarmed by the pattern of cuts that has been coming from
the Air Force, the one branch of the armed services that was meant from
the beginning to be a science-based defense service.
Air Force 6.2 and 6.3 Cuts Are of Particular Concern
For the past two years, we have looked to the Congress to save this
research from being eliminated entirely. We are, indeed, grateful for
the attention you have shown this problem. Two years ago, you restored
funding for the laboratory at Brooks Air Force Base which the Air Force
attempted to close despite your efforts. Brooks has been the center for
Air Force research on recruiting, testing and training and has been
responsible to all the armed services under Project Reliance for
research on personnel testing instruments. This year, you provided $5
million to maintain at least a vestige of the research that had been
carried out at Brooks.
The Losses at Brooks Air Force Base Were Devastating
Nevertheless, the cuts at Brooks have decimated the ranks of its
scientists greatly weakening the ability of the Air Force to meet its
own and defense-wide needs in recruiting, testing and training. The
cuts at Brooks are particularly striking in light of the well known
difficulty the services are experiencing now in recruiting sufficient
numbers of personnel with high enough educational levels to perform the
tasks required of those in military service. It can be assumed that as
more service men and women are recruited from the pool of candidates
with less than a high school education performance ratings on the Armed
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), the entrance examination
for all the military services, will go down substantially. There is,
therefore, a serious current need for research to determine the
compensatory factors that are predictors of high performance in lieu of
adequate scores on the ASVAB. The very real risk that is faced from not
doing this research is that the services may make their recruitment
quotas but not be able to fulfill their missions. Numbers alone do not
constitute a strong military as has been proven over and over through
millennia of armed conflict.
Now the Same Thing Is Beginning to Happen at Wright
Patterson
The losses at Brooks have been extremely unfortunate. Now a similar
threat is being made to the behavioral research programs at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base. Wright Patterson has been the site of
research aimed at achieving effective human-machine interfaces. Brooks,
Wright Patterson, and Mesa, Arizona are the three sites where Air Force
applied and advanced behavioral research still takes place. The Mesa
facility carries out research to improve simulators and methods for
judging the likely performance of aviators from the kind of training
they receive in simulators. Already Wright Patterson has experienced
reductions in force with the familiar result that many whose jobs are
not immediately threatened have also been leaving the Wright Patterson
laboratories. The research capability of Wright Patterson is quickly
being weakened by the cuts. The situation must be turned around now if
the Air Force is to maintain its capabilities in human-machine
interface applications.
It Is Not a Problem That Private Industry Will Be Able to
Help Solve
As military research money has grown more scarce, the proposition
that the Defense Department can sustain the research losses simply by
buying off-the-shelf products from civilian-sector industries. We
thinks there are severe limitations to that approach even for
technology acquisition, but there is no way that the military can make
up its losses in human resources research by looking to the civilian
sector. The research the military needs in this area is simply not done
outside the military. In the human resources area, the military has
built up over decades a pool of researchers who know and respond to
military needs. In fact, far from looking to the private sector for
this research, much of what the private sector uses in terms of human
resource applications was produced through military funding. If the
military loses its capabilities in these areas of research, they will
be lost altogether.
Restoration of Air Force Behavioral Research Dollars Is a
Necessity
That is why we are asking you to act decisively to keep this
research alive. We believe that Congress should undertake over a number
of years to rebuild the human resources research capabilities of the
Army, the Navy and the Air Force. But during the coming fiscal year, we
urge you in the strongest possible terms to restore funding for the 6.2
and 6.3 behavioral research budgets of the Air Force Research
Laboratory. The President's request for Air Force behavioral research
is $91.689 million. The current funding level is $114.333 million. At
the least, we believe that funding for the Manpower, Personnel, and
Training program and the Crew Technology program should be restored.
The request for those two programs is $91.689 million. We recommend
additional spending of $7.809 million which would freeze the funding
level for these programs at their current level of $99.498 million. Our
preference would be to see a restoration of the entire Air Force
behavioral research budget to its current $114.333 million. We support
the President's request for the Army Research Institute ($21.974
million) and the request for the Office of Naval Research ($39.264
million). I thank you for the opportunity to present our views and
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Stevens. Has this been affected at all by base
closures?
Dr. Johnson. The Brooks may have been. Because it was just
unfortunate that that lab happened to be at a base that was
part of the desired closings. But there were really
alternatives; there was another base nearby where some of that
work was done. So it is not completely base closures.
Senator Stevens. This is not a question, but just a
suggestion. You have been here before, I know, and others on
the same subject. I cannot recall a time when basic research
people gave us some examples of the positive results of such
research. We do continue it year after year, but I do not think
we have had any kind of show-and-tell, if you will, of some of
the progress that has been made by this research and some of
the benefits that have been derived by the people in the armed
services. I think we have to see that or hear about it in order
to continue the funding at the level that you are suggesting,
which is higher each year than what the President has asked.
Dr. Johnson. I would be happy to.
Senator Stevens. We have raised it each year. And I think
we have raised it because we have hopes that what you are doing
will improve the lifestyle of the people and protect them in
terms of the assignments that are given to them. But I am not
really seeing much in terms of that kind of an approach, and I
would urge you to do it next year.
Dr. Johnson. I have those examples, and I will be happy to
send you a list now. And I will make sure that it is in next
year's presentation.
[The information follows:]
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive
Sciences,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
Senator Ted Stevens,
Senator Daniel K. Inouye,
Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, United States
Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510.
Dear Senators Stevens and Inouye: When I testified before you on
May 3, you suggested that it would be good to have examples of
improvements that have been made in military operations as a result of
behavioral and social science research. I said that I would provide you
with examples. Here is a selection. One thing to know is that the
behavioral and social research supported by the services covers a range
that is not immediately apparent from the terms ``behavioral'' and
``social.'' In what follows, I will try to give a sense of that range.
How do we know what unproven recruits can do?
And how effectively can we develop their capabilities?
The role of testing and training research
Perhaps the longest running line of behavioral research supported
by the military has been in the area of testing. It began in World War
I with the creation of the Army Alpha test, the first test of aptitude.
In World War I, there was a rapid calling up and mobilization of
troops. The Army needed a way to determine what these enlistees could
do so good choices could be made about the tasks each enlistee would be
assigned. Research on testing continued after the war. That research
permitted development of the theoretical base for aptitude testing that
underlies not just today's service-wide aptitude test, the Armed
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) but also such civilian
tests as the Scholastic Achievement Tests (SAT) and the Graduate Record
Examination (GRE).
What happens when quotas cannot be met and minimal education levels for
new recruits must be lowered?
Research to adapt measurement instruments to new realities
That research continues today in at least two forms. As use of
technology by the military increases and changes, the skill
requirements of new personnel change. There is a constant need to
adjust the ASVAB to take account of new military needs. This line of
research is applied rather than basic, and is somewhat routine in that
there are standard ways of testing potential new items for the battery
and determining whether they yield desired information. Workaday as
this work is, it is still important. Consider that, in order to meet
quotas, some services will be admitting enlistees with less than a high
school education. Not much useful information is going to come from
finding that recruits without a high school degree do poorly on the
ASVAB. What needs to be known is the true potential of each recruit.
Through careful testing, the ASVAB can be adjusted to yield information
that will be useful in making sound decisions about training and
placement of these individuals.
Faster, better, cheaper
Research is bringing unprecedented precision to training
There is a second line of research in testing that is more basic.
It has to do with using tests not just as measures of the current state
of a person's skills but as dynamic diagnostic instruments.
Training is necessary for new personnel. It is also expensive. And
there is pressure to accomplish it in the least possible amount of
time. Dynamic diagnostic testing helps. The research is computer-based.
It is aimed at creating tests that change to fit the test taker. The
answer a person gives on one item determines what question will be
asked next. As test items accumulate, the computer program begins to
profile in detailed ways the person's general and specific strengths
and weaknesses. The results of the diagnostic test then go to the
trainer who tailors training to the person, putting more time in areas
where the person is weak and less time where the person is strong.
Some of the training can also be done by computer with the computer
giving the person more experience in weak areas, but also monitoring
the person's progress and adjusting training to assure that each
required skill is practiced to a predetermined criterion before moving
on to a skill whose mastery is dependent on having mastered the prior
skill. This tool is known as artificially intelligent tutoring. The
teaching it offers is finely adapted to each student's state of
knowledge. In addition to the efficiency that artificially intelligent
tutoring brings to military training a very powerful mathematics tutor
has also been developed as a spin-off of the military research.
The result of this mating of diagnostic testing with precise
training is that new personnel can be better trained in less time, and,
thus, at less cost.
Taking advantage of what personnel didn't learn in school
Skill Domains and Dimensions of Performance
Another way military research is responding to the changing
demographics of new recruits is by expanding understanding of the
nature of skill and exploring the multi-dimensionality of performance.
Knowledge of facts and processes is only one aspect of being an
effective member of the military. There are important aspects of skill
that are not trained in academic settings and yet have a great deal to
do with quality of performance. Spatial ability is one such skill.
There are individuals, for example, who are capable of keeping track of
their direction even if they are moving through caves hundreds of feet
underground without visual cues to distinguish north, south, east and
west. Such individuals might lack a college degree or a high school
diploma, but their ability to keep a heading regardless of the presence
of directional aids is golden. For pilots, shipboard navigators, tank
operators, and leaders of reconnaissance teams natural navigational
skill gives an edge in performance that training without natural
ability is unlikely to match. Researchers are learning how to identify
such important native abilities in new recruits so that those skills
can be sharpened through disciplined practice and then put to good use.
Relatedly, researchers are reconceptualizing the nature of
performance by looking more closely at the components of performance in
specific tasks. How much of successful aircraft maintenance, for
example, is troubleshooting strategy, how much knowledge of the
aircraft, how much work speed? Comparison of repair team accuracy from
one base to another, for example, shows considerable variation.
Researchers are working at understanding the dimensions of performance
and the impact of performance along each dimension on the quality of
overall performance. The goal is to identify the special skills of
individuals and the dimensions of high quality, task-specific
performance so that task teams may be deliberately selected and trained
for maximum performance. One outcome of this research could be that in
the future we will be more prone to use our sophisticated and expensive
attack helicopters because we will be confident that they will be
properly and efficiently maintained and expertly flown.
No more Vincennes incidents
The virtues of embedded training
The Navy has invested heavily in yet another approach to testing
and training. It is called embedded training. The idea is that when
sailors are at sea, opportunities for extremely realistic training and
practice present themselves and should be taken advantage of. So the
Navy has been funding research aimed at building training routines into
the equipment sailors would use in combat. As the products of this
research are coming on line, it is becoming possible for those on a
ship or a fleet of ships to engage in war games as they cruise to their
destination. Various scenarios can be programmed, and the sailors can
be faced with solving a variety of problems they would encounter in
combat. The programs can monitor how well a crew performed and arrange
the next simulation to allow personnel to work on areas where
weaknesses were revealed. Through embedded training, personnel are able
to sharpen skills using the very equipment they would be using in
battle. The increased experience will lead to better battle performance
and improved rejection rates for false indicators of attack.
Can a soldier become a formidable warrior without being in a war?
The role of simulation in making novices into experts
Embedded training is a special case of the use of simulation for
training. More familiar to most people than embedded training are the
cockpit simulators used for training aircraft crews and the tank
simulators used for training tank crews. A great many basic behavioral
research questions had to be answered in order to build effective
simulators of any kind. Here is a small sample: How ``real'' does a
simulation have to be before it is real enough to elicit the desired
physical, cognitive, and emotional responses from trainees?
Alternatively, how unfaithful to reality (and therefore less expensive)
can a simulation be before it ceases to be effective as a training
tool? Does learning transfer from a simulated to an actual environment?
Does learning in one domain affect learning and skill use in other
domains? How similar are cognitive processes in the training
environment to cognitive processes in the environment of skill use?
What constitutes sufficient learning in a training or other simulation
environment? Do skills acquired in artificial settings transfer and
persist in the environment of use? What cognitive changes take place as
a novice advances to the performance level of an expert?
Some of these questions and others have been only partially
answered to date. While simulators have been developed and are in use,
research continues to improve these learning environments and to point
the way toward simpler, less expensive learning tools for introductory-
level training.
Simulation research has taken on special urgency. Countries in
which our air bases are located are becoming increasingly wary of
permitting extensive training flight hours in their airspace. The loss
of life that occurred when one of several planes on a training flight
in Europe severed the cable of a loaded ski-lift is just the most
prominent of grievances now being used to curtail flight hours. A good
alternative is needed immediately if the readiness of pilots and their
crews is not to degrade. Simulators are most likely that alternative.
But as more hours begin to be logged in simulators and fewer in actual
flight, we have to intensify research aimed at understanding and
minimizing readiness-relevant differences between simulator and in-
flight training. We must see that simulators are as good at turning
novices into experts as are hours spent piloting actual aircraft.
Question. How good can an aircraft technician who hasn't touched a
plane really be?
Answer. Pretty darned good!
Virtual reality is hands-on training with nothing to get one's hands on
Yet another variation on simulated environments for training is
virtual reality. One advantage of this approach to training is that a
computer, software, and some peripherals like virtual reality goggles
and sensorized gloves can give trainees ``hands-on'' experience without
having to provide anything the trainee actually has to touch. The cost
for such setups is a fraction of simulators. Their cost stands at a
point between full-scale simulators and low fidelity non-mechanical
mockups used for the most rudimentary initial training. The virtual
reality equipment can be brought to the trainees rather than the other
way around. And as with simulators, instructors have a means for close
monitoring of a trainee's progress in skill acquisition. Through
virtual reality, a technician can gain unlimited hands-on experience
without causing a minute of down time for the plane or tank or other
piece of equipment on which he or she is being trained.
How can a soldier hear, see and fight the enemy without leaving his
tent?
Virtual reality is changing how personnel function on the
battlefield
As skill in building virtual reality environments grows, it is
becoming possible to take an awesome next step by removing fighters
from the field of battle. In virtual reality environments for training,
personnel learn to manipulate tools, machinery, and even vehicles that
exist only in cyberspace. But by mating advances in nanotechnology with
advances in virtual reality, a new generation of remotely controlled
hardware is being enabled: planes whose pilots are not in the plane,
``eyes'' that can perform scouting missions while the soldier remains
in his tent, and ``ears'' with wings that can fly to listening posts
and relay sensitive information to personnel who are miles away. The
nature of ground warfare was transformed by the advent of the tank. The
nature of warfare itself is on the verge of being transformed by
virtual reality.
How can instruction continue when reduction in force eliminated the
instructor?
Remote instruction: making the most of a tough situation
The large reductions in force experienced by the military in recent
years presented a surprising problem. There are no longer enough
trainers to make them available at every site where they are needed.
The solution has been for the military to become a leader in the use of
remote instruction. There were both basic and practical research
questions in the push to develop remote instructional capabilities. One
of the basic questions had to do with communication. If the instructor
is a thousand miles away and is instructing groups in five localities
at the same time, what is the impact on the quality of instruction and
the efficacy of the training? On the nuts-and-bolts side, the question
of how a trainee asks a questions had to be solved. The result of
addressing both basic and applied research questions in designing a
remote instruction system is that the military is among the most
advanced of institutions in employing this information-age mode of
teaching and learning.
One aspect of its superiority in this area is that the military has
become a leader as well in development of curriculum architecture
standards. The idea here is that, by adhering to software standards for
curriculum development, the best of materials can be easily placed in
any curriculum. There is no need to start from scratch when a new
curriculum is needed. The best of existing materials may be pasted into
the new course software at the points they are needed. This is a
powerful innovation in that it eliminates the need to invent an
inferior wheel when a superior one has already been invented.
So, from the mating of a rudimentary aptitude test and a rapid
training regime more than three-fourths of a century ago, there has
developed a series of testing and training options that permits highly
concentrated, highly targeted training to be accomplished to a high
level of mastery in a short amount of time without the necessity of the
trainer and the trainee being in the same State or country, let alone
the same room. And much of what has been learned in developing the
capability to accomplish these feats is now being adapted to the
battlefield with the expected result that future battlefields will be
decisively controlled by fewer troops who will be situated far more
securely than are today's soldiers.
Tools are only as good as the people who use them
Benefits from human factors research
A second large area of military behavioral/social research is
called human factors research. Human factors research is most often
associated with the interfacing of humans and machines. This research
has been applied to a host of military challenges. Here are a few
examples.
What good is information when you can't understand it?
Human factors and advances in cockpit instrumentation
The technical capability to provide pilots with information about
the environments through which they are flying, including the state of
the aircraft, far outstrips human capability to process information.
During the Vietnam War, many pilots were distracted enough by the
information being fed to them by their instruments that they turned
them off or ignored them in order to concentrate on what was happening
around them. There has long been a strong need for engineers and
behavioral scientists to work together to design cockpit
instrumentation that delivers the right information in the right
amounts in the right ways at the right point in the field of vision (or
touch or hearing) at the right times. Knowing what is ``right'' in each
of these instances has involved some very basic research on human
visual, auditory, and tactile perception.
A variety of important findings have emerged from this basic
research: Humans have difficulty quickly adjusting attention from
foreground to background objects, suggesting that heads-up displays
meant to minimize distraction have the capability, instead, to
exacerbate it; symbols chosen to convey information about such things
as altitude, rate of ascent or descent, and proximity and identity of
other craft can be highly confusing indicating that choices about the
manner in which particular kinds of information will be conveyed need
to be thoroughly tested before they are deployed in order to minimize
human error, increase efficiency, and facilitate success in the
mission; as pilot flight hours mount, hearing difficulties in
frequencies related to the tonal ranges of aircraft engines begin to
appear, and warning sounds need to be pitched at frequencies other than
those to which pilots become deaf so that the chance that they will
hear the warnings is maximized; it is possible to automate many parts
of flight, but because automation decreases a pilot's opportunity to
use certain skills, the ability of the pilot to judge when an emergency
situation is developing, and the ability of the person to take control
from the automated systems deteriorates, suggesting that careful,
research-based decisions need to be made about what to automate and how
to train pilots in the face of increasing automation.
Knowledge is power
Using behavioral research to strengthen communication
How well people communicate with each other is as important to the
success of a military mission as how machines communicate information
to people. Often electronic devices are the mediators of human
communication. All branches of the military have supported research on
improving communication. Among the practical questions this research
ultimately addresses are, How can deaths and injuries from friendly
fire be prevented? When does strict adherence to chain of command
endanger soldiers or non-combatants? How can meaningful communication
be maintained under conditions of severe stress? There are many other
basic and applied questions in communication that military behavioral/
social research addresses, but I only want to give you a flavor for the
important work that is done.
Can casualties from friendly fire be stopped?
The role of behavioral research and technical innovation
On reducing casualties from friendly fire, a host of factors must
be understood and manipulated including identifiability of a target,
decision making under stress, cognitive load, and field communications.
Electronic and visual means of making positive identification without
giving the same information to the enemy must be tested for efficacy.
Even when positive identification is possible to make, battlefield
conditions, including the number of parameters that must be monitored
simultaneously and the immediate perceived threat to the crew or
individual making the decision to fire or refrain from firing, must be
characterized and measured. Through research, the obstacles to sound
decision making can be better controlled. And as with pilots who were
overwhelmed with so much information that it became meaningless, limits
on the ability of those in a crew to communicate with each other and
with others who might have critical information must be understood so
as to maximize the utility of incoming information.
Again, basic research in perception, decision making, stress,
information processing capabilities, and crew interaction feeds into
the applied science of assuring that fire power is directed only at the
enemy.
Who knows what when makes all the difference
Research-based modifications in the chain of command and in
modes of intelligence gathering lead to better
decisions
We think of a chain of command as being a hallmark of military
order. But sometimes strict adherence gets in the way of good decision
making. A case in point was the shooting down of a commercial airliner
by the crew of the Vincennes some years ago. Information known by some
who were low in the chain of command could have prevented this disaster
were it communicated to decision makers in the chain of command. But
the distance in rank, and thus the ability to communicate between those
who possessed critical information and those who needed it was too
great. Behavioral and social science research has been directed at how
communication occurs in a variety of human configurations. The aim of
the research is to understand how best to assure that communication
procedures permit sufficient group access to critical information.
A second form of this problem occurred in Somalia when U.S. troops
were ambushed and killed as they were trying to capture the leader of
the rebel forces. Intelligence gathering for this mission had been
carried out in a way that is standard in battlefield settings but is
not effective in peacekeeping settings. That is, intelligence was
gathered clandestinely rather than by developing strong lines of
communication and trust with local townspeople. The latter mode of
intelligence gathering is standard for civilian law-enforcement
officers and military police, but not for combat troops. Behavioral and
social science research is being used to determine how to adjust
information gathering and dissemination procedures so that those
procedures are the best fit for the context in which they will be used.
The research includes experimentation with team procedures that
allow critical information to reach the right level in a chain of
command regardless of the rank of the person who possesses the critical
information. That research is having an impact not just on the
effectiveness of military communication but also on the way crews for
commercial airline flights are organized and trained. The changes that
have occurred because of the research have been credited with saving
lives in a number of commercial airline crashes and near-crashes.
Combat is chaotic and exhausting
How can behavioral research do anything about these seeming
constants of war?
Battlefields are often chaotic, and stress levels are very high.
Are there ways to increase the likelihood of clear thinking, strong
leadership, and good decisions under the extreme conditions of battle?
Behavioral and social scientists have approached this question from
several directions.
One line of research has had to do with the nature of leadership
and the configuration of organizations to make best use of leaders. The
leadership research has led to development of ways to assess the
qualities of individual leaders. A broad division in leadership ability
that has emerged is that between the strategic leader and the troop
leader. Strategic leaders are able to take account of many
interrelations in the planning of strategies. But their decision making
tends to be slow and highly deliberative. Troop leaders, on the other
hand, have the ability to take in a situation as it is unfolding and
make rapid but sound decisions on the basis of available and incomplete
information. Both kinds of leaders have important roles to play. But
having means to distinguish one set of leadership qualities from
another allows for optimal placement of leaders.
The research on organizational structure is aimed at understanding
the best ways to arrange groups of people for particular purposes. It
includes research on the meaning and modes of communication among
diverse coworkers, the patterns of critical information dispersal in
different work configurations, attitudinal research related to ethnic,
racial and gender diversity, and the interaction of leadership styles
with organizational structures.
Mating the optimized configurations that emerge from the
organizational research with the optimized placement indicators that
emerge from the leadership research can help build military units whose
ability to perform their functions is maximized. Application of these
lines of research are still in their infancy, but have the potential to
greatly improve the performance of units in all the armed services.
Performance and survival in extreme environments
Research to protect the warfighter without undermining
ability to fight
A battlefield is, in itself, an extreme environment. But added to
that reality is the fact that combat occurs in extremes of heat and
cold, in the presence of toxic chemicals, at night, and under
conditions of extreme fatigue. Behavioral and social science research
contributes to the ability of soldiers to function and to survive in
all of these extremes.
Behavioral research over many years has gone into helping soldiers
survive extremes of heat and cold. Understanding how these extremes
affect the human body and the ability to function cognitively have been
one aspect of the research. Related to understanding the effects of the
extremes has been research on various forms of protection and their
relative abilities to facilitate performance in temperature extremes.
As new protective materials become available, the research continues
with the dual goals of maximizing protection and minimizing loss of, or
even enhancing, performance while using protective gear.
Chemical warfare provides as great a challenge to researchers as
extremes of temperature. Psychopharmacologists work to determine the
neurotoxic effects of various chemicals, symptomatology, mode of entry
to the body, and their speed of action. Then they work with other
scientists and engineers to provide reliable ways to guard against or
counteract the effects of the chemicals. As new agents are identified,
the work to maintain protection continues.
Apparatuses that can gather and magnify heat emissions or available
light have given personnel the ability to see at night. But, for a
time, night vision goggles were implicated in crashes of aircraft
attempting to land. The problem was especially noticeable during the
Gulf War where an unprecedented number of sorties were flown at night.
It was behavioral scientists who discovered that the goggles provide
inadequate distance cues, and, in fact, distort perception in such a
way as to make some objects appear farther away than they are. Pilots
on the landing approach were plowing into the ground because they
perceived the ground as being farther away than it actually was. This
discovery led to modifications of the goggles that corrected the
distortion, made them safer to use, and improved depth perception cues.
It is assumed that battle is as exhausting an activity as one can
undertake. But behavioral research is showing that it is important to
do something about that reality. The ability of individuals to function
cognitively is severely impaired by fatigue for a much longer time than
had been understood in the past. That knowledge has led to several
areas of investigation aimed either at controlling fatigue or at
overcoming at least some of the cognitive losses that result from it.
Applications of the research are in their infancy in the military. But
some of what has been found has been adapted for the long-haul airline
industry. Though it is somewhat controversial, the practice of allowing
pilot and copilot to sleep in shifts, for example, has been found
effective in maintaining a high level of alertness for the individual
responsible for flying the aircraft at any given time. Chemical
interventions to prolong alertness under conditions of fatigue are also
being investigated. The goal is to find ways to keep soldiers at
adequate levels of alertness while they are on duty. The edge that
these interventions give can mean the difference between survival and
death.
With reduced troop strength, doing more with less is an imperative
Making machines to replace people
Devices that will replace military personnel will need
specialized intelligence
Neural network research and circuitry that learns
A Navy goal is to reduce the number of people required to operate
its fleet. The desire is to have robots do as much of the aboard-ship
work as possible so as to free sailors to concentrate only on those
things that require human activity. This will both reduce the number of
personnel on ships and make better use of human resources.
Achieving that goal has required research on many fronts.
Behavioral scientists have been involved with cognitive and neural
network research in support of the goal. The cognitive research has
been aimed at understanding how human thought occurs. This research is
mated with research on how the human brain functions as it thinks. This
latter research is called neural network research. The circuitry that
is going into machines that will do the work that people have been
doing is imitating brain circuitry thanks to the basic research. One
feature of some of the circuitry is parallel processing. Computers in
use until quite recently have been serial processors. That is, they
perform one operation at a time. The human brain is sometimes referred
to as a massively parallel processor. That is, it is carrying on many
functions at once. The Navy-sponsored research is leading to design of
specialized circuitry for particular purposes and to massively parallel
designs that can handle large volumes of information rapidly.
Another feature of the work is to produce circuits that learn from
experience. Early versions of this circuitry are already in use in an
important civilian application. Learning circuits are in devices at
airports that detect plastic explosives. The machines get better at
their job as they are ``trained'' through presentation of many bomb
detection scenarios. There will be a host of applications of neural
network research throughout the military in the future. One of the most
important early applications is in automatic recognition systems. The
neural-network-based circuitry in these systems permits recognition and
verification by the machine of faces, speech, and military targets. The
importance of such technology for security, intelligence gathering, and
precision warfare is obvious.
Smart machines will be better partners for their fellow combatants
Making partners of aircraft and pilots
Air Force interest in neural network research and applications has
also been high. The research has already led to a diversity of
technology improvements. I mentioned earlier the difficulty pilots have
had in the past in dealing with the overwhelming amount of information
that it is possible to provide. One of the solutions to that problem is
adaptive flight control systems. This is a sharing of flight
responsibilities between neural-network-based devices and the pilot.
The relationship is not fixed. Who/what does what at any given time
depends on contextual need. The goal is to create and optimize a
dynamic functional relationship between aircraft and pilot or crew.
Smart machines will be better partners for other machines
Linking smart machines to overcome human information-
processing limitations
A related use of neural network devices is in sensor fusion for
image display. Flight environment information already comes, in part,
from sophisticated sensors both on board and in other locations,
including space. What neural network devices make possible are
synthesis of information from many previously discreet sources and
display of the product of that synthesis in one big picture. This means
that, increasingly, aircraft crews will not need to look at so many
individual bits of information to make judgments about flight and
combat. But they also won't have to forego one important kind of
information in order to concentrate on another important kind of
information. They will be able to look at displays that are the product
of synthesized information. So, instead of having to personally
synthesize information from many instruments in order to make a
judgment about what to do next, crew members will be able to look at
one display to get enough information to make that judgment.
Discouragement at the lack of human capacity to process currently
available information has prompted talk of scaling back work in future
imagery architecture. But behavioral scientists are working to
eliminate the source of discouragement. A main goal of work in
behavioral analysis is to construct models of human expertise that are
so good that they can be used for automating tasks such as information
synthesis now performed by humans. It is this developing knowledge
about how to give aircraft the ability to process information as a
skilled human expert would, but to process and synthesize vastly more
of it than a human ever could, that offers hope. The promise in this
research is that there will be no need to sacrifice crucial information
because there is too much of it to handle. The technology of the
aircraft will handle all that complexity in the way that a human with
super human analytic and synthetic abilities would, leaving the pilot
free to do the most important thing a pilot can do--exercise, and act
on, sound judgment. To put it another way, the plane will do the
``what'' so that the pilot can do the ``so what.''
Thank you for asking for examples of the behavioral and social
science research that is going on in the armed services and for
examples of its applications. I haven't been exhaustive (though I've
probably been exhausting) in answering your request, but I believe the
information contained here begins to give an idea of the scope and
variety of the work being done. These are the categories of work to
which I am referring when I come before you each year to testify.
Sincerely,
David Johnson,
Executive Director.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Doctor. I appreciate
your courtesy.
The next witness is Joan Goldberg, Executive Director of
the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, on behalf
of the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone
Diseases. Good morning, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF JOAN GOLDBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BONE AND MINERAL
RESEARCH, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
COALITION FOR OSTEOPOROSIS AND RELATED BONE
DISEASES
Ms. Goldberg. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Inouye, on behalf of the National Coalition for
Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases, the Bone Coalition, I
want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss bone research
as it relates to military readiness.
I am Joan Goldberg, Executive Director of the American
Society for Bone and Mineral Research. I am appearing here this
morning to ask for your support for increased funding for the
Department of Defense to continue its research efforts on
osteoporosis and related bone diseases in fiscal year 2001.
The Bone Coalition is requesting $10 million for these
research efforts. The Bone Coalition is dedicated to educating
the public and its elected officials about the need for Federal
research funding for bone diseases. Men and women in the
military are at special risk for, and affected by, bone
diseases. Stress fractures, which are associated with low bone
mass, are among the most frequent injuries.
This Institute of Medicine Report, ``Reducing Stress
Fractures in Physically Active Military Women,'' which was
requested by the DOD, points out that stress fractures erect a
significant barrier to the total fitness and readiness of
military women. The incidence of stress fractures during basic
training is substantially higher in female than in male
recruits.
The current stress fracture incidence for Army recruits is
2.6 percent for men and 8.1 percent for women. This injury rate
has a marked impact on the health of service personnel and
imposes a significant financial burden on the Federal
Government by delaying the training of new recruits. Such
injuries may also lead to increased health problems and
shortened military careers through early retirements and a
possible relationship with the long-term risk of osteoporosis.
The incidence of stress fractures in the U.S. military
varies with gender and with branch of service, from 0.2 percent
of male Navy recruits, to 4.5 percent of Marine Corps male
recruits. The incidence among females in these same training
programs is higher, ranging from 0.7 percent among Navy
recruits to 9.6 percent in Marine officer candidates. The costs
incurred due to stress fractures among 2,000 Marine recruits is
estimated to be $1.85 million per year, with 4,120 lost
training days. And the figure rises to an estimated $10 million
a year in medical costs and lost duty time for the U.S.
military as a whole.
One of the goals of the Military Operational Medicine
Research Program is to eliminate stress fractures in initial
entry training in the military. Current bone research is
already focusing on prevention and treatment of stress
fractures, examining the role of nutrition, exercise,
medication, and rehabilitation. Findings will lead to improved
bone health of men and women and enhancing military readiness
by reducing the incidence of stress fractures during physically
intensive training.
Given that stress fractures may be related to later
osteoporosis, increased research attention to the initial
problem may reduce the risk of osteoporosis and other bone
disorders later in life. The treatment cost burden for these
disorders to DOD programs such as Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) should also be
considered. Recent Navy research already demonstrates that
thoughtful modification of physical training programs can delay
stress fractures without compromising physical standards or
training level.
Other studies suggest that increased bone remodeling
precedes the occurrence of bone microdamage and stress
fractures. The role of remodeling in the development of stress
fracture is being tested in a DOD project using a rabbit model.
A drug used to treat osteoporosis, known as alendronate, will
be used to inhibit bone remodeling and increased bone porosity
or weakness to determine if microdamage and the severity of the
stress fracture will be diminished.
Another study of young female runners will assess the
affects of oral contraceptive use on bone mineral density and
incidence of stress fracture. Still another study is
consolidating the knowledge we have, both published and
unpublished, about the effects of resistance and endurance
exercise training on bone mineral density.
The prolonged healing time of stress fractures, which
requires rest from weight-bearing activity, is well known, and
averages 3 months. A DOD-funded study is comparing recovery
times from tibial stress fractures in subjects treated with
electric field stimulation.
Continuing and expanding the DOD bone research program will
help identify individuals at risk and improve their bone health
with scientifically training and dietary and medical
interventions. Because healthy bones are directly relevant to
the preparedness of military personnel, I urge you to consider
expanding the funding for the existing DOD medical research
program on osteoporosis and related bone diseases. A funding
level of $10 million would be cost-effective, wise and a
greatly needed investment in military preparedness.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joan Goldberg
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases (the Bone
Coalition), I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss bone
disease research as it relates to military readiness. I am Joan
Goldberg, Executive Director of the American Society for Bone and
Mineral Research.
I am appearing here this morning to ask for your support for
increased funding for the Department of Defense (DOD) to continue its
research efforts on osteoporosis and related bone diseases in fiscal
year 2001. The Bone Coalition is requesting $10 million for these
research efforts.
The Bone Coalition is dedicated to educating the public and its
elected officials about the need for federal research funding for bone
diseases. The leading national bone disease organizations that
participate in the ``Bone Coalition'' are: The American Society for
Bone and Mineral Research; National Osteoporosis Foundation; The Paget
Foundation For Paget's Disease of Bone and Related Disorders; and The
Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation.
A myriad of bone diseases is represented by the Bone Coalition. Men
and women in the military are especially at risk of and affected by
bone diseases. Stress fractures, which are associated with low bone
mass, are among the most frequent injuries.
An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report entitled ``Reducing Stress
Fracture in Physically Active Military Women,'' which was requested by
the DOD, points out that stress fractures cause a significant barrier
to the total fitness and readiness of military women. The incidence of
stress fractures during basic training is substantially higher in
female than in male recruits. Current stress fracture incidence for
Army recruits is 2.6 percent for men and 8.1 percent for women in
similar training. This injury has a marked impact on the health of
service personnel and imposes a significant financial burden by
delaying the training of new recruits. Stress fractures increase the
length of training time, program costs, and time to military readiness.
Also, stress fractures and short-term risks to bone health may share
their etiology with the long-term risk of osteoporosis.
The incidence of stress fracture in male military recruits has been
reported to range from 0.2 percent in U.S. Navy recruits to 4.5 percent
in U.S. Marine Corps recruits. The incidence among females in these
same training programs is higher, ranging from 0.7 percent in the Navy
to 9.6 percent in Marine officer candidates. The cost incurred due to
stress fractures among 2,000 female marine recruits is estimated to be
$1,850,000 annually with 4,120 lost training days resulting in an
extended training period for these women. Thus, it could be projected
that the costs to the U.S. Army, a service that trains a greater number
of recruits a year, would be much higher.
One of the goals of the Military Operational Medicine Research
Program is to eliminate stress fractures in initial entry training in
the military, a problem estimated to cost the DOD in excess of $10
million per year in medical costs and lost duty time.
Current bone research is already focusing on prevention and
treatment of stress fractures, examining the role of nutrition,
exercise, rehabilitation, etc. Findings will lead to improved bone
health of men and women, enhancing military readiness by reducing the
incidence of stress fracture during physically intensive training.
Moreover, given that stress fractures may be related to later
osteoporosis, increased research attention to the initial problem may
reduce the risk of osteoporosis and other bone disorders later in life.
The treatment cost burden for these disorders to DOD programs such as
the Civilian Health and Military Programs in the Uniformed Service
(CHAMPUS) should also be considered.
Recent Navy research demonstrates that thoughtful modification of
physical training programs can delay the time to stress fracture
without compromising physical standards or training level. The current
program is expected to provide information to further reduce training
injuries through better identification of at risk individuals,
scientifically-based training and dietary and medical interventions.
Other studies suggest that increased bone remodeling precedes the
occurrence of bone microdamage and stress fractures. The role of
intracortical remodeling in the pathogenesis of stress fracture is
being tested in a project using a rabbit tibial model. A drug used to
treat osteoporosis, known as alendronate, will be used to inhibit both
bone remodeling and increased bone porosity to determine if microdamage
and severity of stress fracture are diminished.
Studies have also found that even a weak androgen, such as
dehydroepiandro-stenedione (DHEA), the most important circulating
androgen in women, may play an important role in attaining and
maintaining high bone mineral content in women. A study of young female
runners will assess the effects of oral contraceptive use on bone
mineral density and incidence of stress fracture.
A previous study of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy defined
changes in lumbar bone density of young men and women based on biannual
measurements during their four years at the Academy. Now, nearly ten
years later, these subjects will be retested with special emphasis on
case comparisons to a group of 24 men and women in the original study
who did not demonstrate high rates of bone density increase during the
study. Another study is consolidating existing knowledge, published and
unpublished, of the effects of resistance and endurance exercise
training on bone mineral density in men and women using meta-analytical
and other novel statistical approaches.
The prolonged healing time of stress fractures with the
conservative but general favored treatment of rest from weight bearing
activity is well known and averages three months. A double-blinded
study is comparing recovery times from tibial stress fracture in
subjects treated with active or placebo-controlled electric field
stimulation, including evaluation of male and female responses.
Diagnostic imaging methods such as radio-graphs, bone scan, MRI, and CT
will be compared and a stress fracture severity grading system for each
imaging tool developed.
Because healthy bones are directly relevant to the preparedness of
military personnel, I urge you to consider expanding the funding for
the existing medical research program on osteoporosis and related bone
diseases at the DOD. A funding level of $10 million is needed in order
to eliminate the adverse impact of these diseases on military
preparedness.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Stevens. I understand your emphasis on the
military, but is not this a generic problem now that should be
really broadened out and taken up by the National Institutes of
Health (NIH)?
Ms. Goldberg. It is a very big problem, and NIH has several
institutes that are also investing money in this such as the
National Institute of Aging (NIA), Child and Health. However,
none of them, individually or together, are able to fund all
the research needed to answer some of the many unanswered
questions.
Senator Stevens. And what coordination is there to make
sure we do not have redundancy? NIA is into, the National
Academy of Sciences is into it, NIH is into it, you are already
into it in Defense.
Ms. Goldberg. That is an excellent question. I spoke with
Colonel Friedle, from the DOD yesterday. Who, before issuing
the new request for proposals for the money that was funded
last year, is coordinating with his contact at NIA and other
institutes, to make sure that they are focusing on different
areas and complementing each other's approach.
Senator Stevens. I wanted to warn everybody, we were told
yesterday that we need $1.9 billion more for 2000, for retired
medical benefits, and it is going to go to about $3 billion in
2001, as we understand, for the additional costs of TRICARE and
the other approaches. We are trying to use to fulfill the
commitments made to retired personnel now that we have closed
so many base hospitals, and they are no longer able to use
those hospitals. It is going to be extremely difficult,
extremely difficult, to raise any of the items for medical
research this year and meet those obligations to retired people
that we made.
So I do not want to mislead anybody. We will try our best.
You have a real serious problem. I have talked to people out at
Walter Reed about osteoporosis and women members of the armed
services, and we do want to find out about the stress fracture
problem. We will look to do as much as we can to work with you.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Does the physical examination program that
we have for recruits disclose weakness in bone structure?
Ms. Goldberg. No, it does not. There are tests for bone
mineral density. That is not a routine part of evaluation for
new recruits as far as I understand.
Senator Inouye. So we do not know anything about the
recruit until he gets in?
Ms. Goldberg. And part of the problem is we have what is
called a normative database. We understand what is normal for a
30-year-old woman. And that is the database that is used to
test bone density for post-menopausal women who are most at
risk for osteoporosis. We do not have enough data yet for what
is normal for a 17-year-old, a 20-year-old, or even a child.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Just to make sure I understood this, I
went out and took that bone scan at Walter Reed, and I know
what it is. It is a fairly long process. I do not know how you
could be able to give that to every recruit before they enlist.
But there ought to be some way to get a more capable method of
screening. If that is what your research is looking for, we
agree with you and we will see what we can do to help you.
Ms. Goldberg. One of the DOD-funded studies underway right
now is looking at different imaging techniques, so that we have
a better idea of how to predict fracture risk. The tests that
you probably had, a dexoscan, is one of many, one of the more
expensive tests, but it is also the gold standard. We are
looking for more.
Senator Stevens. I think we have got to be even more
generic than weight and size and capability to lift. Other
things have to be a factor in terms of enlistment of women in
the armed services, in my opinion.
Ms. Goldberg. Right, understanding the biomechanical
effects is another area.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Ms. Goldberg.
Ms. Goldberg. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Next is Fran Visco, President of the
National Breast Cancer Coalition.
STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BREAST
CANCER COALITION
Ms. Visco. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye.
Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you this
morning. As a breast cancer survivor and head of the National
Breast Cancer Coalition, I want to express our gratitude for
your support of the Department of Defense peer-reviewed breast
cancer research funding. And I would like to request continued
level funding of that program for the coming year.
The program continues to be an incredible success. We
continue to have a strategic plan that is focused. The
administrative costs continue to be less than 10 percent. It is
one in which the Department of Defense has considerable and
warranted pride. The strategy continues along the lines
recommended by the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy
of Sciences.
And this year we once again are looking at gaps in the
world of research, looking at things like concept reviews that
are actually pre-idea proposals, up to and including bringing
clinical trials as widespread as possible so that we can get
the answers more quickly and, in the long run, save not just
money but many more lives. So my plea this morning is for
continued level funding of this program and, as you know, with
the support of 62 Members of the Senate that we delivered to
you about 1 month ago.
I am here to answer any questions about the program, but I
know that, Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Inouye are very
familiar with the success of the program, how it has been
replicated by other programs, by other countries, by other
States, and we continue to set new ground for the way in which
biomedical research is performed in this country. Again, I want
to thank you very much and hope that you will agree with our
request for continued level funding of the program.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fran Visco
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense for your exceptional leadership in the effort
to increase and improve breast cancer research. As my testimony will
describe in detail, the investment in cancer research made by you and
this Committee is one of the contributions which has brought us closer
than ever to the verge of significant discoveries about cancer. I am
Fran Visco, President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and
myself a breast cancer survivor.
On behalf of the National Breast Cancer Coalition and the 2.6
million women who are now living with breast cancer, I thank you for
your strong past support of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Peer-
Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program and I urge your continued
support of this important program with an appropriation of $175
million--level funding--for the program for fiscal year 2001. The
National Breast Cancer Coalition believes this program is vital to the
eradication of breast cancer.
As you know, the National Breast Cancer Coalition is a grassroots
advocacy organization made up of over 500 organizations and more than
60,000 individuals and has been working since 1991 toward the
eradication of this disease through advocacy and action. We support
increased funding for breast cancer research, increased access to
quality health care for all women, and increased influence of breast
cancer activists at every table where decisions regarding breast cancer
are made.
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 not only innovative, but is also incredibly
streamlined. As you know, it is overseen by a group of distinguished
scientists and activists, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine.
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 uncharted research in breast cancer.
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. This permits us to complement
and not duplicate other federal funding programs.
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 complement the
independent evaluations of the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, as
well as reiterate their own high level of commitment to the Program by
appropriating the funding needed to ensure its success. The IOM report
has laid the groundwork for effective and efficient implementation of
the next phase of this vital research program, now all that it needs is
the appropriate funding.
In addition to the IOM report, the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer
Research Program reported the progress of the program to the American
people during a public meeting called the ``Era of Hope.'' It was the
first time a federally funded program reported back to the public in
detail not only on the funds used, but also on the research undertaken,
the knowledge gained from that research and future directions to be
pursued. This meeting allowed scientists, consumers and the American
public to see the exceptional progress made in breast cancer research
through the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program.
Many scientists at the ``Era of Hope'' meeting expressed their
enthusiasm for the program and the opportunity to work substantively
with consumers at every step of the research process. In fact, the
scientists who have seen first hand the benefits of the DOD Peer-
Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program have issued a strong statement
that in their scientific judgement the program should continue: ``. . .
we urge that this program receive ongoing funding. This program has
been broadly defined such that the research performed will be of
benefit not just for breast cancer, but for all cancers and other
diseases.''
The ``Era of Hope'' is scheduled to meet for a second time later
this year.
The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has attracted
bright, fresh scientific minds with new ideas and has continued to open
the doors to how they think about breast cancer research and research
in general.
Developments in the past few years have begun to offer breast
cancer researchers fascinating insights into the biology of breast
cancer and have brought into sharp 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 cannot receive
funding through more traditional programs such as the National
Institutes of Health, and academic research programs. It is vital that
these grants are able to continue to support the growing interest in
breast cancer research--$175 million for peer-reviewed research will
help sustain the IDEA grant momentum.
The DOD Peer-Reviewed Program has also sought innovative ways to
translate what is discovered under the microscope to the bedside. Most
recently, it defined a new funding mechanism that will carve out a
niche in clinical translational research by bringing cancer clinical
trials into community settings.
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 went directly to research grants. The federal government can
truly be proud of its investment in DOD breast cancer research. The
overall structure of the system has streamlined the entire funding
process, while retaining traditional quality assurance mechanisms.
The 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 a cure or prevention 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 calls on the President and the U.S. Congress to
spend $2.6 billion on breast cancer research between 1997 and the year
2000. Funding for the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program
is an essential component of reaching the $2.6 billion goal that so
many women and families worked to gain.
Once again, we are prepared to bring our message to Congress. This
week, many of the women and family members who supported the campaign
to gain the 2.6 million signatures were at our Annual Advocacy Training
Conference here in Washington, D.C. More than 500 breast cancer
activists from across the country joined us in continuing to mobilize
behind the efforts to eradicate breast cancer. The overwhelming
interest and dedication to eradicate this disease continues to be
evident as people are not only signing petitions, but are willing to
come all the way to Washington, D.C. to deliver their message about the
importance of 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.
We ask you, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to recognize
the importance of what you have initiated. What you have done is set in
motion an innovative and highly efficient approach to fighting the
breast cancer epidemic. What you must do now is continue to support
this effort by funding research that will help us win this very real
and devastating war against a cruel enemy.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify and giving hope to the
2.6 million women living with breast cancer.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
I know of no problem with continuing the level funding, but
as I indicated, I am not sure about any increases. I have heard
that some people are going to try to increase this item, and I
just want to advise against it. We have got to meet this
retired obligation that has been raised so heavily with us now.
And I do not know where we are going to find the money to do
that. And even if we find the money to do that, there just is
not money to increase. So I thank you for presenting a level
funding request, and I can assure you we will do our utmost to
comply with your request.
Ms. Visco. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. The fifth witness has been cancelled. The
next would be Joyce Raezer, Deputy Associate Director of
Government Relations with the National Military Family
Association (NMFA).
STATEMENT OF JOYCE WESSEL RAEZER, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL
MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION
Ms. Raezer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you
and to Senator Inouye. NMFA is honored once again to address
the quality of life of military families.
We are grateful to this subcommittee and to Congress for
the attention last year to issues important to military members
and their families--pay, retirement, housing, and the schools
that educate our children--but yet our recruiting and retention
crisis continues. The crisis did not suddenly appear and will
not disappear overnight. It is more complicated than just the
effects of a booming economy, than just concerns about pay and
retirement.
The decision to join and the decision to stay is not just
the service members. We are a family force, and the family
joins in those decisions. To stem this recruiting and retention
crisis, the Nation must first listen, as NMFA has done for 30
years, to some of the frustrations expressed by today's family
force. Then the Nation must respond to the needs of the force
that serves it so well.
What frustrates military families? Health care. While all
parents are concerned about their children's health care, how
many have to worry while on a submarine in the depths of an
ocean whether their child can get a doctor's appointment?
Military families are told that their health coverage is
portable and thus seamless, but find instead a new set of rules
governing how they must access care every time they move.
TRICARE's 12-region structure fosters inconsistency in basic
services, such as appointments, claims and enrollment. It is
often anything but seamless.
What frustrates military families? Housing. Military family
housing on the installation is often in short supply, poorly
maintained and too small compared with civilian standards. For
years, military families have watched family housing repair and
maintenance budgets shrink and family housing deteriorate. If
they live off the installation, they absorb more housing costs
out of pocket than the congressionally mandated limit of 15
percent. Increases in the basic allowance for housing only seem
to bring increases in rent, thus keeping out-of-pocket expenses
constant.
What frustrates military families? Worrying about the
quality of their children's education in a succession of school
districts. Military children must make a successful transition
through six to eight schools during an average school career,
often to schools whose funding base is inadequate. Funding DOD
schools well is important, but it is not enough to relieve
military parents' anxieties about their children's education.
Over 75 percent of military children attend school in civilian
school districts.
What frustrates military families? No WIC overseas. While
many young families depend on Government safety net programs to
help them over rough times, military families often lose their
access to these programs as they move, a time when they are
most vulnerable, especially when moving overseas. Last year,
Congress mandated that DOD begin a supplemental program similar
to WIC, the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program.
Families who did not know they had lost access to WIC until
they arrived overseas greeted that mandate and the initial
funding, although small, with joy. Unfortunately, these
families are not only still waiting for WIC, but still waiting
for news of WIC. We urge Congress to give DOD an implementation
deadline and the funding it needs to get this valuable
nutrition program to these most vulnerable of our families.
What frustrates military families? The focus on food stamps
rather than on the complex combination of issues affecting
their financial stability. Many factors put and keep young
military families on the financial edge: pay not commensurate
with the demands of military service, frequent moves and their
related costs, insufficient on-based housing, out-of-pocket
housing and transportation expenses when families must live off
the installation, the consequences of recruiting someone with a
family and then expecting them to live on a salary more
appropriate for a single person in the barracks, a lack of good
financial education and counseling, poor access to affordable
credit, and operations tempo in which deployments or the threat
of deployment make it difficult for the military spouse to
juggle child care and a job.
Families hope that Congress and the Department of Defense
can work together to address this combination of factors that
keep them on the financial brink.
So what frustrates military families? That the Nation does
not seem to understand that the family drives the retention
decision and that supporting families is a part of military
readiness. The Nation must recognize that service members' jobs
are not 9:00 to 5:00, and that they involve families in ways
few other jobs do.
What other employer recruits young people in their late
teens and early twenties, often with families, moves them
across the country or halfway around the world, and then sends
the employee off somewhere else for an extended period, leaving
the family behind? What other employer sends employees to
places where they must fit their children with gas masks, as
military members do in Korea? Military families have taken care
of themselves, their children and each other for over 200
years.
They look to the Nation to understand 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 look
to the Nation to understand that as more is asked of them as
they do the Nation's work, then more must be asked of the
Nation.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joyce Wessel Raezer
quality of life issues for military families, april 2000
Distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the National Military
Family Association (NMFA) is once again honored to be able to address
Military Family Quality of Life issues. NMFA is grateful to the
Congress for taking a big first step last year by passing several
measures to improve quality of life for military members and their
families. Of particular importance were:
--Provision of a 4.8 percent pay raise, payable January 1, 2000
--Provision for pay increases of .5 percent above the Employment Cost
Index for the next five years
--Repeal of the REDUX retirement plan, providing a full cost of
living adjustment on retired pay
--Provision of additional funding for housing allowances.
In our preparation for our testimony this year, we realized that
many concerns expressed by military families persist despite the
efforts of the Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) to address
quality of life. So what is different about this year? What is unique
about military families, as we have entered the new century? NMFA
contends that the persistent erosion of the quality of life for our
military members has caused an increased dissatisfaction with military
service, thus providing the impetus for their decision to leave as well
as preventing potential recruits from considering military service. No
one single factor is diminishing our forces. The continual erosion of
what members and their families perceive as their quality of life is
contributing to their decision to leave. We know these assumptions are
valid, not only because NMFA represents family members who live the
life we are describing, but also because we continue to hear from our
150 plus installation representatives and military family members from
all over the world.
Our armed forces are facing a recruitment and retention crisis that
is unprecedented in our peacetime volunteer forces. NMFA contends that
the family is the most important factor driving the retention decision.
We affirm the widely quoted statement, ``we recruit a single person,
but we retain a family.'' According to the DOD Office of Family Policy,
58 percent of military members are married. Research shows that spousal
satisfaction with military life is a key factor affecting readiness and
retention of the individual military member. The Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton in his written testimony before
the Senate Armed Services Committee on 8 February 2000, stated:
Further, without the support of strong military families, we
cannot sustain a force capable of meeting the demands of this
new century. To preserve a high quality, professional military
we must provide the quality of life that our service members
and their families expect--deserve.
Today, NMFA will examine some of the issues that affect military
families' quality of life and discuss the level of commitment it
believes servicemembers and their families deserve from the nation they
serve.
PERSTEMPO
General Shelton, in his 31 January 2000 address at the 2000 TRICARE
Conference identified DOD's ``big four'' quality of life issues: health
care, pay and compensation, retirement benefits and housing. He failed
to identify ``perstempo,'' which DOD defines as the time an individual
service member spends away from their home station. NMFA believes this
is a critical issue facing military families today. Perstempo is driven
by the scaled down size of the services due to budget constraints
coupled with an increase in overseas mission requirements. Secretary of
Defense, William S. Cohen, wrote of the importance of American missions
abroad in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, 27 January 2000:
Some charge that peacekeeping deployments are depleting
military morale. Admittedly, troops can't train for a major
theater war responsibility while deployed in Bosnia or Kosovo.
But they gain valuable experience and leadership skills when
deployed there, and quickly shift their training focus once
back at home station. If improved retention rates for these
deployed units are an indicator, morale actually goes up when
the troops see that they can make a difference in places such
as Tuzla and Urosevac.
But, what about their families? A deployment that affects hundreds
of soldiers disrupts thousands of family members. Based on data
collected by the Military Family Resource Center (MFRC) in 1999, more
than 630,00 service members were the parents of 1.2 million children.
We are a young family force: 86 percent of those children were under
the age of 14. The Army has reported that approximately 75,000 soldiers
have served in Bosnia since 1995. That means that more than 125,000
children have had a parent deployed to Bosnia for anywhere from six
months to a year. Time away from the family cannot be made up in a two-
week block leave. How do you make up for months of not reading at
night, going over homework or just talking to your children? Children
affected by each deployment also see the deployment's effects on the
spouse who is left to play single parent. Some children are left
without either parent when the single parent or dual military parents
deploy. Education research indicates that there is a direct correlation
between parental involvement and the educational success of children.
Is it fair that we are handicapping a generation of our children by
routinely deploying their parents? Certainly, servicemembers understand
deploying is part of their profession but not on such a continuous
basis.
Secretary Rudy de Leon, Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and
Readiness, in his written testimony of March 15 before the House Armed
Services Committee, Military Personnel Subcommittee stated, ``The
number and frequency of deployments are increasing at a time when the
size and permanent forward presence of the armed forces is declining.''
In other words, we are doing more with less. We cannot continue to do
more with less. We either need to do less with less, or do more with
more; but this more with less is going to destroy the fabric of our
military families.
Family Support
As operations, deployments, and training missions continue at a
high pace, the military family's lifeline--its community--feels the
strain. Family support services are important even to an installation
not harried by a high perstempo. 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 both installation Youth Services and the chaplains provide
meaningful activities for many military youth, especially in the
vulnerable preadolescent years. In situations where the strain of the
mission increases, family services become essential.
As we have testified in previous years, NMFA remains concerned that
some of the programs military families need most are not given the
resources to match the demand:
New Parent Support Program
The New Parent Support Program's funding continues to fluctuate,
despite its proven successes in giving young families the tools and
education they need and decreasing the probability of family violence.
In testimony, the Chief of Naval Personnel, Vice Admiral N.R. Ryan, Jr.
called the program the Navy's ``primary child abuse prevention
initiative providing early intervention home visitations that are
designed to promote healthy functioning families, child development,
and positive parent-child interactions.'' Because the New Parent
Support Program remains one of the best and most productive family
programs, NMFA urges that it be fully funded for all installations.
Overseas Mental Health Counselors
NMFA was concerned to hear in late 1999 about the loss of contract
civilian mental health counselors at installations in Germany. Although
DOD and the services have promised to restore counseling positions,
NMFA is puzzled at how such an important asset could have been pulled
out of overseas communities where resources ``outside the gate'' are
limited, especially for adolescents and family counseling.
Deployment Family Support
When whole units--whether active duty, Reserve or Guard--deploy
overseas to places like Kosovo and Bosnia much care is taken to build a
strong support network for the families left behind. The Navy, with its
Ombudsman program, and the Marine Corps, with its Key Volunteers, have
strong networks of support for the families of their service members on
ships. The Army's Family Support Groups provide significant help and
links to commands for families in the deployed units.
The services have worked hard to improve communication links
between deployed members and their families. Almost every deployed
service member now has access to email, and families without their own
computers can communicate via email at family centers and installation
libraries. When the 1st Cavalry Division deployed to Bosnia from Fort
Hood, Texas, the division set up a family support center with video
conferencing, email, and dedicated support personnel. Families from the
division could access base support services, communicate with the
deployed members, and get prompt answers to questions ranging from
``Why is the email down to the unit?'' to ``How do I get a doctor's
appointment?'' to ``Where can I get help dealing with a rebellious
teenager?'' Units deploying subsequently have followed this model
because they saw the link between high quality family support programs
and the readiness of the service members who are deployed. Knowing that
their families are well taken care of enables the servicemembers to
focus on their mission.
Most of these wonderful support services, however, are not budgeted
for in the cost of contingency operations. Too often, installations
must find the money out of their own operations and maintenance
accounts to set up the extra family programs needed when some of their
units deploy. Since quality family support contributes to the readiness
of the mission, NMFA believes that the cost of family support should be
factored into the cost of the mission and appropriate amounts budgeted.
An installation should not have to choose between providing support
programs for families of deployed units and fixing the leaking water
pipes in its buildings.
Reserve Family Support
Reserve and Guard units now shoulder a large burden for many of the
U.S. missions abroad, carrying out tasks that were the sole purview of
active duty troops just a few years ago. Providing support for Reserve
Component families is a critical readiness issue; however, current
active duty family support programs may not always meet the needs of
Reserve Component families. Although, the perceived danger of
deployment is a factor that compounds the stress for all families,
Reserve Component families must often handle that stress without the
support network available to active duty families.
Because of geographic dispersion, Reserve Component families often
lack the support system of peers they can turn to for commiseration and
assistance. Many Reservist Component members may be assigned to a unit
located several states away from their homes; their families then face
the stress and the ``ambiguities'' of deployment not only without the
installation support services such as family centers, chaplain
services, and military relief societies that are available to active
duty families, but also without the close-by support of other families
in the unit. A website and a toll-free number can provide the link to
vital information and logistical assistance Reserve Component families
need, but cannot substitute for the community support system found at a
military installation.
What about the ``ones and twos?''
Although family support programs have generally worked well when
whole units are deployed, NMFA continues to hear from the families of
the ``ones and twos''--the active duty and Reserve Component members
deployed singly or in small groups or who are assigned overseas for a
year-long unaccompanied tour. These families often do not have a
readily available support network. The lucky families are those living
on an installation, with an ongoing relationship with a local unit,
when the servicemember deploys or leaves for an unaccompanied tour.
Many others, however, find themselves isolated in a civilian community.
Families have also noted the disparities between the support
offered for the some of the ``high profile'' assignments--the places in
the news--as opposed to the places where servicemembers have gone for
decades. Servicemembers deployed in support of the Bosnia operation,
for example, are allowed free ``morale calls'' via the military's DSN
lines. On the other hand, servicemembers on unaccompanied tours to
Korea must pay for their phone calls home.
New Missions, New Support Strategies
As the demands of missions change, the type of family support
available must also change. In the Kosovo operation last spring
aircrews could leave their home bases in Europe to fly their missions
over Kosovo and often return home in time for breakfast or to drop the
children off at school. Although some families could deal with the
situation by joking about its surreal aspects--``Pick up some milk on
your way home from the war, honey''--the strain was evident on families
so close to the action. Special support services will be needed in
future operations like this for the children who watch their parents go
off daily to fight a war that is featured on the 24-hour news channels,
for the schools who must educate these children in the midst of the
tensions engendered by the conflict, and for the parents, both in the
sky and on the ground, who must hold the family together.
Military Family Financial Issues--It's More than Food Stamps!
The military's family support programs are especially valuable for
the young families who must handle the ups and downs of the military
way of life while far from home, often for the first time. NMFA thanks
the Congress for its support last year for some of the most vulnerable
of military families--those who lose their benefits in the Women,
Infants and Children Program (WIC) simply because the military
transfers them to an overseas assignment. The Congressional mandate
that DOD begin a supplemental program similar to WIC and the initial
funding, although small, were greeted with joy by the families who
didn't know they'd lost access to WIC until they arrived overseas; by
the volunteers in the military spouse clubs who had been raising money
to buy formula for infants in their communities; by the family center
personnel who had to tell families who came to apply for WIC that ``we
don't have WIC here;'' and by the hospital personnel who saw too many
babies not getting the nutritional food they needed. Unfortunately, all
those folks are still waiting for WIC. DOD has not yet implemented the
program nor given the people in the field any indication of when it
will be implemented. We urge the Congress to give DOD a deadline for
implementation and the funding necessary to provide the program's
nutritional counseling and healthy foods to the families who need it
the most.
Losing access to WIC just when a family is most vulnerable, during
a military relocation overseas, only heightens the precarious financial
position of many junior servicemembers. Headlines about ``military
families on food stamps'' have focused attention on the financial
plight of young military families; however, NMFA hopes that those who
would seek to help these families will look beyond the headlines to
address the complexities of the issue. Many families qualify for food
stamps because they live in government housing and only cash income is
counted when determining eligibility.
Frequent Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves, while creating a
hardship for most military families, hurt the junior families
disproportionately. Service members have not seen an increase in their
per diem and mileage allowance for PCS moves since 1986. Gasoline
prices are at 20-year highs, only intensifying the thirteen-year lack
of inflation adjustments for military move costs. A study conducted
recently by DOD found that junior enlisted members were only reimbursed
$0.27 on the dollar and the overall average for all ranks was only
$0.62. Given that most military families move every two to three years,
this financial burden can take a toll on a family's financial well-
being. Any move brings with it some emotional hardship, new schools,
friends, jobs, and neighborhoods, but only military moves add such a
consistent financial hardship as well.
A variety of other factors place and keep military families on the
financial edge:
--out-of-pocket housing costs
--transportation expenses, especially when living far from the
installation
--the consequences of recruiting someone with a family and then
expecting them to live on a salary more appropriate for a
single person in the barracks
--a lack of good financial education and counseling which can make
soldiers vulnerable to consumer scams, unable to budget or make
the best spending and saving decisions
--an operations tempo in which deployments or the threat of
deployment make it difficult for the military spouse to juggle
child care and a job
--poor access to affordable credit.
``Fixing'' these military families' financial situations won't be
easy, although the pay raises in the pipeline and DOD's proposed
improvements in the funding of the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
will help. But, as we have testified in past years, the problems that
put these families on the financial edge and created the recruiting and
retention crisis did not appear overnight and won't disappear overnight
either.
Housing
The military services--and military families--continue to regard
housing as one of the quality of life pillars for military families. In
testimony this year, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and
Environment) Mahlon Apgar stated:
No single quality of life issue is as important as adequate
housing for soldiers and families . . .. Families need more
than ``quarters;'' they need a place to call ``home'' in
communities that are safe, supportive and attractive.
Although they still look to the installation as their source of
``community,'' most military families stationed in the United States
find housing in civilian neighborhoods off the installation either by
choice or because the type of housing they need is not available on the
installation. They depend on the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to
acquire quality, affordable housing in safe neighborhoods (with good
schools) at a reasonable commute from the installation. NMFA thanks the
Congress for the additional funding added to the BAH in fiscal year
2000. We also applaud DOD's request for funding in fiscal year 2001 to
finally lower average out-of-pocket costs to the 15 percent standard
mandated by Congress, as well as its additional request to fund further
increases in BAH to eliminate out-of-pocket expenses totally by 2005.
The elimination of servicemembers' out-of-pocket expenses for off-
base housing in the United States is one of a three-pronged initiative
established by the Secretary of Defense to improve military housing.
The other components of the Secretary's plan are to increase the
Department's reliance on the private sector through privatization and
to maintain military construction funding.
Since the law creating the housing privatization authorities was
passed in 1996, NMFA has regarded the use of privatization as a useful
means of eliminating the backlog of construction of new housing and
renovation of substandard housing. In 1998, the Department noted that
about 200,000 of its military-owned family housing units were old, had
not been adequately maintained and modernized, and needed to be
renovated or replaced. DOD estimated that it would need $20 billion and
more than 30 years to eliminate the backlog using traditional military
construction funding. Using the privatization authorities could help
DOD reduce the backlog by its target date of 2010. Although it sees the
need for the infusion of private capital to improve military housing,
NMFA has watched the early privatization efforts with some questions:
--How long will it take before families will move into some of this
housing? The past year has been encouraging as large projects
at Lackland AFB, TX and Fort Carson, CO were turned over to
developers and new housing opened to families.
--Where are the standards for oversight of the development process?
--How is community input sought and used in the development process?
--How are the projects' effects on community services such as schools
evaluated? Are school facility and funding needs addressed
early in the development of the plan?
--Who makes sure maintenance is performed satisfactorily?
--What is the role of the installation commander?
--Who makes sure money is available for long-term maintenance and
upgrades (i.e., the roof that needs to be replaced in 20
years)?
--Who is the advocate for family members living in the housing?
--Where is the priority for preserving the things that make a
``military community'' strong when the military no longer
``owns'' the houses in that community?
Last year, NMFA was concerned when services dropped their requests
for most military construction funds for military housing in CONUS in
favor of a focus on privatization. This year, however, NMFA is pleased
that the third prong in DOD's housing initiative, military
construction, is much healthier. Some areas, either because of the
location, the local economy, or unique needs of the installation, will
continue to require military construction funds to build or renovate
family housing. It is imperative that these areas receive the funding
they need and that the Department move at a quicker pace to identify
the prime sites for privatization and request military construction
funds for others.
We also hope that the ongoing maintenance and repair needs are not
ignored. NMFA continues to hear from families about long waits for
routine maintenance calls, poorly done repairs, and unsafe conditions
in some housing. Families ask that maintenance accounts not be
continually raided to fund other programs. They know that delayed
maintenance often creates just a more expensive problem to fix later
on--and they do not want to be the ones to have to live with (or in!)
that problem.
Education
Military children are our nation's children. Whether they attend
Department of Defense schools or civilian school districts, they
deserve a quality education. Today's military force is an educated
force and a family force. Military members have high expectations for
their children's education. More are accepting or rejecting
assignments, or even deciding to leave the military, based on
perceptions about the quality of education their children will receive
at prospective duty stations.
NMFA thanks this Subcommittee for its support of schools operated
by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA). DODEA's
initiative to implement full-day kindergarten and reduced class size in
the primary grades is important in ensuring that children educated in
DOD schools are ready to learn in any school district in the United
States. Military parents had consistently listed full-day kindergarten
for overseas schools as a top educational priority; they are grateful
that someone has responded to their concerns.
More than 75 percent of military children attend civilian public
schools. NMFA also is grateful to this Subcommittee for its support of
quality education for these children, and their civilian classmates.
Congressional appropriations for the DOD Impact Aid Supplemental
Funding helps those districts most heavily-impacted by the military
presence. We also thank the Subcommittee for the $5 million for fiscal
year 2000 to address special education needs in Hawaii as well as for
the $10.5 million in DOD Quality of Life enhancements to enable several
civilian schools which almost exclusively educate military children to
make necessary facility repairs and renovations.
Military Family Health Care Concerns
NMFA knows that health care is a key quality of life issue
impacting military families. We were very encouraged by the following
remarks by General Shelton at the 2000 TRICARE Conference on 31 January
2000,
This year we've got to address health care . . . The bottom
line is that our service members and their families must be
able to count on their health care system. Our fighting men and
women on the frontlines of freedom need to know that their
families are being taken care of.
Inequities:
While DOD considers TRICARE a program providing a uniform benefit,
there are certain gross inequities occurring within the system. The 12
region structure, consisting of seven contracts with five different
contractors, contains inherent flaws that foster inconsistency in basic
services such as appointments, claims, and enrollment.
Because there is a variation in the TRICARE Prime services provided
in each area (the scope of care provided by Military Treatment
Facilities and the private sector), military families must relearn the
system with each permanent change of station (PCS) move. They have to
determine how to make an appointment, what percentage of their care can
be provided at a military treatment facility (MTF) versus the portion
of care that must be performed by civilian network providers. For those
fortunate enough to receive care within the MTF system, care is
provided without copayments. However, for those who must receive care
from civilian network providers, a copayment is required. NMFA is
pleased that the DOD proposed budget addresses this inequity by
removing copayments for active duty beneficiaries enrolled in Prime.
TRICARE Standard and Extra beneficiaries do not routinely receive
any information, either a TRICARE Handbook or information from the
contractor. Therefore, these beneficiaries are even less likely to know
the ``rules of the road'' in a new region. In addition, without a
network provider handbook, Standard beneficiaries are unable to
determine who is in the network to take advantage of the TRICARE Extra
discounts for BOTH the government and the beneficiary.
The lack of portability and reciprocity places an undue burden on
beneficiaries, resulting in the disruption of care to the most mobile
of all Americans, the military. At the 2000 TRICARE Conference, General
Shelton stated that the TRICARE requirement forcing family members to
reenroll every time they change regions ``adds to their stress and
frustration, and often times, their workload.''
The 12-region system results in significant variations in the
delivery as well as administration of benefits throughout the nation.
The crux of the problem is that contracts vary between regions. In
order to provide a uniform benefit, there should be one contract that
specifies the benefit and apply that contract to all regions.
Currently, there is one operations manual to administer the program and
seven different versions of contractors' policy manuals dealing with
issues such as claims processing.
DOD should define the benefit as well as a uniform set of policies
for contractors to use to provide the benefit. For example, DOD should
determine when TRICARE beneficiaries need to obtain pre-authorization
and for what procedures--not the contractor. DOD should decide what
benefits will be paid for and when--not the contractor. TRICARE is
DOD's health care plan. It does not belong to the contractors.
TRICARE Prime Remote
Perhaps the greatest inequity in service occurs for those families
remotely assigned who do not fall within the radius of a MTF catchment
area. These families not only face the additional hardships of
assignments far from the support services of military bases; the only
option they have is the more expensive Standard fee for service option.
It is difficult in certain areas for remotely assigned families to
locate providers who participate in the TRICARE plan. For those
families assigned to rural areas, it is an additional hardship when
there are few providers practicing medicine in their area. What are
these families to do if there are few specialists in their area and the
physicians refuse to participate in the TRICARE system? We continue to
hear many stories from areas where the only specialist such as a
pediatrician in town refuses to treat TRICARE beneficiaries.
Even in populated regions, there continues to be difficulties in
areas with few military beneficiaries, the ``ones and twos.'' These
families tell us they often face claims processing difficulties as
their providers, unfamiliar with the TRICARE claims processing system
find the process tedious and time consuming, often resulting in
additional effort on the part of the provider to process a claim where
the reimbursement is limited.
Physicians have told NMFA that reimbursement from TRICARE was less
than their overhead and as a result they were losing money. In some
areas, it is difficult for primary care physicians to refer TRICARE
beneficiaries to specialists who also participate in TRICARE. In
addition, physicians report difficulty in obtaining contractor approval
for tests such as magnetic resource imagery (MRIs). Attempts to obtain
authorization for care result in multiple long distance calls taking a
great deal of their office personnel's time to get approvals.
NMFA is extremely pleased to note DOD's plan to provide a Prime
remote benefit for these families. This will do a great deal to resolve
a gross inequity in the provision of an equitable health care benefit
and hopefully will relieve many of the concerns of military families.
However, NMFA is anxiously waiting for DOD to inform us of what
benefits will be provided as TRICARE Prime Remote.
TRICARE Business Practices
Inefficiencies in TRICARE business practices directly influence
military family members' quality of life. Errors resulting from a
complex claims processing system impact beneficiaries who spend an
exorbitant amount of time attempting to perform claims resolution
trying to correct bills for services that are supposed to be covered as
a TRICARE benefit.
NMFA is grateful for the congressionally mandated standard of 95
percent of claims processed within 30 days. However, we would like to
note that the standard is for ``clean claims'' (error free) and it is
the contractor who determines the error standard. It is the latter
group that causes military spouses to inform us that they expend hours
on the telephone with practitioners and with contractors' claims
processing staff. This causes undue stress on the part of the
beneficiary, especially for the families with multiple claims.
Military families deserve a health care system that has made an
investment in state of the art internet technology. Not only does the
antiquated system result in claims headaches for beneficiaries; it also
presents a disincentive for physicians to participate in TRICARE
networks. NMFA is concerned that the cost of claims processing exceeds
industry standards, resulting in scarce resources being diverted to an
obsolete system rather than providing care to our beneficiaries.
What is perhaps the most egregious problem brought to our attention
is that military families are being turned over to collection agencies
for non-payment of disputed TRICARE bills. This causes great distress
to our families as it is particularly offensive not only to their
values system, but because a letter of indebtedness can mean the end of
a military member's career. We are especially alarmed as families tell
us they are paying the bills to avoid a bad credit rating, either
because they do not realize that DOD should be covering these bills or
they are exhausted from dealing with the maze associated with the
complex claims processing system.
Appointments
Military families have told us that the military providers are
excellent, ``once you get in the door.'' The TRICARE system lacks
customer service focus and is difficult for families to navigate a
complex delivery system. General Shelton has said,
Many service members' attitudes toward TRICARE stem from
their experiences on the telephone . . .. Our service members
and their families should not be forced to wait on the phone
and listen to recordings for 20 minutes just to secure an
appointment.
Access to the system has been a chronic problem even for Prime
enrollees who have been guaranteed appointments that meet access
standards. There is a lack of consistency in the appointment process
not only between regions, but within regions as well. In some regions,
family members call either the contractor's central scheduling, the MTF
scheduling, or the clinic directly for an appointment, often not
knowing which call will reward them with the appointment they need.
NMFA concurs with the Government Accounting Office (GAO) that
families need a health care program that is more user friendly, less
complex, more efficient, and business-like. In written testimony before
the House Armed Services Committee on 15 March, 2000 GAO states that
the
. . . two most pressing issues--the difficulty of obtaining
appointments for care; and the need to pay claims for care
provided by civilian providers in an accurate, timely and
efficient manner. Improving services in just these two
dimensions would likely go a long way toward increasing
beneficiary satisfaction.
We believe that beneficiary satisfaction would be greatly improved
if DOD focused on its operational problems and business practices.
These problems are not unique to the military health system (MHS), as
they have been addressed successfully in the private sector. Again, we
concur with the GAO who has stated on 15 March 2000, in their written
testimony before the House Armed Services Committee,
. . . the military health system continues to be plagued with
operational problems, which are a source of beneficiaries ``and
providers'', discontent. Problems such as accessing
appointments and processing claims, while significant, are not
insurmountable. Increased management attention from DOD could
go a long way toward correcting these and other deficiencies,
and thereby increasing beneficiary satisfaction.
Custodial Care
We are grateful to the Subcommittee for including in last year's
Defense Appropriations Act, a definition of custodial care that meets
industry standards to provide medically necessary care. However, last
year's provisions have yet to be fully implemented across all regions
and the program is moving forward slowly. If not for the intervention
of Congress, DOD would have continued to pursue its unique definition
of custodial care. We strongly and respectfully request that this
Subcommittee reiterate the will of Congress on providing medically
necessary care in this year's Appropriations Act. We urge oversight by
Congress to ensure that DOD implements this policy and provides this
care. Please consider that these are the families who bear the burden
of caring for the chronically ill, in the direst need of medical
assistance, and have been forced by DOD policy to enroll in Medicaid.
Where is the equitable benefit when families are transitioned from
their federal employer's health care benefit to a state based welfare
program? Our families deserve a plan consistent with other federal
employees' health benefits programs.
Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMPs)
The TRICARE system has difficulty meeting the complex medical needs
of its beneficiaries. Many families are told that they cannot enroll
their EFMP children in Prime, because specialty care is often not
available at the MTF or via the network. Families must then rely on the
more expensive fee for service Standard option, when they would prefer
remaining in the managed care option. As a result of being shunted into
the Standard option, these families often cannot get access to military
medical care for routine problems, as the system takes Prime enrollees
first. A family member, who has been forced to keep their child in
Standard to receive specialty treatment for a cardiac condition, is
then unable to take that child to the MTF for treatment for an earache
because Prime enrollees receive priority for care.
As Standard beneficiaries, these families are subject to
deductibles, often required to pay for treatment prior to service. Even
with initial outlays of out of pocket costs, there is often no
assurance that the service will be covered until the explanation of
benefits (EOB) arrives. Participation in the Standard option results in
families being liable for the 15 percent above Champus Maximum
Allowable Costs (CMAC). This imposes an additional financial burden, as
families must obtain a supplemental policy, which may have a
preexisting condition clause precluding the beneficiary from
participating in the plan.
Non-availability Statements (NAS)
Current policy regarding non-availability statements has a direct
impact on military families' quality of life. For those who have chosen
the Standard option, they are often forced back into the MTFs for
treatment. The NAS denies Standard beneficiaries, those who have chosen
a fee for service option, those who have chosen to pay greater out of
pocket expenses, a guarantee of one of the most critical factors in
quality care, the guarantee to continuity of care
Travel
It is a gross inequity when Prime beneficiaries find that specialty
care is not available within their MTF or local network and as a
result, families are often forced to travel great distances at their
own expense to receive specialty care. These families not only have to
deal with the crisis of the illness of their loved one, they must also
bear the burden of travel expenses, because the care that is to be
provided as a benefit is not available within their MTF or network.
Some examples of undue travel burdens that we have heard from
military families are:
--Fort Polk, LA to Fort Sam Houston, TX (7 hours one way) or Lackland
AFB, TX (8 hours one way)
--Camp Lejeune, NC to Newport, VA (4 hours one way) or to Bethesda,
MD (6 hours one way)
--Fort Bragg, NC to Walter Reed (4 hours one way)
--Port Hueneme, CA to Camp Pendelton, CA (3.5 hours) or to San Diego,
CA (4.5 hours one way)
Retirees
When military retirees turn 65 (Medicare eligible); they lose all
of their DOD funded TRICARE health care benefits other than ``space
available'' care at military treatment facilities (MTFs). Many military
members and their families believe they were promised ``free health
care for life.'' The post cold war downsizing of MTFs has resulted in a
smaller MHS with fewer military medical personnel and fewer hospitals
and clinics. Because priority for care is provided to Prime enrollees,
the amount of space available care is decreasing for the over 65
retirees. Other Medicare eligible Federal employees continue to be
covered by their employer sponsored health insurance (FEHBP) as a
supplement to Medicare. NMFA considers this a major inequity in the
provision of benefits.
General Shelton has stated in written testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee on 8 February 2000,
Let me stress that the Joint Chief's commitment to quality
healthcare for all military members, including retirees,
remains firm. Keeping our promise of ensuring quality
healthcare for military retirees is not only the right thing to
do, it also is a pragmatic decision because it sends a strong
signal to all those considering a career in uniform.
The sons and daughters of those who have served, typically
potential recruits, have been discouraged to pursue a military career.
These potential recruits see the breach of faith that has occurred with
our retirees who are their grandparents, parents, or other family
members. As long as our society permits DOD not to honor its health
care promises to our retiree population, it will continue to
demonstrate that promises from the past are not honored, nor will the
promises made to them be fulfilled.
DOD is conducting four programs to address access to health
services for the over 65 population. Three programs provide health care
services: Medicare Subvention (known as TRICARE Senior Prime), the
FEHBP Demonstration, and the TRICARE Senior Supplement Demonstration
(TSSD). The fourth program is provision of a mail order and retail
pharmacy benefit called the Pharmacy Pilot Project. NMFA is very
concerned for the welfare of our retirees who have served their nation
well. We say enough of tests! Our retirees are dying at a rate of 3,784
per month! The veterans of World War II and Korea do not have time to
wait for tests. They did not hesitate when our country called them to
service. Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to our military retirees
for our freedom and it is time that we paid back that debt.
Reservist Family Health Care Issues
Reserve Component families must make decisions regarding their
health care benefits, which quite frankly is confusing enough without
the stress of their loved one about to be placed in harm's way, or
without the experience of working a complex system. Since the health
care options afforded to them are relative to the length of duty and
the majority of orders are for less than 180 days, most are eligible
only for the Standard option. Even if their assignment is for greater
than 180 days and unless they live within an MTF catchment area, they
face the same Prime access challenges as remotely assigned active duty
families. Because of their location, they cannot benefit from visits to
TRICARE service centers or MTFs for information.
It is a difficult decision to change providers as they may have to
sever their relationship with their current physician if they are not a
TRICARE provider. They may have a family member currently under
treatment with a trusted physician. Families go through a great deal of
angst as they have relationships and trust of their physicians. It is
difficult to disrupt care.
Reserve Component families face logistical issues similar to
remotely assigned active duty families as they attempt to locate
providers that participate in TRICARE. Claims processing poses a
particular problem for this group who are not familiar with working the
complex system. There are financial considerations associated with the
health care benefit decision. The member's employer may discontinue
paying their portion of the reservist premium. This leaves the
beneficiary with COBRA rates that are 102 percent of the premium.
Copays and deductibles will apply if the family is in Standard and
deductibles maybe waived at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.
However, if they are not waived, this can pose an additional financial
hardship to a family that has already met the deductibles required by
their civilian insurance. Pre-existing conditions can prevent
participation in a supplemental plan. In addition, these decisions are
being made with a potential loss of income.
Because Reserve units often draw their members from several states,
their leadership often faces the challenge of providing the correct
information for beneficiaries in several different TRICARE regions.
These families need timely accurate information in order to make a
difficult decision with far reaching implications.
So, how are military families unique?
Yes, military families of today are unique. While our modern
society is a mobile one, how many families move every two years for
twenty to thirty years of their lives? While fathers and mothers in
civilian business travel often, how many are gone for six months at a
clip to places most Americans can't pronounce or find on a world atlas?
While all parents are concerned about their children's health care, how
many have to worry whether or not their family can access timely care
while on a submarine in the depths of the ocean? While modern parents
juggle jobs and time with their children, how many struggle to help
with homework before going off to fight a war that night? While others
are in occupations that can be life threatening, how many have to fit
their children with gas masks?
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator.
Senator Inouye. All I can say is amen to you, Ms. Raezer.
Ms. Raezer. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
The next witness is Chief Master Sergeant Mark Olanoff,
Legislative Director, The Retired Enlisted Association.
STATEMENT OF MARK H. OLANOFF, CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT,
U.S. AIR FORCE (RETIRED), LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION
Master Sergeant Olanoff. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is
good to see you again. Senator Inouye, The Retired Enlisted
Association (TREA) would like to thank you for co-sponsoring
Senator Reid's concurrent receipt of military retired pay and
Veterans Administration (VA) disability, and hope that you can
work for passage this year.
And, Senator, you probably stole a lot of our thunder this
morning with your support of military retiree health care, but
I am going to touch on a few issues that we believe are
important for the next fiscal year. We are requesting funding
for comprehensive health care fixes for our aging Medicare-
eligible military retirees, who were promised free lifetime
health care for 20 years or more service.
With 3,784 military retirees dying each month, these men
and women who drop from the military health care at age 65
cannot wait much longer for a true health care benefit. As our
members say, ``I will not be here to use the health care after
all of the tests, and I think Congress is waiting for us to
die.''
Like pay and compensation last year, this is the year of
health care. Our members have mobilized grassroots campaigns to
fight for their promised health care both in bills in the House
and in the Senate which promise lifetime health care to
retirees and to access the Federal Employee Health Plan. The
momentum to do something for military retirees is now. They
cannot wait any longer.
General Shelton went on record in November 1999 to the
Senate Armed Services Committee to say that the Joint Chiefs
are committed to supporting DOD's efforts to improve both the
fact and perception of military health care for the
beneficiaries. Those who serve or those who have served deserve
quality medical care. The administration failed to accommodate
those recommendations in the fiscal year 2001 budget, so it is
up to your committee, Senator, to do that.
Access to pharmaceuticals is a great concern to Medicare-
eligible military retirees due to the cost and increased usage.
TREA requests expansion of the base realignment and closure
(BRAC) pharmacy benefit nationwide to provide a national mail
order pharmacy benefit at an $8 co-pay, or a 20 percent retail
pharmacy benefit for all military retirees 65 or older. If
considered, please do not include the enrollment fees or
deductibles that represent a significant out-of-pocket expense
for enlisted retirees, whose average retired pay is under
$16,000 per year. Expand the TRICARE Senior Prime nationwide by
January 1, 2001, and test for a Medicare fee for service
benefit.
Chairman Warner, of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
recently introduced legislation, the Military Health Care
Improvements Act of 2000, to provide the BRAC pharmacy benefit
to all Medicare-eligible military retirees. His bill also
extends the current demonstration programs until 2005. Further,
the Budget Committee included a provision for a $400 million
military retiree health care reserve fund to provide additional
funding. We ask that you completely fund Chairman Warner's
bill.
The Retired Enlisted Association recommends full funding
for the Defense Health Program, including TRICARE. TRICARE
funding should reflect the number of beneficiaries eligible for
military health benefits, especially those requiring skilled
nursing care or custodial care. Make TRICARE Standard a more
attractive benefit by eliminating the 115 percent billing limit
when TRICARE Standard is the second payer, and reducing the
TRICARE catastrophic cap for retirees from the current $7,500
to $3,000, and eliminating pre-authorization requirements for
TRICARE Standard beneficiaries.
Today, let us not forget about the medical needs of this
Nation's aging retirees. They did not forget about this
Nation's needs during their honorable service for this country.
Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye, again, The Retired
Enlisted Association thanks you for what you have done in the
past and we appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark H. Olanoff
The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA) would like to thank the
chairman and distinguished members of the Senate Defense Appropriations
subcommittee for the opportunity to come before you to discuss funding
issues as it relates to our members needs. We extend our appreciation
for the funding levels last year as it pertains to health care,
retirement benefits, and pay. In addition, we are requesting increased
levels to meet the needs of military retirees, guard and reserve as
well as active duty and their dependents.
TREA has 110,000 members and auxiliary representing all branches of
the Armed Services, retired, active duty, guard and reserve whose
continued concern over constrained funding levels for the Department of
Defense for military personnel issues impacts their daily lives from
the healthcare they receive at a military facility to the retirement
check they receive in the mail. Medical care, adequate pay, inflation
protected retired pay, survivor benefit plan, concurrent receipt and
commissaries are concerns of the entire military community.
health care
With bases closing, military treatment facilities (MTFs) downsizing
and demographics changing, the need to provide access to health care to
our ever growing number of aging retirees creates anxiety with those
that ``were promised lifetime health care.'' The fact remains that DOD
has a responsibility to those men and women who have served in the
uniformed services to provide a medical benefit to those retired
military beneficiaries that were promised health care. The demographics
have changed from the 1950's when retirees were only 7 percent of the
military health care beneficiary population, therefore Congress needs
to provide adequate funding to create a plan to administer a health
care benefit to retirees. National expansion of the sites and increased
number of enrollees in the current Federal Employees Health Benefit
Plan (FEHBP) 65+Test program is needed and the step in the right
direction to testing the viable health care options for retirees access
to medical care in the future. As this committee is aware, this is only
one part of the matrix for accessing health care, expansion of the
current BRAC pharmacy benefit and the current test of Medicare
subvention will help offer a complete medical benefit for Medicare
eligible military retirees.
Pharmacy: Pharmacy benefit for Medicare eligible retirees
We are requesting this committee to extend the BRAC (Base
Realignment and Closure) pharmacy benefit to include all Medicare
eligible military retirees regardless of where they reside. The BRAC
pharmacy program provides a National Mail Order Pharmacy (NMOP) benefit
at a cost of an $8 co-payment for a 30-90 day prescription, as well as
a 20 percent charge for retail pharmaceuticals at TRICARE network
pharmacies.
The April 29, 1999 DOD Pharmacy Benefit Report in section 2
``Pharmacy Redesign Approach and Results'' subsection 2.3 estimated the
cost for a NMOP and retail pharmacy benefit for 1.4 military retirees
over age 65 at $400 million.
TREA was concerned after Public Law 105-261 sec. 723 (DOD pharmacy
redesign) was passed, DOD met with military associations in meetings to
discuss the pharmacy redesign. In January 1999, all military
associations were dropped out of DOD discussions. It was not until
August 1999, did DOD propose the Pharmacy Pilot Program to begin
enrollment in April 2000, not the required date of October 1, 1999.
The proposal included the BRAC pharmacy benefit with a $500
enrollment fee per couple. The high enrollment fee would indeed skew
the number of participants in Fleming, KY and Okeechobee, FL, simply
because those who have high usage rates of pharmaceuticals would be the
only ones that would participate, therefore increasing the overall
enrollment cost in the future. Also, this could jeopardize the current
BRAC pharmacy benefit that has no enrollment fee, but the same benefits
as the Pharmacy Pilot Program with a NMOP and a 20 percent retail
pharmacy network benefit.
TREA with support of other Military associations went to Congress
to request a re-evaluation of the pilot program. In response, Congress
directed DOD to come up with a different proposal to submit to them
changing the payment structure of the pharmacy program. On November 17,
Dr. Sue Bailey, Asst. Secretary for Health Affairs for DOD, met with
TREA, TROA, NMFA, NAUS, NCOA, AUSA, and FRA to state that the Pilot
Pharmacy Program would not change and would be implemented in April
2000.
The $500 per year for a couple or $800 when expected co-payments
are included, the new Pharmacy initiative represents a significant out
of pocket expense for enlisted retirees whose average retired pay is
under $16,000 per year. For those retirees 65 and older that can access
a BRAC pharmacy program now, those that based their pharmaceutical
needs on the MTF, only 17 percent of that population access the NMOP
benefit currently. Also, If you have a pharmacy benefit through a
Medicare HMO, employer sponsored health care, or spouse, then you
cannot access the BRAC benefit.
Again, I cannot stress the concern over the access of
pharmaceuticals to our Medicare eligible military retirees due to cost
and increasing use of drugs for our senior citizens. We are requesting
additional funding to be allocated to expand the BRAC pharmacy benefit
to all Medicare-eligible military retirees nationwide with no
enrollment fees or deductibles. In addition, we are asking for complete
funding for a pharmacy redesign to include a complete national
formulary that addresses the drug utilization of our aging war heroes
and heroines.
FEHBP--65+ test program
In order to have a fair and accurate test, we need to provide the
opportunity for Medicare eligible military retirees to increase
enrollment in the FEHBP 65+ test for the November 2000 open enrollment
season. As we testified last year before this committee, we know that
not all military retirees will enroll in this program, but we need to
give them the option to make that choice.
TREA is urging this subcommittee to increase the number of
demonstration sites, as well as the number of enrollees eligible to
participate in the FEHBP 65+ Test effective for the November 2000 open
enrollment season. Out of the 66,000 eligible to enroll only 2,500 are
currently covered by FEHBP as of March 16, 2000. It is absolutely
necessary that we give these retirees an equitable benefit that is as
good or as equal to federal civilian retirees.
DOD did not market the program in a timely manner as seen in the
low enrollment numbers. Education and marketing by DOD was essential to
determining the future success of the FEHBP 65+ test. The marketing
timeline dates set up by the Tricare Managed Activities (TMA) office
overseeing the program were not all met. The first notification of the
program for eligible beneficiaries was via a postcard due out on July
15, which was not sent until August 15, 1999. Secondly, the ``Health
Fairs'' that were sponsored by DOD were not put in place until the
first week of November, which was a month late. These eligible
beneficiaries in these 8 test sites were not properly marketed to on
the FEHBP 65+ test program.
The three year test deterred Medicare Eligible Military Retirees
from participating in the program this year. This is a population of
beneficiaries who cannot take risks in their health care, meaning to go
into a three year test with no protection if the program ends. The
continuity of health care for this senior population is not guaranteed
in three years, therefore we request that these individual that are
both in the program or will be enrolling in the program be
grandfathered into the FEHBP 65+ test regardless of the success of the
program.
The Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act subtitle C Section
721 Demonstration Project to include certain covered beneficiaries
within Federal Employees Health Benefits Programs clearly defined the
eligibility and number of enrollees for the test program. As printed in
legislation the total number of enrollees may not exceed 66,000, this
was interpreted by the DOD as 66,000 total persons eligible to enroll
in the test program. We knew that these designated 66,000 eligible
participants would not all enroll because of the limited three year
test program. Many of these participants may have employer provided
insurance, Medicare Risk HMOs, Medigap policies, or have enrolled in
TRICARE Senior Prime as in the case of the Dover, DE program. TREA
would like to see the sites expanded nationwide and to increase the
number of participants eligible to enroll.
TREA and other military association representatives went on record
at a July 1, 1999 hearing in the House Civil Service Subcommittee
stating the above concerns of implementing a fair test. DOD
representative responded by saying that out of the 66,000 eligible
participants, 70 percent would enroll. Seeing by the current 2,500
enrollment number, we feel that our arguments on implementing a fair
test were not met. Remember that this program services a population of
beneficiaries new to FEHBP, unlike retired Federal Employees who
understand the program. It was essential that they knew how FEHBP works
as a wrap health care coverage to Medicare, as well as if there were
protections on their Medigap plans during this 3 year test. TREA feels
that by marketing to an increased number of eligible beneficiaries,
this committee will be able to have the data necessary to prove that
this is a viable program for military retirees in the future.
TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration Program
TREA would like to thank you for your support for the Tricare
Senior Prime Test program, Medicare Subvention. With the favorable
response to this program by military retirees in those six designated
test sites, TREA is asking for nation wide implementation of TRICARE
Senior Prime. Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) introduced S. 915 to make the
TRICARE Senior Prime program permanent on a phased--in basis. The bill
would expand Senior Prime to ten additional locations with full-service
military hospitals by January 1, 2001 and then across the remaining
TRICARE Prime catchment areas no later than October 1, 2002. We are
requesting that this committee provide funding to expand the Tricare
Senior Prime Test nationwide to be effective Jan. 1, 2001. The test
program terminates on December 31, 2000, we need legislative action for
fiscal year 2001 to move this program forward. In addition, Senator
John Warner (R-VA) included a provision in his bill S. 2087 to extend
the TRICARE Senior Prime Test until 2005.
Many of our Medicare-eligible retirees have received letters from
hospitals stating that ``space availability'' no longer exists or is
extremely limited due to downsizing of staff at MTFs. Allowing as many
Medicare-eligible military retirees to use Medicare at MTFs will
provide them with yet another option for health care. Though it should
be understood that this is not the complete solution to the current
problem, as it would provide health service to 33 percent of the 1.4
million retirees over 65 now, it is an important piece to solving the
whole health care dilemma for these beneficiaries.
The connotation of ``TEST'' has deterred some of our members from
enrolling in TRICARE Senior Prime, though they want to participate,
they have a lack of trust for the MTF that turned them away years ago
only to welcome them back again with no guarantees of health care past
the three year test. TREA has discussed this issue with our members
that all conclude that they support the initiative to expand this
program nationwide. I would like to add that S. 915 would give DOD the
option to provide a fee-for-service Medicare option at certain MTFs if
this would be more cost effective for those facilities.
TREA urges the support for funding from this committee to expand
TRICARE Senior Prime to a permanent program. This committee's support
would ensure expanding TRICARE Senior Prime to 10 additional sites by
January 1, 2001 and national expansion on October 1, 2002 to provide a
true health care benefit to military retirees that still reside near
MTFs.
TRICARE: Full funding for all military beneficiaries
In order to ensure the viability of TRICARE for all eligible
beneficiaries to the program, it is necessary that TRICARE funding
reflect the number of beneficiaries eligible for military health
benefits, not just the ever-declining number of people able to use the
military system the previous year. The overall Defense Health Programs
continue to have funding shortfalls, TREA urges this committee to
provide adequate funding for military readiness as well as the current
peacetime component. Our active duty members need assurances that
funding will enable access to quality health care for their families,
as well as assuring incentives for these uniformed service members to
be recruited and retained in the military. Also, the promise of this
health care benefit must be kept for our military retirees that are
over and under the age of 65.
Additional funding will be required to keep providers in TRICARE
Prime networks as our members are experiencing physicians leaving the
system. Most TRICARE managed care support contractors have negotiated
TRICARE Prime reimbursement rates with network providers that are even
lower than Medicare. Though the issue is a combination of low rates and
physicians not being paid in a timely manner due to claims processing.
TRICARE is giving physicians two disincentives for not signing up in
the networks, low payment and slow payment.
TRICARE Standard (CHAMPUS) reimbursement levels are still much to
low to attract quality health care providers. There are also
unreasonable delays in reimbursement for TRICARE Standard (CHAMPUS)
claims. Members have reported that in the more rural areas, and even
some urban areas, where providers do not depend on a military patient
base, health care providers have become increasingly unwilling to
accept TRICARE Standard (CHAMPUS) patients at all. TREA feels that de-
linking the CMAC (CHAMPUS maximum allowable charge) from the Medicare
Schedule and authorizing higher payments to providers as necessary will
improve access to quality care for our beneficiaries. The Fiscal Year
2000 Defense Authorization Act gave the Secretary of Defense the
authority to go over the current CMAC rates to bring in providers into
TRICARE networks, but TREA still see this being implemented.
The current claims processing system for TRICARE needs to be
revamped in order to reduce the hassles of claims payment for
physicians and beneficiaries. The beneficiaries end up getting caught
in the middle when they receive collection notices from their
creditors, even after they were told the claim would be paid by the
TRICARE subcontractor. The Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act
moved to allow TRICARE contractors to use electronic processing for
claims and streamlining the information flow, this being two pieces of
the claims puzzle to be fixed. DOD has the authority to bring the
claims system to ``the best industry standard'', but TREA has not seen
any proposal or plan by DOD to implement a new program. We are
requesting some accountability by this committee to the Secretary of
Defense.
As we review the TRICARE program, the issues of low reimbursement
rates and claims processing continue to be a disincentive for providers
to sign up with a Prime network or to be a provider to accept TRICARE
Standard. We will continue to work with this committee to address these
issues, as well as the shortfalls in the overall TRICARE program too.
Improvements to TRICARE Prime
TREA appreciates your support last year on improvements to TRICARE
prime, but there are aspects of the program that still need to be
improved upon. Now that all 12 TRICARE regions have been up and running
two years in June of this year, TREA requests your support to:
--Provide Tricare Prime Remote for active duty family members.
--Provide monetary reimbursement for transportation costs incurred by
beneficiaries that travel over 100 miles to attain specialty
care.
--Eliminate co-payments for active duty personnel and their family
members enrolled in TRICARE Prime.
--Provide a proposal or direct the Department of Defense to give a
proposal to create efficiencies in the payment of claims
processing. The Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act
directed DOD to create a better mechanism for claim processing,
but we have not seen any proposal or action on this issue. This
continues to be a problem throughout the TRICARE regions,
creating animosity for the program both from the beneficiaries
and the providers.
--Ensure there is adequate quality control oversight of managed care
systems (preferably by independent parties). Quality control
oversight should include monitoring of patient satisfaction,
assessment of clinical outcomes, adequate oversight of provider
networks, and adherence to access standards in addition to
utilization management.
--Ensure portability and reciprocity immediately for all
beneficiaries under TRICARE Prime. We are still hearing that
active duty family members get caught in a gap while moving
from region to region. Therefore, greater continuity within
contracts on the issue of portability and reciprocity is
essential for having a seamless transition of care upon moving
in and out of regions.
TRICARE Standard improvements
TRICARE Standard the fee-for-service option needs improvement to be
at least the quality and standard of care as provided under FEHBP
standard fee-for-service by:
--Reduce the catastrophic cap from $7,500 to $3,000.
--Eliminate the need for Non-availability statements (NAS) from
military treatment facilities and clinics and completely
eliminate the requirement for pre-authorization.
--Eliminate the 115 percent billing limit when TRICARE Standard is
second payer to other health insurance.
S. 2003--``Keep Our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act''
We ask this committee to support Senator Tim Johnson's (D-SD) bill
S. 2003, to provide FEHBP for all military retirees over and under 65.
S. 2003, requires Congress to pay for the entire cost of FEHBP for
military retirees that entered active duty service on, or prior to June
7, 1956, when a statuary law stated that military retirees over the age
of 65 could access healthcare if ``space available'' existed at the
MTFs. Also, this bill would enable military retirees that signed up for
the military after June 7, 1956 to become eligible for FEHBP, TRICARE
Standard (CHAMPUS), or TRICARE Prime upon turning age 65. Currently,
military retirees that turn 65 are dropped from military healthcare.
This bill gives them back the ``promise of lifetime healthcare'' to the
men and women who chose a 20 year career in the service not only to
honor this nation but to be provided with benefits such as healthcare
in their senior years. Finally, H.R. 3573 enables all military retirees
to have access to FEHBP effective upon retirement from twenty or more
years of active duty service.
This bill has strong grass roots support because it comes closer
than any other pending legislation before Congress to answering the
military health care promise to America's military retirees, especially
her older retirees. S. 2003 has mobilized our members in grassroots
campaigns across the nation to fight for their promised health care.
TREA asks this committee to consider the fact that military retirees
are dying at a rate of over 3,784 a month, our members say ``I will not
be here to use a health care benefit after all of these tests end, I
think Congress is waiting for us to die.'' These men and women dropped
from military health care at 65, cannot wait any longer for a true
health care benefit.
Care for the disabled
The statute which authorizes the CHAMPUS program prohibits the
military health care system from delivering ``custodial care.'' The
statute does not provide a definition of the term. Originally, DOD
interpreted the exclusion in a manner consistent with other federal
health programs and how the term is understood in the health care
industry generally. However, eleven years after Congress created the
exclusion with no change in the statute or related legislative history,
DOD reinterpreted the term ``custodial care'' in a manner which
excludes care for those with permanent disabilities from the military
health system.
DOD's definition excluded custodial care encompassing medically
complex skilled care. This approach is not found in other federal
health programs with this statutory exclusion. Further, this approach
has been rejected by Federal courts.
Changes in DOD's policy and regulations regarding the disabled were
ordered by the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act and the
Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act. As of yet, DOD has not
fully implemented these changes, nor has it provided the public an
opportunity to participate in redefining the ``custodial care'' term as
required by law. There is concern that DOD will not provide meaningful
change without further Congressional legislation and oversight.
Therefore, this committee should require DOD to redraft the definition
for custodial care consistent with other Federal health plans and
related case law.
TREA asks this committee to require DOD to, at a minimum, provide
military families with the same amount of basic health services that
are available through FEHBP. DOD should not continue to send dependents
of service men and women into welfare programs in order to relinquish
their responsibility to pay for needed skilled nursing care.
Medicare part B waiver for military retiree 65+
Retirees were counseled by MTF advisors not to enroll in Part ``B''
because they resided near MTFs and would be able to access their free
health care. These retirees should not be punished with late enrollment
fees due to the fact that the local MTF has closed. TREA is requesting
to authorize the waiver of the penalty for not enrolling in Medicare
Part ``B'' for Medicare-eligible military retirees.
TREA believes that this small investment will enable retirees to
enroll in health care programs which require Medicare Part B for
eligibility such as TRICARE Senior Prime and the Fee-for-Service Option
plans in FEHBP. Currently, we have military retirees that either are
paying a high penalty for Medicare Part B, or just cannot enroll
because it is to costly.
Retiree dental plan
The Retiree Dental plan does not provide coverage of crucial
benefits, such as bridges and crowns which are needs characteristic of
our members. Currently, the contract is not subsidized by DOD, which
would mean that increasing the benefit level now would make the program
to costly to our aging retirees. Therefore, TREA is requesting funding
for a subsidy for the DOD Retiree Dental plan's premium to expand the
benefit schedule to military retirees.
Other Personnel issues:
Survivor benefits
TREA members as well as all military retirees who have invested in
the Department of Defense sponsored Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), are
frustrated by the off-set faced by survivors of military retirees once
they reach the age of 62. Currently, a survivor of a military retiree
would receive 55 percent of a military retirees retirement pay per
month, if the retiree opted for full SBP. However, that amount will be
reduced to 35 percent once the survivor becomes eligible for Social
Security, regardless of whether or not they have earned Social Security
from their own work experience or not. With the average enlisted
retiree earning $16,000 per year, a Social Security-eligible survivor
is left with only $6,600 in income from their spouses military service.
TREA, along with several other military retiree organizations, has
worked closely with several members of Congress recently to eliminate
this off-set. Last year, the Senate included legislation, outlined in
S. 763 sponsored by Senator Thurmond, which would increase the amount a
survivor receives from the current 35 percent to 45 percent over a five
year period. TREA strongly endorsed this language and was very
disappointed when it was not included in the Fiscal Year 2000 National
Defense Authorization Act Conference Report.
We are currently working with members of both the House and Senate
Armed Services Committees to include legislation eliminating the Social
Security off-set, as defined in S. 2268 by Senator Smith of New
Hampshire. It is our hope that, finally, it will be included in the
Conference Report of the National Defense Authorization Act. We request
that this committee appropriate the resources to implement it.
Another issue of concern regarding SBP is the implementation of the
paid-up SBP program. Slated to begin in 2008, this program will allow
those retirees who have been paying into SBP for 30 years and have
reached the age of 70 to cease making payments but still keep their
spouses covered. While we applaud this program, it is TREA's desire to
move the start date up to 2003, as was called for in the original bill.
As the program is currently set up, those retirees who enrolled in SBP
when the program started in 1972 will pay far more than 30 years. We
are currently working with members of Congress to have the paid-up
program begin as early as possible. However, this committee would again
have to appropriate the necessary dollars to implement it.
Concurrent receipt
TREA would like to thank the members of this Committee who
appropriated the necessary funding last year to begin the special pay
program for the most severely disabled military retirees. This payment,
which provides certain military retirees rated 70 percent disabled or
higher by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with a special pay
ranging from $100-$300, will be of great assistance to these disabled
veterans.
TREA is grateful for this small step in addressing the fact that
military retirees are the only class of federal retirees who have their
retirement pay reduced when they receive VA disability compensation.
The legislation passed last year only addresses a fraction of disabled
retirees whose income is reduced because of their disability. We look
forward to working with the members of this committee, as well as of
the Armed Services Committee, to expand the number of retirees who can
receive this special pay. Currently, disabled retirees who have served
twenty years and those retirees who retired under early retirement
legislation at the 15 year point are not eligible for this payment.
Certainly, their inclusion is a matter of fairness and we look forward
to quickly addressing this inequity.
The ultimate goal in this issue, as defined in S. 2357, sponsored
by Senator Reid, is complete concurrent receipt of military retirement
pay and VA disability compensation.
conclusion
Due to the continued downsizing of MTF staff, base closures, and
depleting dollars for DOD health care, the Medicare Eligible Military
Retirees continue to be pushed out of military health care. We need
solutions to these problems. And as we know, there is no one solution.
Therefore, implementing options for those that live near MTFs or those
residing outside the catchment areas, through the Medicare subvention
test and FEHBP 65+ demonstration, will enable DOD to administer health
care to its aging heroes and heroines in the future. Even with full
Medicare Subvention, TRICARE Senior Prime, we will only be servicing 33
percent of the overall population of military retirees over the age of
65. Some of our retirees have employer sponsored health care, 17
percent, and 10 percent already have Medicare Risk HMOs, leaving 32
percent to 41 percent of the 1.4 million population to access FEHBP.
The number of 65 and over aged military retirees will not deplete but
continue to grow in numbers to 1.6 million in 2004.
If this committee provides funding to expand the BRAC pharmacy
benefit nationwide effective October 1, 2000, many Medicare eligible
retirees will pick up this benefit first. TREA feels that providing a
true pharmacy benefit will provide a solution to one of our members
greatest needs, costly pharmaceuticals. Therefore, this creates a cost
savings in the implementation of FEHBP and TRICARE Senior Prime in the
future because the pharmacy benefit is less costly for those retirees
that will take it as their health benefit on October 1, 2000.
Senator Stevens. You are looking at two of the oldest
veterans in the Senate. But I have got to tell you, as I listen
to the pleas for retirees, there seems to be a different
standard of what the commitment was at the time of enlistment
among different groups. I think that is up to the Armed
Services Committee to straighten that out; not us. We do not
have the capability of doing that. But I do think that some
people are saying now that the commitments that were made were
much broader than were made back in the days when we understood
them. We are not retirees. They are going to pound us in the
ground feet first. We will not get retirement benefits anyway,
I do not think so.
But when you look at the commitments that were made to the
people who did enlist and did serve, and served through to
retirement, I do not think there is a standard out there that
we understand in Congress yet. And the Armed Services Committee
had better straighten that out. Because it is getting to be a
difficult time.
You will recall that these benefits were not taken out of
the defense bill until 10 or 12 years ago. And now, as these
requirements go up, procurement for those in the services go
down when we are operating under a ceiling. I just hope that
you all will work within the Armed Services Committee and get a
total definition of what we are talking about. If you get that
definition, we will fund it. We have never reneged on a
commitment, to my knowledge, that we understood.
But the difficulty in this one is I am not sure what the
commitment really is in terms of payment of these costs now
that the military hospitals are no longer there. The commitment
that I understood was that, on a space available basis,
retirees were entitled to medical health care at medical
facilities operated by the military. Now that has been
broadened into a commitment to provide medical care wherever
they want to go in the United States and whatever the facility.
Now I am not sure that we can afford that. And we have got
to get a definition. And that is what TRICARE is supposed to be
trying to do with senior TRICARE. And this guy really
originated that, as I recall, the concept of trying to provide
an umbrella system out there where there was no military
facility.
There is another round of base closures, Sergeant. I have
got to tell you, it is going to get worse, not better. And we
have not authorized the base closures because of this problem
primarily. I do not know what we will do if we close more
military hospitals. Because when you close them for the active
duty, you also close them to retired people in the area. And it
is a very difficult problem.
Senator, do you have any comments on that?
Senator Inouye. You have hit it all.
Senator Stevens. We will work with you, but somewhere there
has got to be some definition of what we are talking about.
Master Sergeant Olanoff. Senator, we are working with the
Armed Services Committee on the House and the Senate side to
get more clear definitions of what we should come to you and
ask for appropriations. But we do bring it to your attention so
you are aware of it. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Good. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it.
Dr. Wirth, President of the American Society of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene has cancelled.
The next witness is Charles Queenan, Senior Vice President
for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation (JDF) International. Good
morning.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES QUEENAN, III, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, PHB HAGLER BAILLY, INC., ON
BEHALF OF THE JUVENILE DIABETES FOUNDATION
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Queenan. Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, good morning.
My name is Charles Queenan, and I am pleased to appear before
you today to speak as a volunteer for JDF, the Juvenile
Diabetes Foundation International.
First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank you both for your support over the years for JDF's
efforts to find a cure for diabetes and its complications.
Today I am seeking your support for $5 million in research
funding to allow the Department of Defense to lead the effort
to develop dual-use biosensor technology that would benefit the
military as well as the 16 million Americans with diabetes.
Before I explain how DOD research in the biosensor
technology area can benefit both DOD and children with
diabetes, I would like to tell you about how diabetes affects
my family. My wife and I are blessed to be the parents of four
young children--our daughter, Jenna, who is now 11, and three
younger sons. On September 11, 1991, at the age of only 3,
Jenna was diagnosed with Type I diabetes, also known as
juvenile diabetes.
Every day since then, Jenna has received two to three
injections of insulin, and has tested her blood sugar by
pricking her fingers to draw blood four to six times per day.
Our goal is to keep Jenna's blood sugar levels as close to
normal as possible, hoping to minimize the very substantial
risk of complications down the road--complications like
blindness, kidney failure, amputation, heart disease, and nerve
disease.
I will never forget the first months of Jenna's diabetes.
We became experts in the life-saving regimen that Jenna will
need to follow for the rest of her life. But this regimen of
shots and finger pricks is not a cure. Despite the progress
that has been made toward finding better ways to manage
diabetes, the truth is that this regimen is still a very
imperfect form of life support that constantly exposes Jenna to
severe and even fatal consequences.
Trying to keep Jenna's blood sugar levels close to a normal
range is hard enough. Simple changes in daily routine can cause
Jenna's blood sugar to drop dangerously low, leading to
unconsciousness, seizure or even worse. These acute and very
scary consequences of diabetes can occur if Jenna takes too
much insulin, gets the flu and is unable to eat, or even if she
simply runs around too much. Despite all of our efforts, the
long-term outlook for Jenna and anyone with diabetes remains
uncertain at best.
Diabetes has very serious long-term health consequences. It
is the leading cause of kidney failure, new adult blindness and
amputation. It is the second most common chronic illness
affecting children, and it affects millions of minorities and
elderly Americans. This disease costs our economy $105 billion
per year, and its financial impact is so severe that one out of
four Medicare dollars and one out of 10 health care dollars are
spent on individuals with the disease. It is also a major
burden on the military's own health system, not to mention the
thousands of family members of individuals in the military who
have the disease.
My family's story is not unique. Millions of other families
have had similar experiences. But there is a role that you can
play to help make a difference in improving Jenna's life and
the lives of 16 million Americans who suffer from diabetes. The
military and everyone who suffers from diabetes can all benefit
if we could perfect a biosensor that would be able to monitor
non-invasively the physiological status of an individual.
For military personnel, such a technological device could
help detect and treat situations involving sickness and injury.
A biosensor could monitor metabolic products to determine
health status, detect toxic exposure to biological and chemical
hazards, accurately determine and deliver antidotes or drug
treatments required by sick or injured personnel, and deliver
nutritional supplements. Such a device would improve military
performance and better monitor military personnel in the field.
The military's development of the biosensor would also
yield tremendous civilian uses. JDF is most interested in its
applications to individuals with diabetes, where our goal is to
closely monitor glucose levels in patients to maintain health
and avoid long-term complications of the disease. This
technology could be utilized in a way to monitor blood glucose
levels accurately, constantly and non-invasively and even to
help determine the level of insulin that should be administered
to an individual.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, JDF requests that the
subcommittee appropriate $5 million to the United States Army
Medical Research and Materiel Command for research into
biosensor technology for the development of non-invasive
screening devices that have dual-use applications for both the
military and civilian sectors. Thank you very much for
considering this request, and I would be happy to answer any of
your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Queenan, III
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Charles Queenan
and I am pleased to appear before you to testify as a volunteer for the
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International (JDF). In my professional
life, I am Senior Vice President of PHB Hagler Bailly Inc. However, I
devote much of my spare time to working with the JDF to help find a
cure for my daughter who has juvenile diabetes. Today, I am seeking
your support for $5 million in research funding to allow the Department
of Defense (DOD) to lead the effort to develop dual use biosensor
technology that would benefit the military as well as the 16 million
Americans with diabetes.
Before I explain how DOD research in the biosensor technology area
can benefit both DOD and children with diabetes, I would like to tell
you about how diabetes affects my family.
My wife and I are blessed to be the parents of four young
children--our daughter, Jenna, who is now eleven, and three younger
sons. On September 11, 1991, at the age of three, Jenna was diagnosed
with Type 1 diabetes, also known as juvenile, or insulin-dependent,
diabetes. Every day since then, Jenna has received two to three
injections of insulin per day. Every day since then, Jenna has tested
her blood sugar by pricking her fingers to draw a drop of blood four to
six times per day. Our goal is to keep Jenna's blood sugar levels as
close to normal as possible, hoping to minimize the very substantial
risk of very scary complications down the road--complications like
blindness, kidney failure, amputation, heart disease, and nerve
disease.
I will never forget the first months of Jenna's diabetes. We became
experts in the life-saving regimen that Jenna will need to follow for
the rest of her life. But this regimen of shots and finger-pricks is
not a cure. Despite the progress that has been made towards finding
better ways to manage diabetes, the sad truth is that this regimen is
still a very imperfect form of life support that constantly exposes
Jenna to acute, severe and even fatal consequences. Trying to keep
Jenna's blood sugar levels close to a normal range is hard enough. But,
in addition, simple changes in her daily routine can cause Jenna's
blood sugar to drop dangerously low, leading to unconsciousness,
seizure or even worse. Jenna can suffer from low blood sugar and
unconsciousness if she takes too much insulin, gets the flu and is
unable to eat, if (as a near teen-ager!) she sleeps too long, or even
if she simply runs around too much. Each of these are quite everyday
occurrences for most kids.
In fact, this has happened on several occasions. One summer at
camp, a diabetes camp, she was a bit more active after dinner than
usual--she was unconscious and in a diabetes seizure the next morning.
Just last week on a Girl Scout trip, Jenna's blood sugar plummeted to
dangerous levels, requiring immediate and prolonged attention to avoid
unconsciousness, just because she got up two hours earlier than normal.
Our current but imperfect protection against these conditions is the
blood sugar test-drawing yet more blood from Jenna's fingers in the
hope that we can detect a change in her blood sugar in time to avoid a
serious consequence.
This undetected low blood sugar is a risk to Jenna that profoundly
changes the way we live. My wife has worn a pager and carried a cell
phone every day, everywhere, since Jenna was diagnosed with diabetes.
One of us has accompanied Jenna on every daylong school field trip,
every Girl Scout trip, and virtually every trip away from home. As a
parent, the courage and determination with which Jenna manages her
diabetes inspires me. But what Jenna really wants (and those with a
pre-teen child will know what I mean) is freedom--freedom from fear,
freedom from restrictions--freedom that you and I take for granted,
freedom that I so desperately want to give her as she grows and
matures.
Despite all of these efforts, the long-term outlook for anyone with
diabetes remains uncertain, at best. Diabetes has very serious long-
term health consequences. It is the leading cause of kidney failure,
new adult blindness and amputation. It is the second most common
chronic illness affecting children and it affects millions of
minorities and elderly Americans. The disease costs our economy $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. It is also a major burden on
the military's own health system, not to mention the thousands of
family members of individuals in the military who have the disease.
Diabetes and the Department of Defense
My family's story is not unique. Millions of other families have
had similar experiences.
But, there is a role that each of you can play to help make a
difference in improving Jenna's life and the lives of the 16 million
Americans who suffer from diabetes.
The military and everyone who suffers from diabetes can all benefit
if a technological device utilizing a biosensor can be perfected that
would be able to noninvasively monitor the physiological status of an
individual.
For military personnel, such a device could help detect and treat
situations involving sickness and injury. In these situations, a
biosensor could monitor metabolic products to determine health status,
detect toxic exposure to biological and chemical hazards, accurately
determine and deliver antidotes or drug treatments that may be required
by sick or injured personnel, and deliver nutritional supplements. Such
a device would improve military performance and better monitor military
personnel in the field.
The military's development of a such a biosensor would also yield
tremendous civilian uses; JDF is most interested in its applications to
individuals with diabetes where our goal is to closely monitor glucose
levels in patients to maintain health and avoid long-term complications
of the disease. This technology could be utilized in a way to
accurately, constantly, and noninvasively monitor blood glucose levels
and even to help determine the level of insulin that should be
administered in an individual.
We can expect that the outcome of this practice in individuals with
diabetes would be an immediate and significant increase in quality of
life and wellness. It would also provide a significant reduction in the
complications of diabetes and associated medical costs.
Mr. Chairman, JDF requests that the Subcommittee appropriate $5
million to the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command
for research into biosensor technology for the development of non-
invasive screening devices that have dual use applications for both the
military and civilian sectors.
Thank you very much for considering this request. I would be
pleased to answer any of your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony.
The next witness is Martin Foil, Chairman, International
Brain Injury Association.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR., CHAIRMAN,
INTERNATIONAL BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Foil. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye. My
son who is here with me just gave up a very lucrative job as a
computer programmer to help take care of his younger brother
and to help people with brain injury. His mom and I are real
proud of him.
Thank you for letting me be here today. As you know, I am
here as the father of Philip, a young man with a severe brain
injury, to request your support for a $3.5 million plus-up for
the Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP), which
would provide a total of $10.5 million for fiscal year 2001. It
is not really a plus-up if we get the money from DOD research
and development (R&D), it is really level funding.
I am the past Chairman of the Brain Injury Association
(BIA) and now serve as voluntary Chairman for the Institute for
Brain Injury (IBIA). My real job is head of a yarn
manufacturing facility in Mount Pleasant, North Carolina. I
receive no compensation for these other programs. Rather I
contribute money of my own simply because, gentlemen, I care. I
care for the 6\1/2\ million people, like my son, living with
the effects of brain injury.
It is the leading cause of death and disability of young
Americans: two million each year, 90,000 of which leads to
long-term disability. Males 14 to 24 have the highest
incidence. It is a collaborative project among DOD, the
Veterans Administration (VA), the BIA, and IBIA, which not only
serves active duty but veterans. It provides information and
resources to retirees, civilians and families. It truly is an
exemplary case of dual-use funding. It does pay dividends.
We boast a 67 percent rate of return to active duty for our
military people who are hurt. Actually, by doing that, we
improve the efficiency and the reach of the medical services,
and DOD receives significant savings in retirement and medical
expenses. It is an important contribution to our combat
readiness.
It has three major components: clinical treatment, clinical
research and clinical training. For instance, we do a combat
training and sports program which seeks to identify the impact
of a brain injury on performance and to develop treatments to
minimize effects. We have active programs in West Point, Camp
Pendleton, and Fort Bragg, where we have 2,500 paratroopers
participating.
These collaborators are using a ground-breaking combination
of modern computer technology--for instance, Palm Pilots--as
cognitive prosthetics; virtual reality approaches for assessing
one's return to active duty. This model stands to revolutionize
rehabilitation in the military, allowing clinicians to reach
patients easily in remote locales, providing treatment
interventions around the clock whenever and wherever they are
needed.
Already it has had tangible results, allowing a brain
injured Vietnam veteran, who has not been able to speak for 35
years, to communicate with his family via E-mail, to go
shopping and to go to school via the Internet. So he is once
again active and is a contributing member of society. My
written testimony highlights the stories of two active duty
personnel who sustained moderate to severe injuries, both of
whom had been referred to medical retirement if it had not been
for our intervention. Consequently, they are both back to
active duty today.
In conclusion, it is a major national problem. It affects
all of our men and women in the service. As we face new
security challenges, declining retention rates, competition,
and a robust economy for people, DOD's investment in personnel
is all the more valuable. It is critical that we give every
veteran the opportunity, and military personnel, the
opportunity to remain on active duty, even after experiencing
an injury. With proper medical care and rehabilitation, they
can.
It strengthens our military readiness by helping service
members get appropriate care and the ability to return to duty.
So I respectfully request your support for this $3.5 million of
appropriations for a total of $10.5 million. And I thank you.
It is a pleasure to be here. And may I say in closing, you all
have got a really difficult job. I appreciate that, and I
appreciate what you do.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martin B. Foil, Jr.
executive summary
Established in 1992, the Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program
(DVHIP) is an integrated disease management system representing a
unique collaboration among the Department of Defense, Department of
Veterans Affairs, the Brain Injury Association and the International
Brain Injury Association.
Brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability in young
Americans. Each year 2 million brain injuries occur, and there are now
5.3 million Americans living with long term severe disability as a
result of brain injury. Each year, over 7,000 military personnel are
admitted to military and veterans hospitals because of brain injury.
This number does not include personnel who experienced mild brain
injury, concussions, or those receiving emergency room treatment and
early release. The cost to the military is conservatively estimated at
$30 million annually in military retirement payments alone.
The underlying goal of the DVHIP is to ensure that military
personnel and veterans with brain injury receive the best evaluation,
treatment and follow-up. At the same time, DVHIP collects and compiles
standardized outcome data, allowing for comparison of the relative
efficacy and cost of various brain injury treatments and rehabilitation
strategies. These clinical findings assist DVHIP in defining optimal
treatment methods for individuals with brain injury.
The DVHIP is not a research project that could be funded by some
other entity. It is a means of providing state of the art care to
active duty military personnel to get them back to work as soon as
possible. Military retirees and veterans are also treated by the
program with the similar goal of enhancing each individuals recovery so
they can return to their lives and continue to be productive citizens.
In one study, the DVHIP boasts a 90 percent return to work rate and
67 percent return to active duty rate, of service personnel with
moderate to severe injuries.
The work of the DVHIP is a significant contribution to the health
and readiness of the United States military and veteran populations.
The three major components of the program are clinical treatment,
clinical research, and clinical training. The work of the DVHIP has
resulted in better care for military personnel and has optimized their
chances of returning to active duty, thus saving the Department of
Defense significant medical and retirement costs.
As the United States military faces new national security
challenges, sagging retention rates, competition for new recruits with
a robust economy in the private sector, DOD's investment in its
personnel becomes all the more valuable. It is critical that military
personnel be given every opportunity to remain in active duty, even
after experiencing injury.
An additional $3.5 million is sought over the $7 million included
in the Department of Defense's budget, for a total of $10.5 million in
fiscal year 2001.
Dear Chairman 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 am
past Chairman of the national Brain Injury Association (BIA),\1\ and I
currently serve as voluntary Chairman of the International Brain Injury
Association (IBIA) \2\ and as a member of the Board of Directors of the
John Jane Brain Injury Center at Martha Jefferson Hospital in
Charlottesville, Virginia. Professionally, I am the Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of Tuscarora Yarns in Mt. Pleasant, North
Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BIA is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to
creating a better future through prevention, education, research and
advocacy. BIA serves persons with brain injury, their families and
caregivers in all 50 states and the territories.
\2\ IBIA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the support and
development of medical and clinical professionals and others who work
to improve opportunities and successes for persons with brain injury.
IBIA is the only international association representing and convening
brain injury professionals and specialists throughout the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP), a collaborative
effort among the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs
(DVA), BIA and IBIA. The DVHIP is a disease management system based on
a ``learn as we treat'' principle, that integrates clinical care and
clinical follow-up, with applied research, prevention, education and
family support information. Before the DVHIP, there had been no overall
systemic program for providing brain injury specific care and
rehabilitation within DOD or DVA. Because of the DVHIP, our service men
and women are now receiving brain injury care and rehabilitation second
to none in the nation.
DVHIP is a prime example of a dual use project that contributes
significantly to U.S. military readiness. It not only treats over 7,000
active duty military personnel who sustain brain injuries each year and
helps them return to duty (see attached two stories of returning to
duty), but the DVHIP serves as an important resource to veterans and
the civilian population as well.
On behalf of the DVHIP, I respectfully request that $3.5 million be
added to DOD Health Affairs for Operation and Maintenance, for brain
injury treatment and services of the DVHIP. As this would be in
addition to the $7 million provided in DOD's budget, DVHIP funding
would total $10.5 million for fiscal year 2001.
The following abbreviated explanation of the program focuses on the
prevalence of brain injury in the United States and in the U.S.
military, the treatment of military personnel by the DVHIP, and the
assistance provided by IBIA and BIA.
The Incidence and Prevalence of Brain Injury
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and
disability among young Americans in the United States. Young men ages
14 through 24 have the highest rates of injury. However, it is often
known as the ``silent epidemic''--traumatic brain injury can strike
anyone at any time. TBI is defined as an insult to the brain caused by
an external force that may produce a diminished or altered state of
consciousness and which often results in an impairment of cognitive
abilities or physical functioning. TBI can also result in the
disturbance of behavioral or emotional functioning.
Nationwide, there are 2 million brain injuries per year, with an
estimated societal cost of over $48 billion per year, including direct
care and loss of productivity. There are now 5.3 million Americans
living with long term disability as a result of brain injury and some
6.5 million individuals with some form of residual effects of such
injury.
In the U.S. military, there are over 7,000 peacetime TBI admissions
to DOD and DVA hospitals each year. In addition to the costs of acute
and long-term care, a conservatively estimated $30 million in obligated
medical retirement payments is added each year in the military alone.
DVHIP Clinical Treatment, Research and Training
In addition to supporting and providing treatment, rehabilitation
and case management at each of the 7 primary DVHIP TBI centers,\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Walter 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;
Hunter McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, VA; Wilford
Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important goal of the DVHIP is to address basic questions
relating to military TBI, including acute care and the combat casualty
care process as well as the effects of mild TBI on combat performance.
The DVHIP continues to work on:
--Basic combat casualty care protocols that can ensure treatments for
brain injury are available in the field;
--A combat training and sports TBI program which seeks to identify
the impact of mild TBI on military performance and develop
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. The Fort Bragg program involves pre-injury baseline
testing of about 2,500 paratroopers and more extensive post-
injury evaluation of about 400 persons. Over 2,000 baseline
evaluations have been completed to date.
--A multidisciplinary evaluation and workplace follow-up study for
service members with symptomatic mild traumatic brain injury at
San Diego Naval Medical Center.
--A DVHIP central referral case manager for health care providers,
including a toll-free referral number for caregivers in DOD and
DVA facilities.
--A TBI treatment and referral algorithm designed to assist primary
caregivers in the management and referral of their patients
with TBI. This now has been implemented at DVHIP sites and is
being disseminated throughout the DVA medical system.
--In close collaboration with CHAMPUS/TRICARE, TRICARE demonstration
projects DVHIP provides specialized treatment reimbursement and
rehabilitation of military beneficiaries at the four DVHIP lead
veterans sites. It is hoped that this agreement will serve as a
model for future interagency collaboration in other medical
specialty areas.
--DVHIP maintains DOD/DVA peacetime and combat traumatic brain injury
patient registries at each of the primary and secondary
centers, assisted by BIA Family Helpline personnel and state
associations. While the DVHIP registry presently includes
mostly participants from DVHIP centers, one goal of the program
is to expand it to the entire military and veterans medical
systems.
Clinical rehabilitation research treatment trials utilizing a
randomized, controlled design are currently being conducted by the
DVHIP, including:
--A prospective randomized controlled study of home treatment versus
an intensive, 8-week institutional cognitive rehabilitation
program involving 120 service members with moderate to severely
brain injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Analysis of
results has now been completed (and widely disseminated),
showing a 90 percent return to work rate and 67 percent back to
active duty.
--A second multicenter randomized controlled study is comparing in-
hospital cognitive therapy to in hospital functional
rehabilitation for individuals with more severe TBI at the
DVHIP lead veterans' centers. The primary outcome measures are
return to work and level of independence at one year post
injury.
--A third randomized trial now starting at Wilford Hall Air Force
Medical Center will target military personnel with acute mild
TBI. It 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.
--DVHIP has developed a protocol for a Phase III follow-up of Vietnam
War Head Injured veterans,\4\ many of whom have returned to
meaningful and often very productive lives. This study provides
a unique opportunity to study TBI and the aging process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Of the 58,000 U.S. combat fatalities in the Vietnam war,
approximately 23,000 or 40 percent were due to head and neck wounds.
Overall, about 19 percent of battle casualties and 14 percent of
survivors sustained a head injury during that war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Based on exciting findings by the DVHIP, it has developed three
neuroprotective trials for service men and women with both
severe and mild TBI. Including combat training injury in
Marines at Camp Pendleton, these studies will utilize safe and
inexpensive compounds--pyruvate and niacinamide--to protect
energy metabolism in the injured brain.
IBIA Collaboration with DVHIP
Unlike research projects funded by the National Institutes of
Health, DVHIP research is treatment oriented, showing immediate results
in the real world. IBIA, through the John Jane Brain Injury Center at
Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville, Virginia assists in the
three major components of the DVHIP: clinical treatment, clinical
research and clinical training:
--IBIA/DVHIP supports research and treatment to address
neurobehavioral problems that affect return to work and fitness
for duty rates.
--The IBIA is sponsoring the development of universal guidelines for
the treatment of mild traumatic brain injury, penetrating head
injury, and pediatric brain injury, along with practice
guidelines development for neurobehavioral problems and bowel
and bladder dysfunction following brain injury. These projects
raise the standards of care worldwide.
--The John Jane Brain Injury Center is moving brain injury
rehabilitation into the twenty-first century, using a
groundbreaking combination of modern computer technologies,
virtual reality approaches for assessing military personnel's
ability to return to work and other uses. This model stands to
revolutionize rehabilitation in military and civilian settings,
allowing clinicians to reach patients easily in remote locales,
providing treatment interventions around the clock, wherever
they are needed.
--IBIA/DVHIP conducts collaborative outcomes research utilizing
functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to identify brain
lesion location and create diagnostic criteria for mild and
moderate brain injuries which are significant problems in the
military; this research is valuable to maintaining readiness by
discerning who is capable of returning to active duty.
--IBIA/DVHIP conducts studies on executive dysfunction and decision
making in persons with mild TBI (mild TBI is the single most
important reason for failure to return to active duty, work or
school); this study complements efforts to improve military
readiness.
--Active duty military personnel have benefited from an intensive 15-
session treatment intervention for mild traumatic brain injury.
This program, which focuses on life skill training and
cognitive prosthetics, has drastically shortened disability
times for the participants.
--Already this nascent research is paying off with tangible results,
allowing a brain injured Vietnam veteran in Charlottesville,
Virginia, a man who has not been able to produce articulate
speech for 35 years, to communicate with his family via email
and to learn to shop and go to school via internet. He is once
again a productive citizen.
BIA Services--Information and Resources, Prevention and Education
The Brain Injury Association serves an important role in the
program by providing information and resources to any and all active
duty military personnel, retirees, veterans and family member seeking
assistance for brain injury treatment, placement, rehabilitation, and
general information.
In particular, BIA does the following:
--Maintains a nationwide 1-800 help line, staffed by trained
specialists;
--Established the American Academy for the Certification of Brain
Injury Specialists (AACBIS) and develops and disseminates
materials used to train staff working in brain injury programs
at DVHIP sites. Materials include the AACBIS Clinical Examiner
Manual, AACBIS Brochure and Training Manual Level I. Initial
work on Level II standards and curriculum began in 1999.
--Produced and distributed a revised version of the DVHIP Case
Manager's Manual, and reprinted the DVHIP Information Brochure;
Road to Rehabilitation; ``Causes, Consequences and Challenges
of Brain Injury'' Brochure and an Information and Resource
Manual.
--The Information and Resources Department of BIA acts as a
clearinghouse of community service information and resources
for military personnel, veterans and civilians and responds to
tens of thousands of inquiries for assistance through its free
Family Help Line. Through BIA's state affiliates, some 50,000
calls for assistance are answered each year, and hundreds of
thousands of informational brochures, pamphlets, books, videos,
and other material are distributed.
--BIA/DVHIP educational brochures feature background information on
brain injury, the DVHIP, and the lead and network DVHIP sites.
They are available at any one of the military or Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, and are also provided to
referral sources in both military and civilian sectors in an
effort to increase awareness of the DVHIP and to increase
accessions to the research protocol.
--BIA publishes a bimonthly newsletter, TBI Challenge! with a
circulation of over 30,000, and a full color quarterly magazine
for professionals, Brain Injury Source with a circulation of
over 20,000. Each issue of the Source features a regular column
entitled ``Military Zone'' which is written by staff members
from DVHIP sites. The Fall 1999 issue of the Source was
dedicated solely to the DVHIP.
--BIA's Brain Injury Resource CenterTM (BIRC), provides
easy access to a multi-media computer library through a touch-
screen monitor and program that allows users to learn about
brain injury at a personalized pace. The BIRC is available in
over 60 locations across the country, including 18 DOD and VA
hospitals.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Central Arkansas Veterans Health Care Network, North Little
Rock, AR; Darnall Army Community Hospital, Ft. Hood, TX; Denver
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, CO; Hines Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, Hines, IL; James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL;
Madigan Army Medical Center, Takoma, WA; Minneapolis VA Medical Center,
Minneapolis, MN; National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Palo Alto
VA Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA; Portsmouth Naval Medical Center,
Portsmouth, VA; Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, VA; San Diego
Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA; San Juan VA Hospital, San Juan,
Puerto Rico; Seattle Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, WA;
Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii; Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Washington, DC; Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center, San Antonio, TX;
Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, NC; VA Medical Center,
Albuquerque, NM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--BIA developed DVHIP's website and continues to work on providing
DVHIP resources and information.
--BIA/DVHIP continues its Violence and Brain Injury Project (VBIP),
which is based on the premise that brain injury is a
significant risk factor for violent behavior. VBIP addresses
various aspects of violent behavior, including causes,
prevention and education.
--The VBIP is responsible for integrating prevention education
curricula into DOD and civilian schools and military
communities. The HeadSmart Schools Program is
currently being used in over 120 schools nationwide including
26 military dependent schools, affecting the education of over
100,000 students. In addition, there are HeadSmart
Military Communities in 7 military facilities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Knox, KY; Fort Campbell, TN; Fort Bliss,
TX; Fort Sam Houston, TX; West Point, NY; Wright Patterson Airforce
Base, OH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The work of the DVHIP is a significant contribution to the health
and readiness of the United States military and veteran populations.
The three major components of the program are clinical treatment,
clinical research, and clinical training. The work of the DVHIP has
resulted in better care for military personnel and has optimized their
chances of returning to active duty, thus saving the Department of
Defense significant medical and retirement costs.
As the United States military faces new national security
challenges, sagging retention rates, competition for new recruits with
a robust economy in the private sector, DOD's investment in its
personnel becomes all the more valuable. It is therefore critical that
military personnel be given every opportunity to remain in active duty,
even after experiencing injury.
DVHIP is in a unique position to combine the treatment of military
personnel and veterans with the program's education, information and
support services. This synergy allows DOD and VA, in partnership with
BIA and IBIA, to help prevent and treat this ``silent epidemic'' and
for the DVHIP program to lead the nation in providing state of the art
care to all active duty military personnel and veterans with brain
injury.
We respectfully request funding of $10.5 million for fiscal year
2001 to continue this important program.
attachment
L.C., AD USAF E5
This 26-year old woman was involved in a motor vehicle accident
when her car ran off the road in August of 1996. She was transferred to
a local university hospital, was unconscious for approximately 24 hours
and was monitored in the Intensive Care Unit on a respirator. Upon
awakening she was taken off the respirator and appeared ``drowsy and
confused.'' She would become easily agitated and required close
observation. Her speech was slurred and difficult to understand. She
slowly became oriented to person and place by the 10th day after her
injury when she was transferred to the WRAMC Defense and Veterans Head
Injury Program (DVHIP). An MRI of her brain revealed multiple punctate
lesions in the right and left frontal white matter, the right and left
thalamus, and bilaterally in the cerebellar hemispheres consistent with
shear injuries (micro tears of the brain matter) from the accident.
While at DVHIP this patient was evaluated and found to have
difficulties in the areas of memory, low mood, organization and
planning (executive function), attention, and written and spoken
language comprehension. After receiving several weeks of
rehabilitation, she returned to duty and did not fare well. Readmission
to the DVHIP was undertaken, and the patient was reevaluated and
additional treatments were prescribed. She again returned to limited
duty, and over the next 12 months demonstrated gradual improvement in
her many symptoms and progressed to working at duty full time as an Air
Force NCO. Approximately one year after her injury, and after
participating in the DVHIP rehabilitative effort, this individual was
able to enter officer's basic school (as she had intended prior to her
accident) and successfully graduated in the middle of her class. She is
currently a 2LT and performing well at her duty station.
This individual is an excellent example of a soldier who suffered a
significant brain injury and might easily have been medically retired
within the first 3 to 6 months after her injury, particularly after
failing to succeed initially back at duty. With the support and
expertise of the DVHIP she was able to successfully return to duty and
perform in an outstanding manner.
R.W., AD USA E5
This 27-year old man was thrown from his car during an auto
accident while stationed in Germany in March of 1994. He suffered a
traumatic brain injury and was unconscious and on a respirator in a
German hospital for the first 10 days after his accident. He also
suffered a number of other non-life threatening facial and soft tissue
injuries. He was transferred to the WRAMC DVHIP from Germany
approximately one month after his accident. He had no recollection of
his accident of stay in Germany, and little appreciation for his
difficulties while in the hospital. He was easily agitated and demanded
release from the hospital, to the point where urgent psychiatric
consultation was required to manage his aggressive behavior medically.
On evaluation at the DVHIP, this soldier displayed a number of
difficulties in the areas of problem solving, error detection,
completing complex tasks, or maintaining his attention. An MRI of his
brain revealed contusions of both of his frontal lobes. He continued to
show a dense amnesia, but began to show he could lay down new memories.
He was enrolled in the DVHIP eight-week rehabilitation program. Upon
completion of the program, he was returned to limited duty. With the
support of the DVHIP staff and his local command he made an excellent
recovery, completing Ranger School approximately 18 months after his
injury. Two and a half years after his injury, this soldier displayed
continued good duty performance as a mechanic for the Army.
Once again, due to the nature of his injury, the long period of
unconsciousness and behavioral discontrol, this soldier would have been
referred for medical retirement without the intervention and ongoing
support of the DVHIP.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
coming. Nice to have you with us.
Our next witness will be retired Commander Mike Lord,
testifying for The Military Coalition. Good morning.
STATEMENT OF MIKE LORD, COMMANDER, JAGC, U.S. NAVY
(RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMISSIONED
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE, INC., CO-CHAIR, THE MILITARY
COALITION HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE
Commander Lord. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye.
It is an honor to have the opportunity to address this
subcommittee today. And as the Executive Director of the
Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health
Service and Co-Chair of The Military Coalition's Health Care
Committee, I am pleased to represent our views.
I think our written statement adequately represents these
views, and I would simply want to elaborate a bit today on the
comments we have already made concerning the health care issues
surrounding Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. As Mark Olanoff
mentioned, your comments about funding in fiscal years 2001 and
2002 the health care benefit for retirees, those comments
somewhat stole his thunder, I think your comments after Mr.
Olanoff finished probably stole the rest of the thunder that
was left for me. But I do have a couple of comments concerning
our view toward what the solution might be in terms of health
care for retired Medicare benefits.
Senator Stevens. You know that when we looked at that we
found that the Department had not requested the money to pay
for the contractors providing TRICARE. And when we did get the
request, it was about 40 percent of the bills that had actually
been presented at the time.
Commander Lord. Right.
Senator Stevens. And now we are looking to try to keep that
level up for the next year, with $1.5 billion plus, and looking
at it in terms of the bills from prior years and this year. It
is almost impossible to figure out how we are going to handle
that in the next year. And I think that is the toughest problem
that the Defense Department faces this year is to find a way to
pay the bills that it has incurred already. And God only knows
how big they are going to be in the years after this. So we
have got to get a handle on it, and I would appreciate whatever
your Coalition can do to help us.
Commander Lord. We agree with you, Mr. Chairman. And as our
written comments reflect, we are concerned by the constant
annual underfunding of the defense health budget, which creates
the problems that you are trying to face and fix this year.
With respect to the Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, just
very quickly, we think there is a three-part approach to the
fix. One is the initiative by Senator Warner that was
introduced just this week, S. 2486, with many cosponsors from
the Senate, providing the BRAC pharmacy benefit to Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries. We think this is going to solve a lot
of the problems regarding the retiree, over-65 health care
problems that we are trying to fix at this point.
Senator Stevens. Well, it would solve it if he tells me
where he finds the money.
Commander Lord. I wish I could, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. I wish he could, too.
Commander Lord. The second issue, TRICARE Senior Prime,
which is already successfully being demonstrated at six sites,
works. Beneficiaries are pleased. We are in the demonstration
phase, and we are at the point now where we need to move beyond
demonstrations and onto nationwide implementation, perhaps on a
phased-in basis.
Finally, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
(FEHBP) is in a demonstration mode at this point, and the data
still is being collected in that regard. However, we think this
still has lots of potential, and it is a fix. And we think the
problems we are experiencing at this point with dismal
participation have to do largely with lack of education on the
part of the beneficiaries and the fear of the unknown. And we
would urge continued effort by DOD to provide greater education
so that people are willing to participate in what would be a
very excellent benefit for them. We are pleased that DOD has
seen fit to expand the demonstration area.
A couple of comments in closing, Mr. Chairman. We
appreciate that problems are involved in trying to draft
comprehensive health care education for over-65 beneficiaries.
We recognize that enactment of the legislation needed to
provide retired service members with health care does not come
without cost. When we explain what is needed and why, including
up here on the Hill, we regularly receive nods of agreement,
followed by, ``How are we going to pay for it?'' as you and I
just exchanged a moment ago. And I know you have unique
concerns in that regard.
We believe, however, that it is not just a nice thing to
do. It is an obligation. It is a debt owed to retirees. And we
would submit that these retirees, who were responsible for
safeguarding the freedoms that we Americans experience, deserve
what was promised to them many years ago. In this case, the
price of having this service, this comprehensive health care,
these Americans cannot wait. As I think Mark Olanoff mentioned,
they are dying at a rate approaching 100 every day. They need
to have their needs met now.
Thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye. It
is a pleasure being here before you, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of CDR Mike Lord
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee: On behalf
of The Military Coalition, we would like to express appreciation to the
Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate Appropriations
Committee's Subcommittee on Defense for holding this important hearing.
This testimony provides the collective views of the following military
and veterans organizations which represent more than 5 million members
of the seven uniformed services, officer and enlisted, active, reserve,
National Guard, veterans and retired plus their families and survivors.
--Air Force Association
--Air Force Sergeants Association
--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, United
States Coast Guard
--Commissioned Officers Association of the United States Public
Health Service, Inc.
--Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
--Fleet Reserve Association
--Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
--Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America
--Marine Corps League
--Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association
--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
--Reserve Officers Association
--Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces
--The Retired Enlisted Association
--The Retired Officers Association
--United Armed Forces Association
--United States Army Warrant Officers Association
--United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association
--Veterans of Foreign Wars
--Veterans' Widows International Network, Inc.
The Military Coalition does not and has not received any federal
grants, and does not have nor has had any contracts with the federal
government.
introduction
The Military Coalition is very grateful that through this
Subcommittee's efforts, the last two years have seen significant
breakthroughs in our mutual efforts to secure health care equity for
all uniformed services beneficiaries, particularly with respect to the
Medicare-eligibles who have been increasingly locked out of the
military health care system. This Subcommittee's efforts to upgrade the
overall TRICARE program, oversee the implementation of the redesign of
the pharmacy system, and ensure the implementation of the test of
enrolling Medicare-eligibles in the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program (FEHBP-65) were major highlights of the first session of the
106th Congress.
But all of us appreciate that many of these initiatives are only
the first steps, albeit critical ones, on the road to providing the
kind of health care coverage uniformed service beneficiaries have
earned and deserve. Much remains to be done, both to ensure
demonstration programs already approved are implemented fairly and
successfully and to take the further steps that will be necessary to
achieve our mutual goals in this extremely important area.
restore health care equity for medicare eligible beneficiaries
Before we turn our attention to our continuing concerns with
TRICARE, we would first like to thank the Subcommittee for its role in
enacting legislation in the last two years for two demonstration
programs aimed at restoring equitable health care benefits for
Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries. These two tests--
TRICARE Senior Prime, and FEHBP-65--will go a long way toward restoring
the commitment to lifetime health care made to these older individuals
when they entered the service as young recruits, and reiterated time
and again as an inducement to serve until retirement.
Pharmacy Redesign Pilot Program.--In the fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000 Defense Authorization Acts, Congress passed
legislation directing the Defense Department to redesign its pharmacy
programs. One of the goals of the pharmacy redesign was to expand the
retail and mail-order pharmacy benefit to all Medicare-eligible
uniformed services beneficiaries regardless of where they reside. As a
precursor to the eventual nationwide expansion of this benefit,
Congress mandated that DOD implement a pilot program at two sites to
allow Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries to participate
in DOD's TRICARE retail and National Mail-Order Pharmacy programs. The
Coalition has worked closely with DOD in the past year on the pharmacy
redesign and pilot program, and has had the opportunity to provide
input into how the pharmacy benefit should be structured, particularly
for those who are Medicare-eligible. The Coalition applauds DOD's
efforts in this regard and realizes this has not been an easy task. We
are, however, disappointed that DOD will fail to seize on the
opportunity to realize significant savings in its pharmacy redesign.
Unaccountably, DOD believes it must charge an annual enrollment fee of
$200 per person ($400 for a family if both are Medicare-eligible) for
those who enroll in the Pilot Program.
While the Coalition understands DOD concerns about cost if the
Pilot Program were expanded nationwide, we believe that in this
instance, DOD may be ``penny wise, and pound foolish'' since even a
$200 enrollment fee creates a major disincentive for beneficiaries to
participate in the program, and significantly increases the likelihood
that the program will not be successful because:
--It will deter participation by significant numbers of enlisted
families and survivors (we know from experience with the
Survivor Benefit Plan that payments of approximately $50 per
month deter many junior enlisted retirees from participating);
--The substantial premium will result in adverse selection, whereby
only those with substantial medication costs are likely to
enroll--which will increase the per-person cost to DOD and
provide misleading data on the cost of expanding the pilot
worldwide.
--It makes the prescription drug option, in terms of value received
for dollars expended, a poor third choice compared to TRICARE
Senior Prime and FEHBP-65, especially since those who desire to
take advantage of the prescription benefit will still consider
it necessary to purchase a Medicare supplemental insurance
policy.
Most importantly, the Coalition believes that many Medicare-
eligible service beneficiaries would be satisfied with the restoration
of the pharmacy benefit they lost when they lost their eligibility for
TRICARE. Provision of the pharmacy benefit is the least expensive
option for DOD, compared to TRICARE Senior Prime or FEHBP, and the more
beneficiaries who elect that benefit, the less it will cost DOD to
fulfill the promise of lifetime health care under other options. Under
this scenario, we question DOD's decision to implement a $200
enrollment fee which could make the least expensive option to DOD the
most unattractive to beneficiaries. The Coalition strongly believes
that if the BRAC pharmacy benefit (which includes both the National
Mail-Order and TRICARE retail pharmacy programs) were expanded
nationwide by October 1, 2000, far fewer beneficiaries would
subsequently seek the more costly FEHBP or TRICARE Senior Prime
options. Expansion of the BRAC benefit, without an enrollment fee,
beginning in fiscal year 2001 is certainly feasible since it would only
require a one-time contract adjustment.
The Coalition requests that this Subcommittee appropriate the
additional funds necessary to expand the BRAC pharmacy benefit (which
includes both the National Mail-Order and TRICARE retail pharmacy
program) with no deductible or enrollment fee to ALL Medicare-eligible
uniformed services beneficiaries by October 1, 2000.
TRICARE Senior Prime.--The Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997
provided for a demonstration program to test the concept of Medicare
subvention, now called TRICARE Senior Prime. Under this test, Medicare-
eligible uniformed services beneficiaries in six demonstration areas
were given the opportunity to enroll in a health maintenance
organization (HMO) type plan, similar to TRICARE Prime, with some of
the cost of their care being reimbursed to DOD by Medicare.
This test has been successfully implemented in all of the
demonstration sites and, by all accounts, has been very well received
by eligible beneficiaries at each site. A recent survey conducted by
The Retired Officers Association (TROA) indicates that over 90 percent
of the Senior Prime enrollees are satisfied with the program and 90
percent reported they would remain in the program through December 2000
(when current authority for this demonstration expires).
The Department of Defense has expressed a strong desire to expand
this program to other sites across the country, but is reluctant to do
so until they can resolve concerns about the level of effort and
reimbursement rates from the Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA). The Military Coalition supports expansion of this test, and
would like to take the additional step of making TRICARE Senior Prime a
permanent program as soon as possible.
There is strong legislative support in Congress for expansion of
this program. Last year, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) introduced S. 915 to
make the TRICARE Senior Prime program permanent on a phased basis. S.
915 would provide authority to expand TRICARE Senior Prime to 10
additional locations in calendar year 2000 and then to the remaining
TRICARE Prime catchment areas where feasible after October 1, 2002.
Senator Gramm's legislation also would authorize non-enrollees to use
TRICARE Senior Prime services on a fee-for-service basis. And Senator
McCain's bill--S. 2013 would also accomplish the same objective. The
Military Coalition believes this would be particularly useful, for the
Department of Defense as well as beneficiaries, at some of the smaller
facilities with little or no inpatient capability. At such facilities,
most specialty and inpatient care would have to be purchased from
civilian sources, thus making it operationally and financially
difficult to implement a Medicare HMO program.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to work with the
Senate Armed Services Committee to enact legislation (such as S. 915
and S. 2013) to expand TRICARE Senior Prime to an additional 10 sites
by January 1, 2001 and make the program permanent. (At the very
minimum, the TRICARE Senior Prime at the current sites should be
extended for at least another year.) The Coalition also urges this
Subcommittee to support legislation to authorize at least a test to
allow non-enrollees to use TRICARE Senior Prime services on a fee-for-
service basis.
FEHBP-65 Demonstration.--The Military Coalition was pleased with
the provision passed in the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act
requiring a test to allow up to 66,000 Medicare-eligible uniformed
service beneficiaries to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program (FEHBP-65) at six to ten sites around the country. The
Coalition appreciates the hard work that DOD did to choose the sites,
and finish all preparations in time for the open enrollment period last
November.
However, the Coalition has been extremely disappointed with the
dismal enrollment results, which remain low even after DOD extended the
open enrollment period to 60 days and redoubled its efforts to notify
and educate eligible beneficiaries in the test sites. The Coalition
believes the extremely low participation rate--2,550 beneficiaries or
approximately four percent of the 66,000 enrollees authorized by the
Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act--is attributable to
beneficiary inertia, aggravated by:
--Lack of timely delivery of accurate and comprehensive information
about the FEHBP-65 test to eligible beneficiaries;
--Fear of venturing into uncharted waters with the worry they would
have to change plans again when the test authority expires in
2002;
--Concerns about pre-existing medical conditions if the test
terminates and they need to resume their Medigap coverage;
--A lack of understanding about FEHBP including the potential cost
savings over their existing Medicare supplementals if they were
to opt for this alternative;
--Uncertainty about the benefits provided under the various FEHBP
plans to beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicare Part
B.
To illustrate, DOD marketing materials for the FEHBP-65 test failed
to adequately highlight that copays and deductibles are waived for fee-
for-service plans for Medicare-eligibles enrolled in Medicare Part B.
This is a real shortcoming given that virtually all of the potential
enrollees are enrolled in Medicare Part B.
As the initial participation has been so low, and thus the
financial impact of the test has been much less than anticipated, the
Coalition would like to thank DOD for selecting two additional sites
with large beneficiary populations of 25,000 in each site for inclusion
in the test next year. However, the Coalition would also like to
recommend that the zip codes applicable to the current sites be
expanded to reach additional potential enrollees.
Finally, the Coalition strongly recommends that DOD continue to
increase efforts to communicate and explain fully the benefits
available under the FEHBP test, including the option to revert to a
Medigap policy without pre-existing illness restrictions should the
test be terminated. These efforts should include ensuring that all
eligible beneficiaries in each site receive notification of this test.
DOD itself admitted there was a 10 percent error rate in its first
mail-outs, but to date has made no effort to correct the database.
Further DOD apparently will make no effort to notify those who will be
turning 65 during the test period they would be eligible to enroll in
the FEHBP-65 test. The Coalition would like to pause at this point and
thank Senator Christopher ``Kit'' Bond (R-MO) for his letter to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense emphasizing the increased and continued
need to educate beneficiaries about the FEHBP program.
To move toward this objective, the Coalition supports S. 2013,
introduced by Senator John McCain, which would expand and make
permanent the demonstration program allowing Medicare-eligible
uniformed services beneficiaries to enroll in FEHBP-65. S. 2013 limits
the program to 275,000 beneficiaries--a number we believe will
accommodate worldwide enrollment in FEHBP--and thereby limits the cost
of this initiative to approximately $600 million per year in current
dollars, beginning in 2003. The cost in 2002--the first year the
expanded program could be implemented would be approximately $130
million less because current law already authorizes 66,000 enrollees.
The Coalition strongly recommends that this Subcommittee support
efforts to expand the FEHBP-65 program worldwide as quickly as feasible
and make it a permanent program.
Initial expansion of the test this year, guaranteed enrollment
beyond the test date, and an aggressive educational program are the
only ways that a fair assessment can be made of the propensity of
uniformed services beneficiaries to enroll in the program, the
resultant government cost, and the success or failure of FEHBP as an
option to honor the lifetime health care commitment.
Finally, S. 2003, The Keep Our Promises to America's Military
Retirees Act, introduced by Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) and S. 2013,
``Honoring Health Care Commitments to Servicemembers Past and Present
Act of 2000'', are landmark proposals because they recognize that those
who entered the service before June 7, 1956, were promised free health
care for life and should not be penalized by a subsequent change in
statute. The strength of this commitment was most eloquently described
by Judge Roger Vinson when he ruled in the Federal District Court in
Florida that ``that the plaintiffs certainly have a strong equitable
argument that the government should abide by its promises. Regrettably,
the law does not permit me to order the United States to do so. Under
the Constitutional separation of powers, relief for the plaintiffs must
come from Congress and not from the Judiciary.''
With a burgeoning budget surplus, including an additional $40
billion announced last week, our older uniformed services beneficiaries
cannot accept lack of funding as a valid reason for Congress' failure
to meet its obligation to them. In its self-proclaimed ``Year of Health
Care,'' DOD had a major opportunity to take the lead in keeping
commitments to servicemembers and start erasing the skepticism and
distrust that years of broken health care promises have engendered
among the retired population. Putting these initiatives in the
President's budget would have made them much easier for Congress to
enact. But once again, the Administration has chosen to punt its moral
responsibilities to the Legislative Branch. Please don't compound the
Administration's inaction by punting these responsibilities to a new
Congress.
Defense's civilian leadership has apparently chosen to ignore how
directly this continuing abrogation affects military readiness. Today's
active duty members are tomorrow's retirees, and they are well aware of
how their predecessors are being treated. More and more, the retirees
who were the Services' best recruiters are reluctant to recommend a
service career to their children and those of their friends and
neighbors. This is not only an issue of equity and employer obligation.
It's a readiness issue as well.
The Military Coalition urges this Subcommittee to work with the
Senate leadership to find the necessary funding offsets to enact S.
2003 or S. 2013.
improvements in tricare
The Coalition is pleased that great strides were made in the Fiscal
Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act to fix some of the more egregious
problems with TRICARE, and thanks the Subcommittee for its role in
appropriating the necessary resources for the following provisions:
--Permitting the Secretary of Defense to increase TRICARE
reimbursement levels where necessary to attract quality health
care providers;
--Requiring DOD to expedite and improve the claims reimbursement
process and provide incentives for health care providers to
participate in Prime networks;
--Requiring DOD to identify and implement other administrative
efficiencies such as greater use of the Internet to further
streamline claims processing, enrollment procedures, etc.
--Ensuring that DOD promptly implements portability and reciprocity
for TRICARE Prime enrollees.
However, the Coalition remains concerned about other problems that
continue to crop up on a consistent basis.
Adequate Funding for TRICARE.--The Military Coalition continues to
hear each year of funding shortfalls in the overall Defense Health
Program which are passed down to each of the Services' health care
budgets. However, it appears that fiscal year 2001 is off to a good
start with DOD proposing an additional $350 million to cover the
increased pharmaceutical costs; higher than anticipated costs of the
TRICARE managed care support contracts; and the new custodial care
benefit addressed by Congress last year.
The Coalition remains concerned, however, this is not enough to
address future funding shortfalls that might occur as a result of
unanticipated medical readiness operations. And even DOD has admitted
the increase in Defense Health spending may not cover the increase in
TRICARE managed care support contract costs since DOD has not yet
identified and paid all of the contractor claims for increased cost.
Congress, and the Defense Department, must be willing to budget
adequate resources for the Defense Health Program, not just for medical
readiness operations, but also for the peacetime health care component.
The Coalition believes that an adequately funded health care benefit is
just as important to recruitment and retention of qualified uniformed
services personnel as are pay and retirement benefits. Further, the
promise of this health care benefit into retirement must be kept if
servicemembers are to be convinced that serving 20 or more years in
uniform is in their best interests.
The Military Coalition recommends, therefore, that this
Subcommittee appropriate sufficient funding for the Defense Health
Program, not just for military medical readiness, but also for DOD
peacetime health care operations, including the TRICARE program and
initiatives for Medicare-eligible uniformed service retirees.
TRICARE Prime Equity Innovations.--The Coalition continues to hear
from families of servicemembers assigned to remote areas where there is
no TRICARE Prime option. These families are being unfairly burdened by
having to pay much higher copayments for care than their counterparts
assigned to areas where they can enroll in TRICARE Prime if they so
choose. Although this problem was addressed two years ago in the Fiscal
Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act, which authorized the Secretary of
Defense to waive deductibles and copayments for active duty personnel
assigned to duty locations more than 50 miles from a military hospital,
this provision did not address health care costs for family members.
The Coalition was therefore delighted to hear that the Secretary of
Defense included approximately $80 million to the fiscal year 2001
Defense Health Budget request to waive all TRICARE Prime copayments and
to provide TRICARE Prime Remote to family members of active duty
service members stationed in remote locations away from military
medical facilities. However, the Coalition believes that additional
funds must be provided to extend TRICARE Prime Remote to retirees as
well.
The Military Coalition strongly supports waiving all copayments for
active duty family members, retirees and their family members and
survivors enrolled in PRIME. The Coalition, therefore, urges this
Subcommittee to provide funding for these long overdue initiatives. The
Coalition also urges this Subcommittee to appropriate sufficient funds
to ensure that health care costs for active duty family members, and
retirees, who reside in areas not served by TRICARE Prime, do not
exceed the co-payments of family members who participate in TRICARE
Prime.
Fix Problems with new TRICARE 3.0 Contract.--The Coalition is
concerned about several aspects of the new TRICARE 3.0 managed care
support contract which is due to be implemented this year beginning in
TRICARE Region 11. For example, the new 3.0 contract incorporates
enrollment-based capitation funding for military medical treatment
facilities (otherwise known as alternative financing). And yet Sect.
744 of the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act required DOD to
conduct a study on the implications of the alternative financing before
applying it nationwide. This report was to have been submitted by March
1, 1999, yet, to the Coalition's knowledge, DOD never initiated the
required study.
The Coalition is also concerned that the TRICARE 3.0 contract will
provide too much latitude for contractors to implement their own
policies and processes for managing the TRICARE managed care program.
While the Coalition applauds innovations by the contractors to improve
the TRICARE program, the Coalition is also aware that there are some
contractors who have implemented procedures that have only made the
program more difficult for the beneficiaries. For example, TRICARE
contractors have interpreted requirements for preauthorization for care
very differently from Region to Region. In Region 1, the managed care
contractor, Sierra Military Health Services, requires preauthorization
for all inpatient care regardless of the beneficiary's enrollment
status (Prime or Standard) or residence (in or out of the catchment
area of an MTF). The Coalition is dismayed that pre-authorization is
even required for TRICARE beneficiaries when they have other health
insurance that pays first. This blanket requirement for
preauthorization is creating havoc among beneficiaries in this Region.
Conversely, in the TRICARE Central Region, the managed care contractor,
Tri-West, has relaxed its preauthorization requirements. Tri-West
adopted the more efficient approach of pinpointing certain procedures
that should be more closely scrutinized for preauthorization and
eliminated preauthorization requirements for the rest. This is just one
example of how different contractors can apply ``best industry
practices'' in dramatically different ways, in effect creating a
completely different TRICARE Prime program. The Coalition believes that
the new 3.0 contract further encourages such variances, with the
potential result being 6 different TRICARE Programs in 12 different
TRICARE Regions. Such variance would be devastating for the
beneficiaries.
The Coalition strongly recommends that the Subcommittee prohibit
the use of appropriated funds to implement the new TRICARE 3.0 contract
until DOD completes the Congressionally mandated study on the
enrollment based capitation funding methodology and until DOD finds a
way to ensure that ``best industry practices'' can be applied in such a
manner as to keep the TRICARE program uniform in benefits, practices
and procedures in the different Regions.
Fully Implement Portability and Reciprocity.--Although DOD has
issued a policy memorandum stating that TRICARE Prime enrollees in one
region will be able to receive services from Prime in another region
(reciprocity) and will be able to transfer their enrollment when they
move (portability), this policy still has yet to be fully implemented
in all existing TRICARE regions. Enrollees are still experiencing a
disruption in enrollment when they move between regions and are still
not able to receive services from another TRICARE Region. The lack of
reciprocity is presenting particular difficulties for TRICARE
beneficiaries living in ``border'' areas where two TRICARE regions
intersect. In some of the more rural areas, the closest provider or
pharmacy may actually be located in another TRICARE region, and yet due
to the lack of reciprocity, these beneficiaries cannot use these
providers or pharmacies. This situation must be rectified immediately.
TRICARE must become a seamless system to truly serve a beneficiary
population that is the most mobile in the country.
The Coalition urges immediate implementation of portability and
reciprocity to minimize the disruption in TRICARE Prime services for
beneficiaries.
Uneven Benefit under TRICARE Prime.--Sometimes TRICARE Prime
enrollees, particularly those enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member
program, or those with complicated health care problems, moving from
one TRICARE region to another find that care authorized or covered in
one Region is not authorized or covered in the new Region. Often
specific specialty care is promised in the new Region, and then upon
arrival, the family is told to disenroll the beneficiary from Prime in
order to continue with that care. Although this may affect only a small
number of beneficiaries, these are the very beneficiaries who direly
need continuity of care and cannot afford the higher costs under
TRICARE Standard.
The Coalition strongly recommends that care for these exceptional
cases be effectively managed in an integrated manner across all TRICARE
regions. Beneficiaries requiring specific specialty care should not be
shunted into Standard simply because the managed care contractor is not
able to provide that particular specialty within the Prime network.
TMC is particularly grateful to this Subcommittee for including in
last year's Defense Appropriations Act a definition of Custodial Care
that meets industry standards. While the requirement has not been fully
implemented across all TRICARE Regions, it is slowly being put into
place. Without this Subcommittee's intervention, DOD would have
certainly continued implementing its ``unique'' definition of medically
necessary care for those beneficiaries considered custodial patients.
The result would have meant either cost shifting to Medicaid, or a loss
of medically necessary care for the most vulnerable of the DOD
beneficiary population or both.
The Coalition further implores this Subcommittee to again include
in the Appropriations Act the provision protecting the medically
necessary care for custodial patients.
Access standards for TRICARE Prime.--The Coalition continues to
document numerous instances in most TRICARE Regions where access
standards for time and for distance have not been met. Interestingly
enough, these reports now seem to be focused on military hospitals not
meeting access standards rather than managed care support contractors.
While the Coalition applauds the progress made by the civilian
contractors in addressing this problem, this is only half of the story.
Military hospitals must also be held accountable to the very same
access standards that must be adhered to by the civilian contractors.
The Coalition strongly recommends that this Subcommittee hold
military hospitals accountable to the same access standards that are
now being met, apparently successfully, by managed care contractors,
particularly if DOD is to be allowed to continue to bring as much
health care as possible back into military treatment facilities.
The Coalition also wants to address one more issue concerning
access to care under TRICARE Prime. In areas where specialty care is
not available, Prime enrollees have been forced to travel great
distances from their MTFs to receive this care. Such travel places an
undue burden on beneficiaries who travel at their own expense.
The Coalition strongly recommends this Subcommittee appropriate
additional funds for TRICARE to cover the expenses of Prime enrollees
who have to travel more than 100 miles to get specialty care.
115 percent Billing Limit Under TRICARE Standard.--In 1995, DOD
unilaterally reinterpreted the 115 percent billing limit in cases of
third party insurance so as to substantially reduce TRICARE's
reimbursement to beneficiaries. While providers may charge any amount,
TRICARE only recognizes amounts up to 115 percent of the TRICARE
``allowable charge'' for a given procedure. Under DOD's previous
interpretation, any third party insurer would pay first, then TRICARE
(formerly CHAMPUS) would pay any balance up to 75 percent of the
allowable charge (80 percent for active duty dependents).
Since the reinterpretation, TRICARE will not pay anything at all if
the third party insurer pays an amount equal to or higher than the 115
percent billing limit.
DOD's shift in policy unfairly penalizes beneficiaries with other
health insurance plans, by making them pay out of pocket what TRICARE
previously covered. In other words, they reduce TRICARE's costs, but
may forfeit their entire TRICARE benefit because of private sector
employment or some other factor that provides them private health
insurance. In practice, despite statutory intent, these individuals
have no TRICARE benefit.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to support
elimination of the 115 percent billing limit when TRICARE Standard is
second payer to other health insurance.
Requirements for Non Availability Statements under TRICARE
Standard.--The Military Coalition continues to believe that all
requirements for a Non Availability Statement (NAS) should be
eliminated for those beneficiaries choosing to participate in TRICARE
Standard. By choosing to remain in Standard, beneficiaries are
voluntarily accepting higher copayments and deductibles in return for
having the freedom to choose their own providers. The Coalition
appreciates that the intent of NAS system, when CHAMPUS was an evolving
program, was to maximize the use of military treatment facilities.
However, when TRICARE was created, it offered beneficiaries a choice in
how to exercise their health care benefit. DOD should allow
beneficiaries this choice, and not insist that Standard beneficiaries
jump through hoops to exercise this choice, particularly since most
care in military hospitals and clinics is being given on a first
priority basis to Prime enrollees anyway. More importantly, this
capricious policy frequently denies TRICARE Standard beneficiaries one
of the most important principles of top quality health care--continuity
of care.
The Coalition strongly recommends that all requirements for Non
Availability Statements be removed from the TRICARE Standard option.
Catastrophic Cap under Standard.--The TRICARE Standard (CHAMPUS)
catastrophic cap on out of pockets is still $7,500 for retirees. This
is much higher than other civilian fee-for-service plans which
traditionally set limits between $2,000 if preferred providers are seen
and $3,750 if non-preferred providers are used. The current
catastrophic cap of $7,500 imposes an extraordinary financial burden on
beneficiaries in TRICARE Standard and severely disadvantages them
compared to active duty families and those enrolled in TRICARE Prime.
The Coalition strongly recommends that as a matter of equity, this
cap be reduced to a maximum of $3,000.
conclusion
The Military Coalition would like to reiterate its profound
gratitude for all of the hard work this Subcommittee has done in the
last two years to provide the resources necessary to promote health
care equity for all uniformed services beneficiaries, particularly
those who are Medicare-eligibles. The Subcommittee's efforts to
authorize the implementation of the TRICARE Senior Prime and the FEHBP-
65 tests are important steps toward honoring the lifetime health care
commitment. However it is now time to take further steps to fully
restore this promise by expanding the BRAC Pharmacy benefit nationwide
by October 1, 2000; expanding TRICARE Senior Prime to 10 additional
sites by January 2001 and nationwide in 2002; and expanding the FEHBP
program to two additional sites starting this November, and then
nationwide by January 2002.
The Coalition also recommends that special consideration be given
to individuals who entered the service before June 7, 1956 as proposed
in S. 2003 and S. 2013. As George Washington said in a March 18, 1783,
letter to Continental Congress pleading that those who put their lives
at risk for the betterment of all their countrymen should not have
their sacrifices be met by the empty promises of an ungrateful nation
``For if, besides the simple payment of their Wages, a further
compensation is not due to the sufferings and sacrifices of the
Officers, then I have been mistaken indeed. If the whole Army have not
merited whatever a grateful people can bestow, then have I been
beguiled by prejudice, and built opinion on the basis of error. If this
Country should not in the event perform every thing which has been
requested in the late memorial to Congress, then will my belief become
vain, and the hope that has been excited void of foundation. . . . But
I am under no such apprehension, a Country rescued by their Arms from
impending ruin, will never leave unpaid the debt of gratitude.''
Much work also remains to be done with the TRICARE program.
Immediate efforts must be undertaken, both by Congress, and by DOD to:
ensure adequate funding for TRICARE to attract and retain quality
health care providers; implement Congressionally mandated fixes to the
claims processing system in a timely manner; reduce or eliminate
preauthorization and NAS requirements; reduce the TRICARE Standard
catastrophic cap to $3,000; waive Prime copayments and implement Prime
Remote for all enrollees; and fix the new TRICARE 3.0 managed care
contract to ensure TRICARE delivers a uniform health care program
across the different regions.
Senator Stevens. To your last comment, I just returned from
my 50th anniversary at law school. I want you to know that my
generation is dying every day without regard to the health care
problems. Let us not mix the two up.
Thank you.
Questions, Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I should say our
generation.
Our next witness is Ronald Violi, of the Children's
Hospital of Pittsburgh, along with Dr. Sven Bursell, of the
Joslin Diabetes Center.
STATEMENT OF RONALD L. VIOLI, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF
PITTSBURGH
ACCOMPANIED BY SVEN BURSELL, M.D., JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER
Mr. Violi. Mr. Chairman, Senators, thanks for the
opportunity to be here today. I am here today to talk about a
cure for juvenile diabetes.
Last year, you provided both Joslin and Children's the
opportunity to establish the Joint Diabetes Project, which
allows each of us to contribute our unique strengths for
treating and researching diabetes. Our principal investigator,
Dr. Massimo Trucco, who is here with us today, has found a link
behind common childhood viruses and juvenile diabetes. We
believe this virus triggers the onset of juvenile diabetes in
children who are genetically at risk for developing this
disease. This research, which is being conducted in
collaboration with the Army and specialists at Walter Reed
Hospital, will ultimately help to develop a diabetes vaccine.
In addition, as part of our first year 2000 proposal, we
are collaborating with scientists at Carnegie Mellon University
and with experts in Germany to access and develop the expertise
in using advanced technology for gene and antibody screening.
Ultimately, these studies will allow us to screen larger
populations of children more cost effectively so we can better
identify children at risk for developing diabetes.
Once these children have been identified, they can be
followed more closely and vaccinated against this disease. Last
year, the Diabetes Research Working Group identified both
immune therapy and eyelet cell transplantation as offering the
greatest potential benefit for the cure and treatment of
diabetes.
With our request for an additional $7 million in funding
for fiscal year 2001, we plan to focus our research on three
core objectives that will encompass these protocols. First, we
intend to recruit scientists with expertise in improving the
transplantation of insulin-producing cells to eliminate the
need for anti-rejection medication. Second, we will transfer
some of our successful protocols into human clinical trials.
And, finally, using in vitro techniques, we will take stem
cells from the pancreas or bone marrow of the diabetic patient,
manipulate them in the lab, and return them to the patient with
the intent of generating new insulin-producing cells.
We fully recognize that funding for these efforts cannot
come from only one source. Next week we will be formally
announcing the fact that Dr. Trucco has recently been awarded a
5-year, $10 million grant from the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation
for a complementary study.
We look forward to continuing our work with our colleagues
from Joslin and concentrating our collective efforts on finding
a cure for this disease. However, a substantial Federal
commitment to diabetes research remains critical to our
success. And we hope that you will consider our request. We
appreciate your support. And to all members of the
subcommittee, thank you so very much.
Senator Stevens. Dr. Bursell.
Dr. Bursell. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you
for the opportunity to present our project today. The Joslin
Diabetes Center Project focuses on providing eye health care to
all diabetic patients within the DOD health care system,
including dependents of DOD personnel. Unfortunately, we know
that only about half of our diabetic patients receive
appropriate eye care, despite the fact that a program of eye
care with annual assessment of the retina produces significant
personal savings, reductions of risks of other diabetes-related
complications, as well as a saving of available health care
dollars.
As you will recall, the Joslin Vision Network (JVN) is a
telemedicine platform that facilitates remote acquisition of
retinal images taken without the need of pupil dilation and
centralized resources at diabetes-related centers of
excellence, providing retinal assessments, treatment and
education plans. Furthermore, we have shown that this program
provides diagnoses that are equivalent in accuracy to the
current clinical gold standard for retinal assessment.
At the end of the current year of funding, we will have
deployed JVN image acquisition sites in Hawaii, at the Tripler
Army Medical Center and at the Honolulu VA, in the New England
area, in Alaska, at Elmendorf Air Force Base, and at the Walter
Reed Army Medical Center, in Maryland. Additionally, the
development efforts resulting from the current funding will
result in an application that is totally compliant with
existing DOD medical information infrastructure. This will
allow us to realize an application for diabetic eye care that
is cost sensitive and resource efficient.
Further, the application architecture will provide the
platform for a seamless integration into the Internet
environment to support a comprehensive interactive diabetes
care program. This diabetes health care application within the
current jurisdiction will be available to any patient within
the DOD health care system, and will provide early detection
technology and superior eye care capability.
For the fiscal year 2001, we are requesting level funding
of $7 million. These funds will allow us to continue to provide
these services and to refine the application with the
development of interactive, Internet-based modules focusing on
collaborative, comprehensive diabetes management systems that
also incorporate the JVN eye health care and diabetes health
care and self-management and education module. It is
anticipated that these refinements will broaden the scope and
availability of diabetes detection, care and prevention within
the DOD health care environment.
Additionally, we anticipate an accelerated deployment over
the next year of new sites, including new remote sites in the
Alaska area. And on the academic side, we currently have two
papers that have been accepted in peer-review journals and two
papers that are currently under review, one of them was
actually spearheaded by the research group at the Tripler Army
Medical Center.
Conversations with program officials within the DOD applied
research and defense health programs have indicated that 2 more
years of operational application of this technology will be
required before DOD adopts the JVN application as a standard
component within the defense health care protocol. Finally, of
the $7 million requested, 49 percent, or $3.4 million, would be
allocated to DOD and VA participation, and costs associated
with program implementation. We respectfully request
continuation of funding at the level of $7 million for the
Joslin Diabetes Center Project and to fully fund the $14
million for the combined project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, for your
continued support of this very exciting project that represents
a ground-breaking paradigm for providing diabetes health care
to all diabetic patients. Thank you, Senators.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald Violi
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you. I am Ronald Violi,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Children's Hospital of
Pittsburgh. Joining me today to present an update on the Joint Diabetes
Project is Dr. Sven Bursell of the Joslin Diabetes Center. We are here
to provide information on our work with the Departments of Defense and
Veteran's Affairs to address the growing health concerns and emotional,
financial and physical costs related to diabetes. In the United States,
there are 10.3 million people diagnosed with diabetes, and a new case
is diagnosed every 40 seconds. It is estimated that there are 16
million Americans who have diabetes. Many of those affected are the
families and children of current and former members of the armed
services.
The establishment of the Joint Diabetes Project has allowed each of
our institutions to contribute its unique strengths and extraordinary
scientific and patient care talents to this partnership. Last year, you
provided us with the opportunity to combine our resources to offer the
most advanced detection, treatment, prevention and basic and applied
research approaches in the world to manage diabetes and its resulting
complications. Our proposal for second year funding will allow us to
continue to provide the most balanced approach available to address
Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes (or juvenile and adult onset diabetes,
respectively).
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh Plan for Fiscal Year 2001
Although we have just submitted our proposal for current year
funding, we anticipate being able to move forward with our aggressive
juvenile diabetes vaccine research program. In fiscal year 2001,
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP) will continue to focus upon the
autoimmune response involved with Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus
(IDDM). The collaboration between CHP and the University of Pittsburgh
Medical Center and its research resources will facilitate the study of
diabetes from a variety of juvenile and adult perspectives, making
possible the development of preventive and transplantation protocols
for intervention. Last year, both of these approaches (immunotherapy
and islet transplantation) were designated by the congressionally
established Diabetes Research Working Group to offer the greatest
potential benefit.
Under the direction of our principal investigator, Dr. Massimo
Trucco, Head of the Division of Immunogenetics of the Department of
Pediatrics and Director of a new diabetes center sponsored by the
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International (JDFI); and through our work
with the Army's Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center
(TATRC), groundbreaking research will continue to be studied regarding
the link between Coxsackievirus B or CVB, a common childhood virus,
which we believe may trigger the onset of juvenile diabetes in children
who are genetically predisposed. As a component of our fiscal year 2000
funding, we have proposed to continue our work with Army medical
personnel at Fort Detrick and with specialists in Endocrinology at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This important research is aimed at
developing a vaccine, which will prevent genetically at-risk children
from developing diabetes.
This work involves extensive collaboration between scientists at
CHP and experts in flourochromes and robotic devices at the National
Science Foundation's Science and Technology Center located at Carnegie
Mellon University in Pittsburgh, along with experts in microarray
technology at the University of Tuebingen in Germany. This combined
expertise will allow for the screening of an exceptionally high number
of parameters, such as genetic and immunologic diabetes risk markers,
in a very limited amount of time (less than 30 minutes) which could
then serve a larger population at a very reduced cost.
This use of existing advanced technology and rapidly developing new
technology will allow scientists to improve the ability to predict
those individuals who are susceptible to the disease and to allow them
to design safe protocols of intervention for those at high-risk for
developing the disease.
Fiscal Year 2001 Program Overview
For fiscal year 2001, we have defined the following goals and
related activities that will expand upon the initial juvenile diabetes
research program funded by Congress through the Department of Defense
in fiscal year 2000:
--Recruit new scientists with expertise in establishing and testing
new tolerogenic approaches aimed at eliminating the need for
immune suppression regimens to prevent pancreatic islet graft
rejection.
--Transfer some of the proposed successful protocols of therapy from
the animal model to human clinical trials.
--Exploit the characteristics of pluripotent cells still present in
the pancreas and bone marrow of the adult patient to generate
new, non-autoimmune-prone, insulin-secreting pancreatic beta-
cells useful to replace the lost ones without any rejection
problems.
Fiscal Year 2001 CHP/Diabetes Institute of Pittsburgh Funding Request--
$7,000,000
The CHP/Diabetes Institute of Pittsburgh has been established
through the creation of a successful public-private partnership. Our
ability to secure support for this project from the federal government
has helped to provide the crucial leverage that recently resulted in a
diabetes research grant from a private donor. This is in addition to
the $6 million in seed money that has been provided by CHP and UPMC to
create the Institute. We continue to seek funding from the National
Institutes of Health and although it has not yet been publicly
announced, Dr. Trucco has recently learned that the national Juvenile
Diabetes Foundation has awarded him a 5-year, $10 million grant focused
on making the cells in the islet of the pancreas more resistant to
rejection once transplanted into the patient to cure diabetes. This
grant will enhance the current research that has been undertaken with
the Department of Defense by providing funding for another diabetes
research program with a complementary focus within the Institute. This
public-private partnership has been developed to create a world-class,
state-of-the-art research center that will have a tremendous impact at
both the regional and national levels.
CHP/Diabetes Institute of Pittsburgh Expenses
The proposed budget will consider expenditures associated with the
isolation, genetic modification, expansion and transplantation of
animal and human pancreatic islet cells.
Renovation of additional laboratory space to house a state-of-the-
art endocrine cell isolation core facility and expansion of the animal
facilities will use part of the financial support. The remainder of the
support will be used to recruit appropriate personnel and to purchase
required equipment and reagents necessary to reach the proposed goals.
Fifteen percent (15 percent) will be used for the Department's
administration fee.
Total CHP/Diabetes Project Costs--$7,000,000.
Joslin Diabetes Center Plan for Fiscal Year 2001
The Joslin diabetes detection, care and treatment project, which
includes the Joslin Vision Network (JVN) telemedicine initiative and
the Diabetes Outpatient Intensive Treatment Program (DOIT), is a
coordinated effort in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of
diabetes and diabetic retinopathy. Joslin Diabetes Center, the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans' Affairs have
joined in a cooperative effort to deploy and evaluate this disease
management healthcare model.
Following an implementation planning workshop involving all
identified participants, systems have been deployed at DOD sites in
Hawaii and VA sites in Hawaii and sites in the New England VISN1
region. Training at Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, instruction
manuals for image acquisition and image review and manuals of operation
for the JVN/DOD/VA clinical studies were authored and disseminated to
project participants.
Patient recruitment into the initial clinical trials was initiated
following Investigational Review Board approval from the various
participating sites. It is anticipated that patient recruitment for
these clinical studies will be completed by June 2000 at which point
the data collected will be analyzed by the identified participants of
the Data Analysis Committee with respect to the primary and secondary
outcomes detailed in the project Manual of Operations.
Additionally, the JVN image validation study is currently
undergoing peer review for publication in Ophthalmology. The results
from this study demonstrated the equivalence between the JVN undilated
digital video retinal images and the current ``gold standard'' Early
Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study dilated 7 standard field 35 mm
retinal photography with respect to diagnosis of clinical level of
diabetic retinopathy and appropriate referral to specialty
ophthalmology services.
The results from the image validation study and preliminary results
from the proposed clinical studies have been presented at the annual
American Telemedicine Association, Association for Research in Vision
and Ophthalmology, American Diabetes Association and American Academy
of Optometry annual meetings.
The prototype JVN system with electronic medical record templates
designed specifically for the proposed clinical studies were
successfully deployed at Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC), Honolulu
VA, VISN1 (Brockton VA and Jamaica Plain VA) and at the Joslin Diabetes
Center. Images are being transmitted daily from all remote sites to the
Reading Center at Joslin. TAMC has imaged and transferred over the
Internet to the Reading Center at Joslin more than 220 patients
initially as part of their certification process and more recently as
part of the randomized clinical trial. The VISN1 sites have also imaged
and transferred over 400 patients to Joslin as part of the same
process.
As part of the DOIT program proposed for this project, the 2 VISN1
sites have randomized 42 patients into the DOIT intervention arm of
program, the experimental study cohort, and 35 into the Edu Post
program, the control cohort consisting of patients receiving only the
current standard of care. In Hawaii, TAMC has enrolled and randomized
49 patients into the DOIT intervention arm and 42 into the control Edu
Post arm of the study.
By jointly developing and implementing these research protocols for
the JVN Diabetes Health Care system, we are in a position to move
forward with a phased implementation of an evidence based practice
model that can be scaled for high volume deployment in a resource
efficient and cost effective manner at any identified site.
Fiscal Year 2000-Fiscal Year 2001 Objectives
The clinical research objectives are to complete the present
randomized clinical trials, to enroll the identified sites where JVN
will be deployed for this funding year into the clinical trials
studies, and to provide service and support for these sites.
The use of the JVN equipment and expansion of screening
opportunities are a major focus for fiscal year 2000 activities.
Expansion of this pilot demonstration project will entail the planning
and implementation of new deployments that currently being considered
for Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), Elmendorf Air Force Base
in Alaska, and VISN-1 sites in Togus, Maine, and West Haven,
Connecticut. The actual number of sites deployed to will depend on the
telecommunications infrastructure at the identified sites and the ease
and costs associated with interfacing the JVN technology into the
existing infrastructure.
An equally important concentration of resources in fiscal year 2000
is focused on refining the technical core using outcomes based medical
and case management scenarios to develop a diabetes healthcare model
that is modular, customizable and that can be seamlessly integrated
into the existing DOD and VA telemedicine systems. The overarching
vision for the DOD/VA/JVN project is a web-based comprehensive diabetes
health care system that can be interactively used by both patients and
providers, that incorporates diagnosis specific education and training
modules for patients and providers and that incorporates software
applications that allow outcome measures to be statistically assessed
and individual treatment programs to be interactively adjusted based on
these outcome measures. The JVN Eye Health care system exists as a
component of a comprehensive diabetes management system that relies on
leveraging the current WRAMC Cardiology Outcomes Project (CADRE) and
incorporating other clinical disciplines such as endocrinology,
vascular surgery and internal medicine.
In order to make the above vision a reality we will expend
considerable effort in migrating the JVN demonstration technology
platform into an application that is totally compliant with existing
DOD medical informatics infrastructures and the existing VISTA
infrastructure of the VA system. This will encompass the integration of
hardware and software in close collaboration with available resources
from the VA VISTA program and the DOD DINPACS program to ensure DICOM
and HL7 compliancy that will allow a highly scaleable transparent
integration of the JVN Diabetes Eye Health Care system into the
existing health informatics infrastructures of the DOD and VA systems.
The proposed development effort for Y2000 will result in an application
that is cost sensitive and resource efficient with respect to support
and maintenance of the JVN component for an accelerated deployment in
the future and will support an Internet based application that will
provide Diabetes Outpatient Intensive Training in a virtual
environment.
For the fiscal year 2001 project phase, we have established the
following tasks, targets, and activities:
--Deployment of a viable, sustainable, and refined operating JVN
Diabetes Eye Health Care model which is currently being
developed for this cooperative telemedicine project.
--Develop a modularized medical outcomes based telemedicine diabetes
intensive treatment program in collaboration with the DOD and
VA with outcome measures incorporated into software based on
clinical results and research experiences of the Y2000 efforts.
--Develop curriculum based patient and provider educational modules.
--Plan and develop a web-based comprehensive Diabetes Management
System.
--Technical core activities will include:
--Medical record migration into the Internet environment using
existing transaction engines with the goal of ultimately
providing a universal medical record platform
--Secure telecommunication infrastructure
--LInternet based Virtual Private Network
--Interactive healthcare portals
--LInternet transaction engines for interactive diabetes
management that empowers both the provider and the patient
into appropriate evidence based clinical management on the
provider side and improved self management on the patient
side that will potentially result in significant risk
reductions of diabetic complications and an improved
quality of life for all diabetic patients
--The three Hawaii DOD/VA sites will complete validation studies and
expand their JVN/intensive treatment demonstration projects
with respect to integration of the program into the virtual
environment leveraging the Internet based application efforts.
This will require further randomized clinical trials to
validate the value of the interactive Internet based diabetes
care intervention program.
--Elmendorf Air Force Base will become operational as an image
acquisition, image review, and intensive treatment site. Plans
are underway for the deployment and field testing of mobile JVN
image acquisition units which will serve as a prototype for
widespread outreach of the Joslin Diabetes Eye and Health Care
system in a truly remote area.
--WRAMC will become fully operational with respect to the JVN image
acquisition for retinopathy assessment with plans for JVN
reading center certification.
--VISN-1 will develop the infrastructure for a fully certified and
operational JVN Reading Center to support the Brockton, West
Roxbury, Togus and West Haven image acquisition/image review
sites.
--Boston area VA sites will complete validation studies and expand
their patient population for further randomized clinical trials
using the interactive Internet based diabetes care intervention
program.
--Refine the concept of the Web-based Comprehensive Diabetes
Management system that will integrate applications involving
not only the JVN but also applications based on endocrinology,
cardiology, vascular surgery and internal medicine.
--Fiscal year 2001 Joslin Diabetes Center level funding request--
$7,000,000
--DOD/VA Program Participation Costs--$2,560,000
--DOD Management and Administration Fees--$840,000
--Joslin Diabetes Center Costs--$3,600,000
Level funding for the overall project in fiscal year 2001 provides
for the continued implementation and development of the existing
demonstration project sites; completion of important validation and
certification studies; integration of refined, sustainable technology;
and the planning and development of an Internet based interactive
comprehensive diabetes management system that incorporates the JVN/DOIT
interactive diabetes health care system.
With the continued successful implementation of this groundbreaking
Joslin/DOD/VA telemedicine project representing a unique partnership
between a government agency and an academic institution, we envision a
phased integration into regular clinical and budget operations
beginning in fiscal year 2002.
Following the sustained implementation of this validation phase of
the project, Joslin will provide scientific, technical, clinical and
management assistance in the ongoing planning development, monitoring
and evaluation of the JVN diabetes health care system as an integral
component of the envisioned Comprehensive Diabetes Management System.
Joslin funding summary
DOD/VA Program Participation Costs (current)..................$2,560,000
DOD Management and Administration Fees........................ 840,000
Joslin Diabetes Center Expenses............................... 3,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Joslin project cost.............................. 7,000,000
Joslin Diabetes Center Funding Justification
The budget that Joslin is submitting for fiscal year 2001 again
addresses all known expense items and Federal agency participation
costs. The DOD standard management and administration fee has been
approximately 12 percent for each of the past two years. These fees are
spread across several agencies within DOD, which is apparently a
standard practice for extramural contracts. In addition, an across the
board cut of 1.5 percent, or $80,000, was also levied against fiscal
year 2000 project funding.
We have taken those elements into consideration and budgeted
accordingly. Of the total of $7 million related to the Joslin Diabetes
Center pilot program, $2,560,000 of this amount would be split among
DOD and VA for their program costs associated with this project. Of the
remaining funds, we estimate that $840,000 would be levied by DOD
against the project. Therefore, the remaining $3,600,000 would be used
for continued JVN development and purchase of equipment, supplies,
travel and Joslin personnel to carry out the program objectives
outlined in this statement.
I would like to point out that the Departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs are gaining expertise and expanding their sites using
Joslin's technology, that Joslin's direct receipt of Federal funds is
declining. This is by Joslin's design. In fiscal year 2000, Joslin
actually will receive $4 million of the $7 million apportioned for this
project, or approximately 57 percent of the total. In fiscal year 2001,
of the $7 million we are requesting, Joslin's share declines to
$3,600,000, or slightly over 50 percent of the total. The balance of
funds will be used by DOD and VA for program and administrative
management of this expanding project.
Summary
Fiscal year 2001 federal funding for the Joint Diabetes Project
will allow this collaborative initiative to improve the diagnosis and
treatment of diabetes to benefit the dependents of employees and
enlisted personnel through the concentration of efforts to identify
advanced treatment protocols and cutting-edge research to ultimately
identify a cure for the disease.
Summary--Joint Diabetes Project, Fiscal Year 2001 Funding
Joslin Diabetes Center.................................. $7,000,000
(DOD and VA Costs, DOD Administration and Management
Fees)............................................... (3,400,000)
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh....................... 7,000,000
(DOD Administration and Management Fees)................ (980,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Program..................................... 14,000,000
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be a part of this project with the
Department of Defense and appreciate the support that your Committee
provided to us last year, and we would be appreciative of your
continued support again this year. We would be pleased to answer any
questions from you or any other Members of the Committee.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Did you make a
request to the Health and Human Services Subcommittee this year
for funding through NIH?
Dr. Bursell. We have not made a request for funding through
NIH at this point. What we anticipate doing is using the
results that we develop from this demonstration program to
actually move forward with formal NIH funding.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Violi, have you requested funds
through the other subcommittee?
Mr. Violi. Yes, we have.
Senator Stevens. How much did you request there?
Mr. Violi. I do not know. Dr. Trucco might be able to
answer that.
Dr. Trucco. Out of different grants of $150,000 to
$200,000, we have a total of five.
Senator Stevens. What is the total you requested from that
subcommittee?
Mr. Violi. From NIH.
Dr. Trucco. I would say that it totals $1.5 million.
Ms. Visco. $1.5 million, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Yes, Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. I wonder if you would do me a favor. When
you get to the 21st witness, would you insert my statement?
Senator Stevens. I would be very pleased to do that.
Do you have any questions at this time?
Senator Domenici. First, I want to commend you, Mr.
Chairman, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Inouye,
for your hard work on Indian Affairs. I think we all have come
to realize, in terms of the population of the United States
that is most vulnerable to diabetes, that it is the Indian
population.
That is not to degrade these funding requests, but, we have
groups of Native Americans, the largest group being the Navajo
Tribe, where the propensity for diabetes is so high that some
statisticians would indicate that if we do not turn it around,
this disease could actually eliminate the Navajo people in a
period of 30 or 40 years.
In the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, we established two
programs with mandatory funding of $30 million a year each for
diabetes. One program focused on the national diabetes problem,
and one focused on Indian diabetes. I hope both programs are
working in the direction of alleviating some of the problems
and getting some prevention in existing programs.
I want to commend our witness in particular on the Juvenile
Diabetes Association. We work with your program in New Mexico
and elsewhere. You have the most fantastic citizens involved at
the ground level working with the young people. It makes sense
to do what we can in every appropriations bill, and to the
extent that I can, I want you to know that I support diabetes
efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Violi. Thank you, Senator. I think it is important to
point out that most folks today are talking about treatment of
diabetes. And that is certainly important. We at Children's
Hospital, in Pittsburgh, today are talking about a cure for
juvenile diabetes. We are very excited about what we are doing
and where we are going.
This is a first. It has been a long time coming. Dr. Trucco
is a world-renown expert in this. We are collaborating with
people all over the world and throughout the United States. We
really think we have something here. And we think, at the end
of the day, it will be the answer.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We have to move on. I
want you to know I am disturbed about the amount of the DOD and
VA administrative costs and management fees. I intend to ask
the GAO to examine the management fees that are being charged
by the various departments, as they merely write checks to
various entities that we have urged them to work with in terms
of these research programs. The total management fee in your
request is $4 million out of $14 million.
We can get cheaper managers than the Department of Defense
if they do not wake up. We will put it somewhere else. I do
hope you talk to them about the level of these management
administrative costs, that it is too high, much too high. And I
think the GAO should tell us what is a reasonable figure for
managing money that we allocate to specific projects such as
yours. We thank you very much.
Mr. Violi. Thank you, Senator.
Dr. Bursell. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Dr. Genevieve Ames, on
behalf of the Research Society on Alcoholism.
Good morning, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE M. AMES, PH.D., ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR AND SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST,
PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER/PACIFIC
INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EVALUATION, AND
PROGRAM DIRECTOR, NIAAA PRE AND POST
DOCTORAL TRAINING PROGRAM, PREVENTION
RESEARCH CENTER AND SCHOOL OF PUBLIC
HEALTH, AND ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF
PUBLIC HEALTH BIOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY,
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Dr. Ames. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to testify
here today.
I am a Research Scientist from the Prevention Research
Center in University of California School of Public Health in
Berkeley, and I am pleased to talk to you today about funding
for research on alcoholism and alcohol abuse. I am sorry the
Senator from New Mexico just left, because I wanted to
mention--he said 50 percent of Native American and aboriginal
people are diabetic. On some reservations in the United States,
50 percent of the people are also alcoholics.
I would like to make several points today about drinking in
the military and our request for more funding to go to research
that will focus specifically on the military. Heavy drinking
among military men is over 40 percent more prevalent than in
the civilian sector and, 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; and one in four men aged 21 to 25
engage in heavy drinking.
The prevalence of heavy drinking is particularly high among
service men that are not married in the Marine Corps and in the
Army. And for all personnel in the E-1 through E-3 pay grades,
it is 26 percent in those grades who are heavy drinkers.
Alcohol abuse costs the Nation at large approximately $167
billion annually. About one-tenth of this pays for treatment,
the rest is the cost of lost productivity, accidents, violence,
driving while intoxicated (DWI) and premature death due to
alcohol-related illnesses.
In the military, it is unknown what the cost of alcoholism
and alcohol abuse is, but it is likely to be enormous. We do
know that among personnel in the lowest pay grades, E-1 to E-3,
about one in five experiences productivity loss due to
drinking. One in six reports serious consequences of drinking.
One in 10 reports symptoms of alcohol dependence. And, 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.
Although heavy alcohol use in the military has declined
significantly since 1980, the rates have remained relatively
stable in recent years, and there has been no decline since
1995. These findings stand in striking contrast to the dramatic
decline in rates of illicit drug use in the military over the
same period. There has been a 90-percent decrease in drug use
between 1980 and 1998, which is very positive.
The unchanging high levels of heavy drinking and negative
alcohol-related consequences highlight the critical need for
more research and programmatic programs. So what research
advances have been made that are useful for the military? Well,
we are poised at this time with unprecedented opportunities in
biomedical and behavioral alcohol research. Genetic research
will improve our understanding of the interaction between
heredity and the environment in the development of alcoholism.
The field of neuroscience is a promising area. We are
developing more effective drug therapies for alcoholism. And
this requires an improved understanding of how alcohol changes
the brain function to create craving, loss of control,
tolerance, and the alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
Clinical trials of various treatment approaches are in
process. For example, Naltrexone, which is a drug that blocks
the brain's natural opiates, has shown to reduce craving for
alcohol. And that research is still being carried out.
Most importantly, scientists are exploring ways to develop
new programs for primary prevention of problems associated with
alcohol. And for the military, in my view, and other members of
the Research Society on Alcoholism, this is an important
approach. Prevention is important because it intervenes with
problems before they occur as opposed to after the damage is
done. When we speak of costly alcohol-related problems, we are
talking about accidents, injuries, violence, lowered
productivity, lowered safety, increased illness, and disrupted
family and community life.
We are making forward progress in all of these areas and,
as you know, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism and the Department of Veterans Affairs is severely
underfunded. Moreover, few studies focus on prevention and
treatment approaches that are specific to the needs of the
military. I myself am doing research on the military. And, to
my knowledge, I am the only one that I know of at this time in
all of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
(NIAAA) that is conducting studies that focus specifically on
drinking in the military.
So we are asking that the DOD contribute $10 million--the
Research Society on Alcoholism is asking that. We urge the
Department of Defense to allocate this amount out of the next
fiscal budget to go toward alcohol research. And these funds
could be administered directly by the Department of Defense, as
they were last year, alone, or they could be jointly with VA
and NIAAA. This would allow the military to be a part of the
advance of opportunities to research into the causes,
consequences, prevention, and treatment of alcohol abuse and
alcoholism.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Genevieve M. Ames
The Research Society on Alcoholism (RSA), is a professional
research society whose 1,200 members conduct basic, clinical, and
psychosocial research on alcoholism and alcohol abuse.
In recent years, our organization has submitted testimony to this
subcommittee about alcoholism in the military, a serious problem that
compromises national preparedness and the defense of the nation. We are
deeply grateful that the Congress recognized this problem by providing
additional funding for medical research in the Defense health program
in recent years. We are particularly pleased that alcohol research has
been specifically mentioned as one area to be funded. Furthermore, we
are pleased to report that more than one-third of the proposals
submitted to the Department of Defense (DOD) for the fiscal year 1999
biomedical research funds were for alcoholism research. You will recall
that Congress appropriated $19.5 million in fiscal year 1999 to DOD to
cover research in 15 areas, including alcoholism research. We believe
that this demonstrates a clear need for more research in this area and
would like to propose that additional funds be directed towards
research that will address the problem of alcoholism and alcohol abuse
in the military.
Alcoholism is a tragedy that touches all Americans. One in ten
Americans will suffer from alcoholism or alcohol abuse and their
drinking will impact on their family, their community, and society as a
whole. Recent research indicates that alcoholism and alcohol abuse cost
the nation approximately $167 billion annually. One tenth of this pays
for treatment; the rest is the cost of lost productivity, accidents,
violence, and premature death.
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,
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.
Importantly, although heavy alcohol use and associated negative
effects have declined significantly since 1980 (the first DOD Health
Survey), 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 of over
90.2 percent between 1980 and 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 military. Many talented and dedicated
people in the Department of Defense are working hard to reduce heavy
drinking in the military, but current prevention and treatment programs
are simply not good enough. 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. Unfortunately,
alcohol research, which is conducted primarily at the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) at the National
Institutes of Health and in the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA),
is severely underfunded. Moreover, 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 Department
of Defense to fund research into the causes, consequences, prevention,
and treatment of alcohol abuse and alcoholism.
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. Other
promising treatment agents 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.
Recommendation: The Research Society on Alcoholism urges that $10
million be allocated to research on alcohol abuse and alcoholism. These
funds could be administered by the Department of Defense alone or
jointly with the VA and NIAAA. This request 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.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
At the request of the chairman of the House Defense
Appropriations Committee last year, we did initiate a program
of $7 million annually for alcoholism research. And we will
work with him again this year. He showed a great initiative in
that area, and we intend to talk to him again this year to see
what he wants to do in this area.
We thank you very much, Doctor.
Dr. Ames. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. The next witness is retired Colonel
Partridge, on behalf of the National Association for Uniformed
Services.
STATEMENT OF COL. CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE, U.S. ARMY
(RETIRED), LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
Colonel Partridge. Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator
Inouye.
Senator Stevens. Good morning. Nice to see you again.
Colonel Partridge. Good to see you again, Mr. Chairman. I
am going up this weekend to talk to retirees at Fairbanks. I am
looking forward to getting back up to Alaska and to seeing a
group of those hardy Alaskans.
Senator Stevens. You are one of these spring birds that
comes in after it thaws out, Colonel.
Colonel Partridge. That is exactly right.
We were excited when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the Secretary of Defense and other senior officials
publicly stated that this was the year to fix health care.
However, when the budget came over this year, it was short. It
was short, in our estimate, by about $600 million. This means,
then, that the Congress has to make up that shortage and then
look for money to make any improvements.
That is the reason that S. 2003 and similar bills have such
strong support throughout the country around the military
community. They would like to see some sort of permanent fix to
this problem. We believe, in the long term, that setting up an
accrual accounting system, similar to what is being done to
military retired pay to Federal retired and Federal civilian
health care, is the solution. But, for now, we want to ask your
support for funding of Senator Warner's bill, which was
introduced last Monday, and which would take care of several
problems, the most critical of which is the prescription drug
benefit.
Senator Stevens. Is not a major problem failure to pay the
accumulated bills to date, Colonel? Have you seen that list of
the accumulated bills that have not been paid?
Colonel Partridge. I have not seen the details, but I know
that they are talking somewhere between $800 million and over
$1 billion in unpaid bills that they did not send a request
over for.
Senator Stevens. The contractors came in to see us
yesterday, and it was well over $1 billion in past bills that
had been presented which had not been paid.
Colonel Partridge. Yes, sir, I understand that. And the
shortage I was talking about was over and above that.
Senator Stevens. I understand that. I am glad you
understand that. Thank you.
Colonel Partridge. Yes, that is the problem. Of course, our
concern is that they are going to pay for those bills at our
expense. That is our concern.
The administration has been making major changes to the
military health system since 1988, and we still have not solved
the problem. But, as I was saying, the prescription drug
benefit is going to be a big step. We have a group of retirees
out in Oregon, a retired Navy chief, organized a bus--they paid
$40 a head, spent 7 hours on that bus, to go get prescription
drugs. And we believe this bill by Senator Warner and 23 other
Senators is going to stop those buses and allow these people to
order their drugs at the same price that the others do--$8 for
a 90-day supply. And if it is not there, they can buy it
downtown with 20 percent co-pay. We think that is a great step
in the right direction.
We are also supporting expanding the Federal Employees
Health Benefit test because there are going to be more base
closures. When these bases close, the hospitals close; what are
we going to do then? The TRICARE Senior Prime program and some
of these other programs are not going to work where there are
not major military hospitals.
Senator Stevens. You guys are going to have to tell them
over at the Department of Defense that that is a cost of
closing bases. They tell us how much money we are saving by
closing bases. They never take into account the added cost for
retirees and even for the individuals still in the service to
obtain health care outside of those base hospitals. It is
really bad.
Colonel Partridge. We agree with you, Mr. Chairman. And we
have been telling them they have got to put that in the mix,
the cost of providing care, plus the increased cost of Medicare
when they close them. They do not like to address that issue
either.
We appreciate your holding these hearings each year. We
appreciate the opportunity to present our views. And we want to
work with this committee and of course with the Armed Services
Committee to make sure that this problem is solved and solved
promptly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles C. Partridge
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the
National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS) and the Society of
Military Widows (SMW) would like to express their appreciation to you
for holding these important hearings. The testimony provided here
represents the collective views of our members.
The National Association for Uniformed Services represents all
seven of the uniformed services and is the only military association
that represents all ranks, all grades, all components, family members
and survivors. The Society of Military Widows became affiliated with us
in 1984. Together our nation-wide membership stands at 160,000 that
when added to our supporters and friends puts our effective strength at
over half a million.
Medical care is one of the top concerns of the military community
and the top concern of NAUS and SMW. With base and hospital closures
and the continual downsizing of medical personnel and military
treatment facilities, the increasing lack of available health care
continues to be a major concern to active and retired personnel alike.
We at NAUS want to thank the committee for its long standing
interest in Military Health Care and we hope that significant
improvements can be made this year.
background
The Military Health System has several missions, first and foremost
is caring for active duty troops and maintaining military medical care
readiness, readiness training and contingency operations as well as
providing care for active duty family members; continuing to provide
promised, lifetime medical care to military retirees, and their family
members. To carry out these missions, top quality personnel to staff
military medical units, hospitals and clinics are essential. These
personnel are attracted to military medicine through the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences, the U.S. Health Profession
Scholarship Program and quality graduate medical education programs
sponsored by the various military medical services. Each is an
important element of the system and are all linked together.
Additionally, as we are seeing today with the recruiting shortages in
all services except for the Marine Corps, keeping faith with the
retirees by keeping the medical health care promise is vital to our
strong all volunteer force and to our national defense. In a 1999
Christian Science Monitor article addressing recruitment problems,
Major General Evan Gaddis, the commander of the Army's Recruiting
Command headquartered in Fort Knox made special note of the fact that
``military retirees, upset over a steady erosion of benefits like
health care and pensions, aren't talking up military careers to young
adults as they might once have.''
Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Bill Cohen and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, testified before the
Senate Armed Services Full Committee. Secretary Cohen had this to say:
``We have made a pledge, whether it's legal or not, it's a moral
obligation that we will take care of all of those who served, retired
veterans and their families, and we have not done so. There are big
bills involved in this. This is no small matter.''
In response to a question concerning retiree health care from
Senator Chuck Robb, General Shelton said:
``Sir, I think the first thing we need to do is make sure that we
acknowledge our commitment to the retirees for their years of service
and for what we basically committed to at the time that they were
recruited into the armed forces.
We've got--we've got actual recruiting posters that very vividly
state that not only would they be taken care [of], but that their
families would be taken care of. And of course, in their minds they--we
have broken that commitment. And I think we have.''
A military medical system is necessary to support not only the
present active forces but also to meet future requirements. To attract,
maintain and properly certify highly qualified medical professionals
requires assuring them that they will have a complete range of patients
with varied health problems to include older retirees. They can't be
adequately trained treating only young (average age 23) service members
and young family members. This means it is imperative to maintain a
strong, vibrant, capable direct care system.
The Defense Health System has undergone a significant downsizing in
the past 10 years and continues to shrink. The number of normal beds
has decreased by 41 percent (12,000), expanded beds have decreased by
46 percent (20,000), the number of hospitals has decreased by 35
percent (58) and the number of medical centers has decreased by 33
percent (6). Additionally, military medical personnel have decreased by
13 percent while civilian medical personnel have decreased by 22
percent. Please contrast these reductions with the 10 percent reduction
in the eligible serviced population (867,000) during the past 10 years.
According to the Department of Defense ``demand continues to exceed
supply, especially among retirees'' all the while, the ``Medicare
eligible population (is) growing 4 to 5 percent annually''. And the
various DOD medical departments continue to decrease their uniformed
officer medical personnel.
naus health care plan
The NAUS plan is founded upon strong, fully-funded and fully-
staffed military treatment facilities (MTFs). Branching out from the
MTF foundation, the NAUS plan supports a high quality TRICARE Standard
(CHAMPUS) benefit for life. Complementing and completing the plan for
military beneficiaries who do not have access to or for whom the MTF/
TRICARE program does not meet their needs, NAUS supports the option of
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
tricare: full funding for all military beneficiaries
In order to ensure the viability of TRICARE for all eligible
beneficiaries to the program, it is necessary that TRICARE funding
reflect the number of beneficiaries eligible for military health
benefits, not just the ever-declining number of people able to use the
military system the previous year. The overall Defense Health Program
continues to have funding shortfalls, NAUS urges this committee to
provide adequate funding for military readiness as well as the current
peacetime component. Our active duty members need assurances that
funding will enable access to quality health care for their families,
as well as assuring incentives for these uniformed service members to
be recruited and retained in the military. Further, the promise of this
health care benefit must be kept for our military retirees that are
over and under the age of 65.
Additional funding will be required to keep providers in TRICARE
Prime networks as our members are experiencing physicians leaving the
system. Most TRICARE managed care support contractors have negotiated
TRICARE Prime reimbursement rates with network providers that are even
lower than Medicare. The issue however is a combination of low rates
and physicians not being paid in a timely manner due to claims
processing. TRICARE is giving physicians two disincentives for not
signing up in the networks, low payment and slow payment. Members have
reported that in the more rural areas, and even some urban areas, where
providers do not depend on a military patient base, health care
providers have become increasingly unwilling to accept TRICARE Standard
(CHAMPUS) patients at all. NAUS feels that de-linking the CMAC (CHAMPUS
maximum allowable charge) from the Medicare Schedule and directing
higher payments to providers as necessary will improve access to
quality care for our beneficiaries. The fiscal year 2000 Defense
Authorization Act gave the Secretary of Defense the authority to go
over the current CMAC rates to bring providers into TRICARE networks,
but NAUS has not seen this implemented. When CHAMPUS, now TRICARE
Standard was enacted in 1966, the standard DOD used was a benefit at
least equal to FEHBP high option Blue Cross/Blue Shield, without
imposing a premium. Over the years this benefit has been decimated. It
is time to fix it.
Please note that the administrative expenses associated with other
federal health programs were computed and provided to the National
Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare by the General
Accounting Office. GAO reported that the administrative expenses for
Medicare, FEHBP and Medicaid were each 1 tenth of one percent of the
total expenditures of the respective programs, whereas the Department
of Defense's expenses were ``not available''.
Members of this Committee, if we do not address these health care
needs the response will be continued reduction in retention and
recruiting.
MTF Funding: The Department of Defense has directed that the
military treatment facilities (MTFs) draw patients back into the
military system to improve cost-effectiveness and to ensure medical
readiness. To accomplish this, improved infrastructure and staffing
additional funds are needed. Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC),
the US Army's flagship medical center, is an ideal location to initiate
a pilot program implementing this initiative. Savings from this effort
can be significant. Funding for the necessary infrastructure
improvement and increased staffing are needed and could begin by
authorizing $20 million for WRAMC for this purpose.
tricare fraud and abuse
According to GAO Report HEHS-99-142, July 30, 1999, ``There is
general consensus in DOD and the health care industry that fraud and
abuse could account for 10 to 20 percent of all health care costs.
Given TRICARE managed care contract expenditures of $5.7 billion
between 1996 and 1998, DOD could have lost over $1 billion to fraud and
abuse during this period . . .'' Of the approximately 50 million claims
processed between 1996-1998, the responsible contractors referred only
101 potential fraud cases for investigation by DOD. This low level of
fraud identification has occurred because DOD contracts do not require
contractors to aggressively identify and prevent fraud and abuse.
By acting immediately to solve this problem, some $1 billion can be
made available to improve military health care for fiscal year 2001 and
beyond.
medicare subvention: tricare senior prime
With the favorable response to TRICARE Senior Prime by military
retirees in six designated test sites, NAUS is asking for nation wide
implementation of TRICARE Senior Prime. Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX)
introduced S. 915 to make the TRICARE Senior Prime program permanent on
a phased-in basis. The bill would expand Senior Prime to ten additional
locations with full-service military hospitals by January 1, 2000 and
then across the remaining TRICARE Prime catchment areas no later than
October 1, 2002. We are requesting that Congress require DOD to expand
the Tricare Senior Prime Test nationwide to be effective Jan. 1, 2001.
The test program terminates on December 31, 2000, we need funding in
fiscal year 2001 to move this program forward.
In the meantime, there are other looming difficulties with the
TRICARE Senior Prime program. The Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA) has provided $43 million in interim payments to DOD and DOD will
be allowed to retain $6 million despite the fact that DOD has already
paid out $40 million in claims. In our opinion, the reimbursement rates
and rules between HCFA and DOD should be renegotiated. Also, at the
present time, DOD hospitals are providing services of $187 more per
enrollee per month than they are receiving in HCFA reimbursements. With
over 30,000 enrolled retirees and their family members, this is over
$5.6 million per month. The simple fact of the matter is that if health
care is to be provided to military retirees, dollars must be provided
to MTFs from HCFA and the Defense Health Program. Since care provided
in MTFs is less expensive than in the civilian sector, this is a good
investment and is good for the taxpayer.
fee-for-service medicare subvention
We would like to see another Medicare reimbursement option added on
a fee-for-service basis. Senator Gramm's bill, S. 915, would give DOD
the option to provide a fee-for-service Medicare option at certain MTFs
if this would be more cost effective for those facilities. This would
allow Medicare eligible military beneficiaries to keep their standard
Medicare benefit, and when using the MTFs ``ON A SPACE AVAILABLE
BASIS'' to present their Medicare Card to the MTF. The MTF would bill
Medicare as other providers do, except that it would be on a discounted
basis to reflect the lower cost of care provided by the MTFs.
This would save Medicare Trust funds while making more efficient
use of MTFs and use capacity that otherwise would not be used. This
also supports our contention that Medicare eligible military medical
beneficiaries earned the promised lifetime medical care for themselves
and their eligible family members in MTFs and they paid for Medicare
Part A coverage through mandatory deductions from their military and
civilian pay checks. The combined earned and paid for health care
access is clear justification for this fee-for-service option.
fehbp option
In order to have a fair and accurate test, we need to provide the
opportunity for Medicare eligible military retirees to increase
enrollment in the FEHBP test for the November 2000 open enrollment
season. As we testified last year before this committee, we know that
not all military retirees will enroll in this program, but we need to
give them the option to make that choice in order to determine the
future of providing care for those that have served in the military.
NAUS is urgently requesting this subcommittee's support for necessary
funding to increase the number of demonstration sites, as well as the
number of enrollees eligible to participate in the program effective
for the November 2000 open enrollment season. We feel that S. 2087
gives DOD authority to expand the sites, but does not direct and make
them accountable to open up additional sites. It is absolutely
essential that we give these retirees an equitable benefit that is as
good or as equal to federal retirees.
pharmacy issues
We are requesting extension of the BRAC (Base Realignment and
Closure) pharmacy benefit to include all Medicare eligible military
retirees regardless of location. The BRAC pharmacy program provides a
National Mail Order Pharmacy (NMOP) benefit at a cost of an $8 co-
payment for a 90 day prescription (30 days for certain controlled
drugs), as well as a 20 percent co-payment for retail pharmaceuticals
at TRICARE network pharmacies.
The April 29, 1999 DOD Pharmacy Benefit Report in section 2
``Pharmacy Redesign Approach and Results'' subsection 2.3 estimated the
cost for a NMOP and retail pharmacy benefit for 1.4 military retirees
over age 65 at 400 million dollars. We understand DOD has since
increased that estimate by $100 million.
s. 2003 and h.r. 3573, keep our promises to america's military retirees
act
These bills have strong grass roots support because they come
closer than any other pending legislation before Congress to answering
the military health care promise to America's military retirees,
especially her older retirees. Today H.R. 3573 has over 280 cosponsors
and S. 2003, has 27 cosponsors. Both S. 2003 and H.R. 3573 have been
pushed to the forefront by a huge wave of grass roots support that
continues to grow. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we ask
you to consider the fact that the World War II era military retirees
are dying at a rate of over 3,300 a month. Continued testing and
demonstrations will not assist most military retirees. S. 2003/H.R.
3573 would provide retirees a choice--the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program to military retirees, at no cost to those who entered
the service before June of 1956, and at the same subsidized rate for
those who entered after. It would also extend the current TRICARE
program to Medicare eligible retirees and their families. These older
retirees and their families have no guaranteed DOD health benefit once
they reach age 65, the only federal employees who lose their health
care once they become Medicare eligible. As mentioned earlier in this
testimony, the Defense Health Program is on life support with few signs
of improvement because of continued under-funding and other factors. We
urge Congress to solve the health care crisis this year.
h.r. 3697, ``the retired military pharmacy benefits improvement act of
2000.''
This bill was introduced on 16 February 2000 and would allow all
eligible retired members of the Uniformed Services and their family
members to receive prescription drug benefits presently available only
to Medicare-eligible retirees living near base closure sites or in a
TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration area. In effect, it opens the
National Mail Order Pharmacy Program and the TRICARE pharmacy network
to all military retirees, regardless of age or location.
s. 2087: military health care act 2000
Key Provisions
--Demonstration Programs for Medicare Eligible Retirees (TRICARE
Senior Prime and FEHBP) are extended through 31 December 2005
and expanded.
--Military Pharmacy Programs--Expands the National Mail Order
Pharmacy Program (NMOP) to Medicare eligible beneficiaries with
a $150 deductible per year. (The approximate cost is $300
million per year). For the Pharmacy Pilot Program--Direct
reduced pharmacy enrollment fee, implementation of deductible,
quarterly/monthly payments. The fee schedule is not contained
in the legislation.
--TRICARE Prime--Several major improvements to TRICARE Prime Remote
and TRICARE Prime for the active duty as well as for improved
business practices and custodial care.
--DOD/VA Cooperative Program--For patient safety, directs DOD and VA
to perform two studies for record and pharmacy tracking between
the two activities.
--Accrual Financing of Military Retirement Health Care--Initiate two
studies to assess the feasibility and desirability of financing
the military health care program for retirees on an accrual
basis. ($2 million)
NAUS appreciates the work from the Senate and House Armed Services
Committees to address the needs of Active Duty members and their
dependents. Providing TRICARE Prime Remote and eliminating TRICARE co-
payments for active duty family members is essential and needed.
Increasing the funding level for custodial care to 100 million dollars,
60 million more than the budget request, is greatly appreciated by
those military families.
As just mentioned in our discussion of the pharmacy benefit, we
strongly support expanding the BRAC pharmacy benefit with no
deductibles or enrollment fees. In addition, the expanded BRAC pharmacy
benefit should include access to the retail pharmacy networks with the
20 percent copayment. This is part of the current BRAC pharmacy benefit
and should be part of the be pharmacy benefit for all beneficiaries.
We also support multi year extensions of the demonstration programs
as proposed in S. 2087 so long as more beneficiaries are allowed to
participate. There is no reason to limit the FEHBP to 8 or 10 areas--
these boundaries should be removed and the cost controlled by capping
the number of participants. Nevertheless, the cap should be increased
beyond 66,000.
NAUS is continually concerned for the over 65 military retirees
that are dropped by military health care. The message from our members
continues to be that they will never see the benefit of a test program
if they are not here to use it. The result of extending these tests for
an additional two to three years creates anxiety with our members that
may not live to see a true benefit being implemented nationwide. The
pharmacy benefit will meet the needs of those beneficiaries without any
coverage for their drugs, but this committee must understand that the
need for acute drugs purchased in the retail pharmacy are needed too.
The pharmacy redesign project should be no less generous than the BRAC
benefit.
care for the disabled
The Department of Defense (DOD) has routinely promulgated
regulations and policies which have the affect of baring the
permanently disabled from the Military Health System. When challenged
before either Congress or a Federal Court DOD's actions have been over
turned, and the department has been expressly ordered to deliver care
to the disabled.
Changes in DOD's policy and regulations regarding the disabled were
ordered by The Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and the
Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000. However, the
Department has yet to fully implement these changes, nor has it
provided the public an opportunity to participate as required by law.
There is concern, grounded in the Departments' previous treatment of
the disabled, that meaningful change is unlikely without further
Congressional oversight, directives and remedial legislation.
The recently proposed S. 2087 appears to be a good first step,
inasmuch as it continues Congresses objections to the transition of the
disabled out of the Military Health System. However, more work is
necessary. Congress should require DOD to redraft its custodial care
definition in a manner consistent with other federal health programs
and related case law. Congress should require DOD to, at a minimum,
provide military families with the same amount of basic health services
that are available through the FEHBP. DOD should be prohibited from
sending Military families to welfare programs by gaming technical
provisions. Congress must assure that those categories of beneficiaries
for whom disability is the basis of eligibility in the military health
system have access to a meaningful benefit.
uniformed services university of the health sciences
NAUS thanks this committee for its strong support for providing
necessary funding for the continued operations of the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences. Study after study has shown
that when all factors are considered USUHS is more cost effective than
the US Health Profession Scholarship Program. We urge you to continue
your support for this school which is a national resource.
There is currently an $8.3 million Navy Military Construction
Project request to construct academic facilities to redress the
overcrowding of the existing small class room facilities and to meet
current and projected demands for specialized educational support and
the associated administrative spaces necessary to conduct accredited
graduate-level medical education. This Committee's support in adding
those funds to the MILCON portion of the Defense Health Program's
budget would be greatly appreciated. The ability of the University to
maintain its accreditation and unique commitments to the TRISERVICE
healthcare community will continue to be negatively impacted by
temporary, inefficient, and costly space fixes which fail to deliver
students, faculty, and staff unfettered access to the primary assets of
the University, its people and interactions available on campus.
medicare part b waiver for military retiree 65+
Retirees were counseled by military health benefits advisors not to
enroll in Part ``B'' because they resided near MTFs and would be able
to access their free health care. These retirees should not be punished
with late enrollment fees due to the fact that the local MTF has
closed. NAUS has requested the waiver of the penalty for not enrolling
in Medicare Part ``B'' for Medicare-eligible military retirees
NAUS believes that this small investment will enable retirees to
enroll in health care programs which require Medicare Part B for
eligibility such as TRICARE Senior Prime and the Fee-for-Service Option
plans in FEHBP. Currently, we have military retirees that are either
paying a high penalty for Medicare Part B, or just cannot enroll
because it is to costly.
retiree dental program
The Retiree Dental plan does not provide coverage of crucial
benefits, such as bridges and crowns which are needs characteristic of
our members. Currently, the contract is not subsidized by DOD, which
would mean that increasing the benefit level now would make the program
to costly to are aging retirees. Therefore, NAUS has requested funding
for a subsidy for the DOD Retiree Dental plan's premium to expand the
benefit schedule to military retirees.
conclusion
Every one of these problems cited here has a common thread--save
money by eliminating or reducing care provided. The fewer beneficiaries
served means the fewer DOD dollars needed to provide health care and
increases the dollars available for equipment and weapons systems.
Regardless of the promises made and of all the intentions of this
Congress, health care for military retirees is not treated as a benefit
and it certainly is not treated as an entitlement. Health care for
military retirees, their families and their survivors is merely a line
item expense in the DOD budget to be squeezed for more pressing needs
by comptrollers and budget analysts who do not rely on the Defense
Health Program for their health care.
A solution recommended by NAUS to partially address this concern is
to make the funding mechanism for military retiree health care the same
as it is for other federal retirees--adding it to the entitlement's
portion of the budget--and to stop making retiree health care compete
for the same Defense dollars used in weapons programs, research and
development or operations and maintenance.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Colonel. We look forward to
working with you on this. This is our number one issue this
year, too. We will work it out with you. Before we are
finished, we will consult with you to make sure that we do it
so that you understand what we are doing.
Do you have any questions, Senator?
Senator Inouye. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Colonel Partridge. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. We are going to skip witness 16 and go to
witness 17, Mr. Van Nest, from the American Association of
Nurse Anesthetists, Federal Government Affairs Office. We will
get to the other witness here in just a minute. We had a
request for a Senator to be present when the other witness
testified.
STATEMENT OF RONALD VAN NEST, CERTIFIED REGISTERED
NURSE ANESTHETIST, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS OFFICE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
NURSE ANESTHETISTS (AANA)
Mr. Van Nest. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before this committee today. My name
is Ronald Van Nest, and I am a Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetist (CRNA). I served in the United States Navy for 30
years. I was the CRNA consultant to the Navy's Surgeon General
when I was a member of the American Association of Nurse
Anesthetists Federal Services Committee.
I am testifying today on behalf of the American Association
of Nurse Anesthetists, which represents more than 28,000
CRNA's, including over 600 that served in the armed forces.
While I would ask that my written remarks be submitted for the
record, I hope to inform you today about the impending nursing
shortage facing this country and how this committee may help
the Department of Defense face that crisis.
There has been a chronic shortage of CRNA's in the military
in recent years, which may only be exacerbated by the impending
critical shortage of nurses nationwide. It has been reported
that as many as 59 percent of civilian institutions are
recruiting to fill CRNA positions. This creates a competitive
hiring market that is difficult for the military to compete in.
Yet recruitment and retention of CRNA's must remain of utmost
importance in order to ensure that our Federal services can
meet their medical mission.
This committee can and has assisted in this effort. We
would like to thank the members of this committee for their
continued support of funding of the incentive special pay and
the board certification pay for nurse anesthetists. These
special pays help the military to remain competitive in the job
market, and assist them in presenting military nurse anesthesia
as an attractive professional choice.
We believe that more appropriate utilization of its
anesthesia providers could benefit the Department of Defense
even more. In many military missions today, CRNA's are the ones
who are deployed with combat units or aboard aircraft carriers
as the sole anesthesia providers, with no anesthesiologists
present. Currently, in both Kosovo and Macedonia, there is a
single nurse anesthetist that is providing all of the
anesthesia care in these locations. Again, no anesthesiologists
present.
If such practice models are acceptable for deployed
situations, there is no reason they should not be accepted in
urban military treatment facilities. Yet there are some service
branches that require multiple anesthesia providers to do the
same job that has been performed safely and effectively for
over 100 years by CRNA's alone.
Of all the branches, the Navy is doing a very good job of
utilizing providers more effectively. In fact, last month, Rear
Admiral Kathleen Martin, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps,
testified before this committee. To quote from her testimony:
Our advanced practice nurses all practice to the fullest
extent of their competency and practice scope to ensure that
the right 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. We recommend
that this committee direct all branches of the Department of
Defense to utilize their anesthesia providers in the most cost-
effective manner, prohibiting supervision requirements in urban
facilities that only drive up the cost while doing nothing to
enhance the quality of care.
In conclusion, the AANA thanks this committee again for its
support of military nurse anesthetists through the incentive
special pay and the board certification pay. AANA believes that
more appropriate utilization of CRNA's in the military is of
critical concern, and is an area that could be examined for
increased cost savings. I thank the committee members for your
consideration of these issues, and I will be very happy to
answer any of your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald Van Nest
The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) is the
professional association that represents over 28,000 certified
registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) in the United States, including
over 600 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 outcomes 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 a single
CRNA is providing all the anesthesia care to our servicemen and women
in Kosovo and Macedonia. No anesthesiologists are assigned to these
missions.
nursing shortage predicted: 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 consistently fallen short of the number
authorized by DOD as needed providers. This is further complicated by
the predicted national nursing shortage that has been well publicized
in the press and professional journals. Enrollments in nursing programs
continue to decline and the nursing workforce continues to age and
retire. Recruitment of nurse anesthetists for the military becomes
increasingly difficult when the civilian sector faces such critical
shortages. According to a recent survey by the AANA Administrative
Management Committee survey, as many as 59 percent of civilian
institutions in the country are also actively recruiting CRNAs. This
means that the military must work even harder at recruiting and
retaining nurse anesthetists. This Committee can greatly assist in the
effort to attract and maintain essential numbers of nurse anesthetists
in the military by their support of special pays.
The Incentive Special Pay for Nurses
As recently as March 8, 2000, Brigadier General Barbara C. Brannon,
Director of Medical Readiness and Nursing Services, Department of the
Surgeon General for the Department of the Air Force, testified before
the Senate DOD Appropriations Committee that ``[t]o attract the right
nurses with the right skills, recruiting incentives are essential.'' We
couldn't agree more. Special pays for nurse anesthetists have become a
crucial component in recruiting and retaining adequate numbers in the
military.
According to a March, 1994 study requested by the Health Policy
Directorate of Health Affairs and conducted by DOD, a large pay gap
existed between annual civilian and military pay in 1992. This study
concluded that ``this earnings gap is a major reason why the military
has difficulty retaining 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 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.
Colonel Deborah Gustke, Assistant Chief of the Army Nurse Corps,
testified on March 8, 2000 that ``Your support of nursing specialty pay
is enabling us to recruit specialty nurses in a competitive hiring
environment.'' Again, we strongly concur. 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 even
an increase in the annual ISP for CRNAs, which recognizes the special
skills and advanced education that CRNAs bring to the DOD health care
system.
Board Certification Pay for Nurses
Included in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill was
language authorizing the implementation of a board certification pay
for certain non-MD health care professionals, including advanced
practice nurses. AANA is highly supportive of board certification pay
for all advanced practice nurses. The establishment of this type of pay
for nurses recognizes that there are levels of excellence in the
profession of nursing that should be recognized, just as in the medical
profession. In addition, this pay may assist in closing the earnings
gap, which may help with retention of CRNAs.
While many CRNAs have received board certification pay to date,
there are many that remain ineligible. Since certification to practice
as a CRNA does not require a specific master's degree, many nurse
anesthetists have chosen to diversify their 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 continues 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. The supervision of CRNAs should be based on the experience
of the anesthesia care providers (both CRNA and anesthesiologist), the
mission of the medical treatment facility, and the complexity and type
of surgical procedure. Rear Admiral Kathleen Martin, Director of the
Navy Nurse Corps, testified:
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.
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 retention and the appropriate
utilization of CRNAs in the Services is of critical concern. Many
military facilities are suffering from ineffective practice models, and
therefore inefficient use of provider services. The efforts detailed
above will assist the Services in maintaining the military's ability to
meet its peacetime and mobilization medical mission in a cost-effective
manner without sacrificing quality of care. We thank the Committee for
its support of CRNAs. For further information, please contact Greta
Todd, AANA Associate Director of Federal Government Affairs, at 202/
484-8400.
Senator Inouye (presiding). I just wanted to say that I
agreed with your testimony. If the anesthesiologists are so
concerned about the activities of your organization, they
should go to Bosnia also.
Mr. Van Nest. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
May I now call upon Dr. Philip Boudjouk, Professor of
Chemistry and Vice President of Research at North Dakota State
University, and Chairman of the Board of the Coalition of the
EPSCoR States.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me just welcome Dr.
Boudjouk. I have been at another hearing this morning, but I am
happy to be able to come by. He is, as you indicated, Chairman
of the Board of the Coalition of EPSCoR States, which is a very
important program for not only North Dakota but also for Alaska
and other States. We welcome Dr. Boudjouk here.
Senator Inouye. Doctor.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP BOUDJOUK, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF
CHEMISTRY AND VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH,
NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY, AND CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD, COALITION OF EPSCoR STATES
Dr. Boudjouk. Thank you, Senator. 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 (EPSCoR).
I would like to say a special thanks to Senator Dorgan, for
his leadership in supporting the EPSCoR program at the
Department of Defense and several other agencies.
As you know, my name is Philip Boudjouk. I am Professor of
Chemistry and Vice President for Research at North Dakota State
University. In addition, I am Chairman of the Board of the
Coalition of EPSCoR States. I am here today to speak in support
of funding for the Defense Department's Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research. This statement is submitted on
behalf of the 19 States and Puerto Rico that participate in
EPSCoR. I am especially pleased to report that Alaska is the
most recent State designated by the National Science Foundation
as eligible to participate in the EPSCoR program.
The Coalition of EPSCoR States supports the Defense
Department's request of $9.9 million for the Defense EPSCoR
program. But we respectfully urge the subcommittee to
appropriate an additional $15 million for this productive
program. The Coalition also supports the Department's budget
request for basic research, of which the Defense EPSCoR program
is but a small part.
Based on the positive results of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) program, Congress created EPSCoR programs in
six additional Federal agencies. One of these is the Defense
Department. The Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (DEPSCoR) program, as it is known, for the
Department of Defense, contributes to the States' goals of
developing and enhancing their research capabilities while
simultaneously supporting the Defense Department's research
goals.
In my own experience, DEPSCoR has motivated me to establish
contacts and collaborative relationships with DOD researchers
on two important projects: Navy-sponsored research on
nanomaterials, that is, those particles smaller than one-
billionth of a meter; and Air Force sponsored research on
corrosion. Because of these initial contacts, I was able to
develop meaningful relationships with other researchers in
academia and in industry that have helped me establish my
research in both areas. The initial investments have paid off
in North Dakota.
Several DOD-supported researchers, with critical help from
DEPSCoR, have formed a center that focuses its efforts on
corrosion, targeting specifically corrosion problems of
aluminum alloys found in the KC-135 transport and F-22 fighter
planes. This center now enjoys considerable support from the
Department of Defense and private industry--both through
competitive means I might add. We are now marshalling our
resources to form a center that is directed to advancing the
knowledge base and applications of nanomaterials.
Last year, the Defense Department issued an announcement of
competition under the aegis of the Defense EPSCoR program. A
total of 256 projects were received from the 18 States eligible
to participate in DEPSCoR.
Let me now tell you something about our program in North
Dakota. Twenty-three DEPSCoR projects have been funded in North
Dakota since 1994. The projects were developed by North Dakota
science and engineering researchers, in collaboration with DOD
program officers, to address topics critical to defense
readiness and capabilities. The program is a true partnership
between DOD, the State of North Dakota and the universities
involved.
The research topics cover a wide spectrum of issues
important to the DOD mission. We have DOD-sponsored efforts in
logistics, database development, encryption science, and a
variety of materials-based programs. For example, one of my
projects has led to a very safe and low-temperature method of
production of semiconductor materials such as gallium arsenide,
tin sulfide, and tin selenide in a new and useful form--quantum
dots--that is, less than one-billionth of a meter in size.
Semiconductors in this form open the door to a broad range of
useful properties. You shall be seeing these nanomaterials in
all phases of our lives where electronic equipment is
important, from very sensitive optical detectors, to
microlaser, to vanishingly small transmitters.
In North Dakota, we are now embedding these incredibly
small particles in polymers to develop an entirely new class of
polymeric materials. The sky is the limit here. One could say
that the smaller the particle, the larger the potential for
scientific and technical advances.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very exciting new area of
scientific research. It can really change the way our world
will be in the future, and it will provide our military with
significant new warfighting capabilities for the 21st century.
The Department of Defense is at the forefront of this research,
and DEPSCoR-supported researchers are playing an important role
in maintaining our Nation's leadership in this vital area.
An important area of research supported by the Defense
Department's EPSCoR program, corrosion science, is one in which
several of our researchers have made significant advances in
developing new testing methods to detect corrosion in the
earliest possible stages and in making new conductive polymers
that short circuit the corrosion process. A center has been
formed at North Dakota State University and has already
succeeded in obtaining significant financial support from
industry and the Department of Defense.
We have established new collaborations with Wright
Patterson Air Force Base and Tinker Air Force Base that keep
our efforts focused on defense-critical projects. At this time,
we are dedicating substantial resources to the corrosion
problems associated with the C-135 transport.
The planning for this and other Federal EPSCoR programs in
North Dakota involve faculty and administrators from across the
State in a remarkably cooperative and collaborative effort.
Indeed, one of the most significant successes of the EPSCoR
program nationwide has been the partnerships it has engendered.
These partnerships extend beyond the universities, to include
the State government and industry as we develop the program
goals, research projects, and program funding. Because matching
funds are required in EPSCoR projects, the program has explicit
buy-in and visibility with the North Dakota Legislature.
Senator Stevens (presiding). Dr. Boudjouk, I am going to
have to keep you to somewhere near the 5-minute time limit. And
we do have some questions we would like to ask you. So could
you finish your statement, please?
Dr. Boudjouk. Thank you very much, Senator.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Coalition of EPSCoR States
supports the Defense Department's basic research programs for
budget function 6.1 and 6.2. Thank you for consideration of
this request.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Philip Boudjouk
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 (EPSCoR).
My name is Philip Boudjouk. I am a Professor of Chemistry and Vice
President for Research at North Dakota State University. In addition, I
am Chairman of the Board of the Coalition of EPSCoR States. I am here
today to speak in support of funding for the Defense Department's
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). This
statement is submitted on behalf of the nineteen states and Puerto Rico
that participate in EPSCoR \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, North
Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coalition of EPSCoR States supports the Defense Department's
budget request of $9.895 million for the Defense EPSCoR program, but we
respectfully urge the Subcommittee to appropriate an additional $15
million for this productive program. The Coalition also supports the
Department's budget request for basic research, of which the Defense
EPSCoR program is but a small part.
EPSCoR is a research and development program that was first
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 their
research capabilities and quality in order to compete more effectively
for non-EPSCoR research funds. EPSCoR is a catalyst for change and is
widely viewed as a ``model'' Federal-state partnership.
Based on the positive results of the NSF program, Congress created
EPSCoR programs in six additional federal agencies. One of these is the
Defense Department. The individual agency EPSCoR programs, much in the
same way as the NSF EPSCoR, help researchers and institutions in
participating states to improve the quality of their research so they
can compete for non-EPSCoR research funds. The federal-wide EPSCoR
effort funds only merit-based, peer reviewed programs that work to
enhance the competitiveness of research institutions and increase the
probability of long-term growth of competitive funding.
EPSCoR relies heavily on state involvement and participation,
including non-federal matching funds. Due to the federal/state
partnership upon which EPSCoR relies, EPSCoR is often considered a
model program, and is a wise use of taxpayer funds during these
difficult fiscal times.
The Defense EPSCoR (DEPSCoR) program contributes to the states'
goals of developing and enhancing their research capabilities, while
simultaneously supporting the Defense Department's research goals.
DEPSCoR grants are based on recommendations from the EPSCoR state
committees and the Department's own evaluation and ranking. Research
proposals are only funded if they provide the Defense Department with
research in areas important to national defense.
In my own experience, the North Dakota State EPSCoR program set
forth criteria that encouraged collaboration with Defense Department
scientists and engineers prior to the submission of my proposal to the
DEPSCoR program. This motivated me to establish contacts and
collaborative relationships with DOD researchers on two important
projects: Navy sponsored research on nanomaterials, i.e., particles
smaller than one-billionth of a meter, and Air Force sponsored research
on corrosion. Because of these initial contacts, I was also able to
develop meaningful relationships with other researchers in academia and
industry that have helped me establish my research in both areas. The
initial investments have paid off in North Dakota.
Several DOD supported researchers, with critical help from DEPSCoR,
have formed a center that focuses its efforts on corrosion, targeting
specifically, corrosion problems of aluminum alloys found in the C/KC-
135 transport and F22 fighter planes. This center now enjoys
considerable support from the Department of Defense and private
industry. We are now marshalling our resources to form a center that is
directed to advancing the knowledge base and applications of
nanomaterials.
DEPSCoR was originally authorized by Section 257 of the National
Defense Authorization Act of 1995 (Public Law 103-337), which states
that the Defense EPSCoR program's objectives are to:
--enhance the capabilities of institutions of higher education in
eligible states to develop, plan, and execute science and
engineering research that is competitive under the peer-review
systems used for awarding Federal research assistance; and
--increase the probability of long-term growth in the competitively
awarded financial assistance that universities in eligible
states receive from the Federal Government for science and
engineering research.
Last year the Defense Department issued an announcement of a
competition under the aegis of the Defense EPSCoR program. A total of
256 projects were received from the 18 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), 81 projects were selected for
funding with $24 million made available in fiscal year 2000. The
average award was $296,000.
Let me now tell you something about our program in North Dakota.
Twenty-three DEPSCoR projects have been funded in North Dakota since
1994. The projects were developed by North Dakota science and
engineering researchers in collaboration with DOD program officers to
address topics critical to defense readiness and capabilities. The
program is a true partnership between DOD, the State of North Dakota,
and the universities involved. The research topics cover a wide
spectrum of issues important to the DOD mission. We have DOD sponsored
efforts in logistics, database development, encryption science, and a
variety of materials-based programs.
For example, one of my projects has led to a very safe and low
temperature method of production of semiconductor materials such as
gallium arsenide, tin sulfide, and tin selenide in a new and useful
form, quantum dots, i.e., less than one ten billionth of a meter.
Semiconductors in this form open the door to broad range of useful
properties. We shall be seeing these ``nanomaterials'' in all phases of
our lives where electronic equipment is important: from very sensitive
optical detectors to micro lasers to vanishingly small transmitters. In
North Dakota, we are now imbedding these incredibly small particles in
polymers to develop an entirely new class of polymeric materials. The
sky is the limit here. One could say that the smaller the particle, the
larger the potential for scientific and technical advances.
Mr. Chairman, this a very exciting new area of scientific research.
It can really change the way our world will be in the future and it
will provide our military with significant new war-fighting
capabilities for the 21st Century. The Department of Defense is at the
forefront of this research and DEPSCoR supported researchers are
playing an important role in maintaining our nation's leadership in
this vital area.
In another important area of research supported by the Defense
Department's EPSCoR program, corrosion science, several of our
researchers have made significant advances in developing new testing
methods to detect corrosion in the earliest possible stages and in
making new conductive polymers that ``short circuit'' the corrosion
process. A center has been formed at North Dakota State University and
has already succeeded in obtaining significant financial support from
industry and the Defense Department. We have established new
collaborations with Wright Patterson Air Force Base and Tinker Air
Force Base that keep our efforts focused on critical projects. At this
time we are dedicating substantial resources to the corrosion problems
associated with the C-135 transport.
The planning for this and the other federal EPSCoR programs in
North Dakota involve faculty and administrators from across the state
in a remarkably cooperative and collaborative effort. Indeed, one of
the most significant successes of the EPSCoR program has been the
partnerships it has engendered. These partnerships extend beyond the
universities to include the state government and industry as we develop
the program goals, research projects, and program funding. Because
matching funds are required in EPSCoR projects, the program has
explicit buy-in and visibility with the North Dakota Legislature.
The partnership concept extends also 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.
It has been our experience that the EPSCoR programs yield a return
far beyond the original investment. EPSCoR allows the states to
accomplish more than is possible through the regular research programs.
It has helped North Dakota 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 in the new era of a balanced federal budget,
but we respectfully request that you provide $25 million for the
Defense EPSCoR program for fiscal year 2001.
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.
Mr. Chairman, the Coalition of EPSCoR States, supports the Defense
Department's basic research programs (budget functions 6.1 and 6.2).
With the end of the Cold War, 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. There are legitimate concerns that the fiscal year 2001
budget request fails to keep pace with the needs of science and
technology. The Coalition of EPSCoR States supports realistic funding
levels that support vigorous science and engineering research programs
at the Defense Department.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Senator Stevens. Are you going into the nanoscience area
now with your research?
Dr. Boudjouk. Yes.
Senator Stevens. You have a center of excellence developing
there for that?
Dr. Boudjouk. We are developing that in our State, yes. It
is a collaboration effort between the University of North
Dakota and North Dakota State University.
Senator Stevens. I have urged our University to do the same
thing. I note you have got a $10 million level, approximately,
now. You want to go up to $25 million?
Dr. Boudjouk. Yes.
Senator Stevens. Is that money shared with other
universities?
Dr. Boudjouk. Yes, it is.
Senator Stevens. How much do you share of that? Of the $10
million, how much are you sharing?
Dr. Boudjouk. The sharing among the universities is done on
a competitive basis. The investigators from all universities in
DEPSCoR States are invited to compete for this funding. So the
funding is done on a peer-review basis that takes into account
the DOD mission statement and the excellence of the proposers.
Senator Stevens. Who does that? Do you do that or does DOD
do that?
Dr. Boudjouk. The States first select the best proposals
within the State, and then the Department of Defense screens
and evaluates and makes the final decision on who gets funded.
Senator Stevens. The $25 million you are asking for is
nationwide or just for your university?
Dr. Boudjouk. Nationwide, for the Coalition of EPSCoR
States, Senator.
Senator Stevens. I do think this is a very important area,
and I am delighted to hear some of the smaller universities are
getting involved. We look forward to working with you on this,
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. It is impressive. And, frankly, I think we
need to do much, much more in this area. There is so much
talent out there and so many resources available. And yet, we
all know what happens with the research dollars--they just go
to a few clusters of big institutions.
Senator Stevens. That is why I asked the question, because
normally we get into this peer review, and the peers are the
people from the universities that have gotten the research in
the past. I am delighted to see some of this spreading out so
that we get other areas of the country involved. I told a group
this morning at one of those major universities that if they
want to increase the research budget, they have got to get
greater popular support, greater support from the people of the
country. And you cannot get that by keeping it in three or four
well-known institutions that have really monopolized the money
in the past.
We were severely criticized when we used to have a
university program. Do you remember that, Senator? And this is
a good way to do it. I appreciate what you are doing and we
want to work with you.
I think nanoscience is the answer for small universities,
if they can get involved. Do you have a small cyclotron?
Dr. Boudjouk. No, we do not, Mr. Chairman. We do not have
that. And in areas such as that, with help from DEPSCoR and
programs like it, they will allow us to get the basic funding
to get that.
Senator Stevens. You know that there is a small cyclotron
now for universities?
Dr. Boudjouk. No, I did not know that.
Senator Stevens. Well, I urge you to go to the University
of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) and see that, because we
miniaturized them with defense money as a matter of fact. So
there are cyclotrons now available that are of a size that even
the smallest university ought to be able to afford. I think
this is essential, as we get into the nanoscience area, that we
have the full capability to pursue nuclear science at the same
time.
I appreciate your statement, and I thank you, Senator
Dorgan, for urging that we listen. This is an area that we want
to pursue. We want the smaller universities involved in this
future research, too.
Dr. Boudjouk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you once again.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Betty Gallo, the
Director of the University of Medicine and Dentistry.
STATEMENT OF BETTY GALLO, DIRECTOR, ADVOCACY AND
FUNDRAISING, THE CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW
JERSEY
Ms. Gallo. Good morning. I would like to thank the chairman
and the committee for allowing me to testify before you today.
But I want to especially thank you for your support of prostate
cancer and the Gallo Prostate Cancer Center.
I am here on behalf of a priority project at the University
of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. That project is the
Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center at the Cancer
Institute of New Jersey. The Cancer Institute is a partnership
of the University of Medicine and Dentistry, which is part of
the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and hospital affiliates,
and the only NCI-designated center in New Jersey. The Gallo
Prostate Cancer Center was named in honor of my husband, and
your colleague in the House, Congressman Dean Gallo, of New
Jersey, who died of prostate cancer at the age of 58.
With the funding the Gallo Prostate Cancer Center has
received, we have been able to focus on the strength of the
Cancer Institute as to the devastating problems of prostate
cancer in New Jersey, its surrounding region, and in the Nation
as a whole, through treatment and research. Since obtaining
this funding, we have been able to fund five seed grants to
scientists interested in pursuing prostate cancer research. The
Gallo Prostate Cancer Center will eventually be able to provide
the resources to effectively recruit additional nationally
recognized leaders in research to study prostate cancer.
In order to bring together scientists of this caliber, all
focused on prostate cancer, it is imperative to have a strong,
focused prostate cancer center. My position, as Director of
Public Outreach for the Gallo Center, has allowed me to become
involved directly in the community. Nationally, with regard to
prostate cancer incidence rates, New Jersey is number 10 in the
general population and number eight in the African-American
community.
The Gallo Prostate Cancer Center is in the process of
providing education, screening, prevention, and research. We
have begun our programs by partnering with 100 black men
statewide. Together we have started a prostate cancer
initiative which will screen the underserved community. We hope
to have all 21 counties in the State of New Jersey on board by
the year 2003.
With continued funding, we foresee expanding the Gallo
Prostate Cancer Center to the north and south in New Jersey.
When people are ill, they do not want to travel. And this would
help to lessen that concern.
In the short time that the Gallo Prostate Cancer Center has
been in existence, we have made some major accomplishments. But
there is much more we need to do to make the Gallo Prostate
Cancer Center a premier center nationally. This year, we
respectfully ask for the continuing support from the Department
of Defense subcommittee so we can continue to create a state-
of-the-art prostate cancer center in memory of Congressman Dean
Gallo to promote research, education, and treatment for people
diagnosed with prostate cancer. This is so other men and their
families do not have to suffer as Dean and his family did, from
this terrible disease.
I am also here on behalf of Biosecurity, which is another
university project. This was initiated by Senator Lautenberg.
Due to the intense witness schedule, we were asked to have one
person give some points on this project.
New Jersey has a dense population, a concentration of
professional pharmaceutical and biotech companies and is
located near major transportation hubs. It is vulnerable as a
possible target for biological threats. The Nation's largest
public health science university, with statewide campuses, is
well positioned to respond to potential biological threats by
providing a statewide program, ranging from our training
ability in public health to our expertise in infectious disease
basic research.
The University is currently increasing preparedness in the
event of the introduction of a dangerous pathogen. Funding
recommended last year from the Department of Defense will help
us coordinate hospital emergency services with other State and
Federal agencies. We have formed a blue ribbon panel on
biosecurity, comprised of health representatives of the
pharmaceutical industry. Our faculty serve on the State
Bioterrorism Surveillance Advisory Group and as members of
Federal panels. The University will increase the education and
training of individuals involved with biological threats.
Funding will be used to set up our emergency response plans and
will involve our level 1 and level 2 trauma centers and our
helicopter trauma service.
Another area of emphasis is basic scientific research. We
recently opened a new facility that has a center for applied
genetics and biosafety level 3 laboratory, which would allow
for the growth and isolation of targeted organisms. The Center
for Emerging Pathogens, the national Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) Tuberculosis Center and the Public
Health Research Institute are all participating entities in the
new facility.
With funding obtained from several Federal agencies, the
University of Medicine and Dentistry has state-of-the-art
instrumentation, including gene chip technology, that can be
tailored for detection of target organisms. We can also provide
a strategy for the detection of unknown pathogens. Our vast
scientific expertise in molecule biology, gene chip technology
and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequencing allows us to
identify and treat potential disasters resulting from
biological warfare.
Finally, with your continued support, we would develop a
statewide center for biosecurity, concentrating on emergency
response plans and basic scientific research into the
detection, intervention and generation of agents in response to
biological threats.
I want to thank the committee.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Betty Gallo
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we appreciate this
opportunity to bring to your attention two priority projects of the
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) that are
consistent with the mission of this committee.
UMDNJ is the largest public health sciences university in the
nation. Our statewide system is located on five academic campuses and
consists of 3 medical schools and schools of dentistry, nursing, health
related professions, public health and graduate biomedical sciences.
UMDNJ also 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. No other
institution in the nation possesses the resources which match our scope
in higher education, health care delivery, research and community
service initiatives with federal, state and local entities.
Our first priority is the development of a statewide Center for
BioSecurity. Last year, with the strong support of this committee,
UMDNJ was recommended to receive $1.5 million toward its initiatives in
biodefense and biosecurity. The Department of Defense is currently
considering our proposal for training, education and research to
counter threats of bioterrorism. That funding will help us to develop a
comprehensive plan that will include coordination of hospital emergency
services, basic science research in detection methods, and
participation by various agencies of State and Federal Government, as
well as the pharmaceutical industry in New Jersey.
New Jersey is the nation's most densely populated state. Newark,
its largest city, is in close proximity to New York City and is closely
linked with this metropolis by extensive commuter services. Newark
Airport, the 12th largest in the United States, is a transportation hub
for the Northeast and ranks third in the level of international travel.
More than 30 million passengers traveled through Newark in the first
half of 1998, making the region a prime area for the possible
introduction of biological weapons. UMDNJ, is well positioned to
address the threat of biological terrorism through our expertise in the
following programs:
Emergency response:
The Center for Education and Training (CET) of the Environmental
and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, a joint venture of UMDNJ
and Rutgers University, is the nation's foremost program in education
and training concerning chemical and physical threats. The Center has
provided hazardous materials training to more than 175,000 individuals
(police, firefighters, municipal and state employees as well as to
physicians, nurses and other healthcare personnel). Preparing emergency
response personnel for chemical and biological incidents is an
extension of the Center's existing infrastructure and expertise.
UMDNJ has several Level I and Level II Trauma Centers within its
statewide system. A crucial component of the trauma network is the
helicopter trauma service, NorthSTAR and SouthSTAR, linking the
northern and southern regions of the state. Members of the UMDNJ
Emergency Response Team participated in a federally sponsored ``Weapons
of Mass Destruction'' education program last year.
Identification of agents:
A number of laboratories within the UMDNJ system are engaged in
developing rapid methods of detection of virulent agents with
particular emphasis on the most dangerous multi-drug resistant species.
The molecular basis of drug resistance is the focus of a number of
these laboratories, as well as the establishment of large libraries of
clinical strains available for epidemiological studies. State-of-the-
art Biosafety Level III (BSLIII) clinical laboratories for the
isolation and culture of certain clinical strains are available at
University Hospital in Newark and the Robert Wood Johnson University
Hospital in New Brunswick. The International Center for Public Health,
a world-class public health complex at University Heights in Newark and
part of the UMDNJ system, will also contain several thousand square
feet of BSLIII space.
Basic Research:
Many UMDNJ faculty are advisors to the U.S. Government and have
served on committees such as the U.S. Government Blue Ribbon Panel on
Biologicals; the Program and Technical Review Committee of the U.S.
Chemical and Biological Defense Command, the Committee on Toxicology,
and the New Jersey State Department of Health Bioterrorism Surveillance
Advisory Group. Our scientific experts are studying the effects of
exposure to a variety of chemical agents and organic chemicals. We have
considerable expertise in the analysis of the effects of radiation, and
toxic chemicals. Early markers of disease or infection may be shared by
more than one infectious agent. Basic research in the immunopathology
of infection may led to the identification of markers useful for
screening potential victims in a biological attack.
Newark is an internationally renowned center for the
identification, treatment and basic research in tuberculosis and other
emerging and re-emerging pathogens. The New Jersey Medical School
National Tuberculosis Center at UMDNJ and the Public Health Research
Institute will join the Department of Microbiology and Molecular
Genetics at the UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School to form a core group of
researchers at the International Center for Public Health. In addition,
the recent establishment of the Center for Emerging Pathogens at NJMS
will introduce expertise in analysis of a number of pathogens.
Gene Chip Technology:
Gene chip technology is a recent, cutting edge technology enabling
the simultaneous analysis of thousands of DNA sequences. State funding
has led to the formation of the Center for Applied Genetics at UMDNJ
and the International Center for Public Health. The Center will provide
the equipment and personnel necessary for the application of existing
gene technology and for the development of novel applications. In the
context of chemical and biological weapons, new chips will be designed
that can display sequences representing a panel of potential agents for
rapid screening and positive identification.
UMDNJ is well positioned to respond to the possibility of
biological and chemical threats. We can provide a comprehensive
statewide program ranging from our nationally acclaimed training
ability in the public health arena to internationally recognized
expertise in infectious disease basic research. This year, we seek $2.5
million to establish a statewide Center for BioSecurity that will
coordinate first responder training programs; develop methods of rapid
detection and identification of biological agents; conduct research to
enhance identification; and design new gene and protein chip technology
for the rapid identification of biological agents in response to
threats of bioterrorism.
Our second priority is the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer
Center which was established at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey
(CINJ) with the goal of eradicating prostate cancer and improving the
lives of men at risk for the disease through research, treatment,
education and prevention. GPCC was founded in memory of Rep. Dean
Gallo, a New Jersey Congressman who died of prostate cancer diagnosed
at an advanced stage. The purpose of the GPCC is to establish a multi-
disciplinary center to study all aspects of prostate cancer and its
prevention.
GPCC unites a team of outstanding researchers and clinicians who
are committed to high quality basic research, translation of innovative
research to the clinic, exceptional patient care, and improving public
education and awareness of prostate cancer. GPCC is a center of
excellence of the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, a partnership of the
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and hospital affiliates and
the only NCI-designated cancer center in the state. GPCC efforts will
be focused in four major areas: (1) Basic, Clinical and Translational
Research; (2) Comprehensive Patient Care; (3) Epidemiology and Cancer
Control; and (4) Education and Outreach.
Basic, Clinical and Translational Research.--GPCC scientists will
investigate the molecular, genetic and environmental factors that are
responsible for prostate cancer initiation and progression. Our
researchers will develop appropriate model systems that will facilitate
the design and implementation of novel strategies for prevention and
treatment. GPCC will foster multi-disciplinary efforts that will lead
to the effective translation of basic research to improved patient care
and novel clinical trials.
Comprehensive Patient Care.--It is the goal of the GPCC to provide
exceptional patient care through a multi-disciplinary patient care team
in the areas of urological oncology, radiation oncology and medical
oncology for each patient during all stages of the disease. The patient
care team will develop novel clinical approaches for treating all
stages of prostate cancer.
Epidemiology and Cancer Control.--Another goal of the GPCC is to
understand the etiology of prostate cancer susceptibility and to find
effective modalities for prevention of prostate cancer.
Education and Outreach.--GPCC will continue its efforts to
education the public throughout the State of New Jersey about the
importance of early detection of prostate cancer, particularly in
underserved communities where there is a population at high risk for
the disease.
The Cancer Institute of New Jersey has received $5 million in
federal funding over the last two years for the Dean and Betty Gallo
Prostate Cancer Center. This important funding has enabled us to
establish a world-class program in prostate cancer research that
includes publications in prestigious journals such as the New England
Journal of Medicine and Genes and Development. CINJ has used its
findings to leverage additional research dollars for individual
investigators from such agencies as CapCure, the Department of Defense
and several private foundations. Top investigators have been recruited
to initiate programs in prostate cancer research through our education
and pilot grant programs. We have also established education and
outreach programs that will enhance the visibility of our clinical
programs, including a partnership with the 100 Black Men organization.
This year we seek to build on our basic research in prostate cancer
and to support the development of technological approaches including:
The use of microarray technology to survey gene expression patterns in
prostate tumors; The use of mouse models for prostate cancer that can
be used to test new methods of prevention and treatment; The
development of monoclonal antibodies that may be used for prognosis and
diagnosis.
We will bring basic research directly to the clinic by fostering
interactions among basic and clinical researchers through our education
programs supported by this funding. Additional funding will allow us to
enhance our treatment of patients with prostate cancer through several
new clinical trials for patients at all stages of the disease. To
increase the number of additional clinical trials, we will utilize
funding to develop a support team that will assist our physicians to
design and implement new clinical trials.
We seek $2 million in federal funding to enhance the research,
education and cancer care programs of the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate
Cancer Center at our New Brunswick facility, and to expand these
programs statewide.
We thank this committee for its strong support in past years of
these initiatives.
Senator Stevens. We congratulate you for what you have done
to establish this Center in memory of Dean and want to work
with you. But I notice in your statement that you have
indicated that the funding you request would be used for
treatment of patients with past prostate cancers. We are
dealing with basic research money. Can you tell us how this is
basic research money if we give this $2 million to you for this
request?
Ms. Gallo. What it does is we have 22 laboratories at the
Cancer Institute as part of the Gallo Center, and what they are
doing is taking the research from the labs and bringing them
into the clinics to help treat the patients. So any research we
do, we hope will be translational, to be able to eventually
become useful for the patients.
Senator Stevens. Well, is this money to be used in
operation of the Center?
Ms. Gallo. No.
Senator Stevens. You know I am a prostate cancer survivor.
Ms. Gallo. I understand that.
Senator Stevens. And your husband unfortunately passed
away. We do want to help you maintain that Institute on a
research basis, but we cannot get into treatment centers. We do
not give anybody money for treatment centers.
Ms. Gallo. I should probably just say that basically we are
more involved in research, education and prevention and not so
much the treatment aspect. I maybe misconstrued it and made you
think that we are doing it for treatment. But that was not the
main reason of what this Center is about. A good portion of it
is research.
Senator Stevens. You are part of that Center, too. If we
make that money available, will you assure us the money is
going to be used for research and not for just routine
treatment of prostate cancer?
Ms. Gallo. Yes, it will be used for research. We have a
scientific committee already in place. We have two scientists
that are doing research on prostate cancer, who are heading the
Gallo Prostate Cancer Center.
[The information follows:]
The Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center,
At the Cancer Institute of New Jersey,
May 12, 2000.
Honorable Ted Stevens,
522 Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Stevens: I want to thank you for allowing me to
testify before the Senate Department of Defense sub-committee on May 3,
2000. I want to also thank you for your kind words about my husband,
Dean Gallo and the work I am doing for The Dean and Betty Gallo
Prostate Cancer Center (GPCC) at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey.
I want to give you some information with regard to the research
being done at the Gallo Prostate Cancer Center.
The GPCC scientists will investigate the molecular, genetic and
environmental factors that are responsible for prostate cancer
initiation and progression. Our researchers will develop appropriate
model systems that will facilitate the design and implementation of
novel strategies for prevention and treatment. GPCC will foster multi-
disciplinary efforts that will lead to the effective translation of
basic research to improve patient care and novel clinical trials.
I want to assure you that the funding we receive from the
Department of Defense is used ONLY for research and programs.
Thank you again for all your support.
Sincerely,
Betty I. Gallo,
Director of Public Outreach and Government Relations.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Questions, Senator?
Senator Inouye. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Ms. Gallo. Nice to
see you.
Ms. Gallo. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Dr. Peter Lennie, Dean
for Science and Professor of Neural Sciences at New York
University. Good morning, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF PETER LENNIE, PH.D., DEAN FOR SCIENCE AND
PROFESSOR OF NEURAL SCIENCE, NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF COGNITION,
LEARNING, EMOTION, AND MEMORY STUDIES AT
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Dr. Lennie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am speaking on behalf
of New York University (NYU), as its Dean for Science. I thank
the committee for its recognition that university research is a
cornerstone of national security efforts. And I appreciate
being able to discuss a project that will enhance national
security by enhancing the scientific understanding of the brain
and its role in learning and memory.
In line with the committee's interests, NYU has undertaken
a major initiative to advance studies in cognition, learning,
emotion, and memory. Our research efforts received a major
boost in 1999, when we successfully competed for an Office of
Naval Research (ONR) grant to study emotional influences on
information processing and biological and computational
mechanisms of visual recognition. This is an area of
exceptional significance and, indeed, one in which NYU has
great strengths. NYU now aims to further advance its program by
exploiting new technologies, particularly functional magnetic
resonance imaging, which allows us to explore directly and non-
invasively the link between cognitive processes and the
architecture of the brain.
Concentrated investment in this research is needed to
increase our understanding of how the brain controls behavior.
Our initiative focuses on what happens in the brain when we
learn and remember things, and distinguish and identify visual
objects, particularly under stressful conditions. Understanding
brain function allows us to improve the human capacity to
learn, remember, recognize objects, and perform better under
stress, and to design intelligent machines that mimic and
improve upon human performance.
The extent to which brain research is important for
national security objectives is clear in the following
examples, all areas in which NYU has substantial strength. On
condition and perception, understanding how humans analyze and
distinguish different sensory signals and how they allocate
attention among the range of objects in their environment is
crucial to the design of information display systems. Speedy
and appropriate responses to visual or auditory information,
whether displayed by instruments or in direct viewing of
targets or potential threats, it is essential for effective
performance.
On machine vision, many of the perceptual and cognitive
tasks that human beings perform effortlessly, such as
recognizing visual objects and events and anticipating changes
in the environment or understanding speech and acoustical
signals, are in fact tasks of great complexity. We appreciate
this only when we try to construct intelligent machines that
have similar capabilities, an enterprise that has so far had
limited success.
We can design more intelligent machines if we understand
the principles the brain uses to solve these complex problems.
Studies of biological vision can help address machine vision
problems that relate to vehicle recognition in complex scenes,
human activity recognition, and autonomous vehicle navigation.
On learning and memory, understanding the changes that
occur in the brain when people attend to things and require and
retain skills will make it easier for us to design intelligent
training systems that can respond to individual differences
among personnel in cognitive and psychomotor abilities.
On stress and performance, understanding the brain systems
that control emotional memories and affect learning, memory and
cognitive skills is crucial in optimizing performance under the
high stress conditions that characterize military operations.
NYU has outstanding researchers and strengths in the
disciplines that need to be brought together to tackle these
complex problems and to successfully meet our national goals
and this committee's priorities. Your support to continue our
efforts, particularly in the area of brain imaging, is greatly
appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Lennie
On behalf of New York University (NYU), I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss a project of scientific research which is not
only an important priority for NYU, but which we believe will advance
national security interests through enhanced scientific understanding
of brain function and brain development.
Our project addresses the programmatic interests of this
subcommittee in enlisting fundamental, university-based scientific
research to catalyze technological innovation with applications for
defense purposes as well as for the industrial, medical, and
educational sectors. This initiative is congruent with Department of
Defense research priorities and application areas, including its
interest in sophisticated techniques that involve measurement of brain
function and computational modeling. Our project will substantially
expand what we know about: the neural mechanisms of learning and
memory; the perception, acquisition and storage of information in the
nervous system; the neurobiology of fear and its impact on learning and
performance; and the implications of neural vision systems for their
machine analog, computer vision.
In line with the Subcommittee's interests, New York University has
undertaken a major initiative to concentrate and advance studies in
cognition, learning, emotion, and memory. This enterprise draws on the
University's strengths in the fields of neural science, computer
science, biology, chemistry, and psychology to push the frontiers of
our understanding of how the brain develops, functions, and
malfunctions, and to prepare the next generation of interdisciplinary
brain scientists.
We thank this committee for taking the time to consider and give
its support to the important research being conducted in this area--an
area of great strength at New York University. We at NYU firmly believe
that in the coming decades, a federal investment in mind and brain
studies will repay itself many times over.
Our initiative at NYU received a major boost in September 1999
when, in response to a new multi-disciplinary University Research
Initiative from the Office of Naval Research, New York University
successfully competed for a $1.9 million grant to study ``Emotional
influences on information processing, and biological and computational
mechanisms of visual recognition.'' New York University is using the
ONR award to support and expand the research programs of existing
faculty, attract additional faculty and trainees, and provide the
technical resources and personnel support that result in a world class
scientific enterprise.
A major thrust of our work is research on the learning process,
including the underlying cognitive processes and architecture that
affect attention, memory, information processing, skills acquisition,
and retention, as well as their implications for strategies that can
rationalize and optimize training and learning--for example, computer-
aided or ``intelligent'' tutoring--and ultimately, human task
performance. Of special interest to those studying learning and memory
systems is neural plasticity, which is the nature of the underlying
change in the nervous system. At NYU, ongoing investigations into the
neurobiology of fear are especially revealing in this regard, and are
helping to explain how the neural emotional memory system, functioning
normally and abnormally--in phobias, panic attacks, and anxiety--
affects performance. Central to the neural science enterprise at NYU
are fundamental studies in neural systems, particularly vision--
including studies of visual processing pathways, perception, and
information processing; and audition--including studies of auditory
regions of the nervous system, behavioral studies, and studies of
auditory psychophysical ability. These various studies of mind and
brain employ a full range of techniques; they coordinate anatomical,
neurophysiological, biochemical, and behavioral experiments; and they
are conducted in various model systems up through humans, and computer
modeling and simulations. Additional studies examine biological
systems, e.g., the neural bases of vision perception and information
processing, to engineer their computer analogs in data imaging,
processing, and retrieval.
New York University is now seeking support to capitalize on the
momentum generated by the award from the Office of Naval Research, and
to advance to the next level of technical development to maintain
research and training excellence with state-of-the-art resources.
Specifically, NYU is seeking $3,000,000 to continue anatomical,
neurophysiological, and behavioral studies, and to enhance these by
exploiting new technologies in a new Brain Imaging Center--a
university-wide resource for multidisciplinary research in the
neurosciences and cognitive sciences, particularly learning and memory
and their underlying neural mechanisms.
The recent development of imaging technologies has made it possible
to better understand the link between cognitive processes and the
architecture of the brain. Previously, it was not possible to subject
the learning process to traditional scientific methods of experiments,
controls, hypotheses, and objective observation. Using functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), it is now possible to anatomically
locate, noninvasively, the parts of the brain that are involved in
brain functions (e.g., learning) and dysfunctions (e.g., memory loss),
map out the interactions that occur between individual neurons, and
localize brain areas involved in specific tasks. An investment in
functional neuroimaging at NYU is an essential step in meeting the
growing needs of our investigators for study of normal and abnormal
brain function during the performance of perceptual and cognitive
tasks.
Individual researchers in the science programs at NYU compete very
effectively for federal funds for investigational support through
traditional routes. However, these traditional funding sources do not
provide the extensive funding necessary to support purchase multi-use
instrumentation, and provide the necessary technical and support
infrastructure for a coordinated large-scale initiative. Support from
the Department of Defense would enable us to meet these needs, and to
fully develop the potential New York University has to produce a new
understanding of the brain, and new ways of using that knowledge for
improving the national welfare.
Research Applications for National Security
The principal thrust of our initiative is to understand what
happens in the brain when we learn and remember things, retrieve
information from memory, and distinguish and identify visual objects,
particularly under conditions of emotional stress. Through
understanding these aspects of brain function we become able to do two
things: first, we can improve the human capacity to learn, remember,
recognize objects, and perform better under stress; second, we can
design intelligent machines that mimic and improve upon human
performance in many of the complex perceptual and cognitive tasks now
undertaken by military personnel. The great extent to which brain
research can meet Defense objectives is clear in the following
examples, all areas in which NYU has substantial strength:
Cognition and perception.--Understanding how humans analyze and
distinguish different sensory signals, and how they allocate attention
among the range of objects in their environment, is crucial to the
design of information display systems. Speedy and appropriate responses
to visual or auditory information, whether arising in complex signals
displayed by instruments, or from direct viewing of targets or
potential threats, is essential for effective military performance.
Researchers at NYU study how the brain analyses visual and auditory
information, both at the level of operation of nerve cells, and at the
level of the performance of the man or woman engaged in tasks. These
studies provide important information about how the brain distinguishes
and analyzes different sensory stimuli, about which parts of it are
most involved in different perceptual and cognitive tasks, and about
the characteristics of visual and auditory patterns that maximize their
distinguishability and legibility.
Biomimetic machine vision.--Many of the perceptual and cognitive
tasks that human beings perform effortlessly, such as recognizing
visual objects and events and anticipating changes in the environment,
or understanding speech and acoustical signals, are in fact tasks of
great difficulty. We appreciate this only when we try to construct
intelligent machines that have similar capabilities--an enterprise that
has so far had limited success. We can design more intelligent machines
if we understand the principles the brain uses to solve these complex
problems. Researchers at NYU are studying these principles by
developing theories about the computational operations that the brain
performs, particularly in the vision system. These biomimetic vision
studies bear directly on challenging machine vision problems that
relate to vehicle recognition in complex scenes, human activity
recognition, and autonomous vehicle navigation.
Learning and memory.--A major part of our effort is devoted to
research on the learning process, with a focus on understanding the
neuronal changes in the brain when people attend to things, and acquire
and retain skills. Neuroscientists are now close to understanding the
nature of the changes that occur in the brain when we learn new things.
Very important changes involve alterations in the strength of the
synapses--the connections between individual nerve cells. These
connections become stronger or weaker in ways that we do not yet fully
understand. When we understand how, when, and under what conditions
experience changes these connections in the brain we will be able to
improve the speed and flexibility with which people learn complex
tasks, and the reliability and longevity of their memories. Such
studies are an essential prerequisite for designing ``intelligent''
training programs that can respond to individual differences among
military recruits in cognitive and psychomotor abilities, attention,
and concentration.
Stress and performance.--Emotional memories, particularly those
involving fear, have a profound impact on people's lives, often
interfering with the normal execution of a person's duties. The brain
systems that control emotional memories and behavior are now being
charted by neuroscientists, and the pathways that control fear, and its
influence on a wide range of behaviors, are beginning to be well
understood. A fuller understanding of the unconscious circuitry of fear
will make it possible to control fear and its potentially destructive
effects on human performance. Understanding the mechanisms by which
neural circuits involved in emotion affect learning, memory, and
cognitive skills is crucial in optimizing performance under the high-
stress conditions that characterize military operations. NYU scientists
have already made some of the most notable contributions to our
understanding of fear and anxiety disorders, and are especially well-
placed to advance our understanding of this important phenomenon.
NYU's program of research on these problems draws on a range of
contributing disciplines--neuroscience, behavioral science, computer
science and applied mathematics--and encompasses work ranging from the
investigation of the activity of single nerve cells, through large
scale modeling of brain function, to the careful measurement of human
performance on perceptual and cognitive tasks. The marriage of these
disciplines and levels of study is essential to understanding the
complexities of human performance and the operations underlying it.
When we understand these operations better we will be able to devise
ways to improve the quality and reliability of human performance, and
to design better and more intelligent machines.
While research at NYU will have these direct applications for
national security, there will be important spin-offs in other areas,
including biomedical therapeutics and diagnostics, early childhood
learning and intervention, and job training. As examples, research
conducted in these areas will necessarily address the loss of memory
through aging or injury, the acquisition of language, and windows of
learning opportunity in brain development, among others.
Feasibility: Institutional Strengths
New York University has the resources necessary to conduct broad
ranging multidisciplinary research and training. Beyond the
intellectual resources and talents of our faculty, there are
established frameworks for interdisciplinary and interschool
collaboration and a commitment to brain studies at the highest level of
the University administration. The nation's largest private university,
with 13 schools and over 49,000 students, NYU is a leading center of
scholarship, teaching and research. It is one of 29 private
institutions constituting the distinguished Association of American
Universities, and is consistently among the top U.S. universities in
funds received from foundations and federal sources.
As the core of a decade-long multi-million dollar science
development plan, NYU created a premier neuroscience program that
encompasses a pre-eminent faculty and generates substantial external
funding from federal and state agencies as well as the private sector.
These investigations have attracted millions of federal dollars from
the NIH, NSF, ONR, and EPA. In addition, NYU has received major funding
from the most prestigious private foundations supporting the sciences,
including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the W.M. Keck
Foundation, the Alfred M. Sloan Foundation, and the Beatrice and Samuel
A. Seaver Foundation. Neural science faculty have, as individuals, won
prestigious awards, including HHMI Investigator, NSF Presidential
Faculty Fellow, NIH Merit Awardee, McKnight Foundation Scholar in
Neuroscience, and MacArthur ``Genius'' Fellow.
While other academic institutions are also conducting brain
studies, NYU has special strengths in important emerging research
directions that are central to the Defense mission. Neural science at
NYU is particularly well known for research in the neural basis of
visual processing and perception, theoretical/computational
neurobiology, the linkage of sensation and perception with action,
emotional memory, plasticity in the visual and auditory system, and
molecular and developmental neurobiology. NYU scientists have made
important contributions to visual processing, deriving the most
successful methods available for studying nonlinear interactions in
neuronal information processing; emotion, giving the first real glimpse
into the neuroanatomy of fear; neural development, with landmark work
on the vision system; and the neural bases for auditory function,
including neural sensitivity to auditory motion stimuli.
NYU is strategically placed to conduct studies in cognition,
learning, emotion, and memory that capitalize on expertise in
physiology, neuroanatomy, and behavioral studies and build on active
studies that range from the molecular foundations of development and
learning to the mental coding and representations of memory. Research
in these areas will encompass diverse research approaches, including
mathematical and computational modeling, human subject psychological
testing, use of experimental models, and electro-physiological,
histological, and neuroanatomical techniques.
Support from the Department of Defense will help us move rapidly
forward with a research effort that should yield knowledge of great
importance for the priorities of the Department of Defense.
Senator Stevens. We do thank you, Doctor.
I note that you said you competed for a grant from the
Office of Naval Research. Have you competed for grants from the
Institute of Brain Disorders, of NIH? We have doubled the
amount available to that Institute over the last 10 years. It
has now reached the level of $3.7 plus billion, much more money
than we have in this bill for research. Did you compete for
money from that Institute?
Dr. Lennie. We have not sought support from the programs of
the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Mr. Chairman.
We sought support from ONR because we believe that the work we
proposed to do was more closely allied with the objectives of
the ONR program through the university research initiatives.
Senator Stevens. I understand that. You want additional
money now, right?
Dr. Lennie. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. From ONR, when we are increasing it over
at the Institute of Brain Disorders.
Dr. Lennie. There will be parts of the enterprise at New
York University that would be competing for these funds at
NIMH, but the initiative that I am discussing now is one that
we believed was very closely in line with the objectives of
ONR, which is why we had in fact applied for the funds.
Senator Stevens. Did ONR request the money that you are
asking for?
Dr. Lennie. Last year.
Senator Stevens. Is it in the budget now?
Dr. Lennie. I do not know, sir.
Senator Stevens. We will look. But one of our problems is
that these two lines of funding are duplicating the application
of money for research when we are trying to maintain a
Department of Defense. We have supported the decade of the
brain at NIH tremendously, and they have a tremendous amount of
money. I would urge you to look to them if you have got some
new initiatives that you want to pursue in brain research.
Dr. Lennie. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator.
Senator Inouye. I have nothing for this witness, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Rogene Henderson, Senior Scientist from
the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.
We have a statement to be put in the record prior to your
testimony from Senator Domenici. He had to go to his committee
meeting and has asked us to put this in here. It has two
questions that he has asked you to answer for the record. And,
Dr. Henderson, I hope you will agree to do that.
We will give this to you, but I ask you to answer it for
the record and mail it to us, please.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
I would like to briefly bring to the attention of this
Committee and persons in attendance at this hearing the
important work of a collaborative effort between the Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute and the University of Alabama.
These two institutions are tackling the critical problem of
acute lung injury in our effort to ensure better healthcare and
maximize survivability on the battlefield.
Exposure to smokes, obscurants, aerosols, or noxious
substances have long presented a potential hazard to our men
and women in uniform. At the same time, possible exposure to
chemical and biological agents or nuclear materials presents an
increasing risk in battlefield operations. No cure exists for
the trauma or possible respiratory brought on by such
exposures.
I believe these two institutions bring some of the best
medical and technical knowledge to the fore in addressing this
increasing risk. For a small investment we can ensure that
accidental exposures in the course of day-to-day operations or
the ever-increasing possibility of biological, chemical or
nuclear agents on the battlefield do not unnecessarily threaten
our military personnel.
STATEMENT OF ROGENE HENDERSON, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST,
LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. Henderson. Thank you. I will answer it and mail it to
you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Dr. Henderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also would
like to thank you for your prior support of medical research to
meet military needs. I am testifying on behalf of a joint
project on acute lung injury proposed by the Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute and the University of Alabama at
Birmingham (UAB). Dr. Loring Rue, from UAB, is here with me to
answer questions regarding that institution.
Senators, there is a deadly lung disease that thwarts the
efforts of our military field medical personnel to care for our
wounded. Trauma, burns, infection, and blood loss can develop
into a condition that leads to rapid accumulation of fluid in
the lungs. If not reversed, this condition leads to lack of
oxygen, multiple organ failure and death.
In the Vietnam conflict, this condition affected over 90
percent of those injured personnel who were initially evacuated
alive from the battlefield but who later died. There is still
no specific treatment for this condition.
Permanent lung disability is common among those who
survive. There are about 150,000 cases a year in injured
civilians, where the condition is called acute respiratory
distress syndrome (ARDS). Nationwide, the survival rate is only
about 50 percent. There are actually more fatalities from ARDS
than from breast cancer or prostate cancer or acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
NIH sponsors research on ARDS, but does not focus on injury
and treatment scenarios of special concern to defense
operations. Extensive bullet wounds, burns or blood loss often
lead to ARDS.
Field treatment is problematic, especially during the first
critical hour after injury. Understanding these issues,
Lovelace and UAB developed a plan to combine their
complementary resources to conduct research to improve the
management of acute lung injury of defense significance.
Lovelace is recognized worldwide for its research on lung
damage from inhaled chemicals and radioactive materials. This
unique, federally owned, privatized inhalation laboratory
operates as a national resource for all agencies. The
laboratory has a long history of studying the toxicity of
inhaled pollutants, developing and using animal models of human
lung conditions and studying the causes and treatments of lung
disease.
However, Lovelace needed a partner with complementary
research and clinical skills. The UAB was also reaching out for
complementary expertise. Dr. Matalon's group is world renown
for its work on cellular and molecular mechanisms of acute lung
injury, and especially ARDS.
Working with the Office of Naval Research, Dr. Matalon's
group has begun to identify potential new treatments. The
University Medical Center treated over 250 cases of ARDS in the
past 2 years. The unusually close collaboration between the UAB
clinicians and laboratory scientists facilitates testing
emerging therapies for civilian ARDS patients.
Together, Lovelace and the UAB have designed a carefully
targeted program that focuses on defense-related acute lung
injury. Several interrelated tests with high potential for
payoff in a limited time are proposed. These projects are
listed in the written testimonies.
Several administer stakeholder organizations within the
Department of Defense would benefit from the results of this
research. Of particular relevance for this work is the issue of
military preparedness, which can be improved by the medical
technologies to be developed at this proposed center for acute
lung injury.
Mr. Chairman, we now seek the resources required to
implement this effort. We respectfully request recognition of
this need in the defense appropriations. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rogene Henderson
It is proposed that the Department of Defense support two new
multi-institutional efforts developed specifically to address issues
important to the Department's mission. Support is sought for the Center
for Acute Lung Injury, a collaborative effort between the Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute and the University of Alabama aimed at
improving the management of lung injury and enhancing lung repair, a
critical battlefield injury in need of scientific and medical pursuit
to improve the survivor-ability under battlefield conditions.
center for acute lung injury
The Problem
Acute lung injury is a major problem to the military because of the
unique work situations encountered by Department of Defense (DOD)
personnel. Training or actual battlefield situations can involve
potential exposure of troops to smokes and obscurants, respirable
aerosols that will deposit in the lung. Detonations of military weapons
produce shock waves that injure the lung. Confined spaces, such as on
nuclear submarines, the holds of aircraft carriers and the interior of
tanks provide the potential for exposures to noxious substances where
increased ventilation may be difficult to achieve. In actual
battlefield operations, exposures to chemical and biological warfare
agents as well as nuclear materials, all pose a threat to the pulmonary
system if inhaled. Systemic sepsis and severe trauma encountered from
battlefield wounds can eventually develop into a condition known as
Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), in which all vessels within
the body become leaky resulting in respiratory insufficiency, tissue
hypoxemia and multi-organ failure.
There is at present no cure for this condition. A scientific center
devoted to the study of the prevention and treatment of acute lung
injury would serve to focus the research efforts of the military in
this area and would be an effective research arm for military
institutions devoted to protecting the health of military personnel and
their families. This effort would significantly add to the military
preparedness of our Armed Forces.
Two Institutions Join to Respond to the Need
To meet the needs of the DOD, two outstanding national institutions
have joined in a collaborative effort to establish the Center for Acute
Lung Injury. Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) is an
internationally recognized inhalation toxicology laboratory, which was
originally founded by DOE and its predecessors to study the health
effects of inhaled radionuclides. LRRI is fully equipped to handle
highly toxic agents, such as plutonium, depleted uranium, biological
warfare agents and nerve gases. The excellent aerosol scientists at
LRRI are also known for their ability to monitor and characterize
atmospheres under field conditions. Thus, LRRI cannot only test for
pulmonary toxicity, but can determine the nature and amount of noxious
material in exposure atmospheres. The University of Alabama at
Birmingham (UAB) has, under the outstanding leadership of Dr. Sadis
Matalon, established a world-renowned laboratory studying the cellular
and molecular mechanism of acute lung injury, and in particular, the
mechanism of the development of ARDS. During the last six years,
scientists and clinicians at UAB have been performing a variety of
biochemical, molecular biology and physiological studies to understand
the basic mechanisms by which reactive oxygen species damage the lungs
and to identify the physiological consequences of this injury.
Both LRRI and UAB have a past history of high quality research
performed for the DOD. Both institutions have clinical research centers
for clinical trials and extensive contacts and collaborations with
biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies aimed at designing and
testing new therapeutic agents. The combination of these two
outstanding groups from a state-of-the-art team for addressing the
problems of the DOD related to acute lung injury. It is the intention
of the two collaborating organizations that the Center for Acute Lung
Injury should be the first place the DOD turns to when a problem
regarding inhalation toxicology and acute lung injury arises.
In summary, LRRI and UAB propose to establish a center for Acute
Lung Injury to support the DOD with all problems related to inhalation
toxicology and acute lung injury.
Roles of the Collaborating Institutions
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.--LRRI is recognized world-
wide for its inhalation toxicology research, for its use of laboratory
research to determine human health risks from inhaled materials, and
for the federally-owned privatized inhalation laboratory it operates as
a national resource. The unique laboratory is fully equipped to handle
highly toxic agents, such as strategic chemical, biological and
radiological agents, and has a long history of doing so safely. LRRI
aerosol scientists are also known for their ability to monitor and
characterize atmospheres under field conditions, and to reproduce those
atmospheres under controlled laboratory conditions.
The University of Alabama.--UAB has, under the outstanding
leadership of Dr. Sadis Matalon, established a world-renowned
laboratory studying the cellular and molecular mechanism of acute lung
injury, and in particular, the mechanism of the development of ARDS.
During the past six years, scientists and clinicians at UAB have
conducted several key biochemical, molecular biology and physiological
studies advancing our understanding of the basic mechanisms by which
reactive oxygen species damage the lungs and identifying the
pathological and physiological consequences and prognosis of this
injury.
Both LRRI and UAB have a solid track record of performing high
quality research for DOD. In addition, both institutions have clinical
research centers for clinical trials and extensive contacts and
collaborations with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies aimed at
designing and testing new therapeutic agents. The combination of these
two outstanding groups form a state-of-the-art team for addressing the
problems of the DOD related to acute lung injury. It is the specific
intention of the two collaborating organizations that the Center for
Acute Lung Injury would be a much-needed first-line source of
information and assistance for DOD when a problem regarding inhalation
toxicology and acute lung injury arises.
The Center's Research Strategy
The two partner institutions have identified and prioritized a set
of interrelated key issues that target current knowledge barriers, are
amenable to research by their coordinated efforts in a constrained time
frame, and have high potential for pay-off. Through the Center, they
will conduct integrated research specifically targeting lung injury,
repair, and treatment issues pertaining to DOD problems. The research
will include basic studies on induction and repair of acute lung
injury, applied inhalation toxicity studies to address specific DOD
problems, and atmosphere monitoring and characterization to meet DOD
needs. Basic research will be conducted to determine the key defense
mechanisms of the lung with emphasis on enhancing the defenses that
kill pathogens, and studies to assess the ability of drugs (retinoids
and growth factors) to promote wound healing and tissue repair.
This carefully-targeted body of research will consist of the
following five project areas supported by core activities at both
institutions. A key feature of the work is that both LRRI and UAB will
be represented among the chief investigators of each project.
Research Project Areas:
--Mechanisms of Pathogen Killing by Normal and Injured Lungs
--Mechanisms and Prevention of Acute Lung Injury Following Systemic
Trauma
--Role of Oxidant Stress During Acute Lung Injury
--Role of Altered Immune Function on Mortality in Acute Lung Injury
--Development of New Models of ARDS that More accurately Predict New
Effective Human Medical Interventions
Addressing the DOD Needs for Military Preparedness
Our Armed Forces must be prepared to face medical assaults both on
the battlefield and within the military population and those civilian
populations that are dependent upon DOD logistical and direct support.
It is noted that there has been a significant increase in adenovirus
respiratory infection within the military population in recent years.
Other respiratory diseases are on the increase and can markedly reduce
the preparedness of our Armed Forces to accomplish all of their
numerous missions. The work of the Center will result in new
interventions to reduce these disease risks for military and related
civilian populations in all aspects of their lives. Much of the
functionality of the Armed Forces requires a healthy military and
civilian population, and any degradation of the respiratory health of
the support forces of the DOD also reduces the ability of the military
to accomplish their missions.
More effective anticipation, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment
of acute lung Injury will enhance the effectiveness of DOD programs at
all levels from battlefield protection of troops from chemical and
biological warfare agents or blast damage to routine protection of
service personnel from toxic chemicals during peacetime duties. With
emerging threats from weapons of mass destruction, state of the art
information from the Center for Acute Lung Injury will be of interest
to many DOD organizations and could have critical significance for U.S.
tactical and strategic postures. There are many major DOD stakeholders
in the issues addressed by this program. These include:
--The Office of Naval Research (ONR) with broad responsibilities for
improving technology to protect personnel;
--The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease
(USAMRIID) with lead responsibilities for research to advance
the medical prevention and treatment of biological diseases and
biological warfare casualties;
--The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defense
(USAMRICD) which is the nation's lead laboratory for research
to advance the medical prevention and treatment of chemical
warfare casualties;
--The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) which is dedicated to
reducing the threat to the United States and its allies from
nuclear, chemical, biological, conventional, and special
weapons;
--The Air Force Nuclear Weapons and Counterproliferation Agency
(NWCA) with responsibility for ensuring an effective deterrence
posture for weapons of mass destruction; and
--The Defense Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA) which is DOD's
central research and development organization for pursuing high
risk/high payoff research and technology.
In addition, improved knowledge of the opportunities and
limitations for preventing and treating acute lung injury will be of
interest to many special purpose organizations such as the Marine Corps
Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) which is a
self-contained, task-oriented unit with the ability to detect hazardous
materials, perform decontamination, and offer medical treatment and
security.
Funding Is Sought to Conduct These Key Studies
A total of $6 million ($3 million each to LRRI and UAB) is sought
to provide salaries, purchase equipment, provide core support services,
facilitate travel for collaborating scientists between the two
institutions as necessary to conduct the five specific, carefully-
targeted and coordinated studies listed above.
Senator Stevens. Doctor, Senator Domenici has some
questions and I will not duplicate them here. But tell me, can
you assure me that if we open this new line of research that it
really is military related?
Dr. Henderson. Yes, it is, because the condition is caused
by trauma and blood loss and infections. This is of special
significance to the military, because the battlefield injuries
are just those types of injuries that tend to lead to this
condition.
Senator Stevens. I understand that, and we are familiar
with the terrible problem of invasion of blood into the lungs
and other problems that develop when a person is injured in
military activity. That is a terrible thing. Are you going to
concentrate, however, on the military side of this or on the
side that deals with accidents on the civilian side? I know
that the medical result may be the same, but it is two
different problems.
There is lots of money at NIH dealing with the problems of
those people who are injured on the highways. We are interested
in the acute problems of people who are injured in military
actions. Is that what you are going to be interested in?
Dr. Henderson. Yes, that is the whole plan for this center.
And Lovelace has in the past done a great deal of work for the
military. We are familiar with their problems, and it is their
needs that we are trying to address. As you say, there are
other people who are funding research to address the civilian
needs. The condition that develops, as you say, is similar. And
some of the work that we do for the military will benefit the
civilian population.
Senator Stevens. I imagine it will, but we are very acutely
interested in the result of concussion and the new bullets and
mechanisms that cause such an enormous impact on the body when
they hit them.
Dr. Henderson. Yes. And that is what we will emphasize, and
that is where Lovelace, as I say, has emphasized work on these
types of scenarios in the past. And we are fully prepared to do
that in the future.
Senator Stevens. Senator, do you have any questions?
Senator Inouye. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. It is a very
interesting thing. I was exposed to a briefing on some of these
events that took place in past conflicts, and we are very
interested in that. We are very interested in finding a way to
deal with it on the battlefield, Doctor.
Dr. Henderson. Yes, we are, too. And it is an important
thing to be able to deal with it immediately, before the
condition develops. And that is what we want to do.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
The questions that Senator Domenici referred to earlier
that he was going to submit will be inserted in the record at
this point along with your responses.
[The information follows:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
acute lung injury
Question. Mr. Henderson, I appreciate your appearance here today on
behalf of the Center for Acute Lung Injury. I have read your testimony
and would merely request clarification on one point.
1. I understand that the $6 million to the Lovelace Respiratory
Institute and the University of Alabama will be divided equally.
However, I would ask that for the record you provide us with full
accounting of how the $6 million will be allocated between salaries,
procurement, services, and studies as indicated in your testimony.
2. After initial establishment of the Center, what level of
continued support would be required to sustain your research
operations?
Answer.
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 9, 2000.
The Honorable Ted Stevens,
522 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Stevens: I would like to take this opportunity to
thank you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee on May
8 and to present you with a detailed explanation of our collaborative
initiative at the New Mexico based Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute and the University of Alabama for an Acute Lung Injury Center
Project to explicitly serve DOD and military operational and medical
technology. Respectfully, I will use this letter as a means of
answering the questions posed to you, Mr. Chairman, as well as those
submitted by Senator Domenici.
First and foremost, this project is a focused Department of Defense
(DOD)-specific endeavor directed at the unique and extreme risks
associated with the medical emergencies encountered by DOD personnel on
the battlefield and related situations. Military men and women all face
acute trauma, which frequently and rapidly develops into what is called
Acute Lung Injury. I want to reassure you and reiterate that this joint
Lovelace-Alabama project is designed and intended to focus specifically
on military needs, preparedness objectives and to military technical
development.
Acute Lung Injury can result from toxic exposures to inhaled
materials or extreme trauma to the chest or other vital body regions
that results in rapid hypoxemia, pulmonary edema, extreme lung
inflammation and multiple organ failure. Death is the frequent result.
These are injuries most likely to be expected in DOD operations to DOD
personnel. The lessons learned from the proposed studies can be
directly implemented by DOD medical personnel to reduce and mitigate
these combat related clinical emergencies on the battlefield or
immediately after triage to a field hospital. The project envisions a
series of directed studies that will lead to the development of
practical interventions to be employed by military medical personnel
upon the affected DOD soldiers, sailors and related workers in unique
extreme military situations.
We were asked to provide a full accounting of how the requested $6
million would be spent. Attached is a specific breakdown of the budget,
and an explanation of the breakdown of funds dedicated to research,
research institutes and equipment and to related costs that support
that research. The funds will be expensed equally between the two
institutions.
Approximately two-thirds of all expenditures will be devoted to
critical research personnel, support of highly skilled investigators,
and over 15 bachelor and masters level technical support staff, along
with numerous animal care workers, computer service personnel and
aerosol exposure technicians. They will undertake the actual work of
developing and expanding the unique animal models of Acute Lung Injury
described in the proposal proper and developing interventions designed
to reduce, mitigate or eliminate the fatalities associated with the
syndrome. For example, the scientists, lab technicians and animal care
workers will develop two new animal models of Acute Lung Injury
focusing on differing aspects of the disease and subsequent treatments
(lung edema and hemorrhage). All of these workers will be working 100
percent on the research proposed including the development of new
technologies to be implemented later as effective medical
interventions.
The other core area of expenditure is the critical research
equipment, materials and supplies (approximately one-fifth of the total
costs). These too represent costs that are 100 percent dedicated to the
actual scientific experiments--paying for animals, chemicals, some
exposure equipment and tissue culture and related supplies. The
remaining costs include minor expenses for clinical samples from
victims of Acute Lung Injury, consulting costs and travel to scientific
meetings. The indirect costs for both institutes are approved by
federal audit and go toward many of the categories described above
including support personnel for exposure suits, animal care personnel
and facilities and upkeep, as well as the development of the necessary
computer support services and facility upgrades necessary to carry out
the goals of the project. Less than 20 percent of the indirect costs
(less than 10 percent of the total) will be devoted to peripheral but
necessary expenses such as clerical and peripheral administrative
costs.
The final question is related to the need for continued support
after the initial establishment of the Center. We anticipate that this
program of research and technology development will take approximately
12 to 24 months to accomplish. Thereafter, the successes of the work
will be identified and only those directly, exclusively and
specifically related to the Defense Department medical mission would be
explored through a continuing smaller relationship with the DOD. It is
anticipated that peripheral to this core of discoveries will be a
number of outcomes that will be of interest to other agencies such as
the EPA, DOE, CDC and NIH. Funds will be sought from other sources to
support these other on-going activities of the Center as well. We
anticipate that this project will lead to a permanent Center of
Excellence between LRRI and UAB organizations focusing on the
development of enhancements and exploitation of the discoveries that
come from the R&D activities of the projects.
We hope that this explanation adequately answers the questions
posed at the hearing, and we at Lovelace again thank you for that
opportunity. We understand your concerns about the utilization of
limited resources within the Defense budget, and wanted to take every
effort to assure you of our military focus and commitment. We want to
thank you as well for your leadership on defense and research issues
and stand ready to respond to any additional questions you might have.
Sincerely,
Rogene Henderson, Ph.D.,
Senior Scientist/NERC Deputy Director.
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA 2 YEAR STUDY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project 4
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 J. Project 5 CATEGORY
M. Sadis C. Irshad K. Randall Thompson S. Matalon TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONNEL............................... $348,390 $320,880 $302,448 $373,054 $194,896 $1,539,668
CONSULTANT COSTS........................ .......... .......... .......... .......... 11,200 11,200
MAJOR EQUIPMENT......................... 75,000 .......... 11,568 72,000 37,132 195,700
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES.................... 78,060 100,000 16,000 90,000 9,000 293,060
TRAVEL COSTS............................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 19,200 43,200
PATIENT COSTS........................... 16,000 .......... 64,000 .......... .......... 80,000
OTHER COSTS............................. .......... 4,000 .......... 14,000 26,000 44,000
INDIRECT COSTS.......................... 213,346 187,432 141,136 210,128 113,228 865,270
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT TOTALS.................... 736,796 618,312 541,152 765,182 410,656 ..........
COMBINED PROJECT TOTALS........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,072,098
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LBERI 2 YEAR STUDY
PERSONNEL..................................................... $920,056
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES.......................................... 385,310
TRAVEL COSTS.................................................. 10,000
COMPUTER SERVICE.............................................. 51,496
DOE FACILITY USE COST......................................... 102,292
INDIRECT COSTS................................................ 1,366,862
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL................................................ 2,836,016
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
6 PERCENT FEE................................................. 163,984
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL................................................... 3,000,000
TOTAL COMBINED COST--YEAR 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CATEGORY
UAB LBERI TOTALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONNEL........................... $1,539,668 $920,056 $2,459,724
CONSULTANT COSTS.................... 11,200 .......... 11,200
MAJOR EQUIPMENT..................... 195,700 .......... 195,700
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES................ 293,060 385,310 678,370
TRAVEL COSTS........................ 43,200 10,000 53,200
CLINICAL COSTS...................... 80,000 .......... 80,000
COMPUTER SERVICE.................... .......... 51,496 51,496
DOE FACILITY USE COST............... .......... 102,292 102,292
OTHER COSTS......................... 44,000 .......... 44,000
INDIRECT COSTS...................... 865,270 1,366,862 2,232,132
6 PERCENT FEE....................... .......... 163,984 163,984
-----------------------------------
PROJECT SUBTOTALS............. 3,072,098 3,000,000 ..........
===================================
PROJECT TOTAL................. 6,072,098
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Joe Flynn, Vice
President of the Fourth District of the American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE). Good morning.
STATEMENT OF JOE FLYNN, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, FOURTH
DISTRICT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Mr. Flynn. Good morning, sir. Good morning, Senator Inouye.
Mr. Chairman, AFGE is the largest Federal employee union,
representing more than 600,000 public employees across the
country, including more than 200,000 in the Department of
Defense. I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the issue
of most concern to Federal employees, and especially those in
DOD, and that is contracting out.
We certainly appreciate the bipartisan support we have
received from this subcommittee on this issue. And in
particular, Mr. Chairman, we would like to recognize yourself
as being one of our strongest supporters in this area.
A March 10 report from the DOD Inspector General gave the
Department's service contracting out efforts the worst grade
ever. The Inspector General (I.G.) looked at 105 DOD contracts
worth $6.7 billion. Every single one of them had some type of
problem. The I.G. confessed that he and his staff were startled
by the audit results, because they found problems with every
one of the 105 actions. In nearly 10 years of managing the
audit office of the I.G., I do not ever recall finding problems
on every item in that large a sample of transactions, programs
or data.
Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee and other folks should be
convinced that there needs to be a brake put on DOD contracting
out pending further review. And in particular, we would like to
address your attention to the Navy's ill-considered
privatization of its entire communications system. As the
General Accounting Office (GAO) reported, the Navy's
acquisition approach and implementation plan for developing an
Internet have a number of weaknesses that make the effort
unnecessarily risky. The GAO also pointed out that the
extraordinary rush to bestow this multi-billion dollar contract
on one lucky contractor was not driven by specific mission
needs.
Navy officials insist that public/private competition is
not required because the Internet contract somehow constitutes
new work. Any objective examination of this contract, which
also includes an oversight contract, suggest that this claim is
nothing more than an attempt to avoid serious scrutiny.
GAO has also raised questions about the financing for this
privatization scheme, as well as the impact of entrusting the
Navy's entire communications system to a contractor,
potentially one that could be foreign owned.
This subcommittee should force the Navy to subject the
Internet work to private/public competition. The thousands of
Federal employees currently performing the Navy's communication
work deserve the chance to defend their jobs. And any
contractor must be required to prove in advance that
outsourcing is in the best interests of our warfighters and
taxpayers.
Senator, once again, thank you for the opportunity for
allowing us to appear. If there are any follow-up questions or
additional information we can provide you, we are certainly at
your service.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joe Flynn
My name is Joe Flynn and I am the National Vice President for
AFGE's Fourth District, which includes Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia, and North Carolina. AFGE is the largest federal employee
union, representing more than 600,000 public employees serving across
the nation and around the world, including more than 200,000 in the
Department of Defense (DOD). I appreciate this opportunity to discuss
the issue of most concern to federal employees: contracting out and
privatization. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your very strong support
for federal employees generally as well as in the context of defense
appropriations legislation. I must also single out in particular three
Senators who have striven to reduce the obvious inequities in the
Administration's outsourcing agenda: Senators Durbin, Lautenberg, and
Harkin.
The Failure to Monitor the Costs and Consequences of Contracting Out
Those lawmakers most familiar with contracting out understand, in
the words of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, that there
is ``no clear evidence that (contracting out and privatization) is
reducing the cost of support functions . . . with high cost contractors
simply replacing government employees.'' The General Accounting Office
(GAO) agrees, reporting that the Department of Defense (DOD), the
agency that does the most contracting out, has no way of determining if
savings from all of its contracting out efforts are actually being
realized.
And the situation is getting worse, not better. A March 10 report
from the DOD Inspector General (IG) gave the department's service
contracting crusade the worst grade ever. The IG looked at 105
Department of Defense (DOD) contracts worth $6.7 billion. Every single
one of them had some type of oversight problem. During his recent
testimony before the House Government Management Subcommittee, Mr.
Robert J. Lieberman, the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing,
confessed that he and his experienced staff were ``startled by the
audit results, because we found problems with every one of the 105
actions. In nearly ten years of managing the audit office of the IG, I
do not ever recall finding problems on every item in that large a
sample of transactions, programs or data.'' (Mr. Lieberman later said
that he had signed 2,000 different audits during his tenure.) The
report states that the collective dereliction of duty on the part of
DOD with respect to service contracting ``clearly left the government
vulnerable--and sometimes at the mercy of the contractor.''
Here are some of the general findings about problems in tracking
costs and savings from contracting out and privatization:
--77 percent--inadequate government cost estimates;
--69 percent--inadequate use of prior history to define requirements;
--68 percent--inadequate price negotiation memoranda;
--67 percent--inadequate contract surveillance;
--60 percent--inadequate competition;
--57 percent--cursory technical reviews; and
--25 percent--lack of cost control.
And here are some of the specific findings:
--The Army contracted with Raytheon for 39 years to service HAWK
missile system but it never bothered to establish a fixed price
for the contract. Instead, the Army awarded Raytheon a cost-
plus-fixed-fee deal, which allows the contract to go above the
expected price.
--A government contracting office had $8 million worth of taxpayer
dollars to spend on a contract but only found $5.8 million in
costs. The Pentagon decided to put the extra $2.2 million in
the contract anyway.
--A National Guard contract was estimated at $2.2 million, a figure
that copied the $2.1 million application from a contractor. A
review discovered that the real costs only totaled $1.2
million.
The DOD official on the same panel admitted that the Pentagon could
not take issue with the IG's findings.
Surely it's not too much to ask that the Administration and agency
managers be required to prove that A-76 competitions and contracting
out and privatization generally will actually achieve real and
significant savings before throwing public employees and their families
out on the street. Moreover, it is imperative that these real and
significant savings persist over the long-term. There is considerable
anecdotal evidence to suggest that whatever initial savings are
generated from contracting out dissipate by the time the contract is
renewed since there is no public-private competition and precious
little private-private competition, thus leaving taxpayers at the mercy
of sole-source contractors.
In 1998, the Administration agreed to require agencies to develop
tracking systems to monitor the costs and savings of contracting out.
As a senior OMB official admitted, it is ``indefensible'' that there
should be an inventory of work performed by public employees through
the FAIR Act but no similar inventory for work performed by contractor
employees, even though two-thirds of the federal government is already
contracted out. Although more than a year has passed, no progress
whatsoever has been made towards establishing contractor inventories.
The Failure to Subject Contractors to the Same Level of Competition as
Public Employees
Agencies should be required to contract in work for performance if
in-house staff will be more effective, more efficient, and more
reliable than contractors. Virtually no work is ever contracted in so
it can once again be performed by experienced and reliable public
employees. If public-private competition is appropriate for work
performed by public employees, then it is just as appropriate for work
performed by contractors. If only work performed by public employees is
subjected to public-private competition, then the Administration and
agency management are simply replacing public employees with contractor
employees, rather than trying to make government more efficient.
Last year, the Administration ``agree(d) with (AFGE) that we should
ask federal managers to . . . consider the potential benefits of
converting work from contract to in-house performance . . . OMB will
encourage agencies to identify opportunities for the conversion of work
from contract to in-house performance . . .'' Unfortunately, the
Administration has failed to provide agencies with this guidance. In
response, this Subcommittee required DOD to document just how
infrequently work has been contracted in, identify barriers to
contracting in, and provide recommendations for maximizing the
possibility of effective competition for work that has already been
contracted out.
The Failure to Shine the Light of Truth on the Shadow Workforce
Despite the Administration's stated intention to document the size
of the contractor workforce--often referred to as the ``shadow
workforce'' because it has historically been enshrouded in such
mystery--no progress has been made. The House and Senate Armed Services
Committees agreed, over the Pentagon's strenuous objections, to require
a count of DOD's contractor workforce in last year's defense
authorization conference report. A similar requirement was included in
report language in last year's Senate defense appropriations bill.
Failure to Prevent Work from Being Contracted Out Without Public-
Private Competition
Although generating much attention, OMB Circular A-76 is really a
sideshow. Most government work that is performed by contractors is
never subject to public-private competition. Either the work has never
been performed by public employees and was simply given to contractors
from the very beginning (``new starts'') or it was started in-house and
then transferred to the private sector without giving public employees
any opportunity to compete in defense of their jobs. That is, despite
all of the talk from Administration officials about the importance of
public-private competition, most contractors obtain their lucrative
deals without ever having to compete against public employees. Last
year's Senate Defense Appropriations Bill included report language that
would enable lawmakers to finally at least get a handle on the problem
in DOD, directing Pentagon bosses to provide ``an analysis of the
amount and value of contracts that were awarded to private contractors
through OMB Circular A-76 versus other mechanisms.''
For the last several years, taxpayers have paid contractors at
least $45 billion annually for services provided to agencies other than
DOD. Yet, during that time, there have been virtually no OMB Circular
A-76 competitions outside of DOD, by the admission of the
Administration, which means that public employees have not been allowed
to compete for billions of dollars of work. Currently, most work is
contracted out without public-private competition by even DOD--the
agency often held out as the champion of OMB Circular A-76. Although
DOD contracts out in excess of $60 billion annually, public employees
have no chance of competing for almost all of that work--even with the
Pentagon's supposed increased reliance on the circular. For example,
according to an Army study, only 16,000 contractor jobs out of the
service's entire contractor workforce of 269,000 were competed through
OMB Circular A-76.
Various rationales are offered for not allowing public employees to
compete. Work is arbitrarily defined by Pentagon officials as ``new''
or ``reconfigured'', thus negating rules that require public-private
competition. As is happening on DOD base after DOD base, work is
arbitrarily split up into functions of less than ten employees in order
to fall below the threshold that normally mandates A-76 competitions.
Sometimes, the work is not deemed subject to public-private competition
because it is being ``privatized''--on the pretext that the government
``is getting out of the business''. However, that misses the point. DOD
may decide that it will no longer perform work in-house, but that
doesn't mean it no longer needs the work. In fact, the work will
continue to be done for DOD--but by contractors, not public employees.
Since the taxpayers will still be paying for that work to be done for
DOD, whether the work is contracted out or privatized, why shouldn't
they at least have the security of knowing contractors have to prove
that they can perform the work more efficiently, more effectively, and
more reliably than public employees? As GAO reported last year, DOD
managers have been told to look for waivers and exceptions to the use
of A-76 whenever possible.
This very subcommittee could close off an option that Air Force
managers are using to contract out work without any public-private
competition. Using an obscure loophole in a perennial general provision
in the defense appropriations bill, the Air Force is contracting out
more than 600 jobs without any public-private competitions, in at least
two different locations (Kirtland, NM, and Eglin, FL), to a Native
American firm that has no experience at performing the work in
question. The general provision to which I refer allows such
contracting out to any firm that claims to be ``under 51 percent Native
American ownership.'' Although DOD is ostensibly striving to reduce
infrastructure costs, the installation has scrapped an OMB Circular A-
76 competition in favor of a non-competitive, sole-source arrangement
with a firm from out-of-state. Is a sole-source arrangement likely to
generate higher savings than an A-76 competition or a strategic
sourcing initiative? Of course not. Is it fair to prevent the hard-
working employees at Kirtland and Eglin from even defending their jobs?
Of course not. Is the Air Force required to use the Native American
set-aside provision? Of course not. Meanwhile, unless the Air Force
reverses its decision, hundreds of hard-working Air Force employees
will soon lose their jobs without any demonstration that the contractor
is a better service provider.
Another example of contracting out without public-private
competition is the Navy's ill-considered privatization of its entire
communications system. As the GAO reported, ``the Navy's acquisition
approach and implementation plan for developing an Intranet have a
number of weaknesses that make the effort unnecessarily risky.'' The
GAO also pointed out that the extraordinary rush to bestow this multi-
billion dollar contract on one lucky contractor was ``not driven by
specific mission needs.'' Navy officials insist that public-private
competition is not required because the Intranet contract somehow
constitutes ``new'' work. Any objective examination of this contract,
which even involves oversight of the contract, suggests that this claim
is nothing more than an attempt to avoid serious scrutiny.
GAO has also raised questions about the financing for this
privatization scheme as well as the impact of entrusting the Navy's
entire communications system to a contractor, potentially one that
could even be foreign-owned. This subcommittee should force the Navy to
subject the Intranet work to public-private competition. The thousands
of federal employees currently performing the Navy's communications
work deserve the chance to defend their jobs--and any contractor must
be required to prove in advance that outsourcing is in the best
interests of warfighters and taxpayers.
The Failure to Account for the Extent the Federal Government's
Contracting Out Undercuts Public Employees on their Wages and
Benefits
If there is little information about the size of the contractor
workforce, there is virtually no information about how contractors
treat their workforce. It is commonly accepted in the private sector
and elsewhere in the public sector that to the extent savings are
generated in certain circumstances through contracting out such savings
essentially come from contractors short-changing their employees on
wages, benefits, and job security. A survey conducted by GAO in 1985 of
public employees who were involuntarily separated after their jobs were
contracted out revealed that over half ``said that they had received
lower wages, and most reported that contractor benefits were not as
good as their government benefits''. When GAO attempted to obtain more
recent date about the wages and benefits of contractor workers,
contractors refused to cooperate. It is outrageous that Administration
officials and more than a few lawmakers--despite their words of support
for working Americans--continue to allow contractors to take work away
from public employees simply because, in many cases, they pay their
workers less and provide them with inferior benefits. When the budget
is in surplus, the economy's booming, and the stock market is soaring,
how can anyone justify replacing working and middle class Americans
with contingent workers who are forced to scrape by with so much less?
AFGE has worked diligently with the Administration and the Congress
to attempt to correct those problems and right those wrongs. However,
there is still no contractor inventory to track the costs and
consequences of contracting out. Agencies are still not subjecting work
performed by contractors to the same scrutiny as work performed by
public employees. Work is still being contracted out without giving
public employees opportunities to defend their jobs through public-
private competition. And arbitrary personnel ceilings still prevent
public employees from competing for work in all too many instances.
Clearly, public employees and their families have been left with no
choice but to insist that there be a suspension of federal service
contracting until those matters have been satisfactorily resolved. It
is time we stopped wasting America's money on privatization.
AFGE thanks the subcommittee for allowing us this opportunity to
discuss our concerns about contracting out and privatization.
Senator Stevens. We would be glad to contact you. Thank you
very much, Joe. We appreciate your coming.
Mr. Flynn. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Do you have any questions?
Senator Inouye. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Cyrus Jollivette, Vice President for
Government Relations, the University of Miami.
STATEMENT OF CYRUS M. JOLLIVETTE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Mr. Jollivette. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of my
colleagues at the University of Miami and its Rosenstiel School
of Marine and Atmospheric Science. The Rosenstiel School has
special expertise in the area of remote sensing and it is for
this reason that I appear before you today.
First, though, I would like to say thank you to you for
your support. We are already engaged in this project because of
your support, provided last year, through the URI and through
the drug interdiction accounts. The Rosenstiel School is a
partner of DOD in many ways, and it is for that reason, too,
that I am here.
This project is one that was brought to the attention of
the University of Miami by the Office of Naval Intelligence
(ONI) and it is one that we are carrying through with very,
very close involvement of people at Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)
in Miami. What we are proposing is continuation of funding for
our remote sensing facility.
Senator Stevens. How much?
Mr. Jollivette. $5 million, sir, for the remote sensing
facility at the University of Miami, the National Center for
Tropical Remote Sensing Applications and Resources. We believe
it would be a small investment that would provide vast return
to the Nation. This facility uses synthetic aperture radar
(SAR). It is able to operate in all weather, day or night.
Space-based satellite SAR systems are able to monitor the
movement of targets on land or ocean in near real-time. It can
map topography with unprecedented accuracy. It can assess storm
and flood damage. It can localize forests and wildfires. It can
assess soil properties. It can do many things, including
forecast major volcanic eruptions and help understand the
earthquake process.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Jollivette, let me interrupt you.
Mr. Jollivette. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Can you assure us that you are going to
continue to work on this concept of detecting the small
targets, particularly those that are involved in the war
against drugs and in terms of this problem of wake imaging.
Mr. Jollivette. Yes, we will, sir.
Senator Stevens. I took two trips last month, down to Key
West and out to California, to talk to people who are involved
in that detection system. That is the key right now to our
success in the war against drugs for these small boats that are
coming very fast up both the east and west coast. And if you
will continue that, we will assure you we will put up the $5
million.
Mr. Jollivette. That is my primary reason for being here.
We will continue that, sir. And that is why we are working very
closely with SOUTHCOM. General Wilhelm is supportive of this
project and has indicated that to Senator Mack.
Senator Stevens. Your full statement is in the record and
you have got the $5 million.
Mr. Jollivette. Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cyrus M. Jollivette
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
this opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of my colleagues
at the University of Miami and its Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science.
Founded in 1925, the University of Miami is the largest private
research university in the Southeastern United States and the youngest
of 23 private research universities in the nation that operate both law
and medical schools. Through its 14 colleges and schools, 1,915 faculty
instruct 13,715 students in more than 110 areas of undergraduate study
and 162 disciplines for graduate study.
The Rosenstiel School is recognized as one of the premier academic
oceanographic research facilities in the world and ranked among the top
six nationally. The more than 100 recognized scientists, researchers,
and educators at the Rosenstiel School collaborate closely with other
institutions in addressing critical national and regional issues. The
Rosenstiel School has special expertise in remote sensing and it is for
this reason that I appear before you today.
Last year you provided support to launch the National Center for
Tropical Remote Sensing Applications and Resources. In fiscal year 2001
we hope to continue our partnership with the Department of Defense in
moving this vital project forward. A small investment in this project
will provide vast return to the nation.
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is a powerful remote sensing system,
able to operate in all weather, day or night. Space-based satellite SAR
systems are able to monitor the movement of targets on land or ocean in
near real-time, map topography with unprecedented accuracy, assess
storm and flood damage to urban and rural infrastructure, localize
forest and wildfires, and assess the soil properties of farm land (soil
moisture) and health of vegetation. SARs provide data that can be used
to forecast major volcanic eruptions and understand the earthquake
process, and a host of other military, civilian, and scientific
applications. SAR can make a major contribution to Southcom's various
missions, especially in the area of drug interdiction, civil defense
(e.g., storm damage assessment) and natural hazard mitigation (e.g.,
volcano forecasting).
The University of Miami uses SAR data for a variety of terrestrial
and oceanographic applications, and has a large amount of experience in
the analysis and use of SAR data, and expertise in the operation of
satellite downlink facilities.
The SAR receiving facility currently under construction by the
University of Miami will provide a unique capability for the Caribbean
and southeastern U.S. region Applications of this ground receiving
station will be extremely diverse. They will include a wide range of
scientific applications in earth, atmosphere and ocean sciences, as
well as more practical applications in the fields of environmental
monitoring, natural hazard assessment, civil defense and defense
tactical applications. The station will initially operate at X-band,
and will be capable of receiving data from a wide variety of low-Earth
orbiting satellite systems. Our initial operational capability will
focus on SAR and visible and infrared imagery. The combination of these
sensor and imaging types will provide an unprecedented wealth of
information of the earth's surface. Future upgrades of the Center's
system should include the capability to collect L- and S-band
downlinks, as well. In all cases a high priority will be placed on high
reliability data reception to low elevation angles (2
degrees above the local horizon). A heavy launch schedule over the next
few years will place numerous new satellites with SAR and other
radiometric sensors in space that requires at least two antennas to
enable data recovery in the case of simultaneous satellite passes or
situations with a blocked line-of-sight. The voluminous flow of data
associated with high-resolution satellite sensors such as SAR will
require high reliability data archiving with rapid retrieval, rapid
dissemination of data (both raw and analyzed to some specified level)
to selected users, full data analysis capability, and higher level
software products to aid in data interpretation.
For purposes of illustration, I provide three example applications
of how SAR data can be utilized for drug interdiction, rapid storm
damage assessment, and natural hazard mitigation.
Drug Interdiction
Small, fast moving boats are one of the major vectors for drug
delivery to coastal regions of the southeastern United States. These
boats have small radar cross-sections, and travel exclusively at night
without running lights, and thus are very difficult to detect by
standard techniques. Their low radar cross sections mean that the P3
Orion surveillance aircraft equipped with standard ocean surface radar
only rarely detect them (the targets have to be fairly close to the
aircraft). Given the large area of ocean used by traffickers, and the
relatively small numbers of surveillance flights, detection success
rate is low.
SAR can easily detect such targets. It does so not by direct
detection of the boat, but rather by wake imaging. The center line wake
of a small fast moving boat is typically 100-200 meters long, and is
relatively smooth compared to adjacent ocean surface, thus is easily
detected by standard civilian SAR and standard pattern recognition
analysis. A recent test coordinated by the Office of Naval Intelligence
had virtually 100 percent success rate at detecting this class of
target during night time passes of RADASAT. The test target was a
fiberglass boat operated by the University of Miami, cruising at high
speed off Key Biscayne, Florida. Research efforts at the University
include efforts to understand and quantify the interaction of the radar
signal and the ocean surface. These efforts will be crucial to fully
exploiting SARs potential for wake detection in all sea states.
At the present time, there are two civilian SAR satellites that a
South Florida ground station could access, RADARSAT (operated by the
Canadian Space Agency) and ERS-2, operated by ESA. On average, we can
expect to image a given ``patch'' of ocean every few days with one or
both of these systems. Thus, we would probably not detect and track all
targets. On the other hand, we could expect to track a much larger
number of targets than are currently possible, and could generate, with
``post-diction'' analysis, an accurate picture of where most illegal
traffic is originating and landing. This information would be
invaluable to the larger drug interdiction program. Over the several
day transit period of these small craft from Colombia, Venezuela,
Haiti, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico to the southeastern U.S.,
approximately 30 percent to 40 percent of targets would be detected in
``real time'' by this approach with available satellite coverage,
enabling direct at sea interdiction by the Coast Guard. This assumes of
course that the data can be made available quickly to the responsible
agency. The South Florida SAR facility would make this possible.
SAR is also excellent at mapping changing land use, deforestation,
and new drug growing areas. Again, this data could form a key part of
drug surveillance operations. Here the need for real time is less
critical, and therefore it is possible to build up 100 percent coverage
of a given region over several months, by combining data from various
passes.
In summary, satellite SAR data could make a major impact on the
drug interdiction program. However, realizing its full potential
requires a dedicated facility in South Florida, integrated into the
chain of command of the drug interdiction effort, and integrated into
academic efforts in the area of rapid data processing and rapid image
analysis, including pattern recognition algorithms for wake detection.
The proposed University of Miami SAR ground station is an excellent
vehicle for this type of collaborative activity.
Natural Hazard Mitigation and Civil Defense
Part of Southcom's mission includes civil defense and natural
hazard mitigation in Central America, South America and the Caribbean
region. The reason is that the nation's long term security interests
are best satisfied by having prosperous, politically stable democracies
in this hemisphere, and thus Southcom has a role to play in promoting
the economic and political ``health'' of the region. Even if we ignore
strictly humanitarian considerations, problems such as extreme poverty
and civil unrest can negatively impact the U.S. both directly and
indirectly. Examples include illegal immigration, reliance on a drug
economy, and lost market opportunity for U.S. business.
The poverty and poor infrastructure that is endemic in much of the
hemisphere is exacerbated by natural disasters. In fact there is a
negative feedback, with poor countries having weak infrastructure that
is easily damaged by natural disasters (witness the recent devastation
in Honduras during passage of tropical storm Mitch), followed by a
period of increased poverty after the damage has occurred, precluding
the necessary infrastructure investments. Also much of the region is
especially amenable to severe natural disasters. The Caribbean and
Central America are commonly hit by hurricanes, while the Caribbean,
Central America, and the west coast of South America (Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru and Chile) are frequently the location of devastating
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Clearly, any techniques we can use
to mitigate the effects of these natural disasters can be a big help to
the region.
Role of SAR in Volcano and Earthquake Hazard Mitigation
Urban areas throughout the world are usually concentrated in
coastal areas. For much of Central and South America and the Caribbean,
coastal areas are frequently the sites of large earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions. There is much that geologists do not know about
these events, in terms of predicting the timing of onset, the magnitude
and frequency of events, and the detailed impact on individual urban
areas. One thing we do know is that much more data is required before
we can answer these complex questions. SAR is turning out to be crucial
for many studies of both earthquakes and volcanoes. For volcanoes, SAR
interferometry allows construction of precise DEM's, enabling accurate
prediction of the direction and speed of lahars, a type of volcanic
mudslide. These would seem to be less dangerous than lava flows or
large explosions, but in fact lahars are often the major ``killer''
from volcanoes, claiming more than 20,000 souls at Nevado del Ruiz in
Colombia earlier in the decade. A mudslide from a dormant volcano was
also responsible for most of the casualties in Honduras during the
recent passage of tropical storm Mitch.
Differential SAR interferometry on volcanoes also allows detection
of pre-eruption swelling of the volcano, which many volcanologists
believe can be used to help predict eruption. Such studies are of
academic interest only at the present time, because it takes so long
acquire imagery from the few available ground receiving stations that
can routinely acquire SAR data (six month or longer waits are typical
for U.S. investigators requesting data from the European Space Agency
or the Canadian Space Agency). A South Florida ground station dedicated
to rapid data processing and monitoring of all dangerous targets could
expect to provide at least several weeks warning of major eruption to
civil authorities. Also, a dedicated mapping program could provide
lahar danger maps for all major targets within the Western Hemisphere
within about 18 months of initiating a program.
Earthquakes are an incredible hazard for much of the Western
Hemisphere, capable of causing much death and destruction. A relatively
small earthquake in Los Angeles several years ago caused $20 billion in
damages. An earthquake in the 1970's in Managua, the capital of
Nicaragua, so severely damaged the city that parts of it have never
been rebuilt. The economic devastation caused by this event is believed
by many social scientists to have been an important contributing cause
to two decades of civil war in this country.
Understanding earthquakes is more difficult than understanding
volcanoes, and at the present time most researchers in the field do not
feel it is feasible to predict earthquakes. Nevertheless, SAR can play
a critical role in understanding the earthquake process and reducing
hazard. Earthquakes cause characteristic ground displacement that can
be mapped with differential SAR interferometry. By comparing the
observed displacement pattern to patterns calculated from theory,
seismologists can refine their models for this type of earth movement,
in the process gaining much better understanding of the earthquake
process. It turns out that SAR is probably the best tool available for
this type of study, because of its complete coverage, and all weather,
day/night operations. In some cases, SAR is the only way to get this
kind of data, especially for the inaccessible areas of South America.
Role of SAR in Storm Damage Assessment and Civil Defense
As more people and societal infrastructure concentrate along
coastal areas, the United States is becoming more vulnerable to the
impact of tropical cyclones. Furthermore, it is not surprising that
hurricanes are the costliest natural disasters because of the changes
in the population and the national wealth density or revenue. The
States most affected by the cost of hurricanes (e.g. Florida, Texas,
North Carolina and Maryland) have also a high total common tax revenue,
which is an indicator of wealth for the state. The impact of hurricanes
along the East Coast is further amplified because the people moving
into these coastal areas represent the higher wealth segment of our
society. Early and accurate warnings can save millions in dollars and
reduce the detrimental impact of storms upon making landfall. Quick
look SAR imagery can be used to assess the damage of storms after
landfall and assist in directing resources to areas of immediate need.
SAR images can provide multi-faceted information on the
characteristics and properties of storms. Since SAR measures the
electromagnetic radiation scattered back from small ocean waves it can
be used to extract information not only of the sea state, but also of
the surface wind speed. The later information is very important to
weather forecasters, civil defense planners and the population, because
it represents the actual measure of the wind speed at heights of houses
and structures. Sea state information such as the directional
properties of ocean waves and their associated heights and periods are
needed to predict the potential threat to coastlines. Waves impact the
coastal areas in two ways: (1) coastal structures such as jetties,
piers, walls, houses can easily succumb to the huge forces associated
with waves; and (2) an additional storm surge is induced by the waves
in elevating the nearshore water level. Radar frequencies are also
sensitive to the intensity of rain and can better locate concentrations
of strong rainfall within tropical storms. Such real time observations
can provide better estimates of the strength and fury of tropical
storms and their potential threat to people and societal infrastructure
along coastal areas.
After landfall it is critical to obtain timely and accurate
information on the damage of tropical storms. Because SAR imaging can
occur at day and night and during inclement weather, quick looks can be
available to assess the extent of beach erosion, breaches in barrier
islands and destruction of housing and vegetation. Destroyed houses and
structures as well as broken vegetation appears much rougher in SAR
images than in their normal condition. Flooded streets and land will
appear as a smooth surface because water movement will be slow.
Education: K-12, Undergraduate, Graduate Level
The Florida Space Grant Consortium (FSGC) is a voluntary
association of seventeen public and private Florida Universities and
Colleges, all the community colleges in the state, Kennedy Space Center
Astronaut Memorial Foundation, Higher Education Consortium for Science
and Mathematics, and Spaceport Florida Authority. Collectively, it
serves more than 230,000 university students (100 percent of the public
enrollment and approximately 75 percent of total Florida enrollments).
FSGC represents the State of Florida in NASA's Space Grant College and
Fellowship Program. As one of the sixteen founding Space Grant
Consortia, it was formed in 1989 when the federal Space Grant program
was implemented. With programs now in place in fifty states plus Puerto
Rico and the District of Columbia, Space Grant now joins the Land Grant
and Sea Grant Programs to form a triad of federally mandated programs
addressing critical national needs in education, research and service.
The FSGC is dedicated to helping Florida assume its appropriate
leadership role in developing the nation's technological and scientific
aerospace-related enterprises, increasing opportunities for all of
Florida's citizens to contribute their energies and creativity to such
enterprises thereby enabling them to share in the economic rewards and
satisfactions derived from contributing to the success of these
enterprises, and capitalizing upon the motivational power of space-
related activities to help a new generation of children to develop the
knowledge and skills necessary to lead productive lives in the context
of the rapidly evolving demands of today's technological society.
The new National Center for Tropical Remote Sensing at the
University of Miami would provide a unique opportunity for FSGC to
achieve these goals and begin dedicated education and training of the
use of space-based remote sensing and imagery. The research and
education activities here would complement the concentration of
expertise, businesses and industries around the Kennedy Space Center
complex and provide new opportunities and infrastructure for
communities and businesses in South Florida.
Furthermore, opportunities also exist to broaden the educational
use of the Tropical Remote Sensing site through a K-12 education
partnership with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. In particular, we
envision the development of a Magnet Studies Program in Space Science
that would modeled after a very successful existing program in marine
science and technology in collaboration with the University of Miami.
Such a magnet program would entrain and challenge young students at an
early age and help to develop their skills and learning in the field of
science and mathematics. This partnership would educate first-rate
students and help produce the next generation of scientists, engineers,
and technology experts for the nation.
Mr. Chairman, last year you provided support to launch this vital
remote sensing initiative. We hope to continue our partnership in
fiscal year 2001 with the Department of Defense and seek $5 million for
the Defense Applications Center of the National Center for Tropical
Remote Sensing Applications and Resources. We understand what a
difficult year this will be as you allocate the limited funds
available. However, we believe firmly that this project is vitally
important and can make a major contribution to the various missions of
the Department of Defense.
Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today.
Senator Stevens. Dr. Knobbe, Oklahoma State University and
the University of Tulsa.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD T. KNOBBE, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DEAN,
GRADUATE COLLEGE, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AIRCRAFT AND
SYSTEMS SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE (CASI),
ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF OKLAHOMA
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Dr. Knobbe. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony
regarding Oklahoma's distributive Center for Aircraft and
Systems Supporting Infrastructure, commonly known by the CASI
acronym.
I am Edward Knobbe, Associate Dean of the Graduate College
at Oklahoma State University, and Director of CASI, Oklahoma's
statewide research and technology consortium. I am here today
representing the CASI coalition, which includes not only
academics from Oklahoma's system of higher education, but also
State government and members of the industry/military aerospace
sector. The institutions responsible for CASI's primary
operations are the University of Oklahoma system, the
University of Tulsa, and Oklahoma State University and the A&M
system.
I would like to speak today on behalf of the three campus
request for incremental funding to the Department of Defense in
order to support the $5 million CASI infrastructure enhancement
initiative. CASI is a revolutionary, multi-institutional
organization, combining engineering, business and science
faculty from Oklahoma's institutions of higher education into
focused, multi-disciplinary, project-oriented support teams.
The Center's faculty and extensive research facilities serve as
a reservoir of applied research capabilities and emerging
technologies.
This vast infrastructure has been organized under the aegis
of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education to provide
innovative support of the Defense Department's capital-
intensive aircraft inventories. CASI's charter is to develop
strategies aimed at the integration of promising new
technologies with economics-based management methods. The goal
is to help aircraft fleet owners substantially lower
maintenance costs, promote environmental compliance, increase
fleet readiness, and improve safety.
CASI seeks to serve in the role of an applied research and
emerging technology insertion partner for DOD maintenance
depots, especially the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
located at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
I wish to note, however, that CASI faculty have already
begun to enter into strategic relationships and to provide
technology support for DOD systems at other facilities,
including the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Utah and Warner
Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia.
Senator Stevens. What makes you think this money is not in
the budget already, this $5 million?
Dr. Knobbe. We have not requested congressional award for
this particular consortium. In fact, the State of Oklahoma does
not have an award for this amount.
Senator Stevens. You are dealing with the DOD that has just
general money for this basic concept, do they not?
Dr. Knobbe. The Air Force Office of Scientific Research has
6.1 type monies that they use to support basic research. Tinker
Air Force Base has what they call 6.4 money for production
programs. If you visit the Office of Scientific Research, they
feel that programs that are directly supporting the near-term
needs of the logistics centers are too near term and do not
qualify for funding under the 6.1 program. Tinker, on the other
hand, when you approach from the universities, they regard the
universities as research oriented and not production oriented.
Senator Stevens. Well, Dean, I suggest you get a letter
from DOD, stating that they wish to fund this research, and we
would be glad to give it to you. You want $5 million more added
to their budget, as I understand it.
Dr. Knobbe. That is correct.
Senator Stevens. Have they approved your request?
Dr. Knobbe. There is a lot of support from the Oklahoma
City Air Logistics Center for this.
Senator Stevens. A lot of support is not really a request.
I want you to document their support saying they want this
money. If you get that, we will be glad to fund it. I
understand what you are doing, and I think it is a very good
thing. But they have a lot of money out there in this general
area, and I do not know why they cannot fund it out of what
they have already got. But if they say they cannot, you get us
a letter and we will be glad to work with the Senators from
Oklahoma and see that you get the money.
Dr. Knobbe. All right, very good.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Dr. Knobbe. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Edward T. Knobbe
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony regarding Oklahoma's distributed
Center for Aircraft and Systems/Supporting Infrastructure, commonly
known by the CASI acronym.
I am Edward Knobbe, Assoc. Dean of the Graduate College at Oklahoma
State University and Director of CASI, Oklahoma's statewide research
and technology consortium. I am here today representing the CASI
partnership, which includes not only academics from Oklahoma's system
of higher education, but also state government, and the industry-
military aerospace sector. The institutions responsible for CASI's
primary operations are the University of Oklahoma System, the
University of Tulsa, and Oklahoma State University and the A&M System.
I am here today to speak on behalf of the core institutional
stakeholders requesting incremental funding to the Department of
Defense to support the $5 million CASI infrastructure enhancement
initiative. Funding of this request will serve to substantially improve
and integrate University of Tulsa, the University of Oklahoma System,
and Oklahoma State University and the A&M System faculty and research
facilities for the purpose of supporting the Department of Defense's
aircraft logistics centers and maintenance depots.
The Center for Aircraft and Systems/Supporting Infrastructure is a
revolutionary, multi-institutional organization, combining engineering,
business, and science faculty from Oklahoma's institutions of higher
education into focused multidisciplinary project-oriented support
teams. The Center's faculty and extensive research facilities serve as
a reservoir of applied research capabilities and emerging technologies.
This vast infrastructure has been organized, under the aegis of the
Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, to provide innovative
support of the Defense Department's capital-intensive aircraft
inventories. CASI's charter is to develop strategies aimed at the
integration of promising new technologies with economics-based
management methods, with a goal of assisting aircraft fleet owners to
substantially lower maintenance costs, promote environmental
compliance, increase fleet readiness, and improve safety. The Center
has positioned itself to support aircraft logistics centers and
maintenance depots across the nation. In particular, CASI, seeks to
serve in the role of an applied research and emerging technology
insertion partner for the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC),
located at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I wish to
note, however, that CASI faculty have already begun to enter into
strategic relationships and to provide technology support for DOD
systems maintained at sites outside of Oklahoma, including the Ogden
Air Logistics Center located at Hill Air Force Base in Utah and the
Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, located at Robins Air Force Base in
Georgia.
Summary of the Problem:
Modern aircraft fleets, both civilian and military, have become
increasingly expensive to develop, maintain, and operate. Two pressing
issues related to aircraft maintenance costs are in need of immediate
attention. The first issue is that of aging aircraft inventories, where
fewer new aircraft are presently being built and the existing fleets
must be retained in service periods that, in some cases, dramatically
exceed the original design lifetime. In the 1997 National Research
Council report entitled Aging of U.S. Air Force Aircraft, the reporting
committee indicated that ``The U.S. Air Force has many old (20 to 35+
years) aircraft that continue to function as the backbone of the total
operational force. . . ''. The C/KC-135, DOD's primary air-to-air
refueling platform, is an example of an aging aircraft fleet. While the
original design lifetime of this aircraft was reportedly less than 20
years, the average age of the fleet today is more than 38 years.
According to recent reports, the C/KC-135 fleet is scheduled to be
retained in the operational inventory until the year 2040, when the
average aircraft age will approach 80 years. Although maintenance costs
of these aircraft are rapidly increasing, the total cost of fleet
replacement (estimated to exceed $40 billion for the existing fleet of
more than 600 aircraft) prohibits serious consideration of this
alternative.
The second issue relates to aircraft maintenance and logistics
centers is the need to comply with increasingly stringent environmental
regulations. DOD needs to decrease or eliminating hazardous materials,
especially those derived from painting/depainting operations in order
to meet EPA and OSHA regulatory requirements. The Oklahoma City Air
Logistics Center, for example, is located in an air-quality non-
attainment county. To date, the base has not had to comply with the
provisions in the appropriate Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) is
that the basis for the non-attainment rating is being challenged in the
courts and the court has ruled that the standard is not measurable and
thus not enforceable. EPA is expected to appeal this decision and, if
EPA wins, the base will be forced to comply with the provisions of the
CTG. In addition, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) provision has recently been enacted. This, coupled
with the CTG issues, places Tinker Air Force Base in serious danger of
being unable to comply with future VOC restrictions. As a result,
Tinker Air Force Base has inserted a large budgetary request for the
procurement, installation and maintenance of VOC abatement equipment
over the next several years. The environmental management groups at
most logistics centers, including the OC-ALC, strongly prefer the
development of alternate non-chemical processes to reduce VOC emissions
and, importantly, to reduce the volume and expense associated with
hazardous waste stream handling and disposal. The OC-ALC needs to
substantially reduce emissions to expand operations and gain workload
without increasing total emissions for the base.
The Solution:
Military aircraft program offices and logistics facilities, such as
the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, rely extensively on aircraft
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and secondary support
industries to establish and update aircraft maintenance practices.
While continuing secondary and OEM industrial support is a critical
aspect of fleet sustainment, an independent source of alternative
approaches and new technology insertion is essential to ensure the
continued development of optimal, integrated maintenance methodologies.
Oklahoma's research universities can provide the technology infusion
and assist in the development of economics-based management strategies
that are needed to substantially augment today's aircraft and support
systems infrastructure.
Beginning in 1999 with seed funding provided by the Oklahoma State
Regents for Higher Education, Oklahoma's statewide consortium of
research institutions, lead by Oklahoma State University and the A&M
System, the University of Oklahoma System, and Tulsa University, formed
the Center for Aircraft and Systems/Support Infrastructure. CASI is the
first academic entity of its type in the nation, focusing on the
development of a state-wide, multidisciplinary approach for conducting
applied research, modeling, technology insertion, and engineering
support activities for the aircraft maintenance and sustainment
communities. Working in close collaboration with its partner
affiliates, CASI institutions have begun to provide the stakeholder
community, especially the OC-ALC, with integrated solutions to some of
the most challenging problems currently facing the military/industrial
aerospace complex. The statewide CASI consortium is prepared to provide
substantially expanded service to the OC-ALC and to all other DOD
logistics centers and maintenance depots. In order to facilitate the
extension of new technologies into maintenance facility operations,
however, appropriations are needed to enhance our existing
infrastructure.
There are numerous examples of relevant expertise areas throughout
Oklahoma's Higher Education System. Among them are included:
--High performance materials, aircraft coatings, and ultra-precision
surface finishing methods.
--Specializations in mechanical & aerospace engineering in areas such
as cyclic fatigue analysis and stress-corrosion cracking.
--Simulation, advanced forecasting and modeling, especially in areas
such as system reliability, logistics, and physics of failure.
--Economic best-practices for maintaining aircraft fleets, including
life-cycle cost benefit analysis, optimal repair vs.
replacement strategies, and enhanced readiness.
--Hazardous waste stream abatement, remediation, advanced
environmental monitoring methods, and pollution prevention
technologies. Evolving technologies include chromate
replacement and VOC/HAP reduction from aircraft paint/depaint
operations.
--Occupational health and bioengineering.
--Environmental monitoring, environmental management, and multi-
dimensional visualization methods using geographic information
systems.
--Industrial engineering (e.g., man-machine studies, resource
allocation, process management).
--Real-time aircraft health assessment.
Example CASI Project Summaries
During the past fiscal year, the statewide CASI consortium
established a cost-share program designed to stimulate the
establishment of new collaborative relations between the Oklahoma City
Air Logistics Center and Oklahoma researchers. A unique state
sponsorship program, underwritten by the Oklahoma Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research office, the Oklahoma State Regents
for Higher Education, and the research institutions of Oklahoma, has
recently resulted in the establishment of several new multidisciplinary
program areas. The state cost share program, with substantial funding
provided by Oklahoma EPSCoR, has fostered several new technology
insertion activities with collaborating entities at the OC-ALC. I
provide hereinafter a summary of a few of these projects:
--The Integration of GIS, Remote Sensing, and Weather Technologies to
Develop a 4D Real-time Air Pollution Management System.
The immediate objective of this 1-year project is to provide a
tool for 4D [real-time] visualization and analysis of Tinker
Air Force Base [TAFB] air emission units, controls, emission
points, and pollutant plumes released from those emission units
using real-time weather information and user-defined emission
rates. The overall, multi-year objective is to provide a truly
real-time system that allows for near continuous monitoring and
analysis of emissions and their dispersions dictated by highly
localized weather conditions and thus allow for daily
management of pollution emissions. Such real-time capabilities
will enable pro-active scheduling [and increase] of
installation workload while insuring emission compliance with
federal, state, and local air quality standards.
--Operation and Validation of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer
and Spectral Data
In production and maintenance operations at Tinker AFB,
industrial wastewater streams are generated which contain
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These HAP-containing
wastewater streams result from both direct and indirect contact
with chemical compounds via chemical depainting operations,
chemical cleaning processes, and electroplating operations. The
HAPs in the wastewater are treated at the industrial wastewater
treatment facility in open surface impoundments and collection
systems. Some of these collection and treatment steps result in
the release of HAPs to the ambient air. Assessment
(identification and quantification) of hazardous air pollutant
emissions to the ambient atmosphere is necessary to ensure
regulatory [federal, state, and local] environmental
compliance.
--Metals Treatment Optimization at the OC-ALC Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Plant
The objective of this project is to optimize the metals treatment
process at the industrial wastewater treatment plant [IWTP].
The Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center produces a wide variety
of aqueous waste streams which require significant treatment
prior to discharge. These waste streams include oils and
greases, heavy metals, volatile organic chemicals, and
biodegradable organics. Much of this treatment is performed at
the sites industrial waste treatment plant, which includes
primary clarification, oil-water separation, flow equalization/
stabilization, heavy metals treatment/removal, etc. The need to
improve the performance of metals treatment system has been
identified as an important need at the OC-ALC. The primary
problem to be addressed is the infrequent exceedance by
molybdenum [including chromium, cadmium, nickel, and zinc] in
the IWTP effluent, although other opportunities for improvement
of the IWTP will also be considered.
--Topcoat Delamination in C/KC-135 Wing Fuel Cells
The C/KC-135 aircraft has been experiencing delamination of
topcoat materials over the past few years resulting in
premature blockage of fuel filters and, in some cases, engine
flameout. Topcoat failure is particularly problematic, as the
delamination mechanism is not currently understood. Presently,
the C/KC-135 system program office has adopted the lowest
short-term risk solution, e.g., removal of all topcoat
materials within the wing fuel cells, leaving the surfaces with
only a chromate-based surface pretreatment to prevent corrosion
initiation and growth. The long-term effectiveness of this
approach, however, is not known. Certain paint-stripping
methods, such as those employing high pressure water, may
compromise the long-term service lifetime of the affected skin
sections by causing extensive water intrusion into cracks,
seams and joints. The topcoat delamination project will focus
on: (1) an understanding of the mechanism of topcoat peeling in
C/KC-135 wing fuel cells; (2) assessment of factors that could
initiate or accelerate corrosion in the wing cells; and (3)
materials and process recommendations for topcoat and sealant
treatment and/or replacement.
Summary
It is clear that the types of projects being developed through CASI
do not fall into the traditional university basic research areas funded
by so-called 6.1 monies. Instead, CASI tends to focus on the technology
insertion and demonstration/validation activities normally associated
with 6.2- and 6.3-type funding. The statewide CASI consortium is
prepared to provide substantially expanded service to the OC-ALC and,
by extension, to all other DOD logistics centers and maintenance
depots. In order to facilitate the insertion of new technologies into
maintenance facility operations, however, appropriations are needed to
enhance our existing infrastructure. We respectfully request funds to
promote continuation and expansion of the services CASI presently
provides to this nationally important community.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, Oklahoma, May 12, 2000.
The Honorable Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 522 Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.
Dear Senator Stevens: I would like to thank you once again for the
opportunity to testify before the Senate Subcommittee on Defense
Appropriations this past May 3. It was truly an honor to appear in that
setting, and to have a chance to participant in the legislative
process.
As you may recall, I appeared before your Committee to provide
testimony regarding the CASI consortium, which seeks to leverage in-
house research facilities and engineering support expertise from within
Oklahoma Universities in support of DOD logistics and maintenance
center operations. CASI is presently targeting the near-term needs of
the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC), located at Tinker Air
Force Base in Oklahoma City. Ultimately, our goal is to develop
collaborative technology support and engineering activities across all
of DOD's maintenance and logistics centers.
During my testimony, you suggested that it would be helpful if the
Committee could receive a DOD letter of advocacy for a congressional
award to CASI. It is my information that Mr. Wayne Jones, Technology
Center Chief Engineer at OC-ALC, is preparing such a letter at this
time. I anticipate that a copy of Mr. Jones letter will be available by
17 May. Please do not hesitate to contact me if additional materials
are needed. Thank you once again for your time and consideration in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Knobbe,
Assoc. Dean, Graduate College and Director of the Environmental
Institute.
______
Department of the Air Force,
Headquarters, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (AFMC),
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, May 15, 2000.
Edward T. Knobbe,
Assoc. Dean of the OSU Graduate College and Director, Center for
Aircraft and Systems/Support Infrastructure, 003 Life Sciences
East, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078.
OC-ALC/TIE
3001 Staff Drive, Ste T67,
Tinker AFB, OK 73145-3038.
SUBJECT: CASI's Request for Congressional Appropriation Fiscal Year
2001
The Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC), at Tinker AFB, OK,
provides depot-level repair, overhaul, and maintenance for a variety of
Air Force weapons systems, including aircraft, cruise missiles, jet
engines, and related commodities. We understand the multi-institutional
consortium Center for Aircraft and Systems/Supporting Infrastructure
(CASI) has requested a congressional appropriation of $5,000,000 in
fiscal year 2001. This appropriation would be used for CASI to work
cooperatively with OC-ALC in technology areas related to our mission.
Past discussions concerning collaborative government--education
efforts make it clear CASI is well positioned to support the various
missions of the OC-ALC, especially in the areas pertaining to weapons
system sustainability, reliability, and maintainability. Other areas
related to safety, occupational health, and environmental compliance
assurance will also benefit from the expertise CASI can bring to the
table.
For the record, let it be known that we strongly support continued
development of the partnership between CASI and OC-ALC and
enthusiastically advocate the requested congressional award.
Wayne Jones,
Center Chief Systems Engineer.
Senator Stevens. We will now turn to Harry Armen, Senior
Vice President, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
STATEMENT OF HARRY ARMEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
Mr. Armen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Good morning.
Mr. Armen. My name is Harry Armen, and I serve as Senior
Vice President for Public Affairs at the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. I have 35 years of industrial experience
in defense aerospace engineering, research and development.
Much of my work has been supported by DOD.
Our written testimony cites all the facts and figures
regarding the President's budget request and what Congress
appropriated last year, so I will not go into those details. My
oral testimony represents an early warning system associated
with the most important resource the defense and civilian
aerospace infrastructure of this Nation has. And that is the
talents of its engineers and scientists.
Last year, your subcommittee displayed great leadership and
foresight in providing increased funding for DOD's science,
engineering and technology programs by $1 billion--a move that
we very much applaud--and one called for by the fiscal year
2000 Authorization Act. However, your leadership will once
again be needed this year. Also, last year, a bipartisan group
of 76 Members of Congress and 20 Senators warned the President,
and I quote: The continued long-term erosion of defense
science, engineering and technology funding will have a
devastating impact on the future capabilities of the armed
forces of the United States. Closed quote.
Despite that warning, the administration once again has
refused to request increases for defense science, engineering
and technology, with the exception of a modest increase this
year for basic research. In the 1998 report, the Defense
Science Board concluded that ideally, about 3.5 percent of the
total defense budget should consistently be invested in
science, engineering and technology. Thanks to strong support
by your subcommittee and the rest of Congress, the fiscal year
2000 level is nearly 3 percent of the total DOD spending. We
urge Congress to continue this positive trend in fiscal year
2001.
What are the consequences of neglect? Consistent declines
in defense-funded research and development over the past 7
years have resulted in the disruption of the process that
generates highly skilled, highly motivated scientists and
engineers essential for today's and tomorrow's high-tech
defense industry. These people have been the mainstay of our
military strength and have contributed significantly to our
current economic prosperity.
As defense research and development budgets are reduced,
the job market for highly skilled scientists and engineers in
the defense industry shrinks, leaving little incentive for
college students to choose careers in these fields. Simply put,
reduced R&D funding equals fewer employed graduate students who
are the future DOD research and development (R&D) work force
both in the private sector as well as for the defense agencies.
The long-term difficulty that I worry about, and that you
should be concerned about, is how are we to attract and retain
the best and brightest young people to work in the defense
industry. It requires excitement. That means planning and
thinking about the future, about building systems that push the
edge of the envelope, systems that have never been done before,
systems that make a difference.
What I am imploring you to do is to invest in research and
development to generate that excitement. You must have teams of
people thinking about the future, about doing new things. Maybe
you do not put all the new ideas into production, but that
ought to be a part of your strategy. If you do not design and
build new systems, then someday, when you need something new,
there will be nobody there who knows how to do it. There will
be no one to develop tomorrow's technologies, like advanced
radars, new avionics systems and advanced composite materials.
Why? Because as DOD cuts back its research, the talented
men and women who do have the knowledge and who do have the
ability and the drive are headed to the dot com companies, to
the start-ups, where they can be excited about the
possibilities of using cutting-edge technologies to make a
difference while making far more money. We are literally
experiencing a brain drain from the defense industry to the
commercial sector. Reversing this trend will be a very
difficult task in the midst of a future national security
crisis.
I hope the concerns I have conveyed to you, concerns from
an industrial point of view, from a perspective where the
science, engineering and technology funds are put to use in the
labs, and on the systems we build for the services will
resonate with you. If you on the subcommittee and this Congress
continue to realize the importance of R&D to the future health
of our military, the concerns I spoke about earlier can be
appropriately addressed. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harry Armen
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for 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. Out of all of the engineering disciplines, mechanical
engineering claims the largest share of DOD engineering research
funding, at 23 percent.
ASME International was very pleased with the support that your
Subcommittee provided for defense research and development in the
fiscal year 2000 budget, and would like to take this opportunity to
express our appreciation for your efforts.
The 125,000-member ASME is an international engineering society
focused on technical, educational, and research issues. It conducts one
of the world's largest technical publishing operations, holds over 30
technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each
year, and guides the setting of many industrial and manufacturing
standards and codes. Our Inter-Council Committee on Federal Research
and Development assesses federal investment in R&D, examines the
President's budget request, and to presents views to the Congress on
agency R&D budgets.
Role of Research at the Department of Defense
Over the past decade or so, an increasing number of peacekeeping
deployments to various parts of the globe, and steadily declining
budgets, have combined to put a severe strain on the ability of the
Department of Defense to appropriately plan for its future technology
needs through investments in basic and applied research. This situation
is viewed by the DOD Task Force as extremely serious, one that could
jeopardize the ability of the United States to maintain air and ground
superiority over adversaries in the coming decades of the 21st Century.
As engineers know well, the research of today, particularly the
basic research of today, largely determines the technological
advancements of a decade or more from now. Research takes a lot of time
to bear fruit. Take, for example, technological advancements of such
military equipment as the F-117A Stealth Fighter, or the B-2 Bomber, or
the ``smart'' bombs, all of which were used so successfully in the Gulf
War and in Kosovo. The research that led to such technological wonders
was funded by the Department of Defense in the 1960s and the 1970s, yet
bore fruit only in the early 1990s.
The repercussions of a shortsighted research policy today will
inevitably extend in the future to the private sector as well. Without
question, America's civilian aviation industry has benefited greatly
from the strength and technological advancement of the U.S. military.
In short, the situation facing the United States in 2020 could be a
technologically deficient military that resulted in a sub-par civil
aviation industry. Neither scenario is obviously in the interest of
Congress or the nation.
Our testimony today will focus primarily on the Technology Base
program at the Department of Defense, which is comprised of the Basic
Research account and the Applied Research account, known to you as the
6.1 and 6.2 accounts. This program is widely referred to as the ``seed
corn'' for our nation's future military capabilities. We come before
you today gravely concerned that the administration and the Department
of Defense are nibbling at that seed corn, at the expense of our
nation's future military preparedness.
An Air Force Example
In a report released earlier this year, the White House laid out
its ``National Security Strategy for a New Century.'' While the report
did not include a specific section on science and technology, several
areas of the report refer to the ability of the future military to be
technologically prepared. In the section of the report entitled
``Advancing U.S. National Interests,'' under the heading ``Military
Activities,'' the administration states, ``We will maintain our
technological superiority in space systems, and sustain a robust U.S.
space industry and a strong, forward-looking research base.'' The same
section also states that, ``Investment in research and development
while closely monitoring trends in likely future threats are important
elements of our transformation efforts.''
We are concerned that the administration's budget this year does
not reflect the noble goals outlined in that report. For example, the
Air Force S&T program would be reduced in 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, by a total
of $97 million from current funding levels. This reduction continues an
unfortunate trend that has seen the Air Force S&T budget decline 53
percent in real terms over the past decade. That rate is far greater
than the overall decline in defense spending (30 percent). Included in
this reduction is advanced aeronautics R&D with the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research, whose budget would decline from $216 million in
fiscal year 2000 to $206 million next year, if the budget request were
followed.
The Air Force and NASA are responsible for ensuring that the United
States ``maintains--technological superiority in space systems,'' as
stated in the White House National Security Strategy. Unfortunately,
NASA's budget has been reduced over the past several years, and the Air
Force's S&T budget is constantly under attack, not only from the
administration, but also within the Department of Defense and within
the Air Force itself.
The U.S. aerospace industry, which is largely DOD funded, has
dramatically declined just in the past decade. Where there once were
eight prime airframe contractors, now there are barely three. The
companies that built the majority of our military aircraft have gone,
and with them much of the spirit of innovation that led the U.S. to
technological prominence in aerospace. The shortsighted approach that
has been apparent in the Air Force S&T budget requests since 1993--and
those of the other services--must not be allowed to continue if the
U.S. intends to continue its technological preeminence into this
century.
Congress Calls for Increases
We are not alone in this view. Congress itself, in the Fiscal Year
2000 National Defense Authorization Act, reiterated the call made in
fiscal year 1999 for annual defense science and technology budget
increases of at least 2 percent above inflation. In a 1999 letter to
the President, a bi-partisan group of 76 Members of Congress and 20
Senators warned that the ``projected levels of spending are
insufficient to ensure that the defense technology base remains strong
and capable of providing the necessary foundation for the national
defense.'' They went on to state that the ``continued long-term erosion
of defense science and technology funding will have a devastating
impact on the future capabilities of the armed forces of the United
States.'' The lawmakers urged the President to increase spending on
defense research by the target amount set in the fiscal year 1999
authorization.
Furthermore, in a 1998 report, DOD's well-respected independent
advisory group, the Defense Science Board, concluded that ideally about
3.5 percent of the total defense budget should consistently be invested
in science and technology. Thanks to strong support by the Congress,
the fiscal year 2000 S&T level is nearly 3 percent of total DOD
spending. We urge Congress to continue this positive trend in fiscal
year 2001.
The Technology Base Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2001
The Defense Basic Research Account, the so-called 6.1 account,
received its first increase in seven years in fiscal year 2000, and
that was only because of the leadership displayed by your Subcommittee
in dramatically increasing the President's request. We are heartened
that the administration has decided to build upon that increase for
fiscal year 2001, requesting an increase of $56 million. Not dramatic,
but certainly an improvement from previous years. We urge the
Subcommittee to, at the least, honor the President's request for this
program and, ideally, to increase that amount. After nearly a 10
percent decline, in real terms, over the past seven years, we have a
lot of catching up to do in this area. It is only through a robust 6.1
program that innovative, cutting-edge 6.2 programs can occur in the
future, as one account naturally follows another.
The situation with the Defense Applied Research account, the so-
called 6.2 account, is not nearly as promising, due in large measure to
many years of neglect in the 6.1 account. After your Subcommittee
wisely increased the 6.2 account nearly $500 million over the
administration's request in fiscal year 2000, the administration has
once again made applied research an also-ran in its defense research
priorities, proposing a decrease of $266 million from the fiscal year
2000 level. These decreases will not be made up by industry, as some
have erroneously assumed in the past. No, Congress must again step
forward to make the statement that applied research in the Department
of Defense is a priority to maintain the future superiority of our
nation's armed forces.
The benefits of research, and the consequences of neglect
The benefits of defense-funded research extend far beyond simply
maintaining U.S. military superiority, as vital as that is. Research
within the Department of the Air Force on highly efficient gas turbine
engines has, for example, been transferred successfully for use in
U.S.-built commercial aircraft, in U.S.-built commercial ships, and for
emergency electric generation in critical buildings.
It is important to note that serious declines in defense-funded
research and development have resulted in a disruption of the cycle of
highly skilled, highly motivated scientists and engineers who have been
the mainstay of our military strength, and who also have contributed
significantly to our current economic prosperity. As research and
development budgets are reduced, the job market for these highly
skilled scientists and engineers shrinks, leaving little incentive for
college students to choose careers in these fields. Simply put, reduced
R&D funding equals fewer employed graduate students, who are the future
DOD R&D workforce. The unmistakable result is already being manifested
in the dramatic increases in foreign high-skilled worker visas being
requested by business in the past couple of years, and being granted by
the Congress. Add to the mix the fact that irreplaceable facilities are
being destroyed to reduce corporate overhead costs, and it is easy to
see where we are headed if we don't take steps now to reverse the
trend.
Furthermore, the defense agencies have been the single largest
source of federal funding for engineering research at the nation's
universities. The decline in this support has led many engineering
departments to seek other sources of support, thereby threatening the
historically important contributions of the nation's universities to
the U.S. defense technology base. A severe enough disruption, such as
could conceivably occur if defense R&D funding continues to be
neglected, could result in the U.S. losing its formidable technological
edge.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the
science and technology budget request of the Department of Defense.
ASME's DOD Task Force will be pleased to respond to requests for
additional information on this or other aspects of our nation's defense
posture.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We will do our best
to continue what we have started in the past, but I do not know
how successful it will be. We have got a $4 billion increase in
the budget, but it has already been absorbed by health care and
by the problems of overseas deployments. So we will be hard
pressed to continue that billion dollars, but we will do our
best.
Mr. Armen. As a manager of R&D activity, I am living this
experience where the young people are literally leaving the
industry.
Senator Stevens. They are leaving us, too. Those dot com's
are hiring all our people, too, Doctor.
Mr. Armen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Mike Duggan, Deputy Director, National
Security-Foreign Relations Commission, The American Legion.
Good morning, Mike.
STATEMENT OF MIKE DUGGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SECURITY-FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMISSION, THE
AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Duggan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you
again. Thank you very much for the opportunity to allow us to
appear. And thank you for scheduling this hearing, sir. We are
extremely grateful to you and your subcommittee for your
continuing efforts on behalf of the men and women of the armed
forces to improve their quality of life, readiness and
modernization.
As National Commander Alan Lance has noted in his letter to
you, he has travelled extensively and has visited with young
service members as well as military retiree veterans stateside,
overseas and, frankly, at sea. In his view, no issue has a
greater priority among these patriotic Americans than
maintaining a strong national defense. But they are also deeply
concerned about the well-being of their families as well as the
pace of the operations tempo.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the Legion has believed for years
that the armed forces have been under-resourced. We have
recommended that defense budgets be more on the order of 3 to 4
percent of the gross domestic product rather than about the 2.9
or 3 percent of the gross domestic product, as is now the case,
which is basically at the same levels that this country
experienced just before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
As mentioned, despite last year's pay raises, the military
pay continues to lag behind the private sector during this
period of a robust economy. The basic allowance for housing
(BAH) rates, as we mentioned, have to be fixed, we believe they
will be fixed, so as to reduce and perhaps eliminate out-of-
pocket housing expenses. With nearly 60 percent of our military
being married, with families, a lot different than it used to
be, health care continues to be a major concern for active duty
personnel, as well.
For many, the promise of receiving health care while on
active duty continues to be a major reason for entering into
and serving in the armed forces today. As we know, TRICARE
requires considerable improvement. And as you noted, sir, it is
experiencing severe cost overruns. I think that is the phrase,
``cost overruns.''
This budget proposes to eliminate TRICARE co-payments made
by military dependents. And, frankly, we are very grateful for
that. But there are no provisions addressing health care for
military retirees, and I will not go into that in much detail
except to mention that military retirees have been the armed
forces most effective recruiters over the years. And many of
these have believed, at least the perception, that lifetime
health care was promised in exchange for decades of service to
the Nation.
The Legion is in support of extending the pharmacy benefit
to all Medicare-eligible military retirees. But we also believe
that all military retirees including Medicare-eligible retirees
and their dependents, should have access to not only military
health care, but also, to a larger extent, to the Veterans
Administration (VA) medical centers and pharmacies. And
recognizably, that is a different side and we are approaching
that through the VA committees, as well. So basically we are
talking about perhaps trying to expand access to military
retirees, perhaps using their TRICARE benefits in the VA
medical centers.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes the American Legion's
statement. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Letter From Alan G. Lance, Sr., National Commander
The American Legion,
1608 K Street, N.W.,
Washington. D C., May 3, 2000.
Honorable Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee,
S-128, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Stevens: I regret I am unable to attend the hearing
today to personally express The American Legion's views on the
Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2001. While my
travel schedule precludes my appearance before you, my resolve to put
forth The American Legion's adopted positions in support of a strong
national defense is, in no way, diminished.
The American Legion's written statement on fiscal year 2001 Defense
Appropriations is included with this letter. It expresses The American
Legion's positions on national security, which were unanimously adopted
by delegates to our National Conventions in 1998 and 1999. Foremost
among these positions is our advocacy of devoting between three and
four percent of the Gross Domestic Product on national defense.
Although a fiscal year 2000 supplement with defense funds was not
adopted in the Senate, the increased funding added to the fiscal year
2001 defense authorizations bill is certainly appreciated.
As you and your colleagues deliberate Defense Appropriations for
fiscal year 2001, I strongly urge you to substantially increase
military spending, and military readiness. The Administration's request
of $291.1 billion is clearly and wholly inadequate. It does not
effectively address military readiness, modernization or personnel
issues, nor adequately improves quality of life concerns. This is
especially true with respect to health care for military men and women,
their families as well as Medicare-eligible military retirees and their
dependents.
In my first seven months at the helm of The American Legion, I have
traveled over 100,000 miles and visited with the young service members
serving in Kosovo, Hungary, Germany and Bosnia. I have spent time at
sea aboard the U.S.S. George Washington visiting with sailors and
airmen, mechanics, cooks and pilots. I have spoken with service
members, as well as veterans, throughout the United States. No issue
has a greater priority among those patriotic Americans than maintaining
a strong national defense. However, they are also deeply concerned
about the wellbeing of their families and the pace of the operations
tempo.
One of the alarming aspects of having deployed our forces thirty-
six (36) times in the last seven (7) years, and having troops in one
hundred thirty-two (132) nations around the world is the fact that we
are destroying our National Guard and Reserve components in the
process.
Our experts advise that we need a total of 1.8 million military
personnel on active duty to fulfill the mission requirements for our
present foreign policy/national defense imperatives. We presently have
approximately 1.37 million active duty enlisted personnel available at
any given time. We are making up the difference by increasing
operations tempo resulting in recruitment and retention complications
and by over-utilizing our National Guard and Reserve components. In
time, these deployments will result in a significant and substantial
undermining of our National Guard forces, as well as the Reserves. I
have spoken with many Active Duty, Guard and Reserve forces and I am
conveying to you the unvarnished distillation of hundreds of hours of
conversations.
Mr. Chairman, if America is to continue as the world's remaining
superpower, it must operate from a position of strength. This strength
can only be sustained through the adequate funding of the armed forces.
Thank you for your continued leadership and support of America's
military and their families.
When I am in Washington, DC I would welcome the opportunity to meet
with you to share my thoughts on America's national defense.
Sincerely,
Alan G. Lance, Sr.,
National Commander.
Prepared Statement of D. Michael Duggan
Mr. Chairman, The American Legion is grateful for the opportunity
to present its views regarding the Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal
year 2001 defense appropriations. The American Legion values your
leadership in assessing and appropriating adequate funding for quality
of life, readiness and modernization of the Armed Forces. As history
has demonstrated, it is important for the President and Congress to
continue to uphold their constitutional responsibilities to provide for
the ``common defense'' of the American people in a highly uncertain
world.
Mr. Chairman, The American Legion and the Armed Forces owe you and
this Subcommittee a debt of gratitude for the strong support of
military quality of life issues. Nevertheless, this assistance is
needed now more than ever. Positive Congressional action is needed in
this budget to overcome old and new threats to retaining the finest
military in the world. Servicemembers and their families have endured
physical risks to their well-being and livelihood, substandard living
conditions, and forfeiture of personal freedoms that most American
civilians would find unacceptable. Worldwide deployments have increased
significantly, and a smaller force has had to pick up the tempo with
longer work hours and increased family separations.
With the end of the Cold War, the clear and identifiable threat
posed by communism and the Soviet Union no longer exists. Instead, the
United States has been faced with a myriad of threats and challenges
which appear more perplexing, complex and difficult. Serious regional
threats continued to include those in the Balkans, North Korea and the
ever-growing threat of the People's Republic of China. A vehemently
defiant Iraq and Iran pose continuing threats to vital oil reserves in
the Persian Gulf. Additionally, the United States faces the non-
traditional threats of increasing nuclear proliferation, development of
chemical and biological warfare weapons by rogue nations or groups and
the challenges posed by international terrorism.
The President's defense budget request for fiscal year 2001 is
$291.1 billion, and reflects a small real spending growth and does not
appear to be built on a foundation of assumed savings and economic
assumptions as was the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget.
Unfortunately, serious mismatches between strategy, forces and
resources are not improving. The consequent budgetary shortfalls,
estimated at $15.5 billion for fiscal year 2001 by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, are being reflected in debilitating quality of life, readiness
and modernization problems that the military forces continue to
confront. After years of decline, the administration has under-
resourced its defense budgets which, according to House Armed Services
Committee Chairman Floyd Spence, ``will take a decade or more of real
growth in defense spending to catch up.''
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 totals over
$1.80 trillion and allocates 15 percent for defense and well over 50
percent for social programs and entitlement spending. The fiscal year
2001 Defense budget represents an increase in defense spending, but it
is still 40 percent below the 1985 Reagan budget which eventually led
to the end of the Cold War. In 1990, the United States was spending 5.1
percent of the gross domestic product on defense.
According to Chairman Spence, the nation is going to need to spend
a lot more money than the Administration is requesting and projecting
to spend in the future in order to maintain even current military
capabilities. Whatever the level of annual operational shortfalls,
annual modernization shortfalls will be significantly greater. In this
regard, it is important to note that while the Administration's fiscal
year 2001 procurement request has been advertised as finally reaching
the five-year old $60 billion target, it was only with the help of some
new accounting such as the inclusion of submarine overhaul funds in the
procurement accounts for the first time.
American Legion National Commander Alan Lance recently visited
American troops in Europe, Bosnia and Kosovo. He also visited sailors
aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. George Washington. High operational
tempo, manning shortages and inadequate health care head the list of
complaints. The American Legion receives numerous letters and emails
from military retirees and their dependents citing the string of
``broken promises''--mainly access to military health care. Medicare-
eligible military retirees are prohibited from enrolling in the TRICARE
program. The TRICARE system requires considerable improvement. The
American Legion is supportive of a pharmacy benefit and extending the
two pilot programs for Medicare-eligible retirees and dependents,
namely, TRICARE Senior Prime and FEHBP 65. The American Legion believes
that all military retirees including Medicare-eligible retirees and
their dependents, should have access to both military and VA medical
facilities and pharmacies.
The American Legion believes that operational tempo and continued
deployments must be reduced, and military pay must be on par with the
civilian sector. Military retirees and their dependents are the Armed
Forces' most effective recruiters. Recently, The American Legion held a
meeting of its Policy Coordination and Action Group (PCAG). This PCAG
meeting was prompted by DOD and media reports that the Armed Forces had
been showing signs of difficulty in attracting qualified individuals to
volunteer for military service and for seasoned servicemembers to
reenlist. Allied to these issues are perceptions of declining military
quality of life features to include military health care and readiness,
as well as the impact of increased operating tempos and underresourced
defense budgets on recruiting, retention and readiness.
What needs to be done? The American Legion recommends that the
following steps be implemented immediately:
--Continued quality of life improvements to include military pay
raises; equitable increases in Basic Allowances for Housing and
Subsistence; improved military health care, improved benefits
under the Montgomery G.I. Bill and other quality of life
features.
--Defense spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product should
be maintained between 3 and 4 percent annually.
--The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) must be reevaluated. It does
not provide the forces or the defense budgets to fight two
nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts while conducting
peacekeeping operations.
--Force modernization for the Services must be realistically. The
strategy-resources mismatch needs to be eliminated.
--The National Guard and Reserves must be realistically manned,
structured, equipped and trained, fully deployable and
maintained at high readiness levels. These forces are
indispensable to America's national defense.
quadrennial defense review
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States
has conducted three substantial assessments of the strategy and force
structures of the Armed Forces necessary to meet the national defense
requirements of this Country. The assessment by the Bush Administration
(``Base Force'' assessment) and the assessment by the Clinton
Administration (``Bottom-Up Review'') were intended to reassess the
force structure of the armed forces in light of the changing realities
of the post-Cold War world. Both assessments served an important
purpose: to reevaluate the military posture of the United States. The
pace of global change requires a new, comprehensive assessment of the
current defense strategy for the 21st century.
The American Legion continues to support the force structure
proposed by the Base Force strategy. The United States must maintain 12
active Army combat divisions, 12 Navy aircraft carrier battle groups,
15 active Air Force fighter wings and three Marine Corps divisions and
a total manpower strength of at least 1.6 million. The American Legion
supports the two-war strategy. If America is drawn into a war with one
regional aggressor, another could be tempted to attack its neighbor.
The American Legion believes such a strategy should be threat-based
rather than budget-driven. This strategy must employ a robust force
structure and reflect increased budgeting for quality of life,
readiness and modernization than recommended in the Bottom-Up Review or
its follow-on Quadrennial Defense Review. The two-war strategy, in our
view, has never been adequately resourced. The American Legion believes
the ``win-win'' two-war Bottom-Up Review strategy is delusional. The
U.S. currently has a ``win-hold'' strategy at best with growing
worldwide commitments, and only 10 Army combat divisions and three
Marine divisions.
The American Legion also believes the U.S. can no longer afford to
become the world peace enforcer by dispatching forces on unbudgeted
operations every time the United Nations passes a resolution to do so
or the President so orders. The American Legion believes Congress, as
the representatives of the American people, needs to become more
involved in the decision-making process regarding the commitment of
United States military forces. U.S. forces should be committed when the
vital national interests of this country are at stake and only when
such deployments are supported by the will of the American people and
the Congress and with a clear exit strategy. The Congress, in our view,
needs to become involved in the policy of committing U.S. troops before
troops are committed not after. The United States is not only over-
committed in peacekeeping operations, it remains committed for extended
periods.
contingency operations
The Administration has expressed its preference for multilateral
operations. United States forces have responded to United Nations
resolutions on numerous occasions in the past six years. The American
Legion believes the United States should not allow its stated
preference for multinational action to become an excuse for continued
U.S. military action when clearly the national interests may not be at
stake; nor should American unilateral action be delayed when the
national interests are at stake. Clearly, the continuance of military
peace operations will detract from military readiness and its declining
combat capabilities. These operations may also inhibit the ability of
the United States to respond to real emergencies that threaten the
vital national interests. As General MacArthur stated in 1962: ``The
purpose of a military is to fight and win wars.''
The American Legion believes the following principles should be an
integral part of the United States national security and foreign policy
decision-making process when considering the commitment of U.S.
military forces:
--Americans need a clear definition of its vital national interests
as they relate to all military operations to include
peacekeeping and humanitarian operations;
--On a case-by-case basis, Congress needs to be more directly
involved in the approval and funding process of such operations
before the commitment of troops;
--United States forces should not be placed under foreign or United
Nations control except in exceptional circumstances where
Congress grants special approval; and
--American servicemen or women who are captured during peace
operations should be granted full POW status and afforded all
the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
America's national security framework provides the umbrella that
allows Americans to work and prosper without fear. A strong national
defense does not inhibit a strong economy, it complements it.
active force personnel issues
The American Legion is concerned that a number of influences, to
include the military drawdown, pose significant--and often
underestimated--retention and readiness risks for the remainder of the
decade.
The depth of the defense drawdown has significantly undermined one
of the major historical selling features of a military career--
employment security. In the history of the All-Volunteer Force,
qualified young enlisted members and officers were actively recruited
for extended terms of service or full military careers, but the
situation has radically changed within the past six years.
Now is the time to look to the force recruiting and retention
needs. Positive congressional action is needed now to begin overcoming
past years of negative career messages and begin countering the renewed
attacks on military benefits.
Continued Military Pay Raises.--The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff stated last year 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
the (Congressional) committee members 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 has taken its toll and
military pay continues to lag behind the private sector.
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--The New Basic Allowance for
Housing rates which took effect on January 1, 2000 resulted in losses
or gains of hundreds of dollars per month in different locales
throughout the country. Although the 4.8 percent pay raise was
unrelated to BAH calculations, there were instances where
servicemembers have sustained a net loss in pay and allowances due
primarily to the fiscal year 2000 BAH rate change. Mr. Chairman, the
BAH rates must be adjusted so as to reduce out-of-pocket expenses and
be more closely approximate actual housing costs.
Montgomery G.I. Bill Enhancements (MGIB).--The American Legion is
particularly supportive of improvements pertaining to the MGIB. These
enhancements include increasing the monthly G.I Bill allowance for
servicemembers who serve for more than or less than three years;
eliminating the $1,200 contribution ($100 monthly) that each service
member must make to participate in the G.I. Bill program; accelerated
payments for personnel who served in the reserve components; allowing
Select Reservists up to five years from their date of separation to use
their G.I. Bill entitlements; and allowing veterans to apply their G.I.
Bill benefits for required testing for admission to institutions of
higher learning. Mr. Chairman, we believe these particular improvements
to the MGIB offer the incentives and the potential to favorably assist
in turning the recruiting trend around.
Commissaries.--Several years ago, DOD had considered closing some
37 commissary stores worldwide and reducing operating hours in order to
resolve a $48 million shortfall in the Defense Commissary Agency. Such
an effort to reduce or dismantle the integrity of the military
commissary system would be seen as a serious breach of faith with a
benefit system that serves as a mainstay for the active and reserve
components, military retirees, 100 percent service-connected disabled
veterans, and others. The American Legion urges the Congress to
preserve full federal funding of the military commissary system and to
retain this vital non-pay compensation benefit which, we believe, is
essential to the morale and readiness of the dedicated men and women
who have served, and continue to serve, the national security interests
of the United States. Furthermore, The American Legion fully supports
the full-time usage of commissary stores by members of the reserve
components.
health care for military beneficiaries
Today, there are approximately 8.2 million beneficiaries in the
military health care program. Military retirees and their dependents
make up nearly one half of that number, and over 500,000 retirees have
lost or will lose their access to military health care as a result of
the closure of approximately 40 percent of military treatment
facilities. Access to affordable health care, regardless of age, status
or location, represents the number one concern among military retirees.
Military retirees have often served as the most effective recruiters
for military service. Until recently, military retirees were always led
to believe that they were entitled to free lifetime health care as a
major promise made in exchange for meager pay received and after having
served 20 or more years in the most demanding and dangerous of
professions. The notion that lifetime health care was promised was
perpetuated in Service recruiting literature as recently as 1993.
Military retirees are the only group of Federal ``employees'' who
lose their health care benefits when they become 65 and are no longer
eligible for CHAMPUS or TRICARE but become Medicare-eligible. Medicare
covers much less than TRICARE, and must be supplemented by expensive
health care supplement insurance which many military retirees cannot
afford. We often tend to forget that the average enlisted military
retiree is an E-7 and not a Lieutenant Colonel. Despite its many
problems, The American Legion supports full-funding and improvement of
the TRICARE program, and it strongly believes that all military
retirees, to include Medicare eligibles and their dependents, should
continue to have expanded access to military and VA treatment
facilities. Furthermore, all military retirees and their dependents
regardless of age, status or location should have access to a uniform
pharmacy benefit.
The fiscal year 2001 budget was to have been the ``Year of Military
Health Care Reform.'' When the defense budget was publicly released on
February 7, 2000, it was clear that the ambitious program of military
health care upgrades outlined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to include
improvements in both active duty and retiree health care, were
considerably reduced.
The fiscal year 2001 military health care budget proposes an
expansion of TRICARE by $30 million to extend TRICARE Remote to active
duty families; $50 million to eliminate active duty TRICARE copayments
by dependents; and $20 million to implement a new benefit with long-
term care needs. But there were no provisions addressing health care
for military retirees and their dependents which explains the plethora
of health care bills in both chambers of Congress. The American
Legion's ``GI Bill of Health'' proposes that the Veterans Health
Administration be authorized to expand its treatment of TRICARE
beneficiaries. Such authority would give the military services the
ability to enter into direct VA-DOD contracts for the treatment of
military beneficiaries.
The American Legion believes there needs to be certain incentives
to encourage TRICARE eligible retirees to enroll in VA. Certainly,
dependents of TRICARE beneficiaries must be included in a family health
insurance plan, and individuals enrolled in TRICARE Prime must have
greater inducements to enroll in VA.
The TRICARE program began five years ago and has been fully
operational for less than two years. During that period, many
unforeseen problems have developed. We believe it is time to take bold
and necessary steps to correct TRICARE's serious deficiencies and set a
dependable and fiscally stable direction. The American Legion believes
the Department of Veterans Affairs can perform a vital function in
resolving many of TRICARE's existing difficulties. It is our conviction
that this Subcommittee will enact measured steps to restore the
integrity of the TRICARE program to regain the confidence of the
beneficiaries it serves.
Mr. Chairman, the nation has an obligation to do better. We believe
there is a moral obligation for the government to find a way to provide
at least the same level of health coverage to military retirees that it
already provides to every other federal retiree.
other military retiree issues
The American Legion believes strongly that quality of life issues
for retired military members and families also are important to
sustaining military readiness over the long term. If the Government
allows retired members' quality of life to erode over time, or if the
retirement promises that induced them to serve arduous military careers
are not kept, this will undoubtedly inhibit retention in the current
active duty force.
Accordingly, The American Legion believes Congress and the
administration must place high priority on ensuring that these long-
standing commitments are honored.
Military Retired Pay COLAs.--Service members, current and future,
need the leadership of this Subcommittee to ensure that Congress
remains sensitive to long-standing contracts made with generations of
career military personnel. A major difficulty is the tendency of some
to portray all so-called ``entitlement'' programs, including military
retirement, as a gratuitous gift from the taxpayer. In truth, military
retired pay is earned, deferred compensation for accepting the unique
demands and sacrifices of decades of military service. Because most
Americans are unwilling to endure those arduous conditions, the
retirement system is the services' single most important career
incentive.
The American Legion urgently recommends that the Subcommittee
oppose any changes to the military retirement system, whether
prospective or retroactive, that would undermine readiness or violate
contracts made with military retirees.
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. 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.
VA Compensation Offset to Military Retired Pay.--A continuing issue
of high concern to The American Legion is the VA compensation offset to
military retiree pay. The purposes of these two compensation elements
are fundamentally different. Longevity retirement pay is designed
primarily as a force management tool that will attract large numbers of
high-quality members to serve for at least 20 years despite
extraordinary and arduous conditions of service, including a forced
mid-life career change. Veterans disability compensation is paid to
veterans who are disabled by injury or disease incurred or aggravated
during active military service in the line of duty. Monetary benefits
are related to the residual effects of the injury or disease or for the
physical or mental pain and suffering and subsequently reduced
employment and earnings potential. Opinions may differ over the extent
to which concurrent receipt should be implemented to the offset formula
used. But action should be taken to provide more equitable compensation
for those who served more than 20 years in uniform and incurred
substantial service-connected disabilities that severely inhibit their
post-service earning opportunities.
The American Legion believes strongly that the 100 percent offset
requirement is an inordinate penalty especially for those disabled
retirees who are most severely disabled and whose disabilities have
precluded them from pursuing productive post-service employment
opportunities. The American Legion led the effort last year to mandate
the provisions of H.R. 44 which provided for special compensation pays
for severely disabled retirees. This year, we would like to see the law
expanded to include severely disabled military disability retirees and
early retirement retirees who also qualify for special compensation
pays, as well as eliminating the four-year limitation on the awarding
of the 70 to 100 percent disability rating.
procurement
Under the administration's plan, defense procurement funding, which
has declined steadily in real terms since 1985, would finally increase
in 2001 to $60 billion.
Only a few major systems currently in production would be funded in
the fiscal year 2001 defense budget. The funding level for weapons
procurement is the lowest of any administration since 1950 and has been
some 71 percent less than that of 1985. Major development programs
which 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 and the CVN-77, LHD-17 Amphibious Assault ship and DDG-
51 destroyers. Other items in the research budget include the V-22
Osprey, the hybrid airplane-helicopter, which the Marine Corps is
developing as a troop carrier. Unquestionably, the Navy will also need
to acquire more submarines.
If left unaddressed, omissions in the Defense Department's
modernization budget could have the following implications:
--They will result in the continued deterioration of our defense
industrial base;
--The future technological superiority of American forces will be at
risk thereby increasing the danger to our service men and women
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.
A number of defense consulting firms are predicting that the Armed
Forces are heading for a ``train wreck'' unless annual defense budgets
called for procurement accounts in the $118 billion range, rather than
in the $45-60 billion range.
The American Legion further urges the Congress to expedite the
procurement of improved and sensitive equipment for the detection,
identification, characterization and protection against chemical and
biological agents. Current alarms are not sensitive enough to detect
sub-acute levels of chemical warfare agents. Improved biological
detection equipment also needs to be expedited.
The American Legion firmly believes with the continuing threat of
nuclear proliferation, that America should retain its edge in nuclear
capabilities as represented by the TRIAD system, and that its highest
priority should be the deployment of a national missile defense for the
United States and its citizens. Although the development and deployment
of advanced theater missile defenses to protect U.S. forward-deployed
forces is imperative, any dismantling of acquisition programs to defend
the American people is imprudent. The United States should focus on
developing and deploying by 2003, not by 2005, an anti-ballistic
missile detection and interception system that is capable of providing
a highly effective defense of the United States against limited attacks
of ballistic missiles.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes The American Legion statement.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Your full statement is in the
record.
I note with interest that you have got both the
Distinguished Flying Cross air medals and the Soldier's Medal
for Bravery and three Bronze Stars.
Mr. Duggan. Yes, sir, in Vietnam.
Senator Stevens. You were both Air Force and Army
apparently?
Mr. Duggan. No, sir. I was an infantry operations officer.
We directed a lot of air from helicopters.
Senator Stevens. It is nice to have you here. You all
joined Chennault Post on Taiwan?
Mr. Duggan. Yes, sir, which belongs to the Department of
Alaska.
Senator Stevens. That is right. And I served under General
Chennault. Nice to have you here, Mike. I appreciate it very
much.
Mr. Duggan. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. The next witness is Dr. Daryle Busch,
Professor of Chemistry, University of Kansas and President of
the American Chemical Society.
STATEMENT OF DARYLE BUSCH, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CHEMICAL
SOCIETY
Dr. Busch. Thank you, Chairman Stevens.
The American Chemical Society (ACS) is the world's largest
scientific society, with 161,000 members, 126 of them in
Alaska. In order to sustain our Nation's technological
leadership and living standards, we believe that basic research
should have a top priority in the Federal budget. Many
economists in fact argue that investments in research generate
a higher rate of return for the economy and society in general,
than any other area of Federal spending.
While we are pleased to see the emphasis given to basic
research in this year's budget resolution, we are concerned
that constant dollar declines in Federal support for basic
research over the past decade, particularly in the physical
sciences, have weakened the roots of our Nation's innovative
system. Mr. Chairman, the ACS members are most concerned about
the science and technology program. This program is clearly the
bedrock of the Department's research, development, test, and
evaluation activity, and we urge the subcommittee to approve
strong funding in this core area.
In particular, ACS urges the committee to increase DOD
basic research on 6.1 accounts by at least 7 percent this year.
An increase at this level would help make up for the nearly 10
years of decline in real terms of DOD basic research over the
last 7 years.
Senator Stevens. How much would that be, a 7-percent
increase?
Dr. Busch. Seven percent, I do not have dollars. I am
sorry, sir.
Senator Stevens. We will look it up.
Dr. Busch. I probably have it in another book as a matter
of fact.
Strong increases in basic research, most of which is
conducted by our Nation's universities, is critical to
maintaining the technological edge that is so central to our
national security. We often hear about stealth technologies,
smart bombs, night vision and the like, but we rarely hear
about the incredible scientific discoveries that inspire and
advance these types of developments. This is what DOD's 6.1
investments are all about--investing in those fundamental areas
of research that have the highest potential for advancing our
Nation's security.
The academic research supported by DOD not only provides
long-term military benefits, but it is crucial to the basic
health of many science engineering disciplines, including
chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer science and material
science, as well as training the next generation of scientists
and engineers in disciplines critical to our national security.
In 1998, the Department's own Science Board concluded that
approximately 3.5 percent of the total defense budget should be
invested in the science and technology (S&T) program to
maintain military technological superiority. While Congress
funded S&T programs above the Board's recommended level for
fiscal year 2000, the administration failed to maintain this
level in its fiscal year 2001 budget proposal.
Furthermore, the fiscal year 2000 Defense Authorization Act
clearly requires DOD to either increase S&T programs by 2
percent in real growth over the preceding year or verify that
the request is adequate to protect the stability of the defense
technology base. We are concerned that the administration's
request fell short of this mark.
Given the bipartisan agreement to increase defense spending
overall, we remain hopeful that more emphasis will be given to
science and technology accounts as this process moves forward.
It is no secret that U.S. military operations in the
foreseeable future will occur in an increasingly complex world,
where threats to our security are more diffuse than during the
Cold War. To respond to these new threats, it is essential for
DOD to invest in research that increases understanding in key
fields and fosters the development of leading-edge
technologies, like energetic materials, advanced batteries,
materials for extreme environments, and sensors.
Mr. Chairman, we fully recognize that crafting budgets with
limited resources means difficult decisions. We also recognize
the careful balance that must be struck between current
obligations and future opportunities. In our judgment, it is
unfortunately true that future opportunities continue to take a
back seat. We must realize that a strong investment in basic
research is fundamental to protecting the lives of soldiers and
maintaining our military's preeminent position during the next
century.
Put most simply, we are asking the subcommittee to keep a
close eye on the long view of our national security. The
Society is concerned that short-range budget questions continue
to overshadow the long-term investments needed to safeguard our
national security. The negative impacts will not be felt this
year or next, but 10 or 20 down the line. To stay several
technological steps ahead of future adversaries we simply have
no choice but to invest in cutting-edge science today.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We
look forward to helping in any way we can.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daryle Busch
Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and Members of the
Subcommittee: Good afternoon. My name is Daryle Busch and I am the
President of the American Chemical Society. I am also a professor of
chemistry at the University of Kansas. 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 basic defense research.
The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit scientific and
educational organization that represents 161,000 chemical scientists
and engineers. The world's largest scientific society, ACS advances the
chemical enterprise, increases public understanding of chemistry, and
brings its expertise to bear on state and national matters.
In order to sustain our nation's technological leadership and
living standards, we believe that basic research should be a top
priority in the federal budget. It is increasingly clear that
investments in research and development (R&D) underlie U.S. economic
growth and national security. Many economists, in fact, argue that
investments in research generate a higher rate of return for the
economy, and society in general, than any other area of federal
spending. While we are pleased to see the emphasis given to basic
research in this year's budget resolution, we are concerned that
constant dollar declines in federal support for basic research over the
past decade--particularly in the physical sciences--have weakened the
roots of our nation's innovation system.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense (DOD) program that our
members are most concerned about is the Science and Technology (S&T)
program. This program is clearly the bedrock of the Department's
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) activity and we urge
the subcommittee to approve strong funding in this core area.
In particular, ACS urges the committee to increase the DOD basic
research, or 6.1 accounts, by at least 7 percent this year. An increase
at this level would help make up for the nearly 10 percent decline in
real terms of DOD basic research over the last 7 years. Strong
increases in DOD basic research, most of which is conducted by our
nation's universities, are critical to maintaining the technological
edge that has been so central to our national security.
Although we often hear about stealth technologies, smart bombs,
night vision and the like, we rarely hear about the incredible
scientific discoveries that inspire and advance these types of
developments. This is what DOD's 6.1 investments are all about--
investing in those fundamental areas of research that have the highest
potential for advancing our national security. The academic research
supported by DOD not only provides long-term military benefits but is
crucial to the basic health of many science and engineering
disciplines, including chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer
science, and materials science. DOD-supported academic research
supplies new knowledge and understanding in these fields as well as
training for the next generation of scientists and engineers in
disciplines critical to our national security.
In 1998, the Department's own Science Board concluded that
approximately 3.5 percent of the total defense budget should be
invested in the S&T program to maintain military technological
superiority. The Board also urged DOD to devote approximately one-third
of the S&T program to revolutionary technology initiatives, such as
those contained in the basic research account. While Congress funded
defense S&T programs above the Board's recommended level for fiscal
year 2000, the administration failed to maintain this level in its
fiscal year 2001 budget proposal.
Furthermore, the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act clearly
requires DOD to either increase S&T programs by 2 percent in real
growth over the proceeding year or verify that the request protects the
stability of the defense technology base. We are concerned that the
administration's request fell short of this mark. In our view, this
budget could indeed have negative impacts in both the short- and long-
run. Given the bipartisan agreement to increase defense spending
overall, we remain hopeful that more emphasis will be given to the S&T
account as this process moves forward.
It's no secret that U.S. military operations in the foreseeable
future will occur in an increasingly complex world, where threats to
our security are more diffuse than during the Cold War. To respond to
these new threats, it is essential for DOD to invest in research that
increases understanding in key fields and fosters the development of
leading-edge technologies. This type of research had led to advances in
global positioning satellite methodologies, energetic materials,
advanced batteries, materials for extreme environments, sensors, and
signatures.
Mr. Chairman, we fully recognize that crafting budgets with limited
resources means difficult decisions. We also recognize the careful
balance that must be struck between current obligations and future
opportunities. But, in our judgement, it is unfortunately true that
future opportunities continue to take a back seat. We must realize that
a strong investment in basic research, in which technologies having
potential military applications are explored over a long time period,
is fundamental to protecting the lives of soldiers and maintaining our
military's preeminent position during the next century.
Put most simply, we are asking the subcommittee to keep a close eye
on the long view of our national security. The Society is concerned
that short-range budget questions continue to overshadow the long-term
investments needed to safeguard our national security--not this year or
next year, but 10 or 20 years down the line. While I am not an expert
on national security, if history is any guide, advances in technology
will continue to transform the nature of combat, the safety of our
troops, and how aggression is deterred in the future. To stay several
technological steps ahead of future adversaries, we simply have no
choice but to invest in cutting-edge science today.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look
forward to assisting you in any way possible.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. The staff tells me we
have got requests for $1.217 Billion for 6.1, and your 7
percent would be a little bit over $85 million. We agree with
you in terms of basic emphasis. If we can find our way to
continue the initiative we started last year, we will.
We really do need that money. We know it. But I do not know
whether we have got the money this year.
Dr. Busch. It was 4.8 percent in the President's budget, I
guess, which is not quite enough. Yes, I have $85.2 million
from my staff. If we can help, please let us. And we sure wish
you the very best in this process.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We will do our best.
John Rogers, Parkinson's Action Network is next, please.
Good morning.
STATEMENT OF JOHN C. ROGERS, PARKINSON'S ACTION NETWORK
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, good morning. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I am here today as a volunteer on
behalf of the Parkinson's Action Network.
As a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, I am
honored to be able to testify before you today. As the son and
grandson of Parkinson's victims, I am proud to be here today.
As a person who has lived with Parkinson's in my family for
more than 30 years, I feel compelled to be here today. On
behalf of the entire Parkinson's community, I am grateful for
the subcommittee's interest in finding a cure for this
devastating disease.
Parkinson's is a terrible neurological disease. It affects
nearly 1 million Americans. It is caused by the degeneration of
brain cells that produce dopamine, a neurochemical that
controls motor function. Its sufferers have difficulty with
most routine movements, like walking or brushing their teeth.
It causes uncontrollable tremors and, in its final stages, robs
individuals of the ability to speak or move at all.
My father, a World War II veteran, has suffered from
Parkinson's for the past 15 years and has experienced all of
these symptoms. The 210-pound giant I once knew has dropped to
a frail 135 pounds. He shakes uncontrollably and suffers from a
loss of movement, slurred and soft speech, and entire body
freeze-ups. He has experienced severe dementia from his
medication and fights depression daily. He has fallen and
broken bones just getting out of bed, and he has suffered what
any one of us would consider the most egregious indignities to
his body. He is also the bravest man I know to have fought this
beast every day. His caretaker, my mom, deserves another kind
of medal for her care and support.
The conventional treatment for Parkinson's is a more than
30-year-old drug commonly known as L-dopa. My grandmother took
L-dopa, as has my father. It usually restores function to a
certain extent, and at first it may seem like a miracle drug.
But, overall, it works inefficiently, produces side effects,
and eventually does not work at all.
This need not happen. Parkinson's research is at a major
crossroads. In fact, many scientists identify Parkinson's as
the neurological disorder most likely to produce a breakthrough
therapy or cure. To reach that point, however, we need more
aggressive research funding.
The acknowledgement of Parkinson's sufferers, like Pope
John Paul II, Muhammed Ali, Janet Reno, Billy Graham, and
especially Michael J. Fox, who recently established a
foundation for Parkinson's research, has raised public interest
about this disease to an all-time high. It is imperative that
we capitalize on the public consciousness and take advantage of
the momentum it has created for finding a cure.
The Department of Defense Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment
Research (NETR) Program, which this subcommittee has supported,
is a vital component in our Nation's efforts to fight
Parkinson's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases that
afflict military personnel and civilians alike. The Department
of Defense has done an excellent job in administering this
program. As a DOD official, I witnessed the beginning of
research that continues to link toxins to environmental factors
to neurological disorders and diseases--disorders such as the
Gulf War Syndrome.
The NETR Program has advanced scientific research
identifying toxins that contribute to the inception of
Parkinson's disease. The program is critically important for
the military because some service men and women work in
environments that pose risks to neurodegenerative diseases. By
continuing to advance research in this area, the DOD is better
able to understand and minimize risk to military personnel and,
in doing so, enhance readiness.
The Network urges the subcommittee to continue its very
important support of this program and to provide $50 million,
for fiscal year 2001, for the NETR Program. The Network also
encourages the subcommittee to provide supplemental funds for
the current fiscal year to ensure that deserving research
grants do not go unfunded. Current fiscal year funding, which
is at $10 million, will fund only one-quarter of the research
the NETR Program submitted just last year.
As the son and grandson of Parkinson's victims and as a
former DOD official, I thank you for your interest, and urge
you to promote this very valuable program. We believe the NETR
Program richly deserves your continued support. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John C. Rogers
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I am here today on behalf of the Parkinson's Action Network.
As a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, I am honored to
be able to testify before you today. As the son and grandson of
Parkinson's victims, I am proud to be here today. As a person who has
lived with Parkinson's for more than thirty years, I feel compelled to
be here today.
On behalf of the entire Parkinson's community, I commend the
Chairman and Subcommittee for their past support in finding a cure for
this devastating disease.
As you may know, the Parkinson's Action Network was created in 1991
to give a voice to a community that has been largely invisible, and to
increase funding for Parkinson's in an effort to deliver breakthroughs
and cure this awful disease.
Parkinson's is a devastating neurological disease; it is caused by
the degeneration of brain cells that produce dopamine, a neurochemical
that controls motor function. Its sufferers have difficulty with the
most routine movements, like walking or brushing teeth. It causes
uncontrollable tremors, and its final stages rob individuals of the
ability to speak or move at all. Many Parkinson's sufferers retain
their cognitive senses and have to watch helplessly as their bodies
deteriorate.
My father, a World War II veteran, has suffered from Parkinson's
for the past fifteen years and has experienced all of these symptoms.
The 210-pound giant I once knew dropped to 120 pounds before rebounding
to a frail 135 pounds. He shakes uncontrollably and suffers from a loss
of ambulatory movement, slurred and soft speech, frozen face and freeze
ups. He has experienced severe dementia from his medication and fights
depression daily. He has fallen and broken bones just getting out of
bed and he has suffered what any one of us would consider egregious
indignities to his body. He is also the bravest man I know to have
fought this beast every day. His caretaker, my mother, deserves another
kind of medal for her care and support.
Conventional treatment for Parkinson's is a more than 30-year-old
drug commonly known as ``L-dopa'' that attempts to boost the production
of dopamine in existing dopamine cells (by analogy, this process is
similar to putting more gas in a car that has gas but now the car can
go further). My grandmother took the same L-dopa in the late 60s and
early 70s that my father was prescribed in the 80s, 90s, and still
takes today. It usually restores function to a certain extent, and at
first, it may seem like a miracle drug. But overall, it works
inefficiently, produces side effects, and eventually does not work at
all. As the dopamine cell degeneration advances, individuals with
Parkinson's lose the automatic movements needed to walk, talk,
swallow--eventually becoming unable to move at all.
This need not happen. Parkinson's research is at a major
crossroads, with important new scientific opportunities for a major
leap in treatments for Parkinson's and related disorders. In fact,
leading scientists identify Parkinson's as the neurological disorder
most likely to produce a breakthrough therapy and/or cure. To reach
that point, however, we need a more aggressive research investment.
The acknowledgment of Parkinson's sufferers like Pope John Paul II,
Muhammed Ali, Janet Reno, Morton Kondracke's wife and especially
Michael J. Fox, who recently established the Michael J. Fox Foundation
for Parkinson's Research, has raised public interest about this disease
to an all-time high. It is imperative that we capitalize on the public
consciousness and take advantage of the momentum it has created for
finding a cure.
The Department of Defense Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research
Program (NETRP), which this Subcommittee had the foresight to
establish, is a vital component in our nation's effort to fight
Parkinson's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases that afflict
military personnel and civilians alike. The Department of Defense has
done an excellent job of administering the funds appropriated to them.
Their peer review process has ensured quality research for this effort.
The Program focuses on the importance of environmental factors in
the onset of Parkinson's and funds research to prevent, detect, and
treat environmental toxicity. This is particularly important in light
of recent evidence in a major study published last year that narrowed
the cause of classic Parkinson's, eliminating inherited genetic
factors, and pointing to outside ``triggers'' such as environmental
toxins that result in dopamine cell death and Parkinson's symptoms.
The Program is critically important for the military, because some
servicemen and women work in environments that pose risks for
neurodegenerative disease, including some Parkinson's symptoms. Our
fighting men and women may be at risk from occupational exposures to
psychological stress, toxic industrial and agricultural chemicals,
chemical threat agents, head injury, and even radio frequency
radiation. By continuing to advance research in this area, the DOD is
better able to understand and minimize risks to military personnel and
in so doing improve military readiness.
The Program also makes an important contribution to basic research
on mechanisms of neurodegeneration that will lead to better diagnosis,
treatment and prevention. This will help those who already suffer from
Parkinson's. The DOD is interested in funding four main categories of
research in their program:
1. Mechanisms of damage and protection against neural cell death;
2. Development and validation of new approaches to
neuropsychological testing to improve early detection of
neurodegenerative diseases;
3. New therapeutic strategies for the treatment of
neurodegenerative disease; and
4. Influence of environmental factors.
The Subcommittee has an enormous opportunity to take us closer to
winning the fight against Parkinson's and other neurological disorders.
Scientists tell us that there is a correlation between an investment in
research and improved treatments or finding a cure. But that can't
happen if the funding is inadequate to the task--and falls short of the
promising research agenda defined by the program.
Last year, NETRP funded $45 million in peer-reviewed and approved
research grants. There is tremendous excitement in the scientific
community about this Program. But scientists in the field describe
immense frustration with the halting pace of research breakthroughs
because of inadequate funding for Parkinson's research.
The Network urges the Subcommittee to support this program and to
provide $50 million for fiscal year 2001 for the Neurotoxin Exposure
Treatment Research Program and its focus on Parkinson's and other
neurodegenerative disease research.
We believe that the Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research Program
richly deserves your continued support.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Did you testify at Senator Specter's
hearing on Parkinson's?
Mr. Rogers. No, sir, I did not. I testified before the
House Appropriations Committee on Defense on the same issue.
Senator Stevens. We have increased NIH funding for
Parkinson's. It was at $132 million in 1999, $158 million in
2000, and it is at $165 million this year. That is the area for
the initiative on Parkinson's, not defense. You have $10
million from last year. I just do not think you can say that
this is a defense-related disease.
Mr. Rogers. The argument and the discussion that we have
been having with Defense is that neurotoxins affect military
personnel. If you have chemicals out there, they can affect
military personnel in a very similar way that neurotoxins
affect Parkinson's victims.
Senator Stevens. I understand that. And the $10 million is
there. But I have got to tell you, we provided $10 million for
you last year, and now you have asked for $50 million this
year. This is a Defense appropriations bill.
Mr. Rogers. I understand that, sir.
Senator Stevens. It is not an NIH subcommittee. I urge you
to talk to the Health and Human Services people if you believe
there should be an increase in this funding.
Mr. Rogers. We are, as well, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. The next witness is Michael Miller,
National Prostate Cancer Coalition. Good morning, Mike. As the
only Alaskan, I am sorry to keep you down toward the end, but
you have got my attention, Mike.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. MILLER, NATIONAL PROSTATE
CANCER COALITION
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I would wait all day to have this
opportunity to speak before you and your committee. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee for allowing me to
present testimony today on a disease that has changed my life.
My name is Michael H. Miller, and I am from, as you know,
Senator Stevens, your home State of Alaska. I am here today on
behalf of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, to request
that you provide at least $150 million for peer review research
in the coming fiscal year to the Department of Defense Prostate
Cancer Research Program at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
I have had the pleasure of working with you, Mr. Chairman,
before many times on prostate cancer awareness and research
funding. I want to thank this committee very much for all of
its past and continuing support of these important issues. I
have advanced prostate cancer. I am a 4-year survivor, and I am
a prostate cancer activist. Funding for Federal prostate cancer
research is a profoundly personal issue for me.
The only reason I am able to be here today is because I
participated in an experimental prostate cancer clinical trial
funded in part by the Federal Government. I have travelled all
the way from Juneau, Alaska, to put a new face on this deadly
disease. Too many people with prostate cancer think this is an
old man's disease, but I was only 43 years old when I was
diagnosed with prostate cancer, just one of many American men
diagnosed with this disease in the prime of their lives.
While my age was young, my disease was advanced. It had
already gone into my bones. My doctors told me that the cancer
was very high grade and very aggressive. I was given between 17
and 35 months to live. When I got that news, I was a very
active and nationally recognized swim coach, following a very
successful career as a competitive swimmer. I had been an
eight-time small college all-American and was voted outstanding
college athlete of America at Central Washington State. After
graduation, I began a 21-year career as a swimming coach,
including 14 years in Juneau, Alaska, as a coach at the Glacier
Swim Club.
I took my team to the Junior Nationals 10 times. I had a
leadership role in Alaska swimming competitions, including
serving as a coach for the 1991 Elite Training Camp for the
United States Olympic Training Center in Colorado. All of this
came to a screeching halt on January 17, 1996, when I learned I
had advanced prostate cancer. Faced with very few treatment
options, I entered an experimental National Institutes of
Health sponsored clinical trial at the Oregon Cancer Center,
Oregon Health Sciences university.
I remained in the trial for 8 months, until I was forced to
withdraw due to severe side effects that are with me to this
day. My adrenal gland system was shut down, and I developed
adrenal deficiency syndrome. Trying to cope with that syndrome,
as well as prostate cancer in my bones and osteoporosis, I had
to quit working and leave a sport and career about which I had
always been passionate. I developed sensitivity to light and
lost 90 percent of the hearing in my right ear.
In short, the medical treatment prolonged my life, but it
greatly diminished my quality of life. However, I must say I do
have quality of life. In this I am typical of many prostate
cancer patients. Treatment for this disease can bring on a
variety of debilitating side effects, ranging from incontinence
and impotence to intense bone pain and osteoporosis. In 2000,
more than 180,000 American men will be diagnosed with prostate
cancer. More than 30,000 men will die this year from this
disease. Too many of the rest of the men are undergoing
treatment and coping with side effects similar to mine.
And as the population continues to age, more and more men
will be diagnosed with prostate cancer unless our country makes
a decision to diligently and relentlessly pursue a cure. The
statistics on this disease are not an abstraction for me. As I
looked at my family, at the boys I have been coaching over the
years, and especially at my two sons, I did not want them to
face this disease. My sons have up to six times the risk of
prostate cancer as other men because of my diagnosis. For their
sakes, I have chosen to do what I can to help eradicate this
disease.
Shortly after my diagnosis, I made my first speech about
prostate cancer to high school students at Juneau Douglas.
Since that first talk, I have spoken to more than 3,000
students and 660 teachers in Juneau alone. I began travelling
to other States, like California, Oregon, Washington,
Wisconsin, and North Dakota, and have spoken about prostate
cancer to more than 16,000 people. Echoing your words, Mr.
Chairman, I told them to watch their diets, exercise, and begin
to receive prostate cancer tests and examinations early.
I also became politically active to advocate for increased
Government funding of prostate cancer research. I spearheaded a
1998 effort to pass a resolution in the Alaska Legislature that
called for Federal funding for prostate cancer research--the
only such legislation in any State. I might add that thanks to
the leadership of the chairman and members of the committee,
Federal spending for prostate cancer research increased by 55
percent that same year.
I was the first person ever to testify by video to the Food
and Drug Administration about suramin, one of the drugs used in
my treatment. I have organized petition drives and candlelight
vigils, and I have spoken many times as a panelist on prostate
cancer issues. I join the American Cancer Society Northwest
Division Prostate Cancer Task Force and its public issues
committees. I have presented testimony to many legislative
bodies, including in support of a bill in the Alaska
Legislature, passed this month, which reduced the age at which
insurance companies in my State would be required to pay for
prostate cancer screening. I recently started a foundation
called the Southeast Alaska Cancer and Wellness Foundation.
Senator Stevens. Mike, you are going to have to get to the
bottom line. I have got to be fair to everybody else.
Mr. Miller. Today, the Senate Subcommittee on Defense
Appropriations is discussing DOD prostate cancer research
programs, so I am here to let you know that there are many
promising areas of research that should be pursued and put into
clinical trials, but funding for them is not available.
Providing $150 million for peer-reviewed research in the
Department of Defense program would allow important and
essential clinical research to go forward.
I thank you very, very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael H. Miller
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, for allowing
me to present testimony today on a disease that has changed my life.
My name is Michael H. Miller, and I am from Senator Stevens' home
state of Alaska. I am here today on behalf of the National Prostate
Cancer Coalition to request that you provide at least $150 million for
peer review research in the coming fiscal year to the Department of
Defense prostate cancer research program at Ft. Detrick, Maryland.
I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Stevens before--
many times--on prostate cancer awareness and research funding, and I
want to thank this committee very much for all of its past and
continued support of these important issues.
I have advanced prostate cancer. I am a survivor, and I am a
prostate cancer activist. Funding for federal prostate cancer research
is a profoundly personal issue for me. The only reason I am able to be
here today is because I participated in an experimental prostate cancer
clinical trial, funded, in part, by the federal government.
I have traveled all the way from Juneau, Alaska, to put a new face
on this deadly disease. Too many people think of prostate cancer as an
``old man's disease.'' But, I was only 43 years old when I was
diagnosed with prostate cancer, just one of many American men diagnosed
with this disease in the prime of their lives. While my age was young,
my disease was advanced. It had already gone into my bones. My doctors
told me that the cancer was very high grade--and very aggressive. I was
given between 18 and 36 months to live.
When I got that news, I was a very active--and a nationally
recognized--swim coach, following a very successful career as a
competitive swimmer. I had been an eight-time, small college ``All
American,'' and was voted an ``Outstanding College Athlete of America''
at Central Washington State. After graduation, I moved to Juneau and
began a 14-year stint coaching the Glacier Swim Club. I took my team to
the Junior Nationals 10 times. I had a leadership role in Alaska
swimming competitions, including serving as a coach for the 1991 Elite
Training Camp for the United States Olympic Training Center in
Colorado.
All of this came to a screeching halt on January 17, 1996, when I
learned I had serious prostate cancer. Faced with very few treatment
options, I entered an experimental, National Institutes of Health-
sponsored clinical trial at the Oregon Cancer Center, Oregon Health
Sciences University. I remained in the trial for 8 months, until I was
forced to withdraw due to severe side effects that are with me to this
day.
My adrenal gland shut down, and I developed adrenal deficiency
syndrome. Trying to cope with that syndrome--as well as prostate cancer
in my bones, I had to quit working and leave a sport and career about
which I had always been passionate. I developed sensitivity to light,
and I lost 90 percent of the hearing in my left ear. In short, the
medical treatment prolonged my life, but it greatly diminished its
quality.
In this, I am typical of many prostate cancer patients. Treatment
for this disease can bring on a variety of debilitating side effects,
ranging from incontinence and impotence to intense bone pain and
osteoporosis. In 2000, more than 180,000 American men will be diagnosed
with prostate cancer. More than 30,000 men will die this year from this
disease. Too many of the rest are undergoing treatment and coping with
side effects similar to mine.
And, as the population continues to age, more and more men will be
diagnosed with prostate cancer, unless our country makes a decision to
diligently and relentlessly pursue a cure.
The statistics on this disease are not an abstraction for me. As I
looked at my family, at the boys I have been coaching over the years,
and especially at my two sons, I did not want them to face this
disease. My sons have six times the risk of prostate cancer as other
men because of my diagnosis. For their sakes, I have chosen to do what
I can to help eradicate this disease.
Shortly after my diagnosis, I made my first speech about prostate
cancer to young men at a local high school. Since that first talk, I
have spoken to more than 3,000 students and 660 teachers in Juneau
alone. I began traveling to other states, like California, Oregon,
Washington, Wisconsin and North Dakota, and have spoken about prostate
cancer to more than 16,000 people. Echoing words I have heard from
Senator Stevens, I told them to watch their diets, exercise and begin
to receive prostate cancer tests and examinations early.
I also became politically active to advocate for increased
government funding of prostate cancer research. I spearheaded a 1997
effort to pass a resolution in the Alaska legislature that called for
increased federal funding for prostate cancer research, the only such
legislation in any state. I might add that, thanks to the leadership of
the chairman and members of the committee, federal spending for
prostate cancer research increased by 55 percent that same year.
I was the first person ever to testify by video to the Food and
Drug Administration about suramin, one of the drugs used in my
treatment. I have organized petition drives and candlelight vigils, and
I have spoken many times as a panelist on prostate cancer issues. I
joined the American Cancer Society Northwest Division Prostate Cancer
Task Force and its public issues committees. I have presented testimony
to many legislative bodies, including in support of a bill in the
Alaska legislature, passed this month, which reduced the age at which
insurance companies in my state would be required to pay for prostate
cancer screening. I recently started a foundation called the
``Southeast Alaska Cancer and Wellness Coalition,'' an organization to
bring together health and wellness resources for people residing in
that part of Alaska.
Along with other prostate cancer activists, I do a lot more than
argue in favor of more federal funding for research. We are teaching
others about prostate cancer, urging men to get early screening,
forming support networks and survivor networks--doing whatever we can
to beat this disease.
Today, the Senate Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations is
discussing funding for the DOD prostate cancer research program. So I
am here. I am here to let you know that there are many promising area
of research that should be pursued and put into clinical trials, but
funding for them is not available. Providing $150 million for peer
reviewed research in the DOD program would allow important--and
essential--clinical research to go forward.
Many more lives could be saved. Many more families could be spared
the agony of prostate cancer. Unless we invest now to cure prostate
cancer, this disease will strike down more men like me. I am here now
so that my children will not have to be. I am fighting for my sons'
futures.
On their behalf--and on behalf of countless other sons and their
fathers and the people who love them--please appropriate the necessary
funding this year for the DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thanks for all you do. I know that you
have done a tremendous amount on your own, just tirelessly, to
educate people about this disease. And as a fellow who has also
suffered from the disease, I thank you for my sons, too. We
will do our very best, Mike. And I thank you for taking the
time to come.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Mr. William Schwartz,
from CaP CURE. Nice to see you.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. SCHWARTZ, MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, ASSOCIATION FOR THE CURE OF
CANCER OF THE PROSTATE
Mr. Schwartz. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you
again. And I am testifying on behalf of CaP CURE, as a Member
of the Board of Directors. CaP CURE is also know as the
Association for the Cure of Cancer of the Prostate. It is a
public charity, dedicated to the rapid discovery of cures or
controls for prostate cancer, which has been the Nation's
number one, most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer. It was
founded in 1993 by financier/philanthropist Michael Milken,
shortly after his own diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.
CaP CURE, since that time, has awarded more than $80
million to over 600 innovative research projects in more than
25 States and five countries. I am here to talk about the
importance of prostate cancer research, Mr. Chairman. And like
Mike Miller, my statistics are not very good. I was diagnosed
with metastatic prostate cancer 5\1/2\ years ago and,
statistically, should not be alive today. Only 30 percent of
the men so diagnosed survive 5 years. But those statistics
notwithstanding, I am delighted to be with you again. My cancer
is under reasonable control and, God willing, I look forward to
watching my first grandchild, who was born just a couple of
months ago, grow into a young man, and maybe even get to his
wedding.
It is crucial that we develop treatments and therapies that
can extend lives that are now lost to this dreaded disease.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to provide testimony
today in support of our partner in prostate cancer research,
the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort
Detrick. Mike has given you the figures: almost 200,000 men
diagnosed last year, and nearly 40,000 died. That means every
day 500 men learn they have prostate cancer. Some are famous,
like General Schwartzkopf and Senator Dole and Joe Torre, but
most are out of the public spotlight. All have families and
friends who bear the burden with them. And every day, more than
100 of these men die.
In fact, one in six, or 300,000 men of the nearly 2 million
men in active and military Reserve military service will be
diagnosed with prostate cancer at some time during their lives.
The need for the DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program is
underlined by the fact that, on average, 15 percent of all
cancer cases are prostate cancer, and 15 percent of all male
cancer deaths are prostate cancer. Over the past 5 years, an
average of only 5 cents of every Federal prostate cancer dollar
has been allocated to find a cure for this disease.
Senator Stevens. You said 5 percent of what?
Mr. Schwartz. Five percent of Federal cancer research
dollars has been allocated to the disease.
Congress, and particularly with your leadership, Senator,
has assured that the funding is getting better. And this
committee's $75 million appropriation last year is helping to
narrow the gap. But given where we are and the opportunities
that surround us, we have got a long way to go.
That is why CaP CURE, as a partner in the National Prostate
Cancer Coalition (NPCC), is asking you to commit $150 million
to the program for fiscal year 2001. And here are some of the
reasons why:
The Prostate Cancer Research Program at the DOD does unique
work. We know that because we have worked closely with them
since the program's inception. In addition, the DOD program
representatives were core participants at an historic and
precedent-setting conference sponsored just last week by CaP
CURE, the NPCC and the National Cancer Institute. That
conference brought together private and public sector funders
of prostate cancer research to discuss opportunities, synergies
and collaborations. And we are trying to ensure that all funds
spent on prostate cancer research are spent productively.
Every single funder in both the public and private sector
now knows how important the DOD program is, because it is
really additive and non-duplicative of other work in the
private and public sectors, and it really is the only place in
the public sector where a research can focus his or her
energies specifically on prostate cancer.
In its April 1998 investment strategy for prostate cancer,
the Army medical research program pointed out that it could not
undertake appropriate and crucial clinical trials with less
than $100 million net. And we must guarantee that treatment
opportunities are converted from the bench to the bedside. And
the only way they get there is going through a clinical trial.
The program loses just under 20 percent per year to a host
of DOD set-asides and program and command overhead. So last
year's $75 million, Mr. Chairman, only netted the peer review
program $60 million. So, again, I just want to reiterate that
in order for clinical trials to commence, the Department
requires a net after all these overhead expenses of at least
$100 million.
Last year the program only funded 19 percent of the
worthwhile projects and proposals that were presented to them.
And to retain the pool of talented researchers who have
committed themselves to solving the problem of prostate cancer,
we must improve that statistic dramatically.
So, Mr. Chairman, given these daunting facts, I ask you and
your colleagues to be mindful of the impact of this terrible
cancer on the country, as a whole, and especially on the 8
million Department of Defense staff and retirees and their
families whose well-being is in the care of the Department's
worldwide health program.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William A. Schwartz
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Defense
Appropriations, my name is Bill Schwartz. I am with you today in my
capacity as a member of the board of directors of CaP CURE.
CaP CURE, also known as the Association for the Cure of Cancer of
the Prostate, is a public charity dedicated to the rapid discovery of
cures or controls for prostate cancer, which has been the nation's most
commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer. Founded in 1993 by financier-
philanthropist Michael Milken shortly after his own diagnosis of
advanced prostate cancer, CaP CURE has awarded more than $80 million to
over 600 venture research projects in more than 25 states and five
countries.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to talk about the importance of prostate
cancer research. I was diagnosed with metastasized prostate cancer 5\1/
2\ years ago. Statistics show that I should not be alive today, since
only 30 percent of men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer
survive five years. Statistics notwithstanding, I am delighted to be
with you. My cancer is under reasonable control, and God willing, I
look forward to watching my first grandchild, who was born just a few
months ago, grow into a young man.
I am here today because I want to ensure that we develop treatments
and therapies that can extend and save lives that are now lost to this
dread disease. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to provide
testimony today in support of our partner in prostate cancer research,
the extramural program conducted by the U.S. Army Medical Research and
Materiel Command at Ft. Detrick, MD.
Last year, almost 200,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer
and nearly 40,000 died from this disease. That means that every day
more than 500 men learned they had prostate cancer.
Some are famous, like General Schwarzkopf, Senator Dole, and Joe
Torre.
Most are out of the public spotlight.
All have families and friends who bear the burden with them.
And every day more than 100 men died.
In fact, one in six--or 300,000 men--of the nearly 2 million men in
active and reserve military service will be diagnosed with prostate
cancer at some time in their life.
The need for the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research
Program is underlined by the fact that prostate cancer has been the
number one diagnosed non-skin cancer in the country. It has accounted,
on average, for 15 percent of all cancer cases and 15 percent of cancer
deaths among men. Over the past few years, an average of only 5 cents
of every federal cancer research dollar has been allocated to find a
cure for this disease.
Congress has assured that funding is getting better and this
Committee's $75 million appropriation last year is helping to narrow
the gap. But, given where we are, and the opportunities that surround
us, there is a long way to go.
That is why CaP CURE, as a partner in the National Prostate Cancer
Coalition, is asking you to commit $150 million to the program in
fiscal year 2001, and here are some of the reasons why:
--The DOD program is a model federal program. For example, while NIH
has many wonderful programs that could impact prostate cancer,
only DOD has a program whose sole focus is prostate cancer-
specific research, which is designed to compliment and not
duplicate research at other federal agencies.
--We also believe strongly in the DOD research program because it
emphasizes innovative public/private partnerships, involving
biotech and pharmaceutical companies, which help federal
dollars go further and yield quicker results.
--Additionally, the DOD program has distinguished itself by focusing
on unique research opportunities and including consumer
advocates in the scientific review process. As a survivor, I
have the honor, for the first time, of sitting on this year's
Prostate Cancer Integration Panel, which oversees the DOD
research projects.
--In its April 1998 business plan, the Army's medical research
program defined its investment strategy for prostate cancer.
The program can only become fully operational if funded
annually at no less than $200 million net, a goal the NPCC has
said must be reached by fiscal year 2002.
--The program cannot undertake appropriate and crucial clinical
trials research with less than $100 million net. We must
guarantee that treatment opportunities are converted from bench
to bedside, and clinical trials are necessary for this to
happen.
--The program loses just under 20 percent per year to a host of DOD
set-asides and program and command overhead, so last year's $75
million netted only about $60 million for the Peer-Reviewed
Research Program. Consequently, to net $100 million for peer-
review will require a minimum appropriation of $125 million.
--Last year the program could only fund about 19 percent of worthy
grant applications. To retain the pool of talented researchers
who have committed themselves to solving the problem of
prostate cancer, we must improve that statistic dramatically.
Mr. Chairman, in the face of these daunting facts, and as you
consider the future investments in this Department of Defense research
program, I ask you and your colleagues to be mindful of the impact of
prostate cancer on the country as a whole. And I also ask you to
consider the potential--and special--impact of prostate cancer on the
eight million Department of Defense staff and retirees--and their
families--whose well-being is in the care of the Department's worldwide
health system.
While costs are involved to increase funding of this important
research program, I also ask you to remember the greater costs involved
in any further delay to the cure of prostate cancer.
Thank you for your consideration.
Senator Stevens. How much of that $75 million actually went
to research last year?
Mr. Schwartz. Only $60 million got into peer review; 18
percent went for overhead and other sorts of set-asides. That
is why, with the problem with clinical trials, the Department
of Defense medical program has said, look, we have to have at
least $100 million net. That is after all these overhead
deductions.
Senator Stevens. Why didn't they ask for it? They did not
ask for that. Their budget does not request that. If they say
that, why didn't they ask for it?
Mr. Schwartz. I cannot answer that. I know in their program
that they put out in April, they called for a spending program
of $200 million a year. And I am not sure why they did not ask
for it in this particular appropriation. We will have to look
into it.
Senator Stevens. I would suggest that the people who put
out those suggestions get together with those who send us the
budgets. You are asking for a 100 percent increase in one item
in one year. And I have got to tell you that is going to be
next to impossible. Because if we did that, then we have got to
increase breast cancer. We have got to increase diabetes. We
have got to increase all these other things. Over a half-a-
billion dollars now goes into medical research from DOD's
budget.
Mr. Schwartz. Well, Senator, I understand what you are
saying, and I can appreciate the difficulty. I guess the key
thing is really not that we double. The key thing is that we
just reach $100 million on a net basis so that we can get to
the major clinical trials that are necessary.
Senator Stevens. How much do you get from NIH?
Mr. Schwartz. Last year was $260 million.
Senator Stevens. You are saying $100 million net from
Defense, but you have already got $260 million net from the
other department.
Mr. Schwartz. I understand.
Senator Stevens. I am a prostate cancer survivor, but I
think you have to be reasonable with us, and that is not being
reasonable. We will do our very best, but we just cannot pursue
an increase every year in defense money for research on a
specific disease of this kind; 100 percent increase is just not
possible. I do thank you for the testimony.
Mr. Schwartz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Next is Mr. Robert Parker, the Coalition
for National Security Research.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT PARKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFORMATION SCIENCES
INSTITUTE, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR
NATIONAL SECURITY RESEARCH
Mr. Parker. Good afternoon. I would first like to thank the
committee for allowing me to speak here today. I do represent
the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR). CNSR is a
coalition of approximately 40 organizations across the United
States, including a diverse set of universities as well as
professional societies that in turn represent research
organizations and the industry. The primary goal of CNSR is to
advocate for a strong science and technology base supported by
the Department of Defense.
We are interested in asking you to stay the course in your
support of 6.1 through 6.3 research in the Department of
Defense. And we are also requesting that you consider a small
increase only to cover the amount of inflation in that
budgetary request for this coming year.
My name is Robert Parker. I am Deputy Director of the
University of Southern California's Information Sciences
Institute (ISI). ISI has done Department of Defense research
for almost 30 years, and we have been involved since the early
days of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) network in
creating the advanced protocols that enabled that network to
come to fruition and has evolved now into the Internet
technology that we have in the United States today.
I have also done Government service through the IPA
program. I spent 4 years at the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) as a Deputy Director of the Information
Technology Office. So I understand the S&T process both from
the project management side of the organization as well as a
researcher from the university.
Given my background in information technology, I wanted to
spend a couple of moments today telling you my concerns for
funding in this specific area. If you look, as I am sure the
committee has looked, at Joint Vision 2010 for information
superiority, the Army's digital battlefield, the future combat
system, the full spectrum dominance, the Navy's network-centric
warfare, and the Air Force's global engagement. These are all
visions that the services have brought forward, and they all
share one common need. And that is a need for an underlying
information infrastructure. That is an infrastructure that does
not exist in the United States today. It will be critical if we
are to bring those missions to the battlefield.
And there is a danger here, a very serious danger, in the
sense that you can look back on investments in S&T that DOD has
provided over the years and you can see how specific examples
of technology developed in the university base have helped fuel
the information technology revolution that the whole United
States economy is the beneficiary of today. There is documented
evidence of that, and it is very clear.
The danger is in complacency, in saying, well, gee, no
matter how much money we raise in DOD, the amount of money
provided through the commercial sector just dwarfs that amount,
and therefore we will let them provide the information
technology investments in the future. There is significant
danger in that. I advocate that there is a divergence of
interests between the commercial industry and DOD even greater
than it has been in the past.
The DOD needs to include in these areas, systems that are
highly fault tolerant, and that are responsive to very complex
mission scenarios. As we enter battlefield scenarios, where the
missions transition from warfighting to peacekeeping, where we
have complex force structures that change over time, that
involve coalition forces and needs for things like multilevel
security. If we look at systems that need to be reactive,
responsive to the environment, perhaps gracefully degrade over
time, that are solutions that are applicable across multiple
missions, if we look at all of these areas of need in DOD, in
addition to the fact that there is a tremendous legacy system
problem in DOD, we simply do not have the funds to replace all
of the systems that are currently fielded.
The only way to introduce information technology is through
finding ways for them to coexist in the field with these other
systems. These are all problems, for better or worse, that DOD
owns uniquely. They are not problems shared by the commercial
world. And we cannot expect the commercial world to solve those
problems without continuing to invest strongly in the S&T
process, through DOD, to create the innovative ideas that will
feed the requirements of DOD in the future.
So we are encouraging you to continue the support for 6.1
through 6.3 and to not leave this important area of information
technology to chance. That concludes my testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Parker
I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me to speak to you
today about the importance of the Defense Department's support of
science and technology to universities, scientific and engineering
societies, and industry.
My name is Robert Parker, and I am Deputy Director of the
University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute. ISI
is involved in a broad spectrum of information processing research and
in the development of advanced computer and communication technologies,
and in 1999 received $36.5 million in research support from the
Department of Defense.
I am testifying today on behalf of the Coalition for National
Security Research (CNSR). CNSR is a broadly-based coalition united by a
commitment to a strong defense science and technology base.
Participants include scientific, engineering, mathematical and
behavioral societies, academic institutions, and industrial
associations.
CNSR strongly supports DOD's Science and Technology programs across
all defense organizations, especially those defense research programs
providing support to our nation's universities. The Department provides
a critical investment in several disciplines including engineering,
physical, math, computer and behavioral sciences vital to our future
security. In addition, defense S&T programs conducted at DOD and
private sector laboratories create the technologies and processes that
support DOD systems, organization, and personnel. Today's high
technology systems are a result of DOD's past investment in research
and technological innovation.
Many crucial defense technologies have emerged from research
conducted on university campuses and at DOD and private sector
laboratories. Among these are: radar, nuclear power, digital computers,
semiconductor electronics, lasers, fiber optics, night vision, vaccines
and drugs for malaria and other tropical diseases, the Global
Positioning System, stealth and other advanced materials, computer-
based visualization systems for training and for planning and
conducting operations, and computer networking.
Currently researchers supported by DOD funding are engaged in a
wide range of activities. Some examples include developing remotely
operated mini-robots that can survey battlefields and urban landscapes
without danger to their users and creating highly-sensitive chemical
and mechanical sensors that can identify minute amounts of dangerous
substances in the environment. Researchers are also using networking,
supercomputers and advanced software to develop very large-scale
battlefield simulations to improve training, assess new weapons and
tactics and analyze battlefield data. In a completely different area,
scientists and engineers are working to create protein-based data
memory systems, similar to the brain, that can store and retrieve
vastly increased amounts of video, audio and other complex data.
The President's budget request for the S&T program at DOD is only
$7.6 billion, $700 million less than the appropriation made by Congress
for fiscal year 2000. But at the same time, the budget request
emphasizes a goal of ``Modernizing Weapons Systems.'' A reality,
however, is that weapons modernization is not possible without the
research that is the foundation of the technological advances upon
which the military depends. The research successes of the past are what
now allows the President to propose this goal. Without increased
support for DOD's research programs, the ability of the military to
modernize its weapons in the future will be severely jeopardized.
For fiscal year 2001, CNSR's Steering Committee strongly urges
Congress to strengthen the nation's national security investment by
providing $8.4 billion for the Department's Science and Technology
Programs. CNSR bases its recommendation on the Report of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on Defense Science and Technology Base for the
21st Century, which established a minimum funding level for DOD's 6.1,
6.2, and 6.3 programs. When adjusted for inflation, their recommended
minimum for fiscal year 2001 is $8.4 billion.
$8.4 billion for DOD's fiscal year 2001 S&T program would support
the scientific and engineering research that has produced today's
preeminent U.S. forces, demonstrated most recently during Desert Storm
and various peacekeeping missions. Continuing a stable investment in
DOD's S&T programs will maintain this technologically superior force in
the 21st Century.
With continuing threats to national security so uncertain,
maintaining technological superiority will require a strong continuing
research effort. The armed forces today not only must be ready to fight
in conventional regional wars like the Gulf War; they also must be
ready to undertake peacekeeping missions in hostile situations and to
defend against unconventional threats such as terrorism, biological and
chemical agents, and computer sabotage.
In summary, in accordance with the recommendations of the Defense
Science Board, CNSR hopes that you will agree to provide $8.4 billion
total for 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 within the R,D,T & E title of the DOD
appropriation for fiscal year 2001. Although the total budget request
for these programs was only $7.5 billion, we believe it is crucial for
our national security that there should not be a decline in funding for
these important programs. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Stevens. I appreciate that. And I think you are
right. We were disappointed that the President's request did
not at least keep the level of last year or this current year.
And I personally authored the amendment to add $4 billion to
Defense, with the idea that part of that would go into basic
research. But it has already been eaten up by these things we
have discovered since the budget was passed. So, I do not know.
We will do our best to find the money. We should keep up at
least the level of the current research, and I am sure we agree
with that.
Mr. Parker. We appreciate your support.
Senator Stevens. I thank you for taking the time. Thank you
very much.
Ian Volner, Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, and Clark
Rook. Thank you, gentlemen.
STATEMENT OF IAN VOLNER, LAWYER, ON BEHALF OF THE
OVARIAN CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE
ACCOMPANIED BY E. CLARK ROOK, RETIRED NAVAL OFFICER, ON BEHALF OF THE
OVARIAN CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE
Mr. Volner. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name
is Ian Volner, and I have testified before the chairman in
other capacities than my professional capacity. This is the
first time I have ever testified in a personal capacity. My
purpose today, on behalf of the Ovarian Cancer National
Alliance, is to express my family's appreciation. As a
representative of the thousands of women and families in the
military and in civilian life, for the support that Congress
has given to the Department of Defense's Ovarian Cancer
Research Program, and we ask that the funding level for this
vital and very successful program be increased to $20 million
for fiscal year 2001.
I wish I could say that my family is survivors of ovarian
cancer because my wife's cancer was detected early, when the
prospects for successful treatment were good, but that
unfortunately was not true. Martha survived despite the odds
because of the skill and dedication of doctors who treated her.
And she is among the very small population, 28 percent, who
survive ovarian cancer when it is detected at a late stage.
There is unfortunately a simple answer to the question of
why more than two-thirds of the ovarian cancer cases in the
United States are not diagnosed until an advanced stage. The
current diagnostic tools are imprecise and there is no reliable
and easy way to administer a screening mechanism for the
general population. My wife's declining health was ascribed
variously to hormonal changes that occur in women of a certain
age, to stress, to the flu, and, when Captain Rook testifies,
you will see that though we did not coordinate, his wife
suffered the same problem. It simply was not diagnosed early.
In my wife Martha's case, it was not finally detected until
she took herself off to an emergency room here in Washington
and simply refused to leave until they told her what was wrong
with her. For other cancers, there are screening mechanisms:
the Pap smear for cervical cancer, the mammogram for breast
cancer. For ovarian cancer, no such equivalent exists. And that
is why the Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research
Program is so critically important.
The program is young. It was not initially funded until
1997. But I am sure that the subcommittee will find, when they
examine the work that has been done to date, that the money has
been spent wisely and well. Among the very first research
grants made was one for a study that is looking for molecular
markers that can help detect ovarian cancer at an early stage.
We appreciate the support that the committee has given to
this very important program and we ask that you seriously
consider our request to increase the funding to $20 million for
fiscal year 2001. I would like to have Captain Clark explain
his, unfortunately, less happy experience with this disease.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rook. My name is Clark Rook. I am a retired Naval
officer residing in Northern Virginia, and I am here today as a
volunteer for the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance to briefly
describe my personal involvement and concerns with what has
been described as the deadliest cancers of the female
reproductive tract, ovarian cancer. My testimony will focus on
my wife, Elaine, who recently succumbed to the disease.
However, before I continue, I would like to respectfully
request each of you on this subcommittee develop an awareness
of ovarian cancer, share this awareness with your family and
friends, and hopefully ensure you will not have to experience
what I am about to describe. Ovarian cancer has not received
the notoriety other cancers have, but I can assure you that it
is just as deadly.
Elaine died at home this past New Year's Eve, after an
almost 5-year battle with ovarian cancer, which she fought with
grace and optimism. Briefly, she had three major surgeries,
maximum radiation and essentially eight different types of
chemotherapy. While the medical care she received once the
cancer was diagnosed was outstanding, I am personally left with
two very basic but frustrating questions: Why is there not some
type of procedure for identifying ovarian cancer similar to the
Pap smear used to detect cervical cancer, or the ``grab and
smash it'' test, as Elaine described the mammogram, for
detecting breast cancer? Also, why is there a significant lack
of awareness in this country about ovarian cancer?
One of the first doctors Elaine saw with her medical
problems attributed them to a female who was aging. At that
time, she was 57. Ironically, that doctor was a female
gynecologist. Subsequently, in early 1995, after numerous
tests, none of which gave any indication of ovarian cancer, a
computer aided tomography (CAT) scan revealed a malignant
tumor, the genesis of her problems. Elaine was diagnosed with
ovarian cancer, and her tumor was the size of a 22-week fetus.
I was recently asked if I was bitter at having lost my wife
of 37 years. Yes, but my real bitterness, if you want to call
it that, lies with the almost total lack of awareness of the
female population of this country, as it relates to ovarian
cancer, and the fact that unless they are directly or
indirectly involved in oncology, my personal observation is
that most of the medical profession are not far behind.
While the development of a better awareness of ovarian
cancer is a primary goal of all those concerned with ovarian
cancer, it is only one of two primary goals. The other goal is
increased research. I personally feel, through the loss of my
wife, that not enough is being done in the area of ovarian
cancer research or, if it had, Elaine's cancer might have been
identified earlier.
The American Cancer Society states that if ovarian cancer
is diagnosed and treated early, the survival rate is 95
percent. However, only about 25 percent are detected at this
stage. The lack of awareness of ovarian cancer is presently
being aggressively addressed on two fronts. The Ovarian Cancer
National Alliance has launched an initiative to educate women
and health care professionals across the Nation about symptoms,
risks, and treatments of ovarian cancer. At the same time, the
Gynecological Cancer Foundation is developing a teaching slide
presentation of all gynecological cancers, with an emphasis on
ovarian cancer.
As you might guess, until her cancer was identified, Elaine
was not aware of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, nor the
potential impact cancer would have on her life and that of her
family. Perhaps that may be the reason I am involved in
volunteering with the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, to
maximize the awareness of ovarian cancer.
In closing, there are several thoughts I would like to
leave you with. This year alone, while it is estimated there
will be 23,100 new cases of ovarian cancer, it is also
estimated there will be 14,000 deaths due to ovarian cancer.
The deaths in the States represented on this subcommittee alone
comprise approximately one-third of these 14,000 deaths.
The final thought I would like to leave with you concerns
age. The National Cancer Institute addresses the age of ovarian
cancer this way: The risk of developing ovarian cancer
increases as a woman gets older. Most ovarian cancer occur in
women over the age of 50; the risk is especially high for women
over 60.
On one occasion, while my wife was getting her
chemotherapy, a young lady who had ovarian cancer was getting
her chemotherapy. She was only 14 years old.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Ian Volner
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Ian Volner
and I am a lawyer here in Washington, DC. Over the years, I have
testified in my professional capacity before Congress on numerous
occasions on various public issues. This is the first time that I have
ever testified in my personal capacity. I do so because my wife, our
two sons and I are ``survivors'' of ovarian cancer. My purpose, simply,
is to express my family's appreciation--as representative of the
thousands of women and families--for the support Congress has given the
Department of Defense's Ovarian Cancer Research Program and to ask that
the funding level for this vital and very successful program be
increased to $20 million for fiscal year 2001.
I wish I could say that we are among the survivors because my
wife's cancer was detected early when the prospects for successful
treatment are good, but that is not true. My wife is among the tiny
population, less than 28 percent of women who survive ovarian cancer
that is not detected until an advanced stage. Martha survived despite
the odds because of the skill and dedication of Doctors James Barter
and Jeffrey Hines (then both with the Lombardi Clinic here in
Washington) and in no small measure because of their courage and hers.
I will never forget, however, the doctor's comment when, after the
surgery, I asked whether or not there was reason to hope for a
successful recovery so that I could tell my then thirteen and eleven
year old sons. The doctor's reply that the best reason to hope was
because the cancer had not yet reached the ``Gilda Radnor stage.'' The
Subcommittee may recall that Gilda Radnor was a very talented and young
actress whose ovarian cancer was not detected until it was too late.
There is, unfortunately, a simple answer to the questions why more
than two-thirds of the ovarian cancer cases in the United States are
not diagnosed until an advanced stage. The current diagnostic tools are
imprecise and there is not reliable and easy to administer screening
mechanism for the general population. My wife's poor health was
ascribed variously to hormonal changes that occur in women of a certain
age, to the flu to simple stress. The cancer was not detected until one
morning when Martha took herself off to the emergency room of a local
hospital and simply informed the staff that she was not going to leave
until they provided her with a hard and clean diagnosis of what was
causing her to fell so unwell. For other cancers, there are reliable
screening mechanisms: Pap smear for cervical cancer; the mammogram for
breast cancer. For ovarian cancer, no such equivalent exists.
And that is why the Department of Defense's Ovarian Cancer Research
Program is critically important. The program is young; it was not
initially funded until 1997. However, I am sure that when the Committee
views the work that has been done to date, it will find that the money
that Congress has appropriated for this program is being spent wisely
and well. Among the first research grants is a study that is looking
for molecular markers that can help detect ovarian cancer at an early
stage. As someone who has had to share the horrors of this terrible
disease, I want to express my appreciation for the support that
Congress has given the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program and to
request that this Committee increases the funding level to $20 million
for fiscal year 2001. In that way, millions of women at risk in this
country for ovarian cancer do not have to go through the ordeal that
our family suffered, and in a real sense continues to suffer, because
of this insidious disease.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
to testify at this important hearing today. I know it has been a long
day for you. I am ready to answer any questions you may have at this
time.
______
Prepared Statement of E. Clark Rook
Mr. Chairman: My name is Clark Rook and I'm a retired naval officer
residing in Northern Virginia. I'm here today as a volunteer for the
Ovarian Cancer National Alliance to briefly describe my personal
involvement and concerns with what has been described as the deadliest
of cancers of the female reproductive tract--ovarian cancer. My
testimony will focus on my wife, Elaine, who recently succumbed to the
disease.
Elaine died at home this past New Year's Eve after an almost five
year battle with ovarian cancer which she fought with grace and
optimism. Briefly, she had three major surgeries, maximum radiation,
and essentially eight different types of chemotherapy. While the
medical care she received once the cancer was diagnosed was
outstanding, I am personally left with two very basic but frustrating
questions. Why isn't there some type of procedure for identifying
ovarian cancer similar to the Pap smear for cervical cancer or the
``grab and smash it'' test as Elaine described the mammogram for
detecting breast cancer? Also, why is there a significant lack of
awareness in the country about ovarian cancer?
One of the first doctors Elaine saw with her medical ``problems''
attributed them to ``a female who was aging.'' At that time she was 57.
Ironically, that doctor was a female gynecologist. Subsequently, in
early 1995 after numerous tests, none of which gave any indication of
ovarian cancer, a CAT scan revealed a malignant tumor--the genesis of
her ``problems.'' Elaine was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and the
tumor was the size of a 22-week fetus!
I was recently asked if I was bitter at having lost my wife of 37
years. Yes, but my real bitterness, if you want to call it that, lies
with the almost total lack of awareness of the female population of
this country as it relates to ovarian cancer, and the fact that unless
they are directly or indirectly involved in oncology, my personal
observation is that most in the medical profession aren't far behind.
While the development of a better awareness of ovarian cancer is a
primary goal of all of those concerned with ovarian cancer, it is only
one of two primary goals. The other goal is increased research. I
personally feel through the loss of my wife that not enough is being
done in the area of ovarian cancer research, or if it had, Elaine's
cancer might have been identified earlier. The American Cancer Society
states that if ovarian cancer is diagnosed and treated early, the
survival rate is 95 percent. However, only about 25 percent are
detected at this stage.
The lack of awareness of ovarian cancer is presently being
aggressively addressed on two fronts. The Ovarian Cancer National
Alliance has launched an initiative to educate women and health care
professionals across the nation about the symptoms, risks, and
treatments of ovarian cancer. At the same time, the Gynecologic Cancer
Foundation is developing a teaching slide presentation of all
gynecological cancers with an emphasis on ovarian cancer. This
presentation will be directed at primary care physicians as well as the
lay public.
As you might guess, until her cancer was identified, Elaine was not
aware of the symptoms of ovarian cancer nor the potential impact
ovarian cancer would have on her life and that of her family. Perhaps,
that may be the reason I'm involved in volunteering with the Ovarian
Cancer National Alliance--to maximize the awareness of ovarian cancer.
In closing, there are several thoughts I would like to leave with
you. This year alone, while it is estimated that there will be 23,100
new cases of ovarian cancer, it is also estimated that there will be
14,000 deaths due to ovarian cancer. The deaths in the states
represented on the subcommittee alone comprise approximately one third
of these 14,000 deaths.
The final thought I would like to leave with you concerns age. The
National Cancer Institute addresses the age for ovarian cancer this
way--``The risk of developing ovarian cancer increases as a woman gets
older. Most ovarian cancers occur in women over the age of 50; the risk
is especially high for women over 60.'' On one occasion while my wife
was getting her chemotherapy, a young lady who had ovarian cancer was
getting her chemotherapy. She was only 14 years old!
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time and am ready to try and
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I
appreciate your testimony.
The next witness is Dr. William Strickland, the American
Psychological Association.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STRICKLAND, PH.D., AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Dr. Strickland. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. As you noted,
I am Bill Strickland, and I am speaking here today on behalf of
the American Psychological Association (APA). APA is a
professional and scientific organization of more than 159,000
members, many of whom conduct behavioral research relevant to
the military.
I would like to address two main issues of relevance to
this subcommittee. First, the dangerous trend within the
Department of Defense of cutting funds for its science and
technology budget; and second, the critical need to invest in
psychological research in DOD's service laboratories, including
the particular need to sustain support for human systems
programs in the Air Force. I have discussed each of these
topics in some detail in my written testimony.
I know that this subcommittee is very concerned with both
of these issues, and I thank you and your colleagues in the
Senate for adding funds to DOD's science and technology budget
in fiscal year 2000, bringing it in line with the Defense
Science Board's minimum recommendations. Clearly, our military
superiority and success in recent years can be traced to
substantial funding for basic and applied research that
occurred decades ago.
Similarly, our ability to maintain near-term and future
global superiority depends on reinvesting in science and
technology now. For fiscal year 2001, we ask that the
subcommittee increase funding for the overall DOD science and
technology budget to at least $8.4 billion. This represents
only a 0.03 percent increase over last year's appropriated
funds, but it is a 12 percent increase over the current
administration request.
I know that most of you are very familiar with the work
being done in our military laboratories, which provide a
mission-oriented focus for defense science and technology.
Especially at the basic and applied exploratory development
levels, research programs that are eliminated from the labs as
cost-cutting measures are not likely to be picked up by
industry, because industry typically focuses on short-term,
profit-driven product development. Once the expertise is gone
from the service laboratories, there is absolutely no way to
catch up when mission needs for critical human-oriented
research develop. And those needs will develop.
APA supports the administration's fiscal year 2001 request
for behavioral research programs within both the Army Research
Institute and the Office of Naval Research. However, we urge
the subcommittee to restore to the Air Force research
laboratory funds that are now planned to be cut. Specifically,
the funding for applied human-oriented research in the
manpower, personnel, training, and crew technology programs.
Restoring those funds would require an increase of $7.809
million over the administration request.
APA is concerned about the cuts planned for applied
behavioral research within the Air Force, especially since
Congress restored funds to these very programs in fiscal year
2000 in order to ensure continuation of this vital work. These
programs are responsible for developing products relevant to an
enormous number of acknowledged Air Force mission needs,
ranging from weapon system design, improvements in simulator
technology, improving crew survivability in combat, and
improved and less expensive training programs.
I know that many of you are familiar with the situation at
Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, where world-renown personnel
and technical training research facilities basically no longer
exist, having been reduced from a level of 130 people a few
years ago due to funding cuts and resulting reductions in
force.
In January of this year, the Air Force Association issued a
special report, ``Shortchanging the Future.'' That report's
primary conclusion was: Within the Air Force today, near-term
readiness and modernization concerns are not balanced with the
investment in science crucial for meeting the demands of future
threats. As this subcommittee has noted repeatedly this year,
and this morning, this is a critical mistake. We ask your help
in making sure that the Air Force does not continue on this
course by restoring funds for crucial human-oriented research
within the Air Force research laboratory.
Chairman Stevens, thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Strickland, Ph.D.
My name is William Strickland, Ph.D., and I am speaking here on
behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA). APA is a
professional and scientific organization of more than 159,000 members
and associates, many of whom conduct behavioral research relevant to
the military. I would like to address two main issues of relevance to
this Subcommittee: first, the dangerous trend within the Department of
Defense (DOD) of cutting funds for its Science and Technology budget;
and second, the critical need to invest in psychological research in
DOD's service laboratories, and the particular need to sustain support
for human systems programs in the Air Force. Once again, the
Administration's request would cut the Air Force's applied behavioral
research budget for fiscal year 2001, despite Congressional action
restoring funds to this budget last year.
dangerous under-investment in dod science and technology
I know this Subcommittee shares the science community's strong
concern about DOD's declining overall investment in science and
technology. Our military superiority and success in recent hostilities
can be traced to substantial funding for basic and applied research
several decades ago, and our ability to maintain near-term and future
global superiority depends on re-investing in science and technology
now.
APA thanks this Subcommittee and colleagues in the House for adding
funds to DOD's requested Science and Technology budget in fiscal year
2000, bringing it in line with the Defense Science Board's minimum
recommendations. For fiscal year 2001, we ask that the Subcommittee
increase funding for the overall DOD Science and Technology Budget to
at least $8.4 billion; this represents only a 0.03 percent increase
over last year's appropriated funds, and a 12 percent increase over the
current Administration request.
need for behavioral research in the military
Our military faces a host of current challenges around the world,
including renewed hostilities, the emergence of non-traditional
conflict situations, new peace-keeping missions, increased operational
tempo and longer deployments for military members, at the same time
that forces face continuing recruitment and retention problems. In
addition, the sophistication of weapons and information technology has
dramatically changed the skills required of military personnel. What
hasn't changed is that success in military operations still depends on
people--at every level, in every unit. We simply cannot afford to let
hardware and software get too far ahead of the ``humanware.'' As the
Secretary of the Air Force recently stated before this Subcommittee,
training and education in particular are the essential keys to
successful command and employment of military power when technology
becomes more sophisticated and when the complexity and pace of
operations increase.
Psychological research addresses the most critical mission issue
facing our armed services--maintaining readiness in an ever-changing
national security climate--by providing policy-relevant data on the
selection and assignment of personnel, skills-training, design of the
human-machine interface, and efficient and safe operation of complex
systems. Unfortunately, behavioral research is at a particular
disadvantage in the current decision-making atmosphere, which favors
easily identifiable research ``products,'' such as new hardware; the
fact that behavioral research can determine whether personnel will be
able to use that hardware is not obvious until something goes wrong.
the military behavioral science programs
The military service laboratories provide a stable, mission-
oriented focus for defense science and technology, conducting and
sponsoring basic (6.1), applied/exploratory development (6.2) and
advanced development (6.3) research. 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 mission needs for critical human-oriented research
develop.
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. ARI is the focal point and
principal source of expertise for all the military services in
leadership research, an area critical to the success of the military.
Research that helps our armed forces identify, nurture, and train
leaders is critical to their success. ARI also investigates how
particular aspects of Army culture and/or larger societal issues
influence recruitment, retention, morale and performance.
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 CNS-supported research is the
division's long-term investment in artificial intelligence research.
This research has led to many useful products, including software that
enables the use of ``embedded training.'' Many of the Navy's
operational tasks, such as recognizing and responding to threats,
require complex interactions with sophisticated, computer-based
systems. Embedded training allows shipboard personnel to develop and
refine critical skills by practicing simulated exercises on their own
workstations. Once developed, embedded training software can be loaded
onto specified computer systems and delivered wherever and however it
is needed.
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
APA is extremely concerned about the significant cuts anticipated
for applied behavioral research (6.2) within AFRL, especially since
Congress restored similar cuts to these research programs in fiscal
year 2000 to ensure continuation of vital work. These programs 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 AFRL 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.
In January of this year, the Air Force Association issued a special
report, ``Shortchanging the Future,'' in which retired Generals and
scientists outlined the dangers of the declining Air Force science and
technology budget (both in terms of real dollars and percentage of
total Air Force spending). APA strongly supports the report's primary
conclusion: at critical decision-making points within the Air Force
today, near-term readiness and modernization concerns are not balanced
with an investment in science and technology to meet the demands of
future threats. As this Subcommittee has noted repeatedly this spring,
this is indeed a critical mistake.
APA supports the Administration's fiscal year 2001 requests for
behavioral research programs within both the Army Research Institute
(ARI; $21.974 million) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR; $39.264
million). However, we urge the Subcommittee to restore the planned cuts
to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), specifically the funding
for applied, human-oriented research in the Manpower, Personnel, and
Training and Crew Technology programs (for a total of $99.498 million,
an increase of $7.809 million over the Administration request).
summary and recommendations
It is sometimes easy to overlook the important contributions of
behavioral research to the missions of the Army, Navy and Air Force
because the results usually do not translate directly into new weapons
systems or hardware. Yet behavioral research has provided and will
continue to provide the foundation for tremendous savings through
increased personnel efficiency and productivity. This work is vital to
the military for identifying critically needed improvements in human
resources development, training and human error reduction.
Increasing demands for qualified recruits place huge demands on the
military to more efficiently target and train personnel; increasingly
sophisticated weapons systems place more, not fewer, demands on human
operators. We must ensure that military personnel are as well prepared
as their machines to meet the challenge. Our servicemen and women
deserve no less from us. This is not possible without a sustained
investment in human-oriented research.
APA thanks the Subcommittee for its leadership in bringing the
fiscal year 2000 DOD Science and Technology budget in line with the
minimum recommendations of the Defense Science Board, and we ask that
you increase funding for DOD's overall Science and Technology budget to
$8.4 billion for fiscal year 2001.
In terms of the military service laboratories, we support the
Administration's fiscal year 2001 requests for the Army and Navy
behavioral research programs, but we urge you to restore the Air
Force's funding for applied, human-oriented research to its fiscal year
2000 level.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Doctor. I appreciate
you coming.
The next witness is Robert Morris, Executive Director of
the Fort Des Moines Black Officers Memorial.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. MORRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FORT
DES MOINES BLACK OFFICERS MEMORIAL
Mr. Morris. Senator Stevens, am I able to hand you a photo?
Senator Stevens. Sure.
Mr. Morris. Thank you for the opportunity to testify once
again this year. And thank you for the kind support that you
gave our project last year. As we drive toward preserving a
critical part of America's military history for youth to see
and learn from at Fort Des Moines, the park's rehabilitation
and development costs continue to grow. No military
installation has played as great a role in the racial and
gender integration of America's armed forces as Fort Des
Moines, which we are preserving through the development of a 6-
acre memorial park project, featuring a 20,000-square-foot
museum at Clayton Hall.
Unfortunately, the rehabilitation costs of the museum at
Clayton Hall will exceed the $2 million operations and
maintenance (O&M) appropriation received last year, which was
ambushed by a series of Government agencies, including the
Department of Defense, who took $37,000 before it even left
town, the U.S. Army Reserve Engineers' out of Atlanta, and the
U.S. Corps of Engineers, which are currently levying their
administrative fees out of that money, as well.
Senator Stevens. What do they ask for, do you know how
much?
Mr. Morris. The Defense Department said that, that was
administrative costs, and the Reserve Engineers and Corps of
Engineers say that theirs will be administrative costs, and
they set some aside for a contingency fee that they take out of
the amount. So what we are going to end up with is about 75
percent of what we started with.
Senator Stevens. We have just got to stop that. That is
just nonsense. How much do you need this year?
Mr. Morris. We are hoping for $2 million this year. You are
aware of the story of this monument, so I do not need to go
through all of that.
Senator Stevens. I have talked to other people about it,
and we certainly will support it. But I am disturbed to hear
that the money we put up does not get to the project we put it
up for. This has got to stop. They get administrative costs.
They pay their salaries from other items. They just are robbing
these accounts.
Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. I do not like that at all. We will do our
best to get you the money you asked for, Mr. Morris. And we
will also consider putting some limitations on these grants for
specific projects so they cannot hit them with administrative
costs.
Mr. Morris. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. You let us know if they do, all right?
Mr. Morris. I appreciate that, and I will do that, sir.
Thank you.
And just to show you the picture I gave you, the black and
white pictures are what the building looks like now, and the
color photo on the brochure is what it used to look like and
what it will look like again, once it is rehabilitated.
Senator Stevens. I think that is wonderful. You can have
these back if you would like. I have discussed that project
with other members, and I think it is a wonderful project.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert V. Morris
As we drive towards preserving a critical part of military history
for America's youth to see and learn from at Fort Des Moines, Iowa, the
park's rehabilitation and development costs continue to grow.
No military installation has played as great a role in the racial
and gender integration of America's Armed Forces than Fort Des Moines
which we are preserving through the development of a six acre memorial
park project featuring a 20,000 square foot museum at Clayton Hall.
Unfortunately, the rehabilitation cost of the museum will exceed the $2
million O&M appropriation received last year which was ambushed by a
series of government agencies (Department of Defense $37k, U.S. Army
Reserve Engineers and U.S. Corps of Engineers) on its way to Fort Des
Moines. Therefore, we request an additional $2 million to finish the
rehabilitation and development of the memorial park.
As I noted last year, during the First World War, the U.S. Army
established its first officer candidate school open to black Americans
at Fort Des Moines in 1917. Although three black officers had
previously graduated West Point, the Fort Des Moines OCS became the
first class open to black candidates.
Of the 1,250 black officer candidates that became the 17th
Provisional Training Regiment at Fort Des Moines, 1,000 were college
graduates and faculty and 250 were non-commissioned officers called
representing the famous 9th and 10th Cavalry ``Buffalo Soldiers'' and
the 24th and 25th Infantry who were in service on the plains. Many of
the graduate officers went on to lead the 92nd Division against
Imperial Germany on the battlefields of France in 1918.
Three decades before formal military desegregation, the graduate
officers of Fort Des Moines racially integrated the command structure
of America's Armed Forces and set the standard for all who would
follow.
the waac
Some 25 years later, the very thought of female soldiers offended
many Americans but the Army was determined to try yet another
experiment and once again conduct it at Fort Des Moines.
The Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) was formed at Fort Des
Moines in 1942 where 65,000 women would receive non-combat training
during World War Two. As part of the WAAC, Fort Des Moines hosted the
first officer candidate school open to women graduating 436 officers,
including 39 black females, on 29 August 1942. WAAC units served with
distinction in England and France during WW II and created a standard
of excellence followed by female troops serving in America's Armed
Forces today.
It is astonishing that these two critical events were held at the
same location 25 years apart and that Fort Des Moines launched the
racial and gender command integration of the United States military.
The unique historical importance of our project is reflected by our
advisory board members including: Gen. Colin L. Powell, USA (ret),
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; B/Gen. Elizabeth
Hoisington (ret), the military's first female General Officer; Lt. Gen.
Russell Davis, the first black Chief of the National Guard; M/Gen. Evan
Hultman, AUS (ret), former Executive Director of ROA.
As part of our memorial park project at Fort Des Moines, an active
Army Reserve post which is named on the Endangered National Historic
Landmark list, the rehabilitation of the museum at Clayton Hall (Bldg.
46) must receive top priority. The dilapidated 20,000 square foot
Clayton Hall building is deteriorating rapidly through Iowa's brutal
winters and must be saved. To this end, we request $2 million O&M
funding to further rehabilitate and develop this critical part of our
nation's history.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Now, Master Sergeant Smith, you have been a patient man. We
will not even run the lights on you. You have waited so long,
you just tell us what you want us to hear.
STATEMENT OF DON C. SMITH, MASTER SERGEANT, U.S. AIR
FORCE (RETIRED), LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT,
MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AIR
FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION
Master Sergeant Smith. This is quite a different
environment from when we first met. I used to fly the blue and
whites out of Andrews.
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Master Sergeant Smith. I know I have seen you out there.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for this opportunity to
briefly highlight the items that are important to the 150,000
active, Reserve and retired enlisted members of the Air Force
Sergeants Association. As we have travelled around the Air
Force, it is very clear that our efforts last year to formulate
the current defense bill were met with great appreciation by
those you worked so hard to protect. Quality-of-life issues,
such as pay increases and retirement reform, will have a long-
term impact on the challenges of recruiting, retention and
readiness.
As you move toward the fiscal year 2001 appropriations in
the area of defense, we ask that you pay particular attention
to the following matters:
Although last year's pay raise, the new formula for future
pay raises, the targeted pay adjustments upcoming in July, and
the elimination of the reducts system were welcome changes,
more needs to be done.
Because mid-career non-commissioned officers (NCO) pay
adjustments for July fell short of equity for these NCO's, we
request further targeted increases within the enlisted chart,
particularly for the grades of E-5, E-6 and E-7. And I am sure
the FRA, Fleet Reserve Association, hit that pretty hard
earlier.
The basic allowance for housing (BAH) should be fully
funded, to minimize out-of-pocket expenses for military
members, and it needs to be increased for enlisted members, as
well. Again, housing allowances are paid through two very
different pay charts, with the enlisted chart considerably
lower. We request help for enlisted members in this area.
Military health care continues to be a challenge as the
Department of Defense works to minimize its health care
offerings, and as Congress works to protect those who serve. As
you know, retiree health care is a major challenge this year.
Several bills have been introduced, including one by the
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and we
respectfully request your full funding of the lifetime health
care commitment.
As the Veterans Affairs people work to build up the
Montgomery G.I. Bill, we ask that you also provide considerable
funding in the area of tuition assistance, which is the primary
tool of active duty military members. We also ask that you once
again provide impact aid dollars to protect military families
from the administration's program shortfalls in Department of
Education dollars in this area.
Finally, we urge that the payment of special pays to
Reserve component members be funded in parity with the payment
policies for active duty. The concept of the weekend warrior is
absolutely inaccurate in this age, when half of the military
force used to carry out missions of this Nation are made up of
Reserve component members.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for all that you do for
those who serve this Nation. Your commitment and that of the
members of this committee is a great message for us to share
with the wonderful young men and women who devote part of their
lives to the service of their Nation. Thank you. And I would be
pleased to answer any questions you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Don C. Smith
Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, on behalf of the
150,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for
this opportunity to offer our views on the funding efforts needed to
assure the quality-of-life of the military forces. Your efforts last
year, particularly in the areas of compensation and retirement,
resulted in some great steps forward in beginning to address various
features of military life. Your accomplishments during this Congress'
first session of providing a good pay raise, retirement reform, the
Temporary Lodging Expense for first time permanent change of station
moves, the mandate that DOD implement a program similar to the Women,
Infants, and Children food nutritional supplement/education program for
overseas members, Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay, and further
improvements in military health care are some of your major
accomplishments on behalf of those who serve. Now, we ask that you
build on those efforts to continue to ensure the military as a viable
instrument to achieve national security objectives and, at the same
time, continue to draw the best and the brightest young people from our
society to devote a period of their lives to the preservation of
liberty.
What are some of the dynamics that act as challenges to recruiting
and retaining men and women to serve? In this testimony, we will limit
the focus of this statement to items important to meeting the Air
Force's quality-of-life needs: current and future life benefits and,
for Reserve Force members, support of the unique contingencies of the
``Citizen Soldier.''
the quality of the military life
The men and women in the Armed Forces work very long hours in
extremely difficult environments to protect this nation. They are
generally selfless and devoted to get the job done to the detriment, at
times, of their own well-being. What are some factors that contribute
to the quality of the military life style that need to be regularly
addressed?
Contemporary military forces have faced significantly greater
missions with considerably fewer people, increasing family separations,
declining health care programs, curtailed pay and allowances increases,
deteriorating military housing, less opportunity for educational
benefits, and more out-of-pocket expenses with every military
relocation. It is amazing that so many continue to selflessly serve the
military ``company.'' They obviously do so because of their dedication
to a higher, patriotic ideal. However, it is time to take certain
actions to provide the necessary funding needed to enhance the quality
of enlisted military lives.
Workload Versus Available Workforce.--This nation's changed
strategy from projecting America's military force only when in support
our ``vital national interests'' to one of global engagement and full
participation in police actions and humanitarian efforts has had its
toll on maintaining an all-volunteer force. The population of the
military services has greatly decreased since the fall of the Berlin
Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of the United
States as the world's only ``super power.'' At the same time, the
global missions of these forces (with far fewer people) have increased
several fold. On top of that, while increased deployments take a toll
on those who must deploy, those left behind now must assume even more
tasks because the job that needs to be done at home has not gone away.
This mathematical contradiction, i.e., far few people, far greater
tasks, has resulted in longer hours, significant family separations,
higher levels of stress, and the creation of a physically challenged
force. Many military members wonder if they might have healthier,
happier lives on the ``outside'' as a participant in the fruits of the
booming economy they helped to create. The Air Force, in particular,
has taken moves to help alleviate this ``spent force'' situation by
transitioning to an Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF). Within the
EAF, the predictability of long-term deployments promises to be far
more visible, and members should be better able to plan their
individual responses to mitigate the impact of deployments and family
separations.
While we applaud this effort, it will only be successful if manning
levels are maintained or increased. Many officials call for further
bases realignments and closures to eliminate unnecessary
infrastructure. The contention is that as these unneeded facilities
close, the manning can be transferred to the remaining bases, with the
promise that the workload and pace of deployments will lessen. If this
is not done, more and more military members will leave, and fewer and
fewer will choose to enter any of the services. This is a situation we
have created, and it is one we can and must correct. We urge this
Congress to increase the quality of the lives of the all-volunteer
force by taking this action:
--Establish manpower levels to match the missions this nation has
chosen to levy on those who serve--both those deployed and
those at home.
Military Pay.--Building on the gains made in the fiscal year 2000
Defense Authorization, it is important to realize that the work is not
finished. We applaud the 4.8 percent pay raise effective January 1,
2000, and the pay adjustments to be made in July 2000 are a first step
in readjusting the pay charts. Further, tying annual future military
pay raises through the year 2006 to a half percentage above the
Employment Cost Index was a wise move that sent a strong signal to
those serving. However, some realities must be examined about the way
we pay our military members. There are two pay charts for the military:
one for commissioned officers, and a significantly lower-compensation
one for enlisted members. The net effect of across-the-board pay raises
over the years has served to pull these charts further apart. Yet both
groups of members continue to face the same ``survival'' challenges in
the same economic environment. This pay disparity is similar to what
you would encounter in civilian industry between white collar and blue
collar workers. However, there are two dynamics in the military that
seem to have been ignored when considering how we pay our people: in
recent years, many roles that were formerly handled by commissioned
military members are increasingly being assumed by enlisted members,
and the education level of the enlisted corps has increased
considerably. Indeed, middle-range noncommissioned members handle many
tasks formerly carried out by their superiors and, in fact, often
assume as one of their duties the training of junior commissioned
officers. Also, an increasing number of enlisted members enter service
or take actions to move toward higher education during their careers.
As AFSA representatives travel around United State Air Force bases, it
is gratifying to note the innumerable cases where relatively low-
ranking enlisted members are handling technologically awesome tasks and
making day-to-day, life and death decisions. It is time that military
compensation be re-examined and a new model be established to move the
two compensation tables closer together to reflect the changing
enlisted roles in relation to the overall military establishment. This
will work to help us sustain the all-volunteer force. Additionally, we
must establish minimum payment levels to ensure that no military member
falls below this nation's poverty threshold that entitles them to Food
Stamps.
--Ensure adequate future pay raises.
--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 (Food Stamp eligibility) level.
The Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) is designed to pay for
food for military members. Because the cost of food parallels the cost
of goods and services in our economy, over the years Congress has
increased the BAS by the same percentage each year as the growth of
basic military pay until two years ago when BAS was frozen at one-
percent growth per year for the next several years. This change
resulted from the contention that military members, enlisted in
particular, were receiving more than they needed for food, and (some
claim) DOD's desire to provide alternate funding to pay for meal
cards--payment for the dormitory dwellers' to eat in base dining
facilities. Also, DOD maintained that limiting the growth of BAS would
allow the provision of BAS to those residing in the dormitories--a
reality that has come about in a very limited way. It is time to once
again tie the annual growth of BAS to military pay increases.
--Increase enlisted military pay to reflect the relative increased
responsibilities of enlisted members.
--Re-establish BAS increases to parallel military pay increases.
Housing and Housing Allowances.--Where a military member lives is
dictated by a number of factors, not always by choice. Those deploying,
of course, live where (and under what conditions) the location of the
mission dictates. At home base, factors include the member's rank, the
number of accompanying family members (if any), the availability of on-
base 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 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.
For those who must live off base, the provision of the Basic
Allowance for Housing is intended to account for the average of 85
percent of their out-of-pocket housing expenses. This committee has
taken strong recent 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. For example, the only enlisted grade under the BAH standard that
is authorized a stand-alone dwelling is the very highest rank the E-9.
AFSA 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 neighborhoods 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. While the benefits increases following the
achievement of higher rank is part of the military institution, BAH as
it is structured needs to be re-examined to protect all of the military
family members regardless of rank.
--Re-examine the standard upon which BAH levels are determined.
Military Health Care.--Military health care and readiness are
inseparable. This state of health must be assured no matter where our
members serve. In that sense, the provision of TRICARE Prime Remote for
military members stationed away from a military treatment facility was
a wise move. Our nation must also provide such an assurance of health
to the families of those who serve. In recent years, military family
member medical and dental care has evolved from fully funded coverage
to member-subsidized coverage. Members have noted this erosion
conscious choices on the part of the Department of Defense to lessen
the overall benefit for family members. This communicates a negative
inference on the judged importance of military families to those who
make up the all-volunteer force. Additionally, DOD has closed many
military hospitals and transformed them to limited-service, outpatient
``clinics.'' In most locations, members and their families must travel
to a local civilian hospital for serious health care, or must travel a
distance to a health care facility for specialized care. At this time,
there is no mechanism to reimburse members of the military community
who can no longer find such care locally. This association supports
most funding provisions of the administration's fiscal year 2001
Defense Budget health plans and congressional legislation that would
help to sustain the all-volunteer force in meeting its readiness needs.
In particular,
--Provide fully funded health care for military retirees regardless
of age.
--Extend TRICARE Prime Remote to military family members.
--Eliminate family member TRICARE Prime Co-Payments.
--Provide reimbursement for out-of-pocket expense for military
members and their families when health care must be obtained
away from their local military facilities.
Education.--We should take action now to raise the value of the
Montgomery G.I. Bill (M.G.I.B.), the military's primary tool for a
successful post-military readjustment into civilian society, to cover
the cost of an average university, instead of an arbitrary dollar
figure that has little to do with actual education costs. This would
include adequate funding to cover books, tuition and fees toward a
higher education for those able to take classes while in the military.
Also, we ask this Congress to immediately provide an opportunity, an
open window, for all of those who are not enrolled in the Montgomery
G.I. Bill to join that program. Additionally, we ask you to support
legislation to change the policies that tend to push members away from
the educational benefit such as requiring military members to
contribute $1,200 toward their own educational ``benefit'' and
providing solely a one-time enrollment opportunity during basic
training when they can little afford to enroll. 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's citizenry. We ask you to allow military members
to enroll in the M.G.I.B. any time during their careers--or, better
yet, make enrollment a no-cost automatic feature of military service.
Finally, we ask you to consider this benefit as an earned program which
the member may choose to transfer, in whole or in part, to immediate
family members. In summary, there must be funds appropriated to
accommodate the following educational actions necessary to provide our
military members with an incentive to serve.
--Create 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 four-year college.
--Establish an open window to allow all currently serving military
members to enroll in the new M.G.I.B.
--Eliminate the member's $1,200 benefit 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 beneficiaries to transfer the educational benefit, in whole
or in part, to immediate family members.
reserve component members
Our nation's military is now truly a ``Total Force.'' We simply
could not accomplish the many tasks levied by our national military
authority without the members of the Guard or the Reserve. These
citizens are singular in demonstrating a love of nation and a level of
patriotism and service that is admirable. In addition to facing many of
the same challenges listed above for active duty members, additional
funding must be made available to provide the reserve component members
with adequate health care, full benefits, reduction in out-of-pocket
expenses, and protection of their families. Their readiness is critical
to our nation's defense.
While the attainment of these goals for reserve component members
is important, competing realities makes their accomplishment very
difficult. Increasing mission tasking is coming despite plans for
continued cutbacks in Reserve forces paralleling the mathematical
contradiction faced by the active duty portion of the force. Secondly,
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. These employers must see gestures on the part of the nation
for their forbearance; employer tax credits for those who serve would
be a step in the right direction. In order to meet the readiness needs
of today's reserve 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.
--Pass significant, genuine legislation to promote Employer Support
of the Guard and Reserve with provisions such as employer tax
credits.
As Secretary Cohen noted, ``To attract and retain the best, we've
got to offer a satisfactory quality of life. It is a moral obligation,
but it is no less a practical necessity.'' Mr. Chairman, AFSA echoes
that sentiment and respectfully submits that the suggestions above
would enhance the quality of the lives of military members and, at the
same time, go a long way towards helping the Air Force meet its
readiness commitment by assuring a secure, positive force of
servicemembers.
Mr. Chairman, we ask that while you're deliberating the
appropriation requirements of the fiscal year 2001 Defense Bill, its
personnel programs, and its role in attracting and retaining those who
serve, that you pay particular attention to the quality of a military
lifestyle, including current and future benefits, and toward measures
that would inspire trust in the military institutions of this nation.
Additionally, for reserve force members, please include a realization
of the unique sacrifices and contingencies these Americans face. On
behalf of this association I want to thank you and the members of this
committee for your dedication to those who serve. We are proud to work
to complement your efforts and are ready to support you in matters of
mutual concern.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Master Sergeant. I do not have
any questions. We appreciate your patience with us. We do
intend to markup this bill as soon as possible. I am sure we
will get to it this month and get it done as quickly as we can.
We are going to try to work first on the supplemental requests
and put them on the military construction bill as it goes
forward. We appreciate your courtesy in waiting and we
appreciate your suggestions. We have gone over the full
statements.
Master Sergeant Smith. Thank you, sir.
additional submitted statements
Senator Stevens. The subcommittee has received a number of
statements from witnesses who could not be heard and they will
be placed in the record at this point.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the American Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) greatly appreciates the
opportunity to present its views on fiscal year 2001 program priorities
for the record.
ASTMH is a professional society of 3,500 researchers and
practitioners dedicated to the prevention and treatment of infectious
and tropical infectious diseases. The collective expertise of our
members is in the areas of basic molecular science, medicine, vector
control, epidemiology, and public health. We hope that our
recommendations are helpful to you in determining the annual funding
levels for DOD's infectious disease research programs.
I know every member of the Subcommittee appreciates the staggering
burden of tropical and infectious diseases and the impact on global
health. However, with globalization has come an increased realization
that infectious diseases represent not only a humanitarian concern but
also a bona fide threat to the national security of the United States.
Poor health and the spread of infectious disease across borders has
profound impacts on the social and economic development and stability
of nations around the globe. With the enormous volume of travel and
trade today, and with the expanded deployment of American troops,
infectious diseases can impact populations around the globe within 24
hours.
In June 1996, President Clinton issued a Presidential Decision
Directive calling for a more focused U.S. policy on infectious disease.
The State Department's Strategic Plan for International Affairs lists
protecting human health and reducing the spread of infectious diseases
as U.S. strategic goals, and Secretary Albright in December 1999
announced the second of two major U.S. initiative to combat HIV/AIDS.
The unprecedented UN Security Council session devoted exclusively to
the threat to Africa from HIV/AIDS in January 2000 is a measure of the
international community's concern about the infectious disease threat.
Furthermore, the CIA's National Intelligence Council issued a hard-
hitting report this past January entitled ``The Global Infectious
Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States.'' The report
concludes that infectious diseases are likely to account for more
military hospital admissions than battlefield injuries. The report
assesses the global threat of infectious disease, stating ``New and
reemerging infectious diseases will pose a rising global health threat
and will complicate US and global security over the next 20 years.
These diseases will endanger US citizens at home and abroad, threaten
US armed forces deployed overseas, and exacerbate social and political
instability in key countries and regions in which the United States has
significant interests.''
Mr. Chairman, consistent with the standard set by our nation's
armed forces and the men and women who selflessly serve in our
military, it should come as no surprise that the Defense Department's
medical research programs are second to none. DOD medical research
fills a unique role in the spectrum of our nation's biomedical research
enterprise, and plays a critical role in our nation's infectious
disease efforts.
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 very
first effective treatment for malaria in 1836. Indeed, virtually all of
the important discoveries in malaria drugs have resulted from the
efforts of this program. Every American tourist or visitor who is
prescribed preventive drugs for malaria is benefitting from DOD
research.
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. 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. Malaria causes an enormous
burden of disease in Africa and is considered a primary cause of
poverty.
The achievements and contributions to medical science from DOD
infectious disease research are many. DOD researchers also identified
and established the cause of yellow fever and dengue in the early
1900s, developed an attenuated vaccine against Venezuelan Equine
Encephalitis in 1960, established the AIDS diagnosis in 1986 and
developed a rapid diagnostic test for tuberculosis meningitis in 1990.
Working with other U.S. public health agencies, DOD scientists at
the U.S. Army Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID),
the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), the U.S. Naval
Medical Research Institute (NMRI), and in DOD medical laboratories
abroad are helping us to better understand, diagnose, and treat
infectious and tropical diseases such as malaria, AIDS, dengue fever,
leishmaniasis, yellow fever, cholera, and diarrheal diseases.
The primary mission of the DOD research program is to protect and
maintain the health of our troops in the theater. With world-wide
deployment of our military personnel, the need for protection from
infectious disease epidemics in other areas of the globe is imperative.
Often our troops are exposed to new strains of a disease that do not
exist within our own borders. Two prime examples of this are malaria
and AIDS. Vaccines and therapeutic interventions may prove to be highly
effective treatments at home and yet unsuccessful when utilized abroad,
which is why the research conducted by the DOD is unique and essential
for the health and safety of our troops.
request
ASTMH urges a stronger 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
improve global health and economic stability in developing countries.
The DOD infectious disease research program has proven to be a highly
successful, cost-effective program. However, the ASTMH is concerned
that recent DOD budgets reflect a low priority for these military
infectious disease research programs. The total DOD infectious disease
research program has been gradually declining in recent years. The
impact of declining funds in the face of rising research costs has
constrained basic research efforts, impeded the advancement of
promising vaccines and drugs into clinical trials, and completely
stifled the recruitment of young researchers into the DOD's infectious
disease research program.
Some important DOD programs have been canceled outright, such as
Epidemiological Research on Infectious Diseases. Another casualty of
budget restrictions has been the DOD's Leishmania Research program.
Leishmania is a parasitic disease transmitted by biting flies common in
the tropics, including the Arabian Gulf countries. However, the Society
is pleased to note that the DOD proposes to use $1.5 million of Gulf
War Funds for Leishmaniasis therapeutic drug development. Particularly
hard hit have been funds for advanced development of research products
such as vaccines and drugs. Research opportunities that have been
slowed or postponed include the testing of vaccines for dengue viruses
and for diarrheal diseases such as E. coli and Shigella.
ASTMH urges you to reverse past funding trends and provide a total
of $150 million in fiscal year 2001 for DOD infectious research
efforts. We believe an increased commitment is absolutely critical to
protect American soldiers and citizens at home and abroad against the
threat posed by global infectious diseases.
HIV Research
Congress mandated that the DOD establish the HIV Research program
in 1987 because of the significant risk of active-duty personnel in
acquiring the HIV infection. 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 development and testing of
new vaccines to be used against HIV strains anywhere in the world. The
DOD HIV Research program is moving forward with AIDS vaccine trials in
Thailand and is preparing for clinical trial of AIDS vaccines in Rakai,
Uganda and Cambodia. Unique among federally-supported HIV research
efforts, the DOD HIV Research program has the facilities, resources and
personnel to produce novel candidate AIDS vaccines and test them in
international locations.
ASTMH would like to thank the members of this Subcommittee for
demonstrating their support for the DOD's HIV Research program last
year by restoring the $10 million reduction the program received in
fiscal year 1999 and in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request.
request
The ASTMH requests that the Subcommittee consider providing a
funding level of $50 million for the DOD HIV Research program in fiscal
year 2001. This level of funding would permit the program to move
forward with planned vaccine testing despite rising costs associated
with developing and maintaining international infrastructure for
conducting overseas clinical trials, maintaining field readiness for
drug and vaccine testing, and the increasing costs associated with
conducting international field trials. A reduced commitment to this
program will halt important clinical trials and impede the search for a
preventive HIV vaccine.
overseas laboratories
The ASTMH believes the military's overseas laboratories also
deserve special mention. The U.S. Army and the Navy currently support
medical research labs located in developing countries around the globe.
These research laboratories serve as critical sentinel stations
alerting military and public health agencies to dangerous infectious
disease outbreaks and increasing microbial resistance. Regrettably, the
Army recently closed its lab in Brazil. With this closure, the US DOD
now supports just five overseas laboratories, located in Thailand,
Indonesia, Egypt, Kenya, and Peru. These research stations are an
important national resource in the ongoing battle against emerging
infectious disease. They should be strengthened with increased funding
and increased opportunities for collaborations with civilian
scientists.
The Society is disturbed to note that the US government supports NO
research laboratories in the tropical rain forests of the world, where
the high biodiversity render these regions the crucibles for the
emergence of new and exotic diseases such as Ebola and AIDS. The US DOD
should not only fully support existing laboratories but should
establish new laboratories in these strategic ecological regions in
Africa and South America.
The military's overseas laboratories play an important role in our
domestic infectious disease research efforts through collaborations
with academia, industry, and civilian governmental agencies. The DOD
overseas laboratories have established in-country research facilities,
field study sites at the locations of known high disease transmission,
and trained local national staff. Unfortunately, the maximum potential
for collaboration has not been realized. A significant increase in the
DOD infectious disease research budget, such as the Society is
suggesting, would permit enhanced research and training opportunities
for both military personnel and civilian scientists at the DOD's
overseas laboratories.
conclusion
ASTMH requests your strong support for the DOD Infectious Diseases
Research programs. Our nation's commitment to this research is
critically important given the resurgent and emerging infectious
disease threats which exist today. As the world's only superpower and
the global leader in biomedical research, the United States has an
obligation to lead the fight against infectious disease. Our efforts in
this area will lead to improved global health and the economic
stability of developing nations. By helping others, we are mounting our
own best defense against infectious diseases.
ASTMH urges Congress to make infectious disease research a priority
in fiscal year 2001 by funding the DOD infectious disease research
budget at $150 million for fiscal year 2001. ASTMH also requests that
the DOD HIV Research program receive an additional $20 million,
resulting in a total of $50 million for fiscal year 2001, for the
development of HIV experimental therapeutics and vaccines.
If we don't make these important programs a priority, the health of
our troops 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the Reserve Officers Association of the United
States
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 2001.
First, I would like to thank you for your past support of the
Reserve components. By consistently promoting Reserve component
programs, you have contributed directly to morale and to the high state
of Reserve component readiness.
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.''
ROA was very pleased, therefore, when DOD decided to defer the
final reduction of 25,000 members of the Army's Reserve components that
had been recommended by the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in 1997.
We believe that the decision to have the next QDR in 2001 review those
proposed reductions in light of the larger issue of shaping our force
structure to meet ongoing and emerging requirements made great sense.
To persist in reducing our already overtaxed Reserve force structure
based upon old, outdated assumptions that are universally acknowledged
to have been overtaken by unforeseen events was clearly unacceptable to
all concerned.
Greater Reliance on Reserve Components.--The 50 years of reliance
on a large, Cold War, standing military has 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 245,000
Reservists were called to active duty. Of the total mobilized, 32
percent were from the National Guard and 67 percent from ``the
Reserve.'' More than 106,000 Reservists were deployed to Southwest
Asia. About 20 percent of the forces in the theater were members of the
Reserve components.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, more than 43,000 Reservists have provided
nearly 4.9 million duty days of support, again demonstrating their
readiness and their capability to respond to their nation's call.
Reserve Component Cost-Effectiveness
ROA has long maintained that a proper mix of Active and Reserve
forces can provide the nation with the most cost-effective defense for
a given expenditure of federal funds. Reservists provide 35 percent of
the Total Force, but cost only 8.2 percent ($23.9 billion) of the
fiscal year 2001 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
While providing 46 percent of the Total Force, today's Army is
smaller than at any time since before WWII. Since 1989, the Army has
reduced its ranks by more than 690,000 soldiers and civilians. While
this downsizing has taken place, the soldiers of America's Army have
experienced a 300 percent increase in the number of deployments. The
Army has conducted operations in such places as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Iraq, Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Honduras, and Kosovo and conducts
these and similar missions at a level 16 times that of the much larger
Army in place prior to 1990. In 1999, on an average day, there were
146,000 soldiers, from all Army components, stationed or forward
deployed, participating in joint and combined exercises, and conducting
operations in more than 70 countries.
As missions increased, available budget resources, regrettably, did
not keep pace. For fiscal year 2001 the Army's total obligation
authority (TOA) for its Active, Guard, and Reserve components is $70.8
billion, only 24 percent of the total $291.1 billion defense budget.
Since fiscal year 1989 as the Army's OPTEMPO increased 300 percent, its
buying power has decreased by about 37 percent in constant fiscal year
2001 dollars.
Since 1995, more than 13,000 Army Reservists have participated in
Operations Joint Endeavor, Joint Guard, and Joint Forge in Bosnia.
Included in these numbers are more than 2,000 Army Reserve civil
affairs soldiers and more than 600 Army Reserve psychological
operations soldiers. USAR soldiers are now serving in Kosovo and more
than 200 Army Reservists replaced Germany based soldiers who deployed
to Kosovo.
The Army Reserve is a full partner in every Army operation. It is
20 percent of the Total Army and is structured and missioned to perform
43 percent of the Army's combat service support and 26 percent of the
Army's combat support missions. Approximately 350 Army Reserve units
are part of the Force Support Package--Active, Guard, and Reserve units
that support America's Army Crisis Response Force and Early Reinforcing
Force--and are required for every contingency operation.
This increased reliance now requires the Army Reserve to maintain
many units at substantially higher levels of readiness and to be ready
to deploy these ``first-to-fight'' units on very short notice. However,
this increased reliance has not generated adequate funding in the
Defense budget.
The Army Reserve's share of the Army budget request in the fiscal
year 2001 DOD budget request is $3.9 billion or 5.5 percent of the
entire $70.8 billion request. Separated into the Reserve Personnel,
Army (RPA) and the Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR)
accounts, the request is for $2.4 billion RPA and $1.5 billion OMAR.
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 exceed $330
million.
Reserve Personnel, Army
The president's RPA budget request for $2.4 billion fails to
provide adequate funds to train, educate, man, and support Army Reserve
personnel and units at levels required for immediate mobilization and
deployment. We believe the fiscal year 2001 Defense budget request
critically underfunds the Army Reserve by over $157 million in several
Reserve Personnel, Army accounts. Listed below are the critical
shortfalls that the Army Reserve could execute in fiscal year 2001:
[In millions of dollars]
Full Time Support................................................. 60
Recruiting and Advertising........................................ 1
Enlisted incentives............................................... 22
Funeral Honors.................................................... 4
Reserve Education and Learning.................................... 1
Information Operations............................................ 1
Weapons of Mass Destruction Training.............................. 4
Collective Training............................................... 41
CINC Support...................................................... 8
Training Support Divisions........................................ 15
______
Total....................................................... 157
ROA believes the RPA budget request understates the actual
executable/critical shortfall by at least $157.0 million. Listed below
are several examples.
Full Time Support (FTS)
FTS personnel give 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. The
Army Reserve has the lowest percentage of FTS of all the Reserve
components and yet is the component most frequently called and
deployed. There is a critical Army Reserve shortage of 1,800 Active
Guard and Reserve personnel (AGRs) and 1,418 military technicians
(MILTECHs). The AGR FTS needed to improve readiness for fiscal year
2001 is 1,800 Active/Guard Reserve soldiers at a cost of $60 million.
The Army Reserve has a critical/executable-funding shortfall of $60.0
million in its AGR FTS program.
Enlisted Incentives Program
Recruiting and retention of quality soldiers in this period of a
booming economy is becoming one of the major challenges facing the Army
Reserve. Without adequate incentives to attract and retain new and
existing soldiers in the Army Reserve, the Army Reserve will be
severely challenged and possibly unable to reach its end strength
goals. The USAR has a shortfall of $22 million in its enlisted
incentives program, which is critical to Army Reserve recruiting and
retention. The Army Reserve uses non-prior service (NPS) and prior
service (PS) enlistment bonuses, the MGIB-Selected Reserve kicker and
the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) in combination to attract
soldiers into the most critically short military occupational
specialties (MOS) and high priority units. The Army Reserve has a
critical executable funding shortfall of $22 million in its Enlisted
Incentives program.
Collective Training
The Army Reserve collective training account provides essential
mandays above annual training to support planning, preparation,
participation and recovery from unit training. It supports collective
training strategies to maintain unit training readiness and funds
mobilization exercises, IRR training, and short tours directly
affecting unit readiness. Collective training is critically underfunded
by $41.0 million. The executable/critical shortfall for Army Reserve
collective training is $41.0 million.
Army Reserve CINC Support
CINC support missions (overseas deployment training) provides
forward presence and nation-building activities in support of commander
in chief (CINC) engagement strategy missions for Army Reserve soldiers
and units. ODT maintains the Army Reserve overseas warfighting, mission
training, operational mission support, nation assistance, and exercise
capability for CINC validated requirements. The known fiscal year 2001
critical/executable shortfall in CINC support is $8.0 million. In
previous years over 18,000 soldiers from 40 units deployed to more than
50 countries providing over 378,000 mandays of cost-avoidance in
PERSTEMPO and OPTEMPO for the Active component. The executable/critical
shortfall for CINC Support is $8.0 million.
RC Training Support Divisions (TSD)
The training support concept plan was approved by the vice chief of
staff of the Army in March 1997, and the FORSCOM commander approved the
implementation plan in August 1998. The TS XXI implementation plan
dramatically increases the role of the five TSDs and its subordinate
organizations from the five divisions (Exercise) by expanding the scope
of training support.
Low funding in fiscal year 2001 for this program limits the TSDs'
ability under the AC/RC Integration Program to execute training for
priority and early deploying RC units. The executable/critical
shortfall for RC training support divisions is $15 million.
RPA Summary
Funding these identified shortfalls of $157.0 million in the RPA
budget request will provide required educational, skill qualification,
and mobilization training opportunities for soldiers in units and the
IRR as well as provide essential support to recognized CINC
requirements and the training base. ROA urges the Congress to add
$157.0 million to the Army Reserve RPA budget to fund critical training
and manning shortfalls for Army Reserve personnel.
Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR)
The fiscal year 2001 DOD budget request for the Army Reserve
Operations and Maintenance (OMAR) account is $1.5 billion. We believe
there is at least a $175 million executable/critical OMAR shortfall in
the fiscal year 2001 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.
Currently the OMAR appropriation is experiencing serious resourcing
shortfalls in FTS, recruiting and advertising, information operations,
and the backlog of maintenance and repair. Some critical shortfalls are
shown below:
[In millions of dollars]
Full Time Support (MILTECHS/PCS).................................. 42
Recruiting and Advertising........................................ 23
USAR Military Funeral Honors Duty................................. 1
Reserve Education and Learning Program............................ 1
Information operations............................................ 17
Medical and Dental Readiness...................................... 19
Weapons of Mass Destruction....................................... 1
CINC Support...................................................... 3
Real Property Maintenance......................................... 45
BASOPS............................................................ 23
______
Total....................................................... 175
Full Time Support--MILTECH
The lack of adequate numbers of military technicians (MILTECHs) in
USAR maintenance facilities jeopardizes equipment readiness due to
depot maintenance backlog. The increase in the MILTECHs' portion of the
essential full time support needed to improve unit readiness for fiscal
year 2001 is 1,418 MILTECHs, costing $42 million. The executable/
critical shortfall for the USAR MILTECH program is $42.0 million.
Medical and Dental Readiness
The USAR fiscal year 2001 medical and dental readiness shortfall is
$19 million. This funding shortfall severely limits the Army's ability
to ensure that Reservists meet medical and dental readiness
requirements. This validated amount is for Army Reserve Selected
Reserve (SELRES) only (IRR Requirements are being developed). In 1999
an analysis was conducted that determined that 15 percent of the SELRES
had outdated physical exams and that other statutory and directed
requirements (e.g., dental screening, treatment for early deployers,
and immunizations) had not been completed. Funding in the fiscal year
2001 budget request will support 56 percent of the early USAR early
deployer population and none of the remaining USAR force (including the
IRR). This results in a critical shortfall of $5 million to support the
early deployers and an overall shortfall of $19 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''
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. Realistically, the
equipment on hand (EOH) includes substituted equipment--some that is
not compatible with newer equipment in the Active Army, Army National
Guard, and Army Reserve equipment inventory and may not perform as
required
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.
Due to the interest of Congress and the success this appropriation
has made in increasing the level of EOH in the Army Reserve, the
readiness of the Army Reserve has increased significantly over the past
decade. We urge the Congress to continue the NG&RA and to fully fund
the Army Reserve $892 million fiscal year 2001 Equipment Modernization
Requirement.
Military Construction, Army Reserve.--The organization, roles, and
missions of the Army Reserve dictate the need for a widely dispersed
inventory of facilities. It provides a military linkage to 1,315
communities throughout America, its territories, and overseas
locations. It occupies 1,150 facilities, consisting of more than 7,600
buildings and structures that average 37 years old. Army Reserve-
operated installations add another 2,600 buildings and structures to
the total inventory. The average age of facilities on these
installations is about 48 years. The replacement value of Army Reserve
facilities and installations nears $10.6 billion.
The Army Reserve continues to have a $1.9 billion backlog of known
construction requirements. The Army Reserve fiscal year 2001 Budget
requests for appropriations and authorization of $73,396,000, will fund
the construction of: five new Army Reserve centers in Louisiana, Texas,
and Virginia to accomplish essential facility replacements;
revitalization of existing facilities in Florida and Washington; and
land acquisition to support a future project in Rochester. It also
requests $1,917,000 for Unspecified Minor Construction to satisfy
critical, unforeseen mission requirements; and $6,400,000 for planning
and design funds to provide for a continuous, multi-year process of
designing construction projects for execution in the budget years and
beyond.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request is for appropriations and
authorization of $81,713,000 for Military Construction, Army Reserve,
and $114,704,000 for Real Property Maintenance funding which funds 72
percent of Army Reserve real property maintenance requirements. Long
term resource constraints in both military construction and real
property maintenance have a combined effect of increasing the rates of
aging and deterioration of our valuable facilities and infrastructure.
Historically, the budget has provided RPM resources to only fund the
most critical maintenance and repair needs. ROA urges the Congress to
authorize and fully fund the Army Reserve fiscal year 2001 $81,713,000
MCAR request and its fiscal year 2001 $114,704,000 Real Property
Maintenance request.
air force reserve
Air Force Reserve Command, the Air Force's second largest major
command (MAJCOM), makes up 11 percent of the total Air Force--Active,
Guard and Reserve. It is composed of 74,000 Reservists and 5,300
civilians. Its aircrews are 93 percent prior service, while 86 percent
of its support force has served on active duty previously. It operates
400 aircraft all over the world on a daily basis in support of Air
Force and DOD missions. It is allocated 4 percent of the Air Force
budget and provides 20 percent of the Air Force combat capability. It
is a good deal for the service and for the country.
Air Force Reserve Command C-141s
The Air Force will retire all of its C-141 aircraft by 2006. This
is in accordance with a drawdown plan, which will ensure the
elimination of an aging and worn aircraft from the inventory by the
year 2006. If there is no follow-on aircraft for Air Force Reserve
Command units, the country will lose approximately 5,000 flight crew
personnel, maintainers and support personnel--all of whom were trained
at great expense and are among the most highly experienced personnel in
the Air Force. The retirement will close units at March ARB, CA;
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH; Andrews AFB, MD; Charleston AFB, SC and
McGuire AFB, NJ. It will eliminate the economic contribution these
units make to the local community.
Also eliminated will be the huge ton-mile airlift capacity produced
by 240 C-141s, a need detailed by the JCS during readiness hearings in
September 1998. Though 134 C-17s have been contracted for to help fill
the strategic airlift shortfall being created, that figure is far from
an adequate replacement for the departing capability. Even though we
fully support and are hopeful that DOD will take advantage of Boeing's
offer of reduced pricing on 60 more C-17s, the delivery schedule will
leave our nation seriously under-resourced in strategic airlift assets.
ROA urges the Congress to direct DOD to keep a minimum of 60 C-141C
aircraft in AFRC until sufficient numbers of C-17s are acquired to
fulfill the ton-mile requirement of the National Military Strategy.
KC-135R Re-Engining Kits
AFRC needs 11 re-engining kits to convert its remaining KC-135s
from ``Es'' to ``Rs.'' This conversion will ensure compliance with
environmental restrictions on noise and other pollution, while
increasing the speed, range and payload of our KC-135 tanker fleet.
Failure to convert these remaining aircraft in a timely fashion will
decrease the capability of the Air Force tanker fleet, affecting
planning, production, and through-put of airborne receivers during
hostilities. This, in turn, will affect the length and outcome of any
contingency operation. ROA urges the Congress to fully fund re-engining
kits for the 11 remaining AFRC KC-135E aircraft.
C-130J
The 403rd Wing at Keesler AFB, MS has 14 C-130J aircraft assigned.
Its usual complement in its 2 squadrons is 18. In the midst of a
modernization/conversion program begun several years ago, the unit is
now faced with the task of maintaining 2 different aircraft in pursuit
of its missions of weather reconnaissance and tactical airlift. This is
inefficient and very costly, as maintenance procedures and tools for
the aircraft are different, thereby requiring redundant resources. ROA
urges the Congress to provide funding to complete the 403rd Wing
modernization to the C-130J.
Selected Examples of AFRC's Fiscal Year 2001 Executable Unfunded
Requirements (in thousands of dollars)
Flying Hours--$7,800: programmatic changes within the CPFH (cost
per flying hour) models; e.g., C-5 engine thrust reverser repairs are
estimated to cost $1.5M more this year than last. Total F-16 engine
overhaul costs will increase by $4.3M, and an additional $2M cost
growth will be experienced for other weapon systems within the total
flying hour program.
DPEM/CLSS/Sustaining Engineering--$31,100: Materials costs and
engine overhaul price increases, particularly for the C-5 and F-16
weapon systems, plus DPEM (Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance)
factor changes and out-of-cycle increases in programmed depot man-
hours, will result in substantial cost growth in these cost areas. AFRC
benefited greatly from a congressional addition of $10M in fiscal year
2000.
Associate TTF--$10,100: The $10.1M shortfall in TTF (Testing,
Training & Ferrying) is a compilation of rate disconnects for flying
hours for the various associate weapon systems (C-5, C-17, C-141).
Training rate costs charged by HQ TRANSCOM (HQ AMC) differ
substantially from the approved reimbursement rates which we must use
in budgeting. The disconnect is attributable to the 19full cost
recovery'' policy for working capital funds established by OSD in 1995.
ART Pilot Retention Allowance--$5,000: AFI (Air Force Instruction)
36-802 and 5 CFR Section 575.301 provide guidance for group retention
allowances. This allowance is being paid to increase ART pilot base pay
by 10 percent for GS-12s-13s and 5 percent for GS-14s in order to
assist the command in retaining an experienced and capable pilot force.
Facility Projects--$35,000: Funds activity above the 1 percent of
plant replacement value (PRV) in the current program/budget to try to
stem the tide of further facility and infrastructure deterioration at
units throughout the Air Force Reserve Command. These projects range
from repair and maintenance efforts on existing structures to renewal
of parking aprons, airfield lighting systems, and base infrastructure.
The compelling need for repair and maintenance dollars is a direct
result of limited military construction investment. The current Air
Force estimate is that at least 1.75 percent of PRV would be required
to stop the growth of the backlog. AFRC benefited greatly from a $10M
congressional addition in fiscal year 2000 and a transfer of $12.2M in
quality of life funding. Current funding will only accomplish ``Band-
Aid'' repairs--few major repairs or minor construction, and little
progress on the backlog. The overall facility and infrastructure
condition continues to deteriorate. The situation constitutes a quality
of life and recruitment/retention issue for the Air Force Reserve
Command.
Information Technology--$15,000: Funding is required to provide
sustainment of AFRC computer hardware and software. Implements a
lifecycle management strategy by providing a 3-year (33 percent per
year) replacement of hardware and software (24,000 desktops, 4,500
notebooks, and 250 network servers) and a more systematic renewal of
networking and communications infrastructure.
Personnel Separation Costs--$11,100: Outsourcing and privatization
efforts are creating unfunded costs for retraining and relocation of
civil service personnel, lump sum leave payments, and other
entitlements and benefits due to employees affected by reductions-in-
force.
A-76 Contract Cost--$24,600: This is also an outsourcing and
privatization issue. The budget process would not allow extensive
programming for contract costs without documented experience.
Essentially, the costs of base support at four locations, which have
been outsourced, are unfunded. These include Dobbins, Niagara Falls,
Gen. Mitchell, and Westover.
Total O&M, AFR--$144,500,000
Selected Examples of AFRC's Fiscal Year 2001 Reserve Personnel
Accountable Unfunded Requirements (thousands of dollars.)
AGR Pilot Bonus--$3,750: Funds a pilot retention bonus program for
the AFR AGR pilots comparable to that offered by the AF.
Tuition Assistance--$13,000: This program helps Reservists with
educational expenses (officers as high as 75 percent and enlisted as
high as 90 percent).
Montgomery GI Bill Kicker--$5,500: This program aids in the
retention and recruitment of high quality men and women in critical
skills in the part-time service in the Selected Reserve. Unlike
previous Reserve component programs and the Active program, it provides
for receipt of benefits before the qualifying military service is
complete (funds 1,800 people).
Medical Bonus Increases--$4,350: Increased costs of approved bonus
program enhancements.
ROA urges the Congress to fully fund AFRC's RPA requirements.
Total RPA: $28,050
AFRC's Fiscal Year 2001 Unfunded Equipment Requirements.--ROA is
pleased to thank Congress for its past support of Air Force Reserve
Command (AFRC), the second largest major command in the Air Force.
Those efforts have made the command a ready and able partner in the
Total Force, while making it an excellent value for the country at the
same time.
However, as Congressman Steve Buyer (R-IN), co-chairman of the
House National Guard and Reserve Caucus, pointed out at the caucus's
annual breakfast with Reserve component leaders on February 17th,
distribution of modernization funds among the Reserve components has
not been equitable. Where Air Force funding of Air National Guard
programs totaled$237.8 million, AFRC received only $17.1 million. Where
National Guard and Reserve Account (NGREA) money for the ANG totaled
$30 million, AFRC received $20 million.
AFRC's unfunded equipment requirements for fiscal year 2001 total
$420 million.
naval reserve
Thanks to Congress, funding for fiscal year 2000 enabled the Naval
Reserve to fund peacetime contributory support, bonuses, a substantial
pay raise, real property maintenance, base operating support, and
recruiting advertising/support. In this regard, it is clearly evident
that Congress has given full recognition to the significant and well-
recognized compensating leverage offered by today's Naval Reserve,
which represents 20 percent of the Navy, yet expends only 3 percent of
the budget.
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2001 budget submission falls short
with reference to information technology, recruiting, ship depot
maintenance, real property maintenance, base support operations,
peacetime contributory support, annual training, and bonuses.
Selected Naval Reserve IT Infrastructure Requirements
The Naval Reserve has developed an Information Technology Strategic
Vision that enables this transformation. Its goal is a seamless
information and communications systems/capabilities integration, both
within in the Naval Reserve and with the active duty Navy. It fully
complies with the Navy's Navy/Marine Corps Intranet (N/MCI) initiative.
However, current funding remains a barrier to integration preventing
the Naval Reserve from adopting advanced network-centric initiatives.
ROA urges the Congress to support full compliance by providing a
dedicated investment--one of just over $100M in the next 6 years
($30.5M in fiscal year 2001: $27.8M OMNR, $2.7M RDT).
Reserve Recruiter Support & Advertising
Recruiter support and advertising remain a top priority for the
Naval Reserve. Its budget remains the lowest of all the services. The
$10M fiscal year 2000 congressional addition enabled the Naval Reserve
to establish its first ever national advertising campaign, and
operations support for 45 additional Reserve recruiters. The
advertising campaign includes media and market research, and placement
of advertising in television, print, radio, direct mail, and PSAs. In
fiscal year 2001, Navy added $3.7M to advertising and recruiter
support, but is still short of the fiscal year 2000 baseline. ROA urges
the Congress to provide an additional $6.7M for the Naval Reserve to
maintain its national advertising campaign and support for 45
additional recruiters in fiscal year 2001 (total of 90).
Ship Depot Maintenance
Funding for ship depot-level maintenance in support of operational
readiness and ship material condition continues to be a significant
concern for the Naval Reserve. Current funding of 94 percent of
programmed requirements has greatly improved material readiness of the
NRF ships, however, continued deferral of depot maintenance continues.
ROA urges the Congress to provide an additional $20M in fiscal year
2001. If this additional funding is not provided, 5 CNO depot-level
availabilities will be cancelled, and 4 other availabilities will be
reduced in scope.
Reserve Base Support, Real Property Maintenance & Base Operating
Support
Base support continues to be a big concern for the Naval Reserve.
Since most of its buildings were built back in the 1940s/50s, the cost
of repairing them continues to escalate. Although the backlog of
critical maintenance (BMAR) growth has slowed, thanks to recent
congressional support and a Navy program growth increase in PR-01, the
projected fiscal year 2001 End of Year BMAR is $121.0M. ROA urges the
Congress to provide an additional $15M in RPM funds to help arrest
growth of the critical backlog.
Base Operating Support funding has also benefited recently from
congressional plus-ups and Navy program growth. However, in fiscal year
1999, in an effort to save money, the Navy transferred custody of its
A-N government vehicles to GSA with the intent of leasing them back,
with 20 percent being replaced annually. However, lease rates only
include the cost of capitalization, fuel, maintenance, and mileage,
with no funding for procurement.
The cost of providing Collateral Equipment (CE) for Naval Reserve
MILCON projects is also an area of concern. CE includes the furnishings
required to complete a construction project. CE costs vary depending on
the project, but a historical planning figure of 10 percent of project
costs for the entire construction budget has been used. ROA urges the
Congress to add $6.0M to help properly fund the GSA A-N vehicle
conversion and to cover MILCON CE costs.
Selected Funding Shortfalls--Personnel
Annual Training (AT)
$23.5M to support AT tour lengths increase from 14 days to 15 days
(inclusive of travel) as desired by ASD/RA to meet Title 10
requirements, and will mirror that of the Marine Corp Reserve Force.
The additional day will provide for an increase in the amount of
peacetime contributory support that Commander, Naval Reserve can
provide to gaining commands, particularly in OCONUS operations. Funds
travel cost escalation. First quarter fiscal year 2000 costs have been
coming in at 12 percent above budgeted amount.
Active Duty for Training (ADT-Fleet Support)
$13.5M to fund greater direct and indirect support for CINC
requirements. It will allow Commander, Naval Reserve to increase the
amount of peacetime contributory support that can be provided to
gaining commands for exercises, mission support, conferences, exercise
preparations, and unit conversion training. Funds travel cost
escalation.
ACtive Duty for Training (ADT-Schools)
$14.5M to increase mandays essential to meet individual training
plan goals that are based upon mobilization requirements that include
``A'' and ``C'' school completion. SELRES in commissioned hardware
units and those performing contributory support require training whose
manday requirements are over and above the annual two-week period. This
provides training due to a change in unit, unit mission, or new
equipment.
Inactive Duty Training Travel (IDTT)
$3.5M to continue providing airlift support missions, operational
missions, aviation proficiency skills training, refresher skills
training, exercises, and training at mobilization sites. This is the
primary status in which Reservists travel to their gaining commands to
perform high priority work meeting peacetime contributory support
requirements and perform training required by Navy training plans.
ROA urges the Congress to provide an additional $60 million to
support unfunded Naval Reserve personnel requirements in fiscal year
2001.
Equipment Modernization
Despite the encouraging trends in the fiscal year 2000 budget,
continuing budgetary constraints have resulted in no new equipment for
the Naval Reserve. In this regard, over the past years, much of the
progress made in improving the readiness and capability of Naval
Reserve units has been the direct result of congressional action--to
designate new equipment for the Naval Reserve in the National Guard and
Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) to earmark funding for the
Naval Reserve in the traditional procurement appropriations.
Accordingly, ROA has identified unfunded fiscal year 2000 Naval Reserve
equipment requirements for consideration by Congress for addition to
the administration's request for fiscal year 2001, in either the NGREA
or as earmarked additions to the Navy's traditional procurement
appropriations.
SELECTED NAVAL RESERVE FISCAL YEAR 2000 EQUIPMENT NEEDS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfunded equipment requirement Cost Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-40A Transport Aircraft.......................... $175.0 3
IT-21 Fleet Readiness Infrastructure Support...... 30.5 .........
P-3C AIP/Block Mod Update III Kits................ 50.0 6
Naval Coastal/Expeditionary Warfare............... 35.0 .........
F/A-18 Mod, ECP 560 & AN/AAS...................... 55.0 12
FLIR Targeting Pod................................ 55.0 12
F-5 Avionics Modernization........................ 47.0 12
CH-60 Helicopter.................................. 84.0 4
Joint Forces Air Component Commander Units........ .6 3
C-130 Avionics Modernization Program.............. 2.5 .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROA urges the Congress to provide $479.4 million to support fiscal
year 2000 Naval Reserve unfunded equipment needs.
Fiscal Year 2001 Selected Naval Reserve Equipment Requirements
Fiscal year 2001 has shown a sharp decline in procurement of
equipment for the Naval Reserve. Total funded Naval Reserve equipment
procurement has steadily declined from $260M in fiscal year 1997 to
about $12M in fiscal year 2001.
The Naval Reserve's Top Ten Equipment needs are as follows: 1. C-
40A Transport Aircraft; 2. COMNAVRESFOR Information Technology
Infrastructure; 3. P-3C AIP/BMUP Kits; 4. Naval Coastal Warfare/
Expeditionary Warfare Equipment; 5. F/A-18A Upgrade (ECP-560R1) and
NITE Hawk Targeting Pods (AN/AAS-38); 6. F-5 Avionics Modernization; 7.
Joint Forces Air Component Commander (JFACC) Units; 8. C-130T Avionics
Modernization Program (AMP); 9. Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) Kits
for SH-60B; 10. HH-60H Night Vision Goggles (NVG)/Forward Looking
Infrared (FLIR)/Hellfire Missile Trainer.
C-40A aircraft have been at the top of the Naval Reserve's
equipment priority list for the past few years, and it was the number
one priority last year as well. Currently, four C-40A's are funded and
delivery will begin in fiscal year 2001. These aircraft will replace
the aging C-9 transport aircraft, which handle 100 percent of the
Navy's in theater airlift requirements. The average Navy C-9 aircraft
is approximately 27 years old, about twice the commercial fleet DC-9
age.
Information technology infrastructure is essential in bringing the
Naval Reserve to the 21st century for Information Technology, and for
ensuring the Naval Reserve is fully compatible with the rest of the
Navy regarding internet connectivity.
The P-3C Avionics Improvement Program provides over the horizon
missile targeting capability, improved communications and makes Reserve
P-3s compatible with most of the fleet.
Coastal warfare equipment is needed to modernize various support
equipment used by construction battalions, harbor defense units, and
expeditionary logistics units.
F/A-18 upgrades will provide precision munitions capability for
Reserve F/A-18A aircraft.
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.
marine corps reserve
The Administration's budget proposes an end strength of 39,467
Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) personnel for fiscal year 2001,
down slightly from the level of 39,624 in fiscal year 2000. Similar to
the Navy, there is also increased funding for the Marine Corps Reserve
personnel, at $436 million, an increase of almost $24 million from
fiscal year 1999.
Funding Shortfalls
The request to support the Marine Corps Reserve appears to be
underfunded in the Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
(O&MMCR) and Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps Reserve (RPMC)
appropriations. Maintaining the necessary funding to pay, educate, and
train our Marine Reservists, and to enable the units of the Marine
Forces Reserve to conduct appropriate training and operations is the
vital first step to combat readiness and sustainability.
An additional $20.2 million in O&MMCR funds is needed for initial
issue of equipment, replenishment and replacement of equipment,
exercise support, and organizational and depot maintenance. Only by
equipping and maintaining equally both the Active and Reserve forces
will Total Force integration be truly seamless. Foremost is the
maintenance of aging equipment. The Marine Corps Reserve armored
vehicles' age, coupled with increased use, contribute to this
requirement. The Initial Issue Program also continues to be a top
priority. This program provides Reserve Marines with the same modern
field clothing and personal equipment issued to their Regular Marine
counterparts. Quite simply, in the extremes of climate and temperature
where Marines conduct combat operations, all Marines need this initial
issue to survive and sustain themselves.
The Marine Corps Reserve personnel appropriation also appears
underfunded. Much of the nearly $24 million increase is consumed by pay
raises and pay table reform, accelerated BAH reform, and military
funeral honors funding. The major deficiency in this appropriation is
$3 million in the area of active duty for special work (ADSW). This
valuable individual training is directly related to probable wartime
tasking. The Congress's strong support to maintain ADSW funding allows
Reserve Marines to sustain wartime skills while directly reducing the
operating tempo of their Active counterparts.
A delay of the fiscal year 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review 1997
(QDR97) reductions in the Active Reserve program is required for the
Reserve to continue to meet its augmentation and reinforcement mission.
The QDR directed reductions of Active Duty support of the Marine Corps
Reserve, particularly the Active Reserve program, are undermining the
Marine Corps Reserve's ability to maintain readiness and meet
requirements for Reserve employment. To date, the Marine Corps Reserve
has taken the cuts directed by QDR97 as planned and will continue with
reductions through fiscal year 2003, but every cut taken in the Marine
Corps Reserve decreases the operational or tactical capabilities of the
Marine Corps. Delay of the fiscal year 2001 reductions in the Active
Reserve program will cost $1.9 million and is essential to increased
readiness and employment of Marine Corps Reserve units. ROA strongly
urges the Congress to direct DOD to defer any further QDR97-recommended
reductions in the Marine Corps Reserve until they can be reviewed by
QDR01.
Equipment Modernization
Modern equipment is 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
is ECP-583, which will make its F/A-18A aircraft compatible with the F/
A-18 Cs and Ds utilized by the Active force.
Acceleration of V-22 fielding 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 accelerated production and earlier fielding of the V-22
across the Total Force.
ROA Recommendations for the Fiscal Year 2001 NG&REA--Marine Corps
Reserve
[Dollars in millions]
AVIATION EQUIPMENT (funded through Aircraft Procurement Navy
appropriation):
F/A-18A ECP-583 (10 USMCR aircraft)........................... $43.5
MISCELLANEOUS RESERVE EQUIPMENT............................... 59.7
ROA urges the Congress to provide $103.2 million for procurement of
equipment for the Marine Corps Reserve.
Real Property Maintenance in the Marine Corps Reserve
There is a particular need for additional funding for real property
maintenance in the Navy and Marine Corps Reserve. For example, as a
result of BRAC closures and a reduction in force structure the Naval
Reserve now has the smallest number of demographic centers since World
War II and one third fewer than were in operation in 1978 when the
number of drilling Reservists was just slightly above what it is today.
Some states have only one Naval and Marine Corps Reserve center,
resulting in the further lessening of the integration of the nation's
armed forces with the civilian population. In addition, the
concentration of personnel resulting from Reserve center consolidation
makes it even more important that our sailors and Marines have access
to modern, efficient and cost-effective facilities. Despite the
reduction in facilities, the backlog of military construction and the
critical backlog of essential maintenance and repair of Naval and
Marine Corps facilities have continued to rise dramatically. The
continuing shortage of funds for the orderly maintenance, repair and
equipment replacement of these facilities is obvious. Accordingly,
additional funds from the Congress are necessary to address these
critical problems. ROA urges the Congress to provide at least $2
million of additional funding is needed to keep the critical backlog of
real property maintenance from increasing above the current level. This
appropriation also needs approximately $2.8 million in additional
funding for base operating support and $8.7 million for Reserve
military construction for the Marine Corps.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Reserve Officers
Association's views on these important subjects. Your support for our
men and women in uniform, both Active and Reserve, is sincerely
appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the Naval Reserve Association and the Naval
Enlisted Reserve Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On Behalf of the
Naval Reserve Association, and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association,
we would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
Combined, the NRA and NREA have 37,000 members. They are representative
of the 89,000 Selected Reservists, the 4,500 non-pay Drilling
Reservists, and the 91,000 Individual Ready Reservists, as well as the
Retired Reserve community. Collectively, we thank you for your support
of the Navy and Naval Reserve in the past.
introduction
The Post Cold War era has brought a period of disorderly agitation
where petty despots are no longer contained by super power rivals. The
United States, the visible survivor, has been challenged by tempestuous
tyrants who wanted to conquer feelings of impotence.
As confrontation became crisis, the United States Navy has been
called upon as the first choice in response by a number of Commanders
in Chief. With a forward-deployed arsenal, which includes the Marine
Corps, its own Air Force, and precision cruise missiles, the Navy
provides the option to project a military power or a political
influence into areas of concern.
Since the end of the Cold War, the Navy, like other services has
gone through subsequent downsizing. The vision of a 300-ship fleet is
insufficient to meet the existent demands being asked of the Navy.
Fleets are faced with longer deployments, higher OPTEMPO, and postponed
maintenance. When joint air support was needed over Kosovo and Northern
Iraq, aircraft carrier coverage of the West Pacific was gapped for 98
days. In April of this year, 151 ships (48 percent) in our fleet were
underway, with 71 percent of those vessels being deployed overseas.
The Navy CINCs freely admit that they can no longer do their
mission without the Naval Reserve. The Naval Reserve has actively
participated in the four Presidential Call-ups. Reservists are deployed
to Europe, Asia, South America, and have also played a key role in
helping to resolve Vieques, PR. Within the prescribed budget, the Fleet
CINCs could only be provided with 14 percent of the mandays that they
requested in support from the Naval Reserve.
In addition to constrained budget, the cost of Naval Reserve
support is going up. Higher demand for personnel by the Fleet has
increased the amount of overseas Annual Training. Overseas A.T. for
fiscal year 2000 has increased from 20 to 25 percent of the Annual
Training budget. Travel and lodging expenses increased by 12 percent
for the first half of this fiscal year. P-3C flight hours have fallen
short 1,701 thrs. Twenty-two of thirty USNR/USMCR series aircraft are
flying 9.7 percent more.
OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO are impacting recruiting and retention.
Congress has been quite generous in funding recruiting and advertising
support. But aging equipment is a retention issue too. In addition to
other concerns, young men and women are leaving the Fleet because of
the material and readiness state of its ships and aircraft.
Because of forward deployment, battle group independence, and the
need for ongoing replenishment, the Navy has unique problems and costs.
The Naval Reserve is playing a greater role with some of the solutions.
Naval Reserve requirements need to be supported, as should those of the
Navy as a whole.
naval reserve modernization requirements
Table one provides a breakdown of the top twenty funding
requirements requested by the Chief of Naval Reserve Force. Fourteen of
these items have been included on the CNO's letter to Congress listing
unfunded items. NRA and NERA most strongly support funding of the CNRF
list. NRA Resolution #06-00 was passed on March 24, 2000 at our
National Convention.
NAVAL RESERVE MODERNIZATION REQUIREMENTS--PR-01
[Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Unfunded equipment requirement ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remarks
Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-40A Transport Aircraft............. 171,500 3 170,500 3 172,000 3 134,700 2 183,000 3 195,000 3 Replace aging C-9 with
C-40A.
CNRF Information Technology 30,500 ... 20,112 ... 18,374 ... 9,491 ... 9,965 ... 10,515 ... Improvements to NR LAN,
Infrastructure. SIPERNET, system and
infrastructure.
P-3C AIP/BMUP Kits................... 49,468 2/3 52,350 2/3 53,143 2/3 45,008 2/2 45,809 2/2 28,500 2/0 Achieve commonality w/
Active P-3C UD III
Squadrons.
Naval Coastal/Expeditionary Warfare 35,050 ... 31,700 ... 30,280 ... 11,400 ... 10,720 ... 10,660 ... Fulfill CB/ELSF/NCW
Forces. unit TOA for CESE,
Comm Equip, Sup Equip.
F/A-18 Mod, ECP 560 & AN/AAS-38 55,750 12 53,500 12 ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Upgrade Reserve F/A-18A
Targeting Pods. precision guided
munitions capability.
F-5 Avionics Modernization........... 47,000 12 47,000 12 47,000 12 ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Upgrade the 25 year old
F-5 avionics package.
Joint Forces Air Component Commander 615 3 ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Equip JFACC units w/
(JFACC) Units. hardware/software for
SIPERNET connectivity.
C-130T Avionics Modernization Program 2,352 ... 3,352 ... 19,256 ... 41,756 4 85,732 6 90,732 10 Standardize cockpit
configuration of all
NR/MCR C-130T
aircraft.
FLIR kits (AAS-51Q) for SH-60B....... 7,000 4 700 ... 800 ... 800 ... 900 ... 900 ... Procure 4 Forward
Looking Infra-Red
(FLIR) (AAS-51-Q) for
SH-60B.
HH-60H NVG/FLIR/Hellfire Trainer..... 2,000 1 ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Procure HH-60H trainer.
P-3C CDU Upgrades.................... 3,000 ... 3,300 ... 3,600 ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Increase counter drug
capabilities of P-3C w/
AIMS & 2 APG-66s for
trng.
P-3C Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR).. 3,000 1 6,000 2 6,000 2 ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Procure Synthetic
Aperture Radars (SAR)
for NR P-3C aircraft.
F-5 Global Positioning System (GPS).. 8,100 12 6,900 12 3,800 12 450 ... ........ ... ........ ... Procure GPS for F-5.
All Military Acft
require GPS by 2005.
F-5 Radar Upgrade.................... 3,726 3 7,452 6 11,178 9 11,178 9 11,178 9 ........ ... Replace APQ-153/159
radar with APG-66
radar.
Computer Based Training.............. 7,300 ... 5000 ... 6200 ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Develop computer based
maintenance/aircrew
training for NR
aircraft.
Operational Flight Trainer (OFT) 5,000 ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Upgrade 2 P-3C OFTs to
Upgrade/ Mod. match current NR P-3C
configuration.
P-3C Update III Simulator............ 1,000 1 2,000 2 ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Procure 3 Deployable
Embedded Tactical
Trainer Sys (DETTS)
units.
P-3C Trainer Upgrade................. 4,500 ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Upgrade ESM suites w/
ALR-66(V)III.
Reserve Aircraft Modernization....... 2,500 ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Upgrade various
avionics systems on NR
P-3C and Helo.
C-9 Upgrades......................... 1,400 27 ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... Upgrade PA, Ext Lights,
Lndg Gear and Cabin
Pressurization sys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 24, 2000.............. 440,761 ... 409,866 ... 371,631 ... 254,783 ... 347,304 ... 336,307 ... .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Item #1 on the list is the C-40 aircraft procurement 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 (29) 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 five 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 item #20 which are 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 would be purchasing three aircraft each year, over the
next eight 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.
(b) Money is also being requested for the #2 item which is 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, upgrading its legacy software. The NSIPS was an
attempt. 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 Reserve 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.
(c) Items #3, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 19 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.
(d) Funding in #4 is needed for the Naval Coastal, Seabees, MIUW's,
NR Expeditionary Warfare Forces to provide CESE, communications, and
field support equipment. Existing equipment is aged, and worn, often
being to commercial specifications, rather than military. Some of this
equipment has been borrowed by active units for deployment overseas.
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.
(e) Upgrading the Naval Reserve F/A-18A with precision guided
munitions capability is item #5. 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.
(f) Items #6, 13, and 14 are needed 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.
Our deploying pilots would be handicapped.
(g) To play joint, Item #7 asks for funding to equip our Joint
Forces Air Component Commander (JFACC) units with hardware and software
for SIPERNET connectivity.
(h) The Naval Reserve has acquired C-130's over numerous budget
years. Cockpit configurations differ between airframes. Item #8 is
funding to standardize cockpit configuration of all NR/MCR C-130 T
aircraft.
(i) Items 9, and 19 provide funding for infrared FLIR kits, and
upgrades for USNR helicopter forces.
(j) Aircrew training is an ongoing requirement. Reduced air hours
prevent in-flight training. Items 10 and 15 request specialized
trainers to support maintenance and aircrew training.
unfunded requirements readiness shortfalls
Tables two and three outline unfunded readiness requirements for
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MY03.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02MY03.002
fiscal year 2000 unfunded requirements
OMNR
(a) Flight Hour Program ($15M): Includes P-3C flight hour shortfall
of 1,701 hrs to meet CINC contributory support requirements of 40
aircraft forward deployed (3 Reserve aircraft); NAVICP LECP P-3C/C-130
Replacement Inertial Navigation Unit (RINU) costing $4.5M; and, AVDLR
price increases for the P-3C, UH-1N, F/A-18, and F-5E/F.
(b) Ship Depot Maintenance ($13M): Includes deferred CINCLANTFL/
PACFLT NRF ship depot level maintenance requirements for 3 FFGs, 2
MCMs, and 4 MHCs, in addition to emergent repairs for INCHON on its
main condenser.
(c) Reserve Base Support, Real Property Maintenance ($10M):
Includes $5.0M growth of critical backlog created by fiscal year 2000
Congressional Rescission, and BMAR growth of $25M in fiscal year 2000.
RPN
(a) Annual Training (AT) ($11.6M): Fiscal year 2000 budget was
calculated for a 6 percent travel escalation increase. Due to
increasing fuel costs, first quarter fiscal year 2000 travel costs have
been coming in at 12 percent and are expected to increase further. This
will also allow SELRES enlisted participation to remain at 90 percent
and officer participation to remain at 99 percent.
(b) Active Duty for Training (ADT-FLEET SUPPORT) ($12.8M): CINC
requirements are greater than available funding. This will allow for
greater direct and indirect support for CINC requirements. It will
allow Commander Naval Reserve to increase the amount of peacetime
contributory support that can be provided to gaining commands for
exercises, mission support, conferences, exercise preparations, and
unit conversion training.
(c) Active Duty for Training (ADT-Schools) ($3M): Funding will
increase mandays essential to meet individual training plan goals that
are based upon mobilization requirements which include ``A'' and ``C''
school completion. SELRES in commissioned hardware units and those
performing contributory support require training whose manday
requirements are over and above the annual two-week period. This
provides training due to a change in unit, unit mission, or new
equipment.
(d) Inactive Duty Training Travel (IDTT) ($5.3M): 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.
(e) Active Duty For Special Work (ADSW-RPN) ($1.2M): Funds SELRES
officers and enlisted personnel as well as members of the IRR drilling
in the VTU providing contingency and peacetime mission support. There
has been an upward trend in ADSW RPN requirements.
unfunded requirements fiscal year 2001
OMNR
(a) Ship Depot Maintenance ($20M): Includes continued deferral of
NRF ship depot requirements. Continuing deferring maintenance
requirements results in a downward spiral of declining material
condition that will impact readiness.
(b) Reserve Base Support, Real Property Maintenance ($15M): Arrests
growth of critical backlog and holds at fiscal year 2000 level. Most of
the buildings were built back in the 1940s/50s. fiscal year 2000
Congressional Rescission caused BMAR to grow $5M. Projected fiscal year
2001 End of Year BMAR is $121.0M. Also, the Asset Protection Index
(Funding/Current Plant Value) of 2.1 percent falls just within industry
standards (2-4 percent).
(c) Naval Reserve It Infrastructure Requirements ($27.8M): Funds
maintenance and life cycle support for newly developed software
systems, and system recapitalization to bring IT infrastructure up to
IT-21 standards. All infrastructure upgrades will fully complement NMCI
and are critical to ensuring its timely integration. Lack of funding
will prevent the Naval Reserve from being able to fully operate NMCI
when it comes on line.
RPN
(a) Career Sea Pay ($1.7M): Funds fiscal year 2001 Unified
Legislative Budgeting Initiatives(ULB).
Increases sea pay to restore buying power lost since last update in
fiscal year 1988. Also pays additional bonus for sailors desiring to
remain at sea past the normal sea/shore rotation dates.
(b) Basic Allowance For Housing (BAH) ($1M): Accelerates a proposed
fiscal year 2002 ULB initiative into fiscal year 2001. Would allow
single E-4s assigned to ships to receive BAH when room is not available
at bachelor quarters. Funding requested would support allowing E-4s
with more than 4 years of service to qualify for the allowance.
(c) Annual Training (AT) ($23.4M): Additional funding supports AT
tour lengths to increase from 14 days to 15 days (inclusive of travel)
as desired by ASD/RA to meet Title 10 requirements, and will mirror
that of the Marine Corp Reserve Force. The additional day will provide
for an increase in the amount of peacetime contributory support that
Commander Naval Reserve can provide to gaining commands, particularly
in OCONUS operations. Funds travel cost escalation. First quarter
fiscal year 2000 costs have been coming in at 12 percent above budgeted
amount.
(d) Active Duty for Training (ADT-FLEET SUPPORT) ($13.4M): CINC
requirements are greater than available funding. This will allow for
greater direct and indirect support for CINC requirements. It will
allow Commander Naval Reserve to increase the amount of peacetime
contributory support that can be provided to gaining commands for
exercises, mission support, conferences, exercise preparations, and
unit conversion training. Funds travel cost escalation.
(e) Active Duty For Training (ADT-SCHOOLS) ($4.4M): Funding will
increase mandays essential to meet individual training plan goals that
are based upon mobilization requirements which include ``A'' and ``C''
school completion. SELRES in commissioned hardware units and those
performing contributory support require training whose manday
requirements are over and above the annual two-week period. This
provides training due to a change in unit, unit mission, or new
equipment. Funds travel cost escalation.
(f) Non-Prior Service (NPS) Bonus ($2.4M): 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.
(g) Active Duty Special Work (ADSW-RPN) ($1.2M): Funds SELRES
officers and enlisted personnel as well as members of the IRR drilling
in the VTU providing contingency and peacetime mission support. There
has been an upward trend in ADSW RPN requirements.
(h) Inactive Duty Training Travel (IDTT) ($3.5M): This is the
primary vehicle which 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.
recruiting shortfalls
Reserve Recruiter Support & Advertising ($6.7M): fiscal year 2000
Congressional adds of $5.0M enabled the Naval Reserve to establish its
first ever national advertising campaign. Advertising campaign includes
media and market research, and placement of advertising in television,
print, radio, direct mail, and public service announcements. In fiscal
year 2000, Congress also provided a $5.0M add for recruiter support.
This provided support for 45 additional recruiters. In fiscal year
2001, Navy added $3.7M to advertising and recruiter support but is
still short of the fiscal year 2000 baseline. The additional support
would allow the NR to maintain it national advertising campaign and
support for 45 additional recruiters (total of 90).
conclusion
The Naval Reserve and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Associations have
stated our interests and concerns. We are all deeply interested in the
welfare of the Total Force Navy. We are confident in your support. Feel
free to contact us at 703-548-5800 if you have any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of
the United States
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate
Appropriations Committee: I am honored to have this opportunity to
present the views of the Enlisted men and women of the National Guard
of the United States. Our members are very appreciative of the support
extended to them in the past, and are very confident that you will,
through your diligent and conscientious efforts, give serious
consideration to the most critical issues facing the National Guard
today.
The citizen soldiers of today are truly the finest ever. You may
ask yourself, Mr. Chairman, why are NCOs and Enlisted people so
concerned about the budget? This is the bottom line: It is the NCOs'
direct responsibility to train the troops that the Administration and
Congress deploy around the world. The National Guard must have adequate
funding to fully train its soldiers and airmen and protect them from
harm. The Guard must be adequately prepared and resourced to complete
its varying assigned missions and avoid degrading criticism from its
adversaries. Without these additional funds, the National Guard will
fall into the hollow force that is being predicted by some individuals
in the military community.
Today, the Guard is being called upon more and more to provide
peacetime and combat-ready support for contingencies around the world.
Shortages in specific areas are becoming acute. While we assert that
the use of the National Guard is the most cost effective means of
implementing a strong national defense strategy during these
financially constrained times, we also believe that we must have
adequate funds to maintain the best possible services to our nation.
For years, Army and Air National Guard units have competed with the
best of their active duty counterparts and have taken top honors home
to their states. The National Guard has proven, time and again, that it
is a vital part of the Total Force. For more than 360 years, in every
war, the combat records of the National Guard prove that the Guard will
fight, and win, if, and when it again becomes necessary.
full-time support
The vast majority of personnel in the Army National Guard (ARNG)
are the men and women who serve their country by drilling one weekend a
month and two weeks each year. However, the Guard also relies heavily
upon thousands of full time employees, Military Technicians and Active
Guard/Reserves (AGRs), to ensure unit readiness throughout the ARNG.
These full time employees perform vital day to day functions,
ranging from equipment maintenance to essential leadership and staff
roles, that allow the drill weekends and annual active duty training of
the traditional Guard member to be dedicated to preparation for the
National Guard's warfighting and peacetime missions.
The level of full-time support manning has a demonstrated direct
influence on readiness and is dictated by mission and equipment levels
rather than end strength. Full-time support manning is a critical
element in the day-to-day National Guard unit operations such as
administration, personnel, maintenance, supply and training management,
which enhances the effective and efficient operations of our units
during inactive duty training periods and annual training.
The Army National Guard's zero risk requirement for Technicians and
AGRs is over 84,000, of which more than 73,693 have been validated as
essential field requirements when assessed against deployment criteria.
Of this essential field requirement, the Army National Guard has a
minimum military technician staffing level of 25,500 and an AGR minimum
staffing level of 23,500 to begin on a road to recovery for full time
support. Failure to fully fund these full time personnel will have a
detrimental effect on the readiness of ARNG units. The Army National
Guard will not be able to fully accomplish all requirements without
proper full-time manning, thus affecting readiness.
The fiscal year 2001 budget, as submitted by the President,
provides resources sufficient for approximately 23,957 Technicians and
22,430 AGRs--end strength shortfalls of 1,543 and 1,052 respectively.
EANGUS urges the Congress of the United Stated to provide an
additional $76 million in fiscal year 2001 to the Army National Guard
for the addition of 1,543 Military Technicians and 1,052 Active Guard/
Reserves.
distributive training technology project (dttp)
The National Guard's distributed learning initiative (DTTP) was
established by Congress in fiscal year 1995 as the Distance Learning
Regional Training Network Demonstration Project. In each year since
1995, Congress has appropriated funds to continue and expand the
initiative.
Improved readiness for the Reserve Components is a cornerstone of
the project's objectives. This improved readiness will be realized
through the greatly expanded availability, effectiveness and efficiency
of training through distance learning. But the project offers much
more. Through the establishment of the distributed learning network
capabilities, the project has greatly enhanced command and control
capabilities for units in the field, ensuring prompt, coordinated
response to federal and state emergencies. Even more importantly,
through the concept of ``shared usage,'' establishment of the DTTP
facilities has broadened the national technology footprint by
delivering distributed learning technology and its vast potential to
communities across the nation.
To date, DTTP has established over 200 distributed training
facilities in communities that reach nearly every state. The Project's
fielding plan calls for completion of 453 in fiscal year 2003. In
fiscal year 2000, Congress provided $83 million ($41 million, Other
Procurement, Army, and $42 million, Operations and Maintenance,
National Guard) to support the establishment and operation of the
fiscal year 2000 facilities.
For the first year since the Project's inception, funding has been
included in the President's Budget Submission for fiscal year 2001.
However, funds requested in the budget ($11 million, Other Procurement,
Army, and $10.6 million, Operations and Maintenance, Army National
Guard), do not support the fielding activities necessary to complete
facilities installation in fiscal year 2003, and even more
significantly, do not provide adequate funds to keep existing
facilities operational.
In order for DTTP to remain on schedule and continue to support the
facilities that are currently providing distributed learning capability
to soldiers, communities, and local institutions, the fiscal year 2001
requirement is $40.1 million, Other Procurement, Army, and $76.3
million, Operations and Maintenance, Army National Guard for a total of
$116.4 million.
firearms training systems
This year, more funding for firearms training is necessary. the
U.S. Army's Engagement Skills Trainer (EST 2000) provides training in
marksmanship, squad tactical, and close-range ``shoot-don't shoot''
techniques. The latter training feature is extremely important in the
peacekeeping operations in which United States military members are
currently participating. EST 2000 is part of the Army's total small
arms training strategy that enhances the efficiency of live fire
exercises, which are the capstone of small arms training. At the
inception of the program in fiscal year 1998, it was fully funded. All
Army components were each allocated to receive their share of the
initial requirement of 368 trainers.
Unfortunately, there is no funding in fiscal year 2001 for EST 2000
and limited funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2000. National
Guard training systems have been reduced from 100 to only 12. The Army
National Guard needs $8 million in National Guard and Reserve Equipment
to procure ninety (90) EST 2000 systems in fiscal year 2001.
closing
Mr. Chairman, it is our Association's belief that the National
Guard, in conjunction with the active component, represents the most
cost-effective weapon at our disposal to defend our nation. The
National Guard's potential has barely been tapped. Yet, it stands
ready, willing and accessible to meet our defensive needs. It is
imperative to ensure that the National Guard has the necessary support
to fully develop into an integral part of the Total Force. This can
only be accomplished through modernization of equipment, a stable force
strength, and training. Shortchanging any one of these areas could
prove fatal to the effectiveness of the National Guard in defense of
our country.
Mr. Chairman, the National Guard is your next door neighbor, he or
she may be a truck driver, your lawyer, your son or daughter or your
grandchildren's teacher. When the National Guard is called, America
goes to war. The National Guard is family, Americans at their best. The
National Guard--protectors of freedom. and defenders of peace!
I would like to thank the Chairman and Members of this committee
for the opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 1999
funding requirements for the Army and Air National Guard.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Military Veterans Alliance
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the
National Military Veterans Alliance (NMVA/the Alliance) appreciates the
opportunity to appear today and thanks you for holding these important
hearings. This testimony represents the collective views of the
Alliance's member organizations and NMVA trusts that the thoughts and
recommendations provided will be helpful to the important deliberations
the Subcommittee has undertaken.
NMVA is a group of 21 military and veteran associations with a
combined membership of 3.5 million members, worldwide. Collectively,
NMVA associations represent all seven uniformed services, all ranks and
grades, all components, family members and survivors. The Alliance
arrives at consensus positions on legislative matters important to its
membership. NMVA's testimony today is based on pay and compensation
issues mutually supported by all Alliance associations.
NMVA extends its sincere thanks to the Subcommittee for its long-
standing interest and support for adequate pay and compensation, as
well as important quality-of-life issues. While the fiscal year 2000
National Defense Authorization Act by no means solves all of the
personnel and readiness problems facing the uniformed services, it
nonetheless represents one of the most significant defense measures in
over two decades. Clearly, the guiding hand and seasoned leadership of
this Subcommittee was a vital part in the final outcome and the
Alliance salutes you for your magnificent work.
NMVA believes the fiscal year 2000 defense measure must be viewed
and serve as a building block for additional improvements in fiscal
year 2001 and beyond. Equally, important, in NMVA's view, is the
requirement to fulfill the commitments and promises made during
military service. Intuitively, all of us know that the value and honor
associated with active military service is also measured by the way in
which promises made during that service are subsequently honored and
valued. NMVA believes there is no amount of pay, compensation and
quality of life enhancements sufficient to solve the problems in the
active force if the Nation continues to ignore the plight of its career
warriors. The time is ripe for this Subcommittee, the Full Committee,
the Congress and the Administration to address all of these issues in a
meaningful way. The cost of doing nothing or delaying further steps is
simply too great.
pay
While the Defense Authorization Act for 2000 provided a welcomed
and much needed boost in military pay and benefits, this subject
nonetheless remains a major concern to Armed Forces members. The pay
raises approved for this year were indeed a positive step in the right
direction. It sent an encouraging signal to military people that they
should be adequately compensated for their service in providing for the
Nation's security. The pay raises help but we all know military
compensation still lags behind the private sector.
Without basic patriotism on the part of members of the uniformed
services, there would be no armed forces. At the same time, patriotism
by itself is not a sufficient motivation for military service in
peacetime. Now, more so than at any time in recent memory, the
uniformed services are in a manpower battle. If recruiting and
retention figures are a reflection of the situation, one would have to
conclude that the uniformed services are losing the fight. It is
becoming increasingly difficult for the military services to compete
with the civilian sector, when the pay and compensation offered is more
lucrative, frequently many times over. When military income is compared
to income in the private sector for like skills and responsibilities,
it's not difficult for military members to do the math. The high
quality young men and women we want to recruit can do the math. The
high quality mid-career officers and enlisted people we want to retain
can do the math also. As many are doing, they easily realize they can
do better financially for themselves and their families in another line
of work.
NMVA is thankful that future pay raises in the next few years will
be equal to the Economic Cost Index (ECI) plus one-half percent. This
plan recognizes the seriousness of the pay situation but NMVA is
concerned that it may not be enough, quick enough. When the current
plan is completed, military pay will still 8-10 percent behind the
private sector. The Alliance believes a more aggressive plan will be
needed, a plan that will more rapidly eliminate the differential with
civilian sector pay.
As with the January 1, 2000, pay raise, NMVA applauds the targeted
pay increases scheduled for July of this year. The Alliance certainly
does not want to sound unappreciative, but the mid-career
noncommissioned and petty officer force is being ``short changed'' once
again. The Alliance believes a great opportunity was missed to address
pay inequities in the mid-enlisted grades, inequities that have existed
since the early days of the all-volunteer force. When one looks at the
pay reform tables set to go into effect in less than three months, the
conclusion is clear and dramatic; basic pay rates for grades E-5, E-6
and E-7 are undervalued when compared to other grades. With increased
deployments and training requirements, the cumulative experience of the
mid-grade enlisted force has become even more critical to operational
readiness. In 1998, the Honorable John Hamre, Deputy Secretary of
Defense, stated: ``When you get to be an E-5, E-6 or E-7, the gap
between military and civilian pay starts to widen.'' NMVA finds it
extremely regrettable that the rates scheduled to go into effect in
July failed to address this problem.
With a surging economy and low unemployment, retaining key mid-
grade enlisted personnel must be a priority. Today's mid-grade
noncommissioned and petty officers are shouldering more responsibility
than at any time in our history. They are better educated. They are the
keys to the doorway for bringing new recruits into the enlisted ranks.
They are integral to training both enlisted and officers. They provide
the day-to-day, face-to-face leadership. They are the mentors. With
increasing frequency, they are being called upon to assume
responsibility and authority that at one time was reserved solely for
commissioned officers. Congress must be as equally concerned with
retaining these key enlisted leaders as we are with recruiting high-
quality candidates for military service.
In the strongest possible terms, NMVA urges Congress to reform the
pay for mid-grade enlisted personnel. People will leave if they don't
believe they are appreciated and there wasn't much appreciation
expressed in the targeted pay raise this year for this group. It will
take a strong statement from Congress and the Alliance believes that
statement must be made now, in fiscal year 2001.
NMVA strongly supports the proposed 3.7 percent active duty pay
increase included in the Administration's budget. This follows the 4.8
percent pay adjustment on January 1, 2000, and the planned increases of
one-half percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) through 2006.
These increases are especially important to uniformed services members
and send a positive message to service members about the important and
value of their service. NMVA believes all must recognize though that at
the end of this six-year period, a pay gap in excess of 8 percent will
still remain between military and comparable civilian pay levels.
Funding for the pay increase and pay table improvements, which become
effective on July 1, 2000, along with the reform of the REDUX
retirement system, is of paramount importance. However, as stressed
earlier, these improvements must be viewed as and mark the beginning to
a longer-term strategy to solve the serious recruiting and retention
problems that are undermining military readiness. Any longer-term
strategy must also include solutions to address the pay of the mid-
grade enlisted force.
housing
Housing remains a top quality-of-life concern among members of the
uniformed services and impacts both married and single members. The
fiscal year 2000 Defense Authorization Act provided some much needed
relief in accelerating the initial Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
program from what was to be a five-year implementation rate adjustment
program. As a result of the BAH rate adjustments that have been
implemented this year, many personnel did benefit from a much needed
increase in their housing allowances in some parts of the country. As
this Subcommittee is keenly aware, other areas of the country realized
significant reductions in the housing allowance that imposed an
unacceptable inequity on service members moving or transferring on or
after January 1st. NMVA is tremendously pleased that on March 1st DOD
began paying BAH at the 1999 rate to service members moving into areas
where the 2000 housing allowance rates were set lower than the 1999
rates.
The new BAH rates however still are not fully comparable to housing
costs in some areas of the country. NMVA is concerned that the survey
used to arrive at the new rates did not capture the locations where
service members are actually living. It appears to NMVA that the survey
focused on areas immediately surrounding bases and installations, areas
that are oftentimes the least desirable and which service members try
to avoid because of safety and security concerns for their families.
Consequently, the new BAH rates do not, in many cases, reflect the
costs that service members are incurring to obtain adequate, safe
quarters in desirable neighborhoods.
NMVA remains concerned about the inequity of the requirement to
include an additional out-of-pocket expense averaging nearly 19
percent, which is presently incorporated with the BAH rates as being a
``fair housing cost.'' This additional expense is perceived as unfair
because those who reside in government assigned housing are not, nor
should they be, required to pay any out-of-pocket expenses.
As you are aware, Secretary Cohen proposed a multi-year plan, as
part of the DOD Budget proposal for fiscal year 2001, to eliminate out-
of-pocket housing expenses and which seeks to repeal the current law
that requires service members to pay at least 15 percent of their
housing costs. NMVA salutes this initiative and urges the Subcommittee
to support DOD's request. NMVA believes enactment of this initiative
will provide equity for those who must live on the economy to be on par
with those in government housing who do not incur such additional
expenses. Also, DOD has stated they will ask Congress to authorize a
retroactive hike to January 1st for those who received a lower BAH rate
for the months of January and February 2000. NMVA urges the
Subcommittee to support this initiative also.
health care
Among quality-of-life issues, none ranks higher in importance to
NMVA than the availability, quality and timeliness of health care to
uniformed services beneficiaries. Active duty, National Guard, reserve,
military retirees, their dependents and survivors consistently cite
health care as their number one quality-of-life concern. Base and
hospital closures and the continued reduction in the number of health
care professionals and military treatment facilities is seriously
impacting the primary mission of the Military Health System, that of
caring for active duty personnel and maintaining military medical
readiness, readiness training and contingency operations. The
reductions in health care infrastructure and personnel has further
eroded the ability of the Military Health System to provide care for
active duty family members and for all practical purposes has
eliminated the care for military retirees and their beneficiaries in
the Military Health System. This entire situation has been complicated
by successive years of funding shortfalls.
In NMVA's view, the greatest challenge before this subcommittee and
Congress is the restoration of fair treatment and trust of service
members, past and present. The experience of the ``hollow force'' of
the 1970's is occurring again. Force reductions have gone too far. The
force is overworked, over deployed and under paid. And, it will take
more than mere laudatory speeches to reverse and fix this situation. It
will take a sustained long-term commitment in pay and quality-of-life
enhancements, and perhaps none more important than a resolve to fairly
and equitably fix the Military Health System. The Alliance recognizes
the cost will be high but the NMVA is convinced that the current
situation cannot continue without further unacceptable long-term
consequences.
military health system funding
Nowhere has the erosion of benefits been more pronounced or serious
than in the military health care system. In slightly over two decades,
military members and retirees have seen this important benefit
deteriorate from fully funded coverage to member-subsidized coverage.
As a result of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions, 58 military
treatment facilities (MTF) and numerous military treatment clinics have
closed. Numerous other facilities were downsized to clinics and today
16 states have either no MTF or clinic with inpatient capability.
Today, only one MTF or Uniformed Services Treatment Facility exists in
12 other states. With two additional rounds of base closures being
sought by the Defense Department, the erosion of the health care
benefit, inarguably the most important quality-of-life benefit, will
continue to worsen.
Despite the substantial savings, realized from actions already
taken, military health care continues to be seriously under funded.
Every action taken to improve the health care benefit--be it a test or
demonstration--has been done with one underlying theme, save the
Department of Defense money. In that process, the cost to members on
active duty has soared. The cost on retirees, specifically retired
noncommissioned and petty officers, is nearly unbearable. Today, the
typical enlisted retiree pays between 25-30 percent of their retired
pay and as much as 33 percent more than federal civilian retirees as
the ``cost of the health care promise.''
Adequate funding is not only necessary to lower the cost on DOD
beneficiaries, adequate funding is essential to keep providers in the
TRICARE networks. Most TRICARE managed care support contractors have
reimbursement rates that are lower than Medicare. In many areas, health
care providers are unwilling to accept TRICARE Standard (CHAMPUS)
patients at all. The low TRICARE payment rates combined with untimely
reimbursements after care has been provided are giving physicians two
disincentives for not signing up in the TRICARE networks.
NMVA is grateful for provisions in the fiscal year 2000 National
Defense Authorization Act authorizing the Secretary of Defense to
exceed the CMAC rates. In the Alliance's view, this should help attract
providers into TRICARE networks. But these provisions can help only if
they are implemented and DOD has shown no signs of taking these
provisions seriously. When CHAMPUS (now TRICARE Standard) was enacted
in 1966, Congress directed DOD to provide a benefit at least equal to
FEHBP high option Blue Cross/Blue Shield, without imposing a premium.
The fiscal year 2000 Defense Bill also provided enhanced opportunity
for TRICARE contractors to use electronic processing for claims and
streamlining the information flow, thus providing authority for two
pieces of the claims debacle to be fixed. DOD has decimated the TRICARE
Standard benefit and now seems reluctant to even implement the
provisions that might attract physicians into TRICARE networks.
Likewise, DOD has not unveiled any proposal or plan to implement
electronic claims processing. Less and less money is being channeled
into patient care while DOD fails to address its soaring medical
administration overhead. NMVA strongly urges Congress to hold DOD
accountable to its wishes.
The Alliance firmly believes greater efficiencies in the military
health system are achievable and their implementation will produce
savings, which should be redirected to patient care. Administrative
costs are excessive in comparison with other government-sponsored
programs and the adoption by DOD of ``best industry standards'' would
produce efficiency and savings. However, all of the potential savings
from these and other initiatives such as reducing fraud and abuse
cannot make up the ground lost to successive years of under funding. It
will take a strong statement from Congress, backed up with adequate
appropriations, to restore the military health care to a system that is
fair to all beneficiaries, one that beneficiaries can rely on and
trust.
tricare program improvements
NMVA is sincerely grateful that DOD has recommended important
improvements to the TRICARE program for active duty members and their
dependents and asks the Subcommittee to support these initiatives:
--Eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for active duty members enrolled
in TRICARE Prime, and
--Extend TRICARE Prime Remote to military family members.
Both of these initiatives respond to the needs of uniformed
services' members and will reduce the extraordinary out-of-pocket cost-
sharing expenses experienced by some. As you consider these
initiatives, the Alliance asks that you be particularly sensitive as to
the importance of these improvements to Coast Guard personnel.
TRICARE Prime is the most attractive and sought after plan of the
three TRICARE options. Under Prime, the majority of care is provided at
military treatment facilities. According to the 2000 TRICARE
Stakeholders Report, approximately 80 percent of DOD family
beneficiaries are enrolled in the Prime option. Unfortunately, as a
factor of the locations where most Coast Guard members serve, the
numbers are reversed to where less than 50 percent of eligible Coast
Guard families are able to take advantage of Prime. Consequently, the
majority of Coast Guard members are forced to rely on the lowest
program option, TRICARE Standard.
For outpatient treatment, TRICARE Standard involves a $300 per year
deductible per family, plus an additional 20 percent out-of-pocket
cost-share, which is defined as an allowable charge. The allowable
charge is a standard amount established by TRICARE Management. The fact
that very few medical care establishments accept the ``allowable
charge'' means that the uniformed services' member must pay the cost-
share, plus the difference of the amount from the ``allowable charge.''
Depending on where the member is assigned, these cost differences can
be substantial and Coast Guard personnel are adversely affected
disproportionately to the other uniformed services. Many young enlisted
personnel with a spouse and child making less than $15,000 per year of
basic pay simply does not have the discretionary income to absorb these
extraordinarily high costs for medical care. Although TRICARE Extra
allows a smaller out-of-pocket expense than the Standard option, this
option too is quite limited to Coast Guard families. Extra entails
using designated health care providers, which usually are not in the
remote locations where Coast Guard units are located.
Successful and full implementation of TRICARE Prime Remote would
greatly enhance the quality of life of uniformed services' members and
their families by reducing the out-of-pocket expenses for members and
their families who do not have access to military treatment facilities
or access to the TRICARE Prime program. It is needed for all uniformed
services and especially for the Coast Guard. NMVA requests the
proactive involvement of the Members of this Subcommittee to ensure the
successful and complete implementation of TRICARE Prime Remote.
The Alliance recommends additional improvements to the TRICARE
program and requests this Subcommittee provide the funding to support
the following:
--Reduction of the catastrophic cap for TRICARE Standard from $7,500
to $3,000, the same as TRICARE Prime. The present cap penalizes
beneficiaries unable to access TRICARE Prime.
--Reimbursement of expenses incurred for transportation by TRICARE
beneficiaries who travel over 100 miles to obtain specialty
care.
--Elimination of the 115 percent billing limit when TRICARE Standard
is second payer to other health insurance.
--Restoration of ``coordination of benefits'' for TRICARE Standard
claims.
--Acceleration of claims processing by reducing the number of claims
set aside for audit and the aggressive expansion of electronic
claims processing.
--Updating of CHAMPUS maximum allowable charge (CMAC) rates more
frequently to ensure a more accurate reflection of actual
health care costs as a means to attract and retain quality
TRICARE providers.
--Full and complete implementation of portability and reciprocity for
TRICARE Prime enrollees.
--Relaxation of the requirement for TRICARE Standard beneficiaries to
obtain non-availability statements or pre-authorizations before
seeing private health care providers.
military retiree health care
For individuals who dedicate the majority of their adult working
life, often in harms way while providing for the nation's security,
honoring the health care promise upon which many based career military
decisions represents a breach of faith that defies description. In the
Alliance's view, there is no amount of pay, benefits and quality-of-
life enhancements sufficient to solve the problems in the active forces
as long as Congress continues to ignore the plight of elderly, sick
career warriors. Members on active duty and their families, as well as
potential recruits, have witnessed this tragic breach of trust and
honor, and in increasing numbers are electing to leave or not join at
all.
It is not NMVA's intention to seem inappreciative for the efforts
Congress has made in recent years to address the health care needs of
military retirees, especially those aged 65 and over. The Alliance
supported these initiatives and continues to support any effort that
will provide the health care that was promised and earned. But NMVA
believes everyone must recognize that all of the various test and
demonstration initiatives combined when fully implemented will help
only a small percentage of the military retiree population and their
beneficiaries--and, as implemented by DOD, all are structured to save
DOD money.
NMVA is immensely pleased that Congress has under consideration a
number of health care proposals for military retirees, particularly for
Medicare-eligible military retirees. The Alliance salutes the sponsors
and co-sponsors on all of these initiatives for fostering a long
overdue synergy for meaningful reform of health care for military
retirees.
In the Alliance's view, there is no ``one solution'' to fix the
health care dilemma confronting military retirees and their
beneficiaries. The fix to this enormously complex problem will occur
only if Congress adopts a multi-faceted approach that will provide
military retirees the freedom to choose. NMVA also believes it should
be abundantly clear to everyone that the nation cannot afford the cost
of further delay and inaction.
Regardless of the promises made and of all the intentions of this
Congress, health care for military retirees is not treated as a benefit
and it certainly is not viewed as an entitlement. Health care for
military retirees, their families and survivors is merely a line item
expense in the DOD budget to be squeezed for more pressing needs by
comptrollers and budget analysts who do not rely on the Defense Health
System for their care. A solution to address this concern is to make
the funding mechanism for military retiree health care the same as it
is for other federal retirees by adding it to the entitlement portion
of the federal budget. Until that step is taken, retiree health care
will still have to compete for the same defense dollars used in weapons
programs, research and development or operations and maintenance. And,
as long as this situation is allowed to continue, health care will
continue to be the loser. In the strongest possible terms, NMVA
requests the support of this subcommittee in moving military retiree
health care to the entitlement portion of the federal budget. If
Congress can do it for other federal retirees, Congress surely can and
should do it for the nation's career warriors.
Medicare Subvention: TRICARE Senior Prime.--NMVA extends its thanks
to the Subcommittee for your support of the TRICARE Senior Prime Test
program, Medicare subvention. With the favorable response to this
program by military in the six designated test sites, NMVA is seeking
nationwide implementation of this program. Many Medicare-eligible
retirees have received letters from hospitals stating that ``space
availability'' no longer exists or is extremely limited due to
downsizing of staff at MTFs. At other locations, however, space is
available and allowing Medicare-eligible military retirees to use their
Medicare benefit at MTFs will provide them with yet another option for
health care. Though it should be understood that this is not the
complete solution to the current problem, it is nonetheless an
important piece to solving the broader health care dilemma for these
beneficiaries. The support of this subcommittee is needed and requested
to ensure expansion of TRICARE Senior Prime to additional sites with
the ultimate goal of national implementation. Your support will help to
provide a true health care benefit to military retirees that still
reside near MTFs.
In the meantime, there are other difficulties with the TRICARE
Senior Prime program. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
has provided $43 million in interim payments to DOD and DOD will be
allowed to retain $6 million despite the fact that DOD has already paid
out $40 million in claims. In our opinion, the reimbursement rates and
rules between HCFA and DOD should be renegotiated. Also, DOD hospitals
are providing services of $187 more per enrollee per month than they
are receiving in HCFA reimbursements. With over 30,000 enrolled
retirees and their family members, this is more than $5.6 million per
month. The simple fact is that if health care is to be provided to
military retirees, dollars must be provided to the MTFs from HCFA and
DOD. Since care provided in MTFs is less expensive than civilian sector
care, this is a good investment for retired beneficiaries and the
American taxpayer.
FEHBP-65.--Like TRICARE Senior Prime (Medicare subvention), FEHBP-
65 represents another of the options that should be available to
Medicare-eligible military retirees. Due to the continued downsizing of
MTF staff, base closures, decreasing dollars for DOD health care, and
capitated budgeting, military retirees continue to be pushed out of the
military health care system. Even with full implementation of TRICARE
Senior Prime, DOD will only be able to serve about 33 percent of the
military retiree population over the age of 65. Some 17 percent of
retirees have employer-sponsored health care and another 10 percent are
already in Medicare Risk HMOs, leaving between 32 percent to 41 percent
(approximately 533,000) to possibly access the FEHBP option.
The continued support of this subcommittee for FEHBP-65 is needed
and requested. Costs could be controlled if necessary by capping the
program. Estimates indicate that fewer than 30 percent of retirees
would elect the FEHBP option. Those that would need access to health
care now, not five years from now when it will be too late. For many
retirees, FEHBP-65 may very well represent the only available option
and NMVA asks for your continued support of this program.
Pharmacy Issues.--NMVA cannot over emphasize the importance of
access to pharmaceuticals by military retirees, particularly by those
over age 65. Of all the health care issues needing attention and
competing for funding, none is more important than providing military
retirees access to a uniform, nationwide pharmacy benefit, regardless
of the age or location of the retiree. NMVA is requesting additional
funding be allocated to expand the BRAC pharmacy benefit to Medicare-
eligible military retirees to permit access to the National Mail Order
Pharmacy and local retain pharmacy benefit. Further, the Alliance
requests funding to provide a complete national formulary that address
the drug needs and utilization of the Nation's aging war heroes and
heroines. NMVA firmly believes this benefit could and should be
provided without the need for any enrollment fee and/or deductibles.
The Alliance asks the full support of this subcommittee toward that
end.
Medicare Part B Waiver for Military Retirees 65+.--Military
retirees were counseled by MTF advisors not to enroll in Medicare Part
``B'' because they resided near MTFs and would be able to access their
free health care. These retirees should not be punished with late
enrollment fees due to the fact that the local MTF has now closed. NMVA
requests the subcommittee to support funding that would permit the
waiver of the penalty for not enrolling in Medicare Part ``B'' for
Medicare-eligible military retirees. NMVA believes that this small
investment will enable retirees to enroll in health care programs which
require Medicare Part B for eligibility, such as TRICARE Senior Prime
and the Fee-for-Service Option plans in FEHBP. Currently, military
retirees are paying an exceedingly high penalty for Medicare Part B, or
they just cannot enroll because of the steep cost.
concurrent receipt
The Alliance is sincerely grateful for the special compensation
provisions, for severely disabled military retirees, included in the
fiscal year 2000 Defense Authorization Act. NMVA views these provisions
that are yet to be implemented as an interim first step. Very likely,
additional interim steps will have to be taken before The Alliance's
ultimate goal--that of full concurrent military longevity retired pay
and full VA disability compensation without offset from either--is
achieved. It is particularly disturbing to NMVA that many Members of
Congress believe this entire issue was solved by the ``special
compensation'' when in fact we have yet to attack the root of this
problem. The situation that has prevented a change in law for more than
a quarter of a decade remains ever present. For more than two decades,
the Veterans Affairs Committees and Armed Services Committees have been
passing the buck on this issue. Armed Services says it belong to
Veterans. Veterans' says it belong to Armed Services. Mr. Chairman, the
charade must stop. These committees in both the House and Senate must
work together to approve the change in Title 38 that would eliminate
the offset. A corrective measure--or at least a plan and timetable for
a corrective measure--must be considered and enacted this year. The
concurrent receipt issue is a long-standing example of why so much
trust has been lost. Another opportunity exists and this opportunity
should not be allowed to pass without correction of this egregious
discrimination.
survivor benefit plan
The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) continues to be a valuable program
to insure that the surviving dependents of military personnel who die
in retirement or after becoming eligible for retirement will continue
to have a reasonable level of income. As Congress seeks to enact
further improvements to this valuable program, NMVA recommends:
--Accelerating the paid up provisions by changing the effective date
from 2008 to 2003 (to coincide with the 30th anniversary of
enactment of SBP) for participants who are 70 years of age and
who have paid premiums for 30 years. The Alliance supports H.R.
601 and urges the Subcommittee to consider identical companion
legislation in the Senate.
--Increasing the annuity paid to survivors at age 62 from 35 percent
to 55 percent The Alliance supports S.763, The SBP Benefits
Improvement Act of 1999.
--Allowing Retired Servicemen's Family Protection Plan (RSFPP)
participants to convert to SBP without penalty at any time.
montgomery gi bill
When Congress considers education policy, the starting point for
that discussion should be the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) but that has
not been the case for far too long. As a consequence, the MGIB has lost
its recruiting power along with its higher education purchasing power.
In the process of providing a GI bill for everyone but the GI, Congress
has devalued military service and we are witnessing the consequences
today. If post-secondary education is the goal of a young man or woman
today, services in the Armed Forces is NOT the way to go and some
simple comparisons are revealing.
Americorps pays its ``volunteers'' $4,725 per academic year of
service in education benefits, plus health care and a child care
benefit, thereby increasing dramatically its overall value. The MGIB
now pays $4,828 per academic year with no ancillary benefits, with the
overall benefit totaling $19,296. In actuality, the total net
educational benefit is $18,096 when the $1,200 enrollment ``tax'' is
considered. Yet last year, the Congress said it believes $50,000 is the
amount needed to go to college and provided that amount in non-
repayable grants for DC high school graduates in the District of
Columbia College Access Act. In academic year 1999-2000, the average
undergraduate cost of attending a typical four-year public college or
university is in excess of $8,800. Americorps, DC College access
grants, Pell grants and other educational assistance have noble
societal goals, however none demand anything close to the commitment,
dedication and sacrifice required to qualify for the MGIB. Yet, where
has Congress placed the greater comparative education value?
Sixty-five percent of high school graduates pursue higher education
and these young men and women, across the Nation, are making the
comparisons on the grants, loans and programs available to them. A
$50,000 non-repayable grant or four years of military service with a
$1,200 tax to obtain $18,096 in net educational benefits? Which of
these options would the members of this Subcommittee take? Which of
these options would the distinguished members of this Subcommittee
recommend to their sons, daughters and friends?
Not only has the MGIB lost its recruiting power and higher
education purchasing power; it has also lost its value as a
readjustment benefit. The MGIB is no longer facilitating and easing the
transition to civilian life following military service. Today, fewer
than 40 percent of program participants use the benefit even though
more than 96 percent of new recruits enroll in the program. There
should be no question whatsoever in the minds of the Distinguished
Members of this Subcommittee that dramatic action is needed now. The
Alliance recognizes however that what should be done must be balanced
against what can be done. In the strongest possible terms, NMVA
believes a minimum step is needed now, this year. The Alliance believes
if Congress does nothing else this year on the MGIB, the basic monthly
stipend must be raised to a level that will afford military members and
veterans a reasonable opportunity to pursue higher education. Bench
marking and indexing the monthly stipend to the average cost of a
typical four-year public institution would be an important step in the
right direction.
It is one thing to debate and consider further a completely new
veteran education benefit as recommended by the Congressional
Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance. It is
an entirely different thing to delay any action altogether. While the
cost of enacting any improvements must be dutifully considered, NMVA
suggests that you must also consider the cost of further inaction. The
Alliance is convinced that the cost of doing nothing is much higher,
and certainly of greater significance, than the money it would require
to enact meaningful improvements.
reserve and guard issues
Changing threats and utilization of the Guard and Reserves has
created an environment, where our Reservists are being called upon more
frequently than any time in the past other than war. Reservists are,
more often, being called into service by the CINC's for longer periods
of time per year to defer a ``hollowing out'' process that could draw
down the strength, readiness and flexibility of our combat units. Our
Commanders in the field realize that they can no longer get the mission
done in the long term without the Guard and Reserve. The Department of
Defense's plan for the Total Force has emphasized the integration of
regular and reserve components of each service. In context with Total
Force, the Guardsman and Reservist need to be given the same benefits
as the Active Component. Not creating parity with the total force risks
creating a second string on our national defense team. Because of
OPTEMPO and aging equipment, retention and recruiting are problems in
the Guard and Reserve today. If you treat people differently, retaining
individuals will become even that much harder. The issues that follow
are equity issues that have been highlighted by members of the Guard
and Reserve over the last year.
Availability of Bachelor Quarters.--Less time is being spent in
Reserve Centers and National Guard Armories. Efforts are being made by
the Reserve Service Chiefs to get Guardsmen and Reservists to their
mobilization sites or gaining commands. More often, these citizen
soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are spending more training at
active bases. In many cases, drilling sites have been relocated to
active forts or bases. Members who drill are given a room only if space
is available. A drilling member can check in only after five in the
evening, if rooms aren't filled, and then must check out in the
morning, repeating the cycle the next night. Active duty members on
assignment are given a room at time of arrival for the duration of
their stay. Most members pay for their own room off base rather than
gamble on a room on base. Bachelor Quarter Managers are concerned that
the influx of Reservists on a weekend may overwhelm the availability of
quarters for everyone. The NMVA suggests that if a Guardsman or
Reservist drives over 50 miles (one way) to get to drill, then his or
her orders to drill should be treated with the same priority as an
Active Duty member
Single Rate Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--Currently,
Reservists performing active duty tours, for other than declared
contingency operations, when billeted in government quarters and who
have no dependents, are not entitled to BAH. These individuals still
have mortgages or rental obligations. Conversely, Reservists performing
comparable active duty tours, with similar billeting, and whose
dependents are prevented from occupying those quarters are entitled to
BAH. NMVA believes that Reservists performing any type of active duty,
who are billeted in government quarters and who have mortgage or rental
obligations, should be entitled to BAH.
Thrift Savings Plan.--The House of Representatives and Senate
passed legislation signed into law by the President, authorizing a
Thrift Saving Plan that would include Guardsmen and Reservists of all
services. The director of the board administering this plan does not
favor Reservists opening any accounts of this Thrift Savings Plan
because of low dollar contributions. Suggested service charges for this
plan are .6 percent for federal employees, 1.5 percent for active duty,
and 8.4 percent for reservists. The NMVA urges Congress to continue its
support for Guard and Reserves by directing that the service charge is
no more than what the Active Duty participants pay. Further the small
dollar contributions can by counteracted by allowing reservists to
donate up to 5 percent of an active duty salary, but not to exceed
their amount of drill pay.
Heroism Pay for Guard and Reserve.--Section 3991 (Computation of
Retired Pay)(a)(2), Title 10, United States Code, authorized an
additional 10 percent for certain enlisted members credited with
extraordinary heroism. Two cases have been noted where this pay may be
lost: (A) an active person, qualifying for heroism retirement pay,
loses it if they transfer to a branch of the Guard or Reserves. (B) A
Reservist while recalled to active duty performs with valor and
extraordinary heroics and qualifies for heroism retirement pay, but
with their return to reserve status, they lose the 10 percent bonus.
NMVA believes the bonus of 10 percent should be paid to any retiree,
active or reservist, who qualifies through extraordinary heroism.
Military Funeral Honors.--All Veterans, Active Duty, Guard and
Reserve personnel are now entitled to military funeral honors. With the
aging veteran population, 146,000 military funerals are anticipated in
fiscal year 2000, rising to over 600,000 military funerals by fiscal
year 2004. Active duty personnel cannot handle this increased duty
assignment by themselves. National Guardsmen and Reservists will be
called upon to help provide military funeral honors. A funeral detail
honor guard needs to be a stable population, have trained
professionals, who are dedicated at honoring the veteran and be
reassuring to the veteran's family. Congress has authorized Guard and
Reservists to perform Funeral Honor Duty, but with only a $50 dollar
stipend, an inactive duty point, and travel reimbursement if mileage is
over 100 miles roundtrip. Such reimbursement will encourage
participation by Guardsmen and Reservists on occasion, but not be a
basis for a committed, long-term honor guard detail. The NMVA feels
that current stipend is insufficient. We urge Congress to change the
law to provide honor guard reserve members with the same pay and
benefits as the active member of the same honor guard duty.
conclusion
Individuals who enlist or reenlist recognize they cannot make large
sums of money by choosing the profession of arms. Many join for the
experience, excitement, or for the promise of certain post-military
service benefits. Some view the military as a higher calling in service
to their country, patriotism if you will. Whatever the reason or
reasons that may persuade one to service or continued service, all
expect to be treated fairly.
More importantly, just the perception of fair treatment elicits
trust. But the trust that once bound military members with their nation
is waning. Among some, particularly career warriors and their spouses,
families and survivors, trust no longer exists. Too many promises have
been made and subsequently broken. Last year's Defense Bill was a step
in the right direction toward placing fair value on military service
and restoring trust that has slowly eroded the fighting fabric of our
Armed Forces. It will take an equally strong statement this year and in
future years. This year the debate must be about more than equipment,
weapons systems, research and development and operations. Although
important, individually and collectively, they quickly become
meaningless unless we attract and retain the high quality people we
desperately need.
The support of this subcommittee is vital to ensure that our Armed
Forces are properly staffed and that their level of pay, compensation,
benefits and quality of life is comparable with the invaluable service
they provide to the Nation's security and prosperity.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University.
Florida State University is a comprehensive Research I university
with a liberal arts base. The University's primary role is to serve as
a center for advanced graduate and professional studies while
emphasizing research and providing excellence in undergraduate
programs. Faculty at FSU have been selected for their commitment to
excellence in teaching, for their abilities to perform research and
creative activities, and for their commitment to public service. Among
the faculty are numerous recipients of national and international
honors, including four Nobel laureates and eight members of the
National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do excellent
research, and often they work closely with industry to commercialize
their results. Florida State ranks third this year among all U.S.
universities in revenues generated from its patents and licenses,
trailing only Columbia University and the entire University of
California system. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I
University several years ago, Florida State University currently
exceeds $100 million per year in research expenditures. With no
agricultural or medical school, few institutions can match our success.
Florida State attracts students from every county in Florida, every
state in the nation, and more than 100 foreign countries. The
University is committed to high admission standards that ensure quality
in its student body, which currently includes some 192 National Merit
and National Achievement scholars, as well as students with superior
creative talent. We consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges
and universities in attracting National Merit Scholars. At Florida
State University, we are very proud of our successes as well as our
emerging reputation as one of the nation's top public universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about a project we are pursuing this
year involving Advanced Propulsion Systems. The Office of Naval
Research (ONR) has been actively pursuing opportunities to increase its
presence in the Gulf Coast Area by searching our centers of technical
excellence which can serve as catalysts for bringing state-of-the-art
research and development to the Gulf Coast Area. Particular emphasis
has focused on forming partnerships with regional industry. The ONR has
identified six areas of research and development that are of interest
to the Navy, one of which is the next generation of Naval ship power
and propulsion systems, the all-electric ship. This project involves
FSU working with the ONR and focuses on supporting research,
development, and testing of the next-generation propulsion systems.
Such work will include research, simulation, testing, and development
of prototype systems. Efforts will also require integration of high-
performance computing capabilities, as well as strong partnerships with
numerous industrial partners. The engineering and high-performance
computing capabilities at FSU, along with the resources and talents
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL), have converged to
create a center for advanced transportation simulation and design and
has resulted in focusing several unique national capabilities not
available elsewhere. Our resources in power engineering, materials
sciences, and computing sciences converge in providing the Navy with
talents to move toward the development of advanced propulsion systems
needed for the ships of the future. The combination of these resources
and strong industrial collaborations are the key to this endeavor. We
are requesting $4 million in fiscal year 2001 to continue our progress
in this effort for the Navy and the Department of Defense.
Our next project is also a continuing effort which involves the
Learning Systems Institute at Florida State University and the
Institute for Machine and Human Cognition (IMHC) at the University of
West Florida. Together, the institutions will be involved in assisting
the Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET) with critical
technology and training related issues.
CNET has asked the Learning Systems Institute (LSI) at Florida
State University to assist in the development of a system to assess the
effectiveness of the entire Leadership Continuum. Part of the work is
the identification of organizational performance-related data that can
be linked to specific program training objectives.
Simultaneously, CNET has also asked for assistance in the
development of specific Internet tools for supporting training
worldwide. FSU will collaborate with UWF in the further development of
appropriate Performance Support Systems for the Navy that will involve
the use of World Wide Web and other Internet technologies. This will
result in the development of electronic tools that use elements of
artificial intelligence and distance learning technologies to provide
needed information and training at the moment and place of greatest
need, which will simultaneously improve job performance while reducing
training time and costs.
The experience and skills of the Learning Systems Institute at
Florida State University, specifically the Office of Interactive
Distance Learning, and the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition at
the University of West Florida are complimentary and synergistic. It is
a powerful partnership that brings some of the best expertise available
in the world to bear on critical education and training issues.
Continuation funding is being sought at the $5 million level for
fiscal year 2001 through the Department of Defense.
Our final project is a new endeavor involving the Department of the
Army's Training Support Center and their efforts to provide education
and training to their personnel.
Every branch of the armed services is using more advanced
technology in everything from motor vehicles to advanced weapons
systems. This is putting an increased pressure on training systems. To
perform their jobs more effectively, military personnel must be better
trained on a broader and broader array of systems. This is being made
even more challenging by the current level of staffing which require
each person to be able to perform more tasks than in the past. All of
the services are developing new models of training and performance
support, which depends on a good balance between traditional classroom
and textbook methods, continuous distributed learning, and carefully
designed, integral performance support systems.
The various network and digital technologies that are available
today permit the development of highly effective learning and
performance support systems that involve the presentation of
information in multi-media formats. One difficulty, however, is that
the design of high quality, effective, media-based materials is
expensive and time consuming. One way to address that problem is by
maximizing the use and re-use of any developed learning materials.
Maximizing reuse of materials is difficult if those materials are
developed in whole-course chunks. It is more efficient to break a
course down into small pieces granules fundamental concepts, skills,
and ideas that can then be more easily used as components in other
courses and disciplines.
The Army Training Support Center (ATSC) is pioneering the design of
digital, reusable educational objects or granules. There have already
been efforts to digitize training objects and place them in a library
from which they can be retrieved to be used as components of other
training and support systems. Critical to the success of this model is
a nomenclature system a way of tagging each object with information
about subject, level, specific competencies, and a variety of other
characteristics. Only when each object is cataloged using such a system
will it be possible to find the appropriate modules when new training
is being developed.
One other challenge is to help instructors think in new ways.
Designing curriculum that is granular is a new skill requiring new
approaches. There is a need for on-line performance support tools that
would help instructors design effective granular instruction. What is
proposed here is the development of a set of interactive tools, or job
aids, that will assist instructors in the systematic and scientific
design of reusable educational objects.
Florida State University, specifically the Learning Systems
Institute (LSI), is uniquely qualified to work collaboratively with the
Army Training Support Center with research on the design and
standardization of a nomenclature system for reusable objects and also
with the development of tools for instructors to assist in the design
of granular training. We seek an initial funding of $2 million for the
Army Training Support Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia to contract with
Florida State University for this critical research and development.
Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of many exciting activities
going on at Florida State University that will make important
contributions toward solving some key concerns our nation faces today.
Your support would be appreciated, and, again, thank you for the
opportunity to present these views for your consideration.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. If there is nothing
further, the subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., Wednesday, May 3, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, prepared
statement...................................................... 699
Ames, Genevieve M., Ph.D., Associate Director and Senior Research
Scientist, Prevention Research Center/Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation, and Program Director, NIAAA Pre and
Post Doctoral Training Program, Prevention Research Center and
School of Public Health, and Adjunct Professor, Division of
Public Health Biology and Epidemiology, School of Public
Health, University of California, Berkeley..................... 602
Prepared statement........................................... 603
Armen, Harry, Senior Vice President, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers........................................... 655
Prepared statement........................................... 657
Barnes, Joe, Master Chief, USN (retired), Director, Legislative
Programs, Fleet Reserve Association............................ 527
Prepared statement........................................... 529
Blanck, Lt. Gen. Ronald R., Surgeon General, U.S. Army,
Department of Defense.......................................... 149
Prepared statement........................................... 150
Questions submitted to....................................... 217
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri:
Prepared statements...................................116, 129, 243
Questions submitted by....................................... 79,
85, 209, 221, 229, 234, 317, 327, 427, 435, 510, 522
Statements of..............................................242, 447
Boudjouk, Philip, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Vice
President of Research, North Dakota State University, and
Chairman of the Board, Coalition of EPSCoR States.............. 616
Prepared statement........................................... 619
Brannon, Brig. Gen. Barbara C., Director of Medical Readiness and
Nursing Services, Office of the Surgeon General, Department of
the Air Force, Department of Defense........................... 194
Prepared statement........................................... 195
Questions submitted to....................................... 238
Bursell, Sven, M.D., Joslin Diabetes Center...................... 593
Busch, Daryle, President, American Chemical Society.............. 668
Prepared statement........................................... 669
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions
submitted by.................................................429, 511
Caldera, Louis, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of
the Army, Department of Defense................................ 383
Prepared statement........................................... 388
Questions submitted to....................................... 425
Carlton, Lt. Gen. Paul K., Jr., Air Force Surgeon General,
Department of Defense.......................................... 168
Prepared statement........................................... 169
Questions submitted to....................................... 232
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi:
Questions submitted by....................71, 75, 81, 117, 509, 524
Statement of................................................. 447
Cohen, Hon. William S., Secretary of Defense, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense.................... 443
Prepared statement........................................... 455
Questions submitted to....................................... 509
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:
Prepared statement........................................... 245
Question submitted by........................................ 323
Danzig, Richard, Secretary, Secretary of the Navy, Department of
the Navy, Department of Defense................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Questions submitted to....................................... 71
de Leon, Hon. Rudy, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Medical Programs, Department of Defense............. 127
Prepared statement........................................... 132
Questions submitted to....................................... 208
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
Prepared statement........................................... 633
Questions submitted by........71, 120, 212, 234, 315, 326, 430, 638
Statement of................................................. 92
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
Questions submitted by....................................... 322
Statements of.........................................245, 385, 447
Duggan, Mike, Deputy Director, National Security-Foreign
Relations Commission, The American Legion...................... 660
Prepared statement........................................... 662
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, questions
submitted by..................................................86, 124
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States,
prepared statement............................................. 721
Florida State University, prepared statement..................... 732
Flynn, Joe, National Vice President, Fourth District, American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.................... 641
Prepared statement........................................... 642
Foil, Martin B., Jr., Chairman, International Brain Injury
Association.................................................... 577
Prepared statement,.......................................... 578
Gallo, Betty, Director, Advocacy and Fundraising, The Cancer
Institute of New Jersey........................................ 622
Prepared statement........................................... 624
Goldberg, Joan, Executive Director, American Society for Bone and
Mineral Research, on behalf of the National Coalition for
Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases......................... 547
Prepared statement........................................... 549
Gustke, Col. Deborah, Assistant Chief, Army Nurse Corps, U.S.
Army, Department of Defense.................................... 199
Prepared statement........................................... 202
Questions submitted to....................................... 237
Hamre, Dr. John J., Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of
Defense........................................................ 89
Opening statement............................................ 93
Harkin, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from Iowa:
Prepared statement........................................... 449
Questions submitted by................................379, 519, 526
Statement of................................................. 448
Harmeyer, Rear Adm. Karen A., Deputy Director, Navy Nurse Corps,
Reserve Component, and Director, Naval Reserve Medical Program
32, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of Defense...... 187
Prepared statement........................................... 188
Henderson, Rogene, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Lovelace Respiratory
Research Institute............................................. 634
Prepared statement........................................... 635
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina:
Prepared statement........................................... 446
Statement of................................................. 446
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of 385
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii:
Prepared statements.....................91, 149, 242, 334, 384, 445
Questions submitted by....................................... 213,
217, 224, 231, 235, 237, 238, 319, 328, 378, 441
Statements of......................90, 128, 242, 334, 384, 445, 527
Johnson, Adm. Jay L., Chief of Naval Operations, Secretary of the
Navy, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense............ 1
Questions submitted to....................................... 75
Johnson, David, PH.D., Executive Director, Federation of
Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences............... 536
Prepared statement,.......................................... 537
Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations,
University of Miami............................................ 645
Prepared statement........................................... 646
Jones, Gen. James L., Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, Secretary of
the Navy, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense........ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Questions submitted to....................................... 81
Kadish, Lt. Gen. Ronald T., USAF, Director, Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization, Department of Defense.................... 333
Prepared statement........................................... 340
Questions submitted to....................................... 524
Knobbe, Edward T., Ph.D., Associate Dean, Graduate College,
Oklahoma State University and Director, Center for Aircraft and
Systems Supporting Infrastructure (CASI), on behalf of the
Coalition of Oklahoma Institutions of Higher Education......... 650
Prepared statement........................................... 651
Lance, Alan G., Sr., National Commander, letter from............. 661
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey:
Prepared statement........................................... 450
Question submitted by........................................ 214
Statement of................................................. 450
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont:
Questions submitted by..............................73, 80, 86, 331
Statement of................................................. 128
Lennie, Peter, Ph.D., Dean for Science and Professor of Neural
Science, New York University, on behalf of Cognition, Learning,
Emotion, and Memory Studies at New York University............. 628
Prepared statement........................................... 629
Lord, Mike, Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy (retired), Executive
Director, Commissioned Officers Association, U.S. Public Health
Service, Inc., Co-Chair, The Military Coalition Health Care
Committee...................................................... 584
Prepared statement........................................... 585
Lynn, Hon. William, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
Department of Defense.......................................... 127
Prepared statement........................................... 132
Questions submitted to....................................... 211
Martin, Rear Adm. Kathleen, questions submitted to............... 237
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions
submitted by.................................................123, 437
Miller, Michael H., National Prostate Cancer Coalition........... 674
Prepared statement........................................... 676
Morris, Robert V., Executive Director, Fort Des Moines Black
Officers Memorial.............................................. 692
Prepared statement........................................... 693
National Military Veterans Alliance, prepared statement.......... 723
Naval Reserve Association and the Naval Enlisted Reserve
Association, prepared statement................................ 712
Nelson, Vice Adm. Richard A., Medical Corps, Surgeon General,
U.S. Navy, Department of Defense............................... 161
Prepared statement........................................... 162
Questions submitted to....................................... 227
Olanoff, Mark H., Chief Master Sergeant, U.S. Air Force
(retired), Legislative Director, The Retired Enlisted
Association.................................................... 566
Prepared statement........................................... 567
Parker, Robert, Deputy Director, University of Southern
California Information Sciences Institute, on behalf of the
Coalition for National Security Research....................... 682
Prepared statement........................................... 683
Partridge, Col. Charles C., U.S. Army (retired), Legislative
Counsel, National Association for Uniformed Services........... 605
Prepared statement........................................... 606
Peters, Hon. F. Whitten, Secretary of the Air Force, Office of
the Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Department of
Defense........................................................ 241
Prepared statement........................................... 247
Questions submitted to....................................... 311
Pilling, Adm. Donald L., U.S. Navy, Vice Chief of Naval
Operations and Chairman, Defense Medical Oversight Committee,
Department of Defense.......................................... 127
Prepared statement........................................... 138
Questions submitted to....................................... 214
Queenan, Charles, III, Senior Vice President, PHB Hagler Bailly,
Inc., on behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation
International.................................................. 574
Prepared statement........................................... 576
Raezer, Joyce Wessel, Deputy Associate Director, Government
Relations, National Military Family Association................ 554
Prepared statement........................................... 556
Reserve Officers Association of the United States, prepared
statement...................................................... 702
Rogers, John C., Parkinson's Action Network...................... 671
Prepared statement........................................... 672
Rook, E. Clark, Retired Naval Officer, on behalf of the Ovarian
Cancer National Alliance....................................... 685
Prepared statement........................................... 688
Ryan, Gen. Michael E., Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, Office of
the Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Department of
Defense........................................................ 241
Prepared statement........................................... 247
Questions submitted to....................................... 324
Schwartz, William A., member, Board of Directors, Association for
the Cure of Cancer of the Prostate............................. 678
Prepared statement........................................... 680
Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama:
Prepared statement........................................... 117
Questions submitted by......................123, 231, 318, 439, 511
Statement of................................................. 446
Shelton, Gen. Henry H., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Department of Defense.......................................... 457
Prepared statement........................................... 463
Questions submitted to....................................... 522
Shinseki, Gen. Eric K., Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Army, Department of Defense.................. 383
Prepared statement........................................... 399
Questions submitted to....................................... 430
Smith, Don C., Master Sergeant, U.S. Air Force (retired),
Legislative Assistant, Military and Government Relations, Air
Force Sergeants Association.................................... 694
Prepared statement........................................... 695
Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, questions
submitted by.............................................83, 425, 430
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
Opening statements..............1, 89, 127, 241, 333, 383, 443, 527
Prepared statements..................................L242, 383, 444
Questions submitted208, 211, 214, 217, 227, 232, 311, 324, 376, 430
Strickland, William, Ph.D., American Psychological Association... 689
Prepared statement........................................... 690
Van Nest, Ronald, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, Federal
Government Affairs Office, American Association of Nurse
Anesthetists (AANA)............................................ 612
Prepared statement........................................... 613
Violi, Ronald L., Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.............. 593
Prepared statement........................................... 595
Visco, Fran, President, National Breast Cancer Coalition......... 551
Prepared statement........................................... 552
Volner, Ian, Lawyer, on behalf of the Ovarian Cancer National
Alliance....................................................... 685
Prepared statement........................................... 687
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 375
Airborne laser.................................................370, 375
Arrow Program.................................................... 378
Ballistic missile defense programs............................... 351
BMD acquisition management steamlining........................... 355
Cost............................................................. 352
Countermeasures.................................................. 359
Deployment readiness review (DRR)................................ 336
Discrimination................................................... 354
Intercept flight tests........................................... 337
International programs........................................... 339
Layered defense.................................................. 335
Lower tier programs.............................................. 338
National missile defense.......................................335, 379
Cost estimate................................................ 358
Military construction......................................364, 377
System integration........................................... 363
Technology demonstration..................................... 360
Testing...................................................... 352
Testing criticism............................................ 361
Tests........................................................ 356
Theater wide for............................................. 376
2005 deadline................................................ 364
NATO concerns.................................................... 367
Navy:
Area program options......................................... 377
Testing of Pacific missile test range........................ 365
Theater-wide................................................. 368
Patriot II and Patriot Gem....................................... 371
Patriot PAC-3 capabilities....................................... 376
Realistic testing................................................ 353
South Korea and Japan............................................ 367
Space-based infrared system...................................... 374
Technology investment............................................ 356
Technology program............................................... 339
Test scripting................................................... 354
THAAD............................................................ 366
Upper tier programs.............................................. 338
Department of the Air Force
Office of the Secretary
Additional committee questions................................... 311
Air Force:
Exercises and readiness training...........................314, 325
Pilot retention.............................................. 325
Plans for directed energy.................................... 316
Posture statement 2000....................................... 247
Airborne laser.................................................304, 323
Program...................................................... 305
Aircraft maintenance............................................. 289
Airlift.......................................................... 303
B-2 bomber.....................................................320, 330
B-52 force structure............................................. 322
Base closure and realignment (BRAC).............................. 309
Brooks Air Force Base............................................ 310
C-17.................................................293, 297, 317, 327
Military construction in connection with..................... 298
Requirements and pricing..................................... 313
Combat proven.................................................... 255
Decisive fighting force.......................................... 265
Expeditionary Aerospace Force.................................... 246
F-15............................................................. 327
Foreign military sales (FMS)................................. 317
F-15E............................................................ 294
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................... 318
F-16............................................................. 296
F-22......................................................290, 321, 330
Bed down priorities of the................................... 323
Block 3.0 software development............................... 311
Strike impact and cost growth................................ 312
Testing program.............................................. 292
Global command support system (GCSS)............................. 318
Health care...................................................... 290
Infrastructure................................................... 286
Introduction..................................................... 248
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF):
Acquisition strategy.......................................313, 324
Open systems................................................. 315
JSTARS.........................................................320, 330
Kirtland's space vehicles directorate............................ 316
Military construction and real property maintenance.............. 323
Mission focused.................................................. 256
Modernization..................................................247, 276
Officer:
Shortages.................................................... 319
Training..................................................... 319
People........................................................... 265
Pilot shortage.................................................302, 303
Preparing........................................................ 260
RDT&E and science and technology budgets, decreases in........... 326
Readiness.................................................271, 288, 329
Budget....................................................... 302
Real property maintenance........................................ 289
Recruiting:
And retention..............................................246, 289
Concerns...................................................319, 328
Responding....................................................... 260
Retention........................................................ 295
Shaping.......................................................... 257
Space based infrared system (SBIRS).............................. 307
High cost increase........................................... 315
Spare parts...................................................... 247
Supplemental requirements......................................322, 331
Suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD).......328, 331
UAE F-16/Air Force F-16 derivatives............................314, 324
Department of the Army
Office of the Secretary
Additional committee questions................................... 425
Apache problems.................................................. 430
Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Program...........427, 437
Armored gun system............................................... 416
Army Heritage Center and National Army Museum.................... 426
Army posture..................................................... 396
Army Transformation.............................................. 404
Arsenal utilization.............................................. 423
Aviation modernization--Blackhawk helicopter..................... 436
Ballistic missile defense acquisition............................ 440
Biometrics initiative............................................ 426
``Black Hawk Down''............................................421, 422
Bradley M2A2 ODS................................................. 437
Brigade locations, interim....................................... 439
Digitized corps fielding......................................... 413
Directed energy master plan...................................... 432
Fiscal year 2001 funding......................................... 385
Food stamps....................................................410, 432
Force strength................................................... 409
Forces Command staffing impact on Training and Doctrine Command.. 438
Fort Leonard Wood and Army Transformation........................ 435
Full-time support................................................ 436
Funding requirements............................................. 387
Green to Grad Program............................................ 438
High energy lasers............................................... 410
Technologies................................................. 440
Information operations vulnerability............................. 432
Infrastructure................................................... 417
Joint Stars (JSTARS)............................................. 441
Leader development............................................... 411
Legacy Force..................................................... 406
Military housing................................................. 418
Mounted urban combat training facility........................... 437
Objective Force.................................................. 405
OPTEMPO/retention................................................ 407
Pay raise........................................................ 432
Plan Colombia.................................................... 427
Power projection................................................. 424
Recruiting and retention goals, fiscal year 2000................. 438
Reserve component deployment..................................... 412
And retention................................................ 412
School of the Americas.........................................414, 428
Science and technology........................................... 413
Solid state laser................................................ 431
Supplemental, fiscal year 2000................................... 419
Tactical high energy laser....................................... 431
Technology investments........................................... 439
Test and evaluation.............................................. 433
Theater high altitude area defense system fielding............... 440
Transformation and Army aviation................................. 439
Transformation and biometrics.................................... 430
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, management reforms regarding the.429, 429
Unfunded requirements............................................ 419
White Sands/high energy laser weapons............................ 430
Wolverine and Grizzly Program cancellation....................... 425
Department of the Navy
Secretary of the Navy
Additional committee questions................................... 71
AV-8B............................................................ 85
Blount Island, Florida:
Acquisition brief to the Jacksonville, Florida Chamber of
Commerce, March 1, 2000.................................... 29
National strategic asset..................................... 36
Strategic national defense asset............................. 28
Chemical and biological incident response force.................. 53
Department of the Navy 2000 Posture Statement.................... 10
F/A-18E/F........................................................ 79
Futenma Air Base, Okinawa........................................ 63
Joint direct attack munition..................................... 80
Joint Strike Fighter............................................. 54
Legacy systems and infrastructure................................ 10
LHD-8............................................................ 71
Marine Corps modernization....................................... 27
Navy theater wide................................................ 75
Opening remarks--readiness overview.............................. 7
Operational readiness............................................ 51
Our culture: the qualities of a naval expeditionary force........ 42
Our direction: new capabilities for a new century................ 45
Our focus: the operating forces.................................. 43
Our future: past is prologue..................................... 48
Our legacy: Vanguard of the new American century................. 41
Our role: A ready and relevant force............................. 40
Readiness/air combat training.................................... 72
Recruiting....................................................... 65
And retention................................................ 9
Roles and missions............................................... 86
Sea-based NMD.................................................... 76
SLAM-ER.......................................................... 80
T-45............................................................. 80
USMC ECP-583..................................................... 85
V-22............................................................. 54
Deputy Secretary of Defense
Additional committee questions................................... 117
Airborne laser................................................... 117
Army:
Trailers..................................................... 115
Transformation............................................... 108
Air transportability and................................. 112
Funding.................................................. 111
Army Vision...................................................... 123
C-17............................................................. 113
Production and costs......................................... 113
Defense reform................................................... 105
Directed energy.................................................. 121
Directed energy programs......................................... 107
DOD funding increased............................................ 96
DOD news briefing, Monday, September 8, 1997, acceptance speech.. 94
Fiscal year 2000 supplementals................................... 97
Force initiatives, manning the................................... 123
Housing increases................................................ 100
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant....................................... 114
Kirtland AFB, release of funds................................... 106
Kosovo, police operations in..................................... 111
LHD-8............................................................ 120
Military construction............................................ 122
Funding...................................................... 107
Missile defense.................................................. 104
National missile defense (NMD).................................119, 123
O&M funding trends............................................... 99
Overseas U.S. commitments........................................ 110
Pay raises....................................................... 101
Putting people first............................................. 100
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) priorities...................... 98
RD-180 rocket engine............................................. 119
Readiness, current............................................... 98
Recapitalization progress........................................ 103
Science and technology........................................... 120
Science and technology funding................................... 106
TACCSF, release of $14 million for............................... 122
Technology....................................................... 124
Theater high altitude area defense (THAAD)....................... 118
Unutilized plant capacity (UPC).................................. 124
Medical Programs
Additional committee questions................................... 208
Anthrax.......................................................... 142
Medical errors................................................... 143
Medicare subvention.............................................. 213
Military health system........................................... 137
Military medicine................................................ 130
Patient medical information...................................... 214
Pharmaceuticals.................................................. 140
Pharmacy costs................................................... 131
Telemedicine..................................................... 140
TRICARE.......................................................... 145
TRICARE Senior................................................... 141
Nurse Corps
Additional committee questions................................... 208
Army Nurse Corps................................................. 201
Challenges....................................................... 193
Command opportunities..........................................194, 195
Leadership roles and responsibilities............................ 189
Nurse anesthetists............................................... 205
Nurse Corps....................................................187, 238
Skill sustainment............................................ 237
Nurse shortages.................................................. 207
Nurses:
In executive or command positions............................ 237
Leadership training programs for............................. 237
Nursing research................................................. 191
Peacetime accomplishments........................................ 197
Population health and health promotion........................... 191
Readiness........................................................ 195
Accomplishments.............................................. 196
Recruiting....................................................... 194
Reserve support.................................................. 192
TRICARE initiatives, Navy nurses role in support of.............. 189
Triservice nursing research program.............................. 206
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Additional committee questions................................... 509
Affordability.................................................... 513
Agriculture, threats against..................................... 515
Airborne laser (ABL)...........................................504, 509
Arms control, missile defense and deterrence..................... 490
Base realignment and closure (BRAC) savings and LHD-8............ 503
Bosnia/Kosovo.................................................... 486
Building tomorrow's joint force.................................. 474
Capability required.............................................. 513
China-Taiwan..................................................... 502
Colombia......................................................... 518
Defense tactical aircraft and carrier procurement................ 511
European defense capabilities.................................... 482
Force structure.................................................. 513
Increases.................................................... 484
Fort Leonard Wood, joint training at............................. 524
Full-time support................................................ 510
Healthcare....................................................... 522
Kosovo........................................................... 517
Senator Warner's amendment on................................ 488
Supplemental appropriations, fiscal year 2000..............455, 516
Military health benefits, expanding.............................. 501
Military retirees health care.................................... 496
Missile defense and arms control................................. 526
Missile defense system, testing a................................ 499
National Guard and Reserves...................................... 494
National missile defense:
CBO estimate on.............................................. 525
Cost of...................................................... 499
Deployment, preparing for.................................... 491
Options for a second site.................................... 525
Radar construction........................................... 524
National security strategy, supporting the....................... 465
Other threats.................................................... 514
Pacific Asian theater, importance of............................. 501
Peacekeepers forces, dedicated................................... 505
Plan Colombia..................................................510, 523
President Clinton's fiscal year 2001 budget...................... 456
President's budget, priorities in fiscal year 2001............... 453
Procurement:
Funding...................................................... 508
Increasing spending.......................................... 504
Quality force, sustaining a...................................... 463
Russian Biological Weapons Program............................... 516
Russian leaders, communicating with.............................. 493
Secrecy.......................................................... 519
Secretary Cohen's opening remarks................................ 452
Ship construction................................................ 503
START II and missile defense..................................... 484
Strategic warhead levels......................................... 510
Submarine force structure........................................ 512
Supplemental appropriations, fiscal year 2000.................... 453
Theater war capabilities......................................... 486
Trailers......................................................... 520
TRICARE.......................................................... 511
U.S. Balkan deployments, duration of............................. 486
U.S. military excellence, preserving............................. 508
U.S. national missile defense.................................... 489
U.S. nuclear deterrent, maintaining.............................. 497
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)................................... 514
Welfare, troops on............................................... 521
Surgeons General
Additional committee questions................................... 208
Alcohol problems................................................. 181
Breast and prostate cancer research programs..................... 219
Budget, fiscal year 2001......................................... 218
Budget shortfall................................................. 183
Fiscal year 2000............................................. 217
Care, quality of................................................. 221
Clovis and Cannon--medical facility.............................. 234
Department of Defense/Department of Veterans Affairs partnerships 222
Health care...................................................... 161
Managed care support contractors, care sent to................... 224
Medical:
Errors and patient safety.................................... 224
Facilities................................................... 235
Medical Service.............................................. 181
Programs..................................................... 232
Medicare subvention.............................................. 233
Cost of...................................................... 218
MHS, excess capacity in the...................................... 224
Military beneficiaries, quality care for......................... 234
Nursing standards................................................ 184
Partnerships..................................................... 234
Pharmacy:
Formularies.................................................. 223
Restrictions and inconsistencies............................. 235
Research programs, overhead of................................... 220
Supplemental funding for fiscal year 2000........................ 218
Tobacco problem.................................................. 180
TRICARE improvements............................................. 181
Unfunded requirements, fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001..... 218
-